Teachers’ views on the sustainability of the Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management programme: a one-year qualitative follow-up study

ABSTRACT

The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (TCM) programme is an evidence-based training with documented positive effects on teachers’ classroom management strategies and pupil mental health. However, programme effectiveness alone does not ensure sustainability. This study explored teachers’ views on the sustainability of the TCM programme. One year after attending the TCM training, 25 UK primary schoolteachers participated in three focus groups and ten individual interviews. Data were thematically analysed using the Framework Method. One year after the training, teachers were still using TCM strategies, adapting their use to their new cohort of pupils and still reported positive effects on children, teacher-parent relationships, and themselves. However, some school-level and educational policy changes hindered their intended use of TCM strategies. Teachers had shared the TCM strategies with their colleagues, with mixed responses from the latter. To ensure the sustainability of the programme, teachers endorsed refresher sessions and a whole-school training approach.

KEYWORDS:

• Sustainability
• incredible years
• qualitative
• teacher classroom management
• implementation

Introduction

Disruptive classroom behaviour is common and has negative consequences for both pupils and teachers (Duesund and Ødegård 2018; Ofsted 2014, 2019). Even at low levels, disruptive behaviour impacts the quality of teaching, reduces learning time and interferes with the attainment of all children in a classroom (Ofsted 2014, 2019). In the longer term, persistent disruptive behaviour is associated with poorer academic outcomes for the disruptive pupil, including higher rates of school suspensions and permanent exclusions, but also with poorer academic achievement for the other children in the classroom (Burns et al. 2021; Department for Education 2022b; Ofsted 2022). Additionally, disruptive behaviour represents one of the main sources of poorer occupational well-being and increased stress for teachers and has been associated with teacher attrition (Agyapong et al. 2022; OECD 2020; Ofsted 2014, 2019). Despite this, a significant proportion of teachers have not received any classroom management training and do not feel confident in managing disruptive behaviour (Ofsted 2014, 2019). Governmental institutions increasingly recognise that behaviour management skills are fundamental to quality teaching and should be included in teacher training (Department for Education 2022a; OECD 2020).

The Incredible Years Teacher Classroom Management (TCM) training provides teachers with classroom management strategies to manage disruptive behaviour while promoting academic, social and emotional learning in children aged 3 to 8 years old (Webster-Stratton 2012). The training is grounded in cognitive social learning and child development theories, and trains teachers in evidence-based practices of behaviour management, teacher – student relationship skills, parent-teacher collaboration, the development of behaviour plans with developmentally appropriate goals, and strategies to promote students’ emotional regulation, social, self-control and problem-solving skills (Webster-Stratton 2012; Webster-Stratton et al. 2011). The TCM programme is delivered to teachers in six full-day workshops spread out monthly over the school year.

Previous research has shown positive effects of the TCM training on teachers’ classroom management strategies and pupil mental health, supporting its use as an effective intervention (Ford et al. 2019; Korest and Carlson 2021; Nye, Melendez‐Torres, and Gardner 2018). Recently, the STARS (Supporting Teachers And childRen in Schools) trial explored the effects of the TCM training on teachers’ behaviour management strategies and subsequent pupils’ mental health (Ford et al. 2019). This randomised controlled trial involving eighty primary schools in England showed a small improvement to mental health in children whose teachers attended the training, with sustained improvement over the following two academic years for those with poor mental health at baseline (Ford et al. 2019). However, programme effectiveness alone does not ensure the successful implementation and long-term sustainability of an intervention (Herlitz et al. 2020).

In order to ensure that school-based interventions achieve their full potential, it is necessary to study implementation processes and outcomes (Sanetti and Collier-Meek 2019). Several studies have qualitatively explored teachers’ post-intervention perceptions on the acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness of the TCM programme (Allen et al. 2020, 2022; Leckey et al. 2016; Nye, Melendez‐Torres, and Gardner 2018). Allen et al. (2020, 2022) explored teachers’ views on the acceptability, implementation, and impact of the TCM programme, two months after the end of the training in the STARS trial. Teachers valued the structure of the training, its delivery methods, learning with their peers and the opportunity to reflect on their practice outside the classroom. However, some school contextual factors and training gaps were identified as barriers to implementation. In the early implementation phase, teachers were experiencing the TCM programme as beneficial, with a positive impact on themselves, their pupils and on teacher-parent relationships. However, initial programme outcomes may not necessarily continue to later phases, and factors influencing the initial adoption of an intervention may differ from those impacting sustainability (J. E. Moore et al. 2017; Shelton, Cooper, and Stirman 2018).

Sustainability refers to the continued use of a programme after the end of external implementation support, and the maintenance of the programme’s benefits even if the intervention has been adapted to the broader ecological context (J. E. Moore et al. 2017; Sanetti and Collier-Meek 2019; Shelton, Cooper, and Stirman 2018). Previous studies suggest evidence-based interventions in schools are rarely sustained in their entirety (Herlitz et al. 2020). Importantly, contextual factors seem to play a major role in intervention sustainability (Herlitz et al. 2020; Shoesmith et al. 2021). Previous research has primarily focused on the initial adoption and integration of the intervention. However, it is necessary to explore the sustainability of the TCM programme so that implementation efforts are worthwhile, and the desired benefits are maintained in the longer term (Shelton, Cooper, and Stirman 2018).

The aim of this one-year follow-up study was to qualitatively explore teachers’ views on the sustainability of the TCM programme. The specific objectives were to understand whether teachers were still using TCM strategies, the factors and processes influencing sustainability, whether the programme had expanded across the school and whether the programme’s benefits had been maintained over time.

Methods

This qualitative follow-up study used semi-structured interviews and focus groups to capture teachers’ views and experiences. Ethical approval for the STARS study was obtained from the Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry Research Ethics Committee (ref: 12/03/141).

Participants and data collection

Participants were 25 UK primary schoolteachers from 25 schools who completed the TCM training as part of the STARS trial (Ford et al. 2019). Teachers provided consent for their involvement in the STARS trial. Data collection for the present study took place one year after completing the TCM training. Two months after completing the training, forty-four teachers from the STARS trial participated in focus groups and telephone interviews exploring their views on the implementation and impact of the TCM programme and the results are published elsewhere (Allen et al. 2020, 2022). Teachers who participated in this 2-month follow-up were invited to participate in the present study.

Initially, teachers were invited to participate in a focus group. Fifteen teachers took part in one of three focus groups (FG) and those unable to attend a focus group (n = 10) were individually interviewed. Focus groups and interviews were conducted by a trained researcher-facilitator. Topic guides (see Supplementary Material) were developed a priori based on the research questions and on previous findings from early implementation interviews and focus groups (Allen et al. 2020, 2022). They were used flexibly to include prompts where needed. Individual interviews lasted 30 minutes and focus groups 90 minutes approximately. At the start of each session, participants were informed about the purpose and format of the interviews/focus groups, and about privacy and confidentiality policies regarding their data. All sessions were audio recorded, transcribed, anonymised and entered into NVivo 12 (QSR International Pty Ltd 2018).

Data management and analysis

Thematic analysis of the data was carried out using the Framework Method (Gale et al. 2013). Analysis began with two members of the research team (AAS and A-MB) independently reading and becoming familiar with a subset of transcripts and coding the data. Preliminary codes were identified inductively through this process and deductively by referring to the topic guide questions. An initial coding framework was developed and entered into NVivo 12, and the remaining transcripts coded to this framework. As new codes were identified, the analytical framework was refined until the team was satisfied that all the data had been accounted for. A matrix framework was created in Excel to organise and chart the coded verbatim data. This framework allowed the research team to explore the data, produce summaries and generate themes and subthemes.

Results

Demographic data for participants are reported in Table 1. Analysis generated themes and subthemes as listed in Figure 1 and described below.

Figure 1. Summary of the themes and subthemes. TCM: Teacher Classroom Management; SEN: Special Educational Needs.

Table 1. Teacher demographic and background characteristics.

Participant characteristics	Focus group (n = 15)	Interview (n = 10)	All (n = 25)
Gender, F/M	10/5	9/1	19/6
Age, M (SD)	35.1 (8.9)	31.3 (8.2)	33.6 (8.7)
Teachers in full-time employment, n (%)	13 (86.7)	10 (100)	23 (92)
Years in service, M (SD)	8.1 (6.4)	4.9 (6.1)	6.8 (6.3)
Reception teachers, n (%)	2 (13.3)	2 (20)	4 (16)
KS1 teachers, n (%)	7 (46.7)	2 (20)	9 (36)
KS2 teachers, n (%)	6 (40)	6 (60)	12 (48)
Teachers with full time support, n (%)	8 (53.3)	5 (50)	13 (52)
Newly qualified teachers, n (%)	1 (6.7)	1 (10)	2 (8)
Teachers with leadership roles, n (%)	1 (6.7)	0 (0)	1 (4)
Teachers with PGCE as initial qualification, n (%)	7 (46.7)	4 (40)	11 (44)
TCM training sessions attended, M (SD)	5.8 (0.4)	5.6 (0.5)	5.7 (0.5)

F: female, M: male; M: mean, SD: standard deviation; n: number of participants; KS: key stages (blocks of years in which the national curriculum is divided into in England); KS1 (Key stage 1): Years 1 and 2 (5–7 years old); KS2 (Key stage 2): Years 3 to 6 (7–11 years old); PGCE: Postgraduate Certificate in Education; TCM: Teacher Classroom Management.

Integration of the TCM approach into practice

One year on, teachers reported that they were still using TCM strategies and materials frequently and that the TCM approach was embedded into their everyday practice:

‘I think a lot of the things I’m probably just using subconsciously, they just become part of what you do every day’. (FG1)

Some TCM strategies were already part of teachers’ practice before the training. Nevertheless, the course provided them with a better understanding of the strategies and further embedded them into practice:

‘There was lots of things in place … before I had the training. So I kind of continued with those things such as behaviour plans … It was helpful to understand the behaviour plans but like I said we already used those before we went to TCM’. (Interview 1)

Teachers were not using all the TCM strategies and materials but used the ones they remembered from the training and the ones they perceived to be more useful and effective for their class or a particular child. Strategies and materials were particularly valued if they were easy to implement, acceptable to children, effective with children with behavioural or special educational needs (SEN) and were a ‘good fit’ for teachers:

‘I try things and then use the strategies that have worked for me and the children that I’ve got so I think that I am probably using those on a daily basis’. (Interview 7)

Conversely, strategies and materials were dropped if teachers found they were difficult to use, pupils did not engage, or they lacked effectiveness:

‘Time out we don’t use. It depends on the child … I’m thinking of a particular child who came to us, shoes off, throw them at somebody’s face. Time out just didn’t work for him’. (FG1)

Teachers had integrated TCM strategies into their practice despite other school-based mental health and behavioural programmes already in use at their schools. They thought that the TCM approach complemented co-existing programmes due to similar shared behaviour management principles, which was viewed as a benefit and providing additional tools to draw upon, particularly for children with more difficulties:

‘We very much do an awful lot of THRIVE work within the school. … I think TCM is better for the whole class teaching, with THRIVE we tend to go more down with the individuals that are struggling. … they don’t conflict, it’s just more of different resources that you can either use’. (Interview 3)

Sustained positive impact over time

In general, teachers reported a sustained positive impact of the TCM approach over the past year on pupils, teacher-parent relationships, and themselves.

Impact on pupils

Teachers’ described improvements at the behavioural, academic, and teacher-student relationship level. In terms of behaviour, positive effects included reduced disruptive behaviour in the classroom and the playground, an increased awareness of expectations and an improved capacity to regulate themselves:

‘Having those strategies and principles in your toolbox … makes the children less disruptive … because if they know where they stand and the clear boundaries and the expectations and the positive to start with, they know where they are or where they stand with you’. (Interview 1)

Teachers said pupils seemed more self-confident and motivated towards their academic work:

‘There was a wheel of fortune idea that came out from the course that I’ve used, and the children love it and it’s a good way to get them motivated and doing what they need to be doing’. (Interview 10)

Teacher-pupil relationships had also improved; pupils were more motivated to work with their teachers and were playing and sharing more positive moments together:

‘I’ve got a boy who I’m sure has some needs on the autistic spectrum. And just spending time with him and tapping into what he’s interested in has helped’. (FG 1)

Impact on pupils with SEN or behavioural needs

Teachers’ views about the application of the TCM approach for children with SEN or behavioural needs were mixed. In some cases, teachers found the use of TCM strategies had improved pupils’ behaviour or specific learning skills:

‘[Children with behavioural needs or SEN] do respond positively to the positive praise and they do respond to like stickers and rewards, and the behaviour plans that we have put in place for them are obviously there to help them within the classroom and it does help to control their behaviour in the classroom’. (Interview 1)

Conversely, some teachers found that TCM strategies worked for some children with SEN or behavioural needs but not for others, particularly children with highly disruptive behaviour, and that in some cases, strategies worked only for a period of time and then stopped working altogether:

‘I’ve got 3 boys in my class who are quite boisterous boys who have poor language or speech or both, … and I put the same strategy in place for all three of them, and it didn’t work for all three of them’. (Interview 8)

On reflection, some teachers thought that the original training had not adequately provided them with strategies to manage highly disruptive behaviour. Consequently, teachers felt ill-equipped, thus highlighting the need for additional training specifically around managing highly disruptive behaviour:

‘I think for me it was that we never really dealt with the extreme behaviour … I did feel that I didn’t have certain strategies for extreme cases of behaviour’. (FG3)

Impact on parents

The TCM approach led to more positive teacher-parent interactions. Teachers reported that parents valued receiving positive and regular feedback about their child’s behaviour and consequently communication had improved:

‘The parents really love getting a text because you can give them out so frequently for so many different things. … They’re quite individual to them so they really love the individual comments, and you’ll get lots of parents come and thank you on the playground for the message’. (FG1)

Increased parent-teacher communication and working as a team with parents, who in some cases adopted TCM strategies shared by teachers at home, had a positive impact on children’s behaviour both at home and school:

‘I have found for one of my parents in my class, because we think her child is autistic and so we sort of talked about introducing like certain strategies at home and having lots of conversations with her and like monthly actually talk about different ways that actually sort of accept that he is going to see things differently, has sort of changed their attitudes towards him at home and that actually led to the home being a much more calmer place, and he is getting less sort of worked up’. (FG2)

Impact on teachers

One year on, teachers thought that they were still personally benefitting from the TCM training, in terms of their behaviour management skills, their attitudes, and their self-image as teachers. A common theme was that teachers had adopted a more positive approach to classroom management:

‘It’s like a mindset as well, I think. I think the course for me validated that you don’t have to be this cross teacher … you can, through positivity achieve more’. (FG2)

Teachers reported that they felt more prepared, confident and in control regarding their teaching practice and pupil behaviour management. They now had more tools in their toolbox that they could call on to manage their class:

‘I definitely feel more prepared. I know I will get a trickier class next year, yet I do feel like it’s OK because there’s lots of things I can do and … I feel more ready I think than what I did feel at the beginning of last year when I had my class then. … I feel more prepared for when I get my next tricky class, I’ve got the strategies’. (Interview 2)

Focusing on the positive and this confidence boost made teachers feel less stressed towards classroom management:

‘I don’t feel that the children stress me out quite so much. The job stresses me out of course, but the children don’t … I’ve got a whole range of strategies now that I can use to not make me so stressed if the children are … getting upset, I know that I’ve got a much more relaxed way of dealing with it now’. (FG3)

In addition, teachers had become more aware and reflective of their own classroom management practices and questioned themselves regularly on the strategies they used:

‘Sometimes you’ll do something and think “I shouldn’t have done that” … then you have to give yourself time and space … to think “what could I have done instead?”’. (FG2)

Some teachers also reported feeling more motivated and willing to try different strategies, and proactive to seek help and improve their teaching practices overall:

‘You don’t just think “Oh thank goodness I got through this year”. … you actually want to make more of an impact now’. (FG1)

Finally, teachers still saw the child at the core of their job. The course helped them to be more understanding about the children’s needs and consider their interests and reasons for misbehaviour, instead of taking disruptive behaviour personally:

‘It’s also taking a step back and looking at the child as a person and their needs and their interests and that observation of them before you start’. (FG1)

Adapting to a changing organisational context

In the year since the TCM training, some teachers had changed schools, cohorts, or moved to a higher or lower year group or described organisational changes at their schools, which required them to adapt their use of the TCM approach.

Class level

At the classroom level, changing cohorts and year groups led to changes in classroom composition, which had an impact on teachers’ use of TCM strategies. When teachers moved to a different year group, they had to change or adapt the strategies they were using to the pupils’ ages. In addition, if the new cohort had fewer pupils with behavioural needs or SEN, teachers did not need to use as many TCM strategies. When the new cohort included a higher proportion of pupils with behavioural needs or SEN, teachers used TCM strategies more frequently:

‘I think the school I was at whilst I was part of the course there were very few behaviour problems. … However, the school that I have moved to now there are a lot of behaviour issues particularly in my class. I feel like I have been able to use a lot more from the course during this year’. (Interview 7)

School level

At a school level, changes in leadership and the introduction of new policies over the past year led to changes in the schools’ approach to behaviour management, with variable levels of compatibility with the TCM programme:

‘We’ve also as a school introduced “Good to be green” [behaviour management scheme]. … but green is the highest you can go, so it’s more of a sanction than a reward thing really’. (Interview 8)

Higher levels of pressure on teachers due to the introduction of a more demanding academic curriculum, new assessment methods and Ofsted inspections, reduced teachers’ opportunities to try different TCM strategies:

‘I could have a number of interventions going on … but I wouldn’t do that right now because the focus is all about academic and I have limited resources so that’s what I need to do’. (FG2)

Not all school level changes impacted on the use of TCM strategies by teachers, provided they had autonomy to decide their own behavioural policy:

‘We’re officially an academy now … but in terms of most of our policies they’re in-house … we’re our own in terms of behavioural policy’. (FG1)

TCM approach cascaded to colleagues

Most teachers shared the TCM strategies, principles or materials with their colleagues, including other teachers, support workers, student teachers and leadership staff.

Some teachers presented the TCM approach to their colleagues in a formal setting, such as staff meetings. Other teachers, sometimes due to a lack of time, shared TCM strategies with their colleagues during informal discussions, for instance as recommendations to deal with a particular student. In a few cases, other school staff members had directly observed teachers using a particular strategy or came to their classrooms to observe their practice:

‘I haven’t had the opportunity to do a whole school thing, but I shared ideas and strategies with my colleagues in my year group. … I might say “This is what I do to help with this one” and just given them some ideas’. (Interview 10)

Many teachers proactively shared the TCM approach with colleagues, and the use of strategies and materials cascaded to other classes or the whole school and in some cases, contributed to changes in the school’s behaviour policy:

‘I did it as a feedback about halfway through the course originally. I said “This is what we’ve done so far and this is what we’re going to do” and they said “Oh we’re really interested, can you keep feeding back to us?” … It actually drew to light how negative our previous behaviour policy was … At the end of summer term, I was asked to redo it so that September myself and SENCO actually sat together and rewrote the behaviour policy’. (FG1)

However, some teachers were unsure whether their colleagues were implementing the strategies in their own classrooms and there was resistance from some colleagues who did not see the additional value of the TCM strategies compared to other behaviour management strategies they already used:

‘I’ve done an inset training on it for everybody. … I have to say though I expected it to be “Oh wow that’s really good that’s what you’re doing” because everyone knew I was on STARS. And some of them it was a bit like “Yeah, yeah, yeah we know that” and I think “But you’re not doing it. You know it but you’re not doing it” ‘. (FG3)

Strategies that were perceived to be successful were sometimes passed on to other teachers, which was reported to be particularly useful when pupils with behavioural difficulties were transitioning to the next academic year. However, some teachers reported that their non TCM-trained colleagues did not use the strategies, which led to the re-emergence of disruptive behaviours:

‘I explained to the next teacher of the transition “this is how we’d been dealing with X and these are the results we’ve got for him” … And there was the evidence because it wasn’t used in later classes, his behaviour re-emerged and behaviours that we wouldn’t tolerate, weren’t dealt with in the same way and his behaviour reverted back to being loud, being abusive, hitting out and all of this kind of thing’. (FG3)

Finally, teachers reported different levels of adoption of TCM strategies by teaching assistants (TAs) working with them in the same classroom. Some TAs initially adopted the TCM approach, dropping previous ways of working that were incompatible and worked collaboratively with teachers to provide a consistent response. However, the adoption of strategies could be slow, as these were new to them and at odds with the ones they were used to. In some cases, teachers encountered considerable resistance to adopt the TCM strategies:

‘I think the biggest problem I found is I had a new TA this year … and I found it quite difficult to get her to break out of her old habits’. (FG3)

Follow-up training for sustainability

Refresher training

There was a strong consensus that refresher training was needed as it would help sustain acquired knowledge and skills. Teachers explained that refresher sessions would provide a valuable opportunity to revisit the different TCM strategies and to critically reflect on their individual implementation approaches:

‘It would be good to kind of meet up like six months later or maybe a year later to kind of talk “so actually what are you still using?”. And it’s so easy after a course to kind of forget a lot about what you’ve talked about and what you’ve learned unless you are using it on a day-to-day basis, so I do think some sort of refresher would actually be a very good idea’. (Interview 7)

Discussions revealed that a group-format refresher session would be preferable. Group refresher sessions would provide a supportive environment for teachers to share their experiences on the implementation of the TCM approach and to remind each other the existing strategies. In fact, teachers lamented that the social and peer support aspect of the course had not continued after the end of the training:

‘There isn’t that support afterwards … I think that’s what a lot of people valued about the course was having an opportunity to get together and talk about the issues that you face’. (Interview 6)

In terms of timing and duration, a refresher session lasting half a day was considered sufficient, but some teachers believed that multiple sessions would allow the trial of strategies in-between sessions. Refresher sessions would be beneficial either at the beginning or end of the academic year, allowing teachers to reflect on the past year of implementing the TCM approach and revisit the strategies to prepare for the next cohort:

‘Probably at the end of the academic year as a kind of reflection over the year of what went well, what didn’t go well, what strategies could you use in the situations that you were unable to feel confident in’. (Interview 1)

However, some teachers said their schools would be reluctant to release them for further training and would prefer programme trainers come into the school:

‘There’s a limit to how much they [schools]’ll bend. I think they’d be more likely to say yes if it meant that there was option for the STARS for example to go into the school … but as you say with your school it’s done and dusted now, it’s made an effect’. (FG1)

Training other professionals

Teachers agreed that the TCM training would serve other teachers, either early in their careers or more experienced teachers, to learn, revisit or renew their behaviour management strategies, but also to encourage a more positive approach to behaviour management. There was strong support for a whole-school approach to behaviour management and that TCM training should be available to other staff members interacting with pupils at their schools, who already knew the children and the existing barriers to effective classroom management. A whole-school training could encourage schools to rewrite their behaviour policy, would be a less isolating experience and would enable a faster uptake of the TCM principles among colleagues, promoting greater consistency across the school:

‘Could it be done as a school staff where they rewrite their behaviour policy at the same time? … it might be less isolating in terms of personal therapy … but in terms of getting it into schools and getting people onboard … that might be a quicker … way of doing it … they know the scenarios in school, they know the difficulties in break times and lunch times and then everybody is coming from the same page straight away’. (FG1)

Discussion

Consistent with the positive views reported at 2-month follow-up by Allen et al. (2020), one year after attending the TCM training as part of the STARS trial, teachers were still using TCM strategies and materials, the TCM approach was integrated into their routine teaching practice and was still perceived as beneficial for children, parents, and themselves. Teachers had adapted their use of the TCM strategies to their new cohorts, but some school-level changes hindered their intended use of the strategies. When teachers shared the TCM approach with colleagues, the responses were mixed, and it was sometimes unclear whether colleagues adopted the TCM strategies. There was also a clear desire for additional refresher sessions and training other members of staff so that the approach could be applied consistently to provide a whole-school approach to behavioural management.

The continued use of TCM strategies and the integration of the TCM approach into teachers’ practice indicates that teacher behaviour change was maintained at the individual level, which represents one of the key constructs for sustainability (Herlitz et al. 2020; J. E. Moore et al. 2017). All teachers who participated continued using at least some of the TCM strategies. Teachers had also adapted their use of the TCM strategies to their new cohorts of students, consistent with the conceptualisation of sustainability as a dynamic construct, allowing for the adaptation of the intervention to enhance their fit with changing contexts (Shelton, Cooper, and Stirman 2018). Importantly, the TCM programme was not designed so that all strategies are implemented, but rather as a set of principle-driven strategies that are flexibly used and adapted to the context (Webster-Stratton et al. 2011). Although evidence of effectiveness is not necessarily translated into sustainability, perceived benefits of a programme promote intervention sustainment (Herlitz et al. 2020; Shoesmith et al. 2021) and in our study, teachers’ perceived effectiveness seemed to be an important factor to drop or continue using strategies. Pupils’ engagement was also reported as a facilitator for the sustained use of the strategies, consistent with previous studies (Herlitz et al. 2020). However, further longitudinal quantitative and qualitative research is necessary to examine the use of the different individual strategies and programme components and how it changes over time to inform programme developers and potentially improve the TCM programme.

One year after the end of the training, teachers still perceived a positive impact of the TCM programme on themselves, on children and on teacher-parent relationships. The maintenance of a programme’s benefits is considered a fundamental aspect of sustainability (J. E. Moore et al. 2017). However, most teachers had changed cohorts since the end of the training and the positive impact previously reported on children and teacher-parent relationships transferred to a new cohort of pupils and parents. This suggests that the TCM programme is flexible enough to be sustained and used as intended by teachers when changing cohorts and still produce positive results in a different group of pupils and parents. However, in some cases, children moving to a class with a non TCM-trained teacher led to the re-emergence of disruptive behaviours. These findings possibly explain why the improvement in children’s mental health at 9-months following the TCM training was not maintained at 18 and 30 months (Ford et al. 2019).

In addition to cohort changes over the year, schools are dynamic workplace environments and regular changes in staff and changing demands derived from governmental authorities are part of schools’ realities. In the present study, the introduction of a more demanding academic curriculum and changes in academic assessments increased pressure on teachers, who had to prioritise meeting academic demands over using TCM strategies. Keeping up with frequently changing educational policies and regulations increases the already high workload of teachers and constitutes a predominant source of stress (OECD 2020; Ofsted 2019). In addition, competing responsibilities and prioritising academic demands have been previously identified as barriers for the sustainability of evidence-based interventions in schools, as the norm is to focus on academic attainment (Herlitz et al. 2020; Ofsted 2019; Shoesmith et al. 2021). Clashes with existing or novel behaviour management strategies introduced by senior leaders can hinder the initial implementation, as shown by Allen et al. (2022), and the current study suggests the sustainability of the TCM approach. Consistent with other school-based interventions (Shoesmith et al. 2021), our results suggest that not only inner organisational factors, but also outer contextual factors related to the wider socio-political context can hinder the sustainability of the TCM approach. However, effective behaviour classroom management enhances academic attainment (D. Moore et al. 2019), supporting its use even in the context of high academic demands.

Although teachers believed in the TCM approach enough to share their knowledge with their colleagues, variable levels of buy-in suggest that their colleagues were less likely to perceive the additional value of the TCM programme and were therefore less invested. Scepticism and perceived lack of benefits are fundamental barriers to implementation and sustainability (Herlitz et al. 2020; Langley et al. 2010). Teachers shared the strategies with their colleagues with unknown levels and quality of delivery, while dissemination by trained TCM group leaders or the considerable time spent outside school with supportive peers reflecting on practice are important components for change. In addition, counting on key teachers to champion and disseminate the TCM approach means that if they leave the school, it could lead to the discontinuation of the programme at this institution. In some cases, teachers were unsure whether their colleagues were using the shared strategies in their own classrooms as this was not monitored in the study. Overall, insufficient buy-in meant that the use of the TCM strategies was sometimes limited to the classroom of the TCM-trained teacher and therefore sustained by individual implementers, impacting the institutionalisation of the programme across the school.

There was a strong consensus that support should continue beyond the duration of the initial 6-month TCM course. In fact, previous studies have identified the lack of ongoing training as a barrier for the sustainability of evidence-based interventions in schools (Herlitz et al. 2020; Shoesmith et al. 2021). Refresher sessions would allow teachers to consolidate their knowledge, revisit strategies and maintain motivation. In addition, teachers believed the TCM training would be useful for other teachers and school staff and supported a whole-school training approach. In England, teachers have reported an inconsistent approach to behaviour management among school staff including senior leaders, which aggravates behavioural issues (Ofsted 2019). Inconsistent behaviour management practices among staff were already identified as a barrier for the early implementation of TCM strategies by Allen et al. (2022), with teachers supporting a whole-school approach. Whole-school training would increase staff engagement and promote a consistent approach to behaviour management across members of staff, maximising sustainability and the related benefits of the programme. A whole-school approach would not only allow reaching a wider population of teachers, children and parents, but would also avoid the loss of the programme’s benefits in children and parents once they have a new teacher. In addition, within the school, children interact not only with teachers but also other adults, including support staff such as TAs (Department for Education 2022c). TAs represent almost a third of the overall state-funded school workforce in England and play a significant role in supporting behaviour management at schools (Department for Education 2022c; Skipp and Hopwood 2019). However, TAs come into the school with variable levels of behaviour management knowledge and training. A whole-school training including TAs would promote consistency across the school and within the classroom, encouraging teachers and TAs to work as a team.

In our study, a few teachers reported that they were encouraged to contribute to rewrite the school behaviour policy based on TCM strategies. Although behaviour policy at schools is not always enforced consistently across the school (Ofsted 2019), referencing an intervention in school policies constitutes a sign of commitment to the intervention from senior leaders, makes the intervention resilient to staff turnover and encourages the institutionalisation of an intervention (Herlitz et al. 2020; Shoesmith et al. 2021). The consistent implementation of the school behaviour policy is central to an effective whole-school approach to behaviour. However, in order for senior leaders to reference the TCM approach in the behaviour policy of the school, they have to understand the benefits of the programme.

Even though teachers had further experience in using TCM strategies one year later, teachers still considered they were lacking the necessary strategies to manage the most challenging behaviour, as they reported at the initial follow-up (Allen et al. 2022). These findings suggest that teachers need additional training or support to deal with particularly challenging behaviour. Refresher sessions were seen as an opportunity to fill in this gap. Alternatively, some children might need additional support in mainstream schools to reach the expected standard of behaviour, as suggested by the Department for Education (2022a). In the present study, other school-based mental health and behavioural interventions already present at their schools were perceived as complementary support for individual children with higher behavioural issues and a resource for children struggling the most.

The present study should be considered in the light of some limitations. First, only around a half of teachers from the previous data collection at 2-months follow-up (Allen et al. 2020, 2022) participated in the present study. It is possible that teachers who were more motivated or more satisfied with the course participated in the study, representing a potential bias in our findings. Furthermore, the timeframe for evaluating the sustainability of school-based interventions after initial external implementation support ceases varies between studies (Herlitz et al. 2020; Shoesmith et al. 2021). In this study, data collection took place one year after the end of the training, but it might still be necessary to explore the perceived barriers and facilitators for the sustainability of the programme in the longer term, and over multiple time points to capture the potential dynamic nature of sustainability, as suggested by recent research (Shelton, Cooper, and Stirman 2018). In addition, sustainability was explored employing a qualitative design. However, objectively evaluating whether the different individual strategies of the TCM programme were sustained is necessary for the optimisation of the programme. Future quantitative and observational designs would allow investigating which specific strategies were used or dropped.

Overall, teachers were still using TCM strategies one year after the training and still perceived the TCM programme as beneficial. Internal and external contextual changes happening over the year involving the introduction of inconsistent approaches to behaviour management and competing demands seemed to be the main barriers for the sustainability of the TCM approach. A whole-school training would increase consistency across the school and maximise the sustainability of the programme. In addition, it is necessary that change agents promote behaviour management and socio-emotional development in schools and its connection to academic attainment, so that effective classroom management is not considered dispensable.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the teachers who participated in the current study.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Data availability statement

Data are not shared as ethical approval for the current study did not grant the sharing of data.

Supplementary material

Supplemental data for this article can be accessed online at https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2024.2347005.

Additional information

Funding

The STARS trial was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme [project number 10/3006/07] and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula. All research in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge benefits from support from the NIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR203312) and East of England Applied Research Centre. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. AAS was supported by a Wiener-Anspach postdoctoral fellowship.

Notes on contributors

A. Albajara Sáenz

Ariadna Albajara Sáenz is a Postdoctoral Research Associate at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on the implementation and effectiveness of school-based mental health interventions.

A-M. Burn

Anne-Marie Burn is a Senior Research Associate at the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on the organisation and delivery of health services and evaluating interventions for children and young people’s mental health.

K. Allen

Kate Allen is a Research Fellow in the Children and Young People’s Mental Health Research Collaboration (ChYMe) at the University of Exeter. Her research focuses on developing ways to better support families experiencing multiple needs and improve child and adolescent mental health.

L. Hansford

Lorraine Hansford is a Research Fellow based at the Wellcome Centre for Cultures and Environments of Health and is also part of the Relational Health Group at the Medical School at the University of Exeter. Her research interests include health inequalities, particularly in the areas of mental health, end of life and bereavement, and the experiences of low-income communities.

R. Hayes

Rachel Hayes is a Senior Research Fellow working across ChYMe and the Peninsula Mental Health Research Initiative (PenMHRI) at the University of Exeter. Her research focuses on evaluating complex interventions with families, schools and health services.

M. Allwood

Matthew Allwood is a Clinical Trial Data Co-ordinator at the Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences at the University of Oxford.

B. Longdon

Bryony Longdon is a Postdoctoral Research Associate in the ChYMe at the University of Exter. Her research focuses on school-based randomised controlled trials.

A. Price

Anna Price is a Senior Research Fellow, and NIHR Three Schools Mental Health Research Fellow. Anna’s research is co-located between APEx (Collaboration for Primary Care at Exeter) and ChYMe at the University of Exeter. Anne has extensive experience of working in child and adolescent mental health, with a focus on neurodevelopmental difference, transition, and digital health.

T. Ford

Tamsin Ford is a Professor of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry at the University of Cambridge. Her research focuses on interventions and services to optimize the mental health of children and young people.