Thread by @benkarlin1

“Behaviour communicates unmet need.”

A thread in which I will aggravate almost everyone.

It seems pretty obvious that behaviour often communicates unmet need. This shouldn’t be controversial; in fact, it’s explicitly stated in the SEND code of practice and in DfE-stamped NPQ SENCO framework.

If we acknowledge it in the context of SEND, it should not be a wild leap of faith to acknowledge it in the context of needs that do not rise to a diagnosis of SEND, especially since SEND/not is a blunt and unhelpful binary to begin with.

Even less controversial should be “all behaviour is communication” since, you know, it just very obviously is.

Where the controversy comes, of course, is in what to do about these insights once we have acknowledged them as true. This debate can often *feel* as though educators have a binary choice - respond to the behaviour OR respond to the need the behaviour communicates.

People on both sides (lol, can’t believe I just wrote that, and more later on why the two sides are not the same) of the debate contribute to the impression that this is a choice, largely because they are responding to each other, not to the substance of the issue.

The truth is that, of course, educators must respond BOTH to the immediate behaviour AND to the underlying need. The difference is when, and how, to respond to each one.

Our response to the immediate behaviour has to account for a number of factors - the safety of the individual, their learning, the safety and learning of others, and the message we wish to send about the boundaries of acceptable behaviour at school, to name a few.

Our priority in these moments is to ensure that learning can take place safely and without disruption, because everyone in every school is entitled to expect this.

This priority limits our ability to account for underlying need in our immediate response to behaviour. Some ways we can account for it are tone (calm and measured) and choice of language (specific not general; not making it personal).

The biggest way we can account for it is by having a predictable, consistent response to behaviour (do A; B happens) since, as trauma-informed practice advocates would all agree, routine, structure and psychological safety are among the biggest unmet needs of all.

The above implies (and I support) strict, consistently enforced behaviour policies that prioritise safe and disruption-free learning environments in and out of the classroom.

That does NOT mean that schools can ignore underlying need. And (this is where I’m going to dispense with the both sides schtick) it’s simply a misrepresentation of “strict” schools to say that they do ignore it.

And to be clear - schools absolutely benefit from clear, consistently enforced routines. Labelling such practice as coercive or “prison-like” or whatever is just silly, as much as I’m also not a fan of supporters of such schools sneering at “all behaviour is communication”.

The best schools have consistent routines and behaviour systems, AND a robust support structure to work with students and support them to address the issues underlying their behaviour. It’s nonsense to imply that they don’t.

But the two things happen at different times. It is not reasonable, nor conducive to learning or happiness, to expect individual teachers to consider all the “unmet needs” of their students *in the moment of responding to the students’ behaviour*.

There must be two systems - one that supports teachers to respond swiftly, calmly & consistently to disruptive behaviour, prioritising safety and learning, and another that supports them to respond compassionately & constructively to underlying needs, prioritising long term care

The two systems need to overlap, to be cohesive and to support each other - no teachers undermining the slow work of supporting an insecure student by worsening their insecurities; no pastoral leaders giving students tools to undermine the authority of teachers.

But they are two different things happening in two different times and places, and we can - must - hold both in our heads at the same time.

To end with a (hypothetical) example - Jay is a yr 9 student with a ADHD and caring responsibilities. In my lesson, Jay shouts out multiple times, then begins flicking paper at another student. I use the school system and Jay is on his last warning before removal from the lesson.

As the teacher, I must of course know about Jay’s needs and his situation. I should have proactively put things in place to support him - scaffolding of work; considered seating plan; checking in early; etc.

It’s also somewhat helpful to have this context in my immediate response to Jay’s behaviour - it makes it doubly important that I maintain a calm, non-judgemental tone and try rode-escalate any conflict arising from the behaviour.

But it’s simply unfair for me to avoid removing Jay from the classroom if I would remove another student in the same circumstances. His needs do not trump the need (and right) of my other students to a safe, positive learning experience.

Not to mention the fact that Jay’s diagnosis and turbulent home life mean he also has a need for safe, consistent boundaries and predictable responses from adults to his behaviour. I fail him and other students if I do not provide this.

But if I remove Jay and he then receives a sanction but no further support as if that will fix the problem, I - or rather my school - has ALSO failed him. I will have dealt with his behaviour, but not with his communication. Ignore the sniping. We have to do both.

Fin.