As Chapter 3 outlined, the cohort of PGCE students referred to within this thesis was required to ‘establish a clear framework for classroom discipline to manage learners’ behaviour constructively and promote their self-control and independence’ (TDA 2007:12). The school’s overall approach to pupil
behaviour and its behaviour policy is likely to exert a degree of influence over the framework established. The current standards are more explicit on this point, requiring the teacher to ‘establish a framework for discipline’ but also operate ‘in accordance with the school’s behaviour policy’ (DfE 2011c:12). The additional guidance issued by the current government reinforces this point. It states that trainees should:
…be able to adapt their practice to fit with the school behaviour policy and should understand that consistency is an essential component of managing behaviour.
91
The need for a whole school approach to managing behaviour is well established within government guidance (e.g. DES 1989a, DCSF 2009, DfE 2013a). The Elton Report (DES 1989a) represented a major shift with regard to the management of behaviour in schools with a move towards whole school approaches to behaviour and discipline (Hallam and Rogers 2008). Though the Elton Report (DES 1989a) is recognised as influential in its strong reinforcement of the need for a whole school approach and its consideration of the factors that shaped this, the existence of school policies concerning behaviour has been noted much earlier (e.g. Galloway et al 1982, Upton 1983; Docking 1987). Since the Elton Report’s recognition of its importance, the need to adopt a whole school approach to pupil behaviour has been a feature of government guidance.
A school’s behaviour policy is central to defining the whole school approach. The requirement for schools to have a behaviour policy is firmly established in legislation (e.g. Education Act, 1997; School Standards and Framework Act, 1998; and Education and Inspections Act, 2006). Government guidance (DfE 2013a: 3) requires schools ‘to ensure they have a strong behaviour policy to support staff in managing behaviour, including the use of rewards and sanctions’. By law schools are required to set out measures in the behaviour policy which aim to:
promote good behaviour, self-discipline and respect; prevent bullying;
ensure that pupils complete assigned work; and which;
regulate the conduct of pupils.
(DfE 2013a: 4)
Though changing legislation inevitably influences the content, a beginning teacher can typically expect to encounter a school behaviour policy covering these broad areas:
A statement of the principles that underpin the policy.
A code of conduct for pupils setting out the expectations of behaviour.
92
Promoting and rewarding good behaviour.
Addressing poor behaviour through the use of disciplinary sanctions.
Acknowledgement of the school’s legal duties under the Equality Act 2010, in respect of safeguarding and in respect of pupils with special educational needs (SEN).
Arrangements for monitoring and reviewing the policy.
(DfES 2003d, DCSF 2009, DfE 2013a)
Despite these commonalities, there are considerable variations among schools in their approaches to behaviour and, importantly, in the extent to which the individual teacher has responsibility for determining the class based steps of the policy. For the classroom teacher, the rules, rewards and sanctions represent the operational core of the school’s policy. In some cases schools develop these operational components themselves but, in others, adopt recognised packages. One such package is Canter and Canter’s (1992) Assertive Discipline approach. As noted in Chapter 2, in Excellence in Schools, the DfEE (1997a) endorsed the Assertive Discipline approach, suggesting it could help schools to establish settings where children were encouraged to behave well and there were clear guidelines for behaviour (Hallam and Rogers 2008). Assertive Discipline is based on establishing clear, unambiguous rules of conduct, together with continuous positive feedback when the rules are followed, and a hierarchy of sanctions for rule-breaking (Fletcher-Campbell and Wilkin 2003). As a long established package (e.g. Canter and Canter 1976), Assertive Discipline (Canter and Canter 1992) has spawned a number of derivatives and behaviour policies devised by schools sometimes display elements (e.g. names on the board or marbles in a jar) or reflect its principles.
A more recent package that employs a similar tariff based approach is Behaviour For Learning (BFL). This approach, which should not be confused with the behaviour for learning model advocated by Powell and Tod (2004) and Ellis and Tod (2009, 2015), developed in a Birmingham secondary school. It has found favour with politicians and has been adopted by a range of schools across the country (Smithers 2005). The BFL approach sets out a five levels of consequence (abbreviated to C):
93 C1 Verbal warning.
C2 Second verbal warning.
C3 Detention for one hour, usually the next day.
C4 Isolation from peers in the school’s isolation unit for one, two or three days; or exclusion.
(Elkin 2004: 6)
Under this system, if a pupil is rude, shouts out or behaves inappropriately in class they could be issued with a C1 by the teacher. If the pupil persists, the teacher might then issue a C2. The verbal warnings are not centrally recorded but the advice is that the teacher makes a note of them by, for example, writing them on the board during the course of the lesson, based on the rationale that pupils can see exactly where they are within the sequence. The approach keeps dialogue to a minimum. If a pupil misbehaves, the teacher would simply say, for example, ‘Kelly – C1.’ Teachers are trained to be decisive and clear, but calm and not angry, in communicating a warning (Elkin 2004).
The advantage of tariff based systems of this type is that they potentially provide the beginning teacher with some predictability (Watkins and Wagner 2000) through the provision of a clear sequence of steps to follow in response to pupil behaviour. At school level, a high degree of consistency is possible, although the point at which, for example, a C1 is issued may still vary from teacher to teacher unless there are opportunities for the staff team to consider collectively the types of behaviour that should trigger this response. A further strength is that the pupils are aware of the likely consequences of their behaviour and so also experience a degree of predictability.
Tariff based approaches have been criticised. Referring to Assertive Discipline (Canter and Canter 1992), Watkins and Wagner (2000) suggest that used as a sole intervention or in an automatic manner without the application of professional judgement, it can lead to pupils being escalated through the school’s disciplinary systems. They go further, suggesting that it is an approach that invites teachers ‘to become automata rather than professionals (or even humans)’ (Watkins and Wagner 2000: 49). At the
94
heart of Watkins and Wagner’s argument is a view that tariff based approaches demean the place of teacher-pupil interactions in resolving problems and generating solutions and divert attention ‘from other important aspects which influence classroom behaviour, such as the curriculum’ (Watkins and Wagner 2000: 48).
Primary teachers may encounter behaviour policies based on Jenny Mosley’s Golden Time model (Mosley and Sonnet 2005). The use of Golden Time involves establishing with classes that there is a period of time, usually part of a Friday afternoon, when pupils will be able to engage in an activity of their choice from the range that is offered. Where this is used school wide it can even be organised with different activities offered in different classes, with the children choosing which room to go to. At the start of the week every pupil starts off with the same amount of Golden Time. If an individual pupil misbehaves they lose some minutes of Golden Time. Misbehaviour is any behaviour that infringes the ‘Golden Rules’. Although, therefore, Golden Time is presented primarily as an approach for rewarding behaviour, the sanctions are inextricably linked. The appeal for many teachers of Golden Time is that it addresses the concern that some pupils who behave well all the time can get overlooked in reward systems. When using the Golden Time approach, every pupil gets the reward unless they do something that causes the teacher to deduct minutes.
Warnings are used before minutes are deducted, based on the principle that the pupil is then able to make a choice about whether to continue with the behaviour that will lead to the loss of minutes. At the end of the week the pupil has to sit and wait for this period of deducted time to pass before being allowed to start their Golden Time activity. The use of a sand timer is advocated so that the pupil can see the time passing. The suggestion is also that the waiting pupils should be able to see the others who are engaging in the golden activities. Mosley and Sonnet (2005: 45) state:
It is essential for the child to have their metaphorical nose pressed against the window of opportunity they chose to kick in!...The sound of laughter, the chinking of dice and flourishing of dressing up clothes are all reminders of what they are missing.
95
This requirement may raise some additional issues to consider related to the management of those pupils who are required to wait in this way. Mosley and Sonnet’s (2005) assumption appears to be that they will wait compliantly, reflecting on their previous behavioural choices that led to this missed opportunity. While some no doubt will, others may be more resistant and resentful and display this through their behaviour.
Some schools have rejected the traditional emphasis on rewards and sanctions and explored the use of restorative approaches.
A
restorative approach focuses on building and repairing relationships rather than on managing and controlling behaviour. Hopkins (2004: 29) claims that it ‘puts repairing harm done to relationships and people over and above the need for assigning blame and dispensing punishment’. In contrast to the more traditional use of sanctions which aims to identify and discipline the wrongdoer through the most appropriate punishment, the restorative approach seeks to develop understanding through responses to the following questions: What happened?
Who has been affected and how? How can we put right the harm?
What have we all learnt so as to make different choices next time? (Hopkins 2004: 29)
The adoption of a restorative approach moves practice away from a focus on rules, sanctions and rewards and encourages a focus on positive relationships (Hendry 2009). It is a contrast with the more traditional approach that asks:
What happened? Who is to blame?
What is the appropriate punishment?
(Hopkins 2004: 30)
As Cremin (2013: 117) suggests, ‘punitive and non-reparative responses to indiscipline…continue to dominate policy and practice in most educational
96
settings’. Restorative approaches are very different as a response than, for example, the Coalition government’s recent recommendation to use ‘extra physical activity such as running around a playing field’ or ‘the setting of written tasks as punishments, such as writing lines or an essay’ (DfE 2014a: 8) as sanctions.
Any training intended to enable beginning teachers to ‘understand how effective school systems support good behaviour management’ (TA 2012a: 2) needs to take account of the fact that there are different approaches used by schools. Three examples are discussed above, but, allowing for various derivatives of these and systems devised by individual schools, there are likely to be considerable variations in what a trainee on placement or a newly qualified teacher might encounter. Perhaps more important for a trainee’s own feelings of preparedness to ‘establish and maintain a good standard of behaviour in the classroom’ (TA 2012b: 5) than the diversity of approaches is how easy to operate the system they encounter is and the degree of responsibility they have for developing the class based stages.