Supporting behaviour and emotions in school: an exploration into school staff perspectives on the journey from punitive approaches to relational-based approaches

ABSTRACT

There are conflicting theories about the best ways to support behaviour in schools. This paper captures the perspectives of UK primary school staff regarding the advantages and disadvantages of different behaviour support approaches, in addition to exploring the facilitators and barriers to adopting relational-based approaches. Virtual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 school staff across three mainstream primary schools. A reflexive thematic analysis identified nine themes. Participants commented on the approaches’ flexibility, familiarity, positive long-term behaviour change and emotional wellbeing and relationships. Key facilitators to adopting relational-based approaches included: whole-school training and understanding; quality and type of training; and working together and feeling supported. Key barriers included: changing perspectives; ease of implementation and familiarity; scarcity of resources; and persevering in the face of difficulties. Themes are discussed in light of psychological research and implications for educational practitioners and future research are considered.

KEYWORDS:

• Behaviour support
• sanctions
• compassion
• relational approaches
• trauma-informed

Introduction

Establishing an effective behaviour policy has been recognised as ‘essential to the smooth running of a school’ (Rogers 2013, 5). Ofsted chief inspector, Amanda Spielman, notes ‘Good behaviour is a necessary condition for learning’ (Spielman 2019) so that children and young people (CYP) can learn, teachers can teach, and parents/carers can be confident that their CYP are safe. Nevertheless, disruptive behaviour is the most common reason for school suspensions and permanent exclusions (Secretary of State for Education 2022) and a key reason teachers leave the profession (Department for Education 2022).

At the present time, differing perspectives are held by educational experts, psychologists, and researchers regarding how schools can create calm and supportive environments where CYP learn and thrive. Some advocate for traditional, conformist, methods (Bennett 2020), whilst others advocate for revolutionising or replacing traditional methods and increasing emphasis on restorative and relational-based approaches (Dix 2021). Within the literature, conflicting theories and contradictory evidence-informed conclusions mean that many remain unclear about the best approach to adopt (Morgan 2023). Accordingly, there is a growing need to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of school behaviour support approaches.

Behaviourist and punitive policies and practices in schools

Government policies and legislation on behaviour in schools, such as the Department for Education (2016, 2022), emphasise ‘control’, ‘discipline’, ‘power’, ‘sanctions’, ‘force’ and ‘rules’. Strategies guided by behaviourist principles remain dominant in schools in England and are seen as the traditional approach to supporting behaviour (Gus et al. 2017). The focus is on external and observable school behaviours and how to ensure their consistent demonstration through a zero or low tolerance approach. Typically, this involves shaping improvements through what happens after the behaviour. The impact of consciousness, thoughts and feelings is disregarded in traditional behaviourism (Watson 1913). Current behaviour guidance from the Department for Education (2022) recommends the teaching of positive behaviours and additional support for pupils who struggle to meet high behavioural expectations. Nevertheless, positive reinforcement (i.e. verbal praise, stickers, head-teachers awards) and sanctions (i.e. deduction of free time, detentions during or after school hours, suspensions, or exclusion) are advocated as important and necessary.

It is recognised that, for most CYP, for the majority of the time, using rewards and sanctions can result in behaviour change and create quiet and orderly classrooms (Nash, Schlösser, and Scarr 2016). However, for CYP displaying more complex difficulties, using rewards and sanctions can amplify undesired behaviours (Geddes 2006). Research has uncovered an association between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and a range of emotional, behavioural, and biological difficulties (Felitti et al. 1998), such as increased risk-taking, aggression and difficulties with relationships (Nelson et al. 2020). Teacher ratings of externalising (aggression, hyperactivity, impulsivity) and internalising (low mood, low self-esteem, anxiety) behaviours are higher for CYP with histories of trauma (Briscoe-Smith and Hinshaw 2006; Milot et al. 2010). In a recent survey, 81% of CYP agreed that behaviour is linked to mental health and 61% agreed that behaviour is linked to special educational needs and disabilities (Rainer, Le, and Abdinasir 2023). Studies showing the long-term impact of permanent exclusion (Daniels et al. 2003; McCrystal, Percy, and Higgins 2007) and reports of legal action taken after CYP have attempted to take their own life in internal exclusion (Perraudin 2019), has encouraged researchers and educators to question traditional behaviour policies.

Relational-based approaches in schools

Relational-based approaches involve increasing educational practitioners’ knowledge and understanding of the impact of early childhood experiences, and adopting a compassionate, trauma-informed approach to supporting behaviour and emotions (Bomber 2020; Dutil 2020; Geddes 2006). Schools are seen as caring and nurturing facilities whereby adults attune to and support CYP’s needs and emotions, creating a feeling of safety and resulting in an individualised approach (Cavanaugh 2016; Reynolds 2021).

Since the 1970s, schools have sought to address pupils’ emotional and behavioural needs through nurture groups (NG). NGs provide an environment whereby CYP can learn socio-emotional skills and develop trusting relationships (MacKay, Reynolds, and Kearney 2010), resulting in a positive impact on CYP’s emotional wellbeing (Cunningham, Hartwell, and Kreppner 2019). However, transferring skills from the structured NG into the mainstream environment is challenging (Cunningham, Hartwell, and Kreppner 2019). Therefore, instead of withdrawing CYP from the classroom for person-centred support, embedding the NG principles in a whole-school, relational-based approach has been explored in literature (Coleman 2020; O’Farrell et al. 2022).

Current discourse surrounding whole-school, relational-based approaches is broad, and there is variety in the terminology used, including: nurturing schools, attachment-aware schools, and trauma-informed schools. Weare and Gray (2003) outlined key elements of whole-school approaches: building warm relationships and communication; promoting participation; encouraging pupil and teacher autonomy; and clarifying boundaries, rules, and positive expectations. Whole-school relational-based approaches recognise behaviour as a form of communication and focus on building positive relationships, developing understanding of the need for secure attachments, and balancing the provision of care and challenge (Education Scotland 2018). Although inevitably there are some differences, the message behind relational-based approaches remains the same: being mindful of the experiences of the child; being compassionate; being curious about the reasons behind the behaviour; and helping CYP understand and manage their emotions (Gus et al. 2017).

Taking a relational view moves the focus away from solely within-child factors and considers how behaviour stems from past experiences and interactions (Gus et al. 2017). Research has indicated positive benefits for CYP’s academic progress and home lives as well as in meeting their social, emotional, and behavioural needs (Amy et al. 2021; Goldberg et al. 2019).

Moving on from traditional approaches

A relational-based, whole-school approach to behaviour involves a graduated and multi-layered response towards embedding compassionate, nurturing principles. This includes offering targeted interventions to vulnerable CYP in addition to implementing universal preventative approaches to support the emotional and social development of all CYP (Chafouleas et al. 2016). Adopting whole-school change requires action in three core components: curriculum, teaching, and learning; school ethos and environment; and family and community (Goldberg et al. 2019). This involves the coordination of multiple elements such as: leadership and management; CYP voice; staff development and wellbeing; need identification and impact monitoring; targeted support; and communication with families (Demkowicz and Humphrey 2019). It requires re-thinking the surface level, visible elements of a school, as well as the ingrained deep-seated beliefs and ethos of the school community. This requires time and is a challenging and multifaceted task (Coleman 2020).

Coleman (2020) interviewed head teachers and senior leadership teams (SLTs) on the shift to a relational culture. Key barriers included time, funding, resistance from staff, and a lack of continued committed leadership. Oxley (2021) conducted a similar study with SLTs wherein the key barriers were: resources and time, shifting staff perceptions and school leaders’ confidence with taking risks.

Current study

The current study is interested in the wider, more general, school culture shift to supporting positive behaviour in schools. Building on previous research, the present study aimed to capture the perspectives of a range of school staff in three mainstream primary schools. The research questions were:

1. What do school staff see as the advantages and disadvantages of sanction-based and relational-based approaches?

2. What are the facilitators and barriers to adopting a relational-based approach to behaviour and emotions in primary schools?

Methodology

Participants

Selection of participants was facilitated by a local authority team, managed by the Educational Psychology Service. The team offers support to schools making the shift from sanction-based to relational-based approaches and offers training on: trauma and ACEs; behaviour as communication; anxiety analysis; scripted language; and policy and plans development. Purposive sampling was used to select three mainstream primary schools at different stages in their journey. School A had started the initial training and were beginning to adapt their approach, School B had nearly completed the training and were rolling this out to staff and School C had received all of the training and adapted their policies accordingly.

A range of school staff were represented in the sample (see Table 1). A total of five participants took part from each school, making an overall total of 15 participants.

Table 1. Participant roles.

School A	School B	School C
Inclusion Lead and Deputy Headteacher	Finance Manager	Teaching Assistant
Headteacher	Inclusion Lead	Class Teacher
Class Teacher	Class Teacher	Pastoral Support Worker
Lunchtime Staff Member	Teaching Assistant	Deputy Headteacher
Teaching Assistant	KS1 Lead	SENCo

Procedure

Using a comparative case study design (Gericke 2020), virtual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 school staff across three mainstream primary schools. A total of three written tasks were completed by participants ahead of the interviews. The interview consisted of the researcher asking the participant to share their thoughts on the three tasks. The first task involved completing an Ideal School activity (Moran 2001; Williams and Hanke 2007) and explored perceptions of significant school features which were valued by participants. The second task involved completing a table on the advantages and disadvantages of using sanction based and relational-based approaches in schools (Tschudi 1977). The third task involved reading a short vignette of a fictional school and reflecting on some open questions. The vignette was written by the first researcher and was based on ideas from the book ‘A School Without Sanctions’ (Baker and Simpson 2020). Approximately six months after data collection, participants were invited to take part in a member-checking/reflection exercise whereby participants explored and discussed the generated themes, suggested any additional thoughts and explored any gaps in understanding.

Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was provided by the University of Southampton Ethics Committee. Any information which could directly identify participants, local authorities or schools was anonymised. Participants were made aware of their right to withdraw. All files were stored on password-protected devices.

Analysis

The transcribed interview data was analysed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis, set out by Braun and Clarke (2019, 2021). An iterative structure outlined by Byrne (2021) was followed where the first researcher re-read transcriptions to re-immerse in the findings and the meaning arising from them. Transcripts were inputted into NVIVO (QSR International; release 1.5.1). Initial coding aimed to capture and summarise the participants’ statements semantically. Initial themes were generated for each individual task in each school by looking out for patterns in the data. Codes across schools for the three tasks were then combined and reviewed through a process of grouping and ungrouping codes, re-coding data and regrouping codes. Analytical themes were developed by interpreting the data and codes at a deeper level and relating it to relevant literature (Byrne 2021). Research questions were focused on analysing and identifying the themes in task two (advantages and disadvantages) and task three (facilitators and barriers). Task one (Ideal School) was designed to open the interviews, themes from this task are weaved throughout the findings.

Findings

Analysis from the discussion of the advantages and disadvantages task (Tschudi’s ABC model task) led to the generation of three themes, two with subthemes, and six themes, five with subthemes, for the discussion of the facilitators and barriers task (the school vignette discussion). Themes and subthemes are presented in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1. Themes and subthemes of the advantages and disadvantages task.

Figure 2. Themes and subthemes for the facilitators and barriers task.

Advantages and disadvantages of sanction based and relational-based approaches

Theme 1: understanding and ease of implementing the approach

Familiarity, understanding and value of the approach. Sanction based approaches are familiar and seen as the ‘old school’ (Participant 8) approach. Staff who have been working at a school for a long time ‘still have this thing about sanctions and punishments’ (Participant 6), suggesting these elements are, somewhat, ingrained into a school ethos.

The clear and observable nature of consequences and sanctions means ‘it is very obvious that you are doing something. You’re walking a child off from playtime or giving a child a sticker’ (Participant 11). This demonstrates to onlookers that something is being done ‘so that the rest of them can go “Oh right, okay”, we’re back in the zone. The natural order has been restored’ (Participant 5).

Relational-based approaches were described as less familiar and understood as it is a ‘new approach’ and ‘everyone has been so used to behaviourist, going against it is going to take time’, especially as some staff saw it as the ‘fluffy stuff’ (Participant 8). Some perceive relational-based approaches as not dealing with behaviour since, when compared to sanctions, they are not as externally observable. Onlookers may see CYP ‘getting away with things’ (Participant 3).

Ease of implementation. Participants described sanction-based approaches as easy to use as it involves applying a policy which clearly outlines what actions need to be taken when: ‘one set of rules and one answer’ (Participant 7).

The only thing I could think of is it’s easy. You don’t have to know the children, have a good relationship with them or put in time or effort (Participant 14)

The contrasting challenge of relational-based approaches was the ‘amount of time it takes’ (Participant 13). As the strategies are individualised and based on understanding a CYP’s unique needs, this can take time as ‘every child is different’ (Participant 15). Therefore, applying it across a class is difficult ‘because it’s … so time consuming and you have to know that child’ (Participant 2).

Theme 2: impact of implementation

Possibility for positive learning and change. For CYP who are finding it hard to complete work, rewards were viewed as useful motivation. One participant highlighted ‘to get them wanting to read, there would be a sticker at the end of it’ (Participant 2).

Participants also highlighted that rewards and sanctions reinforce external motivation, meaning ‘they are always waiting on something else to kind of prompt them to do the right thing rather than being internally motivated’ (Participant 8) therefore, ‘they’ve not understood why they need to do their work or to improve themselves’ (Participant 5) and are over-reliant on incentives or deterrents.

Sanction-based approaches can result in a ‘quick, short, change in behaviour’ (Participant 5), allowing busy staff to address the behaviour and limit disruptions as it’s a ‘very quick way and simple way of dealing with things’ (Participant 4). Although a short sharp reminder might adjust behaviour in the moment, it was also seen as unlikely to create long term behaviour change: ‘you get a quicker impact and you can see behaviour consequences, kind of short, sharp. But that long term doesn’t mean that that behaviour stops’ (Participant 8). The potential reasons behind this were explored:

It’s just ‘Do this, you get this. Do that, you get that’ you are not teaching them erm how could they … what caused it? Why have they done that? Look at the reason why they’ve done it and then how could they have prevented that response? And look at what the appropriate behaviour would be (Participant 2)

In contrast, using relational-based approaches ‘helps to support and develop the skill of self-regulation’ (Participant 6). The importance of empathy and developing prosocial behaviour through co-regulation is recognised as an evidence-based approach (Brunzell, Stokes, and Waters 2016; Rose, McGuire-Snieckus, and Gilbert 2015).

It was recognised that this relational response requires more time for thinking, talking, and role-modelling, as well as more attuned, individualised understanding and patience, especially given the time it might take to see progress in the CYP’s ability to self-regulate their own behaviour.

People find it quite tricky because there’s no ‘if this person does this, this is what you do’. You’ve kind of got to judge the child, the background (Participant 8)

Impact on relationships. The importance of building relationships with CYP was clearly expressed: ‘I think you can’t do anything unless you’ve got a good relationship with the children. Full stop’ (Participant 4). Participants outlined the negative impact sanction-based approaches have on the relationship between school staff and CYP.

Normally it’s because their behaviour is trying to tell us something but they are put in the box of ‘well, you’ve done this so this is your sanction now’. So it's not building those relationships, it’s not getting to understand those children's needs (Participant 3)

In comparison, the word ‘relationships’ was readily and frequently associated with relational-based approaches. Participants highlighted how the focus was on ‘building those key relationships with the key adults at school’ (Participant 3) and how this helps make CYP feel safe.

I think it shows you care more for the person as a person. You have taken time to give them praise or help them with their feelings (Participant 5)

Relationships were frequently mentioned in the Ideal School Task, staff highlighted the importance of developing relationships with CYP, parents, and other school staff.

Emotional wellbeing. CYP who frequently receive sanctions are unlikely to feel ‘heard, valued or understood’ (Participant 3) as ‘it makes them feel misunderstood’ (Participant 6). Sanctions are readily observable: ‘Sanctions are very public. You get shouted at in front of everybody else’ (Participant 1). Participants reflected on the impact of this: ‘you are humiliating the child to a degree, you know, because you are publicly telling them off’ (Participant 2). Although unlikely to be a teacher’s conscious aim, creating feelings of shame and humiliation results in a negative impact on psychological well-being, specifically self-esteem (Zavaleta Reyles 2007).

Conversely, participants reflected that when using relational-based approaches, ‘children feel listened to’ (Participant 14), ‘they know that they feel safe, they know that they are going to be listened to, they know that their needs are going to be met’ (Participant 3).

Theme 3: Flexibility, Individuality and Understanding

Participants explained that sanction-based approaches do not consider the CYP’s background or experiences: ‘I think it doesn’t always look at the child, what’s going on for the child’ (Participant 8). This results in adults not understanding the personal circumstances and feelings of the child and perhaps why the behaviour is happening, making it hard to prevent repetition. Secondly, the child feels unsupported and misses out on a learning opportunity to develop self-regulation skills.

If you just give a consequence, you’re not dealing with it, you’re not getting to the bottom of what happened (Participant 14)

In comparison, relational-based approaches were described as flexible, individualised and child led. The participants spoke about the importance of considering CYP’s experiences and background and being curious about the potential reasons behind the behaviour.

Knowing why children behave the way they do and their past experiences. So,we’ve had training on ACEs and how you respond to different children and what they've had experience wise (Participant 9)

The support offered and plans developed are tailored: ‘each plan is geared towards that child and that child alone’ (Participant 7). The school day and policies allow for flexibility and adaptability, based on the child’s needs. ‘Starting with understanding’ and ‘person-centred approaches to emotional support’ were themes in the Ideal School Task. Participants expressed their passions about first understanding CYP and using this to create personalised plans.

Facilitators and barriers to adopting a relational approach

Six themes, five with subthemes, were identified in the facilitators and barriers task (the school vignette discussion). Themes and subthemes are presented in Figure 2.

Barriers: Theme 1: Shifting perspectives

School staff’s acceptance of the approaches. ‘The biggest barrier has been changing perceptions’ (Participant 11).

Adopting a new approach not only requires changing what people are doing but also shifting mindsets. This was because some staff were ‘still a bit stuck in their ways’ (Participant 14). It was recognised that schools have ‘staff of different ages, different backgrounds and that is a challenge in some ways because it is getting everyone on board’ (Participant 13). It was noted that some school staff express thoughts such as ‘Well, children should just behave’ (Participant 8) or ‘They should be punished’ (Participant 12).

CYP’s and parents’ familiarity and acceptance of the approaches. Participants described difficulties with helping parents understand the approaches. With parents asking, ‘Why isn’t he being sent home or being excluded?’ (Participant 9). Participants reflected that ‘it is a bit of a challenge getting parents on board’ (Participant 12) and offering courses to parents needed to be done sensitively and carefully. However, having that consistency between home and school ‘would really help the children’ (Participant 8).

One barrier to using alternative approaches is ‘if a child does not want to take on that approach’ (Participant 15). CYP often ask ‘why are you all of a sudden being nice to me? Why are you listening to me?’ and also request for them to ‘just send me to so and so if I do something wrong’ (Participant 15).

Barriers: Theme 2: Perceived scarcity of resources

Demands placed on time. Schools need time to train staff, have team meetings, problem solve, update staff members on the circumstances of a particular child, and support staff in using the approaches when difficult situations arose.

Every time you want to train somebody you’ve got to get them out of class which then potentially leaves somebody else in a difficult situation (Participant 14)

Participants explained that ‘there’s not the time to sit down with the child if you’re the only adult with 31 children’ (Participant 13). When contrasted with quick and easy sanction-based approaches, assessing the child’s needs and tailoring the approach accordingly involves more time, skill and effort, especially when the approaches are unfamiliar. Having more time was also a recurring theme in the ideal school task.

Cost of using the approaches. Similar to the theme outlined above, funding was cited as one of the key barriers. The main cost identified was staffing, specifically, ‘being able to release staff. Have more staff’ (Participant 14) and ‘restrictions of how many staff you can have because of budget and money’ (Participant 13). Additionally, as support staff typically arrive and leave with the CYP, the costs of paying staff for additional time to conduct training was mentioned: ‘then you’ve got the financial implications of having to pay support staff that aren’t paid for inset days’ (Participant 6).

Barriers: Theme 3: Persisting with the approaches despite setbacks and limited progress

Participants expressed the difficulties experienced ‘when approaches don’t work and the challenging behaviour continues’ (Participant 7). The likely outcome of this experience is for practitioners to believe the approach is not working. This is an emotive and challenging experience as ‘people feel that’s a failure’ (Participant 1) and can result in negative feelings ‘I think the word frustrated is probably the best one’ (Participant 10).

By virtue of who teachers are they just want to do good by those kids. So acknowledging that you’re not necessarily achieving that is hard (Participant 1).

Reflections on overcoming barriers

Reflections during the member checking session led to further exploration of barriers and possible solutions, including the need to be flexible and creative. To cut costs, one participant made their own resources and created ‘cool off’ spaces in the classroom, for example in a small tent. This allowed teachers to supervise the child in the classroom but also created a separate space for the child to self-regulate. It was also noticed that once teachers understood the relational-based approaches and had experience using them, they were more confident delivering them. Therefore, it is likely that given time, increased familiarity and confidence with the approaches and a chance to see the benefits of using them, barriers may become easier to manage.

Facilitators: Theme 1: Having the whole school community on board

Whole-school training. Participants highlighted the importance of whole school community training: ‘parents, governors, admin staff, volunteers that come in, anybody that comes into school. You know, kitchen staff, cleaners’ (Participant 11). Participants spoke about ‘making sure everybody is on board and has the same understanding’ (Participant 14). Helping parents understand and adopt the approaches was seen as important as ‘you’d be working as a team. Which would make everything far easier’ (Participant 5).

Whole-school ethos. Participants suggested that relational-based approaches need to be adopted across the whole school: ‘There’s no good saying to a teacher “Well, you need to be really therapeutic to her, and if you don’t I’m going to put you on disciplinary action”’ (Participant 11). It was suggested that the staff had to also be modelling and experiencing compassion and nurture, themselves, within the staff team.

They are therapeutic towards you, you are then therapeutic to your team, your team are therapeutic to everybody … (Participant 11)

Facilitators: Theme 2: Training Type and Delivery

Starting with ‘why’. Participants reflected on the importance of first outlining why the shift is important and the theories behind it: ‘So it’s back to training of the staff to understand why it’s being done, what’s being done and how it’s being done. Not say ‘this is what you need to do’ (Participant 7).

A teaching assistant reflected on their experience of training: ‘once I understood the reasons behind the approach, I understood a lot better on how to use the strategies’ (Participant 5) but added that ‘it was my own digging into those approaches and why we should be doing it that really helped me to understand the benefits of the strategies’.

Training Roll Out. Participants reflected on the practical roll out of the training. Backing and support from SLT was seen as paramount.

It wouldn’t be possible without the senior leadership being on board (Participant 12)

Start with the senior members of staff because you need to get them on board first (Participant 15)

It’s definitely got to be led by senior team (Participant 3)

The consensus was to have several people receive the initial training across the year groups: ‘just to touch base and just make sure everyone is using the same language and if they’ve got any challenging children or situations, they’ve just got someone to go to for advice’ (Participant 2).

Engaging and practical training opportunities. Participants reflected that the most useful training was experiential and practical, and utilised one to one support and modelling approaches.

Getting them really involved, it being really hands on (Participant 8)

We did lots of practical role play (Participant 6)

Although the initial training and input was seen as necessary and important, being able to put the learning into practice and apply it to CYP was seen as the most useful training.

Regular training reminders and reflections. Participants recognised the value of regular reflection and reminders, either in the form of monthly reflections, constant items on team meeting agendas or smaller frequent reminders.

Sending small, quick video reminders or reflections was seen as useful: ‘they send us once a month, it’s a vlog of one aspect of the new approaches and they’re only minutes long … super’ (Participant 1). Encouraging regular reflection was described as useful as ‘there is an extraordinary amount of pressure on everyone anyway so it’s that fine balance, which is why these videos are brilliant because they are so short’ (Participant 1).

Facilitators: Theme 3: Working together and feeling supported

Support from Senior Leadership Teams. Both encouragement and joint problem solving were highlighted as important when supporting school staff. For example, telling the staff, ‘You’re doing a really good job. You’re doing the right things. You’re following the plan’, as well as facilitating problem-solving ‘what’s going on that is stopping you from following the plan?’ (Participant 7). This was also reflected by a member of SLT:

The balance between being empathetic to staff that are in the day in day out and are tired. Also to challenge that and to turn it round to be more nurturing (Participant 6)

One school scheduled in time for staff members to ‘vent all their frustrations, what’s going well, what’s not going well and what they need from us as an SLT’ (Participant 6).

Sharing Successes. Sharing success stories and ‘talking about positives’ (Participant 3) with school staff, parents and governors was discussed.

Something on a weekly basis to say ‘this positive happened, this scenario came about, this is what was said and turned it around to this degree’ (Participant 2)

One member of SLT explained how they are encouraging school staff to share, via email, any celebrations or successes. Participants highlighted the importance of sharing positives with parents (by sending postcards home) and governors (by sending termly updates on how the new approaches are working in school).

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic

In addition to the barriers outlined above, school staff expressed that the COVID-19 pandemic resulted in additional challenges. The introduction of online working meant all training on the new approaches was delivered online. Social mixing restrictions made it difficult to communicate and observe the use of the new approaches across the school. With these additional strains and stresses, schools found their priorities shifted. A focus on delivering the curriculum, as well as supporting the physical wellbeing of CYP and staff, meant finding time to learn new approaches was difficult. It was, however, noted that the pandemic had led to an increased need for more relational-based approaches.

Comparing the journey of the three schools

It was noted that all participants in school C (the school farthest along in their journey) understood the importance of including parents and governors in the shift. Although this was mentioned in school A, it was only discussed by members of the SLT. Additionally, it was perceived that School C participants’ thoughts on the ideal school task were, comparatively, the most child-centred and compassionately minded.

Discussion

Why make the move from sanction-based to relational-based approaches?

Relationships and connections are based on trust, respect, and mutual understanding (Gillespie 1997). Research highlights the importance of positive relationships in schools and the impact on CYP’s motivation, experience of the classroom and social and cognitive development (Davis 2003; Roffey 2012). Feelings of shame and humiliation created by sanction-based approaches make it difficult for CYP to feel safe in relationships (Gilbert 2009). Experiences of criticism and rejection ignite threat-detecting systems and result in negative attributions to the self (Gilbert 2009), leaving CYP feeling worthless and disappointed (Rainer, Le, and Abdinasir 2023).

Relational-based approaches demonstrate that adults are carefully considering the needs and feelings of CYP and, in the absence of threat or danger, help CYP feel safe and soothed (Gilbert 2009). Exercising compassion and kindness supports emotional wellbeing and puts CYP in a good position to engage in problem-solving discussions. Neuroscience research suggests key brain areas involved in decision making and emotion regulation are not fully developed or matured in childhood and adolescence (Giedd 2015). Therefore, the guidance of adults is both necessary and valuable to support CYP to assess their choices, develop key self-regulation skills and inspire long term positive change. Accordingly, the time investment needed to understand and support CYP, within a flexible and individualised approach, pays off in the long term as the CYP develop key self-regulation skills. This means less time and funding is spent managing behaviour over time. Conversely, in the absence of sensitive adult guidance and support, changes in behaviour after using sanction-based approaches are often short lived. After repeated sanctions, with little or no coaching on how to avoid repetition, CYP can eventually become desensitised, meaning sanctions become less powerful.

What are the key facilitators which help schools adopt relational-based approaches?

A summary of the facilitators identified and related practice implications is provided in Table 2.

Table 2. Facilitators and resulting implications of adopting relational-based approaches.

Facilitator	Implications
Whole-school training	- Ensure training on new approaches is rolled out to all staff in the school community. - Information evenings for families. - Monitor the consistency of approaches used across staff. - Provide information to the CYP on the new approaches.
Whole-school ethos	- Establish a whole-school compassionate and nurturing policy and ethos. - Update the school website, policies, staff contracts, letters/communication with home, reports and other school communication.
Starting with ‘why’	- Start the roll out of training with evidence, research and information on the purpose and reasoning behind the approaches. - Encourage open reflection and honesty. - Ensure CYP and parents understand the new approaches and are aware of the reasoning behind the shift.
Training roll out	- Ensure all members of the SLT receive training, understand the approaches and are motivated to establish the shift in school. - Ensure a spread of people across the year groups receive the training and act as ‘advocates’ or ‘champions’.
Engaging and practical training opportunities	- Allocate time to conduct practical whole-school training. - Offer one to one support and opportunities to reflect.
Regular training reminders and reflections	- Provide regular bite size reminders of the training and the approach (monthly updates/letters, regular slots in team meetings, bulletins, notice boards, podcasts, videos)
Support from Senior Leadership Teams	- Provide regular drop-in for concerns or questions and to receive support, praise and supervision/joint problem-solving. - Offer practical and physical support and observation in the classroom, particularly for complex cases.
Sharing successes	- Regularly share successes in staff teams through meetings, bulletins, notice boards or online groups. - Share successes with parents (sending emails, letters or postcards home) and governors (send termly updates).

What barriers or additional factors need to be considered?

The development of a post-war, industrial, Western education system (Robinson and Aronica 2015) took place when behaviourist theories were dominant in discourse and practice (Braat et al. 2020). Although psychological theory has evolved (Braat et al. 2020), behaviour support strategies guided by the psychological theory of behaviourism still remain dominant in schools in England (Gus et al. 2017). The ease, understanding and familiarity of applying behaviourist principles was recognised as an advantage. Relational-based approaches were seen as less familiar, therefore finding the staff and time to learn and apply a new approach, alongside managing the inbuilt systemic demand and pressure to deliver a national curriculum conflicts with the demands required to shift to using relational approaches. Research writes about a natural drive to ‘defend the status quo’ (Jain, Asrani, and Jain 2018, 37). Familiarity feels safe and comfortable, whereas new processes invoke a fear of the unknown (Jain, Asrani, and Jain 2018). Kotter’s (2012) eight-step organisational change model highlights the importance of establishing a sense of urgency or a need for change, before moving onto enabling and sustaining the change. This fits with an identified facilitating factor ‘starting with why’. It has also been recognised that the provision of training is not enough on its own to create organisational change. Transferring learning from training into practice requires a broader framework of support which offers coaching and guidance post-training (Chidley and Stringer 2020).

How far schools need to shift away from using sanction-based approaches remains something to be considered. A universally understood and familiar approach which has the propensity to create short sharp changes in behaviour has some benefits. As the brain picks up on novel input from the environment and decides on a reaction (Hutchinson and Barrett 2019), a rare incidence of a punitive practice may, indeed, create impact and result in a change in behaviour. Where there are threats to safety and to ensure important boundaries are respected by the group, clear and reliable consequences may be needed to ensure safety, cooperation, and trust (Atkins, Wilson, and Hayes 2019). A blended approach which is unified (i.e. rare but consistent application of sanctions, where ultimately necessary) and compassionate (i.e. responsive to the underlying needs and circumstances) means CYP can be kept safe but also receive tailored support for their longer-term wellbeing.

Strengths and limitations

This study used person-centred activities to build a detailed picture of school staff’s thoughts, views, and understandings. Extending on previous research (Coleman 2020; Oxley 2021), this study captured the perspectives of a range of staff members across three schools. The findings offer detailed and valuable insights to other schools who may wish to embark on similar journeys.

The local authority in which the study was conducted was proactive in adopting relational-based approaches, with a dedicated team supporting schools to make the shift. Therefore, school staff may have been more familiar and exposed to the relational-based approaches, receiving ample support in making the shift. Other local authorities may not receive such high levels of support or training; therefore, responses and reflections might vary across settings.

Any conclusions need to take account of the small sample size, as well as the lack of socio-cultural diversity or representation of minority groups amongst the participants and the case study school communities.

Future research

Further research focused on exploring and evaluating the utility and value of the newly developed pathway to adopting relational-based approaches, created in this research, would add to the limited research base exploring the process of enabling school change. It is also important to directly explore the first-hand experiences of children, young people and carers of both sanction-based and relational approaches, perhaps using a participatory inquiry approach. As the challenges faced by secondary schools will be different than those experienced by primary schools, it would also be beneficial to explore the thoughts and reflections of secondary school staff.

Conclusion

This study explored primary school staff’s perspectives on different approaches to support behaviour and emotions in schools. Findings suggest a blended approach, which respects reason and rules combined with relationships and repair, may provide the necessary support and structure for CYP to thrive. Key facilitators on the journey to developing relational-based approaches in schools included a need for shared understanding and a whole-school shift in ethos. A proposed pathway, based on the current research, with key facilitators to support the process of transforming to a relational culture is summarised in a visual representation in Figure 3. Managing and responding to challenging behaviour is likely to involve judgements and emotions, making it difficult, for some, to act compassionately (Atkins, Wilson, and Hayes 2019). When overwhelmed or stressed with their own difficulties, some school staff may find sanctions to be a simpler solution. Nevertheless, recent developments in psychological theory and evidence-based approaches in schools make it difficult to ignore the impact of relying solely on behaviourist strategies. As one widely cited educator emphasises, ‘You can’t teach children to behave better by making them feel worse. When children feel better, they behave better’ (Leo 2007).

Figure 3. Visual representation of the key facilitators in making the shift to using relational-based approaches.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the schools and participants who took part in the interviews and the individuals and wider local authority team who supported recruitment.

Disclosure statement

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

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Rebecca Jones

Rebecca Jones is an Educational Psychologist in Swindon after completing the doctorate course (DEdPsych) at the University of Southampton. Her primary research interests focus on supporting child development with particular attention to trauma-informed approaches, resilience and compassion.

Jana Kreppner

Jana Kreppner is an Associate Professor in Developmental Psychopathology at the University of Southampton. Her research interests focus on the role of relationship experiences, particularly caregiver-child and peer/friend relation-ships, in typical and atypical development and factors, effects and correlates of such relationship experiences on children’s development. Jana uses this knowledge to inform the development of relationship-based interventions to promote children and young people’s wellbeing.

Fiona Marsh

Fiona Marsh is an Educational Psychologist in Bristol. Her research and practice interests focus on inclusion in education and the early years.

Brettany Hartwell

Brettany Hartwell is a tutor on the DEdPsy course at the University of Southampton and an Educational Psychologist with Bournemouth, Christchurch, and Poole Council. Her research interests are broad yet characterised with a common core of principles. These include the importance of empowering, equitable, respectful, and restorative relationships, inclusivity, collaboration and interconnectedness, openness to new learning, holistic approaches, imagination, and compassion.