5.1 Staffing
Almost all education authorities had substantially increased their complement of specialist support staff as a result of the BB-BL report. This included the provision of many additional teachers and auxiliaries to support pupils with behavioural difficulties. In the best practice, authorities had a clear rationale for the deployment of additional staff, supported by clear policies for promoting positive behaviour. They gave priority to augmenting the staff complement in schools with the greatest need for additional support and had clear procedures for assessing the added value that they brought. Some authorities had carried out a review of the criteria for allocating learning support staff to all schools in order to provide targeted support for pupils. A few had increased the size of their outreach behaviour support teams and had allocated them to schools on the basis of need.
Other authorities had allocated additional staff in a variety of ways, often linked to responses to 'A Teaching Profession for the 21st Century'. Some provided all secondary schools with additional teachers to support pupils with behavioural difficulties, along with outreach behaviour support teachers for primary schools. Others ensured that all nursery and primary schools were supported by separate teams of behaviour support teachers and auxiliary staff for the primary and pre-school sectors. Some authorities established additional management posts centrally and in schools to improve the management of behaviour, and others devolved funding to schools. Almost all authorities had enhanced auxiliary support for schools. In some cases, all primary schools had gained additional auxiliary support. The provision of additional support staff had increased the capacity of schools to respond to the BB-BL report.
Several authorities had made effective use of additional support to improve parents' participation in their children's learning. Examples included support workers working across primary/secondary clusters to improve home-school communication and social skills, and youth workers working with pupils in the classroom and supporting games in the playground. Almost all authorities had deployed home-school link workers to support primary and secondary schools. These workers helped to improve participation of parents/carers in school life and to reduce exclusions. Good progress had been made in developing partnership between schools, families and services providing family support. Many authorities had deployed home-school link workers to every cluster of schools, but too few were allocated on the basis of need.
5.2 In-class support
In most schools, support for learning teachers, behaviour support teachers and auxiliary staff provided additional support for pupils with challenging behaviour in mainstream classes. The most effective practice was based on clear identification of roles for the class teacher and support teacher, and teamwork founded on shared aims for the class and individual pupils. Pupils were consulted and kept informed about why they were receiving in-class support and what they were expected to achieve. In many secondary schools there was insufficient monitoring of the effectiveness of in-class support. Primary schools tended not to use their auxiliary support to address behavioural difficulties. However, there were signs that this might change with the training and deployment of behaviour coordinators deployed under the FFI approach.
|
Staff in a primary school had a very inclusive approach when working to promote positive behaviour. Pupils experiencing difficulties were part of a 'Nurture Group' where the aim was to establish trust with one known adult and eventually reintegrate pupils into mainstream classes. Within the Group, pupils negotiated their own daily targets and signed the teacher's assessment of their behaviour. A strong personal and social development programme gave them regular opportunities to develop responsibility and citizenship. Mainstream teachers skilfully adapted teaching methods to include pupils with behavioural difficulties. They included the same or similar teaching strategies and reward systems employed in the Nurture Group. Pupils given this quality of support were developing their personal and social skills very well and had very good contact with their mainstream classes. The school worked very effectively with parents to address behaviour issues and to involve them in their children's learning. Parents spoke appreciatively about how they had learned to handle their child more positively. |
5.3 Staged intervention
The development of staged intervention approaches and the related work of joint assessment teams were having an increasingly positive impact on the management of challenging behaviour. In the best practice, joint assessment teams, with membership from all appropriate partner services, assessed the progress and future needs of pupils with challenging behaviour. They also met these needs through appropriate levels of intervention with an emphasis on keeping pupils as fully included in mainstream as possible. They took account of individual pupils' progress and their responses to specific teaching methods and curriculum areas, in order to determine the nature of support required. They also took account of exactly when and where the pupils exhibited challenging behaviour. This could lead to a range of interventions matched to the individual circumstances, including additional support in or outwith classes, and provision of an alternative curriculum where appropriate.
Pupil and family support services provided valuable support across clusters at key transition points. In the most effective practice, support was matched by schools and outside agencies to individual pupils' needs at the various stages during which they exhibited challenging behaviour. In a few schools where joint assessment teams were particularly effective, educational psychologists played a key role in equipping staff with effective solution-focused training. Overall, use of staged assessment and intervention was increasingly making a positive contribution to addressing the needs of pupils with challenging behaviour. The further development of this approach will be assisted by Scottish Executive funding for the training and deployment of behaviour coordinators in schools.
There were some common weaknesses in the work of joint assessment teams, however. In some cases, not all members of the multi-agency team attended meetings. Shortages of social workers sometimes meant that social work, in particular, could be under-represented at meetings. Senior management teams and other promoted staff in schools were not always committed to the work of the joint assessment teams. There was sometimes insufficient communication with teaching and non-teaching staff about the actions proposed by joint assessment teams.
5.4 On-site support bases
A number of authorities had accessed funding to refurbish schools through Public Private Partnership (PPP) projects. Funding for the development and improvement of school infra-structure had led to almost all authorities developing support bases for pupils with behavioural difficulties in most or almost all of their secondary schools. A few authorities had bases in all secondary schools and a number of primary schools, with the latter often serving a cluster of schools. The accommodation for pupils with additional support needs, including those with behavioural problems, was good or very good in almost all schools.
HM Inspectors saw a number of examples of schools making good use of in-school bases to provide for pupils with behavioural difficulties. In the best practice, the bases were used to provide short-term support before returning pupils to normal class work as soon as was feasible. It was important to have clear criteria and procedures for referring pupils to the base and appropriate learning and behaviour plans for individual pupils, which addressed aspects of their personal and social development. In schools with the best practice there were clear procedures for monitoring the re-integration of pupils into mainstream. Some authorities had acknowledged the success of these bases in improving motivation, behaviour and attendance, reducing exclusions and decreasing the need for residential placements. This was confirmed in inspection reports.
On-site support bases were not always appropriate for all cases, however.
HM inspectors did sometimes encounter incidences of teachers in support bases and in mainstream classes who were struggling to cope effectively with individual pupils who were exhibiting exceptionally challenging behaviour over a period of time despite on-site support. These pupils often needed care and support from specialist off-site provision to address their behavioural difficulties in a safe environment where they would not disrupt the learning of others. Although there were small numbers of these pupils, all authorities needed to ensure that they have sufficient access to viable off-site provision to meet their needs.
Many secondary schools operated 'time-out' facilities of various types. These were generally staffed on a rota by teachers or by members of the senior management team, rather than by behaviour support staff. Pupils were usually sent to time-out facilities for only short periods of time, often for only one period. They were often not sufficiently involved in setting or negotiating targets to improve their behaviour. These facilities were typically viewed by schools as 'sin bins' , which provided a 'safety valve' for teachers and a 'cooling-off time' for pupils. Whilst the facilities generally served these limited purposes, most were poorly resourced and pupils were expected to work through learning materials on their own. Teachers who staffed the units rarely engaged in teaching. A small number of teachers used these facilities disproportionately, often referring the same pupils for repeat visits. Overall these facilities contributed little to the development of positive approaches to behaviour, and schools were beginning to restrict their use. Headteachers should closely monitor the uses and impact of those facilities to ensure that they provide environments in which pupils can pursue their subject programmes with teaching support. Primary schools tended not to operate time-out facilities.
5.5 Off-site provision
The off-site establishments visited, particularly the provision for primary pupils, provided generally effective support for pupils with challenging behaviour on their roll. In some cases, they also provided outreach support for mainstream schools as part of an authority strategy to support pupils in mainstream. They had generally been successful in creating an environment where pupils who had been highly disruptive and challenging felt secure and able to address the underlying causes of their behavioural problems. The level of exclusions from these provisions was very low. In most cases they were well resourced and accommodation was comfortable. In a few cases they had insufficient classroom space.
Access to an off-site unit was through referral to the unit or cluster joint assessment teams and then, if appropriate, to the authority's 'gatekeeper' group. Most 'gatekeeper groups' were comprised of officers from education, educational psychology and social work services. These groups made decisions about referrals to off-site provision either within the council or outwith it.
Examples of effective practice seen included the use of trained staff to promote positive behaviour through de-escalation techniques. In the best practice, establishments maintained close links with parents and worked jointly with partner agencies. They also had well-judged plans for individual pupils containing targets for their behaviour and learning. The most effective practice was based on the underlying principle that pupils should be reintegrated into mainstream schools.
|
Staff at one off-site unit provided a very effective approach to overcoming barriers to pupils' learning. Pupils accessed the core curriculum in their mainstream school and attended the unit for three sessions each week. The school and unit focused on personal and social development with the clear aim of engaging pupils in learning. This also enabled pupils to interact effectively and appropriately with adults and peers. Pupils were encouraged to look at their own styles of learning and adapt work to suit. ICT was used well to develop self esteem and engage pupils in learning tasks. The school worked closely with all agencies and regular multidisciplinary reviews were held to monitor pupils' progress. |
|
One authority had developed an 'inclusion service' which worked very effectively with secondary schools and partner agencies to promote inclusion and offer very good alternative experiences for pupils with behavioural difficulties. There were clear referral criteria for different packages of support in a tiered model. Each pupil had a detailed individual programme. The provision led to positive outcomes for individual pupils. |
There were a number of common weaknesses in secondary off-site provision, however. The curriculum often had too narrow a range of subjects at Standard Grade and where provision based on National Qualifications at Intermediate 1 or Access 3 had been introduced this was often insufficiently challenging. Teachers in the pupils' base schools too often contributed little to individualised learning programmes or joint approaches to pupil assessment, and there were insufficient opportunities for reintegration of pupils to their base school, especially at S3/S4.
Off-site provision designed for primary pupils typically provided part-time programmes, with pupils attending their own primary school for part of the week. These types of arrangements were often particularly effective. Behaviour support teachers from the establishments jointly planned programmes of work with each pupil's mainstream class teacher. This helped to ensure curriculum continuity and to assist pupils' full-time return to their base school.