The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Two Overview

Introduction

2.1 This initial chapter of the report provides an overview of current behaviour in Scotland's schools. The chapter begins by illustrating how serious a problem indiscipline is in schools, followed by an account of current trends and patterns, including where and when indiscipline is most likely to occur. Finally, the influence of national policy on approaches taken to managing behaviour is discussed, with particular attention being paid to the impact of Better Behaviour - Better Learning (Scottish Executive, 2001). Data collected from all stages of the research (both qualitative and quantitative) are used throughout this chapter.

How serious a problem is indiscipline?

2.2 Chapter Three, which focuses in more detail on positive behaviour in the classroom, notes that, overwhelmingly, the headteachers surveyed considered pupils to be generally well behaved in the classroom. This was also the case for the majority of teachers, additional support staff and pupils, although they were less emphatic than headteachers. The types of positive behaviour reported to occur most frequently included 'pupils arriving promptly for classes', 'pupils contributing to class discussions' and 'pupils listening to the teacher respectfully'. Analysis by school type revealed that positive behaviour occurred much more frequently in primary schools than at secondary level.

School staff and pupil perceptions of how serious a problem indiscipline is in schools

2.3 In the survey of school staff, headteachers, teachers and additional support staff were asked to rate, on a scale of 1 to 5, how serious a problem they thought indiscipline was in their respective schools. Table 2.1 overleaf shows that the most positive response to whether indiscipline was a serious problem came from headteachers, nearly three-quarters (70 per cent) of whom made a rating of 4 or 5 (not a serious problem). In contrast, the responses of teachers and additional support staff were much less positive, with fewer than half (45 per cent) of teachers and just over two-fifths (41 per cent) of additional support staff making the same rating. More than a quarter of teachers (27 per cent) and a fifth (22 per cent) of additional support staff indicated that the problem was serious by making a rating of 1 or 2, compared with only 6 per cent of headteachers.

2.4 Analysis by school sector revealed that secondary school staff were consistently less positive about the seriousness of indiscipline in their school. Two-fifths (40 per cent) of secondary teachers made a rating of 1 or 2, indicating that the problem of indiscipline was serious in their school, compared with 14 per cent of primary teachers. Almost a third (32 per cent) of secondary additional support staff indicated the problem was serious (by making a rating of 1 or 2) compared with one in 10 (10 per cent) of primary support staff.

2.5 When the percentages of primary and secondary headteachers and teachers giving a rating of 1 ('very serious') in the current 2006 survey are compared with the findings from the Edinburgh University survey (Munn et al., 2004), the figures do not really emerge as different at all. One per cent of primary headteachers and 3 per cent of primary teachers rated the problem very serious in 2004, compared with one per cent and 4 per cent respectively in 2006. Three per cent of secondary headteachers and 10 per cent of secondary teachers rated it very seriously in 2004, compared with one per cent and 13 per cent respectively in 2006. Thus, primary and secondary teachers' perceptions of the problem as 'very serious' have increased very slightly since 2004, while secondary headteachers' perceptions have decreased. There are no data on additional support staff from the 2004 survey with which to compare the responses of additional support staff in the current survey.

2.6 Staff in the 7 pupil survey schools indicated in the contextual interviews that, on the whole, the majority of pupils in their school were well behaved. However, some did indicate that there were "small pockets" of indiscipline amongst certain individuals.

Table 2.1 Headteacher, teacher and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of how serious a problem indiscipline is in their own school

Notes to table Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

2.7 In assessing the factors that might be contributing to the responses given by school staff as to how serious a problem they perceived indiscipline to be in their school, staff in the survey schools were asked to rate the overall ethos, the quality of leadership and the levels of collegiality in their school.

2.8 Most school staff indicated that the overall ethos in their school was 'good' or 'very good' (headteachers: 94 per cent; teachers: 69 per cent; and additional support staff: 68 per cent). Once again, secondary school staff, particularly secondary teachers, were less positive than their primary counterparts. Headteachers, perhaps not surprisingly, gave the most positive rating for the quality of leadership in their school (94 per cent giving a 'good' or 'very good' rating), compared with teachers and additional support staff (60 and 67 per cent respectively giving a 'good' or 'very good' rating). Although there was little difference in the responses of primary and secondary headteachers, secondary school teachers were less positive than primary colleagues. Most school staff surveyed indicated that levels of collegiality in their school were 'good' or 'very good'. Headteachers were more positive than teachers and additional support staff and, as evident throughout, secondary school staff were less positive than their primary counterparts.

2.9 When the above factors, together with teachers' confidence in dealing with indiscipline and the level of support they felt was available to them in school, were correlated with perceptions of the seriousness of the problem of indiscipline, the following associations were revealed:

• the more positive headteachers, teachers and additional support staff were in their ratings of the overall ethos, quality of leadership and collegiality of their school, the less serious they perceived the problem of indiscipline in their school to be
• the more confident teachers felt in their ability to respond to indiscipline in the classroom, the less serious they thought the problem of indiscipline was in their school
• the more supported teachers and additional support staff felt, the less serious they perceived the problem of indiscipline in their school to be.

2.10 It should be noted though, that although relationships between the above factors and the reported seriousness of the problem of behaviour were evident, this analysis does not establish direction of causality. Taking overall ethos as an example, this analysis does not determine whether teachers perceived the problem of indiscipline as less serious because they rated the overall ethos of their school highly; or whether they rated the overall ethos highly because they perceived the problem of indiscipline to be less serious.

2.11 Pupils completing the questionnaire in the 7 pupil survey schools were also asked to provide a rating of how serious a problem they thought bad behaviour was in their school. Pupils were provided with a 3-point response scale as opposed to the 5-point one used for the school staff survey. Table 2.2 overleaf provides the details.

Table 2.2 Pupil (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of how serious a problem bad behaviour is in their own school

Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of pupils, 2006

2.12 Nearly half (47 per cent) of pupils stated that they thought the problem of indiscipline was 'quite serious' within their own school. A further two-fifths (42 per cent) stated that they thought indiscipline was 'not serious'. A higher proportion of primary pupils (54 per cent) than secondary pupils (47 per cent) stated that they thought bad behaviour was 'quite serious' within their school.

2.13 Participants in the pupil focus groups were asked if pupils in their school were generally well behaved or not. In each of the 14 groups, participants stated that pupils were generally good, most of the time, but that a minority of pupils was not.

2.14 Representatives from all 32 local authorities were asked about the prevalence of discipline problems in their authority. Eleven of the 32 local authority interviewees gave a direct assessment of the scale of the problem within their authority. The majority of these indicated that they felt discipline was generally good and presented only a moderate challenge. A minority suggested that the issues within their authority were similar to those faced nationally. Low-level disruption was said to be most prevalent in schools, while more serious incidents of pupil aggression and violence were felt to be far less frequently encountered. A number of local authority interviewees suggested that the perception of indiscipline was possibly higher than the actuality.

2.15 In relation to perceptions of trends in pupil behaviour, local authority interviewees were in broad agreement that the nature of the problem was changing, both in terms of the types of behaviour being encountered in schools and the methods used by schools to challenge indiscipline. Recurring issues in the comments of interviewees included:

• changes in the age profile of pupils causing the most severe problems: schools were reported to be experiencing dramatic rises in the numbers of early years pupils with significant behavioural problems
• an increase in the numbers of pupils with identifiable disorders and physical and mental health issues which contribute to their poor behaviour.
• a perceived increase in the extent to which social problems outside school, such as deprivation, family breakdown and drug and alcohol use are being manifested in schools.

The nature of indiscipline

2.16 Chapter Four discusses in depth the issue of negative behaviour in the classroom. The key finding is that the classroom behaviours encountered by school staff (headteachers, teachers and additional support staff) most frequently within a typical week of teaching were low level (e.g. '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', were far less likely to occur on a daily basis, and were hardly ever directed at school staff.

Time spent undertaking activities to promote positive school ethos and behaviour

2.17 As part of the questionnaire survey, headteachers and teachers were asked to indicate how much time they had spent, in the last full teaching week, undertaking specific activities in their school to promote positive ethos and behaviour. Table 2.3 overleaf presents their responses.

Table 2.3 The time headteachers and teachers (overall, primary and secondary) spent undertaking activities to promote positive school ethos and behaviour in the last full teaching week

Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

2.18 Table 2.3 shows that, the majority of headteachers (82 per cent) and teachers (75 per cent) had spent up to 3 hours undertaking specific activities to promote positive school ethos and behaviour. Almost a fifth (17 per cent) of teachers stated that they had not spent any time on this, compared with only one per cent of headteachers. Analysis by school sector reveals that primary headteachers, and particularly teachers, reported spending more time undertaking activities to promote positive school ethos and behaviour than did secondary headteachers and teachers. Conversely, a quarter (25 per cent) of secondary headteachers reported spending more than 3 hours a week on such activities compared with one in ten (10 per cent) of primary headteachers.

Time spent dealing with indiscipline

2.19 Headteachers and teachers were also asked in the questionnaire survey to indicate how much time they had spent, in the last full teaching week, dealing with indiscipline and planning or providing behaviour support to individual pupils. These questions aimed to provide another measure of how serious a problem indiscipline is for schools on a regular basis. Tables 2.4 and 2.5 present the results.

2.20 Table 2.4 overleaf shows that the majority of headteachers (71 per cent) and teachers (84 per cent) had spent up to 3 hours dealing within indiscipline in the last full teaching week. A fifth (22 per cent) of headteachers stated that they had spent more than 3 hours dealing within indiscipline: a proportion nearly twice than that for teachers (12 per cent). A predominant difference by school sector is that secondary staff reported spending more time dealing within indiscipline than primary staff. Over half of secondary teachers reported spending under an hour a week on discipline issues compared to just over a third of primary teachers.

Table 2.4 The time headteachers and teachers (overall, primary and secondary) spent dealing within indiscipline in the last full teaching week

Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

2.21 In relation to time spent providing or planning behaviour support to individuals, Table 2.5 below shows that the highest proportion of headteachers (75 per cent) and teachers (62 per cent) spent between under an hour to 3 hours in the last full teaching week. A third (32 per cent) of teachers, however, did not spend any time planning or providing behaviour support, compared with under a fifth (18 per cent) of headteachers. Once again, analysis by school sector showed that secondary school staff spent more time providing or planning behaviour support than primary school staff.

Table 2.5 The time headteachers and teachers (overall, primary and secondary) spent planning or providing behaviour support to individuals

Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

Trends and patterns

When indiscipline is most likely to occur in schools

2.22 As part of the school survey, headteachers were asked to indicate when indiscipline was most likely to occur in the school context. Table 2.6 below shows that by far the highest proportion of headteachers stated that indiscipline predominantly occured during lunchtimes (83 per cent); a finding consistent with the Edinburgh University survey (Munn et al., 2004). This is supported by results from the staff focus groups and contextual staff interviews in the 7 pupil survey schools, in which lunchtime was described as the "pinch-point" when indiscipline is most likely to occur. In addition, comments from these data sets also support the finding shown in Table 2.6 below that afternoon classes were perceived to be a time when indiscipline within school hours is most likely to occur (stated by just under two-fifths of headteachers (39 per cent) in the school survey).

Table 2.6 When indiscipline is most likely to occur in school, as identified by headteachers

Notes to table Multiple response question: headteachers could select more than one option, therefore percentages do not add up to 100. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

2.23 Although, the highest proportions of both primary and secondary headteachers indicated that lunchtime was the most likely time for indiscipline to occur, there are a number of key differences in the responses of primary and secondary headteachers. Table 2.6 shows that primary school headteachers typically stated contexts in which pupils were outside of the classroom as times when indiscipline was most likely to occur (i.e. 'before the school day begins', 'morning break' and 'after the end of the school day'). In contrast, a notably higher proportion of secondary school headteachers (58 per cent) than primary headteachers (23 per cent) stated that indiscipline was most likely to occur 'during afternoon classes'. This, in fact, was rated the second highest 'flash point' after lunchtimes.

Where indiscipline is most likely to occur in schools

2.24 Headteachers were also asked in the school survey, to indicate where indiscipline was most likely to occur in school. Table 2.7 overleaf reveals that responses of primary and secondary headteachers to this question differed quite considerably. Of most interest is that nearly two-fifths (56 per cent) of secondary headteachers stated that 'corridors and stairs' was where indiscipline was most likely to occur, whereas only 10 per cent of primary headteachers stated the same. This may well be due to the increased opportunities for indiscipline provided in secondary schools by pupils moving from lesson to lesson. Just over two-fifths (42 per cent) of secondary headteachers identified the 'classroom' as the place where indiscipline was most likely to occur, compared with less than a fifth (17 per cent) of primary headteachers. In addition, secondary headteachers were more likely than primary headteachers to identify 'outside school precincts' and 'school buses' as places in school where indiscipline is most likely to occur.

2.25 In contrast, the vast majority (85 per cent) of primary headteachers stated that indiscipline was most likely to occur in the 'school playground or yard': a proportion nearly twice that found for secondary headteachers (44 per cent). In addition, primary headteachers were more likely than secondary headteachers to identify 'toilet areas' and the 'dining hall/queue' as places in school where indiscipline is most likely to occur.

Table 2.7 Where indiscipline is most likely to occur in school, as identified by headteachers (overall, primary and secondary)

Notes to table Multiple response question: headteachers could select more than one option, therefore percentages do not add up to 100. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

2.26 Pupils in the 14 focus groups were also asked when they thought indiscipline was most likely to occur. In answering this, pupils typically drew a distinction between the different types of behaviour and where they took place. Specifically, the classroom was identified as being the main place that low-level indiscipline took place. In turn, outside in the school yard/playground was cited as being the dominant place for more serious incidents of indiscipline, such as fighting. Aside from this, however, pupils showed agreement with the results shown above in Table 2.7, as participants in 5 groups stated that corridors were common places for indiscipline to occur.

2.27 It is perhaps not surprising that interviews and focus groups with school staff and pupils showed that supply/substitute teachers were perceived to contribute to an increase in indiscipline. Specifically, participants in 5 staff focus groups stated that negative behaviour became more pronounced during lessons delivered by a supply teacher. Furthermore, participants in 10 out of 14 pupil focus groups stated that pupil behaviour, often including their own, changed when a supply teacher took the lesson, as illustrated in the quotation below:

" It is adapting to new teachers. You think, oh, we're never going to see this teacher again so it doesn't matter really" (P7 pupil focus group).

Particular year groups / classes or individuals

2.28 As part of the staff and pupil focus groups and during the contextual interviews, specific attention was paid to whether indiscipline varied according to year group/classes or individuals. (Please see Chapter Four for a fuller discussion of challenging classes.) In relation to the school staff interviews and staff focus groups, staff stated that, in primary, P6 and P7 were the most badly behaved (although P4 and P5 were also identified by a group of additional support staff) and in secondary it was S2 -S4. In addition, a number of individuals stated that it was difficult to pinpoint one particular year group as indiscipline was more to do with the composition of pupils than year groups per se. These findings are largely consistent with Munn et al (2004) where the later stages of primary (P6 and P5) and S2-S4 in secondary were perceived to be the most difficult year groups.

2.29 Results from the pupil focus groups show strong concordance with the school staff focus group results, as participants in 8 out of the 14 pupil groups named pupils in P5-P7 as being the year groups most likely to cause negative behaviour. In addition, participants in 3 pupil focus groups stated S3-S4 pupils were the most badly behaved secondary year group.

2.30 In terms of particular individuals typically involved in indiscipline, responses provided by school staff (in the 8 focus groups and the 7 contextual interviews) and by pupils in the 14 pupil focus groups, confirmed that boys were perceived to be more disruptive than girls by both staff and pupils. However, there was some acknowledgement that the indiscipline displayed by boys and girls was different and that, in some instances, girls could be worse than boys, for example girls could be more personally hostile to each other. School staff touched on the issue of home life affecting a pupil's behaviour and also highlighted that many disruptive pupils had behavioural or developmental disorders.

Differences between schools

2.31 In relation to the prevalence of behavioural problems in primary and secondary schools, half the local authority representatives (16) interviewed felt that, overall, the problem was greater in secondary schools than in primary schools. None suggested that primaries had more difficulties overall (although several mentioned that they were facing increasing problems in the early years). Many interviewees were keen to stress that the problems facing primary and secondary schools were very different. Variations emerging related to age and maturation differences between primary and secondary pupils, and the increased influence of social and peer group pressures amongst secondary school pupils.

2.32 There was some variation across the cohort of local authority interviewees as to whether the location of a school (e.g. rural or urban) had a bearing on behaviour. Most commonly, local authority interviewees suggested that there were other factors (often linked to school location) which were of greater significance than a rural/urban location per se. Two factors which emerged strongly were, perhaps inevitably, school size, and deprivation/affluence within the school catchment area.

Violence in school

2.33 The issue of pupil violence, raised as a concern by teachers in the Edinburgh University study (Munn et al., 2004), is discussed in depth in Chapter Six. Of note, however, is the fact that 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 three 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. Almost all staff who reported that pupil violence was a problem in their school cited pupil-to-pupil verbal abuse/aggression. A higher percentage of teachers, and particularly of additional support staff, identified verbal abuse/aggression towards teachers than did headteachers. Physical violence towards teachers was reported to be rare.

Influence of national policy

Implementation of Better Behaviour - Better Learning (BB-BL)

2.34 During the consultation with all 32 local authorities, interviewees were asked to elaborate on the extent to which the recommendations of BB-BL had been implemented at a local authority level and then at a school and classroom level. In relation to the impact at local authority level, the majority of interviewees stated that the recommendations had been implemented and had been effective, although varying degrees of implementation were apparent. Specifically, interviewees pointed to the focus which the document afforded local authorities, allowing them a framework in which to work and take initiatives forward.

" It has been a huge impact. The fact that it has been backed up by a stream of funding made my job so much easier to take forward. It gave me a set of goalposts to work to. It's an absolute Bible in my view in terms of trying to manage behaviour" (local authority interviewee).

2.35 This positive impact of BB-BL at a local authority level is further evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of interviewees held the view that various steps had been taken towards developing written policies into a single framework, whilst others reported that they were only at the very beginning of the process.

2.36 In the minority of authorities that were reported to be rather less advanced in their implementation of the recommendations, this was perceived to be either due to the authority's response to BB-BL, or to the document itself. In the case of the former, interviewees either felt that their authority had not started work on the recommendations as quickly as other authorities and was therefore perceived to have "missed the boat" to some extent, or that they were moving forward in a slightly different way, for example, by "clustering" the recommendations to take forward. Two interviewees referred to the document itself, one identifying it as "a good try" but stating that the recommendations "lacked substance", while another felt that, in terms of the implementation of the recommendations, "the pay back was minimal" for the effort that had been put in. That said, however, progress towards implementation of BB-BL was reported to be ongoing in each of these authorities:

" We are on the journey … and the culmination of that journey will be a refreshed and invigorated learning and teaching policy for the authority … but we are taking [schools] on a series of steps to get there" (local authority interviewee).

2.37 In considering the extent to which the recommendations had been implemented at a school and classroom level, local authority interviewees' views were more mixed. Fifteen respondents felt that the recommendations had been effectively implemented by the vast majority of schools through, for instance, providing guidance on behaviour policies. Eleven interviewees, however, stated that implementation at this level had occurred only to some extent. It was felt that there was still a long way to go at the school and classroom levels. Specifically, it was felt that teachers may not be aware that it was implementation of the BB-BL recommendations that was causing the changes in the classroom. Support for this finding is derived from the 8 school staff focus groups, in which the majority of participants considered themselves to be "generally aware" of BB-BL and other school-based initiatives, but felt they lacked knowledge of specific detail. In these focus groups, it was reasoned that school staff were likely to be more aware if their school was involved in specific initiatives introduced as a result of BB-BL such as Staged Intervention or Restorative Practices. Where authorities were identified by LA interviewees as being rather less advanced in terms of implementing the BB-BL recommendations, there was evidence of some relationship with the extent to which both headteachers and teachers in schools in those LAs reported using three particular approaches: rules and reward systems; school uniform; and buddying/mentoring.

2.38 Overall, evidence presented in subsequent chapters of this report indicates that good progress has been made in terms of the implementation of some of the 36 recommendations cited in BB-BL. Indeed, Chapter Seven presents evidence which shows that the majority of schools involved in the survey operated, for example, a school-wide behaviour/discipline policy; a range of rules and reward systems; a school uniform; and were involving parents and pupils in school-wide issues in a positive way. Those schools surveyed indicated that they made use of/employed pupil support bases; home-link workers; and integrated support teams to a lesser extent. Similarly, pupil councils and buddying/mentoring were strategies adopted by some schools involved in the survey.

2.39 Chapter Eight highlights that there are a range of CPD opportunities available to school staff regarding behaviour management. However, many school staff (from both the survey and interviews/focus groups) called for more CPD opportunities and also more training that was both "practical" and "useful".

Summary

• Overwhelmingly, the headteachers surveyed considered pupils to be generally well behaved in the classroom. This was also the case for the majority of teachers, additional support staff and pupils, although they were less emphatic than headteachers. The types of positive behaviour reported to occur most frequently included 'pupils arriving promptly for classes', 'pupils contributing to class discussions' and 'pupils listening to the teacher respectfully'. Positive behaviour was found to occur much more frequently in primary schools than at secondary level.
• Headteachers thought that 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.
• The more positive headteachers, teachers and additional support staff were in their ratings for the overall ethos, quality of leadership and collegiality of their school, the less serious a problem they thought indiscipline was in their school.
• The more supported teachers and additional support staff felt, the less serious a problem they thought indiscipline was in their school.
• The more confident teachers felt in their ability to respond to indiscipline in the classroom, the less serious a problem they thought indiscipline was in their school.
• The majority of headteachers and teachers had spent up to 3 hours in the last full teaching week undertaking specific activities to promote positive school ethos and behaviour. Primary headteachers, and particularly teachers, reported spending more time undertaking activities to promote positive school ethos and behaviour than did secondary headteachers and teachers.
• The majority of headteachers and teachers had spent up to 3 hours dealing with indiscipline and planning/providing behaviour support to individuals in the last full teaching week. Secondary staff had spent more time dealing within indiscipline and planning/providing behaviour support than primary staff.
• Indiscipline predominantly occured during lunchtimes, a finding consistent with the Edinburgh University study (Munn et al., 2004). Primary headteachers tended to state contexts in which pupils are outside of the classroom as times when indiscipline is most likely to occur (i.e. 'before the school day begins', 'morning break' and 'after the end of the school day'), whereas secondary headteachers tended to state 'afternoon classes'.
• Indiscipline was thought to occur predominantly in the 'school playground or yard', 'outside school precincts' or on 'corridors and stairs'. Secondary headteachers stated that 'corridors and stairs' was where indiscipline was most likely to occur whereas the vast majority of primary headteachers stated the 'school playground or yard'. Secondary headteachers were also more likely than primary headteachers to identify the 'classroom'.
• 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.
• 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.

« Previous | Contents | Next »