THE disruptive behaviour of pupils is a regular concern for teachers. Yet an independent review in the UK suggests that head teachers gloss over the issue. The older generation remember the days when corporal punishment was a significant deterrent. It is still used in 19 US states and in some Far-Eastern countries. Its removal left a void in respect of sanctions in order to maintain discipline in schools.
Schools now use internal exclusions to control unruly behaviour. In Jersey these have dropped by nearly 75 per cent since 2013. Does this mean that behaviour is improving or that heads are tweaking the system? The use of this sanction varies greatly from one school to the next – 175 instances down to 12 in 2016. The main sanction for more serious offences is an external exclusion. Again, schools vary widely – 105 instances down to five in 2016. In primary schools, the external exclusion record is only five per cent of that of secondary schools. But is the sanction effective?
Parents are all aware that the cry of a baby is a sign of an unmet need. They may be hungry, wet or cold. As a child learns to speak we assume that they can now express their needs without resorting to tantrums. However, some find this difficult.
Even adults get grumpy, withdrawn and aggressive but do not (cannot) tell others what is bothering them. Challenging behaviour is usually a sign of an unmet need. The child is not just being ‘naughty’. The cane ‘did us no harm’, I hear you say, but many still carry the emotional scars of those unmet needs.
Verbal abuse is the most common reason for excluding a pupil. The action cannot be condoned but, put in context, it can be understood.
Do we treat the outbursts of the bereaved child, the bullied child, the disaffected child in the same way? Even law courts use discretion. The child is punished.
They either accept the sanction, even though nobody ‘understands’ why they are angry, or escalate the situation. Some choose the latter and will continue to do so until their need is met. It might be that the need cannot be met – parents divorcing, a grandparent dies, violence in the home. We are all familiar with post-traumatic stress disorder – it happens in all aspects of life, including childhood.
Children are adept at getting their needs met. A baby learns that if it cries long enough it will get attention. In class a child may seek attention by being enthusiastic but they will also get attention if they misbehave. For some it does not matter how that attention is manifested as long as it is forthcoming.
A child finds work in class difficult – they can ask for help and risk embarrassment or they can be disruptive and get sent out. Either way they have solved the problem. Not all teachers are skilled in recognising the signs of an unmet need. If the pressure to deliver improved performance is factored in then the path of least resistance is to remove the disruptive child.
The key sign of a chronic issue is the frequency and severity of disruption. The persistent offender will eventually be ‘flagged up’ and labelled as ‘SA’ (school action) leading to ‘SA+’ (the involvement of outside agencies – an educational psychologist, social worker etc). If problems continue then a request might be made to have the child referred to be taught off-site.
For most this will be temporary (‘time-bonded’), for the few (only older pupils) this might become permanent. The process is slow – often taking months – before a child is taken out of the mainstream. Meanwhile, the child remains in class, able to continue disrupting. This is not helpful to the school/teacher or the child, exacerbating an already fraught situation.
Jersey is to be commended in that is does not permanently exclude pupils. However, there is a small minority of children with emotional issues for whom the mainstream is not the best place. ‘Time-bonding’ is fine but unless the right support is in place for these children, putting them into a mainstream school can be counter-productive.
There’s an argument that persistent disruptive behaviour should come under the remit of well-being and mental health. Punitive sanctions are not the answer when dealing with the most difficult children.
Such children lack emotional literacy – the ability to comprehend their own feelings and how to deal with them. The buzzword is to build ‘resilience’ in the child. This is a skill that has to be taught (many adults would benefit from having it). But it takes time, patience and tolerance to instil.
behaviourinschools@gmail.com
