“USA wins 1-1.”
This was the headline on the front page of the New York Post after the USA men’s football team’s 2010 World Cup tie against England.
The Irish Times did something similar in 2014 with its coverage of Ireland’s “stunning and comprehensive 1-1 victory” after a draw with Germany.
Both of these headlines are tongue-in-cheek, but I think they capture what we should be aiming for whenever we find ourselves in tricky situations with pupils.
For example, perhaps we’re confiscating a mobile phone that has been used in a lesson. Or maybe we’ve decided that a child needs to go to isolation due to persistent disruption in a lesson and they’re refusing to leave.
Read more about behaviour:
These kinds of situations have the potential to escalate or become tense stand-offs, with the added stress of a classroom audience hurriedly grabbing for the metaphorical popcorn.
This is when the urge to “win” can become overwhelming.
Behaviour in schools: giving the child a chance to save face
But our relationship with the children we teach is not a zero-sum game. If we are to win, then the child has to lose; something they won’t want to do, especially in full view of their peers.
So how can we engineer an outcome for both the teacher and the pupil that looks more like the USA’s 1-1 “win”?
The first step is to consider a principle that doctors work to: “first, do no harm”. I think we should apply a version of this principle to our behaviour management, aiming to, first, not escalate a situation.
Of course, we must hold the line. Once we’ve seen the phone, anything other than confiscation weakens the rule and makes the job of all our colleagues who are enforcing the rule that much harder - and makes our next lesson harder, too, when the children will know that this teacher is more likely to let them get away with using their phone.
But we can enforce the rules without making an example of the child in front of their class.
What might that look like in this scenario?
Well, we could remain standing at the pupil’s desk until they hand over the phone. This may work, or our continued presence may provide a focus for the child’s anger and make compliance less likely.
We could say, “Mr Jones [a TA] will be here in 30 seconds and you can hand it to him,” and then withdraw. This change of face may help, or the pupil may just use that time to call their friend.
Yet another approach would be to ask the child to put the phone on our desk themselves.
Or we could provide the pupil with all three options, in the same way that I used to say to my son that he could brush his teeth before his bath or after - with the clear message that he was both having a bath and brushing his teeth, regardless of the order.
These are not weak options and we are not giving ground. By offering a choice, you allow the child to save face and feel in control of the situation.
Of course, there is always the chance that none of these options will work, and we will have to call for assistance from SLT.
Whether that member of staff turns up and plays bad cop, or manages the situation successfully in a low-key way, their presence is almost guaranteed to be seen by the child as an escalation.
But at least, before we get to that point, we will have tried to uphold the school rule without further disruption and without further shame for the child.
We will have signalled to them - and to the rest of the class - that we are not trying to win but to meet them halfway, in a place where we can both celebrate a “stunning and comprehensive 1-1 victory”.
Jarlath O’Brien is a local authority adviser and author of Better Behaviour - A Guide for Teachers, published by Corwin Press
