 |  |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 2017 readers since 30 Oct 2006 |
| |
| www.dg.dial.pipex.com | 2017 readers since 30 Oct 2006 |
Elton (1989) Notes on the text
|
The Elton Report (1989)
Enquiry into Discipline in Schools London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office 1989
Appendix D: Teachers and Discipline
A Report for the Committee of Inquiry into Discipline in Schools
Part I: Findings from the national survey of teachers in England and Wales
Contents Preface A. THE SURVEY B. SECONDARY TEACHERS' ROUTINE EXPERIENCES OF DISCIPLINE
C. SECONDARY TEACHERS' VIEWS ON THE 'SERIOUSNESS' OF DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS
D. THE CLASSES AND PUPIL BEHAVIOURS SECONDARY TEACHERS FOUND DIFFICULT
E. THE STRATEGIES AND SANCTIONS SECONDARY TEACHERS USED WITH DIFFICULT CLASSES AND PUPILS F. THE EXPERIENCES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS
G. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS' PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
PREFACE The research brief we were given by the Committee of Enquiry into Discipline in Schools was 'to examine teachers' perceptions and concerns about discipline'. We chose to pursue this in two related ways. One was to undertake a national survey of primary and secondary teachers in England and Wales in order to obtain a general picture of their experiences and views. What kinds of behaviour did they have to deal with during the course of a week in the classroom? What sorts of problems did they encounter during the course of their duties round the school? How serious did they think discipline problems were in their school? Were any particular classes, pupils or pupil behaviours particularly difficult to deal with? What strategies and sanctions were they currently employing to tackle discipline problems? And, finally, what action would teachers themselves suggest should be taken? At the same time we wanted to go beyond the kinds of information we could obtain in a national survey. We decided to interview one hundred teachers about their experiences and perceptions in order to establish a better understanding of what having to deal routinely with discipline problems was like. Given limited time and resources, we could only visit a small number of schools. We therefore concentrated our interviews in ten inner-city comprehensive schools. We chose inner-city comprehensives because we believed they would give us important insights into experiences and practices in schools where, traditionally at least, both teachers and the public might expect there to be greater problems. If we had had more time we would have liked to extend this part of the research to other types of school and, crucially, to the primary sector as well. Research is a cumulative process and we have learnt much from previous studies; most of them are summarised in a review of the literature undertaken recently by Mr John Graham. There are two other major contributions which we should also like to acknowledge. First, the various studies conducted over the past year into these issues by the professional associations. And second, the work of Dr Kevin Wheldall, Dr Frank Merrett and their colleagues at the Centre for Child Study, Birmingham University, whose earlier research in this field contributed in several ways to the practical tasks of constructing questionnaires for the national survey. The heads and teachers in the schools we contacted for the national survey deserve especial mention. We knew, when we agreed to contact them on the Committee's behalf, that many teachers would be interested in cooperating but also that we were approaching them during a particularly busy period. In the event over three and a half thousand primary and secondary teachers responded producing, in the process, one of the highest response rates for a national survey of this kind ever achieved. Finally, we are in debt to the one hundred teachers and their heads who agreed to be interviewed. Our promise to maintain confidentiality prevents us from naming them. They gave generously of their time, welcomed us into their schools and talked openly about their experiences and concerns. They clearly recognised the importance of the Enquiry and we are grateful to them for their ready cooperation. John Gray and Jean Rudduck
Part I: Findings from the National Survey of Teachers in England and Wales
The national survey of discipline in schools was designed to answer five questions: (1) What were primary and secondary teachers' routine experiences of discipline, both in the classroom setting and around the school? (2) How serious did they think the problems of discipline were in their school? (3) What particular pupil behaviours did they find difficult to deal with? (4) How were they trying to deal with difficult pupils and difficult classes? (5) What action did they think might best be taken to help with the problems of discipline in their schools? A. THE SURVEY A questionnaire was sent to teachers in primary, middle and secondary schools during the first week of October 1988. It covered a wide range of topics and took between 20-30 minutes to complete. The sample was drawn up with the aid of DES statisticians. A stratified random sample of schools was selected to be statistically representative of the regions and different types of school in England and Wales (for fuller details see Technical Appendix A). Headteachers were then approached for permission to contact members of their staff. Teachers' names were selected at random from staff lists provided by the schools. The teachers were then approached individually by means of a postal questionnaire. A total of just under 4400 teachers in main grade and promoted posts were sent questionnaires; no fewer than 82% returned them. Just under 3200 questionnaires were sent to teachers in secondary schools (or middle schools deemed secondary) whilst just over 1200 questionnaires were sent to teachers in primary schools (or middle schools deemed primary). 79% of the secondary teachers who were believed to have received questionnaires returned them as did 89% of the primary teachers. About seven per cent of all the replies were returned by teachers who had exercised their option to reply anonymously. With one or two exceptions response rates by region and school type were high. These high response rates contribute to our belief that the survey's findings are likely to be generally representative of the overall sample of teachers originally contacted and, more generally, of the population of teachers in England and Wales (for fuller details see Technical Appendix A). For the purposes of explication we have decided to report on the primary and secondary school samples separately. We shall commence with the secondary school sample and then turn, at a later point, to the question of whether the experiences of the primary teachers' sample were similar or different. B. SECONDARY TEACHERS' ROUTINE EXPERIENCES OF DISCIPLINE Most of our secondary sample spent most of their time teaching in the classroom. It seems appropriate, therefore, to begin our analysis with a brief account of what discipline problems teachers reported having to deal with on a regular basis. To make their reports more specific, however, we asked teachers to confine themselves to those classroom experiences which had occurred during the previous week; for a period as recent as this there was little chance of memories being faulty. Given the timing of the questionnaire, these would mostly have covered a period in the first half of October 1988. We also asked them, after they had reported their particular experiences, to reflect on 'how typical ... the pattern of occurrences they had (just) described was of their general classroom experiences'. 94% thought it was 'typical' or 'fairly typical'. We can be fairly confident, therefore, that the types of pupil behaviour reported were seen by teachers as being generally representative of their routine classroom experiences. B.1 Discipline inside the classroom The fourteen types of pupil behaviour listed in Table 1 are not intended to be exhaustive of all the possible categories of pupil behaviour teachers in secondary schools might have encountered during the course of the survey week. What they offer are some general indications of the reported incidence of behaviours, ranging from the fairly mundane to the more serious, against which subsequently to assess their concerns. A note of caution must, we believe, be sounded here in interpreting the data emerging from Table 1. Whilst any examples of pupil misbehaviour or indiscipline are to be deprecated and are potentially undesirable, it would be inappropriate to interpret each and every one of these as offering cause for concern. Indeed, there are strong indications later in this analysis that most teachers are quite accustomed to dealing with certain kinds of pupil misbehaviour and treat them as routine. In interpreting the evidence in Table 1, therefore, we use it in two ways: first, to establish the common patterns and experiences teachers shared; and second, to establish those specific areas of experience which departed from this general picture. Table 1 Percentages of secondary teachers reporting that they had to deal with different types of pupil behaviour during the course of their classroom teaching the previous week. Four pupil behaviours would appear to have been common experiences for the vast majority of secondary teachers. In each case they were reported as occurring by 80% or more of those in the sample. At some point during the week, then, most teachers said they had had to deal with instances of pupils 'talking out of turn', 'hindering other pupils', engaging in 'calculated idleness or work avoidance' and 'not being punctual'. A majority of teachers (around 60% or more in each case) also reported that they had had to deal with pupils 'making unnecessary noise', 'persistently infringing class rules', 'getting out of (their) seats without permission', directing 'verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'general rowdiness, horseplay or mucking about' and 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses'. 'Physical aggression towards other pupils' was also mentioned quite frequently (by 42%). In brief, at some point during the course of their week's classroom teaching, the vast majority of teachers reported having to deal with examples of pupil behaviours that had impeded the flow of their lessons. Furthermore, at some point during the week a majority had had to deal with behaviours which had actually disrupted their lessons or produced an atmosphere which was not conducive to learning. These seem to have been common shared experiences amongst secondary school teachers and they provide the backdrop against which we now assess some teachers' daily experiences. 'Talking out of turn' was the only pupil behaviour a majority of teachers reported having to deal with on a daily basis (see Table 1). About one in four teachers mentioned 'calculated idleness or work avoidance', 'hindering other pupils' and 'making unnecessary (non-verbal) noise' whilst somewhat lower percentages than this mentioned 'not being punctual', 'persistently infringing class rules' and 'getting out of seat without permission'. Around one in ten mentioned 'verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'general rowdiness, horseplay or mucking about' and 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses'. About one in twenty reported dealing with 'physical aggression towards other pupils' on at least a daily basis. Clearly, all these behaviours, to a greater or lesser extent, disrupted classroom teaching and were likely to have been experienced as, at best, irritating and, at worst, wearing by the teachers concerned. Depending on which specific items were included, between one out of ten and two out of ten secondary teachers, therefore, reported experiencing disruptive behaviours on a daily basis. To this point we have not considered teachers' responses to three items that were designed to pick up considerably more serious examples of pupil indiscipline. It is clear from the drop in the overall percentages reporting these three items that, compared with the remainder, they were experienced differently. During the course of the week about one in seven (15%) teachers reported being the target of 'verbal abuse' from a pupil(s); and about one in eight (14%) dealt with instances of 'physical destructiveness'. However, fewer than two per cent (1.7%) of teachers reported that they themselves had actually been the target of some "physical aggression' that week (for a fuller discussion see Section B.4 below). The overall picture of classroom life suggested by Table 1 is one in which 'talking out of turn' is the only area of pupil misbehaviour that was reported as a common daily occurrence for the majority of teachers. However, there were a variety of 'minor' disruptive behaviours which up to two out of ten teachers found themselves dealing with on a daily basis whilst four out of ten teachers had had to deal with 'physical aggression' between pupils at some point during the week. One in seven teachers had been 'verbally abused' during this period but only one in fifty reported having been the target of some form of 'physical aggression' (see Footnote 1). B.2 Discipline around the school Teachers' experiences of pupil indiscipline were not, of course, confined to the classroom. We asked a series of questions designed to establish their common experiences during the course of their duties around their schools (see Table 2). Almost all (98%) thought the experiences they reported during the week of the survey were 'typical' or 'fairly typical'. A number of pupil behaviours emerged as ones that were encountered by the vast majority (80% or more) of secondary teachers at least once during the week (see Table 2). These included: showing a 'lack of concern for others', 'unruliness while waiting', 'running in the corridors', 'general rowdiness, horseplay or mucking about' and 'persistently infringing school rules'. Between two out of ten and three out of ten teachers reported encountering these behaviours on a daily basis (see Table 2). Common encounters (reported by 60% or more) included experiencing at least once during the week: 'verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'loitering in 'prohibited' areas', 'cheeky or impertinent remarks or responses' and 'physical aggression towards other pupils'. Between one out of ten and two out of ten teachers encountered these behaviours on a daily basis. Of the three more serious behaviours, one in four (26%) teachers reported examples of 'physical destructiveness' and one in eight (12%) reported being the target of 'verbal abuse' at some point during the week. However, only about one per cent (1.1%) reported some form of 'physical aggression towards themselves' (for a fuller discussion see Section B.4 below). Table 2 Percentages of secondary teachers reporting different types of pupil behaviours they encountered during the course of their duties round the school. In some respects the picture of life around the school parallels that within the classroom. There were a large number of relatively 'minor' problems which formed part of the experiences of the vast majority of teachers at some point during the week. Depending on the particular behaviour concerned around two out of ten teachers experienced these at least daily. The incidence of direct 'physical aggression' towards teachers was extremely rare but about one in eight teachers received 'verbal abuse' at some point during the week. Again, as with the classroom data, extrapolating these figures over longer time periods would be inappropriate (see Footnote 1). B.3 The relationships between different pupil behaviours We were interested in whether teachers who reported dealing with or encountering one type of pupil behaviour more frequently reported experiencing others more frequently as well. As a general rule we found that they did. For example, in relation to the behaviours listed in Table 1, teachers who reported more 'talking out of turn' also reported more of the other behaviours such as 'hindering other pupils', 'calculated idleness or work avoidance' and 'general rowdiness'. They were also somewhat more likely to report higher levels of 'verbal abuse' towards themselves. There was one exception to this general clustering of behaviours occurring in the classroom. Teachers who reported being the target of 'physical aggression' were, on the whole, no more likely to report experiencing higher levels of most of the other pupil behaviours with two exceptions: they were somewhat more likely to report 'physical destructiveness' and 'verbal abuse towards themselves'. Similar patterns prevailed with respect to the behaviours listed in Table 2. On the whole, teachers who reported, for example, more 'general rowdiness, horseplay or mucking about' in the course of their duties around the school also reported encountering more of the other behaviours. When we compared teachers' reports of pupil behaviours in the classroom (listed in Table 1) with their reports of behaviours around the school (listed in Table 2) we found similar patterns prevailing (tables not shown). Teachers who reported higher incidences of undesirable pupil behaviours in one setting were more likely to report higher incidences of pupil behaviours in the other. This was especially true of the examples of pupil behaviours that were common to the two lists (in Tables 1 and 2). For example, teachers who reported more 'cheeky or impertinent responses' in the classroom were considerably more likely to report higher levels of this same behaviour around the school; and teachers who reported more 'physical aggression towards other pupils' in their classroom were likely to encounter more 'physical aggression' amongst pupils around the school. Eight pupil behaviours were common to the lists in Tables 1 and 2. For six of these, teachers were likely to report considerably higher levels outside the classroom compared with inside it (table not shown but for details see Tables 1 and 2). These were: 'persistently infringing class (or school) rules', 'general rowdiness', 'verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'cheeky or impertinent remarks', 'physical aggression towards other pupils' and 'physical destructiveness'. Only in relation to 'verbal abuse' and 'physical aggression' towards themselves were there no substantial differences. The evidence suggests that teachers' experiences of disruptive pupil behaviours inside the classroom and around the school went hand in hand. Teachers who reported more disruptions in their classrooms were also likely to report more disruptions around their schools. B.4 The incidence of physical aggression by pupils towards teachers That any teachers in the survey should have reported being in receipt of some form of 'physical aggression', either in the classroom or around the school, is clearly a matter of concern. We therefore looked in greater detail at the questionnaires of all those teachers reporting any experience of physical aggression'. Just under two per cent (1.7%) of teachers reported experience of 'physical aggression' directed towards them in the course of their lessons at some point during the survey week. Almost all reported that their experiences during the previous week had been 'typical' or 'fairly typical'. Most chose not to elaborate further on these experiences elsewhere in their questionnaires. We interpreted their responses as implying that they were in receipt of some form of physical contact that was 'aggressive' in intent; they did not necessarily mean by this that the experience was a 'violent' one as the fuller discussion that was possible during the interview-based part of the research makes clear (see Part II, Section B.2). A handful of teachers (making up about one in ten of all those teachers who reported any 'physical aggression' and less than 0.2% of the total secondary school sample) reported that their experiences during the week had 'not been typical'. Of these, two referred directly to being struck. Just over one per cent (1.1%) of teachers reported some form of 'physical aggression' towards them in the course of their duties around the school. All of these teachers reported that their experiences were 'typical' or 'fairly typical'. Again, we inferred, from the general patterns of their responses, that they were referring to physical contact with pupils rather than violence; and, again, there is further support for this view in the interview-based part of the research (see Part II, Section B.2). Overall, just over two per cent (2.1%) of teachers reported some form of 'physical aggression' towards themselves, either in the classroom and/or around the school. A small number of teachers (again making up less than 0.2% of the total) used the open-ended part of the questionnaire to describe incidents in the fairly recent past during which they had been subjected to very serious threats or violence. One of the incidents so described had originated inside the classroom, the others outside it. These teachers' descriptions left no room for doubt about the seriousness of the particular incidents being described. Neither the evidence on the 'atypicality' of teachers' experiences nor the open-ended reports are conclusive as regards the full extent of physical violence directed towards teachers in the classroom or around the school. Teachers who reported no examples of 'physical aggression' being directed towards them during the week of the survey could, of course, have experienced it during other weeks of the school year. Furthermore, although very large numbers of teachers took the opportunity to comment on their experiences in an open-ended way, by no means all will have chosen (or seen fit) to use the space provided to recount their previous experiences of 'violent' incidents. However, the data we have collected do offer some estimates of the probable limits. Somewhere in the region of two per cent of teachers reported experiencing some form of 'physical aggression' towards them during the week of the survey (see Footnote 2). However, it should be recognised that this is an estimate based on a particular time period of one week and that extrapolation to longer time periods would be inappropriate because the vast majority of teachers reported that their experiences during the week were 'typical' or 'fairly typical'. Our detailed analysis of all those questionnaires reporting 'physical aggression' of some form suggested that the proportion of teachers referring to incidents of a clearly violent nature was considerably lower than the above figures. Our best estimate is that about one in two hundred (0.5%) teachers had had experiences of this kind. Again extrapolation to longer time periods would be inappropriate (see Footnote 3). C. SECONDARY TEACHERS' VIEWS ON THE 'SERIOUSNESS' OF DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS We have confined ourselves up to this point to teachers' factual reports of the discipline problems they were encountering. But how 'serious' did secondary teachers believe the problems of discipline were in their schools? About one in six (16%) teachers thought they were 'serious' (see Table 3). A majority (53%) thought they were 'not very serious'. One in four (26%) thought they were 'not at all serious' but only one in twenty (4%) was prepared to say they were "no problem at all'. Table 3 Secondary teachers' perceptions of the 'seriousness' of discipline problems in their school. In general, teachers' perceptions of the 'seriousness' of the problems in their schools were associated with the patterns discussed earlier in Tables 1 and 2. Teachers who reported that the problems were 'serious' in their school were somewhat more likely to report higher incidences of 'talking out of turn', 'cheeky or impertinent remarks' 'verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'unruliness while waiting' and so on (tables not shown). C.1 Differences between schools We were particularly interested in the question of how much teachers in one school differed from teachers in others in terms of their perceptions of the 'seriousness' of the position. We therefore aggregated the responses of the individual teachers in each school to create an overall 'seriousness' score for each of the schools in our study, where a score of 1 meant that the individual teachers thought the problem was 'very serious' and a score of 5 meant they thought it was 'no problem at all' (see Table 4). A score of around 2.0 meant that, on average, the teachers from a particular school thought the problems in their school were 'serious' whilst a score of around 4.0 meant that, on the whole, they thought they were 'not at all serious'. From Table 4 it can be seen that only in a very small number of schools were matters as extreme as this. Teachers in fewer than one in ten (8%) schools thought the problem was verging on the 'serious' (average scores of 2.5 or lower) whilst teachers in about two out of ten (21%) schools thought that matters were 'not at all serious' or, indeed, 'no problem at all' (average scores of 3.5 or higher). The average scores of the staff in more than half the schools clustered round the view that the problems were 'not very serious'.  What Table 4, by itself, does not tell us is the extent to which teachers in any particular school agreed amongst themselves about the 'seriousness' of the problem. To answer this question we used a statistical technique (known as analysis of variance) which allows one to make an estimate of how much of the overall differences in responses is made up: (a) of differences in the replies of teachers in one school as opposed to another (the 'between-schools' variance); and (b) of differences in the replies of teachers within any one school (the 'within-schools' variance). This analysis indicated that just under 40% of the variance lay between schools whilst the remaining 60% lay within schools (see Footnote 4). In short, although there were some differences of perception between teachers in any one school, there was quite a strong tendency for teachers in some schools to maintain that they had discipline problems and for teachers in others to maintain that they did not. We explored a number of factors relating to the circumstances of teachers in different types of school with a view to seeing whether any of them systematically related to teachers' perceptions of the 'seriousness' of their own school's discipline problems. Some relationships between the circumstances of particular schools and teachers' perceptions did emerge. For example, teachers were more likely to report that discipline problems were 'serious' in their school when they had also reported that they had higher proportions of pupils of 'below average ability' 'compared with the national picture' or higher proportions coming from 'economically disadvantaged areas' (table not shown). They were a little more likely to report problems if they had more pupils from the 'inner areas of large towns or cities', more pupils from 'ethnic minority' groups or more boys. And they were also a little more likely to report problems if their school had made greater use of corporal punishment around the time when it was formally abolished (table not shown). Since all these relationships were based on teachers' reports of the situation in their school, rather than independently collected evidence, they need to be treated with some caution. Teachers may not always be in the best position to know the particular circumstances of their own school or pupils relative to others. It would also be unwise to single out any one of these factors as being necessarily more important than the others. All point to the view, however, that schools serving areas of social disadvantage (however measured) were more likely to be seen by their staffs as having 'serious' problems. The size of the school (as measured by the numbers of pupils on roll or the numbers of teaching staff) did not appear to matter (table not shown). We considered, in addition, a limited number of aspects of the career backgrounds and circumstances of individual teachers in relation to their perceptions of the 'seriousness' of discipline problems in their schools. The teachers' sex, age, years of teaching experience and years of experience in their present school, as well as the number of schools they had taught in, did not appear to make any difference to their views, except that those with little or no experience of teaching were slightly more likely to report that the problems were 'serious' (table not shown). There was some small indication that teachers who had gained most of their experience with the 11-14 age range felt the problems were slightly worse than other teachers whilst those who had gained most of their experience in 11-18 schools felt they were slightly better (table not shown). Teachers who spent more of their 'contracted time' on classroom teaching were also slightly more likely to report 'serious' problems as were those on the 'main professional' grades as opposed to the higher ones (table not shown). However, none of the factors we have discussed regarding teachers' background characteristics were sufficiently strongly related to their perceptions of the 'seriousness' of discipline problems in their school to merit much further comment. About one in six secondary teachers thought there was a 'serious' problem of discipline in their schools. Statistical analysis of the distribution of responses indicated that there were likely to be a few members of the teaching staff in a majority of secondary schools who believed the problems were 'serious'. The more notable finding, however, was the extent to which there were differences between schools. Teachers in some schools differed in their perceptions of the 'seriousness' of the problems from teachers in others. Teachers in about one in ten secondary schools thought (collectively) that the problems in their school verged towards the 'serious'. Most of the information collected on the backgrounds and circumstances of schools and teachers did not appear to be systematically related to their perceptions about the 'seriousness' of the problems. However, teachers who reported that they taught in schools with higher proportions of children from 'economically disadvantaged areas' or with 'below average' attainment levels tended to perceive the problems as more 'serious' than those teaching in other sorts of schools. D. THE CLASSES AND PUPIL BEHAVIOURS SECONDARY TEACHERS FOUND DIFFICULT In this section we consider the particular pupil behaviours teachers found difficult to deal with, either in the classroom, around the school or with respect to the teaching of difficult classes or pupils. But first we offer some perspective on the proportions of teachers who reported that some aspect (or aspects) of their work was 'difficult'. D.1 The incidence of difficult classes and pupils Just over one in three (37%) teachers reported that they found one or more pupil behaviours they had experienced in their classroom 'difficult to deal with' whilst three out of ten (30%) reported finding something difficult to deal with during the course of their duties around the school (see Table 5a). One in five (20%) teachers reported finding something 'difficult' in both settings whilst rather lower proportions than these found something 'difficult to deal with' in one setting but not in the other. Table 5 Percentages of secondary teachers who reported finding certain pupil behaviours difficult to deal with. Six out of ten (59%) teachers reported finding one or more of the classes they taught difficult to deal with (see Table 5b). Not altogether surprisingly, the classes teachers described as 'difficult' tended to contain pupils from the older age bands (23% were 14+ and 40% were 15+ or over) and they were likely to have more boys in them than girls. More than half of these classes (56%) were grouped by ability in some way (by sets, streams or bands) and three out of four (74%) of these ability groups were of 'below average attainment level compared with other pupils in the school' (tables not shown). Eight out of ten (78%) teachers reported finding one or more individual pupils 'difficult to deal with' in the classroom. Again, these pupils tended to be from the older age bands (23% were aged 14+, 45% were aged 15+ or over) and three out of four were boys (tables not shown). Over half were 'below average' in ability 'compared with other pupils in the school' and only one in ten was of 'above average' ability. Contrary to some prevalent stereotypes, teachers reported that difficult pupils were no more or less likely to come from 'ethnic minority' backgrounds than others. Just under one in four were receiving 'special provision or support' whilst, in addition, just over one in twenty were 'being considered' for it (table not shown). In short, whether they were reporting on difficult classes or difficult pupils, teachers found male pupils of lower ability more difficult to deal with than others. Most teachers had at least one or two pupils they were prepared to say they found difficult to deal with whilst a majority had at least one class which they found difficult. D.2 The nature of the pupil behaviours teachers found difficult After we had requested teachers to report on the frequency with which they had had to deal with various pupil behaviours during the course of their week's classroom teaching (see Table 1), we asked them which of the pupil behaviours they had actually experienced they found 'most difficult' to deal with. They were offered the opportunity to list one or two specific behaviours. It should be remembered, as we have already reported, that just over one in three (37%) mentioned something whilst about two out of three (63%) did not (see Table 5a). In terms of the sheer frequency with which they were reported, three items stood out from the rest. These were: 'talking out of turn'; 'calculated idleness or work avoidance'; and 'hindering other pupils'. But this was not altogether surprising since these were also overwhelmingly the three items which the vast majority of teachers reported having some experience of (see Table 1). In Table 6, therefore, we confined the analyses to those teachers who had reported actually experiencing particular pupil behaviours at some point during the course of the week and then used these as the bases for deciding what percentages of teachers found them really difficult to deal with. When we looked at the results in this way we still found that 'talking out of turn' was commonly reported as the 'most' or 'next most difficult' behaviour (see columns 1 and 2 of Table 6). No fewer than 15% (11% plus 4%) of the 2440 teachers who had experienced dealing with it described it in this way. 'Calculated idleness or work avoidance' was as frequently mentioned (by 15%) whilst dealing with 'verbal abuse towards other pupils' (11%) and 'hindering other pupils' (11%) were also prominent. 'Physical aggression towards other pupils' was also reported by one in twenty (6%) of the sizeable number of teachers (over 1000) who had had some experience of dealing with it during the week. Interestingly, only just over one in six (17%) of the small number of teachers (42) who had experienced 'physical aggression (directed) towards themselves' thought this was the 'most difficult' or the 'next most difficult' pupil behaviour to deal with, which tends to confirm our earlier conclusion that most of the incidents so described were not deemed to have been particularly serious by the teachers concerned. Table 6 Pupil behaviours secondary teachers reported finding difficult to deal with: (a) in all classes taught and (b) in particularly difficult classes. When teachers were asked to frame their replies within the context of a particularly difficult class (see Table 6, columns 3 and 4) rather more chose to list some behaviour(s). However, the general patterns were not much changed: 'talking out of turn', 'calculated idleness' and 'hindering other pupils' were the most frequently mentioned. Three out of ten teachers reported that they had found one or more pupil behaviours that they had encountered during the course of their duties round the school 'difficult to deal with' (see Table 5a earlier). 'Showing lack of concern for others' was a common encounter amongst virtually all teachers (see Table 2 earlier) and just over one in ten (11%) of those teachers (2315 in all) who reported that they had experienced it nominated this behaviour as the 'most' or 'next most difficult' they had had to deal with (see Table 7). 'Verbal abuse towards other pupils' and 'verbal abuse towards themselves' were other behaviours which were nominated as 'difficult' ones (by just over one in ten of those with experience of them in each case). Just under one in five of the very small group of teachers (28 in all) who had experienced some 'physical aggression towards themselves' around the school put this top of their list of difficult behaviours. Table 7 Pupil behaviours secondary teachers reported finding most difficult to deal with around the school. In brief, around two out of three teachers reported that they had found none of the pupil behaviours they encountered during the course of their classroom teaching difficult to deal with. Roughly the same proportion reported in similar terms on their encounters round the school, 'Talking out of turn', 'calculated idleness or work avoidance', 'hindering other pupils' and 'verbal abuse towards other pupils' were reported as being the 'most difficult' behaviours to deal with in the classroom. Outside the classroom, 'showing lack of concern for others', 'verbal abuse towards other pupils', 'verbal abuse' towards themselves and 'physical aggression towards other pupils' were the most frequently mentioned. E. THE STRATEGIES AND SANCTIONS SECONDARY TEACHERS USED WITH DIFFICULT CLASSES AND PUPILS Teachers reported a variety of strategies and sanctions which they had 'recently used in dealing with difficult classes or pupils'. Before we consider them in greater detail, however, it is important to remember something of the past. Until fairly recently another sanction or deterrent had been available, namely corporal punishment. We asked our sample whether corporal punishment had been used in their schools about three years ago. About two out of three teachers told us it was still in use at that time. However, they varied in their reports on the frequency with which it was employed: only 3% said it was used 'quite frequently'; 23% 'occasionally'; and 36% 'hardly at all' whilst just over one third (37%) said it was 'not used at all' (table not shown). For a majority of secondary teachers, therefore, the complete removal of corporal punishment as a sanction or deterrent was a fairly recent experience. Table 8 shows the strategies or sanctions teachers had been employing to deal with difficult classes or pupils. Efforts to 'reason with pupils', either in the classroom setting or outside it, were strategies that most had had some recent experience of (reported by 80% or more). 'Requiring pupils to do extra work', 'discussing with the whole class why things were going wrong', 'keeping pupils in' for detentions and 'asking pupils to withdraw temporarily from the room' were also common strategies (reported by 60% or more). Substantial minorities also indicated that they had taken further steps such as 'referring pupils to another teacher' and 'removing privileges' (40% or more). About one in ten (27%) teachers had found it necessary to 'send pupils direct to the head, deputy or another senior teacher' and about one in ten (9%) had, in the recent past, 'requested (that a pupil) be suspended from school'. Table 8 The strategies and sanctions secondary teachers were employing to deal with difficult classes or pupils and their perceived effectiveness. Over three out of ten (32%) of those teachers who had recently 'reasoned with pupils outside the classroom setting' thought it the 'most effective' strategy they had used whilst only 2% actually considered it the 'most ineffective' (see Table 8). Opinions were more divided, however, on the 'effectiveness' of many of the other strategies and sanctions that had been employed. No one approach stood out as being uniformly identified by teachers as highly 'effective' or 'ineffective', suggesting strongly that the 'effectiveness' or otherwise of a particular approach depends both on the individual teacher and on the circumstances of the particular school. F. THE EXPERIENCES OF PRIMARY SCHOOL TEACHERS In many respects the experiences of primary school teachers paralleled those of secondary teachers. They had had many of the same experiences in the classroom or around the school as secondary teachers reported. However, the frequency with which these occurred was lower and, in general, they felt less needed to be done. Nonetheless, there were some distinct ways in which their experiences differed from those of secondary teachers and it is to these that we pay particular attention in the following sections. F.1 Discipline in the classroom and around the school Like their secondary counterparts, the vast majority of primary teachers (80% or more) reported having to deal with pupils 'talking out of turn', 'hindering other pupils' and 'making unnecessary (non-verbal) noise' at least once during the week (see Table 9). A majority of primary teachers (60% or more) also reported that they had had to deal with 'getting out of seat without permission', 'calculated idleness' and 'general rowdiness' at least once. Whilst the general patterns of the other pupil behaviours that were dealt with paralleled the experiences of secondary teachers, their incidence was usually somewhat lower. There was one major respect in which the experiences of primary teachers differed. Whereas about four out of ten (42%) secondary teachers reported having to deal with 'physical aggression towards other pupils' at least once during the week, over seven out of ten (74%) primary teachers had had this experience (see Table 9). And one in six (17%) of them had had to deal with this behaviour on a daily basis compared with only 6% of secondary teachers. In the course of their duties around the school, the vast majority (over 80%) of primary teachers reported encountering pupils showing a 'lack of concern for others', 'running in the corridors' and 'unruliness while waiting' (see Table 10). 'General rowdiness' and 'verbal abuse towards other pupils' were also common experiences (reported by over 70%). Primary teachers reported less experience of having encountered 'persistent infringement of school rules', 'cheeky or impertinent remarks' or 'loitering in prohibited areas' (reported by about half) whilst 'physical destructiveness' and 'verbal abuse' towards themselves were rather rare (reported by around one in twenty). Table 9 Percentages of primary teachers reporting that they had to deal with different types of pupil behaviour during the course of their classroom teaching the previous week. Table 10 Percentages of primary teachers reporting different types of pupil behaviours they encountered during the course of their duties round the school. 'Physical aggression towards other pupils' was again the one major area of pupil behaviour where primary teachers' experiences differed significantly from those of secondary teachers, just under nine out of ten (86%) primary teachers had encountered this at some point during the course of their week's duties round the school and two out of ten (21%) on a daily basis (see Table 10). The figures for secondary teachers were under seven out of ten (66%) and about one out of ten (11%) respectively. As in the secondary survey, very small percentages of primary teachers reported 'physical aggression' by pupils directed towards themselves. Only 2.1% reported this experience occurring once during the week in the classroom (see Table 9 and Footnote 5). The figure for encounters around the school was only 1.6% (see Table 10). As in the secondary survey, extrapolation of these figures to provide estimates over longer time periods would be inappropriate. The overwhelming majority of primary teachers reported that their general experiences were 'typical' or 'fairly typical'. We inferred that by 'physical aggression' they meant physical contact initiated by a pupil and this interpretation was borne out by the fuller comments some teachers made in the open-ended section of their questionnaires. 'Aggression' was most frequently described as occurring whilst primary teachers were trying to restrain individual children. Unlike a few of their secondary counterparts, none of the primary teachers in the whole sample used the opportunity to comment on 'any matters they wished' in order to describe 'violent' incidents which had happened to them personally, although a few wrote about incidents which they knew of. We conclude, on the basis of our primary sample's reports, that the incidence of 'violence' directed towards primary teachers, either in the classroom or outside the school, was very low indeed, certainly no higher than the figures reported for the secondary sample and almost certainly considerably lower. F.2 Primary teachers' perceptions of the 'seriousness' of discipline problems, their particular difficulties and concerns The generally lower incidence of potentially problematic pupil behaviours was reflected in primary teachers' assessments of the 'seriousness' of the situation in their schools. Fewer felt it was 'serious' (11% compared with 16% of secondary teachers) and more were prepared to say it was either 'not at all serious' or 'no problem at all' (51% compared with 31%) (table not shown). We have already suggested that there were quite considerable differences between teachers in different secondary schools regarding their perceptions of the 'seriousness' of discipline problems. In only about one in twenty (6%) of primary schools did primary teachers think the problem was verging on the 'serious' (average scores of 2.5 or lower) whilst teachers in two out of three (66%) thought the problems were either 'not at all serious' or, indeed, 'no problem at all' (average scores of 3.5 or higher) (see Section C.1 and Table 11).  In the case of primary schools the differences between schools were still larger than in secondary schools. Over half of the variation lay 'between schools' and under half 'within' them (see Footnote 6). This analysis served to emphasise the extent to which primary teachers in some schools believed that the problems were 'serious' and to which those in other schools did not. As with their secondary counterparts, primary teachers working in schools with greater proportions of pupils from 'economically disadvantaged areas' or of 'below average ability' were more likely to report that the position in their schools was 'serious' (tables not shown). Primary teachers were considerably less likely than secondary teachers to report that they found individual pupils 'difficult to deal with'. Four out of ten (40%) said, for example, that they had no difficult pupils in the classroom setting compared with two out of ten (22%) secondary teachers. And only about two out of ten reported finding particular pupil behaviours difficult to deal with, either in the classroom or around the school, compared with well over three out often secondary teachers (table not shown). The particular pupil behaviours that this relatively small group of two out of ten primary teachers said were 'most difficult' to deal with corresponded in most respects to the concerns of secondary teachers. 'Talking out of turn', 'hindering other pupils', 'calculated idleness or work avoidance' and 'physical aggression towards other pupils' were the behaviours the vast majority of primary teachers reported having to deal with in the classroom situation (see Table 10). They were also the behaviours that they found 'most' or 'next most difficult' to deal with although, in each case, fewer than one in ten of the 900 or more teachers with actual experience of them nominated them as 'most/next most difficult'. 'Physical aggression towards other pupils' was nominated as the 'most (or next most) difficult' problem to deal with outside the classroom (mentioned by about one in eight primary teachers). 'Showing lack of concern for others' and 'verbal abuse towards other pupils' were also mentioned, but less frequently, by around one in twenty (tables not shown). Hardly any of the 17 primary teachers who reported 'physical aggression' directed towards themselves thought this was the most difficult behaviour they had to deal with. The pupils primary teachers found most difficult to deal with were overwhelmingly male. F.3 The strategies and sanctions primary teachers used with difficult classes and pupils Half (50%) the primary teachers reported that corporal punishment had not been in use in their school three years ago compared with about one third (37%) of secondary teachers; only just over one in ten (12%) reported that it had been used 'occasionally' compared with one in four (26%) secondary teachers (table not shown). Given that their pupils were younger, most of the strategies and sanctions primary teachers reported using recently differed from those employed by secondary teachers, but only insofar as they were more appropriate for the age of their pupils. There was widespread use of 'reasoning' with pupils, both in the classroom and outside it, as well as 'class discussion about why things were going wrong' (mentioned by over 80% of primary teachers as being used at least once recently). There was less imposition of 'extra work' (reported by 61%) or 'keeping pupils in' (reported by 33%) compared with secondary teachers whilst 'removing privileges' was more commonly used (by 71%). This latter sanction featured highly on teachers' list of 'more effective' strategies along with 'reasoning with a pupil in the classroom setting' (both mentioned by over one out of four who had used them). 'Requiring pupils to do extra work', asking a pupil to 'withdraw temporarily from the room' and 'deliberately ignoring minor disruptions' were all seen as 'ineffective' strategies by those who had used them (tables not shown). G. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY TEACHERS' PRIORITIES FOR ACTION Given the very different circumstances facing schools, as well as teachers' widely differing perceptions of the 'seriousness' of the problems in their schools, it is scarcely surprising that a wide variety of priorities for action were put forward. We listed fourteen forms of action that could be taken and asked teachers to say, with respect to each, whether it was 'needed', 'possibly needed' or 'not needed' in their own school. The particular structure of the question allowed teachers to recommend several priorities if they wished. Their choices reveal, to some extent, their analyses of the prevailing situation in their own schools. Over six out of ten secondary teachers (63%) recommended 'establishing smaller classes' (see Table 12). The other strategies they mentioned can be considered as proposals for action in relation to five particular areas. About half the secondary teachers recommended two strategies that were designed to tackle directly the problems posed by individual pupils or groups of pupils. These were: 'tougher sanctions for certain forms of indiscipline' and 'more opportunities for counselling for pupils whose behaviour is often difficult' (see Table 12). Table 12 Primary and secondary teachers' perceptions of the priorities for dealing with pupils' behaviour problems in their own schools. About four out of ten teachers diagnosed the problems as stemming from the community and wanted to 'build more parental involvement' and 'more respect for the school in the local community'. Similar proportions thought that more support for the individual teacher 'facing problems with discipline' would be valuable. The 'personal guidance or support' could come either from 'colleagues' or from 'LEA staff', although more favoured the former than the latter. 'More in-service training' was also recommended, either for individual teachers or for groups. Around four out of ten teachers again favoured collective action on the part of the staff, recommending 'more discussions of discipline amongst staff as a whole' and 'firmer communications to pupils about what they can and cannot do'. Changing 'the content of the curriculum', 'teaching styles', 'the climate of the school' and 'creating more opportunities for team teaching' attracted the support of around two out of ten teachers. We also asked which strategies teachers felt were 'most/next most important'. 'Smaller classes', 'tougher sanctions', 'counselling for pupils' and 'building parental involvement' all received strong support (table not shown). However, it was very clear from the very high percentages of secondary teachers in Table 12 reporting that certain strategies were 'needed/possibly needed', that action across a broad front would be likely to command support from a considerable majority of secondary teachers and that they felt there were several starting points for tackling the problems. No fewer than eleven of the fourteen items listed in Table 12 received support from seven out of ten (or more) secondary teachers. In general terms, primary teachers' priorities for action matched those of secondary teachers. However, given the lower incidence of behaviour problems and the extent to which the situation was perceived by a considerable majority of primary teachers as less serious, correspondingly fewer reported that particular approaches were 'needed', apart from 'establishing' smaller classes (mentioned by 57%). As with the secondary teachers, views on which approaches were required varied quite considerably (see Table 12). There was much less support for 'tougher sanctions' than amongst secondary teachers and lower proportions recommended 'firmer communications to pupils about what they could and could not do' (recommended as 'needed' by about three out of ten teachers in each case). Around three out of ten primary teachers were in favour of 'building more parental involvement' and 'respect for the school in the community' whilst similar proportions favoured 'counselling for pupils', 'counselling and support for teachers with discipline problems' (both from colleagues and from LEA staff), more 'in-service training' and more 'staff discussions'. Less than one in ten recommended changing the 'content of the curriculum', 'teaching styles' or the 'climate of the school' (see Table 12). And whereas only a small minority of secondary teachers (between two and three out of ten) were prepared to state that particular approaches were 'not needed' between three and five out of ten primary teachers reported that many of the items we had listed as possible priorities were definitely 'not needed' in their school (table not shown). We took this, in part, as reflecting their view that there was no major problem that demanded immediate action. Footnotes to Part 1 (1) In order to obtain estimates of the relative frequency with which teachers had experienced particular forms of pupil behaviour it was decided to confine the survey to a period (one week) during which their memories of what had happened were likely to be reliable. It is not possible to extrapolate the teachers' replies to provide reliable estimates of the percentages of teachers who would be likely to encounter particular types of behaviour over longer periods. In order to produce such figures it would be necessary to make assumptions about the extent to which particular teachers would or would not be more likely than others to experience such behaviour. Such assumptions would clearly be unsafe. (2) Allowing for simple sampling errors, the 95% confidence intervals surrounding this estimate are plus or minus 0.5%. (3) The 95% confidence intervals surrounding this estimate are plus or minus 0.3%. (4) The exact estimates were: 'between-groups' 38.3%; 'within-groups' 61.7%. (5) The 95% confidence intervals surrounding this estimate are plus or minus 0.7%. (6) The exact estimates were: 'between-groups' 54.2%; 'within-groups' 45.8%. 
|
