Working paper 5.5
Report of the Working Group on
Student Behaviour
Paul Logan and Mark Rickinson
On behalf of the Working Group
December 2005
The National Educational Research Forum (NERF) is an independent
organisation. Its role is to oversee the development of a coherent strategy for
educational research and its use.
NERF organises projects, seminars and workshops inspired by and engaging
with its partners.
Contact NERF by email on info@nerf.org. Website address: www.nerf-uk.org.
2
Contents
Foreword
4
Executive Summary
5
1.
Introduction
6
2.
Student Behaviour: issues and evidence
7
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
7
8
9
9
3.
4.
Concerns
Perspectives
Developments
Evidence
Towards a D&R programme design
11
3.1
3.2
11
12
Foci
Structure
Bringing it about
14
4.1
4.2
14
14
Opportunities
Next Steps
References
15
Appendix 1: Experts and Evidence Consulted
17
3
Foreword
This report has been prepared by a working group established by the National
Educational Research Forum which worked from July to November 2005. Its
members are listed below.
The purpose of the working group was to take forward NERF’s proposals for
programmes that combine development with research. In 2003 NERF identified
the need for such “D&R” programmes as a key element of its strategic proposals
for educational R&D. These are set out in NERF Working Paper 5.2 (Morris,
2004).
The concept of D&R programmes is being explored through NERF and its
partners in two ways. A network of organisations developing such programmes
has been established, involving universities, teachers, research centres and
national agencies. At a series of workshops organised by the network, cases of
such programmes are being presented and discussed. Difficulties and benefits
are being identified and advice offered.
At the same time NERF selected two areas of particular concern in education to
develop exemplars of potential D&R programmes. Working groups were
established to explore these. One was in the area of physical science and maths
education; the other in student behaviour, which is the subject of this report. The
working group was chaired by Paul Logan, Headteacher of Finham Park School
in Coventry. A small group with backgrounds in teaching, research and policy
was assembled to set out proposals. This is its report.
This report is written primarily for members of the National Educational Research
Forum. We hope that it will also be useful for senior policy-makers and research
funders with responsibilities and interests in development and research.
Working Group Members
John Bangs - Assistant Secretary, National Union of Teachers
Sue Hallam – Professor, Institute of Education, London
Paul Logan (chair) – Headteacher, Finham Park School, Coventry
Andrew Morris – Director, National Educational Research Forum
Mark Rickinson (researcher)– Consultant and Research Fellow Oxford University
Kathy Sylva – Professor, Oxford University Department of Educational Studies
Andy Walmsley – Excellence in Cities Coordinator, Coventry LEA
4
Executive Summary
This document summarises the key messages emerging from the National
Educational Research Forum’s (NERF) Student Behaviour Working Group. The
purpose of the group was to make concrete what a Development and Research
(D&R) programme might look like in education using the issue of student
behaviour as an example. This involved exploring recent research evidence and
policy/practice developments relating to behaviour and considering how a D&R
programme might be designed in response to these.
There are clear signs of heightened concern about behaviour and discipline
amongst education professionals and decision-makers throughout the UK. This
relates to a wide range of issues, but most prominent for practitioners is the
challenge of low level disruption. Such concerns, however, arise within a number
of contexts (social, economic, political and pedagogical) and can be understood
from a range of different theoretical perspectives. This complexity, along with the
wide range of behaviour improvement initiatives currently in operation, forms an
important part of the backdrop for any future D&R programme in this area.
In view of this, there seem to be four potentially important areas for future D&R:
 how and why behaviour management strategies have the effects that they do
 how such strategies can be shared and adapted between different contexts
 behaviour generally as opposed to behaviour management specifically
 behaviour in the context of the Every Child Matters agenda.
It is suggested that a D&R programme on these issues would need to be: about
architecture rather than method; conceived over the long term with objectives
that gradually shift to meet changing conditions; based on knowledge from
research and wisdom from practical experience; and capable of attracting funding
from a variety of sources.
At present, student behaviour is characterised by significant amounts of
investment and development, but fairly limited amounts of research and use of
evidence. There are therefore significant opportunities for D&R. In terms of next
steps, the group recommends an examination of the feasibility of:
 working with the DfES Improving Behaviour and Attendance Division (IBAD)
to find ways of using D&R to enhance the research dimensions of their work
 initiating a D&R programme, starting with one LEA, that would build on
current developments and explore the effectiveness of different approaches to
connecting research and practice.
5
1.
Introduction
The purpose of the group was to make concrete what a D&R programme might
look like in education using the issue of student behaviour as an example. In
seeking to do this, we found it helpful to draw on ideas from systems/ecological
design (e.g., Banathy, 1991; Sterling, 2001) which suggest that any change
requires:



a vision (underlying philosophy and direction)
an image of the desired change (core values and ideas as a basis for
discussion)
a design that allows realisation of the image.
With respect to D&R programmes, our feeling was that NERF had already gone a
considerable way towards outlining both a vision and an image for such
programmes (see, for example, Morris, 2004). What was needed was more detail
about what the design of a D&R programme might look like and what it might
involve. The focus on ‘what it might involve’ as well as ‘what it might look like’ is
important in view of the systems/ecological design argument that ‘design should
be seen as a continuous learning process rather than a blueprint’ (Sterling, 2001,
p. 81).
The Group had two broad areas of inquiry: (i) exploring recent research evidence
and developments in practice and policy relating to student behaviour; and (ii)
considering how a D&R programme might be designed in response to current
issues and evidence in student behaviour. These areas were explored through a
series of four working group meetings, coupled with invited input from expert
practitioners, policy-makers and researchers as well as analysis of key policy and
research documents (see Appendix 1 for details).
This document seeks to share our learning thus far. Section 2 presents our
understanding of the issues and evidence pertinent to student behaviour.
Building on this, Section 3 outlines what we see as starting points for the design
of a D&R programme focused on student behaviour. Section 4 outlines what the
next steps might be in moving forward with such a programme.
6
2.
Student behaviour: issues and evidence
Student behaviour is a complex area and we can not claim to have undertaken a
systematic analysis of all the relevant literature, policies and practices. What
follows then is brief outline of the issues and evidence that seem most pertinent
from the documents we have read and the people we have spoken to, coupled
with our own professional experiences.
2.1 Concerns
As noted by a recent policy evaluation in Scotland, ‘Concerns about pupils
behaviour are almost as old as schools’ (Munn et al., 2005, p. 4). Despite this,
there are signs of heightened concern about behaviour and discipline amongst
education professionals and decision-makers. This is evident in the recent
national working groups on school discipline in England, Scotland and Ireland
(e.g., Discipline Task Group, 2001; Steer Report, 2005), as well as contemporary
research on teachers’ views (e.g., Munn et al., 2004; ICM, 2005). Practitioner
interest in this topic is also evident in responses to a NERF consultation, where
behaviour issues ranked prominently amongst potential research and
development priorities.
Despite media portrayals to the contrary, perhaps the clearest message
emerging from the research and policy literature is the significance of low level
disruption as the major challenge for teachers and learners within schools. For
example:
The main issue for teachers and for pupils is the effect of frequent, low
level disruption. (Steer Report, 2005, p. 5)
The most common form of poor behaviour is persistent, low-level
disruption of lessons that wears down staff and interrupts learning.
(OFSTED, 2005, p. 4)
Lower level behaviours continue to be the most wearing for teachers.
(Munn et al., 2004, p. 8)
Having said this, it would be short-sighted to overlook the fact that there are
cases of extreme violence in schools. Furthermore, these can have a dramatic
impact on the morale and perceptions of students, staff, parents and
communities well beyond the places where such incidents take place. This forms
an important part of the backdrop for any D&R programme relating to student
behaviour.
7
2.2 Perspectives
Current concerns about student behaviour arise within several contexts, the
nature of which will influence any programme of development and research. For
example:




The social context – including changes in the cohesion and functioning of
families and in the nature of the communities within which educational
institutions operate.
The economic context – which is dominated by the changing nature of
employment, in which skill requirements are changing and transmission
between generations is weakening.
The political context – which involves an interventionist approach to the
development of public services through setting of standards and targets,
underpinned by pervasive policy positions on, for example, social inclusion
and multi-agency working.
The pedagogical context - encompassing a wide range of factors relating to
teaching and learning styles, curriculum frameworks, assessment systems
and school/college management and organisation.
Underpinning these various contexts, there are also different theoretical
perspectives, developed through research in several fields. Munn et al.
(forthcoming) identify three main categories of writing about the causes and
cures of misbehaviour in schools:
(i) neuro-biological/psychological explanations which see misbehaviour as
inherently a within-child or within-child-in-family problem
(ii) sociological explanations which explore the role of school in promoting or
inhibiting behaviour
(iii) more general systems level theorising about the nature of society and the role
which deviance or disaffection plays.
More recently, there is evidence of an integration of these different perspectives
in the form of systemic theories which acknowledge the complex interactions
between systems (e.g., schools, families) and individuals. This is reflected in
multiple method interventions such as the DfES Behaviour Improvement
Programme (Hallam et al., 2005).
Two contrasting approaches emerge from these various perspectives: on the one
hand finding ways to ‘cope with problem kids’; on the other, finding ways to
change the system within which the problems arise. The former sees ‘the
solution to “the problem” [in terms of] “fixing” the child’, while the latter ‘tends to
advocate intervention and support’ (Munn and Brown, 2005, p. 2).
8
2.3 Developments
Not surprisingly given the range of concerns and perspectives noted above, there
are many different developments and initiatives relating to behaviour. As the
Steer Report Learning Behaviour makes clear: ‘There is no single solution to the
problem of poor behaviour’ (Steer Report, 2005, p. 2). Within this activity,
though, a number of recurring themes are evident.

Helping schools to understand how to identify, share and implement
good practice in relation to all aspects of behaviour improvement, against
the backdrop of schools working in collaboration as part of Education
Improvement Partnerships and the Every Child Matters agenda.

Supporting the emerging profession of behaviour and attendance
specialists through initiatives such as the National Programme for Specialist
Teachers in Behaviour and Attendance (NPSL-BA), as well as provision
within initial teacher education and continuing professional development.

Supporting schools in creating cultures of non-violence and responding
to violent incidents through the provision of advice on violence reduction.

Enhancing home-school links and parental involvement through a range
of initiatives to promote the active engagement and cooperation of parents
and pupils, particularly for those individuals who have significant needs.
A common thread running through many of the above developments is the notion
that tackling behaviour issues is intricately interconnected with addressing
teaching and learning issues. This is more than implicit within the titles of recent
working group reports: Better Behaviour, Better Learning (Scotland), Learning
Behaviour (England).
In highlighting areas of current activity, it is important to stress a number of
emerging developments, which are likely to impact significantly in the near future.
Examples include the evolution of integrated Children’s Services, the
development of Extended Schools and continued Workforce Remodelling. These
raise important questions about the contributions of teachers and support staff,
and of adults from outside the school, to pastoral structures within schools (see,
for example, NUT, 2005).
2.4 Evidence
Any plans for a D&R programme in this area clearly need to be informed by the
characteristics of the current evidence base. Writing in the late 1980s, the Elton
Committee highlighted an acute lack of national statistics and research evidence
9
relating to behaviour and discipline (Elton Report, 1989). Over the last twenty
years, it would seem that this situation has improved somewhat owing to the
accumulation of research (e.g. Munn et al., 2004), evaluation (e.g. Hallam et al.,
2005) and inspection (e.g. OFSTED, 2005) evidence.
Recent reviews (e.g., Powell and Tod, 2004; Stafford et al., 2004) and policy
documents (e.g, Steer Report, 2005), however, identify a number of very
important gaps in current understandings. A consideration of these seems a
crucial starting point for future D&R. In particular, we would highlight:







the need for improved monitoring and self-evaluation of student behaviour
by schools (Steer Report, 2005; OFSTED, 2005)
the dearth of cross-national studies into school discipline and behaviour
management within the EU (Smith, 2003) and the OECD (Steer Report,
2005)
the tendency for research to have overlooked the student perspective
(Stafford et al., 2004) on indiscipline and exclusion
the lack of large-scale rigorous evaluation of many innovations and
initiatives relating to behaviour management (Smith, 2003)
calls for more mixed-method and inter-disciplinary research which
reverses ‘the tendency for psychologists, sociologists, social theorists and
educationalists to work in relative isolation’ (Munn et al., forthcoming; see also
Smith, 2003)
the need for further research into issues such as the impact of diet and
school design on behaviour and discipline (Steer, 2005)
the need for improved understanding of the home-school relationships in
the promotion of good behaviour (Desforges with Abouchaar, 2003).
10
3.
Towards a D&R programme design
This section outlines the group’s ideas as to possible foci and structures for a
D&R programme on student behaviour. The ideas presented should be seen as
early sketches rather than finished drawings.
3.1 Foci
From our readings of the literature, as well as our consultations, we see four
areas as potentially important for future D&R. Firstly, there is insufficient
understanding of how and why behaviour management strategies and
approaches have the effects that they do. This is commonly articulated by
lead practitioners and advisors as follows:
‘There has been a lot of activity over the last three years in behaviour and
attendance improvement and a common body of knowledge and effective
practice is now emerging. Much good practice has been identified which
needs evaluation. The form of evaluation should look at why some
approaches seem to be effective in particular settings’.
Connected with this, the second area concerns how effective behaviour
management approaches and strategies can be shared and adapted
between different contexts. This is less about behaviour management, and
more about sharing practice and implementing change.
This requires
understandings not only of why certain practices work in certain settings (which
links to the first area above), but also how these practices might be adapted and
operationalised in different settings. This is about addressing the question of why
advice and support about behaviour management seem to work in some settings
but not in others. Central to this is an appreciation of the complexity of ‘joint
practice development’ and the particular challenges associated with sharing
practices, as opposed to exchanging ideas (Fielding et al., 2005, p.1). It also
raises questions about the interface between research and practice in this area,
and the capacity for knowledge to be shared amongst researchers, developers
and practitioners.
The third area stems from a need for better understandings of behaviour
more generally as opposed to behaviour management more specifically. There
are a wide range of potential angles and topics here, but some examples might
be:
 the influence of factors such as school organisation and design, and nutrition
and diet on young people’s behaviour
 the nature and dynamics of the relationships between disruptive behaviour
and underachievement amongst different kinds of students in different
educational contexts
11

the characteristics and enablers of a school climate that is conducive to social
harmony (or non-violence).
Finally, we see an important need for D&R that focuses specifically on behaviour
in the context of developments associated with the Every Child Matters
agenda for greater multi-agency working between educational, health, social
care and youth justice professionals. Examples might include work looking into
how to build sustainable multi-agency links which support educational settings in
meeting the behavioural needs of students.
3.2 Structure
In thinking about what a D&R programme might look like in relation to some or all
of the issues outlined above, a number of structural ideas emerged. One
important idea was that a D&R programme is about architecture rather than
method. The key notion is of a programme, which provides a framework within
which many activities are located.
Such a programme should be conceived over the long term defined by broad
aims, but with objectives that gradually shift to meet changing conditions. It
would be composed of projects and events together with central processes for
publishing and communications.
The programme should combine knowledge from research with wisdom from
practical experience, necessarily involving a mixture of participants:
researchers, practitioners, developers and people working in policy, management
and the media, for example. Individual projects within the programme might
focus on research or development or a mixture of the two and should involve a
mix of researchers, developers and practitioners accordingly. No particular
research methods are implicated in a D&R programme, but the outcomes should
be designed to contribute equally to the improvement of practice in specific
settings and the development of theory to enable generalisation beyond the
original setting. In this way, issues relating to the research-practice interface and
knowledge transfer and utilisation are likely to be significant.
At any given time, projects within the programme would naturally have clearly
defined aims, objectives, budgets and timeframes. However, future projects
would be continually envisaged within the programme, for which precise aims
and objectives would remain to be specified in the light of previous findings. In
this sense, there would need to be an emergent quality to any D&R programme.
Programmatic design would also enable funding to be attracted from a variety
of sources. Funders interested in the overall aims of the programme could each
contribute to specific projects according to their remit. In particular, funding for
development, for example at LEA and school/college level could be used
alongside funding from national or regional research bodies. However, a
12
programme with multiple elements and different kinds of participant would require
some central resource for management, growth and planning. Securing initial
funding for this would be an important first step.
13
4.
Bringing it about
By way of a conclusion, this section seeks to convey the enthusiasm felt by
the group and many of its consultees in relation to the prospects for future
D&R on student behaviour. There seem to be some very real opportunities
and some very possible next steps.
4.1 Opportunities
Our impression of student behaviour is of an area characterised by significant
amounts of investment and development, but fairly limited amounts of
research and use of evidence. Put simply, there seems to be a crucial need
for more and better research to support existing and future development. We
see this as presenting significant opportunities for D&R, not least because of:



a strong recognition amongst the DfES’s Improving Behaviour and
Attendance Division (IBAD) of the need for research-based underpinnings
for the emerging profession of behaviour and attendance specialists
positive attitudes towards D&R amongst leading practitioner such as Sir
Alan Steer, who described D&R as ‘an attractive idea […] a more
intellectual approach to behaviour management is crucial’
calls from researchers for more inter-disciplinary work in this area (Munn et
al., forthcoming; Smith, 2003), as well as reports from Scotland that school
discipline can be a focus for positive collaboration between policy-makers,
practitioners and researchers (Munn & Brown, 2005).
4.2 Next steps
Against this backdrop, there are two potential ways forward that have
emerged from our discussions and consultations.
Firstly, it was clear from our conversations with the DfES’s Improving
Behaviour and Attendance Division (IBAD) that the idea of D&R would fit well
with their desire to strengthen the research dimensions of their work. The
group therefore recommends further exploration of how this might take shape
in ways that build upon IBAD developments such as the Behaviour and
Attendance Exchange.
Secondly, the group recommends an examination of the feasibility of initiating
a D&R programme, building on LEA and school developments already
underway in specific localities. One LEA area has already indicated interest in
taking a lead on this and exploring ways of engaging with research expertise.
It would be interested in devising ways to explore the effectiveness of different
approaches to connecting research and practice (e.g., Walter et al., 2003)
within the context of LEA-wide D&R.
14
References
BANATHY, B. (1991). Systems Design of Education. New Jersey: Educational
Technology Publications.
DESFORGES, C. with ABOUCHAAR, A. (2003). The impact of parental
involvement, parental support and family education on pupil achievement and
adjustment: a review of literature. DfES Research Report 433. London:
DfES.
DISCIPLINE TASK GROUP (2001). Better behaviour – better learning.
Stationery Office: Edinburgh.
ELTON REPORT (1989) Discipline in Schools: report of the Committee of
Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton. HMSO: London
FIELDING, M., BRAGG, S., CRAIG, J., CUNNINGHAM, I., ERAUT, M.,
GILLINSON, S., HORNE, M., ROBINSON, C. & THORP, J. (2005). Factors
Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice. DfES Research Brief 615. London:
DfES.
HALLAM, S., CASTLE, F. & ROGERS, L. with CREECH, A., RHAMIE, J. &
KOKOTSAKI, D. (2005). Research and evaluation of Behaviour Improvement
Programmes. Interim Report. Unpublished Report: Institute of Education,
University of London.
ICM (2005). Teachers’ TV Behaviour Survey [online]. Available:
http://www.teachers.tv/pdf/behaviour/behaviour_survey.doc
[4 November,
2005]
MORRIS, A. (2004) Modelling D&R Programmes: initial exploration of
features. NERF Working Paper 5.2. [online]. Available: http://www.nerfuk.org/word/WP5.2D&Rfeaturesfinal.doc?version=1 [24 October, 2005].
MUNN, P., JOHNSTONE, M. & SHARP, S. (2004). Teachers’ Perceptions of
Discipline in Scottish Schools. Insight 15. [online]. Available:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ins15.pdf [20 October, 2005]
MUNN, P. & BROWN, J. (2005). ‘Exploring the role of research in postdevolution Scotland: the example of indiscipline in schools’, Paper presented
at the European Conference on Educational Research, University College
Dublin, 7-10 September
MUNN, P., RIDDELL, S., LLOYD, G., MACLEOD, G., STEAD, J., KANE, J. &
FAIRLEY, J. (2005). Evaluation of the Discipline Task Group
Recommendations: The deployment of additional staff to promote positive
school
discipline.
Final Report to the Scottish Executive Education Department. Edinburgh:
University of Edinburgh.
15
MUNN, P., JOHNSTONE, M., SHARP, S. & BROWN, J. (forthcoming).
‘Violence in schools: perceptions of secondary teachers and headteachers
over time’, Draft paper for submission to British Educational Research Journal
NATIONAL UNION OF TEACHERS (NUT) (2005). Learning to Behave: A
charter for schools. London: NUT.
OFFICE FOR STANDARDS IN EDUCATION (OFSTED) (2005). Managing
Challenging
Behaviour.
[online].
Available:
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=pubs.displayfile&i
d=3846&type=pdf [24 October, 2005]
POWELL, S. & TOD, J. (2004). A Systematic Review Of How Theories
Explain Learning Behaviour in School Contexts [online].
Available:
http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/EPPIWebContent/reel/review_groups/TTA/BM(CCC)/BM(
CCC)_2004review.pdf [15 October, 2004]
SMITH, P. (2003). ‘Violence in schools. An overview’, In: Smith, P. (ed.)
Violence in Schools. The Response in Europe. RouteledgeFalmer: London.
STAFFORD, A., EDSON, J., LLOYD, G., MUNN, P. & RIDDELL, S. (2004).
Review of Literature on Discipline and Exclusion in Scotland’s Schools (19982004). Report to SEED. Unpublished Report: The Morray House School of
Education.
STERLING, S. (2001) Sustainable Education: Revisioning Learning and
Change. Dartington: Green Books.
THE STEER REPORT (2005). Learning Behaviour. The Report of the
Practitioners’ Group on School Behaviour and Discipline. [online]. Available:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/behaviourandattendance/uploads/Learning%20Behavi
our.pdf [24 October, 2005].
WALTER, I., NUTLEY, S. and DAVIES, H. (2003). Developing a Taxonomy of
Interventions used to Increase the Impact of Research [online]. Available:
http://www.standrews.ac.uk/~ruru/Taxonomy%20development%20paper%200
70103.pdf [25 May, 2005].
16
Appendix 1: Experts and Evidence Consulted
The following individuals were consulted as expert practitioners, researchers
and policy-makers:
Guy Claxton, Graduate School of Education, University of Bristol
Chris Gittins, Lead Adviser on Behaviour and Attendance, DfES
Nigel Hutchins, Improving Behaviour and Attendance Unit, DfES
Dexter Hutt, Headteacher, Ninestiles Secondary School, Birmingham
Pamela Munn, Moray House School of Education, University of Edinburgh
Graham Robb, Lead Adviser on Behaviour and Attendance, DfES
Alan Steer, Headteacher, Seven Kings School and Chair, Practitioners’ Group
The following documents were read and summarised as part of the group’s
work:
DISCIPLINE TASK GROUP (2001). Better behaviour – better learning.
Stationery Office: Edinburgh.
ELTON REPORT (1989) Discipline in Schools: report of the Committee of
Enquiry chaired by Lord Elton. HMSO: London
FIELDING, M., BRAGG, S., CRAIG, J., CUNNINGHAM, I., ERAUT, M.,
GILLINSON, S., HORNE, M., ROBINSON, C. & THORP, J. (2005). Factors
Influencing the Transfer of Good Practice. DfES Research Report 615.
London: DfES.
HALLAM, S., CASTLE, F. & ROGERS, L. with CREECH, A., RHAMIE, J. &
KOKOTSAKI, D. (2005). Research and evaluation of Behaviour Improvement
Programmes. Interim Report. Unpublished Report: Institute of Education,
University of London.
ICM (2005). Teachers’ TV Behaviour Survey [online]. Available:
http://www.teachers.tv/pdf/behaviour/behaviour_survey.doc
[4 November,
2005]
MUNN, P., JOHNSTONE, M. & SHARP, S. (2004). Teachers’ Perceptions of
Discipline in Scottish Schools. Insight 15. [online]. Available:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/education/ins15.pdf [20 October, 2005]
NATIONAL UNION OF STUDENTS (NUT) (2005). Learning to Behave: A
charter for schools. London: NUT.
SMITH, P. (2003). ‘Violence in schools. An overview’, In: Smith, P. (ed.)
Violence in Schools. The Response in Europe. RouteledgeFalmer: London.
STAFFORD, A., EDSON, J., LLOYD, G., MUNN, P. & RIDDELL, S. (2004).
Review of Literature on Discipline and Exclusion in Scotland’s Schools (19982004). Report to SEED. Unpublished Report: The Morray House School of
17
Education.
THE STEER REPORT (2005). Learning Behaviour. The Report of the
Practitioners’ Group on School Behaviour and Discipline. [online]. Available:
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/behaviourandattendance/uploads/Learning%20Behavi
our.pdf [24 October, 2005].
18