In education there often seems to be a very binary view of managing classroom behaviour.
On the one hand, there is a “no nonsense” insistence on good behaviour at all times, with students expected to SLANT (sit up, listen, ask questions, nod and track the speaker), regardless of need.
On the other, there is a focus on inclusivity and understanding the psychology behind poor behaviour to the extent that sanctions and reprimands for students are interpreted as a failure of the teacher.
But with an ever-growing number of students being diagnosed as requiring special educational needs and disability (SEND) support, both approaches have issues: the former can be tough for students while the latter is not supporting our teachers. As so often, there needs to be a middle ground in how to approach behaviour management.
Behaviour management for pupils with SEND
Looking at the SEND Code of Practice, it is really important to note what is written about the best way to support SEND students: “Schools and colleges do what is necessary to enable children and young people to develop, learn, participate and achieve the best possible outcomes.” (paragraph 1.34)
It says that this includes “reasonable adjustments” to the support that is provided for those students - a phrase that can lead to many interpretations.
But it is clear that it does not mean all and every adjustment that may be requested should be acted on - not least because the Code of Practice also states that “schools and colleges should have clear processes to support children and young people, including how they will manage the effect of any disruptive behaviour so it does not adversely affect other pupils” (paragraph 6.33).
It is clear that a pupil’s SEND diagnosis does not mean behaviour management is not going to apply.
Ensuring schools are involved
By far the most important starting point for supporting SEND students is to ensure that there is a positive agreement from school, parents and professionals about the best way to support the child.
Again taking the words of the Code of Practice, the local authority or any other assessing professional should “gather information from…schools” when doing this and they “must, in turn, cooperate with the local authority” (paragraph 1.19).
All too often, though, particularly when a child has been privately assessed for SEND, professionals do not work with the school in making assessments - which can led to requests for implausible adjustments such as optional homework or that sanctions are not applicable for poor behaviour because of their particular needs.
This can easily be avoided if, from assessment onwards, there is clear communication between all the different parties about what the best support is for that child, what the school’s behaviour expectations are and where issues may arise, and how a middle ground can be found.
Consistency is not uniformity
If this can be done then the challenge for classroom teachers comes from reconciling the needs of individual students with SEND when their behaviour does “adversely affect other pupils”.
It would not be reasonable for disruptive behaviour to be ignored - it would undo all attempts at consistency and cause all pupils to lose faith in behaviour policies.
The key is for teachers to understand that consistency is not the same as uniformity.
It is right that we would not tolerate rudeness to a teacher, but, depending on the pupil involved, the response might be different. We can respond differently while still demonstrating that the rules will be enforced.
So, for instance, if a child with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis makes a comment that is hurtful to others in the class, it is important that the teacher challenges that and explains why the comment is inappropriate.
If it is the case that the comment was not meant to offend (this is not always easy to judge, of course) then that would not result in the same sort of sanction as an intentional insult.
In terms of the traditional “sitting still and paying attention” demand, this again can be a particular challenge for some students. Allowance for non-noisy stress toys, pads of paper to doodle on or even some modelling clay can help these children to stay focused even if not in a conventional manner.
A united front
Overall, the way the situation is handled will likely depend on the pupil and the context of the trangression.
Whatever that is, though, it is key that if a behaviour sanction is issued, staff present a united front in response to any complaints that may be made - otherwise they risk undermining the behaviour policies.
Making the right call in such instances requires clear, ongoing communication between teachers and the Sendco or the school’s SEND department. Relevant knowledge about pupils’ needs has to be shared so that staff can respond appropriately.
Schools should remember, too, how positive many young people are about neurodiversity, and, indeed, all sorts of diversity, and they will often be supportive of a behaviour system that is consistent but also has “reasonable adjustments” for pupils who need it, who may well be their friends.
It is not easy to do all of this but it is vital we get it right because when behaviour is maintained it ensures that pupils are taught in a structured and safe environment where learning can flourish, rather than flounder.
Luke Ramsden is deputy head of an independent school and chair of trustees for the Schools Consent Project
