Changing Behaviour

Teaching Children with Emotional Behavioural Difficulties in Primary and Secondary Classrooms

Sylvia McNamara, Gill Moreton

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2012
• Print ISBN:
  9781853467455
• eBook ISBN:
  9781136628320
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Classroom Management

With the current emphasis on including children with emotional and behavioral difficulties into the mainstream school every teacher needs to address the problem of children who behave badly in school. This new edition addresses the skills and strategies needed to support the emotional needs of pupils within the National Curriculum framework and school improvement agenda. Many of the activities in the book have direct application in the curriculum for Personal, Social and Health education and Citizenship and will support the whole class, not just those children identified as having behaviour difficulties.

Chapter 1

Inclusion of Pupils with Behavioural Difficulties

Inclusion of Pupils with Statements of Special Educational Needs into Mainstream Schools

Inclusion of pupils with special needs has increasingly been the agenda of the present Government. The green paper ‘Excellence for All’ (1998) outlined an inclusive policy. For many schools and LEAs this supported work to integrate or desegregate that had been undertaken with good reason. There has been a long debate about the effects of labelling through separate provision and the impact this has on the pupils’ view of themselves, society’s assumptions about their potential and the future prospects of being fully part of the community. Issues around a limited curriculum were contrasted with the benefits of small class sizes, specialist inputs and therapeutic environments. The 1988 Education Act had moved towards entitlement to both a full curriculum for children with Special Educational Needs and gave rise to a system of ‘Statements of Special Educational Needs’ that was intended to resource meeting those needs.

The more recent move has been towards the inclusion of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties. This is against a background of successful integration of pupils with physical disabilities and learning difficulties. There has been some resistance to integration of those pupils with profound and multiple difficulties into some mainstream setting on the grounds that they are just ‘too special’ and therefore their needs would be very difficult to meet alongside mainstream pupils. The argument is made that it would not be fair on that pupil and that they would lose out. With different reasons, but the same outcome, there is resistance to including pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties into mainstream settings. The reasons often given by schools and teachers is that the disruption that one pupil can cause to a class would be to the detriment of the majority. In contrast then, the inclusion would not be fair to all the others, even though it might be best for that child. It is further stated that it would not be fair to put the child in the situation in which he/she is bound to fail. Both these arguments are probably true where the school does not have the systems or the teachers the skills and strategies or the pupil’s peer group the skills to deal with that pupil’s bad behaviour. However, suggesting that these children should therefore be taught ‘elsewhere’ is no different or any more acceptable than claiming that pupils who have learning difficulties should not attend school because the teachers have no idea how to teach them.

The statementing system which should allow schools and teachers to accept and effectively teach pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties, also seems to let these pupils down. Statements are far less likely to be given for EBD than learning difficulties. If and when they are given it is after a much longer time than for other difficulties and yet teachers repeatedly tell us that dealing with behavioural difficulties causes them far more difficulty in the classroom. We need to question why this is then the case. Our experience in the field is that physical difficulties command almost instant Statements and support, learning difficulties are identified through a battery of tests conducted by the educational psychology service and comparisons with ‘normal’ pupils made.

Exclusion of Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

There is a great deal of debate around the issue of exclusion of pupils who behave badly and disrupt others or threaten staff. Exclusion offers only temporary relief to the pupil and to the school. In the long term it changes nothing. For the pupil it means that the same behaviours need to be addressed in another environment or later in life. For schools it means that the ‘next worst’ child then takes the place of the excluded child in the level of difficulties they pose or are seen to pose. Commonly teachers continue to say ‘It would be all right if … wasn’t here’.

The notion of special needs being one of diagnosis and treatment lingers. In contrast the idea persists that children who behave badly in school are somehow in control of their behaviour and are ‘doing it deliberately’, whereas physical or learning difficulties can’t be helped, are not their fault. In many cases where the child is not blamed directly, their family background, their upbringing, or a crisis in their lives is blamed. The child, however, still is judged against criteria for good behaviour which is based on a very class bound institution. Schools inevitably have an essentially middle class value system against which behaviours are judged. We need to look no further to understand a little of why so many black boys are labelled as disruptive and unable to conform. In fact they are highly conformist but they conform to a different code of conduct to the one which schools uphold. Equally, academic success in formal situations is a clear aspiration of schools and so other qualities and successes are not recognised or as highly prized by our education system. For schools in areas of social deprivation the skills more associated with living in poverty such as budgeting and creativity, are not valued in our current education system. It is little wonder then that the majority of pupils who are either excluded from mainstream schools for disruptive behaviour or who are in receipt of Statements of Special Educational Needs on the same grounds are those who do not have a close match between their home and school culture. Yet mismatch of behaviour codes has very different repercussions than mismatch of academic aspirations. I have yet to find a pupil who is excluded because he or she has failed to learn or that the teachers have failed to teach.

The political desire to reduce exclusions reflects an awareness of this situation. Schools and LEAs must log the exclusion rate and targets are set to reduce the number of permanent exclusions. OFSTED also are alerted to schools where the exclusion rate is high. Schools who permanently exclude pupils will be expected to take in a pupil who has been excluded from another school. This is an attempt to ensure that schools take their fair share of difficult pupils but this is clearly fraught with difficulties. Just as we have found learning difficulties, and this is recognised in the 1988 Education Act to be specific to the learning environment, so behaviour which is unacceptable in one school is not an issue in another. In some schools failure to conform to dress codes may be seen as disruptive whilst this would not be regarded as a major difficulty in another school who are regularly dealing with seriously traumatised pupils. The swapping of pupils between schools is not an answer for more than a few pupils who are excluded or behaving badly. Indeed pupils who have been rejected or failed by one school will find it even more difficult to succeed in a new environment. They arrive with low self-esteem, poor skills, and the stress of being the ‘new boy or girl’. All this makes it very unlikely that they will risk behaving in a new and different way.

The Effect of League Tables and Measures of Academic Success

For schools there is also a tension between academic success for the majority as measured in league tables and continuing with or accepting in pupils whose behaviour is likely to disrupt. Teachers perceive there to be a direct link between the pupils who behave badly in school and their ability to achieve good academic results. League tables affect school’s self-esteem but also have an impact on pupil numbers. Pupil numbers have a direct relationship to the school’s budge and to teacher jobs. It is no wonder then that disruptive pupils are subject to exclusions. OFSTED are also alerted by a school’s performance and assessment (PANDA) grades and schools may not wish themselves to be subject to more and more frequent inspections. With the introduction of performance management where annual objectives for the teacher are set, based in part upon pupil progress, this becomes a very important consideration for teachers. When these objectives are then linked to pay, particularly at Threshold and beyond we can see why teachers feel resistance to working with these difficult pupils and would rather have them taught ‘elsewhere’. For younger teachers the standards for newly qualified teachers in behaviour management might mean that NQTs would not qualify at the end of their first year if there were too many or too difficult children with behavioural problems in their classrooms. At a time when recruitment and retention is an issue in the profession, schools might well show a reluctance to take on or continue to work with these pupils. So there are a number of subtle reasons why a pupil who behaves badly might be excluded for the good of the school rather than for his or her own benefit.

Pupil Referral Units

The question raised is always, where is the ‘elsewhere’ for these pupils. Concerns over their involvement in crime whilst having a few hours home tuition and the lack of an entitlement curriculum has lead the Government to seek other solutions.

In response there is now a system of Pupil Referral Units where pupils attend to be ‘elsewhere’. It is hoped that this will enable pupils to be reintegrated successfully into mainstream settings. The misconception remains, however, that the pupil has a problem that needs to be treated. He or she will learn to behave well in the PRU and can then go back into the same environment that was a cause of the poor behaviour and ‘perform’ the newly learned good behaviour. There are fears that the PRUs will not be a halfway house, but will become a revolving door or dumping ground Another question is ‘Referred to where?’ The pupils who fail to respond or who keep returning to the unit have nowhere else to go. The other issue that is being debated is whether PRUs should be ‘on site or off site’ units? If they are ‘on site’ then the concern is that schools will still be dealing with all the negatives of poor behaviour and may also be taking in other school’s problems. If ‘off site’ then the new and better behaviour learned may not easily transfer to the original school site. Primary schools are also asking questions about the availability of such units for younger pupils, arguing that if changes are made earlier then they may not be needed later.

For the authors we believe that for the vast majority of pupils the preferred choice is an ‘in-house’ system, which reflects some of the aspirations of the referral unit but which is partnered by work undertaken within the mainstream setting. Training for the mainstream staff and pupils should be designed to better equip staff and pupils to cope with difficult behaviour. This will give them the skills that they need to include and support the pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties without a loss to their own academic success. Concerns are always expressed about the fairness of training the peer group, who it is argued do not have the problem, in order to accommodate ‘bad pupils’ within the mainstream system. We believe that in this book we look at skills that equip all pupils and all teachers to form better, more positive relationships, develop co-operative and group work skills. These are now recognised as very valuable in the work place. We would also argue that although ‘good pupils’ may not appear to be in such desperate need of the therapeutic approach it has major benefits to them. Our experience is that many of these less troubled pupils make enormous strides both academically and personally when given these opportunities. Teachers report a change in the classroom ethos that benefits all, including the teacher.

In addition we believe that the curriculum itself and the way in which it is delivered have an impact upon behaviour and we wish to later explore ways in which skills based training and work on emotional literacy can be undertaken alongside the National Curriculum. Indeed we will argue that it is a more effective way of delivering an overburdened curriculum. It has clear links with new areas such as Personal, Social and Health Education and Citizenship. Curriculum 2000 has links that can be made between subjects through the identification of Key Skills and the strategies outlined in this book concentrate on transferable skills in the same way.

Entitlement for all to a Broad, Balanced and Appropriate Curriculum

There is a key issue of educational entitlement which needs considering. At present there are discussions around alternative curriculum for disaffected pupils. Indeed at present excluded pupils are not receiving their entitlement curriculum. Some of the pupils who are in danger of exclusion are also not receiving their entitlement to a broad and balanced curriculum. Many who attend school do so irregularly and unpunctually. They exclude themselves by withdrawing physically or mentally. Teachers exclude them by giving them boring and simplistic work, which does not challenge them academically, in the mistaken belief that easy work will help them to succeed. Experience tells us that to fail at simple work will be even more devastating to their self-esteem. To succeed at these tasks will conversely do nothing to make them feel successful. Teachers also avoid putting these pupils into situations that they will find difficult such as group work, discussions, or leadership roles. Teachers might also feel such pupils need to be given one-to-one adult support to avoid difficulties. Thus, pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties can end up isolated and with no positive opportunity to practise social skills. They also have less opportunity to see good skills modelled by their peers. If these pupils are being taught in their area of weakness and not offered the opportunity to make progress in changing to more positive behaviours then their special needs are not being met. A curriculum without challenge to improve would not be accepted with any other group of pupils. We believe that pupils with behavioural difficulties are entitled to challenging work with academic and emotional or social content. This book seeks to outline in practical terms how this can be achieved within the mainstream setting.

Therapeutic Environments in the Mainstream School and Good Teaching

It is our belief that inclusion of pupils with special needs, including emotional and behavioural difficulties, will mean changes in emphasis in some schools and classes. There will need to be therapeutic environments within mainstream schools. OFSTED already recognise in the 2000 Framework the importance of the school’s ethos, the strategies for how the school cares for the pupils, and the management of pupil’s behaviour. In addition, to be very good, the quality of teaching must be stimulating and perceptive, making intellectual, challenging and creative demands on the pupils. The quality of relationships in the classroom must be positive and the pupils confident able to rise to challenges. The therapeutic classroom is indeed a classroom where the teaching is ‘very good’.

The challenge is to make a classroom into one where teaching can be ‘very good’ when there are children whose behaviour disrupts and undermines the teacher’s efforts to teach. In this book we concentrate ‘how’ to develop the opportunities for excellent teaching. Rather than concentrate on the ‘behavioural problems’ we recommend that teachers do this through developing teacher and pupil skills and creating the classroom ethos that will allow this excellence in teaching and learning to take place. We advise that a positive ethos is dependent upon the use of structures and particular teaching strategies which develop the skills of the whole peer group as well as specifically addressing the needs of the most difficult children.

Whole-School Management Systems for Pupils With Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties

In the light of teachers’ reports that poor behaviour has the biggest impact on their ability to teach effectively, it is surprising that in very few schools is this aspect of pupil development part of the senior management team’s work or in the strategic plan of the school. Perhaps schools feel that by acknowledging the precarious nature of good behaviour and the non-specific view of ‘ethos’ they feel unable to identify the structures and developments needed in their school. They might also be concerned that if they draw attention to behaviour then they will gain a reputation for being a ‘bad’ school.

One successful strategy has been used by the authors in changing the behaviour, not just of one or two pupils in a class, but throughout a whole school. This needs a change in emphasis within a school. Our experience working with SENCOs is that most have responsibility for all children with special needs, learning difficulties and behavioural problems. In the same way as schools are required to have a Special Needs Co-ordinator we believe that one senior management person should be responsible for pupils with learning difficulties and another for pupils with behavioural difficulties. We believe it is effective if there is a separate support system for pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties with senior management co-ordination and a specific budget allocation. The EBD co-ordinator’s role might include responsibilty for: pastoral oversight, co-ordinating responses to emotional difficulties, liaison with social services, the progress and welfare of looked-after children, ongoing supervision of pupils with Child Protection history, liaison with the local Police, Education Welfare Officer, agencies working with children who are bereaved or with family members in prison, children who are carers, families in crisis. Within school the co-ordinator would co-ordinate the support system for these pupils, oversee Individual Education Plans and provide a consistent source of advice to staff. The implication of this is to raise the importance of addressing behavioural difficulties with consideration of special provision rather than condemning pupils and excluding them from groups, classes or the school.

Differentiation as an Approach for Changing Behaviour

For many teachers and schools there is a real dilemma in treating pup...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Contents
• Introduction
• 1. Inclusion of Pupils with Behavioural Difficulties
• 2. Antecedents of Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
• 3. Skills for Teaching Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties
• 4. Classroom Environment
• 5. Making Rules
• 6. Teaching Rules through the English Curriculum
• 7. Pupils with Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties and the Expression of Feelings
• 8. Teachers Managing Disputes
• 9. Pupils Managing their Disputes
• 10. The Importance of Friendship and Building Positive Peer Relationships
• 11. Questions and Concerns that Teachers raise
• Bibliography
• Index