The promotion of a “sanctions-based” approach to managing behaviour in government guidance is contributing to an escalation of challenging activity and punitive responses in schools, research from the University of Cambridge suggests.
A new report warns that school leaders in England feel compelled to continue using a system of escalating punitive measures to manage student behaviour, even though they recognise that it fails some pupils.
It also suggests that the money spent on alternative provision and pupil referral units (PRUs) could be used to support mainstream schools “more effectively with resources to introduce alternative approaches” and potentially reduce the rate of exclusions and referrals to alternative provision.
The report, which studied the perceptions of 14 senior leaders and the barriers they face in implementing alternative approaches for behaviour management in schools, concludes that schools need support to allow them “to overcome these barriers and widen the options available as alternatives to exclusion from school”.
But while leaders interviewed for the report warned that a lack of money, time and resources are barriers to alternative responses to poor behaviour, they are also concerned that any change in approach would place a burden on already-stretched staff.
The findings come from a qualitative study that investigated why more school leaders are not exploring alternative approaches to behaviour management.
The study was conducted by Dr Laura Oxley, now at the Faculty of Education at the University of Cambridge, drawing on research she undertook while at the University of York, which involved surveying 84 behaviour referral units in England and interviews with teachers in other education systems with different approaches to discipline.
Alternative approaches to behaviour management
Dr Oxley said that the report was “not a call to scrap the existing system but to consider ways to enhance it” because for “significant numbers of children, the current approach isn’t working”.
Her report says: “Each year there are a number of children excluded from school in England. Often exclusion from school is the result of an escalating cycle of challenging behaviour and punitive responses.
“Despite this, there is still limited use of alternative approaches for behaviour management in schools, with a continued focus on systems of rewards and sanctions.”
It adds that barriers to using alternative approaches include: time and resources, the perceptions of others and risk aversion.
“These barriers contribute to the continued use of punitive responses to challenging behaviour in schools. This suggests that there is a need for support to enable schools to overcome these barriers and widen the options available as alternatives to exclusion from school,” the report says.
In April government figures revealed that the number of suspensions of pupils from schools in England had jumped by nearly a quarter compared with pre-pandemic levels, with persistent disruptive behaviour revealed as the most common reason for suspension in the 2022 spring term.
However, while the suspension rate was on the rise, the figures also revealed that the number of permanent exclusions of pupils being made by schools last spring fell compared with pre-pandemic levels.
Dr Oxley’s report states: “There is still limited use of alternative approaches for behaviour management in schools, with a continued focus on systems of rewards and sanctions.”
And it claims that if an understanding of alternative approaches could be built within the wider school community, and aid desire for change, “this could potentially then lead to changes in policy and therefore to more priority being given to promoting and funding these approaches in schools”.
The report also notes that a “lack of appropriate funding compounds the atmosphere of risk aversion, with significant change in behaviour management generally being seen as too big a risk for leaders to take”.
And the study calls for a wider adoption of alternative behaviour management techniques such as restorative practice and “collaborative and proactive solutions” (CPS), which focus on rebuilding positive relationships between students, or students and teachers, after breakdowns occur and identifying the triggers behind persistent misbehaviour and addressing them collaboratively.
‘Children deserve practical solutions’
Responding to the paper, Department for Education behaviour tsar Tom Bennett said that all schools “use a blend of approaches: pastoral, reactive, proactive, conversational, consequential”.
He added: “No schools feel ‘compelled’ to use escalating punitive measures. They use them as part of a whole-school behavioural system because they form part of an effective and practical package of measures.”
He said that the paper also “ignored” the fact that restorative approaches as whole-school strategies are usually “highly ineffective”.
“This is a strategy that has gained in popularity despite an enormous lack of credible and large-scale research to suggest that it can be effective in all but the most boutique circumstances,” Mr Bennett said.
“Fortunately, through programmes like the Behaviour Hubs, and guidance like the recent Behaviour in Schools document, real changes are happening in schools throughout the UK, improving the lives of many thousands. Children deserve practical solutions, not academic activism.”
Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, said it was “helpful” that the report had highlighted the fact that school leaders “simply do not have the time, money and resources to invest in developing alternative models of behaviour management”.
”In reality, schools have to set and apply a clear and consistent behaviour policy in the present and within severe constraints and shifting expectations from parents,” he added.
Mr Barton said that his union had seen that the “drivers of challenging behaviour” are often “linked to poor mental health, unmet special educational needs and family problems”.
He said that “more investment is needed” for both local support services and funding for schools, which enables them to provide more support for the children affected by these issues.
“Nobody wants to be dishing out sanctions in response to behaviour problems, and it would clearly be much better to address the root causes, but this requires a commitment from the government,” Mr Barton added.
James Bowen, assistant general secretary at the NAHT school leaders’ union, said: “School staff are highly skilled when it comes to managing behaviour, and schools adopt approaches that are effective for their pupils, while also ensuring school is a welcoming and safe environment for pupils, parents and staff.
“Most schools find behaviour policies work best when underpinned by consistency and clarity, so that everyone knows what the expectations are. On the whole, schools usually take a balanced approach, which includes clear consequences and sanctions for poor or inappropriate behaviour, as well as rewards for good behaviour.”
Mr Bowen said challenging behaviour can be a symptom of issues and risks in children’s lives and “so should never be considered in isolation from other factors such as SEND [special educational needs and disability], poverty, social issues and mental health needs.”.
“It is essential that appropriate support is also available from a range of different services in the community. Sadly, many of these services have been underfunded by government and left completely overstretched, meaning schools are often left to go it alone,” he added.
A Department for Education spokesperson said: “Our approach to tackling behaviour in schools has been to support schools to develop a behaviour culture that works for them, their pupils and their communities.
“We have updated our Behaviour in Schools guidance to provide clear advice on how to create and maintain high standards, and our £10 million Behaviour Hubs programme is supporting up to 700 schools to improve behaviour.”
