Evaluating Effective Change In Primary School: Behaviour Management Strategies For Children With Emo

This paper aims to evaluate how behaviour management strategies can be implemented effectively in a key stage two class, focusing on children with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD). The focus will be on how the proposed change can be facilitated using Lewin's three step change model (1947). Barriers to change will also be discussed as will possible knock on effects of the change for the school, academic staff and children alike. The reason for the proposed change is the observed decline of behaviour in practice, which goes against both the schools behaviour policy and the DfE (2012) who advocate that all pupils should show respect and courtesy towards teachers, other staff, and towards each other. The proposed behaviour management strategy of consequence maps will be evaluated in detail in appendix one, also further rationale behind this research will be discussed including the justification for the proposed change. The proposed change is considered to be of a micro level. This means that that the change is on a small scale for the school, with few staff being affected. Furthermore, micro level focuses on individuals and their interactions (Kenny 2002) and links to the EBD children as their interactions with other children and staff is a current problem. However, there are signs of macro traits within the change, in that there is a focus on social processes and problems (Kenny 2002). Thus, the change may be of a micro level for the school involved but of a macro level for the EBD children. CHANGE AGENT In order for any change to be effective, it requires something or someone to act as a catalyst for change (NCCA 2003). In this particular case the change agent is considered to be that of the teacher and support staff directly involved with the EBD children, and are the main people facilitating the change in the setting. However, the children play a role as collaboration also is deemed an important part of the change process (NCCA 2003). MODEL OF CHANGE In order to establish how the change will be facilitated in the setting, Lewin's (1947) change model will be analysed and applied to the behaviour management change mentioned in this research. Furthermore, the model may introduce possible knock on effects caused by the change. As can be seen in the diagram below there are three main phases of the model of change all requiring certain levels of action. It must be noted that this particular change model can be applied to all forms of change within the setting and not just behaviour management strategies, which are concentrated on for this research.

UNFREEZE STAGE According to Carter (2008) the first stage of Lewin's model of change involves setting aside the existing mind-set and preparing to change. This can be problematic, as both the teacher implementing the change and the children affected by change must be prepared to do so. This can be accomplished in a number ways, but for the purpose of this study the degree of change readiness determined by Hritz (2008) will be used as it is deemed most relevant to this particular setting, and stems from observations in practice. Furthermore, it gives a good indication of where and how the proposed change can begin. First, academic staff implementing the change have been put into the "doubt" category; this means that they are likely to focus on the downside; behaviours may include scepticism, suspicion and hesitancy for change (Hritz 2008). This compared to the EBD children who are at the stage of "rejection", which according to Hritz (2008) indicates that they do not want to change, refuse to change and discourage others to change. It must be noted that both academic staff and children's change readiness may move between stages and may not remain in the categories mentioned. According to Burnes (2004) Lewin argued that the equilibrium needs to be destabilised or unfrozen before old behaviour can be discarded and new behaviour successfully adopted. Carter (2008) suggested that shocking its members or in this case teachers and children with a statement or action that creates anxiety, he continues that it also demonstrates that maintaining the status quo is not sufficient. This is vital in changing the mind-set of teachers and children and can be adopted to suit the individual setting. The most effective way mentioned by Lewin (1947), Burnes (2004), and Carter (2008) and has been observed to be most effective in practice is by simple communication between the school head or governors and those below him. Burnes (2004) describes communication as one of the most important elements of the change process, because it helps reduce resistance, minimises uncertainty and increases involvement and commitment. This can be carried out by staff meetings for example where a vision statement is used, including long and short term goals (Burnes 2004). In terms of communication with the children a similar meeting between teacher, parent and child can be held to outline the problems, the need for change and any consequences if there is no change. Possible limitations of this stage as stated by Schein (1996) is that unfreezing is not an end in itself, it creates motivation to learn but does not necessarily control or predict the direction. It is then essential that those in charge of the change make sure that the vision statement is adhered to, by reminding those involved of the goals, importance of the change and the need for the change. MOVE STAGE According to Burnes (2004) and Carter (2008) if things are going well the change has begun to move in the desired direction and is the second stage of Lewin's model. Furthermore, at this stage it is necessary to move the target system to a new level of equilibrium. Thus, the desired change needs to be implemented, involving all staff and children who are already aware of the change, due to effective communication which occurred at the unfreeze stage. It has been suggested by Carter (2008) and observed in practice that at this stage there may still be resisting factors to the change which may come from either academic staff or children and is to be expected at this phase of the change. Carter (2008) states that components of this phase include reinforcing positive behaviours, celebrating successes and using lessons learned, as without reinforcement change could be short lived (Burnes 2004). This implies that it is essential not to fall back into old styles or habits or else the change will not work, and may even have a negative effect on the child's behaviour. In Hritz's (2008) model she referred to this as "sustain" which helps individuals build, so they don't fall back into these habits or lose sight of why change is needed. This can be accomplished by further meetings with staff including any updates on progress or potential problems, and with keeping parents and children informed of how their behaviour has been since the change. In order to facilitate this change and guarantee it is effective then communication between staff and children is vital. If any group is struggling with the change, or is finding it hard to adjust, then they must say so. This way alternative ways of implementing the change can be looked at. The school should have made back up plans at the unfreeze stage to allow for resisting factors and children who are struggling to cope. This is good professional practice and has been observed to be of a high priority for the school involved. REFREEZE STAGE Schein (1996) states that the main point about refreezing is that new behaviour must be congruent with the rest of the behaviour, or it will lead to a new round of disconfirmation. This means that new strategies must be made permanent if they are to work effectively. This is evident in both practice and from the notion set forth by Burnes (2004) who states that in the final stage of the model you must seek to stabilise the group at a new quasi-stationary equilibrium, he continues that this is vital to ensure that the new behaviours are safe from regression. In order to make this work, thus facilitate the change in practice, the change agent is essential in ensuring this is maintained. According to Kritsonis (2005) it is likely that the change will be short lived and people will revert to their old equilibrium if refreezing does not happen. However, contrary to this is observations in practice, where the majority of academic staff, children, parents and the school as a whole were committed to making the change successful and were dedicated at not letting this happen. This however does not mean it may not happen at a later date, so everyone must be vigilant to the cause of improving behaviour for children with EBD. It was also suggested by Robbins (2003) that one action that can be used to implement Lewin's third step is to reinforce new patterns and institutionalise them through formal and informal mechanisms including policies and procedures. This was carried out at this setting in the form of updating behaviour policies and class agreements. It is also essential at this stage that positive behaviours are rewarded and will be maintained throughout the change process. Change is a key concept in schools as well as in society (Edgar 1988) and needs to be embraced if they are to improve behaviour and academic attainment and remains the goal for the primary school where this research took place. However, knock on effects of any change are inevitable. The knock on effect of change will be discussed from three rationales, from a school, teacher and child perspective. It is important to distinguish between the three as there are likely to be different responses and consequences for each group. SCHOOL PERSPECTIVE According to Thompson (2010) all schools in England are obliged to change, they must respond to policies that mandate particular courses of action but must also address problems that arise such as behaviour management. In terms of knock on effects for the school as a whole, implications are deemed to be minimal, due to the change occurring in just one class. However, the school as a whole must support the change, adapt the behaviour policy accordingly and inform parents, carers and children of the change. This is made easier by making the school behaviour policy available online as stated by the DfE (2012) and will reduce any bureaucracy and save valuable time for the school. TEACHER PERSPECTIVE As observed in practice it is a teacher's duty to make sure the change is effective and carried out in a professional manner. Additional training may be required to implement the change successfully and will add to the workload of the individual teacher. This may affect a teachers sense of professional identity, their autonomy and responsibility for children's learning may become fragmented states Ball (2003) leading to reduced job satisfaction (Vulliamy 2006). However, with the correct support from the school then this can be avoided. CHILD PERSPECTIVE According to Altricher (2000) change shapes up differently in different discourse contexts and appears to be infinitely contestable and inherently unstable. Due to this and observations in practice defining the knock on effects for all children of behaviour management change would be problematic, as it will affect different children at different times, more so children who are deemed to misbehave. Furthermore, the way in which children deal with the change is influenced by personal and social factors (Solomon et al. 2000). Again this would imply that knock on effects of the change are unknown. It could be assumed however that it is likely that some children's behaviour may get worse before it gets better and academic attainment may suffer as children adapt to the change. CONCLUSION Lewin (1947) believed that change would not be easy or that the same approach could be applied in all situations. This is evident in this paper, with the main barrier to change being the people directly involved, for example; teachers and children. However, it has been demonstrated that if the cause for change is great enough, then people will strive to implement the change regardless of knock on effects, potential problems and even their own mind-set. It is also clear that behaviour management strategies such as consequence maps must be tried if EBD children are to improve their behaviour and raise academic attainment. Some changes will fail and some will be successful, but it is down to good professional practice and belief in the change and the children involved that will surely make the difference.

APPENDIX ONE JUSTIFICATION OF CHANGE Although children with emotional and behavioural disorders (EBD) are well recognised for their challenging behaviour (Zirpoli 2012), some children at the setting where the study took place have demonstrated poorer behaviour than is deemed acceptable in both the behaviour policy and as recommended by the DfE (2012). Due to this academic attainment has dropped and peers in the class seem to be affected also. Although various behaviour strategies are already employed by the school there is a need to try new strategies in order to progress and move forward. It has been established that if behaviour does not improve then EBD children and their peers may fall behind in academic attainment and other areas of development. It is also the duty of the school and academic staff involved .to take responsibility to ensure behaviour improves and children are given the opportunity to play a greater part in behaviour management strategies that ultimately affect them. Before this study took place behaviour management strategies where looked at through the WH51 questions and presented to a small group for clarification and advice. A copy of this can be seen below.

EVALUATION OF CHANGE According to Tobin and Simpson (2012) behaviour consequence maps incorporate elements of self-determination, cognitive awareness and self- responsibility. These are important attributes in maintaining children play an active role in dealing with their behaviour. Tobin and Simpson (2012) state that consequence maps are graphic representations of behaviours and their consequences. This is the reason this particular management strategy was chosen, as the EBD children in the class have responded well to graphic representation methods in the past. Furthermore, this intervention offers a predictable structure: if the child demonstrates the undesirable behaviour they already know the consequence (Tobin and Simpson 2012). Again structure is something that many EBD children require. See below how to create and use a consequence map, This can be adapted to suit the needs of all children. It must be noted that behaviour consequence maps are best suited to children with strong language skills and cognitive abilities that support problem solving (Tobin and Simpson 2012). Figure 1. How to Create and Use a Consequence Map 1. Choose a target behaviour (e.g., aggression, noncompliance, swearing). 2. Conduct a behavioural observation and functional assessment to determine the function of behaviours (i.e., attention seeking or task avoidance). 3. Recommended: Collect baseline data on the target behaviour. 4. Discuss the consequences of undesired behaviour and the consequences of desired behaviour with the student. 5. Using visuals (i.e.. Picture Communication Symbols, Mayer-Johnson, 2000), create a consequence map with the trigger on the left-hand side of the page in the middle, desirable behaviour and consequences on the top track, and undesirable behaviour and consequences on the bottom track. 6. Optional: Highlight the top track (desirable behaviour) in the student`s favourite colour and highlight the bottom track (undesirable behaviour) in the student`s least favourite colour. 7. Post the consequence map in an appropriate place or keep it on a clipboard for mobility. 8. Review the consequence map with the student. Continue to review the consequence map prior to the trigger (transition, work time, recess, etc.). 9. Recommended: Collect data during implementation of the consequence map to note effectiveness.

Reference List Altrichter, H. (2000) Images of Educational Change. Buckingham, Open University Press. Ball, S. (2003) The teacher's soul and the terrors of performativity, Journal of Educational Policy, 18(2), 215-238.

Burnes, B. (2004) Kurt Lewin and the planned approach to change: A re-appraisal. Journal of management studies, 41 (6), 977-1002.

DfE (2012) Ensuring good behaviour in schools: Parents [Online]. Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/aboutdfe/advice/f0076882/ensuring-good-behaviour-in-schools/parents [Accessed 7th March 2013]. DfE (2012) Reducing bureaucracy in schools: Changes to school information regulations [Online]. Available from: http://www.education.gov.uk/schools/toolsandinitiatives/cuttingburdens/b0075738/reducing-bureaucracy/requirements/changestoschoolinformationregulations [Accessed 2nd April 2013]. Edger, M. (1998). Change and the school administrator. Education, 118(4), 541. Hritz, C. (2008). Change Model: Three stages to success. Leadership Excellence. Kenny, J. (2002) Managing innovation in educational institutions. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 18 (3), 359-376.

Kritsonis, A. (2005) Comparison of change theories. International journal of management, business and administration, 8 (1), 1-7. Lewin, K. (1947) Frontiers in group dynamics. Field Theory in Social Science. London, Social Science Paperbacks.

NCCA (2003) Leading and Supporting Change in Schools [Online]. Available from: http://www.ncca.ie/en/Publications/Consultative_Documents/Leading_and_Supporting_Change_in_Schools_A_Discussion_Paper.pdf [Accessed 11th April 2013].

Robbins, S. (2003) Organizational Behaviour. 10th ed. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

Schein, E. H. (1996). 'Kurt Lewin's change theory in the field and in the classroom: notes towards a model of management learning'. Systems Practice, 9 (1), 27-47.

Solomon, D., Baltistich, V., Watson, M., Schaps, E., & Lewis, C. (2000) A six-district study of educational change: direct and mediated effects of the child development project. Social Psychology of Education, 4 (1), 3-51.

Thompson, A. M., & Webber, K. C. (2010). Realigning Student and Teacher Perceptions of School Rules: A Behavior Management Strategy for Students with Challenging Behaviors. Children & Schools, 32(2), 71-79. Tobin, C. E., & Simpson, R. (2012). Consequence Maps. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(5), 68-75. Vulliamy, G. (2006) Coming full circle? Policy-makers' and practitioners' perspectives on changing classroom practice in the primary school, paper presented at the British Educational Research Association Conference, University of Warwick, UK.

Zirpoli, T. J. (2012). Behaviour