Chapter Eight Support Available for Staff
Introduction
8.1 This chapter draws on data about the support available to staff. This includes local authority support; Continuing Professional Development ( CPD); and school level support. Once again, the results from the school staff survey are presented first, with findings from the local authority interviews, school staff and pupil focus groups, and the contextual staff interviews being used to provide further comment.
Local authority support
Continuing Professional Development
8.2 As part of the questionnaire survey, headteachers were asked to indicate whether they had received any training relevant to school discipline since assuming their current post. Table 8.1 below, shows that nearly three-fifths (58 per cent) of headteachers had received some form of training related to school discipline since being in their current post, with two fifths (42 per cent) indicating that they had not. There was no real difference in the profile of primary and secondary school headteacher responses.
Table 8.1 The proportions of Headteachers (overall, primary and secondary) who have, and have not, received training relevant to dealing with school discipline since assuming their current post
Discipline training since being in current post | Overall | Primary Headteacher | Secondary Headteacher |
|---|
Number | % | Number | % | Number | % |
|---|
Received discipline training | 222 | 58 | 123 | 58 | 99 | 59 |
|---|
Not received discipline training | 160 | 42 | 91 | 43 | 69 | 41 |
|---|
No response | 2 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 384 | 100 | 214 | 100 | 168 | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.3 Of the 222 headteachers who had received discipline training since being in their current post, nearly 9 in 10 (87 per cent) stated that they had received this training from the local authority. There was a higher proportion of primary school headteachers (95 per cent) citing the local authority as the provider of this training compared to secondary headteachers (77 per cent).
8.4 Just over a quarter (28 per cent) of headteachers (overall) indicated that they had also received training from another provider. Much higher proportions of secondary headteachers (44 per cent) cited this compared to primary headteachers (15 per cent). The predominant 'other' training providers were external consultants and school-based training (25 per cent).
8.5 Results from the 32 local authority interviews provides further evidence of schools' use of training providers other than the local authority. Indeed, 3 interviewees specifically discussed how schools within their local authority had been given the freedom to use their INSET money to buy-in the training to meets their local needs. A third (13) of all local authority interviewees stated that local and national consultants were typically bought in for the purposes of assessing and delivering training in the authority. A number of specific consultants were named; many of which replicate those cited by the headteachers surveyed. Consultants included those with international and local reputations. Finally, 3 local authority interviewees stressed their local authority's drive to use "home grown" training, including the encouragement of headteachers and schools to undertake collegiate, in-house training.
8.6 Teachers included in the survey were asked how many times, over the last year, they had been involved in any kind of staff development activity in relation to discipline and positive behaviour. Table 8.2 contains the detail.
Table 8.2 Estimations of how many times, in the last year, teachers (overall, primary and secondary) have been involved in a staff development activity in relation to discipline and positive behaviour
Number of times had been involved in staff development activity | Overall | Primary Teacher | Secondary Teacher |
|---|
(N) | (%) | (N) | (%) | (N) | (%) |
|---|
Never | 190 | 18 | 110 | 21 | 80 | 15 |
|---|
Once or twice | 530 | 49 | 238 | 45 | 292 | 54 |
|---|
More than twice | 351 | 33 | 180 | 34 | 171 | 32 |
|---|
No response | 9 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 1080 | 100 | 528 | 100 | 543 | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.7 Results show that over four-fifths (82 per cent) of teachers had been involved, at least once or twice in the last year, in some kind of staff development related to discipline and positive behaviour. More primary teachers (21 per cent) than secondary teachers (15 per cent) stated that they had not been involved in such staff development activity. Conversely, more secondary teachers (86 per cent), than primary teachers (79 per cent), stated that they had been involved in this type of activity, once or more than twice, in the last year.
8.8 Results from a series of 8 focus groups involving primary and secondary headteachers, teachers and additional support staff and interviews with local authority personnel indicated that a plethora of different training sessions and courses are offered to school staff for behaviour management. Figure 8.1 summarises a selection of the different types of training cited. However, it should be noted that the majority of the training sessions were listed from memory and should, therefore, be used to depict a 'snapshot' of the training available as opposed to an exhaustive list of CPD opportunities.
Figure 8.1 Types of behaviour management training cited by local authority interviewees and school staff in the focus groups
From 32 local authority interviews |
|---|
Solution-Oriented /focused training (9)
FFI training or planned FFI training (6)
Restorative Practices training (4)
Diplomas (4)
Anger management training (4)
Assertive discipline training (4)
Promoting positive behaviour (4)
De-escalation/physical intervention training (4)
Additional Support for Learning Act ( ASL) training (3) | Staged Intervention training (3)
Circle of friends & circle time training (3)
Dealing with anger & conflict training (3)
De-escalation training (3)
Emotional intelligence training (3)
Dedicated training on developmental disorders - ADHD & Aspergers (3)
Positive handling strategies training (2)
Attachment theory/disorder training (2)
Inclusive practices training (2) |
From eight school staff focus groups |
|---|
Restorative Practices (1)
External speaker events (1)
PDA (1) | Challenging behaviour course (1)
Autism training (1)
General in-school service training (1) |
8.9 Overall analysis from all data sets suggests that there is a diverse range of CPD on offer within Scotland's authorities; as in line with BB-BL recommendations. However, it also appears that there are challenges in terms of the range and quality of CPD offered to school staff and also in terms of actual CPD delivery and accessibility. Many participants in the school staff focus groups and a number of the individuals in the contextual teacher interviews all pointed to the need for more practical and proactive training sessions. Many stated that the current CPD was too "airy fairy" (primary class teacher focus group) and of "poor quality" owing to its lack of practicality and usefulness.
8.10 Results from the staff focus groups, contextual staff interviews and interviews with all 32 local authorities also indicated that there was a general need for more training dedicated to behaviour and classroom management. The 2 primary class teacher focus groups pointed to a lack of courses and a shortage in training provision, with many courses being overbooked. Furthermore, participants in both additional support staff focus groups requested more CPD specifically for them. Indeed, as already noted in Chapter Six, participants in one group called for a national system of training for additional support staff in order to fill this perceived gap in training provision.
8.11 The issue of supply cover emerged from staff focus groups, contextual staff interviews and local authority interviews. Concerns were expressed that school staff were unable to attend much-needed training because of a shortage of supply teachers to cover classes in their absence.
" It is a really difficult one because the willingness to undertake CPD opportunities is there but, basically, if there is no cover then the first thing to go is attendance at a course" (local authority interviewee).
Nature of local authority support
8.12 A specific question was posed to all headteachers surveyed as to whether they had received any support or assistance from their local authority to try new initiatives for promoting positive behaviour. Results reveal that three-quarters (75 per cent) of headteachers had received support of this nature from their local authority. As Table 8.3 also shows, there were no notable differences in the responses of primary and secondary school headteachers.
Table 8.3 The proportions of headteachers (overall, primary and secondary) who have, and have not, received any support or assistance from the local authority to try new initiatives for promoting positive behaviour
Local authority support | Overall | Primary Headteacher | Secondary Headteacher |
|---|
Number | % | Number | % | Number | % |
|---|
Received local authority support | 287 | 75 | 158 | 74 | 129 | 77 |
|---|
Not received local authority support | 96 | 25 | 57 | 27 | 39 | 23 |
|---|
No response | 1 | <1 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 384 | 100 | 215 | 100 | 168 | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.13 When asked to indicate the specific type of support or assistance they had received from the local authority, additional funding or staff support (67 per cent) and advice and consultancy (66 per cent) were each cited by two-thirds of headteachers overall (See Table 8.4 below). However, there are some differences in the responses of primary and secondary headteachers for these types of support. Indeed, more secondary headteachers (79 per cent) reported receiving additional funding or support staff than did primary headteachers (57 per cent), whereas consistently more primary headteachers (72 per cent) said they received local authority support in the form of advice and consultancy than did secondary headteachers (58 per cent).
Table 8.4 The type of local authority support received by primary and secondary school headteachers for trying new initiatives to promote positive behaviour
Type of local authority support | Overall | Primary Headteacher | Secondary Headteacher |
|---|
Number | % | Number | % | Number | % |
|---|
Additional funding / staff support | 192 | 67 | 90 | 57 | 102 | 79 |
|---|
Advice and consultancy | 188 | 66 | 113 | 72 | 75 | 58 |
|---|
Other | 27 | 9 | 17 | 11 | 10 | 8 |
|---|
No response | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
|---|
TOTAL | 410 | | 221 | | 189 | |
|---|
Notes to table Multiple response question: headteachers could select more than one option, therefore percentages do not add up to 100. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.14 Nearly a tenth of headteachers (9 per cent), overall, indicated that they had received support or assistance of another type from the local authority for trying new initiatives to promote positive behaviour (See Table 8.4). The main 'other' types of support cited were support for specific types of training, which included, for example, Circle Time training, (45 per cent) and support for specific interventions/approaches (e.g. Staged Intervention) (24 per cent).
8.15 Participants in the school staff focus groups and all 32 local authority interviewees were asked to detail the kinds of support they, and colleagues, would receive if they experienced a difficult incident. A third (12) of local authority interviewees stated that the support would come from local authority teams who provide behaviour support to schools. The names for these teams and individuals varied, for example, behaviour support staff; quality improvement officers; and additional support team staff. However, in evaluating this support, members of the staff focus groups presented disparate views over the perceived quality and level of support. The rationale for the different views appeared to focus on the perceived responsiveness of the authority to address incidents.
8.16 When local authority interviewees were asked whether their local authority had a staff support/welfare/counselling advisor for school staff, interviewees typically alluded to an authority-wide support service for council employees, which teachers and school staff could readily access, but was not dedicated to the sole purpose of providing support to them. A small number of interviewees (5) did indicate that, within their authority, an education specific advisor or body of support was available to members of the school workforce including: a school advisory service; a staff welfare officer; a teacher welfare officer; and a council-run Care First scheme. Other local authority interviewees also detailed how staff within schools were being trained up to provide help to other staff by essentially fulfilling the role of an advisor.
Level of partnership working between the local authority and schools to promote positive behaviour
8.17 In the survey, school staff were all asked to rate how they thought the education authority worked in partnership with their school to promote positive behaviour. Table 8.5 shows that, on the whole, ratings from headteachers, teachers and additional support staff largely clustered around the centre of the response scale, thus indicating that the education authority was seen by all to work, to a moderately satisfactory level, with respondents' schools to promote positive behaviour. Headteachers were the most positive in their ratings, with nearly half (49 per cent) endorsing the level of partnership between the education authority and their school as either 'good' or 'very good'. In contrast, teachers were the least positive, with 14 per cent giving a 'poor' rating of the relationship: a figure nearly three times that of headteachers and additional support staff.
8.18 In terms of differences according to the type of school, primary school staff were generally more positive in their ratings of how well the education authority worked in partnership with their school than their secondary counterparts. Indeed, over half (53 per cent) of secondary teachers indicated that they felt local authority partnerships were less than good, while only one in eight (15 per cent) gave a positive rating, compared to one four (39 per cent) primary teachers. Correlations also revealed that headteachers, teachers and additional support staff who gave higher ratings of how the education authority worked in partnership with the school, also felt more supported by their school.
Table 8.5 Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of how the education authority works in partnership with the school to promote positive behaviour
Rating of how the education authority works in partnership with the school to promote positive behaviour | Overall | Primary | Secondary |
|---|
(N) | % | (N) | % | (N) | % |
|---|
Headteacher |
|---|
Poor 1 | 22 | 6 | 10 | 5 | 12 | 7 |
|---|
2 | 30 | 8 | 12 | 6 | 18 | 11 |
|---|
3 | 139 | 36 | 64 | 31 | 75 | 44 |
|---|
4 | 139 | 36 | 89 | 42 | 50 | 30 |
|---|
Very good 5 | 49 | 13 | 35 | 17 | 14 | 8 |
|---|
No response | 5 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 384 | 100 | 210 | 100 | 169 | 100 |
|---|
Teacher |
|---|
Poor 1 | 152 | 14 | 36 | 7 | 116 | 22 |
|---|
2 | 270 | 25 | 102 | 20 | 168 | 31 |
|---|
3 | 351 | 33 | 180 | 35 | 171 | 32 |
|---|
4 | 203 | 19 | 140 | 27 | 63 | 12 |
|---|
Very good 5 | 78 | 7 | 60 | 12 | 18 | 3 |
|---|
No response | 26 | 2 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 1080 | 100 | 518 | 100 | 536 | 100 |
|---|
Additional support staff |
|---|
Poor 1 | 28 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 22 | 7 |
|---|
2 | 61 | 12 | 14 | 8 | 47 | 16 |
|---|
3 | 183 | 37 | 58 | 33 | 125 | 42 |
|---|
4 | 128 | 26 | 52 | 29 | 76 | 26 |
|---|
Very good 5 | 75 | 15 | 48 | 27 | 27 | 9 |
|---|
No response | 26 | 5 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 501 | 100 | 178 | 100 | 297 | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
School-level support
Perceived levels of school support from colleagues and senior management
8.19 As part of the survey, headteacher, teachers and additional support staff were asked a number of questions that required them to rate a series of statements relating to the levels of support offered to staff within their school. Although the precise wordings of the questions were tailored according to each type of respondent, some comparisons can be made between the questions. Tables 8.6 to 8.8 provides the detail.
Table 8.6 Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of how openly they can talk to colleagues about behaviour-related challenges they experience
Rating of how openly staff can talk to colleagues about behaviour-related challenges | Strongly disagree
(%) | Disagree
(%) | Neither agree nor disagree
(%) | Agree
(%) | Strongly agree
(%) | No Response
(%) | Total
(%) |
|---|
Headteacher
'My colleagues can openly talk about any behaviour-related challenges they experience' |
|---|
Overall | 3 | 0 | 2 | 32 | 62 | <1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary headteachers | 4 | 0 | 1 | 22 | 73 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary headteachers | 3 | 0 | 2 | 46 | 49 | - | 100 |
|---|
Teacher
'I can talk to colleagues openly about any behaviour-related challenges I experience' |
|---|
Overall | 2 | 1 | 4 | 27 | 66 | 1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary teachers | 3 | 2 | 1 | 22 | 72 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary teachers | 1 | 1 | 6 | 31 | 61 | - | 100 |
|---|
Additional support staff
'I can talk to other support assistants openly about any behaviour-related challenges I experience' |
|---|
Overall | 1 | <1 | 2 | 21 | 74 | 1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary additional support staff | 2 | 1 | 4 | 20 | 73 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary additional support staff | 1 | <1 | 1 | 22 | 76 | - | 100 |
|---|
'I can talk to teachers openly about any behaviour-related challenges I experience' |
|---|
Overall | 1 | 2 | 3 | 31 | 64 | <1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary additional support staff | 1 | 1 | 1 | 21 | 77 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary additional support staff | 1 | 2 | 4 | 37 | 56 | - | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding . Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.20 In relation to statements about school staff being able to openly talk to colleagues about any behaviour-related challenges they experience, Table 8.6 shows that the highest proportion of school staff 'strongly agreed' with the statement. When analysed by school sector, primary school staff were more positive in their ratings than secondary staff as considerably more 'strongly agreed' with this statement. Secondary school additional support staff were more likely to 'agree' or 'strongly agree' in relation to being able to talk to other support staff (98 per cent), but were slightly less likely to 'agree' or 'strongly agree' in relation to being able to talk to teachers (93 per cent).
8.21 In relation to the confidence that headteachers, teachers and additional support staff had that senior staff would help them, or colleagues, if they experienced behaviour management difficulties, Table 8.7 reveals clear differences in the views of different members of staff. Overall, it appears that headteachers agreed the most that senior staff would help colleagues if they needed it, followed by additional support staff and then finally teachers who agreed to the least extent. According to school sector, higher proportions of primary teachers and additional support staff, than their secondary counterparts, either 'agreed' or 'strongly agreed' that senior staff would help them if they experienced difficulties in managing pupil behaviour. There was little difference in the responses of primary and secondary headteachers.
Table 8.7 Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of how confident they are that senior staff will help them if they are experiencing behaviour
Rating of help senior staff will provide to colleagues for behaviour management difficulties | Strongly disagree
(%) | Disagree
(%) | Neither agree nor disagree
(%) | Agree
(%) | Strongly agree
(%) | No Response
(%) | Total
(%) |
|---|
Headteacher
'Senior staff will help colleagues who are experiencing behaviour management difficulties' |
|---|
Overall | 3 | 0 | <1 | 21 | 75 | <1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary headteachers | 4 | 0 | 1 | 16 | 79 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary headteachers | 3 | 0 | <1 | 27 | 70 | - | 100 |
|---|
Teacher
'I am confident that senior staff will help me if I experience behaviour management difficulties' |
|---|
Overall | 6 | 12 | 12 | 34 | 35 | 1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary teachers | 5 | 7 | 11 | 30 | 48 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary teachers | 7 | 17 | 15 | 38 | 24 | - | 100 |
|---|
Additional support staff
'I am confident that senior managers in school will help me if I experience difficulties with pupil behaviour' |
|---|
Overall | 2 | 4 | 8 | 33 | 53 | <1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary additional support staff | 2 | 2 | 4 | 27 | 65 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary additional support staff | 2 | 5 | 10 | 36 | 47 | - | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.22 Results from the 8 staff focus groups lend support to the results found above, with many of them describing SMT support as "critical" to teachers. Indeed, discussions in the primary and secondary teacher groups highlighted the perceived range of senior management support to teachers, with some stating that their school provided ample support whereas other openly discussed that they felt unsupported. This lack of support was often attributed to the senior management being unable to physically provide support when immediately needed. Often, SMT members were felt to be out of the office or in meetings, with a secondary headteacher focus group conceding that staff support can be "very time consuming" amidst all the other pressures of running a school.
8.23 Table 8.8 reveals some clear differences in the perceptions of headteachers, teachers and additional support staff in relation to awareness of confidential support and counselling within the school. Headteachers agreed with the statement the most, followed by additional support staff and then finally teachers who agreed to the least extent. In addition, secondary staff were much more negative and 'disagreed' with the statement than primary staff. Indeed, one in 3 secondary teachers (33 per cent) felt there was no such support available. Results from the focus groups and the contextual staff interviews suggest that some schools are trying to formalise confidential support and counselling structures for their staff. A number of the contextual school staff interviewees stated that their school now had a behaviour coordinator (although the titles did vary locally) who was trained to provide advice and support to staff on behaviour related issues. Other schools discussed that they were hoping to develop this kind of support through initiatives such as Solution-Oriented Schools.
Table 8.8 Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff (overall, primary and secondary) ratings of whether they agree that there is confidential support and counselling for staff
Rating of their knowledge of confidential support and counselling in the school | Strongly disagree
(%) | Disagree
(%) | Neither agree nor disagree
(%) | Agree
(%) | Strongly agree
(%) | No Response
(%) | Total
(%) |
|---|
Headteacher
'My staff know there is confidential support and counselling within the school if they need it' |
|---|
Overall | 5 | 3 | 14 | 40 | 36 | 1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary headteachers | 4 | 2 | 10 | 39 | 46 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary headteachers | 7 | 5 | 20 | 44 | 25 | - | 100 |
|---|
Teacher
'I know there is confidential support and counselling for staff if I need it' |
|---|
Overall | 12 | 13 | 23 | 26 | 26 | 1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary teachers | 10 | 8 | 23 | 27 | 33 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary teachers | 14 | 19 | 23 | 25 | 19 | - | 100 |
|---|
Additional support staff
'I know there is confidential support and counselling available for support staff if I need it within my school' |
|---|
Overall | 8 | 13 | 20 | 26 | 32 | 1 | 100 |
|---|
Primary additional support staff | 5 | 11 | 20 | 26 | 39 | - | 100 |
|---|
Secondary additional support staff | 9 | 14 | 21 | 27 | 29 | - | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.24 In the questionnaire survey, headteachers and teachers were asked to estimate how much time they had spent, in the last full teaching week, giving or receiving informal support to/from colleagues in relation to indiscipline and positive behaviour. See Table 8.9 below.
Table 8.9 Headteacher and teacher (overall, primary and secondary) estimations of time spent, in the last full teaching week, giving or receiving informal support to/from colleagues in relation to indiscipline and positive behaviour
Rating of time spent giving/receiving informal support | Overall | Primary | Secondary |
|---|
(N) | % | (N) | % | (N) | % |
|---|
Headteacher |
|---|
No time spent | 40 | 10 | 32 | 15 | 8 | 5 |
|---|
Under an hour | 173 | 45 | 119 | 56 | 54 | 32 |
|---|
An hour to 3 hours | 143 | 37 | 58 | 27 | 85 | 50 |
|---|
More than three hours | 25 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 22 | 13 |
|---|
No response | 3 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 384 | 100 | 212 | 100 | 169 | 100 |
|---|
Teacher |
|---|
No time spent | 210 | 19 | 136 | 26 | 74 | 14 |
|---|
Under an hour | 616 | 57 | 310 | 59 | 306 | 56 |
|---|
An hour to 3 hours | 198 | 18 | 66 | 13 | 132 | 24 |
|---|
More than three hours | 47 | 4 | 14 | 3 | 33 | 6 |
|---|
No response | 9 | 1 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 1080 | 100 | 526 | 100 | 545 | 100 |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Percentages may not all add up to 100 due to rounding. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.25 As shown in Table 8.9, analysis showed, in general, the highest proportion of both headteachers (45 per cent) and teachers (57 per cent) spent under an hour of their time, in their last full teaching week, giving or receiving informal support to/from colleagues in relation to indiscipline and positive behaviour. However, twice the proportion of headteachers (44 per cent) spent over an hour to more than three hours providing support than did teachers (22 per cent). There were significant differences according to school type, in that primary school staff generally spent less time giving or receiving informal support to/from colleagues.
8.26 The issue of informal peer support was discussed in both the staff focus groups and the contextual staff interviews; with both stressing its importance and indicating that it was from this that many teachers derive their support. One primary school deputy headteacher stated that "teachers do a lot of chat with each other" in relation to behaviour issues, which was helpful and supportive. Another secondary deputy headteacher detailed his school's plans to try and tap into this informal support mechanism in order to make it a more formal part of the school's support structure. He proposed that staff should join into small groups, whilst at school, in which they discuss their experiences, and share good behaviour management practice.
" Peer evaluation on behaviour support…where 2 or 3 members of staff who trust each other and who may have had some training…can talk to each other and reflect on their experiences" (contextual school staff interviewee).
Access to support provisions and facilities in the classroom, school and local authority
8.27 As part of the survey, teachers were asked a specific question about what supports they had access to when managing a difficult/challenging class. Table 8.10 shows that access to learning/ SEN support for individual pupils was cited by the highest proportion of teachers (58 per cent), followed by an opportunity to request a referral for a pupil for further investigation (54 per cent) and then whole-class support, which included classroom and support assistants (52 per cent). Interestingly, the collegiate support provided by colleagues and the principal teacher or senior management were cited the least by teachers (46 per cent and 40 per cent respectively). This may be related to the findings discussed in paragraph 8.22 where focus groups commented on the problem of SMT workloads preventing them from providing immediate and proactive support. In terms of school sector differences, primary teachers had access to additional support staff, both in terms of whole-class and individual pupils, but had less access to support provided by senior management than did secondary teachers.
Table 8.10 Types of support teachers have access to when dealing with a challenging class
Types of support | Overall | Primary Teacher | Secondary Teacher |
|---|
Number | % | Number | % | Number | % |
|---|
Whole-class support (e.g. from classroom/support assistants) | 509 | 52 | 369 | 70 | 140 | 31 |
|---|
PT/ SMT support | 391 | 40 | 177 | 33 | 214 | 48 |
|---|
Opportunity to request a referral for a pupil for further investigation | 523 | 54 | 281 | 53 | 242 | 54 |
|---|
Support from colleagues | 448 | 46 | 261 | 49 | 187 | 42 |
|---|
Learning/ SEN support for individual pupils | 567 | 58 | 386 | 73 | 181 | 40 |
|---|
No Response | 81 | 8 | - | - | - | - |
|---|
TOTAL | 2519 | | 1518 | | 1001 | |
|---|
Notes to table Non-responses were included in the figures for the sample overall. The figures for primary and secondary respondents were calculated from those who responded to the question only. Multiple response question: teachers could select more than one option, therefore percentages do not add up to 100. Source: NFER survey of school staff, 2006
8.28 In relation to support facilities and provisions in school and the wider local authority, headteachers were asked the following questions: 'does your school have a 'time-out' room for the short term placement of pupils with behavioural difficulties?' and 'does your school have an on-site unit for the longer-term placement of pupils with behavioural difficulties?'. The majority of the schools did not have a 'time-out' room (61 per cent) or an on-site unit (81 per cent) for the longer-term placement of pupils with behaviour difficulties. Much higher proportions of primary headteachers ('time-out': 82 per cent; on-site: 98 per cent) than secondary headteachers ('time-out': 36 per cent; on-site: 60 per cent) stated that they had neither provision within their school. However, it should be noted that there may be some difference in interpretation of the nature of such provisions, as Table 7.1 (see page 79) shows that half (50 per cent) of headteachers in the survey sample and just over three-fifths (63 per cent) of teachers indicated that their school had, or had access to, a pupil support base.
8.29 Results from contextual interviews with school staff indicated that those that did have such provisions on site were finding them effective in terms of reducing low level indiscipline and providing support to their staff. This finding, however, stands in contrast to the views of some pupils in the focus groups who did not perceive the 'time-out' room to be of much effect in overcoming negative behaviour. Indeed, many discussed that some pupils wanted to be sent to the 'time-out' room because they saw it as a means of avoiding work or a teacher whose lesson they did not enjoy.
8.30 A specific question was also posed to local authority personnel in relation to the level of off-site provision available to schools within their local authority. In the main, most local authority interviewees detailed a range of off-site provision for both primary and secondary school pupils. Indeed, 21 interviewees detailed off-site provision/s for secondary pupils, 15 detailed off-site provision/s for primary pupils and four detailed a provision that was intended for both primary and secondary pupils. Only 4 interviewees stated that there was no off-site provision within their local authorities.
Summary
- A diverse range of CPD opportunities was on offer in local authorities, however, school staff requested more training in general that was of a practical and proactive nature. An absence of supply cover was highlighted as an issue.
- Nearly three-fifths of headteachers had received some CPD since being in their current post, which was predominantly provided by the local authority; and the majority of teachers had been involved in some kind of development activity related to behaviour in the last year.
- Three-quarters of headteachers had received local authority support for trying new initiatives for promoting positive behaviour. Most primary headteachers received this support in the form of advice and consultancy, whilst most secondary headteachers received support for additional funding or support staff.
- Headteachers, teachers and additional support staff all indicated that the education authority worked, to a moderately satisfactory level, with schools to promote positive behaviour. Headteachers were the most positive, followed by additional support staff then teachers. Primary staff were consistently more positive than secondary staff.
- School staff who gave higher ratings of how the education authority worked in partnership with the school, also felt more supported by their school.
- All school staff felt generally supported in their school (as measured by the level that staff could openly talk to colleagues; senior staff would help colleagues; and awareness of confidential support and counselling in the school). However, headteachers agreed the most followed by additional support staff and then teachers. Secondary school staff felt less supported than their primary equivalents.
- The majority of headteachers and teachers spent under an hour giving/receiving informal support to/from colleagues in the last full teaching week. Headteachers spent more time than teachers and secondary staff spent more time than primary staff.
- Teachers had access, to a reasonable degree, to a number of supports to help them with a difficult class. However, primary teachers had access to additional support staff, both in terms of whole-class and individual pupils, but had less access to support provided by senior management within their school than did secondary teachers.
- Most headteachers indicated that they did not have a 'time-out' room or an on-site unit for the longer-term placement of pupils with behaviour difficulties. Higher proportions of primary headteachers than secondary headteachers stated that they had neither provision within their school. However, there may be some variation in interpretation of the nature of such provisions, as Chapter Seven notes that half of headteachers and just over three-fifths of teachers indicated that their school had, or had access to, a pupil support base.