© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG.Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.

You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

Classroom behaviour – Ofsted report Date 15 October 2014

Kathy Baker LGIU/CSN Associate

Summary This briefing is on the Ofsted report Below the radar: low-level disruption in the country's classrooms (September 2014). An Ofsted press release, Failure of leadership in tackling poor behaviour costing pupils up to an hour of learning a day was published to accompany the report. Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (HMCI) raised concerns about low-level disruption in the Ofsted Annual Report 2012/13.

This briefing will be of primary interest to local authority officers and members as well as teachers, school leaders, governors and parents involved in schools in all phases across the system, and those working nationally in policy development and research in related areas.

Overview Her Majesty's Chief Inspector (HMCI) raised concerns about low-level disruption in schools in his Annual Report 2012-13:

'In the best schools, strong leaders and governors routinely challenge low expectations and mediocre teaching...These leaders reward good performance and tolerate neither inconsistent teaching nor poor behaviour...This contrasts with a minority of poor schools where leadership loses focus on the essential job of ensuring high standards of behaviour and improving teaching and learning'.

At the launch of the 2012-13 report, Ofsted announced targeted unannounced inspections where behaviour was a concern and 28 such inspections have taken place. As a result, guidance to inspectors was tightened to place greater emphasis on this area in routine inspections.

The findings from this report are therefore based on just under 3,000 inspections of maintained schools and academies conducted between January and July 2014, as well as on two specially commissioned YouGov surveys of parents and teachers, and on the 28 unannounced inspections targeted on schools with are concerns about poor behaviour. The report found that low-level disruption is impeding children's learning and damaging their life chances, with pupils potentially losing up to an hour of learning each day in English schools (the equivalent of 38 days of teaching lost per year) because of this kind of behaviour. The HMCI, Michael Wilshaw commented on the findings that:

'While the days of chaos in the classroom are thankfully largely behind us, low-level disruption is preventing too many teachers from doing their jobs and depriving too many young people of the education they deserve'.

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG.Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.

You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

Briefing in full

Findings from the independent surveys of parents and teachers Low-level forms of disruption identified by teachers and parents were:

• talking and chatting • disturbing other pupils • calling out • not getting on with work • fidgeting or fiddling with equipment • not having the correct equipment • purposely making noise to gain attention • answering back or questioning instructions • using mobile devices • swinging on chairs.

Teachers and parents agreed that the most common form of disruption of this kind is idle chatter unrelated to the set task.(69% teachers; 46% parents) with disturbing other pupils also a problem (38% teachers; 39 parents). Over two-thirds of parents relied on feedback from children or their children's friends to judge the level of disruption.

There were key differences between the views of primary and secondary teachers: common problems identified by primary teachers were calling out, disturbing other children and fidgeting with equipment (around 50% for the first two and about a third for the last) whereas secondary teachers' priority areas were not getting on with the work (over a third) and not having the correct equipment (a quarter). Technology (such as using mobile phones during a lesson) was a concern for just over one in six of secondary teachers but not a concern for primary teachers.

How often does low-level disruption take place? Some forms of disruption of this kind are seen as very common such as 'talking and chatting' Around two fifths of the 723 teachers responding to the survey believed it occurred in almost every lesson, whereas the sixth of the parents responding to a comparable question thought that it occurred several times a day. There was a similar finding with 'disturbing other pupils', which a quarter of the 397 teachers identifying this problem thought it was an issue in almost every lesson, while one in eight parents thought again it only occurred 'several times' a day. The behaviour behind this kind of minor disruption was attributed by some teachers to poor student attitudes and by others to enthusiasm from pupils who have limited social skills.

Does low-level disruption affect learning negatively? There was a range of views from teachers about how behaviour affected learning. Just over a quarter surveyed believed that the impact is high while nearly a third thought it had little or no impact. This variation is confirmed by inspection evidence showing variation in behaviour not only between schools, but also across different classrooms in one particular school. For pupils, working in an orderly atmosphere can be seen as 'something of a lottery' with those who experience the most disruption, in danger of 'significant damage ... done to their life chances'. This variation can

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG.Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.

You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

be seen in inspectors' findings in the classrooms of four schools where behaviour and safety were judged inadequate overall.

Teachers also had varying views concerning the amount of learning lost through disruption. Broadly one in 12 secondary teachers said that more than 10 minutes of learning was lost per hour. Across an average secondary school, the report states that this would be equivalent to between five and six teachers identifying a significant loss of learning in lessons. In primary schools, the equivalent finding is one in 20 and when generalised this would mean on average, nearly every primary school has one teacher 'struggling to maintain an orderly environment'. As younger children tend to have one teacher all day, it concluded that a considerable amount of time is lost for the pupils in that particular class.

Meanwhile, almost two-fifths of parents surveyed agreed that their child's learning was adversely affected by the behaviour of others, but again there was a range of views with almost three in 10 parents expressing disagreement with the idea that the behaviour of others affects their child's learning.

Can teachers cope with low-level disruption ? The teachers surveyed were generally confident about their ability to manage behaviour, with a few saying that they were 'not very confident', but with no teachers saying that they had none. There was little difference between primary and secondary teachers. The survey explored teachers' attitudes to low-level disruption and found that a third of teachers 'accepted it' as part of teaching, while half said that they did not. These figures according to Ofsted emphasise how widely teachers' expectations vary and could help to explain why inconsistency in managing behaviour issues is a concern for young people and their parents. Teachers' responses to this area of questions were analysed to see if training to deal effectively with behaviour made any difference to their attitudes. Of the 418 teachers who responded, nearly a third of secondary teachers and a fifth of primary teachers who had experienced such training said it was not useful, yet interestingly, Ofsted emphasises over half of those who claimed that also said that low-level chatter occurred in almost every lesson. A third of teachers surveyed said that they had been given no professional development on managing behaviour.

Do school behaviour policies make any difference? Around four-fifths of teachers surveyed by YouGov indicated that they used the school behaviour policy to tackle low-level disruption, although one in 20 said they did not. Almost nine in every 10 claimed to use their own strategies to tackle disruption and a large majority said that they could do this confidently. However, there was a lack of consensus in teachers' responses to questions on their school's behaviour policy:

• around a sixth said their school's behaviour policy was unhelpful; • only a quarter of secondary teachers agreed that the school behaviour policy was applied

consistently by all staff compared with half of primary teachers; • Only a third of all teachers said that the head teacher provided support in managing

behaviour.

It was evident that teachers felt frustrated by their colleagues' variable use of school policies and the failure of senior staff either to enforce the policies with staff or to apply them consistently to pupils.

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG.Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.

You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

The survey also investigated how well a school's policy extended beyond its doors. Nearly a third of the 748 parents who responded to this question disagreed with the idea that pupils should adher to school behaviour policies when travelling to and from school.

What can be done better? Teachers in the survey were asked what could be done to improve the culture of learning in their schools. There was again a variety of responses:

• Over three-quarters felt that high expectations needed to be communicated clearly and regularly to pupils and parents;

• Over half of teachers wanted more engagement between the school and parents about behaviour;

• Three out of 10 teachers believed the head teacher could do more to ensure that other staff applied policies consistently

• Around three in 10 secondary teachers said that their head teacher supported them in managing poor behaviour;

• However, many teachers indicated that senior leaders were not visible or assertive enough in enforcing discipline, school rules or establishing the right ethos.

A number of parents surveyed made positive comments about schools and thought that teachers were doing a good job. However just under two-thirds thought that the head teacher should ensure that all staff applied the behaviour policy including school uniform rules consistently, to help improve the learning culture. Other parents called for greater formality in schools.

Almost a quarter of parents of primary school pupils and a sixth of parents of secondary school students surveyed were unaware of whether their child's school had a behaviour policy or not. Of the 817 parents surveyed who were aware of their school's behaviour policy, around one in 12 thought that the policy was unhelpful and a quarter of secondary parents could not agree that it was applied consistently. However, both the parents and teachers surveyed agreed that parents should be more involved in behavioural issues, and it was concluded that their responses suggested that school/parent partnerships were not always effective and that communication could be poor. Teachers saw relationships with parents as the best way of building a positive learning culture with three-quarters of teachers ranking 'communicating high expectations about behaviour to both pupils and their parents' as the most important factor.

Evidence from school inspections since 1 January 2014

Where schools aren't getting it right In schools inspected since January 2014 where there were concerns about behaviour, the most common issue in a sample study of 95 inspection reports, was a lack of consistency in setting and maintaining high standards of behaviour, echoing the YouGov findings. Ofsted stresses that this highlights the importance of both senior and individual teachers enforcing the school's expectations and codes of conduct in a consistent way to pupils. The inspection report sample gave clear examples of schools where behaviour was previously judged to require improvement but senior leaders have failed to respond quickly enough to problems with classroom discipline and the culture in lessons has deteriorated. There were other more minor examples of standards

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG.Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.

You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

being allowed to slip in relation to the application of school rules in areas such as uniform, litter and lesson punctuality.

In the unannounced inspections carried out in 28 schools between January and July this year, with previous section 5 inspections where behaviour had been deemed less than good, improvements in behaviour were evaluated. In most of the schools, senior leaders had taken the earlier inspection findings seriously and had started to improve their approaches to ensure greater consistency and higher expectations. In two schools, behaviour and safety were judged good, but in one there were concerns that behaviour was declining and in another, inspectors judged the school to require special measures. Overall, inspectors still judged behaviour to require further improvement and found examples of behaviour varying across classes during unannounced inspections, again in line with the survey findings.

While some senior leaders in the schools were making efforts to improve behaviour, not all teachers were following the school's behaviour policy and in some cases students and teachers commented that the systems were too complicated or bureaucratic.

Where schools are getting it right Ofsted concludes that in the best schools effective senior leaders:

• set high expectations and enforced codes of conduct; • recognise that good discipline is needed to create a positive climate for learning and it is a

responsibility shared by leaders, teachers, parents and pupils; • are uncompromising in their expectations and never settle for lower standards of behaviour; • if low-level disruption exists, they challenge it promptly and do not hesitate in sanctioning

students or involving parents.

The best head teachers and senior leaders are highly visible in classrooms, corridors and in school grounds and are able to anticipate where low-level disruption could occur and ensure it is dealt with. They spell out high expectations of behaviour and make consistent responses to any pupils who engage in minor or other disruptive behaviour. It is emphasised that 'Improving schools do not ignore instances of minor or other disruptive behaviour. They apply the rules uniformly and with rigour'.

Comment There are clear messages throughout this Ofsted report concerning the factors behind school effectiveness or otherwise in managing pupil behaviour. The pockets of inconsistency in individual teachers' attitudes within the same school to classroom discipline, and in their approaches to implementing the school behaviour policy is a strong theme in Ofsted's findings. Teachers are obviously individual human beings as are the students they teach and it would be equally surprising if the teaching and learning dynamics were identical in every classroom in a school. However, it appears that the behaviour management policies in the schools where there are issues concerning classroom behaviour are not being effectively or universally implemented and/or that their implementation is not being monitored sufficiently. As the DfE advice for head teachers and all school staff published earlier in 2014 and updated in September emphasises, it is vital that the behaviour policy 'is clear, that it is well understood by staff, parents and pupils and that it is consistently applied'.

© Local Government Information Unit/Children’s Services Network www.lgiu.org.uk 251 Pentonville Road, London N1 9NG.Reg Charity 1113495. This briefing available free of charge to LGiU/CSN subscribing members. Members welcome to circulate internally in full or in part; please credit LGiU/CSN as appropriate.

You can find us on Twitter at @LGiU

Further development work in ensuring that behaviour management policies can be more effectively and realistically implemented in the classroom is needed in those schools and it is hoped that school partnership groupings can be helpful in further spreading good practice. It is vital that senior school staff are fully involved in supporting teachers who are struggling in this area, in monitoring the implementation of the policy in the classroom and around the school, and in evaluating its impact on the improvement of teaching and learning.

External Links Ofsted Below the radar: low-level disruption in the country's classrooms (25 September 2014)

Ofsted press release Failure of leadership in tackling poor behaviour costing pupils up to an hour of learning a day (25 September 2014)

Ofsted Annual Report 2012/13 (December 2013)

DfE Behaviour and Discipline in Schools: Advice for head teachers and staff of all schools (Originally published in 2013 and last updated on 12 September 2014)

Related Briefings Ofsted Annual Report 2012/13: schools and further education: key messages (December 2013)

School Exclusion Trial Evaluation: DfE research (September 2014)

For further information visit www.lgiu.org.uk or email john.fowler@lgiu.org.uk