With both ‘seating plans’ and strategies for moving pupils around the classroom if they were misbehaving, teacher responses differed quite widely, and school context/culture were clearly important influences on ideas about ‘what worked’. the following extracts from teacher testimony show that moving pupils in response to behaviour was dependent not just on school context, but was influenced by ‘what sort of teacher’ the respondent wanted to be.
The responses give some indication of the range of school policies and teacher beliefs relevant to this issue.
Moving pupils: what do teachers say?
Another issue which was prominent in discussions about managing classrooms was whether or not moving pupils within the classroom was a useful strategy for limiting interference with pupils’ learning, and whether seating plans were a good idea for assisting the teacher’s control of the lesson.
As with waiting for pupils to be quiet, there was no clear consensus of opinion over the effectiveness of moving pupils within the class. Even within the same school, it was felt to work better with some classes than others:
‘With some classes it works really well… brilliant, a really good safety valve. With others they will just shout across the room to each other, it won’t make any difference.’ (NQT)
‘In this school, moving kids generally works. They will generally comply. I’ve only had refusal to move once. But they don’t always behave perfectly once moved… often you have to take consequences a step further by sending them out or keeping them behind or putting them in a detention.’ (Third year of teaching)
‘Sometimes it does work, and it’s definitely one of the strategies that trainees should experiment with. Sometimes I would plan where pupils sat so I could have some pupils as “barriers” between others who they might combust with, but it doesn’t work all the time… with some groups you will just get the pupils you have separated shouting at each other across the room rather than being able to just talk quietly to their mate in a less disruptive manner.’ (Teacher Educator who had worked at a school ‘in special measures’)
At some schools, moving pupils was thought to be of limited value; perhaps a step that had to be gone through on the route to removing someone from the classroom altogether, but a gambit likely to provoke hostility, argument, and possibly
refusal:
‘ It’s a hassle to do it… you have at least try it sometimes as one of the steps that might come before sending them out altogether but our kids know their rights and can be quick to get stroppy. The problem is that they often protest against being asked to move and that stretches things out.. it can take up lesson time as you get dragged into persuading them… threatening them.’ (NQT)
‘Yes, it’s one of the sensible stages you go through. It will sometimes stop a group of two or three from getting each other into trouble… sometimes they can’t stop themselves. Sometimes it works. Sometimes they complain and resist… “move someone else, it’s not fair” etc… and it escalates. You’ve got to be polite, patient and firm… not make big deal out of it.. steer them towards to low-level choice.. give them a way out. choice A… not bit deal, choice B.. you get in bigger trouble… think about it… you know it makes sense. Try and keep it light-hearted and low key but once you’ve asked them to move, do everything you can to get them to do it even if in the last resort you do have to take serious measures at a later stage for the refusal.’
(Experienced Teacher)
One answer to the problem of wrangles over which pupil should be moved was to move both pupils:
‘A common problem with moving kids is that the one you move says “Not fair… why me, why not him…”, so I move both of them to separate corners of the room. It just speeds things up sometimes, cuts down the potential for bickering and dragging things out. Of course, sometimes you just get both of them complaining. The main thing is that you don’t want it to get in a protracted argument that stops the lesson from continuing so you’ve got to sort it quickly whatever you do. You don’t want an eight-minute stand-off with other kids observing with interest and some kids who would quite like to get on with learning getting cheesed off. So if you get refusal to move, give them a quick option, this or something more serious…. consequences, and if they keep it up, impose the detention or whatever it is.’ (Experienced teacher)
One tentative hypothesis which might be advanced is that moving pupils would be more likely to work in an
unproblematic way in schools with very strong systems for managing pupil behaviour and strong ‘consequences’ for pupils who might go beyond being moved to being ejected from the room, or who might get in much more trouble for not
complying with the request to move immediately. The teacher responses chimed with Rogers’ (1990) advice about ignoring ‘secondary behaviour’ (in this case, the moans and whinges about having to move), as long as the primary goal of separating two troublesome individuals was met. The biggest danger appeared to be that if the negotiations over the move were protracted, learning for the whole class would be put on hold, and all the other pupils in the class would have nothing to do other than observe the show, get on with their work quietly, or decide to mess about themselves. There is sometimes a tension between sorting out a problem and maintaining the learning momentum of the lesson. Also, in some cases, insisting on a move led to escalation in the form of refusal to move.
Different tensions arose in the area of seating plans. Several teachers spoke positively of the use of seating
plans:
‘It made a massive difference at the start of my second year. It sent a message… you are not in the playground now… it’s not the messing about chatting to your mates zone, it’s the learning zone, we are here to learn and I’m responsible for making this happen on behalf of the group.’ (Third year of teaching)
‘At our place, I’ve found that seating plans work really well. It’s nearly always worked… I’m always amazed at how much better it makes things and wonder why I didn’t try it before.’ (NQT)
‘Prevention is better than cure – it’s all in the seating plan. If a kid is sitting next to two people that he doesn’t like enough to talk to, but doesn’t hate enough to wind up, the most interesting thing around should be your lesson.’ (Second year of teaching)
‘Seating plans from day one – much easier than bringing it in later as a response to problems.’ (Experienced teacher)
There is also the issue of how the seating plan is presented to pupils. Brighouse (2001) makes the case for ‘non-provocative’ ways of initiating seating plans, planned to coincide with new learning experiences rather than being explicitly imposed to assert control.
Some teachers felt uncomfortable about seating plans for other reasons, which related more to what sort of teacher they wanted to be. As noted earlier in this chapter, there are some continuums in terms of teaching ‘style’ and one of them is between being controlling and relaxed in approach. The following extracts are examples of teachers explaining why they didn’t use seating plans:
‘Teachers have different styles and you’ve got to choose the one you’re comfortable with. I usually let them sit in friendship groups and then move them if they mess around… I let them move back with their mates next lesson, I don’t keep them apart… Sometimes being easy-going and relaxed works as long as you do take action appropriately if they do start to go too far… Our kids respond well to this on the whole. (Experienced teacher)
‘I feel uncomfortable making them sit to a plan. It feels mean and punitive, as if it assumes the worst of pupils, it sends negative messages. Perhaps it’s more efficient in a horrible sort of Victorian way but a lot of pupils have little enough fun in school and being able to sit next to your friends as long as you behave doesn’t seem a lot to ask. I prefer to have a default position that you can sit where you want as long as you don’t mess about.’ (Experienced teacher)
Pupils’ views on seating plans were unequivocally negative (see Chapter 5): one of the biggest causes of resentment against school and against being in classrooms was not being able to sit with friends.
There is a possible tension here between classrooms as ‘democratic spaces’, which respect pupil friendships and autonomy, and teachers exercising ‘leadership’ in the classroom ‘for the pupils’ own good’, and so that they will find it easier to control the lessons. As in so many areas, there is a judgement call to be made here by new teachers, which will depend on school culture (to what extent are pupils used to being told where to sit?), the custom and practice of the preceding teacher in the subject, the personality and educational philosophy of the teacher concerned, the nature of the individual class, and the time of year when the seating plan is imposed. Suggestions for consideration here are that new teachers contemplating imposing a seating plan might ask for advice from teachers who have been in situ, and that they might at some point explore both methods of working and see which works best for them.
However, this was felt to be a strategy which was much easier for established teachers to use, from the start of the year. It was felt to be much harder for trainees who were coming into the class at some point during the year, when it was likely to lead to ‘we were here first’ resentment, or for NQTs who decided to move towards the use of seating plans halfway through the year. In the words of two respondents:
‘It’s always best when you start straight away with it rather than bringing it in later, then they can get resentful about it rather than just accepting it.’ (NQT)
It should be noted that in some schools, there are clear and definite procedures and criteria for moving pupils within the classroom – it was clear from the testimony of respondents that in some schools, there is a strong expectation that all teachers will use seating plans and not deviate from these plans. The issue was not seen as one where individual teachers should exercise discretion over the movement of pupils within the class. In other schools, it was accepted that this should be a matter for the individual judgement of the teacher.
Refusal
Sending pupils out was acknowledged to be one of the teacher actions (together with asking pupils to move within the classroom) which might lead to pupil refusal to comply with a teacher’s request. The prevalence of pupil refusal obviously varies from school to school. In some schools it rarely occurred, in others it was ‘very common’. There was a general consensus amongst teachers that refusal should be taken very seriously, and was not something that could be just forgotten about or glossed over:
‘Something must happen to send a message to all the pupils that this is not acceptable. Ideally, it would be that the child is sent home until the parents come in to discuss the matter, or the child is taken out of circulation for a period so that other pupils understand the seriousness of refusal. There is a safety issue here. Who would want to send their kids to a school where the kids routinely don’t do as the teachers say?’ (Experienced teacher)
‘Refusal is one of the few things I call for help on; it is suicide to let a class see somebody refusing and getting away with it.’ (Second year of teaching)
‘You can’t run a school where the kids can pick and choose whether they do what the teacher says. It’s important that something happens if a pupil refuses, that it is seen as very serious and unacceptable. Even if the sanction doesn’t “cure” the problem, doesn’t deter the pupil from refusing again at some point, it must be clear to the others that there will be serious consequences if they do not do as the teacher tells them.’ (Head of Department)
One teacher used refusal to take off coats at the start of the lesson (a school policy), to remove uncooperative pupils from the lesson at an early stage:
‘At the beginning of every lesson, I insist that children take their coats off and put MP3 players away. Some teachers don’t bother with this at my school, but for me it’s the litmus test of a child’s willingness to accept my authority. The chances are that if they won’t take their coat off, they won’t do anything else I ask either. The coat test gives me the excuse I need (after the requisite three warnings) to send any complete refusers to the withdrawal room.’ (Second year of teaching)
Although there was a consensus that refusal was very serious, and that some form of serious ‘consequences’ should unfailingly apply to pupils who refused, teachers did not feel that that it was politic to ‘use such force as is reasonable’ (DfEE, 1998: 4) to remove the pupils from the room, especially in the case of a trainee or NQT.
The act allows teachers to ‘use such force as is reasonable’ if a pupil is committing a criminal offence, injuring themselves or others or causing damage to property. More pertinent to teachers’ day to day lives, the act also sanctions teachers to use reasonable force if pupils are ‘engaging in any behaviour prejudicial to maintaining good order and discipline at the school or among any of its pupils, whether that behaviour occurs in a classroom during a teaching session or elsewhere’ (DfEE, 1998: 4).
Almost without exception, teachers felt that ‘reasonable force’ should only be used against pupils in extreme situations, such as if a pupil was endangering the health and safety of others. They did not feel that force should be used in the case of pupil refusal, and generally felt that teachers should always try and keep ‘an appropriate professional distance’ between themselves and pupils. Simply reminding the pupil of the seriousness of refusal and trying to point them towards less serious courses of behaviour, and then sending a pupil for a senior member of staff or following the refusal up later if the pupil remained obdurate, were more commonly suggested ways forward:
‘Certainly I would never march or frogmarch or drag them out of the classroom.. that seems to me a recipe for escalation. Even if you attempt to “guide” or steer them out, you are in dodgy territory. Regulations might talk about “reasonable force” but it is a grey area… who is going to decide what’s reasonable… what if some other kids’ description of what you did or views on what is reasonable differ from yours.. what if there is no other adult in the room as a witness.’ (Second year of teaching)
‘At our school, the protocol on this is clear; you always try to get another adult present in such circumstances unless there is an urgent safety issue.’ (Mentor)
‘In this school, refusal is very common. When they have had their warnings, they come to the last one and often refuse to go out. You are then in the hands of the school system. I’ve learned that you can often deal with it later. If they don’t go out, that’s their problem, they know that they will be in trouble later because of this and I notice that they often go quiet because they know that they will be in trouble and they have gone too far. I used to spend a lot of time and emotional energy trying to get them to go out, now I just get on with the lesson and move on. There’s no “show” for them all to enjoy, you try and just get on with the learning, not let them have the show they are looking for.’ (NQT in a difficult school)
‘They don’t always go out quietly, sometimes they do refuse… and I’m one of the senior team who go round the school picking kids up and sorting out things like this… taking them down to the remove room. One kid in my lesson last week just point blank refused to leave the room. So I just said he’d have to do a half hour detention and moved on. It wasn’t a prefect solution but it allowed me to move on to something else… to carry on with the lesson – but you have to make sure that you follow it up – the kid does the detention.’ (Head of Sixth Form)
Even in difficult schools, physical restraint issues were felt to be unusual situations, not day to day occurrences, but there was a clear view that using force to control pupils was an absolute last resort:
‘In our school, there is very little need for physical contact and restraint issues… I’ve been in classrooms now for two years some of which was spent in difficult schools and it’s never happened… it’s never come to that.’ (Second year of teaching)
‘Physical contact? Do it as little as possible, but the dictum during my training to not touch the children at all isn’t realistic. You do sometimes have to break up fights and I have been advised that the next time I do it, I should say to the child ‘I am holding your arms because you are putting your safety and the safety of others at risk’. Last time I broke up a fight one of the parents complained, but the HOY gave her short shrift; I’d expect most schools would support you as long as it was clearly necessary to touch the child.’ (Second year of teaching)
‘In the PGCE year or when I started here I would not have gone near a pupil, not have even thought of it. Now I am established, it’s less of an issue, not big deal but I’m still careful. I might just touch the back of someone’s bag and point them in the right direction or signpost them to move in a particular direction, hold my arm out to shepherd them somewhere… relaxed and low key. It’s a judgement issue that comes with knowing the kids you are working with and being comfortable with them.’ (Second year of teaching)
Clearly, there are other situations where teachers might encounter pupil refusal, but instructing/requesting pupils to move within the classroom was one of the scenarios where pupil refusal might occur (all the pupil has to do is refuse and stay put, which puts the teacher in a difficult position in terms of ‘next moves’). All the teachers who talked about refusal (and not all of them did – some said that they worked in schools where this rarely or never happened) felt that if there were incidents where refusal occurred, it was very important to follow it up, not just let it go, as it created a very unfortunate precedent, in terms of the teacher not being really in control of the room.
‘Avoid it at all costs… no, at almost all costs. With all rules there’s always an exception. Don’t give people a rule and say it’s unbreakable. The world of teaching is too complex for that but…. It should be absolutely a last resort, there’s usually a way round it. Unless, there’s a safety issue… if a pupil is endangering the safety and well-being of other pupils.’ (Teacher Educator)
‘I have done it (been in physical contact with pupils) and have usually regretted it afterwards. It’s about being professional, and once you get into that territory, it jeopardises that. You take it into territory where they are more at home than you are, into their world. You need always to be in control of yourself. Once you are in physical contact with pupils of one sort or another, you are in dangerous and unpredictable waters. Having said that, if pupil safety is involved, you have to step in.’ (Teacher Educator)
Behaviour expert Dr Bill Rogers models who to deal with a pupil who is refusing to comply with an instruction.
Back to ‘Managing pupil behaviour‘, homepage