loquasagacious
NCAP Mooderator
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2004
- Messages
- 3,636
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- 2004
www.smh.com.au - After the cane mutinyAinslie MacGibbon in smh said:The cane was banned in Australian schools years ago, and few would argue this was a bad thing. But has the balance swung too far the other way?
Recovered memories are shared about being whipped across the buttocks until enough blood beaded to drip to the floor. Or being made to walk like a duck for an hour. Or dodging chalk, dusters, keys, the beige steel bin - anything within reach to throw. One could be forgiven for mistaking this as a group therapy session for victims of bullies. No, it is just dinner for a group of 30 and 40-somethings, reminiscing about teachers. Primary, secondary, public, private - this is just how it was.
But the recent popularity of the novel The Slap, by Christos Tsiolkas, is indicative of just how taboo physically disciplining a child (especially someone else's) has become - a move lamented by some. As punitive measures have been rejected over the past decade, new models of behaviour management in schools have surfaced. But are they working?
According to NSW Department of Education and Training statistics for government schools last year, almost 3.5 per cent of students in the year 7-10 range received at least one long suspension (up to and including 20 days). A long suspension follows a serious incident, usually involving physical violence, weapons or possession of an illegal substance. Most long suspensions, 74 per cent, came from this age group, followed by 21 per cent from kindergarten to year 6. The number of long suspensions has steadily grown over recent years as a percentage of enrolments.
The department's statistics do not reflect the more common short suspension (up to and including four days), imposed for continued disobedience - disobeying staff instructions, disrupting other students, or alcohol and tobacco use - or aggressive behaviour, including verbal abuse and abuse transmitted electronically. Individual schools maintain a register of students who have received short suspensions.
But suspensions and expulsions are a last resort - the preference is to have schoolchildren in school and to deal with the underlying causes of misbehaviour. Learning results are inextricably linked to behaviour.
Discipline now
"What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets, inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying." Sound familiar? Probably, because Plato said this in the fourth century BC, and we have been saying it ever since. However, there is a difference now. Previously, a naughty child - and blame - existed in a vacuum. Now we recognise other factors come into play when a child is misbehaving. In education, the circumstances of a child, and the quality of the teaching (and teacher) are examined, too. Discipline has become a two-way street. Discipline and welfare. Rights and responsibilities.
According to one Sydney primary school principal, most parents are apologetic and keen to work in partnership if their child is misbehaving, but in an increasing number of cases "the balance has swung the other way, a parent will defend their child, whether it is a just call or not, claiming all the rights with none of the responsibility. The teacher's hands are tied because that parent will not allow their child to have a few minutes' detention or be withdrawn from a class." Children can be versed in their rights - and increasingly assert them, which is positive, when they are equally cognisant of their responsibilities.
Dianne Giblin, president of the Federation of Parents and Citizens' Associations of NSW, says "misbehaviour is just a symptom of something else. We need to take the next step to find out what that is. Parents and teachers need to work together; there is no place for blame when something goes wrong … I hear calls to bring back the cane from parents all the time, but just not for their child." Parents are very aware when other children misbehave, and the impact that has on their child.
The report Learning Behaviour: Lessons Learned, published by Sir Alan Steer in April, concluded: "Poor behaviour cannot be tolerated as it is a denial of the right of pupils to learn and teachers to teach. To enable learning to take place preventative action is most effective". Although the guidelines for serious incidents of misbehaviour are clear, managing the child who does not misbehave to that extent, but still causes regular disruption and monopolises a teacher's time, is the challenge.
What happened to corporal punishment?
Corporal punishment was banned in all NSW schools during the mid 1990s. Some of the reasons cited for this move were: the link between violence in the community and the use of corporal punishment in schools; its limited capacity to deter unwanted behaviour; corporal punishment encourages an acceptance of violence to resolve conflict; and it is unprofessional.
New behaviour management
Professor Ramon Lewis, of La Trobe University, has specialised in classroom management for more than 25 years. He is now examining the effect of developmental classroom management on student engagement in more than 200 schools in Victoria.
Lewis says there is a natural and increasing tendency for current students to work co-operatively and collectively. He alludes to the argument in educational literature for a shift from authoritarian management towards inclusive and democratic forms of management, although "some teachers just want to tell kids what to do, they think they have the power to dictate without explanation".
Lewis's research has shown that strategies such as hinting, discussion, recognising and reward and involvement are far more effective in reducing misbehaviour than coercion, such as yelling, sarcasm and group punishment. Lewis found aggression was the only strategy that undermined the relationship between teacher and student and made students less likely to comply with expectations for behaviour. And the "ripple effect" - that punishing one student can have on others - is minimised when a teacher uses positive strategies, but exacerbated by the use of aggression.
Hinting "places the student in a position where they are asked to meet adult expectations in an adult manner, thus building their experience base for self-discipline and self-control" while allowing the student to save face. And, according to Lewis, recognising and rewarding positive student and class behaviour has obvious positive benefits for building relationships between students and teachers - fostering an environment of trust and respect in which students are less likely to misbehave. A reward can be as simple as a nod of approval or a smile.
But it is the relationship between student and teacher that is paramount. Lewis says "years of sending a child off to the principal for discipline has done untold damage. It is just sending a child who is already struggling away". Lewis says punishment, when necessary, needs to come from the teacher, within a trusting and mutually respectful relationship.
What about the child who continually disrupts and does not respond to the strategies mentioned? Lewis says "at risk" students are occupying a more central place in schooling than has historically been the case. These students have unmet needs and low self-concept and need to feel a sense of belonging, competence and usefulness. They behave this way in response to feelings of rejection and find it easier to believe the teacher does not like them. And some teachers do not.
Lewis lists four main recommendations to minimise misbehaviour of students at risk. The teacher must stay calm. "A teacher who reacts to an attention-seeker with irritation and annoyance, to a power-seeking student with anger and exasperation, to a revenge-seeking student with fear or hurt, or to a withdrawing student with despair or helplessness, becomes part of the problem, not part of the solution."
The teacher also must give encouragement according to effort rather than achievement, signalling the student is useful and an integral part of the class. The third recommendation is to punish intelligently. Using the student's ability to help someone else - photocopying in the office, or helping maintenance staff - is likely to increase their self-worth and reduce their need for recognition that comes from negative attention. Teachers should also observe the student being competent. This may mean watching them play netball or soccer at lunch or sitting in on a music class. The more a student feels the teacher values them and likes them, the less likely they are to misbehave.
Lewis says that after entering high school the sense of belonging of students decreases until they are about 14. Misbehaviour levels peak over the same period and decline after students enter senior years about the age of 15.
The article really says it all. Do you think that corporal punishment has a place in schools, or indeed in families? Or is it a barbaric anachronism which we should (continue) to stamp out?
Last edited:
also there were some great Iron posts in that thread.
