During a secondary school visit this year, I was walking the corridors with the assistant head when we came across a member of staff confronting a Year 11 boy. As we moved closer, I started to hear what the teacher was saying: he was asking the boy what he was smiling about. And he followed up by saying, “Don’t smile, this is serious - you can stand here and tell me what you did wrong.”

It was not just what this teacher was saying that caught my attention. His body language was close and intimidating. Every time the boy tried to step back, he was told “you stand here”.

As we passed, the boy dropped his head; the teacher did not acknowledge us.

The assistant head could see I was just about to ask the question, but before I could, he said “he’s like that with all the pupils” and the tour continued, as did my uneasiness at what I had seen.

I have been in many schools in which I have seen staff blurring the line between being the disciplinarian and exercising power to assert their position. And I have always wondered what those teachers were hoping to achieve by taking such an aggressive approach.

It is easy to dismiss aggressive practice as the product of a “no nonsense” personality, or simply something arising from a member of staff having a difficult day. I would argue, however, that an unintended consequence of aggressive teaching is that it creates pupils who bully. Here’s why.

For this thesis, I will define bullying as the repetitive, intentional, aggressive behaviour of perpetrator(s) that creates a relationship of power between them and the individuals or groups who are their targets.

Aggressive teaching

As part of a review of literature to get that definition, I found no reference to a link between aggressive teaching and pupils who bully. So I have drawn on other areas to explore the possible correlation between aggressive teaching and pupils who bully.

When a teacher is acting in their role of disciplinarian, a pupil can often be put in a great deal of discomfort, as they are being challenged about their behaviour. This is a legitimate use of power. But when teachers use their position of power to control and dominate a pupil, what the teacher is actually doing is modelling aggression. When staff adopt aggressive practices for dealing with pupils, they give permission for this to become acceptable within the school culture.

Recent research on workplace bullying suggests that employees who are subjected to bullying become “less trusting and helpful” of their colleagues (see bit.ly/BulliesResearch). From this research, we could assume that those pupils who suffer aggressive approaches by staff can, at best, become less cooperative and, at worst, go on to become perpetrators of bullying themselves.

Also of interest here is the “bystander effect” described by Darley and Latané (1970), who identified that individuals, when observing distressing situations, can become bystanders.

Further research on workplace bullying shows that although colleagues are often able to intervene to support the victim or stop the bullying in the workplace, “passive behaviour and non-intervention are more frequent” (see bit.ly/BystandersResearch).

This research suggests that, in school, staff are more likely to walk past those situations in which the pupil is on the receiving end of a teacher’s aggression. The passivity displayed by colleagues towards an aggressive staff member may arise from an anxiety of being seen to undermine that person, which allows their aggressive actions to go unchallenged. But this has the effect of giving the message to pupils that no one will support you, thus giving tacit consent that aggression is the way to get what you want in school. It leads to a worrying situation in which pupils use aggressive behaviour with their peers because:

*It has been role-modelled to them by staff.

* It has been shown to be the way to establish themselves in the hierarchy of the school.

* It is a way to protect themselves from being perceived as weak.

Arguably, when such a spiral happens, the culture of the school begins to deteriorate; so those staff who use aggressive practices feel further justified in using their approach. The circle is completed.

Is there a clear evidence base to back this up? Perhaps not, but when laid out like this, it is surely worth consideration in schools. Clearly, it is important to recognise that bullying behaviour does not only stem from the home or peer group, but potentially from staff, too.

And we should consider solutions. Some suggestions would be:

* Ensuring the importance of the school behaviour policy is clear to all members of staff and not hidden away in a drawer, waiting for Ofsted, but used during Inset, so that consistency is not subservient to aggressive practice.

* Overcoming the bystander effect, with those in leadership positions ensuring that all members of staff feel confident to challenge a colleague when an aggressive strategy is not in line with the values of the school or in the best interests of the pupil (modelling by leadership is crucial).

* Providing staff with reflective sessions to discuss various situations, on a one-to-one or group basis, and to recognise the power dynamics, explore alternatives and discuss what they want to achieve in terms of outcome with a particular pupil.

Yes, aggressive staff strategies and their effect on pupils are an underresearched area, but I suspect my observations are not unique. I hope that by articulating these views, a discussion can begin about what we want to role-model to those in our care. Currently, I don’t believe we consider this in anywhere near enough depth.

Luke Roberts is a Cambridge University PhD Candidate. You can hear him interviewed about his research into bullying in schools on the Tes Podagogy podcast: bit.ly/LukeRoberts