BECOME A MEMBER! Sign up for TIE services now and start your international school career

ONLINE ARTICLES

Discipline in International Schools: Are We Following Best Practice?

By Ron Fast
01-Apr-10


Typically, non-proprietary international schools tend to be well-resourced, to have a dynamic and well-educated faculty, and to be progressive in terms of pedagogy and best practice in the classrooms. Mission statements often promote values such as compassion for others, empowerment, self-esteem, positive relationships, understanding, self-reflection, empathy, autonomy, etc.
Such values are often encouraged and developed in students at international schools; however there is one area where these values are not always enacted: student behavioral management. What do we do with students who do not ‘adhere to the rules’?
International school students are typically well-behaved, and generally good-natured. However, there are times when students break school rules and administrators feel it necessary to impose consequences. These consequences often include school suspension, either in or out of school, and grades of zero for assessments on days missed.
Contracts—documents written by administrators, signed by the student, the parent, the principal and the counselor, are also common. And then there are the behavioral plans that are carried from class to class where students are required to get signatures from teachers to confirm the appropriate behavior.
These ways of responding all fall within the realm of what is referred to as behaviorism. Behaviorism is based on the premise that our responses to environmental stimuli shape our behaviors; therefore, behaviors can be controlled or modified by changing aspects of the environment which are either pleasurable or aversive. Concepts that have arisen from this field of research include rewards, punishment, and reinforcement—all of which are strategies used to control/modify behavior.
Over the past several years, I have reviewed a great deal of the literature in this area and have found some support to suggest that the use of punishment (and rewards) can be effective, but only under certain conditions and within a limited time frame. More specifically, I have found that ‘temporary compliance’ results from these strategies—not to mention a dependency on extrinsic motivation.
Essentially, such practice strengthens external motivation and creates a dependency on ‘others’ or ‘things’ to guide future behavior. This is a well-documented fact. Furthermore, research reveals that if attention becomes focused on external rewards, then both overall performance and intrinsic motivation diminishes over time.
When I speak with counselors at various international schools, I become disheartened to hear about the use of rewards and punishment as a method for ‘controlling’ student behavior. This is apparent in more than one educational context, but seems most visible in the area of discipline.
As counselors, we are often left to ‘pick up the pieces’ when a student returns to school after being suspended. Counselors are privy to first-hand information about how the student feels afterwards and how they spent their time while suspended. Invariably, a student will tell me that he or she “... didn’t do much”, that they chatted with their friends on Facebook, sent SMS messages to friends at school, watched TV, caught up on homework, etc. How did it make them feel? Isolated, indifferent, alone, rejected, angry, bitter, marginalized, and/or ashamed are the adjectives I’m most likely to hear.
Furthermore, when students are suspended from school they are missing opportunities for learning. Are these the outcomes we are hoping to achieve?
Why do we continue to use a behaviorist approach in international schools? Are we afraid that no imposed consequence might lead to excessive permissiveness? Is it that we don’t have an alternative or know a better way? Admittedly, responding with a behaviorist approach is an ‘easy prescription’. You can show that there has been a consequence, as well as express to the community that the behavior is not acceptable—as if to assume they did not know this beforehand! Personally, I would prefer to have a child change their behavior not out of fear of the consequence, but because they know it may be harmful to themselves or others.
What is the alternative? In recent years, many schools have adopted UBD (Understanding by Design) to develop school curriculum. This approach considers first the desired outcome or understanding, and then develops strategies to facilitate this outcome. I suggest taking a similar approach to discipline and behavioral management. More specifically, I recommend making greater attempts to understand students and their behavior, the kinds of behaviors we value, and the best ways to achieve the desired outcome.
Over the years I have learned that student misbehavior is often an indicator or symptom of ‘unhealthy’ relationships at home. Furthermore, suspension or ‘trouble at school’ frequently exacerbates these unhealthy relationships.
In addition to seeking to understand the child, I would also advocate a model of restitution. This implies supporting the child while they ‘fix’ what was done wrong. Restitution also helps them understand the risks involved in their behavior and the feelings of those who may have been affected.
Part of this process might involve inviting those who were ‘affected’ by the behavior, and having each person express how they were impacted. The student then has an opportunity to understand the consequences of his or her actions. They must also have an opportunity to ‘repair the damage’ the best they can, undo what was done wrong, and/or share their learning with others. Examples might include making repairs to damaged property, providing time to another where their time was lost, or assisting with classroom lessons in an area pertaining to the infraction (e.g. drug and alcohol education).
There is no need to impose additional consequences, as the child is able to observe and understand the consequences of his or her behavior. And through this understanding comes an intrinsic motivation to change the undesirable behavior.
In direct conversations with Principals and aspiring administrators, they have shared their concern about the amount of time required to engage in this approach. However, I might argue that this is possibly a misconception. If teachers are engaged and are following a similar paradigm, then a significant number of behavioral issues might be addressed in the classroom without the involvement of Principals.
Furthermore, I believe this approach offers opportune teaching moments. I might even guess that you will get a reduced number of ‘repeat offenders’ if behavioral issues are addressed not only by the teacher, but also by involving the entire class in this paradigm shift. Examples I see in some classrooms include the involvement of students in developing classroom rules and in areas of conflict resolution.
Admittedly, a restorative approach might initially require more time from administrators. But is time a sufficient excuse to sacrifice best practice? I encourage administrators and teachers around the world to ask whether or not your policies in the areas of discipline and behavioral management reflect the values described in your mission statement.
Moreover, I encourage you speak to your counselor(s) to gather anecdotal evidence on this topic, as well as conduct your own literature review—do not simply take my word for it! l
Ron Fast is the Guidance Counselor at International School Manila, Philippines.




Please fill out the form below if you would like to post a comment on this article:








Comments

There are currently no comments posted. Please post one via the form above.