Behaviour in Scottish schools: research report 2023

Chapter 7 – Factors which predict experiences of behaviour

Summary of findings

While a number of in-school factors which predict behaviour were identified in the quantitative analysis, participants in the interviews and focus groups focused on societal factors such as poverty and deprivation and challenges associated with home and family life such as trauma and adverse childhood experiences and parenting as the root causes of disruptive behaviour.

Interview participants also identified school-based factors as supporting positive behaviour in schools such as a whole-school approach to recognising and celebrating positive behaviour and strong relationships between teachers, pupils and their families.

This highlights the challenge for schools in balancing in-school approaches to promoting positive behaviour alongside an external societal context outside their influence.

From the survey, perceptions of behaviour getting worse since the pandemic was the strongest predictor of experiences of frequent negative behaviour, irrespective of the type of behaviour and the type of school or role of the staff member. This is hardly surprising, and it is not possible to infer from this that the impact of COVID is causing negative behaviour.

A number of other factors were also notable:

• Poorer school ethos was associated with frequent negative behaviour, as was poorer promotion of policies on behaviour which was associated with more frequent low level disruptive behaviour, aggression towards other pupils and social exclusion. The direction of the association with poorer school ethos is likely to be circular, with behaviour affecting ethos, as well as the other way around.
• Disruptive or negative behaviour was more frequent in urban schools than rural schools, particularly at primary level.
• Teachers of P6 and P7 were more likely than teachers of younger children to experience frequent negative behaviours.
• Having a high proportion of children with English as an additional language was associated with more frequent experiences of negative behaviour in primary schools. This association is likely to be complicated and mediated by other variables including wider societal factors that are not captured in the survey. Further research is needed to explore why this association is observed in primary schools and not at secondary level.
• At secondary level, having a high proportion of children living in the most deprived areas tended to be much more commonly associated with frequent negative behaviour than at primary level. This is also likely to be linked to wider societal factors, though further research is needed to explore why this association is observed at secondary level and not at primary level.
• Teachers’ confidence in their own abilities to respond to disruptive behaviour or to promote positive behaviour also emerged as an issue in relation to some types of behaviour.

Predictors of experienced behaviour were more similar within each staff type / school type group, rather than for each of the different types of negative behaviour identified. This suggests that staff who experienced one type of negative behaviour were also more likely to experience other types of negative behaviour. Thus, where mildly disruptive behaviour is prevalent, discriminatory or violent behaviour is also more likely to be common.

School staff and local authority representatives identified a number of external factors which impact behaviour in schools including:

• Societal factors such as poverty and deprivation.
• Challenges associated with home and family life such as trauma and adverse childhood experiences and parenting.
• Additional support needs, particularly where sufficient support is not in place for pupils.

Introduction

This chapter draws on both survey and qualitative findings to explore the key factors associated with experiences of negative pupil behaviour among headteachers, teachers and support staff.

Multivariable regression analysis was used to identify the factors most strongly and independently associated with experiences of nine different types of negative or disruptive behaviour^[70]. The variables used and the statistical analysis conducted are described in Annex F.

The different types of negative behaviours examined are as follows^[71]:

• low level disruptive behaviour in the classroom
• low level disruptive behaviour around the school
• disengagement
• aggression, violence, destructiveness and general verbal abuse towards other pupils
• discriminatory verbal abuse towards other pupils
• pupils under the influence of drugs / alcohol and abusive use of technology
• social exclusion
• aggression, violence and verbal abuse towards staff
• discriminatory verbal abuse towards staff

The list of variables considered for inclusion in each of the models to predict staff experiences is also shown in the Annex F. It is worth noting that the list is limited to questions asked in the surveys and administrative data recorded about the school. However, behaviour is not solely a product of the school one attends, and poor behaviour in school is also likely to be associated with other factors which have not been measured here. Therefore, school staff and local authority representatives were asked to reflect on the root causes of disruptive behaviour and factors which promote behaviour in schools in the qualitative interviews.

In this chapter, we are able to identify a number of key predictors of staff experiences of poor pupil behaviour and the wider societal issues which contribute to both positive and negative behaviour.

Overall findings

The variables that were generally found to predict an increased likelihood of staff experiencing negative behaviour were:

• Perception of behaviour in the classroom or around the school to be much worse than before COVID-19 pandemic restrictions began in March 2020
• Perception of a poorer overall ethos of the school
• The school having a high proportion of children living in the most deprived areas – this as a predictor amongst all primary and secondary staff types with the exception of primary headteachers

In addition to the above, amongst teachers and support staff a wider range of variables are found to predict experiences of negative pupil behaviour, including poor promotion of policies on behaviour within the school and poorer perception of staff working together. For primary and secondary teachers, low confidence in one’s own abilities to respond to disruptive behaviour or to promote positive behaviour is a predictor as well as a school size, with larger schools associated with negative pupil behaviour, in particular, with low level disruption and disengagement.

Poor promotion of policies on behaviour was more associated with low level disruption and disengagement whereas, lower confidence in one’s own abilities to respond to disruptive behaviour was associated with aggression and discriminatory abuse towards pupils and social exclusion^[72].

In primary schools, being in a school with a higher proportion of pupils with English as an additional language was associated with more frequent experiences of negative behaviour. This finding is most evident from the reported experiences of teachers in primary schools where more than around 5% of pupils with English as an additional language predicted more frequent experiences of five types of negative behaviour including low level disruption and aggression and discriminatory abuse towards pupils. The association between this and increased negative behaviour is likely to be complicated and mediated by other variables including wider societal factors that are not captured in the survey.

The stage of pupils being taught by primary teachers was also a predictor, with P6 and P7 teachers more likely to report more frequent negative behaviour in four of the models, particularly in relation to low level disruption.

Urban-Rural classification of the school with schools in urban areas, and to a lesser extent in accessible rural areas or small towns, reporting a more frequent negative behaviour. This is a predictor amongst primary headteachers and support staff and secondary teachers; for the latter this specifically predicts physically aggressive behaviour towards other pupils.

Primary headteachers

Up to three variables were found to significantly and independently predict an increased likelihood of experiencing the negative behaviour amongst primary headteachers^[73]. Perceiving behaviour in the classroom or around the school to be much worse than before COVID-19 pandemic restrictions began in March 2020 was very strongly and consistently associated with experiencing poor behaviour.

The overall ethos of the school was also a highly significant predictor of behaviour. Headteachers who reported the ethos as being poorer were more likely to report higher frequencies of negative behaviours. However, the direction of this association is likely to be circular, with behaviour affecting ethos, as well as the other way around. What individual staff members interpreted as “ethos” is also unclear, but to some extent this can be identified by removing this variable from the models to discover what would otherwise be associated with experiencing negative behaviour. When this is done, the main variable which replaces it is the one recording perceptions of how well staff work together, suggesting that this is at least in part what staff mean by “ethos”.

The third variable that is statistically significant in most of the models is the urban-rural classification of the school. Headteachers of schools in urban areas, and to a lesser extent in accessible rural areas or small towns, reported more frequent negative behaviour. The only other variable that was significantly associated with perceptions of behaviour in any of the models was the proportion of children with English as an additional language. The findings suggest higher proportions (those with between 2% and 12.5%) were associated with primary headteachers being more likely to report higher levels of aggression, violence and verbal abuse towards staff. However, the relationship did not hold for schools with the highest proportions (>12.5%) of children with English as an additional language.

Primary teachers

The range of variables included in the models of primary school teachers’ experiences of pupil behaviour was much greater than for headteachers. To some extent this is due to the larger sample size, but it is interesting that the findings are not dominated to the same extent by perceptions of behaviour being worse since the pandemic and the school ethos, though these factors nevertheless remain important.

In four of the seven models summarised in Table F4 in Annex F, poor promotion of policies on behaviour was associated with more frequent negative behaviour including both low level disruptive behaviour, aggression towards other pupils and social exclusion. Limited confidence in one’s own abilities ‘to respond to indiscipline in the classroom’ or to promote positive behaviour was also associated with more frequent experiences of negative behaviour in a number of the models. However, the former was primarily associated with low level disruption and disengagement whereas the latter was associated with aggression and discriminatory abuse towards pupils and social exclusion.

P6 and P7 teachers were more likely to report more frequent negative behaviour in four of the models, particularly in relation to low level disruption. Being in a school with a higher proportion of pupils with English as an additional language (more than around 5%) was significantly associated with more frequent experiences of five types of negative behaviour including low level disruption and aggression and discriminatory abuse towards pupils^[74].

Poorer perceptions of working together, the size and location of the school, and the proportion of children living in deprived areas all showed significant, independent associations with experiences of at least one type of negative behaviour.

Primary support staff

The variables most associated with support staff’s experiences of negative behaviour were again dominated by school ethos and perceptions of worse behaviour since the pandemic.

Other variables showing significant associations with more frequent experiences of negative behaviour, in at least two of the models, were poorer promotion of policies on behaviour, poorer perception of working together, being in an urban or accessible area, and having a high proportion of pupils living in deprived areas. Table F5 in Annex F shows which variables were significantly associated with which types of behaviour.

Secondary headteachers

Two main factors emerged as being associated with experiencing higher levels of negative behaviour for secondary headteachers^[75]: a perception of much worse behaviour since the pandemic and having a high proportion of children living in the most deprived areas. Finding that a perception of worse behaviour since the pandemic is associated with secondary headteachers’ experiences is perhaps unexpected given it has featured as a key predictor for the other staff groups discussed thus far, but the proportion of children living in the most deprived areas was not found to be a particularly important predictor for primary school staff. Larger schools were identified as a predictor in one of the models, being associated with low level disruptive behaviour around the school, but no other factors featured. The limited extent of these models is mainly due to the smaller sample size compared with that for teachers and support staff.

Secondary teachers

For secondary teachers, school ethos and perceptions of worse behaviour since the pandemic were again significant predictors of experiences of all types of negative behaviour^[76] . The same was true for having a high proportion of pupils living in the most deprived areas, supporting the earlier finding for secondary headteachers.

A number of the other variables discussed in relation to other groups also showed significant associations with experiences of some of the types of behaviour. For example, poorer promotion of policies on behaviour, confidence in one’s own ability to respond to indiscipline in the classroom and being in a larger school were associated with low level disruption and disengagement. In contrast, being in a school in an urban or accessible rural area was associated with aggression towards pupils and towards staff. Having high proportions of children with ASN was associated with higher experiences of low level disruption in the classroom and disengagement.

The length of service as a teacher was associated with almost all experiences of behaviour, with those who had been teaching for less time more likely to report frequent poor behaviour.

The subject taught was associated with experiences in three of the models, although the pattern was not clear. Teachers of practical subjects, such as art and design or physical education, were the most likely to experience frequent low level disruption in the classroom, while teachers of science were less likely to experience disengagement or social exclusion. ASN or learning support teachers were less likely to experience disengagement but more likely to experience social exclusion.

Secondary support staff

Perceiving that behaviour was worse since the pandemic was significantly associated with more frequent experiences of all types of negative behaviour for secondary support staff^[77]. Poorer school ethos was associated with four types of behaviour, specifically those which were not low level disruption or disengagement. Notably however, poorer promotion of policies on behaviour was associated with five types of behaviour, including low level disruption and disengagement. School size, school location and the proportion of children living in the most deprived areas were also significant, but in relation to different types of behaviour.

Perceptions of root causes of disruptive behaviour

School staff and local authority representatives identified a range of root causes of disruptive behaviour among children and young people. Most commonly, participants spoke about the impact of wider societal factors which are outwith the direct influence of schools including poverty and deprivation and the cost-of-living crisis. While schools can promote positive behaviour in school, the extent to which school can influence or mitigate these external factors is limited.

School staff discussed the impact of hunger and inadequate nutrition on pupils’ ability to engage with school and described the introduction of initiatives such as free breakfast for all pupils and breakfast clubs to counter this.

“The impact on the young person in terms of uniforms, food, etc., that's the challenges they're facing. With the cost of the school day/cost of living crisis for all of us, I think we're seeing a little bit more of that coming through.” (Local authority representative)

Participants also identified other societal issues such as the increased use of mobile phones and social media, violence and aggression in communities and the societal impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown. The impact of COVID-19 on behaviour is explored in detail in Chapter 6.

School staff and local authority representatives also reported the impact that home and family life outside of school can have on pupils’ behaviour in school, giving examples of traumatic events and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) such as witnessing and experiencing domestic violence, children and young people being looked-after and accommodated, parental substance misuse and poor parental mental health as external factors which can profoundly impact the way in which pupils behave in school. Participants also cited the impact of parenting on young people, in particular how lack of family boundaries and routines leading to pupils having poor sleep can affect behaviour during the school day. Participants described pupils replicating in school the reactive and verbally aggressive behaviour they see modelled at home.

“Children are just the sort of output of their homelife and if the parents are struggling, or if the parents aren’t coping, or they have social emotional needs then their children are bound to have these needs and we can’t plug the gaps, we can’t raise attainment without actually looking at the problems in society that have caused it.” (Primary teacher)

Mirroring findings from the survey for secondary teachers, school staff and local authority representatives also highlighted that additional support needs including Autism Spectrum Disorders, ADHD and pupil mental health and anxiety can be a root cause of some behaviours, particularly among those young people awaiting a diagnosis and where appropriate support is not in place. Qualitative participants spoke about the presumption of mainstream education, reductions in alternative provision for pupils with additional support needs and long waiting lists for Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services as exacerbating the difficult behaviours.

Factors promoting positive behaviour

School staff and local authority representatives were more likely to speak about in-school activities and approaches than societal or parental factors when discussing factors which promote positive behaviour. School staff placed importance in a whole-school approach in recognising and praising positive behaviour, with examples such as sharing achievements on social media, posting positive behaviour on display screens around the school, emails sent to parents to praise their child’s positive behaviour and rewarding positive behaviour with trips and rewards.

Building positive relationships between school staff, pupils and their families was also highlighted as an important factor in promoting positive behaviour. Both routine informal parental engagement activities such as school staff being visible and available at the end of the school day and specific events such as prize-giving ceremonies and assemblies were seen as key in building relationships between parents and schools. This relationship between schools and parents was seen to promote a shared understanding of the standard of behaviour which is expected in school and more consistency between the home and school environments.

“It's relationships we have with the pupils, the pupils have with themselves, that people have with staff members, the relationship that we have with families, teachers have with families.” (Primary headteacher)

Local authority representatives in particular also identified the importance of the pupils’ voice and mechanisms for pupils to feed into school decision-making processes in supporting positive behaviour.