4 How effectively do these systems manage low level disruption?

That ‘One fifth of the teachers surveyed indicated that they ignored low level disruption and just ‘tried to carry on’, (Ofsted, 2014, p.5) implies that some of those systems have failed completely. 

How such failure has occurred is likely to be due in large part to inconsistency which is reported at all levels of education management from teacher training all the way through to school leadership:

‘Over half of the teachers surveyed said that their school’s policy on behaviour was helpful, but only around a third said that it was applied consistently across the school. Inconsistency in applying behaviour policies also annoys pupils and parents. For too many pupils, having a calm and orderly environment for learning is a lottery. 

Four-fifths of the parents surveyed wanted the school to communicate its expectations around behaviour clearly and regularly. Many parents wanted a more formal and structured environment in the school that would give their children clear boundaries for their behaviour.’ (Ofsted, 2014, p.5)

‘Behaviour management policies are interpreted and applied inconsistently. A majority of schools have behaviour management policies in place but teachers say that in relation to many incidents of disruption, the consequences specified are mostly applied occasionally, rarely or never.

Initial teacher training leaves many new teachers unprepared to manage pupil behaviour. 44 per cent of teachers polled said their training did not prepare them well for managing pupil behaviour. 40 per cent of teachers said that they felt unable to access adequate ongoing training on behaviour management.

Teachers are not always confident they will have the support of senior staff when they discipline a pupil. Only 27 per cent of teachers polled claimed to be very confident that they would have the support of senior staff in their school. A majority of teachers expressed reluctance to talk about behaviour management difficulties in case other members of staff thought their teaching ability was poor.

Teachers are not always confident that they will have the support of parents when they discipline a pupil. Only 23 per cent of teachers polled felt parents fully respected a teacher’s authority to discipline their child.’ (Williams, J., 2018, p.6)

‘Ofsted inspection reports on schools with behaviour that is less than good often highlight the fact that standards of discipline vary within the school. This is partly because some teachers lack the skills to enforce consistently high standards of behaviour. However, some of the teachers surveyed laid the blame on their senior leaders. These teachers believed that some leaders are not high profile enough around the school or do not ensure that the school’s behaviour policies are applied consistently.’ (Ofsted, 2014, p.6)

‘Three in 10 secondary teachers said that their headteacher supported them in managing poor behaviour.’ (Ofsted, para. 27)

‘Children and young people were generally more positive about their teachers’ ability to help and support pupils, than their ability to deal with disruptive behaviour.’ (OCC, p.7)

‘In terms of teachers’ ability to deal with poor behaviour, children and young people were again more likely to report their teachers doing this ‘sometimes’ rather than ‘always’. Almost a quarter felt that their teachers were ‘always’ good at getting their class to behave (23%) and, when pupils do disrupt learning, teachers take action (23%) and about a further half felt they ‘sometimes’ did these things (55 and 54% respectively). Disruption to learning from other pupils was a concern - at least ‘sometimes’ - to about four in five (82%) children and young people, reflecting the observations from focus group participants … that they did not like other pupils disrupting their lessons.’ (OCC, p.19)

How this inconsistency might affect school operations is discussed in the next section.

NEXT >