Reflections on a Tom Bennett Presentation: The Importance Of Writing A Shitty First Draft (SFD)

Usually, I don’t write a Shitty First Draft (SFD). When things get tough, I usually just try and think things through, not write anything down. SFD is a term coined by Brené Brown, global researcher and speaker who over the last two decades has informed audiences around the world on the topics of courage, vulnerability, shame and empathy. I have been lucky enough to attend her leadership program, Dare to Lead in Ōtautahi, a few years ago. I strongly recommend this course for aspiring and experienced RTLBs, including those people in leadership positions. It was on this program that I first encountered the concept of writing SFD. Brené Brown first introduced the concept of SFD in her book, Rising Strong.

The SFD is written when you are feeling emotionally activated by someone or something and you just need to ‘off-load’. It is up to you if you share it with others. Some people keep their SFD to themselves. Some people feel comfortable sharing it. Writing a SFD became a necessary cathartic outlet…

One recent evening, on a cool Spring night, I received an invitation to attend Tom Bennett, who is known as the UK Behaviourist Tsar. Tom endorses a strict behaviourist approach. I delved into some of Tom’s content online to learn more about him.

The UK Government directed Tom Bennett to provide support and guidance around behaviour, at a national level. This includes the writing of behaviour-based publications. He has also developed a ‘Behaviour Curriculum’, highlighting the explicit teaching of desirable behaviour, such as lining up for class, going to assembly etc. His approach is similar to the Positive Behaviour for Learning (PB4L) framework that has been used in many primary and secondary kura, across Aotearoa. Tom Bennett also endorses sanctions and punishment. It is this content specifically, where we both deviate in behaviour philosophy.

I was curious to attend this day.

Tom Bennett talked a lot of sense in the morning session. A key theme during the session was that for students to flourish and succeed, there has to be three key components within the teaching program. Firstly, he highlighted the importance of ‘safety’, in general terms, as being important. Secondly, he espoused clear and predictable routines. This included the use of clear instructions that should be chunked, step-by-step. Finally, the importance of dignity was highlighted, where each student is treated as if they matter-they are worth something. Tom Bennett highlighted key phrases that teachers can use to promote dignity:

●      You matter.

●      You are going to be safe here.

●      In this classroom, you are going to be successful at learning. You all matter.

Tom Bennett also talked about the fact children need high standards and that they need to keep striving for their personal best. This is a ‘better than before’ philosophy. This content aligned with my beliefs around behaviour.

I also liked what Tom Bennett said around group work. That is, teach what effective group work looks like and the roles within the group. I have been an advocate of Cooperative Learning for a long time now, but unfortunately, I don’t see a lot of structured group work happening in our schools. Tom Bennett’s comments about Cooperative Learning brought me back to one of my fondest memories as a Resource Teacher: Learning and Behaviour (RTLB). That is, in 2014, I facilitated a Cooperative Learning Community of Practice (CoP) with a group of secondary teachers. This CoP also included RTLB coaching support in the classroom space. One of the (now retired) kaiako from the CoP came up to me recently at the local public library and said it was one of the best PLD opportunities she had attended. Her comment got me thinking: effective PLD, whether it is face-to-face or online, is about the positive impact (i.e. ripple effects) it has on participants.

In the afternoon session, Tom Bennett highlighted information around scripting and how it reduces cognitive load on the teacher, decreases cognitive bias, improves decision quality and builds habits of expectation. This also aligned with my philosophy.

Through these moments of positive engagement, my Window of Tolerance expanded significantly. I found myself socially connected and fully attentive to Tom Bennett’s message.

The Reason for Writing the SFD

However, most of Tom's content after lunch... was the metaphorical sucker-punch to my neuroscience midriff. There was a real wincing of pain to my midriff, like Mike Tyson unleashing with multiple punches … content about sanctions.

Sanctions-Impact on Ākonga

A sanction at school is a designated penalty for breaking a rule or expectation, sometimes repeatedly. Examples of sanctions at school may include: detentions, loss of privileges like free time, removal from class, and written apologies. At the more serious end of the sanction scale, suspension or permanent exclusion from school may occur. This can be for physical and verbal violence/assaults, damage to property or illegal drug-taking (as examples). 

Tom Bennett talked in general terms about how sanctions aim to deter. Words commonly used in his presentation included; ‘cautions’, ‘warnings’, ‘exits’ and ‘detentions’. His argument was that schools have to have sanction boundaries for when students are escalating. One of the key messages from the presentation, was:

Give-one warning, second warning, third warning and then you are out.

This sounds like a ‘three strikes and you are out policy’. I typed into an AI tool-the following question:

What does sanction research say on the impact of students? The following information, came-up:

Research indicates that sanctions (punishments for misbehavior) can have negative impacts on students, leading to poorer academic outcomes, reduced sense of belonging, and increased likelihood of deviance. While intended to promote compliance, punitive sanctions may also disrupt a student's social, emotional, and academic development.

Also, the following summary, was outlined on the negative impact of sanctions:

Social, Emotional, and Academic Development: Harmful sanctions can negatively impact a student's development across these key areas.

"Deviance Amplification": Some studies suggest that suspensions may lead to more significant long-term offending behaviors, rather than deterring them.

Sense of Rejection and Trauma: Sanctions can lead to feelings of rejection and trauma, potentially creating a cycle of negative experiences.

Poorer Academic Outcomes: Sanctions are often associated with lower academic attainment and early departure from school.

Disproportionate Impact: Sanction use disproportionately affects boys, black students, those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, and students with special educational needs.

I wanted to also find out whether or not sanctions had any positive impact on students, so I typed in the following question to the AI tool:

Do sanctions have any positive impacts on students? 

The following information was outlined:

While the intended purpose of sanctions is often to correct undesirable behavior or enforce rules, they do not typically have positive impacts on students, with some research indicating they can lead to negative academic outcomes, reduced well-being, and a weakened sense of belonging. Some studies suggest that negative sanctions are associated with improved behavior and discipline by deterring rule violations and fostering a moral personality, but these are often outweighed by negative effects on students.

In addition, the following information was outlined on the (often limited) potential positive impacts:

Behavioral Deterrence: The intended purpose of sanctions in education is to deter students from violating rules, thereby fostering a sense of discipline and helping them avoid making the same mistakes again.

Moral and Disciplined Personality: Sanctions are sometimes seen as necessary for the formation of a moral and disciplined personality in students who have violated school rules.

Overall, the positive impacts of sanctions are often not realised, and the potential harms to students' overall well-being and academic success are significant.

The summary of research suggests sanctions simply don’t work and are actually harmful to our tamariki.

I also want to highlight some pertinent academic-based research that directly promotes the voice of students in relation to the impact of sanctions on them. Jones et al., (2023) highlight the direct impact of sanctions on secondary students. In their systematic review, they were able to answer their research-based question:

How do children and young people perceive punitive in-school behaviour management policies and practice?

The review found some common themes emerged. This included that children and young people find that sanctions are not always applied fairly and consistently by secondary teachers and that some students will receive more sanctions than others and some students won’t receive any sanctions at all. Hence, the notion of favouritism by teachers was highlighted by students (Jones et al., 2023).  

Jones et al., (2023) also found that internal exclusion (e.g., going to the detention room) negatively impacted students' ability to keep up with their studies as they were not in class and the tasks assigned were often not class related.

Another theme that emerged is the negative emotional toll from applied sanctions-e.g., Removal from class. Children and young people highlighted many emotions, ranging from feeling shame, anger, despair, hopelessness and loneliness (Jones et al., 2023). It also appears that psychological safety is compromised when students are sent to exclusion or isolation rooms (Condliffe, 2023).

These appear to be deeply entrenched emotions, that I would argue, could stay with the person for life. These negative emotions in children and young people indicate activation of the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system, leaving them in a heightened state of alert — often expressed through the fight-or-flight (hyper-arousal) response.

This is where their body physiologically responds to stress: increased heart rate, blood flow and breathing (as examples). However, some students may go into a hypo-arousal state, where they withdraw or even shut-down. The feeling of shame will elicit such a response. Put simply, the application of sanctions damages relationships.

Window of Tolerance

I endorse a Trauma Informed Practice (TIP) approach where all ākonga feel connected, safe and seen, ably supported by educators who believe in the importance of co-regulation. This approach helps keep students in their Window of Tolerance, which is the optimal zone for regulation, learning, thinking and problem-solving. In fact, such an approach will actually expand students' window-however, applying sanctions will contract it. Another problem with applying sanctions is that they are often adult-driven. Student voice is often the missing piece of the puzzle. In contrast, a TIP approach often utilises a problem-solving approach where student voice is often at the centre of collaborative decision-making. This enables for autonomy and self-control to be developed.

Our behaviour philosophies are literally as different as chalk and cheese. This difference will become clearer as I explain my own philosophy and how it has been shaped over the last three-to-four years.

Explaining my own Behaviour Philosophy

Shaped By RTLB Cluster Wide Practices: I have completed significant Professional Learning and Development (PLD) over the last three-to-four years, focusing on neuroscience. This includes understanding and implementing Bruce Perry’s Neurosequential Model of Education (NME). This model highlights, among other things, the stress response of the brain and a clear sequence to help overcome this: Regulate, then Relate, then Reason.

Ross Greene’s Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS) model has also helped me gather authentic student voice. Specifically, the CPS process has helped ākonga overcome their specific unsolved problems, which also helps them acquire important life skills related to adaptability, flexibility, frustration tolerance and problem-solving. A key mantra is the idea that students via the facilitation of the ‘Plan B’ process are actually the font of all knowledge-not adults (i.e., promoting ‘Plan A’).  My own CPS practice, although a ‘work in progress’, has helped evolve my RTLB practice, as well.

In addition, alongside my colleagues this year, I have been able to take a deep-dive into neuro-affirming practice, which includes many ‘gold gems’ from Professional Learning and Development (PLD) presenters/actors from Mind Over Manner, which is described on their website, as ‘Theatre for Social Change’. In addition, Madelaine Armstrong-Willcocks, from The Neurodiversity in Education Project, has provided me with excellent theory and practical tips, with regards to meeting the needs of neurodivergent ākonga. Having clear and concise communication pathways, which includes unpacking the first step of a task, comes to mind. I also enjoyed hearing from neurodivergent ākonga about what strategies work for them in the classroom space-this includes the strategy outlined above. Earlier this year, Madelaine also spoke on a RTLB Aotearoa Professional Learning Network (PLN) webinar and I know her presentation was very well-received by many RTLB’s across the motu.

Shaped By RTLB Aotearoa Professional Learning Network (PLN): My behaviour philosophy has also been clearly shaped and refined by my participation on the RTLB Aotearoa Professional Learning Network (PLN), over the last two and a half years. I am currently a member of three key PLN rōpū: CPS, Te Whare Whakaruruhau (i.e., Trauma-Informed Practice (TIP)) and RTLB Practice Leaders. I have also written thought-provoking blogs for each of these rōpū.

Both RTLB Cluster-wide practices and my participation on the RTLB Aotearoa PLN, should not be seen as mutually-exclusive from each other, in terms of my own Professional Learning and Development (PLD). Both organisations have helped evolve my own behaviour philosophy in an integrated manner, shaping my own RTLB professional identity, along the way.

‘Walking the talk’ as An Agent of Change

With a personal philosophy embedded in a Trauma Informed Practice (TIP) approach where all ākonga feel connected, safe and seen, ably supported by educators who believe in the importance of co-regulation. With my Window of Tolerance rapidly closing, I had a burning question to pose to Tom Bennett. I did some deep breaths, prior to talking. Calm, calm, calm. Then the kupu flowed confidently out of my mouth... I mustered all my courage and asked Tom Bennett the following:

“Tom, I notice with your presentation today that you haven’t integrated anything around neuroscience or discussed the brain’s stress response. Why is that?”

If communication guru Vanessa Van Edwards, the author of Cues, was observing Tom Bennett she may have commented on his body language. His arms-crossed, he backed-away towards the hall stage with a half-smile. It appeared that in that moment he wanted as much distance from me as he possibly could. Vanessa Van Edwards would describe this as a form of communication blocking.

After a moment of silence, Tom Bennett replied that neuroscience was not important to him and that he would “leave that stuff to the psychologists.”

Personally, I believe it is everyone’s responsibility to understand neuroscience, not just psychologists. It is the ‘real’ science behind behaviour. Such a strong evidence-base is not easily dismissed. The day started with such optimism for me, but then there was that afternoon sucker punch, the minimisation of neuroscience!

I wished I had taken the opportunity to chat privately with Tom Bennett after his presentation to find out more about his behavioural position and to share my own. Also, to help answer some burning questions. Maybe, having answers to these questions, I would have obtained a greater insight from Tom Bennett about his position on sanctions that I hadn’t gained from his presentation. It was a lost opportunity on my part. I would have asked:

1. What do the students say about sanctions?

2. What is the impact on them?

3. How does it make them feel?

I raise these important student-centred questions because we surely need to be led by ākonga and their views, similar to a Plan B CPS focus.  If the answers to these questions were mostly positive feedback from a significant part of the student population, then use of sanctions may have some sort of place in our schools. But we know sanction-based research tells us otherwise. Problems arise when adults assume that sanctions are the correct approach, especially when ākonga simply do not have the skills to meet the behavioural expectations they are being sanctioned for. I was struck by the contrasts in Tom Bennett’s presentation as there was such useful content in the morning but then sanctions and punishment in the afternoon? It left me feeling quite confused.

As a matter of fact, I was more than confused, I felt emotionally fatigued and a need to get this negative energy out of my body... I know the answer, I will write a Shitty First Draft (SFD). And so, I did. All the kupu just came out-and it had to. Writing was a form of professional re-cleansing and a way for my nervous system to also reset-get back into my Window of Tolerance. Writing the SFD was for therapeutic purposes-hence for private viewing, only. It has allowed me to move on, physiologically and emotionally. My muscles in my body now feel relaxed and my mind feels a lot clearer.

If you’re stuck; try writing a SFD 

I do recommend the SFD process. It is ideal when you hear or see something that does not sit comfortably with you or does not align with your personal or professional philosophy. It could also be used for an experience that does not go to plan... I also wonder if All Black coach, Scott Robertson, has used it in recent times? I typed my SFD into a Word Document, but you might prefer a hand-written version. Try it. You might also want to include pictures with the words. I didn’t include pictures or graphics. The SFD may be something you can add to your kete of professional tricks, when you are faced with challenging moments, at work.

Final Reflections

In Aotearoa, there is now a groundswell of support for the importance of neuroscience and CPS practice. RTLB Aotearoa PLN provides a comprehensive national platform for this via the delivery of blogs, podcasts and webinars, among other things. Many RTLBs are evolving their practice and aligning their RTLB professional identity with the importance of neuroscience and CPS practice, as well. This is great to see. Pedagogical change around how we manage behaviour is happening across Aotearoa ... but there will still be choppy waters ahead. RTLB are challenged to find ways of working with educators who still firmly believe in the behaviourist approach. This is the wero-for educators firmly fixed in the behaviourist mindset to start to realise another (better) alternative and to listen to the voices of our ākonga and whānau.

I believe it is imperative practice evolves because sanctions and exclusion of students from primary and secondary kura just leads to further trauma for them and their whānau. It widens their feeling of disconnection from mainstream education. These negative measures are certainly not the answer and are the antithesis of inclusion and equity practices. Unfortunately, exclusions and punishments are negatively playing with ākonga and whānau lives.

Finally, school leaders are in a pivotal role where they can promote positive behaviour change for ākonga. School-wide change starts with them. They first have to recognise that change is required in the first place-that a traditional compliance-based discipline system is flawed and that a neuroscience framework genuinely addresses the difficulties ākonga are experiencing and moves us towards improved outcomes for all.

Acknowledgements

I'd like to acknowledge the RTLB Aotearoa PLN members, especially Fi Harkness and Anna Ladbrook, whose ideas and editing helped shape this published version — a true Community of Practice. Much appreciated!

References: 

Condliffe, E. (2023). ‘Out of sight, out of mind’: an interpretative phenomenological analysis of young people’s experience of isolation rooms/booths in UK mainstream secondary schools. Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 28(2–3), 129–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2023.2233193

Rebecca Jones, Jana Kreppner, Fiona Marsh & Brettany Hartwell (2023)

Punitive behaviour management policies and practices in secondary schools: A systematic

review of children and young people’s perceptions and experiences, Emotional and

Behavioural Difficulties, 28:2-3, 182-197,  https://doi.org/10.1080/13632752.2023.2255403

---

 RTLB Aotearoa Feedback  

We value your input. Please take a few moments to share your reflections on our content. Your feedback helps us to improve and continue offering relevant, high-quality professional learning. ➡️ RTLB Aotearoa Feedback