“There is a strong evidence base that teacher-pupil relationships are key to good pupil behaviour.” 

Few educators will have been surprised to find an emphasis on the importance of relationships within the Education Endowment Fund (EEF) Improving Behaviour in Schools report. Just as many will have been struck by its notable absence from the government’s Behaviour and Attendance Checklist, published last week. 

The omission is odd. Funded by the government, within its What Works Network - an organisation created to inform evidence-led policy making - we might expect to find a solid EEF evidence base beneath any Department for Education guidance. 

However, cross-referencing the checklist with the EEF report, we can only conclude that some research findings matter less to the government than others - however irrefutable, low-cost and relevant they may be. 

No relationship building

The only relationship building that is recommended in the entire checklist is with parents, as a reactive measure, should attendance become an issue. 

Some will doubtless argue that teacher-pupil relationships should rightly take a back seat when there are more pressing priorities, such as the need for rules and enforcement to prevent the spread of a deadly disease.

But they would be wrong, because this argument is based on the false belief that young people are more likely to comply with rules when they are pitched as high stakes, and reinforced through the threat of sanction. 

Sarah-Jayne Blakemore, the leading researcher into the adolescent brain, demonstrates in Inventing Ourselves that adolescents are much more likely to take rule-breaking risks in “hot contexts” than in cooler ones.

In addition, those young people who return to school having marinated in stress-filled homes, highly activated as a result, will need to experience discipline within the regulating experience of human connection and positive regard. Boundary-setting is vital, but there are times when it must be a relational art.

The problem with the guidance is that it conveys no sense of this.

Sanctions, rewards and exclusions

The DfE checklist states: “Clarify sanctions and rewards and how rules will be enforced consistently, including use of exclusions. Make sure that this can be effectively maintained in the changed school environment and take into account individual needs.

“Make explicit what behaviours are now considered more serious due to the coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak, for example purposefully coughing on someone, including any escalation points in how they will be dealt with.”

The reversal of the phrase “rewards and sanctions” will not have been lost on readers, nor the foregrounding of exclusion. “Clarity” around this issue of exclusions will do nothing to foster that most critical of all protective factors, a sense of school belonging. Many pupils will have lost this during lockdown, or perhaps never knew it. 

Consistently, researchers emphasise the importance of a caring school environment, which facilitates a sense of community and a feeling of belonging among students. Before any decision to exclude, especially through the delicate re-establishment phase, the likely impact of exclusion should be carefully considered. 

Exclusion is not the only tool in the consequences kit, and its unthinking deployment, according to “points” accumulated, is deeply problematic. 

Intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation

An evidence-based checklist would also have emphasised the importance of intrinsic as opposed to extrinsic motivation. As the EEF points out: “It is intrinsic motivation, or self-motivation, that is crucial to improving resilience, achieving goals, and ultimately is the key determiner to success.

“Children who are intrinsically motivated achieve better and are less likely to misbehave.” 

The checklist would have benefited greatly from some pointers around how to avoid an over-reliance on relatively weak extrinsic supports for behaviour, namely the use of exclusions. This is especially relevant as the task of kindling intrinsic motivation within young people who may have deeply ambivalent feelings about returning to school is likely to be a challenging one. 

For balance, it is important to acknowledge that the escalated needs of vulnerable young people are highlighted within the advice - there is a refreshing lack of wait-and-see complacency. Indeed, a whole section is devoted to support. 

The problem is that this section lacks clarity. We’re advised: “Many pupils are likely to need some social and emotional support on their return to school. Some pupils will need extra support.” 

What form should “some social and emotional support” take though, for the many pupils who will need it? There’s nothing on that.

The answer is obvious, of course, but it does involve the word “relationship”, which is so strenuously avoided throughout the advice. 

Working on relationships

It would have been worth dipping into the EEF report for some evidence-based guidance at this point. For example: “Regularly and intentionally focusing small amounts of time working on relationships with individual pupils can have a big impact. This could be as simple as asking about their weekend or how their football team is performing.

“When delivered consistently, greeting pupils at the classroom door can help teachers to positively and personally connect with each student.”

To identify the cohort of pupils in need of extra - not just some - social and emotional support, mental-health training and extra vigilance is recommended.

A more comprehensive and less pathologising approach to distress would simply have emphasised the importance of knowing pupils really well and listening to them, rather than merely observing them from a distance. 

Once identified, pupils need to be referred into “services”, the checklist says. These are the checklist’s silver-bullets: the answer to every heightened need.  

The EEF report talks about the positive impact of knowing pupils, rather than monitoring them, recommending that schools develop smaller communities within the large. 

Our alternative, EEF-informed checklist might usefully include these prompts. Their relevance after pupils’ lengthy time away very clear: “Is it possible to structure your school such that someone knows each pupil, their strengths and interests? Can this be managed for some pupils, if not all? 

“In primary schools and special schools, the class teacher may be able to provide this role. In secondary schools, an existing pastoral system might be a good place to start to proactively support your pupils.”

Well-intentioned

The DfE’s checklist is well-intentioned, no doubt. The support section should be accepted at face value, as a genuine attempt to mitigate the increased risk of exclusion that escalated need, combined with tightened constraints, will bring. 

Its problem is its imbalance. Translated into practice, this will not stabilise school communities. In her brilliant, psychologically informed rationale for Connection before Correction, psychologist Kim Golding explains that effective discipline requires two hands. Hand one provides connection with warmth and nurture. Hand two provides structure, supervision and boundaries.

The DfE checklist is unsound because one hand is missing. Hopefully, however, we can trust in our inclusive school leaders to provide this missing hand, as they engage in the painstaking work of rebuilding their school communities, relationship by relationship.  

Mary Meredith is service manager for inclusion at Lincolnshire County Council and a former senior leader