Is behaviour a communication?

There is a debate raging on Twitter and beyond between two diametrically opposing camps. On the one hand we have people who state that behaviour is a choice; young people need boundaries and routines. This has resulted in Ready to Learn policies and zero tolerance of any form of misdemeanour. Actions bring consequences. The most extreme version being the “flattening the grass” approaches of some MATS.

On the other we have a view that all behaviour is a communicator of unmet need. If we assess and meet the need then the behaviour can be managed by co-regulation with an adult in relationship with the child. This is informed by studies such as the Adverse Childhood Experiences research and trauma informed practice.

I often feel that this bi-polarization of views is unhelpful. It's a bit like the nature nurture debate which has been blown out of the water by the study of epigenetics. One is dependent on the other and vice versa. Or genes affect our behaviour but they are also physically adapted to their environment – it is a symbiotic relationship.

Ready to Learn and zero tolerance approaches ignore the fact that many young people are directly affected by early childhood trauma. This trauma has physically changed brain architecture. Very often these young people are in a heightened state of hyper vigilance, scanning for potential threats and constantly on alert. Proponents of this approach argue that the certainty that there will be a consequence to any misdemeanour is a safety net for any child and ensures that all children can learn in a safe environment.

The view that all behaviour is a communicator of unmet need is perhaps an over generalization. Perhaps the people who say this never played teacher baiting with NQTs when they were kids. I did, it was fun. Was I trying to get an unmet need met. was I communicating some locked trauma – No!

Should we differentiate our approach to behaviour? There is obviously a need for whole school approaches for the vast majority of young people. They can follow rules; they avoid consequences and comply with school rules. We create safety through structured routines and expectations. For some however, should we look beyond what we see and look to the functions of the behaviour ?

Dreikers in 1959 listed 4 goals of misbehaviour that are still relevant today. Attention, power, Display of inadequacy and revenge. Behind each of these is an emotional response either to what is happening in the here and now or something that has happened in the past. If we can look beyond the behaviour to the functions of it, we can help to manage it and get underneath it. This early work can be reinforced by more up to date research into trauma informed practice, and neuroscience. These approaches are often mistaken for not having any consequence and ignore any rules. They don't have to but they do enable us to look deeper and understand better.

In this way behaviour can be seen as a communicator of an emotion rather than just an unmet need. We can then differentiate between normal teenage game of cat and mouse played in classrooms up and down the country every day and truly understanding what children who do not respond to sanctions and simple consequences are telling us.