Elton (1989)

Notes on the text
Preliminary pages Contents, Foreword, Membership, Summary
Recommendations
Chapter 1 The enquiry
Chapter 2 The nature of the problem
Chapter 3 Teachers
Chapter 4 Schools
Chapter 5 Parents
Chapter 6 Pupils
Chapter 7 Attendance
Chapter 8 Police
Chapter 9 Governors
Chapter 10 Local education authorities
Chapter 11 Government
Appendix A Written evidence received
Appendix B Witnesses
Appendix C Visits
Appendix D(i) Teachers and Discipline Part I
Appendix D(ii) Teachers and Discipline Part II
Appendix E Selected bibliography
Appendix F Behaviour policies

London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1989
© Crown copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of HMSO and the Queen's Printer for Scotland.

Chapter 2 The nature of the problem
[pages 57 - 66]

1 Every organisation depends on people behaving in certain ways to achieve its purposes. Companies cannot achieve good results without cooperative effort. Neither can schools. A school's central purpose is that children should learn. Good behaviour makes effective teaching and learning possible. Bad behaviour disrupts these processes.

2 The two questions most frequently asked about bad behaviour in schools are how much of it is there, and is there more now than in the past? We quickly discovered that these questions could not be answered directly. No relevant national statistics exist. We recommend a way of filling this information gap in chapter 10.

3 We looked for other kinds of information which might indicate the size of the problem and recent trends. Two seemed directly relevant. One was the records kept by LEAs of pupils excluded from their schools. The other was the results of postal surveys carried out by heads' and teachers' professional associations which asked their members how they saw the problem.

4 Pupils are excluded (suspended or expelled) from school for misbehaviour which headteachers consider serious enough to warrant such punishment. In theory, the number of exclusions could be used as a crude indicator of how much serious misbehaviour had occurred in a year and whether it was becoming more or less frequent. The evidence we received on exclusions is too fragmentary to be used in this way. Some LEAs provided us with figures showing the number of pupils excluded from their schools over the last few years. Others told us that they do not keep such records. Some of those that do had started recording exclusions too recently to give any meaningful indication of trends. Records are also kept in different ways which makes it very difficult to compare and combine figures from different LEAs. We looked at the total number of exclusions in the small number of LEAs which had provided figures going back several years. We could see no clear overall trend, but the data are too patchy for us to be certain that none exists. In chapter 10 we suggest that exclusion figures should be collected more systematically.

5 We received written and oral evidence from the seven major professional associations representing heads and teachers in England and Wales. With different degrees of emphasis they told us that their members saw disruptive behaviour and violence to staff as serious problems, and that many believed that they were now more common in schools than they had been five or 10 years ago.

6 The National Association of Headteachers (NAHT), the National Union of Teachers (NUT) and the Professional Association of Teachers (PAT) included the results of surveys in their submissions to us. The National Association of Schoolmasters/Union of Women Teachers (NAS/UWT) referred us to survey results previously sent to the Department of Education and Science (DES). Strong concerns were expressed in these surveys about indiscipline and violence to teachers. Some of these figures did indeed seem worrying. About 80% of the teachers who responded to the 1985 NAS/UWT survey said that they thought violence and disruption had become more frequent in schools over the last 10 years; 25% reported being threatened with violence and 4% said that they had actually been attacked in a six month period. 94% of those responding to the 1987 PAT survey said that they thought indiscipline was on the increase and 32% reported that they had been attacked at some time during their career. The 1988 NUT survey carried out by its school representatives found that 91% of those responding considered that discipline problems were now worse than they had been 10 years ago.

7 In its submission the NUT suggested that the results of its survey should be treated with some caution. It pointed out that, because of time constraints, the percentage of representatives responding by the deadline (the response rate, estimated at about 8%) was relatively low, and that professional researchers might criticise the design of its questionnaire. Similar difficulties arise in interpreting the results of the NAS/UWT and PAT national surveys. In both cases the response rates were very low (less than 4% of the membership of each union). We have no way of knowing how representative these self-selected samples were. It could be that only those members who felt most strongly about the issue returned the questionnaire.

8 The NUT also submitted the results of a survey it had commissioned from a professional polling organisation, National Opinion Polls (NOP). NOP interviewed a sample of just under 500 teachers selected to be reasonably representative of the profession as a whole. NOP's results are not open to the same kind of technical criticism as those of the other surveys we received. The NOP survey found that 36% of the teachers in its sample thought that there was more indiscipline in their schools than five years ago. 33% thought that there was the same amount or less. 7% of its sample reported having been threatened or physically attacked by a pupil or parent in the last year. It should be borne in mind that these figures are drawn from a relatively small sample and may be subject to considerable margins of error.

9 The NAHT survey was of headteachers of schools in 15 LEAs chosen to represent a mixture of urban and rural areas. The response rate was low (45%) but much higher than that of the other associations' national surveys, with the exception of that carried out by NOP. The NAHT survey found that 25% of the heads who responded thought that there had been a significant increase in the amount of disruptive behaviour in their schools since 1985.

10 After considering all the evidence submitted to us by LEAs, heads' and teachers' professional associations about the incidence of bad behaviour and violence in schools we reached five conclusions. They were that:

10.1 in the absence of national statistics the problem itself could not be directly measured. Any estimate would have to be based mainly on teachers' perceptions;

10.2 while the survey results presented to us by the professional associations showed the strong concern felt by many of their members, these results could not be used as reliable estimates of the extent to which such problems affect schools across the country;

10.3 we could provide no definitive answer to the question of whether things are getting worse. To answer this question we would need a firm baseline of information about the situation at a particular point in time followed up by a further study carried out on the same basis. Clearly we could not complete such an exercise within the period of our enquiry. All we could know was that a substantial number of heads and teachers believe that the amount of bad behaviour has increased in recent years. We agreed that this belief was in itself an important consideration for our enquiry;

10.4 we should consider how an information baseline could be established for future use (see chapter 10); and

10.5 we did not know enough about the nature of the problem. The associations' surveys asked specific questions about physical aggression and verbal abuse and much more general questions about indiscipline or disruptive behaviour. We decided that we needed to look in detail at the whole range of pupils' behaviour to find out what teachers find most worrying and difficult to deal with before we made any firm recommendations for action.

12 The impression created by press reports is that the threat of violence causes teachers more concern than other types of bad behaviour. We were not satisfied that we had sufficient information about how teachers rated this problem in comparison to others they faced. The surveys provided by the professional associations gave us no guidance on this question. Our attention was drawn to a recent survey carried out by researchers from Birmingham University's Centre for Child Study (Houghton, Wheldall and Merrett 1988) which indicated a pattern of concern very different from the press picture. A representative sample of just over 250 secondary teachers in the West Midlands were asked about the types of misbehaviour they found most troublesome in their classrooms. They were given 10 categories to choose from. The behaviour that was rated most troublesome by a wide margin was 'talking out of turn'. Then came 'hindering other children' and 'calculated idleness'. Physical aggression came last in rank order. Although this survey was of a small, regional sample of teachers it provided us with a useful pointer towards a possible national approach. The main conclusion drawn by the researchers from their survey was that teachers are, in general, much more concerned about persistent minor misbehaviour than the occasional dramatic confrontation. We decided that this proposition needed careful testing. If persistent low level classroom disruption was the central problem faced by teachers the main thrust of any action we recommended would have to be towards dealing with it.

OUR SURVEY

13 We therefore decided to commission our own research which would be designed to overcome the limitations of the other survey evidence available to us. Appendix D to our report contains a more detailed account of this project. The paragraphs that follow are a summary of its findings.

14 We asked researchers at Sheffield University's Educational Research Centre to examine teachers' perceptions and concerns about discipline. They chose to do it in two related ways. The first was to undertake a nationally representative survey of primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales. At the same time 100 teachers in 10 inner-city secondary schools not covered by the survey were interviewed. What kinds of behaviours did teachers have to deal with in the course of their classroom teaching? What kinds of problems did they encounter in the course of their duties round the school? How serious did they think discipline problems were? What, if anything, did they find difficult to deal with? What strategies and sanctions had they been using? What kinds of initiatives had they been taking? And what did they think should be done? These were the questions they explored.

15 The national survey obtained responses from over 3,500 teachers in some 220 primary and some 250 secondary schools. Of those to whom questionnaires were sent, 89% of the primary teachers and 79% of the secondary teachers returned them. These are high response rates for surveys of this kind. Well over half the respondents also wrote at length about further aspects of their experiences. In combination with the information gathered in the interviews, they provided a comprehensive picture of teachers' views on and experiences of discipline at the present time.

16 The questionnaire asked teachers to report on their experiences in the classroom and around the school during the previous week. The vast majority of primary and secondary teachers reported that, at some point, the flow of their lessons had been impeded or disrupted by having to deal with minor discipline problems. Pupils 'talking out of turn', 'hindering other pupils', 'making unnecessary (non-verbal) noise' and 'calculated idleness or work avoidance' were the most commonly reported forms of bad behaviour in class. 'Showing lack of concern for others', 'unruliness while waiting' and 'running in the corridors' were the most frequently mentioned forms of bad behaviour encountered during the course of teachers' duties round the school. One in four teachers reported having to deal with such behaviour on a daily basis. 'Verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'general rowdiness' and 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses' were also encountered frequently by both primary and secondary teachers. Primary teachers made special mention of having to handle 'physical aggression towards other pupils', both in the classroom and around the school. The interviews with teachers indicated that while teachers are dealing with these problems as a matter of routine, their cumulative effects are wearing and contribute to a sense of stress and growing frustration.

17 Some teachers mentioned having to deal with problems that were more serious in themselves. More than one in 10 secondary teachers and more than one in 20 primary teachers reported that, at some point during the week of the survey, they had had verbal abuse directed towards them by pupils. Around one in 50 primary and secondary teachers also reported having to deal with some form of physical aggression directed towards them during the course of the week. Evidence obtained during the face to face interviews suggested that when teachers referred to 'physical aggression' they did not necessarily mean that they had been intentionally struck or hit by pupils. Experiences of 'physical aggression' may be by-products of other occurrences, such as interventions when pupils were fighting each other. One in 200 secondary teachers, however, indicated by their replies that their experiences had probably been more serious. The corresponding figure for primary teachers would seem to have been considerably lower than this. Hardly any of them described serious incidents.

18 About one in six secondary teachers and about one in 10 primary teachers thought that the discipline problems in their schools were 'serious'. Although the teachers who thought this way were spread across large numbers of schools and there were quite marked differences between schools, there was a noticeable tendency for teachers in particular schools to agree with one another about the seriousness of the problems. The responses of individual teachers in each school were aggregated to create an overall 'seriousness' score. In just under one in 10 secondary schools and in about one in 20 primary schools the staff as a group thought the problems were verging on the serious in that school. Teachers in schools with higher proportions of pupils from 'economically disadvantaged areas' or pupils of 'below average' attainments were more likely to think there were serious problems than teachers in other kinds of schools.

19 Six out of 10 secondary teachers reported finding one or more of their classes difficult to teach whilst eight out of 10 teachers found one or more of their pupils difficult to teach. The corresponding figures for primary teachers were rather lower than these.

20 One in three secondary teachers and one in five primary teachers reported that there were particular forms of bad behaviour by pupils which they found difficult to deal with in the classroom. 'Talking out of turn', 'hindering other pupils', 'calculated idleness or work avoidance' and 'verbal abuse towards other pupils' were among those most frequently mentioned. Among the small group of primary teachers who mentioned anything at all, 'physical aggression towards other pupils' was singled out as a particular concern. Interestingly, only a small proportion of those who reported experiencing 'physical aggression' towards themselves mentioned this as 'the most difficult' or 'next most difficult' pupil behaviour with which they had had to deal.

21 Corporal punishment was available as a deterrent in many secondary schools until fairly recently. Two out of three secondary teachers reported that it was in use in their schools, albeit occasionally, as recently as three years ago. The figures for primary schools were lower; half said it was not used at that time and most of the remainder said it was hardly used at all. Since its formal abolition, schools had developed a variety of strategies and sanctions to replace it. There were some indications, from the interviews, that the longer ago a school had dropped its use, the less likely teachers were to be concerned about its absence as a deterrent.

22 A wide variety of strategies and sanctions were reported as being in use for dealing with bad behaviour. With the exception of 'reasoning with pupils outside the classroom setting', which was generally seen as effective, none were uniformly endorsed as being highly effective or ineffective. The interviews with classroom teachers indicated a number of important areas in which schools had developed their approaches. These included: their systems of incentives, sanctions and support; the development of shared understanding and mutual support among members of staff; better ways of talking things through with pupils; the review and development of new approaches to curriculum content and teaching styles; and greater attention to the nature of home-school relationships.

23 There was broad agreement among both primary and secondary teachers that smaller classes would be beneficial in dealing with discipline problems and a variety of other factors were also identified, many of which schools could not influence. At the same time there was a recognition, especially among secondary teachers, that more could be done within the school. Alongside 'tougher sanctions' for certain forms of indiscipline, teachers endorsed a wide variety of guidance and support systems both for teachers and pupils as well as more staff discussions and closer links with parents and the community. It was clear that, provided policies and developments were seen to be tackling discipline issues directly, there would be support from the teaching profession for a broad range of approaches.

OUR APPROACH

24 One of the most striking features of our evidence is the sheer variety of causes of, and cures for, bad behaviour in schools that was suggested to us. A few submissions fall into the single cause or single cure category, but the great majority are much more complex. Parents, teachers, heads, LEAs, teacher trainers, the government and broadcasters are all blamed for aggravating the problem and asked to contribute towards various strategies for reducing it. We discuss a range of these suggestions in the relevant chapters of our report.

25 The variety of causes and cures suggested to us represents an important finding in itself. It is clear that most of the individuals and organisations submitting evidence consider that bad behaviour in schools is a complex problem which does not lend itself to simple solutions. Taken as a whole the evidence submitted to us indicates that any quest for a single, dramatic remedy, such as a major piece of new legislation, would be futile.

26 A few of the submissions we received took the view that bad behaviour is always entirely the fault of pupils. We reject this view. No pupil is an island. Every incident has a range of immediate and longer term causes. Events in the classroom are influenced by a complex mixture of expectations, attitudes, regulations, policies and laws which are shaped by forces at work in the classroom, the school, the local community and society as a whole. The most central of these influences is the relationship between teacher and pupils. When a teacher sees behaviour, judges it to be unacceptable and intervenes to stop it, it is the relationship between that teacher and the pupil or pupils involved which will determine the success of that intervention. Yet that relationship is itself affected by outside influences. We distinguish four levels of influence, illustrated by the diagram below.

27 In the chapters that follow we identify a need for action by individuals and organisations at all four levels. Many of our recommendations could be implemented within a single classroom, school or LEA. We are convinced, however, that a significant national improvement in standards of behaviour in schools can only be achieved through action by all the parties named in the diagram above.

28 Bad behaviour is not a new problem, nor is it confined to England and Wales. Teachers interviewed as part of a study of pupils' behaviour in 25 English girls schools published 50 years ago (Milner 1938) complained about the number of difficult pupils they had to deal with, about persistent noise in the classroom and about teacher 'fatigue'. Our expert witnesses from Japan and Australia talked of widespread concern about pupils' behaviour in both their countries. American evidence, such as the survey carried out the US Department of Education in 1987, indicates that many teachers there see the problem as serious. That survey found that 44% of teachers who responded considered that the amount of disruptive behaviour in schools had increased in the last five years. Teachers and other educationalists we met on our visit to the USA confirmed that there was widespread concern in American schools about pupils' behaviour.

29 Reducing bad behaviour is a realistic aim. Eliminating it completely is not. Historical and international comparisons help to illustrate this obvious but important point. Children have a need to discover where the boundaries of acceptable behaviour lie. It is natural for them to test these boundaries to confirm their location and, in some cases, for the excitement of a challenge. The proper answer to such testing is to confirm the existence of the boundaries, and to do so firmly, unequivocally and at once. This will often involve the use of an appropriate punishment. An uncertain or delayed response invites renewed challenges which can draw children into more serious misbehaviour. They should never be left in doubt as to what is and what is not acceptable behaviour. A lack of firmness and clarity does no service to children. Our visits showed us that good schools can reduce misbehaviour to an absolute minimum. While some schools seem preoccupied with bad behaviour, others have concerted policies for raising expectations and improving standards. The schools we saw which had such positive policies seemed to be very successful in creating an orderly and purposeful atmosphere. They had marginalised bad behaviour by promoting good behaviour. The central thrust of our recommendations is towards promoting good behaviour among pupils.

30 The tone and content of many of the individual letters we received indicate that bad behaviour in schools is a particularly emotive issue. Teachers complain in the strongest terms about the lack of support that society gives them in dealing with it. We note that views on its causes and cures are often based on deeply held beliefs, such as the importance of punishment as a form of moral retribution or the need to recognise children's rights, rather than on evidence about what happens and what works in schools. Our approach has been to look for evidence of effective practice across the widest possible range of information that we could gather.

31 The Education Reform Act 1988 defines the purposes of the school curriculum as promoting 'the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils and preparing them for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life'. Throughout this report we emphasise the importance of this broad view of education. Cooperative behaviour makes any organisation more efficient, but in schools such behaviour is more than just useful. Schools exist to teach values as well as knowledge and skills. Educationalists call those aspects of school life which are about learning values the 'affective curriculum'. Schools teach values through specific activities such as assemblies and lessons covering religious, personal and social education. They also promote them in other equally important ways, such as through their rules and the behaviour of teachers and pupils towards one another. Promoting responsible behaviour and self-discipline, and the values on which they are based, is an essential task for schools. We consider that it cannot be separated from the practical need to maintain order.