As Chapter 3 outlined, a common feature of professional standards issued by the previous Labour government (DfES/TTA 2002, TDA 2007) and the Coalition government (DfE 2011c) is the reference to ‘a framework for classroom discipline’ (TDA 2007: 12). The current standards offer some indication of what such a framework involves through the expectation that the teacher will employ ‘a range of strategies’ and use ‘praise, sanctions and rewards consistently and fairly’ (DfE 2011c: 12). The point is re-iterated in guidance intended to improve teacher training through the recommendations that:
Trainees should be able to use praise effectively.
Trainees should know how to apply rewards and sanctions to improve behaviour.
97
The emphasis on the ability to establish a framework based on praise, rewards and sanctions reflects guidance on whole school policies dating back to the Elton Report (DES 1989a: 99) which had noted that:
…the best way to encourage good standards of behaviour is a clear code of conduct backed by a balanced combination of rewards and punishments within a positive community atmosphere.
The Elton Report’s recommendations were based on current practice – good and bad – that was observed by the enquiry team on school visits and reported in submissions from teachers, head teachers and others. Evidently rules, rewards and sanctions were being used by schools in a variety of ways with varying degrees of success as part of a framework at the point when the enquiry was being conducted. It is also clear from fictional and historical accounts of schools and schooling that such approaches stretch back over many centuries. Whilst in no sense could the Elton Report be viewed as ‘inventing’ the idea of using rules, rewards and sanctions, its significance was in establishing the centrality of these as part of a whole school approach and in giving quite detailed advice on the nature of these elements. Despite its stated intent ‘not to produce a classroom management text book’ (DES 1989: 71), sections 3 and 4 of the Elton Report and a number of other sections incorporated a level of practical guidance that would not be out of place in such a text. The general ideas regarding the need to have a positively phrased set of rules, the focusing on the positive through praise and rewards and the application of fair and consistent sanctions have been enduring components of subsequence government guidance. In its ‘Principles and Practice - What works in Schools’ section, the Steer Report (DfES 2005b) includes coverage of rewards and sanctions, observing:
In schools with good standards of behaviour, there is a balance between the use of rewards and sanctions. Praise is used to motivate and encourage pupils. At the same time, pupils are aware of sanctions that will be applied for poor behaviour.
98
The enduring emphasis placed on the use of rewards and sanctions as the key components of a framework for managing classroom behaviour would seem to indicate that this is an approach beginning teachers need to learn about. An alternative view would be that trainees need to supplement this procedural knowledge with a more critical understanding of the implicit theory about how behaviour can be managed and changed. The underlying assumption is that if pupils are demonstrating the required behaviour, as defined by the rules, and something rewarding happens as a result, it will increase the likelihood of them behaving in this way in the future. Similarly, if pupils misbehave and something they dislike happens, such as the imposition of a sanction, they will be less likely to behave in this way in the future. These assumptions are influenced by behaviourist theory, though it should be recognised from Skinner’s writings (e.g. 1976) that behaviourism is more complex than simply the application of rewards and sanctions in response to behaviour. Indeed, as a key figure in the development of behaviourism, Skinner did not favour the use of punishment, believing it to be ineffective (Wheldall and Glynn 1989, Pound 2005). It is important for beginning teachers to recognise that there are a number of possible issues when using rewards and sanctions as forms of reinforcement, including:
The possibility that what the adult considers to be aversive may not be for the pupil. Some pupils might, for example, like being out of class and therefore a ‘time out’ room that has the intention of reducing a particular behaviour may be reinforcing it.
The possibility that what the adult considers to be rewarding may not be for the pupil. Being singled out for praise, for example, may be embarrassing for some children and consequently they may exhibit less of the behaviour that gains praise.
The possibility that a reward or sanction may mean more or less to the individual depending on whether they like or respect this person.
The possibility that the pupil reflects upon the experience of being disciplined and judges it to be ‘unfair’.
99
These issues relate to the more general criticism sometimes levelled at behaviourism (e.g. Ayers et al 2000, Porter 2007) that it has insufficient regard for the influence of cognitive processes. The common feature of issues identified above is that they highlight a need for the teacher to consider how pupils experience and interpret the use of rewards and sanctions. Quite simply, not all pupils will react in the same way.
A further potential issue with an approach based on behaviourist principles relates to the group setting of the classroom. Porter (2007) makes the point that much of the considerable body of research evidence demonstrating the effectiveness of behaviourist approaches is based on work with individuals in quite controlled environments. It is necessary to recognise that within classrooms there may be many other rewarding or punishing factors present besides the ones the teacher is controlling. For example, whilst the teacher may use ignoring as a response to attention seeking behaviour, it may be the attention of peers that is more important to the pupil. Even Wheldall and Merrett (1989: 75) in advocating a behaviourist approach to behaviour, acknowledged that ‘The hard truth is that teacher response may be irrelevant’
It is also worthy of note that within the 2007 Professional Standards (TDA 2007) it was stated that the clear framework for classroom discipline the teacher was expected to establish should promote self-control and independence. There was an indication, therefore, that the framework had a role that extended beyond simply managing behaviour and should contribute to the personal development of the pupil. A criticism of behaviourist approaches (e.g. Porter 2007) is the limited evidence that gains in compliance are maintained or transferred to other contexts. Even for those pupils who do respond to the rewards and sanctions there is a need to consider why they do and whether what they are learning from this is helpful. If, for example, the reason that children behave is to avoid sanctions or to gain reward we might question whether this truly reflects self-control or independence. There is an issue that they may only demonstrate these behaviours where these rewards or sanctions are available. There may be little intrinsic motivation to behave in a particular way and so the behaviour is unlikely to transfer to occasions and situations
100
when the reward is not available. For example, the pupil may behave in the classroom but not in the playground or corridor.
These criticisms of a system of rewards and sanctions based on behaviourist principles should – if they do not already – exercise the thinking of all teachers. They raise the question of balancing limitations with practicalities. In trying to develop a system that manages the behaviour of large groups as schools must necessarily do (Thomas 2005), it is difficult to imagine what else might be employed that would not reflect similar principles, even if the nature of the rewards and sanctions, the terms by which they are known and the ways in which they utilised may vary. As already mentioned, restorative approaches (e.g. Hopkins 2004) are one example of an alternative. It is necessary to recognise that the ubiquitous framework of rewards and sanctions will not work for all pupils. Porter (2007: 195) suggests that it ‘seems to be ineffective with the core 5 to 7 per cent of students with whom teachers most need it to work’. It is perhaps significant that Canter and Canter (1992: 205) also suggest that their assertive discipline framework ‘will enable most educators to teach 90-95% of their students to choose responsible behavior’. It might also be relevant to reflect on whether the 90 – 95% that it is assumed the combination of rewards and sanctions work for are actually behaving in the way that they do because of these – would some pupils, for example, behave well anyway regardless of the presence of these extrinsic contingencies?
With experience a teacher may reach the point where they tacitly accept the compromises and limitations involved in applying an ostensibly behaviourist approach. However for the beginning teacher this may represent a threat to their perceptions of competence and feelings of confidence. The ability to use praise effectively and know how to apply rewards and sanctions to improve behaviour (TA 2012a) could be considered required knowledge, in the sense that these are the approaches national policy and guidance states should be present as part of a whole school approach. However, there is arguably another important area of professional learning that relates to the ability to problem solve when these routine approaches do not work.
101
Hook and Vass (2000, 2002) offer a framework (see fig 4.2.1) for classroom discipline that found a degree of favour in government publications, being included in induction materials for Teaching Assistants (DfES 2003e) and training materials for newly qualified teachers (DfES 2004c).
Figure 4.2.1 The 4Rs Framework (Hook and Vass 2002)
Like other authors (e.g. Dreikurs and Grey 1968, Canter and Canter 1992, Rogers 2011, 2012) who talk about choices and consequences, Hook and Vass (2002) claim that this framework helps pupils to learn to take responsibility. Proponents of a choice and consequence approach would suggest this is different to the use of punishments or sanctions. Galvin (1999) drew the distinctions set out in table 4.2.1.
Punishment Logical Consequences
May be perceived as arbitrary Are related to the misbehaviour May tell the pupil he/she is bad Express the reality of the social order
without necessarily conveying a value judgement
Focuses on what is past Are concerned with past and present behaviours
Expresses anger Are based on logic not retaliation Is associated with threat (open or
concealed)
Ensure responsibility is assumed by the individual
Demands obedience Lead to an active teaching process Is negative and short term Teach ways to act that will lead to
more successful behaviour
Table 4.2.1 the differences between Logical consequences and punishment (Galvin 1999)
102
The notion of choice and consequence is not without its critics. It can be argued that realistically the only choice offered is ‘behave or else!’ (Curwin and Mendler 1989, Porter 2007). Porter (2007) argues that effectively responsible behaviour is defined as little more than doing what you are told, with ‘good choices’ being those that the teacher approves of. Writing from a humanist perspective, Kohn (1996) is similarly critical, suggesting that a pseudo choice is offered, with very little opportunity for pupils to make meaningful decisions. He argues that though the claim is that pupils are being taught to be responsible, in reality they are being taught to be obedient.
Beginning teachers are in a broader policy context where the terms punishment and sanction are used interchangeably (e.g. DCSF 2009, DfE 2010a, DfE 2013a). However the Teacher Standards (DfE 2011c) and the additional guidance intended to improve teacher training for behaviour (TA 2012a) are consistent in using the term sanction. The term consequence does not appear in policy documents issued by the Coalition government but did feature a number of times in the Labour government’s School Discipline and Pupil Behaviour policies – Guidance for schools (DCSF 2009) alongside reference to punishments and sanctions. This document also concluded with a sequence of tables listing ‘the rights and responsibilities of schools, pupils and parents in ensuring an orderly climate for learning’ (DCSF 2009: 60), suggesting that the DCSF had not entirely left behind its interest in Hook and Vass’ (2002) model.
At the level of operational competence, knowing the response available within the school policy when a pupil misbehaves, which might be referred to as a punishment, sanction or consequence, may be sufficient. There is a question over whether, in light of the expectation that ‘Trainees should be able to reflect on the way they manage behaviour’ (TA 2012a: 1), there is a need to examine the differing beliefs, assumptions and theoretical underpinnings associated with terms punishment, sanction and consequence and the implications for classroom practice and the conceptualisation of the teacher-pupil relationship.
103
The last example of a framework for classroom discipline to consider is Rogers’ least to most intrusive approach. Though not an approach as formally defined as Hook and Vass’ 4Rs framework or a classroom approach based on an overarching school policy such as Assertive Discipline, Rogers’ model advocates a graduated response.
The least to most intrusive approach has featured in Rogers’ work since his earliest publications (e.g. Rogers 1990, 1997). It was also included in DfES (2004c) training materials for newly qualified teachers. As discussed later in this chapter, much of Rogers’ work is focused on the language teachers use when addressing unwanted behaviour. He advocates a graduated response with the teacher attempting to use the lowest level of intrusion that addresses the behaviour. The more subtle the teacher’s intervention is, the lower its intrusiveness. For example, if a non verbal signal to the pupil indicating that they should face the front is likely to produce the required behaviour then this would be preferable to a verbal instruction. Within the DfES materials, intrusiveness was described as ‘the degree of disruption it causes on an individual or class level – the degree to which it interrupts teaching and learning’ (DfES 2004c: 69). Teachers were encouraged to consider the degree of intrusiveness for the individual pupil, the teacher, the class and the lesson plan (DfES 2004c). An example of a possible least to most intrusive approach is presented in figure 4.2.2
It is a model that allows the teacher to consider in advance the sequence of steps that they would move through in response to misbehaviour. The use of the lowest level of intrusion possible finds some support from a small scale study by Hart (2010). The educational psychologists surveyed considered the use of ‘low-level’ strategies for dealing with inappropriate behaviour to be one of a range of strategies contributing to effective classroom management.
The underlying principle also reflects the view expressed in some guidance from the mid-nineties which stated that:
Interventions have to be carefully judged by teachers, using their knowledge of individual pupils or class groups, and doing no more
104
than is needed to secure the desired change in the pupil’s behaviour; as over-reaction may provoke unnecessary escalation of an already difficult situation and seriously limit the teacher’s subsequent room for manoeuvre.
(DfE 1994b: 14)