Challenging Behaviour in Primary Aged Children and How Should We Respond

Laura Liguori answers the question: what is challenging behaviour in primary aged children telling us and how should we respond?

Those of us who have been in education for a while have certainly come across a child with challenging behaviour.  We are aware of the difficulties these behaviours present and the impact it has on teachers, leaders, and the children themselves. This article focuses on how we should not rush to judgement when managing these behaviours and what we should consider having in place to ensure that the child’s best interests are taken into consideration while protecting the wellbeing of others in a school setting. The views in this article are not based on current research, rather a pragmatic approach is suggested based on experience. 

Challenging behaviour can take many forms and may be defined differently within a range of cultural, social, and educational contexts. However, challenging behaviour is usually classified as causing low or high-level disruption. Low-level disruption may present as persistent chatter not related to learning, moving around the classroom without permission, tapping pens or pencils on tables and other actions that aim to distract others. High-level disruption may present as confrontational, physically threatening, fighting, throwing classroom objects, and screaming and shouting.

Low-level and high-level disruptive behaviour, if left unchecked, can escalate quickly, and will impact others in a school setting. It will also influence the disruptive child by negatively impacting their mental and emotional wellbeing, learning in the classroom, and overall development. Depending on the context within which an international school operates, teachers and leaders may find that what they view as challenging behaviour has been normalized within certain societies and therefore not considered by parents and carers to be worthy of sanctions. To save the reputation of a family, parents may claim that the disruptive child is perfectly behaved at home, and it is the school’s failure to sufficiently challenge their child in lessons, therefore the child is simply bored. So how can international schools convincingly persuade parents and carers that their child is exhibiting challenging behaviours that are a cause for concern? 

A clearly articulated behaviour policy should be in place and reviewed annually. Parents, teachers, and all other key stakeholders in a school should read the policy and commit to a common understanding of unacceptable behaviour, procedures in place to address these behaviours, and the consequences of not adhering to those procedures. The focus of a behaviour policy should not aim to ‘punish’ children with extremely challenging behaviour but rather seek to understand why the child is exhibiting this behaviour and how the school will go about ensuring they receive the support they need. Having said that, we have a duty of care to protect other children and ensure they thrive in a safe environment. Therefore, sanctions should be stated but should also be proportionate, fair, and measured. Clearly stated in the policy should be the approach the school will take to determine the causes of such extreme behaviour such as those manifested due to Special Education Needs, safeguarding issues or the impact of COVID-19 and school closures resulting in online learning. 

As children who exhibit extreme behaviours can cause a great deal of stress to educators, at times, these children are labelled as naughty or bad or coming from a bad home. Working with these behaviours day after day can make it difficult to remember that most children are inherently good young people and that the behaviour they are showing us could be a cry for help. In the case of low-level disruptive behaviour, take an example of a child who repeatedly taps his or her pen on the table despite the teacher asking them to stop. Or the child who constantly has their hand up, ready to answer a question before hearing what the question is. Or the child who may stealthily and repeatedly poke or prod another child or chat with them to distract them from their learning. This type of behaviour may indicate that a child is lacking attention at home, and is seeking attention from their teacher, albeit it may result in receiving negative attention. It could also be that they are not feeling challenged in lessons. The child who is highly and persistently disruptive, violating school rules to the point of putting their safety and others at risk, and causing significant distress to others at school, presents a more complex picture.

Several factors could be contributing to this behaviour such as abuse or being a witness of abuse, having mental health issues, living with a parent with drug or alcohol abuse issues or a parent who has mental disorders. The child could also have an underlying disorder or learning difficulty that has not been yet diagnosed. Regardless of the cause, it is important to identify it as quickly as possible and to engage all key stakeholders. Most of the time, low-level disruption can be managed with existing policies and procedures and effective classroom management. However, what are the consequences of not being prepared for highly disruptive behaviour that is not normally manifested in a school?

Schools may not always be prepared to effectively manage extreme behaviour that does not fit with its overriding culture, ethos, and characteristics of its pupil population. At times, schools are ‘caught out’, even those with highly selective admissions criteria. When children enter schools at a very young age, at times, unwanted behaviour manifests as they mature, and these behaviours could not have been foreseen upon admissions. Nevertheless, a school has a duty of care to respond to and effectively protect the child and those who are affected by their actions. The following case study exemplifies the consequences of a lack of parental support coupled with a reactive rather than proactive approach to managing such behaviour. 

Due to a lack of parental engagement, a primary school was left to rely on limited resources and lack of professional input to effectively reduce the extreme behaviour of a primary aged child. The child was violent, causing high levels of disruption in class by hitting others, throwing furniture and classroom equipment, refusing to engage in lessons, and bullying others in the playground. His outbursts were unpredictable and a trigger for this behaviour could not be identified. For two years the parents refused to acknowledge that their child had a behavioural problem, stated that this is ‘how boys are’ and firmly placed the blame on the school, describing it as targeting their child, violating his civil liberties by removing him from the classroom to protect others, and labelling him as ‘bad’. The parent’s cultural background influenced their view on these behaviours, and they had also stated that ‘if the child had been a girl’, they might have accepted there was a problem. The lack of parental support coupled with their allegations greatly distressed his teachers who subsequently were complained against by other parents for not doing their job. 

Turning to the SENDCo when the behaviours first manifested resulted in a recommendation that the child be assessed by an Educational Psychologist to determine a potential underlying cause. For two years the parents resisted agreeing to such an assessment subsequently accusing the school of racial discrimination and unaccepting of their cultural values. Falling back on the safeguarding laws of the country where this took place, the Designated Safeguarding Lead pointed out that the child was experiencing high degrees of mental distress, and this was impeding their normal development; a failure to get the child the help he needed could result in negligence and a referral to social services. Only under this duress, did the parents agree to an assessment. The school wanted to recommend a psychologist, however the parents insisted on choosing their own private doctor which was their right. Whilst the child was diagnosed with a mild degree of mental disorder and anti-social behaviour, the report hinted that the school had not adequately trained its teachers to manage such behaviour. Whilst the school stated that without professional input, it would not have known how to effectively manage this case, and due to the delayed diagnosis, caused by the parents, the school accepted the view of the psychologist and considered the suggestions the psychologist had made and immediately began to implement those, providing relevant training to teachers. Over time, by consistently applying these measures, the incidences of aggressive behaviour reduced to the extent that the child could interact more positively with his peers and complete an acceptable amount of schoolwork. 

In addition to putting strategies in place to help the child, ongoing communication with the parents through the development of a home school diary whereby the child would be praised for positive behaviour at school, and a framework for how to discuss unwanted behaviour at school and at home, helped the child to understand the progress he was making and actions that were impeding his progress socially, emotionally, and academically. Whilst the child did have the occasional outburst, these were far reduced in frequency, and he became more aware of the consequences of his actions and better able to control his impulsive behaviour. The school continued to advocate that the parents seek counselling for the child and through a collaborative, positive relationship between parents and school, the child eventually received counselling. 

This case study highlights the challenges schools may face when fulfilling its duty of care to the child and others in the school community. After engaging in a case review, the school found that historically communication had been one-sided, whereby the parents were consistently receiving negative feedback about their child coupled with the suggestion that the child be assessed. The school also accepted that cultural norms did come into play and were not acknowledged to the extent they should have been. It was concluded that established rules and procedures may not always fit the needs of every child and in this case, more could have been done sooner. Therefore, being willing to carefully examine each case in turn, accounting for the context within which the school operates, and planning for teacher training to effectively manage extremely challenging behaviour, should be part of a whole school approach to managing challenging behaviour. This will put schools in good standing to be proactive in their approaches rather than reactive, significantly reducing distress caused to the child and those responsible for their care. 

Quite often, teachers may be reluctant to keep detailed records of daily or frequent incidences of disruptive behaviour because they may feel the child is being ‘put under a microscope’ and being unfairly judged. Some teachers might feel it exposes them as being ineffective at classroom management. As part of a school’s behaviour policy, it needs to be emphasized the importance of reporting every case of low-level and high-level disruption as it helps to build a picture of the child’s needs and to identify potential causes of this behaviour. When professionals are called in to assess a case, they will ask for this information to help them make the best possible evaluation of the child’s issues or to attribute these behaviours to contextual factors that are beyond their control. Working with all key stakeholders, communicating clearly that this level of record keeping is done with the best interests of the child in mind, ensures accurate and consistent reporting. In cases where reporting was inconsistent, assessments from professionals have been delayed and a school’s ability to map out intervention strategies were hindered. If such cases are referred to a social services agency due to safeguarding concerns, a lack of reporting may lead to incorrect conclusions causing even greater distress to the child and their family members. It also reflects poorly on the professionalism of the school. 

In summary, we know that every child reacts to circumstances in their lives in different ways and with younger children, behaviour is usually the first indicator that something is causing them distress or troubling them. It would not be in the best interests of the child to dismiss the child as being bad or difficult. Several factors need to be taken into consideration as detailed in this article. The key messages here are to immediately engage parents and staff to explore what may be causing unwanted behaviour, and to work with professionals to strategically plan a way forward for providing support. If we ground ourselves in the firm belief that a child’s behaviour can improve with the right level of support, and we accept that the path to achieving this can be riddled with obstacles, if we are strategic and well prepared, we can avoid unnecessary exclusions that could potentially impact the child for the remainder of their education and later in life.

Keeping a positive outlook and straying away from viewing these behaviours as troublesome and burdensome but rather acknowledging they are a cry for help, will greatly increase our chances of positive outcomes for these children and their families, as well as their teachers and schools.