1

Keeping Children Safe

|

Wow, keeping children safe, that’s quite responsibility for teachers to have on their shoulders. The question was posed, are teachers responsible for all children, or is it just the children within their class? And what about the children that were in their class, but have now moved on. Are teachers meant to just forget about any problems they have, pass it on to the next teacher and forget about it? Surely for any caring human being, (which I’m assuming all teachers are) this is a near impossible feat. With this going on, its not surprising that children may ‘slip under the radar’. That would mean a heck of a lot of children for one person to be thinking about at one time. Teachers would talk to different staff members about the any concerns, but nothing was formally done about it. But as long as the school was aware of what was going on then the children and their families couldn’t possibly come to any harm. Well no. What about the things that are going on out side of school? What about any reports that have been filed with the police or social services. A case in 2000 really highlights how the system fell apart. An eight year old girl named Victoria Climbie was brutally tortured and murdered in 2000. A multitude of authorities were aware of Climbie and the injuries that she was sustaining and the seriousness of these said injuries. Despite this, Climbie was still left in the presence of her guardians, which tragically resulted in her death in February 2000. (Batty, 2002) Following her fatality Lord Laming conducted an inquiry into her death and how it came about, resulting in several initiatives evolving from this. The enquiry and report was highly publicised, with different ‘facts’ and information being revealed about social services and the police. Every Child Matters was one of the main initiatives to come from Laming’s enquiry. The idea behind this was to provide more support not just for the children but also for their families. Children and their families were asked directly what were the main aims and outcomes they wanted from the report. From this 5 main ideas were deduced: Being healthy –>physically and mentally Staying safe –> protection from harm and neglect Enjoying and achieving –> developing life skills Making a positive contribution –> being engaged with the community and not being involved with antisocial behaviour Economic well-being –> not being held back by any economic disadvantages. (Boateng, 2003) From here several educational and social programs were set up to help both children and their families all over the country. Areas that were specifically known for social and economic deprivation were targeted directly with Sure Start Children’s Centres being opened which offered a range of different support techniques, such as health, financial and job advise. Opening centres such as these help to integrate and inform the various parties that might be involved with children that are suffering from, or have previously suffered form abuse. It encourages interlinking between youth workers, teachers, social workers, police and health workers, rather than just having separate strands, all of which have a high responsibility for a child, but do not communicate. I think this is a really crucial concept that has come from such a tragic event. It is sad that the government had to be pushed to such an extreme, of a young child’s torture and death to push something to be done about the system. Not only were centre’s opened that were separate from schools, but there was a large rise in after school clubs and breakfast clubs. This was to show that Every Child Matters was working within schools to help support these children and families and not just from the outside. They also provided health care and social care facilities at the schools. By doing these things, it shows that schools and outside forces are working together to help protect children. It starts to take some of the strain of individuals, and makes it a collaborative responsibility, for all adults in these situations to care for the children and families. Teachers still have a huge responsibility for caring for children, but they now no longer have to do it alone. There are CPO’s that they can talk to within schools, and there is easier access to social services. But is this really the case? Are teachers still taking too much responsibility for children? References  http://www.theguardian.com/society/2002/feb/04/1   https://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/EveryChildMatters.pdf

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Reply by Sanna Zahid:

In response to your blog, I would like to talk about the issues regarding schools safeguarding policies and the importance to adhere to the safeguarding system in school.
I found the session we had on safeguarding quite useful and it opened my mind into thinking about all the situations that could arise in our teaching careers.
I learnt that the most vulnerable children are those that have limited/no voice, EAL students, Children with SEN and Isolated Black minority ethnics. This is because these children find it harder to fit into the school system, for example: Children that have English as an additional language would find it extremely difficult settling into a school, as they cannot express themselves fully whilst being surrounded by their English speaking peers.
The argument can be made that teachers are taking too much responsibility for children but I believe this not to be the case. If we were to hypothetically talk about a child that may have been receiving abuse at home, it is not the teacher’s job to solve it, but it is the teacher’s responsibility to make the right person aware of it.
In the extreme case of Daniel Pelka an EAL student- He was in a very vulnerable position throughout the early years of his life as he could not communicate what was happening to him at home. This is an obvious case of neglect by the system; If the school were more proactive about their concerns about him the case could have been resolved. Those that were meant to protect him did fail. This is why I believe it is important that professionals (including teachers) must act when they feel that something is wrong, and not wait until they are certain.
It states in my schools safeguarding policy that if we see or hear anything regarding children talking about home life, it is our duty to stay professional about the situation and keep confidentiality but to make sure we report it to our schools safeguarding officer.
Schools are connected to many multi-agencies such as social workers, police, youth workers, health practitioners and so on. I don’t see why we should ignore that this system is in place in order to keep the children of this generation safe and happy.
It states in our teaching standards that we should abide by the procedures in place for safeguarding. TS1a ‘establish a safe and stimulating environment for pupils, rooted in mutual respect.’ As teachers we should see that our students are healthy, safe, enjoying, achieving and making a positive contribution in their school day.
To conclude, my answer to your question is- no, I do not think that teachers are taking too much responsibility for students. I feel that there are appropriate policies in place regarding safeguarding which permits the teacher to not have to deal with these situations on their own. As government initiatives are in place it makes it a safer environment for student to be kept free of neglect. ‘Every child matters’ an initiative that was launched by the government in 2003 is a great scheme that promotes the wellbeing of children and keeps them safe. If more and more teachers are aware of these safeguarding schemes and the support system schools have, it would help the children of our generation stay free from neglect and harm.
Online references and further reading:
http://www.everychildmatters.co.uk/deliveringservices/caf/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/daniel-pelka-report-coventry-council-2278851

1

Tackling misconceptions of behaviour management.

|

Following the last session on behaviour management, it made me think about the misunderstandings related to how to manage a class or a child with behaviour difficulties.

I was fully engaged in the lecture as Paul Dix managed to challenge my thoughts and helped me overcome many misconceptions that I can relate to primary school children.

One thing that he stated was that the child should not be afraid of their teacher; this is something that happens all across the world as teachers assume it is the best tactic for managing behaviour.When I seen this before, I initially thought it was the right thing to do as it is a method used by many. Sometimes, if the children fear the teacher they do obey.

However, Establishing a high-quality relationship and rapport with the child is a key component of behaviour management; therefore, it is apparent to state that it is something that cannot be taught overnight. This raises the importance of having a good relationship with the entire classroom in order to be able to manage them effectively.

Often we walk into the classroom and expect the children to be well behaved and listen to what we tell them to do. This is not generally how it works; the teacher needs time to build their authority in the classroom by establishing good relationships. “The more students know and respect you, the more they will behave for you in the classroom.”  This point can be followed on by stating that as adults, it takes time to trust someone that we have just met. If they are consistent in the way they treat us, eventually they would earn our trust and respect. http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/columnists/mcdonald/mcdonald013.shtml

Another common misconception for tackling behaviour is when the teacher raises their voice, disrupts the whole class and writes their name on the board. We normally see this happen and do not really question as to why the teacher was doing it, as it seems normal to publicise bad behaviour. Paul Dix raised the matter that the badly behaved pupil should always be given the second attention rather than the first. Some would argue that badly behaved children thrive of the attention; they see it as a norm and a way to act up. Children can conform to this self-fulfilling prophecy as they have been labelled already in the schools eyes.

Students from Leeds University state that- “We do not label children; behaviour is a choice not an inherent personality trait and we believe that children can be nurtured towards making good choices.” http://www.leedsaction.co.uk/assets/resources/Positive_Behaviour_Policy.pdf

Therefore, people that follow this pedagogy can reinforce the effects of promoting positive behaviour. “Students benefit from classrooms where behaviour management is used to promote positive behaviours and encourage learning.” Through this; the children learn about the right behavioural expectations rather than the wrong.  (M.h Siddiqui, 2008)

Furthermore, Paul raised the points that as teachers we should throw away some of our adult behaviours such as; shouting, being negative and intimidating the children.

To help us do this, we need to allow our rationale thinking to overtake our emotional thoughts. When we get angry it is our amygdala taking over our actions, it’s what makes the teacher lose control and try to build fear into the class/pupil so they obey.  “The amygdala triggers your emotions faster than your conscious awareness.” http://www.effective-mind-control.com/amygdala.html

He went on to state that we should keep our empathy towards children, praise children when they do well, be fair towards their needs and give them unconditional respect.

To conclude this discussion, I want to think about whether raising your voice is actually needed in the primary classroom. From my own observation at school I noticed that some children find it hard to listen without having the teacher raise their voice around them.

I would like to challenge my thoughts even further and raise the question into how much we should ignore bad behaviour and if it is the right thing to do as a primary school teacher.

References and Readings-

Education Word (2012) Available online: http://www.educationworld.com/a_curr/columnists/mcdonald/mcdonald013.shtml  Accessed 30/09/14

McDonald, Emma. (2012) Available online: http://www.leedsaction.co.uk/assets/resources/Positive_Behaviour_Policy.pdf  Accessed 30/09/14

M.h Siddiqui (2008) Guidance and Counselling. P. 94

Paul Dix (2014) Behaviour, Behaviour, Behaviour

The Amygdala and emotions (2013) Available online:

http://www.effective-mind-control.com/amygdala.html       Accessed 29/09/14

——————————————————————————————————————————————————–

Amy’s response:

Sanna has highlighted some interesting points from Paul Dix’s lecture on behaviour management. I too was surprised when Paul explained how some techniques I have become used to seeing in schools are perhaps not the most effective methods of managing behaviour. I realised that I have perhaps too easily accepted certain methods of behaviour management without questioning the potential damage they could cause.

One behaviour management method that stands out is the idea of disciplining a child and promoting it in a way that publicly shames the child. It is not that I have ever been in favour of shaming a child in front of the whole class, but I now realise that some methods I have engaged with do in fact do this. For example, displaying a child’s name on a visual behaviour management resource, or writing a child’s name on the board both seemed like fairly harmless ways of reprimanding bad behaviour. Moreover, as this is a method I have seen used time and time again, I did not think to question it because I trust schools and teachers to look out for their children’s best interests and welfare. However, Paul explained how doing this could not only be potentially damaging for a child’s self-esteem but also how it could in fact stimulate further bad behaviour from a child who actively seeks a reaction or acknowledgement from their peers. Disciplining a child by displaying their name somewhere the whole class can see almost validates a misbehaving child’s desire for a response, or could even be seen as a goal for a child who has subscribed to a ‘naughty’ label as a sort of self-identity. Paul suggested a more effective method of keeping track of bad behaviour is to record the names of the children in question, but to do so privately in a notebook rather than in a place that is visible to the rest of the class.

Featured image

Having said that, Paul’s lecture unearthed a polarity in my views on visual behaviour management resources like the one in the picture above. On the one hand, I wholeheartedly agree that publicly shaming a child in this way could damage self-esteem or even reinforce bad behaviour and these are things I certainly do not want to do, yet on the other hand, I have seen this method used sensitively in a way that really does improve classroom behaviour. Visual resources that include a way to display good behaviour as well as bad behaviour can, in my opinion, provide motivation for children to make good choices, especially when attention is drawn to those children who’s names have been displayed on a part of the resource that carries positive connotations. Furthermore, “using more praise results in comments about student misbehaviour being brief, avoids the use of lengthy reprimands, and reduces the incidence of teacher stress and burnout (Clunies-Ross et al, 2007, p.696)”.

Perhaps then an important consideration for visual displays of behaviour management is for teachers to use them sensitively in line with a deep understanding of the children and the ways in which they could be affected or react to it. This resonates with Paul’s explanation on the importance of addressing bad behaviour second and only after good behaviour has been acknowledged first.  For example, a method I have used that engages with visual behaviour resources is to ‘move up’ names of children making good choices and leave the names of children making bad choices un-moved. This way, good behaviour is praised first and bad behaviour is not publicised as crudely as simply ‘moving a name down’.

Paul’s lecture also quelled a misconception that the concept of behaviour management primarily addresses isolated instances of extreme behaviour such as violent outbursts. Instead, effective behaviour management should also monitor the more frequent instances of low level disruption common in most classrooms, which is something all teachers will have to face. Managing low level disruption creates a fair leaning environment for all children, enabling them to flourish and learn free from distraction. This is perhaps the primary reason behind the government’s latest push for behaviour management to be a key area for development in schools. Dockrell and Shield (2004) reported on how the levels of noise children are exposed to in a classroom affect their performance. They found that children who were exposed to greater levels of noise disruption performed significantly worse than those who did not have this disruption in their classroom. A common mistake some teachers make is to raise their own voice in order to reduce the noise levels in their classrooms. Yet Paul asserted that we need to model the behaviours that we want our pupils to exhibit. So it would be hypocritical to ask for quiet by shouting! Furthermore, as Sanna mentions in her post, it is not a teacher’s role to intimidate their pupils and shouting would be one way of doing that.

The overarching message I took away from Paul’s lecture is that whichever method of behaviour management we choose to adopt, we must do so with careful consideration, drawing on our pedagogic knowledge to best meet the needs of each pupil as an individual. A particular approach may work well for one child but be potentially damaging to another, so teachers should be continually reflective in their approach to behaviour management.

References

  • Clunies-Ross, P., Little, E. and Kienhuis, M. (2007) ‘Self-reported and actual use of proactive and reactive classroom management strategies and their relationship with teacher stress and student behaviour’, Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, [online], 28 (6). Available: <http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01443410802206700#tabModule&gt; [Accessed 3rd October, 2014].
  • Paul Dix (2014) ‘Behaviour, Behaviour, Behaviour’ (Lecture delivered at The University of Brighton on 24th September, 2014).
2

The adult role in learning: teachers as facilitators of cooperative learning

|

When thinking about the role of the adult in children’s learning, I initially pictured teachers directly instructing and imparting knowledge to pupils. However I had not really considered that effective teaching can also be delivered through a pedagogy that focuses on cooperative learning without adult intervention, allowing students to learn through exploration and discoveries of their own. Lewis describes cooperative learning as “a form of active learning where students work together to perform specific tasks in a small group” (http://k6educators.about.com/od/educationglossary/g/gcooplearning.htm). Whilst cooperative learning doesn’t always involve the absence of an adult, I am going to discuss the potentials for learning where teachers act as facilitators rather than directors.

The pedagogical practise of cooperative learning involves a teacher creating a well planned situation that will allow children to develop through interacting with their peers. A teacher may have a particular learning objective in mind and can facilitate the learning in a way that allows children to develop the skills required to work towards their objective. For example, the video we watched in our session showed children engaged in the task of constructing a bridge with wooden building blocks. In order to do this, the children had to work as a team and respond to each other in a cooperative way. The teacher’s role in this task, whilst not immediately obvious, was instrumental in allowing the children to develop these skills. By creating an environment that would prompt children to interact in a way that required team work and cooperation, the teacher facilitated their learning and development in those skills.

The video we watched in the session showed how a teacher’s role can be just as instrumental through a facilitative approach as it can be though direct interaction. If we consider the idea that learning is just as much about how we develop as a whole rather than just the information we gather about a subject, then cooperative learning becomes very relevant. Gilles and Boyle note how “students gain both academically and socially when they have opportunities to interact with others to accomplish shared goals” (2010). The video highlighted just how important it is for children to develop interpersonal skills such as social and emotional awareness – skills which are perhaps learned and understood better through interactive real life examples, rather than by listening to a teacher tell you about them. Alexander (2010) discusses how children today face a multitude of contemporary challenges which can affect their ability to think, learn and behave on their own. With children being so heavily influenced by modern day phenomena such as the power of internet technology, it is perhaps now more crucial than ever to allow children to learn through direct interaction with their peers, especially when this interaction takes place within an educational setting facilitated by their teacher to address a clear learning outcome.

A recent episode of the radio 4 program ‘The Educators’ featured Professor Sugata Mitra who argued that children learn better without a teacher (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b04gvm7n). Whilst I do not agree with his somewhat farfetched prediction that teachers will eventually become replaced and not required in schools at all, I am intrigued by some of the arguments he presents in favour of adult-free learning. For example, he reports students feeling more independent, autonomous and confident. However, in his model of technology based teaching, he does acknowledge the necessary adult presence in something he calls ‘the granny cloud’, which successfully serves the purpose of motivating the children. I would also like to point out that the technology systems he uses were undoubtedly created by adults, so I question the extent to which the adult is absent in the child’s learning. In his rather outlandish notions of children being taught exclusively by computers in what he terms ‘classrooms in the cloud’, the computers and the teaching programmes facilitate the learning, and it is adults who create this method of facilitation. Perhaps then his ideas are not so dissimilar to more widely accepted pedagogies of cooperative learning, in the sense that the children learn independently, but the opportunities to learn are provided by adults. I do however think that some adult presence would be required in order to help the students to be reflexive, especially with younger children who have not yet developed complex thinking skills that involve them questioning their own ideas. Whilst this adult presence does not necessarily need to be constant, it is important for teachers to be able to facilitate the learning within a relevant context and then to help students to reflect once the activity has ended.

The skills developed though cooperative learning without the presence of an adult can be complicated to assess. For example, how do we accurately measure a child’s ability to cooperate with their peers when an adult is directing them in how to behave? Similarly, how do we teach children to be independent with the ability to self-initiate their learning if we do not allow them to do so? So learning that is facilitated rather than delivered face-to-face can be useful for both teaching and then assessing skills that cannot easily be measured through adult directed tasks.

Pedagogies that deliver facilitated learning clearly have their advantages and do tend to lend themselves more favorably to the skills addressed in the PSHE areas of the curriculum (Jonathan, 2010). However this approach can be applied in a cross-curricular fashion, for example through independent group tasks in maths that involve cooperative problem solving, or group reading in literacy where children develop listening skills and peer acceptance of different reading abilities. On the other hand, I wonder whether there is the potential for less dominant children to be sidelined in group tasks such as these when the presence of the adult as a mediator is absent. Perhaps then it would be useful to consider situations in which cooperative learning may not be the most suitable pedagogy. I am interested as to whether this blog post may prompt ideas that question whether cooperative learning without adult assistance is always a positive thing.

Amy Brightling-Reed

References

  • Alexander, R. (2010) ‘Childhood today’, Children, their World, their Education: Final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review. London: Routledge
  •  Jonathan, C. (2010) “Promoting peer acceptance in the classroom: an evaluation of a cooperative learning intervention in a mainstream primary school”, Nottingham eTheses, [online] Available: < http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/3523/1/546279.pdf > [Accessed 18th September 2014].