There aren’t many topics in education that trigger quite the same level of polarised division as the 'B' word. Curriculum sequencing? People will disagree but stay civil. Assessment? You’ll hear a broad range of views. Homework, uniform, rewards? All discussed and debated with respect, curiosity and tolerance (ironically the very values we’re trying to model for children).
Behaviour is different.
The moment it's raised, it feels like the gumshields instantly go in, the gloves come out and people retreat to their corners. In the red corner: “zero tolerance.” In the blue corner: “trauma-informed and relational.” This is most definitely the case on social media platforms. I would also like us to be able to challenge some of the lazy stereotyping around both approaches and the negativity colleagues face in relation to their chosen approach. For example:
Taking a trauma-informed and relational approach to behaviour doesn't mean you've got low standards and expectations. It doesn't mean your settings are unruly without discipline. It doesn't mean you're "soft".
Similarly if you're branded as a "zero tolerance" behaviour leader it doesn't mean you hate children, it doesn't mean you run a prison-camp and it doesn't mean you don't make reasonable adjustments for children with SEND.
(I don't necessarily agree with the 'branding' by the way, but these are what the two camps are often referred to as).
As Michael Buffer would say (and yes, PJ & Duncan "sung" it in the 90's too):
LET’S GET READY TO RUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMBLE!
Before the bell rings and you come out swinging, let’s pause. Why does behaviour cause such polarisation? And why does it seem impossible to be Switzerland here? Switzerland has managed neutrality since 1815 and it’s worked out reasonably well for them in the ensuing 210 years!
So, what might neutrality actually look like in schools? Before we go any further let us consider a real-life scenario.
Scene 1: The untucked shirt
A Year 8 pupil in a maintained school with no identified SEND need walks past a member of staff with their shirt untucked. This is in breach of the uniform policy.
Staff member: “Morning, NAME, could you tuck your shirt in for me please?”
Child: Ignores the member of staff and walks off.
Already, we can predict the split.
Red corner ("Zero tolerance")
Principle: Clear expectations, consistent enforcement. Every shirt tucked in, every time.
Evidence: The Education Endowment Foundation (EEF) stresses the importance of consistency at a whole-school level, especially for disadvantaged pupils (EEF, 2021). Furthermore, pre-pandemic surveys showed only 25% of secondary teachers felt behaviour policies were applied consistently across staff (EEF Blog).
Likely response: Reminder → sanction logged → escalation if defiance continues.
Blue corner ("Relational / trauma-informed")
Principle: Behaviour is communication. The shirt and silence could reflect stress, unmet need or just a rough morning. Focus on connection first, correction second.
Evidence: DfE (2018) guidance on ACEs highlights how punitive responses can entrench disengagement for children with adverse experiences. Relational approaches are linked to stronger long-term engagement and reduced exclusion rates (EPI 2021).
Likely response: Leave space → follow up later through tutor or trusted adult.
Scene 2: Escalation
Let’s imagine the child continues to ignore the adult, then escalates.
Child: “Shut up (or even F*%K off), you can’t tell me what to do.” (Verbal abuse)
Staff escalate this to the behaviour lead. The pupil becomes increasingly confrontational, refuses to follow simple and clear instructions, shouts or swears in front of peers and adults.
At this stage, both approaches are tested.
Zero tolerance: Line crossed → internal exclusion or possible suspension. Clear signal to all pupils that verbal abuse to staff is unacceptable.
Relational: Attempt to de-escalate → avoid public confrontation, engage restorative processes later.
The fallout
No matter the approach, escalation has consequences:
Staff wellbeing: Teachers do not enter the profession expecting abuse. NASUWT’s 2025 survey found 85% of teachers experienced verbal abuse in the past year, and 40% had been physically assaulted by pupils (NASUWT, 2025).
Parents and carers: Families may feel sanctions are unfair, leading to complaints, conflict, or online abuse. Around 24% of teachers reported being verbally abused by a parent in the past 12 months (NASUWT, 2025).
Extreme cases: Teachers report being threatened online, receiving death threats, or being targeted outside school (SW Londoner, 2025).
For the pupil, the risk could be exclusion, anxiety, and/or stigma. For the staff, it is stress, burnout, or as surveys show, leaving the profession altogether.
Where is there common ground?
Despite the presumed polarisation, both sides actually agree on a lot:
Staff have the right not to be ignored, abused or threatened.
Children need predictability and fairness.
Adults’ mental health matters. Unsupported staff cannot be effective teachers.
The goal is pupil self-regulation and responsibility, even if the route to that point differs.
So, can you be Switzerland?
Neutrality doesn’t mean indifference. It means resisting the pull of extremes.
You can demand high standards and recognise the impact of unmet need.
You can follow a policy consistently and make reasonable adjustments where needed.
You can defend staff wellbeing and nurture strong relationships with pupils.
In practice, schools can often blend both: Rules with relationships, structure with compassion.
Final thought
Being Switzerland on behaviour doesn’t mean sitting on the fence. It means acknowledging the legitimacy of both perspectives, holding the tension creatively and building a culture that is calm, fair and supportive to all.
Take out the gumshields. Put the gloves down. Embrace the positives of all approaches.
Because if we, as adults, cannot model respectful disagreement on behaviour what chance do our pupils have of learning it?
Want to have your say?
Ahead of our second podcast series we want to explore in detail the different views and opinions surrounding approaches to behaviour in the UK. If you'd like to be interviewed as part of this please get in touch with us by emailing info@theexcellencehub.co.uk
References
Education Endowment Foundation (2021). Improving Behaviour in Schools: Guidance Report. EEF
Education Endowment Foundation Blog (2021). Managing behaviour: the challenge of consistency. EEF
Department for Education (2018). Working with Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). DfE
Education Policy Institute (2021). Trauma-informed practice in schools. EPI
NASUWT (2025). Behaviour in Schools: Full Report. NASUWT PDF
NASUWT (2025). The Big Question Survey. NASUWT
NASUWT (2025). Teachers declare pupil behaviour emergency. NASUWT
SW Londoner (2025). Pupil violence towards teachers continues to surge across UK schools. SW Londoner
