Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

Memorandum submitted by the National Association of Head Teachers

The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) welcomes the opportunity to submit evidence to the Committee, given the nature of this particular inquiry. As a professional association for leaders in education, it is well placed to give voice to the views of its members. These number 40,000 in total, of whom more than 28.000 are currently based in and leading educational establishments.

:

How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools?

1. NAHT believes that there is already sufficient legislative provision for schools when it comes to the practicalities of behaviour management. There is also adequate guidance, including a suite of documents, on tackling different ‘categories’ of bullying. Section 91: Education and Inspections Act (2006) provides clarity on the powers schools have to regulate the conduct of their pupils both in and outside the school premises covering confiscation, detention and restraint (use of reasonable force).

2. We also note the proposed repeal of legislation relevant to detention (24 hours notice outside the school hours). The proposed review of the extent of teachers’ disciplinary powers announced 7 July 2010, when consideration will be given to broadening the powers of search to include: mobile phones, ipods and personal music players. NAHT welcomes these proposed reviews.

3. We acknowledge the right of schools to enact the existing provisions within its discipline policy. However, we would stress that what is important is communicating the school behaviour policy to the school community so that both parents and pupils are aware of and accept the schools’ power to discipline. Some pupils and parents are more aware of their rights - not necessarily their responsibilities. It is, therefore, an important message to continually emphasise and convey.

4. Schools are also aware of the need to engage parents and carers in circumstances where it is necessary to manage their children’s challenging behaviour, supported through developing a school / parent partnership. Schools equally recognise, however, that developing successful partnerships is very dependent on various factors, for example parental background and culture. The association is aware that some guidance exists to support schools.

What is the impact on schools and their staff?

5. There can be a significant impact on classrooms and the whole school community when pupils exhibit challenging behaviour, affecting both staff and pupil well-being and not least the teaching and learning environment. Resources are important to avoid an imbalance of the ecology within the classroom. There is a delicate balance between the resources schools can bring to bear on the task of teaching and the demands created by some children Dyson et al. (2004).

Allegations against staff.

6. NAHT welcomes the government’s promises to include an absolute right to anonymity during an investigation. This has been an issue of grave concern over the past few years. More than 1,700 staff in UK schools accused of misbehaviour by parents or pupils during 2009, 50% of complaints of alleged physical assault, or inappropriate restraint led to 143 of those accused being dismissed or resigning. Despite the number of complaints only a small percentage merited police investigation and an even smaller number concluded in conviction. We do support the need for robust systems, without dragging innocent staff into lengthy periods of proving their innocence.

Approaches taken by schools and local authorities to address challenging behaviour

Exclusions

7. National statistics illustrate that permanent exclusions and fixed-term exclusions are decreasing and this is to be welcomed. Hopefully this has been achieved through improved strategies for dealing with behaviour, rather than pressure from local authorities on schools to ‘contain’ pupils, or through government driven policies on managed moves. To ensure managed moves operate fairly and successfully there needs to be structures in place that enable honest exchange between all professionals in those schools involved in the process.

8. What is significant is the number of pupils with ‘Special Educational Needs’ both those with statements and without statements. The statistics indicate those pupils are over eight times more likely to be permanently excluded than those pupils with no SEN. The message is clear not enough is being done to avoid this ultimate sanction. We continue to hear from our members that they cannot get the necessary support and exclude because there is no alternative. A school leader’s ultimate priority is to balance the health and safety of the whole school community. To address this dilemma early intervention is needed by the relevant agencies within the local authority and strategies put into place and this necessitates resources. It is essential that careful consideration is given to the most appropriate educational placement. Lots of exclusions happen because the pupil is in the wrong setting and is absolutely fine when moved whether to a specialist mainstream unit, special school or PRU, or given better support where s/he is. Far more consideration needs to be given to using short-term placements as part of early intervention.

9. But Politicians and Local Authorities also need to stop thinking in the short-term and to realise that in the longer term early intervention of the right kind (including changing the provision or level of support) is essential.

10. Another important issue for schools in addressing behaviour is the ‘deprivation factor’: those pupils on free school meals are three times more likely to receive either a permanent of fixed period exclusion than those who are not eligible for free school meals. NAHT welcomes the idea of a ‘pupil premium’ but is concerned that to make significant impact in narrowing the gap will require a ‘significant premium’ as earlier research evidences.
As with other intractable issues, the underlying cause lies beyond the school – in our expectations of parents, attitudes towards ‘youth’. Home school contracts may be supportive but they are only binding on the school. The enduring solution to poor behaviour in schools lies outside school. Stable family environments, decent incomes, parenting skills responsibility, higher levels of equality satisfying leisure opportunities, etc.

11. We note that the rate for boys’ permanent and fixed-term exclusions is also three times greater than for girls and NAHT would stress that this is an area that needs to be further explored – whether relevant to the need for a more flexible curriculum and / or to improved behaviour management at home and in schools. Personalising learning should include allowing for a more flexible and active curriculum, with plenty of opportunities for short-breaks, changes of activities and outdoor learning, etc.

12. With regard to the current statutory exclusion procedure this is well embedded in schools. NAHT would also support the retention of Independent Appeal Panels. Only 1% of all exclusions lead to a successful appeal where a pupil is reinstated. Better to retain the IAP as a buffer to avoid heads being dragged through courts to defend their decisions.

Links between attendance and behaviour in Schools

13. Statistics also demonstrate that school attendance is improving and this is to be welcomed because there is an obvious link between attendance and behaviour in schools. For example when pupils miss out through non-attendance this significantly impacts on their ability to participate in developing their learning abilities and in consequence has an effect on behaviour. In circumstances where it is difficult to engage children and young people, pupils may often become disruptive to draw attention away from their learning difficulties.

Behaviour in Schools what is the position?

14. The message that perhaps also needs to be conveyed is one of proportionality with regard to behaviour in schools. Challenging and disruptive behaviour in schools has received ‘media hype’ over the last decade.

15. Alan Steer’s "Learning Behaviour: Lessons to be Learned" (2009) stated that perhaps we need to look at the overall picture. It reflected that out of the 7 million pupils in schools it is the behaviour of a small percentage of pupils that tends to impact on the majority!

16. The latest statistics from Ofsted show that pupils’ behaviour was good or outstanding in 95 per cent of primary and 80 per cent of secondary schools inspected in 2008-09, and that behaviour was inadequate in just 1 per cent of secondary schools and less than 0.5 per cent in primary. In fact out of 21,920 schools only 48 were judged to have inadequate behaviour: December 2009.

17. The aim of the ‘Behaviour Challenge’ was to move the Ofsted ‘judgement’ of satisfactory to good or outstanding by 2012 and we acknowledge the reasons for support in that direction. At that time 43 local authorities received communication from the Department by way of a trigger for additional support. Lead Behaviour Schools were to be identified, supposedly 100 by autumn 2010, we are only aware of 20 schools. NAHT would like to raise the question what is intended will this initiative proceed – what is happening now?
Also what has happened regarding the profile of the National Programme for Specialist Leaders in Behaviour and Attendance?

Teacher Training

18. The NAHT is of the opinion that what is a priority is improved initial teaching training and continuing professional development in behaviour management and most importantly improved teacher training in working with children with special educational needs, behavioural and learning difficulties to include a focus on ‘child development’. A renewed emphasis on training and development would have a significant impact on the outcomes for those pupils. Inspired students, who are learning things that feel relevant to them, are far less likely to be disruptive and to create trouble.

19. We would also like to emphasise that many new routes into teaching have little or no opportunities to spend sufficient time on developing a suite of classroom management strategies to suit different types of problems.

20. Another important point we would like to make is about training for head teachers or aspiring heads. It is recognised in research that school leaders need to be trained to be effective school leaders and this is particularly relevant to the context in which they will working - for example in areas of disadvantage, developing different skills, but we are not sure to what extent this is being promoted Leithwood and Bevin (2005); Muijs et al (2007)

What is the efficacy of alternative provision?

21. We would also like to emphasise our concern around alternative provision. PRUs are particularly good with dealing with the disaffected, school phobics / refusers and those who cannot cope with a normal school environment, despite having the ability to do so. They are not designed for students with long-term SEND.

22. Ofsted acknowledged in 2007 that a wide variety of pupil referral units existed, but all were facing similar barriers in providing a good education for their children and young people. Some with inadequate accommodation, pupils of different ages with diverse needs arriving in an unplanned way, limited numbers of specialist staff to enable a broad curriculum to be delivered and too often there were difficulties in reintegrating pupils into mainstream schools. In the main this position would appear to be unchanged.

23. However, we would emphasise that the success of pupil referral units depends on the ability to respond to these challenges and this is very much dependent on the support PRUs receive from the local authority. We are aware that the LGA is carrying out its own ‘closed’ consultation regarding PRUs ; Behaviour; Exclusions. It would be of concern if this was ultimately an exercise purely linked to resource implications rather than needs of children and young people.

24. NAHT is extremely concerned that some Local Authorities place pupils with statements in PRUs, naming the PRU. This we would argue is not good practice although not illegal and the NAHT believes this is an area that needs to be addressed. It also appears to be the case that too many children with special educational needs are also being placed in pupil referral units, because there is no other provision in the local authority area.

25. The original concept of a Pupil Referral Unit was for dealing with pupils disengaged from education, exhibiting challenging behaviour; their focus was on turning those pupils around. We believe that these units, however, remodelled, should be part of a continuum of provision so that pupils are reintegrated back into mainstream provision. However, too often a gap exists between intention and practice, so children and young people often stay in a PRU for an indefinite period. This causes longer-term planning difficulties and opportunities to reintegrate pupils into mainstream are then further limited, due to subsequent provision not being identified before pupils are admitted to the PRU, so poor practice exists.

26. To further evidence this in ‘answer to questions to the house: 20 July 2010’, it was stated that the number of pupils placed in PRUs with special educational needs without a statement as at January 2010 (all ages) totalled: 8,130 in England. The number of pupils with a statement of special educational needs 1,700 in England. What is also significant is that no figures on the length of time a pupil had been in a pupil referral unit were available.

27. NAHT would urge the committee to investigate this and to carry out a review on the whole area of alternative provision. In March 2010 we as stakeholders responded to two separate consultations on Alternative Provision. The first focused on improving what exists and the second relevant to regulations empowering governing bodies to require a pupil to attend a premise outside the school to address behavioural problems.

28. NAHT believes it is essential to ensure quality alternative provision is available to suit the needs of children and young people. Consideration should be given to separate provision for those children identified with special educational needs and those children exhibiting challenging behaviour. However, we appreciate that there is often an overlap as much of the evidence conveys.

CONCLUSIONS

29. School leaders are dedicated professionals, determined to deliver the best opportunities for all the pupils in their care. An important remedy to poor behaviour, within the schools’ control, is the opportunity to deliver great teaching through having sufficient resources / funding to ensure the appropriate provision is in place.

September 2010