Evaluation of the Behaviour Improvement Programme
A final report for the NASUWT

Print this page

Contents

Introduction

1. Background to the Behaviour Improvement Programme

2. Methodology

3. Evaluation of the BIP by the University of London

4. Key Findings of the Classroom Teachers Study

Demography of Respondents

Awareness of the BIP

Training and Guidance

Impact of the BIP on Pupils

Local Implementation of the BIP

Successes and Weaknesses

Resourcing

Impact of the BIP on Teachers

5. Conclusions

Appendix 1: List of Participating LEAs

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Appendix 3: Bibliography

Introduction

This document, first published in 2004, sets out the key findings of research undertaken by the NASUWT in collaboration with the Perpetuity Group on the Behaviour Improvement Programme (the BIP).

The BIP was established in 2002 and involved targeted intervention to tackle truancy and pupil indiscipline across 34 local authorities. As the document makes clear, the aim of the BIP was to focus resources and expertise in a limited number of schools where it was felt that such support could have a significant impact on pupil behaviour and attendance. At its peak, 130 secondary schools and 555 primary schools were involved in the programme with each local authority given between £1.4 and £1.5 million to fund the BIP in their selected schools.

As of 2005/06, the funding that had previously been allocated to the BIP was merged into the School Development Grant (SDG), giving local authorities and schools considerable freedom to spend these resources on any initiatives to support teaching and learning. However, the DCSF (formerly the DfES) continues to encourage schools that had been involved in the BIP to be given specific resources to build on the lessons of BIP in specific behaviour and attendance activities.

The research described in this document sought to establish the extent to which teachers in BIP schools felt that the programme was having a specific and beneficial impact on behaviour and attendance. While the research found that the BIP had generated some limited benefits, a key finding centres on the inadequacy of work to communicate the key aims of BIP to teachers with the result that teachers often felt that their expertise and experience in dealing with these important issues was not given sufficient value.

Despite the discontinuation of the BIP, this document remains a pertinent and contemporary investigation of the impact of Government behaviour and attendance initiatives and highlights some of the problems that future work in this area should seek to avoid.

1. Background To The Behaviour Improvement Programme

1.1. Bad behaviour and truancy are two of the biggest challenges facing schools today; research shows that there are positive relationships between attendance at school and academic performance and powerful evidence that those who are not in school are easily drawn into crime and antisocial behaviour (DfES, 2002). Furthermore, in a number of schools, the behaviour and attendance of some pupils can disrupt others, reducing the educational opportunities for all. Tackling truancy and bad behaviour in schools is therefore crucial to improving levels of attainment for all pupils, improving their life chances and improving our communities as a whole.

1.2. A sharp increase in the number of 11-15 year olds charged with robbery and the Prime Minister’s call for a ‘high intensity’ drive on street crime led to an overall package of £66m being made available as part of the national strategy to reduce street crime in March 2002. The funding has been targeted on the ten police forces[1] which together account for over 80% of street crime.

1.3. Linked into the Home Office’s Street Crime Initiative is a national drive against truancy by providing additional support for schools with the biggest problems. The Behaviour Improvement Programme (the BIP) was set up in July 2002 by the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). Phase one of the programme represented a broad and important development with the aim of improving behaviour and attendance and reducing crime over the subsequent three years.

1.4. The expectation was that the BIP would directly impact on the quality of teaching and learning in participating schools and would improve the school environment as well as pupils’ future prospects. The initiative underlines the importance of addressing whole-school behaviour and attendance issues to the benefit of the wider school community.

1.5. As the Junior Minister for Skills and Vocational Education, Ivan Lewis, maintained in an article entitled ‘Plans to Curb Bullies Unveiled’ (2003a): ‘Tackling bad behaviour in the classroom is essential if we are to raise educational standards and create a greater respect for teachers. It is also central to reducing antisocial behaviour, which is damaging people’s quality of life in too many communities.’

1.6. In April 2003, the Government unveiled a £75m package for the BIP to be extended to a further 26 areas involving an additional 100 or more secondary schools and 400 more primary schools. It is hoped that the additional funding will ensure real change is embedded in schools facing the most severe problems and provide the opportunity to share successful measures with schools not targeted.

1.7. The Behaviour Improvement Programme forms a central element of the National Behaviour and Attendance Strategy and, following the Government’s perspective that behaviour and attendance should be co-ordinated together at local level, the programme is being delivered through the Excellence in Cities structure. The programme is delivered through a multi-agency approach combining the local health trust, social services and education services working together within teams to support the development of healthy schools and emotionally literate pupils.

1.8. In most LEAs management is focused on the BIP co-ordinator working with headteachers, sometimes through area co-ordinators.

1.9. In the first phase of the programme 34 authorities [2] were selected to participate in the programme and each of the authorities was allocated between £1.4m and £1.5m to target resources on a small number of secondary schools and their feeder primary schools; 130 secondary schools and 555 primary schools are participating in this phase of the programme, involving over 300,000 pupils.3

School Selection

1.10. The Behaviour Improvement Programme is being targeted on a small number of schools since a ‘one size fits all’ approach will not resolve the problem. It is evident that some schools are in more need of support and it is hoped the BIP will make a real difference to these schools.

1.11. Overall, secondary schools were selected to participate in the BIP on the basis of three main criteria including:

• levels of attendance (authorised and unauthorised);
• exclusions (permanent and fixed term); and
• crime (number of pupils involved, high-crime area).

1.12. Some LEAs also took into account a range of other factors including:

• level of attainment;
• number of pupils with special educational needs;
• levels of social and economic deprivation;
• entitlement to free school meals;
• ethnicity and gender balance;
• evidence from behaviour audits already undertaken.

1.13. Some LEAs included pupil referral units and special schools in their selection. Primary schools were selected as partner or feeder schools to a participating secondary school using the same criteria as the secondary schools or by the number or percentage of pupils feeding into the participating secondary schools.

Targets

1.14. All participating LEAs and schools involved in this national programme are committed to achieving a number of key objectives which are:

• to improve standards of behaviour overall;
• to reduce unauthorised absence;
• to secure lower levels of exclusions than in comparable schools;
• to ensure that there is a key named worker for every child at risk of truancy, exclusion or criminal behaviour by January 2003;
• to build on the achievement of full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils in September 2002, and to ensure the availability of full-time, supervised education for all pupils from day one of either permanent or temporary exclusion by January 2003.

1.15. As the then Secretary of State pointed out in his speech, ‘Why discipline matters’ (DfES, 2002), these are ambitious targets. However, the schools selected to be involved in the BIP are committed to the raising achievement agenda and recognise the funding as a very real opportunity to build upon existing good practice, some of which has resulted from the successful experience of Excellence in Cities.

Common Interventions

1.16. Whilst the BIP supports strategies already in place, it also provides the resources to develop additional measures to support schools. A range of projects has been developed over the last year and there is considerable overlap between the particular interventions being implemented.

1.17. The package of measures has included the setting up of Behaviour and Education Support Teams (BESTs). A BEST typically contains a minimum of four to five staff members, who between them have a complementary mix of education, social care and health skills in order to meet the multifaceted needs of children, young people and their parents, for example, health visitors, school nurses, educational psychologists and social workers. Support is given, for example, to pupils with complex needs including mental health problems. Ninety-seven per cent of participating LEAs are implementing BESTs and they have received the largest share of the BIP funding (Hallam et al, 2003).

1.18. Linked to the BIP is the Safer Schools Partnership. This is a scheme which has developed the concept of police officers based in schools to create a safe community and support structure for victims of crime, as well as to target perpetrators for remedial work.

1.19. Learning support units (LSUs) and pupil referral units (PRUs) are another important development which 62% of the LEAs have implemented in their schools (Hallam et al, 2003).

1.20. The Behaviour Improvement Programme tackles the roots of bad behaviour by assigning key workers to pupils who have been or are ‘at risk’ of exclusion, truancy or criminal behaviour so that they are suitably educated and are brought back into the classroom as soon as they are ready.

1.21. Also in place are interventions related to parental support which are aimed at assisting parents with excluded or ‘at risk’ pupils. To draw upon a specific case study, Kidbrooke School in Greenwich has used the BIP funding to finance a counselling service which provides one-to-one support for pupils and their families, group work and family therapy. In addition, this counselling service also runs a helpline for parents dealing with crises such as self-harm, drugs or crime (Lewis, 2003b).

1.22. In an attempt to identify schools’ pressing behaviour and attendance issues, behaviour audits enable the identification of young people at risk and training needs such as anger and behaviour management as well as personal safety training. According to research conducted by the UoL (Hallam et al, 2003), behaviour audits have been carried out in almost all of the schools (91%) involved in the BIP.

1.23. ‘Extended’ or ‘full service’ schools are another initiative, involving activities outside of the school day such as breakfast clubs and parenting support.

1.24. A range of measures are in place to reduce truancy including intensified truancy patrols in a bid to reduce street crime and get pupils back in schools where they belong, as well as additional attendance officers.

1.25. Under phase two of the Government’s initiative, electronic registration schemes will also help schools tackle truancy. These systems will allow attendance data to be recorded and analysed immediately and will also enable officers to track individual pupils and attendance levels.

1.26. There are a number of interventions relating to curriculum development at both secondary and primary level. These include the development of nurture groups and circle time within primary schools. Also included are ICT initiatives such as notschool.net, an online research project which looks at ways of reintroducing learning to young people who have been out of the more traditional educational systems for a variety of personal and logistical reasons including phobia, illness, exclusion and the disaffected, sick and pregnant. Notschool is specifically aimed at those for whom traditional alternatives such as home tutoring have not worked. The online presence of over one hundred young people during the first phase of this initiative was achieved through the support of mentors, buddies, experts and the use of new technology. Notschool is now in its third phase and is being rolled out to education authorities across the UK and overseas, creating a multinational and supportive learning community (www.notschool.net (new window)).

1.27. A range of projects have been set up as alternatives to exclusion. One initiative is supervised firstday provision for pupils on temporary exclusion. The funds provided through the BIP mean students on suspension can be kept in school but separated from their classmates instead of just being sent home. Skill Force, led by the Ministry of Defence, works with children at highest risk of being disaffected in 13 of the 34 BIP areas and runs an alternative programme of educational activities for disaffected pupils at Key Stage 4. As part of this initiative in Nottingham, two halfday sessions are run in each of the four schools involved in the project and activities include accredited first-aid courses, team building and key skills work. A similar initiative is in place in the LEA of Slough (Lewis, 2003b).

1.28. Whilst the DfES set out a menu of measures based on existing good practice for LEAs and schools to choose from, they have also allowed them to develop their own ideas. Each authority has subsequently implemented locally based programmes that best meet the needs of schools in their area.

1.29. The evaluation of the BIP by the University of London found that 53% of the participating schools welcomed the opportunity to develop new measures including primary playground activities, emotional literacy, anti-bullying and peer mentoring. Other imaginative initiatives include the Children’s Opportunities Group (COG), parent partnerships, Revitalise, teenage mother projects, the voluntary sector and English as an additional language support.

1.30. Interestingly, some LEAs, including Lewisham, are also developing the use of restorative justice techniques in schools. Dealing with incidents of serious misconduct such as bullying, teacher abuse and vandalism is a challenge for all schools. Restorative justice programmes, which view misconduct as a violation of people and relationships, rather than a violation of an institution and its rules, offer schools a way of dealing with incidents to the satisfaction of all those involved.

2. Methodology

2.1. In November 2002, PRCI was commissioned by NASUWT to undertake a scoping study to inform a national plan to develop a comprehensive research programme on violence and indiscipline in schools within the UK.

2.2. The research study focused upon both the extent and causes of violence, considering the multiplicity of ‘contexts and triggers’ which could be argued to exacerbate issues of indiscipline and, ultimately, violence. In addition, the following questions were raised as part of the research programme, and addressed throughout the course of the research:

2.2.1. What is known about the impact of poor behaviour on schools, teachers, pupils and parents?

2.2.2. What practical interventions are used to address issues of violence and indiscipline in schools?

2.2.3. What are the gaps that currently exist surrounding measures and interventions to address indiscipline and violence, and in what ways can these be overcome?

2.3. The research prompted calls for further investigation into violence and indiscipline in schools and the initiatives and programmes available to tackle the problem. The Behaviour Improvement Programme is being evaluated nationally by the University of London. A synopsis of the early findings is presented in Section 3 of this report for reference. The evaluation, commissioned by the DfES, focuses more on the opinions of LEA officers and the BIP co-ordinators and less on those of teachers in schools. As such, NASUWT felt that there was much to be gained from eliciting opinions and responses from classroom practitioners in the participating schools in the 34 BIP areas in order to understand their views of the success of the programme.

2.4. In Autumn 2003, PRCI was requested by NASUWT to conduct research into the experiences of classroom teachers in the first phase of 34 Behaviour Improvement Programme areas.

2.5. This section looks at the methodology adopted with discussion of barriers that were faced.

2.6. Within the 34 LEAs selected under phase one of the BIP, the schools identified for the programme usually consisted of between two and four secondary schools, their feeder primaries and any special schools within the relevant geographical areas. This meant that there were in total 712 participating schools in the phase one programme as a whole.

2.7. Given the scale of the programme the soundest method of accessing a sufficiently broad sample of practitioners within the participating LEAs was via postal questionnaire. The sample size was drawn at just under 1,500 (n=1,424) questionnaires which equated to two questionnaires per participating school. PRCI had predicted that this would yield around 300 responses given that the response rate to most surveys falls at around 20-30%.

2.8. The first method adopted to disseminate the questionnaires was to contact the BIP co-ordinators. This process began in November 2003. After two months of communication, it was decided that this method of contact would need to be changed. Many of the BIP co-ordinators contacted were reluctant to participate in the study given that they were already providing data for the University of London evaluation and to the DfES directly.

2.9. Having met with NASUWT, the second method of contact and dissemination agreed was to draw on NASUWT’s database of members and cross-reference the members’ database against the participating schools. The database was made available in Spring 2004 and in approximately 50% of cases the contact was named although we cannot be certain that the contact name was up to date and accurate. In the remaining 50% of cases the questionnaire was circulated to ‘NASUWT Representative’ where no contact name was available.

2.10. NASUWT provided a letter of support for the research project to accompany the questionnaire circulated to encourage a greater response rate. Representatives were also issued with guidance notes to aid the process of dissemination. However, in spite of all these measures, the response rate was low. Even having sent out a reminder letter to the database of school contacts, the total number of return questionnaires was 48: a response rate of 3.3%.

2.11. There are a number of possible explanations for the low response rate:

• in 50% of cases questionnaires were sent to unnamed individuals;
• the research followed on from the UoL evaluation;
• the BIP co-ordinators were resistant to participating in another evaluation;
• classroom teachers who have responded show low levels of awareness of the BIP which might indicate those who failed to respond did so because of a lack of awareness of the programme.

2.12. That said, analysis of the 48 responses that were received revealed interesting and significant findings and as such present a useful and rich body of valid evidence – case studies, if you will, of classroom teachers’ perceptions of the Behaviour Improvement Programme.

2.13. The purpose of the questionnaire (a copy of which is provided in Appendix 2 of this report) was to gain information from a representative sample of teaching staff within the participating schools across all 34 LEAs surrounding their views with regard to the effectiveness of the programme/elements within the programme, looking in particular at:

• what changes have been made in their schools as a result of the BIP;
• which particular initiatives appear to have had greatest effect;
• what additional resources have been put into their schools;
• whether they believe that pupil behaviour has improved as a result of the BIP;
• what specific strengths or improvements can be identified as a result of the BIP;
• what difficulties have arisen as a result of their school’s involvement in the BIP.

2.14. The information returned via the questionnaire has been inputted and analysed using appropriate data packages and is presented with interpretation in this report to provide an assessment of teaching staff’s perceptions, experiences and thoughts surrounding the relative successes and difficulties of the BIP with recommendations for improvement.

2.15. Where possible, any particular examples of good practice and innovation have been highlighted within Section 4 of the report.

3. Evaluation Of the BIP By The University Of London

3.1. Research by the University of London, funded by the DfES in early 2003, aimed to examine and evaluate several strands of phase one of the BIP including:

• how the various measures implemented as part of the programme interrelate;
• which of these have been most successful in fulfilling the objectives of the programme;
• the management of the programme by the DfES and LEAs;
• the difficulties presented by multi-agency working;
• its impact on teacher workload;
• the management of the BIP by the schools;
• barriers to the introduction/development of the BIP measures;
• which measures are perceived to be most successful by parents, children and school staff.

3.2. In order to meet its aims, the following methodologies were adopted:

• analysis of the tenders submitted to the DfES by LEAs;
• telephone interviews or e-mail conversations with LEA BIP co-ordinators;
• analysis of the termly data provided by participating LEAs.

3.3. In terms of the successes of the BIP, this evaluation revealed that levels of attendance have shown gradual but small improvements since 2000 and the targets for permanent and fixed-term exclusions have been met at both secondary and primary level.

3.4. In general terms, according to the UoL (Hallam et al, 2003), the various measures implemented as part of the BIP have received welcome outcomes across the board including improved communication and working relationships, and positive and enthusiastic responses from staff and training. According to the BIP co-ordinators, these successes are contingent upon several factors including high-quality staff and effective management, building on existing structures and staffing and ownership of the programme by the schools.

3.5. Difficulties were encountered by LEAs, namely the recruitment of appropriately experienced and qualified staff. Other problems concerned communication between schools and agencies, the timescale for the implementation of the programme, the length of training required, role clarity, the provision of accommodation, heavy workload and unevenness in the implementation of the programme. However, most of the difficulties identified were largely transitory in nature and were reported by a small number of LEAs. The research revealed that a number of LEAs (18%) identified the greatest risk as the long-term sustainability of the programme especially in the light of changes in funding. Others identified raised expectations in the schools, diverse aims of the programme and workload to be problematic in the success of the programme.

3.6. With regards to the management of the programme by the DfES, the UoL (Hallam et al, 2003) found the overall level of support and guidance to be useful and positive. However, problems were identified with respect to the timing of the bid and the initial implementation as well as uneven quality in training.

3.7. The preliminary conclusions of the UoL (Hallam et al, 2003) evaluation of the BIP are encouraging. They found evidence of early benefits of the programme; whilst being operational for only a short period of time, the programme has revealed benefits in terms of reductions in all types of exclusions. Unfortunately, there has been no improvement in attendance or any reduction in unauthorised absence.

3.8. These findings should be treated with some caution for a number of reasons. Firstly, the findings are not wholly representative due to the submission of incomplete termly reports by some of the schools. In addition, the interviews were conducted at an early stage of the BIP when not all elements of the programme had yet been implemented. It is also true to say that interviews were largely restricted to the BIP co-ordinators and not wider teaching staff in participating schools.

3.9. Given that a common theme throughout the BIP is support for teachers through clear policies, high-quality professional development on behaviour management and the facility to draw on a range of support, it would seem prudent to evaluate the programme from the standpoint of its benefits to the classroom teacher.

4. Key Findings Of The Classroom Teachers Study

Demography of Respondents

4.1. Excluding the seven respondents who failed to state their LEA, the 41 respondents covered a total of 16 LEAs which represents almost half (47%) of the total LEAs participating in phase one of the Behaviour Improvement Programme. There was also a good geographical spread across the participating LEAs.

4.2. Responses were received from the following LEAs:

Table 4.1: Responding teachers by LEA 1

LEA Name
Barking and Dagenham
Bolton
Bradford
Brent
Bristol
Enfield
Greenwich
Knowsley
Lewisham
Liverpool
Manchester
Newham
Nottingham
Salford
Sheffield
Westminster

4.3. In terms of age, respondents were asked to place themselves in one of five age ranges. Responses were as follows:

• 21 – 30 years: total of 12 respondents;
• 31 – 40 years: total of 4 respondents;
• 41 – 50 years: total of 13 respondents;
• 51 – 60 years: total of 11 respondents;
• over 61: total of 1 respondent.

4.4. A further seven chose not to disclose their age.

4.5. There was a fairly even weighting across gender with 38% male, 48% female and 14% choosing not to state their gender.

4.6. In terms of ethnicity:

• 81% (n=39) of respondents gave their ethnicity as white;
• 4% (n=2) of respondents gave their ethnicity as Black;
• 4% (n=2) of respondents gave their ethnicity as other or mixed heritage.

Awareness of the BIP

4.7. Respondents were asked to rank their level of awareness of the BIP where 1 represented excellent through to 5 which corresponded to a very poor level of awareness. The graph below provides a summary of the rankings. Taking counts 4 and 5 as a poor level of awareness, over half of respondents (56%) placed themselves in one of these rankings. Only 27% placed their level of awareness in the good/excellent rankings.

Graph 4.1: Teachers’ level of awareness of the BIP (5=very poor)

Graph 4.1 represented as a table

Ranking	Number
count 1	4
count 2	9
count 3	8
count 4	14
count 5	13

Training and Guidance

4.8. Respondents were asked, “In your view, would you say you have received adequate guidance on the BIP policies and procedures in your school?” The majority (56%) felt that the level of guidance within the school had been inadequate as table 4.2 shows. Only 17% felt that they had received sufficient guidance.

 Table 4.2: Adequate BIP guidance in your school

Response	Number	%
No	27	56
Unsure	13	27
Yes	8	17
Total	48	100

4.9. Where guidance was received the most common sources were the BIP co-ordinator and headteacher.

4.10. When asked whether they felt that they had received adequate training on the BIP policies andprocedures in their school, the majority again felt that they had not, as graph 4.2 shows.

Graph 4.2: Responses on whether adequate training on the BIP has been received

Graph 4.2 represented as a graph

Response	Number
no	31
unsure	13
yes	4

Impact of the BIP on Pupils

4.11. In order to assess teachers’ views of the impact of the BIP, teachers were first asked to rate the overall level of pupil behaviour in their school before the implementation of the BIP. Graph 4.3 provides their responses where 1 is excellent behaviour, through to 5 which is very poor behaviour.

4.12. As the graph shows, the majority (58%) ranked behaviour in their school in the lower two categories.

Graph 4.3: Teachers’ views on behaviour in schools prior to the BIP

Graph 4.3 represented as a table

Ranking	Number
No response	2
count 1	2
count 2	2
count 3	14
count 4	17
count 5	11

4.13. Teachers were then asked to comment on the overall level of pupil behaviour in their school since the implementation of the BIP.

4.14. 1 Graph 4.4 provides their responses where again 1 is excellent behaviour, through to 5 which is very poor behaviour. Graph 4.4 shows that of those who responded, only a very small minority of teachers felt that the BIP had brought an improvement to behaviour in schools. Interestingly two respondents felt that behaviour was worse since the implementation of the BIP.

Graph 4.4: Teachers’ views on behaviour in schools since the BIP

Graph 4.4 represented as a table

Ranking	Number
No response	2
count 1	3
count 2	3
count 3	14
count 4	13
count 5	13

4.15. Teachers were asked to rate the overall level of attendance in their school before the implementation of the BIP. Their responses are presented in graph 4.5 whereby ranking 1 corresponds to excellent attendance and 5 to very poor attendance.

Graph 4.5: Teachers’ views on attendance in their schools before the BIP

Graph 4.5 represented as a table

Ranking	Number
No Response	3
count 1	0
count 2	10
count 3	14
count 4	17
count 5	4

4.16. The graph shows that 47% of teachers who responded felt that, prior to the BIP, attendance in their school was poor.

4.17. Teachers were then asked to comment on the overall level of pupil attendance in their schools since the implementation of the BIP. Graph 4.6 provides their responses where again 1 is excellent attendance, through to 5 which is very poor attendance. As graph 4.6 shows, a significant number (n=6) of teachers felt that the BIP had brought an improvement in levels of attendance in their schools. This is consistent with the University of London evaluation.

Graph 4.6: Teachers’ views on attendance in their schools since the BIP

Graph 4.6 represented as a table

Ranking	Number
No Response	3
count 1	1
count 2	16
count 3	13
count 4	12
count 5	3

Local Implementation of the BIP

4.18. Teachers were presented with a list of possible initiatives and asked firstly to state whether the initiative had been implemented in their school as a result of BIP funding. If the respondent answered in the positive they were then asked to comment on whether they found it useful or not. The responses are presented in table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Range of initiatives and usefulness

Initiative	Response as a number				Level of usefulness (n)
	Yes	No	Don’t Know		Highly Useful	Useful	Not at all useful	Unsure
BEST	24	4	20		1	11	8	4
Police in Schools	19	12	17		3	8	4	4
Behaviour Audits	20	8	20		0	7	4	9
Learning support or pupil referral units	26	6	16		5	8	3	10
Key Workers	16	7	25		1	7	1	7
ID and support for pupils at risk of exclusion	27	4	17		1	14	5	7
Registration and truancy initiatives	26	6	16		2	13	4	7
Curriculum development initiatives	10	10	28		2	4	2	2
Extended/after-school house initiatives	14	11	23		1	5	5	3
Parental support interventions	10	8	30		0	9	1	0

4.19. A number of observations can be drawn from the responses of teachers:

• Overall there is a poor level of awareness of any of the specific elements of the BIP. At least a third of teachers did not know if each of the specific initiatives operated within their particular school. In some cases, the lack of awareness was as high as 50%.
• Where teachers were able to respond, it seems that the most common initiatives are Behaviour and Education Support Teams, learning support and pupil referral units, identification of and support for pupils at risk of exclusion, and registration and truancy initiatives.
• Where teachers were able to respond, it seems that the least common initiatives are curriculum development initiatives and parental support programmes.
• Interestingly, where curriculum development initiatives and parental support programmes do exist, they are listed as the most useful whereby nine of the ten teachers who were aware of the parental support programme in their school found it useful, and six of the ten who had a curriculum development programme found it useful or very useful.
• Other initiatives regarded favourably were registration and truancy initiatives and police in schools whereby in both cases 58% of those who were aware of the initiatives rated them favourably.

4.20. Teachers were also asked a number of free text questions in order to build a more in-depth picture of their response to the Behaviour Improvement Programme. Their responses are presented below.

Successes and Weaknesses

4.21. When asked “What specific successes can you identify in your school as a result of the BIP that have impacted upon your role as a classroom teacher?”, responses were mixed. Given the low level of awareness of the programme there were a number of negative comments:

• None.
• Didn’t know about programme.
• Very, very little. The service appears to be in disarray, leaving schools without the support they were promised.
• Do not know of any ways the BIP has made a difference to my role as a classroom teacher.
• I have not noticed any change in overall pupil behaviour.
• Improvement in attendance has resulted in disruptive pupils being in class and disrupting more often.
• More problems at lesson changeover times.
• Senior Management Team tolerance of verbal abuse to classroom teachers has increased.
• Children seen by the learning mentor are now ‘known’ but I’m not sure of any obvious successes yet.

4.22. However, some teachers did note some improvements:

• Individual children have improved.
• Have seen an increase in attendance.
• Assistance from classroom assistants improved attendance.
• Pupils are arriving at lessons on time which means that the lessons start quicker.
• We have a non-teaching deputy who is the lead behaviour professional and is available to deal with extreme behaviour in class.
• The BEST team has helped us with specific individual children’s needs we don’t have the time to give to.
• Lunch-time support and one-to-one support for targeted children.
• Having a referral unit on site helps.
• Pupils can be removed swiftly from my classroom if a situation arises.
• Small group of boys working on conflict resolution with two members of BEST team resulting in improved relationships.
• Fewer latecomers in the morning.
• Learning support unit based at our school (for ‘family’ of schools).
• Use of police member of BEST team to deal with severe behavioural issues where parents are not supportive.

4.23. When asked “What specific weaknesses can you identify in your school as a result of the BIP that have impacted upon your role as a classroom teacher?”, common responses were:

• I find it really hard when the learning mentor seems to know more about problems children have than I do. Also it is hard when children think it’s OK for them to go to the learning mentor whenever they want.
• Parents speak to the learning mentor instead of speaking to me – I feel this undermines my role and creates confusion in who deals with specific children.
• Far too many pupils need ‘attention’ – but there are not sufficient staff or resources.
• Information is patchy.
• Undermines teachers. Mentors do not take into account the different role a teacher has to play.
• Confusion about procedure.
• The referral unit is understaffed.
• At times it can put a barrier between the parents and me, as the key worker can intervene before I have had an opportunity to find out about an incident.
• Lack of knowledge about it; only seems to become considered relevant to us when we ask for support.
• No-one seems to be consistent in approach, therefore it breaks down.
• Too many people who appear to be working in a fragmented way.
• Behaviour is still as challenging as it was before. I don’t believe staff are aware of the BIP and its objectives.
• The same children are still behaving the same.

4.24. When asked “What difficulties (if any) have arisen as a result of your school’s involvement in the BIP?”, common responses were:

• Staff shortages.
• Children are removed for input initiatives and miss sessions which can’t be made up.
• Training time for BIP manager which has impacted very little on the rest of the school.
• BIP co-ordinator is inexperienced. Result is that the programme is not co-ordinated properly.
• Poor communications.
• It seems to the ‘majority’ that to get attention or get out of class, bad behaviour will work, which can heighten the incidence of rudeness.
• Use of support staff is very sketchy.
• Those staff involved in the BIP can make the rest of the staff feel excluded and it can make other issues seem secondary.
• We need our own LSU, not a shared one in the family of schools.
• Staff friction because of major changes and poor management of changes.
• We have been shown how to modify behaviour so it is our fault we cannot change it!
• Some of the pupils who have begun to attend are amongst the most disaffected in the school – they are very difficult to motivate and educate.
• Initially we received bad press in the local press for having police on campus.
• We are now supposed to be able to deal with the problem – this is a myth.

4.25. When asked to identify how these weaknesses/difficulties could be overcome, teachers made the following comments:

• Perhaps learning mentors could be reminded that the class teacher is also important in the child’s life and that they need to let us know about changing circumstances.
• More staffing/resources.
• Whole-staff training (including welfare).
• The lower-ability classes should have less pupils and more support.
• Verbal abuse to teachers should be severely dealt with.
• Improved management and information dispersed.
• Mentors could co-ordinate with teachers – they appear to have their own agenda.
• Procedures/policies are not followed throughout the school in a consistent manner.
• More proactive behaviour support in classrooms. Raise awareness of available initiatives.
• Greater accountability and transparency.
• Develop schemes that include KS3/4 pupils instead of taking the view that it is too late to change older pupils.
• Stronger links with parents, let the parents start to take responsibility for their children’s actions.

4.26. The final solution suggested is poignant given the low level of schools who have adopted the involvement of parents and yet the high level of satisfaction with parent support programmes where they do exist.

Resourcing

4.27. Teachers were asked about the resourcing of the programme and asked to rate the adequacy of the BIP funding to tackle issues of pupil behaviour and attendance in their schools. It is understandable that half of respondents were unsure given the low level of awareness of the programme as a whole. However, of the 23 who did respond, 12 (52%) felt that the financial resourcing of the programme was adequate as graph 4.7 shows.

Graph 4.7: Teachers’ perception of the adequacy of the BIP funding

Graph 4.7 represented as a table

Level of adequacy	Number
inadequate	11
unsure	24
adequate	12
highly adequate	0

Impact of the BIP on Teachers

4.28. Teachers were asked to comment on the impact of the BIP on their workload level. Common responses were as follows:

• Minimal/slight increase.
• Support diaries for children have many benefits but are time-consuming.
• Workload has increased as a result of managing visiting professionals.
• Following up poor behaviour with incident reports, detentions, etc is very time-consuming.
• More time taken dealing with unacceptable behaviour in corridors and playgrounds.
• None for me, BUT has increased workload for pastoral staff.
• Increased it. Far more paperwork, in more detail for less positive outcomes for students who want to learn.
• Workload has increased. Incidents need to be reported, which is time-consuming.

4.29. Teachers were then asked in what ways the BIP had made a difference to their levels of motivation and/or stress as a classroom teacher. Some saw the benefits that the programme has brought:

• Improved motivation.
• BEST team reviews can sometimes be like ‘a reality check’ where the child can be seen as ‘the whole picture’ – family, outside agencies, instead of how the class teacher sees them in school which is positive.
• Lowered stress levels as we have two members of staff to deal specifically with extreme behaviour problems.
• Knowing that certain incidences could be referred to an appropriate body has helped.
• More stress as I have several lower ability classes with students with poor behaviour.
• Increased motivation and slightly decreased stress.
• If used properly it would make me more aware of what I’m doing as a classroom teacher and ideally would reduce the everyday stresses of teaching.

4.30. Whilst others felt the BIP had simply added to their problems:

• I think in some ways I feel more stressed and less motivated as it seems like other people are building relationships with children in my class and their parents and I’m often last to know or left out of discussions.
• It has raised stress levels for the Senior Management Team because teachers are not receiving the service they were promised.
• No improvement – students who have abused me are returned to my class within minutes on occasions.
• Has caused stress – teachers feel undermined.
• The same problem children are causing the same problems and often worse.

4.31. Teachers were also asked how in their view the BIP could be best improved in their school. Responses were as follows:

• More work on therapy with children with specific issues.
• More communication: I would like the BIP to be something which helps teachers rather than making them feel unimportant. Perhaps more input in classroom rather than removing children from the classroom.
• More training for non-teaching staff.
• Funding for training teachers, support staff and welfare staff.
• All staff are made aware of policy of the BIP; provide policy roles responsibly.
• Having a detailed long-term plan that every classroom teacher is aware of.
• More internal exclusions should be implemented. More support in individual classes is needed (many students are suffering because some students are in class who otherwise would not be).
• Teachers more aware and allowed to contribute.
• More structured, better organised.
• Clear understanding and knowledge of consequences by pupils. More consistency in following policies by staff.
• Making people aware of exactly what it is and what it is doing. I am only aware that it is a Behaviour Improvement Programme and involves audits.
• Provision of on-site intensive counselling services.

4.32. Teachers responding to the questionnaire were asked to provide details of any best practice initiatives implemented through the BIP in their school.

4.33. The responses are presented below:

• Good support worker and Senior Management Team who supported the BIP in the early days.
• Police in schools are useful.
• Received training to reduce stress by changing the way teachers speak to children which was very useful.
• Pupil management through system of rewards and punishments supported by parents and carers is working well.
• Off-site training initiatives for students.
• Greater classroom/school assistance for difficult and challenging students.
• Play therapy.
• Skill force.
• Adapt mentoring has been useful.
• Learning Support Units and learning mentors are proving very useful.
• BEST team work with small groups or individual children.
• Parents enjoy working with the BEST team, feel there is another adult who has time and resources to follow up queries from parents.

4.34. To conclude the questionnaire, teachers were asked, “Overall, do you feel the BIP has been a success in your school?”. Their responses are presented in graph 4.8.

Graph 4.8: Teachers’ view of whether the BIP has been a success in their school

Graph 4.8 represented as a table

Response	Number
no	17
unsure	21
yes	8

4.35. Of those who responded, 46% were unsure again emphasising the lack of awareness amongst classroom teachers. Thirty-seven per cent (n=17) felt that the BIP had not been successful and the remaining 17% (n=8) felt that the BIP had been a success.

5. Conclusions

5.1. Overall this evaluation demonstrates a worrying lack of awareness of the Behaviour Improvement Programme amongst classroom teachers and a similar lack of knowledge of the composite elements of the programme within their own school, as the following quotations can demonstrate:

To be totally honest I am not aware of the BIP and it has not been drawn to my attention by any member of SMT. If used effectively I feel it could make my life a lot easier day to day.

This is a difficult question as I was unaware of the term ‘BIP’ until the questionnaire.

5.2. We know from the University of London evaluation that 91% of LEAs have undertaken behaviour audits and 90% have BEST teams in place. That said, very few teachers asked were aware of this. Overall there was a poor level of awareness of any of the specific elements of the BIP. At least a third of teachers did not know if each of the specific initiatives listed in the questionnaire operated within their particular school. In some cases, the lack of awareness was as high as 50%.

5.3. The clear reason for this lack of awareness stems from a lack of communication and ineffective co-ordination of the programme in individual schools.

5.4. When asked about training and guidance, most (56%) felt that they had not received adequate guidance or training on the BIP. Where guidance was given it was stated that more often than not it had come from the headteacher or the BIP co-ordinator.

5.5. The UoL evaluation found, with regards to the management of the programme by the DfES, the overall level of support and guidance to be useful and positive. It seems that support and guidance has failed to be cascaded into the heart of the schools operating the BIP.

Impact on Pupils

5.6. Very few teachers commented that they had noted a change in pupil behaviour since the introduction of the BIP – in some cases teachers felt behaviour had deteriorated. When prompted it appears that this is a result of children who would previously have slipped through the net now being back in school, which appears in some cases to be resulting in greater disruption in the classroom.

5.7. A greater proportion of teachers had noted an improvement in attendance although, as mentioned above, this came at a price, bringing with it issues of greater disruption and the need to allocate time and resources to severely disaffected pupils.

Impact on Teachers

5.8. By and large teachers had not noted an increase in workload as a result of the BIP. Some, particularly those with a responsibility for pastoral care, it seems, did note an increase in paperwork.

5.9. The greatest impact came in terms of teachers’ levels of motivation and stress. Some teachers did respond positively and felt that the programme had improved their level of motivation and lowered stress levels as a result of having specific staff to deal with extreme behaviour problems that normally would have been left to the classroom teacher.

5.10. However, others felt that as a result of having additional resources under the BIP, classroom teachers’ motivation levels decreased as a result of feeling isolated and disempowered by the new staff coming into the school. Several commented on the feeling of demoralisation caused by staff with specific remit of building relationships with children in their class and their parents to the exclusion of the classroom teacher.

Successes and Weaknesses

5.11. Teachers were able to remark on several benefits of the programme including:

• BEST teams;
• police in schools;
• referral and support units.

5.12. However, they also noted a host of weaknesses with the programme: most consistently a lack of information, poor communication and inconsistent co-ordination. This sits uneasily against the UoL evaluation that found that the BIP had improved communication and working relationships and yielded a positive and enthusiastic response from staff.

5.13. Interestingly, the success criteria noted by the BIP co-ordinators in the UoL evaluation (highquality staff, effective management, and ownership of the programme by the schools) were often the criteria identified as areas of weakness by classroom teachers in this study.

5.14. Often, weaknesses were considered to be as a result of understaffing and inexperience in new staff. There was also some concern over the allocation of available resources and the need to share support units across a family cluster of schools.

5.15. Perhaps the most stark finding was that of those who responded: almost half (46%) were unable to comment on whether they thought the Behaviour Improvement Programme had been a success or not. A further 37% felt that it had not and only 17% could agree the programme had been a success.

Appendix 1: List of participating LEAs

LEA Names

1. Barking & Dagenham
2. Birmingham
3. Bolton
4. Bradford
5. Brent
6. Bristol
7. Camden
8. Enfield
9. Greenwich
10. Hackney
11. Hammersmith & Fulham
12. Haringey
13. Hounslow
14. Islington
15. Kensington & Chelsea
16. Knowsley
17. Lambeth
18. Leeds
19. Lewisham
20. Liverpool
21. Manchester
22. Newham
23. Nottingham
24. Oldham
25. Reading
26. Rochdale
27. Salford
28. Sheffield
29. Slough
30. Southwark
31. Tower Hamlets
32. Waltham Forest
33. Westminster
34. Wolverhampton

Appendix 2: Questionnaire

Questionnaire Covering Letter

NASUWT

Behaviour Improvement Programme

National Evaluation Research Questionnaire

Private & Confidential

Perpetuity Research and Consultancy International (PRCI) Ltd is an independent research and consultancy partnership that is partly owned by the University of Leicester. We are currently conducting research on behalf of NASUWT to develop a better understanding of the implementation of the Behaviour Improvement Programme (the BIP) within your school. The overall aim of the research is to explore the following issues:

• What initiatives have been implemented in your school as part of the BIP?
• What additional resources have been put into your school?
• What changes have occurred in your school as a result of the BIP?
• To what extent has pupil behaviour improved as a result of the BIP?
• What specific strengths or improvements can be identified in your school as a result of the BIP?
• What difficulties (if any) have arisen as a result of your school’s involvement in the BIP?

We would be most grateful if you could spend a few minutes to complete ALL questions, seal your questionnaire in the envelope provided, and return it to the NASUWT Representative in your school.

The research programme is intended to enhance understanding at a national level of how effective practices can be developed through the BIP, and, as a matter of course, the findings of this research will be made available to all of those who participate.

Any information, views or opinions expressed will not be passed on to any other persons, and will be treated with the strictest confidence. No reference will be made to specific individuals, and any identifying factors will be altered to protect participants throughout each stage in the research process. All information will be used only for the purposes of the research programme.

Questions

1. In your opinion, how would you rate your level of awareness of the BIP?
   From 1 = Excellent, through to 5 = Very poor
2. In your view, would you say you have received adequate guidance on the BIP policies and procedures in your school?
   Yes/No/Unsure
   
   If you answered ‘yes’ to question 2, who did you receive this information from?
   Headteacher/Leadership Team/BIP Co-ordinator/LEA/DfES/Other (Please Specify)
3. In your view, would you say you have received adequate training on the BIP policies and procedures in your school?
   Yes/No/Unsure
4. In your opinion, how would you rate the overall level of pupil behaviour in your school before the implementation of the BIP?
   From 1 = Excellent behaviour, through to 5 = Very poor behaviour
5. In your opinion, how would you rate the overall level of pupil behaviour in your school since the implementation of the BIP?
   From 1 = Excellent behaviour, through to 5 = Very poor behaviour
6. In your opinion, how would you rate the overall level of attendance in your school before the implementation of the BIP?
   From 1 = Excellent attendance, through to 5 = Very poor attendance
7. In your opinion, how would you rate the overall level of attendance in your school since the implementation of the BIP?
   From 1 =Excellent attendance, through to 5 = Very poor attendance
8. Which of the following initiatives have been implemented in your school as a result of the BIP funding, and how useful have they been to date?
   • Behaviour and Education Support Teams (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Police in schools (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Behaviour Audits (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Learning Support Units and Pupil Referral Units (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Keyworkers (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Identifying/supporting pupils at risk of exclusion (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Registration/truancy initiatives(Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Curriculum development initiatives (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Extended/after school hours initiatives (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Parental support interventions (Yes/No/Unsure)
     If Yes was it Highly Useful/Useful/Not at all Useful/Unsure)
   • Other (Please state)
9. What specific successes can you identify in your school as a result of the BIP that have impacted upon your role as a classroom teacher?
10. What specific weaknesses can you identify in your school as a result of the BIP that have impacted upon your role as a classroom teacher?
11. What difficulties (if any) have arisen as a result of your school’s involvement in the BIP?
12. In your view, how can these weaknesses/difficulties be overcome? (Please outline in the space
13. How adequate do you feel the BIP funding is to tackle issues of pupil behaviour and attendance in your school?
    Highly Adequate/Adequate/Inadequate/Unsure
14. Do you feel that if more funding was available through the BIP, it would have a positive impact upon your school’s ability to address issues of behaviour and attendance?
    Yes/No/Unsure
15. In your view, what impact would you say the BIP has had on your workload level?
16. In what ways has the BIP made a difference to your levels of motivation and/or stress as a classroom teacher?
17. In your view, how could the BIP be best improved in your school?
18. Overall, do you feel the BIP has been a success in your school?
    Yes/No/Unsure
19. Please provide details of any best practice initiatives implemented through the BIP in your school. (Please provide copies of any useful documents that you may have)
20. Any other comments?

General Details:

Age: Name of School:

Gender: Male/Female

Subject(s) taught:

Key Stage(s) taught:

Address:

Ethnicity:

White

British

Irish

Any other white background

(please write below)

Asian or British Asian

Indian

Pakistani

Any other Asian background

(please write below)

Mixed

White and Black Caribbean

White and Black African

Any other mixed background

(please write below)

Black or Black British

Caribbean

African

Any other black background

(please write below)

Chinese or Other Ethnic Group

Chinese

Any other

(please write below)

Thank you for your co-operation

Appendix 3: Bibliography

DfES. 2002. £66 Million to Tackle Bad Behaviour in Schools. DfES.

www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pnid=20020086 (new window)

DfES. 2004. Behaviour Improvement Programme. DfES.

www.dfes.gov.uk/behaviourimprovement (new window)

DfES. 2002. Discipline in Schools: Secretary of State’s Speech – 12 December. Why Discipline Matters’.

DfES.

Hallam, S, Castle, F, and Rogers, L. 2003. Research and Evaluation of Behaviour Improvement Programmes. University of London.

Lewis, I. 2003a. Plans to Curb Bullies Unveiled. DfES.

www.number10.gov.uk/output/Page4407.asp (new window)

Lewis, I. 2003b. Improving Behaviour and Attendance in Local Schools. DfES.

www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pnid=20030056 (new window)

Notschool.net. 2004.

www.notschool.net/index.html (new window)

Perpetuity Research & Consultancy International Ltd
6 Salisbury Road
Leicester LE1 7QR
United Kingdom

Tel: +44 (0)116 252 5728
Fax: +44 (0)116 221 7171

www.perpetuitygroup.com (new window)
prci@perpetuitygroup.com

NASUWT
Hillscourt Education Centre, Rose Hill, Rednal, Birmingham B45 8RS.

Tel: 0121 453 6150
Fax: 0121 457 6208

E-mail: nasuwt@mail.nasuwt.org.uk
Website: www.teachersunion.org.uk