The case against detention

By Rosie Duff

We all know that dealing with disruptive students in the classroom can sometimes be tricky.

Indeed, handling discipline problems requires sensitivity and insight on part of the teacher, as causes for troublesome behaviour can vary. Between talking in class, persistent use of electronic devices, and more seriously, physical and verbal aggression, there is no single cause leading to pupils misbehaving in school and, as such, there is no one measure that can guarantee good behaviour. Up until 30 years ago, teachers in New Zealand had the legal right to physically punish their pupils for bad behaviour in accordance with the Crimes Act. This permitted every parent and every schoolmaster the right to use force by way of correction “if the force is reasonable to the circumstances”. Fortunately, on 23 July 1990, corporal punishment was no longer allowed to be used by anyone employed by, supervising or in control of a school. And thus, detention, suspensions and expulsions were used instead. Generally speaking, this is the preferred form of discipline most teachers use today. It works well, for the most part. Except, of course, when it doesn’t. In 2014, Dr Ruth Payne, a lecturer at Leeds University in the U.K, surveyed students aged 11 to 16 at a school in England to uncover their feelings towards such classroom punishments. Her surveys quizzed students about how they would respond to a variety of disciplinary measures and what was likely to make them behave better. The feedback from the students revealed that punishments that infringe on the kids’ time – such as losing their breaktimes or receiving detentions – don’t work. Punishing the entire class for the actions committed by a handful of students was also seen as an ineffective method, and ultimately ended up creating resentment. “Being spoken to in front of the whole class is seen as demeaning,” Dr Payne adds. This is because, while students may learn that bad behaviour result in consequences, “they aren’t being taught to behave,” she explains. Instead of changing behaviour, these established punishments create resentment and damage the relationship between the pupil and their teacher. In all cases, teachers must remain calm and firm when addressing disruptive students. However, it is important to listen to what students have to say and make them feel understood. Where pupils have misbehaved, teachers can utilise positivediscipline measures, rather than punitive, that are effectively aimed at helping pupils grasp what they have done wrong. Instead of punishing misbehaviour with written lines at lunch time – or an after-school detention – how about asking students to write a reflection on their experience, and where they feel they’ve gone wrong. Such reflective practices can allow faculty members and caregivers to better understand the root cause of a conflict, and thus assist the student in understanding and identifying a more positive course of action for similar situations.

Similarly, restorative practices – such as peer conflict resolution – teach students how to right the wrongs they have caused. For example, if a student uses disrespectful language, that student will be taught to investigate why that language is harmful. By conducting research first, the student can craft a more genuine apology to the offended party. Finally, logical consequences are a method used by teachers in place of punitive measures, wherein students are gently instructed on how to correct their errors.

So, if a child draws on the wall, they are then instructed to clean it up. The intent is to convey the lesson that every action has a reaction. This fosters a sense of individual responsibility and encourages students to make better choices.

Providing healthier alternatives to traditional punishments, these measures promote stronger learning communities, and better-equip students with the interpersonal skills necessary for success later in life.

Most importantly, to effectively implement positive discipline, faculty members need to remain clear about what their expectations from students are and acknowledge positive behaviour.

Punishing the entire class for the actions committed by a handful of students was also seen as an ineffective method, and ultimately ended up creating resentment.

SCHOOL SAFETY IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY

By using Securescaffold you can rest assured that your objectives of safety, cost and meeting deadlines are of our paramount importance to us.

“Ask your builder if they are using Securescaffold – it will save you money. “

Secureguarantee

• We guarantee to beat any written quote by 10% • We guarantee to return all quotes within 48 hours otherwise you will receive the first week rental FREE of charge!

* Terms and conditions apply to the Secureguarantee

Head Office - 38 Lowe Street, Addington, Christchurch 8011 Christchurch Yard - 72 Shortland Street, Wainoni, Christchurch 8061 www.securescaffold.co.nz | 0800 66 00 22