Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

Memorandum submitted by The Association of Education Psychologists

The Association of Educational Psychologists and educational psychology

The Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP) is the professional association and trade union for educational psychologists (EPs). It is the only organisation in the UK run exclusively for and by EPs, representing around 90% of the professional work force. The AEP seeks to promote the overall well-being of children and young people, represents the collective interests of its members, promotes cooperation between EPs, and seeks to establish good relationships between EPs and their employers. The AEP currently has 3250 members across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Educational psychology is a key frontline education service that underpins the understanding of how pupils develop and learn. Many practicising educational psychologists undertake doctoral study as part of their continuing professional development and three year doctoral level initial training has been developed for all new entrants to the profession. EPs work with children and young people aged from 0-19 but the majority of their time is spent with school-aged children.

Executive Summary

The AEP’s membership works on a daily basis across a range of educational settings that include schools, early years, Pupil Referral Units and within multi-disciplinary settings with close colleagues from the NHS and Children’s Social Care. As such, EPs are uniquely placed to ensure consistency and continuity when managing challenging behavior, which is the bedrock of any effective behaviour or discipline policy.

In this response, the AEP will focus on the role, associated benefits, and additional resources that educational psychologists can provide to schools in order to effectively manage challenging behaviour and discipline. EPs play a key part in helping shape how educational settings approach a vast range of educational issues training in child development, curriculum development and special educational needs, all of which impact on schools’ abilities to manage behaviour.

However, despite these benefits, the impact of EPs is being undermined by the lack of resources on the frontline. This is attributable in part to a lack of understanding about the range of work across educational settings that EPs perform, and the unclear and unsustainable funding mechanisms for trainees that translate as a result. This is leading to a shortfall of trained EPs able to undertake statutory work, and equally important preventative work that has a real impact on children’s outcomes, especially in areas such as behaviour management.

The AEP recommends that the Department for Education strongly addresses these areas of concern by reviewing the current training arrangements for EPs and how they are funded. Crucially, this would not require any increase in funding budgets.

Behaviour and Discipline in Schools

The AEP noted with interest that this inquiry will look at the strategies that schools have in place to manage both positive and challenging behaviour, and how to identify the root causes of challenging behaviour; inviting views from the professional children’s workforce to share examples of best practice and offer recommendations. As such, we would like to comment on what steps the Government should take to maximise the input of EPs, who as a key part of the children’s workforce whose skills are currently under utilised, can make effective interventions towards improving behaviour and discipline in schools.

We would in particular like to comment on the following aspects of the inquiry:

Ø How to support and reinforce positive behaviour in schools

(1) All children and young people, particularly those within vulnerable circumstances, need access to a range of well trained and highly skilled professionals who can recognise, manage and support their individual needs. This is especially important for those children with disabilities or complex special educational needs, as they often move between settings.

(2) EPs work on a daily basis across a range of educational settings that include schools, early years, Pupil Referral Units and within multi-disciplinary settings with close colleagues from the NHS and Children’s Social Care. As such, they are uniquely placed to ensure consistency and continuity when managing challenging behavior, which is the bedrock of any effective behaviour or discipline policy.

(3) An AEP investigation in 2008 found that the EP’s role was often different across the country, indicating their ability to respond to local need. EPs work across the full range of educational settings and are well positioned in Local Authorities to identify and analyse trends across localities and implement strategies to address local need accordingly.

(4) EPs are a highly skilled section of the children’s workforce, who are trained in applied scientific methods, diagnostic and assessment skills, and have a thorough understanding of child development. As such, an EP’s skills are most effective when used to identify children who cause concern early on and implement preventative strategies, rather than through, what is very often, reactive statutory assessment work.

(5) A school’s approach towards managing behaviour and discipline should develop from a sound understanding of child development and an awareness of the root emotional, wellbeing or social causes that precipitate challenging behaviour. EPs are ideally placed to raise a school’s capacity to share best practice and provide support to teachers based on these principles.

(6) The AEP is concerned by the level of knowledge and training in basic child development held by mainstream elements of the children’s workforce. The AEP has found that EPs are often told by teachers that the pupils they are expected to teach now would not have been in school five to ten years ago. The expectations on teachers, especially in secondary settings, do not seem to be matched by effective training.

(7) EPs are vital in ensuring that the principles of child development are recognised in schools’ strategies for all children, but especially those with generalised and complex special educational needs. The root causes of behavioural difficulties among these vulnerable groups are often developmental and behavioural assessment is more effective if understood in terms of an individual child’s needs.

(8) The most effective behaviour interventions are those that are taken at a systemic level via a whole school approach, involving teachers, parents and the pupils themselves, in order to improve problematic elements of a school’s ethos/culture and to promote the emotional wellbeing of the entire school. It is essential that senior management teams in schools communicate behaviour policies to all staff members and ensure that its principles are adhered to at all times.

(9) Schools should move the focus away from individual referrals around behaviour, and be challenged to look at their practice as a whole. Such systemic approaches on a preventative scale are more effective than reactive individualised casework. This not only helps to support teachers and pupils in dealing with and reacting to challenging behaviour, but it also creates a healthy school environment that prevents such behaviour developing to levels when the most serious interventions are required.

(10) EPs play an integral role in helping schools to adopt such a holistic approach towards behaviour management. By working as part of multi disciplinary teams and in close liaison with other elements of the children’s workforce, EPs ensure a continuous and consistent multi-agency approach when dealing with vulnerable children across the range of educational and care settings.

(11) From their knowledge of child development, EPs are also essential in delivering in-house training to build the capacity of the workforce to recognise and address the causes of challenging behaviour. This can include conducting and providing feed back on classroom observations, designing and running INSET across the workforce and setting up training workshops. As a result teachers become able to identify and mitigate the effects of potentially problematic situations more readily. Training should also focus on how certain adult behaviours can trigger challenging behaviours. Initiatives such as learning and reflection groups can cement this awareness.

(12) Basing teacher training and behavioural management on an understanding of child development not only provides teachers with strategies to deal more confidently and appropriately with individualised instances of challenging behaviour but more importantly it prevents escalation to a level when physical intervention becomes necessary.

(13) Schools should not just have in place measures to penalise bad behaviour. School strategy should be refocused to build resilience, reduce risk and promote emotional wellbeing. Guidelines should outline how teachers themselves can consistently model positive behaviour to reinforce and reward good behaviour. Personal assessment of work, individual appraisal and peer support all contribute towards pupils developing an intrinsic sense of responsibility and ownership of their behaviour. This also helps to reinforce and address the link between behaviour and learning outcomes, which although related is often addressed by schools as separate concerns.

(14) Schools should develop positive management strategies, which train teachers to manage classrooms in a proactive manner. A key element of this approach is positive feedback and to acknowledge appropriate behaviour when it occurs. It is important that disruptive behaviour is not condoned, but dealt with in a graduated way. Pupils who fail to respond to directions should never be ignored, but caught early. Teachers should redirect behaviour by acknowledging the appropriate behaviour of pupils around them and giving clear choices as to what will happen if they continue not to do as they are told.

(15) These changes to teacher practice have been found by the AEP to reduce the number of fixed term exclusions and improve long term outcomes for all children and young people, although especially those who show signs of challenging behaviour.

(16) Despite the positive contribution that EPs can make towards helping schools to manage behaviour, supporting schools to avoid the most serious interventions and ensuring improved outcomes for the most vulnerable children, the AEP is concerned that this is undermined by a lack of EP resources delivering frontline services. The biggest challenge to supporting behaviour management in schools is a lack of time and capacity, which results in attempting to show teachers what strategies to employ, but without necessary time to follow up on advice.

(17) A lack of frontline capacity is in part caused by the unclear and uncertain arrangements that are in place to fund the training of EPs. All trainees receive a bursary to cover the first year of training, securing a paid placement in their second and third years to complete their doctoral study. University fees and first year bursaries are currently paid through the Children’s Workforce Development Council (CWDC), funded by voluntary annual subscriptions from Local Authorities.

(18) Local Authorities are allocated non-ring-fenced funding for EP training, and this money should be paid into the central pot administered by CWDC for this purpose. However, due to the voluntary nature of the system, and pressures on budgets, Local Authorities are increasingly reluctant to either pay their voluntary subscriptions or appoint trainee EPs.

(19) As with the training of other statutory front line service professionals, e.g. teachers and social workers, the joint training approach between employers and universities is crucial in order to ensure that training is linked to the very real needs of children, young people, schools and families. As guaranteed funding supports the training of other statutory front line children’s services professionals it seems anomalous that a similar system cannot be implemented for educational psychologists.

(20) This is precipitating a shortage of trained EPs who are able to carry out statutory work and equally crucial preventative interventions. This is an immediate problem that needs to be resolved urgently. Current figures from the CWDC indicated that approximately 33% of first year trainees only had their placements for September 2010 finalised in July and August. Additionally, the CWDC has announced that recruitment for the 2011 course is frozen. This not only affects those wanting to enrol, but those already in the training system, leaving them with no guarantees that training can be completed.

(21) It is crucial to note that no increase in funding is required to address this issue; rather funds that have always been intended to support the training of EPs are used for that purpose in an efficient manner. The previous funding model, which was to top-slice all Local Authorities rather than seek voluntary contributions, provided for a steady uptake of training places.

(22) These developments threaten to restrict an EP’s work to statutory assessment and reactive casework. This reduces the capacity of staff to be involved in equally vital, but non-statutory preventative work. This includes working with teachers and parents to manage behaviour and discipline, in spite of the demonstrable outcomes and expertise that EPs can deliver.

Ø Ways of engaging parents and carers in managing their children’s challenging behaviour

(23) The AEP has found that changes to a home environment often affect children’s behaviour in more ways than changes to a school environment, making the involvement of parents in managing a child’s challenging behaviour essential. Early intervention and identification when a child is young is equally important when involving parents and carers because intervention can occur when the child and parents have more changes to turn behaviour around and see results. However, this requires sensitive handling and mandating parents to attend parenting classes should not be viewed as the only available strategy to engage parents.

(24) Parents are less likely to support schools if they perceive that schools are being unfair to their child. Schools can negate this by having a clear set of values and procedures for dealing with challenging behaviour and discipline. If parents are aware that their child is rewarded for appropriate behaviour, it is more likely that they will support the school over matters of discipline. Initiatives such as use of parent letters, merit stars and personal appraisal can cement this approach.

(25) However, even more importantly, behaviour management strategies should incorporate the child’s perspective in order to work on targeting the reason for behaviour and addressing these points. This work is usually undertaken in consultation with a teacher who can then devise a strategy to deal with these difficulties. An EP is crucial in eliciting the child’s perspective and addressing the root causes of problematic behaviours.

Ø How special educational needs can best be recognised in schools’ policies on behaviour and discipline

(26) The AEP has found that the consistency provided by adopting holistic, whole school approaches for behaviour and discipline will benefit all children, including those with SEN. However, school policies should at the same time take account of the individual child, their particular generalised or complex SEN needs and the root causes, often developmental, that trigger challenging behaviour.

(27) Nurture Groups, which are school-based educational resources that try to meet the underlying needs of children who have not had the opportunity to develop the necessary skills to be successful learners, can also help to reintegrate children successfully into the mainstream classroom, while supporting their individual needs in a specialised setting.

(28) Typically, children participating in Nurture Groups have difficulties in accessing the curriculum within the mainstream classroom. A Nurture Group will always have a teacher and support assistant who work closely with between eight to ten children, meaning that the teachers can develop a close relationship with each child, anticipating difficulties, intervening quickly and tailoring their approach to each child’s particular needs. All children will spend some part of each day in their own mainstream classroom.

(29) Nurture Groups can also provide parents with a clear point of contact within the school to provide support and advice as well as follow up on the positive reinforcement that takes place in the educational setting.

(30) The benefits of Nurture Groups should be more widely communicated across schools and Local Authorities as they ensure close liaison and joint planning between class teachers and other members of the workforce who are responsible for the child’s needs in school and at home.

Recommendations:

In order for EPs to be able to contribute to improving the performance and ability of schools to manage challenging behavior, the Government should:

Ø look at how the children’s workforce can be trained appropriately in child development so as to better equip teachers with the skills and knowledge to identify and address the root causes of problematic and challenging behaviour

Ø encourage schools to adopt a holistic, consistent whole school approach towards behaviour and discipline that focuses on positive classroom management and acknowledges how behaviour is related to learning outcomes

Ø give direction to Local Authorities that educational psychology services should not only be available to all children but also parents and teachers, so that the children’s workforce can draw on the added resource offered by EPs to provide support and advice on how to identify causes of challenging behaviour correctly and implement strategies accordingly

Ø look at the voluntary and unsustainable funding of EPs and ensure that national funding is made available to train EPs and ensure there is no reduction in their current number.

September 2010