'Sherwood Evaluation' by David Abbey & Susan Dafoe-Abbey

Pilot Project Evaluation

Sherwood Public School, Oshawa, Ontario

"Neufeld Home Study Intensive: Making Sense of Kids"

David Abbey, PhD.

Psychologist, Private Practice

Susan Dafoe-Abbey, MEd.

Registered Marriage and Family Therapist

Guelph, Ontario, Canada

June 1, 2008

This material is not copyrighted. It is intended to facilitate dialogue among those interested in furthering

the understanding and application of the work of Dr. Gordon Neufeld ("Hold on to Your Kids"). Copying

and/or responsible editing are encouraged. If you include portions of this document in any other

presentation we would be grateful if you would advise either author via: david@davidabbey.com or

susan@dafoe-abbey.com .

Abstract

Eight staff members from Sherwood Public School In Oshawa, Ontario studied

Neufeld's 22-hour DVD program, "Intensive 1: Making Sense of Kids" as a Home

Study Project. At the invitation of the school principal, an evaluation of this pilot

project was conducted between October, 2007 and May, 2008. Data were

collected from the staff during five one-hour lunchtime meetings and a 3.5 hr.

afternoon workshop; through telephone interviews before and after completion

of the program and by web-based questionnaires in November and December,

2007 and personal interviews in May, 2008.

Over the duration of the program the participants became more thoughtful about

students' emotional state; more able and willing to work with students' feelings;

more aware of their own perceptions of children and more understanding of the

need to be available to their students as an alternative to the peer culture.

However, effects of the course could not be easily separated from the input of the

school principal who is committed to the Neufeld paradigm.

Acknowledgments

Candee Forest, Principal of Sherwood Public School, provided administrative

support throughout this study, participated in most of the group discussions and

hosted an evening presentation by Susan Dafoe-Abbey at the school's community

meeting. The staff involved in the project all contributed to every phase of the

evaluation and did so with thoughtfulness and good humour. In alphabetic order

they are: TracyLea Barry, Diane Cary, Kim Clausen, Holly Gilmour, Laurie Hughes,

Brad Livingston, Donna Telfer and Karen Timm. Our appreciation to you all.

Susan Dafoe-Abbey & David Abbey

June 1, 2008

Table of Contents

Abstract

Acknowledgments

Table of Contents

1. Introduction & Need for this evaluation

2. Project Content and Personnel

The School

The Participants

The Facilitator

The Evaluator

3. Design of the Evaluation

Original Proposal

Revised Proposal

4. Results

4.1 Facilitator's Narrative Reports

4.2 Data Collection

Initial telephone interviews

Web-based survey data

Final telephone interviews

Teacher interviews

Incidental learning opportunities

4. Conclusions

5. Recommendations

Appendices

A. Data collection scheme

B. Project leader's hypothetical Goal Attainment Scale

C. Case presentation template

Pilot Project Evaluation

Sherwood Public School, Oshawa, Ontario

"Neufeld Home Study Intensive: Making Sense of Kids"

David Abbey, PhD.

Psychologist, Private Practice

Susan Dafoe-Abbey, MEd.

Registered Marriage and Family Therapist

Parent Consultant, Neufeld Intern

1.Introduction

Need for this evaluation

Those who have attempted to take the Neufeld paradigm into school settings will

be familiar with the demand for "evidence-based" practices. Anecdotal reports

coming from around the world attest to the power of the paradigm in helping

teachers both to see their students with new eyes and to change their classroom

behaviour. As a result their children experience greater safety and are more

nourished in the learning environment. However, many school teachers and

administrators are loath to accept what they perceive as a novel and possibly

faddish approach to the problems of classroom management, discipline and

individual student's developmental needs.

Even those school board members who are familiar with the paradigm have

sought the comfort of what they term research a study in which measures of

behaviour or academic performance are taken both before and after the

introduction of a new paradigm or procedure into the classroom (the classic pre-

post experimental design with the added features of control groups, matched

samples, etc.) Pointing out that this is a good research model for agricultural

(seed) development or drug trials but not necessasrily for complex social systems

such as classrooms, seldom dissuades them from asking for it.

The present report summarizes our activities in facilitating and observing a pilot

project in which one group of teachers volunteered 22 hours of their own time to

view the 10 DVDs which constitute "Making Sense of Kids." In addition, they met

over the noon hour for informal talks following completion of each study topic;

they met for noon-hour discussions with Susan Dafoe-Abbey (Neufeld Intern) on

five occasions and for a half-day meeting on another, and with a nearly 100%

response rate responded to two brief telephone interviews, and to two web-

based questionnaires. Finally, four of the teachers volunteered for a brief video-

taped interview following completion of the course.

We estimate that the amount of time spent by each participant in viewing the

materials, attending meetings and answering evaluation questions was in the

neighbourhood of 50 hours. Each of the six visits to the school for purposes of

facilitating the group meetings and making observations required an average of

five hours of travel time by the two authors of this report.

This report is neither a quantitative research report nor a qualitative case study.

We have used a little "hard" data to report responses to objective questions. To

this we have added narrative reporting created by the facilitator (Susan) after

each meeting with the teachers as well as digests/impressions of responses to

open-ended interview questions posed at various points throughout the study.

The complete data collection scheme is shown in Appendix A.

2.Project Context and Personnel

The School: Sherwood Public School is located in a residential area of Oshawa,

Ontario, Canada a city with a population of 145,000 situated on Lake Ontario,

approximately 60 km (40 miles) east of Toronto. Oshawa boasts as its chief

industry the General Motors Company of Canada and educationally it is served by

Durham College, Trent University and the University of Ontario Institute of

Technology.

Sherwood has approximately 550 students in grades JK thru 8 who are drawn

from two very diverse socio-economic areas of the city. Parental involvement of

families from the two areas differs greatly as do the learning and recreational

opportunities for the children.

The Participants in the Study: Sherwood's principal, Mrs. Candee Forest (Candee)

has been a devotee of the Neufeld paradigm for several years and attended the 3-

day Power to Parent workshop in Stratford, Ontario and the week-long Intensive

1 in Vancouver, B.C in July, 2007. During the latter, she approached Dr. Neufeld

with the request that teachers at her school be allowed to study the program

"Making Sense of Kids" as a home-study project. At Candee's request, Susan

proposed that she be allowed to act as a facilitator to the study group. This was

agreed to in early August and Tamara Strijack, Director of the Home Study Centre,

took on the administrative duties for the pilot project.

Candee reported that 15 of her 28 staff many of whom had worked with her for

several years - indicated an interest in participating in this project and from this

group she selected 7 participants. In addition, the school secretary asked for

permission to audit the course and to participate in all of the activities related to

the program and the evaluation as well!

The Results section of this report describes the degree of familiarity of this group

of teachers with the paradigm. It is safe to say that as a group they were not

completely naive.

The first two months of the course were also audited by a teacher who

subsequently dropped out of the project due to illness and for a brief period

during the second half of the course, two meetings were also attended by a local

Community Police officer who expressed great interest in the approach and also

by a very highly motivated teacher-intern. Because of time constraints evaluation

data were not collected from these three part-time participants.

The Facilitator: As part of her responsibilities as a Neufeld Intern Susan Dafoe-

Abbey undertook to act as a facilitator for the group. This required meeting with

them on a schedule which paralleled the organization of the Topics in the course.

One-hour lunch-time meetings were hosted by the school and were held in one of

the school resource rooms. In addition, a 3.5 hour meeting was held mid-way

through the course.

Background: Susan is the mother of three and the grandmother of four. Her

logo is, "Life is about the people you love". While her children were growing she

was a provincially certified fitness instructor. She began her university education

at age 33 and over a 20-year period acquired a Bachelor of Independent Studies in

Health Education, a Certificate in Gerontology , a Masters in Education

(Counselling) and a research doctorate in Psychology (Family Therapy). She has

been in private practice for 25 years.

Susan's web site, www. dafoe-abbey.com outlines her approach to marital and

family therapy (Contextual Family Therapy) and provides several short articles in

which she talks about the application of Neufeld principles to problems of

parenting and the development of children (see the link titled "Neufelding"). In

recent years she has shifted her very busy clinical practice in the direction of

parent consulting and the application of the Neufeld paradigm.

The Evaluator:

Bias: This evaluation was undertaken on a volunteer basis by Dr. David

Abbey, Psychologist, who is not an impartial external evaluator. He is committed

to supporting both his wife in her pursuit of training in the paradigm and the

paradigm itself - where this seems appropriate in the light of demonstrated

effectiveness. Involvement in this evaluation has been one avenue for collecting

data which might illuminate the issue of effectiveness.

Background: David was originally trained as a research methodologist who

transmuted into a clinical psychologist and then a marriage and family therapist.

He taught for 25 years at the University of Toronto (Ontario Institute for Studies

in Education) where he was involved in the training of counsellors, supervision of

doctoral research and the teaching of evaluation and research courses. Following

his early retirement in 1991 he joined Susan to focus on marriage and family

therapy and in 2004 he retired (again) to pursue playwriting. From 1971 to the

present he has conducted a huge variety of evaluation projects as president of

Evaluation Research Limited.

3.Design of the Evaluation

Original Proposal: The original design proposed to Candee for this

evaluation was based on a procedure termed Goal Attainment Scaling (GAS).

The intention was to have a wide range of participants using the GAS as the

principal instrument for this evaluation. This would have included teachers (both

those involved in the project and others on staff who were not selected or who

did not wish to become involved); administrators; and perhaps some parents and

students.

The GAS procedure has proved so useful in program evaluations that a peer-

reviewed journal carries both theoretical and applied articles concerning it. It is

described here to alert readers to the possibility of using it in other studies of the

paradigm.

In the GAS model participants are asked to consider a number of goals

which they have for their participation or actions. For each of these they

estimate: first, the Most Likely Outcome over a specified period of time

(e.g. from start to finish of a course); then two levels above that (Better

than Expected and Best Possible outcome) and two levels below the Most

Likely ( Not as Good as Expected and Worst Possible outcome). This

produces a five-point scale for each objective. The results can be

manipulated statistically and are very reliable. The value of this technique is

that it can deal with a wide variety of individual and program goals. Some

of the goals can be shared by two or more participants or every participant

can have different goals. Appendix B shows some hypothetical goals and

outcomes similar to those which might arise in evaluating the paradigm.

Revised Proposal: After considering the possibilities of the GAS approach as

well as some other alternatives Candee's recommendation was that,

"...simple is best since this is a first-time project that combines the world of

education and psychology in a new way...so, if we can proceed with a

simple, clean evaluation model (adult-focussed evaluation looking at the

staff's change in how they think about and respond to student behaviour

and how they have changed their `way of being' with children)...then it can

work."

She was also concerned about making the evaluation and the home-study project

as a whole too visible before having some experience with it and with the

teachers' responses to the DVD format.

While we did not share these reservations, the shift from the GAS approach to

one which would focus solely on staff perception and responses appeared to be a

pragmatic and potentially useful one. We regret that actual student behaviours

could not be included as part of this evaluation but as the responsible

administrator and as our "client", Candee had the last word on these matters.

4.Results

4.1 Facilitator's narrative reports: As part of the requirements in her role

as Neufeld Intern Susan posted a report following each of the five facilitation

meetings. The intention of these was to inform the Neufeld community

(administrators, faculty and interns) of the progress of the project by providing a

snapshot of the meetings. With minor editing, the following are her posts.

First meeting, November 5, 2007

"This is the month in which the rubber hit the road for the Sherwood teachers involved in

the Intensive Home Study. The November 5th lunch meeting with project members and

the principal was primarily for the purpose of introducing both my husband, Dr. David

Abbey, evaluator of the Sherwood Pilot Project and me, the facilitator. Six project

members were present plus one additional staff member (kindergarten teacher) who is

auditing the course. Two members were absent due to field trips. The schedule called

for viewing of the first three DVD s prior to the first consultation.

The comments and questions from the group indicated that their desire to work toward

understanding the paradigm was in place. Some of the interventions the teachers were

eager to implement led me to point out that the course is designed to educate not to

develop technicians. The week long Intensive builds over time before the material is

actually used. Now for these teachers, we need to figure out a way of buying some time,

so that the pressure to apply the material is taken off .They need time to reflect before

attempting to fit all the dots together. As Eva (Project Mentor) so clearly stated to me,

,,Let the material live within you for a while until it takes root . "

During my November consultation with Dr. Neufeld, it became clear that some of the

misunderstandings regarding the use of "collecting" came about because collecting is

not discussed until the beginning of the Maturation segment of the DVD s (currently Part

5 for this group).

At the close of this first session, the group seemed highly motivated to seek further

support through the Home Study Forum."

Second meeting, November 19, 2007

"At the second meeting on November 19th, all the teachers reported seeing stuck kids

through a softer lens of compassion. The teachers reported doing well with helping the

most stuck kids to identify their feelings of frustration. One of the vice- principals

reported being able to come alongside a child and help him to his tears of futility.

A long discussion about transparency helped the group to understand that children do

not feel confident when the responsible adult is explaining the theory behind his or her

interventions. Once again, it was apparent that there are no shortcuts to cultivating a

context so that we can help to compensate for a child s development deficits and

dysfunctions and then to correct the root problem of their stuckness.

To date, none of the teachers have signed up for the Home Study Intensive Forum. The

explanation given was that they "weren t sure they had time for another layer". I

encouraged them to make room in their busy lives for the process of becoming a

developmentalist.

(Now, having had ten days to reflect on the process, I am very aware that the teachers

language to describe what they are seeing has changed remarkably. However, I am

concerned that the teachers are in a hurry to make the paradigm work for them. I yearn

for these teachers to get involved with the on-line facility so that their questions are

sensitively answered sooner rather than later. At this point in the process, the two one-

hour lunch time sessions have not been enough to ensure that the seeds are being

planted deeply enough.)"

Post-script to the November 19, 2007 post:

"My November 2007 report included some observations stemming from a meeting with

the school principal and six of the eight staff who are involved in the Home-Study

program. Our next visit to the school will be on Monday, February 4.

Two of the eight participants have signed onto the on-line forum. One of these

participants has been active to date."

Third Meeting, February 4, 2008

" We have just returned from Oshawa and our meeting with the teachers at Sherwood

Public School. What we saw and heard was truly remarkable. Each member of the

group has just finished reviewing the 7th DVD of the Intensive "Making Sense of Kids".

Their discussions, questions, anecdotes and tears came from a new perspective, a new

set of eyes with which to view themselves, their relationships, their children, and their

students. The seeds that were planted in the Fall appear to have taken root and some

early blossoms can be seen.

They talk about wrestling with the challenges of too little time, too many students (some

with severe limitations) and a curriculum that demands a great deal of even the

brightest students. Woven through this was their recognition that they wanted to spend

the time needed to attach especially to the more vulnerable students. There were

some open tears and a few stifled tears as they talked about the conflict of wanting to

save a particular student as a person at the expense of losing her academically.

And there was the struggle of one teacher who acknowledged the futility of a reward-

and-consequence based classroom but who had to use it in order to bring an unruly

group into line and to give time to connect with a few and match-make with other

teachers who also shared the same students. What an incredible day!"

Fourth Meeting, February 25, 2008

"After several noon-hour sessions since the beginning of this project, the latest meeting

was arranged for a 3.5 hour block of time during regular school hours. This meant that

the principal, Candee Forest had to provide supply teachers for six classroom staff as

well as arranging coverage for herself and two vice-principals for the period. The

meeting was held in the Literacy resource room and the teacher responsible for the

Literacy program was so interested in the first few minutes of the discussion that, rather

than simply continuing with her work as had been originally planned, she accepted by

invitation to sit at the table and join the group. We also had the pleasure of another

invitee the police constable assigned as school liaison. Both of these "auditor/visitors"

contributed instances of interaction with children to illustrate points being made or to

provide the basis for questions.

As I reported in my last project update, the language and perceptions of the group

clearly indicate that for the most part, they "get it". Questions were raised concerning

difficult behavioural issues but they were raised not in terms of "What should I do?" but

rather "Am I seeing this correctly?" or "What s going on here?" between the student,

myself and other adults in the child s life".

(Evaluator s comment: What was also interesting was that three-quarters of the group

brought personal, family-oriented issues into the discussion at some point during the

session. These were treated respectfully and for the most part were responded to in the

same terms as those used to present and to "analyse" issues with students.)

During the last hour of the meeting individual participants followed a template which I

provided (based on one developed by Tamara Strijak) and illustrated, and presented

issues which they had or had observed with specific students (see Appendix C). In

several cases more than one teacher in the group had interactions on a regular basis

with the same student and they were able to share how issues of attachment and

defended vulnerability played out in different contexts over time and in different classes

in the school."

Fifth meeting, April 14, 2008

"This was our second-to-last meeting. The next meeting will follow the school

community event (May 1, 2008) at which I will be presenting "Understanding Our Kids:

Confident Parenting, Confident Teaching". The invitation to prepare this presentation

came from Candee.

I was very impressed with the ease with which the teachers spoke the language of the

paradigm and their stories abounded about ,,Sherwoodizing the students and

community. Two of the resource teachers are creating transitional plans for several of

the "stuck" students who will be moving on to high school. These teachers have made

arrangements to individually accompany each student for a one-on-one visit with their

new teacher. Each student will then have a personal tour of the high school with both

teachers. The intention (and it was described in these terms) is to pass the baton of

attachment which will put in place an emotional safety net for September. This is the

first year that there has been any interest in facilitating the process."

Sixth (final) meeting, May 12, 2008.

We were advised prior to this meeting that the school had just gone through several

days of unusually high turmoil. There were a number of reasons cited for this: illnesses,

absenteeism attributed to Spring; acting out by a few students, and the pressures

placed on staff of having to cope with these at the same time as report cards were due.

We noted that the session started 15 minutes late; that there was an unusually high

number of ,,phone calls which were received by the staff members during the meeting;

that a number of students entered the room or stood at the door requesting access to

particular teachers and the absence of Candee, the school principal, who until this

meeting had attended all or a significant portion of all of the previous meetings.

Not surprising, discussion centered on the problems of: collecting children when a class

is in a highly agitated state; disciplining oneself as teacher/parent so that time-outs and

consequences are not resurrected as ways of dealing with student s issues; and the

need to depersonalize the child s behaviour which is based on counter-will.

At the end of the meeting we expressed a wish to record very short interviews with

some of the group so that we could prepare a short "promo" which would feature the

voices of teachers who had experienced learning and using the material from the home-

study program. Five of the seven teachers volunteered to be involved within the next

hour and we secured four interviews of approximately 10 minutes each. Our own time

limitations prevented us from remaining and interviewing all those who would have been

willing to join us if our joint schedules would have allowed this.

4.2 Data Collection:

There are four sources of data reported here:

page

Initial telephone interviews

Summary

Data

Web-based survey data

Summary

Data

Final telephone interviews

Summary

Data

Teacher interviews

Summary

Incidental learning opportunities

Initial telephone interviews

Summary:

The majority of the participants in this study asked to be part of the project

because of earlier associations with their principal, Candee Forest. They perceived

her as having a unique set of skills based at least in part on the Neufeld paradigm

and they wanted to emulate, or at least understand, her approach to students. It

is clear that not all of the participants in this pilot project were naive with respect

to the language of the Neufeld paradigm. They used the term "attachment"

freely. Other terms and expressions such as "coming alongside", "vulnerability",

"frustration wheel" and "peer orientation" were parts of the language of several

in the group. While some of this might be in the common vocabulary of most

teachers there is a strong likelihood that they have learned a considerable

amount about the paradigm prior to beginning the DVD course.

Is this important? No, if the results presented in this report are taken as a

snapshot of a developing familiarity and competence with the paradigm aided

by the home-study course. Yes, if any attempt is made to attribute the effect of

the course per se on the teachers' behaviour and perceptions. They were not

blank slates to be written upon by the 10 DVDs of the course. They were (and are)

working in a school context in which the dominant figure (Candee) is

knowledgeable and proficient with respect to the course material. She stimulated

her peers to want to study the course; on a daily basis she demonstrates the

application of the approach, and she is available as consultant on an "as-needed-

and-as-available-basis".

Preamble: Prior to beginning data collection we solicited Candee's opinion

concerning the relative merits of questionnaires vs interviews when working with

her staff. Our intention was to make the data collection as unobtrusive and as

non-reactive as possible. Since we had no way of knowing how familiar the

participants were with the Neufeld approach or language we needed to

determine this while at the same time avoiding "seeding" their information-base

prior to viewing the DVDs. She replied,

"Having them (the participants) respond in writing (email or fax) will, no

doubt, give them a chance to reflect on their answers and help them to feel

confident that they are giving you a thoughtful response rather than a

spontaneous one. It will create a feeling of safety for them as well. I think

the telephone conversation may intimidate them a little, unless they are

given the questions ahead of time."

While agreeing with her position this highlights two other problems we faced.

First, in any survey or research project distributing questionnaires ahead of time

runs the risk of inviting sharing or collaboration among participants; second, there

is no rapport established via questionnaires, and third, we needed to begin the

data collection prior to having the participants watch the first DVD which was

imminent (and there was insufficient time to travel to Oshawa to introduce

ourselves in person before the course began.) Ergo, we opted to start with a very

brief interview and move to questionnaires later in the project.

Over a four-day period in October, 2007 we were able to contact and complete a

telephone interview with all 8 of the participants. Through Candee, we suggested

they not begin watching the first DVD prior to being contacted and with two

exceptions this was the case. It was also apparent that one of the participants

shared some information about the nature of the questions we were asking with

at least one other participant. It is difficult to say how much bias these events

created but we judge that it was minimal though not zero.

Q. 1 What led you to volunteer as a participant in this home-study program?

Six of the participants mentioned having worked with Candee in the past

and expressed a desire to learn more about the basis for what they considered

her exceptional skills at handling students. Said one, "Candee! She's passionate

about Neufeld. I'm intrigued by the whole picture of how kids behave and why."

The other two teachers expressed a desire to learn more about children's

behaviour but did not refer to Candee specifically.

Q. 2 When you think about Dr. Neufeld's approach are there a few words that

come to mind that would describe his central belief or theory?

This question was repeated at the end of the evaluation, after the course had

been completed. The school secretary had watched 8 of the 10 DVDs when she

left Sherwood for another position. She was looking forward to borrowing the

remaining 2 DVDs to watch on her own and she willingly completed the final

evaluation. Her responses are included below. (1 and 2 below, refer to the initial

and final interviews respectively.)

A. 1. Attachment, frustration wheel, understanding kids and people.

2. Developmental, all-encompassing, navigates social and personal

relationships. A new lens to see everything.

B. 1. Getting to know the child from the inside out and forming

attachments.

2. I'd add taking a look at kids differently. There's more going on than

meets the eye; you have to find out what and then help.

C. 1. I watched a bit of the 1st DVD so I'd say "Developmental" and "Anti-

behaviourist.

2. Instead of saying what it isn't,"anti-behavioural", I'd say what it is,

"attachment-based".

D. 1. Taking side of kids; attaching to kids.

2. I'd say the same. I knew what he was about because of Candee. I saw

it and heard it before the DVDs. The plant grows strong when the

attachment is there.

E. 1. Like Candee. She's respectful, child centered, positive, hopeful;

even with the most difficult child she never despairs.

2. It's all about attachment; nurturing relationships with students, being

warm and enjoying their company.

F. 1. It feels right in terms of who I am, how I parent and how I teach.

A positive and optimistic approach; the inside-out of kids; emotions

drive behaviour.

2. Nothing to add but it gives me something to use on the fly; more

comfortable talking about what I'm doing; gives the teacher

something to use. Other teachers see me modeling coming alongside

a child.

G. 1. Don't know. Insightful, empathetic, attunement to child's needs.

2. I'd expand what I said. It's more development of safety where adults

and child work together in a community; the kids are ready for

connection. For many it's safer than at home. Strength and resilience

can be built.

H. 1. Don't know. Haven't really investigated. Sounds innovative and a

different way of thinking.

2. Every kid is reachable and finding the right way takes perseverance.

Q. 3 What are you expecting in terms of your teaching? What's the most likely

outcome of being involved in this course?

Representative answers:

Course may not give me strategies but insight into reasons for kids'

behaviour. It could lead me to develop my own strategies.

Embedding myself in practices; putting more depth; handling conflict

better; knowing the theory behind interventions

Getting to know Neufeld's theory and learning a new approach to being

able to form attachments; this would lead to more successful learning on

the part of students.

Helping kids to a place where they make good choices to a position of

attachment.

Q. 4 What are you expecting in terms of how your students may benefit?

What's the most likely outcome as a result of you having been involved in

this course?

Representative answers: (Note that these were given before beginning the

course)

In my role I deal with more kids who are peer oriented. They'll see me as a

person to whom they can attach. There's a domino effect of level of

understanding: if I have a better understanding of attachment then this will

foster meaningful attachment to me and to other staff and parents instead

of to kids.

Interaction with me will be something that would preserve their dignity.

When things go wrong look to consequences. To come up with solutions

and be less reactive.

I see Candee working with kids every day. It's amazing. It's different. Not

always a reason or punishment. If they screw up that's OK there's always

tomorrow.

Q. 5 Suppose the outcome of having participated in the course is the best

possible result you can imagine in terms of your teaching practices. What

would that look like?

Representative answers:

I would be able to connect with each and every kid and improve their

learning. I'd be able to look at them and see their needs.

I can interact in a positive way with every student every day. I want to stay

completely engaged it's a lot of work!

My room would look different. More focused for students' benefit.

Students would be less distracted and less distractible. Students would feel

safer.

Q. 6 What's the best possible result you can imagine in terms of your students?

Representative answers:

They would feel more comfortable and able to learn more of the curriculum

material; their emotional needs would be satisfied.

Having a teacher who understands them better can help them adapt to

the classroom setting.

Able to maintain learning from one day to the next. It would help their

memory; able to retain what I'm teaching them. Emotional stability. Kids

who feel good about themselves are nicer to be with in the classroom.

Q. 7 What's the worst possible result you can imagine in terms of your

students?

Representative answers:

Interventions would lead to a worse situation. Unable to move the child

along.

Healthy attachment and trust set back. Disparity among kids may be

widened.

Web-based survey data

Surveys were administered in October and November, 2007 using the program

provided at www.surveymonkey.com . Each participant was given a unique e-mail

link to this server and their responses were recorded anonymously. In October all

8 participants completed the October survey (some after two additional e-mail

contacts). By January 15, only 6 participants had completed the November

questionnaire (despite two reminder e-mails and a personal plea made during

one of the facilitation sessions in the school).

Summary:

The responses to the open-ended questions are presented verbatim. There are

some inconsistencies and what appear to be non-sequitors in one or two of the

responses. Without the resources to do follow-up inquiries these will have to

stand without clarification - as they were written by the teachers.

Where tabular data are presented the option or alternative receiving the greatest

number of endorsements has been bolded.

While there were some negative feelings expressed by the pace of the DVDs

participants were, on the whole, positive about the content and the amount of

time which was required of them to view the material.

It is clear that the participants were beginning to use the basic concepts of the

paradigm and to do so appropriately. There is a theme expressed by many in the

group that staying with the students' feelings, helping them to experience their

sadness and creating safety so that these can be expressed have become very

important ways of being for the teachers.

Many of the respondents noted they have begun to use the paradigm at home in

their relationship to their children and one noted that her husband had also

begun to talk to their children in a new way.

Participants were asked for examples of how studying the Neufeld paradigm

might have made a difference in their students' behaviour. The following

quotation summarizes many of the replies to this question:

"I have come along side some of the kids when they were sad...didn't want

to come to school...would rather stay at home with Mom. I feel their

sadness and they stay with me, then when they feel their sadness the kids

were ready to go back to class. The first time...I wanted to fix the problem

instead of stay with the feeling. I have an easier time with the kids at school

than at home as I find I explain or reason I have a hard time just staying

with the feeling."

October Survey (Administered after completion of the first 3 DVDs covering, The

Maturation Factor)

Your impression of the amount of your own time required so far:

Much more than expected

A little more than expected

Just what I expected

A little less than I expected

Much less than expected

Over the course of a full week, how much of your out-of-school time is it

taking to watch the DVDs?

88% Less than 1 hour per day

More than 2 hours per day

Are there three or four words which would best describe the Neufeld

paradigm ones which are central to understanding the theory?

Attachment, developmental, tears

Recognizing children's feelings of sadness and disappointment

Developing awareness as opposed to behavioral awareness

Experiencing futility and then tears attachment, then

differentiation, then integration

Developmental approach with a focus on what has gone previous

development (sic!)

Developmental theory, attachment

A developmentalist rather than behaviourist approach to dealing

with troubled kids

Q 4 Since you have been working with the Neufeld material has there been a

situation in your class (or in the halls, or the yard, etc) in which you became

aware that you were handling things (yourself, or a colleague or a student)

in a different way?

63% Yes

Could you describe that situation very briefly and how

would you have handled it before working with the Neufeld material?

A.Before: I had an encounter with an unknown child where I told him that he

should find someone to talk to about his irrational statement.

After: I presented myself as available and present, and ready to hear the child.

When he gave me an irrational response, I replied with a statement that would

bring him back to the issue: "I know that hurt you. You must feel frustrated with

his response. I know you care about him. Is there any way we can talk this out?

B.Before: A student continuously was calling out throughout the day. I spoke to

him throughout the day and he still continued to speak out. I would have given

him a detention and had him make up the time he wasted.

After: I asked to speak with him after school ended. I asked him how he was

feeling and if there was anything going on that he was having trouble

concentrating. He ended up in tears telling me how his mom has been yelling at

him a lot lately. We had a good talk and he told me he would try not to call out

anymore.

C.Before: Student "stuck" in continuous repetition of some inappropriate

behaviour toward adults and peers. Previously, I would have recommended

suspension or removal to another classroom for us all to have a break from the

behaviours.

After: Staff were encouraged to go out of their way to establish a relationship

with this boy and he was integrated out into regular grade class for the

afternoons. Prior to this, all staff got together to say only positive things to him,

how proud we were of him, etc....We acknowledged his emotion at the time and

encouraged it. He has since connected well with one other teacher in particular

and he is feeling successful.

D.Before: A high needs student handling their frustration of not meeting a daily

safety goal (earning 3 stickers) probably would have handled it the same way

before and after working with Neufeld (have had prior exposure to Neufeld

before this course) - what I did differently was I worked alongside the Educational

Assistant for her to hear the words I used.

After: the tears at first appeared to be frustration got down on his level and

empathized with him, how disappointing and sad he must feel to not be able to

go on the computer an activity he loves held him in moment with a long

pause very little talking from me and we walked him back to class. EA took

over close proximity little verbal- got back on track in the classroom after a

while did take a while do believe he was switching from frustration to

disappointment with the EA in the classroom.

E.Before: What comes to mind first is not a situation at school, but at home-

discussion with my husband about his mother being diagnosed with breast

cancer. Before, I would have looked for ways to solve the problem for him, and

ways to see the positive in the situation.

After: After working with the Neufeld material, I spent time trying to hold him in

the moment, to acknowledge his feelings of sadness over her diagnosis.

F.Before: Giving a student the little "No's". Him wanting to do something and me

saying no...not now, don't sit in that chair...this kid doesn't know how to handle

"No" so working toward getting to accept the little "No's".

After: The student wanted to use the computer and sit in the "Good secretary

chair". I told him he had to sit in the other chair and that he had to finish his work.

G.Before: I can't pinpoint any particular situation I just know that I am starting

to look at my students and their behaviours with the Neufeld model in mind.

Have there been any positive "spill-over" effects from working with the

Neufeld paradigm? If any (or all) of these apply please check them. (You

may not have one particular class, or any class, so that some of these

alternatives will not apply.)

50%

My primary relationship

My relationship with my children

My relationship with at least one student

My relationship with my whole class

My relationship with my colleagues

My relationship with my student(s') parents

My relationship with those in service positions

My relationship(s) with other professionals

November Survey (Administered after completion of the fourth DVD , "The

Vulnerability Factor" and the 2nd facilitation meeting. Six

responses were received, the last of these in mid January,

2008.)

There have been two meetings with Susan, acting as facilitator. Looking

over the notes I took at the last one on November 5, it seems as though

there were many different topics of discussion. Which of the following is

the one which stands out as being most important/useful for you? (Please

check ONE only.)

33% Discussion of how particular students were dealt with

following the principles of attachment.

Clarification of the term "collecting'

0 Suggestions as to how to "come alongside a student"

Discussion of the importance of tears in the child's

development

There were some exchanges concerning the content and structure of the

program on DVD. Would you rate each of these factors against the scale

provided. [4-point scale provide: 1=Totally agree....4=Totally Disagree]

Average

Rating

Agree

1.5 The examples from Dr. Neufeld's family are useful

1.7 The order of topics from disc to disc is coherent

2.0 There is too much repetition within each disc

2.3 There is so much material to cover that the length of the

programs seems about right.

2.4 A Power-Point presentation (of less than 2 hours) could

capture all that is really important in the program so far

2.7 There is adequate emphasis on how to help my students'

parents support what I am doing in the class

Disagree

3.3 The video adds a great deal to the audio presentation

In your opinion what is (are) the highlights of the program to date?

I like to hear about the attachment...I wish he would give more examples

and stories in what to do when the kids are acting in a certain way.

The importance of tears in a child's development.

Maturation process.

Collaborating with a group of professionals and discussing the content of

the material examples from people personally and professionally the

"staff" room chats input from Susan.

Just looking at kids differently and stopping to think about why they are

acting in particular ways...the maturation factor.

Q 4 Have you had any insight(s) into yourself which you would be willing to

briefly share?

50% "Yes"

I find I am a nag at home, but am working at coming alongside the feelings

and staying there...giving them another chance as I know they are not doing

"whatever" on purpose...that fresh start. I find it so much easier when I am

not as attached to the kids (say at school than at home.)

I realize why (X) is a stuck adult and I am not, even though we were raised

similarly. She refuses to let anyone see her cry and has trouble attaching to

people. I am the complete opposite. I am curious why we are so completely

different.

I'm continuing on the endless journey of self-reflection and being

Neufelded is enriching me as a person - do notice that I am much more

aware of "stuck" adults more and feel a sadness overcome me when I see

it. I started a journey about 8 years ago counselling, etc. around

childhood, emotional immaturity, insecurities, fear of rejection and

abandonment, etc., everyone can benefit from opening "shut" doors and

gaining insight into who they are.

Q 5 Have you had any insights into one or more of your students which you can

directly attribute to studying the DVD materials?

80% Yes

I think that I have discovered many students who have a great deal of

difficulty building an attachment to adults. I spend more time developing

those attachments now.

I have a student who is a very angry boy and acts inappropriately a lot of

the time. I have been really working on identifying his feelings with him. I

have also realized he is very peer oriented and so when I need to talk to

him I always make sure I talk to him away from his friends. I am seeing a

very big difference in his reaction to me talking to him about different

situations. This particular boy was very rude and defiant to his teacher last

year. He basically tried to run the classroom and she let him. He had a big

adjustment coming into my room at first when he realized that I am the

teacher and he is the student. I have formed a great attachment with this

student and I am seeing him change gradually. I am very happy with the

progress that has been made in the last few months.

We talked about it at one of our times with Susan a boy who was not able

to celebrate playing hockey and we worked him through the

disappointment and sadness that was weeks ago and our connection is

stronger and there is a different look in his eyes.

2 additional responses did not involve insights into students

Q 6 As a result of having studied the DVD materials have you seen any change(s)

in the students you work with which you would attribute to your new

knowledge or insight?

80% Yes

One student now waits for an appropriate time to speak to me and all I

have to do is say, "What's wrong?" and she is able to cry tears of sadness

easily now. She doesn't try to hold it back anymore. It's become part of a

regular process for her to deal with sadness that happens in her life. She

always feels a little better afterward.

I have another student who is similar to the one mentioned in the previous

question. This student is experiencing a lot of difficulties at home. At the

beginning of the year he would barely say hello to me. I have worked on

developing an attachment with this student for the past few months. I feel I

have succeeded because this student comes to talk to me when he is

feeling sad. There have been four different times he started crying and he

opened up to me. The last time was right before Christmas break.

I have come along side some of the kids when they were sad...didn't want

to come to school...would rather stay at home with Mom. I feel their

sadness and they stay with me, then when they feel their sadness the kids

were ready to go back to class. The first time...I wanted to fix the problem

instead of stay with the feeling. I have an easier time with the kids at school

than at home as I find I explain or reason I have a hard time just staying

with the feeling.

Note: The following question was deliberately "planted" to seed the participants'

interest in signing on to the Home Study Forum. As of January, 2008 only one had

done so and to the best of our knowledge none of the others in the group has ever

logged on to the campus site.

Q 7 There is a Home Study Forum on Dr. Neufeld's site for those involved in a self-

study program. Through it, you can access materials and consultation on your

personal progress and any questions you may have. Have you considered joining?

67% Yes, but I think it would involve more time than I have.

16 Yes, but arrangements have not been completed to do so.

16 No, I have enough input from the DVDs and the facilitator

Meetings

Q 8 Any other comments?

I find the DVDs very slow...then 4th and 5th better, but I wish there

was more visual and stories than just talk. I love the concept and it is

just getting it to work for me in MY language.

I have been using the ideas that I have learned about at home. I am

noticing the difference when I am talking with my children.

Furthermore I have noticed my husband beginning to change the way

he talks to the kids, too.

I think the lunch sessions are very rushed. It would be so nice to have

more time to talk when you visit.

Final telephone interviews

In mid May, 2008 after the final facilitation session each of the participants was

contacted by telephone for a final brief interview.

Summary

There is general satisfaction with the outcome ("payoff") for the amount of effort

invested in the course.

Discussion of time-outs, consequences and attachment indicate a deeper

understanding of these terms than was apparent at earlier stages of the

evaluation. It also appears as though there is general understanding of the

meaning of the alpha position and a recognition that it requires vigilance to

maintain.

Q 1 Compared to other courses you have taken and given the amount of effort

that was required of this one, would you say you got:

50% Much more than I did from the other courses*

A little more than I did from the others

About the same

*The basis for comparison in most cases were AQ courses (Academic

Qualification) and/or university masters-level courses.

Q 2 Neufeld has argued strongly against the two most commonly used forms of

discipline which are in use to-day. These are time-outs and consequences.

Do you agree with the basis for his objection?

64% Yes

When asked to summarize the nature of the objection these 5

respondents did so in terms of maintaining the attachment

with the child as being paramount and seeing consequences

and time-outs as being meaningless to children.

Yes, but when it's your own kids your buttons get pushed. It's

easier at school than at home. These are new thoughts and

new words for me and I revert to old ways.

I'm starting to see the light. I was using consequences with a 2-

yr old child. Now I see you have to build the attachmet with

the child first.

Not completely. I do think about each situation to determine

whether these (time-outs and consequences) might be

appropriate.

Q 3 Do you find that the process of collecting a child is feasible when there is a lot

of activity around the child and you? How do you do it?

The following were given as conditions which helped to collect a child

during the day:

Maintaining proximity to the child; starting the day off with some

form of greeting for each child; joining children in some pleasurable

activity early in the day (having a snack with them); getting to the

child's level and assuring them that the two of us can talk later;

choosing moments when the child can be taken to one side; talking

to the child in a way that maintains his or her dignity.

Most of the teachers mentioned having difficulty with some students at some

times but went on to say that they always found a way to indicate their desire to

connect with the student.

Q 4 Are there some children who seem particularly resistant to becoming

attached to you?

50% Yes

If so, what have you tried or what will you try?

Of the four teachers who acknowledged difficulties with some children,

three mentioned identifying and working with the student's "island of

competency"; setting up situations in which the child would come into contact

with other trustworthy adults and attach to them ("a surrogate for me") and

collecting and re-collecting the child frequently to reassure them that they were

valued by the teacher(s).

Q 5 ...a few words to describe Neufeld's central belief or theory. (See section on

Initial Telephone Interview above).

Q 6 Do you think there is ever a time when as a teacher you deliberately give up

the alpha position?

No, not deliberately, although sometimes it slips away.

No, peer helpers come to the front of the room but I'm still in charge.

Occasionally I have; allowing the kids to assume a leader/teacher

position.

Don't know. Even if kid is showing leadership, the definition of a

teacher is to be in the alpha position except of course when you're

dealing with principals or administration.

Don't know. I try to stay alpha. There are times games - when it's

nice to relax and be casual; generally important to be a gentle leader.

It's like having a gentle bridle to walk a horse. With a gentle bridle

even a 3-yr. old can walk a horse.

I would give it up to other teachers or staff or other adults but

wouldn't to kids. If I'm not alpha then there's no reason for them to

connect with me. They'll turn to peers every time. If the parent or

teacher isn't in alpha then there's no one to trust for learning.

Yes. In class. On a day-to-day you can have alpha but there are times

when things unravel. You lose alpha and have to struggle to get it

back...but I would hope not. I always have it since I deal with high

needs kids.

Sometimes I let two kids work out problems themselves maybe

suggesting some problem-solving strategy. As long as I can intervene

I can maintain the alpha position.

It appears as though there