"We need a big, strong man to sort out student behaviour" - and other myths
First published on TFLT Insights blog on 25 September 2015 (no longer available).
Schools across the country face the challenge of student behaviour on a daily basis – yet we still hold on to old-fashioned preconceptions of who can manage the problems in our schools.
I recently visited two Future Leaders who have just taken up headships in challenging secondary schools in the North East. In their first couple of weeks, both have focused on raising expectations around pupil behaviour. Neither has done anything revolutionary; they have chosen first to enforce the behaviour policies already in place. Rigorously and consistently. Every day. And they are already considering how to further raise expectations from there.
The impact is already evident on pupils and staff alike. Both schools were calm and pupils clearly knew what was expected of them, even if they weren’t yet meeting some of those expectations without prodding. Staff were positive about the change of atmosphere, a pre-requisite if they are to teach and pupils to learn.
Genuine progress and enlightened debate demands difference and diversity, brought by insights and expertise from a range of settings and individuals. My fear is that the panel will not produce this and that its outcomes will not produce recommendations that will be relate to the sector as a whole.
The missing figures also perpetuate outdated views about the educational challenges in our schools and how they should be addressed. The panel includes no serving female heads, inadvertently perpetuating the myth that only men are equipped to sort out bad behaviour. This is untrue, but an assumption that has cost many talented professionals (who happen to be women) the chance to become headteachers.
It also focuses on London schools, with the honourable exception of John Tomsett, headteacher of Huntingdon School in York. Educators in London face many challenges but it is now well known that schools in other cities, and our leafy suburbs and rural and coastal areas need to improve. Where is the representative who will speak for a headteacher working in Lowestoft or Grimsby or Cornwall?
Behaviour in schools is vital because systemic disruption robs children of time that should be spent learning. This harms children from disadvantaged backgrounds most because they often start school behind their wealthier peers. I therefore hope to see recommendations that will speak to teachers and leaders up and down the country, and allow schools in every context to help every child in their care.
This objective will more likely be achieved if the diversity of British schools and leaders is represented in those writing the reports, and invite the panel to extend their research further afield than Feltham or the fringes of the M25, and to incorporate the expertise of some of our fantastic female heads.
Schools across the country face the challenge of student behaviour on a daily basis – yet we still hold on to old-fashioned preconceptions of who can manage the problems in our schools.
I recently visited two Future Leaders who have just taken up headships in challenging secondary schools in the North East. In their first couple of weeks, both have focused on raising expectations around pupil behaviour. Neither has done anything revolutionary; they have chosen first to enforce the behaviour policies already in place. Rigorously and consistently. Every day. And they are already considering how to further raise expectations from there.
The impact is already evident on pupils and staff alike. Both schools were calm and pupils clearly knew what was expected of them, even if they weren’t yet meeting some of those expectations without prodding. Staff were positive about the change of atmosphere, a pre-requisite if they are to teach and pupils to learn.
That is why I was dismayed when I saw the line-up of the new school behaviour panel, announced by Nick Gibb on 13 September. The panel will advise the government’s behaviour tsar Tom Bennett and includes experienced and effective professionals who will undoubtedly contribute to Bennett’s work. My dismay was not about who is on the panel, but who is missing: women and heads from outside London.
Genuine progress and enlightened debate demands difference and diversity, brought by insights and expertise from a range of settings and individuals. My fear is that the panel will not produce this and that its outcomes will not produce recommendations that will be relate to the sector as a whole.
The missing figures also perpetuate outdated views about the educational challenges in our schools and how they should be addressed. The panel includes no serving female heads, inadvertently perpetuating the myth that only men are equipped to sort out bad behaviour. This is untrue, but an assumption that has cost many talented professionals (who happen to be women) the chance to become headteachers.
It also focuses on London schools, with the honourable exception of John Tomsett, headteacher of Huntingdon School in York. Educators in London face many challenges but it is now well known that schools in other cities, and our leafy suburbs and rural and coastal areas need to improve. Where is the representative who will speak for a headteacher working in Lowestoft or Grimsby or Cornwall?
Behaviour in schools is vital because systemic disruption robs children of time that should be spent learning. This harms children from disadvantaged backgrounds most because they often start school behind their wealthier peers. I therefore hope to see recommendations that will speak to teachers and leaders up and down the country, and allow schools in every context to help every child in their care.
This objective will more likely be achieved if the diversity of British schools and leaders is represented in those writing the reports, and invite the panel to extend their research further afield than Feltham or the fringes of the M25, and to incorporate the expertise of some of our fantastic female heads.
Comments
Post a Comment