I can still recall the excitement that I felt the very first time I had the responsibility for leading a history department. I was full of bright ideas about how I was going to transform programmes of study and foster a deep-rooted love for history within every single student at the school.

What I didn’t expect was that a dastardly combination of inexperienced teachers and students with negative perceptions of my beloved subject would conspire to derail my grand schemes - and that I would end up spending far more time putting out behaviour fires than implementing my department-improvement master plans.

Poor behaviour is a nemesis that must be annihilated if we want learning to take place. As a classroom teacher, I understood this. But as a first-time head of department, I underestimated how much of my role would be spent managing behaviour.

Since then, I have developed three strategies that I adopt interchangeably to prevent poor behaviour from ever putting the development of my department at risk again.

1. Interception

The idea here is not to just react to poor behaviour, but to use existing systems to intercept it before it can materialise.

This requires the HoD to consider department timetabling, so that the most experienced teachers get the most difficult classes. Before the new academic year begins, I check class lists with the head of year and make small changes if there are combinations of students who may disrupt learning. In September, I invite teachers to share their seating plans with each other so that they can share advice and flag up any potentially hazardous pairings.

Building positive relationships and issuing praise is a big priority; at the start of department meetings, I give teachers 10 minutes to write three “praise emails” to students and their parents.

In many ways, these actions are just an extension of what many classroom teachers already do. These are obvious steps to circumvent poor behaviour, but they are also things I had not thought of when I initially became a HoD.

Admittedly, some of the things mentioned above could be tricky to implement in the first year, particularly if you have not had much opportunity to get involved in timetabling before you take on your new role. However, I think that intercepting is the most fruitful method of managing behaviour across a department.

2. Renovation

Despite all preventative measures, there are times when things will inevitably go wrong and you have to get students back on track - for example, by rebuilding a student-teacher relationship that has taken a turn for the worse. It may be possible to pick up on warning signs through regular monitoring of department behaviour reports. These might indicate that a particular student is causing more disruption than expected in certain lessons or at certain times of the week.

I check in with the pastoral team and work with the classroom teacher to get that student back on track. This may mean collaboratively planning to engage the student better, or discussing alternative behaviour management strategies.

Additionally, I might drop into the lesson at an agreed time to check that the student is settled and working to the best of their ability.

Alternatively, the student could be placed on head of department book monitoring for a period of time. This would allow the student’s work to be checked regularly to ensure that they are consistently meeting expectations.

This strategy is more time-consuming, but is also more supportive than the interception approach. It still places the bulk of the responsibility of managing poor behaviour on the shoulders of the classroom teacher. This is important because students need to perceive that their regular classroom teacher can manage behaviour effectively in order for the teachers in your department to feel empowered. The alternative is that you end up managing behaviour for them, which is an unnecessary drain on your time.

3. The last resort

When all other routes have been exhausted, you have to step in to lay down the law. I often deploy a combination of tactics including phoning parents, having a stern word with the student in question and placing said student in isolation.

It is important that all staff and students know that getting to this point is a last resort. The fact that it is done infrequently adds to its effectiveness.

Adopting these strategies as and when you need them will help you manage behaviour as a HoD. But this approach must also be underpinned by a culture where classroom teachers are not automatically blamed for students’ behaviour; this can lead to teachers not asking for help when they need it, or not sanctioning students for fear that the teacher will be judged as ineffective.

Emma Smith is head of history at Heathfield Community College in East Sussex