What would happen if we banned the b******** word? (Part 2)
Matthew Savage continues his critique of ‘behaviour management’ which he sees as a misguided and ultimately self-defeating paradigm.
In the first part of this article, (August 2024) I challenged what I regard to be the problematic b******** paradigm still dominant in our schools. I suggested that the majority of what we call ‘behaviour’ is, but the emergent property of much more complex, submerged soil, soil into which we have a duty to dig. In this second part, I aim to prod and poke that paradigm a little further.
Restorative practices
This is not the same as ignoring problematic behaviours, any more than centring wellbeing somehow dilutes academic outcomes. (The opposite is true, in fact: if we put wellbeing first in this way, both behavioural and academic outcomes will automatically improve.) Of course, there are some student behaviours which jeopardise the health and safety of others in the school community and these need to be taken very seriously, not only so that the student learns from what has happened, but so that the community feels safe in its wake.
But isn’t this where restorative justice and practices come into their own? If I am punished for something I do, I may try not to do it again, if that is even possible, but I will do so out of fear – of the punishment and of the punisher, and the power they represent. But if the response is restorative, then it does precisely that: it restores and heals. And I actually learn from what has happened, which is, after all, what we want, isn’t it?
Better, fairer and easier
There are other reasons why I think we should ban the b******** word:
- Why do we see sanctions proliferate in Secondary schools but not in Primary? Do we expect too much of that generation, oblivious to the immaturity of their pre-frontal cortex, and its dearth of the executive function necessary always to make wise decisions, not to mention the meta-crisis with which they are wrestling?
- Are our sanctions universally applied? Do all teachers implement them consistently? And, most importantly, are some identities and characteristics punished more than others? For if that is the case, what are sanctions but a perpetuator of the very power structures we should be learning to dismantle, if we are truly committed to DEIJB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, Justice & Belonging)?
- Do we hold our staff to the same standards? How often have you heard a teacher respond to shouting students by shouting at them? Or seen a teacher confiscate a phone whilst holding and using their own in the other hand? Or witnessed a teacher berate a student for lateness when the teacher was late to one of their lessons that same day?
- If we are freed from the exhaustive and exhausting chasing of emergent behaviours, and we seek to heal the soil instead, think how much more time and energy we would have. And think how much more positive, deep and rich would be our relationships with our students. To return to the language of ecology, it would be like a trophic cascade.
Compliance and conformity
Perhaps provocatively, I think schools should replace the b******** word with another phrase: “compliance and conformity”. This seems to be much more honest and accurate. Then, if we insist on punishing students, at least we are making it clear we are punishing them for either not complying and/or not conforming. Many of us would be uncomfortable with this phrase, and with the concepts themselves: to us, I would say this is all the more reason we challenge, subvert and shift the “behaviour” paradigm in the first place.
After all, some students – those who are neurodivergent and those inhabiting marginalised and masked characteristics – cannot easily (and, one could argue, should not) comply and conform, if compliance and conformity mean to adhere to the code typically written by those at the centre of a neurotypical, normative world. And this brings me to my final point. “Behaviour expectations” are typically drawn up by those with power, and expected of those without.
Therefore, is to use and implement the b******** word, and all its history and ramifications, not to use and abuse power? To abuse power is to cause harm – in fact, that is the basic premise on which most “behaviour policies” depend: to cause harm so as to deter. To cause harm is not to safeguard. And not to safeguard goes against the very foundation of why we exist and operate as schools today.
Let’s be honest
I am not saying I am right. I write what I believe to be true. And I am heartened by the increasing number of students, educators and parents with whom I work who are awakening to this truth. But to those schools who continue to believe in the b******** word, please permit me to say this: be honest to your entire community about what you are actually pursuing; and do not profess either to put wellbeing first or to pursue DEIJB.
I do not agree with the ethos of the Michaela School in London, whose Head is often described as Britain’s strictest headteacher. But at least she is honest about what she seeks to do; it does exactly what it says on the tin. The guiding statements I read of international schools worldwide do not claim that ethos: they talk, instead, of being “inclusive” and of prioritising “wellbeing” in a climate of positive “relationships”. These are important principles, but can we truly be true to them if the b******** continues to pervade our policy and practice?
Matthew is an international education consultant, and former international school principal, who works directly with school communities, helping them understand and enrich their soil. He is also on the Advisory Board of the Parents Alliance for Inclusion.
FEATURE IMAGE: by dylan nolte on Unsplash
Support images: by Bozhin Karaivanov on Unsplash & Arno Senoner on Unsplash