Understanding and Challenging Dominant Discourses About Student Behaviour at School
- 2.7k Downloads
We argue in this chapter that a particular set of discourses about student behaviour – those that can be loosely located in the ‘traditionalist-authoritarian-zero tolerance’ basket of ideas – have become dominant in society and, in particular, in many of our schools. We present evidence that a strong rhetoric of control characterises most debates about student behaviour despite counterarguments for more humane and civil approaches, and the availability of ample research evidence that calls into question the efficacy of ‘get tough’ approaches. Having established that authoritarian discourses about student behaviour at school are alive and well and are often used to ‘frame’ debates about how children can and should be treated at school, we then examine the reasons why these discourses continue to attract support. Accounting for the persistence of authoritarian responses to student behaviour requires an appreciation of the macro-level influences on schooling in neo-liberal times, as well as an understanding of the micro-level pressures that impact on teachers. We then examine how some teachers and schools manage to resist these practical and policy pressures to enact more humane and civilised ways of relating to students in school. Finally, we provide an insight into how schools can ‘answer back’ to the dominant discourses about student ‘behaviour management’ by rejecting deficit views of children and their families.
KeywordsBehaviour Management Restorative Justice Student Behaviour Oppositional Defiant Disorder Dominant Discourse
This paper is an outcome of the Behaviour at School Study funded by the Australian Research Council (LP110100317). The following organisations contributed funds and/or in-kind support to this project:
Department for Education and Child Development South Australia
Catholic Education South Australia
Association of Independent Schools South Australia
South Australian Secondary Principals Association
Association of Principals of Catholic Secondary Schools, South Australia
South Australian Primary Principals Association
South Australian Catholic Primary Principals Association
The views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect these partner organisations’ policies.
- ABC News (2011, September 23). Boy sentenced over schoolyard bullying. ABC News. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-23/schoolyard-bully-attack/2925600. Accessed 25 June 2014.
- Abrahams, R. D. (1980). Folklore. In S. Thernstrom (Ed.), Harvard encyclopedia of American ethnic groups (pp. 370–379). Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press.Google Scholar
- Adey, K., Oswald, M., & Johnson, B. (1991). Discipline in South Australian schools: A survey of teachers – Survey no 1: Teachers in metropolitan schools. Adelaide: University of South Australia.Google Scholar
- Apple, M. W. (2006). Educating the ‘right’ way: Markets, standards, god, and inequality. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
- Awdry, W. (1946–1972). Thomas the tank engine. Books 1–26. London: Edmund Ward.Google Scholar
- Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Bantick, C. (2014, June 6). Old-school values still appeal in modern world. Comment. Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/comment/oldschool-values-still-appeal-in-modern-world-20140607-zrzzg.html. Accessed 1 July 2014.
- Cossie, B. (2011). Review of procedures and processes in Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) related to bullying and violence in schools. Adelaide: DECS. http://www.decd.sa.gov.au/aboutdept/files/links/Cossey_Report.pdf. Accessed 23 June 2014.
- Doyle, W. (1986). Classroom organization and management. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 392–431). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. (1999, Spring). Caution: praise can be dangerous. American Educator, 23, 1–5.Google Scholar
- Dweck, C. (2007). The perils and promises of praise. Educational Leadership, 65(2), 34–39.Google Scholar
- Erwin, J. (2004). Classrooms of choice: Giving students what they need. Alexandria: ASCD.Google Scholar
- Fraser, N. (1992). The uses and abuses of French discourse theories for feminist politics. In N. Fraser & S. L. Bartkey (Eds.), Revaluing French feminism: Critical essays on difference, agency and culture (pp. 177–194). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
- Glasser, W. (1998). Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
- Goldberg, M. (2004). Hegemony. https://faculty.washington.edu/mlg/courses/definitions/hegemony.html. Accessed 27 June 2014.
- Gratton, M. (2006, January 26). Howard claims victory in national culture wars. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/pm-claims-victory-in-culture-wars/2006/01/25/1138066861163.html. Accessed 6 October 2015.
- Harris, S. (2014, June 30). Primary push for more male teachers. Daily Mail Australia. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-110961/Primary-push-male-teachers.html. Accessed 30 June 2014.
- Johnson, B., Sullivan, A., & Williams, D. (2009). A one-eyed look at classroom life: Using new technologies to enrich classroom-based research. Issues in Educational Research, 19(1), 34–47.Google Scholar
- Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Kohn, A. (2006). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
- Martino, W., & Rezai-Rashti, G. (2011). Gender, race, and the politics of role modelling: The influence of male teachers. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- McWilliam, E. (1994). In broken images: Feminist tales for a different teacher education. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
- Morine-Dershimer, G. (2006). Classroom management and classroom discourse. In C. Evertson & C. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management: Research, practice, & contemporary issues (pp. 127–156). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Oyler, C., & Becker, J. (1997). Teaching beyond the progressive-traditional dichotomy: Sharing authority and sharing vulnerability. Curriculum Inquiry, 27(4), 453–467.Google Scholar
- Pierides, D. (2006, November). How the lore laid down by teachers maintains who belongs as folk: That’s just the way it’s done around here! Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education International Education Research Conference, Adelaide.Google Scholar
- Queensland Department of Education. (2002). Male teachers’ strategy: Strategic plan for the attraction, recruitment and retention of male teachers in Queensland state schools 2002–2005. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
- Rizvi, F. (2014). Encountering education in the global: The selected works of Fazal Rizvi. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalising educational policy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Simpson, P., & Mayr, A. (2013). Language and power: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Smyth, J. (2010). The politics of derision, distrust and deficit: The damaging consequences for youth and communities put at a disadvantage. In E. Samier & M. Schmidt (Eds.), Trust and betrayal in educational administration and leadership (pp. 169–183). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Thompson, G. (2013). NAPLAN, MySchool and accountability: Teacher perceptions of the effects of high-stakes testing in Australia. International Education Journal, 12(2), 62–84.Google Scholar
- Valencia, R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
- Williams, D. (2013). Background basics (Learning Resources, Course EDUC 5182, Master of Teaching). Adelaide: University of South Australia.Google Scholar