Ofsted's new framework - behaviour

[disneyatemydaughter]

Ofsted have recently shifted focus - behaviour will be a new category in inspection: "The other major change involves looking at behaviour and pupil attitudes in a single category, signalling a more critical view to how schools deal with classroom behaviour," www.theguardian.com/education/2018/oct/11/ofsted-to-ditch-using-exam-results-as-mark-of-success-amanda-spielman. Amanda Spielman favours a “tough stance on behaviour” www.tes.com/news/writing-lines-and-mobile-bans-ofsted-chiefs-behaviour-blitz.

Surely this approach would be harmful in primary schools - getting "tough" on young children who are not cooperating surely will only make them less engaged and more miserable. How does tough discipline benefit them, or their more cooperative peers?

Having read Amanda Speilman’s speech, I’m not sure where the headlines are coming from. The idea is to separate out how schools deal with behaviour such as bullying, attendance and exclusion and other school policies which impact the behaviour of children from personal development. She is clear that behaviour is different from the wider development of pupils and I think that makes sense. Behaviour is not new in inspections either.

I felt the tone of the framework was reaching out to staff and parents in recognising that Ofsted needed to improve. See the behaviour element I have attached.

Your second quote from the TES: she didn’t say it! The Guardian piece uses her speech but puts a slant on it. Having said that, I cannot see that there will be a huge change for primary schools. Most have good behaviour policies and expect good behaviour now. It’s age appropriate behaviour that’s expected.

She did say she wants a tough stance in a different speech - The Wellington College Festival of Education back in June: "“I fundamentally disagree with those who say that taking a tough stance on behaviour is unfair to children. Quite the opposite, there is nothing kind about letting a few pupils spoil school for everyone else.

That is why we expect heads to put in place strong policies that support their staff in tackling poor behaviour. And I think it’s entirely appropriate to use sanctions, such as writing lines, ‘community service’ in the school grounds – such as picking up litter – and school detentions." www.tes.com/news/writing-lines-and-mobile-bans-ofsted-chiefs-behaviour-blitz

So long as she educates herself about the different between poor behaviour and ADHD, she displayed a certain amount of ignorance and stima-reinforcement earlier this year.

I’m afraid it says “she is expected to say”. It isn’t in her official press release and some of the speculation is clearly aimed at secondary age children. She wants to see robust behaviour policies. She isn’t averse to them including certain forms of punishment. None of it specifically says primary aged children.

She's right. It isn't kind to let children run schools. Firm but fair policies are needed, and they need to be enforced, with parental support, or children will continue to fail and be failed.

Though if she 'expected to say' it, it's still significant; I don't think more robust policies would help those children who are not enthusiastic about schools as it is. And I am not sure it is good for children of any age, or teachers, if we focus too much on punishment.

And I am not sure it is good for children of any age, or teachers, if we focus too much on punishment.

Why not? What is it about punishing a child for breaking a rule that is in place for their benefit that distresses you?

Surely we should be looking at why many children don’t co-operate at school rather than ramping up the punishment. As a teacher I was aware that there was always a reason why a child did not co-operate. Non-cooperation was common among those who felt that the system had nothing to offer them. Teaching bottom set GCSE, for example, to students predicted E’s, forcing them to read Dickens when they had no idea what quarter of the words meant, punishing them for not co-operating, felt worse than futile. Punishing those students only proved to them that school was against them, that the GCSE was an impossible struggle and (possibly) that they themselves were deficient. It would have been more useful to find a way to study with which the students wanted to cooperate: to read something they could understand; to sort out their basic grammar; to talk about the relevance of English to application forms or constructing arguments in real life. Instead I had to slog through termly assessments toward the GCSE and to enforce the school’s discipline policy when students did not behave. I watched two or three individuals become increasingly cynical. I don’t think a “tough stance” would have helped them.

disneyatemydaughter

You need both - good, scaffolded teaching AND the expectation of co-operation. Some students enjoy pissing about. Not everything is going to engage them.

It's that combative attitude: that kids need to be controlled rather than engaged that I think is destructive and might be encouraged by Ofsted's shift in focus.

It does not feel like a major shift in focus when you look at all the other good changes in the framework which have been welcomed by unions. All Ofsted have said is that they are looking at the effectiveness of behaviour policies and this is separate from personal development. All this announcement is saying is that bullying, attendance and exclusions will be looked at. Surely this will benefit SEND children who are often bullied and excluded? Parents on MN are continually complaining about unresolved issues of bullying. There will be greater scrutiny regarding the actions of schools. I don’t read this as Ofsted telling schools how to run behaviour policies. It seems to me that greater fairness to all children was at the heart of the, overall, very minor changes to how they review behaviour in schools. You have to consider the whole focus of the changes and not sensationalist journalism.

The difficulty of children not being able to access the secondary curriculum is a completely different problem. I don’t see disengaged teenagers being fed an unsuitable curriculum (yes, ofsted should look at that!) is the same as primary behaviour policies.

getting "tough" on young children who are not cooperating surely will only make them less engaged and more miserable.

Actually, sometimes getting tough on young children improves their behavior. Obviously it is not always the right approach--it depends on the child and what is going on.

It's important that schools feel supported in using a variety of different options for dealing with difficult behavior.

Amanda Spielman comes across as really sensible--I am glad OFSTED appears to taking a turn for the better.

This popped up on my FB feed this morning and I thought I'd add it here. Not teacher bashing at all but I've seen enough times when teachers and children that just don't gel and with the state of school and sen funding and training as it is, I would worry about rigid policies and potentially misapplied scrutiny on behaviour without the right support will send things pear shaped for some kids.

www.understood.org/en/community-events/blogs/my-parent-journey/2016/08/11/what-having-the-wrong-teacher-taught-me-about-my-son-with-adhd?

I’d worry about that too Damson.

DS1 has ASD, and some sensory processing issues, and if his senses are overstimulated or he’s struggling to cope (e.g. with transitions) then that can come out as disruptive behaviour on DS1’s part.

While I’m in no doubt that this can be annoying for everyone, a rigid approach of telling children off and imposing sanctions would do nothing to improve DS1’s behaviour in cases where his behaviour is a result of him being unable to cope with a situation.

(As an aside, his behaviour in school has improved dramatically since his sensory problems were recognised and some coping strategies around those put in place with the school’s support)

Ofsted look at SEND provision too. Behaviour is not looked at in isolation. In addition, if Ofsted are taking greater note of exclusions, then SEND children, who are disproportionately excluded, may well be in a better position than before. They will not just look at behaviour and ignore other factors. If a school has worked with parents, recognised SEND and amended their approach to a child, that is good practice and would be recognised as such.

disneyatemydaughter

It isn't "combative". If they are going to learn, children DO need to control their behaviour.

I would love to educate children at Woodstock, but I don't. I work in a context in which many children haven't been taught basic behavioural norms by their parents, and I would be letting them down if I didn't put those healthy boundaries in place, yes, with punishments for overstepping them.

of course boundaries have to be there, my point rather is that the new emphasis is worrying. Good behaviour should flow naturally from the work rather than be a focus.

I might add that, as far as I know, Amanda Spielman has not ever worked as a teacher.

Good behaviour should flow naturally from the work rather than be a focus.

Who on Earth told you that?

Amanda Spielman has listened to teachers on this.

The idea that if a child is poorly behaved it must be because the lesson isn’t engaging or an issue with the teacher is insidious and wrong. It leads to low-level disruption not being dealt with, stress for teachers and increasing numbers leaving the teaching profession.

Kids need clear boundaries that are enforced. And sometimes they need to crack on and learn stuff that they can’t see as immediately exciting or relevant to them. Teachers need to be able to expect kids to behave even in those circumstances.

I might add that, as far as I know, Amanda Spielman has not ever worked as a teacher.

I am assuming you have?

Well Chris Woodhead had and no one admired him!

Sorry, I see you have. Well, as you will know, getting a consensus of opinion within a group of teachers is rather like trying to herd a million cats coated from head to toe in Vaseline, but since there does appear to be a broad consensus amongst teachers on this issue, in support of this new emphasis, perhaps we can come down on the side of "outvoted this time"?

Good behaviour should flow naturally from the work rather than be a focus.

Who on Earth told you that? - John Dewey did. John Dewey saw good behaviour as a natural aspect of cooperation between pupils and their teacher. Dewey was adamant that pupils and teachers should agree on the purpose of activities: “there is no defect in traditional education greater than its failure to secure the active cooperation of the pupil in construction of the purposes involved in his studying.” (Experience and Education, Dewey, 1938, p.67.)