The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Four Negative Behaviour in the Classroom

Introduction

4.1 This chapter focuses on the extent and type of negative behaviour within the classroom, how typical that behaviour is and whether some classes are more challenging than others. It then moves on to consider the effect that such behaviour has on staff, pupils and the learning experience. It draws primarily on the evidence from the school staff and pupil surveys, with some additional comment provided by the data from the staff and pupil focus group discussions.

How badly behaved or difficult to deal with are pupils in lessons?

4.2 In the survey of school staff, headteachers were asked to report what proportion of the school roll they considered to be generally badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with in the classroom. Table 4.1 presents their responses.

Table 4.1 The proportion of the school roll considered by headteachers to be badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with in the classroom

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

4.3 As Table 4.1 shows (and has been noted in previous chapters), the majority of headteachers surveyed indicated that pupils were generally well behaved in the classroom, with more than three-quarters (78 per cent) recording that 'a few' or 'none/almost none' were badly behaved. Only one-fifth (20 per cent) of headteachers surveyed reported that 'some' or 'most' pupils were badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with in the classroom.

4.4 As illustrated in Table 4.2 overleaf, when headteacher responses were analysed according to school sector, this revealed, perhaps not surprisingly, that secondary headteachers were more likely than their primary counterparts to report that 'a few', or 'some' pupils were badly behaved in the classroom. However, an interesting difference emerged. 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. Further analysis of the data suggests that factors affecting this may relate to:

• the small size of the school
• higher levels of deprivation (e.g. as indicated by free school meal eligibility)
• higher levels of special educational need.

4.5 However, it should also be noted that a quarter (26 per cent) of primary headteachers did report that 'none/almost none' of their pupils were badly behaved in the classroom, compared with only 5 per cent of secondary headteachers.

Table 4.2 The proportion of the school roll considered by primary and secondary headteachers to be badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with in the classroom

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

4.6 Teachers and additional support staff were asked to report on the number of lessons they taught, or assisted in, on a regular basis in which pupils were badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with. Pupils in the 7 schools surveyed were asked to state in how many of their lessons the previous week pupils had been badly behaved, so that it caused difficulty for the teacher and disturbed other pupils. Table 4.3 below sets out the responses of teachers, additional support staff and pupils.

Table 4.3 Number of lessons in which pupils are considered by teachers, additional support staff and pupils to be badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with

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

4.7 Table 4.3 shows that teachers, additional support staff and pupils were generally less positive than headteachers about pupil behaviour in lessons, with just under a third of teachers (32 per cent), slightly more than one-third (36 per cent) of pupils and two-fifths (40 per cent) of additional support staff reporting that pupils were badly behaved in 'some' lessons. This could be related to the fact that they will be encountering pupil behaviour on a daily basis and thus, may feel it to be more of an issue than headteachers who are usually somewhat removed from the classroom situation. Interestingly, additional support staff and pupils were more likely than teachers to report that pupils were badly behaved in 'some', or 'most', lessons. Once again, this illustrates the 'world view' of the respondent type noted in Chapter Three.

4.8 As Table 4.4 shows, analysis of teacher, additional support staff and pupil responses by school sector revealed that, again perhaps not surprisingly, staff in primary schools were more likely than those in secondary schools to report that pupils were badly behaved in 'none/almost none', of their lessons. For example, almost twice as many primary teachers (35 per cent) as secondary teachers (18 per cent) stated this, while almost 6 times as many primary additional support staff (25 per cent) stated this as secondary additional support staff (4 per cent). However, of the tiny number of teachers who stated that pupils were badly behaved in 'all/almost all' lessons, the majority were from primary schools. Pupil responses at primary and secondary level showed very little difference by school sector.

Table 4.4 Number of lessons in which pupils are considered by primary and secondary teachers, additional support staff and pupils to be badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with

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

What sort of negative behaviour is in evidence during lessons?

The type of negative behaviour identified by school staff

4.9 Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff in the school survey were asked to consider a list of 24 classroom behaviours, largely based on the 20 used in the 2004 survey conducted by Edinburgh University (Munn et al., 2004) ⁴. Headteachers were then asked to indicate on a 5-point scale the frequency with which each behaviour had either been referred on to them, or encountered by them, over the last teaching week. Teachers and additional support staff were asked to consider all the lessons they had taught, or assisted in, during the last teaching week and indicate on the same 5-point scale how frequently they had to deal with each behaviour. An extra category 'Don't know' was also included for headteachers. Headteachers' responses are presented in Table 4.4 overleaf, while table 4.5 overleaf sets out the responses of teachers and additional support staff.

Table 4.4 Frequency of types of pupil behaviour in the classroom referred on to, or directly encountered by, headteachers

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

Table 4.5 Frequency of types of pupil behaviour encountered in lessons by teachers and additional support staff

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

4.10 What immediately becomes clear when considering Tables 4.4 and 4.5 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, in particular 'talking out of turn' (by far the most common behaviour reported), '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 were echoed in local authority interviewees' comments ("the old chestnut of talking out of turn still ranks as the most consistently disruptive behaviour"), and are very much in line with those of the 2004 Edinburgh University study.

4.11 The very few incidents of racist or sexist abuse towards staff, and physical aggression or violence towards staff that were reported in the current study, occurred more frequently in primary schools than in secondary. An explanation for this could be, as staff in the focus groups reported, that increasing numbers of 3- and 4-year olds were entering mainstream education with often complex difficulties, or a lack of basic social skills, which quite often resulted in behavioural problems. Indeed, analysis revealed an association between the number of lessons in which teachers found pupils badly behaved and the proportion of pupils with additional support needs. This perception was also reflected in the comments of local authority representatives:

" Young children who cannot make appropriate social connections seem to be a growth area".

" The area where there is the greatest increase in problems is in pre-school, in early primary. There has been a marked increase in asocial and un-socialised behaviour in very young children who can be quite violent and aggressive and who do not have the cognitive capacity to be aware, necessarily, of the nature of their behaviour and the consequences of it. That is where there does seem to be a growing problem" .

4.12 It is important to note that primary schools are often the first in a child's school career to engage with such behavioural and social difficulties. Aggression or violence towards staff may well be inadvertent (for example, as a result of a tantrum, or of a particular condition such as autism), and may represent a method, albeit an inappropriate one, of communicating with staff. Therefore, the increase in perceptions of the above types of behaviour (e.g. racist or sexist abuse towards staff, and physical aggression or violence towards staff) in primary schools is perhaps not surprising.

" The 2 biggies are attention deficit and autistic spectrum disorder - definitely a huge expediential growth in that population. Whether that is a function of increased diagnosis as opposed to increased frequency is another matter" (local authority representative).

" I think there has been a huge knowledge spurt in the last few years and that obviously impacts on people's perceptions" (local authority representative).

4.13 As Table 4.5 shows, additional support staff in the current survey were consistently more likely than teachers to identify low-level behaviours (particularly 'calculated idleness/work avoidance', 'pupils leaving their seat without permission', 'cheeky/impertinent remarks' and 'general rowdiness/horseplay'), 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 more disrespectful to, and often less inclined to do as they are asked by, support staff.

4.14 School staff in the focus groups within the current study confirmed that indiscipline in lessons was mainly low level and "an irritation", with "sporadic" serious incidents, although additional support staff at secondary level felt that indiscipline was now becoming more serious and cited an increase in violence and bad language. Primary focus group participants referred to talking out of turn and cheekiness/verbal abuse as the most common low-level behaviours encountered in lessons, while secondary focus group participants referred to talking out of turn and not being focused on tasks as the most common.

4.15 Reasons given by school staff in the focus groups for poor behaviour focused mainly on the influence of the inclusion agenda. Staff felt they were having to cope with increasing numbers of pupils in mainstream schools with more serious behavioural difficulties. Catering for those needs in mainstream was not easy and often presented problems when trying to discipline other pupils. That said, it is worth noting that, in the staff survey, 65 per cent of primary teachers reported that 'none' or 'very few' of the pupils in the class they mainly taught had additional support needs, while this was the case for 57 per cent of secondary teachers when commenting on their most difficult class.

4.16 The other main factor cited in poor behaviour was the lack of respect shown by pupils, which was linked to the paucity of rules and sanctions at home, resulting in pupils "pushing the boundaries" whilst at school. It was noted that many parents were working and had little time, therefore there was perceived to be a lack of support for schools' behavioural approaches. This societal trend was also commented on by local authority interviewees.

4.17 Tables 4.4 and 4.5 show that 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 be referred on to, or directly encountered by, headteachers. For example, 'talking out of turn' was identified by more than three-fifths of teachers and additional support staff (62 and 65 per cent respectively) as happening several times daily, compared with a fifth (20 per cent) of headteachers, while 'hindering other pupils' was identified by two-fifths (40 per cent) of teachers and more than two-fifths (45 per cent) of additional support staff as happening several times daily, compared with 13 per cent of headteachers. Once again, this may be due to the fact that headteachers are more removed from the daily classroom situation. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that such low-level behaviour would be referred on to them. Indeed, the three most frequently identified negative classroom behaviours for headteachers, but only as occurring once or twice a week, were more serious: 'physical aggression towards other pupils'; 'general verbal abuse towards other pupils'; and 'physical violence towards other pupils'.

4.18 What is of interest here though is that, 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. Teachers in the current study referred to it as "soul destroying" and local authority representatives as "stamina sapping", the type of behaviour that "drives teachers batty". A question for consideration might be the extent to which headteachers recognise and support their staff in this, or whether it is seen as something with which teachers and additional support staff feel they just have to cope by themselves.

4.19 Analysis revealed an association between teachers' confidence and perceptions of negative behaviour. Teachers who indicated that they felt confident in responding to indiscipline in the classroom were less likely to report incidents of negative behaviour. This was true of all types of negative behaviour in the classroom included in the survey, except for violence towards staff and, to a lesser extent, sexism towards staff (although the latter was still statistically significant). This may highlight an important CPD issue for those teachers who reported not feeling confident in dealing with indiscipline in the classroom. (It should be noted though, that although a relationship between the extent of teachers' confidence and the reported incidence of negative behaviours was evident, this analysis does not establish direction of causality i.e. it does not determine whether teachers perceived negative behaviours with greater frequency because they felt less confident at dealing with indiscipline; or whether they felt less confident because they perceived negative behaviours with greater frequency.)

4.20 At the same time, an association between the level of support that staff identified as being available to teachers and additional support staff and perceptions of indiscipline was also revealed. The more supported in school staff felt, the less likely they were to report incidents of negative behaviour. For teachers, this was true of all types of negative behaviour in the classroom included in the survey, except for racism towards other pupils, sexism towards staff, violence towards staff and, to a lesser extent, racism towards staff (although the latter was still statistically significant). For additional support staff, this was true of all types of negative behaviour in the classroom, with the exception of racism and violence towards staff and violence towards other pupils. This may indicate a significant issue for whole-school approaches to managing behaviour if staff do not feel sufficiently supported to be able to deal with certain types of serious indiscipline. (Again, the direction of causality was uncertain.)

4.21 Analysing the school staff survey data by school sector indicated that, although the same low-level indiscipline was identified by teachers and additional support staff in both primary and secondary schools, it was perceived to occur more frequently in secondary schools, particularly by secondary additional support staff. For example, 'talking out of turn' was reported by 72 per cent of primary teachers and 75 per cent of secondary teachers to occur at least daily, but by 63 per cent of primary additional support staff and by 80 per cent of secondary support staff. 'Hindering other pupils' was identified by 54 per cent of primary teachers and 59 per cent of secondary teachers to occur at least daily, but by 51 per cent of primary additional support staff and by 72 per cent of secondary additional support staff. Once again, this illustrates the 'world view' of behaviour already identified. 'Not being punctual for lessons', 'eating and chewing', and 'truancy' were behaviours identified far more frequently at secondary level, while, not surprisingly, the use of mobile phones/texting was identified almost exclusively as a secondary-level behaviour.

The type of negative behaviour identified by pupils

4.22 In the 7 schools involved in the pupil survey, pupils were asked to consider a list of 22 classroom behaviours, the majority of which were the same as those presented to school staff, although written in more 'pupil-friendly' language in recognition of the wide age range of pupils included ⁵. Pupils were invited to indicate on a 5-point scale in how many of their lessons over the previous week they had observed each behaviour. Pupils' responses are shown in Table 4.6 overleaf.

4.23 As Table 4.6 shows, in line with school staff, pupils in the 7 schools also identified low-level indiscipline as the type of behaviour they observed in most of their lessons. As with school staff, the negative behaviour observed in most lessons was 'pupils calling out, chattering' (i.e. talking out of turn), while the negative behaviour least likely to occur was being threatening to, or physically hurting, teachers. Again, in line with the school staff survey, analysis by school type reveals that 'pupils being late for lessons', 'eating and chewing' and the 'use of mobile phones/texting' were more common behaviours at secondary level than primary.

4.24 However, just under two-fifths (39 per cent) of pupils reported that they observed 'pupils being rude to teachers' (as opposed to 'being cheeky or making impertinent remarks') in most or some of their lessons. Perhaps not surprisingly, analysis by school type shows that this was slightly more the case for secondary school pupils. In contrast, teachers and additional support staff were far less likely to report 'verbal abuse towards staff' on such a regular basis, with two-fifths of teachers (40 per cent) and just under two-fifths (38 per cent) of additional support staff reporting they encountered it only once or twice a week. Analysis by school sector revealed that this was more common for additional support staff, and particularly for teachers, in secondary schools.

4.25 Comparing the 6 highest ranking behaviours observed by pupils in most of their lessons with those identified by teachers and additional staff as occurring several times daily, the types of low-level behaviours identified emerged as broadly similar. Figure 1 overleaf illustrates that 'hindering other pupils' and 'making unnecessary (non verbal) noise' rank more highly for teachers and additional support staff than for pupils. 'Eating/chewing' ranks higher in the pupils' list than that of teachers and particularly of additional support staff, although more additional support staff reported this occurring several times daily than did teachers. One additional negative behaviour (being rowdy) features in the pupil list of six, but not in those of teachers or additional support staff.

Table 4.6 Frequency of types of pupil behaviour observed in lessons by pupils

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

Figure 1 Examples of low-level behaviour identified most frequently as occurring in most lessons/several times daily

Source: NFER survey of school staff and pupils, 2006

4.26 With the exception of one P6 group, in which pupils referred to behaviour in the classroom as quite serious, pupils in the focus groups were unanimous that the majority of poor behaviour in lessons was low level. More serious incidents were rare and, with the exception of climbing on furniture when the teacher was out of the room (reported by a group of P7 pupils about a small minority of pupils), tended to take place outside the classroom. Typically, these incidents included either pupil fights or incidents of bullying, although a P6 group felt it was important to distinguish between name calling and bullying. Figure 2 below illustrates the type of low-level behaviour identified by primary and secondary pupils in the pupil focus groups. Italics denote different behaviours exhibited by primary and secondary pupils.

Figure 2 Examples of low-level behaviour (pupil focus groups)

Source: Pupil focus groups, NFER study 2006

4.27 Several of the low-level behaviours identified were the same for both primary and secondary pupils. Apart from pushing someone aside on entering the room, exceptions in primary schools (shown in italics in Figure 2), were generally more typical of the sort of "irritating" behaviours identified by staff in the school staff survey, for example, flicking rubbers/elastic bands and throwing notes behind the teachers back. Interestingly, as noted earlier, in the staff survey, chewing gum was identified almost exclusively as a secondary school behaviour, and predominantly as such in the pupil survey, but in the pupil focus groups it only featured in the discussions with primary school pupils. Additional behaviours identified by secondary pupil focus group participants (shown above in italics) included the sort of behaviours associated with emerging adolescence and independence, for example, not doing homework, showing off, wearing trainers to school.

How typical is the negative behaviour identified?

4.28 Headteachers in the school staff survey were asked to state whether the pattern of occurrences of different classroom behaviours (i.e. the frequency) they had identified as being referred on to them, or directly encountered by them, during the previous teaching week was typical of the general classroom experience in their school. Teachers were asked to say whether the pattern (i.e. the frequency) of classroom behaviours they had reported experiencing during the previous week's teaching was typical of the classroom experience in their particular school. If either group indicated these behaviours were not typical, they were then asked to explain why not. Table 4.7 below presents the responses of headteachers and teachers.

4.29 As Table 4.7 shows, more than three-quarters of headteachers (77 per cent) and teachers (84 per cent) reported that the pattern they had described was typical. Analysis by school sector showed that the responses were broadly similar in primary and secondary schools, although slightly more secondary headteachers thought it was typical than did primary headteachers, with slightly fewer primary teachers viewing it as typical than secondary teachers.

Table 4.7 Is the pattern/frequency of different classroom behaviours identified typical of the general classroom experience in your 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 add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

4.30 Just over a fifth (21 per cent) of headteachers reported that the pattern they had described was not typical. Of those, analysis by school type shows that almost a quarter (24 per cent) were primary headteachers while a fifth (20 per cent) were secondary headteachers. Less than a fifth (15 per cent) of teachers (more of whom were primary teachers) reported that the pattern of behaviour they had described was not typical.

4.31 When proferring reasons for the pattern of occurrences of behaviour not being typical, some variation in interpretation became apparent. Headteachers and teachers were asked to relate their answers to the previous week's teaching, but the majority tended to relate it to their classroom experience generally.

4.32 For primary headteachers and teachers, the main reasons for the pattern of classroom behaviour they had described not being typical of the general classroom experience in their school related to the nature of their pupils. Certain individuals or classes were said to present more difficult, or persistent, negative behaviour than others, while a number of pupils were reported to have more challenging behavioural difficulties (e.g. ADHD, Aspergers syndrome).

4.33 Secondary headteachers and teachers who indicated that the pattern of classroom behaviour they had described was not typical of the general classroom experience in their school, tended to refer more to the skills of the teacher (for example, some teachers were perceived to be better at handling discipline than others), or to the type of lesson (for example, behaviour was often better in practical lessons). Secondary headteachers in particular referred to their limited view, which may be linked to the fact that they are generally more removed from the classroom situation than their primary counterparts, several of whom tend to also have a teaching commitment.

Are some classes more challenging than others?

4.34 Headteachers in the school staff survey were asked to report whether there were any particular stages of pupil causing the greatest difficulty for their staff in terms of managing behaviour. They were also offered the opportunity to state that all stages were difficult, none were particularly difficult, or that it was too variable to judge. Primary headteacher responses indicated that the year groups more difficult to deal with in terms of behaviour (identified by more than one in ten headteachers) were, in rank order:

• P7 (19 per cent)
• None particularly difficult (18 per cent)
• P6 (18 per cent)
• P5 (12 per cent)
• P4 (11 per cent).

4.35 In the pupil focus groups, P7 and then P6 were identified by primary pupils as the year groups more likely to be involved in negative behaviour. Pupils were said to "get cheekier" as they got older, with P7s particularly testing the boundaries because they were getting ready to move on to secondary school soon: "There's nobody higher than them in the school" (P6 focus group). Primary headteachers in one of the staff focus groups also identified P7 as a particularly difficult year group.

4.36 Secondary headteacher responses indicated that the year groups more difficult to deal with in terms of behaviour (identified by more than one in 10 headteachers) were, in rank order:

• S3 (31 per cent)
• S4 (26 per cent)
• S2 (24 per cent).

4.37 In the pupil focus group discussions, secondary pupils identified S3 and S4 pupils as the most difficult year groups and cited the effect of puberty as an influential factor. One focus group made up of S4 to S6 pupils did note, however, that this year group had been particularly problematic since they started in S1, so it was more to do with the characteristics of that group, rather than their age.

4.38 The above responses from primary and secondary headteachers, and focus group participants, emerged as very similar to those of primary and secondary headteachers in the 2004 Edinburgh University survey. As the Policy Update on Behaviour in Scottish Schools noted, primary headteachers in that study identified P6 and P7 as particularly difficult, while secondary headteachers identified S3 as the most difficult year, with S2 and S4 also perceived to be difficult (Scottish Executive, 2004)

4.39 Secondary teachers in the survey schools were asked to identify on a 5-point scale how many of the classes they taught on a regular basis they found difficult to deal with. Table 4.10 below shows that secondary teachers felt they could cope with the behaviour of the majority of their classes, with only one in 20 (5 per cent) indicating that they found 'more than half' their classes difficult to deal with, and fewer than one in 10 (8 per cent) indicating 'about half'. More than half (53 per cent) of secondary teachers indicated that they found 'one or two' of their classes difficult to deal with, and just under a fifth (19 per cent) indicated that they did not find any of their classes difficult to deal with. Once again, these findings are strikingly similar to those of the 2004 Edinburgh University survey.

Table 4.8 How many of the classes they currently teach do teachers find difficult to deal with?

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

Composition of difficult classes

4.40 Secondary teachers who responded that they found at least 'one or two' classes difficult to deal with were asked about the composition of their most difficult class.

4.41 Secondary teachers indicated that their most difficult class comprised the following year group (identified by more than one in 10 secondary teachers):

• S2 (30 per cent)
• S3 (30 per cent)
• S4 (24 per cent).

4.42 The year groups identified by secondary teachers as those making up their most difficult class were the same as those identified by secondary headteachers (see 4.33). However, S2 pupils were perceived as more problematic by teachers than by headteachers.

4.43 Secondary teachers indicated that the classes they usually taught were set by subject. When asked to indicate on a 3-point scale the attainment level of their most difficult class in comparison with other pupils in the same age range, nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of secondary teachers indicated that this class was below average. More than half (57 per cent) of the secondary teachers surveyed reported that none or very few of the pupils in their most difficult class had additional support needs. Just under a fifth (17 per cent) indicated that more than a quarter of the class had additional support needs.

4.44 When asked whether the composition of their most difficult class had been influenced by decisions about pupil discipline or behaviour problems, slightly over a quarter (26 per cent) reported that it had, while just over half (54 per cent) of secondary teachers indicated that it had not. Almost a fifth (19 per cent) indicated that they did not know if it had.

What impact does poor behaviour in lessons have on staff, on pupils, on learning?

4.45 After identifying how often they were faced with different types of negative pupil behaviour in the classroom, teachers were asked to report, on a 5-point scale, how difficult they had found it to deal with those behaviours. Table 4.9 presents their responses.

Table 4.9 How difficult teachers find it to deal with the negative classroom behaviour they report

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 add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

4.46 Table 4.9 shows that just over three-fifths (62 per cent) of teachers did not find the negative classroom behaviour they had reported particularly difficult to deal with. This was far more the case for primary teachers than for secondary teachers, with almost three-quarters (72 per cent) of primary teachers responding in this way, compared with just over half (54 per cent) of secondary teachers. Only a fifth (22 per cent) of secondary teachers indicated that they had no difficulties at all with the classroom behaviour encountered, compared with almost double the amount (42 per cent) of primary teachers. At the same time, a fifth (20 per cent) of secondary teachers indicated that they did find the classroom behaviour they had reported difficult to deal with, compared with 13 per cent of primary teachers.

4.47 Headteachers were asked to indicate up to 3 negative behaviours in the list of 24 examples of classroom behaviours they had been presented with that had had the greatest negative impact on the teaching experience of their staff during the previous teaching week. Teachers were asked to indicate up to 3 of these behaviours that had had the greatest negative impact on their own teaching experience during the previous week. Table 4.10 presents the highest ranking negative classroom behaviours (identified by one in 10 or more headteachers and teachers).

Table 4.10 Negative behaviour reported by headteachers and teachers to have had the greatest negative impact on the teaching experience of staff during the last teaching week (from 24 possible choices)

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

4.48 The above table shows that both headteachers and teachers, and largely from both sectors (primary and secondary), were in agreement that it was the low-level behaviour that they had identified as occurring most frequently in lessons that had the greatest negative impact on teaching. This view was supported by the focus group discussions with school staff and mirrors the findings of the 2004 survey by Edinburgh University.

4.49 In the current study, 'talking out of turn' was the classroom behaviour that was reported to have had the greatest negative impact on teaching during the previous week (identified by over half (56 per cent) of headteachers and three-quarters (75 per cent) of teachers). This was followed by 'hindering other pupils' (identified by just over half of headteachers and teachers, 51 and 53 per cent respectively). For teachers, these behaviours, together with 'making unnecessary noise', were perceived to be more problematic in primary schools, which, given the more relaxed nature of that environment, coupled with the age range of the pupils concerned, is perhaps not surprising. One extra behaviour ('general verbal abuse towards other pupils') was identified by just over one in 10 (14 per cent) of headteachers (more of whom were primary headteachers) as having had the greatest negative impact on the teaching experience in their school during the previous week. This was only identified by 6 per cent of teachers.

4.50 Staff in the focus groups reported that dealing with negative behaviour in the classroom "wasted" teachers' time and hindered teaching and learning. It was also said to be unfair to other pupils who were being "cheated" out of teaching time. One group of primary teachers noted that negative classroom behaviour could have a detrimental effect on the behaviour of other pupils, because they saw poor behaviour being "rewarded" through increased teacher attention. Secondary headteachers felt that the discipline system coped well with what they called "the day-to-day grind" of low-level behaviour, and that it was the more serious incidents that had a greater impact on the school ethos, on staff and on pupils.

4.51 Both secondary and primary headteachers reported a "wearing down" of staff, with secondary headteachers suggesting that teachers should be "empowered" to cope with discipline themselves, rather than always seeing it as a responsibility of the SMT. Teachers and additional support staff reported feeling "drained", "frustrated" and "inadequate". Staff were said to be losing confidence in their ability and, in two groups, were reported to often blame themselves for the negative behaviour. The need for more behaviour-related training for additional support staff was identified in the staff focus group discussions.

4.52 In the pupil focus groups, both primary and secondary pupils reported that negative behaviour in the classroom disrupted lessons and slowed down the learning process for other pupils. This behaviour could prevent other pupils from concentrating on their work. Equally, some teachers were reported to be more affected than others by negative behaviour (particularly when it resulted in confrontation), which also had a detrimental knock-on effect on learning. The following quotes aptly illustrate the above concerns.

4.53 Pupils in the focus groups also concurred with teachers about the effect the negative behaviour of others in the classroom had on them. Several reported that it was "annoying" and distracting, while a number referred to the unfairness of "bad" pupils receiving all the teacher's attention. There was felt to sometimes be a disproportionate focus on poor behaviour. At the same time, it was reported to be unfair when the whole class was punished for the behaviour of one pupil. A few groups also noted that negative behaviour could escalate once one pupil started misbehaving, especially if the teacher failed to contain the behaviour. Once again, the following quotes illustrate pupils' comments.

Summary

• As noted previously, the majority of headteachers surveyed indicated that pupils were generally well behaved in the classroom. 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 needs.
• 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. However, of the tiny number of teachers (2 per cent) who stated that pupils were badly behaved in 'all/almost all' lessons, most were from primary schools.
• 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. School staff in the current survey indicated that, generally, this was typical of the classroom experience in their schools.
• 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. Aggression or violence towards staff at that age may well be inadvertent (for example, as a result of a tantrum, or of a particular condition such as autism), and may represent a method, albeit an inappropriate one, of communicating with staff.
• Additional support staff in the survey were consistently more likely than teachers to identify low-level behaviours (particularly 'calculated idleness/work avoidance', 'pupils leaving their seat without permission', 'cheeky/impertinent remarks' and 'general rowdiness/horseplay'), 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 more disrespectful to, and often less inclined to do as they are asked by, support staff.
• 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. Again, this is most likely due to the fact that headteachers are more removed from the daily classroom situation. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that such low-level behaviour would be referred on to them.
• However, 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. This may highlight an important CPD issue for those teachers who reported not feeling confident in dealing with indiscipline in the classroom.
• 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. This may indicate a significant issue for whole-school approaches to managing behaviour if staff do not feel sufficiently supported to be able to deal with certain types of indiscipline.
• 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.
• 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, teachers in the survey secondary schools reported that they could cope with the behaviour of the majority of their classes.
• Most teachers in the survey, particularly 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 the behaviour of other pupils, because they saw poor behaviour being "rewarded" through increased teacher attention. Teachers and support staff reported feeling "drained" and worn down by the constant low-level indiscipline they encountered.
• 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. At the same time, it was reported to be unfair when the whole class was punished for the behaviour of one pupil. Some pupils noted that negative behaviour could escalate, especially if not contained by the teacher.

« Previous | Contents | Next »