What we do we mean when we talk about improving student behaviour? All too often we get side-tracked addressing the presence of negative behaviours. To quote an expert “Good behaviour is not simply the absence of ‘bad behaviour’” (Creating a Culture by Tom Bennett). Therefore, we must consider that compliance, which is result of a lack of negative behaviours, is just the first step on the road to improving student behaviour: "Good behaviour isn't just compliance. That's just compliance" (@Strickomaster - Sam Strickland). I have no intention of underplaying compliance, it is incredibly important! Students meeting the basic contextual expectations; for example silence when a teacher is talking, wearing correct uniform, and following instructions; are essential for the smooth running of any school. Yet, despite this being the necessary foundation, we must reflect on the possibility that most students could comply with the vast majority of these expectations and still avoid fully engaging with their learning. It’s a conundrum!
Just over a year ago we reflected on our student behaviour and concluded, that following substantial strategic intervention we had achieved a high level of compliance, but something was missing; students had returned from lockdowns with a passive approach to learning. Despite this having the positive effect of calmness about the academy and orderly lessons, it certainly didn’t emanate the high levels of student engagement and investment that we felt were needed to create our desired ethos.
Many times, had I heard about the prospect of teaching “Behaviours for Learning” like a curriculum, with some of the most revered voices in education suggesting that behaviours need to be taught in the same way that we would teach any concept. As a school we had certainly taught our routines and reinforced our expectations, but had we truly taught students how to behave in a way that would ensure their academic and wider success?
Our starting point was to research Behaviours for Learning, and (if I’m honest) at this point I suspect I was hoping that somewhere out there I was going to find a “Behaviour for Learning” curriculum, that I could repurpose. However, if such a thing existed, we couldn’t locate it, and in hindsight we needed to develop a Behaviour for Learning approach that met the specific needs of our students and evolved with them as the momentum grew.
Our initial starting point was to define what we meant by Behaviour for Learning and after some research, considering the implications of Simon Ellis and Janet Tod’s “Learning, Conduct and Emotional Behaviour” categories, we settled on six learning traits: Actively Focus, Actively Listen, Be Independent, Collaborate, Be Proactive and Be Resilient, each having its own student friendly definition.
The launch of our BfL traits utilised both the pastoral and academic structures within our academy. One of the most transformative aspects of our drive to improve behaviours for learning was the fact it pulled the pastoral and curriculum strands of school life closer together. This was driven by the fact that the initiative was led by both the ‘Teaching and Learning’ Assistant Principal (me) and ‘Behaviour and Attitudes’ Assistant Principal. Up to this point, we had not had the opportunity to embark on a project which sat so squarely across our areas of responsibility.
For our initial launch, assemblies were used to introduce the six traits to students. We gave clear definitions and explanations for each trait and examples of how they led to success both academically and in the wider world. Following on from this, students of all years engaged with a form time program which allowed them to understand more fully the impact of the traits on their learning. For instance, during the form time sessions on ‘Actively Focus’ they had a series of memory tasks to complete under silent conditions fully concentrating. Students then completed the same style task in noisy conditions, where they were allowed to chat. Finally, they reflected on the impact of actively focusing on their success rate, which helped lead students to form their own conclusions based on personal experience.
The form time program rolled out over a half term with a new BfL being launched each week and this corresponded with the BfL trait being incorporated into lessons to ensure that students were getting a range of experiences to help build a broad understanding of each behaviour trait.
During this initial roll out, all lessons were expected to include the focus BfL trait as an objective, unless it was totally inappropriate at which point teachers could draw on traits from previous weeks. Teachers had training on how to explain the BfLs in the context of their subjects and link them with tasks. This ensured that the lesson introductions included an explanation of how students would apply these traits in a range of subjects.
The initial launch was successful and student panels and drop ins showed us that the approach was becoming embedded, and students were developing a language around behaviours for learning which enabled them to communicate about their learning in a new way.
As we know schools are busy places with many competing priorities, so for strategies to embed, momentum must be maintained. Therefore, continuous reflection on impact, and adaption of our strategy was necessary to respond to emerging needs. One trend which quickly emerged from our reflection was that in a keenness to show engagement with the approach, teachers had begun asking students to write down their BfL with the title, so that when asked what the BfL was for the lesson they could refer to it. This was entirely in good faith and was intended by teachers to ensure they were engaging with the initiative, however the “box ticking” alarm started sounding very loudly and we realised we needed to adapt.
At this point in our journey students could articulate the meanings of the BfLs and could state which one they were focusing on, but we risked the approach fading out of we didn’t develop it further so students could see how they were using these traits in their learning. Literature around direct instruction, for example the work of Greg Ashman, concludes that generic skills like resilience cannot be taught in isolation, and it is essential to have a robust, knowledge rich curriculum within which students develop skills like resilience, collaboration and independence. So, we concluded that the role of the classroom teacher was pivotal in the continued success of our BfL strategy.
This led to the development of a more multifaceted approach, which further strengthened links between pastoral and curriculum strands of the academy. Teachers were involved in training, which again drew from the work of Simon Ellis and Janet Tod, to ensure that they were confident in using the language of ‘Behaviours for Learning’ to introduce specific tasks and explain how students were using the traits. For example, students would have maths retrieval tasks framed in the context of resilience, science group work was introduced carefully to illustrate how collaboration was needed for the activity to be successful and use of resources like dictionaries and knowledge organisers in MFL was framed in the context of being proactive.
Alongside this, teachers were introduced to the concept of ‘Descriptive Praise’ a phrase coined by Noel Janis-Norton. Using descriptive praise and a linked reward system, teachers were encouraged to use BfL language to effectively narrate positive behaviours, to reinforce them for the students exhibiting the behaviour and correspondingly promote them with students who weren’t. This also had the additional positive effect that teachers who had established more consistent positive behaviours were using language that colleagues elsewhere could utilise to support behaviour improvement in their lessons. External rewards like BfL tickets, reward points and recognition in assemblies for leading form groups also helped on a practical level to maintain the momentum amongst teachers and students alike.
Like all aspects of school improvement, it is never finished, and we can never lean back and say, “we embedded Behaviours for Learning”. So as I write this we find ourselves at yet another starting point, but an exciting one. We have raised the profile of positive behaviours, ensured students expect more of themselves and teachers have a consistent language to describe the behaviours they want to encourage. Next we must consider how we develop our approach to meet the very different needs of our youngest to our most mature students. The current core of six traits may need to be evolved to look at how study skills, independence and (importantly still to be addressed) metacognition develop over time and how we can raise our expectations of students’ positive behaviours as they develop and become capable of more!
Everyone's start point for improving behaviour is always now, take comfort in this. No-one has it completed and everyone must prioritise their focus to continually meet the changing needs of the students in their care. To quote Sam Strickland "Behaviour must be taught, to both staff and students", and it is for us as leaders to reflect carefully and decide what needs to be taught next.
Cat Rushton
@CatherineRusht2
References:
Behaviour for Learning – Simon Ellis and Janet Tod
Creating a Culture – Tom Bennett
Greg Ashman – The Power of Explicit Teaching and Direct Instruction
Calmer Easier Happier Parenting – Noel Janis-Norton
Education Exposed 2/@strickomaster - Sam Strickland