20/10/10 EPS1: Effective Classroom and Behaviour Management

200550194

In managing behaviour in the classroom and across a whole school environment there are a number of strategies, which are employed to varied effect. Many strategies work whe n applied almost anywhere, evidence for this can be seen in the similarities between different theoretical approaches to behaviour management. Different schools behaviour and discipline policies often demonstrate the same similarities. However, a strategy that works in one school or situation may not work in another school or situation. This can be seen in the differences between behaviour policies, both practical and theoretical. I intend to examine a pair of behaviour policies, one primary and the other secondary, which I have seen in action. There appears to be a pair of philosophies, behaviourism and humanism, which inform all of the behaviour policies I have encountered. I will assess the influence of both of these on the two policies. Behaviourism has at its heart a system of rewards and sanctions, based on the assumption that teaching cannot occur without the existence of good behaviour [Canter, 2010]. On the subject of behaviour with in a group of people Skinner says: When an individual behaves in a fashion acceptable to the group, he receives admiration, approval, affection and many other reinforcements which increase the likelihood that he will continue to behave in that fashion. When his behaviour is not acceptable, he is criticised, censured, blamed or otherwise punished. [Skinner, 1956] Humanism is more concerned with personal responsibility, and in educational terms assumes that all pupils desire to learn, it is just circumstance which prevents this. The IHEU Minimum Statement on Humanism is that: Humanism is a democratic and ethical life stance, which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethic based on human and other natural values

in the spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality. [Amsterdam Declaration, 2002]

Secondary School The school at which I have been placed for my first serial and block placements is a Roman Catholic college with around 750 pupils from the ages of 11 to 16. It is situated in a suburb of a city in West Yorkshire, though because of its Catholic focus the school draws its pupils from a wider than average catchment area. Around three quarters of the staff and pupils at the school are practising Catholics; non-Catholic members of staff and pupils are expected to adhere to the teachings, practices and ethos of the Catholic Church whilst at school. The school's behaviour and discipline policy is founded on the Christian principles of Justice, Reconciliation and Forgiveness. Every member of our college community is considered responsible for her or his own behaviour; we must, therefore, provide opportunities for all members to develop their understanding of individual responsibility. [Secondary Behaviour Policy, 2009]. Humanist philosophy denies the existence of a god, whilst the Catholic Church emphatically believes in the existence of God. The morals and ethics of the Catholic Church are similar enough to those of humanism, that for the purposes of this essay I intend to treat aspects of the school discipline policy based on Catholicism as being humanist in nature. The school discipline policy sets out to achieve a proactive approach to behaviour, as it recognises that reactive approaches are not effective. By reactive approaches we mean any approach, which focuses on action after an incident; applying a tariff of punishments; systems of referral which research has established as counter-productive. [Secondary Behaviour Policy, 2009; Watkins, 2000]. To this end the main thrust of the behaviour policy is focused on affirming positive behaviour with an informed and consistent rewards system, which includes a hierarchy of praise from a verbal comment from a teacher to referral to a

departmental head or the head teacher and a letter of praise sent home to parents or carers. The aims of the policy are all couched in positive language: promoting good behaviour and discipline; providing a safe environment free from disruption, violence, bullying and any form of harassment; [Secondary Behaviour Policy, 2009]. These intentions of the policy are mainly humanistic in nature as they affirm that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.[Amsterdam Declaration, 2002]. Though the policy is primarily humanistic in intent, it does have strong elements of behaviourist control embedded within its execution. In particular the existence of a reward system, alongside the less emphasised reminiscent of Skinner's behaviourism. The school policy makes a statement of pupils responsibility for their own behaviour, a key tenet of humanist philosophy, this is backed up by the schools attitude to pupil referral from one teacher to another higher up the pastoral system. The discipline policy decries referral as ineffective citing OFSTED (1996): Year heads and heads of house worked hard but were often overwhelmed by numbers of pupils referred to them for indiscipline by classroom teachers. Frequently such referrals shortcircuited established systems and merely reflected the unwillingness of some staff to deal with problems at source. As a result, such problems escalated, although pastoral heads spent much time with difficult pupils, often that time achieved little other than to register concern and pass sentence. This policy decision is supported by the staff, when asked who was in charge of discipline one of the teachers said Everyone is in charge of discipline. [Secondary Staff, 2010]. This is not to say that the school does not have a disciplinary structure, it does and referrals up the chain do occur but only in cases of serious infractions. Staff attitudes to the behaviour policy are generally positive [Secondary Staff, 2010] but some teachers do not uphold the rules as rigorously as others [Secondary Staff, 2010; system of sanctions for negative behaviour are

Secondary Pupils, 2010]. Some staff whilst adhering to the behaviour policy do so in a way that is far more authoritarian than the policy allows for. In one class I observed a pupil was repeatedly talking whilst the teacher was trying to explain the task at hand to the class. After receiving a verbal warning which had no discernible impact on the pupils behaviour the teacher asked for her planner so that he could make a note in it. At this point the pupil in question started pleading with the teacher not to write in her planner. She offered to undergo a more severe punishment, a detention, if the teacher would refrain from making a comment in her planner. When asked why she did not want to have the comment in her planner she replied: Because if you make a note in my planner sir, then Mr A [her form tutor] will see it. The teacher replied asking why this was so undesirable, the pupil replied Because he is scary and will shout at me. The teacher put the planner on his desk. Telling her that if the lesson continued without further interruption from her she could have the planner back without a comment in it, but if she spoke out of turn again she would receive the comment. The lesson continued without any more misbehaviour from any of the pupils [Secondary Staff, 2010; Secondary Pupils, 2010]. After the lesson I spoke to Mr A, who told me that the pupils in his class did fear his displeasure, but that they respected him as well. This conversation was over heard by another member of staff who said But you shouldn't rule by fear. You want your classes not to want to let you down. You want them to worry about disappointing you. [Secondary Staff, 2010]. His point is supported by Rodgers [W. Rodgers, 2006], but Mr A's style of teaching is supported by the writings of Machiavelli, ...a question arises: whether it be better to be loved than feared or feared than loved? It may be answered that one should wish to be both, but, because it is difficult to unite them in one person, is much safer to be feared than loved, when, of the two, either must be dispensed with. Nevertheless a prince ought to inspire fear in such a way that, if he does not win love, he avoids hatred. [Machiavelli, 1532]. Of the two view points the first is humanist, whilst the second is cynical and strongly behaviourist. It would therefore appear to be possible to work within a humanist

policy in a behaviourist manner. The pupil was made aware of the consequences of her actions, and given a choice: to continue misbehaving and face known consequences or to conform to the rules and avoid the punishment.

Primary School Prior to commencing the formal part of my PGCE course at Leeds University, I was required to undertake a seven day primary placement. I carried out my primary placement out at a village school on the Nottinghamshire side of the border between Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire. The school is unusually large for a primary school, and has an extremely small percentage of non-white pupils. During my time at this school I spent almost all of my time in the company of the Deputy Head, who was heavily involved in drawing up the behaviour policy of the school. The primary school's behaviour policy is more heavily behaviourist than the secondary school. There is a section in the primary school's behaviour policy entitled Behaviour Modification [Primary Behaviour Policy, 2010], this is a concept which is advocated by Skinner and Canter [Skinner, 1956; Canter, 2010]. The primary school policy for behaviour advocates immediate acknowledgement of both positive and negative behaviours which is another idea supported by behaviourist philosophy, instant responses link consequence with behaviour in the mind of learners. In contrast to the otherwise behaviourist tone of the policy, the primary school has class contracts of behaviour agreed between a form teac and their her pupils. This idea is favoured by Bill Rodgers, [W. Rodgers, 2006] a former teacher whose stance on behaviour is largely humanistic. The rewards structure is comprehensive, with a heavy emphasis on physical rewards. One teacher at the school told me that their policy boiled down to a blatant attempt to bribe the children to behave themselves and she pondered about the effect this might be having on their moral values. Another told me that she estimated that she spent about 1000 a year on prizes

for the children she taught [Primary Staff, 2010]. The class that I saw most of during my placement had five children (out of twenty five) awarded prizes for their conduct during a one week period. Prizes are not the only rewards in place at the school, before they get a reward children must ascend a reward pyramid which includes verbal acknowledgement and the issuing of points and stickers. The sanctions in the primary school are much the same as those in the secondary school. They include visual acknowledgement that the teacher has observed the disruptive behaviour in question; followed by a verbal warning; moving the child within the classroom and finally sending the child to another classroom. The school tends not to use detentions as sanctions because teachers are unwilling to give up their breaks [Primary Staff, 2010].

Conclusion Both of the policies outlined above are founded on a combination of humanist and behaviourist philosophies about behaviour management. Where the secondary school is largely humanist in its approach with behaviourist undertones; the primary school's policy has its foundations in behaviourism with traits of humanism in places. In their respective OFSTED reports both schools are assessed as being good in the area of discipline and behaviour [OFSTED, 2007; OFSTED, 2008]. Clearly both policies work in the schools in which they are in place. The secondary school has a universal rule set which is applied across the school, in which the consequences for various behaviours is set out. Behaviour is taught to pupils, a behaviourist approach [Canter, 2010]. The pupils therefore know what these consequences are and are expected to conduct themselves appropriately. This policy is backed up by a non confrontational style, where consequences of bad behaviour can be deferred to allow tensions to defuse [Secondary Behaviour Policy, 2009]. In contrast the primary school has behaviour contracts agreed between pupils and staff. The pupils are then strictly held to the contract and

sanctions are applied immediately [Primary Behaviour Policy, 2009]. Both schools have a zero tolerance policy on the issues of bullying and racism. The secondary school adds homophobia to this list. Any instance of these issues leads to an immediate letter home and a detention with the possibility of exclusion. One of the sanctions the primary school uses, that I thought particularly effective, is to send pupils that have been misbehaving in one class into another where they have to sit in silence for five minutes. Children who are sent out of their room in this manner return shame faced, they do not tend to misbehave again for a couple of days [Primary Staff, 2010]. A similar punishment used in the secondary school where pupils are made to stand outside another classroom is less effective. In the one instance in which I have seen it used the teacher worked their way up the sanctions prescribed by the discipline policy before asking the disruptive student to leave the classroom. The boy smirked at his classmates as he left, stood outside for the prescribed five minutes then re-entered still smirking. Standing outside a classroom was not seen as being a relevant punishment, I feel that it may even be seen as an objective by some of the pupils that are less inclined to work. In summary, the secondary example teaches discipline in a behaviourist manner, then uses a humanistic system of enforcing that behaviour. The primary school uses a humanistic approach to setting behaviour standards then enforces these with behavio urist Behaviour Modification techniques. I believe that the differences are largely due to the differing ages of pupils at the schools and the manner in which they are taught. Primary pupils are taught by a single teacher for most subjects. It is therefore possible to engage in a dialogue with the students at the start of the year to set out the rules by which they must conduct themselves. This dialogue acts to teach the pupils the rules, so in that regard is similar to the teaching of discipline which occurs in the secondary school. It is perhaps possible and more necessary to act swiftly to enforce discipline in a primary environment, younger children are less likely to confront a teachers authority than older ones and it could be that they need to have the link

between behaviour and consequence reinforced repeatedly lest they forget. In a similar vein it might be that the nature of secondary education where each subject is taught by a different specialist that behaviour contracts between teacher and pupils are unworkable, it is less disruptive to the timetable to have a whole school discipline policy that is taught to students once when they join the school. Then the increased maturity of the secondary pupils allows for a humanist approach to discipline as the students are more capable of responsibility for their behaviour. In the end I do not think that the exact discipline policy used by a school is as relevant to the issue of discipline in schools as the consistency with which it is applied. Not only must the discipline policy be applied consistently, but the staff of the school must be seen to abide by it. Members of staff who treat their pupils with discourtesy, impatience or contempt, or are late for those from whom they demand punctuality, who scribble illegibly on words which they insist must be impeccably clear and tidy, who will not listen to those from whom they demand absolute attention, who bawl their heads off at those from whom they demand soft and respectful speech, who hold up to ridicule those whom they instruct to treat all men with respect, or who treat any of their own colleagues with anything but courtesy and respect in the presence of any of the pupils, are suffering a painful and obvious discontinuity of logic. [Elton, 1992] taking

Professional Development In researching this essay I have developed my understanding of a number of the professional standards for teachers [Q3, Q5, Q6, Q10, Q30, Q31, Q32]. This has been achieved through reading and cross referencing a number of sources from both academic and professional literature and observing lessons, as well as discussion of these with other members of the physics PGCE course and teachers in both primary and secondary schools. I

realise that I will have to continue to develop my understanding of all of these standards as I continue to gain in school experience and in my research for subsequent assignments.

References
y y y y y y y y y y

Amsterdam Declaration, 2002, the IHEU general assembly unanimous resolution Canter, L 2010, Assertive Discipline Elton, 1992, Responsible parenting requires a responsible society, in report of conference Machiavelli, N 1532, The Prince, trans. W. K. Marriott, London. OFSTED, 1996, 'Exclusions from Secondary Colleges', London HMSO OFSTED, 2007, Inspection Report Primary, London HMSO OFSTED, 2008, Inspection Report Secondary, London HMSO Primary Behaviour Policy, 2009 Primary Staff, 2010, Conversation Rogers, C R & Skinner B F, 1956, 'Some Issues Concerning the Control of Human Behaviour' Science, New Series, Vol. 124, No. 3231

y y y y y

Rogers, W 2006, Classroom Management Secondary Behaviour & Discipline Policy, September 2009 Secondary Pupils, 2010, Conversation Secondary Staff, 2010, Conversation Watkins, C 2000, Managing Classroom Behaviour from research to diagnosis, London Institute of Education in association with ATL, London