Memorandum submitted by John Bangs
INTRODUCTION
1. I was the Head of Education for the National
Union of Teachers from 1993 to September 2010. One of my responsibilities
was representing the NUT on the previous Government's Ministerial
Stakeholder Group for pupil behaviour. I thought it would be helpful,
therefore, if I provided a personal commentary on particular aspects
of issues around pupil behaviour. I have used the Select Committee's
specific issues framework for this letter. I retired in September
this year from the National Union of Teachers. I am taking up
a number of new opportunities, including appointments at the Institute
of Education, Cambridge University and a consultancy with Education
International.
THE SUBMISSION
2. There is a general consensus amongst
teachers that it is low level disruption; (name calling, swearing,
not paying attention, interrupting and fighting) which causes
the greatest amount of stress. It is important to note that, although
stress is acutely felt by teachers, the evidence from our own
research on school self-evaluation shows that children not involved
in such disruption are equally distressed, if not more so. Children
and young people hate the fact that such disruption causes both
boredom and frustration.
3. Up until 2002, when the NUT commissioned
Warwick University to conduct a wide-ranging survey of teachers
on pupil behaviour, it was clear that concerns about low level
disruption had not altered since the publication of the Elton
Report on Pupil Behaviour in 1989. Levels of such disruption
had remained relatively constant.
4. What has changed since then are the nature
and frequency of serious and violent behaviour.
5. The conclusion of the NUT's 2008 follow-up
study with Warwick University was that:
"Some of the more serious problems, including
abuse, damage to property and threats by parents, were encountered
by fewer teachers and schools in 2008 than in 2001. However, these
teachers and schools suffered such problems, more severely than
they had in 2001. "
6. A further analysis suggested that it
was male teachers who experienced a greater impact of this kind
of behaviour.
7. The Warwick University study showed that
for the majority of schools, the number of significant and serious
incidents of misbehaviour are reducing, whereas for the minority,
they are getting worse. This has not been contested and, in fact,
has been confirmed by conversations with secondary teachers.
8. Evidence from a separate Cambridge University
study: Teachers Under Pressure by Maurice Galton and John
MacBeath (2008), came to the conclusion that primary schools,
compared to five years ago, were experiencing highly confrontational
behaviour from a minority of children. Anecdotes recounted in
the book included:
"The mother, who with great effort, has
now succeeded in getting her five year old to bed at 1.00 am instead
of 3.00 am; and
a six year old who told his teacher how to go
about killing pimps and prostitutes after mastering the Grand
Theft Auto, in which the player has to kill as many people as
possible. "
9. Galton's and MacBeath's conclusion was,
that in primary schools:
"the prevalence and significance of such
anecdotes is the contrast they present with (primary) teachers'
accounts five years previously. Although, at that time, some teachers
did refer to behavioural problems, it was generally a reference
to an insufficiently motivating curriculum for less-abled children.
Revisiting the same schools and often the same teachers in 2007,
there appeared to have been a significant and inimical impact
on school life from a rapidly changing social scene. Motivating
certain children, it was claimed, have become more difficult because,
by the time they came to school, many of these children have become
experts in manipulating adults. "
10. These are powerful conclusions. Conducting
research for the book Re-inventing Schools, which I have
written with Galton and MacBeath and which will be published in
September, I have found that primary teachers concur with these
findings.
11. I had one fascinating conversation during
the research process with a teacher who believed that the "Every
Child Matters Agenda" was now leading a small minority of
parents to think that schools now had overall responsibility for
their children's behaviour, health and wellbeing and that it was
schools who had the responsibility if their children's behaviour
was unacceptable.
12. My belief is that teachers in both primary
and secondary schools are now the best equipped that they have
ever been to deal with poor behaviour but that this is still not
enough, despite many teacher training courses equipping student
teachers far better than they used to in terms of providing practical
guidance and a range of techniques and ideas. The behaviour of
a minority group of unsocialised pupils was very bad and getting
worse.
13. How to equip teachers to tackle unacceptable
pupil behaviour is a major issue. The evidence from our studies
is that the amount of professional development for teachers on
classroom organisation of pupil behaviour has increased but that
the amount of excellent professional development since the beginning
of the decade has not increased. Despite the effectiveness of
the previous Government's SEAL programme.
14. Teacher organisations such as the NUT
are probably the best at providing high quality and relevant professional
development in pupil behaviour. It is clear that it is not just
young teachers or teachers new to the profession that need professional
development in pupil behaviour, it is experienced teachers. Those
that attend the NUT's Professional Development Programme on pupil
behaviour can take part in a wide range of courses, including
courses on conflict resolution and transactional analysis, as
well as those giving direct practical advice on classroom organisation.
15. I am convinced that the Department should
turn to teacher organisations when developing a professional development
entitlement on pupil behaviour for all teachers. The NUT's experience
in terms of delivering high quality programmes which genuinely
enable teachers to do a better job is far in advance of the vast
majority of private providers.
16. Schools that have fewer behaviour problems
are those where all staff are utterly consistent in their relationships
with pupils and where the behaviour policy is owned and understood
by all staff. The most effective staff are staff trained in responding
to a broad range of behaviours. The Steer Report contained many
sensible and positive recommendations. However, there are a number
of areas, in my view, which need developing.
17. In that context, I firmly believe that
no government since the early 70s has had a strategy for the teaching
profession. Part of that strategy should be the development of
a comprehensive entitlement to professional development; and within
that a major focus on pupil behaviour. In exit interviews we have
conducted with teachers leaving the profession, it was quite clear
that it was unacceptable pupil behaviour which was "the last
straw that broke the camel's back". Teachers could just about
put up with external pressure and stress caused by demands that
they could not see the sense in but, if well prepared lessons
were regularly disrupted by unacceptable behaviour, then that
provided the trigger for resignation. I believe it is vital, therefore,
that the Government establishes an entitlement to professional
development in pupil behaviour throughout every teacher's career.
18. The debate around pupil restraint is,
again, becoming highly confused. In 1996, I led the discussions
with Gillian Shephard, who was then Secretary of State, on securing
much needed protection for teachers who restrained pupils. It
was understood then that the protections for teachers set out
in the 1996 Education Act were purely passive, eg, that teachers
were not expected to change their practice but that they were
now protected by law in using restraint within the criteria set
out in legislation. Post 1996 they could restrain a child from
running out of the room, for example, without the anxiety that
they might be accused of abusing that pupil. This understanding
did not reach many schools and local authorities and it is still
patchy.
19. The myth that has also grown up over
the years is that pupil restraint is somehow a disciplinary action.
Restraint is not a disciplinary action; it is there to protect
both teacher and pupil.
20. For most teachers, restraining pupils
is a relatively rare action but if a child, for example, does
get very angry with another child and "loses it", most
teachers will intervene to separate those pupils.
21. I have become convinced over the years
that Gillian Shephard's very necessary inclusion of the restraint
clauses of the 1996 Act needed to be accompanied by training in
how to restrain. The availability of good training is again patchy
and needs fundamental improvement in availability. Teachers, themselves,
need to be asked whether or not they feel they would benefit from
such training.
22. I welcome the Secretary of State's comments
about removing the permitted categories for searching pupils.
Allowing pupils to be searched for weapons, drugs or stolen goods
but not, for example, for an irritating and concealed electrical
device, represented an arbitrary distinction.
23. How schools prevent the circulation
of both illegal items and unwanted legal items must rest with
head teachers' decisions but one thing is clear: from time-to-time,
schools may need to adopt additional and expensive security measures.
A pot of money should be made available to schools which need
to make emergency bids for additional security equipment. My preference
would be for local authorities to hold that pot since they are
in the best position to hold the ring and know the nature of local
threats.
24. The Committee asks about ways of engaging
parents and careers in managing their children's challenging behaviour.
I do think that training and counselling for parenthood is vital
and should be an option available for parents who are experiencing
difficulties with their children. There certainly should be confidential
counselling available for parents that need it, particularly for
parents who are worried about their children's activities outside
school.
25. I am not convinced that the Children's
Services model works, particularly in relation to pupil behaviour.
Schools, above all, need contact points with the local authority
if they are worried about the social, emotional and behavioural
aspects of their pupils' behaviour. They need single contacts
who they know are people who have sufficient clout to can take
effective action if necessary. This is patently not the case with
a very large number of local authorities.
26. I think very many behaviour partnerships
work very well but the insertion of the requirement on local authorities
to establish Children's Trusts for schools, both to report to
those trusts and establish partnerships, is a legal step too far.
Where, perhaps, I would disagree with the Coalition Government,
is on what the local authority role should be. I believe the local
authority has a crucial role for all schools. It can provide essential
guidance and a safety net for schools faced with out-of-control
pupils. They should bring together and broker expertise for schools
to access and use. Special schools and Pupil Referral Units, alongside
experienced teachers in mainstream schools, are a vital and often
underused resource for other schools. I believe it is vital that
alternative provision such as special schools and PRUs should
continue. If there is one requirement that perhaps needs to be
made; it is that mainstream schools should be linked with special
schools and PRUs.
27. With respect to pupil exclusions, the
Secretary of State has announced his intention to abolish independent
appeals tribunals. While I think he is right to say that such
tribunals have sometimes taken counter-intuitive decisions, abolition
is not the answer. The fact remains that it is better for a school
to face the decision of a tribunal rather than the decision of
a judge in a judicial review. Instead, I believe that tribunals
need re-focusing and re-balancing. The composition of tribunals
needs altering. There should be a new requirement that all tribunals
should include at least one practising classroom teacher. Tribunals
should also be required to consider the needs of the school as
well as the individual excluded pupil. Tribunals should be required
to ask themselves whether the relationship between the pupil and
the school has broken down irretrievably and that, therefore,
placement in another school would be best for that child.
28. Unacceptable pupil behaviour touches
at the core of teachers' sense of self-efficacy. The Government
is right to focus on pupil behaviour as an issue—it also
needs to keep an open mind.
August 2010
| 
