Understanding School Discipline

Numerous definitions of the concept ‘discipline’ have been offered and debated by academia in South Africa and other countries with definitions ranging from “the establishment of control” (Mwamwenda, 2004:275; Oosthuizen et al., 2005:387; Rodgers, 2004:96), to “a self-regulation and moral commitment” (Mwamwenda et al., 2007:275). Some scholars assert that “some people use discipline and punishment interchangeably, leading to an understanding that the two concepts mean the same thing, whilst other authors firmly believe that these two concepts are different” (Mwamwenda et al., 2007:275). Rosen (2005:1) endorses the latter argument, and defines discipline as “training that develops self-control, character, orderliness and efficiency”. This scholar further postulates that discipline requires “strict control that enforces obedience or a treatment that controls and punishes” (p. 1). Porteus et al. (2005:1) also endorse this definition and remark that, in most South African schools, discipline is barely understood and is often associated with punishment, and that different disciplinary practices are viewed in the same way, more

31

especially if they are aimed at correcting learners’ behaviour. “As a result of this continuous linkage of discipline to punishment, teachers and parents in South Africa are also defining discipline as a way to correct wrongdoing and to monitor learners in a manner that brings order to a troubled situation”. The perception that the two concepts are similar manifests in statements that parents usually utter, such as: “I will discipline you”, which they say when they are caning a child to punish it (Vally, 2006:3). In addition, Osher, Bear, Sprague and Doyle (2010) propagate that parents and teachers often use two approaches to correct behaviour: They use “verbal reprimands or expressions of disapproval and, if these do not change the child’s behaviour, “punishment involves physical pain which is corporal punishment” (Khewu, 2012:21).

Most academics argue that these two concepts are not the same as each has a different meaning. For example, real discipline is not based on force, but grows from understanding, mutual respect and tolerance. It is argued that the word ‘discipline’ comes from the root word ‘disciplina’ and its purpose ‘discipleship’; that is, a system of accompaniment, teaching and nurturing that prepares children to achieve competence, self-control, self-direction, and caring for others. An effective discipline system is therefore normative and must contain three vital elements: a learning environment that is characterised by positive and supportive teacher-child relationships; a strategy for systematic teaching and strengthening of desired behaviour (proactive); and a strategy for decreasing or eliminating undesired of ineffective behaviours (reactive) (Betz, 2005:1; Farreli, 2010:1). Betz (2005:1) and Ferreli (2010:1) also consider the fact that:

“…discipline is transformative to an extent that it leads to self-discipline, is externally imposed and becomes internalized as voluntary self-control; that is, learners understand a situation, make proper decisions about their behaviour and behave appropriately when unsupervised by adults, so it does not promote external monitoring and coercion.”

Various researchers and academics agree that “punishment does nothing to build up trust as it isolates children from their teachers and encourages students to be sneaky and lie about their behaviour in order to escape harm” (Du Preez, Camper, Gobler, Lock, & Shaba, 2002:88). Griffin and Robinson (2005:3) and Weare (2004:62) propagate that, as punishment involves pressure and compulsion, it has the following negative impacts: running away, [playing] truant, tearing teachers or school [apart], and feeling high levels of anxiety, helplessness and humiliation”. Punishment also generates an environment of violence and aggression for children who are already motivated

32

that way, and anxiety alarms shy children. Current research has consistently shown that children who are raised by being exposed to corporal punishment display more aggressive tendencies than their peers, as punishment is:

“…an authoritarian approach based on the belief that if children are made to suffer for doing wrong, they will not repeat their inappropriate behaviour. This approach has done untold damage to countless children, often resulting in feelings of alienation, entrenched patterns of anti-social behaviour, and even acts of violence” (Watkinson, 2008, in Manli-Cassimir, 2009:198).

Beltz (2009:210) suggests that “if schools are to be normative, then they have to be human rights compliant, because human rights are part of the normative order and, according to human rights, discipline is defined as effective leading, guiding and teaching learners to own one’s behaviour in the context of respecting other people’s rights”. This scholar argues that the rudiments of operative and positive discipline involve “a challenging balance between preventive [and] corrective encouragement, support, repairing and building” (Beltz, 2009:210). Williamson-Maloy (2010:15) also counsels that “when teaching children right from wrong, appropriate from inappropriate and acceptable and unacceptable behaviours, using a positive approach in the form of rewarding the positive instead of always punishing the negatives is an excellent way to encourage desired behaviours”. Furthermore, Williamson-Maloy (2010:15) makes the following assertion: “Incentives are a very powerful tool when attempting to modify children’s behaviours. A positive and a less punitive approach to discipline will help children learn to address their behaviour without a negative impact on their sense of self”.

Rogers (2000, cited in Joubert, 2009:4) adds that there are three approaches to discipline:

“Preventive discipline, which is concerned with basic rights and clear rules and consequences; corrective discipline which refers to the teacher’s actions that are carried out to correct destructive, anti-social deviant behaviours; and supportive discipline which is concerned with ensuring that correction is received fairly and that positive working relationships with disciplined students are re-established.”

Khewu (2012:25) maintains that the preventive, corrective and supportive approaches to discipline appear to be supportive of the normative approach where:

33

“…the prospects are evidently delineated and unceasing accessory is provided to guarantee that the learners are supported so that they have a clear understanding that the use of the corrective measure was not done to provoke anger, resentment and additional conflict, but to guide a learner to be a responsible person accountable for his or her actions.”