Behaviour Support Plan: Good Practice

EAZ - Education Action for Achievement Zone

Primary schools and special schools

From September 2000 the EAZ has funded 2 fte teachers through a SLA with the BST. At the outset the decision was taken to place them - initially it was her but pressure from the primary sector persuaded the Action Forum to find funding for a second teacher - within the team so that they could work as members of the zone but still retain contact with the broader LEA behaviour strategy. They are committed to:

• raising self esteem
• dealing with anger/conflict
• training in social skills
• training in assertiveness

This is in support of the overall aim of the zone's strategic plan 17 Behaviour Support and Exclusion (primary and special):

"Contribute to a reduction in the incidence of unacceptable behaviour and exclusion from EAZ schools by developing teachers' skills in managing challenging behaviour."

Schools were prioritised on a needs basis using the highest number of fixed term exclusions, the number of free school meals and the number of children on the SEN register. Some tension amongst heads was generated by the prioritisation process especially the use of the number of temporary exclusions as an indicator. Many zone heads saw this as being unfair since they felt that some schools had a proclivity to exclude pupils more readily than others, and therefore those that struggled to retain pupils were being penalised.

Apart from these problems the intervention made by the zone BST staff has been welcomed and seems to be generally effective. Some concerns remain around the issue of casework rather than staff support and training. Also problems continue around the pressure to react rather than proact.

Currently discussions are taking place with heads to look at the next phase. There is overwhelming support to retain 2 fte teachers on the scheme and increase it by the addition of another 0.5 fte. Maintaining the additional 1.5 fte (planned funds only include provision for retaining 1 fte for the life of the zone) will cost around £50,000 over the planned budget.

However, it is likely that the additional money will be found and that future plans will include cluster working with schools, establishing closer links with an identified lead BST member. Establishing Nurture Clubs and Pyramid Clubs is also under active consideration although if all of this is to be put in place schools will have to agree to part fund the strategy by releasing some of their Standards Fund monies. This would, though, help to address concerns that the zone's business is additionality rather than simply being a means of supporting basic provision. Certainly there is a the strong prospect of integrating the zone's activities with the LEA's in this area and therefore embedding the procedure with a view to its future sustainability.

Secondary Schools

The zone has been set the challenging target of reducing permanent exclusions to nil by 2003. Realistically this is an aspirational goal rather than a definitive end point. To help our three zone secondary schools move towards it each school has been allocated a budget of £55,000 per year for 3 years. This is, therefore, the most expensive plan managed by the zone.

Initial reactions have been mixed. Two schools sought to make external appointments with added responsibility points and to date both have failed. One is still continuing along these lines and, in consequence, has so far failed to establish a unit as agreed in the initial plan. The remaining two schools have appointed internally and used additional points to promote heads of centre to the senior management team. Representation at this level, either by the head of centre or his/her line manager, is central to the success or otherwise of school-based centres.

Successful centres have agreed admission procedures, preventing the development of a 'sin bin mentality' and thus undermining the effectiveness of the unit. In fact zone schools have retained their 'fire brigade' to deal with the inevitable spontaneous flare-ups. This allows in-school centres the time and space to work constructively with challenging youngsters and provides some realistic chance of re-integrating them into mainstream.

The most successful of our centres sees itself as "providing additional support for pupils experiencing barriers to learning to enable them to access the curriculum". It recognises the need to provide dedicated staff, under the leadership of a committed and experienced team leader, to bring together multi-disciplinary systems to ensure appropriate complimentary provision for individual pupils. Thus mechanisms are in place to enable the Education Welfare Service/Social Services/Child Protection/Young Offenders Team/Educational Psychologist/Child & Family Support/Youth Service and the Behavioural Support Team to provide a co-ordinated contribution.

In any withdrawal situation the problem of curriculum access is a major stumbling block. Our experience is no different from the norm. For this reason partial withdrawal rather than total is usually preferred. This usually means that there is some formal mechanism to 'filter' the problem, allowing withdrawn pupils to participate in mainstream lessons where they are seen to be succeeding and withdrawn from those where they are perceived to be failing. Whilst this approach has much to recommend it, it does generate the possibility of problems arising when pupils are moving between the centre and the appropriate work area. Similar issues arise at breaktimes and lunchtimes, promoting the well-rehearsed arguments about whether in-school centres are custodial places with all the negative connotations that arise from this proposition.

Our most effective centre therefore has committed time to sharing their procedures with staff, providing a rationale for them, setting clear parameters, ensuring that expectations stay within the boundaries of what is reasonably achievable, and exercise total control over admissions. Additionally, this centre has forged close relations with the attached EWO who works in a office shared with the head of centre and is seen as an integral part of the school's inclusion policy.

Success to date has been mixed. In two of the schools permanent exclusions have risen slightly and in one they have so far been nil. However cause and effect are difficult to separate. In two of the schools there were latent problems which were probably beyond a centre's ability to resolve. The real test will be what happens in the long term for there are no short-term fixes which are sustainable.