No shouting, no shaming: A case study of a mainstream primary school using a whole-school relational approach. Implementation (Part 1.)
September 23, 2021
In September 2019, I conducted a case study of a mainstream primary school that used a whole-school relational approach to behaviour as part of my MA in Education thesis. The main research question for this study was: what does a relational approach to behaviour management look like in a mainstream school?
Oak Grove Primary School (a pseudonym) is a large, urban primary school in Birmingham, with around 400 students. The school was initially recommended in an online support group for adoptive parents. Suggested schools were screened to decide whether they met specific criteria (1): that they were a mainstream school, that the relational approach used was whole-school, and that they did not overly rely on behaviourist methods.
This issue examines how a relational approach is applied in mainstream schools and what it looks like in practice. The following components were discovered to be involved in the implementation of the approach:
• the language used in the school's behaviour policy and how it is applied;
• methods in which the school is proactive in dealing with behaviour concerns,
• how relationships are fostered; and
• how the school adapts to serve its students better.
Creating an ethos will be examined in the next blog issue. This involved thorough staff training on developmental trauma and its consequences and was a critical component in the approach's success in this research.
Behaviour policy
In the United Kingdom, Section 89 [1] of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 states that all maintained schools must have a behaviour policy in place that aims to: regulate students' conduct; promote good behaviour, self-discipline, and respect; prevent bullying; and ensure that pupils complete assigned work (2). Throughout this blog, the term 'relational approach' means an empathic, nurturing approach (3). Key aspects of this approach include: prioritising relationships (4, 5, 6); interpreting and understanding a child's actions; reacting to a child's behaviour consciously and with empathy, rather than emotionally; and firm and consistent routine and boundaries (3). The relational approach draws from Bowlby's attachment theory (7), neurobiology, Hughes' (8) P.A.C.E. model, the Safe Base parenting programme (9), non-violent resistance (NVR) (10), and TBRI (Trust-Based Relational Intervention) (11, 12). These concepts are exemplified in the school's behaviour policy, which emphasises strong relationships, the use of "wondering" questions, treating struggling students with respect, and the expectation of good routines in the classroom and throughout the school. The behaviour policy specifically considers how rewards are used " to maximise the positive impact for all pupils". This is to "ensure that systems are not based on control through bribery". Whole class sanctions such as staying in are not used. Rewards are mainly used as a form of recognition of effort:
Recognition when a child's working hard or trying hard. You know their own personal best. It's recognition rather than reward, as such… because actually most human beings need recognition. They don't need a stamp, a pay rise… all that helps, but it's not what drives you to perform better.
According to Kohn (13), incentives as bribes or threats ignore the intricate connection between behaviour and motivation. For a developmentally traumatised child, the pursuit of a reward may cause unnecessary stress since they desire the reward but cannot cope with the anxiety that comes with achieving it (14).
According to the school's behaviour policy, natural reparation should be employed as a consequence of behaviour wherever possible. This aligns with the ideas of Naish (15), Fisher (10), and Gordon (16) that any consequences should be connected to the behaviour, allowing the child to begin to link cause and effect (17) and build new neural pathways (15). Graffiti, for example, would be cleaned. In cases where a direct natural consequence does not occur, a close alternative should be utilised as a logical consequence; for example, if the child could not repair vandalism, the child should then complete a site job that allows the site person to resolve the issue. If an incident occurs against another person, the child is urged to 'show' the person impacted that they are sorry, either verbally or by an action or a picture. If a child has been disruptive in class, they may need to stay in for some or all of the break to finish their work or discuss how to improve their behaviour in the next session with the teacher. Because this method separates the conduct from the individual who carried it out, it does not shame or punish the child and is concerned with future behaviour and educating children to be accountable for their actions (18). It allows youngsters to make a 'choice,' and as a result, they select the consequence (18). A logical or natural consequence must be appropriate for the behaviour so that the child links the consequence with the choice of behaviour (18).
At the time of the research, the school's behaviour policy included a flowchart of what measures should be followed in the case of a behaviour issue. During pre-interview conversations with the headteacher, he did mention that any future editions of the behaviour policy might not include this flowchart because it did not work in all situations. For this reason, I haven't included it here. The flowchart approach can be summarised in the following interview sentence:
It’s noticing that there’s a behaviour that you don’t want to see in the classroom. Ok, thinking where it's coming from, putting strategies in place to support the child to reduce that so that they can perform better.
One disadvantage of looking at publicly available documents, such as a school's behaviour policy, is that the policy's implementation may differ in reality. During the interview, we spoke about how this approach works in practice in different scenarios. The PACE model (6) is used in the classroom to respond empathically to behaviour: staff indicate that they have observed the child is struggling and use curiosity and empathy: 'I can see you're finding this difficult today, this is what I'm seeing, I'm wondering if the work is too hard.' They would explain their expectations, such as, 'but the expectation is that we do the work and that I'm here to help you, but we're not going to shout out.' They conclude by expressing to the child that they accept them for who they are and care for their well-being: 'I care about you, I care about your learning; therefore this is what needs to happen.' This method differs from standard reward-consequence thinking by assisting a child in making sense of their thoughts and behaviour (17,19).
Any relational approach generally opposes the use of 'time-out,' unconnected consequences, reward charts, and treat removal as punishment. Again, all of this is represented in the school's behaviour policy. The school's behaviour policy also states that 'shouting and shaming should never be used,' which is consistent with de Thierry's (20) belief that, when working with developmentally traumatised children, shame should be avoided 'at all costs,' because there is 'nothing of value in the experience of shame.'
Proactive approach
Attentiveness and attunement to children's needs is another aspect of a relational approach. It is sometimes necessary to be proactive in this situation. This might be in terms of creating good routines and boundaries or dealing with any difficulties as they occur rather than when they reach a peak. Good routines are considered part of the general expectations of the behaviour policy at Oak Grove, as they are at many other schools. "Staff should ensure good routines for their classroom and for when their children are around the school."
During my classroom observations at Oak Grove, I observed a proactive approach in action. In one KS2 classroom, I observed three adults (a teacher and two teaching assistants) in a class of around 30 children. The TAs were stationed at opposing ends of the room, with one supporting a small group and the other moving about the room, checking in with any students who appeared to be struggling. This pre-emptive approach kept issues at a minimum.
Outside of the classroom, the approach aids in the proactive response to needs by seeking to mitigate difficulties before any behavioural issues arise. The researcher observed an example of this during the school's morning meet and greet. A student arrived at school without a coat. This was promptly noticed by the headteacher (familiar with each student and any issues they may be experiencing), who subsequently passed the information on to another team member. This incident was discussed later in the interview:
So, the idea that like we picked up a kid today who didn't have a coat on… so some work’s gone on early today for that which means hopefully there won't be any incidents during the day. So that, 5, 10 minutes of preventative stuff may result in you saving yourself half an hour to an hour of something else… If you’ve got a kid comes to school, and you see them come in, you’ve got to then put that time in to explore that with the child, find out what’s going on, find out what that child needs to make their experience of school ok for them that day. If you haven’t got the staff capacity to do that, we just want to get in, we’ve got to do this, we’ve got to get that done, then obviously that child will escalate.
Relationships
A crucial part of a relational approach is relationships (3, 4, 5). Although a child's primary attachment relationships should be with their principal caregivers, children will form some level of attachment with teachers and staff at school, where they spend much of their time each day (3). For children who have been hurt by developmental trauma, safe, stable relationships can be healing (5, 21).
Oak Grove sees fostering relationships between staff and pupils as an essential factor in the implementation of this approach, as identified in the school’s behaviour policy:
Strong relationships between staff and pupils are vital. Staff must be fair and consistent with children… staff must be approachable and there to help… the strongest approach to support a child is through the relationship with the adult.
To support teacher-pupil relationships, the behaviour policy states that this can be implemented by ‘simple acknowledgement of the child and the child having the knowledge that you have them in your mind, care about them as a person and care about what they are doing.’
Where a child is seen to be having difficulties, they should be treated with respect and understanding… Shouting and shaming should never be used and is not tolerated at [Oak Grove Primary School].
Both the school's behaviour policy and homework policy include guidance on teacher-parent-pupil relationships. Traditionally, schools have used parental fear to motivate students to behave, such as calling parents when a pupil misbehaves (14). Oak Grove School does contact parents 'to inform them of [a] concern and discuss what is happening in school', but this is understood to be a proactive measure to understand what is going on in the child's world, rather than to get them into trouble. This attitude is echoed in the homework policy, which states that: 'threats or punishments for noncompletion of homework should not be used by parents or staff'. The school has a family support worker in addition to detailing the school's approach with parents in these policies. Parents are welcome to regular coffee meetings or to schedule an appointment to address any concerns about their child or wider family issues.
Supporting Pupils
The words ‘support' and ‘needs' appeared over 200 times in a word frequency analysis of all the papers utilised in this research, indicating a significant focus on helping students and responding to needs. One strategy the school uses is to keep a 'trauma tracker,' which is a document that keeps a record of remarks for all school students. This spreadsheet stores information such as a child's attachment style (where appropriate) and any trauma history that may affect the child in school, such as parental divorce or death in the family. A child may also have their own 'chronology' record, which helps exchange information such as behaviour issues and parental contact, if applicable. The school also uses this tracker to informally grade each student in reading, writing, math, fine motor skills, gross motor skills, sensory processing, emotional literacy, mental health, and other holistic areas. Based on these assessments, interventions are subsequently implemented in all of these areas.
The school's strategy can adapt to all students' requirements by making minor modifications to their school experience, such as not utilising a timer for times table tests, “because that, just, extra layer of stress is not worth it”. Another example may be found in the school's OFSTED report, which refers to the 2014 Year 6 cohort, which had an unusually high percentage of students with recognised behavioural issues and substantial obstacles to learning. The school responded with measures “such as adapting timetables to engage these pupils’ attention and make sure that they continued to learn”.
Another example is the school's homework policy, which strives to "make homework manageable, meaningful, and enjoyable for parents, teachers, and children." The relational approach is transferred outside of school, as seen by the school's homework policy:
Homework is not intended to cause friction at home. Threats or punishments for noncompletion of homework should not be used by parents or staff.
If all behaviour is recognised as communication of a need, approaches to behaviour become more focused on meeting those needs (22). If we want to improve behaviour, we have to put the child's needs over the needs of adults (23). Oak Grove school adapts to needs by making subtle changes to children's school experience, such as not using a timer for times tables tests to reduce unnecessary stress and adapting timetables to engage pupils' attention.
If your school is interested in developing a whole-school relational behaviour policy, please do not hesitate to contact me for tailored advice and training.
If your school is interested in developing a whole-school relational behaviour policy, please do not hesitate to contact me for tailored advice and training.
References
1. Yin R. Applications of case study research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2012.
2. Westwood P. Commonsense Methods for Children with Special Educational Needs. 7th ed. Routledge; 2015.
3. Brooks R. The trauma and attachment-aware classroom. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2020.
4. Moullin S, Waldfogel J, Washbrook E. Baby Bonds. Parenting, attachment and a secure base for children [Internet]. The Sutton Trust; 2014 [cited 19 September 2021]. Available from: https://www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/baby-bonds-final-1.pdf
5. de Thierry B. The simple guide to child trauma. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2017.
6. Hughes D. Building the bonds of attachment. 3rd ed. Rowman & Littlefield; 2017.
7. Bowlby J. The nature of the child's tie to his mother 1. Influential Papers from the 1950s. 2018: 222-273.
8. Hughes D. Building the bonds of attachment. 3rd ed. Rowman & Littlefield; 2017.
9. After Adoption. SafeBase Handbook for Parents and Carers. After Adoption; 2013.
10. Fisher S. Connective Parenting: A Guide to Connecting with Your Child Using the NVR Approach. Createspace Independent Publishing Platform; 2017.
11. Naish S. The A-Z of Therapeutic Parenting. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2018.
12. Bombèr L. Inside I'm hurting. London: Worth; 2007.
13. Kohn A. Punished by rewards. Boston: Houghton Mifflin; 1999.
14. Forbes H. Help for Billy. Cork: BookBaby; 2013.
15. Naish S. The A-Z of Therapeutic Parenting. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2018.
16. Gordon C. Parenting strategies to help adopted and fostered children with their behaviour. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2018.
17. Gore Langton E, Boy K. Becoming an adoption-friendly school. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2017.
18. Using natural and logical consequences [Internet]. Opportunity Knocks. 2020 [cited 19 September 2021]. Available from: https://opportunity-knocks.co.za/using-natural-and-logical-consequences/
19. Bombèr L, Hughes D. Settling to learn. London: Worth Publishing; 2013.
20. de Thierry B. Teaching the child on the trauma continuum. Guildford: Grosvenor House Publishing; 2015.
21. Hickman J, Higgins K. 10 Simple Steps for Reducing Toxic Stress in the Classroom [Internet]. Education Week. 2019 [cited 19 September 2021]. Available from: https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2019/11/15/10-simple-steps-for-reducing-toxic-stress.html
22. Hanbury M. Positive behaviour strategies to support children & young people with autism. London: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2007.
23. O'Brien J. Behaviour: Are we putting the pupils' needs first? [Internet]. TES. 2020 [cited 23 September 2021]. Available from: https://www.tes.com/news/behaviour-are-we-putting-pupils-needs-first
