Memorandum submitted by Liz Vickerie,
Head of Support for Learning, and Kerrigen Marriner, Head of Behaviour
Support, London Borough of Tower Hamlets
1. How to support and reinforce positive
behaviour in schools
— Greater emphasis on positive behaviour
management techniques and theory in teacher training and throughout
first two years in service. Further training in the connection
between SEN and behaviour management and how this should influence
planning and Teaching and Learning Strategies.
— A senior management post in each school
is usually responsible for whole school behaviour and attendance
but at present there is little training and support which is patchy,
depending on local LA expertise and availability. Many modules
of the NPSL-BA and other National Strategy documents are useful
but currently knowledge of these or explicit training is not incorporated
into the job descriptions for these posts so a comprehensive approach
is not standardised. Similiarly, there are no national standards
for Learning Support Unit managers and so there are a huge variety
of experience and qualifications amongst these post holders.
— The recommendations of the 2009 Steer
report have been generally welcomed as well thought through and
based on real school experience and should be implemented.
2. The nature and level of challenging behaviour
by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff
— This is hugely variable from class to
class, school to school, area to area. Some schools report high
levels of challenging behaviour. Some of this may result from
systemic problems within the school and some may arise out of
a wide range of social, emotional and learning factors impacting
on the behaviour of pupils.
— Persistent, disruptive behaviour and
verbal aggression towards staff appear to be the two most common
reasons given by schools for fixed term exclusion. In our experience
there has been an ongoing reduction in violent offences (including
the use of weapons) leading to exclusion.
— Where it occurs the impact of poor behaviour
on schools and staff can be enormous leading to lowering standards
and morale which can result in high staff turnover which worsens
the problem. However, this can be significantly reduced with a
range of effective interventions, including additional support
to individual teachers struggling to manage class behaviour and/or
multi-agency interventions to address the full range of factors
impinging on the behaviour of individual pupils
— Many inner city schools who employ a
holistic and rigorous approach to whole school behaviour are effective
in equipping their staff with the requisite skills to significantly
reduce concerns and supporting their pupils to ensure background
factors are identified and treated and they are taught the skills
they need to manage their own behaviour and learn effectively.
3. Approaches taken by schools and Local
Authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term
and permanent exclusions
— Effective approaches need to include
a range of activities from whole school strategies, groupwork
and individual training and coaching for staff as well as support
for parents and effective use of data analysis that enables schools
to pin point areas of concern and put appropriate measures in
place.
— Most important is a robust whole school
policy which incorporates an effective staged reward and sanction
scheme, consistency of approach between staff, and clarity for
pupils about expectations and how they can make reparation if
things go wrong.
— For pupils whose behaviour is effected
by factors external to the school, there is a need for a range
of school-based and LA interventions which emphasise early identification
and intervention and use a clear system to allocate Lead Professionals
to assess needs (using CAF) and utilise all available agencies,
eg youth services, parental engagement, LA support services, medical
services etc to bring about change in the pupil's life.
— LA multi-agency panels that provide schools
with advice and support are very effective in managing the most
hard to engage and challenging pupils and their families. A holistic
approach is essential.
— Internal exclusion (within the school)
can be effective at the end of a ladder of sanctions. Removing
a pupil from a school needs to be avoided if at all possible as
it is only likely to reinforce a sense of disengagement and further
alienate the pupil.
— Where fixed-term exclusion from a school
is deemed essential this should not mean exclusion from education:
the school needs to maintain involvement and consistency of school
work by giving the alternative provider the school work that needs
to be covered during the period of exclusion.
— short term reintegration programme (a
period out of school followed by a managed reintegration) and
managed moves to other schools can be highly effective in preventing
permanent exclusion, if used in a positive and preventative manner
with the collaboration of parents.
— Schools should be allowed to retain the
right to permanently exclude but a swift but clear appeals process
should be retained in order to ensure due process, proper evidence
and appropriate application of policy. Unfair dismissal is an
issue we recognise in adult life, so it is only fair to ensure
some independent advocacy for pupils in the context of permanent
exclusion.
— It has been extremely effective for schools
to work together in partnerships to develop a shared approach
to challenging behaviour, commission alternative providers and
share good practice. The LA role can be to support and facilitate
this but it has been important for schools to take ownership of
improving attendance and behaviour in collaboration with each
other and other agencies and providers. This lifts the standards
in all local schools and avoids the "sink" school phenomenon.
4. Ways of engaging parents and carers in
managing their children's challenging behaviour
— Providing multiple avenues for communication
with school through; keyworkers, pastoral staff, email, reports,
phone calls etc for both positive and negative behaviours.
— Behaviour policies should be provided
to parents in a clear and easily understandable format and provide
opportunities for regular consultation eg Home-school contracts
that set out clear expectations and encourage the active involvement
of parents.
— A range of training and support for parents
from informal coffee mornings, school meetings, literature/top
tips through to formal parenting courses that are targeted for
particularly vulnerable families.
5. How special educational needs can best
be recognised in schools' policies on behaviour and discipline
— A school's behaviour policy needs to
address the issue of how SEN and behaviour may be linked and provide
clear cross reference to the SEN policy and avenues of information
and referral that are available for staff and parents.
— Regular training on the overlap between
the two needs to be available for all staff and parents.
6. The efficacy of alternative provision
for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour
— A respite/reintegration facility can
be highly effective in providing a "time-out" for pupils
in order to ensure their needs are correctly assessed and some
intensive work can be carried out to address these and put longer-term
strategies in place in the mainstream context. This works best
when communication between school and facility is very clear,
well planned, maintained throughout the placement, expectations
are established and linked to assessment outcomes and a clear
time period identified.
— A very small number of pupils with complex
and multiple needs may not be able to be included full-time in
the mainstream environment but wherever possible they should maintain
contact with mainstream through part-time timetables or the availability
of appropriate college courses. It is essential that individual
programmes are monitored to ensure access to a range of subjects
and options, including the acquisition of basic skills: a limited
curriculum will only further reduce the life chances of these
pupils.
— Alternative providers work best when
they are local, have a good relationship and knowledge of the
referring schools, are able to access the range of LA and third
sector services available in the local area and employ a range
of staff who are able to address the pastoral AND academic needs
of the pupils. They need to be subject to the same rigorous challenge
and monitoring of standards as schools. Health and safety issues
are paramount and the staff working in them need good access to
multi-agency support and professional development
7. Links between attendance and behaviour
in schools
— These links are clear and well established.
The National Strategy programme for improving behaviour and attendance
has compiled very compelling statistics to prove that a school
that has low overall attendance and a high level of persistent
absence will also have a high level of fixed term (internal and
external) exclusion and low staff confidence in tackling challenging
behaviour effectively. These statistics are gathered from all
the schools the Strategy has engaged with over the last six years.
There are many good practice case studies available. Tower Hamlets
has had several published, including in the Steer report.
8. The Government's proposals regarding teachers'
powers to search pupils, removal of the requirement for written
notice of detentions outside school hours, and the extent of teachers'
disciplinary powers, as announced by the Department on 7 July
— Detaining pupils on an ad-hoc basis after
school will undermine relationships with parents and will therefore
undermine the effectiveness of any programme to address the problematic
behaviours.
— The power to search pupils is already
adequate and can be incorporated into a school's behaviour policy.
The issue is more with staff confidence and training in enacting
these powers.
— There should be more emphasis on the
clearly established principle that reward and positive behaviour
management are more effective in reducing challenging behaviour
in the longer term than the highest level of sanction. An example
would be the high number of pupils who are excluded for a second
time after a permanent exclusion vs the number of pupils
who complete their education after a programme of positive prevention
and a small number of short, fixed-term exclusions.
September 2010
|
