Concerning behaviour management in schools, the work of Paul Dix and Tom Bennett have gained considerable attention in the UK.

In this post we compare and contrast the approaches and emphases of their work before showing how Dynamis’ conflict management training philosophy draws on the best of both.

Who is Paul Dix and what are his key ideas about behaviour management?

A British teacher and behaviour specialist with over 27 years experience in education, Paul Dix works internationally on behaviour, culture and school reform. His approach to behaviour management in schools is outlined in his 2017 book “When the Adults Change, Everything Changes”.

Dix advocates for a compassionate and adult-led approach to behaviour management. His central thesis is that adult behaviour in educational settings is pivotal to fostering a positive school culture. Dix emphasises the power of consistency, kindness, and adult authority in shaping student behaviour. He posits that when adults exhibit calm, controlled, and predictable behaviour, pupils are more likely to respond positively.

According to Dix there are several strategies which support effective behaviour management:

• Consistency and Routine: Establishing consistent routines and expectations to create a sense of security and predictability for students.

• A Relational Approach: Building strong, respectful relationships between teachers and students to promote mutual respect and understanding.

• Positive Reinforcement: Focusing on recognising and rewarding positive behaviour rather than solely punishing negative actions.

• Reflective Practices: Encouraging educators to reflect on their own behaviour and its impact on students, fostering a culture of continuous improvement.

Dix’s approach is heavily focussed on the role of the teacher as a model of desired behaviour, suggesting that changes in adult behaviour can lead to significant improvements in student conduct.

Who is Tom Bennett and what are the key aspects of his approach to behaviour management?

Tom Bennett is an independent behaviour advisor for the Department for Education. He leads the DfE’s Behaviour Hubs project and coaches teachers and schools internationally in all aspects of behaviour management and research integration.

Bennett’s views on behaviour management offer a different yet complementary perspective to Dix. His approach tends to emphasise structure, discipline, and evidence-based practices.

Key aspects of Bennett’s approach include:

• Strong School Policies: Advocating for clear, well-communicated behaviour policies that are consistently enforced across the school.

• Training and Support: Emphasising the need for comprehensive teacher training in behaviour management techniques to ensure that all staff are equipped to handle behavioral issues effectively.

• Zero Tolerance: Supporting a zero-tolerance stance on disruptive behaviour, advocating for firm consequences to maintain order and respect in the classroom.

• Research and Evidence: Utilising research and data to inform behaviour management strategies, ensuring that practices are based on what has been proven to work.

Bennett’s work often highlights the importance of maintaining high standards and clear boundaries to foster an environment conducive to learning.

How do Paul Dix and Tom Bennett’s ideas about behaviour management compare and contrast?

Paul Dix and Tom Bennett offer valuable insights into behaviour management in schools, each bringing a unique perspective to the table.

Both Dix and Bennett agree on the necessity of strong adult leadership in managing student behaviour and creating positive and effective learning environments. They both stress the importance of clear expectations and consistency in enforcing rules. Additionally, both approaches recognise the critical role of teacher training and support in effective behaviour management.

The primary difference lies in their methodologies and focal points. Dix’s approach is relational and centred on the psychological and emotional aspects of behaviour management, advocating for kindness, empathy, and positive reinforcement; whereas Bennett’s approach is more structured and discipline-oriented, with an emphasis on strict policies, firm consequences and evidence-based strategies.

Dix believes in changing adult behaviour to influence pupil behaviour positively. By contrast, Bennett focuses on the institutional framework and the need for clear rules and consistent enforcement to manage behaviour effectively.

Which approach does Dynamis use in its conflict management training programmes?

At Dynamis we aim to strike a balance between Paul Dix’s relational, empathy-focused methodology and Tom Bennett’s structured, policy-oriented approach.

Like Dix, Dynamis knows that transforming a school culture to emphasise respect and dignity can have a profound impact. By working to transform a ‘them and us’ mindset to a community-oriented atmosphere, schools can leave a lasting positive impression on students’ lives. It’s about fostering an environment where the actions and attitudes of today significantly influence students’ behaviour tomorrow.

Instead of traditional control-based approaches to discipline, Dynamis focusses on the Social Contract as the bedrock of our conflict management training programmes. One highlight during training programmes is the practical demonstration of the Five Ways to Show Respect, a key component in forming the Social Contract within a school. These Social Contracts mitigate adversarial relationships among staff, students and parents and nurture a community where relationships and mutual respect thrive.

Dynamis agrees with Bennett’s determination that school staff should be ready to face community challenges boldly, preserving the unity and social fabric of the school. Like him, we think that high quality training is key to equipping staff with the skills they need to treat individuals with dignity and respect, even in times of disagreement. We argue this is the core value that should form the bedrock of policy development and the cornerstone of communication across a school. Together, these create a school atmosphere where boundaries are clear, visible and upheld, standards are high and colleagues and students are supported.

When it comes to the scope of boundaries and how these are maintained, Dynamis training prorgammes place a special emphasises on setting safe boundaries, especially when pupils present with distressed behaviour, aggression or violence. We argue for a conflict management approach which includes how to manage physical aggression as a necessity to safeguard both students and staff members.

In school settings, concerns often arise about physical contact with students. Dynamis positive handling and conflict management training programmes address these concerns, highlighting that when necessary and proportionate, physical contact can be permissible under lawful circumstances. Staff learn a shared toolkit of de-escalation and conflict management strategies and support one another to use these when managing pupil behaviour. These include the use of empathy, redirection, persuasion and appropriate action – which can, as a last resort, include physical intervention.

With improved conflict management skills, a school’s cultural narrative can be rewritten. When staff change their interactions – employing empathy, redirection, persuasion and the abilty to take appropriate action – the culture shifts towards a more understanding and supportive environment where dignity and respect anchor every interaction. This ethos should be reflected in school policy and procedures, inform staff training and characterise communications between students, staff and the wider school community. It’s this approach that Dynamis believes offers a comprehensive strategy for managing student behaviour and fostering a positive school culture.

What do schools say about Dynamis’ approach?

Here are the comments of a vice-principal who attended a recent Dynamis’ training session “Relationships, Crises and Responses in Schools”:

“I am incredibly impressed with the experience and the valuable skills I gained. The training was comprehensive, engaging, and highly practical, making it one of the best professional development sessions I’ve attended.

The instructor demonstrated exceptional expertise and a deep understanding of conflict resolution. He provided clear, actionable strategies for managing tense situations, focusing on communication, empathy, and patience.

The real-life scenarios and role-playing exercises were particularly beneficial, allowing us to practice techniques in a safe and supportive environment. It was very useful that the instructor gave us examples of situations as well as used examples that we have specifically experienced as a team in our school.

The trainer was able to gauge what the participants knew already and which areas he needed to focus on. It was very clear from the start of the training that many members had misconceptions about the law and how to handle certain situations in school. The trainer was able to immediately pivot the training to make sure there are no misconceptions regarding what should and should not happen.

One of the standout aspects of the training was its emphasis on active listening and non-verbal communication. The trainers highlighted how crucial it is to understand not just what people are saying, but also what they are not saying. This holistic approach to communication will be invaluable in my interactions, helping to defuse potential conflicts before they escalate.

The training fostered a collaborative learning environment where participants could share their experiences and learn from one another.

Overall, the de-escalation training was a transformative experience. It has significantly improved my confidence and competence in handling difficult situations.

I highly recommend that this training should be extended to more members of staff to enhance their conflict resolution skills and create a safer, more respectful environment in their personal and professional lives. It will also serve as a way to make sure that there are no misconceptions regarding the handling of conflict situations.”