Dealing With Challenging Behaviour Education Essay

Dealing With contend behaviour Education commodevasThe Case of boy Asons A, along with his friends fight inside and removed of direct, and are involved in binge drinking and other pain in the ass behaviour within the community. He migrates between his two separated parents. He is not devoted adequate boundaries or supervision. The bugger away has stated to the school day and local community support officers that she is unable to control him. His bound instructor believes that other agencies should be involved. Other acquireers are threatening not to teach him. He is described as a disruptive kid with behavioral problems that affect the rest of the class. His grades are below average and his attendance poor. The jurisprudence are aware of him, although no charges guard been brought. Residents engender campaigned to have his family evicted delinquent to his anti- brotherly behaviour.1.2 IntroductionThe local council has commissioned this issuing area and its res olve is to explore a range of strategies to better deal with contest behaviour of the type exhibited by male small fry A. Initially the report shall seek a definition of the barrier challenging behaviour. Then shall endeavour to meet its aims through an analysis of a range of existing efforts employed by various agencies, whilst discussing how they might be relevant to our case study, and by extension to challenging behaviour in the wider context.1.3 Challenging Behaviour A DefinitionEmerson (20013) has defined the term becauseceCulturally abnormal behaviour of much(prenominal)that the physical safety of the psyche or othersis deally to be placed in serious jeopardy, or behaviour whichis likely to seriously limit use of, or result in the personbeing denied access to, ordinary community facilitiesWhilst this would by possibility serve to define the behaviour of Boy A, it cannot help us apologize its causes. This report shall explore the aspects of his life that whitetho rn cause this behaviour, and the strategies that can argufy that behaviour.2.1 Challenging Behaviour in a School SettingThe 2005 Ofsted report, Managing Challenging Behaviour analysed anaccount of behaviour in schools based on case evidence (Ofsted, 20053), the main type of which was the persistent, low level disruption of lessons that interrupts acquirement (Ofsted, 20054). Acts of verbal or physical abuse aimed at colleagues were found in the majority of schools, whilst abuse aimed at teachers was less common. Acts of extreme violence were real rare and mostly directed at fellow pupils.The average luck of primary schools, where behaviour is rated as good or better stands at 85.3% for primary schools, but hardly 73.3% for secondary schools. A reason for this is cut inton by Emerson, (200124) who states that the prevalence of challenging behaviour appears to increase during churlhood, reaching a peak during the age range 15-34.Exclusions from all schools dropped from 11,181 in 93/94, to 9,290 by 2002/03, showing perhaps that schools are dealing with challenging behaviour in more proactive ways. til now, studies have shown that some schools operate a polity of backdoor exclusions, whereby a disruptive pincers parents are offered the chance to transfer that child to some other school, hence keeping the schools exclusion rate artificially low (Wright Weekes, 2000). Arguably, this insurance policy is growing in popularity, warping the figures.Boys are more likely to be disruptive than girls all through education. Often disruptive pupils joined the school late in a school year and struggle to take a crap relationships with pupils and round. Many are in care or from troubled families. hearty numbers have irregular attendance causing disruption to nurture and the development of relationships. A third of pupils with behavioral difficulties in secondary schools have special educational needs.2.2 Effective Strategies That Challenge BehaviourThe Ofste d report highlights strategies interpreted by schools to tackle challenging behaviour.Behavioural policies that set out expectations consistently and fairly are more effective at challenging behaviour. McNamara Moreton (2001) farther this by advocating the use of pupil devised classroom charters. These are seen by the authors to be especially beneficial to pupils with behavioral difficulties such as Boy A, arguably because they have the effect of encouraging good behaviour through peer pressure.The reinforcement of good behaviour. Behaviourists suggest that teachers should identify positive behaviourby the pupil and reward this behaviour (McNamara Moreton, 200131). This whitethorn be beneficial to pupils like Boy A, who can perhaps feel victimised by staff who constantly highlight their negative behaviour.Multi-agency approaches, involving educational welfare officers, social builders, psychologists and others if inevitable (General Teaching Council for England, 2007) are esse ntial. This can be achieved through Behaviour and educational Support Teams (BESTs), where teams of professionals are given a mandate in a school to tackle challenging behaviour. A recent governing report found that for schools participating with BESTs thither was an increase in attendance and a decrease in fixed time exclusions (DfES, 2005). However according to the Ofsted (200521)report there appears to be a reluctance by schools and/or LEAs to use this multi-agency model, with only half of schools having a satisfactory relationship with key agencies such as social and health services.3.1 Boy A Effective StrategiesLearning mentors work within schools to coordinate activities to support students with behaviourial problems (General Teaching Council For England 2007). This could arguably give Boy A the degree of supervision in his education missing from his disunited home life, whilst improving his irregular attendance (absenteeism being within their remit).Family therapy sessions and parenting courses can equip parents with skills for improving the behaviour of their child (ibid, 2007). Boy As mother has stated that she is unable to control him, so help such as this could be an step towards challenging his behaviour through improved parenting. winning pupils like Boy A out of the school environment and placing them into a centre where less emphasis is put on academic feat could arguably help those such as Boy A. It could also be a way of avoiding excluding pupils, which may only serve to besides tag them as unmanageable. These centres, whilst still teaching the core of the curriculum, also have lessons on alcohol/drug awareness and citizenship, as well as a provision for training programmes (ibid, 2007).4.1 The CJS Approach to Challenging or Offending BehaviourCrime and Disorder Act 1998 (CDA 1998) Established the offspring Justice visiting card (YJB) and Youth Offending Teams (YOTs), and measures aimed at curbing youth offending such as anti-social be haviour orders (ASBOs), parenting orders and curfew orders for the nether 10s.Youth Justice and Criminal recite Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999) Established the referral order, whereby offenders aged 10-17 who p claim guilty to a number one time offence are referred to a YOT.Criminal Justice and patrol Act 2001 (CJPA 2001) Further extended the remit of curfew orders to apply to chthonian 16s, or to a specific area rather than any mortal.(Crawford Newburn, 2003)These acts of legislation form the basis of the new youth justice reforms of the then Labour government, whose aim were to shift resources away from processing young offenders, to pr howeverting them from offending in the first of all place (Crawford Newburn, 2003). The advent of YOTs, which a youth can be referred to if they plead guilty to a first time offence, has come in for everyday praise from most quarters (NACRO, 2002). Their aim is to divert youths away from the ballock CJS and into a setting more focussed on behavi oural discussion than punishment. Offenders are expected to participate in a program of reformation featuring a strong element of reparation, that also deals with the causal risk factors of further potential offending. Other behavioural strategies such as ASBOs have been astray criticised for contributing to a policy of social exclusion that disregards the rights ofyoung population (Burnett Appleton, 200449).4.2 Youth Offending Strategies within the CJSThis section shall discuss the options that are theoretically open to the CJS in dealing with behaviour such as Boy As.Parenting orders can be given if a child truants, offends or is subject to an ASBO. Parents are required by law to attend guidance sessions, and occupy any conditions attached to an order, such as attending meetings with teachers or ensuring that their child is properly supervised (Youth Justice Board, nd). This intervention could arguably help Boy A and others in his position given that he receives no purposef ul supervision from his parents. Such guidance, although forced onto his parents, could potentially help them resolve the parenting problems that potentially affect their sons behaviour. These orders have been criticised by authors such as Arthur (2005), who believes that resources should be allocated sooner in lives such as Boy As to prevent them kind in challenging/offending behaviour in the first place.Curfew orders give the authorities the power to impose a time at which under 16s should be home. Their aim is to defend communities from anti-social behaviour and to protect children (BBC online, 2001). Arguably this may help Boy A and others, if only by keeping them off the streets at inappropriate times. However it is possible that attempting to block the childs goal of waiver out, would only serve to frustrate him/her into further expressing challenging behaviour aimed at those around them. This would be in line with the psychologically derived drive theory (Dollard Miller et al, 1939).ASBOSs carry a civil burden of proof, and are designed to protect against any aggressive, intimidating or destructive activity that re repeal another persons quality of life (Home Office, 2010). If breached they can become a venomous matter worthy of up to five years imprisonment. They have been criticised as an unacceptable blurring of legal lines, which only serve to criminalise children for non-criminal behaviour (The defender website, 2009).5.1 Theoretical Explanations of Youth Offending BehaviourIt is known that Boy A migrates between his separated parents, depending on who he has fallen out with. some(prenominal) theorists have concluded that conflicts such as this between parent and child contribute to the risk of offending by the affected child. Healy Bronner (1936), working under the psychoanalytical umbrella, applied the idea of sublimation (the channelling of unacceptable impulses) to offending behaviour. This is where a child suffers dissatisfaction fro m a failure to experience strong emotional ties with a parent, which then manifests itself in delinquency such as Boy As.Labelling theory would deliberate it is those who hold positions of social power (such as teachers and arguably neighbours), that determine who is label as nuisance/anti-social/criminal (Hollin, 1989). Gove (1975, cited in Hollin, 1989) contests a consequence of labelling is that of stigmatisation, where the public attitude of disapproval creating social exclusion of the individual. This may in turn create a modification of self-image, where a person starts to believe societys condemnation and modifies their self-image so as to match the label, thus creating further risk of offending. This may apply to those in the same position as Boy A, who when encircled by condemnation by those in apparently superior social positions (teachers/neighbours), merely become the label.ConclusionIt is this reports view that proactive behavioural strategies, that have the welfare of the child at heart offer the best chance to challenge the types of behaviour shown by those such as Boy A. reactive policies such as ASBOs are not concerned with why a child is acting anti-socially, only that the behaviour should end. This may inevitably lead to a breach of an order and potential criminal sanctions (with all the problems such as future employability this has), as surely there is no entrust for an end until the factors that lead to the ASB (Boy As tumultuous home life) are dealt with.S.2.1 shows that a childs behavioural difficulties increase the further they advance into their teenage years. It would therefore be easy to say that the majority of resources should be targeted at this age group. However it is this reports view that intervention strategies should be targeted at children as young as possible, as surely this increase in challenging behaviour exhibited by older children can be put down to a behavioural snowball effect, caused by it not being challeng ed early enough.This report believes that behavioural strategies that work on a broader school level (s.2.2), are suitable to the more individualistic strategies(3.1) discussed. This is because they attach no stigma to any individual child, and in some cases, such as with classroom charters can even be self-policed through the exertion of peer pressure. It is obvious that in a few cases a childs behaviour (arguably Boy As) is such, that it should be dealt with in closing off of the others. This should be done in as sensitive a room as possible, so as to minimise both the feeling of the child being picked on by staff, or for his peers, the feeling that he is receiving spear carrier attention.For Boy A and others, an escalation in behavioural problems would lead them into the realm of the Youth Justice System, dealt with in s.4.12. Overall, the new youth justice reforms of the previous government have had a positive impact on dealing with challenging/offending behaviour. Due to their welfarist approach to troubled youths, YOTs are particularly welcomed by this report, and may offer those like Boy A a final opportunity to reform before being passed to the more clod CJS.