The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Chapter Six Negative Behaviour Around the School and within the Local Community

Introduction

6.1 Chapter Six considers the extent and type of negative pupil behaviour in evidence around the school, as well as how typical that behaviour is, and examines the effect such behaviour has on staff and pupils. It then focuses on the frequency and nature of complaints received by headteachers from the general public, local community or the media, about the conduct of their pupils outside the school premises. The chapter ends by considering perceptions of the extent and nature of pupil violence in school and staff experiences of pupil violence.

How badly behaved or difficult to deal with are pupils around school?

6.2 Headteachers and teachers in the survey schools were asked to identify on a 5-point scale how many pupils they found badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with when moving around the school. Table 6.1 presents their responses.

Table 6.1 The number of pupils considered by headteachers and teachers to be generally badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with around school

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

6.3 Table 6.1 shows that, as with behaviour in lessons, headteachers were generally more positive than teachers about the behaviour of their pupils around school. More than four-fifths (81 per cent) of headteachers surveyed reported that a 'few' or 'none/almost none' of their pupils were badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with around school, compared with just over three-fifths (62 per cent) of teachers. Teachers were more than twice as likely as headteachers to report that 'some', or 'most', pupils were badly behaved around school.

6.4 Analysis by school sector, shown in Table 6.2 overleaf, revealed that negative behaviour around school was identified as more of a problem in secondary schools than in primary schools. This is perhaps not surprising given the different nature of secondary schools, being larger with more movement around school between lessons, and pupils allowed off site, for example, to visit local shops. Indeed, secondary staff in the focus groups identified off-site locations at breaktimes and lunchtimes as particularly problematic in terms of behaviour. In one focus group of secondary teachers, the problem of chip vans at lunchtimes, which caused problems between pupils from two neighbouring schools was particularly highlighted. As with negative behaviour in the classroom, the tiny number of headteachers (2 per cent) who reported that 'all/almost all' pupils were badly behaved around school, were primary headteachers. This may be due to the fact that primary schools are usually smaller and headteachers often have more of a physical presence around school, for example, in playgrounds, or again, may reflect the phenomenon of younger pupils in primary schools exhibiting anti-social behaviour. There was little difference in the numbers of primary and secondary teachers reporting that most, or all/almost all, their pupils were badly behaved around school, although primary teachers were less likely to report that some or a few pupils were badly behaved.

Table 6.2 The number of pupils considered by headteachers and teachers in both primary and secondary schools to be generally badly behaved and/or difficult to deal with around school

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

What sort of negative behaviour is in evidence around the school?

6.5 Headteachers and teachers in the survey schools were presented with a list of 23 behaviours around school, once again largely based on the 18 used in the 2004 survey conducted by Edinburgh University (Munn et al., 2004) ⁷. Headteachers were asked to indicate on a 5-point scale how frequently, during the last teaching week, each behaviour had either been referred on to them, or directly encountered by them. Teachers were asked to indicate on the same 5-point scale how often they had encountered each behaviour around school.

Table 6.3 Frequency of types of pupil behaviour encountered around school by headteachers and teachers

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

6.6 Table 6.3 shows that the types of behaviour around school encountered most frequently by headteachers and teachers were: 'running in the corridor' (the most frequent response); 'unruliness while waiting' (for example, to enter classrooms); '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, particularly unruliness while waiting, probably because it is unlikely that these are behaviours that would be referred on to headteachers. More serious behaviour around school such as racist or sexist abuse towards staff, or towards other pupils, and physical aggression or violence towards staff was rare. Physical aggression and violence towards other pupils was slightly more common, but not usually on a daily basis. Pupils in the focus groups confirmed that more serious incidents, such as "fighting", generally took place outside the classroom.

6.7 Analysis by school sector revealed that incidents of negative behaviour around school were reported more frequently (i.e. at least daily) in secondary schools. Again, this difference may be attributed to the sheer number of pupils; the less supervised nature of breaktimes and lunchtimes in secondary schools; as well as the increased opportunities for negative behaviour provided 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. In addition, perhaps not surprisingly, particular behaviours such as 'loitering in 'prohibited' areas', 'leaving school premises without permission' and 'pupils truanting' were reported much more frequently in the survey secondary schools. The 'use of mobile phones' was again identified almost exclusively as a secondary school behaviour around school.

6.8 As with negative behaviour in the classroom, 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. As Chapter Four noted, primary school staff are reported to be coping with increasing numbers of very young children entering mainstream school with quite serious difficulties, or a lack of social skills, which can manifest themselves in negative, or inappropriate behaviour, such as aggression or violence towards staff.

6.9 Analysis revealed an association between teachers' confidence and perceptions of negative behaviour around the school. The more confident teachers felt themselves to be in responding to indiscipline in their classrooms, the less likely they were to report incidents of negative behaviour around school. This was true of all types of negative behaviour around the school included in the survey, with the exception of racism towards pupils or towards staff. Again, this may have implications for CPD for those teachers who reported not feeling confident in dealing with indiscipline.

6.10 At the same time, an association was also revealed between the level of support teachers identified as being available to them and perceptions of negative behaviour around the school: the more supported teachers felt, the less likely they were to report negative behaviour around the school. This was true of all types of negative behaviour around school included in the survey, except for racism towards pupils, or towards staff, sexism towards staff and violence towards staff, again, the direction of causality was not clear.

How typical is that negative behaviour?

6.11 Headteachers in the school staff survey were asked to state whether the pattern of occurrences of different behaviours around school (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 experience around their school. Teachers were asked to say whether the pattern (i.e. the frequency) of behaviours around school they had reported experiencing during the previous teaching week was typical of the experience around their particular school. If either group indicated these behaviours were not typical, they were then asked to explain why not. Table 6.4 below presents the responses of headteachers and teachers.

Table 6.4. Is the pattern/frequency of different around school behaviours identified typical of the general experience around 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

6.12 Table 6.4 shows that the majority of headteachers (86 per cent) and almost all teachers (94 per cent) reported that the pattern of negative behaviour around the school they had described was typical of their particular school. Analysis by school sector revealed that the responses were very similar for primary and secondary teachers, while slightly more secondary headteachers identified the pattern as typical than primary headteachers.

6.13 Of the small number of headteachers who reported that the pattern of negative behaviour around the school was not typical, slightly more were primary headteachers, while there was very little difference between the primary and secondary teachers indicating this.

6.14 For the primary headteachers who identified the pattern of negative behaviour around school that they had described as not typical, the overwhelming reason provided for this was that it was affected by individual pupils, or small numbers of pupils, persistently presenting negative behaviour. For secondary headteachers describing the pattern of occurrences of behaviour around the school as not typical, this was mainly because of their limited view. Generally secondary headteachers may not have as great a physical presence around school at breaktimes and lunchtimes, when the majority of negative behaviour around school was reported to take place. Here again, this may be an issue to be explored in schools further.

6.15 Primary teachers who indicated that the pattern of behaviour around the school they had described was not typical were most likely to respond that the majority of their pupils were well behaved around school, but that there were individual pupils, or small groups of pupils, who persistently presented negative behaviour. The most common response for secondary teachers identifying the pattern of behaviour around school as not typical was their limited view. This may be because secondary teachers do not spend as much time around school (i.e. at breaktimes as lunchtimes) as their primary colleagues. The other reason provided by secondary teachers was individual pupils, or small groups of pupils, persistently presenting negative behaviour around school.

6.16 Once again, it is worth bearing in mind, as Chapter Four noted, when proffering reasons for non-typicality, headteachers and teachers tended to relate these to their experience generally rather than to their experience around school the previous week.

What impact does poor behaviour around the school have on staff and pupils?

6.17 Teachers were asked to report, on a 5-point scale, how difficult they had found it to deal with the types of negative behaviours around school that they had identified encountering during the previous teaching week. Table 6.5 sets out their responses.

Table 6.5 How difficult teachers find it to deal with the negative behaviour they report around 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

6.18 The above table shows that almost three-fifths (59 per cent) of the teachers in the school survey did not find the negative behaviour around school that they had reported particularly difficult to deal with. However, this was much more the case for primary teachers, nearly three-quarters (72 per cent) of whom indicated this, than it was for secondary teachers, less than half (48 per cent) of whom indicated that this was the case. Secondary teachers were more likely than their primary colleagues to identify some degree of difficulty in dealing with negative behaviour around the school (e.g. one in five compared with one in ten).

6.19 Headteachers in the school survey were invited to identify up to 3 negative behaviours around school, in the list of 23 they had been presented with, which had had the greatest negative impact on staff duties around the school during the previous teaching week. Teachers were asked to identify up to 3 negative behaviours around school that had had the greatest negative impact on their duties around school during the previous teaching week. Table 6.6 presents the highest ranking negative behaviours around school (as identified by one in 10 or more headteachers and teachers).

6.20 Table 6.6 shows that the negative behaviours around school identified by headteachers and teachers to have had the greatest impact on staff duties around school were very similar. Two extra behaviours, 'deliberately excluding others' and 'physical violence towards other pupils', emerged for headteachers as having the greatest impact. For headteachers, 'general pupil rowdiness or mucking about' was the negative behaviour around school that had the greatest impact, whilst for teachers it was 'unruliness while waiting',. 'General verbal abuse', 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses', 'physical aggression towards other pupils' and 'loitering in prohibited areas' were reported by headteachers as having a greater negative impact on staff duties around school than by teachers. 'Showing a lack of concern for others', 'persistently infringing school rules' and 'running in the corridor' were identified by teachers as having a greater negative impact on staff duties around school than by headteachers.

Table 6.6 Negative behaviours around school reported by headteachers and teachers to have had the greatest negative impact on staff duties around the school (from 23 possible choices)

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

6.21 Analysis by school sector revealed that 'physical aggression towards other pupils' and, to a lesser extent, 'general verbal abuse towards other pupils' and 'running in the corridor' were identified as having a greater negative impact on staff duties around school by primary headteachers than by secondary headteachers. 'Unruliness while waiting', 'running in the corridor', 'general verbal abuse towards other pupils' and 'physical aggression towards other pupils' were identified as having a greater negative impact on staff duties around school by primary teachers than by secondary teachers.

Complaints about pupil behaviour from the general public, local community or the media.

6.22 Headteachers were asked to report how frequently, if at all, they received complaints from the general public, local community, or the media about the conduct of their pupils outside the school premises. Their responses are presented in Table 6.7 below.

Table 6.7 Frequency of complaints received from the general public, local community or the media, as a result of negative behaviour shown by pupils outside the school premises

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

6.23 As Table 6.7 shows, complaints from the general public, local community or the media were not frequently received. Nearly three-quarters (70 per cent) of headteachers reported that they 'rarely' or 'never/almost never' received complaints about the conduct of their pupils outside the school premises, while just over a quarter (26 per cent) reported 'sometimes' receiving complaints.

6.24 Not surprisingly, analysis by school sector revealed that secondary headteachers were more likely than their primary colleagues to report receiving complaints about the conduct of their pupils outside school. Over half (56 per cent) of secondary headteachers reported 'frequently' or 'sometimes' receiving complaints, compared with less than one in 10 (9 per cent) of primary headteachers. Just over two-fifths (44 per cent) of secondary headteachers reported 'rarely' or 'never/almost never' receiving complaints, compared with the vast majority (92 per cent) of primary headteachers. Again, this difference is most likely to be attributable to the fact that secondary pupils have increased opportunity to go off site during the school day (for example, to visit local shops), as well as the increased movement of secondary pupils around the school between lessons, which can facilitate truancy. In addition, secondary pupils are more likely to travel to and from school by themselves, thus allowing greater opportunity for negative behaviour in the local community before and after school, whereas the majority of primary pupils will be brought to school by parents/carers.

6.25 Headteachers who reported 'frequently' or 'sometimes' receiving complaints from the general public, local community or the media about the conduct of their pupils outside the school premises were asked to indicate (from a choice of 6 possibilities) the basis for these complaints. They were also invited to suggest any other behaviours outside the school premises about which they had received complaints. Table 6.8 presents their responses.

Table 6.8 Basis of complaints to headteachers regarding negative pupil behaviour outside the school premises

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. 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

6.26 Table 6.8 shows that the most common basis for a complaint about negative pupil behaviour outside school to be made to the headteacher was 'general rowdiness/horseplay', closely followed by 'anti-social behaviour' and then 'cheeky or impertinent remarks to members of the public'. Primary headteachers were more likely to report 'verbal abuse' and 'cheeky or impertinent remarks' as the basis for complaints about negative pupil behaviour outside school, while secondary headteachers were more likely to report 'general rowdiness/horseplay' and 'anti-social behaviour'. Interestingly, primary headteachers were more likely than their secondary counterparts to report 'physical aggression towards any individual (other pupils, teachers or members of the public)' and, to a lesser extent, 'physical destructiveness'. However, it should be noted that less than one in 10 primary headteachers (9 per cent) had indicated frequently or sometimes receiving complaints and thus, it is this tiny minority that were responding to the question about the nature of complaints.

6.27 When asked to indicate any other negative behaviours outside the school premises that had culminated in complaints being made, responses focused overwhelmingly on litter. This was the only behaviour identified by primary headteachers who responded and was identified by four-fifths (82 per cent) of the secondary headteachers responding. Other behaviours identified by secondary headteachers, but to a far lesser degree, included: road safety (12 per cent); school transport (6 per cent); gangs (6 per cent); behaviour in shops (6 per cent); and snowballing (3 per cent).

Violence in school

6.28 As the Introduction to this report noted, teachers in the 2004 Edinburgh University survey expressed concerns about the level of pupil-on-pupil aggression (Munn et al., 2004). The Policy Update on Behaviour in Scottish Schools identified a need to consider "the minority of more serious indiscipline" (Scottish Executive, 2004) and recommended the development of further approaches to prevent, and respond to, pupil-on-pupil violence or aggression. The current survey sought to explore this issue further by focusing on perceptions of the extent and nature of pupil violence towards other pupils and towards school staff.

6.29 As a result, school staff in the current survey were asked to report whether they felt that pupil violence was a problem in their school. Table 6.9 below presents the response of headteacher, teachers and additional support staff.

Table 6.9 Headteacher, teacher and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) responses to 'do you feel that pupil violence is a problem 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

6.30 As Table 6.9 shows, headteachers, teachers and additional support staff did not perceive pupil violence to be a particular problem in their school. This was the response of almost three-quarters (72 per cent) of the headteachers in the sample, almost two-thirds (65 per cent) of teachers and just over two-thirds (67 per cent) of additional support staff. Teachers were thus the least positive of the 3 groups with just over a third reporting pupil violence was a problem.

6.31 Analysis by school sector revealed that the problem of pupil violence was considered to be more serious by secondary school staff, particularly secondary teachers. For example, almost two-fifths (38 per cent) of secondary headteachers, nearly half (47 per cent) of secondary teachers and two-fifths of secondary additional support staff (42 per cent) reported that pupil violence was a problem in their school, compared with around a fifth of primary headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (19, 21 and 18 per cent respectively).

6.32 Comparing the figures in Table 6.9 above with those from the Edinburgh University survey in 2004 (Munn et al., 2004), it can be seen that, although the percentage of secondary headteachers stating that violence was a problem in 2004 has remained pretty much the same in 2006 (only reducing from 40 per cent in 2004 to 38 per cent in 2006), the percentage of primary headteachers stating it was a problem in 2004 has fallen considerably by 2006 (36 per cent in 2004, 19 per cent in 2006). The percentage of primary teachers in 2004 reporting that pupil violence was a problem has remained similar in 2006 (though rising slightly from 20 per cent in 2004 to 21 per cent in 2006), but the percentage of secondary teachers reporting that it was a problem has risen from 43 per cent in 2004 to 47 per cent in 2006. Thus, primary headteachers surveyed in 2006 perceived pupil violence to be less of a problem than those primary headteachers surveyed in 2004, while secondary teachers surveyed in 2006 perceived it to be slightly more of a problem than those secondary teachers surveyed in 2004. 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.

6.33 In the current survey, those staff who responded that pupil violence was a problem in their school (27 per cent of headteachers, 34 per cent of teachers and 32 per cent of additional support staff) were asked to elaborate on this by specifying which types of violence, from a choice of 4 (for headteachers and teachers) and 6 (for additional support staff), were a problem. Table 6.10 overleaf sets out their responses, calculated as a percentage of the total sample.

6.34 Staff who reported that pupil violence was a problem in their school were most likely to cite pupil-to-pupil verbal abuse/aggression. The percentage of reports of physical violence towards other pupils were similar for the 3 groups of staff - although slightly lower for headteachers. At the same time, a higher percentage of teachers and additional support staff identified 'verbal abuse/aggression towards teachers' than did headteachers. Of the sample overall,a fifth of additional support staff identified 'verbal abuse/aggression towards support assistants' as an issue. Physical violence towards teachers was reported to be rare, with 2 per cent of all headteachers, 4 per cent of teachers and 4 per cent of additional support staff identifying it. In addition, 4 per cent of additional support staff cited physical violence towards support staff.

6.35 Examining the data by school sector revealed that for those staff (27 per cent of headteachers, 34 per cent of teachers and 32 per cent of additional support staff) who indicated that pupil violence was a problem in their school:

• 'Verbal abuse/aggression pupil-to-pupil' and 'physical violence pupil-to-pupil' were cited more by all 3 staff groups (headteachers, teachers and additional support staff) in secondary schools than in primary schools.
• 'Verbal abuse/aggression towards teachers' was noted more by all 3 staff groups (headteachers, teachers and additional support staff) in secondary schools than in primary schools, particularly by the latter group.
• 'Verbal abuse/aggression' and 'physical violence towards support staff' were cited by more additional support staff in secondary schools than in primary schools.
• The numbers citing 'physical violence towards teachers' were very similar, although this was the case for very slightly more primary headteachers and secondary support staff.

Table 6.10 Types of pupil violence problematic for headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary)

Notes to table This was a filter question. The numbers are based on those who answered the question 'Do you feel pupil violence is a problem in your school' with 'yes'(103 headteachers; 364 teachers and 162 additional support staff). The percentages are based on all respondents. Multiple response question: school staff could select more than one option, therefore percentages do not add up to 100. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

6.36 However, it is important to note here that what constitutes a violent incident for one member of staff may be perceived differently by another. Equally, perceptions of violence can be affected by the context of the school and local area, as shown in the following quote from a local authority interviewee:

" There was a long debate about what constitutes anti-social behaviour. So, if a pupil swears at a teacher do you fill a form in every time that happens? If that happened in one of our more difficult areas staff would be sitting all day filling forms in" .

6.37 Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff in the school survey were asked whether they had personally experienced violence against them in the course of their duties in school. It should be noted that, when answering this question, 5 headteachers and 12 teachers specifically noted that they were referring to verbal violence. It is not known how many others may have been referring to this form of violence but did not specify that this was the case.

6.38 Responses to this question were cross-tabulated by the length of time staff had been in their current role. There were 3 bands of service length for headteachers (3 years or less, between 4 and 10 years, and more than 10 years); 4 bands of service length for teachers (3 years or less, between 4 and 7 years, between 8 and 20 years and more than 20 years); and 3 bands of service length for additional support staff (2 years or less; between 3 and 5 years, and more than 5 years). The results are shown in the following bullet points.

Headteachers:

• 18 per cent of headteachers who had been in role for 3 years or less had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 38 per cent of headteachers who had been in role for between 4 and 10 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 47 per cent of headteachers who had been in role for more than 10 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties.

Teachers:

• 19 per cent of teachers who had been in role for 3 years or less had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 31 per cent of teachers who had been in role for between 4 and 7 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 33 per cent of teachers who had been in role for between 8 and 20 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 33 per cent of teachers who had been in role for more than 20 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties.

Additional support staff:

• 21 per cent of additional support staff who had been in role for 2 years or less had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 18 per cent of additional support staff who had been in role for between 3 and 5 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties
• 24 per cent of additional support staff who had been in role for more than 5 years had experienced violence against them in the course of their duties.

6.39 The analysis revealed 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 against them compared with the proportion who had been teaching for 4 years or more.

6.40 School staff in the survey who reported experiencing violence towards them were then asked to indicate how many times this had happened. Responses from primary headteachers indicated a mean of 3 and those of secondary headteachers a mean of 2. For both primary and secondary teachers, responses indicated a mean of 3. Responses from primary additional support staff indicated a mean of 4, and responses from secondary additional support staff a mean of 2.

6.41 It is important to note here that analysis showed that the number of times headteachers and additional support staff had experienced a violent incident related to the number of years they had been working in that particular role. For example, of headteachers who reported having experienced a violent incident 3 times, 6 per cent had been in that role for 3 years or less, over a third (39 per cent) for between 4 and 10 years, and over half (56 per cent) for more than 10 years. Of additional support staff who reported having experienced a violent incident 3 times, 7 per cent had been in that role for 2 years or less, over a third (36 per cent) for between 3 and 5 years, and more than half (57 per cent) for more than 5 years.

6.42 For teachers, the relationship between the number of times they had experienced a violent incident against them and the length of time they had been in that role was also evident, but to a slightly lesser extent. For example, of those who reported experiencing a violent incident 3 times, 2 per cent had been in that role for 3 years or less, almost a quarter (24 per cent) for between 4 and 7 years, more than a third (36 per cent) for between 8 and 20 years, and almost two-fifths (38 per cent) for more than 20 years.

6.43 Thus, additional support staff in primary schools who reported experiencing violence towards them also experienced it more often than either headteachers or teachers. This was borne out in the focus group discussions with additional support staff who, although stating that incidences were rare, were more likely than any of the other staff groups to report experiencing violence. One primary support assistant described a personal attack on them as "scary" and something s/he would prefer to forget. When focus group participants were asked at what point staff no longer felt able to cope with negative behaviour, the most common response was physical violence.

6.44 There was also a strong perception amongst additional support staff in the focus groups of a blame culture, with pupils (and their parents) increasingly aware of their rights. Participants spoke of the wisdom of always having a witness if they needed to physically intervene between pupils, something they might do instinctively even though advised not to. A primary teacher in one focus group reported being accused of slapping a pupil when they had merely touched the child's shoulder, while another identified an incident where a classroom assistant had been "hit and kicked", but had not reported the incident for two weeks because they were frightened of the consequences. Staff in the focus groups voiced the need for more training for additional support staff in managing behaviour, particularly a national system of training, rather than always being expected to attend courses in their own time.

6.45 School staff who had indicated that they had experienced violence against them were then asked to indicate whether or not they had reported the incident and, if they had, to whom they had reported it. Table 6.11 presents their responses to the first part of this question - whether or not they had reported the incident.

Table 6.11 Proportion of headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) who did, and did not, report the violent incident

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

6.46 Table 6.11 shows that the majority of school staff who indicated that they had experienced violence against them had reported it. This was true for almost three-quarters (71 per cent) of headteachers, over three-quarters (88 per cent) of teachers and almost all (94 per cent) additional support staff.

6.47 Analysis by school sector revealed that headteachers and teachers in secondary schools were more likely than their primary colleagues to report the incident. Over three-quarters (81 per cent) of secondary headteachers had reported an incident against them compared with just under two-thirds (65 per cent) of primary headteachers, while almost all (94 per cent) of secondary teachers had reported an incident compared with over three-quarters (82 per cent) of primary teachers. There was very little difference between the responses of primary and secondary additional support staff (97 and 98 per cent respectively).

6.48 Figure 6.1 below illustrates the person and/or organisation to whom/which staff in the survey had reported the violent incidents they had experienced. It presents the responses overall from headteachers, teachers and additional support staff, as well as by school sector.

Figure 6.1 Type of person/organisation to whom/which headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) reported a violent incident

Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

6.49 Figure 6.1 shows that headteachers were most likely to report violent incidents to the local authority (88 per cent). Teachers and additional support staff were most likely to report a violent incident to the headteacher of the school (51 and 44 per cent respectively). Looking at the above figure according to school sector, the picture remains much the same. However, just over two-fifths (44 per cent) of secondary headteachers also reported referring violent incidents to the police when appropriate, whereas this was not referenced at all by primary headteachers. An interesting difference emerges for additional support staff. Whereas almost all primary support staff (92 per cent) reported referring violent incidents to the headteacher, secondary support staff were more likely to refer incidents to their line manager in school (29 per cent) and SMT (24 per cent) before the headteacher (14 per cent).

6.50 It was apparent from the telephone interviews with local authority representatives 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. Although a number of local authority interviewees referred to an upward trend in violent incidents towards staff, possible reasons given for this (as already identified in Chapter Four) included the rise in "unsocialised" behaviour amongst very young children who can be quite aggressive and of "syndrome-related" behaviours, coupled with the fact that recording systems have become more robust.

" Teachers are invited, encouraged and advised to submit a [violent incident recording] form if they have been a victim of a violent assault that is either verbal or physical in their schools" (local authority representative).

" I think violence towards teachers is being reported more than it would have been in the past. I think it gives the outward appearance of having risen, but it probably hasn't, and it is that it has been reported more now than it would have been in the past" (local authority representative).

6.51 However, this is not to deny the very profound effect violence towards a member of staff can have on that staff member, as borne out in the comments from support staff in the focus groups (see paragraph 6.43). A number of local authority interviewees discussed possible forms that follow-up might take where serious or violent incidents had been recorded by the authority. These included:

• identifying schools with recurring problems for additional support and professional development
• offering support and counselling to affected staff
• in the case of very serious incidents, authorities might instigate risk assessments, with the school looking at the behaviour, how it manifests itself and what can be put in place to minimise the risks to staff and other pupils (e.g. de-escalation/physical intervention training).

Summary

• As with behaviour in lessons, 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.
• Negative behaviour around school was identified as more of a problem in secondary schools than in primary schools. Secondary schools are often larger with more movement around school between lessons, and pupils allowed off site, for example, to visit local shops. Secondary staff in the focus groups identified off-site locations at breaktimes and lunchtimes as particularly problematic in terms of behaviour.
• 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.
• They types of behaviour around the school encountered most frequently by headteachers and teachers were: 'running in the corridor' (the most frequent response); '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.
• 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. .
• As with negative behaviour in the classroom, 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.
• 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. This may have implications for CPD for those teachers who reported not feeling confident in dealing with indiscipline. 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. This may be important in relation to whole-school approaches to behaviour, if some teachers do not feel supported in responding to behaviour around the school.
• The majority of headteachers and teachers surveyed reported that the pattern of negative behaviour around school they had described was typical of their school.
• For primary headteachers who identified the pattern of behaviour around school they had described was not typical, the overwhelming reason was individual pupils, or small groups of pupils, persistently presenting negative behaviour. For secondary headteachers and teachers stating the pattern was not typical, this was mainly because of their limited view of behaviour around school. Primary teachers indicating the pattern was not typical tended to refer to certain pupils presenting persistent negative behaviour. It should be noted though, that headteachers and teachers were asked to relate their answers to their experience during the previous week, but the majority tended to relate them to their experience generally.
• 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.
• For headteachers, 'general pupil rowdiness or mucking about' was the negative behaviour around school that had the greatest impact on staff duties, whilst for teachers it was 'unruliness while waiting'. 'General verbal abuse', 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses', 'physical aggression towards pupils' and 'loitering in prohibited areas'were reported by headteachers as having a greater negative impact on staff duties around school than by teachers. 'Showing a lack of concern for others', 'persistently infringing school rules' and 'running in the corridor' were identified by teachers as having a greater negative impact on staff duties around school than by headteachers.
• 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'. Another behaviour, reported by both primary and secondary headteachers, to result in complaints to headteachers (not on the list offered to them) was litter.
• 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.
• 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. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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).

« Previous | Contents | Next »