12 Three stages to reversing inconsistency and managing low level disruption sustainably.

12.1 Turning inconsistency into consistency

For change to bring about any benefit it must move all staff and students much closer to fully achieving the character traits outlined by Folkman (see [13], list 1). This should begin with teachers reducing anxiety in students - caused by teacher inconsistency and resulting student/teacher external/internal criticism - through demonstrating consistent behaviour management - and, thus, developing better behavioural expectations in students more reliably - in the classroom. This will, in turn, reduce anxiety in teachers themselves, enabling further reductions in inconsistency.

For clarity - in order to maximise the reduction of external/internal criticism in both students and teachers - all sources of inconsistency previously mentioned in this report should be reduced, namely:

• Unarticulated implicit rules
• 60% of students not knowing why they were reprimanded
• Students seeing infractions that the teacher didn’t see
• Not remembering to follow up sanctions
• Conflict among school values
• Staff critical of school rules
• [The outcomes of] tiredness, being ‘off balance’, having a ‘bad day’
• Insensitivity to students
• Staff not knowing how many rules there are.

In reversing these inconsistencies Folkman’s earlier assessment can be modified: that consistency [through reducing criticism and resulting conflict] can now create a profoundly positive effect on every other competency and behaviour. 

Such an effect can be seen through the re-building of all existing teacher powers following the achievement of consistency in classrooms [23], ensuring that no school’s existing academic or pastoral commitments are harmed and are in fact much improved.

Achieving this consistency in classrooms requires, firstly, ceasing the use of medium/high level disruption sanctions for low level disruption events which require considerable discussion to enact and, in the process, invite a high level of inconsistency between teachers and students. [24]

Secondly, to establish an environment in which teachers can demonstrate behavioural expectations consistently (see part 1 of the Return to Learning strategy). With teachers demonstrating consistent behaviour in the management of low level disruption, students can learn behavioural expectations in accordance with social learning theory, as Amanda Hermes summarises [25]:

'Social learning theory focuses on learning that occurs within a social context, meaning that people learn from observing, imitating or modelling others.' (para. 2)

Encouraging students to learn good classroom behaviour from each other - only achievable through consistent demonstrations of behavioural expectations from the teacher - creates the opportunity for time consuming teacher interventions used to maintain good behaviour such as discussion or counselling to be further reduced and for students to 'self-manage' their behaviour. (Though it might appear that discussion/counselling is being sidelined, it is in fact its over-use in the management of low level disruption that is being sidelined, due to the teaching and learning time it usurps.)

Such ‘self-management’ can also be applied to a third process: further time saving measures in the form of rewards for good behaviour that can similarly be made non-verbally. According to Margaret Delores Isom, professor of criminology at Florida State University, reinforcements or rewards can be concrete objects or praise:

'or more abstract things like a reduction of tension or increased self-esteem.' (para. 3)

As students learn to self-manage their behaviour so they learn to recognise the benefits of self-managing their behaviour, becoming less reliant on external or physical reward.

All three can be seen when viewing the Return to Learning strategy as a whole: 

• [Stage 1: Repair] Dividing line between existing low level disruption management and better low level disruption management. Delivers: The reversal of low level disruption in classrooms - quickly, fairly, consistently and sustainably - through; demonstrating consistent and constant behavioural expectations; automatic rewards of reduced anxiety, raised self-esteem and better concentration. (Time gains for Part 2 study)

• [Stage 2: Upgrade] Enhanced reward system through high level teaching and learning curriculum. Delivers: comprehensive, easy to implement conflict resolution programme (tiered for KS3 - KS5); access to ‘Teaching for the Real World/Masterclass Teaching’ Programme; support for students to self-manage their behaviour sustainably.

In conclusion to this section, by:

1. eliminating inconsistency through the significant reduction of the number of stages traditionally needed to enforce discipline (e.g. seeing teachers demonstrating consistency rather than addressing/discussing the outcomes of inconsistency); 
2. reducing criticism and conflict by enabling students to observe independently these behaviour management types without the need for explanation (e.g. positive use of peer culture/social learning theory supported by demonstration); and 
3. distributing behavioural reinforcements such as reduced tension or increased self-esteem as reward for all (rather than concrete objects or praise which usurp learning time and create inequality), 

a self-managing and extremely efficient low level disruption management system that operates almost entirely on fast, fair, consistent and sustainable methods of non-verbal communication can be created.

12.2 A new method of delivery

In order to deliver the above outcomes an optimal level of engagement with opportunities for maximum compliance is also required.

In Ofsted (2014) feedback from a teacher claims that ‘Pupils are not prepared to listen unless they are entertained’ (p.9). Despite the implication that children are incorrect to expect to be entertained whilst learning, Peters’ Chimp Paradox (see [22]) uses precisely that approach to bring an extremely elusive and deeply complex ‘battle’ under control in adults and children alike. This control is not achieved using scientific language aimed at a high functioning adult, but using language a child might understand: that at the centre of the problem is a frequently fun loving - and equally often misguided - ‘chimp’.

Such an approach enables what Plass J. L., et al., refer to as ‘Graceful Failure’ [26]:

‘Rather than describing it as an undesirable outcome, failure is by design an expected and sometimes even necessary step in the learning process [citation]. The lowered consequences of failure in games encourage risk taking, trying new things, and exploration. They also provide opportunities for self-regulated learning during play, where the player executes strategies of goal setting, monitoring of goal achievement, and assessment of the effectiveness of the strategies used to achieve the intended goal.’

In almost all areas of teaching and learning the ‘gamification’ of learning is well known and used whenever feasible. Graceful failure reduces the onset of internal criticism, e.g. ‘I don’t understand’, ‘I’m not clever’, avoiding conflict that would otherwise replace intended learning and leads to disengagement. When applied to behaviour management the same internal criticism can be reduced when challenges are made to poor behaviour. 

In making such a system easy to implement and require minimal maintenance, it can be made feasible in the majority of classroom based lessons.

12.3 Redefining social norms to sustain conflict free learning

This feasibility must extend to every stage of the transition to reducing inconsistency, and in particular reducing inconsistency whilst improving upon existing academic/examination commitments.

Yet considerable encouragement should be taken from students being able to switch allegiances according to social norms (as described in [21]), in this case from rejecting inconsistency to accepting consistency.

This leaves the second stage - the shaping of the right social norms in which the majority of students would want to participate, see fairly executed, and benefit from personally and consistently - in the hands of teachers. 

It should not be difficult for educational professionals to imagine the substantial benefits to teaching and learning as a result of removing low level disruption from lessons through the removal of inconsistency led criticism and conflict, including all resulting discussion and time needed for administering sanctions. In terms of pupil attainment, using a Low/Secure/High levelling system in KS3, an average student attainment increase was recorded in mixed ability groups of 0.76 (e.g. 5L to 5S is 0.33) during testing from a previous year average of 0.46. In terms of time savings, average coursework tasks were completed (to the aforementioned higher standards) almost one-third faster (31%) across KS3 and KS4. (Ofsted's 38 ‘lost’ days accounts for a 20% increase in time savings through the removal of low level disruption events, not the resulting benefits to teaching and learning (see below).)

Yet there is much more for the student and teacher to achieve beyond mere calculable data outcomes. An overview of the Return to Learning strategy describes them as follows:

1. During the first use of part 1 of the strategy students and teachers will notice the potential for levels of concentration to increase significantly through the removal of inconsistency. By the end of the first lesson these increased levels will already have begun to be realised.
2. During the period of time described in (1) - indeed critical to achieving the increased levels of concentration described therein - reduced anxiety and increased self esteem for both staff and students increase as challenges to behaviour are made quickly, fairly and consistently, continually adding to the removal of criticism, conflict and inconsistency.
3. By the end of week 6 - as part 1 begins to be phased out - higher level academic study programmes should be rolled out (see parts 2 and 3 of the Return to Learning strategy for full details) as students not only complete tasks to a higher standard, but also with greater efficiency. Equally, developments to the pastoral care curriculum should be rolled out (see part 2 of the Return to Learning strategy for full details) as students opt to utilise these new skills beyond the classroom.

Not only do these stages add significantly to the rewards system, they become the new social norms: 

• students performing at levels that match or exceed perceived student capability
• staff performing at levels that match or exceed perceived staff capability. 

In short, an opportunity for teachers and students working co-operatively to finally realise their full potential. 

This ‘full’ potential is only sustainable through the incorporation of more life-affirming study into the curriculum, meeting the needs of the co-operative state rather than solely focussing on examination study and developing only the competitive state. It will secure a self managing system that continues the avoidance of conflict during lesson time organically, and might be extended to introduce the study of mind management as a subject in its own right, valued in all areas of society.

Over time a mathematically verifiable improvement to mental health in both students and teachers of up to 23% is available. This is the percentage of the school year students/teachers spend in school which is now an almost entirely conflict free environment. As the co-operative curriculum develops in part 2 of the strategy this figure will increase through natural assimilation into life beyond the classroom as students and teachers discuss the ideas with family and friends, as well as natural increases over a longer period of time as children carry less conflict into their adulthood.

Of course care must be taken to ensure that outcomes of all negotiation leading to new and better social norms must continue the theme of demonstrable consistency and not re-introduce poor design (e.g. ‘purposely complex’ systems) or poor management into the process. Observing and learning from consistent school management being demonstrated and benefitting from the significantly reduced conflict and considerably increased learning focus that such management produces must always remain the priority.

There should be no doubt that all students - no matter their background - want to learn. It should also be clear that face-to-face interaction in schools - i.e. where inconsistency that prevents learning can be seen to be overcome - is the best place for that learning to take place. With an appropriately managed and sustainable learning environment now possible, optimal education standards can become the social norm.

All of this can be achieved within the resource capability of any standard secondary school, regardless of existing Ofsted judgements. The Return to Learning strategy (Parts 1 to 3) describes the simplest and most effective way of delivering it.

For further details visit: www.returntolearning.com

References:

23 https://returntolearning.com/course-content (see lecture 13)

24 https://returntolearning.com/course-content (see course introduction Part 1)

25 https://healthfully.com/238281-social-learning-theory-in-children.html

26 ‘Foundations of game-based learning’, Plass J. L., Homer B. D., Kinzer C. K., (2015)