Behaviour in Scottish schools: research report 2023
This report is the fifth (2023) wave of the Behaviour in Scottish Schools Research, first undertaken in 2006.
Chapter 10 – Support for managing behaviour
Summary of findings
In general, school staff in primaries and secondaries were positive about the level of support they receive from other staff within their school, particularly the formal and informal support they receive from their colleagues working in the same role. Almost all staff surveyed in primary schools and secondaries agree that they can talk to other staff openly about any behaviour-related challenges they experience.
However, while primary staff perceptions of how well staff work together were high and had remained so since 2016, secondary staff perceptions are much less positive and have fallen since 2016, with around half of teachers and less than half of secondary school support staff now rating staff collegiality as good or very good. Likewise, while primary teachers and support staff reported high levels of confidence that senior staff will help them if they experience behaviour management difficulties, confidence is much lower among secondary teachers and support staff and has fallen since 2016 in both groups and across school types. This is reflected in the qualitative findings, where secondary school staff tended to feel less supported by the senior leadership team than those in primary schools and school staff interviewees reported feeling less well supported by their managers than by their peers, and support staff reported that they do not always feel well supported by teachers.
While support staff in primary and secondary schools agree or strongly agree that they play an important role in promoting positive relationships and behaviour in their schools, the qualitative research found that most support staff do not feel they have time within their contracted hours to enable discussions around classroom planning or discussions with colleagues/SMT/class teachers. Issues around contracted hours, schools lacking the funds to pay support staff to attend training or meetings outside of their working hours, and supply cover were also highlighted as barriers to support staff accessing appropriate support and training.
Among qualitative participants, there was a mismatch between the support LA representatives identified as being available to schools, and the support received by schools. Headteachers, teachers and support staff, particularly those based in schools with more challenging levels of serious and disruptive behaviour, perceived that they were not fully supported by their local authority.
The quantitative and qualitative findings suggest that serious disruptive incidents might be formally under-reported within schools. Primary and secondary staff in all roles are less likely to report an issue to anyone in 2023 than they were in 2016.
The qualitative interviews found that teachers felt deterred from reporting all incidents because of the lack of communication with teachers and support staff following these incidents to update them of the outcome. This reluctance was exacerbated by the view among some teachers that reporting appeared to be futile when there were ‘no consequences’ for disruptive pupils. Additionally, teachers complained of the amount of time they spent reporting behaviour incidents. The systems were considered difficult to navigate and overly time-consuming, particularly for staff working in schools with frequent and consistent disruptive behaviour.
School staff and local authority representatives identified a range of suggested improvements in relation to support. These included the need for more accountability at a national and local government level to help support those working in schools; greater resources for local authorities; additional school level staffing and training; and parental and pupil engagement on the impact of disruption in the classroom.
Introduction
This chapter explores the extent to which staff feel supported in their work. This covers whether they can encourage positive pupil relationships and behaviour and manage negative behaviour. First, staff perceptions of the types and levels of support they receive in their role, within the school and more widely, is explored as well as their views of the monitoring and reporting of behaviour incidents, in terms of notifying and following up incidents and the adequacy of their training/ professional learning.
School staff responding to the survey and participating in the qualitative interviews and focus groups were asked about their perceptions of support from different groups. The chapter begins by exploring support within the school, including support from colleagues, from more senior staff and the sharing of best practice. The chapter then moves on to examine wider support, including support from the Local Authority, from parents and carers of school pupils and external counselling and support available to school staff.
Perceptions of support within the school
Support amongst colleagues
In the survey, staff were asked the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with a set of statements about the support available to them with regards to pupil behaviour and relationships. As indicated in each of the sub-sections below, some statements were asked of all staff, some only of support staff or support staff and teachers and some only of headteachers.
The survey explored staff perceptions of collegiality. All staff were asked on a scale from 1 being ‘poor’ to 5 being ‘very good’ to rate ‘how staff work together in your school’. The majority of primary headteachers rated the collegiality amongst staff as either 4 or 5 (91%), compared with 81% of teachers and 73% of support staff, which has remained similar to 2016. Teacher ratings did not vary between those teaching different primary stages.
Secondary staff ratings were generally lower than among primary staff with 88% of headteachers, 54% of teachers and 49% of support staff rating either 4 or 5. As with ratings of school ethos, (see Chapter 9) the most marked difference between primary and secondary school staff is between teachers. These ratings also represent a decrease in perceptions of collegiality since 2016 amongst secondary staff teachers (60% in 2016) and support staff (56% in 2016) (Figure 10.1).
The survey also asked staff about the extent to which they could talk openly to others about any behaviour-related challenges experienced.
Headteachers and teachers were asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I can talk to colleagues openly about any behaviour-related challenges I experience.’ Headteachers were also asked to what extent they agree or disagree that ‘My colleagues can talk openly about any behaviour-related challenges they experience.’ Results are shown in Figure 10.2.
Similar to when this question was last asked in 2016, almost all teachers (98% in primaries and 96% in secondaries) agree with this (either strongly agreed or agreed). The majority of headteachers also agree that their colleagues can talk openly and that they themselves can talk openly about any behaviour-related challenges, both of which have remained high since 2016.
Support staff were asked to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘I can talk to other support staff openly about any behaviour-related challenges I experience’. They were also asked to what extent they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I can talk to teachers openly about any behaviour-related challenges I experience’.
As with teachers and headteachers, almost all (99% in primaries and 100% in secondaries) feel that they can talk openly about such challenges with other support staff. A lower proportion, though still the majority, feel they can talk openly with teachers about this. This was less so in secondaries (86%) than primaries (95%).
Perceptions among support staff have all remained similar to 2016.
Findings from the qualitative research indicate that staff were highly positive about the support they received from their immediate colleagues. This was particularly the case among support staff who spoke often of the benefits of the informal support they received from their peers including checking in on each other after challenging incidents and sharing information on what works well to support specific pupils.
Teachers also spoke about the valuable support and assistance they received from support staff, particularly around sharing information on incidents happening at break and lunchtime and pupils’ relationships with their peers. However, support staff reported mixed experiences in terms of how well supported they felt by their teaching colleagues. In some schools, support staff said they felt very well supported by teaching staff and highlighted the close and supportive relationships in place across the school. Elsewhere, however, support staff cited teachers not checking in on them after challenging incidents with pupils, not knowing support staff member’s names and referring to them, in one case, as 'the other adult that's in the room' as an indication of a lack of support and respect from teaching colleagues.
“Well after that incident, nobody checked in on me the next day and I heard through the grapevine that I was to be every day with the child. Nobody actually asked how I felt about that or actually just checked in to see how I was feeling.” (Primary support staff)
Teachers praised the support of teaching colleagues within their teams or department. They highlighted the benefits of being able to ‘vent’ about a particular issue or pupil with their colleagues, ask them for support (e.g., to take their class while they dealt with a pupil, or deal with a pupil causing a disturbance), and share strategies for promoting relationships and managing behaviour. In some secondary schools, departmental teams acted as an informal support network.
“I think my department are very good but I would say that that's not necessarily sent from above; that's something that's been internally established through a culture that we have. We all get on with each other, we all respect each other as colleagues. That hasn't been something that has been as an official guideline; that's just something that we deal with as a faculty, knowing our different needs…” (Secondary teacher)
Support from senior management
In the survey, all staff were asked about their confidence in the help they or their colleagues receive from senior staff in dealing with behaviour management difficulties. The different staff groups were asked slightly different questions. Support staff and teachers were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I am confident that senior staff will help me if I experience behaviour management difficulties’. Headteachers were asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘My colleagues are confident that senior staff will help them if they experience behaviour management difficulties.’
The majority of primary school staff (97% of headteachers, 83% of teachers and 80% of support staff) agree (either strongly agree or agree) with the respective statement. For teachers and support staff, confidence is lower in secondary schools than primary schools (as shown in Figure 10.3). For example, 62% of secondary teachers agreed with the statement compared with 83% of primary teachers.
Among primary teachers, level of confidence in the help they get from senior staff varied slightly according to the year group they teach. Those teaching P1-3 groups were a little more likely to feel confident (84% agreeing with the statement) than those teaching P4-7 (80%).
In both primary and secondary schools there has been a fall in the proportion of teachers and support staff agreeing that they feel more senior staff will help them with behaviour management difficulties (Figure 10.4). This has decreased from 69% to 62% among secondary teachers and from 75% to 64% among support staff since 2016. This has not notably changed among headteachers.
All staff were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I feel supported in dealing with relationship and behaviour difficulties’. Headteachers were also asked if they agreed or disagreed with the statement ‘My colleagues feel supported in dealing with relationship and behaviour difficulties.’
Most primary school staff feel that they are supported in dealing with relationship and behaviour difficulties (70% for support staff and 76% for teachers). However, as shown in Table 10.1, headteachers are more likely to report that their colleagues feel supported than teachers and support staff are to report that they themselves feel supported.
Secondary school staff are less likely to report feeling supported than primary school staff. In secondary schools, 57% of teachers and 53% of support staff agreed with the statement. Similar to primary schools, secondary headteachers are more likely to agree that their colleagues feel supported teachers and support staff themselves agree. Indeed, the proportion of headteachers agreeing with the statement is similar across the school types.
| Those that agree (either agree strongly or agree) | Whether colleagues feel supported | Whether they feel supported | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headteachers (%) | Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | |
| Primary | 94 | 74 | 76 | 70 |
| Secondary | 89 | 78 | 57 | 53 |
| Unweighted base (Primary) | 218 | 217 | 636 | 448 |
| Unweighted base (Secondary) | 129 | 129 | 1,604 | 576 |
There has been a decrease in perceived level of support since 2016 among primary and secondary school staff. In primary schools, the proportion agreeing with the statement has fallen from 84% to 76% among teachers and from 77% to 70% among support staff. In secondary schools, agreement among teachers has fallen from 66% to 57% and among support staff from 62% to 53%. There has been no notable change over time in the perceptions of headteachers on this measure.
The differences in perceptions of support between different groups in the survey were echoed among the school staff interviewed as part of the qualitative research. There was a marked difference between staff’s perceptions of the support they received from their immediate colleagues and that provided by the senior leadership team (SLT). Among both primary and secondary staff, teachers and support staff interviewees tended to view the support received from the SLT in more negative terms than support provided by their immediate colleagues. As in the survey data, this was more pronounced among secondary school staff than those in primary schools.
Teachers differentiated between the support of their immediate colleagues/team, and the support offered by the SLT. Some teachers highlighted the considerable support they received from their headteacher (particularly those in primary schools), Principal Teacher or Departmental Head. In contrast, others expressed little confidence in, and were critical of, the support they received from the SLT. Staff cited examples of members of SLT not being available to assist with incidents of serious disruptive behaviour, and senior managers placing responsibility for managing behaviour on the teaching staff.
A lack of confidence in support from the SLT, from both support staff and teachers’ perspectives, was partly related to teachers’ perceptions of the efficacy of positive relations approaches and the perceived lack of consequences in how serious disruption was managed (see Chapter 9). Where it was felt behaviour incident reports were not being adequately addressed in their school, or where staff felt the senior leadership team was relatively powerless in the face of current approaches to behaviour, staff tended to report feeling less confident.
“I feel confident myself in dealing with behaviour. I feel confident in my principal teacher of dealing with behaviour. I feel less so confident in the support or the ability of the management team to deal with the behaviour in the school just now.” (Secondary teacher)
Support staff interviewees also expressed mixed experiences of help and support to deal with relationship and behaviour management difficulties. However, other support staff had more negative experiences. A particular issue was the sharing of information on pupils due to a lack of access to this information or time to engage with pupils’ case notes. Support staff suggested that this could be addressed through more formalised, regular support meetings to help address this, and for support staff to be included in multiagency meetings regarding individual pupils.
“I would say ‘very supported’. I can think of one incident where I was completely torn to shreds by a pupil. I was really upset and I went and I said… ‘I would like it to be facilitated for us to sit and discuss what happened’…. The pupil didn't want to engage but that's another story. I went and I was listened to and believed, which is a big thing.” (Secondary support staff)
Sharing best practice
The survey asked all staff a question to gauge how involved they felt in discussions about improving pupil relationships and behaviour in the whole school. Teachers and support staff were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I am regularly involved in discussions about improving relationships and behaviour in the whole school’ and headteachers were asked the same of the statement ‘My colleagues are regularly involved in discussions about improving relationships and behaviour in the whole school.’
On the whole, staff in primaries were more positive about this than those in secondaries with 69% and 53% agreeing with the statement respectively.
In both primary and secondary schools, headteacher perceptions of the extent of their colleagues’ involvement in discussions about improving relationships and behaviour in the whole school were higher than those reported by teachers and support staff (Figure 10.5). Almost all (94%) primary headteachers agreed or strongly agreed that ‘My colleagues are regularly involved in discussions about improving relationships and behaviour in the whole school’, compared with 73% of primary teachers and 58% of support staff who agreed/strongly agreed that ‘I am regularly involved in discussions about improving relationships and behaviour in the whole school’. The same pattern was seen among secondary school staff with 90% of headteachers agreeing with the statement compared with 59% of teachers and 33% of support staff.
Since 2016, there has been a decrease in primary school teachers who agree with the statement (from 78% to 73%) and an increase in secondary headteachers who agree with the statement (from 76% to 90%). There are no other notable changes since 2016.
Teachers and headteachers were asked a similar question to gauge the extent to which they feel they or their colleagues contribute ideas and provide support to one another regarding pupil relationships and behaviour. Teachers were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I contribute ideas and provide support to my colleagues regarding pupil relationships and behaviour’ and headteachers were asked the same of the statement ‘My colleagues contribute ideas and provide support to each other regarding pupil relationships and behaviour.’
In primary schools, headteacher and teacher perceptions on this are similar with 96% of headteachers and 93% of teachers agreeing that they or their colleagues contribute ideas and provide support to one another regarding pupil relationships and behaviour. In secondary schools, 91% of headteachers and 86% of teachers agree/strongly agree with this statement, lower than in primary schools. Views on this measure have not notably changed since 2016.
In the qualitative research with school staff and LA representatives, the sharing of best practice on relationships and behaviour was perceived to be critical in helping school staff understand and implement more positive and appropriate approaches. School staff identified formal approaches for doing this, such as regular staff meetings, training opportunities during in-service days, sessions and events where external organisations visited schools to discuss behaviour management approaches with staff. Informal opportunities included conversations with teachers and support staff to discuss challenges and potential solutions regarding behaviour management.
School staff also identified challenges and barriers in terms of limited opportunities for information sharing across whole-school staff. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic was said to have limited collaborative working and reduced the sharing of best practice. This was perceived to have contributed to inconsistencies in approaches across classrooms, with participants expressing a desire for more consistent school-wide approaches to behaviour. In addition, support staff contracted hours were said to leave little time for support staff to engage in formal training opportunities for the sharing of best practice, meaning more informal support approaches were used.
Opportunities for sharing best practice between schools within the local authority included groups where staff can share best practice with teachers from other schools, school clusters, networks, conferences and headteacher meetings. This enabled schools to share successful cases and discuss approaches to managing behaviour in group settings. A range of networks with different focuses, such as Additional Support Needs, Inclusion and Child Protection, enabled practitioners to have discussions around how best to support pupils within their schools. However, not all headteachers were aware of such opportunities, constituting a barrier to sharing best practice. This view was also raised by local authority representatives. Means of sharing information were perceived as too unsystematic and participants expressed a desire to improve networks between schools that are more solution focused.
Perceptions of wider support
Support from the local authority and other external groups
In the interviews, local authority representatives outlined a range of ways in which local authorities support schools with regard to relationships and behaviour. These included:
- Networks, regular meetings and consultations to promote the sharing of good practice (monthly meetings with HTs; termly school cluster meetings; consultations with teachers and parents; behaviour working groups)
- Developing, updating and disseminating guidance and policies through curriculum networks, working groups
- Providing training, specific support and engagement for individuals or a whole school in response to school’s specific needs
- Building staff capacity and confidence
- Monitoring data on reported incidents and using this to tailor their support and training offers to schools
- Signposting to support; advice on debriefing after incidents; provision of confidential support lines for staff, counselling etc
- Staged models of interventions
- Provision of alternative learning support, enhanced support provision – specialist and targeted intervention
- Risk assessments, health and safety assessments, environmental audits.
LA representative interviewees spoke of the open, responsive and consultative relationships between local authorities and schools to support them with behaviour issues, highlighting the ‘bespoke’ support local authorities provided. However, this was not the view of school staff interviewees (including heads, teachers and support staff), many of whom said they felt unsupported by their local authority. This was particularly the case among staff based in schools with more challenging levels of serious and disruptive behaviour.
There was a perception among participating heads and teachers that, when they requested more support for behaviour from their local authority, the responsibility to address it was often placed on the school; for example, in terms of offering staff training on different strategies or approaches.
“It would be really difficult if there wasn’t a supportive staff in school, I have to say, because that’s where you get your support from. To be honest, I do feel like we get nothing from the Local Authority. Everything is batted back to school” (Secondary headteacher)
Staff in schools facing particularly high levels of dysregulated behaviour spoke of the difficulties faced when they had exhausted all options in terms of approaches to behaviour and tried to access additional support through the council. They reported a lack of additional support being received despite their requests for alternative provision, additional resources in terms of specialist staffing, or enhanced support provision. Staff in participating schools spoke of frequently submitting violence and aggression forms (used by the local authorities to monitor behaviour issues) but of receiving little support in response (see Monitoring and reporting of incidents section below).
While staff in participating schools tended to welcome local authorities’ drives to reduce exclusions, others cited the pressure to do so as a factor which contributed to them not feeling supported by their council. The tension this generated between schools and their local authority was also raised by LA representatives, who highlighted the role of resources in determining the support that can be offered by an LA.
“Now the school wants the child to be excluded and the local authority are saying, 'Well, do you know, not really.' I think at those points there can be a real tension in the system between a school, and sometimes it's between individual members of staff and senior management and school. Sometimes there's a rub there; the individual members of staff not feeling supported. The reality as well in terms of resource is that there's not a lot of resource in the system to be able to put something significant in.” (Local authority representative)
More widely, school staff were asked how supported they felt by the Scottish Government, Education Scotland and the teaching unions. Teaching staff perceived their unions to be largely supportive of them on the occasions when they needed to contact them about a behaviour issue.
Participating staff expressed mixed views of the support provided nationally. Some highlighted what they viewed as the helpful nature of Scottish Government guidance. Others called for the need at a national level of a statement of support for school staff experiencing violence in their workplace.
“There is a fear around feeling that you're not succeeding, and I think we can protect our staff to know that if they come to us with those concerns, it's not judged whereas I think beyond that level, outwith the school it is deemed that you're not doing a good-enough job. I think if I'm being brutally honest about it, I think this needs to come not from the local authority but from Scottish Government to say, 'It is absolutely unacceptable that members of staff are hurt at work and if such’ - if that does happen, there should be a response that parents will be informed to remove their children.” (Primary headteacher)
Support from parents and carers of pupils
Headteachers were asked, on a scale from 1 to 5 (1 being ‘Not supportive at all’ and 5 being ‘Very supportive’) how they would rate the following:
- The parents/carers of pupils at your school in terms of their general supportiveness
- The parents/carers of pupils at your school in terms of their supportiveness in tackling behaviour and discipline issues
Most headteachers rate parents/carers’ general supportiveness at either 4 or 5. This has remained similar to their view in 2016.
Furthermore, headteachers were also asked to rate parents/carers of pupils in terms of their supportiveness in tackling behaviour and discipline issues. A similar proportion of primary and secondary headteachers rate parents/carers’ supportiveness in tackling behaviour and discipline issues highly - as 4 or 5 (60% in primaries and 62% in secondaries). The proportion of secondary headteachers rating parent/carer support highly has declined since 2016 from 76% to 62% (Figure 10.6).
In the interviews, school staff in all roles highlighted the challenges associated with the view that parents are not always supportive of schools’ attempts to promote positive relationships and managing more disruptive behaviour (see Chapter 5).
Confidential support and counselling
The survey asked all staff a question to gauge level of awareness about confidential support and counselling for staff who need to access it. Headteachers, teachers and support staff were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the statement ‘I know there is confidential support and counselling for staff if I need it.’ Headteachers were also asked the extent to which they agree or disagree that ‘My colleagues know there is confidential support and counselling for staff if they need it.’
Views on the availability of confidential support and counselling varied by staff type. A higher proportion of headteachers both in primary (88%) and secondary schools (87%) agree that their colleagues know that this is available for staff who need it than the teachers and support staff agree that they know this is available should they need it, as shown in Table 10.2. Teachers in primary schools are more likely to agree that confidential support and counselling is available for staff if they need it than teachers in secondary schools (65% and 57% respectively) whereas the views of support staff in primary schools are similar to those of support staff in secondary schools. The majority of headteachers agree that they know there is confidential support and counselling if they need it (85% of primary headteachers and 91% of secondary headteachers).
| Those that agree (either agree strongly or agree) | My colleagues know there is this support | I know there is this support | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headteachers (%) | Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | |
| Primary | 88 | 85 | 65 | 65 |
| Secondary | 87 | 91 | 57 | 64 |
| Unweighted base (Primary) | 218 | 218 | 636 | 445 |
| Unweighted base (Secondary) | 129 | 128 | 1,598 | 576 |
In primary schools there has been a decline since 2016 in the proportion of support staff agreeing that confidential support and counselling is available for staff if they need it (from 74% to 65%), with no notable change among teachers and headteachers. In secondary schools, there has been no notable change among teachers and support staff but headteachers’ views have changed. The proportion of headteachers agreeing that colleagues know about this type of support has risen since 2016 from 77% to 87% as has the proportion of headteachers who agree that they know about this type of support being available to them (from 84% to 91%).
Access to confidential support and counselling was not raised by staff participating in the qualitative research.
Monitoring and reporting of incidents
The survey and interviews with school staff and LA representatives explored staff’s views of the monitoring and reporting of behaviour incidents, in terms of notifying and following up incidents.
Notifying incidents
The survey asked headteachers, teachers and support staff who said they had experienced an incident of serious disruptive behaviour/violence against them in their role in the last 12 months[90] (48% of primary staff and 55% of secondary staff), to indicate which members of the school community were notified about the most recent incident of this nature. Respondents could select more than one category (Table 10.3).
Among those primary and secondary head teachers who had experienced an incident of serious disruptive behaviour/ violence against them in the last 12 months[91], parents are most commonly notified of an incident (primary headteachers 77%, secondary headteachers 72%). Primary teachers most commonly notify the headteacher (77%), while secondary teachers most frequently notify a senior colleague other than the headteacher (70%). Primary support staff most commonly notify a teacher (66%), while secondary support staff notify a senior colleague (47%).
| % reporting to the… | Primary | Secondary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | |
| The teacher | - | - | 66 | - | - | 42 |
| The headteacher | - | 77 | 62 | - | 28 | 18 |
| The Local Authority | 45 | 17 | 12 | 49 | 9 | 6 |
| Health and safety executive | 12 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| A senior colleague | 17 | 21 | 29 | 31 | 70 | 47 |
| The police | 3 | 1 | 1 | 28 | 3 | 3 |
| Parents | 77 | 47 | 30 | 72 | 24 | 16 |
| No one / issued not reported | 14 | 8 | 3 | 12 | 7 | 11 |
| Other | 3 | 3 | 3 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
| Unweighted base | 118 | 278 | 228 | 76 | 921 | 269 |
There have been several changes over time in the notifying of incidents. On the whole, primary and secondary staff in all roles are less likely to report an issue to anyone in 2023 than they were in 2016. In addition, primary headteachers are less likely to report an incident to the local authority now than they were in 2016 (67% 2016, 45% 2023). Secondary teachers (37% 2016, 28% 2023) and support staff (30% 2016, 18% 2023) are both now less likely to notify the headteacher of an incident. Secondary support staff are also less likely in 2023 to inform a teacher of an incident (57% 2016, 42% 2023). Primary teachers and support staff are both less likely to report an incident to the headteacher and more likely to notify a senior colleague than in 2016.
The qualitative interviews with school staff help explain some of the reasons for the underreporting of incidents highlighted in the survey. While some school staff interviewees said behavioural incidents are generally accurately reported, particularly serious violent incidents and those that resulted in exclusion or physical intervention, there was a common concern expressed about the underreporting of other, less serious, incidents.
Certain types of behaviour were considered more underreported than others. This included verbal abuse towards staff in both primary and secondary schools, incidents involving a child with additional support needs, allegations of bullying and pupil-on-pupil violence.
The lack of communication provided to teachers as to the outcomes of a reported behaviour incident deterred teachers from reporting all behaviour incidents they experienced. This reluctance was exacerbated by the view among some teachers that reporting appeared to be futile when there were ‘no consequences’ for disruptive pupils (see Chapter 9). Additionally, teachers complained of the amount of time they spent reporting behaviour incidents. The systems were considered difficult to navigate and overly time-consuming, particularly for staff working in schools frequently experiencing high levels of disruption.
This led staff to prioritise the reporting of certain incidents over others due to capacity. Teachers also suggested that some staff (especially those newer to teaching) may be reluctant to report incidents out of a concern it could reflect poorly on their ability to teach. Lastly, school staff highlighted a lack of consistency around how different type of incidents should be classified and subjective understanding of what incidents might be considered ‘severe’ and ‘low level’.
“I think in most - certainly primary schools I suspect all of the physical aggression will be reported, or the majority of it, but the verbal and pupil-on-pupil I think is vastly underreported.” (Primary teacher)
Following up incidents
The survey asked staff to indicate the ways in which incidents of serious disruptive behaviour and violence are followed up within their schools.
Primary and secondary headteachers, teachers and support staff all agree that the three most frequently used methods of incident follow up are completion of a violence incident form; feedback on how the incident/pupils have been dealt with; and restorative meetings/discussions with pupils/staff.
| % reporting that each of the following occurred… | Primary | Secondary | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | |
| A violence incident form completed | 48 | 31 | 35 | 30 | 18 | 14 |
| Feedback on how incident/pupils have been dealt with | 29 | 35 | 33 | 28 | 40 | 27 |
| Restorative meeting/discussion with pupil(s) involved and yourself | 70 | 40 | 28 | 48 | 31 | 15 |
| Informal meeting/contact with colleagues | 24 | 23 | 19 | 6 | 20 | 13 |
| Formal meeting within school | 21 | 6 | 5 | 43 | 6 | 2 |
| Protected time to recover/speak immediately/debrief | 6 | 5 | 9 | 3 | 3 | 6 |
| Meeting offered with local authority personnel (e.g. Head of Service, QIO, educational psychologist) | 4 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 1 | 0 |
| Counselling support/confidential helpline | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 1 | - |
| In another way (not mentioned above) | 9 | 6 | 9 | 15 | 7 | 11 |
| Not at all | 7 | 14 | 13 | 11 | 17 | 25 |
| Unweighted base | 118 | 278 | 228 | 76 | 921 | 269 |
As shown in the Table 10.4 there are a number of differences in reporting of events that occurred following an incident of serious disruptive behaviour or violence according to school type. Overall, in primary schools a higher proportion of staff reported that the following occurred: a violence incident form completed (33% compared with 17%) and a restorative meeting/ discussion with pupil(s) involved and yourself (38% compared with 28%). In secondary schools a higher proportion of staff said that no action was taken at all (19%) compared with in primary schools (13%). The full breakdown of responses is provided in Supplementary table 10.21.
Among staff based in schools participating in the qualitative research, interviewees outlined the use of both external and internal recording systems. External recording systems, including SEEMiS as well as locally specific systems, were used by school staff to record incidents regarding health and safety, violence and aggression, and bullying. There were schools that also monitored data internally from these external systems. However, knowledge and access to these systems varied across teaching and support staff. There were also participants that reported only using the external electronic system on occasion, relying on internal approaches/verbal reporting instead. This was the case for staff who felt incidents could be handled internally and that escalation was not needed. In schools, internal recording processes, such as verbal reporting to senior management, pastoral notes and chronologies, and referral systems within schools for both positive and disruptive behaviour, were utilised.
LA representatives reported monitoring a range of data from these reporting systems, such as incidents of violence towards staff, bullying and incidents related to protected characteristics, exclusions and attendance, to determine emerging patterns and identify gaps in support.
“Because we're collecting information on the numbers and types of incidents that are happening in our schools, we're able to do that and respond to that very quicky now. We pull off information monthly, and if there seems to be a challenge in a school, then we'll ask the professionals to go out and have that discussion about ‘what else can we do?’” (Local authority representative)
However, headteachers and teachers interviewed in both primary and secondary schools highlighted the perceived lack of follow-up both from the local council and senior management within schools. Headteachers described periods when their school submitted multiple violence and aggression forms but received no follow-up response from the local authority. Within schools, staff described submitting forms and receiving no further communication from senior management regarding the incident until the pupil returned to their class. This contributed to a reluctance to report all incidents.
“By the school, nobody could've done more. Above school level, zero support. When you're filling in violence and aggression forms on a daily basis and nothing happens with them, it's really frustrating. It's a waste of time and all they do is go back to a headteacher and say, 'Is the person okay?' Quite often [the headteacher] will say, 'No, but I don't know what else to do.' (Primary teacher)
Skills and training
In the survey, headteachers were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree that ‘My colleagues have the skills to promote positive relationships and behaviour.’ The majority (89%) of head agree/strongly agree with this statement, with a higher proportion of primary headteachers agreeing compared with secondary headteachers (91% and 84%). Agreement with this has remained consistent since 2016.
All staff were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree that ‘I have received adequate training[92] on how to deal with relationship and behaviour difficulties. Headteachers were also asked the extent to which they agree or disagree that ‘My colleagues have received adequate training/sufficient learning on how to deal with relationship and behaviour difficulties.’
In both primary and secondary schools there were different perceptions among staff types with support staff least likely to agree they receive adequate training (57% in primaries and 40% in secondaries) compared with teachers (80% in primaries and 71% in secondaries). In primary schools a higher proportion of headteachers feel they receive adequate training compared with teachers (76% and 80%), whereas in secondaries these proportions were closer (73% and 71%). Headteachers in secondaries are less likely to agree that colleagues are adequately trained compared with those in primaries (69% and 74%). This is shown in Table 10.3.
| Those that agree (either agree strongly or agree) | Colleagues have received adequate training | I have received adequate training | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Headteachers (%) | Headteachers (%) | Teachers (%) | Support staff (%) | |
| Primary | 74 | 76 | 80 | 57 |
| Secondary | 69 | 73 | 71 | 40 |
| Unweighted base (Primary) | 218 | 218 | 642 | 446 |
| Unweighted base (Secondary) | 129 | 129 | 1,600 | 577 |
There has been no notable change since 2016 in the proportion of staff agreeing with this statement.
Staff views on professional learning around behaviour and relationship management were explored further in the qualitative research. There was considerable variety in terms of the types of training provided and the modes in which training was said to be delivered across the schools and local authorities which participated in the qualitative research.
The qualitative research found that some training programmes were being more commonly delivered across the whole school than others. For example, Nurture principles, relational practice and training on trauma-informed approaches had been delivered to all staff (including janitors and support staff) in some schools and in some local authorities. As outlined in Chapter 9, such training was viewed as having impacted on staff’s increased understanding of behaviour as communication, the role of trauma in young people’s behaviour and the extent to which school staff engaged with the shift towards more positive approaches. Whole school training was viewed as critical to providing a consistent response to the promotion of positive relations and behaviour across staff.
Teaching staff in some schools had also read, and undertaken reading groups on, books on relational and trauma-informed approaches. Teachers spoke of the benefits of reading, discussing and reflecting on these with their colleagues.
While training was very much welcomed by school staff who received it, some expressed the view that it could be tokenistic, with little time to reflect and integrate training into teaching practice. While much of the training discussed by staff was provided directly through the council, in some schools a smaller number of staff were trained and then expected to cascade the learning to their colleagues, though this approach was not always viewed as being as successful.
Staff expressed mixed experiences with regard to training on physical restraint. Some local authorities appeared to only allow staff from specialised settings to access restraint training due to the view that restraint should not be used in the mainstream. However, there were examples of staff having no option but to physically intervene and a desire among staff for training to be provided so that this could be done safely. In some cases, pupils were supported by staff from external agencies who were trained in restraint.
Teaching staff expressed mixed views about the extent to which initial teacher education (ITE) prepared them for dealing with school relationships and behaviour. On the one hand, teaching staff perceived that it had not prepared them sufficiently and suggested that more time should be spent on behaviour as part of ITE training. Other members of teaching staff said that it prepared them as much as it could, noting that they had learned far more through their experiences on their teaching placements and as a probationer than through the course.
“Universities can prepare you for the learning side of it, the academic side of it, but not the behavioural and not the additional support needs side of it, not at all.” (Primary teacher)
Some headteachers and teachers expressed the view that more experienced teachers may be less likely to engage with positive approaches. This view was also shared by a number of LA representatives. On the other hand, there was also a perception among some school staff that less experienced teachers may be more likely to be overwhelmed by poor behaviour and less able to seek assistance to deal with it.
"Particularly there's generations within teaching, isn't there, and there's been a generation that's coming towards the end of their careers that are […] very clear about their expectations, which is, 'I'm the adult in the room, you do as you're told'. Young people that have had very much a rights-based approach to life and education, which is actually that doesn't work anymore, so there's that tension." (Local authority representative)
The role and capacity of support staff
Support staff were asked the extent to which they agree or disagree with the following three statements:
- ‘Support staff in my school play an important role in promoting positive relationships and behaviour’
- ‘I have time within my contracted hours to enable discussions around classroom planning to take place.’
- ‘I have time within my contracted hours to enable feedback discussions with colleagues/SMT/class teacher to take place.’
In primary and secondary schools, the majority of support staff agree that they play an important role in their schools in promoting positive relationships and behaviour. This was higher among primary support staff (93%) than among secondary support staff (87%). This is very similar to the proportion that agreed with this in 2016.
However, most support staff do not feel they have time within their contracted hours to enable discussions around classroom planning. In primary schools only 29% of support staff agree that they have time to engage in this within their contracted hours, 45% disagree or strongly disagree and 26% neither agree nor disagree. A lower proportion of support staff in secondary schools (21%) agree with this, while 62% disagree or strongly disagree and 18% neither agree nor disagree. These figures are shown in Table 10.4.
| Primary (%) | Secondary (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Agree / Strongly agree | 29 | 21 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 26 | 18 |
| Disagree / Strongly disagree | 45 | 62 |
| Unweighted base | 442 | 575 |
The number agreeing with has remained similar to 2016.
Similarly, the majority of support staff do not feel they have time within contracted hours to enable feedback discussions with colleagues/SMT/class teacher to take place. Only 39% of primary support staff agree/strongly agree that they have time to do so, while 38% disagree/strongly disagree and 23% neither agree nor disagree. Compared with primary support staff a lower proportion of secondary support staff agree (25%) and a higher proportion disagree (58%) that they have time within their contracted hours for this purpose. This is shown in Table 10.5.
| Primary (%) | Secondary (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Agree / Strongly agree | 39 | 25 |
| Neither agree nor disagree | 23 | 17 |
| Disagree / Strongly disagree | 38 | 58 |
| Unweighted base | 446 | 576 |
The proportion of support staff agreeing that they have time within their contracted hours to enable feedback discussions with colleagues/SMT/class teacher has decreased since 2016 among those in secondary schools.
Qualitative focus groups with support staff, and interviews with headteachers and local authority representatives reflected the findings of the survey. Participants highlighted the lack of training for support staff, noting that support staff were often those who were most likely to be faced with the most disruptive behaviour and violence, and should be able to access training to support their role.
School staff and LA representatives commonly spoke of the gaps in training provided to support staff. Among support staff themselves, a key issue raised was in relation to induction processes where support staff explained there was often little, if any, induction or initial training provided when they first joined their school. Instead, support staff spoke of having to ‘sink or swim’, relying on the informal support of other members of support staff to help them learn about the pupils they were to support.
“Basically you're in at the deep end. It's a bit of a shock, to be honest, the first couple of weeks until you find your way around and who's who, once you get to know the children a wee bit and how to approach them.” (Secondary support staff)
School staff interviewees highlighted the barriers support staff faced in accessing training more widely. These related to the challenge of finding time for training in support staff’s contracted hours, the hours they work (with many having childcare responsibilities after school) and in some cases the lack of access to a computer. Headteachers noted that training is often provided after school at times when support staff should not be working. Elsewhere staff noted that schools do not have the budget to pay support staff to attend in-service training. It was also noted that training for support staff has to be done during the school day which takes them away from pupils they support, when it may be difficult for schools to arrange cover. Many of the barriers relating to support staff being able to access training were thought to be related to pay.
“I think, again, if we want our staff that are often with the most challenging young people on a period-by-period, day-by-day basis, some thought has to be given over to investing in their training that's paid, not just done through good will.” (Secondary headteacher)
In response, a local authority had increased the training provided to support staff.
"So we've recognised the importance - these are the people who are the least qualified, worst paid people in the school, yet we gave them the most challenging situations to deal with. So recognising their value and trying to upskill them through doing a lot of training in those approaches that I've already spoken about. So the support-for-learning assistants have been trained in all of those aspects.” (Local authority representative)
This, however, appeared to be relatively unusual. Some local authorities had sought to address these issues by allocating support staff collaborative time at the end of the day by reducing their in-service commitment, and by giving support staff an extra contracted hour a week which could then be built up for professional learning or mandatory training.
Suggested improvements to support
In the interviews, school staff and LA representatives were asked about the changes that they would like to see at a local and national level to help them promote relationships and manage disruptive behaviour in their school or LA role. Many of their responses related to the need for additional support.
More support from national and local government bodies
School staff interviewees expressed a desire for more support ‘from the top’. There was a view that too much responsibility is currently placed on teachers, and that more accountability is needed at a national and local level to help support those working in schools.
“I think there are areas where the Scottish Government does need to listen to teacher voices about which way the job is going because like I said right at the start, there seems to be more going into what we need to do but there’s never anything taken away.” (Primary teacher)
At a local level, and allied to the views expressed above in terms of how school staff did not always feel fully supported by their local council, interviewees called for better support from the LA in terms of both resources and in understanding the challenges that school staff face in relation to disruption in school. Headteachers, teachers and support staff expressed a desire for greater transparency from their LA and a recognition of the extent and scope of behavioural issues in schools. They called for a more visible presence from LA staff, for example, sitting in on lessons or visiting schools to experience the reality of the teaching environment. It was suggested that greater communication about school incidents and how they have been addressed from the LAs would help repair some of the trust between school staff and their councils.
Greater resources needed at LA level
Many of the responses around how things could be improved in the future related to funding and resources to help staff feel better supported.
Staff in some schools in areas of higher deprivation outlined the benefits of additional funding they had received through the Pupil Equity Fund (PEF) and the Scottish Attainment Challenge (SAC). Headteachers said this funding had allowed schools to set up and fund Nurture bases and staff, establish Inclusion Hubs and bases, provide targeted Nurture support, and buy in additional support resources from the LA. However, school staff also highlighted instances where their funding from PEF and SAC had been reduced. Some headteachers noted their SAC funding had come to an end. Others complained that their PEF funding was going to the LA rather than directly to the school and that this reduced the funds available to them, which had implications for the funding of inclusion hubs, nurture bases and support staff levels.
School staff also noted how LA cuts to statutory services (e.g., social work, mental health), third sector organisations (including those offering alternative provision), enhanced support provision and numbers of support staff impacted on the resources available to schools to help some of their most dysregulated children and young people. Long waiting lists were said to make it harder for schools to support young people adequately. Both primary and secondary headteachers reported that there was a lack of joined up approaches between schools, the third sector and statutory services. This was perceived to be partly related to local authority cuts.
“Some of these children, I would say it’s been obvious for probably 7 or 8 years that they’ve needed help. But as everything has been cut back and there are fewer external agencies to rely on yeah, it’s been really difficult. Not having a primary mental health worker has been a nightmare.” (Secondary school headteacher)
Need for additional staffing at school level
At a school level, school staff (heads, teachers and support staff) expressed a desire for additional funding for both teachers and classroom-based support staff, to help increase staff capacity to address behaviour issues. Staff pointed to reductions in numbers of support staff, a perceived critical resource, and the ways that this has impacted on schools’ ability to provide one-to-one support and facilitate nurture and wellbeing groups.
“It's support. Staffing is a massive thing. The more staff we have, the better things we can do… We can run more groups. We can support more children.” (Primary teacher)
Staff also called for smaller class sizes in the primary sector to help support staff to build relationships with their pupils.
The low pay of support staff was frequently discussed, with interviewees pointing out the challenges of living on their wages, particularly during the school holidays, with the result that some were working multiple jobs to cope financially.
Need for more training
School staff called for more training, particularly for support staff who can face multiple barriers to accessing training. Among LA representatives there were signs of attempts to bridge the gap in support staff’s training. However, this was not evident in the schools visited as part of the qualitative research. School staff highlighted the need for support staff to be paid to undertake training outside of school. Support staff highlighted the need for induction training and requested this to help support them in their roles with children.
In terms of their own training needs, teachers expressed a desire for more classroom observation from their peers to help them reflect and discuss strategies used, and access peer support from their colleagues. They also called for more time after accessing professional learning to be able to reflect on the training and consider how the strategies could be applied to their own classroom.
Parental and pupil engagement
The desire for more support for schools and staff also extended to parents, whom some staff perceived to be unsupportive of school attempts to manage behaviour. School staff suggested greater engagement with parents would help address this, for example, by conveying to parents the impact that low level disruption can have in the classroom, especially on those who are behaving well.
There was a perception among school staff that schools and teachers were being held accountable for social issues which require wider engagement. Staff expressed a desire for earlier intervention to help support struggling families. However, both school staff and local authority representatives recognised the challenge of providing additional support to families within the context of LA budget cuts.
“I feel that if the Government want to make things better in schools, they need to try and help people before children come to school, and that's where their money and the people should be. Then I think if we're talking about behaviour, I think behaviour would be different when it came - if parents are helped to parent, then I think behaviour will be better in schools because everybody will be singing from the same hymn sheet.” (Primary teacher)
It was also suggested that a campaign to engage with pupils themselves in terms of what their responsibilities are around school behaviour could be beneficial.
Contact
There is a problem
Thanks for your feedback