Behaviour Policy in Schools - Essay Example

Introduction The education policy is part of the wider social policies in place in the United Kingdom and other countries. In recent years, education policy has gained a lot of attention from policy makers due to globalisation and competitive pressures that require education to be responsive to the needs of the economy. As such, education is geared towards ensuring equity and dealing with social exclusion in the society (Ball 2009). The dynamics of educational policy making keep changing due to changes in the environment. Contrary to previous years where the national government made policies regarding education, nowadays there is more input from other actors both in government and private sphere. The state and local governments are involved as well as the entrepreneurs, consultants, professionals, teachers and school leaders (Ball 2008). Furthermore, modern education has been marketised to suit economic interests thus bringing into the context other actors. According to Hulme, R., and Hulme, M. (2005), the spaces in which policy is thought and done have also changed. The use of technology has changed the context in that now education can not only be offered at schools but also at home and across national boundaries through e-learning. Policy makers therefore, have to take into consideration such dynamics. Ainley (2001 p. 458) also observes that education system has evolved from “national system locally administered to a local system nationally administered.” In the United States there has been a push to more standardized reforms to enhance cohesiveness, fairness and equity. It is a requirement for schools by the Education and Inspections Act of 2006 to have a behaviour policy which includes school rules (DFE, 2012a). This policy is part of the wider national education policies. The aim of this paper is thus to discuss the policy process in schools in relation to behaviour policies. To accomplish this, the paper will discuss the standards, institutional contexts and the key actors in policy making. To better understand the contemporary education policy, the paper will first outline a brief history of policy making in UK. It will then discuss the key actors in the policy making process. Thirdly, it will look at the influence of contexts in shaping behaviour policies. Fourthly, the challenges faced in the implementation of education policies will be evaluated and finally, the conclusion will be made. Background Education policies are not a new phenomenon as they have been in place for decades. Education plays a vital role in the economy and thus has acquired great attention from policy makers. Education for a long time was used as a social policy to promote welfare of the society (Ball, 2008). However, in recent years more attention is being given to education as a means to counter competitive pressures of globalisation and as such strong emphasis on standards in schools. The effectiveness of schools depends on the school-wide behaviour oriented towards staff as well as student development. Various changes to education policy have occurred over time. There have been changes in organisation and school structures as well as teaching and curriculum. Schools do not rely too much on classroom settings as education can be accessed anywhere even at home through use of technology. There have also been changes in the form of governance and control over education. Education has been marketised and more emphasis on managerialism as opposed to bureaucracy in order to achieve desirable results. Nowadays, schools are run like any other form of business hence insistence on standards and satisfying consumer needs. There has also been a tendency to fragment schools thereby creating many forms of institutions such as local authority schools, faith based schools, for-profit organisations. Many schools are now owned by private providers as opposed to the government. According to Ball (2008: 198) changes in space and time are also evident. There has been increased agency in policy to deal with competitive pressures. Increased home and virtual schooling has been enhanced by use of information technology. Students are now more responsible for organisation and discipline of their learning as opposed to traditionally, where they relied much on the teachers. Furthermore, individuals in all professions must engage in continuous learning in order to keep their skills up-to-date or risk being pushed out of the labour market. Lifelong learning has therefore, been on the increase. Hulme, R and Hulme, M (2005) note that the spaces in which policy is developed have also changed. Instead of powers being focused on the secretary of state, different actors now have the power to influence education policies locally, nationally and internationally. All these changes affect behaviour policy process in schools as schools are pressure to respond to various contextual influences. Behaviour Policy Process It is mandatory for schools to maintain a behaviour policy (DFE, 2012a). This policy guides the whole school on how to behave in order to achieve effectiveness. The policy defines the standards of behaviour expected and aims at promoting good behaviour and discipline in school. According to section 88(2) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the policy should be reviewed from time to time to enhance appropriate behaviour and adapt to changes. Though it is developed at school level, it should take into account issues from the secretary of state. The regulations are supposed to be published and posted on website. According to department of education, the policy should be arrived at consultatively and should include screening and searching for pupils, power to use reasonable force, to discipline pupils within and outside the school, and pastoral care for staff accused of misconduct. The Equality Act 2010 should also be a guiding principle in designing behaviour policies in schools. The Act prohibits acts of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religious affiliation, sexual orientation and disability. This has been the greatest challenge for schools bearing in mind that different schools have different contexts; some schools have more disadvantaged groups than others, some have girls while others have boys or mixed but one gender is overrepresented due to context. The policy process, according to Wearmouth, Glynn & Berryman (2005), involves writing a mission statement, identifying and agreeing expected outcomes, determining desirable and undesirable behaviour, generating rules and procedures, defining roles and responsibilities , resourcing and implementation and finally, review (p 256). This is done by the governor in collaboration with the head teacher but other stakeholders such as pupils and parents need to be involved in the process so as to have a sense of ownership and consequently, commitment to it. Some resistance is bound to occur due to diversity of opinions but this should be dealt with and a sense of shared value or collaboration developed for outcomes to be achieved. Rewarding good behaviour can go a long way in enhancing motivation and commitment. Policy Actors The enactment of a behaviour policy involves several actors whom Ball, Maguire, Braun and Hoskins (2011b) classify as narrators, entrepreneurs, outsiders, transactors, enthusiasts, translators, critics and receivers. All these actors shape and influence the behaviour policy in schools; they may contribute to its success or failure. Narration involves the history of the school and is mostly the preserve of the headetacher and the senior leadership team (SLT). It gives information about how the school works. Narrators have the responsibility of interpreting, selecting and enforcing meaning (Ball, 2006). These actors establish the mission statement for the school to give the strategic direction of the school and behaviour policies are formulated in line with the mission statement. The policy is meant to be used to instil discipline by defining appropriate behaviour and therefore, should not be kept under lock and key but enforced. The head teacher and senior team interpret these policies to the staff, pupils and parents and clearly state the expected outcome. The narratives are used within and outside the organisation and therefore, should be carefully managed. For example, schools performance is evaluated by Ofsted and thus the information required to carry out this exercise should be made available. Parents and local authorities also use these narratives to determine how the school is progressing. Clarke and Murray (1996) assert that a narrative can either have positive or negative effect on the school. For example, is a school has a reputation for indiscipline or underperformance, few parents would be interested to register their children in the school. Another group of actors are the entrepreneurs. Just like in the business, schools require individuals who can sell the behaviour policy to others and to give creative ideas on developing policies (Ball et al. 2011b). Sometimes policies are met with resistance from various quarters especially if not all stakeholders are involved in its development. To overcome this resistance people to advocate and integrate the policy are vital. For example, it is hard for teachers to accept such policies as TQM or performance management policies in schools which require innovation and continuous staff development if they are used to following set standards (Ball, 2006). This involves change of school culture and though it is advantageous to teachers it may be met with resistance especially by those who are conservatists. Entrepreneurs are required in this case to convince the teachers, parents and pupils the importance of a behaviour policy and what they stand to gain by adopting it. Some schools also make reports for the sake of Ofsted evaluations hence always manipulate results to their advantage. Entrepreneurs can create a difference by advocating for behaviour change and desirable results. Policy enactment is not only done within the school but also outside the school. These may be local authorities, consultants, and partners. These have a role to play in interpreting policies and supporting translation work (Ball et al. 2011a). Behaviour policy may be understood in different ways by different individuals or groups. It is therefore, the work of outsiders to advice the school management on appropriate policies and assists in translating policies. For example, the Education Act 2006 gives teachers the power to use reasonable force and discipline pupils outside school gate (DFE, 2012a). This policy is often contradictory and misunderstood by different stakeholders. It is the work of local authorities to define which behaviour warrants discipline outside the school gate and when a teacher can use reasonable force. Some parents may resist this policy and teachers refrain from applying it for fear of the outcome and for not understanding the policy. The translators also play a crucial role in enabling stakeholders to understand the policy. They translate the behaviour policy into artefacts, produce texts on desirable behaviour to help teachers put the policy into practice. According to Ball (2003) a low trust policy environment leads to waste of time and diverting attention from important issues. Instead of organising policy around the needs of administration, policy should focus on teachers if improvements are to be observed. Policy translators thus are enablers to teachers. Enthusiasm is key to effectiveness. For behaviour policies to work teachers who are mostly the implementers of policy should be enthusiastic, that is they should be able to apply the policy in practice (DFE, 1994). They should be able to engage students in learning and develop themselves so as to offer exciting experience for students. The transactors are crucial in enactment of behaviour policies. Maguire et al (2012) argues that transactors have great influence on the policy development and implementation as they are in-charge of budget. Their work is to advice policy makers on important issues related to policy such as staffing levels and material availability. Research suggests that schools should hire qualified staff to implement policies (Cole, 2003). However, transactors may disagree with this view due to budget constraints and advocate for non-qualified staff and as such, there is always tension between different perspectives. Transactors include bursars, office staff, parent support officers and welfare administration officers. The last group of actors are the critics and receivers. Criticisms are bound to occur in any organisation due to divergent views. However, criticism is also positive as it allows the affected individuals to change for the better. In schools criticism may arise from unions who monitor occurrences and are employee advocates. If a policy is not for the benefit of employee, then they are against it and have much influencing power in resisting it. Receivers on the other hand, are junior teachers and teaching assistants who are rarely involved in the process yet they are crucial. These according to Ball (2006) like conformity to standards thus may resist any policy changes. Some comply with new policies rather than being creative. Some cope while others continue struggling but what is required is enough training to avoid dependency on standards. Institutional Contexts Institutional contexts play a great role in influencing policy development and responses. Different schools operate under different circumstances which inform behaviour policies. These contexts sometimes create a lot of tension between national policies and school policies. For example, the Education Act 2010 prohibits discrimination in schools in terms of race, class, gender, religion, and disability. However, the location of a school may contradict with this policy. If a school is located where there are high class people then a high population of students will be from high social class (Bennett, 1992; Booth, Ainscow & Dyson, 1998). On the other hand, if it is located in low class area, it will enrol such students. The great headache for schools, according to Maguire et al. (2012: 24), is school intake. The statutory admission policies also affect intake of students in schools. A school may be forced to admit a high number of students with special education needs due to its location. However, location of a school may also affect its diversity and inclusion policy (Lacey, 2003). If located in a place with social mixture, then it will have students from diverse backgrounds. The big question is how this influences the performance of a school especially as per Ofsted evaluations. Some schools may be rated as high performing and others as low performing while in real sense; the different results are due to contextual factors. Besides geographical location, professional cultures and materials also influence behaviour policies. Each school has its unique culture which shapes policy. For Spillane (2004: 7) people interpret policies according their own values thus misinterpret what the policy was meant to address. They tend to take into account some signals from the environment and ignore others based on local behaviour. For example, despite national government efforts to develop k-12 sciences policies, the states and local schools also develop own science policies to suit local needs. The entrepreneurs in this case have a role in shaping policy since they are involved in advocacy and interpretation. Some schools prefer students to attend schools without uniforms as a school culture but governments insists on uniforms creating tension between the two policy makers. Other policies are also contradictory. Some polices are viewed as good but also oppressive depending on context. For example, TQM policies enhance staff development but at the same increase workload for teachers, thus, resistance from some teachers (Ball, 2008). Safety measures are also viewed as oppressive as they restrict movement of students and staff. According to Wheldall (1992: 7), if behaviour policy is to succeed, it needs to be tailor-made to precise requirements for individual schools. Teacher Standards The recent trend is emphasis on performance and staff development. Teachers are thus expected to adhere to principles that describe knowledge, skills, and values inherent in teaching profession (DFE, 2012b). These standards are intended to create a shared vision and sense of identity. Teachers are expected to be committed to these standards that guide their behaviour. They should be able to manage the classroom in terms of discipline and learning to get the required results (Mahony & Hextall 2000). However, according to Foucault (1999), institutions and laws do not assure individuals liberty. There is always a possibility of resistance, disobedience and oppositional groupings (p 135). Though standards are in place, they are subject to rejection and non adherence by some groups. Some schools, according to Ball (2006), manipulate information to get the required results just for show and not in actual practice. Some standards do not even produce the required results. For example, after ten years of labour’s youth reforms no considerable success has been achieved (Solomon & Garside, 2008). This is in spite of huge amount of funds and education applied to make the policy effective. Conclusion Behaviour policies are mandatory in schools to guide behaviour and instil discipline for effective management of the school. However, each school is unique in its own way and for the policy to work; it needs to be adapted to the context of the school. Context is very important as it shapes the policies and responses. For effective implementation, various actors are involved in the process. These include narrators, transactors, translators, entrepreneurs among others. These are very crucial in the policy process. The teachers though instil discipline in students are also bound by various teaching standards. They must update their knowledge frequently and ensure learning needs of students are taken care of. References Ainly, P. 2001. From a national system locally administered to a national system nationally administered: the new leviathan in education and training in England. Journal of Social Policy, Vol 30, pp. 457-476. Ball, S.J. 2003. The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy. Vol. 18, 215-228  Ball, S. J. 2006. Education policy and social class: the selected works of Stephen J. Ball. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. 2008. The education debate: policy and politics in the twenty-first Century. Bristol: Policy Press. Ball, S.J. (2009). Privatizing education, privatizing education policy, privatizing educational research: Network governance and the competition state. Journal of Education Policy. Vol. 24:1, 83-99. Ball, S.J., Hoskins, K., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. 2011a. Disciplinary texts: a policy analysis of national and local behaviour policies. Critical Studies in Education. Vol. 52 :1, 1- 14 Ball, S.J., Maguire, M., Braun, A & Hoskins, K. 2011b. Policy Actors: doing policy work in schools. Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education. Vol. 32:4, 625-639. Bennett, R. 1992. Discipline in schools: the report of the committee of enquiry chaired by Lord Elton. In, K. Wheldall. Discipline in schools: psychological perspectives on the Elton report. London: Routledge Booth, T., Ainscow, M and Dyson, A. 1998. England: inclusion and exclusion in a competitive system; in. T. Booth and M.Ainscow (eds). From them to us. London: Routledge Clarke, D and Murray, A. 1996. Developing a whole school behaviour policy: a practical approach. London: Davidd Fulton Cole. T. 2003. Policies for positive behaviour management; in. T. Christina and R. Richard (eds). Strategies to promote inclusive practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer Department of Education. 1994. Pupil behaviour and discipline (circular 8/94). London: DFE Department of Education. 2012a. School behaviour advice and guidance. Available at: http://www,education.gov.uk/schools/pupilsupport/behaviour/behaviourpolicies [Accessed October 27, 2012]. Department of Education. 2012b. Teacher’s standards. Available at: http://www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/teachers-standards.pdf[Accessed October 28, 2012] Foucault, M. 1999. Space, Power and knowledge. In S.During (ed). The cultural studies reader. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge/Taylor Francis Hulme, R and Hulme, M. 2005. New labour education policy: Innovation or reinvention . In Powell, M., Bauld, L & Clarke, K. (eds). Social policy review. Bristol: The Policy Press Jones, K. 2003. Education in Britain: 1944 to the present. Cambridge: Polity Press Lacey, P. 2003. Effective multi-agency work; in. T. Christina and R. Richard (eds). Strategies to promote inclusive practice. London: RoutledgeFalmer Mahony, P. and Hextall, I. 2000. Reconstructing teaching: standards, performance, and accountability. London: RoutledgeFalmer Maguire, M., Ball, S.J and Braun, A. 2012. How schools do policy: policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge. Merrett, F and Wheldall, K. 1992. Teacher training and classroom discipline. In, K. Wheldall. Discipline in schools: psychological perspectives on the Elton report. London: Routledge Solomon, E., and Garside. R 2008. ‘Ten years of Labour’s youth justice reforms: an independent audit’. Centre for Crime and Justice Studies. Available at: http://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/youthjusticeaudit.html [Accessed October 28, 2012]. Spillane, J.P. 2004. Standards Deviation: How schools Misunderstand Education Policy. USA: Harvard University Press. Wearmouth, J., Glynn, T and Berryman, M. 2005. Perspectives on student behaviour in schools: exploring theory and developing practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Read More