Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

Memorandum submitted by the Institute of Education, University of London

The Institute of Education is the leading institution for education research in the UK and is one of the country's largest centres of social science research.

This response draws on evidence from colleagues at the Institute, in particular the work of Professor Sue Hallam, Dr Andrea Creech, Nick Peacey and Dr Lynne Rogers.

Introduction

1. The causes of poor behaviour in school are complex and multi-faceted and depend on interactions between society, sub-groups within it, the family, the school, peer groups and the individual. There is no single solution to the problem. Globalisation and technological advances have changed the nature of work and increased pressure on education systems to raise attainment. Concurrently, societal and familial changes have impacted on children leading to an increase in troubled behaviour, which is often expressed at school. Various initiatives have been developed with a view to enhancing the capacity of education systems to meet these new demands.

The nature and level of challenging behaviour

2. The most frequent and disruptive problems as identified by teachers are minor in nature (e.g. talking out of turn, hindering other students and distractibility), but their high frequency makes them stressful. Violent incidents are rare.

3. There is evidence from a range of sources that behaviour has improved. Nevertheless, there is no reason for complacency, and there does continue to be cause for concern in some schools that have challenging intakes. The situation is exacerbated in these schools because many have a high staff turnover.

Supporting and reinforcing positive behaviour in schools

4. Even schools that face the most challenging circumstances have achieved outstanding success in relation to pupil behaviour. C entral to this has typically been :

¾ a n ethos of respect among pupils, parents and school staff;

¾ b ehaviour and learning and teaching policies that are understood and operated by all school members;

¾ a culture of collegiate professionalism, with staff working together as a team;

¾ teacher s who have a high level of knowledge of good pedagog ical practice ;

¾ t he active engagement of the pupils in the school; and

¾ e xcellent communications with parents and parents’ active involvement in their child’s learning.

5. Where a school is experiencing major difficulties with behaviour , an audit of the perceptions of staff, pupils, parents and others associated with the school can be valuable in terms of identifying key issues and areas for attention.

6. To effect change, schools need to be proactive rather than reactive, as pastoral systems have tended to be historically. Schools can usefully address behaviour issues at three levels: the whole school level; interventions targeted at groups of children at risk or showing early signs of difficulties; and interventions for pupils already exhibiting serious difficulties.

7. At the whole school level, effective practice includes:

¾ consistency in implementing good practice in relation to teaching, learning and behaviour management;

¾ a written teaching and learning policy t h at identifies key learning and teaching aims, strategies and practices , developed in consultation with staff and reviewed regularly;

¾ high quality teaching adopting A ssessment for L earning practices ;

¾ a curriculum t h at meets the needs of pupils, including those with Special Educational Needs (SEN) , increasing the perceived relevance of education to their lives and future opportunities. (For some this may mean spending part of the week at college or with an employer learning vocational or pre-vocational skills, or attending community activities designed to promote personal and pro-social skills);

¾ t he regular review of behaviour management policies with input from s taff, pupils , parents and others linked with the school ;

¾ a ll school staff , including support staff , being trained in behaviour management techniques to ensure consistency in approach ;

¾ the develop ment of a learning culture where parents and carers, pupils and teachers work with mutual regard for each other, with teachers and other school staff acting as positive role models in terms of their behaviour ;

¾ a ll pupils hav ing one member of staff who knows them well, who provides support for their learning and to whom they can turn i f they are experiencing problems ;

¾ s ystem s of rewards and punishments that are consistently applied, including making use of peer pressure to effect whole school behaviour change ;

¾ systems to tackle bullying , including restorative justice programmes ;

¾ a safe and secure physical environment (s imple changes – for example, i n the playground – can often have a dramatic impact on behaviour ) ; and

¾ o pportunities for staff and pupils to engage in extra-curricular activities , which can p romote better relationships , which are in turn crucial for learning.

8. Programmes that encourage children to understand their own learning, motivation and emotions (e.g. the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning , SEAL , programme ) are effective when implemented consistently across the whole school.

9. Where individual teachers or support staff are experiencing particular challenges in classroom management , coaching has proved very effective in providing a non-judgemental approach t h at is successful in changing practice.

10. Schools can work with Safer School Partnership officers or local Police Community Support Officers to ensure that there is good behaviour on the way to and from school and in tackling inappropriate behaviour outside the school gate.

11. Extended provision is valuable in supporting children and their families and communities. It does this by providing: childcare; extra-curricular activities; support for parents, including information sessions at key transition points; family learning; and parenting programmes. It ensures swift referral from schools to a wider range of specialised support services for pupils (e.g. speech therapy, family support services), and facilitates widespread community use of the school’s facilities.

12. In terms of more targeted interventions, it is crucial to identify early on any issues, including poor behaviour, that are impeding a child’s progress . Accordingly, schools must have rigorous systems in place for setting targets and monitoring pupils’ academic progress (developments in computer software are facilitating this ). As soon as a child is identified as experiencing problems the underlying nature of those problems need s to be identifie d so that they can be tackled. Problems may relate to learning itself or social issues in the school, at home or in the community.

13. When a pupil is misbehaving and preventing others from learning , options include the temporary removal of the pupil from the classroom to a safe place where h e /she can regain control.

14. Small group interventions can be effective in developing emotional and social skills. Nurture groups have been shown to be particularly effective for very young children. Group work for all pupils is more effective when run in parallel with programmes for parents. The publication ‘Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project: Using evidence to inform your approach – a practical guide to head teachers and commissioners’ provides detailed guidance of effective interventions for particular types of problem.

15. For some children referral to the Learning Support Unit (LSU) may be appropriate ; for others various agencies may need to be involved. To this end, s chools need to have extensive links with a wide range of other agencies t h at can support children at risk or in the early stages of experiencing difficulties (i.e. Behaviour and Education Support Teams, Children and Mental Health Services, Health Services, Social Services, Youth Workers and the Police ) .

16. Approximately 10% of pupils experience mental health problems at some point in time. The Targeted Mental Health in Schools (TaHMS) Project aims to equip schools with the tools to identify problems early on and in conjunction with other agencies take preventative action.

17. There is a need for improved training for school leaders, teachers, support staff and trainee teachers in managing very difficult behaviour and new developments in this regard (e.g. cyber bullying). This might usefully draw on the expertise of those working regularly with children with Behaviour, Emotional and Social Difficulties (BESD).

Pupils with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities

18. Much poor behaviour results from the inability of children, particularly those with Special Educational Needs and/or Disabilities (SEND), to access curricula that are inflexibly designed and engage with particular teaching approaches. P upils with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) are highly likely to be identified as having behaviour al , emotional and social difficulties (see , for example, Cross 2004). Pupils with statements of SEN are around three times more likely to be permanently excluded than the rest of the school population.

19. Where teaching is differentiated, taking account of different levels of expertise and the need for removal of barriers to learning and participation, all pupils benefit. The training materials produced by the Training and Development Agency for Schools for new teachers provide useful guidance on differentiation, including suggestions for different subject teachers and short booklets on many aspects of SEND in the classroom (www.tda.gov.uk/sen).

20. Shield and Dockrell (2003) have demonstrated convincingly the significant effect on the attainment of pupils with SEND of a poor acoustic environment: room acoustics should always be considered if the behaviour of a group is a worry.

Absent and excluded pupils

21. While persistent absentees present different problems for schools to those with social, emotional and behavioural difficulties the long-term outcomes for these pupils are similar. At risk groups include: students who have been ill for lengthy periods of time; young carers; pregnant schoolgirls and young mothers; highly mobile students (such as travellers, refugees, asylum seekers, young people whose families are in crisis); students in and out of custody; and school refusers and school phobics.

22. There is considerable difference in the levels of exclusion between schools, even when they have similar catchment areas. This reflects differences in the levels of behaviour threshold set, the degree of flexibility in schools’ behaviour policies, the use of legitimate alternatives to exclusion, and the use of informal exclusion.

23. Variation in the level of a school’s official exclusions does not necessarily relate to variation in behaviour outcomes or inclusiveness of practice. Major factors affecting school’s thresholds include the level of challenge presented by pupils, the pressure the head teacher is under to improve the school, and the level of priority given to academic outcomes. The attitudes of staff and in particular those of the senior management team and head teacher are the most important factors in explaining differences in exclusion levels across similar schools.

24. Schools reporting no or few exclusions have been shown to emphasise parental involvement and do not view pupils of low socio-economic status as being disadvantaged. They tend to emphasise praise and reward systems in managing behaviour, have structured breaks and lunchtimes, and involve pupils in decision-making.

25. Transition from primary to secondary school can be particularly difficult for pupils at risk of exclusion from school (this includes pupils who are eligible for free school meals, pupils with SEN, pupils less fluent in English and pupils from some ethnic groups). Means of minimising exclusions include:

¾ buddying schemes;

¾ use of learning mentors;

¾ involvement of SENCOs at primary and secondary school;

¾ effective transfer of information and understanding of a pupil’s needs so that support structures are in place from day one in the secondary school;

¾ continuing the transition programme into a pupil’s secondary schooling to allow time for him/her to settle in; and

¾ use of the LSU.

Alternative provision

26. Support for at risk children (absent, at risk of exclusion or excluded) may be provided for individuals or groups and may involve support from a single adult (e.g. a key worker, learning mentor, home-school link worker), or, in more complex cases, a multi-agency team.

27. Most alternative curricula provision caters for small groups of students. Successful provision is typically characterised by:

¾ the development of trusting, mutually respectful relationships between staff and students;

¾ a negotiated curriculum that matches the needs of learners;

¾ students being given responsibility for their own learning;

¾ the counselling and mentoring role of staff who have time to help;

¾ the development of a learning community;

¾ praising and rewarding what young people can do;

¾ providing opportunities for students to learn that there will be consequences for the whole group if behaviour is not appropriate and work is not completed;

¾ the development of students’ team-work and social and communication skills;

¾ the opportunity for real achievement and qualifications as recognised and valued by the students;

¾ the adoption of a problem-solving approach;

¾ the commitment and qualities of the staff; and

¾ working at building relationships with parents (including home visits).

28. E-learning (e.g. Notschool.net) can provide a successful alternative for some students whose circumstances are such that other alternatives are not appropriate.

29. Where children have been excluded the main legitimate alternatives include:

¾ the use of Pupil Referral Units (PRUs);

¾ collaborative arrangements between schools;

¾ varied provision in clusters of schools;

¾ internal exclusion centres;

¾ external centres;

¾ setting up an alternative school day;

¾ managed moves to another school; and

¾ alternative educational provision.

30. Provision on Day 6 for excluded pupils has proved challenging to implement, but is important for pupils’ long-term outcomes. This is mainly provided through behaviour and attendance partnerships and includes:

¾ schools sharing provision where a number of schools are located close together (t hese need not all be the same phase ) ;

¾ schools within a partnership commissioning private/voluntary sector provision, using delegated funding; and

¾ where capacity exists and geography permits, schools having access to short - term places in local PRUs.

31. The further development of behaviour and attendance partnerships would be supported by the provision of a framework against which partnerships can assess their own p erformance , including:

¾ the active engagement of all member schools and other bodies within the partnership r eflecting their ownership of the partnership and their commitment to all local children;

¾ the inclusion within the partnership of any local PRU s together with other major providers of a lternative p rovision;

¾ engagement of the partnership with primary schools and further education colleges ;

¾ alignment of the behaviour and attendance partnership with the local Safer School Partnership ;

¾ engagement with extended services to improve support to pupils and parents and to facilitate reintegration into mainstream provision as required;

¾ clear protocols for pupil managed moves and for the placement of ‘hard to place’ pupils to be operated by all members of the partnership ;

¾ a focus on effective early intervention;

¾ the use of ‘pooled’ resources to enable the partnership to buy in specialist support;

¾ the transparent use of data so that the partnership can monitor its performance and identify strategic objectives; and

¾ a staff training programme related to behaviour and attendance to provide opportunities for ongoing continuous professional development (CPD) and joint networking.

The role of parents and carers in managing their child’s behaviour

32. Schools need the support of parents in ensuring their child’s good behaviour. A number of initiatives to promote better relationships with parents have been developed : the appointment of Parent Support Advisors ; guidance on the ‘ r ights and r esponsibilities ’ of parents and schools ; Family Intervention Projects ; on-line reporting ; and Family SEAL.

33. Parenting programmes have been shown to be effective in enhancing the skills of parents in managing their children’s behaviour. To be successful parenting programmes need to:

¾ take account of differences in parents’ personal and cultural contexts, equipping parents with a range of appropriate personal and social skills and relevant behavioural strategies;

¾ provide a non-stigmatising and welcoming climate;

¾ ensure that parents in receipt of compulsory orders have a home visit prior to attending a group-based programme;

¾ provide childcare facilities;

¾ provide transport arrangements if the location is not convenient;

¾ ensure that programmes are timed to meet the needs of those attending;

¾ ensure appropriate publicity for programmes;

¾ reward attendance and follow-up non-attendance rigorously;

¾ provide opportunities for follow-up classes;

¾ provide appropriately trained facilitators who have credibility and who can establish trust;

¾ make sessions fun and adopt a range of teaching approaches that engage parents with different backgrounds and educational levels and draw on their own experiences;

¾ provide appropriate support materials;

¾ rigorously evaluate outcomes and act on feedback; and

¾ develop good links with other agencies.

34. Setting-up programmes in primary schools has advantages where problems are related to educational outcomes. This can also provide the basis for universal provision.

35. If a parent’s actions are contributing to their child’s poor behaviour the school should consider offering a Parenting Contract to tackle this and to set out the support that will be available to the family.

Recent government proposals

36. Schools already have the legal power to search pupils for weapons as well as alcohol, controlled drugs and stolen property . The latest initiatives simply extend these powers and may therefore have limited additional impact .

37. The changes in relation to detention provide the opportunity to impose a more immediate punishment for pupils. However, detention is generally ineffective for persistent poor behaviour unless the time is used to identify the underlying causes of the behaviour and take action to ameliorate them.

September 2010

Sources

Hallam, S. and Rogers, L. (submitted) Mental health initiatives in schools. Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Steer, A. (2010) Behaviour and the role of home-school agreements. London: DCSF.

DCSF (2010) Me and My School: Preliminary Findings from the first year of the National Evaluation of Targeted Mental Health in School (2008-2009). London: DCSF.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L. and Rhamie, J. (2010) Staff perceptions of the success of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 15(1), 63-74.

Hallam, S. (2010) Transforming troubled lives: the role of schools. Keynote presentation given at the Social, Emotional and Behaviour Difficulties Association conference, 14-17th September 2010, Keble College, Oxford.

Steer, A. (2009) Learning Behaviour: Lessons learned. A review of behaviour standards and practices in our schools. London: DCSF.

DCSF (2009) Learning from Targeted Mental Health in Schools Phase 1 Pathfinders. London: DCSF.

Hallam, S. (2009) An evaluation of the Social and Emotional Aspects of Learning (SEAL) programme: promoting positive behaviour, effective learning and well-being in primary school children. Oxford Review of Education, 35(3), June, 313-330.

Rogers, L., Hallam, S., Shaw, J. and Rhamie, J. (2009) The integration of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force, British Journal of Special Education, 35(3), 131-139.

Rogers, L., Hallam, S. and Shaw, J. (2008) Do generalist parenting programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school: The parents’ perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 16-25.

DCSF (2008) Targeted Mental Health in Schools Project: Using evidence to inform your approach – a practical guide to head teachers and commissioners. London: DCSF.

Rogers, L., Hallam, S. and Shaw, J. (2008) Do generalist parenting programmes improve children’s behaviour and attendance at school: The parents’ perspective. British Journal of Special Education, 35(1), 16-25.

Hallam, S. and Rogers, L. (2008) Improving behaviour and attendance at school. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.

Hallam, S. and Creech, A. (2007) A review of the literature relating to the parental aspirations of teenage mothers. Reading: CfBT.

Hallam, S. (2007) Evaluation of behavioural management in schools – a review of the role of Behaviour and Education Support Teams and the Behaviour and Improvement Programme. Child and Adolescent Mental Health, 12(3), 106-112.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Shaw, J. and Rhamie, J. (2007) The provision of educationally focused parenting programmes in England. European Journal of Special Educational Needs. 22(3), 307-326.

Kirton, A., Hallam, S., Peffers, J., Robertson, P. and Stobart, G. (2007) Revolution, evolution or a Trojan horse? Assessment for learning in Scottish Primary Schools. British Educational Research Journal, 33(4), 605-627.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Rhamie, J., Shaw, J., Rees, E., Haskins, H., Blackmore, J. and Hallam, J. (2007) Pupils’ perceptions of an alternative curriculum: Skill Force. Research Papers in Education, 22(1), March, 43-63.

Hallam, S., Shaw, J. and Rhamie, J. (2006) Evaluation of the Primary Behaviour and Attendance Pilot. Research Report 717. London: DfES.

Shield, B. M. and Dockrell, J. E. (2003) The Effects of Noise on Children at School: A Review. Building Acoustics, 10, 97-116.

Steer, A. (2005) Learning behaviour: The report of the practitioner’s group on school behaviour and discipline. London: DfES.

Hallam, S., Rogers, L., Castle, F., Rhamie, J., Creech, A. and Kokotsaki, D. (2005) Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement Programme. Research Report 702. London: DfES.

Cross, M. (2004) Children with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and Communication Problems: There is Always a Reason. London: Jessica Kingsley .

Hallam, S., Rogers, L. and Shaw, J. (2004) Improving children’s behaviour and attendance through the use of parenting programmes: an examination of good practice. Research Report 585. London: DfES.

Hallam, S., Kirton. A., Peffers, J., Robertson, P. and Stobart, G. (2004) Final Report of the Evaluation of Project 1 of the Assessment is for Learning Development Programme: Support for Professional Practice in Formative Assessment. Edinburgh: Scottish Executive.

Hallam, S. and Rogers, L., with Rhamie, J., Shaw, J., Rees, E., Haskins, H., Blackmore, J. and Hallam, J. (2003) Evaluation of Skill Force. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Hallam, S. and Castle, F. (1999) Evaluation of a School-Home Liaison Project – London Diocesan Board for Schools. London: Institute of Education, University of London.

Hallam, S. and Castle, F. (1999) Evaluation of the Behaviour and Discipline Pilot Projects (1996-99) Supported under the Standards Fund Programme. Research Report 163. London: DfEE.

Hallam, S. (1996) Improving School Attendance. London: Heinemann.

Hallam, S. and Roaf, C. (1995) Here Today, Here Tomorrow: Helping schools to promote attendance. London: Gulbenkian Foundation.