STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

Contextual statement.

School A- is a private secondary school which promotes wholeness of

character by encouraging students to participate in as many various

academic and cultural extra- curricular activities as possible.

School B-s a secondary school academy which aims to create a safe

environment for students to feel confident and secure so that they

may achieve academically. This is achieved by having positive

relationship with the students and their families.

My School – is a special needs secondary school which aims to

prepare all students to lead fulfilled lives and be as independent

as possible.

Compare and Contrast the behaviour management strategies

/policies of two/three organisations referring to theories of

behaviour management.

This paper will address the characteristics and impact of behaviour

on the learning environment by comparing and contrasting two

secondary schools behaviour management policies/strategies. In

addition it will also link the policies/strategies to established

1

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

theories in education. It will find that students need to be

educated in character as well as academics. Furthermore it will

postulate that students need to feel safe and secure in order to

develop into positive contributors of society.

An effective school wide approach to behaviour management policies

are vital as they provide a framework which ensures a safe learning

environment and sets expectations of required positive behaviour and

informs students and teachers of consequences to positive or

negative behaviour. In addition it also addresses safeguarding

policies and anti-bullying policies in accordance to government

guidelines as indicated by the Department of Education (2014).

Initially when comparing the two behaviour management policies;

school B.s’ policy is seen to be easier to comprehend then school

A.s’ policy, as it uses plain language. The advantage of using plain

language is paramount when trying to convey important information in

a clear, concise, accurate and logical order. By having this clarity

it engenders appropriate and effective communication of expected

behaviours within the school and therefore increases the likelihood

of compliance (O’Donnell, 1983). However, both schools have received

a grading of Outstanding by their respective Regulatory Bodies,

which infers that communication of both polices, plain or un-plain

language, has been comprehended by both student and teachers. A

2

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

reason why school Bs’ policy may be written in this manner is that

it is an academy which includes students from a non-English

background. Therefore the school has an obligation to effectively

communicate expectations and consequences for ease of comprehension

(Gov.uk, 2011). Whereas school A sets entrance exams for students

from a non-English background which ensures that the student will be

able to perform at desired levels, and understand what is expected

of them. Both schools set an expectation to have students who

display positive characteristics of behaviour. Positive

characteristic of learning can be categorised as students who

display pro-social and self-regulatory behaviour (Department of

Education, 2012). The pro-social student adheres to rules, co-

operates with their peers and teachers, and actively seeks ways to

enhance their environment by helping others. Students, who display

pro-social behaviour, are better adjusted than students with anti-

social behaviours, and they have a higher quality of friendship with

their peers. There is a link between academic attainment and pro-

sociality (Torrente, Capella and Neal, 2014). This may be, as

students who work well with others, have a better sense of

belonging, due to contribution, therefore they are validated

positively by their peers. This characteristic can be promoted by

the teacher through the use of group work, buddy systems or peer to

peer interactions (Jarvis et al, 2014). In addition, self-regulatory

3

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

skills are esteemed within students, as these students are able to

self-monitor their own emotional and intellectual responses in

accordance to the demand of the situation. Students who are adept at

self-regulation are able to keep themselves on task and motivated to

complete their work in order to achieve academic goals. Studies show

various positive outcomes for children who are able to self-

regulate; this includes’ greater academic performance, less

behavioural problems, higher self-efficacy, internal locus of

control and less likely to suffer mental health issues (Cook & Cook,

2009). The most effective way of teaching self-regulatory behaviour

is through modelling and scaffolding, however the teacher can

encourage executive skills such as goal setting, evaluation and

reflection which will develop self-regulatory behaviour and provide

the student with the strategies necessary for success (Zumbrunn,

Tadlock & Roberts 2011; Florez, 2011).

In order to achieve the positive characteristics of behaviour, both

schools follow Government guidelines regarding rewards and sanctions

within their respective policies. However it is noted that School

A.s’ policy uses the theory of Character Education which supports

extrinsic values to encourage students to achieve academically and

morally through self-regulatory and pro-social behaviour. This is

seen in the use of rewards such as praise, privileges; such as

freedom on outings, valued opinions, and allocation of positions of

4

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

responsibility, colours, distinctions and commendations. In addition

the theory of Logical Consequence is seen in the use of Sanctions

within the schools policy. Whereby, relevant impositions are given

in relation to the offence. This is done so as to reduce negative

characteristics of behaviour, such as hyper-activity and anti-social

behaviour. Negative characteristics of behaviour is categorised as

students who display anti-social and hyperactive behaviour.

Hyperactive characteristics often lead to low level disruptions due

to the students’ impulsivity, short attention span and general

hyperactive behaviour. The overall result is of low level

disruption. Low level disruption is a cause for concern for the

majority of teachers as it distracts from the lesson which inhibits

students and their peers from learning (Merrell & Tymms, 2012 ; NUT,

n/d). The teacher can effectively manage low level disruption by

implementing effective class room management strategies, as seen in

the presentation by Tom Bennett, Low-level Disruption (2013). This

is seen by controlling how students enter the class room, being

fully prepared for the lesson in order to minimise idol time, having

effective communication during the lesson of expected behaviour,

engaging with students who seem to be going off task in a positive

manner and by being in control of how the lesson ends, including how

students exit the class room. By being prepared and committed to

5

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

stamping out low-level disruption, the quality of lesson taught will

greatly improve (Gove, 2014; Lawrence, 2013).

Major anti-social outbursts in students present themselves through

violence, aggressive or intimidatory language including defiance,

destruction of property, lying, stealing, cheating and lack of

social awareness. The consequences of these outbursts have a

detrimental effect on the learning environment as it creates

insecurity amongst peers and an unsafe atmosphere in which to learn.

Students, who do not feel safe, will struggle to develop cognitively

(Luisellia, Putnama, Handlera & Feinberga, 2005; Maslow, 1943). The

student who displays these negative behaviours often achieves lower

academically, finding it harder to create positive relationships and

is more likely to develop further delinquent attributes if left

unaddressed. In both schools the teacher is encouraged to address

these characteristics of behaviour by confidently reminding the

student of their responsibilities at school whilst seeking ways to

engage the student in order to minimise anti-social behaviour and by

implementing sanctions in accordance to the schools Behaviour

Management Policies (Great Britain. Department of Education, 2012).

Unlike school A.s’ reward sytem, school B.s’ policy has an unclear

reward system, which only stating praise as its’ main reward. This

is cited as an ineffectual reward method as it relies on the

perception of the student and to what regard they hold verbal praise

6

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

(Shreeve et. al, 2006). In addition Jacob Kounins’ theory on

behaviour management can be seen in the application of the schools

sanctions or indeed ‘action before sanction’ within the classroom

( Kounin & Gump, 1958) School A.s’ exclusion policy lists items

deemed as banned and behaviour deemed as grossly unacceptable

against the schools safety and welfare standards, furthermore it

describes procedures followed if students are found with banned

items or behaving in a manner deemed as grossly unacceptable.

Whereas School B.s’ policy only lists the banned items and grossly

unacceptable behaviour but does not go onto discuss procedures

followed if rules were disobeyed. In addition to behaviour

management policies both schools have an Anti-Bullying and

safeguarding policies. Bullying has a negative effect on the student

and learning environment, as it causes the victim of bullying to

feel vulnerable and anxious which has been known to manifest into

depression, self-harming and eating disorders (Harber & Sakade,

2009). School A, goes into further detail to describe what is and

what is not bullying, furthermore it also provides an anonymous

service in which the whistle-blowers identities can be withheld.

This can be very important for the victim who is embarrassed by the

situation (Wallace, 2012). In addition, both schools have clear,

concise and robust Safe-Guarding policies which both go into detail

with regards to procedures, recruitment, training and

7

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

confidentiality if a situation arises. Organisations with such

robust policies are cited as being student focused. The consequences

of abuse to students can be seen in behavioural and emotional

issues, including negative health and mental health, which manifests

itself throughout the students’ life (NSPCC, 2010).

In conclusion, the theory of Character Education is seen to work

well as it focuses not only on educating the mind, but also the

character of the student. This is esteemed as it engenders a

positive attitude to shared ethics and values which produces good

citizens. Theodore Roosevelt the former American president is quoted

as saying;

“To educate a person in mind and not in morals is to educate a menace to society.”

(Sim & Low, 2012).

Furthermore students need to be encouraged to develop strategies

which will allow them to be self-regulatory and pro-social. This can

be encouraged by implementing a school wide approach to effective

behaviour management strategies and policies in the classroom, as

well as providing situations whereby students can develop the social

skills and cognitive skills involved in acquiring these strategies

(Zumbrunn, Tadlock & Roberts 2011; Florez, 2011). Negative

behaviours need to be addressed in a fair and consistent manner

which is in accordance to sanctions set in the behaviour management

8

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

policy. Furthermore it is paramount to be learner focused, ensuring

that robust anti-bullying and safeguarding policies are followed,

are regularly addressed and updated in order to minimise the

lifelong effects of such occurrences (Glover, Gough, Johnsonn &

Cartwright, 2010).

Word Count: 1491

Reflecting on your findings in part one; identify

personal and institutional developments to enhance

behaviour.

This paper serves to evaluate my own practice in managing behaviours

and communicating appropriately. This will be achieved by reflecting

on the previous paper and commentating on the approach of the

policies whilst giving insight into the approach of my organisations

policy. Furthermore I will evaluate my own practice in managing and

communicating by reflecting on a critical incident. The findings of

9

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

this reflection will provide justification to further organisational

and personal developments.

The previous paper compared and contrasted the behaviour management

policies of two secondary schools. It discussed the characteristics

of behaviour and found that pro-social and self-regulatory behaviour

is encouraged through the use of rewards, and anti-social and

hyperactive behaviour is discouraged through the use of sanctions.

It found that both schools adopted similar approaches towards their

respective policies, a school-wide positive approach; however school

A included the use of Character Education whilst school B didn’t.

The policies for both schools outlined rewards and sanctions

regarding behaviours, however in both it cited the teacher as the

enforcer of sanctions and rewards. It was noted that rewards are

esteemed by pupils when it meets their own extrinsic values, and

that verbal rewards are often in-effective (Shreeve et al, 2006).

The school-wide positive approach is excellent as it provides

positive environment which is a consistent approach in preventing

behavioural difficulties. This is achieved by effectively

communicating to both student and employed staff the expectations of

them (Warren et al, 2006). Within my organisation, employed staff

regularly attends staff meetings, training days and receive regular

support through feedback regarding behaviour management techniques.

10

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

Whilst students are encouraged to maintain positive behaviour

through the use of universal rewards and individual rewards, such

as; star of the Day/ Week, certificates, special mentions in

assembly and extra use of the sensory room. This works very well, as

most of the rewards are tangible, relying seldom on verbal reward.

(Shreeve et al., 2006).

Effective communication is essential within my organisation where

not only universal strategies are to be implemented by staff, but

also Individual Behaviour Plans (IBP). Students with IBPs’ have

severe behaviour difficulties and as a result have IBPs’ set in

place. By collaborating with pupil, parent and including outside

agencies; schools are able to target realistic positive alternative

replacement behaviours. This is valued as it helps integrate the

student successfully into society. (McVilly et al., 2013) In

addition to schooling children with behaviour difficulties; my

organisation schools children whom range from Mild Learning

Difficulties (MLD) to Complex Needs, including Profound and Multiple

Learning Difficulties (PMLD). As a result a significant number of

students have IBPs’, hence communication through staff meetings and

staff intranet is paramount in executing behaviour management

strategies (Kern & Wehby, 2014). It is through the school wide

communication of IBPs’ that that entire staffing body may be able to

encourage the desired behaviours required of a positive contributing

11

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

member of society. Therefore it is seen that character education is

a focal point within my organisation. Furthermore, it is noted

within my organisations behaviour management policy, that all

permanent and where appropriate temporary contracted staffs are to

receive at least two days, and yearly updates in strategies for

crisis intervention and prevention (S.C.I.P.) As aforementioned,

this is vital when working with students who display behaviour

difficulties.

With this is mind, as an employed lunchtime supervisor who

volunteers two days a week within the PMLD class as a teaching

assistant; I am not included in any staff meetings, training days or

receive any official support or feedback regarding behaviour

management techniques. I feel that this places me and others who are

not privy to these valuable communications at a disadvantage. It is

argued that all who come into contact with students should be

equipped to manage all situations effectively (Gray, Miller and

Noakes, 1983). For me this is a significant issue as I am given

tasks to complete with individual or groups of students who possess

behavioural and learning difficulties; however I am not given tools

or strategies with which to manage these students. This can be

exemplified on an occasion when I was tasked with taking individual

students on errands. I was asked to encourage the students to move

about the school appropriately and take a verbal message to the

12

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

staff room. I took a student who is verbal and communicated what he

needed to do. As I was going down the corridor with my student I

noticed another student sitting outside a classroom. I continued

down the corridor; however I was met with verbal abuse and spitting.

This aggravated the student I was with. Having no experience or

training in preventing or intervening in a situation such as this, I

was left vulnerable as both students were lashing out at one

another. It was apparent to me how ineffective my communication and

physical attempts were to stop the boys from fighting, and it left

all involved vulnerable. Fortunately an employed teaching assistant

was in the corridor and was able to help me manage the situation and

I was able to remove my student from the area. For me this was a

critical incident which highlighted my inability to manage

situations which involved a student becoming physical, and my lack

of awareness regarding certain students with significant behavioural

difficulties. Since the incident I have received no official

feedback or guidance on how to avoid further incidents. Having

reflected on this incident I now question the organisations practice

of not training or communicating to all personnel who come into

regular contact with students within the organisation. In Gray,

Miller and Noakes (1994) it is advised that training both teachers

and ancillary staff regarding strategies for managing behaviour is

beneficial to the whole school, as both members of staff are

13

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

required to deal with these occurrences as they happen. Furthermore,

by not providing adequate training or strategies to manage student

behaviour, the student is adversely effected (Blatchford, Webster

and Russell, 2012 ; NUT, n/d). It is essential for me as a

practitioner to receive training on how to manage critical incidents

and how to effectively communicate with the students I am charged

with. This training would deepen my skills, knowledge and

understanding of behaviour management and furthermore give me

confidence in the work that I do. Moreover as a full time employed

member of staff who volunteers in the class room, I feel that I

would benefit from the S.C.I.P training as mentioned within my

organisations behaviour management policy.

In conclusion, a positive school-wide approach to educating students

is considered to be valuable in managing behaviour within a school

(Sugai & Horner, 2002). It is important to encourage students in

academics; however it is also important to encourage positive social

skills. In order to achieve this it is valuable that all staff,

including ancillary and regular volunteers, is given adequate and

appropriate training (Butt & Lowe, 2012), and are regularly

communicated with to ensure IBPs’ are understood and being followed.

I evaluated my ability to manage behaviour, and effectively

communicate behaviour management strategies with the students as

14

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

poor. I would currently benefit from further training regarding

prevention and intervention of a crisis. Additionally, my

organisation could improve its developments in training offered to

ancillary and volunteer staff, as it would greatly improve the

overall quality of involvement with the students.

Word Count: 1216

References

1. BENNETT, T. (2013) Tesconnect. [Online] Available from -

http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Low-level-disruption-

6344146/. [Accessed: 17th January 2014]

2. BLATCHFORD, P., WEBSTER, R. and RUSSELL, A. (2012) Reassessing the

impact of teaching assistants : how research challenges practice and policy.

Routledge, Abingdon, Oxon.

15

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

3. BUTT, R. and LOWE, K. (2012) Teaching assistants and class

teachers: differing perceptions, role confusion and the

benefits of skills-based training. International Journal of Inclusive

Education.16, ( 2). p. 207-219.

4. CENTRE FOR EVALUATION AND MONOTORING. (2012) Working with Difficult

Children in Primary Schools. A Guide for Teachers - 2nd Edition. Durham. Durham

University.

5. COOK,J., and COOK,G. ( 2009) Child Development Principles and

Perspectives. 2ND Edition. USA: Pearson.

does peace education differ from ‘normal’ schooling?. Journal of

Peace Education. [Online] 6 (September). p. 171-187Available from

- http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17400200903086599

6. FLOREZ, I. (2011) Developing Young Children’s Self-Regulation

through Everyday Experiences. Young Children. (July) .p. 46 -51.

for Individual Students. Teaching Exceptional Children. 46. (4/ March-

April). p. 45 –53.

7. GLOVER,D., GOUGH. G., JOHNSON, M., and CARTWRIGHT, N. (2010).

Bullying in 25 secondary schools: incidence, impact and

intervention. Educational Research.[Online] 42 (2). p. 141 -156.

8. GOVE, M. (2014) Interview with M. Gove on 10th February 2014. House of

Commons. [Recording in possession of author]

16

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

9. GRAY,P., MILLER, A. and NOAKES,J. (1994) CHALLENGING BEHAVIOUR IN

SCHOOLS; Teacher support, practicle techniques and policy development. New

York: Routledge.

10. GREAT BRITAIN. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (2011). Review of best practce

in parental engagement. [Online] Available from -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen

t_data/file/182508/DFE-RR156.pdf [ Accesse:d 15 February

2014].

11. GREAT BRITAIN. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. (2014). Preventing

and tackling bullying Advice for Head teachers, Staff and Governing Bodies.

[Online] Available from -

http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/advice/f0076899/preventin

g-and-tackling-bullying [ Accessed: 23 February 2014].

12. GREAT BRITAIN. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION. EDUCATION STANDARDS

ANALYSIS AND RESEARCH DEVISION. (2012) Pupil behaviour in schools in

England. [Online] Available from -

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmen

t_data/file/184078/DFE-RR218.pdf [Accessed: 15 February 2014].

13. HARBER, C. and SAKADE, N.(2009) Schooling for violence

and peace: how

14. JARVIS,P., NEWMAN,S. and SWINIARSKI, L. (2014) On

‘becoming

17

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

15. KERN, L. and WEHBY, J. (2014) Using Data to Intensify

Behavioral Interventions

16. KOUNIN, J. and GUMP,P. (1958) The Ripple Effect in

Discipline. The Elementary School Journal. 59 (December). p. 158-162.

17. LAWRENCE, T. (2013) 10 ways to deal with low-level

disruption in the classroom. The Guardian. [Online] 21st May 2013.

Available from:

http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/m

ay/21/classroom-disruption-top-tips [ Accessed: 7th March 2014]

18. LUISELLA, K., PUTNAMA, R.,HANDLER,M. and FEINBERGA, A.

( 2005) Whole‐school positive behaviour support: effects on

student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational

Psychology. (April-June). p. 183 -198

19. MASLOW, A. (1943) A theory of human motivation.

Psychological Review. 50 (July). p. 370-396.

20. McVILLY,K., WEBBER, L., PARIS, M. and SHARP, G. (2013)

Reliability and utility of the Behaviour Support Plan Quality

Evaluation tool (BSP-QEII) for auditing and quality

development in services for adults with intellectual

disability and challenging behaviour. Journal of Intellectual Disability

Research. 57. (August). p. 716–727.

21. National Union of Teachers. NEILL, S. (n/d) Teaching

Assistants. Warrick University. [Online] Available from:

18

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

http://www.teachers.org.uk/node/1099. [Accessed: 16th March

2014]

22. National Union of Teachers. NEILL, S. (n/d) Unacceptable

Pupil Behaviour. Warrick University. [Online] Available from:

http://www.teamteach-tutors.co.uk/guidance/documents/NUT_Surve

y.pdf. [Accessed: 16th February 2014]

23. NSPCC. LAZENBATT, A. (2010) The impact of abuse and neglect on the

health and mental health of children and young people.[Online] Belfast:

[Accessed: 5th March 2014] Available from:

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/briefings/impact_of_ab

use_on_health_pdf_wdf73369.pdf .

24. O’DONNELL, H. (1983) Just sign your name on the dotted

line. English Journal. 72 (6 / October). p. 59-62.

25. SHREEVE, A., BODDINGTON, D., BERNARD, B., BROWN, K.,

CLARKE, K., DEAN, L., ELKINS, T., KEMP, S., LEES, J., MILLER,

D., OAKLEY, J and SHIRET, D. (2006) Student perceptions of

rewards and sanctions. Pedegogy, culture and society. [Online] 10. (2).

p. 239 -256. Available from -

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14681360200200142.

[Accessed: 27th January 2014]

26. SIM, J. and LOW, E. (2012) Character and citizenship

education:

19

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

social’: the importance of collaborative free play in

childhood. International Journal of Play. [ Online] 1 (February). p. 1- 16.

Available from -

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2012.746214 . [Accessed: 08

March 2014]

27. SUGAI, G and HORNER, R. (2002) The Evolution of

Discipline Practices: School-Wide Positive Behaviour Supports.

Child and Family Behaviour Therapy. [Online] 24. (1-2). p. 23-50.

Available from- http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J019v24n01_03

28. TORRENTE,C., CAPELLA, E. and WATLING, N. (2014) Children’s positive school behaviours and social preference inurban elementary classrooms. Community Psychology, 42. (March). p.143–161.

29. WALLACE, M. (2012) 7 Ways Schools can prevent bullying. [Online]

4th December 2012. Available from -

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/how-raise-happy-

cooperative-child/201212/7-ways-schools-can-prevent-bullying.

[Accessed: 30 January 2013].

30. WARREN, J., BOHANON-EDMONSON, H.,TURNBULL, A., SAILOR,W.,

WICKHAM, D., GRIGGS, P., BEECH, S. (2006) School-wide Positive

Behavior Support: Addressing Behavior Problems that Impede

Student Learning. Educational Psychology Review. 18 (2/June). p. 187-

198.

31. ZUMBRUNN, S., TADLOCK, J. and ROBERTS, E. (2011) Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium. [Online] Available from -

20

STAFFS: B027536C / BSDC: 30191016

http://www.merc.soe.vcu.edu/files/2013/11/Self-Regulated-Learning-2.pdf .[ Accessed: 3rd March 2014]

21