Most schools have a behaviour policy. It’s a couple of pages long, refers to the correct statutory guidance, and was last reviewed for the previous Ofsted ‘spot check’. The problem is not with the document itself, but rather the space between what it says and what happens in the corridor at 8:45 on a Monday morning. That’s where the inspectors are now, in other words.
Ofsted report cards change everything. Whereas a one-word grading system allowed you to balance weaknesses in one area against strengths in another, the new system means attendance and behaviour are graded separately. You can’t average out your poor behaviour record by outstanding attendance any more. All the sub-criteria are inspected, and the new inspectors are far more specific in their expectations.
What inspectors are actually assessing
The Education Inspection Framework 2019 means behaviour and attitudes are now two judgments, not one. This in itself is an indication of the importance now attached to understanding the difference between pupils’ general conduct and their personal development.
The first judgement category, Behaviour and Attitudes, contains no mention of restorative approaches. Instead, the inspectors talk about observing the general ethos of the school – in canteens, corridors, classrooms – and listening to students to establish their understanding of behaviour expectations and whether they feel themselves to be treated fairly. Listening to mid-level managers is also key in understanding whether expectations are being consistently communicated and enforced.
Consistency is the watchword, in other words. Having a policy document that makes no difference to practice is a liability, not an asset, because it provides paperwork evidence of discrepancy between what is said and what is done.
Beyond zero tolerance: auditing your sanctions ladder
Zero-tolerance approaches have fallen out of favour. They were easy to defend in theory – the same sanctions applied to everyone, without negotiation. In practice, however, schools employing them found it difficult to demonstrate that those sanctions were actually appropriate to the misbehaviour, or indeed that they were being applied consistently.
Proportionality is now the name of the game. A sanctions ladder with too many escalations or that fails to make nuanced distinctions will be viewed as evidence of either poor behaviour management or, possibly, discrimination. The behaviour of pupils with additional needs is likely to be scrutinised particularly closely. Ofsted may well analyse your exclusions register alongside your behaviour management records in relation to pupils on your SEND, LAC, or other vulnerable pupil registers. Similarly, any disproportionate use of your sanctions ladder with particular groups is likely to be highlighted as an issue by inspectors, while being a cause for concern for you.
The Department for Education’s statutory guidance on suspension and permanent exclusion includes consideration of a pupil’s additional needs as one of only two factors to be considered prior to any punitive exclusion. It is therefore highly likely that Ofsted will be looking to see that your behaviour policy reflects this guidance. Particularly if your previous guidance used absolute language (‘must’, ‘should’) when referring to behaviour expectations, you may find the new requirements to balance punitive and supportive approaches challenging. If the wellbeing of your most vulnerable pupils is a priority, you may wish to consider reviewing your sanctions ladder to ensure it provides appropriate alternatives to exclusion for as many students as possible.
Permanent exclusions in England rose by 44% to 9,400 in 2022/23, while suspensions also hit a record high of 583,500, up 36% on the previous year. It is therefore highly likely that Ofsted will be analysing trends in permanent and temporary exclusions at your school, and comparing these with similar institutions across your local authority. If your figures are rising, you need to be able to explain why – and what you intend to do differently in future.
Attendance and behaviour are the same conversation now
The close links between attendance and behaviour management in administrative systems mean that Ofsted can track them with ease. This means that schools are no longer able to rely on policy detail or managerial discretion when it comes to analysing patterns between persistent absence and behaviour issues. Stating that ‘an intervention strategy will be delivered in the event of 90%+ absence’ is no longer sufficient if that intervention strategy is not being used consistently or is being implemented as a punishment rather than a preventative measure.
While report cards grade attendance and behaviour separately, inspectors know that they are inextricably linked to the school’s general relationship with its students and their families. The expectation is that schools will have clear, consistent protocols about responding to unauthorised absences and patterns of lateness as part of their broader behaviour management strategy. Persistent absence as a category is now treated by Ofsted as a behaviour risk, and may therefore be used as a justification for intervention, including exclusion. You should treat it as such.
Schools that have successfully integrated attendance into their behaviour management systems tend to have appointed a single lead manager responsible for both areas. This is important because it means that if a pupil’s attendance drops, a conversation can begin before their behaviour is impacted, rather than the other way round. While Ofsted will undoubtedly consider how clearly your policy states the protocols relating to persistent absence, they will also be looking to see whether those protocols are applied consistently across all staff. An awareness of the link between attendance and behaviour will help you in responding to their questions.
Staff training is where policies live or die
A behaviour policy that does not incorporate appropriate staff training is not just less effective – it is far more open to criticism from inspectors.
If a behaviour policy cites the use of restorative approaches or de-escalation strategies without accompanying staff training, this represents a particular risk, as inspectors will be looking for evidence that adults are capable of applying them. If an inspector asks your teaching assistant to explain what de-escalation means and they have little to say, they will note this as a weakness. Equally problematic would be five different explanations for how lateness should be managed, following observations of five different teachers.
Complete consistency in staff interactions is the theoretically optimal response to anti-social behaviour. This is because it gives pupils a clear sense of what to expect – they can be certain that their actions will lead to a particular outcome, because all adults respond the same way to misbehaviour. In practice, this is likely to involve developing a small number of consistent responses to categories of misbehaviour, following an INSET or training session on behaviour management. The most successful strategies will have been reinforced and developed through regular CPD sessions.
Leaders working through this process with their staff, particularly at a time of heightened inspection expectations around attendance and behaviour, may wish to consider external behaviour management training from this training organisation, which offers bespoke behaviour management support. The Behaviour Hubs programme, which offers school-to-school support from schools designated by the DfE for their behaviour management, is another valuable source of information. The key principle is that no behaviour policy is effective without the appropriate staff development, and that consistency in practice is the result of a mixture of training, supervision, and CPD.
Pupil voice as an inspection artefact
Inspectors will speak directly to pupils to establish their views on the fairness and consistency of behaviour management procedures. This is essential information for schools, because a pupil’s perception of the process is in many ways more informative than the process itself. A school that can show Ofsted that pupils understand that they contribute to their own behaviour management (for instance by discussing the code of conduct in consultation with them or providing examples of instances in which they hold each other to account) will be seen as operating a more effective behaviour management system than one where pupils are unable to comment on the procedures beyond stating that they were written down somewhere.
Capturing pupil voice should now be a routine part of behaviour-management review for all schools. If you have revised your policy, you should have a record of how pupil views were sought and incorporated. In practice, this does not necessarily require a full school parliament or digital consultation – a circle time activity or a focus group with students who have recently been referred for misbehaviour could be useful in identifying areas of concern. Equally simple methods might be used to explain to students how their feedback will shape any upcoming changes to policy or the code of conduct. The most important thing is that you can demonstrate your ability to consult and respond to pupil voice, whether through a student representative body or more informal methods of feedback collection.
The opportunity to capture student voice should also be used as an inspection preparation tool. It will be much easier to identify discrepancies or areas of concern if you ask students directly. Are the rules applied consistently across year groups? Do they perceive any particular teachers or units to be harder on them than others? Is there a particular area of misbehaviour that concerns them?
Data as a living document
Ofsted inspectors are looking for information on behaviour management, intervention, and outcomes. This means that it is no longer sufficient to simply have this information – you must be able to show that it was reviewed and acted upon.
A behaviour policy that has not been updated for several years will be viewed as evidence that it has not been actively considered. Equally, a data review that fails to produce any recommendations for policy change will appear to inspectors as evidence that no one has engaged with the information. This is why it is so important that you have someone in your school with responsibility for this information and that you have a process in place for reviewing it at regular intervals.
The patterns in the data should shape what a thorough review looks like. If you have evidence that certain sanctions are triggering further misbehaviour, or that exclusions or interventions are disproportionately affecting certain groups of students, inspectors will want to see this documented. Particular patterns of exclusion (by age, gender, or ethnicity) or times of day at which misbehaviour tends to occur should also be considered risk factors, as should the links between persistent absence and other forms of misbehaviour.
Form tutors, pastoral leads, or an internal inclusion unit should all be regarded as key parts of an effective behaviour-management strategy, and their involvement in the process should be demonstrated to Ofsted. This is particularly important if you utilise external agencies for challenging cases – you want to show Ofsted that these interventions were considered, and that other avenues have been exhausted, before any escalation. A multi-agency support plan is preferable to a one-school solution where possible, but this may not be practicable in all cases.
A practical reform sequence
If you are a school leader tasked with bringing your behaviour policy up to standard for Ofsted, the key thing to remember is that it is the journey, not the destination, that is important. Here is one possible sequence for achieving this:
Audit: Review your behaviour-related data over the past two years to identify patterns. What works? What doesn’t? Make sure you know what areas of concern Ofsted may raise with you.
Consultation: Following the audit, consult both staff and students to identify areas of concern, and discuss potential revisions to your behaviour policy.
Revisions: Based on your findings, revise your policy or accompanying documentation. Where necessary, address discrepancies between your behaviour policy and procedures. If your sanctions ladder has areas of escalation that are not appropriate, amend it.
Training: Use CPD to support staff in implementing any changes you have made. Consistency in behaviour management should be reinforced with new staff as a matter of course.
Documentation: Where relevant, document the changes you have made to your behaviour policy, either by adding new paperwork (e.g to address additional needs) or amending existing documents to reflect shifts in strategy. This is vital for Ofsted, who will want to see evidence of a living, breathing policy document.
Cycle: Set up a behaviour-cycle review for termly or more frequent meetings to assess your policy’s effectiveness.
Your policy paper is not as important as it used to be. The new Ofsted regime will not be satisfied with box-ticking exercises or statements of intent. What they want to see is a functioning behaviour management strategy.
