Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teachers' Attitudes Towards Disruptive Behaviour and Their Use of Internal Referral
Teachers' Attitudes Towards Disruptive Behaviour and Their Use of Internal Referral
Introduction
Teachers' opinions regarding disruptive behaviour
were surveyed in a secondary school. Each respondent's use of the school's internal referral system to
deal with disruptive incidents was also surveyed.
Evidence presented suggests an association between
the teachers' belief in the effectiveness of behaviour
management strategies not directly involving them,
and the frequency of internal referral. Some possible
explanations for any such association are discussed
together with other related issues arising from the
survey.
Schools have a profound capacity to influence the
extent of disaffection and disruptive behaviour
amongst their student body (Rutter et al., 1979;
Galloway et al., 1982; Reynolds, 1984; Watkins,
29
# NAPCE 1999.
A five-point scale was used throughout the questionnaire. While recognizing that an odd number of
possible responses allows respondents to adopt a
middle line, discussions with colleagues suggested
that they should be allowed to have a neutral opinion
when undecided. The method of data analysis
planned to use the mid-point of the scale as a watershed.
Sample
The subject school is a co-educational, LEA maintained comprehensive secondary school in South
West London. Students are aged from 12 to 16 years
and the school has a roll of 840. There are 46 teaching
staff, over 80 per cent of whom have worked at
the school for between 5 and 30 years. Research was
conducted while the author was employed at the
school as Head of Year 11.
Questionnaires were issued to all staff. The headteacher was provided with a questionnaire but not
included in the survey as he was not involved in the
referral process as a class teacher.
The referral data was gathered using the school's
Pastoral/Academic Liaison (PAL) forms relating to
the Year 10 cohort. An example of a PAL form can be
found in Appendix B. Year 10 was selected as the
focus for referral analysis for two main reasons:
1. Staff room opinion seemed to suggest that Year 10
was a `difficult' year a feeling that invites an
objective investigation.
2. The head of that year had progressed through the
school with that `difficult' group of students, and
had kept a full and organized record of referrals
covering the previous three academic years (1995/
961997/98).
Data Recovered
Thirty-six questionnaires were returned, representing
78 per cent of those issued. All subject areas and
management levels were represented in the data
recovered.
The PAL forms relating to Year 10 students numbered
454, covering three years' referrals.
Results and Discussion
Teachers' Views of Effective Strategies
Analysis of Results
The general rating of all strategy categories was
surprisingly high. Only a low number of colleagues
PASTORAL CARE DECEMBER 1999
31
Table 1. Proportion of action referrals made by staff, according to their views on effective strategies
Category of strategy viewed as effective
Action referrals made by staff, according to their ranking on the strategy (%)
Top 33% of staff
External/Internal
External
Internal
70.5
46.4
36.4
20.0
47.7
33.1
Total action
referrals (%)
# NAPCE 1999.
present investigation to examine any direct relationship between both categories of causal factors and
behaviour management strategies, a comparison of
cause ranking to referral is worthy of discussion
(Table 2).
General Views
Table 2. Proportion of action referrals made by staff, according to their views on major causes
Category of cause viewed as major
Action referrals made by staff, according to their ranking on the major cause (%)
Top 33% of staff
External/Internal
External
Internal
60.5
65.0
45.0
# NAPCE 1999.
33
# NAPCE 1999.
References
BROPHY, J. E. and ROHRKEMPER, M. M. (1981) `The Influence of
Problem Ownership on Teachers' Perceptions of and Strategies
for Coping with Problem Students', Journal of Educational
Psychology 73(3), pp. 295311.
GALLOWAY, D. (1983) `Disruptive Pupils and Effective Pastoral
Care', School Organisation 3(3), pp. 24554.
GALLOWAY, D., BALL, T., BLOMFIELD., D. and SYED., R. (1982)
Schools and Disruptive Pupils. Harlow: Longman.
# NAPCE 1999.
35
Appendix A
Questionnaire on Disruptive Behaviour Staff
Initials...........
Strongly
disagree
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
4
4
3
3
2
2
1
1
36
# NAPCE 1999.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Negligible
effect
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
# NAPCE 1999.
Not
effective
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
5
5
5
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
37
Appendix B
Pastoral/Academic Liaison Form [PAL]
Name of Pupil ....................................................................
Date ...............................
Subject ..................................................................................
Staff ..........................................................................................
CONCERN
Attitude
&
Classwork
&
Homework
&
Homework
&
Project work
&
Lack of equipment
&
Initiative/enterprise
&
Behaviour
&
Other
&
Lateness
&
Uniform
&
Other
&
Details if appropriate
1. Pupil seen
&
2. Parent notified
&
Lunch-time
&
3. Work displayed
&
After school
&
4. Commendation
&
Other ............................................................................
.......................................................................................
White Office
38
Blue HOY
# NAPCE 1999.
Red Tutor
1. Detained: Break
&
2. Parent contacted
&
&
Yellow SEN/HOD/Personal/Other