Standards of Behaviour and School Ethos - Essay Example

? Behaviour and the al Setting: The Role of the Current Policy on Behaviour in Schools Contents 2 Introduction 3 1 Overview of Policy 3 1.1.1 Aims 4 1.1.2 Standards of Behaviour and School Ethos 4 1.2 Summary 5 2. Behavioural Policies 6 2.1 Department of Education 6 2.1.1 Framework 6 2.1.2 Department of Education Expectations 7 2.2 Discipline 8 2.3 Analysis 9 3. Positive Reinforcement and Support in Behavioural Development 9 3.1 Providing for All Children 9 3.1.1 Force and Behavioural Control 11 3.1.2 Practical Experience versus Theory Application 11 4. Analysis 13 4.1 Learning and Behaviour 13 5. Conclusion 14 Bibliography 14 Abstract The following paper has been written as an evaluation and analysis of a behavioural policy that has been written for a school dedicated to children in their infancy stages of development. Through an examination of the guidelines provided by the Department of Education and education experts who weigh in on behaviour, the policy has been assessed for how it fits within a variety of perspectives on behaviour. Examining theory and practical applications of behaviour policies, the quality of behavioural response is evaluated and the nature of educational experiences of children is evaluated through the lens provided by the educational policy under evaluation. Behaviour and the Institutional Setting: The Role of the Current Policy on Behaviour in Schools 1. Introduction Behaviour can be defined through different terms, the first indicating the actions that someone makes and the second indicating the type of actions that a person may make. One is based upon observed conditions while the other is defined by expected conditions. School policies on behaviour are concerned with expectations of how a student will conduct themselves in the school atmosphere. Policy indicates what is expected and what to expect if those expectations are not fulfilled. The following paper will examine a school policy and analyze it for its meaning and its effectiveness in influencing the conduct of students within the institution. The policy has been created for a school which caters to infants and toddlers so does not have some of the more stringent concepts that later school periods would require. 1.1 Overview of Policy The policy begins by stating the its aims and in defining the behavioural environment that is intended within the school, followed by a discussion of the importance of behaviour on learning and how classrooms would be managed in order to create the desired behavioural outcomes. There is a discussion of how rules should be applied and how reward systems should be implemented, as well as a discussion sanctions taken when behaviour has not lived up to the set standard. Finally, the parental responsibility and the need for close communication with parents is positioned on the policy so that a representation of how parents fit into the discussion of behaviour should be included for the benefit of both the children and the staff. Through outlining the various means by which behaviour is addressed, a policy has been formed that is intended to affect the conduct and nature of the environment within the school. 1.1.1 Aims The aims are outlined in six points. The first is a blanket statement that states that the intention of the policy is to encourage good behaviour and to use reinforcement to do so. The second aim states that there is an intention to define acceptable standards of behaviour. The forth aim becomes more problematic is it suggests that there is intended for consistency within the responses to positive and negative behavioural situations, but this aim is not defined anywhere in the policy. This puts the policy into question in relationship to effectiveness unless there are parameters and rigidity to how sanctions are levied when behaviour does not meet the intended standards. The fourth aim describes the intention to promote “self esteem, self discipline, and positive relationships” (Behaviour Policy n.d.). One of the problems with this statement is that how this will be achieved is never outlined. One of the aims of the policy is to promote an environment where expectations are understood and where communication about the strategies of the school is well distributed. Another of the less clearly outlined aims is that of the implementation of behavioural expectations at home as well as at the school. 1.1.2 Standards of Behaviour and School Ethos One of the issues that emerges in the Standards of Behaviour section is that behaviour was to be “worked towards rather than expectations which are either fulfilled or not”. This is a rather ambiguous statement which suggests that the expectations for behaviour are not an absolute standard. The section continues to explore the intention of the school to focus on the social and moral development of the child in conjunction with the educational imperatives under which the school operates. One statement that needs clarification is that the school will “measure standards of behaviour in terms of the children’s developing ability to conform to our behavioural goals” (Behavioural Policy n.d.). This statement is ambivalent in that it contains no indication of how this is measured. Blanket statements such as this do not provide any substantive information. The final statement in this section provides the first evidence of how the behaviours of the students are considered. The following list provides a framework of standards through which the students are judged: “honesty, respect, consideration, and responsibility”. However, these concepts are still vague and without structures that explicitly describe how student behaviour will be judged. Under the section of the School Ethos the first responsibility is placed upon the adults in the facility in relationship with behavioural expectations. By providing an example, adults create the atmosphere and culture that is expected to be adopted by students. The expectations are that it will be positive, that individuals will be shown that they are valued, that respect will be given, that fairness will be applied, and that appreciation for efforts will be acknowledge. The atmosphere is to be based upon the support of the child’s development through nurture and positive reinforcement over negative reactions. 1.2 Summary The school policy that is being examined is intended to frame the developmental needs of the child. The policy emphasizes the child over the teacher, focusing on teaching through all experiences, even those that require discipline. Because this policy is for children who are still in their pre-school phase of education, the need for stringent policies does not seem to be necessary. 2. Behavioural Policies 2.1 Department of Education The Department of Education (2012) has framed guidelines for the development of behavioural policies that Head Teachers are required to put into place for each school. One of the notable differences between the guidelines that are presented by the Department of Education and the policy that is being analyzed is that the Department comes from the perspective of defence against the behaviours of children, where the policy being analyzed comes from a perspective of teaching in relationship to the effect of behaviour on the development of the child. The following is an overview of the guidelines that have been asserted by the Department of Education and an analysis of their meaning. 2.1.1 Framework The UK Department of Education (2012) outlines the following expectations for schools under their administration. The website states that the government expects: all pupils to show respect and courtesy towards teachers and other staff and towards each other parents to encourage their children to show that respect and support the school’s authority to discipline its pupils head teachers to help to create that culture of respect by supporting their staff's authority to discipline pupils and ensuring that this happens consistently across the school governing bodies and head teachers to deal with allegations against teachers and other school staff quickly, fairly and consistently in a way that protects the pupil and at the same time supports the person who is the subject of the allegation that every teacher will be good at managing and improving children’s behaviour (Department of Education 2012). In comparing the Behavioural Policy that is being analyzed to the structure that has been put into place by the Department of Education (2012), similar ideas are represented in both outlines. 2.1.2 Department of Education Expectations Beyond this outline of expectations, the Department of Education (2012) has a series of expectations that the department has placed on schools. The first is that each school should have a behavioural policy that is written and put into effect. Policies must address bullying with measures for consequences to bullying. The Head Teacher is responsible for making sure that the policy is written and that it is put into action at the school. The Department of Education (2012) empowers teachers and staff to have the power to discipline students whose behaviour is outside of the policies that have been put into place. Reasonable punishments such as confiscating property or retention can be imposed by teachers. Head Teachers should be responsible for excluding students from activities or suspending them from school. The Department of Education (2012) has given teachers the right to search students or their property when there is a suspicion that they have a prohibited item such as a knife or alcohol. This permission is given through the law that corresponds, Section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006. This also includes the capacity to use reasonable force against an uncooperative student when a prohibited item is suspected to be in their possession. The role of the parent in the behaviour of the student is emphasized as a cooperative relationship with the school towards the best possible outcomes for the student. 2.2 Discipline Education Secretary Michael Gove outlined a series of new guidelines for discipline that are more defined than previously outlined in the guidelines. One of the clarifications that have been made is that there is not a ‘no touch’ policy. There are reasons for teachers to touch students during the course of teaching, especially when there is some area of physical instruction such as learning to play a musical instrument. To extend this concept however, the government has determined that teachers may need to use reasonable force in the course of maintaining order. An example of the use of reasonable force is removing a student who is being disruptive and resisting removal. Teachers are to be given the benefit of the doubt unless there is evidence to the contrary. Malicious accusations against teachers are not tolerated and have no affect on the teaching record of the accused unless proven beyond doubt (Department of Education Guidelines 2012). Lewis (2008) acknowledges that there are a great number of complexities that are defined under the law where force is concerned, thus teachers can be vulnerable when they act with force. Michael Gore, however, has made it clear that students are now just as vulnerable when making accusations (Department of Education 2012). Penalties for accusations that are considered false can be severe, excluding children from participating in institutionalized learning. Despite clarification on the use of force, guidelines are intended to support the best possible outcomes for students and to create cultures of respect and non-violence. While the guidelines discuss the place of force in schools, the development of the child is not outside of the course of discipline. In all ways the hope is to create good members of society by developing their behavioural patterns towards conforming to the expectations that exist in the schools they are attending. 2.3 Analysis As the Behavioural Policy (n.d.) that is being analyzed here is examined, it is clear that the use of force is not a part of the document. The policy does use the structures of positivity that are expressed by the Department of Education (2012), but it does not discuss any forms of force that may be used by the staff. The information avoids these rights that have been given to teachers meaning that law allows them the use of force, but the school has failed to define how that force may be used within this particular institution. 3. Positive Reinforcement and Support in Behavioural Development 3.1 Providing for All Children One of the primary areas of focus on the Behaviour Policy is that of creating a nurturing environment for development that is based upon both academics and social skills. The policy defines its purpose not as a set of rules but as a set of guidelines for establishing rules. Through creating an environment of nurture, the school appears to be intending to secure the future behaviours of the students through treating them in ways that reflect the way in which they should treat others. The Behavioural Policy appears to be reflecting the concepts that have been introduced by Jean Piaget. Piaget’s theories were based upon the idea “that children build up their own structures within the brain through their personal responses to a variety of physical experiences within their environment” (Walton and Goddard 2012: 81). The policy also seems to reflect the views of Lev Vygotsky who insisted that learning was a result of interactions that were primarily social (Walton and Goddard 2012: 81). Evaluation of the policy through these theories shows that the basis upon which behavioural expectations are defined is through the learning of the children with the intention of promoting the development of their sense of self. The emotional concepts within the Department of Education guidelines in comparison to the policy being analyzed are very different. The Department of Education guidelines create lines of demarcation between children who are behaving and those that need to be disciplined. The policy being analyzed places all children within the learning framework and does not create a sense of two different sets of children. To be clearer, the concept of misbehaving children is sometimes framed through the idea of the child and the incident or through the concept of the child as a problem. The Department of Education seems to have the second concept at the core of its guideline where the policy being analyzed is concerned with the incident. 3.1.1 Force and Behavioural Control This may be a reflection of an observation by Maguire, Ball, and Braun (2012: 155) which suggests that there has been a shift from theoretical frameworks through which to operate to that of practical experience. Theory often tends to be idealistic where practical experience shows the concepts that have been learned as trends by professionals. One of the problems with abandoning theory in favour of practical experience is that idealism can be lost with the hope for the future becoming diverted by professionals that are jaded by the overwhelming task of bringing up children who will affect the future. A sign of this is the prevalent theme from the Department of Children that force should be sanctioned as a form of dealing with behaviour problems of children. Force is a condition that occurs when reason is no longer working and is often the result of frustration rather than the use of intellect as a response to poor behaviour from children. The Department discusses at length, however, the ability of teaching staff to use force in order to find contraband, to remove children from classrooms, and in general as a resource for behaviour enforcement. 3.1.2 Practical Experience versus Theory Application Maguire, Ball, and Braun (2010: 166) write that “Classrooms are organic social setting...the nature of the subject, the age of the students, the teacher’s level of experience all play a part in what becomes enacted as ‘behaviour for learning”. The natural response to bad behaviour is disapproval and to apply consequences to bad behaviour. Where theory provides for responses that are based on using the bad behaviour as a tool for teaching, the more natural response is to react and take bad experience personally. A teacher who can turn bad behaviour into a learning experience rather than a reactionary experience can more likely change those behaviours rather than building resentment. Michael Gore has provided for a concerted effort for a shift to be experienced by teaching students towards leaving the university setting earlier in order to intern with teachers in the a real world classroom setting. This provides for real world experience to colour the education of the teacher so that when they graduate and begin their career they are able to apply that practical experience long before their own experiences would have indoctrinated them into the teaching field (Dillon and Maguire 2011: 194). Something that can be considered is that in gaining real world experience new teachers are gaining what they need so that they can be more effective sooner than if they come into the teaching setting raw and without having experienced teaching from a practical setting. On the other hand, the cycle of education that includes some students while excluding other students and labelling them behavioural problems requires a new approach which should not be perpetuated by old policies over educational theories. One concept that is reflected in the Behavioural Policy is that reactionary discipline is not productive, where discipline that is focused on learning is highly productive. The intention of the policy is to allow every child the opportunity to learn behaviours that will guide them into their next phase of learning. Wyse et al (2012: 15) discusses the need for the development of patterns of behaviour at an early age towards meaningful learning experiences. In creating learning behaviours at an early age that are developed on theories such as Piaget’s and Vygotsky, the concepts that can frame a lifelong learning experience of each child can product well rounded students. 4. Analysis 4.1 Learning and Behaviour Ball, Hoskins, Maquire and Braun (2011: 1) discuss the nature of behaviour policy and how it is centred on location and unique to each school system as it is a collective process of experience and culture. Policy is defined by the needs that are formed through the interaction of local social structures, school responses to those structures and the implications that it has on the learning experiences of the children affected by it (Rogers 2007: 10). Blanket policies are not effective because each school has unique influences from the community in which they operate that must be taken into consideration. Ward and Eden (2009: 1) write that “Education is politics. It is the means by which a nation defines itself and sustains its cultural existence, transmitting beliefs, ideas and knowledge from generation to generation”. The purpose of education is to create members of society who will perpetuate the successes of the culture while hopefully addressing its inadequacies and producing meaningful change. One must consider the effects of sanctions placed on children when they are discovered to have misbehaved in relationship to the long term effect it will have on their education. Through the development of the policies that are suggested in the policy that has been examined, children will be promoted towards learning rather than finding resentments to authority. 5. Conclusion The policy that has been examined in this paper is defined by the age of the children that it is intended to affect. The approach, while not well defined, has the potential to use behavioural issue as points of learning rather than as a way to define a child. Although it provides for cautions in the use of sanctions, the sanctions are not clearly defined. In examining the policy in relationship to how it fits into the criteria determined by the Department of Education, it is clear that it is not parallel in how it determines the functions of discipline. In relationship to theory, however, it has the potential to form students that have the fortitude to engage learning through a history of reasoned and thoughtful discipline intended to aid development. While needing more defining language to structure policies about behaviour, the policy has the philosophical advantages of future thinking premises that can positively affect children in the infancy stage of the academic development. Bibliography Ball, S.J., Hoskins, K., Maguire, M. and Braun, A. 2011. Disciplinary texts: a policy analysis of national and local behaviour policies. Critical Studies in Education, Vol. 52, No. 1, 1–14 Behavioural Policy. N. d. Department of Education 2012. Ensuring good behaviour in school. [Online] Retrieved from https://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/advice/f0076882/ensuring-good- behaviour-in-schools (Accessed on 4 November 2012). Department of Education 2012. Guide for heads and school staff on behaviour and discipline. [Online] Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/ad vice/f0 076803/behaviour-and-discipline-in-schools-a-guide-for-headteachers- and-school-staff (Accessed on 5 November 2012). Dillon, Justin and Maguire, Meg. 2011. Becoming a teacher: issues in secondary teaching 4th ed. Berkshire: McGraw-Hill Publishing. Lewis, Malcolm. 2008. The Bristol Guide: Professional Responsibilities and Statutory Frameworks for Teachers and Others in Schools. Bristol: The University of Bristol. Maguire, M., Ball, S. and Braun, A. 2010 Behaviour, classroom management and student 'control': enacting policy in the English secondary school, International Studies in Sociology of Education, Vol. 20, No. 2, 153–70. Rogers, Bill. 2007. Behaviour management: a whole-school approach. London: Paul Chapman. Walton, Anita, and Gillian Goddard. 2012. Supporting every child. Exeter: Learning Matters. Ward, Stephen, and Christine Eden. 2009. Key issues in education policy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications. Wyse, Dominic et al 2012. Creating the Curriculum. Abingdon: Routledge. Read More