This report summarises an evaluation of the activities undertaken by 16 Stockport Secondary schools, including two special schools. The activities were all part of a project concerning the management of Disruptive and Disaffected Pupils undertaken during 1997-8 with GEST-funding (Category 6 Activity B).
The Project was co-ordinated by Jenny Campbell and Geoff Thomas of Reddish Vale School Technology College.
The evaluation is based on structured interviews carried out with the Director of the Project in each school. The LEA position was based on an interview with the SEN Adviser, Mr G Lewis.
Interviews lasted from about 45 to 75 minutes. Some schools provided supporting documentation.
I would like to thank all those senior staff who gave up some of their time during a busy period at the end of the school year.
Stockport LEA invited its secondary schools, including special schools to bid for funding to be allocated from the GEST budget (Category 6, Activity B: Disruptive and Disaffected Pupils) for the year 1997-98. Schools were encouraged to develop strategies which were appropriate to their own situation regarding the prevention and management of disruptive and disaffected behaviour. Funding was to be available for one year only, and schools were asked to identify both the objectives of their strategy and their criteria by which they would evaluate their attainment.
A major aim of this approach was to give autonomy to schools in taking responsibility for disaffection and disruption and to encourage diversity of responses. Schools also had to provide details of costing. Each school nominated a Project Manager or Director and the programme as a whole was co-ordinated by two senior staff at Reddish Vale Technology College. The authority also expected that the Project Directors from each school would form a network for support and exchange of ideas and experiences concerning the whole area of behaviour management, and that by encouraging schools to develop their own approaches to meet their own needs, there would be a substantial reservoir of experiences to share.
The Programme Co-ordinators:
This report is that independent evaluation which is to contribute to any subsequent major evaluation.
The evaluation is based on a loosely-structured interview with each school's Project Director. Each interview lasted 45-75 minutes and the Project Director was invited to say how the school had implemented its project and to offer an evaluation of its success based on the criteria they had used themselves. Each project was therefore evaluated independently and no attempt made to compare one school with another. Indeed to do so would have been against the principle underpinning the project of allowing schools to determine their own goals and evaluation criteria.
Some general questions and prompts were used to ensure that all respondents addressed the same areas.
One of the purposes of the evaluation report was to identify examples of good practice which might be of interest to others. Section II of this report provides an overview of each school's project with an evaluation so that schools may access accounts of particular projects which interest them. Because so many factors can affect the implementation of planned projects within a school year and their application in other settings, it is more appropriate to identify practices as `interesting' and `meeting particular objectives' rather than `good'. Examples have been cited in the body of this report to illustrate particular emphases in the projects. Readers are then directed to the more detailed reports on schools.
1. All schools believed the LEA's initiative had been successful and saw self direction and the opportunity for a school to devise a project to meet the particular situation as the major strengths of the project.
2. The majority of schools felt they achieved their objectives. Where they did not, there was evidence of at least one of the following:
3. Schools varied considerably in their projects, but common principles and approaches could be identified.
4. Projects varied as to whether they were planned as:
Some projects combined at least two of the above.
5. Most schools undertook INSET in behaviour management as part of the project.
6. Most schools believed that a twelve month period was too short to carry out work that would bring about change in this area.
7. A noticeable feature was that schools which had explicitly addressed the implementation of school-wide policies and behaviour management systems commented on the way stag had co-operated, felt a sense of ownership of the policies and had become more consistent in their application of practices.
8. The majority of schools had adopted more positive approaches to teaching and discipline policies.
9. The majority of schools which had directly addressed the implementation of schoolwide behaviour policies had explicitly involved parents and improved communication with parents.
l0. Although pupils are more involved in setting their own targets for behaviour, they did not appear to have been involved in developing or renewing policies.
ll. Project funding enabled many schools to implement strategies they had previously discussed or attempted to put into practice but which had proved to be outside their existing resources.
l2.In particular many Project Directors emphasised the significance of being able to have funding for supply cover to release teachers to undertake a range of work centred on preventing and managing disaffection and disruption.
13.A result of the project for some schools has been a decision about reallocation of resources to secure the sort of support trialled during the project.
14.A significant result for many schools has been an increase in confidence in their ability to generate effective solutions to recognised areas of difficulties. In several cases this has led them to being prepared to reconsider existing structures and priorities, e.g. over staffing allocations, curriculum development and school policies.
1. There was a high level of satisfaction with the authority's approach to encouraging schools to find their own solutions to meet their own particular needs in the area.
2. There was general approval for the supportive network established by the Programme Co-ordinators and several Project Directors expressed a wish for it to continue beyond the project.
3. The conferences were considered useful although not everyone had attended them. Five people explicitly commented on one guest speaker, usually favourably, but ranging from "inspirational" to "patronising". Comments on usefulness appeared to be related to the level of expertise/experience of the Project Director.
1. Most of those interviewed welcomed the establishment of a Secondary Behaviour Support Service although there were some reservations about how it could meet the needs of schools which the current project had revealed were at different levels of development and had very different problems in terms of disaffection and disruption.
2. The majority of schools would welcome closer liaison with support services (including the new Behaviour Support Service and Educational Psychologists) to help to deal with very extreme behaviours in ways which might reduce exclusions.
Although all the projects focused on disaffected and disruptive behaviours, and most Project Directors pointed to difficulties in distinguishing the two, some projects targeted one aspect rather than another. The majority of projects had several strands or objectives, sometimes but not always inter-related, and where the strands appear to have equal weighting, it has been difficult to categorise projects. It is possible, however, to discern particular strategies and cite examples of projects where there has been an emphasis on these strategies, so that readers wishing to read more can find a fuller evaluation of the project and, of course, the name of the contact person.
1. Curricular approaches to preventing /reducing disaffection and disruption
Several approaches can be identified:
a) providing a more differentiated curriculum to meet the needs of less able students who may experience difficulties trying to cope with `standard' curriculum materials. This approach was used in several schools, but was a major strand in Werneth High School. Project funding there provided cover for staff to be released in four subject areas (Music, Modern Foreign Languages, Geography and Science) in order to enhance specific curriculum modules at K53. Developments were monitored regularly and in the case of Music, new materials have already been trialled. New resources and even new approaches and teaching methodologies will be introduced in these areas in September. Subjects were selected in relation to identified needs to provide appropriate teaching to meet the needs of pupils for whom there is a shortage of appropriate materials. The school set out, from the very first sentence in its proposal, to use funding to establish or develop initiatives which can be sustained beyond a year. The school met its targets. Whether or not the developments will be more motivating and accessible in ways which reduce disaffection or disruption will only be apparent in the longer term. The project also led to staff creativity and co-operation and can be summed up in the Director's words that "staff have plenty of ideas and can produce useful, appropriate materials , but normally do not have time to do so.
b) providing "alternative curriculum" opportunities particularly at KS4. Two schools adopted this approach: St James' School and Avondale School. There is considerable difference between the two schemes, although both used the funding to enhance and extend developments which were already in place.
At St James' School, the course "Learning for Living" offered as an option in Years 10 and 11 is run by school staff, largely off site, to develop Life Skills through a range of practical, enjoyable activities. The course is well-attended by students who are often otherwise disaffected and poor attenders. An interesting aspect of the extension of the course made possible through project funding, has been that of staff development. The course was given a higher staff student ratio and cooperative/team-teaching has helped some teachers develop new teaching styles leading to improved relationships with low-achieving pupils. A further interesting aspect is that the pupils' own evaluation of the course shows a growth in self awareness, self confidence and communication skills. The course will continue to run after the project ends.
At Avondale School, additional funding meant that a pilot programme run at Stockport College could be offered to more students. The course is offered in an adult environment, taught by College Tutors and also offers work experience, although this is more often taken up by girls than boys. Courses are vocation-based and on the whole, attendance and behaviour when at the college is good. In some cases there has been an improvement in school attendance and behaviour. The course is valued as a means of managing disaffection and disruption and has led to a reduction in exclusions. However, it is expensive to maintain and although it will continue, there will have to be a reduction in the numbers who can participate.
c) through developing a homework club. Priestnall School's concern that many students, particularly those with special educational needs, experience difficulties in doing their homework, led to the development of a homework `club' after school staged by a member of the Learning Support Department. The club has been well attended and is open to all pupils. The area in which the club is held is welcoming and parents are invited to attend if they wish.
d) through a "games" approach. There is a body of literature which points to the use of `games' as a means of motivating and encouraging learning, particularly among children with learning difficulties. Some of the funding available at Castle Hill School has been used to purchase educational games, with the expectation of reducing disaffection. The evidence so far has been that pupils have learned successfully and with enjoyment.
e) through the introduction of "Successmaker". Several schools have expressed interest in "Successmaker" as an Integrated Learning System for acquiring basic skills. The system was an important introduction at Marple Hall High School where it has been used with students in Years 8, 9 and 10. It appears to have been found more motivating by Year 8 pupils than Year 9 (there was no information from Year 10 at the time of the evaluation). It also seems to be more effective for some individuals than others. It is used for individual development, particularly in basic skills, to enable students raise levels of achievement and thereby be more able to access the secondary curriculum.
2. Raising attendance: preventing non-attendance
One of the most innovative projects took place at Reddish Vale. This was also a `preventive' approach and took the form of a pilot study or experiment to evaluate a specific approach to reducing the number of pupils who may become non-attenders. The project involved the appointment of a Support Worker to support the targeted students in both attending school and within school situations where they may feel uncomfortable, unhappy or threatened. The school has other strategies for dealing with several aspects of disaffection or disruption, but the GEST funding enabled them to identify a vulnerable group of children who may well otherwise drift into a pattern of non-attendance. With the additional support, attendance at school increased and students became more adjusted to school life. Support is gradually withdrawn (usually at a student's request when they feel sufficiently integrated into the school).
This has been a highly successful strategy and one which the school seeks to maintain provided funding can be secured.
3. Improving behaviour policies and systems for managing behaviour
Several schools made this the focus for their project, and most schools identified particular aspects for improvement. I have only identified one or two examples below which have particularly interesting features:
a) introducing a staged approach similar to or in conjunction with the SEN staged procedures. Several schools took this approach, including the Kingsway School, which also introduced a "Ladder of Consequences" as part of its more systematic approach to behaviour management.
b) many schools have made particular attempts to bring together their policies on EBD and SEN, and Hazel Grove High School has established a new SEN Department which will liaise closely with the pastoral team in managing some behaviour problems within the SEN staged procedures. The link between behaviour and learning difficulties may also be better dealt with by one person.
c) introducing improved monitoring systems, particularly using IT. Several systems are available. Two schools have successfully implemented IT systems for monitoring behaviours. At Bramhall High School the installation of the Leeds Behaviour Database was seen as a major improvement in monitoring and evaluating behaviours. The records produced proved useful not only for presenting factual data to staff, but also for presenting to pupils as the basis for counseling sessions. A major unanticipated `good' outcome was the fact that when such reports were sent home parents appeared to become much more `positive' in supporting the school. The Project Director believes that the presentation of a computer record seems to "depersonalise" the information and reduces the emotionality which normally accompanies general `statements' made by teachers. Whatever factors are at work here, the same result has been found at Stockport School which has introduced a similar system - EMS (Electric Monitoring System).
In this system data is collected on attitudes and behaviour for KS4 pupils and reports are provided three times year for parents. This reporting system will also show comparisons with the previous three reports, thereby identifying trends for both staff and parents. Parents have received the new system very positively. The programme is to be extended to include academic subject information, thereby yielding much more comprehensive reports. It is too early to evaluate the extent to which such monitoring systems lead, of themselves, to a reduction in disruption, although that is a stated aim.
d) developing the use of Individual Behaviour Plans. Several schools identify the introduction of Individual Behaviour Plans (IBP) as part of a systematic, structured approach to improving behaviour management, including Kingsway, Castle Hill School and Offerton High School, where they are a significant development. In some cases the IBP is a parallel form of an IEP setting targets and objectives and providing information about support and monitoring arrangements. It may even be part of the SEN staged procedures. In other cases the IBP resembles a `contact' and is a very personalised document. An example would be the IBP at Offerton, where students discuss their behaviours with a teacher (usually Head of Year or Deputy Head - {Pastoral) and jointly agree a set of targeted behaviours. These are clearly listed in terms of "I will...." statements and the consequences of not behaving in accordance with the statements are listed beneath. Both student and teacher sign the agreement (and parent if present at the meeting). The pupil and parents have copies as well as a file copy. Many schools referred to IBPs which ranged in format. There is a tendency for them to emphasise negative consequences rather than the positive. This may be because they are only used when behaviours are considered serious, and the `reward' may be to move `down a stage' within a staged procedure.
Schools believed IBPs were often instrumental in bringing out and monitoring changes in behaviour. They also emphasised their contribution to `evidence' that a school could provide to demonstrate efforts that had been made from within the school's own resources when referring for external specialist support or a statutory assessment.
e) developing an internal Behaviour Support Team
Although this term was used only once in the proposals, it was clear from the interviews that many schools have formed teams of staff to manage and support behaviours. At Bramhall High School a Core Behaviour Support Team consisted of the SENCO, Heads of Lower and Upper School and a Support Assistant (employed using Project funding). The SENCO and Support Assistant worked together in close liaison with the Heads of School and Pastoral Staff, developing a system for observing the behaviours of students referred for `behaviour problems' (particularly disruptive behaviours) and, where appropriate, offering both a counselling session to the student targeting positive behaviours, and in-class support from the Support Assistant (NTA) in those lessons where the student had been most disruptive. This approach was considered so successful by teachers, that the school is continuing to employ the NTA from its own resources. One of the advantages of this system was that it allowed teachers "freedom to teach" and they perceived a management system which recognised the difficulties and found a means of supporting them.
4. Crisis intervention: extraction of students disrupting lessons
Some schools specifically targeted improving systems for dealing immediately with any disruption by having a Senior Teacher on duty each lesson period who could be called upon to go to a room where a lesson was being disrupted and remove a pupil where necessary. Whilst many of the schools had previously operated such a system, in practice staff were often called away to other duties. Project funding enabled schools to provide supply cover, thereby protecting the "patrol" or "crisis intervention" support. St. Anne's High School provides a good example of the way in which the system was part of a plan for adopting a more consistent approach to behaviour management. For an `extraction' system to work, there must be agreement as to what behaviours may or may not be tolerated and dealt with in the class. At St. Anne's -three areas of behaviour were agreed as totally unacceptable, leading to extraction: abusive, confrontational and disruptive. Agreements were reached as to their manifestations. The system was made known to parents and students. This aspect of their project appears to have been very successful and is valued by teachers in the same way as the previous case study, because they feel supported by the management structure and can attend to the quality of their teaching rather than spend lesson time on discipline and control.
5. Preventive support systems using mentoring
Three schools - Cheadle Hulme College, Harrytown High School and Marple High School - developed a pro-active `counselling' approach to work with targeted groups of students presenting behaviour problems or showing signs of disaffection. Funding was used to provide `protected' time to release Heads of Year to spend time working in a supportive way with the students on an individual basis. There were some variations as to the nature of the students targeted and the time and frequency of sessions. The approach was very successful in that supported students were less involved in incidents of disruption and attended more regularly.
6. Improving social and interpersonal skills
Many pupils presenting disaffected and disruptive behaviours appear to have difficulties making and sustaining relationships. They also may present themselves in ways which inhibit good relationships with peers as well as teachers. In some cases students may stop attending school because they cannot relate to others and sometimes become the victims of bullying because they are so non-assertive. A scrutiny of the case studies in Section 2 shows that many of the projects recognised these problems and dealt with the issue in a variety of ways. An approach used at Harrytown High School was rated highly successful. Small groups of pupils were given after-school assertiveness training sessions by the Head of Stockport I.S.S. (Alison Bettles). There was a noticeable growth in self confidence following the course which lasted 6 - 8 weeks.
7. Developing staff confidence, expertise and consistency in behaviour management through INSET
Most schools had at least one session for staff on managing behaviour over the year and two schools emphasised that `every year' part of the school's INSET programme was devoted to improving behaviour and reducing disaffection and disruption. Five schools had called upon Peter Hook (from Oldham's service) to deliver INSET and several project directors had contributed to sessions.
In all cases schools believed that the in-service led to greater consistency in managing behaviour and interpreting the behaviour policy and raised staff confidence, particularly where practice advice was given.
Only one school, however, made training the focus of its project, Heaton School. As a special school for students aged 11 - 19 with severe/profound learning difficulties it contains a significant number who exhibit persistent challenging (often violent) behaviours. All school staff participated in a training programme run by a specialist in this field. This was a very expensive programme, but the use of the project funding was fully justified in terms of results. Staff are more knowledgeable and confident in handling the students and have changed some of their methods of working with students. As a result there has also been greater involvement in the curriculum for a number of students who previously would have been withdrawn from groups because of disruption. The school also works closely with parents and appreciates the stress caused to parents who also find it difficult to manage these behaviors. Accordingly the project also included a special training session for parents. This was also successful in raising both parents' confidence and expertise and in cementing
partnerships with parents who can use the same methods with their children as are used in school. Challenging behaviours have been reduced both at home and in school
It is important to note that although particular attention has been drawn to the projects of certain schools above, only two schools [Reddish Vale and Heaton) had highly focused "single issue" projects. It is also interesting to note how successful both were, although very different in nature.
In the case of all the other projects there were several schools which adopted very similar approaches and the fact they have been cited as specific examples of some approaches does not mean that they were not involved in other strategies as the fuller case studies in Section II will show. Nor does the fact that they are mentioned under certain headings imply that these were the only successful aspects of their project. Rather they have been chosen to provide a flavour of the diversity of approaches and also ensure each school's project has mention.
Certain aspects emerged from all the projects.
l. All the schools also had a range of other approaches towards preventing and managing disaffection and disruption already in place. Strategies within the project must be seen within the context of the school as a whole.
2. Schools varied as to whether they extended or enhanced certain existing strategies or introduced new approaches.
3. Nearly all projects emphasised the importance of working with parents, keeping them better informed and used `improved home-school relationships' as an indicator of success although this had rarely been explicit in the success criteria stated in their proposal.
4. Involvement of all staff, a sense of ownership and motivation were factors reported in all projects deemed "successful".
5. Most schools had perhaps been too ambitious in setting success criteria for their - project in terms of reduction in exclusions, disruptive incidents and increase in attendance. Whilst these may well be the longer-term aims, most Project Directors felt that a year was too short to base evaluation on such criteria. In the same way, - because of the range of other strategies and approaches used in the schools, it would be difficult to attribute improvement to any one strategy.
6. A recurrent comment related to the value of having "freedom to teach" rather than spending time and energy on discipline and control. This freedom largely came when staff (particularly Senior Staff) routinely offered a structure of support whereby responsibility for behaviour management was shared. Such an approach also implies that individual teachers have no reason to feel that requiring such support reflects negatively on their teaching ability.
As a result the most appropriate form of evaluation for each school is to judge achievement of the short-term (one year) targets in relation to specific objectives. It would be invidious to take `scale' into account, or long-term effects. Maintaining a small group of pupils in school who are showing signs of non-attendance is a `significant' improvement. No one can predict what other factors may intervene at a later stage which might adversely affect their learning, behaviour or attendance. At the other extreme, improvements in systems are always more difficult to evaluate and the more complex the structures the more difficult to isolate contribution factors.
The report will, I hope, be read as a celebration of success and encourage further developments.
1. Schools should use their project objectives in order to continue monitoring the strategies they have introduced. Mid-term and longer-term data could yield rich information which may be particularly useful for early identification and preventative approaches.
2. Schools might consider using "focus groups" of students to evaluate policies and practices.
3. Information about different strategies should continue to be shared. The network of Project Directors would be a useful forum supported by use of the web-site.
4. The use of Individual Behaviour Plans varies considerably and the nature, style and use of such plans should be examined. At present common terminology (IBP) is used but conceals a range of different approaches.
5. Some schools may still need to reappraise their use of rewards, sanctions and privileges. In secondary schools, withdrawal of privileges is often an effective sanction (but cannot be used if there are no identified privileges!) In the same way there is a need to examine materials including IBPs to see if they are consistent with the `Positive Management' strategies claimed by most schools.
6. Given the unanimity of staff about the valuable use made of staff time - in particular when `cover' was protected, there should be further exploration of how decisions about `cover' are made.
7. Project schools, perhaps through the network, could become proactive in helping to share an effective Secondary Behaviour Support Service. The place of this service within a co-ordinated supportive system should be made explicit.
8. The relationships between all support service should be further clarified, particularly in view of the fact that the schools in this project are increasingly co-ordinating their provision for EBD and SEN, using the same or inter-related staged procedures.
9. Overall, the amounts of money involved were small, but proved sufficient for schools to produce some significant outcomes. In particular, the projects provided confirmation to many schools that they can "make a difference" in managing pupils' behaviour. There are implications worth further exploration related to small-scale projects, "bidding" procedures and the relationship between short-term projects to longer-term practices.
Evaluation conducted by Mrs Sylvia Phillips, Manchester Metropolitan University, Summer 1998