行为支持项目 奖励 恢复性做法 纪律管理
2026 年 1 月，英国教育部在 gov.uk 上公布了行为支持项目的最终评估报告。这份由 NatCen 完成的 136 页报告，使用现实评估与定性比较分析两种方法，回答同一个问题：让学校彼此结对，真的能改善学生行为吗。报告给出的答案是有条件的肯定，也把学校在纪律管理上的具体做法列了出来。下面按照报告的顺序，把这些做法拆开讲。
The Department for Education published the final evaluation of the Behaviour Hubs programme on gov.uk in January 2026. The 136-page NatCen report asks a simple question: does pairing schools with each other actually change pupil behaviour? Its answer is a qualified yes, and it lists what partner schools did differently in day-to-day discipline.
项目起点与三条支持通道
项目在 2021 年 4 月启动，依据是 2017 年汤姆·贝内特的独立评审《Creating a Culture》。评审提出三条原则：学校要清楚自己的文化是什么，对学生保持高期待，把日常规范执行到细节。项目按这一思路设计了三条通道。核心通道面向已经开始改做法的学校，配套 3000 英镑经费，全年投入 12 到 20 天。延伸通道是一对一指导，经费 9000 英镑，投入 30 到 40 天。多校信托通道经费 6000 英镑，先在信托层面铺开，其中一所学校获得延伸支持。所有学校都要参加行为顾问主持的线上模块，内容涵盖领导与管理、特殊教育需要、规范与惯例、奖惩与出勤。
Launched in April 2021, the programme followed the principles of Tom Bennett's 2017 review, Creating a Culture, which stressed a clear view of school culture, high expectations and consistency in daily routines. Three streams carried different levels of funding and commitment: core at 3,000 pounds with 12 to 20 days of participation, extended at 9,000 pounds with 30 to 40 days of one-to-one support, and a multi-academy trust stream at 6,000 pounds. Every partner school also attended adviser-led virtual modules covering leadership, SEND, systems and norms, sanctions and rewards, and attendance.
最终评估用了哪些数据
最终报告在 2026 年 1 月 29 日发布，编号 RR1596，由 NatCen 承做，接续了 Ecorys 的阶段性工作。评估把现实评估与定性比较分析结合起来，前者解释机制，后者把结论推广到更大的样本。基线问卷收集到 9688 份教职员问卷与 31886 份学生问卷，跟踪问卷分别是 4235 份与 18635 份，其中 1290 名教职员可以配对比较。第二波案例研究覆盖 25 所合作学校，累计 138 次访谈与焦点小组。定性比较分析问卷在 2025 年 6 月到 7 月间发放，包含 38 道封闭题，采用 1 到 8 分标尺，每份答卷平均由 3.15 位教职员共同完成。
The final report was published on 29 January 2026 as RR1596, with NatCen building on earlier work by Ecorys. The design combined realist evaluation with qualitative comparative analysis, so that mechanisms found in case studies could be generalised across a much larger sample. Baseline surveys collected 9,688 staff and 31,886 pupil responses, the follow-ups 4,235 and 18,635, with 1,290 staff matched across waves; a bespoke QCA survey of 38 closed questions ran in June and July 2025.
评估给出的总体结论
报告认为项目大体实现了目标，在全国范围内推动了可持续的行为管理改进。参与评估的学校中有 80% 认为项目很有用，学生规模较小的学校与改善最明显的学校评价最高。行为变化的平均分是 8 分制的 6.48 分，其中 1 分代表明显变差，8 分代表明显改善。在 110 份定性比较分析答卷中，只有 4 份对学生行为变化给出的分数低于 5。98% 的学校相信这些改变能够延续，前提是教师与高层管理团队继续投入，并且愿意随情况调整。报告也写明，改善与项目有关，外部因素同时起了相当作用。
The evaluation concluded that the programme largely met its objectives and produced systemic, sustainable change in how schools manage behaviour. Around 80 per cent of participating schools rated it very useful, with the highest scores from small schools and from those reporting the largest improvements; the average behaviour change score was 6.48 out of 8. Nearly all responding schools, 98 per cent, believed the changes would last, provided staff and senior leaders stayed engaged, and the report is explicit that other causal factors mattered alongside the programme itself.
从惩罚优先转向奖励优先
改善最明显的学校有一个共同点：把奖励做得更细。报告显示，57% 的学校表示奖励好行为的做法增加，且常常是明显增加。同期只有 18% 的学校表示零容忍做法增加，投入最少的方向恰恰是收紧零容忍，以及把行为责任全部交给高层管理团队。改善最大的学校还在另一件事上加了码，就是让任课教师承担更多行为管理职责。很多学生以为纪律管理就是加罚，报告里最有效的一组做法却是把识别与表扬做在前面。常见的错误是只给奖励加预算，却不告诉教师什么样的行为值得当场表扬，结果奖励变成随机的好人卡。
Schools that improved most had one thing in common: they sharpened rewards rather than sanctions, with 57 per cent reporting an increase in rewarding positive behaviour. Only 18 per cent reported more zero-tolerance measures, and the least investment across the sample went into tightening zero tolerance or shifting behaviour responsibility entirely to senior leaders. The strongest group also increased the behaviour responsibilities of classroom teachers, which suggests the point was to put recognition earlier in the lesson rather than to punish later.
恢复性做法与零容忍的比例差异
报告提到，强化正面行为的做法往往伴随一次转向，即从零容忍转为恢复性做法。恢复性做法的意思是把重点放在修复关系与理解伤害，而不是单纯惩罚当事人。这项转变在小学更常见，65% 的小学表示恢复性措施增加，中学的比例是 36%。项目负责人在《Schools Week》的回应里提醒，报告并没有说项目放弃了明确的纪律边界，牵头学校中也没有一所采用零容忍模式。他说项目鼓励的是高度一致与可预期，而不是更严厉的惩罚。两种说法放在一起看，纪律管理的实际变化是惩罚与修复的配比在移动，而不是其中一方被取消。
The report notes that a stronger focus on positive behaviour often came with a shift from zero tolerance towards restorative practice, which concentrates on repairing relationships rather than simply punishing. That shift was far more common in primary schools, where 65 per cent reported more restorative measures, than in secondary schools at 36 per cent. Tom Bennett, who led the programme's development, told Schools Week that the evaluation does not show a move away from structured discipline, and that no lead school operated a zero-tolerance model.
把行为任务分给具体的人
中学生的行为改善与一件组织安排关系最紧：把行为相关的具体任务分配给新设或已有的岗位。报告把这条写进建议，鼓励未来的项目推广标准化的行为监测数据，并为行为工作指定固定的负责人。改善明显的学校还提高了任课教师在政策制定与执行中的参与度，教师不再只是执行者。报告的观点是，责任从高层团队单点承担，转为全校共同承担。常见的错误是把行为岗位设成兼职的临时任务，没有人对数据负责，问题就只能在爆发之后才被看见。
In secondary schools, improvement was tied closely to giving specific behaviour tasks to new or existing staff, and the report recommends that any future programme support standardised behaviour monitoring data alongside clearly allocated behaviour roles. The most improved schools also brought classroom teachers into designing and running the policy, so responsibility moved from a single senior leader to the whole staff body. A common mistake is creating a behaviour post as a temporary add-on, which leaves nobody accountable for the data until an incident forces the issue.
政策写出来之后怎么落地
报告用一整组问题追问政策的执行，发现学校在四个方面明显改善。沟通做得更清楚，对教师和对学生的说明都更到位。执行的一致性提高，同一件事在不同课堂的处理不再两样。说明政策的频次增加，教师会与家长会上都会重复讲过。政策语言也简化了，长句与术语变少。参与评估的学校还在政策的设计与测试环节引入了更多高层管理团队与任课教师。很多学生以为行为政策是贴在墙上的文本，实际上决定效果的是教师是否记得它、是否照着做。
A whole group of survey questions tracked how schools implemented their behaviour policy, and improvements showed up on four fronts: clearer communication with both staff and pupils, greater consistency in applying rules, more frequent reminders, and simpler language in the policy text itself. Schools also involved senior leaders and classroom teachers more in designing, developing and testing that policy. Many pupils treat a behaviour policy as something printed on a wall, yet what decides its effect is whether staff remember it and apply it the same way every day.
行为数据与监测的作用
大型学校从行为监测数据中受益最明显，报告的用词是增加使用与收集行为监测数据。数据的作用是让学校看到问题分布在哪一年组、哪一段时间、哪一类事件上。没有数据的学校只能依赖教师的印象，处理方式随人而变。报告在建议里专门提到，未来的项目应当推动标准化的行为监测数据。这里要注意口径，报告说的标准化指的是全校统一记录与统一分析，不是给每个学生打行为分。教职员问卷与跟踪问卷的样本量差异也提醒读者，部分结论建立在较小的跟踪样本上。
Large schools benefited most from greater use and collection of behaviour monitoring data, which shows where incidents cluster by year group, time of day or type of event. Without that data, schools fall back on staff impressions and responses vary from teacher to teacher; the report recommends that future programmes support standardised behaviour monitoring. The standardisation it describes is about consistent recording and analysis across a school, not about scoring every pupil's behaviour.
让项目起作用的条件
报告列出的成功条件里，排在前面的都不是资源投入。教职员个人的动机是第一项，报告认为它甚至是学生行为出现最明显改善的必要条件。合作学校到牵头学校和其他合作学校实地参访，被反复提到无法用线上交流替代。项目允许学校按自己的需要调整方案，这一灵活性同样关键。牵头学校的能力、沟通与乐于帮忙，构成合作关系里最重要的部分。容量与资源排在最后，却不是无关紧要的一项。这些条件里，只有参访与匹配关系属于项目可以直接安排的部分。
The success factors the report ranks highest are not simply resources. Staff motivation came first and was treated as necessary for the largest improvements in pupil behaviour; in-person visits to lead and other partner schools were repeatedly described as something online contact could not replace. Flexibility to tailor the programme locally also mattered, as did the lead school's competence, communication and willingness to help, with capacity and resourcing closing the list.
拖住学校的外部阻力
超过三分之一的受访学校表示在实施过程中遇到重大外部挑战。报告写明，这些学校没有一所进入改善最明显的一组，外部挑战的缺席反而成了最明显改善的必要条件。报告举的例子包括与家长关系困难、疫情后的适应问题、特殊教育需要学生比例高。容量与资源不足被 39% 的学校选为第一或第二重要的阻碍。参与学校的重点工作互相冲突、日程撞车也在名单上。教职员流动的影响则因校而异，改善最明显的学校反而担心低流动，因为旧习惯难改，新教师更容易接受新做法。改善最弱的学校抱怨的正是高流动，一致性难维持，培训要一遍遍重来。
More than a third of responding schools reported substantial external challenges while running the programme, and none of them reached the group with the largest improvements, which made the absence of such challenges necessary for the best results. Examples include difficult relationships with parents, post-pandemic adaptation and a high proportion of pupils with special educational needs; poor resourcing or lack of capacity was ranked first or second by 39 per cent of schools, with competing priorities and scheduling conflicts close behind. Staff turnover cut both ways: the most improved schools feared low turnover because entrenched habits resist change, while the least improved schools struggled with high turnover and constant retraining.
学生看到的数字与教职员不同
报告没有回避来自学生一侧的温差。项目初期的学生问卷显示，学生对行为的正面评价从 27% 降到 25%，报告用的措辞是负面但幅度很小的变化。分区域看，高贫困地区学校的数字从 25% 升到 28%，条件较好地区的学校从 27% 降到 24%。最终报告没有纳入学生视角的详细数据，这一点被媒体点出。教职员问卷与定性比较分析问卷给出的则是 6.48 分的正向结果。两组数字并不必然矛盾，一组问的是感受，一组问的是变化评价。阅读这类评估时，先看清数字来自哪一组受访者。
The report does not hide a gap between staff and pupil perceptions. Pupil surveys early in the programme showed positive ratings of behaviour falling from 27 to 25 per cent, described as a negative but small change, with high-deprivation schools rising from 25 to 28 per cent while better-off schools fell from 27 to 24 per cent. The final report itself does not present detailed pupil views, a point picked up by the education press, while staff surveys and the QCA exercise produced the positive 6.48 score.
建议与后续安排
报告给未来的同类项目留下五条建议：保留人与人之间的互动，尤其是实地参访，并在经费上给出保障。推动使用标准化的行为监测数据，把行为任务分配给具体岗位。保留灵活性，允许学校按需要调整方案，并建议取消两名高层管理团队成员必须参加这一硬性要求。保留清晰的结构与阶段节点。持续让教师与高层管理团队参与，维持行为文化的投入。项目的接续安排已经确定，2025 年出勤支持与行为支持合并，全国 93 所牵头学校在名单之内，经费从 1000 万英镑降到 150 万英镑。英国教育部 2024 年的《Behaviour in Schools》指引仍是学校制定行为政策的主要依据。
Five recommendations are left for any future version of the programme: keep the relational quality and fund in-person visits; encourage standardised behaviour monitoring data and allocated behaviour roles; preserve flexibility and drop the rule requiring two senior leaders to take part; keep clear structure and milestones; and keep engaging both teachers and senior leaders. The successor already exists, with attendance and behaviour hubs merged in 2025 across 93 lead schools and funding cut from 10 million pounds to 1.5 million, while the DfE's 2024 Behaviour in Schools guidance remains the main reference for school policy.
牛津高阶英汉双解词典 第10版 商务印书馆¥168📱 去京东购买京东精选需要一对一辅导？Need One-on-One Tutoring?
A-Level / GCSE / IB / KS2-KS3 全科辅导
16621398022 同微信
关注公众号 tutorhao 获取更多学习资源
Visit aleveler.com
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图