Memorandum submitted by NFER
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. NFER is Britain's leading independent
educational research institution and is submitting this paper
to the Education Select Committee to inform its inquiry into behaviour
and discipline in schools.
2. The evidence presented by the Foundation
is based on work commissioned by a number of clients wishing to
examine behaviour and discipline in schools. The key findings
from our work are summarised below.
— Generally teachers consider pupil behaviour
to be good. However, a quarter see pupil behaviour as only acceptable
and one in fifteen as poor. Just under half report pupil behaviour
has deteriorated.
— Schools and local authorities are deploying
a range of approaches to foster positive behaviour and to respond
effectively to negative behaviour and indiscipline.
— Our evaluation of Behavioural and Education
Support (multi-agency) Teams (BESTs) found these can be effective
in supporting schools, families and children who are currently,
or are at risk of developing emotional, behavioural and attendance
problems. BESTs generate a number of positive impacts and promise
to provide value for money in achieving those impacts.
— Pupils with SEN generally experience
the same processes and are treated similarly when it comes to
exclusion but the threshold is often higher and exclusion is considered
as a last resort especially where the school perceives there is
a lack of suitable alternative provision.
— Our early research into alternative provision
suggests it to be effective in generating a range of positive
outcomes for young people where relationships are adult-like,
are based on respect for the young person, are tailored to individual
needs, and allow them to experience success. We are currently
conducting a study of the Alternative Provision pilots which is
due to report in 2012.
INTRODUCTION
3. The Education Select Committee is conducting
an inquiry into behaviour and discipline in schools. This submission
by the National Foundation for Educational Research (NFER) aims
to provide evidence and recommendations that we hope will support
the Committee in its inquiry.
4. NFER is Britain's leading independent
educational research institution. This submission draws solely
on the Foundation's experience with respect to research and evaluation
concerning behaviour in schools and alternative provision. Further
information about the NFER is provided in the accompanying NFER
Credentials document.[227]
RESEARCH CONDUCTED
BY THE
NFER
5. The following sections take the lead
from the structure set out in the call for evidence by this Select
Committee. The evidence submitted by the NFER covers the following
questions set out in the call for evidence:
— The nature and level of challenging behaviour
by pupils in schools, and the impact upon schools and their staff.
— Approaches taken by schools and local
authorities to address challenging behaviour, including fixed-term
and permanent exclusions.
— The efficacy of alternative provision
for pupils excluded from school because of their behaviour.
THE NATURE
AND LEVEL
OF CHALLENGING
BEHAVIOUR BY
PUPILS IN
SCHOOLS, AND
THE IMPACT
UPON SCHOOLS
AND THEIR
STAFF
6. The NFER Teacher Voice Omnibus in June
2008 included questions about pupil behaviour. Whilst this survey
did not include questions specifically on challenging behaviour,
it does provide useful information on pupils' behaviour from the
perspective of teachers. The key findings were:
— The majority of teachers (70%) rated
pupils' behaviour as either "good" or "very good".
Twenty-four percent of the sample said behaviour was acceptable;
6% that it was poor and less than 1% very poor. Poor pupil behaviour
was more of an issue for secondary teachers than primary school
teachers.
— About half believed that that the standards
of behaviour had deteriorated (either marginally (39%) or substantially
(9%)) in their school over the previous five years. Around a quarter
believed it had remained the same (26%) and the remaining quarter
believed it had improved (marginally (16%) or substantially (10%)).
Fourteen per cent of secondary teachers compared to 5% of primary
teachers reported pupil behaviour had "substantially deteriorated".
— Over four-fifths (83%) agreed that they
were "well equipped" to manage pupil behaviour and only
4% did not.
— Seventy three per cent of secondary teachers
compared with 64% of primary teachers agreed that "negative
pupil behaviour is driving teachers out of the profession"
Forty-nine per cent of primary teachers and 53% of secondary teachers
agreed that less experienced teachers were more likely to be driven
out of the profession.
7. Research undertaken by the NFER for the
Scottish Executive on behaviour in Scottish schools also found
pupils were generally considered to be well behaved in the classroom.
Headteachers thought that indiscipline was less of a problem than
did teachers and support staff. Secondary school staff were consistently
more likely to identify indiscipline as a serious problem. Negative
classroom behaviours tended to be low level (eg talking in class)
and more serious indiscipline, such as physical aggression or
violence, was far less frequent and was hardly ever directed at
school staff. Incidents of negative behaviour around school were
reported more frequently in secondary schools than primary schools,
possibly because of the greater opportunities afforded by moving
from lesson to lesson. Most teachers did not find negative behaviour
they encountered particularly difficult to deal with.
APPROACHES TAKEN
BY SCHOOLS
AND LOCAL
AUTHORITIES TO
ADDRESS CHALLENGING
BEHAVIOUR, INCLUDING
FIXED-TERM
AND PERMANENT
EXCLUSIONS
8. NFER has undertaken research for the
Scottish Executive on approaches to address challenging behaviour
used in Scottish schools. The study found that the majority of
schools operated a school-wide behaviour/discipline policy, used
a range of rule and reward systems, had a school uniform, and
were involving parents and pupils in school-wide issues to promote
positive behaviour. Pupil support bases, home-link workers, integrated
support teams, pupil councils and buddying/mentoring schemes were
used to lesser extent. School staff identified key factors in
developing a whole-school approach to behaviour as consistency,
involvement of parents and pupils, SMT support, school staff consultation
and flexibility. Local authority staff considered approaches such
as staged intervention to be effective means of responding to
indiscipline at local authority level, as well as comprehensive
continuing professional development (CPD), integrated working
amongst agencies, a clear inclusion policy and inclusion training.
9. NFER has evaluated Behaviour and Education
Support Teams (BESTs). BESTs are multi-agency teams, which bring
together a range of professionals, working to support schools,
families and children (aged five to 18) who present, or are at
risk of developing, emotional, behavioural and/or attendance problems.
The focus of BEST work is identification, prevention and early
intervention, to promote emotional well-being, positive behaviour
and school attendance.
10. We found that the majority of BESTs
focused on early intervention work and employed criteria to identify
children that were "at risk" (eg showing early signs
of attendance, behaviour, mental health issues). BESTs were seen
to have had positive impact on children and young people in the
four main areas of attainment, attendance, behaviour and wellbeing.
However, practitioners alluded to an educational "hierarchy
of needs", whereby impact at the level of pupil attainment
relied upon effective intervention to improve attendance and behaviour
which, in turn, required strong foundations in terms of child
and family wellbeing. BESTs were also found to improve parents'
access to services (both in terms of the needs of children and
adults in the family), and links between the home and school,
particularly where this relationship had broken down. There were
main positive impacts for school staff including: acquisition
of skills and strategies for managing challenging behaviour and
emotional difficulties; improved access to specialist support
services; increased understanding of emotional and behavioural
difficulties; and a general increase in capacity to support pupils.
11. BESTs were regarded as value for money
based on the impacts produced so far, the long-term gains for
society (eg a reduction in offending, better employment prospects
for young people) and the advantages of a multi-agency approach
(eg streamlined referral systems).
12. NFER has undertaken research on the
exclusion of pupils with special educational needs (SEN). The
research found there had been a rise in permanent exclusions,
mainly at secondary level. Pupils with SEN generally went through
the same processes as, and were treated similarly to, other pupils
but thresholds were often higher and a greater degree of unacceptable
behaviour was tolerated before the exclusion process was initiated.
Schools were particularly reluctant to exclude pupils in cases
where they felt adequate alternative provision was not available.
Exclusions were usually used as a "last resort" after
a series of strategies had failed, although a common exception
was where the health and safety of a pupil, his/her peers or staff
was at risk. Pupils with behavioural difficulties were reported
to be the group most at risk of exclusion. The number of appeals
against exclusion was said to be low. Those from parents of pupils
with SEN were no more likely to be upheld than those from parents
of any other child.
13. At the time of the research, there was
concern that delegating resources and responsibility had led to
diversity in schools' practice as to the priority they attached
to meeting the needs of pupils displaying challenging behaviour.
The degree of compliance with exclusions legislation varied. Those
schools noted to be complying with the legislation generally had
an inclusive approach and good relationships with parents. The
research found that there was a need for LEAs to work closely
with schools in order to help schools work more effectively to
meet pupils' needs and improve behaviour.
14. The successful reintegration of pupils
with SEN following exclusion was said to depend on pupil cooperation
and motivation, rigorous planning, and a clear programme for re-entry,
support and monitoring. Pupils deemed the hardest to reintegrate
were those with statements for syndromes such as Aspergers, when
disruption to routine was particularly difficult. Parental involvement
was considered critical to supporting behaviour management and
reintegration if exclusion were necessary.
THE EFFICACY
OF ALTERNATIVE
PROVISION FOR
PUPILS EXCLUDED
FROM SCHOOL
BECAUSE OF
THEIR BEHAVIOUR
15. NFER has evaluated alternative education
initiatives (AEIs), undertaken case studies into effective alternative
provision and is currently undertaking research into, and evaluation
of Alternative Provision pilots.
16. Our evaluation of AEIs examined six
initiatives and found they aimed to deliver quality, relevant
and positive learning experiences and opportunities which would
contribute (directly or indirectly) to the immediate and long-term
future of the young people involved. Each focused on establishing
relationships which were adult-like and based on respect, features
which were often said to be lacking in mainstream education environments.
Programmes were designed to be tailored to the individual needs
of young people, to allow young people to experience success,
to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate the changing needs
and circumstances of the young people attending the projects,
and to be underpinned by a safety net of pastoral support.
17. The most common reason for a young person's
referral to the AEI was that they had been permanently excluded
from school, usually for some form of aggression, towards either
peers or staff. The majority (two-thirds) of the sample were male,
however a significant number (a third) were female. A tenth of
young people in the sample were classified as "looked after".
A large number of young people (69%) attending the projects were
classified by staff as having some kind of special educational
need.
18. The main differences between AEI programmes
related to the use of outside providers, the level of contact
time, and whether AEIs provided generic or individualised programmes.
A lack of funding was felt to exert a restrictive influence on
AEIs, in terms of the range of activities that could be offered
and the involvement of other agencies.
19. In terms of educational outcomes, AEIs
offered a wide range of accredited opportunities. In addition
to achieving education-based certificates, a number of young people
received vocational attainments and accreditation linked to personal
and social skills development. Approximately half of all the young
people registered at the AEIs during the evaluation were awarded
some form of accreditation. Young people reported that, because
of attending the AEI, they were more willing to learn, they enjoyed
learning and were considering further education. They felt their
behaviour had improved and there had been improvement in their
relationships with their family.
20. Self-reports on crime showed that, by
the summer term, about three-quarters of the final sample indicated
a reduction in, or cessation of, offending activity, with one
in eight acknowledging an increase. Different factors were identified
by the young people to account for a reduction in offending behaviour:
a change of stimulus and environment (attendance at the project
providing less boredom, less "hang-factor" time, different
peer groups); a change of prospects (wanting to avoid prison,
wanting a job in the future); and a change of attitude (maturation,
an internally driven rejection of criminal behaviour or consideration
of family's feelings).
21. Young people's expectations and aspirations
appeared to have become more realistic as a result of experiencing
AEI. They also showed a more positive attitude to the future in
relation to employment, college and training.
22. The high staff: pupil ratios and small
group sizes were a positive feature of the AEIs. The average cost
per young person enrolled at the AEIs was £3,800; this was
165% of the average Age-Weighted Pupil Unit (AWPU) for the LEAs.
There was a positive relationship between the average per-person
expenditure and the retention rate, when comparing the six AEIs
evaluated. In total, 71% of young people went on to desirable
destinations at an average cost of £5,200 (137%) of the average
per-person expenditure.
23. NFER has also undertaken case studies
of effective alternative provision (AP) and identified a number
of factors associated with effective alternative provision:
— Ensuring the integration and status of
AP within the LA's overall approach, including AP being seen as
an integral part of the LA's core offer, linked in to other LA
strategies and policies.
— Regular reviews of AP within the LA to
ensure a more comprehensive, cohesive and cost-effective provision.
— Effective partnerships with providers
including the formation of networks of providers and agencies
that acts as a forum for stipulating standards and sharing information
about AP providers.
— Appointing a strategic manager for AP
who is a dedicated senior member of staff responsible for a coordinated
approach to AP across the LA.
— Clear and formal contracting arrangements:
written contracts, protocols, and partnership agreements between
LAs and external providers need to be drawn up to ensure that
minimum standards are met, and the safety and welfare of the young
people attending AP are assured.
— Clear systems for referral and information
sharing improve the decision-making process. A shared assessment
tool can avoid duplication and promote early identification of
need.
— Close links between AP and mainstream
schools form a major element of effective provision, including
that with a preventative focus. Promoting schools' ownership of
the young person and their achievements in AP to ensure improved
attendance, behaviour and reintegration.
— Recognising parents have a key role to
play in children's learning and that, within AP, they should be
involved at all stages. However, this can be particularly challenging
for AP providers due to a lack of contact with, or support from,
parents.
— Drawing on other services so that pupils
have regular access to a range of services and other agencies,
such as Connexions, CAMHS, and counselling support.
— High quality staff working with young
people, given that they often have complex needs that demand specialist
skills and attributes.
— Creating an ethos of respect as pupils
clearly respond better to AP when they feel providers treat them
with respect. Those commissioning AP should ensure that potential
providers exemplify this fundamental principle that underpins
all staff-pupil relations.
— Personalised learning and involving pupils
in their learning experience. It is important that placements
in AP are tailored to meet young people's needs, abilities and
interests. Pupils' contribution to the content of the learning
they undertake at their AP placement leads to improved placement
outcomes.
— Access to a range of vocational opportunities:
Access to a variety of vocational opportunities, for example,
via college, training providers and work-based learning, can help
to re-engage young people in education and increase their retention
in learning after the age of 16.
— A range of accreditation. Pupils need
to have a range of accreditation available to them, including
GCSE equivalent options.
— Systems for ongoing monitoring. Regular
monitoring by (or on behalf of) commissioners, ensures that provision
meets the minimum standard required and is consistent across AP
providers. Findings from such monitoring can then be used to inform
practice.
CONCLUSIONS
This submission is based on research directly
undertaken by NFER. Generally, we found that schools and local
authorities are positive about pupil behaviour. However, almost
a quarter only perceive pupil behaviour to be acceptable and one
in fifteen teachers see it as poor. Schools and local authorities
have adopted a range of approaches to promote positive behaviours
and manage indiscipline. Developments such as Behaviour and Education
Support Teams, which provide multi-agency support and early intervention
for pupils at risk and alternative provision for those that have
been excluded from mainstream provision, do appear to be generating
a number of positive impacts. These impacts are dependent on certain
conditions being in place, together with sufficient funding.
October 2010
Annex A
The National Foundation for Educational Research
(NFER) was founded in 1946, and is Britain's leading independent
educational research institution. It is a charitable body undertaking
research and development projects on issues of current interest
in all sectors of education and training. The Foundation's mission
is to gather, analyse and disseminate research based information
with a view to improving education and training. Its membership
includes all the local authorities in England and Wales, the main
teachers' associations and a large number of other major organisations
with educational interests, including examining bodies. It is
overseen by a Board of Trustees and Council.
The Foundation's Research, Evaluation and Information
Department (REID) undertakes sponsor-led research, evaluation
and information-management for a notable number of organisations
closely linked to behaviour and discipline in schools. This work
ranges from the investigation of the effectiveness of policy changes
in schools (for example looking at the effectiveness of school
improvement programmes including impact on pupil behaviour and
discipline) to specific research on behaviour and alternative
provision. The Department is currently undertaking research on
Alternative Provision pilots, which is due to report in 2012.
Our client list includes the Department for Education (DfE), the
Training and Development Agency for Schools, Ofsted and the Scottish
Government all of whom have a critical interest in improving behaviour
and discipline in schools.
Allied to this, the Department can draw upon
extensive knowledge of education systems and curricula outwith
England, as it hosts the Eurydice information service for England,
Wales and Northern Ireland and INCA.[228]
Through the Education Management Information Exchange (EMIE) the
Department can also utilise expert knowledge to help those working
in or with local authority children's services and education departments
across the UK.
The NFER's Department for Research in Assessment
and Measurement (DRAM) is the second of the two research departments
at the Foundation. It specialises in test development and research
into assessment-related questions. The work of the Department
involves projects of importance to national educational policy
and its implementation through research, the development of assessment
instruments and the evaluation of assessment initiatives. It has
a consistent track record of developing high quality assessment
materials to meet the needs of a variety of sponsors.
Our Research Data Services have developed the
Teacher Voice Omnibus Survey that regularly collects views of
teachers from a representative panel of primary and secondary
school teachers in England. We have used this survey to collect
information on behaviour in schools and the findings of the last
survey undertaken for DCSF are presented as part of our submission.
SOURCESGolden, S,
Spielhofer, T, Sims, D, Aiston, S and O'Donnell, L (2002). Re-engaging
the Hardest-to-Help Young People: the Role of Neighbourhood Support
Fund. (DFES Research Report 366). London: DfES.
Kendall, S, Kinder, K, Halsey, K Fletcher-Morgan,
C, White, R and Brown, C (2003). An Evaluation of Alternative
Education Initiatives (DfES Research Report 403). London: DfES.
Teacher Voice Omnibus June 2008 Survey: Pupil Behaviour.
(DCSF Research Report no DCSF-RW069). London: DCFS
Wilkin, A, Moor, H, Murfield, J, Kinder, K and Johnson,
F, (2006) Behaviour in Scottish Schools [online]. Available: http://www.sctoland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/1499957/003922.pdf.
Wilkin, A Archer, T Ridley, K, Fletcher-Campbell,
F and Kinder, K (2005). Admissions and Exclusions of Pupils with
Special Educational Needs (DfES Research Report RR608).
227 Annex B at end of document. Back
228
International Review of Curriculum and Assessment Frameworks Internet
Archive Back
|
