The nature of the primary school classroom means that teachers are often the only adult in the room when difficulties occur. Supports can therefore, be contingent upon teachers sharing concerns or asking for advice. Although no teacher perceived a complete absence of support, the types, extent, and utility of support on offer varied considerably. The reported sources of support included principals, vice-principals, colleagues (including SNAs, home-school liaison teachers, and resource teachers), and to a lesser extent, parents. An analysis of the baseline interviews demonstrated that classroom support personnel such as SNAs (where applicable, as some classrooms did not have support staff) were highly valued by teachers (n = 5). SNAs were reported to play a major role in classroom inclusionary practice; likewise, other research has shown the role of SNAs to be important in facilitating the learning and socialisation opportunities of children with additional needs (Black-Hawkins et al., 2007; Logan, 2006; Moran & Abbott, 2002). SNAs and resource teachers were regarded as offering teachers in the current study an invaluable ‘breathing space’ due to their active engagement with children. This type of support was reported to centre upon strategies such as listening to a child’s concerns, or in more extreme cases, the temporary removal of the child from the classroom. This was viewed by teachers as offering many benefits such as giving children the individual attention that they need, or allowing them to ‘burn off energy’ in the schoolyard. Primarily, however, this support was regarded as important in facilitating the delivery of the curriculum to other children in the class.
Principals too, were seen as offering some support, particularly in cases where problem behaviours were frequent or dangerous. Unsurprisingly, the lower level problems (e.g., attention-seeking behaviour and inability to concentrate) reported by many teachers were managed in the classroom. All teachers noted that only when they had exhausted their own resources and they perceived the situation to be outside their control, did they seek assistance from others. Thus, challenges in child behaviour encountered by principals tended to be more severe than those reported by teachers, most probably because they are required to manage (less frequent) more extreme cases. However, even where support from principals and other school colleagues was sought and received, this did not always help to address behavioural challenges. For instance, moral rather than practical support may be offered and
although colleagues may empathise with the situation, they may not always be able to provide tangible assistance.
“We have a great staff so if you need the help of another staff member or your SNA, or failing that our principal, or if you need to contact parents. But sometimes then you could have all the supports in the world and if you just have a troubled child it is still difficult.” (T8) “Anything anybody has said is ‘oh well they’re just a tough person’ or this is ‘that’s just the way it is’ and ‘sure, just do your best’. Which isn’t hugely helpful.” (T4)
Although there was some variation in teacher-perceived support, all principals noted that behavioural issues were not the sole responsibility of the class teacher, and that these required a whole-school based approach to discipline, extending to all school personnel. The concept that all staff have something to offer towards fostering a positive school behavioural ethos was previously highlighted by Waldron and Redd (2011) who noted that where practices are delivered within a comprehensive system - with everyone working toward the same goal - optimal results can be achieved. In the current study, a whole school discipline policy was just that; it involved the whole school and was something that every staff member (including auxiliary staff) could work towards.
“Discipline is a staff issue and when I say staff, I mean everybody in the school, including caretakers and secretaries. If somebody sees somebody misbehaving in the corridor or the yard, you don’t walk past it. Just because the child isn’t in your class it isn’t your problem- it’s everybody’s problem. It could be a big problem next year, or it might be your problem in two years’ time. …It’s a whole, it’s a staff issue. Plus a parent one, if they can be involved in it, if it’s appropriate.” (P1)
It was recognised by all principals that getting parents ‘on your side’ is important in order to access support in improving child outcomes, a belief widely supported by research evidence (Chan et al., 2013; Mendez, 2010; Murray, 2009). One aspect of home-school collaboration which was discussed by principals was the school ‘code
of behaviour’. All schools had a detailed behavioural code to support decision making processes around the management of misbehaviour. Typically, these were developed through consultation between school boards of management, teachers, and parents. The involvement of parents in designing or updating a school’s code was seen by many principals as integral to its success in facilitating parental support. This somewhat contradicts the ‘asymmetric power relationship’ proposed by Lemmer and Van Wyk (2006) wherein the school, and not the parents, set the rules for behaviour. Moreover, all six principals mentioned that they had an open-door policy in their school, to enhance relationships, and build systems of support. Indeed, in some cases, “parent rooms” had been created within schools in order to bridge the home-school divide- a strategy which is also increasingly used in UK and US schools (Davis, 2000; Lall, Campbell, & Gillborn, 2004).
“Another area, another priority you know, in our DEIS plan would be working, bringing parents into the school and making them feel very comfortable in the school.” (P6)
The purpose of a parent room is to enable socialisation and make parents feel welcome in the school. These rooms (typically with tea-making facilities and comfortable seating) were designed for parents to use in the morning, after they bring their children to school. Principals discussed how they were keen to get parents involved in a partnership with the school, with the goal of improving both educational and behavioural outcomes for the children. Nonetheless, all six principals noted concerns regarding parental reluctance in discipline issues; one stated that involving parents was an ‘uphill battle’. Although eight teachers mentioned parents as a potential source of support, this was not always utilised. Based on past negative experiences, a majority of teachers (7/10) and principals (4/6) believed that they may not always be supported by parents when attempting to discuss or resolve difficult classroom behaviour. The statements below support the suggestion from previous research (Hoover-Dempsey et al., 2002) that such experiences could negatively impact upon teacher willingness to involve parents in the longer term.
“Some think their daughter is the most perfect child who was ever created- it’s a sense of denial from some of the parents.” (P5)
“Conversations tend to be treated flippantly (by parents). It could lead to confrontation... that’s like your worst nightmare. I do not want to have parents coming in, giving out to me for upsetting their children.” (T4)
“Her father wasn’t a great help to us… Initially we involved him and when we involved him, we kind of were sorry that we did because she was getting a really tough time at home then, and he was beating her. We’re pretty sure of that, so we kind of left him out of it, of the loop eventually, and we dealt with it here”. (P1)