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. One of the research questions addressed by this case study was, "What are the benefits and limitations of using a relational approach in mainstream schools?" 

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. Data were collected through classroom observations, interviews with school leaders, and analysis of school documents such as the school’s latest OFSTED report. 

The primary areas of impact were behaviour and administration. The approach had some advantages and disadvantages in both of these areas. As anticipated, the most significant impact of this strategy has been on children's behaviour in the school. According to the findings, the school’s leaders believed that students with significant social and emotional issues were engaging more and feeling more at ease in the classroom. They had seen a decrease in challenging behaviours and that children with SEMH problems were making "better choices" with their behaviour and employing the strategies they had been taught. Senior leaders also stated that there had been no exclusions in the last year. They have seen a drop in challenging behaviours and fewer children needing intensive pastoral support.  

According to the school's OFSTED report, "the pupils' behaviour is outstanding," students behave "exceptionally well" in lessons and throughout the school day, and the children display "impeccable manners" with one other and adults. They found no evidence of disruptive behaviour in the classroom. A limitation of using secondary data, such as the school's OFSTED report, is the data's age. The latest OFSTED inspection was carried out in 2015; therefore, it may no longer show an accurate representation of the behaviour of the school's pupils. However, these findings were corroborated when the researcher observed two KS2 classrooms in the school. The researcher found that the students were sitting quietly, engaged with the activities assigned, with little shouting out or fidgeting, and there was no evidence of disruptive behaviour in class. Because the researcher did not observe any significant challenging behaviour incidents, they were unable to witness how the approach would be implemented in certain scenarios, which was a shortcoming of doing classroom observations but possibly a strength of the relational approach. More long-term research might be helpful to gain a complete view of how this method is being implemented. 

When questioned if there were any instances when this approach did not work, the headteacher said that progress "can sometimes be slower than you would hope" in children who have many challenges. The headteacher also mentioned that some students may begin by "just want[ing] to push boundaries... because they see the approach used and perhaps are given a little bit more leeway." This tends, however, to only be when children first start at the school. The headteacher also mentioned that he believes their approach might be enhanced with more positive reinforcement of pupils and more reminders of expectations. 

There have been administrative impacts also. During the interview, the head teacher revealed that they had 23 external half-day exclusions ten years ago, but this year they have had none. Time has also been saved compared to 10 years ago, as they no longer have a line of children “waiting at the office” at lunchtimes, as problems are dealt with more proactively. Unfortunately, exclusion data that corroborates this statement is unavailable, which could be considered part of a further line of enquiry. OFSTED found that the school's attendance had improved, and children enjoyed being in school. As school is where children spend much of their time each day (2), this is a key benefit. 

Some of the main administrative barriers to implementing this approach are staffing and time. The approach can be time-consuming because time is needed to explore issues with children proactively, and "you have to put the effort in". A significant part of changing the mindset of staff to create the school's relational ethos is training. Whilst much of this can be done in-house, it still requires time and finances. Time is needed to provide staff training, and staff need more self-awareness and self-regulation under challenging situations. The school's senior leaders seemed reluctant to talk about barriers such as finance and staffing; however, publicly available information on school staffing and finances suggest that these are both broadly average at this school compared to other schools nationally (3). 

Senior leaders' time has also been saved through this approach: problems are dealt with more proactively. As there are fewer challenging behaviours, more time can be spent on the curriculum. Though this approach saves time, through being proactive, it also takes time to be proactive to start with. Time is needed to train all staff, check in with pupils, and give them the support they need. Taking the time to truly understand others is 'invaluable', yet schools can be 'such fast, busy places' that we can be susceptible to reacting emotionally rather than responding empathically (4). 

To conclude, the approach's benefits have been a clear improvement in behaviour for learning and spending less time managing consequences for children. Limitations to the approach are that it requires comprehensive staff training and may need more resources in terms of finances and staffing. The approach also takes time in its implementation, as proactive time needs to be spent supporting children. The school's proactive approach, both in and out of the classroom, clearly saves time in the long term by preventing the escalation of problems. This links to the suggestion that offering a long-term, consistent, safe, stable relationship can be healing for children (5, 6, 7). 

There is a long history of concern about children with SEMH difficulties who underachieve in schools. The negative implications extend to teachers feeling deskilled and families feeling persecuted, and school performance and society in general (8). Gaining awareness of the lasting harm shame can cause (6) and understanding attachment theory and teachers' responses to behaviour can contribute to all pupils' emotional health and well-being (8). Taking an attachment and trauma aware approach to the classroom, and re-framing the way we think about behavioural patterns, can lead us to effective strategies for creating the calm, learning-focussed environment 'we all need and want' (2). 

The proactive approach examined in this research provides the opportunity to change a generation of children and improve society. Because of how they were treated at school, these students may grow up to be calmer people, better problem solvers, and better parents. According to the findings of this study, this approach can lead to better learning behaviour, fewer incidents of challenging behaviour in school, and more time spent proactively working with children to overcome their difficulties, rather than punishing the behaviour that occurs as a result of their unmet needs. 

If your school would like support in adopting a whole-school relational behaviour policy, please get in touch with me for specific advice and training. To read the full version of this thesis, please click here. 

References 

1.       Yin R. Applications of case study research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE; 2012. 

2.       Brooks R. The trauma and attachment-aware classroom. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2020. 

3.       Department for Education. Find and compare schools in England. [Internet]. 2020 [cited 15 October 2021]. Available from: https://www.gov.uk/school-performance-tables 

4.       Bombèr L, Hughes D. Settling to learn. London: Worth Publishing; 2013. 

5.       de Thierry B. The simple guide to child trauma. Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2017. 

6.       de Thierry B. The simple guide to understanding shame in children. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers; 2019. 

7.       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 

8.       Geddes H. Attachment in the classroom. Worth; 2006. 

9.       de Thierry B. Teaching the child on the trauma continuum. Guildford: Grosvenor House Publishing; 2015.