It was 2.25pm, almost the end of the school day, when sirens could be heard approaching the school and blue lights began to reflect on the whitewashed walls of the classroom. This was an unusual occurrence in such a leafy suburban area. None of the students could remember any emergency vehicles ever being called to the school before.

There must be a fire, everyone decided. And in anticipation of the impending fire bell, they rushed from their seats to the window, pushing past one another for the best view of the brave firefighters who would be there to save them. The teacher joined them, only making a half-hearted attempt to reseat them.

But it wasn’t a fire engine. Instead, the blue lights originated from a police van and an ambulance parked up outside the school reception. Paramedics rushed in carrying a stretcher and equipment, closely followed by police officers. A ripple of unrest ran through the classroom - what could this mean?

It was 20 minutes later, once the teacher had successfully restarted her lesson, that more was revealed. A Year 11 student was led in handcuffs into the back of the police van and carted away. It turned out that the student, Lucas, had assaulted another pupil in an altercation and they had required medical treatment. Lucas was permanently excluded from the school with just three months to go until his GCSE exams.

Tjis wasn’t the first time Lucas had been in trouble. Staff had been concerned about his behaviour for a while. Over the course of his time in school, it had gone from bad to worse - starting with truancy and lesson disruption before developing into verbal abuse towards staff and physical assaults on other students. In one instance he was even accused of headbutting a younger pupil.

Lucas’ parents challenged the decision to exclude him so close to the end of Year 11. But this latest behaviour was serious enough to alarm the school’s leaders about the future safety of both staff and students, so the exclusion was upheld. He is now awaiting court proceedings over the incident.

Survivorship bias

Where did it go wrong for Lucas? What most teachers thrive on is helping students like Lucas before their behaviour gets out of hand and they find themselves making serious transgressions. But how can we make sure that happens?

Previous successes with students often guide our actions. For example, one teacher from the north of England, Sarah Smith, insists that it was her school’s tenacity and persistence that paid off for her student, Mia.

Mia caught the attention of pastoral staff when she arrived midway through Year 9. She rarely attended school, and when she did make it in, she was usually late and dressed inappropriately. Her behaviour in lessons was a concern from day one. To conceal her weak literacy skills, she would often refuse to put pen to paper, preferring to display disturbing behaviours that resulted in long spells in inclusion. Smith claims that in one incident, Mia ran up and down the corridor, screaming obscenities and punching and kicking classroom doors. Her behaviour was so severe that two senior leaders had to deploy restraining techniques.

But long after this, it was reported that Mia had been involved in serious vandalism of school property. When investigations were made and sanctions sought, she stopped attending school.

Mia’s head of year maintained almost daily contact with the authorities and even visited her home to liaise with her parents. It was the determination to not let Mia slip through the net that finally won her over. She returned to school several weeks into Year 11 with a strength of mind that her teachers had not witnessed in her before. With the continued support of her head of year, Mia managed to stay on track and left school with two GCSEs before gaining an apprenticeship.

If we compare Mia and Lucas’ journeys, it would seem that a school fuelled by discipline, with a well-established team of pastoral staff who care deeply about students, who never give up, is the key to success. However, that conclusion falls into a common trap.

“Survivorship bias” explains that we tend to concentrate on successes and forget about losses when we make everyday decisions. Such biases lead us to make assumptions that are not illustrative of many real situations; we see success and make optimistic conclusions.

No bulletproof solution

In the Second World War, analysts looked at planes returning from conflict covered in bullet holes. They concluded that, as these planes had successfully returned, all they needed to do to enhance the planes was to improve the armour and reduce the number of holes. Statistician Abraham Wald argued that, actually, the holes meant that the planes could sustain damage to these areas and did not need reinforcing in those places. Instead, by examining losses - aircraft defeated by bullet damage to their engines - they would find the key to enhancing their planes.

We can apply this bias to schools and students, too. We might assume that success with one formerly unruly pupil means the same methodology will work with the next. That begets a standard behavioural and pastoral approach for those children who fall into the “challenging” category. And if it fails? Then we know “we did all we could”.

The reality is very different. If you have been a teacher for long enough, you may recognise the enigma of some students seeming to overcome their difficulties while others disappear into lives of wrongdoing. Unfortunately, there is no universal playbook. Instead, an individual approach to every child must be taken.

The only way to do that is if schools and authorities examine each case with a fine-tooth comb, looking at which interventions were implemented; how secure timetabling was for the student in question (were there regular teachers, staff absences or a high teacher turnover?); whether external authorities communicated effectively with school staff; and whether peer-group influence could be to blame. By probing each case, schools may be able to find the individual trigger areas, turning points, successes and failures for that student.

Lucas and Mia were in comparable situations, but their examples do not prove that one approach works better than another. Instead, they show that young people are unique - and that our approaches to their challenging behaviour should reflect that.

All names have been changed

Laura Tsabet is director of CPD and ITT at a school in Bournemouth

This article originally appeared in the 30 October 2020 issue under the headline “Stopping things going from bad to worse”