Advertisement

Against the Tide: Enacting Respectful Student Behaviour Polices in ‘Zero Tolerance’ Times

Chapter

Abstract

School leaders are under pressure to ensure that their schools ‘manage’ students’ behaviour to establish ‘good order’. They are required to interpret, reconcile and make decisions about the plethora of legislation, policies and practices that relate to student behaviour in schools. This policy work is messy and complex, and influenced by ideological differences about the status children and the ways to ‘discipline’ them. The challenge for schools is to enact polices that do not aim simply to control students but rather aim to treat students with respect and enable them to develop as individuals with a sense of agency within a community of learners. This ‘policy work’ that schools do is the focus of the research reported in this chapter. We present findings from the Behaviour at School Study that show how schools can develop and enact respectful student behaviour policies.

Keywords

Student Engagement Behaviour Management Student Behaviour Government School Contextual Dimension 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This chapter is an outcome of the Behaviour at School Study funded by the Australian Research Council (LP110100317). We would like to acknowledge the other members of the research team: Professor Larry Owens, Professor Bob Conway, Mr Bill Lucas and Dr Mel Baak.

The following partner 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

Note: the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the partner organisations’ policies.

References

  1. Angus, M., McDonald, T., Ormond, C., Rybarcyk, R., Taylor, A., & Winterton, A. (2009). Trajectories of classroom behaviour and academic progress: A study of student engagement with learning. Mount Lawley: Edith Cowan University.Google Scholar
  2. Ball, S. J. (1987). The micropolitics of the school. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  3. Ball, S. J., Braun, A., & Maguire, M. (2009). Disciplinary texts: a policy analysis of national and local discipline policies. Paper presented at the British Educational Research Association annual conference, Manchester.Google Scholar
  4. Ball, S. J., Hoskins, K., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2011a). Disciplinary texts: A policy analysis of national and local behaviour policies. Critical Studies in Education, 52(1), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., Braun, A., & Hoskins, K. (2011b). Policy subjects and policy actors in schools: Some necessary but insufficient analyses. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 611–624.Google Scholar
  6. Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: Policy enactments in secondary schools. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Blase, J. J. (1986). A qualitative analysis of sources of teacher stress: Consequences for performance. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 23–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blase, J. J. (1991). The micropolitical perspective. In J. J. Blase (Ed.), The politics of life in schools (pp. 1–18). Newbury Park: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Braun, A., Ball, S. J., Maguire, M., & Hoskins, K. (2011). Taking context seriously: Towards explaining policy enactments in the secondary school. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(4), 585–596.Google Scholar
  10. Canter, L., & Canter, M. (2002). Assertive discipline – New and revised: Positive behavior management for today’s classroom. Santa Monica: Canter and Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Christensen, E. (2013). Micropolitical staffroom stories: Beginning health and physical education teachersʼ experiences of the staffroom. Teaching and Teacher Education, 30(1), 74–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Creemers, B. P. M. (1994). The effective classroom. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  13. Dewey, J. (1897). My pedagogic creed. The School Journal, 54(3), 77–80.Google Scholar
  14. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  15. Fraser, B. J. (1998). Science learning environments: Assessment, effects and determinants. In B. J. Fraser & K. Tobin (Eds.), International Handbook of Science Education (pp. 527–564). London: Kluwer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Friedman, I. A. (1995). Student behavior patterns contributing to teacher burnout. Journal of Educational Research, 88, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fullan, M., & Pomfret, A. (1977). Research on curriculum and instruction implementation. Review of Educational Research, 47, 335–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gonski, D., Boston, K., Greiner, K., Lawrence, C., Scales, B., & Tannock, P. (2011). Review for funding for schooling: Final report. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.Google Scholar
  19. Hattie, J. (2003). Teachers make a difference: what is the research evidence? Paper presented at the Australian Council for Educational Research annual conference on building teacher quality, Melbourne.Google Scholar
  20. Higgins, S., Hall, E., Wall, K., Woolner, P., & McCaughey, C. (2005). The impact of school environments: A review of the literature. London: Design Council.Google Scholar
  21. House, E. R. (1974). The politics of educational innovation. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation.Google Scholar
  22. Ingersoll, R. M. (2001). Teacher turnover and teacher shortages: An organizational analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 38, 499–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Johnson, B. (2004). Local school micropolitical agency: An antidote to new managerialism. School Leadership and Management, 24(3), 267–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Johnson, B. (2008). Implementing a child protection curriculum: Lessons from a South Australian trial. Journal of Student Wellbeing, 2(1), 1–19.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, B., Oswald, M., & Whitington, V. (1994). Teachers’ views on school discipline: A theoretical framework. Cambridge Journal of Education, 24(2), 261–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Johnson, B., Peters, J., & Williams, D. (1999). Academics working with schools: Revealing the tensions. Journal of Education for Teaching, 25(2), 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Karlberg, M. (2005). The power of discourse and the discourse of power: Pursuing peace through discourse intervention. International Journal of Peace Studies, 10(1), 1–23.Google Scholar
  28. Kaufmann, F. (1987). Prevention and intervention in the analytical perspective of guidance. In K. Hurrelmann, F. Kaufmann, & F. Losel (Eds.), Social intervention: Potential and constraints (pp. 3–20). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  29. Learning, S., & Taskforce, S. S. (2005). National safe schools framework. Canberra: MCEETYA.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, R., Romi, S., Qui, X., & Katz, J. (2005). Teachers’ classroom discipline and student misbehaviour in Australia, China and Israel. Teaching and Teacher Education, 21, 729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maguire, M., Ball, S., & Braun, A. (2010). Behaviour, classroom management and student ‘control’: Enacting policy in the English secondary school. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 20(2), 153–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Martin, M. (2011). Of mottos and morals. International Journal of Applied Philosophy, 25(1), 49–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Overton, L. Y., & Sullivan, A. M. (2008). Non-compliance in a democratic classroom: Is it prevalent? Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in education international education research conference, Brisbane, QLD.Google Scholar
  34. Simpson, P., & Mayr, A. (2013). Language and power: A resource book for students. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Slee, R. (1995). Changing theories and practices of discipline. London: Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  36. Smith, D. (1983). On the concept of perceived curriculum decision-making space. Curriculum Perspectives, 3(1), 21–30.Google Scholar
  37. Sullivan, A. M. (2009). How can teachers enable students to become empowered? Curriculum Perspectives, 29(1), 53–63.Google Scholar
  38. Sullivan, A. M., & Morrison, C. (2014). Enacting policy: The capacity of school leaders to support early career teachers through policy work. Australian Educational Researcher, 41(5), 603–620. doi: 10.1007/s13384-014-0155-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sullivan, A. M., Johnson, B., Owens, L., & Conway, R. (2014). Punish them or engage them? Teachers’ views of unproductive student behaviours in the classroom. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 39(6), 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Union, A. E. (2008). New educators survey 2008: Results and report. Melbourne: Australian Education Union.Google Scholar
  41. Valencia, R. (2010). Dismantling contemporary deficit thinking. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  42. Vanderlinde, R., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Learning to get along at work. Phi Delta Kappan, 94(7), 33–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Victorian Institute of Teaching. (2008). The effects of the physical environment on teaching and learning. Melbourne: Victorian Institute of Teaching.Google Scholar
  44. Wubbels, T. (2007). Classroom management around the world. In M. Hayden, J. Levy, & J. Thompson (Eds.), Handbook of research in international education (pp. 267–280). London: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Singapore 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of South AustraliaAdelaideAustralia

Personalised recommendations