In the office, we are often asked about evidence of impact. Does this stuff really work? Of course we have data and hundreds of schools that are using our practice with success, but what about when our data is held against data presented by the those who support a more punitive or behaviourist approach? There are many ways to ‘get children to behave’ and you can find positive behaviour in almost all schools.
As a society, we often get caught up in a cycle of questions and answers, looking at each piece of data in isolation. What can we do to maximise learning time? What can we do to minimise low level disruption? How can we reduce suspensions? How can we increase attendance? What can we do to engage families?
We, of course, have data to answer every question. Our Partner Schools are amazing sources of evidential impact, but each setting is different and we are not going to pretend that the data we collect is universal. In many of our schools, we see significant reductions in suspensions and exclusions and the number of behavioural incidents over time. We often see the biggest changes for the learners that have the most complex needs. We hear about improved staff wellbeing and improved family engagement, but it is worth remembering that not all evidence can be counted and some of these are the most impactful…’A different feel about the place’, staff feeling reconnected to their work, learners resolving conflict without adult involvement etc. The list goes on and on.
Before we get into the answers, it’s useful to think about what relational practice is and isn’t. It isn’t a toolkit of strategies that you can use when behaviours are tricky. It isn’t whack-a-mole with a softer stick. It’s not a reaction to learners that are unable to meet expectations or follow school rules. Relational practice is about creating conditions that prevent disengaged behaviours. It’s about preventing the escalation of distressed behaviours, and not through fear and shame, but with support and nurture and by modelling the behaviours we want to see.
When we are presented with data or evidence that claims to be universal, we need to think about the environment that it has come from. We can’t control the environment in schools. Each setting is different and it is critical that schools and colleges consider their own context when deciding ‘which approach is best’.
To begin answering questions about efficacy and comparing research and data effectively, it is useful to think about where schools and colleges are positioned on the graph below.
If we are looking at behaviour alone, consistency is usually the most important lever to pull. In schools or colleges that have high consistency it is often possible to get behaviour ‘under control’.
Schools that are most reactive might have robust detention systems and high suspensions. Somewhere in the middle of the scale, you will find schools or colleges that might have consequence systems that are rooted in restoration and repair but lack the preventative teaching and learning strategies, adult modelling and equitable offering of support that appear as you move further up the relational scale.
Relational schools and colleges are driven by adult behaviours that support learners to meet expectations which are rooted in equity, recognising that some learners may need additional support or adjustments. They do this with preventative teaching and learning strategies; through adaptations that make classrooms inclusive and by building a culture that is rich in dignity and driven by positive outcomes for each and every learner.
What data often doesn’t show is that reactive strategies cause harm. They can emotionally harm learners. They are challenging for adults and they contribute to a society that is characterised by anti-social behaviours, difficult relationships and poor emotional health.
Reactive systems are fuelling the soaring rise in suspensions and exclusions. They are preventing social mobility. They are widening the attainment gap and contributing to the crisis in Alternative Provisions. In the short term, children are losing learning and in the long term, our society will have to pick up the tab on that. Classrooms that use reactive strategies will find that disruption is contagious. They will alienate one learner in order to benefit another. They give teachers opportunities to punish learners rather than giving teachers support to teach the changing cohorts in our schools and they will please some families and alienate others.
Relational environments, by contrast, ensure that every child is supported to learn; is able to access an adaptable curriculum and is able to develop self-regulation skills and cognitive resilience that allows them to engage in learning. Relational cultures proactively teach behaviour during every interaction and create a culture that is supportive, nurturing and equitable. But it takes time to build a relational culture and effort to maintain it. Once established, relational practice asks less of adults. It provides an approach that is predictable, systematic and habitual. It is a way of being that ensures that every child has the opportunity for a positive outcome and develops personal qualities that will help them thrive as they move into adulthood.
If you look to the Glasgow Model to understand the impact of relational practice, you will see that it has a transformative impact on everything. It shifts the culture, transforms the environment, and improves outcomes for every child. The true transformative nature of the work done in Glasgow is shown not by the 93% reduction in suspensions - that could have been achieved by a change in policy or replaced with an alternative system of removal. Reducing suspensions could have had a catastrophic impact on positive outcomes for all. Yet, under the leadership of former Director of Education, Maureen McKenna, Glasgow schools were able to drop suspensions by 93% and more than treble the proportion of children and young people achieving five or more level SCQF 6 awards - and even that data doesn’t really do the change that has been created in Glasgow justice. If you are able to visit Glasgow schools, you will feel the transformation in every inch of every corridor. You will see it in the way families arrive at school, the way in which every adult speaks to every child. It is in the recruitment strategy and prioritises staff wellbeing. It is in the bricks and mortar of the schools and every inch that surrounds them. It isn’t a huge investment line in the budget. It isn’t a strap line or a poster. It isn’t something that works for some and not for others, and there is not a single nook or cranny that its power won’t reach.
At When The Adults Change, we help individual settings, trusts or authorities change the environment, we move the conditions of adult behaviour so that all learners can thrive. It isn’t a difference we can demonstrate by looking in a classroom at a moment in time, but you can look to our Partner School stories, our Gallery of Awesomeness and the grass roots of transformation that are being nurtured across the local authorities we are working with at scale.
So when we are asked, ‘which approach is best for classroom management’ or told that ‘there is evidence to show disruptive behaviour is contagious’ we start by reminding ourselves and others that data rarely provides universal insight. When we see that schools and colleges are reluctant to change because they have a detention system that works really well for them, we ask if there is another way. Could we create different conditions that create the same positive outcomes with less negative consequences? Could we change the way that we behave as adults so that we can change everything for the adults of tomorrow?
Comments