Government behaviour adviser Tom Bennett has played down the role of restorative practices in the hubs scheme he helped to develop, after an evaluation report found around half of participating schools had shifted towards the approach.
Bennett, who led the development of the behaviour hubs programme under the last Conservative government, is critical of relying on restorative practices to manage pupils’ behaviour and has publicly defended strict approaches to discipline.
But, at the end of last month, a government-commissioned evaluation of the original hubs scheme found that an “increased focus on positive behaviour was often accompanied by a shift to restorative rather than zero tolerance behaviour management”.
The evaluation’s survey of participating schools found 52 per cent of those that responded had shifted towards restorative behaviour management while on the programme.
Rewarding good behaviour
Schools also adopted clear behaviour standards and increased their focus on preventing misbehaviour and rewarding good behaviour, the evaluation found.
But, speaking to Schools Week, Bennett denied that the hubs programme leaned towards restorative practice.
“The evaluation does not conclude that behaviour hubs leaned away from so-called ‘zero tolerance’ approaches or towards restorative practice,” he said.
“For starters, I have publicly campaigned for years against zero tolerance policies… You can be strict (as in highly consistent rather than highly punitive) without being zero tolerance.”
The survey defined restorative approaches as “strategies that focus on repairing harm and restoring relationships rather than simply punishing individuals for their actions”.
Restorative measures adopted by participating schools included “restorative conversations with pupils following a behaviour incident, as well as, or instead of, punishment”.
Reframing detentions
Schools also reframed detentions as a chance for pupils to reflect on their behaviour, reducing the frequency or length of suspensions, and considering external circumstances such as home life when deciding how to deal with misbehaviour.
Just 18 per cent of participating schools shifted towards zero tolerance measures – defined in the survey as “the strict enforcement of rules, often with immediate consequences for even minor infractions”.
Bennett said: “None of the schools that were assigned as lead schools operated on a zero-tolerance model, nor did any of the partner schools.
“The behaviour hubs actively encouraged schools to adopt greater levels of consistency, rigour and predictability, as ways to build healthy cultures, alongside pastoral and proactive strategies.”
Bennett has often defended high-profile schools with strict disciplinary policies. He denounced a safeguarding review of the Mossbourne Victoria Park Academy, launched in response to reports of abusive disciplinary practices, as a “hit job”.
Zero tolerance
However, he is critical of zero-tolerance policies that do not make exceptions, though he said this week that none of the schools he has visited took such an approach.
He told Schools Week the evaluation survey used categories based on “self-reported staff perceptions”.
“They are not independently verified measures of practice, nor do they map neatly onto defined models such as restorative justice or zero-tolerance frameworks.”
For example, he said that “increasing behaviour standards”, “prevention activity” and “rewards” were “all entirely consistent with schools operating highly structured, rules-based systems.
“They are not philosophical alternatives; they are complementary components of effective behaviour cultures.
“Similarly, the report does not define or measure a specific restorative model. References to restorative practice are inferred from reported shifts in activity, not from programme design or anything directly measured.”
Restorative actions were not the most frequently adopted strategy among schools participating in the hub programme. Seventy-two per cent of schools created behaviour standards, 66 per cent increased activities aimed at prevention, and 57 per cent increased rewards for good behaviour.
Biggest improvements
The schools that saw the biggest improvements commonly focused on rewarding good behaviour and increasing teachers’ responsibilities.
The behaviour hubs evaluation said that several schools had relied on punishing misbehaviour rather than rewarding good behaviour before joining the hubs programme, and in some cases used de-escalation techniques that “appeared to focus on shame”.
Bennett’s 2017 report on school behaviour, Creating a Culture, described both sanctions and rewards as “essential” parts of school behaviour policies.
He told Schools Week the hubs programme sought to help schools build “coherent, sustainable behaviour systems” rather than seeking to “move schools away from firm sanctions”.
“I think the evaluation shows many schools strengthening systems, expectations and supports,” he said. “It does not evidence a shift away from structured discipline, boundaries, high expectations, nor a move toward purely restorative models.”
Overall, the behaviour hubs evaluation found “consistent positive change in the behaviour of pupils” in participating schools, but with difficulties for schools facing substantial external challenges.
The Labour government has introduced integrated attendance and behaviour hubs as a successor to the Conservatives’ separate hubs programmes, with Bennett continuing in a lead role.
Your thoughts