School Discipline

School discipline refers to the accordance with certain codes of behavior within a school environment and extends from policies regarding classroom behavior, classroom dress code, and classroom etiquette to the types of punishment enforced if such rules are broken. School discipline in boarding schools, theories of discipline, and teacher incentives are aspects important to any discussion of school discipline. An investigation of topics in school discipline that are often discussed and debated, such school uniforms, corporal punishment, and zero tolerance policies is presented.

Keywords Adlerian Approach; Assertive Discipline; Corporal Punishment; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB); Positive Approach; Positive Reinforcement; Reality Therapy; School Discipline; Teacher Effectiveness Training; Teacher Incentive Fund; Zero Tolerance Policy

Overview

School discipline refers to the accordance with certain codes of behavior (also know as the "school rules") by students within a school. Aside from behavioral standards, adherence to a school's policies regarding clothing, timekeeping, social behavior and work ethic are also measures of school discipline. School discipline can also refer to the punishment attained as a result breaking a school's rules.

The aim of school discipline is generally to create an environment that is most suitable for learning - one that is safe and enjoyable. A learning environment where a teacher is not able to control order and discipline will lead to lower academic achievement and unhappiness for students. In some cases, school discipline is governed by forces outside of these educational and student welfare concerns. In schools that are built upon religious foundations, school discipline is defined according to the religious lifestyle students are expected to lead. Similarly, in boarding schools where students not only attend classes, but live, school discipline extends into leisure time, meal time, sleeping times, etc.

School discipline has inherently been an important part of the educational system since the very first schools and educational institutions. The methods of enforcing and maintaining school discipline have changed over time in conjunction with the changing opinions, research, and inspections of the topic. Perhaps the most widespread and longest held method for enforcing and maintaining school discipline is corporal punishment.

Corporal punishment is the use of physical harm in order to punish or correct behavior. Contemporarily, corporal punishment is widely rejected as a method for correcting discipline in the school setting, and is even illegal in 15 countries worldwide. In the not so distant times when teachers were seen as substitute parents, and were given liberties as such, punishments of children's bad behavior most frequently took the form of smacks with a paddle or cane.

There were several problems with the use of corporal punishment. Unless there were strict methods of monitoring and regulating its use, the practice was susceptible to overuse and abuse. In addition to this, beginning in the late 18th century, attitudes against the use of corporal punishment on anyone were growing. With the installation of compulsory education, parents faced the possibility of being forced into sending a child to an institution whose stance regarding school discipline and punishment was in opposition to their own. As a result, corporal punishment was abolished in many areas and replaced with more positive forms of behavior enforcement.

In North America and Europe, most forms of school discipline revolve around positive reinforcement utilizing praise, marks of merit, and increased opportunities to maintain a flourishing learning environment. When such reinforcement does not successfully maintain school discipline, a variety of punishments are utilized such as detentions, suspensions, and eventually expulsions. In some cases, schools will decide to take a very hard line against any type of infractions against specific rules (especially those in relation to drugs, weapons, trespassing, etc.). This policy of very little tolerance for transgression is called a zero tolerance policy.

There are numerous current theories and practices that outline the actions and policies for most effectively controlling the environment in a positive way. William Glasser's Reality Therapy utilizes class meetings, clearly communicated rules, plans, and contracts in order to facilitate a teacher-student relationship that allows students to make positive choices through an understanding of the connection between their actions and consequences. In research studies, reality therapy has proven to result in modest improvements of behavior. Positive Approach, based upon reality therapy, stipulates that a teacher demonstrate their respect for students and instills in them a sense of responsibility through a use of a development and sharing of clear rules, daily opportunities for success and in school suspension for non-compliant students.

Assertive Discipline, developed by Lee Canter in 1976, emphasizes a teacher's right to create and enforce standards for student behavior. This program, which is well-respected and widely known, revolves around clear expectations and rules as well as a penalty system with increasingly serious consequences. Adlerian approaches to school discipline, named after physicist Alfred Adler, place an emphasis on the understanding of why a student exhibits negative behavior and aims to help a student amend that behavior and get their needs met. Despite their differences, the theories and practices for enforcing school discipline all rely on open lines of communication between educators, administrators and their students. As a result, more and more educational systems are being created with requirements for relationship building.

Despite the multitude of discussions and viewpoints focused on how to successfully approach school discipline, problems in its enforcement remain a long endured part of the educational system. The misbehavior of children is common in all schools but is usually kept in manageable doses by teachers and administrators. However, in cases of poor administration and execution of school discipline, there looms the opportunity for a more widespread and potentially harmful breakdown of order.

In recent years, there seems to have been an eruption of breakdowns within the educational system as illustrated by acts of violence against teachers and other students. Despite the frequency of such horrible occurrences in the contemporary world, such acts are not limited to this century and were happening as early as the 18th and 19th centuries.

Effective discipline requires that parents, children and teachers consent to it. It is necessary that each party has a respect for school discipline and agrees with the set parameters of expectations and potential consequences. While students are not expected to enjoy punishment, if they have a clear understanding of the school rules and view them as equitable and reasonable, there will most likely be little resistance if they are accordingly followed. Along this line, it is imperative that punishment never appear to be arbitrary in nature as it can cause hostility and resentment.

As a result of problems with school discipline, there has been a sizeable reduction in the amount of people who want to be teachers. In addition, teacher resignations are most usually a result of problems with student behavior and attitudes. This situation has created a cyclic problem because the lack of teachers has led to teacher shortages which in turn have led to the elimination of certain classes or the instruction of classes by people who are unqualified. This situation creates even more problems with school discipline as students are left in an unsteady environment with little or no consistency. In many countries and areas, there have been incentives made as enticements for people to become teachers, to vary degrees of success.

Application

Boarding Schools & Discipline

In the discussion above, there was brief mention of the ways in which boarding schools and religious institutions differ from day schools and public schools with regards to school discipline and its enforcement. Boarding school discipline takes a very different form with, more often than not, an arbitrary system of rule enforcement and discipline. Since the 19th century, boarding schools in Europe have utilized a "captain" system of discipline which requires that elder students play a very active role in the disciplining of students their junior. In this way, the elders would administer punishments that often constitute the harshest forms of school discipline. The punishments administered for transgressions in this "captain" system can include, even in modern times, forced exercise to the point of exhaustion, sleep deprivation, and even severe abuse. The arbitrary and severe nature of such a system enforces an unquestioning adherence and respect for rules, and an environment of absolute compliance that is often deemed necessary in such institutions. Aside from boarding schools, the U.S. Military Academy, U.S. Naval Academy, Valley Forge Military Academy and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy all use similar forms of the "captain" system to create the necessary environment of strict discipline and adherence.

Theories of Discipline

Coming away from the systems of school discipline enacted in boarding schools, it is important to gain a working understanding of the more positive approaches to ensuring order and discipline in the school environment. Reality Therapy focuses on encouraging positive student-teacher relationships that support student knowledge of the correlation between their actions and the decided consequences. Reality Therapy was developed by William Glasser as an approach to psychotherapy and counseling, and has been widely applied in education. The therapy underscores the importance of making your own decisions, taking control of your own life, deciding what is most important (goals) and evaluating current actions in order to determine if a person's goal is attainable or not. Placed into the educational setting, it is necessary that teachers provide the correct assistance to students to enable them to decide what their goal is (whether it be a gold star on their chart or entrance into an undergraduate institution) and aid their students in the correct actions needed to meet that goal. This system also entails an outline of negative consequences that could occur if a student does not make the right decisions. Reality Therapy is not about dictating to the student the proper actions to be taken, but is about guiding the student to take the proper actions on their own.

Assertive discipline is another, slightly different approach to enforcing school discipline. Assertive discipline requires that a teacher maintain a high level of control and respect in the classroom. Also called the "take-control" approach, a teacher must control their classroom in a very firm but positive way. It is necessary that teachers constitute rules and directions that denote acceptable and unacceptable student behavior, instruct these rules and directions, and ask for assistance from parents and/or administrators when support is needed in handling the behavior of students. A teacher needs to create a discipline plan that students must follow at all times, rewards for positive student behavior, and consequences for negative student behavior. Within the plan of assertive discipline, there needs to be an escalating scale of consequences for continued disruptive or negative behavior.

Teacher Incentives

When a school's plan for instituting discipline does not prove successful, it can not only create a negative environment for students, but a negative environment for teachers as well. As bad student behavior continues to get more and more press, it has become more difficult for schools to meet their needs for teachers. There are fewer people who are willing to enter the profession, as well as fewer teachers who stay in the field for long periods of time. As a result, there has been an uprising of teacher incentives that aim at luring more teachers, and making it easier for teachers once they are active in the educational system. As a part of the No Child Left Behind Act, the federal government has created a Teacher Incentive Fund. The Teacher Incentive Fund was created in an attempt to meet the needs of schools for high quality educators, especially in areas where there are high-poverty and crime rates. The fund ensures that a teacher's compensation aligns with the quality of teaching, student achievement, and the need of schools. The majority of the Teacher Incentive Fund is used to reward teachers who have proven successful and to offer enticements for highly qualified teachers to teach in high poverty schools. The rest of the fund is allocated towards grants to State Educational Agencies, Local Educational Agencies, and non-profit organizations for the design and implementation performance-based compensation systems in order to successfully improve teacher compensation systems.

Viewpoints

On School Uniforms

The subject of school uniforms is one that is often discussed and debated. On one hand, the enforcement of policies regarding uniformed dress codes in schools has been credited with improved discipline and classroom behavior, more respect for teachers, better academic performance, higher student self-esteem and confidence, lower clothing costs, increased feelings of group spirit, reduction in social divisions, and lower rates of violence and crime. On the other hand, the creation of mandatory uniforms in schools has also been said to be a violation of students' rights, unrelated to decreased violence and increased academic performance, hampering to students' individuality, and a source of negative feelings for students and, at times, parents.

In a 1998 decision concerning the case of Canady v. Bossier Parish School Board, the Supreme Court concluded that a school has the right to enforce a uniform policy as long as the following parameters are met: the school board yields the power to create such a policy, the policy is of interest to the majority of the board, the policy does not aim to censor student expression, the policy does not censor student expression more than necessary. Despite the Supreme Court Ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union has taken a stance against school uniforms, and suggests that schools hold on to opt-out provisions that allow for a student, with parental permission, to opt-out of wearing the school's uniform. The American Civil Liberties Union has stated, "Every child in this country has the right to a public school education, and that right cannot be conditioned upon compliance with a uniform policy. Some parents and children will have religious objections to uniforms. Others won't want to participate for aesthetic reasons."

The U.S. Department of Education has developed a manual for school systems that are contemplating the development of a uniform policy. The manual highlights the following: the importance of parental involvement and support, the protection of religious expression, the protection of students' right to expression, the need to define the policy as mandatory or voluntary, the provision of an opt-out alternative, the responsibility to assist families that need financial help, the importance of treating the uniform policy as a part of the overall safety program, and the importance of not requiring students to wear or display a certain opinion or viewpoint.

On Corporal Punishment

While the practice of corporal punishment has become much less wide-spread, it is still legal in twenty-two American states and in classrooms around the globe. As a much debated issue, those in support of corporal punishment feel that without it, the occurrence of negative classroom behaviors such as defiance, violence, and academic failure increases exponentially. They believe that if limits are set by caring and involved teachers and parents, corporal punishment can, and should, be used if those limits are ignored. To the people who support corporal punishment, detention and suspensions prove to be of little consequence to students, while spanking provides a quick, painful consequence that is not easily forgotten or shrugged off. Corporal punishment is they way to improve test scores and encourage more orderly schools. Some even believe that merely the perceived threat of corporal punishment can be enough to keep students out of trouble, even jail, for life.

On the other side of the coin, those against corporal punishment feel that it is inappropriate violence against children and it has no place in a school system. Unlike corporal punishment, these people feel that increasingly serious consequences for bad behavior more frequently ensure long lasting changes for the student and their behavior. Students displaying a lack of concern for school rules are first punished with detentions, then expulsions, and if the behavior continues, are sometimes sent to alternative schools or programs. They believe that students should not be coerced into behaving properly through fear of being physically harmed, but should understand the consequences of their actions and learn to behave properly with introspection and positive counseling from teachers and administrators. While corporal punishment may provide an immediate and abrupt end to negative behavior, it is not viewed by those who oppose it to be anything more than a temporary solution.

On Zero Tolerance Policies

Widely enforced in school systems after the Columbine High School shooting in 1999, zero tolerance policies have been widely debated and discussed. Zero tolerance policies require that authorities take immediate and severe action if the rules outlined by the policy are broken. Frequently referring to the possession of weapons or drugs, students are reprimanded to the highest degree without question or deliberation. Zero tolerance policies were created as an impartial attempt to curtail the levels of school violence and delinquency and the opportunities for unfair leniency or corruption. They operate according to the belief that regardless of why or how a rule is broken; the fact that the rule was broken is enough to warrant the full penalty or breaking that rule. Zero tolerance policies ensure equal punishment for all and eliminate teacher bias and favoritism.

Despite the enactment of such a tough stance on school discipline, these policies have not proven efficient in putting an end to student misbehavior. In fact, many opponents feel that by penalizing students in such a manner, there are numerous negative effects on the educational environment as well as the student. If a student is disengaged from school without discussion or thought, there is a likelihood that that student will continue on a destructive and criminal path. Students who are punished harshly and unequivocally are not taught how their actions are detrimental to the school and community environment as a whole, and may continue on with disregard for the true consequences of their actions on themselves and their environment. Opponents believe that zero tolerance policies do not focus on common sense and fairness and have the propensity to negatively affect a student's future career and perception of the educational system.

There have been many visible cases in which zero tolerance policies have led to unusual and arguably extreme punishments. Among them are students being expelled for carrying Advil on school grounds, keeping pocketknives in their cars, carrying sharp tools outside of woodshop classes, bringing nail clippers to school, and kindergartners being expelled for kissing their crushes. Other case studies used to illuminate the irrationality of zero tolerance policies include the suspension of a 16-year old honor student for a butter knife that was accidentally left in the bed of his truck after moving his grandmother's belongings and a 13-year old honor student who was removed from her position as student council president and required to take a disciplinary class for seven days because she brought a pencil sharpener to school.

Terms & Concepts

Adlerian Approach: places an emphasis on the understanding of why a student exhibits negative behavior and aims to help a student amend that behavior and get their needs met.

Assertive Discipline: emphasizes a teacher's right to create and enforce standards for student behavior. This program, which is well-respected and widely known, revolves around clear expectations and rules as well as a penalty system with increasingly serious consequences.

Corporal Punishment: the use of physical harm in order to punish or correct behavior.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB): a United States federal law enacted in 2001 that aims to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools through increased state accountability, more flexibility for parents to choose where their children attend school, and an increased focus on reading.

Positive Approach: stipulates that a teacher demonstrate their respect for students and instills in them a sense of responsibility through a use of a development and sharing of clear rules, daily opportunities for success and in-school suspension for non-compliant students.

Positive Reinforcement: utilizes praise, marks of merit, and increased opportunities to maintain a flourishing learning environment.

Reality Therapy: utilizes class meetings, clearly communicated rules, plans, and contracts in order to facilitate a teacher-student relationship that allows students to make positive choices through an understanding of the connection between their actions and consequences.

School Discipline: the accordance with certain codes of behavior (also know as the "school rules") by students within a school. Aside from behavioral standards, adherence to a school's policies regarding clothing, timekeeping, social behavior and work ethic are also measures of school discipline. School discipline can also refer to the punishment attained as a result breaking a school's rules.

Teacher Incentive Fund: created as a part of the No Child Left Behind Act in an attempt to meet the needs of schools for high quality educators, especially in areas where there are high-poverty and crime rates. The fund ensures that a teacher's compensation aligns with the quality of teaching, student achievement, and the need of schools.

Zero Tolerance Policy: policy of having very little tolerance for transgressions: any infraction of existing laws and regulations will be punished, no matter how small.

Bibliography

Davis, M. (2006). Spellings addresses testing, NCLB issues. Education Week, 25 , 27-29. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20878218&site=ehost-live

Ferraro, P. (2006). Unprotected in the classroom. American School Board Journal, 193 , 40-42. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database,

Education Research Complete http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22624795&site=ehost-live

Hurst, M.D. (2005). Zero tolerance. Education Week, 24 , 10. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=16720651&site=ehost-live

Jones, K. (2013). #zerotolerance #keepingupwiththetimes: How federal zero tolerance policies failed to promote educational success, deter juvenile legal consequences, and confront new social media concerns in public schools. Journal of Law & Education, 42, 739-749. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90540783&site=ehost-live

Kajs, L.T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An alternative approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29 , 16-27. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21110922&site=ehost-live

Konheim-Kalkstein, Y. L. (2006). A uniform look. American School Board Journal, 193 , 25-27. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=21546695&site=ehost-live

Mason, D. (2005). Corporal punishment is legal in 22 states. Would you support its use in your school? YES. NEA Today, 24 , 38. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18063826&site=ehost-live

Mitchell, M.M., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 599-610. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=90423178&site=ehost-live

Rice, J., Malen, B., Baumann, P., Chen, E., Dougherty, A., Hyde, L., et al. (2012). The persistent problems and confounding challenges of educator incentives: The case of TIF in Prince George’s County, Maryland. Educational Policy, 26, 892-933. Retrieved December 15, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=83512070&site=ehost-live

Rosenbaum, N. (2005). Corporal punishment is legal in 22 states. Would you support its use in your school? NO. NEA Today, 24 , 38. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18063830&site=ehost-live

The White House - Office of the Press Secretary. (2004, Sept.). Fact Sheet: America's Teacher: Fulfilling the Promise of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/09/20040922-1.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). FY 2006 Budget Summary: Elementary and Secondary Education - Teacher Incentive Fund. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget06/summary/index.html

Varnham, S. (2005). Seeing things differently: Restorative justice and school discipline. Education & the Law, 17 , 87-104. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO

online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18908549&site=ehost-live

Suggested Reading

Blois, M. (2005). Legislators should respond cautiously to teachers' rights to discipline. Education Journal, , 9. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19230287&site=ehost-live

Charles, C.M. Senter, G.W. (2004). Building Classroom Discipline (8th ed.). Allyn & Bacon.

Gewertz, C. (2006). Groups accuse Fla. districts of harsh discipline approaches. Education Week, 25 , 7. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=20878196&site=ehost-live

Marcus, A. A. (2005). Can't touch that. Teacher Magazine, 17 , 10. Retrieved October 18, 2006 from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete (18977210). http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=18977210&site=ehost-live

Oosthuizen, I. J., Smit, M. H., & Rossouw, J. P. (2006). Legal issues in South African schools. School Business Affairs, 72 , 24-27. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=22605413&site=ehost-live

Wolfgang, C.H. (2004). Solving Discipline and Classroom Management Problems: Methods and Models for Today's Teachers (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

Zirkel, P.A. (2006). Is Nexus awash? Phi Delta Kappan, 87 , 414-416. Retrieved October 18, 2006, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=19387397&site=ehost-live