The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Part Three: Effective Practice in Managing Behaviour

Chapter Seven Approaches to Managing Behaviour

Introduction

7.1 This chapter focuses on approaches to managing behaviour, with specific attention being paid to the following: the use of approaches to encourage positive behaviour and overcome negative behaviour (at a local authority, school and classroom level); the involvement of the school community in developing strategies; the perceived effectiveness of approaches; and the general supportiveness of parents. The results from the school staff survey constitute the main body of the chapter, however, additional findings from the pupil survey, local authority interviews, staff and pupil focus groups as well as the contextual staff interviews are used to support and contrast key findings.

Approaches to encourage positive behaviour and overcome negative behaviour

Approaches currently used at a local authority level

7.2 Through discussions with all 32 local authority personnel, it appeared that a number of local authorities were adopting specific strategies/initiatives in relation to the ways in which schools in the authority respond to indiscipline and promote positive behaviour. Specifically, 12 interviewees stated that they were in the process of rolling out Staged Intervention/ Framework for Intervention ( FFI) across the authority. Restorative Practices was mentioned by 4 local authority personnel, with an additional 6 stating that they were currently piloting this approach. Finally, the Solution-Oriented school was highlighted by 4 interviewees, with a further 2 individuals stating that it was currently being piloted within their authority.

Approaches currently used at a school and classroom level, as identified by headteachers and teachers

7.3 In the questionnaires sent to headteachers and teachers, a list of 24 specific approaches, that some classroom teachers use to encourage positive behaviour and overcome negative behaviour, was presented. Respondents were asked to consider each approach and indicate whether it was currently used in their school or not and also, if appropriate to the approach, whether it was available to them off-site. Table 7.1 provides the detail.

7.4 The responses of headteachers and teachers to this question were largely similar, although teachers were more unsure. Responses from headteachers and teachers indicated that a whole range of approaches were in current use in Scotland's schools, as at least two-fifths of respondents (headteachers and teachers) stated that each approach was currently used in their school, with the exception, for teachers, of whole-school initiatives. Results from the staff focus groups and local authority interviews support this finding as an array of different and, often inventive, approaches to managing behaviour were detailed.

7.5 The existence of a current behaviour/discipline policy produced the highest proportional responses from both headteachers and teachers (100 per cent and 97 per cent respectively). This finding is supported by all seven contextual staff interviewees who confirmed that their school had a behaviour/discipline policy in place, whilst results, from one primary additional support staff focus group, illustrated the perceived importance of a school behaviour policy because of it " …letting everyone know what is expected".

7.6 Historically successful approaches to managing behaviour were employed by the majority of headteachers and teachers, including, for example, rules and rewards for pupils (99 per cent and 95 per cent respectively) and school uniforms (95 per cent and 94 per cent respectively). School staff in 2 focus groups highlighted the importance of the school uniform as a means of managing behaviour with reasons including the belief that it creates a visual ownership and ensures consistency for pupils in the school. Once again, these findings show the levels of school implementation of BB-BL recommendations.

7.7 The use of BB-BL recommended pupil support aids, such as the pupil support bases, home-school link workers and an integrated support team appeared to be evident to a lesser degree. However, these were still being currently used by nearly half of respondents. Discussions with local authority interviewees suggested that many local authorities were in the process of actively trying to offer and provide more of these types of resources and approaches to their schools.

7.8 The current employment of a whole-school initiative produced the lowest proportional responses from both headteachers and teachers (45 per cent and 28 per cent respectively). This is likely to be indicative of the changing climate of approaches to managing behaviour, in that they are relatively new and so likely to take time to implement and 'bed in' to the normal working of schools. Indeed, one contextual staff interviewee stated that the hardest thing about a new initiative is "reinforcing it and continuing it", as it often takes time for initiatives to develop and for staff to wholly adopt the working practices of them. This is also mirrored in the words of one local authority interviewee who stated that, in relation to Staged Intervention:

" …some schools see the value of it but the issues are time, resources, cover. Other schools are really buying into it and it is really working well for them. But, because all the schools are in the initial stages they are requiring a lot of support to keep it going".

7.9 For the majority of approaches, a higher proportion of secondary school staff stated that their school was currently employing each approach. Of those instances when a higher proportion of primary school headteachers and teachers indicated the employment of an approach in their school, examples included, at a significant level, the use of rules and rewards for pupils and the active involvement of pupils in developing the school environment (e.g. eco school project). Qualitative data from the staff focus groups, contextual staff interviews and the pupil focus groups all support this apparent primary dominance, particularly in terms of the use of rules and rewards. Indeed, many primary school interviewees and primary pupils discussed the important role that classroom rules played in primary schools, with pupils often being involved in devising the rules (See paragraph 7.29 for a fuller discussion of pupil involvement in devising school rules).

Table 7.1 Current use of approaches that are used to encourage positive behaviour and overcome negative behaviour according to headteachers and teachers

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

7.10 In both headteacher and teacher surveys, respondents were presented with a series of structured approaches in response to indiscipline and asked to rate how often each is employed in their recipient schools. Table 7.2 provides the results.

Table 7.2 Headteacher and teacher ratings of how often structured and staged approaches to indiscipline are used in their school

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

7.11 Overall, the responses of headteachers and teachers were similar in terms of the approaches that they used the most (i.e. 'frequently' or 'sometimes'). However, headteachers typically stated that they used each approach more frequently than did teachers. For both, over three-quarters (headteachers: 80 per cent; teachers: 75 per cent) stated that they 'frequently' or 'sometimes' made a referral to a key member of staff. Referral for exclusion was the approach that had the lowest proportion of headteachers and teachers stating that they 'frequently' or 'sometimes' used it, however, this still accounts for a third of their responses (headteachers: 36 per cent; teachers: 33 per cent).

7.12 When headteacher and teacher responses were analysed according to the type of school, the dominant finding is that higher proportions of secondary school staff stated that they use approaches 'frequently' when compared with their primary counterparts (See Table 7.3). However, there is an interesting difference in the responses of primary and secondary teachers for planned support and help for the teacher, with a higher proportion of secondary teachers stating that this was 'rarely' provided, when compared to their primary counterparts.

Table 7.3 Headteacher and teacher (primary and secondary) ratings of how often structured and staged approaches to indiscipline are used in their school

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

Approaches currently used at a school and classroom level, as identified by pupils

7.13 Alongside the headteacher and teacher questionnaires, pupils were presented with a shortened, but similar list of specific approaches, that some schools use to help pupils behave well and to stop bad behaviour. Pupils were asked to consider each approach and indicate whether it was currently used in their school or not. Table 7.4 provides the details.

Table 7.4 Current use of approaches that are used to encourage positive behaviour and overcome negative behaviour according to pupils

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

7.14 Table 7.4 shows that, for all approaches, more than two-fifths of pupils always stated that the approaches were currently used in their school. Pupils identified that school rules were employed most within their schools (95 per cent); however, a lower proportion stated that rewards for pupils who perform well or behave well were used in their schools (71 per cent).

7.15 Two-thirds of pupils were aware of an anti-bullying policy (67 per cent), while nearly a quarter (24 per cent) felt they didn't know whether their school had one or not. Results from the pupil focus groups provide support for this finding as participants in 8 out of the 14 groups stated that they were not aware that their school had an anti-bullying policy. However, in 3 of these schools, pupils attributed this absence of knowledge as a result of low or non-existent levels of bullying within their school.

7.16 Over a fifth of pupils did not know if their school used pupils who buddy/mentor other pupils (21 per cent) or if there was a pupil council where pupils meet to talk about school issues (20 per cent). This may be because pupils' knowledge of these approaches varies according to whether they are personally involved in these types of schemes. This is supported by the findings derived from the pupil focus groups where those who were involved in such activities appeared more informed than those who were not involved.

7.17 The lowest proportion of pupils stated that citizenship lessons and activities (57 per cent) and environmental/green school projects (42 per cent) were employed by teachers within their schools. This result could be due to the fact that these lessons have a lower profile in the curriculum and, hence, pupils have failed to recall their schools use of them, or do not consider them as an approach to behaviour.

7.18 As shown in Table 7.5 overleaf, a higher proportion of primary school pupils stated that the approaches were used in their school, when compared to secondary pupils. There were only 2 instances when a higher proportion of secondary pupils cited the use of approaches in their school compared to primary pupils: knowledge of an anti-bullying policy and a place in school where a pupil might go to get extra help for their behaviour.

7.19 In the pupil questionnaire and the pupil focus groups, respondents were asked whether there was anything else schools could do to help pupils behave well. A third (33 per cent) of pupils stated that there was more that schools could do to help pupils behave well including:

• Reward well behaved pupils (overall: 16 per cent; primary: 12 per cent; secondary: 17 per cent). Types of rewards most commonly cited were: trips/days out; prizes/treats (e.g. play games at the end of the day, given sweets); and more certificates and awards
• Punish badly behaved pupils (overall: 8 per cent; primary: 5 per cent; secondary: 9 per cent). Types of punishment most commonly cited were: privileges being taken away (e.g. prevented from playing football or not allowed on school trips); exclusion; expulsion; detention; and physical punishment (e.g. corporal punishment)
• A fairer treatment of pupils by teachers (overall: 7 per cent; primary 0 per cent; secondary: 8 per cent). This was also suggested by participants in two pupil focus groups who wanted more equality and consistency in terms of teacher treatment of pupils
• Removal of badly behaved pupils (overall: 6 per cent; primary: 2 per cent; secondary: 6 per cent). The pupil focus groups also supported this suggestion as three groups suggested that pupils should be sent to support bases more often so as to allow the rest of the class to get on with their lessons
• More enjoyable lessons (overall: 5 per cent; primary: 3 per cent; secondary 5 per cent). Once again, the discussion arising from the pupil focus groups also support this suggestion, with two groups also asking for more enjoyable lessons which could include 'shorter, less boring explanations' from the teacher and 'more practical interactive opportunities'.

Table 7.5 Current use of approaches that are used to encourage positive behaviour and overcome negative behaviour according to pupils (primary and secondary)

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

7.20 The 2 most common suggestions centred on the rewarding of well behaved pupils and the punishment of badly behaved pupils. The pupil focus groups lend further support to the importance of this for pupils: in their opinion, good behaviour was not rewarded as often as it should be.

" If you are generally a pleasant, well mannered pupil…you get bypassed" (S1-S6 pupil focus group).

" …most teachers recognise bad behaviour not good behaviour… It is actually disappointing because you have been really good and she hasn't noticed" (P7 pupil focus group).

7.21 A consistent theme arising from both the pupil survey and the focus groups is the call for more severe punishments for those pupils who misbehave. Indeed, a commonly cited punishment in the questionnaire results included physical punishment. Although this was not suggested in the focus groups, participants did call for more severe punishment, for example, duties that could humiliate and embarrass the pupils, such as cleaning the toilets. It was felt that these types of punishments would deter pupils from behaving badly.

Involvement of the school community in developing these strategies

Perceived levels of involvement of the school community in developing strategies

7.22 As part of the school staff survey, headteacher, teachers and additional support staff were asked a number of questions that required them to rate how involved they felt school staff were in the development of strategies for improving behaviour in their individual schools. Tables 7.6 and 7.7 provides the details.

Table 7.6 Headteacher, teacher and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of how involved school staff are in discussions about improving behaviour in the whole 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 school staff, 2006

7.23 Table 7.6 reveals clear differences in the perceptions of headteachers, teachers and additional support staff in relation to the regular involvement of school staff in discussions about improving behaviour in the whole school. Overall, headteachers agreed the most with this statement followed by teachers and then additional support staff. There was little difference in the responses of primary and secondary headteacher responses to this question. However, over half (52 per cent) of secondary additional support staff either 'disagreed' or 'strongly disagreed' that they were regularly involved in whole-school discussions, while one-fifth of secondary teachers stated the same (22 per cent).

7.24 Results shown in Table 7.7 reveal marginal differences in the perceptions of headteachers and teachers with regard to the contribution of staff ideas and the support that staff offered to colleagues regarding pupil behaviour. Overall, the vast majority of headteachers (93 per cent) and teachers (85 per cent) 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that they gave, or were given, the opportunity to state their ideas and also support their colleagues on issues associated with pupil behaviour. For both, however, higher proportions of primary staff were more extreme in their ratings than secondary staff as they gave a 'strongly agree' response.

Table 7.7 Headteachers and teachers (overall, primary and secondary) rating of whether staff can contribute ideas and provide support to other colleagues regarding pupil behaviour

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

7.25 Headteachers were asked to indicate whether they 'agreed' or 'disagreed' with a statement about the involvement of staff in the development of the school's behaviour policy. Almost all (95 per cent) respondents either 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' with this statement. There were no major differences in the responses of primary and secondary headteachers.

Members of the school community involved in developing strategies

7.26 In order to assess further, the involvement of school staff and the wider school community in the development and planning of strategies linked to behaviour, a number of questions were included that asked respondents to think back over the last year. Specifically, headteachers were asked to indicate which members of the school community had been involved in discussing and developing strategies related to discipline and the promotion of positive behaviour in their school. Teachers were asked to indicate how many times they had been involved in whole school planning in relation to discipline and positive behaviour. Tables 7.8 and 7.9 provides the results.

Table 7.8 Members of the school community who have been actively involved in discussing and developing strategies related to discipline and the promotion of positive behaviour in your school in the last year according to 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

7.27 Headteachers stated that they had included a whole range of individuals from the school community over the last year. Indeed, there was no instance in which a listed member of the school community was cited by less than a fifth of all headteachers surveyed. Figure 7.1 below lists the 'top five' most commonly cited type of individual (in rank order):

Figure 7.1 Most commonly cited members of the school community involved in developing strategies

7.28 Notable differences between primary and secondary headteacher responses include the higher proportions of secondary headteachers stating that youth workers, home-school link staff, social workers, educational psychologists and learning support staff were included in consultation, over the last year, when compared to primary headteachers. In addition, primary school headteachers stated, to a much higher extent (61 per cent) than their secondary counterparts (24 per cent), that they had included lunchtime assistants in discussions over the last year. Reasons for this could include the higher levels of supervision required in primary school yards and playgrounds (due to maturation issues), thus, the more central role that lunchtime assistants have in primary schools.

7.29 Although the results shown above indicate that headteachers believed they include pupils in whole-school planning, results from the 14 pupil focus groups suggest that these pupils did not think the same. Participants in 9 pupil focus groups did not think that they had been involved in deciding school rules or devising anti-bullying/behaviour policies; in 2 pupils were unsure and pupils in only 3 stated that they had been involved in this type of activity. Many of the pupils stated that they had been involved in devising the class rules but not the school rules, which were perceived to be under the sole directive of the headteacher and not something pupils could have control in deciding. The Pupil Council was cited by a number of the focus groups as being a means through which pupils views are sought. However, pupils in 3 of the groups doubted the validity of this pupil forum as illustrated in the following quotations:

" …pupils in the pupil council have very little effect on anything that happens. I don't want to say that it isn't a democracy in the pupil council but it is not doing what it should (S1-S3 pupil focus group)

" It is as if they are humouring us…we are talking and writing down minutes but that is as far as it goes (S4-S6 pupil focus group)

7.30 As stated in 7.26 teachers were asked to indicate approximately how many times they had been involved in whole-school planning in relation to discipline and positive behaviour in the last year. Table 7.9 provides a summary of the results.

Table 7.9 The number of times teachers (overall, primary and secondary) have been involved in whole school planning in relation to discipline and positive behaviour in the last year

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

7.31 Table 7.9 shows that, in the last year, nearly half (47 per cent) of teachers surveyed estimated that they had been involved in whole-school planning, in relation to discipline and positive behaviour in the last year. A further 33 per cent had been involved more than twice. However, one in 5 (19 per cent) stated that they had 'never' been involved in this type of planning in the previous year. There was little difference in the responses of primary and secondary teachers to this question.

7.32 A specific question was included in the survey of headteachers and teachers, which asked them to estimate how much time they had spent, in the last full teaching week, working with other partners or members of the school community in planning, developing or delivering activities in school. As shown in Table 7.10, the largest proportion of headteachers (61 per cent) and teachers (84 per cent) spent either under an hour or no time at all, in their last full teaching week, working with other members of the school community. The absence of partnership working was most apparent in the teacher responses (67 per cent compared to 28 percent). Both primary headteachers and teachers, generally spent less time than their secondary counterparts working with other members of the school community. The issue of working with outside agencies and the wider school community was expressly discussed in one secondary headteachers' focus group. The group stressed the importance of working with outside agencies in trying to tackle the issue of indiscipline but also highlighted that, in their view, there was an absence of coherent, joined up thinking between schools and outside agencies that hindered these collaborations. One focus group participant illustrated the point further by describing the current partnerships as "very frustrating", with school staff only acting on agreed actions decided in previous meetings and agencies appearing to have made little or no progress.

Table 7.10 Headteacher and teacher estimations of personal time spent, in the last full teaching week, working with other partners or members of the school community in planning, developing or delivering activities in 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 school staff, 2006

Key factors necessary for the development of a whole-school approach

7.33 As part of the focus group discussions, a specific question was posed to all groups asking them to consider what it takes to develop a whole-school approach to behaviour, specifically the promotion of positive behaviour. Although a number of different suggestions were proffered by participants, a set of common key features emerged. These are listed in rank order below:

1. Consistency amongst all school staff (5)
2. Involvement of parents (5)
3. Involvement of pupils (4)
4. Support (from SMT) (2)
5. School staff consultation (2)
6. Flexibility (2)

7.34 In relation to the issue of consistency, focus group participants stressed the importance of all school staff members, ranging from teachers to school caretakers, to be "singing from the same hymn sheet". However, a few focus groups also advocated a degree of flexibility in the way teachers choose to apply it. Supporting the results shown earlier in this chapter, the involvement of parents and pupils was perceived to be key in developing a whole-school approach. Finally, participants in a number of focus groups drew attention to the importance of support which must underpin any whole-school approaches to behaviour. Support from school senior management was cited by both groups, however, one group also indicated that local authority support was important.

Effectiveness of these approaches

Perceived effectiveness of approaches to behaviour as identified by school staff

7.35 In the survey, headteachers were specifically asked a question requiring them to rate, on a scale of one to 5, how effective the 24 listed approaches presented to them in a previous question (see paragraphs 7.3 to 7.9 for further discussion) had been in relation to the following: 'promoting positive behaviour in the classroom and the school'; and 'responding to indiscipline in the classroom and the school'. Table 7.11 provides the detail below.

7.36 Table 7.11 shows that, in general, ratings clustered in the upper part of the response scale, thus, headteachers believed the approaches to be effective in promoting positive behaviour in the classroom and the school and in responding to indiscipline in the classroom and the school. Specifically, the majority of headteachers provided a rating of either 4 or 5 in terms of the effectiveness of the approaches for the two said outcomes (promoting positive behaviour: 84 per cent; responding to indiscipline: 79 per cent).

Table 7.11 Headteacher (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of the effectiveness of approaches in promoting positive behaviour and responding to indiscipline in the classroom and the 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 school staff, 2006

7.37 Overall, primary headteachers were more emphatic in their ratings to these questions, with more than twice the proportion giving a 'very effective' rating when compared with their secondary counterparts. In turn, double the proportion of secondary headteachers were more ambivalent in their ratings for both outcomes, by endorsing a middle rating of 3, when compared to primary headteachers.

7.38 In the questionnaire, teachers were asked to rate how confident they felt in their ability to 'promote positive behaviour in their classroom' and to 'respond to indiscipline in their classroom'. See Table 7.12 for details.

Table 7.12 Teacher (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of the confidence in their ability to promote positive behaviour and respond to indiscipline in their classroom

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

7.39 The majority of responses, as shown in Table 7.12, appear to cluster around the upper part of the response scale (4 or 5), thus showing that teachers felt confident in their ability to promote positive behaviour in their classroom (90 per cent) and also to respond to indiscipline in their classroom (86 per cent). A very slightly higher proportion of primary school teachers endorsed a rating of 4 or 5 (92 per cent) in their ability to promote positive behaviour in their classroom when compared to secondary teachers (87 per cent). In contrast, there was no significant difference in the confidence ratings of primary and secondary teachers in their ability to respond to indiscipline in their classrooms.

7.40 Following the initial question which assessed teacher confidence in promoting positive behaviour and responding to indiscipline in the classroom, a series of approaches were then presented in the questionnaire, with respondents being asked to indicate if any of them would increase their confidence in promoting positive behaviour and responding to indiscipline in their classroom. Table 7.13 provides the details.

7.41 When comparing the responses of teachers for the 4 approaches, Table 7.13 shows that the highest proportion of teachers believed understanding individual pupils' learning styles and motivations would increase their confidence in promoting positive behaviour and responding to indiscipline (86 per cent). Personal safety training was the approach deemed least likely to increase teacher confidence, however, it should be noted that half (50 per cent) of respondents still thought that it would increase their confidence. For all approaches, a higher proportion of primary school teachers believed the approaches would make them more confident in the classroom when compared to secondary teachers, with personal safety training showing greatest polarity between sectors.

Table 7.13 Increases in teacher (overall, primary and secondary) confidence according to the use of an approach

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

Most effective approach/es in encouraging positive behaviour and overcoming negative behaviour as identified by school staff

7.42 In the headteacher and teacher questionnaires, respondents were asked to endorse the 3 approaches, from the list presented to them (see paragraphs 7.3 to 7.9 for further discussion), that they thought were the most effective in overcoming negative behaviour and promoting positive behaviour. It should be noted that, as respondents were asked to endorse the three approaches they found most helpful from a list of 24 different approaches, the percentages shown in Figure 7.2 overleaf appear relatively low. This is due to the spread of responses across the different approaches.

Figure 7.2 Approaches cited by the highest proportion of headteachers and teachers as being the most helpful in behaviour management

Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006

7.43 The importance of rules and rewards and a behaviour/discipline policy were cited by both teachers and headteachers as being the main approaches which proved to be the most helpful in promoting positive behaviour and overcoming negative behaviour. This supports the findings discussed in paragraph 7.5 in that these approaches were used to a high extent and were also perceived to be effective. A higher proportion of teachers cited additional support resources as being most effective, including support assistants, breaktime supervision and also pupil support bases, than did headteachers. This is likely to be a result of their direct 'ground level' experience in which these support aids are used. In contrast, headteachers were more likely than teachers to cite approaches that involved pupils in activities such as citizenship/participation and also, specifically, in developing ideas and activities in the school.

Most effective approach/es in encouraging positive behaviour and overcoming negative behaviour as identified by pupils

7.44 As part of the pupil survey, primary and secondary pupils were also asked to state one approach, from the list presented to them (see paragraphs 7.13 to 7.21 for further discussion), that they thought worked best in helping pupils behave well and to stop bad behaviour. Of those 1178 pupils who completed this question, the 'top five' most effective approaches were:

1. Rewards for pupils who perform well or behave well (overall, 27 per cent; primary, 12 per cent; secondary, 31 per cent). This was also cited by eight out of the 14 pupil focus groups as an effective means of overcoming indiscipline and promoting positive behaviour
2. School rules for pupils to follow (overall, 16 per cent; primary, 19 per cent; secondary, 15 per cent). Seven pupil focus groups also cited this as an effective approach to behaviour management
3. A place in school where a pupil might go to get extra help for their behaviour (overall, 11 per cent; primary, 13 per cent; secondary, 10 per cent)
4. An anti-bullying policy (overall, 7 per cent; primary, 15 per cent; secondary, 5 per cent)
5. Staff who are on duty at breaktime (overall, 5 per cent; primary, 6 per cent; secondary, 5 per cent).

7.45 For nearly all of the 'top 5' approaches, higher proportions of primary school pupils stated that the said approach would help pupils behave well and stop bad behaviour (see earlier bullet points). However, more than twice the proportion of secondary school pupils (31 per cent), than their primary school equivalents (12 per cent), thought that rewards for pupils who perform/behave well was most effective.

7.46 Pupils in the focus groups were also asked what they thought worked well in stopping bad behaviour and helping pupils to behave. Although rewards and punishments were the approaches cited as being the most effective and, as discussed in paragraphs 7.19 to 7.21 the ones pupils thought schools should employ to a greater extent, the group also named a number of other approaches that were different from those discussed previously. These included increased parental involvement (5 focus groups) because parents have greater power to punish their children than teachers; increased SMT involvement (3 focus groups) because the headteacher was still perceived by many to be the ultimate punishment and so their involvement was considered a deterrent for bad behaviour; and the use of staged intervention systems, whereby a series of warnings were given prior to punishment (2 focus groups). This was considered by pupils to be a fair approach to managing behaviour because pupils were not immediately dealt a punishment exercise. Finally, pupils also advocated effective approaches to be those that involved talking to the pupil about their behaviour in order to find out possible causes (two focus groups).

Most effective approach/es in encouraging positive behaviour and overcoming negative behaviour as identified by local authorities

7.47 Local authority personnel were asked to identify examples of effective practice in responding to indiscipline and promoting positive behaviour at a local authority level and then at a school and classroom level. Although interviewees were asked separate questions about indiscipline and positive behaviour, many felt it difficult to disaggregate the two as essentially, "promoting positive behaviour underpins the whole behaviour and discipline strategy within the council" (local authority interviewee). As such, responses have been combined and so represent examples of both responding to indiscipline and promoting positive behaviour. At a local authority level, a number of initiatives and specific strategies were cited as being effective means of responding to indiscipline and promoting positive behaviour. Indeed, Staged Intervention/Framework for Intervention ( FFI) (13 comments), Restorative Practices (4 comments) and Solution-Oriented schools (4 comments) were specifically cited by local authority interviewees. They were all thought to offer schools structured and helpful ways of managing behaviour and also supporting staff:

" Things like framework for intervention have been very helpful in supporting individual class teachers to manage behaviour difficulties in the context of their own teaching and learning environment" (local authority interviewee).

7.48 In addition to the specific strategies cited above, local authority interviewees also pointed to the effectiveness that a comprehensive Continuing Professional Development ( CPD) menu of training opportunities, available to all school staff, has on behaviour management (7 comments). In addition, 4 interviewees pointed to the effectiveness of greater integrated working amongst agencies (particularly education and social work) and also the importance that a clear inclusion policy and inclusion training has had as being examples of effective local authority practice.

7.49 In relation to effective approaches at school and classroom level, behaviour and pupil support bases were cited the most by local authority personnel (9 comments). A further 7 interviewees highlighted the positive effect that an alternative, flexible and appropriate curriculum had on behaviour management, whilst 6 stressed that additional support/behaviour support staff had an impact on indiscipline and promoting positive behaviour. Assertive Discipline was also proffered as an effective approach to dealing with behaviour (5 comments).

" I think assertive discipline has been effective in supporting teachers to manage behaviour in a standardised way. This is particularly for teachers that have come out of college and they are immediately moving into an environment where they know how the school operates because it is a very formal and highly structured discipline system whilst also being very supportive to pupils" (local authority interviewee).

Key factors in effective behaviour management

7.50 As part of the interviews with local authority personnel, interviewees were asked what factors they considered to be key to effective behaviour management, both at local authority level, and at school/classroom level.

7.51 At local authority level the most frequently cited factors were:

• Effective support and communication between the local authority and schools (14)
• Integrated/multi-agency/joint working (9)
• Clear and relevant local authority policies (8)
• Provision of professional development and training (8)

7.52 At school and classroom level, a wider range of key factors was identified by interviewees. One overarching theme which was mentioned by around half of all interviewees (15) was the importance of strong leadership and commitment to behaviour management from the headteacher or senior management of the school. This leadership was seen to be absolutely fundamental by many interviewees and its impact could be felt in a wide range of ways within a school.

7.53 Factors that were often linked to school leadership by interviewees were the development of relevant, clear and recognised school policies and procedures relating to behaviour, and good communication of these within the school (12). A strong school ethos and a sense of community within school were also mentioned by a third (10) as were innovative and flexible approaches to behaviour management (9). Finally, the importance of a good CPD programme was also referred to by 9 interviewees.

7.54 Several aspects of teaching and learning approaches within schools were referred to by local authority interviewees in terms of their relevance to effective behaviour management. Effective classroom management was felt to be important, and this theme was again linked with comments on training and professional development. Furthermore, it was felt that schools and teachers needed to adopt a great deal of flexibility both in terms of their teaching methods and the content of lessons in order to meet the individual needs of pupils. The introduction of a flexible curriculum was referred to by 6 interviewees, and was seen as bringing great benefits to many pupils who would struggle with a more formal academic approach. It was felt that the perceived relevance of the learning experience could have a significant impact on pupils' motivation and behaviour. As one interviewee put it:

" You can turn 'Better Behaviour, Better Learning' round and make it 'Better Learning, Better Behaviour' and that has been the way we have approached it…" (local authority interviewee).

7.55 As part of the focus group discussions with school staff, participants were also asked, in their experience, what worked in managing poor behaviour and promoting positive behaviour. The most commonly cited factors or approaches, as listed in rank order, included:

• Consistency and a whole school approach (8)
• Rules and rewards (5)
• Good teachers skills (4) (including a good relationships between the teacher and the pupil; a strong, well organised teacher; and the ability to present the curriculum in an interesting way)
• An appropriate and flexible curriculum (2)
• School uniform (2)
• Diet and exercise (2)
• Smaller classes (2).

7.56 A consistent, whole-school approach was deemed to be the most effective way of managing behaviour, with the consistent use of rules and rewards as being an effective means of doing so. Focus group participants also touched on the issue of teacher skills as being a key factor in managing behaviour. This is also supported by results from the pupil focus groups, which indicated that pupils thought their behaviour varied according to the teacher taking the class and the means by which they taught the lesson.

7.57 An appropriate and flexible curriculum was cited by a few staff focus groups (showing similarity with local authority views), as too was diet and exercise, and a school uniform. Finally, in 7 of the 8 staff focus groups, participants cited the need for smaller classes as an effective means of managing behaviour. Views were expressed energetically, with participants suggesting that the issue of class size really underpins the effectiveness of any approach for behaviour.

Supportiveness of parents

Perceived supportiveness of parents by school staff

7.58 As part of the survey of school staff, headteachers were specifically asked to rate the general supportiveness of parents of pupils in their school. As depicted in Table 7.14 below, results show that headteachers perceived there to be good levels of general support from parents of pupils at their school, with ratings largely clustering around the upper end of the response scale (84 per cent rating 4 or 5). There was no real difference in the responses of primary and secondary headteachers for this question.

Table 7.14 Headteacher (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of the general supportiveness of parents of pupils in their 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 school staff, 2006

Time school staff spend talking to parents about their child's behaviour

7.59 In order to find out about the level of contact school staff had with parents of pupils at their school, a question was posed to both headteachers and teachers about the amount of time they had spent talking to parents about their child/ren's behaviour, in the last full teaching week (excluding parents evenings). Table 7.15 provides the detail.

Table 7.15 The time headteachers and teachers (overall, primary and secondary) spent talking to parents about pupil 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

7.60 Overall, headteachers spent much more time (39 per cent) (an hour to more than 3 hours) talking to parents compared to teachers (7 per cent). In addition, higher proportions of teachers (69 per cent) spent no time at all talking to parents about behaviour in their last full teaching week compared to headteachers (19 per cent). In the main, secondary headteachers and primary teachers spent the most time (an hour to more than 3 hours), in their last full teaching week, talking to parents about pupil behaviour. Primary headteachers, however, spent the least time talking to parents as three-quarters (74 per cent) spent under an hour or no time at all compared with less than half (45 per cent) of secondary headteachers.

7.61 For those headteachers and teachers who indicated on the school survey that they had spent some time talking to parents about behaviour in the last week, an additional question was posed asking what the focus of these discussions was. Table 7.16 depicts the results. On the whole, the response profiles of headteachers and teachers are largely similar, with the highest proportions stating that the parental discussions involved a balance of positive and negative feedback on their child's behaviour (headteacher: 68 per cent; teacher: 55 per cent). In contrast, relatively low proportions of headteachers and teachers stated that the discussion had involved mostly positive feedback (3 per cent and 9 per cent respectively). Higher proportions of both secondary school headteachers and teachers talked to parents more about their child's negative behaviour when compared to their primary school counterparts. Conversely, one in 7 (14 per cent) primary teachers gave mostly positive feedback compared to one in 50 secondary teachers (2 per cent).

Table 7.16 The focus of discussions headteachers and teachers (overall, primary and secondary) had with parents 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

Summary

• Local authorities were rolling out, and piloting, a range of initiatives/strategies (e.g. Staged Intervention/Framework for Intervention ( FFI); Solution-Oriented Schools; and Restorative Practices).
• In terms of approaches, the majority of schools operated a school-wide behaviour/discipline policy; used a range of rules and reward systems; had a school uniform; and were involving parents and pupils in school-wide issues. Pupil support bases; home-link workers; integrated support teams pupil councils and buddying/mentoring schemes were used to a lesser extent.
• Referrals to a key member of staff was a popular strategy used to manage behaviour as over three-quarters of headteachers and teachers 'frequently' or 'sometimes' employed it in their school. A third of both headteachers and teachers stated that they 'frequently' or 'sometimes' made a referral for an exclusion in their school.
• Pupils thought schools could do more by: rewarding well behaved pupils; punishing badly behaved pupils (with more severe punishment); a fairer treatment by teachers; removing badly behaved pupils; and making lessons more enjoyable.
• The 'top-five' individuals included by headteachers in whole-school discussion were: teachers; pupils; learning support staff; parents; and educational psychologists. However, pupils involved in the survey and focus groups felt that they had not been included in deciding school rules or devising an anti-bullying policy.
• School staff identified the key factors in developing a whole-school approach to behaviour as: consistency; involvement of parents and pupils; SMT support; school staff consultation; and flexibility.
• The majority of headteachers and teachers reported that they spent under an hour or no time at all working with other members of the school community in the last full teaching week. Less time was spent by primary staff than secondary staff. An absence of joined up thinking between schools and outside agencies was thought to be hindering collaborations.
• The vast majority of teachers already felt confident in their ability to promote positive behaviour and deal with indiscipline in their classroom. However, understanding individual pupils' learning styles and motivations was the approach thought by teachers to be most likely to increase their confidence. Personal safety training was the approach deemed least likely to increase teacher confidence. More primary than secondary teachers thought that all the cited approaches would increase their confidence.
• Local authority interviewees considered approaches such as Staged Intervention/ FFI to be effective means of responding to indiscipline at a local authority level. They also thought a comprehensive CPD menu; integrated working amongst agencies; a clear inclusion policy; and inclusion training were all effective. At a school and classroom level, local authority interviewees thought that the following were the most effective: pupil support bases; alternative, flexible and appropriate curriculum; additional support/behaviour support staff; and Assertive Discipline.
• Headteachers from secondary schools spent the most time talking to parents about their child's behaviour in the last full teaching week. Discussions mainly involved a balance of positive and negative feedback. However, secondary school staff talked to parents about negative feedback more than primary staff.

« Previous | Contents | Next »