This is the ability to understand the experiences, desires and intentions of yourself and others. With theory of mind individuals can predict and interpret the behaviour of others and act in a way that can make use of this knowledge.
The development of theory of mind is a gradual process from birth and it is complex. Prior to its emergence, in very early life there is little separation of the self. It has long been held that the child believes that everyone knows everything they are experiencing. However, there is no direct evidence of this, they don’t ‘know’ their mother shares their thoughts it’s just that they believe she does.
However, the child does experience things on a personal level, the beginning of a sense of self. Between five to seven months they experience fear and anxiety and this relates to ‘them’ being under threat. This development of separation continues and between 15 and 24 months at which stage they can pass the ‘spot test’ a process that confirms the child knows it is them in the mirror. This is achieved by putting a mark usually a dot of colour on their forehead, when they know it reflects themselves they will touch or try to remove the spot, they know it should not be theirs. Prior to that age they don’t firmly see their reflection as being of themselves and don’t comprehend that the mark should not be there. This test is extensively used to measure the same occurrence of theory of mind in animals.
The classic test is the false belief task. This involves telling a child a story about two children, say Sally and Anne who put a toy in a basket. When Sally leaves the room, Ann hides the toy in a box. The child passes the test by reasoning that Sally will look for the toy in the basket when she returns. However, a more telling confirmation of a child having a real sense of ToM is when they know they can tell a deliberate lie and/or keep a secret. This is evidence that they can keep their thoughts and desires private and others have no access to these.
It is postulated that the acquisition of theory of mind is developed in stages and I suspect this is the same as other developmental stages such as the arrangement of hearing and sight all part of building a repertoire of activities that define the individual. The particular stages dealing with theory of mind are:
The understanding that someone might want something, they perceive other’s desires. This is why a two-year old is unable to share or take turns unless directed.
Understanding people have different and diverse beliefs about the same situation. Even adults, when asked to describe a scene, say an accident will have a different perspective. It is a mature response to accept these differences but unless this ability is established people will refuse to see a different point of view.
Accepting people have a different knowledge base, they may not comprehend or understand that something is ‘true’ even though you ‘know’ it is real. The same conflicts outlined in stage 2 will also apply.
Appreciate that people can have false beliefs about the world. This. Of course, should include themselves. How many wars are fought over the failure of populations to achieve to acquire this state of understanding.
People can hide emotions or may act one way while feeling another. This is a sophisticated skill for a child. They learn to do this as a protection for themselves and accept others may well be doing the same thing.
It is a waste of time expecting infants to share, consider others or take turns until they develop theory of mind and this happens through experience, modelling and shaping behaviour.
Another concept that is an extension of theory of mind is mentalization. This is more about the application of theory of mind and how behaviour is used to realize our needs, how the implicit self and the explicit other are entangled and that this relationship will guide actions. Mentalization can be automatic, that is, actions are processed without delay, they are reflexive with little conscious effort. Contrarily, decision making can be controlled, requiring effort with full awareness of the situations.
The optimal use of decision making occurs when there is an ability to mentalize one’s own state of mind as well as that of the ‘other’. Imbalance results in a skewed assessment of the situation, that is if the individual has too much focus on self and is less consideration of the other, their actions are unbalanced and less effective. The converse is equally true, too much consideration of the other will also result in less than optimal behaviour.
The emergence of theory of mind is linked to the health of the environment in which the child is raised, specifically their attachment to their caregivers. The balance between the needs and perceptions the ‘self’ and that of the ‘other’ depends on the security of that attachment. If the child develops a healthy understanding of the gap between their internal world and the outer world they can make effective life decisions. However, if there is an insecurity in the attachment then there will be an imbalance with the child either giving too much consideration to their perception or conversely to the external situation. Children whose early experience with caregivers includes abuse and/or extreme neglect will develop a severe imbalance that results in extremely dysfunctional behaviour.
Until they achieve theory of mind infants should be directed in their behaviour. It’s appropriate to tell them to pack-up their toys, etc. and then thank them for doing so. This is a joint experience between the carer and the child, an example of the child learning through modelling and experience. Until they are unable to consider the other person’s emotional state, it is unreasonable to expect their respect. The presence of mirror neurons, a distinct type of neurons that allow an individual to copy whet they see. If you poke your tongue out at a new born child there is every chance they will return that gesture.
Not only do these neurons allow the child to copy they also interpret the intentions of what they witness. The classic study is exposure to a dinner setting. If the table is set in anticipation of the meal being served a particular set of neurons are excited. However, if the conditions on the table indicate the meal has been finished and it is time to clean-up another set of neurons fire. This underlies the importance of modelling desired behaviours. If you want the child to clean-up then teach them to do it through modelling and the shared experience.
It must be emphasised that theory of mind in the first instance and then mentalization evolve in an environment and the specifications each individual takes as the foundation of their ToM and mentalised state will reflect that environment. When a child moves from one environment to a contrasting one the familiar problems arise. Theory of mind is really the emergence of self!
Every teacher will one day be confronted with a student, or students whose behaviour is so uncontrolled it will pose a threat to themselves, others around them or the school equipment. In some cases, physical intervention becomes the only response open to the teacher. This professional obligation to keep everyone safe has always raised deep concerns for teachers. These concerns are based on the fear of being accused of assaulting the child both physically and sexually. The latter category, sexual assault is particularly problematic and is often cited as the reason for such a shortage of male teachers in the infant and primary aged schools.
Of course, this abuse does exist and is not to be tolerated on any level but the fear of a false or malicious allegation is difficult to defend and many teachers, especially males refuse to touch students for any reason. This fear should not be taken lightly but there are times when it is appropriate to touch a student. Remember it is not illegal to touch a pupil and there are occasions when physical contact, including reasonable force, with a pupil is proper and necessary. Examples of where touching a pupil might be proper or necessary:
Holding the hand of the child at the front/back of the line when going to assembly or when walking together around the school;
When comforting a distressed pupil;
When a pupil is being congratulated or praised;
To demonstrate how to use a musical instrument;
To demonstrate exercises or techniques during PE lessons or sports coaching; and
To give first aid.
Physical Restraint Physical restraint means the use of physical force to prevent, restrict or subdue movement of a student’s body or part of their body. Students are not free to move away when they are being physically restrained. Physical restraint should only be used when it is immediately required to protect the safety of the student or any other person. In some limited circumstances, it may also be necessary to restrain a student from imminent dangerous behaviours by secluding them in an area where such action is immediately required to protect the safety of the student or any other person.
The use of restraint should only ever used as a ‘last resort’ intervention when all other techniques have failed or the situation is immediate and dangerous and is necessary to keep everyone safe.
Situations that may require physical intervention include:
students threatening other students or staff
students putting their own safety at risk
fights between students
students attempting to leave the school premises without authorisation and in circumstances that put their safety at risk
students attempting to leave the premises in a heightened state of anxiety, where they may be unable to recognise risks to their safety.
There needs to be a ‘age appropriate’ consideration to be applied. Fights between late secondary age students may pose a very real danger for the teacher. Every attempt should be made to defuse the altercation without direct physical intervention but the only course of action is to make sure other students are safe.
Restraint should not be used as a routine behaviour management technique, to punish or discipline a student or to respond to:
a student’s refusal to comply with a direction, unless that refusal to comply creates an imminent risk to the safety of the student or another person
a student leaving the classroom/school without permission, unless that conduct causes an imminent risk to the safety of the student or another person
verbal threats of harm from a student, except where there is a reasonable belief that the threat will be immediately enacted
property destruction caused by the student unless that destruction is placing any person at immediate risk of harm
Types of physical restraint which must not be used include:
any restraint which covers the student's mouth or nose, and in any way restricts breathing
the application of pressure to a student's neck, chest, abdomen, joints or pressure points to cause pain or which involves the hyperextension of joints
holding a student's head forward, headlocks, choke holds
take-downs which allow students to free-fall to the ground whether or not in a prone or supine position or otherwise
wrestling holds (including 'full or half nelsons'), using a hog-tied position or straddling any part of a student's body
basket holds, bear hugs, 'therapeutic holding'
When applying physical restraint in the limited circumstances set out above, staff must:
use the minimum force required to avoid the dangerous behaviour or risk of harm
only restrain the student for the minimum duration required and stop restraining the student once the danger has passed
The decision about whether to use physical restraint or seclusion rests with the professional judgment of the staff member/s involved, who will need to take-into-account both their duty of care to their students, their right to protect themselves from harm and obligations under the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006.
Staff should ensure the type of restraint used is consistent with a student’s individual needs and circumstances, including:
the age/size of the student
gender of the student
any impairment of the student e.g. physical, intellectual, neurological, behavioural, sensory (visual or hearing), or communication
any mental or psychological conditions of the student, including any experience of trauma
any other medical conditions of the student
the likely response of the student
the environment in which the restraint is taking place
At all times the staff should monitor the student for any indicators or distress. Staff should talk to the student throughout the incident, making it clear to the student why the physical restraint is being applied. Staff should also calmly explain that the physical restraint will stop once it is no longer necessary to protect the student and/or others.
The staff member(s) involved in the incident must immediately notify the principal of the incident.
A written record of the incident should be kept and should include:
the name of the student/s and staff member/s involved
date, time and location of the incident
names of witnesses (staff and other students)
what exactly happened, for example, a brief factual account
any action taken to de-escalate the situation
why physical intervention was used (if applicable)
the nature of any physical intervention used
how long the physical intervention lasted
names of witnesses (staff and other students)
the student’s response and the outcome of the incident
any injuries or damage to property
immediate post incident actions, such as first aid or contact with emergency services
details of contact with the student’s parent/carer
details of any post-incident support provided or organised.
Staff Training
Schools need to take their own decisions about staff training. The headteacher should consider whether members of staff require any additional training to enable them to carry out their responsibilities and should consider the needs of the pupils when doing so.
Some local authorities provide advice and guidance to help schools to develop an appropriate training program.
Much of the content of this Newsletter has been taken from school systems across the western world in order to provide a common-sense approach to physical touching particularly restraint. However, it is important that that all schools know the formal policies of the Departments who employ them. These guidelines define the limits of the intervention and the responsibilities all members of the organisation.
In the previous Newsletter (3rd November 2020) we discussed the need to teach in a calm environment. There are four fundamental components in our model of a Learning Environment and these are pedagogy, structure, expectations and of course, relationships. These have been discussed extensively in previous Newsletters and underpin all our work.
The critical component for the child is the expectations presumed for the lesson and the assumed behaviour the teacher expects. The expectation covers all aspects required including explicit demands of the child, the contents of the lesson, the equipment, time considerations and the like. These are the ‘learning instructions’ if you like. They also cover those implicit expectations, the social interactions in the classroom. As pointed out last week, this is where teachers can spend their time managing rather than teaching.
There are two ways to address any situation that is not meeting the expectations of the lesson and these are acknowledging when the child is meeting the objectives set or correcting their behaviour when they are not.
Imbalances
It is probably impossible to maintain a balance between expectations, acknowledging and correcting strategies all of the time; it is a moving point. However, when there is a prolonged imbalance between expectations, acknowledgement and correction and one begins to dominate your management style you lose your effectiveness. The following are three typical imbalances which increase the likelihood of teachers spending too much time managing and too little time teaching.
Unclear Expectations
This is when the teacher gives inadequate information about his or her expectations (as indicated by the broken line around the triangle). This is problematic because students will be unsure about the limits and boundaries of the classroom and what tasks they need to be doing.
Too Much Acknowledgement
This is problematic because students are not being corrected appropriately. This is often the result of teachers trying to manage through friendliness. They believe “If I am nice to the students they will like me and behave themselves”. This imbalance may also arise when the teacher lacks assertiveness.
Too Much Correction
Students become resentful and continue to act inappropriately due to a lack of acknowledgement and encouragement. In this imbalance a teacher may not intend to be negative, but has developed the habit of only attending to inappropriate behaviour. In most cases where a whole class behaves inappropriately, this is the evident imbalance.
This imbalance creates problems because the teacher provides corrective feedback when students are disrupting, but fails to acknowledge students when they are on-task. Overcorrection is typical in such cases.
This can trigger a “disruption, correction and resentment” cycle that has the potential to seriously damage working relationships between teacher and students.
This is arguably the most common and, therefore, the most problematic of the behaviour management imbalances.
In this model the amount of acknowledgement is critical. Using praise is hazardous unless it is used appropriately, that is strategically (see Newsletter ‘The Danger of Praise’ 12th August 2018).
On the other hand, the language of correction is not easy, students who have a history of abuse are hypersensitive to criticism and pointing out their faults reinforces their lack of self-worth. This occurs when:
Correction is not given at the appropriate time – the closer you provide feedback for any behaviour the more effective it becomes
Correction is given with emotional engagement – this personalises the feedback; it should always be just about the behaviour
Corrective responses are often unconsidered reflex reactions
Over correction is harsher than necessary – it personally confronts the child
It is delivered in a sarcastic manner
Final Tips
Consider the following tactics when providing feedback to the students: Less is more – even if the class is really out of control don’t try to correct everything at once. Pick out one or two problems that you need to or can correct quickly and when you have achieved this move on to the next problem.
The certainty that you follow through has more impact than the severity of the corrective response.
If possible, correct the child in private, that allows him/her to maintain their dignity.
Displays of your adult power will only be effective in the short term. Eventually they will challenge your authority and if your practice is not underpinned by an acknowledged management plan your will have nowhere to go.
Taking the moral ‘high-ground’ might make you feel good but this is not a competition, you don’t need to be ‘better than’ a child who has a history of abuse or neglect. Remember, you are their teacher and you need to create a professional relationship with the child.
Some teachers get some self-satisfaction from correcting others, this is a covert form of the previous point. The kids will soon get sick of this and disengage from the lesson resulting in disruptive behaviour.
Over time, effective classroom management that promotes cooperation will initially increase rate of acknowledgement with a corresponding decrease in the correction rate. This reflects an imbalance but under these conditions there is no need to find little things to correct to regain balance. In optimal conditions the students embrace their learning and the need to acknowledge is dissipated so balance is maintained with very little management.
Applying the Techniques of Classroom Management to Teaching
The philosophy of our work is underpinned by the understanding of the neurological processes that drive the brain’s activity and that is to maintain a condition of homeostatic equilibrium a sense of calmness where the physical, social and intellectual needs are being satisfied – they are calm. Children will prioritise their need to be physically and socially contented first as failure to do so presents a threat to their survival. This means that to access the child’s cognitive, intellectual thoughts requires the satiation of those lower-order needs leaving the non-life-threatening drive to solve the problem of what is puzzling them; classroom motivation.
In the classroom it is predominantly social threats that will distract the student and these will be in the form of some sort of attack on the child’s security, either a threat to their safety or their being excluded from the group. Social distraction is manifested in the form of overt or covert dysfunctional behaviour.
A central competence teachers must possess is the management of these social threats, that is managing the behaviour in the classroom. If this is not achieved then the effectiveness of any lesson presentation is seriously compromised. This emphasis on classroom management is of critical importance in delivering lessons but is not afforded the significance it demands in teacher training.
Appropriate Teaching Responses to Managing Behaviour in the Classroom:
Understand the importance of a predictable, stable learning environment
Understand the effects of emotions;
Understand dysfunctional behaviour and emotions learned in early childhood will emerge in stressful situations
Understand students need to operate in a state of calm to learn; and
Being able to identify and respond to dysfunctional behaviours and emotions
The contents of this Newsletter are applied to all students and provides a ‘democratic’ template for the whole class however, they are of most use for those students who have suffered abuse and/or neglect who provide the highest demand for this management. The key components for any effective learning environment are:
The curriculum and the pedagogy of the lesson – the content of the lesson and how it is delivered
Structure – this is the rules of the classroom, the establishment between actions and consequences, that is if a student does ‘X’ they will get the same consequence for their action as everyone else
Expectations – this is the definition of just what is expected, the detailed description of the action
Relationships – this is the establishment of supportive, professional boundaries between the student and the teacher. This is managed by the teacher for the benefit of the student. This paper does not directly refer to the formation of relationships but the behaviours described underpin their effectiveness.
Teachers only have a finite time with their class and the time spent dealing with students’ behaviours takes away from that available for teaching. This explains why two of the top inhibitors to effective learning (according to Hattie) is the absence of disruptive students and the classroom environment, that is there is a minimal amount of time distracted from learning! This time budget is illustrated below (This is taken from the work of Christine Richmond).
In very difficult classrooms a teacher may have to spend most of their time managing behaviour, they are minding the class while on the right most of their conversation is about teaching the lesson. It’s not difficult to see why disruptive behaviour is such a drain of student learning.
The key to developing a calm environment is illustrated in the diagram below:
It is a mistake to assume the student knows what you expect
It’s a mistake to assume students know what you expect from them either from their learning or their behaviour. You have to clearly identify what you want to see before you can correct them. The first step is to establish your expectation through direct instruction; they must know what you are after.
When you have done that you must check to see if they understand what you mean. Look about for behaviours that confirm they have got the message, they are on-task. If they have, provide feedback to them through verbal or non-verbal acknowledgement. If they are off-task focus on these students reinforcing your expectation. If they continue to fail to follow your instructions you should implement your behaviour management plan. The sequence goes like this:
If you inherit a difficult class then your first task is to get them on-task. This means as a professional teacher you must deal with the behaviour problems, this is sometimes very difficult but it must be done if you want to teach them. Remember, their dysfunctional behaviour has been learned, it is not their fault. Changing how they conduct themselves might be the best lesson they have ever received and you can be proud you made that difference.
Throughout these Newsletters the importance of being persistent and consistent is constantly reinforced but why is this so significant when our students live in a world that is full on inconsistencies? The following should provide the answer to this puzzle.
Over the many, many years I worked in schools the one thing I heard teachers and principals say to students in trouble was ‘What did you think was going to happen’? or ‘think about what will happen if you do …? To most of us these are fair questions but for very young students, and a special group of kids asking them to predict what will happen to them is a waste of time. Young children are just learning about what happens when they ‘do’ things. It takes time for them to build-up a repertoire of possible consequences for their actions. Consistency helps them create a solid foundation to make predictions from and develops a sense of self-control when the connection between their actions and what happens is reinforced.
However, there are another group of kids that have no idea that their behaviour is in anyway connected to what happens to them. These are the kids who have been raised in very unpredictable, chaotic families. This most often occurs when one or both care givers are incapable of their own consistent behaviour as a result of some significant mental illness especially if they are psychotic or the use of mind-altering drugs. I will illustrate with the story I was told when I was first intolerant about this phenomenon.
When we think about what will happen when we take an action implies we can anticipate the consequence. Now consider the following scenario; a little eight-year-old girl walks into her mother’s room – the think about action, walking into the room and contemplate the consequences that follow:
It is 7.00 AM, mum is extremely hungover after being out all night and feeling very sick. The response to the girl’s actions goes something like ‘what are you doing here’, ‘I hate you’, ‘I wish I never had you’, ‘Get out of my sight’ or ‘I wish I was dead’ and lashes out trying to hit her. These are the consequences and they would probably be delivered using more colourful language. This is ‘Mum one’!
The same action at 12.00 noon mum’s still not good but a bit better. ‘What did you get up to last night’, ‘Why can’t you clean up after yourself, you are a disgrace’, ‘I know you didn’t go to bed when I told you’ or ‘how come your brother didn’t have a shower’. Enter ‘Mum two’!
Its 2.00 PM and mum is feeling a bit better, especially after having a couple of drinks. ‘What video did you watch last night, was it good’, ‘I saw your friend’s mother and she said you had been playing at her place last week’ and so on. Now we have ‘Mum three’!
5.00 PM, mum is planning to go out for another bout of drinking. The girl enters the room and mum is desperate to ease her own conscience. ‘How’s my big girl’, ‘You’re like a sister to me’, I’m so lucky I can trust you to look after your brother, you’re so responsible’, ‘let’s go and get a video for you to watch and I’ll give you money so you can order a pizza’ followed by ‘do you don’t mind if I hop out for a little while to see my friends’. This is ‘Mum 4’ one that offers some positive affection!
10.00 PM, mum arrives home drunk with some man in tow, someone the daughter has never seen before. ‘Here’s my little princess’, ‘This is Joe he has a car and will take us out to Water World tomorrow’, ‘I have decided next year I will take you to Disney World in the US’, Why don’t I get you that bike you have always wanted’. Finally, ‘Mum 5!
The thing is, what would be the point in asking this girl what would happen if she walked into her mother’s room; she would have no idea; in the example above, I have given just five possibilities there would most certainly be more, increasing her insecurity. For children raised in such homes the idea they have any control over their life is a fantasy – life happens to them! They are left feeling powerless with an undefined sense of self. This uncertainty is carried into the rest of their life including the classroom.
All kids arrive at school and instinctively work out where they fit. Healthy kids struggle at first but soon learn the ‘rules of behaviour’ and quickly settle in. Children raised with uncertainty do not and their confusion is expressed in the following ways:
Feeling Less Than – It is inevitable that they see other kids getting on with each other and are secure in their behaviour. However, our kids have no idea what to do and it’s no wonder they feel less than everyone else!
Vulnerable – Of course, these kids feel threatened when they are uncertain. All their life things have happened to them regardless of what they have done. Why would they expect anything else? So every interaction holds the possibility of at least disappointment.
Guilty – For all of us the early years are the most significant in forming our sense of self. Those early years are also a time when we are very ego-centric, that is we are the centre of the universe and therefore everything that happens is our fault! When things go wrong it’s because they did the wrong thing and they are therefore guilty! This, of course is a faulty belief.
Dependent – Understandably, these children become very frightened to make any decision for themselves; why would they? Instead of actively living life they have to wait until things happen to them. So, it makes sense to let others decide what to do and just follow on. This becomes a real problem if they get into ‘friendships’ with anti-social groups which is likely to happen.
Out of Control – This last trait is linked to their dependence, when they are in a position where they have to make-a-decision, that decision is a wild guess acting with hope but no conviction. No wonder they have no sense of control and this results in feelings of hopelessness and despair.
A major theme of our work is underpinned by the understanding that behaviour, in fact all learning depends on the environment in which the behaviour is formed. It is obvious why these kids raised in unpredictable environments have missed out on that condition that would have developed a strong sense of self. The bad news is that it is extremely difficult to change a person’s sense of self because it is formed early in life and becomes very stable. The good news is that it can be changed. By presenting a very structured persistent and consistent set of behaviours in your classroom eventually these children will develop the courage to believe their behaviour can dictate what happens to them.
The current obsession with teaching basic skills continues to take centre stage with politicians and media commentators on education. This focus is reflected in the curriculum students are presented in the classroom. The latest research into the workings of the brain, exposes the damage that comes with this approach. It is obvious that by reducing the curriculum there is a reduction of the creative power of a child’s working memory and consequent decline in their ability to think critically. Instead of reducing the content of our curriculum the more diverse our lessons are and the more varied our delivery of those lessons the better equipped our students will be to succeed in these complex times.
The brain is complex, perhaps the most complicated object in the universe and for years we have tried to understand how it works. How do we think, act, feel – if it is not the brain than what is it that drives these experiences? This essay aims to move this quest a bit further along the road introducing the idea that the cerebellum may is becoming recognised as the engine room of all cognitive processes.
The cerebellum is often referred to as the ‘little brain’ in fact its name comes from the Latin for that same description. The title was really obvious as it looks like the whole brain with two hemispheres that sit each side of a central line. This structure sits on top of the brain stem and behind the mid brain. The cerebellum takes only 10% of the brain’s volume but it contains half the brain’s neurons.
Early observations made the link between the cerebellum and a person’s motor skills and balance. Like all early neurological studies on behaviour, conclusions about the purpose of brain regions were inferred by the loss of functions after there was an injury to a specific part of the brain. As far as the cerebellum is concerned, assaults on it resulted in changes to the motor functions and/or balance of the individual and for years this was considered its total function to ensure stability in space. This drive to reconcile the balance of the body relative to the outer environment has been referred to as the cerebellum constant.
More and more the cerebellum is becoming recognised as the controlling mechanism of all behaviour. It has two modes of management, the first is to hold the model of how things should be; based on the individual’s history both genetic and environmental. The second is to scrutinise incoming stimulation from the internal and external situations against the expected conditions. If there is a match nothing happens however, when there is a mismatch the cerebellum initiates a ‘behaviour’ that has in the past worked best to return to the balance between the anticipated and observed stimulus.
This anticipatory system is automatic, that is the response to the misalliance between observed and expected conditions is a feed- forward process, it is immediate; there is no conscious or unconscious evaluation of the situation prior to making a response. This is easy to comprehend when thinking about balance or motor skills but the feed-forward characteristic of the cerebellum’s action has profound implications when thinking about children whose behaviour we want to change. At the time of exposure to a stressful situation when there is an imbalance in the cerebellum, the child has no choice about how they react, the feed forward characteristic of this process determines their action.
Although, from my studies there is no articulated description of how the outcome of any adjustment made during an ‘event’ leads to a change in the cerebellum’s anticipation when those same set of conditions re-occur; however, there must be a change because we can and do change our behaviour in response to situations over time. The strong links across the whole brain from the cerebellum, particularly to the cerebrum where memories are located compels the conclusion that it is the change of memories that inform the re-set of the cerebellum after any event.
The illustration below describes the process the cerebellum goes through in any situation. We perceive any conditions through our receptors and when confronted the cerebellum compares the circumstances we perceive with that which we expected. If there is a clash the cerebellum immediately feeds forward an action. This is automatic and not based on any ‘reasoning’ at the time the event occurs. The mind evaluates what happened after the action and creates memories that are fed back into the cerebellum to modify the expectation. The strength of this process is the same as any memory formation. It is relative to the emotional level and/or the consistency of the action - consequence connection.
This instant response has always been attributed to the amygdala however, I contend that the ‘feed-forward’ process is directed at the amygdala which in turn produces the fight/flight/ freeze reaction we observe in times of extreme stress.
The brain’s only power is to initiate movement through the excitation of an electro/chemical action. When dealing with actual body movement this has a well-known connection with the cerebellum; messages are sent out to adjust our body in space. However, this ‘initiation’ also occurs for all the brain’s activities and although there may not be any physical movement it is the cerebellum that initiates the electro/chemical transmission to all parts of the brain resulting in the establishment of a physical event, and emotion or a memory. All of these allow for an examination of the situation away from the cerebellum.
I’m aware that this is a fairly complex explanation of the process but the real difficulty in understanding this most intricate organ is overwhelming. The message for educators is that in order to function a child has to build-up a bank of memories that can be contrasted to the incoming stimulus. Of these, the most significant is the memories of social interactions which is the philosophy behind our model of creating an educational environment. These social often emotional memories are laid down in a family context and when this is less than ‘ideal’ it becomes the school’s task to do this.
However, the undertaking of a school should not be to reconstruct a child’s bank of social memories but rather create a set of memories that allow the child to access when faced with more complex, cognitive challenges. Their success in doing this is directly linked to the abundance stored in the cerebral cortex. It is obvious, that if we want our students to become creative and critical in their life it is important that we expose them to as wide a variety of experiences and subsequent memories as we can.
Of course, numeracy and literacy are important but think about how many of the memories acquired in these lessons are accessed in later life when you think about how you, as an adult navigate your work and life. If schools are to prepare children to actively participate in and contribute to their community the more diverse the educational experiences we provide for them the more beneficial their contribution will be.
In the last Newsletter I dealt with how you can take effective, personal action when dealing with children, and others for that matter in times of crisis. Unfortunately, in these critical times, when emotions are high mistakes are too easily made. For kids with a history of abuse/neglect their fragile sense of self and their hypervigilance for threats in their environment means any mistake you make really will have a substantial impact on your relationship, damaging your most valued asset.
We will examine potential mistakes, by the teacher, then the students’ attempts to manipulate the teacher and finally blunders during communication between both parties.
Mistakes by the Teacher
Many of these described mistakes are the opposite of what was outlined in the previous Newsletter but they are worth discussing in this format. These are:
Ignoring Conflict – It is not unusual to read advice on behaviour management to ignore the behaviour. And, I agree there are times to do this but only when the ‘mistakes’ are a function of the student’s development, it may be inappropriate but not expected by students of that age. However, it would be rare for ignoring conflict in your classroom. Too often, teachers are so tired, unprepared or so overwhelmed they choose to ignore the behaviour for some ‘short term’ peace. This of course, never happens.
React Before Thinking – Making decisions, on the run is a dangerous practice. You have to accept that in these times emotions will be running high and we know there is an inverse relationship between emotional elevation and rational thinking. Have a plan before you get into conflict resolution.
Making Stupid Threats – Never threaten a consequence you can’t deliver. I remember listening to an excellent teacher dealing with an aggressive, conduct disordered child who was dangling his leg out the classroom window. What I heard was ‘if you put your leg out the window one more time I will break it!’ Now, the bone in the leg is very difficult to break without using extreme force so that was not likely to be a consequence the teacher could deliver and, as the principal supervising this teacher I could only imagine the paper-work that would have followed if he was successful! I use this humorous but real example to illustrate how silly threats can be – you must understand you can’t make anyone do anything. All you can do is provide the consequences and allow them to make the decision and you can’t deliver consequences that are unethical or illegal.
Pulling Rank – a common mistake is making a statement like you will do that because I’m the teacher, reminding the student who has the most ‘position power’. However, position power is never a match for personal power. All it takes is a child to say something like ‘make me’ and you are in deep trouble. In my career I have been confronted with just such a scenario; even when I pointed out the consequence the child would challenge my ability to deliver the consequence. However, I had a sequential plan that was known to me and delivered in steps to the child in question. The last step was always to call the police which I had to do on many occasions. In fact, because I had always followed through my plan when I got to this stage other students would tell the student in question ‘he will do it’. That endorsement more often than not brought closure to the conflict.
Talking too Much/Little – You only have a small window to make your point. Say what you need to say stop and listen to the child. The more you talk the less they listen however you need to make sure they know exactly what will happen. It is a time when you can use the well-known conflict resolution technique:
When you …. Say swear at me
I feel … really hurt
Because … I don’t deserve to be talked to that way
However, this approach may be effective dealing with appropriately functioning kids but in times of crisis I would use:
If you … say throw that chair
I will … suspend you
This process would need to be repeated with differing scenarios as the conflict moves to a crisis.
Offering Time-Out from an Unattractive Environment – Time-out (see Newsletter - Time Out 17th July 2017) is only effective if the classroom is attractive to the student. This should not be an issue, children love to belong where they are valued. Unfortunately, too often I have seen students sent out of the classroom to stand next to the door. Before long others have manipulated the teacher to send them out as well and soon there is a ‘party’ going on in the corridor. Time-out is an effective consequence but only if it is well organised and I urge you to visit the Newsletter about this topic.
Personally Attacking the Student – This is a critical mistake, things like ‘you’re just like your brother’, ‘why did I think someone like you could act appropriately’, you (put any ethnicity in here) are all the same’ the list goes on. Not only do you alienate the student involved the other kids will observe this and lose respect for you. Always, always it is the behaviour we reject, never the child.
Not Modelling what you Expect – This is a case where the faulty message ‘do as I say not as I do’ is on display. Your integrity is an invaluable asset but is only maintained if you are consistent in acting the way you expect your students to act. If you’re always late for class it would be immoral to punish a child who is late for class.
Manipulation by the Student
The following are some examples of how students try to deflect their responsibility for their behaviour. These include:
Plead and Deal – This is where the student tries to get the teacher to ‘let them off’. They make promises like, ‘I’ll never do this again’, ‘If you let me off this time I’ll clean-up the room’ or dangerously ‘If you suspend me my father will bash me’. This last one is very difficult and how you respond is very age-dependent. It may well be the truth that the child will be hit if they are suspended and this does place the teacher in a difficult position. I suspect very young children would not say this unless it was true and then the teacher has a moral and legal responsibility to report this to the authorities. Older children can use this plead to avoid responsibility even if it’s not true you will have the same responsibilities. I would take the following steps:
I would ask if this has happened before – if yes then I report the abuse if no I tell them that their parent is not allowed to hit them and if they do they must tell me – then I would report
I would also contact the parent and inform them of what their child has said, explaining that I think they are just trying to get out of trouble but reminding them of the law and my responsibilities
I understand this is very precarious situation so I would also inform my superior officer to get my approach approved and recorded
This is a difficult situation.
Deflecting – This is when the child brings up past events saying why you didn’t punish someone else in the past for what they consider the same behaviour ‘Why didn’t you send Jane out when she did this’, you always pick on me’, ‘It’s because I’m black, a Muslim’, ‘You don’t do this to girls’, the list is only limited by their imagination. And be aware these students are really good at finding those things you care about and using them against you; ‘you never pick on the kids in the choir’.
This is not the time to defend yourself, that’s what they want. Once you engage in a discussion arguing your impartiality you have lost, if you start they won’t finish until you concede; this is when you use the ‘broken record’ approach. For the younger readers when old records were scratched the needle would often become stuck on one groove and so the contents of that groove would be repeated over and over again until someone turned it off. Use this ‘broken record’ approach by dealing with each deflection with something like ‘I’m not interested in that now – you have to leave the room’. Eventually they should stop and, if you think it is worthwhile you may explain to them why you acted that way at a later time but not when you are delivering the consequence.
Use the Crowd – Some students are very popular in the classroom or have a powerful group of peers and they can join in pressuring the teacher. This can be very confronting especially to inexperienced or timid teachers. This can be as simple as their ‘friends’ arguing on their behalf or creating other levels of disturbance that you have to stop dealing with this issue to address what they are doing. You must keep all the students safe and you may have to pay close attention to what is happening but immediately that issue is resolved you return to the original matter.
Problems created by both parties
These last ‘mistakes can be made by either the teacher or the student. They are:
Poor Timing – this is when there is a dispute but the aggressive contender starts an argument when the other is distracted. Not only will they catch the other ‘off-guard’ the ‘other’ will be focused on something else and might dismiss the issue. The result is there is no conclusion to the dispute.
Sand Bagging – this is very similar to deflecting but it is not really referring to how the teacher dealt with other students it is bringing up other problems not relevant to current situation. This is another time the ‘broken record’ approach can be used but it is unlikely the student will have that skill.
Blaming – saying ‘you’re the one who is wrong. I didn’t do it’ best sums up this approach. It is hard to argue with this because it is so unreasonable and you find yourself defending your actions and not dealing with the issue at hand.
Leaving – this is when one of the contenders just ups and leaves the discussion. This way they avoid any confrontation and therefore there is no conclusion. This approach does not resolve the situation and it must be dealt with eventually. Teachers who do this can be guaranteed the issue will happen again so it is best to deal with it at the time. If the student ‘walks away’ then the teacher should not ‘resume normal duties’ until the issue is resolved.
Loss of Temper – when you lose your temper you lose self-control and become disempowered. If the teacher does this they lose more than control of the current situation they lose the respect of the other students. If it is the student then don’t continue until they have regained some self-control.
Avoiding Responsibility – I saw Bart Simpson use this in an episode of the Simpsons and I refer to it as the Bart technique, ‘You didn’t see me, you can’t prove it, I didn’t do it.’ Just remember it is not a court of law so the teacher can provide a consequence when they are confident they are in the right. It is very much more difficult for the student but in a good school each student should have a teacher who can advocate for them.
Playing the Martyr – mostly, like all these are most often used by students but this is more common with teachers. They become ‘hopeless’ claiming they can’t do what is required. In some cases, particularly with students they will threaten suicide (this threat should never be dismissed but is the subject of a future Newsletter). Teachers will rarely use this technique with students but it is not unusual to do this when dealing with a supervising staff member. Instead of dealing with the situation they want the other to take responsibility.
This is an exhaustive list of common mistakes. It doesn’t take much insight to see that each one is exclusive and both teachers and students will form numerous versions of each identified scam. All of these can be avoided by using the script outlined in in the Newsletter Teaching Practical Boundaries (31st July 2017) and this is:
‘What is really happening’? This is often not the obvious event
‘Who is responsible’?
If ‘me’ then I must take responsibility, take-action to address the cause of the stress
If not ‘me’ then I ask a further two questions:
‘What is causing the attack’?
What do I have to do to change this situation in the long run’?
Never, when possible leave a dispute unresolved; having some unresolved problem will destroy any attempts to create a working relationship in your classroom.
This document provides further comments regarding the new Student Behaviour Strategy. This is a result of being exposed to the ‘Telethon Kids Institute’s Strengthening school and system capacity to implement effective interventions to support student behaviour and wellbeing in NSW public schools: An evidence review’ which it is assumed underpinned the proposed Behaviour Strategy. (Even the title of this review is problematic and would suggest it has been written by a committee.)
I would like to make the following observations that may assist your review of the feedback you have sought.
This report is quite extensive and a very thorough synopsis of what evidence is currently available. As stated it is created “from three sources of evidence: 1) NSW educators’ current practice, capacity and context perspectives and experiences (focus group and interview consultations); 2) Existing international and national policy and practice (Think Tank with experts); and 3) Robust peer-reviewed published evidence describing student behaviour interventions and system-level implementation supports (review of empirical literature).” However, my comment is that, although very concise it produces no new evidence that has not been available in the numerous reports that have preceded it. Further, it is so densely presented it is useless for the average classroom teacher or for that matter school executive considering the well documented evidence of a work-force in crisis over the vocational demands they face. As a retired principal and long-time researcher of student behaviour I found it to be challenging despite my interest and lack of relative time demands.
I will make my criticisms is general terms.
Evidence Based Practice
Most research into behaviour management is carried out on a case-based manner, that is, the context is between individual students and the teacher. Classrooms are not equipped to implement most findings as the teacher is:
Not properly trained to do this
Responsible for up to 29 other students who are entitled to their attention
Tasked with delivering a set curriculum programmed to be provided in the time allocated
Evidence based practice is a well-worn cliché that appears in a succession of documents and of course should be the foundations of all practice. However, when you examine closely the ‘evidence’ it becomes more obscure. The reasons for this are:
Most evidence is a result of self-reporting, by the student or teacher and this is particularly problematic.
Observational evidence is also uncertain as findings are often limited to the ‘check-sheet’ provided
I have rarely, if ever seen a study that has a hypothesis and therefore a null hypothesis where results are compared to a control group.
The use of Expert Advisory Groups and the Think Tank participants is a problem. Not that they are not all eminently qualified for their professional work, that work is not in the classroom dealing with one or more severely disruptive students while trying to fulfil their professional ‘teaching’ duties; this results in a top-down attitude which disempowers teachers. This perceived lack of relevance on the teachers’ behalf diminishes any enthusiasm for the adoption of the program.
Use of commercial programs is also of limited value. There has been a succession of these programs the latest being based on positive psychology. All of these are of some use but:
They fail to deal with students with severe behaviours; the PBL resource acknowledges this limitation. But it is these very dysfunctional students who are beyond the skill set these programs are providing teachers
Schools who adopt these programs require a substantial investment of time to develop their practice
Staff transfers quickly dilute the whole-school approach unless the training is an annual event
Finally, trauma informed practice is another well-worn cliché but this has more dangerous implications. Of course, it is important that teachers understand the problems students who have suffered trauma face. However, the diagnosis of trauma covers a wide range of disorders and it is really the role of mental health professionals to deal with these issues. It is extremely dangerous for non-professionals to embark on any therapeutic interventions both for the child and the teacher. Instead of being encouraged teachers should be warned about the dangers of embarking on such activities.
My belief is that it is the teacher’s task to provide an environment that minimises the triggers that would initiate a ‘traumatic response’. This is achieved by providing structure and strong expectations delivered through a professional supportive relationship between the teacher and the students. This is where teacher training should be focused.
In the previous Newsletters we have discussed the characteristics of a behaviour crisis in the school and how to deal with them. This latest essay focuses on the personal actions that will help the classroom teacher deal with this situation. As acknowledged, these incidents do take a toll on all concerned, the student, the teacher and their classmates but being prepared helps you stay in the present and not make reactive decisions you may later regret. This applies after the peak of the crisis has passed and the child, at least is capable of appreciating the situation.
In the first instance, you need to present your case in an assertive but not aggressive manner. The following will help:
Continue to act as if their behaviour has no effect on you
Maintain a steady, positive gaze, present a confident posture
Speak clearly
Maintain appropriate eye contact
Stand up straight.
Remain silent after you have delivered the message
Let them know exactly what was going on, be specific about the behaviour and be careful not to personalise your ‘criticism’. It is always the behaviour we disapprove of never the child so be careful not to let any personal anger influence this process.
This is the time when you can rely on the structured, predictable environment we have always emphasised. When you have this in place being able to deliver the known consequence for the behaviour, allows the process to become impersonal and the student learns that they can have some control over what happens to them. This won’t happen quickly but the more you create the structure and the more you consistently apply the consequences, it will empower the student and because you are predictable the student will maintain a healthy relationship with you – they begin to trust you. Never apologise for not getting emotionally involved. This doesn’t mean you become like a robot but your body language should convey your continued respect for the child – they are separate from their behaviour.
When you have delivered your message remain silent to allow them to digest it and make-a-decision about how they will react. Be careful about this, some children are very good at using silences as a weapon forcing the teacher to make decisions for them. This is a particular tactic for kids who have been so disempowered they don’t know they are allowed to decide. This is when you can explain to them it is their decision or if you think they are just avoiding their responsibility tell them you are going on with your ‘work’ and will get back to them when they are ready. When they are ready give them your undivided attention, in fact, always give them your undivided attention. You could say something like “I know you’re really angry now; you need time to settle down” but if you do go on with another activity do so without antagonising them. This is the ‘art’ of behaviour management.
When they are ready to engage with you in an appropriate manner and if they are capable, get them to explain the purpose of their behaviour. This is mostly beyond the capacity of very young kids and in this instance, you can teach them about the purpose of behaviour (all behaviour has a purpose). But, if you can, listen to them carefully, accepting genuine attempts at honesty. Some practitioner’s advice is to empathise with the student. I understand the motivation but find the concept of empathy concerning – it is impossible to really understand what it’s like ‘to walk in these abused/neglected kid’s shoes’, you can’t and if you have a similar history this would be even more dangerous. I prefer having compassion rather than empathy, it is more honest. However, it is an extremely complex subject to articulate but it is a message that comes through with your non- verbal skills. These kids are extremely vigilant and will see through any false efforts to engage with them.
However, we all know that it is more likely to be a time when they will want to deflect the responsibility on to someone else. The next Newsletter will go into more detail how this follow-up process could go wrong.
The use of this information is a great example of our model for effective classroom management, that is the need for structure, expectations and relationships. These are implicit in all our work and have been discussed more specifically in newsletters:
Creating Structure 12th August 2019
Special Relationship 10th September 2020
Expectations 17th February 2020
Finally remember you never, or rarely deal with a crisis in isolation almost always there are spectators, your other students or colleagues who are watching what you do. This is when the maxim ‘what you do is so loud no one can hear what you are saying’ applies. How you deal with the presenting situation will have such an impact on, not only the relationship you have with the offending student it will with all the other students. When they see you following the structure, staying in control of your own emotions you maintain your integrity and become a positive model for other. Your reputation is the currency that embeds you within the school and students will come to your class with a positive expectation about how they will be treated and through this you have won half the battle.
Lifting educational outcomes through early intervention and targeted support.
The following is a submission regarding the proposed new strategy to deal with student behaviour in public schools.
This current proposal is one of successive attempts to deal with severely disruptive student behaviour in schools. Historically all have failed and, despite the best intentions nothing in this new proposal indicates that this undertaking will be any different. The impediment to success has always been the failure to deal with children at the severe end of the behaviour spectrum. Within all previous and projected behaviour strategies there is an implied but mistaken belief that these children have the ability to self-regulate their behaviour. Until it is accepted that these children are as physically and psychologically disabled as those born with or acquired an impairment from an injury, they will not receive the attention they deserve.
These children suffer from a range of mental health and social issues that are beyond the capacity of a teacher to manage. A significant number have diagnosed illness including autism but the vast majority of those who ‘act out’ in class will attract the finding of conduct disorder or oppositional defiance; which is the consequence of early childhood abuse and/or neglect. The impact of these physical insults on the structural development of their brain is well documented with significant reductions in neurologic size in crucial areas. These include the cerebellum, amygdala, hippocampus and frontal lobes. This interferes with their ability to modulate their moods and make calm decisions.
The following features should be considered:
It is estimated that between 1% and 11% of the population will suffer PTSD resulting from childhood trauma and in some areas, the proportion can be up to 26%.
Students suffering other mental illnesses have behaviours that contribute significantly to this problem.
The distribution of the students who present the associated behaviours is irregular but closely related to socioeconomic conditions in the community.
Interventions based on cognitive approaches are marginally successful. A more appropriate approach is the provision of highly structured environments with an elevated level of personal support (healthy relationships).
Consequences do not need to be severe but they do need to be consistent and persistent to allow the students to regain a sense of personal control.
Successful interventions to assist students who exhibit these severe behaviours are never short term. Change is difficult and time consuming but it can be achieved.
The community, represented by the department should understand that these behaviours are a result of abuse and/or neglect that has been inflicted on them when they were defenceless. There is a moral and ethical imperative to really address this problem.
At the heart of this policy is the desire to provide equity for all students in the schools. It has been identified by leading educator Professor John Hattie that the absence of students with severe behaviours and the climate of the classroom are the second and third leading cause of improved learning outcomes; the first the student’s ability to self-evaluate. This means that the presence of these students put all other students at a disadvantage and this must also be considered a failure to provide equity. That is, students in a class where one or more of these students attend are at a disadvantage to those who are in classes without such students.
Research conducted on the impact distractions can have on intellectual performance ranges from 13 – 14 IQ points based on the Raven’s Scale. This research considered economic scarcity nonetheless the distraction caused by the presence of threatening classmates would in all probability increase this loss. The impact of such an intellectual performance deficit would take a student with a superior IQ to perform at an average level and those with an average level to achieve at a borderline deficit level. This finding explains Hattie’s conclusions.
The statement “Under the new policy framework, teachers and school staff will be required to consider the impact of a student’s disability and uphold the student’s right to access and participate in education on the same basis as other students” covers the equity considerations of the disabled child. However, and this is an area the department could find themselves vulnerable to litigation, any child who is in a classroom where there is a child with severe behaviours is, based on Hattie’s work and common understanding not able to get the same educational opportunity as students who are in classrooms without behaviour problems. Equity is for every student.
This does not mean the focus is off these disruptive students, as stated above they have a real disability and should be provided with the same support as is provided for all disabilities. A student who has a profound physical disability is provided with all the support they need. This allocation of support should be commensurate for students with severe behaviours.
The emphasis on the use of suspension as a method to manage severe behaviour is also predictable and destined to only exacerbate the problem for schools unless there are some real changes to the training and resources available to implement an alternate negative consequence for severe behaviours.
Schools do not suspend as a first and only resort. In a previous submission made, on behalf of the Secondary Principals Association it was concluded that it takes on average 3.2 hours to complete the suspension cycle. It was also determined that actual suspensions only made 14% of all behaviour management work carried out by a senior executive in a secondary school. Based on suspension details from one district, the then Western District would require 124.7 hours per week just to deal with student welfare issues. This equates to more than three executives doing a 40-hour week just addressing this problem. With the acknowledged substantial increase in the workload in recent years it is clear no school can provide adequate support for behaviour issues and suspension is the only alternative.
Any attempt to reduce the availability of what is effectively the only consequence schools can deliver for physical and psychologically dangerous behaviours will be met with resentment by schools and teaching staff who are already working in an environment consistently described as fulfilling unmanageable demands.
There is no doubt that this process is undertaken will ethical and compassionate intentions and it is in the last two targets real change to the management of student behaviour could be achieved.
2. ‘Building capacity across the workforce through embedded and continuing professional
learning’
There needs to be a thorough review of training for behaviour management of teachers. The current reliance on ‘professional programs’ such as those based on the positive behaviour movement who, by their own admission does not deal with these severe behaviours is destined to fail. Also, the emergence of ‘trauma-informed’ approaches that are appearing in the literature are also inadequate. This is a welcome development however; any examination of these programs reveals not much that can be applied by the classroom teacher but is more relevant to improving therapeutic interventions by mental health professionals. Any ‘intervention’ must be one that a teacher can employ and if unable the disabled child should be given specialist support that allows them to function and their class mates continue their learning un-interrupted.
Schools including their teachers need training in how to manipulate the learning environment to minimise conditions that trigger out of control behaviour by these vulnerable students. This requires an understanding of providing structure and expectations in a setting built on professional, supportive student-teacher- school relationships. This is appropriate work for teachers; any intervention above this level moves into the domain of health professionals and teaching staff have no business in this area.
3. ‘Commissioning behaviour services to deliver improved outcomes’
From the statements made for proposed future directions it would seem that there is a push to outsource solutions to the problem of severe behaviour management. There are two issues about this approach:
There is a history of investigations into this problem both in NSW, throughout the country and across the world. Another expert enquiry would do little more than delay the inevitability of having to do something about this problem.
The idea schools can use the services of other government agencies has been advocated since the early 1990’s when terms like ‘seamless integration’ were used. This approach has never worked not the least because all public services do not have the flexibility to facilitate such an integration.
The use of ‘private providers’ is fraught with danger; invariably marketed behaviour management programs have a ‘one size fits all’ approach and to expect the same service to be successful across the vast diversity that is NSW schools is senseless. based on the lack of success in other privatised organisations this approach is not an option if real change is to be made.
The school, and by extension the department owns the problem and is obliged to provide the solution. The real remedy is to prioritise the problem at the school level by providing the training, resources and support that is demanded by their disability. These could/should include:
Advanced training in classroom management and the design of appropriate learning environments
Specialist staff to provide ‘in school time out’ on a case-by case basis
Access to mental health providers
Acknowledgement of the special skill set within the quality teacher’s standards
Special settings for students whose behaviour is extreme and where staff receive advanced training and professional mental health support to deal with these students
There is no doubt that the problems created by students with severe behaviours is amongst the greatest impediments to learning outcomes and there is no disputing that public schools have a disproportionate number of these students and they are not equally distributed across socio-economic regions. Therefore, it is accepted that public schools have to deal with the problem caused by these students and that is the loss of learning both their own and their classmates not to mention the psychological and sometimes physical abuse of other students and staff members.
Dealing with this problem is not only a health and safety issue it is a profound ethical issue that the members of this enquiry must face. It should not a problem that is ‘glossed over’ again.
The principals of the company have had long careers in education with a combined total of eighty-one years service. After starting as mainstream teachers they both moved into careers in providing support for students with severe behaviours.
