Dealing with pupil misbehaviour is an important aspect of the classroom teacher’s pastoral responsibility. A diffi culty facing teachers in exercising discipline is that they sometimes have to decide between a course of action that will be effective in maintain-ing discipline for the class as a whole, and another course of action that more closely meets the personal needs of the misbehaving pupil. This confl ict of interests is particu-larly acute when the method of dealing with the misbehaviour is publicly visible and a charge of unfair and inconsistent treatment may be levelled against the teacher if a special allowance appears to be made. In practice, however, this is not as problematic as one might expect, largely because both the offending pupil and the rest of the class are very much aware of such concerns, and are able to understand and tolerate a degree of differential treatment as long as it appears to be justifi ed by the circumstances.
The teacher’s pastoral care responsibility places an emphasis on the need for the teacher to ascertain the reasons for a pupil’s misbehaviour, and to come to some mutual understanding with the pupil regarding its unacceptability in terms of the teacher’s, the pupil’s and the class’s best interests. This goes beyond simply demarcating as clearly as possible what behaviour is unacceptable. It requires the teacher to help the pupil come to an informed understanding of the concern and an intention to behave as desired in future. Such counselling is of fundamental importance to dealing with mis-behaviour. A teacher who relies simply on a mixture of reprimands and punishments is unlikely to establish this pastoral care element in the pupil’s educational develop-ment. Moreover, counselling enables the teacher to explore whether there are any problems facing the pupil (for example, particular learning diffi culties or home cir-cumstances), which require attention.
It is argued here that such counselling is generally more important and effective as a means of dealing with misbehaviour than recourse to punishments. This is certainly the case if the development of the pupil’s ability to understand and accept responsibil-ity for his or her behaviour is to be given priorresponsibil-ity. Punishment does have a role to play, but it is more effective if allied to counselling rather than applied as a further line of defence when reprimands have been insuffi cient. Although in the infant school years pupils are clearly less able to refl ect on their misbehaviour, it is still the case that such counselling provides an essential and complementary adjunct to the use of reprimands.
Indeed, given the importance of the child’s personal and social development in the early years of schooling, the case for counselling carries as much force then as it does in the later years of schooling.
A number of qualities and strategies may be adopted to increase the effectiveness of talking to a pupil (at the end of a lesson, or at some other time) about the misbehav-iour that has occurred. The following fi ve qualities are particularly important for effective counselling:
Establishing trust
Ɂ . The conversation should take place in a context of trust, rapport and mutual respect.
Privacy
Ɂ . It should take place in private.
Ɂ Care. The teacher should display a caring and concerned attitude towards the pupil, rather than a threatening and intimidating one.
Encouraging refl ection
Ɂ . Pupils should be encouraged to evaluate their misbehaviour and the undesirable consequences that may follow if such misbehaviour continues, including a lack of educational progress and punishments. It is important here for the pupil to do most of the talking and not the teacher.
Achieving a positive resolution
Ɂ . The pupil should agree to behave in a more desirable way in future, and accept that doing so is in their own best interests.
This is not, of course, to argue that such counselling should constitute the teacher’s response to every incident of misbehaviour, or that recourse to punishments should only take place if such counselling has occurred fi rst. There are many occasions when the shared understanding and rapport between teacher and pupils makes such forma-lised counselling unnecessary and an ineffi cient use of the teacher’s time. Furthermore, as was noted earlier, talking to a pupil at the end of a lesson can also serve other pur-poses, such as giving a severe reprimand. What is being argued here, however, is that on many occasions counselling is the most effective and appropriate course of action.
Nevertheless, two major problems need to be considered here. First, the time pressures on teachers may lead to the exchange being superfi cial and cursory. Second, pupils may lack sincerity in cooperating with the teacher. Indeed, some pupils are often over-ready to agree to whatever the teacher requires, but with no real intention of complying in practice. Some other pupils may be openly hostile to agreeing to any future change in their behaviour and see it as a mark of victory if they can leave a meeting with a teacher without having had any concessions drawn from them. In circumstances where a meeting with a pupil has not been satisfactory, it is important to call upon the support of col-leagues, normally the pastoral staff, in order to formalise the school’s concern. In doing so, it is important for all involved that this is not perceived as being a result of the teacher not being able to deal with the pupil, but rather as a refl ection of the need for a broader approach to consider the pupil’s circumstances. The pastoral care staff involved, includ-ing the form teacher and head of year or house, should in the fi rst instance be seen to be acting to support the teacher rather than to be taking over. This is no mean task, as some teachers see the main role of the pastoral head as that of taking over and sorting out pupils who pose unacceptable problems. From the pastoral head’s perspective, how-ever, there are occasions where part of the problem seems to reside with the classroom teaching, and a major task in resolving the problem rests in getting the classroom teacher to adopt an approach to deal with the pupil that mitigates future misbehaviour occurring.
Over the years the degree of partnership between pastoral care staff and the classroom teacher has become much more evident, and where a pupil’s behaviour has led to a cause for concern, a coordinated approach to deal with the problem is commonly adopted.
Indeed, many schools have developed what has been termed a whole-school approach to discipline. This is marked by three essential features:
Clear agreement among all staff in the school regarding the standards of behaviour
Ɂ
expected of pupils, and the procedures to be followed where there is a cause for concern.
A recognition that all staff must act consistently and as a team in line with the agreed
Ɂ
school policy, and must collaborate and be mutually supportive in addressing how best to deal with discipline problems.
The adoption of a set of actions that the school can take, including, for example, the
Ɂ
use of praise in the classroom or a merit system for good work and good behaviour and the use of aspects of the school’s personal and social education programme, which aim to positively promote good behaviour rather than simply react when poor behaviour occurs.
DEALINGWITHPUPILMISBEHAVIOUR 137 Four school practices in particular have markedly increased as a means of dealing with misbehaviour. The fi rst is the use of a short-term period of formal monitoring, usually lasting a week, during which a pupil’s behaviour is commented upon by the teacher at the end of each lesson in the secondary school, or each half-day in the primary school. This is sometimes referred to as being ‘put on report’. The pupil then discusses the report with the pastoral care head at the end of the period of monitoring. Such monitoring acts as a focus for the pupil to try and maintain a sustained period of acceptable behaviour, and the subsequent discussion can then feed into what future action is required. In many schools such monitoring is usefully coupled with the involvement of the pupil’s parents and soliciting their support. Placing pupils on report is a very widespread practice, but its effectiveness is largely dependent on the counsel-ling skills of the pastoral care head together with the pastoral care head’s ability to alter the circumstances that primarily gave rise to the problem (such as failure to cope with academic demands, bullying another pupil, or drug abuse). This may often involve colleagues and those outside the school, such as social workers, educational psycholo-gists and the pupil’s parents.
A second major development has been the growing readiness to communicate with and involve parents when a pupil’s behaviour is giving rise for serious concern. Good com-munication between the school and parents is essential if there is to be a sound partner-ship between the two. The increasing involvement of parents in the school’s concerns is a healthy and desirable trend. Nevertheless, many schools have an ambivalent attitude towards such involvement, in part because it may imply some failure in the school’s ability to deal effectively with the pupil, and in part because the pupil can resent such an involvement. It is important for the teacher and pastoral staff to carefully prepare the ground so that when the parents are involved, they can be given a full picture of the nature of the school’s concern. In addition, it is desirable to indicate to the pupil why the parents are to be involved so that this does not come as a surprise.
The third major development has been the increasing use of ‘contracting’, in which pupils agree to behave better over a set period on the understanding that some type of reward or recognition of this will follow. Such contracting is most effective when pupils are helped to appreciate that the improved behaviour required will be in their best interests and where the rewards are designed to help the pupil to carry out their intention to behave as agreed, rather than acting as the sole motive for the improved behaviour. The use of a written contract signed by both parties has proved to be help-ful. The type of reward offered must be tailored to each individual pupil. Examples include arranging extra swimming sessions, spending an afternoon in the art room, helping to run the school tuck shop, the award of a merit certifi cate for improved behaviour, or being bought an ice cream after school. Except in extreme cases, the reward primarily acts as a psychological support to encourage the pupil to carry out his or her intention to behave, rather than as an end in itself. The effectiveness of the contract depends on fi ve key qualities:
Good teacher–pupil rapport.
Ɂ
Establishing in pupils a sincere intention to improve their behaviour.
Ɂ
Explicit and appropriate targeting of the specifi c behaviour that needs to be
Ɂ
improved.
Taking account of any underlying problems or circumstances, particularly any learning
Ɂ
diffi culties.
Identifying a suitable reward.
Ɂ
The fourth major development has been the increasing use of onsite and offsite centres for dealing with disruptive pupils, often linked with temporary and permanent exclu-sions, as was noted earlier in this chapter. Studies of the effectiveness of such centres indicates that pupils often adjust well in them, as shown by regular attendance and establishing a healthy rapport with staff at the centre. However, arranging a return to mainstream schooling is rarely successful, and the academic progress made in centres like these is often poor. The marked increase in the use of such centres linked with exclusions poses a major problem for the effective education of many pupils.
Studies of strategies for dealing with disaffected pupils (Munn et al., 2000; Riley and Rustique-Forrester, 2002) indicate that effective strategies can be grouped together into three main areas:
Measures taken to carefully monitor attendance.
Ɂ
Measures taken to provide direct support for pupils having emotional, social and/or
Ɂ
behavioural problems.
Measures taken to offer an alternative learning environment and/or curriculum
Ɂ
experience.
Central to the success of these strategies was the adoption of effective whole-school policies and the provision of high-quality pastoral care.
Hallam and Rogers (2008) has also outlined a number of innovative strategies that can help improve pupils’ behaviour, which include the involvement of parents and improv-ing home–school relationships, offerimprov-ing alternative curricula, and supportimprov-ing at-risk pupils through the involvement of outside agencies.
The central point of this discussion of pastoral care and school policy in relation to dealing with misbehaviour is that the classroom teacher’s effectiveness in dealing with misbehaviour cannot be considered separately from the strategies and policy adopted in the school as a whole. Studies that have sought to compare the effectiveness of dif-ferent schools in dealing with misbehaviour have employed a range of outcome mea-sures, including misbehaviour in the classroom, truancy, rates of exclusion and juvenile delinquency. Such studies are notoriously diffi cult to conduct, particularly because they need to take account of the intake characteristics of pupils into the school (e.g. social class, ethnic composition, previous history of misbehaviour) if fair comparisons are to be made. Nevertheless, when such intake differences are controlled for, it does appear that the quality of pastoral care offered in the school is a major factor in contributing to greater relative effectiveness in promoting good behaviour within a school. An important aspect of this is the status accorded in the school to the views of the pastoral care heads in not only helping pupils to adjust to the demands of the school, but also in infl uencing how the school can adapt its demands, where possible and appropriate, to accommodate the pupils’ needs more effectively. As such, the status and infl uence of the pastoral care heads within a school seems to be crucial in promoting good behaviour and dealing effectively with misbehaviour.