« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
Executive Summary
Introduction
1. Pupil behaviour in schools has been an issue of concern for many years and the subject of extensive research. Better Behaviour - Better Learning (Scottish Executive, 2001) recognised the challenges that teachers and other professionals face, and acknowledged the wide-ranging causes of indiscipline. In light of this, funding was made available across Scotland for the implementation of the report's 36 recommendations.
2. As a result of the recommendations, the Scottish Executive committed to supporting a range of initiatives, as well as making resources available for professional development purposes. The Policy Update on Behaviour in Scottish Schools (Scottish Executive, 2004a) concluded that progress had been made in implementing the recommendations of the former report and recommended developing further approaches to prevent, and respond to, pupil-on-pupil violence or aggression. The Scottish Executive committed to instituting 'regular major surveys of teachers' and pupils' experiences and perceptions of behaviour and discipline in schools' (Scottish Executive, 2004a).
3. The main aims of the current study were: to provide clear and robust information on the nature and extent of behaviour (including positive behaviour) in publicly funded schools in Scotland; to examine what is effective in preventing and responding to indiscipline; and to examine what is effective in promoting positive behaviour.
4. The study was designed to build on previous work conducted by Edinburgh University, but to expand its scope. Thus, in addition to the views of headteachers and teachers, this study now also sought those of education authority representatives, additional support staff and pupils. It had 3 strands: telephone interviews with a representative of each of the 32 local authorities in Scotland; questionnaire surveys to headteachers, teachers and additional support staff in primary and secondary schools; a questionnaire survey to pupils in 4 primary and 3 secondary schools, as well as pupil focus groups and a contextual staff interview in those 7 schools; and 8 regional focus groups with school staff.
Overview
5. Overwhelmingly, the headteachers surveyed considered pupils to be generally well behaved in the classroom, as did the majority of teachers, additional support staff and pupils, (although all were less emphatic than headteachers). Positive behaviour was much more frequent in primary schools than at secondary level.
6. Headteachers thought that indiscipline was less serious a problem than teachers and additional support staff. Secondary school staff were consistently more likely than their primary counterparts to identify indiscipline as a serious problem. Comparing the percentages of staff rating the problem as 'very serious' with the findings from the Edinburgh University study (Munn et al., 2004), the figures are not vastly different. Primary and secondary teachers' perceptions of the problem as very serious have increased very slightly since 2004, while secondary headteachers' perceptions have decreased.
7. The more positive headteachers, teachers and additional support staff were in their ratings for their school's overall ethos, quality of leadership and collegiality, the less serious a problem they thought indiscipline was. The more supported teachers and additional support staff felt, the less serious a problem they thought indiscipline was in their school.
8. Indiscipline was thought to occur predominantly in the 'school playground or yard', 'outside school precincts' or on 'corridors and stairs'. Secondary headteachers were more likely than primary headteachers to identify the 'classroom'.
9. P6 and P7 and S2-S4 were identified by staff and pupils as being the most difficult year groups (again, largely in line with the 2004 Edinburgh University study) with the individuals usually causing the indiscipline being: boys; pupils from dysfunctional homes; and those with behavioural/developmental difficulties.
10. Better Behaviour - Better Learning appears to have affected practice at a local authority level and, to a lesser extent, at school and classroom level. School staff felt generally aware of BB-BL and evidence from the school staff survey showed support for a number of the recommendations being implemented in schools and classrooms.
Part One: Behaviour in the Classroom
Positive behaviour in the classroom
11. There were acute differences in perceptions of positive behaviour depending on the 'world view' of the respondent type. Pupils themselves were most negative, then additional support staff, followed by teachers and finally the headteachers.
12. The specific types of positive behaviours that were reported to occur most frequently in lessons included 'pupils arriving promptly for classes', 'pupils contributing to class discussions' and 'pupils listening to the teacher respectfully'.
13. Analysis by school sector revealed that positive behaviours occurred much more frequently at primary level than they did in secondary schools.
14. The more confident teachers felt with regard to responding to indiscipline in their classrooms, the more likely they were to report positive behaviour as frequently occurring. Similarly, teachers and support staff who felt supported by their school recorded more incidences of positive behaviours.
Negative behaviour in the classroom
15. Secondary headteachers were more likely than their primary counterparts to report that 'a few', or 'some' pupils were badly behaved in the classroom. The tiny number of headteachers (2 per cent) who reported that 'most', or 'all/almost all' pupils were badly behaved in the classroom were primary headteachers. Factors affecting this might include: the small size of the school; higher levels of deprivation; or higher levels of special educational need.
16. Teachers, additional support staff and pupils were generally less positive than headteachers about pupil behaviour in lessons. Additional support staff and pupils were more likely than teachers to report that pupils were badly behaved in 'some' or 'most' lessons. Teachers and additional support staff in primary schools were more likely than their secondary colleagues to report that pupils were badly behaved in 'none/almost none' of their lessons.
17. The classroom behaviours encountered by school staff (headteachers, teachers and additional support staff) most frequently within a typical week of teaching were low level, in particular 'talking out of turn', 'making unnecessary (non-verbal) noise', 'hindering or distracting others' and 'pupils leaving their seat without permission'. More serious indiscipline, such as physical violence or aggression, was far less likely to occur on a daily basis, and was hardly ever directed at school staff. These findings are very much in line with those of the 2004 Edinburgh University study.
18. The very few incidents of racist or sexist abuse towards staff, and physical aggression or violence towards staff that were reported in the survey, occurred more frequently in primary schools than in secondary. Increasing numbers of 3- and 4-year olds were reported to be entering mainstream education with often complex difficulties, or a lack of basic social skills, which quite often resulted in behavioural problems.
19. Additional support staff in the survey were consistently more likely than teachers to identify low-level behaviours as happening in lessons several times daily. This could well be related to the perception, which is borne out by additional support staff comments in focus groups, that pupils can be less inclined to do as they are asked by support staff.
20. The low-level indiscipline identified so frequently on a daily basis by teachers and additional support staff in the school survey was far less likely to referred on to, or directly encountered by, headteachers.
21. As identified in the previous Edinburgh University study and reported by staff in the focus groups in the current study, it is the constant "drip, drip effect" (Munn et al., 2004) of low-level bad behaviour that grinds school staff down and contributes to a lowering of morale. Analysis revealed that the more confident teachers felt in responding to indiscipline in the classroom, the less likely they were to report incidents of negative behaviour. At the same time, teachers and additional support staff who reported feeling more supported in school, were also less likely to report incidents of negative behaviour in the classroom.
22. Pupils also identified low-level indiscipline as the type of behaviour they observed in most of their lessons. The classroom behaviours they reported as occurring several times daily emerged as broadly similar to those reported by teachers and additional support staff. Pupils did report incidents of being rude to teachers and of being rowdy more frequently than staff.
23. The most challenging classes for school staff were identified as P7 and P6 in primary schools, and S4, S3 and S2 in secondary schools, although S2 was identified as more of a problem by teachers than by headteachers. However, the secondary teachers in the sample reported that they could cope with the behaviour of the majority of their classes.
24. Most teachers in the survey, especially those in primary schools, did not find any of the behaviours they had reported particularly difficult to deal with. Headteachers and teachers reported that it was the low-level behaviours identified most frequently by school staff (in particular, talking out of turn), that had the greatest negative impact on teaching. Staff focus group participants noted that dealing with such behaviour "wasted" teachers' time and hindered teaching and learning. It was also said to be unfair to other pupils and could have a detrimental effect on their behaviour because they saw poor behaviour being "rewarded" through increased teacher attention.
25. Pupil comments from their focus groups echoed those of school staff. They reported that negative behaviour in the classroom disrupted lessons and slowed down the learning process. Such behaviour was said to be "annoying" and unfair when "bad" pupils received all the teacher's attention. Some pupils noted that negative behaviour could escalate, especially if not contained by the teacher.
Part Two: Behaviour Around the School and within the Local Community
Positive behaviour around the school
26. The vast majority of the school staff surveyed indicated that 'all/almost all' or 'most' of the pupils they encountered around the school were generally well behaved. Headteachers were the most positive, followed by teachers and then support staff. Pupils were most negative in their assessment of their peers' behaviour around the school.
27. Headteachers were consistently more positive than teachers in their appraisals of the frequency of positive behaviours evident around the school. Primary school staff reported seeing the positive behaviours more often than their secondary colleagues.
28. The more confident teachers felt themselves to be with regard to responding to indiscipline in their classrooms, the more likely they were to report observing positive behaviours around the school. Similarly, the more supported teachers felt by their schools, the more likely they were to register encountering positive behaviours around the school.
Negative behaviour around the school and within the local community
29. Headteachers were generally more positive than teachers about the behaviour of their pupils around school. Teachers were more than twice as likely as headteachers to report that 'some' or 'most' pupils were badly behaved around school.
30. Negative behaviour around school was identified as more of a problem in secondary schools than in primary schools. Secondary staff in the focus groups identified off-site locations at breaktimes and lunchtimes as particularly problematic in terms of behaviour.
31. As with negative behaviour in the classroom, the tiny number of headteachers who reported that 'all/almost all' pupils were badly behaved around school, were primary headteachers.
32. The types of behaviour around the school encountered most frequently by headteachers and teachers were: 'running in the corridor'; 'unruliness while waiting'; 'persistently infringing school rules'; 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses'; 'showing a lack of concern for others'; 'loitering in 'prohibited' areas'; 'general pupil rowdiness or mucking about'; and, to a lesser extent, 'general verbal abuse towards other pupils'. Teachers were more likely than headteachers to identify these behaviours as ones they encountered on a daily basis. More serious incidents such as physical aggression or violence towards staff were rare.
33. Incidents of negative behaviour around school were reported more frequently (i.e. at least daily) in secondary schools, which is perhaps not surprising given the greater opportunities for such behaviour afforded by moving from lesson to lesson. Secondary school staff in the focus groups particularly referred to corridors and stairs as locations for negative behaviour outside the classroom.
34. The very few incidents of physical aggression or violence towards staff that were reported around school occurred more frequently in primary schools than in secondary.
35. The more confident staff felt in responding to indiscipline in their classrooms, the less likely they were to report incidents of negative behaviour around school. At the same time, those teachers who identified a greater level of support available to them in school were less likely to report incidents of negative behaviour around school.
36. Most teachers, particularly in primary schools, did not find the negative behaviour around school they had reported particularly difficult to deal with. Secondary teachers were more likely than their primary counterparts to identify some degree of difficulty in dealing with negative behaviour around school.
37. Complaints were not frequently received by headteachers from the general public, local community or the media about the conduct of their pupils outside the school premises. Secondary headteachers were more likely than primary headteachers to report receiving complaints. The most common basis for a complaint was, for primary headteachers, 'verbal abuse' and 'cheeky or impertinent remarks to members of the public', while for secondary headteachers, it was' general rowdiness/horseplay' and 'anti-social behaviour'.
38. Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff did not perceive pupil violence to be a particular problem in their school. Teachers were the least positive of the 3 groups, with just over a third reporting that they thought it was a problem. Pupil violence was considered to be more serious by secondary school staff, particularly secondary teachers.
39. Primary headteachers surveyed in the current study in 2006 perceived pupil violence to be less of a problem than those primary headteachers surveyed in the Edinburgh University study in 2004, while secondary teachers surveyed in 2006 perceived it to be more of a problem than those secondary teachers surveyed in 2004.
40. Staff reporting pupil violence as a problem in their school were most likely to cite 'pupil-to-pupil verbal abuse/aggression'. A higher percentage of teachers and additional support staff identified verbal abuse/aggression towards teachers than did headteachers. Physical violence towards teachers was reported to be rare.
41. Analysis showed a significant relationship between experience of violence and the length of time headteachers had been in that role, but not for either of the other two staff groups (teachers and additional support staff). That said, however, far fewer teachers who had been in role for 3 years or less had experienced a violent incident compared with the proportion who had been teaching for 4 years or more.
42. The majority of school staff who had experienced violence against them had reported it. Headteachers were most likely to report violent incidents to the local authority, and teachers and primary additional support staff to the headteacher. Secondary support staff were more likely to refer incidents to their line manager in school and SMT before the headteacher. Secondary headteachers also reported referring incidents to the police when appropriate.
43. Local authority interviewees confirmed that most authorities operated a centralised system for schools to report incidents of violence by pupils to them. Incidents were typically recorded on a form within the school and logged onto a database by the local authority for termly or annual review. Follow-up after a serious or violent incident had been recorded included: identifying schools in need of additional support; offering direct support and counselling to staff; and (for very serious incidents) instigating risk assessments to look at what can be put in place to minimise the risks to staff and other pupils (e.g. de-escalation/physical intervention training).
Part Three: Effective Practice in Managing Behaviour
Approaches to managing behaviour
44. Local authorities were rolling out, and piloting, a range of initiatives/strategies (e.g. Staged Intervention/Framework for Intervention ( FFI); Solution-Oriented Schools; and Restorative Practices).
45. The majority of schools operated a school-wide behaviour/discipline policy; used a range of rules and reward systems; had a school uniform; and were involving parents and pupils in school-wide issues. Pupil support bases; home-link workers; integrated support teams; pupil councils and buddying/mentoring schemes were used to a lesser extent.
46. Referral to a key member of staff was a much reported strategy for managing behaviour: over three-quarters of headteachers and teachers 'frequently' or 'sometimes' employed it in their school. A third of both headteachers and teachers stated that they 'frequently' or 'sometimes' made a referral for an exclusion.
47. Pupils thought schools could do more by: rewarding well behaved pupils; punishing (more severely) badly behaved pupils; a fairer treatment by teachers; removing badly behaved pupils; and making lessons more enjoyable.
48. The 'top-five' individuals included by headteachers in whole-school discussion were: teachers; pupils; learning support staff; parents; and educational psychologists. However, pupils involved in the survey and focus groups felt that they had not been included in deciding school rules or devising an anti-bullying policy.
49. School staff identified the key factors in developing a whole-school approach to behaviour as: consistency; involvement of parents and pupils; SMT support; school staff consultation; and flexibility.
50. The vast majority of teachers already felt confident in their ability to promote positive behaviour and deal with indiscipline in their classroom. Understanding individual pupils' learning styles and motivations was the approach thought by teachers to be most likely to increase their confidence (personal safety training was deemed least likely).
51. Local authority interviewees considered approaches such as Staged Intervention/ FFI to be effective means of responding to indiscipline at a local authority level, as well as a comprehensive CPD menu; integrated working amongst agencies; a clear inclusion policy; and inclusion training. Effective approaches at a school and classroom level were: pupil support bases; alternative, flexible and appropriate curriculum; additional support/behaviour support staff; and Assertive Discipline.
Support available for staff
52. A diverse range of CPD opportunities was on offer in local authorities. School staff requested more training in general that was of a practical and proactive nature. An absence of supply cover was highlighted as an issue.
53. Nearly three-fifths of headteachers had received some CPD since being in their current post, which was predominantly provided by the local authority. The majority of teachers had been involved in some kind of development activity related to behaviour in the last year.
54. Three-quarters of headteachers had received local authority support for trying new initiatives for promoting positive behaviour. Most primary headteachers received this support in the form of advice and consultancy, whilst most secondary headteachers received additional funding or support staff.
55. Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff all indicated that the education authority worked, to a moderately satisfactory level, with schools to promote positive behaviour. Headteachers were the most positive, followed by additional support staff then teachers. Primary staff were consistently more positive than secondary staff.
56. School staff who gave higher ratings of how the education authority worked in partnership with the school, also felt more supported by their school.
57. All school staff felt generally supported in their school (as measured by the level that staff could openly talk to colleagues; senior staff would help colleagues; and awareness of confidential support and counselling in the school). Headteachers agreed the most, followed by additional support staff and then teachers. Secondary school staff felt less supported than their primary equivalents.
58. Teachers had access, to a reasonable degree, to a number of supports to help them with a difficult class. Primary teachers had access to additional support staff, both in terms of whole-class and individual pupils, but had less access to support provided by senior management within their school, than did secondary teachers.
Conclusion
59. The majority of pupils were reported to be generally well behaved, both in the classroom and around school. Low-level negative behaviour continues to be the most prevalent form of indiscipline encountered in schools. Yet, focus group discussions would suggest that these are also the most wearing for staff. Headteachers continue to be more optimistic than their staff about indiscipline, whilst the overall picture remains more positive at primary level than at secondary. In the intervening period since the earlier research by Edinburgh University, there has been no real decline in standards of behaviour nationally. However, it may be that addressing the common pattern of low-level indiscipline needs greater attention, particularly given its reported de-motivating effect on school staff.
60. The very tiny number of schools where 'most' or 'all/almost all' children were said to exhibit negative behaviour were actually in the primary sector and the very few incidents of physical aggression and violence towards staff also occurred more frequently in primary school responses. These findings were corroborated by local authority staff and in staff focus group discussions, suggesting that cohorts of very young children are embarking on their school careers with often complex difficulties, or a lack of basic social skills, which can result in behavioural problems.
61. The report suggests that there are various 'world views' of indiscipline issues which co-exist within schools and which are dependent on an individual's status and role within the institution. Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff all have differing experiences of the degree and frequency of the positive behaviours and indiscipline they encounter. Recognising these differences and understanding the perspective of others may be an important component of any training and professional development in this area.
62. Additional support staff consistently appeared to be more negative than other school staff. Their focus groups identified an increasing lack of confidence in their ability to deal with indiscipline, and this may well indicate the need for further support and training for such staff, especially where they rely on personal experience rather than a professional skill base to handle discipline issues. At the same time, additional support staff in the survey indicated that they were not regularly involved in whole-school discussions and training relating to behaviour. There may be value in schools giving greater consideration to fully integrating additional support staff into whole-school behavioural issues.
« Previous | Contents | Next »