Consequences subgroup minutes: March 2025

Attendees and apologies

• Health and Wellbeing Unit, Scottish Government (Chair)
• Association of Directors of Education Scotland (ADES)
• Association of Scottish Principal Educational Psychologists (ASPEP)
• Convention of Scottish Local Authorities (COSLA)
• Deputy Head, Stirling High School (Stirling)
• Education Scotland
• Head Teacher Saracen Primary School (Glasgow)
• Head Teacher, Douglas Academy (East Dunbartonshire)
• Head Teacher, Hazelwood ASL School (Glasgow)
• Head Teacher, Heathfield Primary School (South Ayrshire)
• Head Teacher, Oban High School (Argyll and Bute) 
• NASUWT
• respectme 
• Health and Wellbeing Unit, Scottish Government (secretariat)

Apologies

• Head Teacher, Brechin High School (Angus)
• Head Teacher, Stonelaw High School (South Lanarkshire)
• Head Teacher, Mearns Castle High School (East Renfrewshire)
• Head Teacher, Royal High School (Edinburgh)
• Drummond Community High School
• Education Institute for Scotland (EIS)

Items and actions

Welcome and introductions

The chair welcomed members and noted apologies.

Minutes of the last meeting

Members agreed they were content with the minutes of the last meeting. Scottish Government (SG) to publish minutes on SG website.

Action: SG to publish minutes on the SG website. 

Draft consequences guidance 

The chair confirmed that following the steer from members at the last meeting on exemplification, the Scottish Advisory Group on Relationships and Behaviour in Schools agreed to postpone publication of the guidance to June. To meet clearance deadlines, the guidance requires to be finalised by the end of April. 

Key changes to the draft guidance since the last meeting include:

• A more streamlined structure with clearer messaging.
• Ensuring it is framed more clearly within the broader policy and legal context. 
• A new section outlining key messages on consequences.
• The inclusion of reflective questions throughout to make it more practical for schools.

Feedback and suggestions from members on the draft included:

• The updated draft is more user-friendly, well-structured, and flows effectively.
• The title should be updated to more accurately reflect the content of the guidance. 
• Consideration of a summary page.
• Greater emphasis required on parental engagement, including expectations and collaboration with schools. Respect for All could help to inform this section. 
• The guidance should provide guidance for situations where there are barriers to engaging constructively with parents on  consequences.
• Insights from the respectme reward may be helpful on informing parental engagement information and exemplars. 
• Acknowledge differences between school and home behaviour expectations.
• Avoid punitive language like “detention.”
• Update values section to clarify values should precede the development of priorities. 
• Refining the natural consequences section to make clear young people should not be allowed to do something unsafe as a natural consequence. 
• Update structure to set out information on what do immediately to respond to a behaviour in the moment then a separate section on the staged intervention approach and addressing/preventing the behaviour long term.
• Reference local authority processes and risk assessment protocols.
• Include an appendix linking relevant guidance (e.g., anti-bullying, gender-based violence).

Action: SG to update guidance based on members’ feedback.

Exemplification

The chair acknowledged that exemplification within the guidance still required development  and emphasised the need for members’ support in developing examples. Key points from the discussion included:

• Including scenarios with reflective questions and reassurance statements.
• Members to share information on the issues that would benefit from scenarios.
• Ensuring a diverse range of examples (e.g., rural, urban, SIMD, primary, and secondary schools).
• Providing examples on parental engagement, including managing difficult conversations.
• An example of an educational psychologist’s reflection on language around rules.
• An example on making sure the consequence is related to the behaviour
• An example on addressing more serious behaviour (e.g., rights conflicts in cases of sexual assault).
• Members agreed that anonymised exemplification, setting out the school’s context would be the most helpful approach. 
• Incorporating youth voice perspectives to highlight the impact of behaviour.
• Structuring examples based on behavioural categories (e.g., safety, disruption, destruction) with corresponding responses.
• Considering how to exemplify that responses to the same behaviour could differ depending on the context of the situation and needs of the child or young person. 
• Determining whether detailed case studies should be included or referenced elsewhere is to be decided. 

Members agreed to reconvene to agree the format of examples.

Actions

• SG to draft scenarios and functional behavioural analysis examples. 
• SG to schedule an additional meeting next week to agree the format of examples.
• Members to provide comments on the draft guidance by Tuesday 25 March.

Any other business

No other business was raised.

The chair closed the meeting.