Supporting students through behaviour improvement programmes

This digest found in

Behaviour

How did the location and structure of BESTs affect their work?

The location of BESTs varied considerably and included:

on-site locations serving individual primary and secondary schools;
on-site locations serving clusters of schools; and
central locations in LA premises.

On-site location often enabled BEST staff to respond more quickly to instances where support was needed. Centrally located BESTs had, in some cases, access to a greater range of specialists. Some schools shared a BEST and also had access to a central BEST that contained more specialised staff including educational psychologists and child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) workers. Members of school staff linking with the BEST were usually lead behaviour professionals (LBPs), although liaison with headteachers, pastoral staff and strategy groups was not uncommon. BEST coordinators were mainly line managed by LA officers.

BESTs brought teachers together with a range of professionals, such as educational psychologists, social workers, Education Welfare officers, and also sometimes police officers and professionals from youth or play work backgrounds. In some cases the LA set up and appointed staff to the BEST whilst in other LAs funding was devolved to schools so they could recruit staff to the BEST. Some LA BESTs already existed. All LAs used government funding to support BESTs.

BESTs usually contained representatives from education, (mental) health and social care. In some BESTs LBPs, Learning Mentors, Education Welfare officers, play/youth staff and police officers were part of the team, in others these personnel were based in schools and worked with the BEST. The numbers of staff in each team ranged from 5 to 31, although many BESTs had 12 or fewer members.

The inclusion of staff with different professional backgrounds and specialisms was a key factor contributing to a holistic approach to students’ problems, the sharing of a range of skills and expertise relating to casework and interventions, and opportunities for professional development.

Your path: Home > Welcome to The Research Informed Practice Site (TRIPS) > Themes > Behaviour > Supporting students through behaviour improvement programmes > How did the location and structure of BESTs affect their work?
Research Home Themes \| Find digests \| About the digests resources glossary researchers contact TRIPS Introduction How did the pupils benefit? How did schools and their staff benefit from working with other agencies? What impact did behaviour improvement programmes have on parents, families and the community? How did the location and structure of BESTs affect their work? How did behaviour improvement programmes support schools, students and parents? How was the evidence collected? What are the implications for practice? Where can I find out more? Send us your feedback Collated digests To find out more about collated digests click here Get Word Reader Supporting students through behaviour improvement programmes This digest found in Behaviour Send to a friend Word doc 90KB Printer friendly Collate for later How did the location and structure of BESTs affect their work? The location of BESTs varied considerably and included: on-site locations serving individual primary and secondary schools; on-site locations serving clusters of schools; and central locations in LA premises. On-site location often enabled BEST staff to respond more quickly to instances where support was needed. Centrally located BESTs had, in some cases, access to a greater range of specialists. Some schools shared a BEST and also had access to a central BEST that contained more specialised staff including educational psychologists and child and adolescent mental health service (CAMHS) workers. Members of school staff linking with the BEST were usually lead behaviour professionals (LBPs), although liaison with headteachers, pastoral staff and strategy groups was not uncommon. BEST coordinators were mainly line managed by LA officers. BESTs brought teachers together with a range of professionals, such as educational psychologists, social workers, Education Welfare officers, and also sometimes police officers and professionals from youth or play work backgrounds. In some cases the LA set up and appointed staff to the BEST whilst in other LAs funding was devolved to schools so they could recruit staff to the BEST. Some LA BESTs already existed. All LAs used government funding to support BESTs. BESTs usually contained representatives from education, (mental) health and social care. In some BESTs LBPs, Learning Mentors, Education Welfare officers, play/youth staff and police officers were part of the team, in others these personnel were based in schools and worked with the BEST. The numbers of staff in each team ranged from 5 to 31, although many BESTs had 12 or fewer members. The inclusion of staff with different professional backgrounds and specialisms was a key factor contributing to a holistic approach to students’ problems, the sharing of a range of skills and expertise relating to casework and interventions, and opportunities for professional development.