This article was downloaded by: [New York University]On: 09 October 2014, At: 09:59Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ceds20

Discipline in South AustralianPrimary SchoolsBruce Johnson a , Murray Oswald a & Kym Adey aa School of Education , University of South Australia , SmithRoad, Salisbury East, South Australia 5109Published online: 02 Aug 2006.

To cite this article: Bruce Johnson , Murray Oswald & Kym Adey (1993) Disciplinein South Australian Primary Schools, Educational Studies, 19:3, 289-305, DOI:10.1080/0305569930190305

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305569930190305

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoeveras to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Anyopinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of theauthors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracyof the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verifiedwith primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connectionwith, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Educational Studies, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1993 289

Discipline in South AustralianPrimary SchoolsBRUCE JOHNSON, MURRAY OSWALD & KYM ADEYSchool of Education, University of South Australia, Smith Road, Salisbury East,South Australia 5109

SUMMARY Teachers' views on discipline in primary schools in metropolitan Adelaide, SouthAustralia, were investigated using a survey instrument developed for the Elton Enquiry intoschool discipline in England and Wales. Results of the survey suggest that primary and juniorprimary teachers experience frequent but minor discipline problems in their classes and in theschool yard, but that they cope with these problems reasonably well. Data are presentedsummarising and comparing primary and junior primary teachers' most common disciplineproblems, which are the most difficult to handle, teachers' perceptions of the seriousness of theseproblems, and their suggestions to improve their capacity to deal with these problems. Differencesbetween public and teacher perceptions of discipline problems in government primary schools areexposed. The implications of several findings for teacher training and development are brieflydiscussed.

Introduction

While both the public and teachers believe discipline management to be an issueof major concern which faces schools, there is disagreement as to what might bethe more serious misbehaviour problems. Public discussion and debate isfrequently characterised by comments based on popular opinion, hearsay, andisolated incidents of a dramatic and newsworthy nature, rather than informedknowledge regarding the types of discipline issues which prevent learning fromtaking place in schools.

A further confounding of the discipline in schools debate has been, asAtkinson (1989) noted, a sustained attack in recent years on state education ingeneral, and classroom teachers in particular. Yet the problems of discipline inschools, as Barcan (1979) reminds us, have had a long history, and their causesextend beyond the classroom and its members.

The recent studies of Lewis & Lovegrove (1988, 1989) and Lewis et al.(1991) on the beliefs of teachers, students and parents concerning desiredapproaches to the management of discipline problems have highlighted thediversity of views on what constitutes effective school discipline. They foundthat parents were more supportive of traditional, or interventionist managementapproaches to behaviour and classroom management issues, in contrast to the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

290 B. Johnson et al.

more liberal (person-oriented) and interactive approaches espoused by manyteachers (and education authorities overseeing the schools) in their survey.Students at primary levels were also more in favour, while secondary students(and their teachers) were less supportive, of interactive approaches (Lovegrove& Lewis, 1991).

Findings from this current primary school study also suggest that teachersplace more value on the effectiveness of interactive approaches in the manage-ment of their classroom problems. Both Lovegrove & Lewis's (1991) survey ofparent attitudes, and anecdotal evidence of public reactions in the media toincidents of indiscipline in schools suggests that the public in general remainfirmly entrenched in their views that discipline problems are best managed bythe maintenance of traditional approaches, whereby control and resolution ofproblems is best achieved with teachers using directive and interventioniststrategies. Clearly there exists a challenge for policy developers in education toinform parents and the public of the reasons behind recently-instituted be-haviour management strategies based on other than traditional methods, and tojustify the efficacy and advantages of such approaches.

There also appears to be a need for greater public awareness andunderstanding of the actual nature of the discipline problems which mostcommonly disrupt school and classroom environments. Alley et al. (1990)have made a number of cogent points arguing the necessity for "identifyingthe actual discipline problems that teachers find the most difficult to handle"(p. 63) as a basis for more constructive explorations of the causes and manage-ment of discipline problems. Several authors have pointed to the need forthe specific types of discipline behaviour in classrooms to be identified,if teachers are to be better prepared in developing their skills and implementingstrategies to manage such behaviour (Lovegrove et al., 1985; Borg & Falzon,1990). Lawrence & Steed (1986) noted the large amount of research ondisruptive behaviour in secondary schools, in contrast to the "relative dearth"of research relating to the primary sector. Several subsequent studies haveredressed this situation to some extent (Merrett & Wheldall, 1984; Borg& Falzon, 1989, 1990).

Until recently, research into primary school-based discipline problems hasbeen a neglected area, apart from generic descriptions of misbehaviour(Lawrence & Steed, 1986; Borg & Falzon, 1989). The intention of this researchwas to gather data on teachers' perceptions of specific discipline problems injunior primary and primary schools in South Australia.

Investigation Context

In recent years there has been widespread public and professional debate overdiscipline in South Australian government schools. While a perennial educa-tional issue of public concern, student discipline became a major concern of theSouth Australian community in the late 1980s, several years after similarmovements in other Australian states. Issues have ranged from the place of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 291

corporal punishment in schools, the efficacy of 'modern' approaches to manag-ing groups of often rebellious school students, through to the behaviour ofschoolchildren on public transport. This debate has taken place within acommunity in which the major political parties have opposing policies oncorporal punishment in schools, and 'law and order' more generally.

Reacting to this concern and a political directive to abolish corporalpunishment in schools within 3 years, the Education Department of SouthAustralia decided to "strengthen support for schools" in the area of schooldiscipline in its influential Three Year Plan for government schools. Thejustification for increased 'support' to schools was that all children need a "safeand secure learning environment" that allows teachers to "get on with the jobof teaching" (Education Department of South Australia, 1989a). The questionof whether or not teachers were, in fact, being prevented from "getting on withthe job of teaching" by disruptive and poorly disciplined students, was notaddressed.

Late in 1989, the Director General of Education and the Minister ofEducation in South Australia jointly launched School Discipline: policy andguidelines for practice, a comprehensive and assertive statement on studentdiscipline intended to "guide" school communities in the development of"school based discipline policy" (Education Department of South Australia,1989b).

Because of the politicisation of the student discipline issue, significantquestions about student behaviour in government schools have remained largelyunasked, let alone thoroughly addressed through empirical inquiry. As there wasa lack of research in the area, it was decided to undertake a major study ofteachers' views on discipline in schools. The principal focus of the study was toreview teacher attitudes and practices in the area of student behaviour manage-ment in South Australian primary schools.

The study was influenced by the work undertaken by members of theEducational Research Centre at Sheffield University. Their report, Teachers andDiscipline, was commissioned as part of the Elton Enquiry into Discipline inSchools (England and Wales) which was released in 1989 (Department ofEducation and Science, 1989). Negotiation with the research team in mid-1989resulted in the survey instrument being released for a comparable study ingovernment schools in Adelaide, the largest city in South Australia. It wasnecessary to revise substantially sections of the questionnaire to comply with thespecific characteristics of the South Australian educational setting. This processincluded a mailing phase with a representative group of teachers.

Methodology

Questionnaire Survey

Recently published studies into school discipline have largely focused uponbehaviour problems in the classroom. Questionnaire surveys have been com-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

292 B. Johnson et al.

morij asking teachers about most frequent or most troublesome behaviour(Merrett & Wheldall, 1984; Wheldall & Merrett, 1988), or most seriousbehaviour (Cohen & Thomas, 1984; Borg & Falzon 1989, 1990). Alley et al.(1990) approached their study in terms of the severity or 'discomfort' thatfrequent difficult behaviour created for teachers.

The present study, like its English counterpart, included and extendedbeyond classroom-based difficult behaviour. Using a questionnaire approachfive broad issues were addressed:

(i) What are teachers' routine disciplining experiences with students, bothin the classroom and around the school?

(ii) How serious do teachers think problems of discipline are in theirschools?

(iii) What particular pupil behaviours do teachers find difficult to dealwith?

(iv) How do teachers try to deal with difficult pupils and difficult classes?(v) What actions do teachers think might best be taken to help with

problems of discipline in their schools?

The questionnaire also contained five main sections specifically dealing with:

(i) demographic characteristics of the sample;(ii) discipline problems inside the classroom;(iii) discipline problems around the school;(iv) strategies or sanctions used by teachers in managing difficult classes;

and(v) other proposals and/or strategies that teachers thought would help

them deal better with behaviour problems.

Each major section contained subquestions related to the degree of difficulty ofthe problems, their frequency of occurrence, and the effectiveness of strategiesused (Adey et al. 1991).

Sampling Procedures

The target population for the study was the total pool of government schoolteachers in the metropolitan area of Adelaide. It included principals and thoseteaching personnel who were on 50% or more teaching contact hours per week.The total pool of subjects from which the sample was drawn numbered just over10,000, about 6000 of whom were teachers teaching within the reception toYear 7 range (students aged 5-12 years). Using a one in five random samplingtechnique, about 1200 reception to Year 7 teachers and 900 secondary teacherswere identified and sent questionnaires during the second week of term 2, 1990.Teachers were asked to respond to the questionnaires by referring to theirexperiences in schools during the week prior to receiving the questionnaire. Aresponse rate of 63.8% was achieved.

Results are presented for two groups of teachers in this sample; junior

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 293

TABLE I. Percentages of teachers reporting daily or almost daily discipline problems with individualsin class (with mean of rating responses in brackets)

Discipline problems Junior primary teachers (%) Primary teachers (%)

Hindering other pupils 34.2 (3.30) 39.3 (3.27)Idleness and work avoidance 30.1(2.42) 33.1(2.78)**Talking out of turn 28.1(4.15) 30.5(3.99)Infringing class rules 25.8 (2.64) 28.7 (2.53)Not being punctual 25.2(2.05) 23.2(2.15)Making unnecessary noise 25.2 (2.58) 27.7 (2.73)General rowdiness 23.8(2.31) 21.4(2.30)Getting out of seat 22.7 (2.25) 25.9 (2.48)**Verbal abuse to pupils 19.6(2.06) 18.1(2.09)Physical aggression to pupils 19.4(2.49) 18.1(2.13)Cheeky remarks, responses 7.7(1.12) 14.4(1.95)**Physical destructiveness 3.9(1.29) 4.1(1.25)Verbal abuse to teachers 0.7 (1.09) 1.8 (1.16)Physical aggression to teacher 0.0 (1.06) 0.3 (1.03)

**Significant difference at p < 0.05: J-test.

primary teachers (N= 156) who taught children in reception to Year 2 (ages5-8 years), and primary teachers (N= 621) who taught children in Years 3-7(ages 8-12 years). Findings showing the percentages of teachers reportingparticular types of discipline problems are summarised in Tables I and II; thepercentages of teachers indicating strategies used in Table III; and percentagesof teachers suggesting changes necessary to improve discipline in their schools,in Table IV.

TABLE II. Discipline problems encountered at least once per week around the school—percentagesof teachers responding (with mean of rating responses in brackets)

Discipline problems Junior primary teachers (%) Primary teachers (%)

Lack of concern for others 95.5(2.70) 95.1(2.72)Physical aggression to students 92.3 (2.71) 85.3 (2.47)**Unruliness while waiting 89.7 (2.80) 87.2 (2.54)**Infringing school rules 80.0 (2.46) 86.4 (2.32)General rowdiness 78.1(2.41) 85.3(2.40)Verbal abuse to students 79.5 (2.35) 82.3 (2.40)Running in corridors 76.5(2.73) 71.5(2.34)**Cheeky remarks 42.9(1.64) 60.0(1.91)Loitering out of bounds 45.8(1.66) 52.2(1.72)Physical destructiveness 24.4(1.31) 23.1(1.28)Verbal abuse to teachers 11.5 (1.12) 10.9 (1.14)Leaving school without permission 9.0(1.10) 9.1 (1.10)Physical aggression to teachers 5.1(1.06) 2.3(1.03)**

**significant difference at p < 0.05: r-test.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

294 B. Johnson et al.

TABLE III. Seriousness of discipline problems

Seriousness of problem Junior primary teachers (%) Primary teachers (%)

Very serious 5.1 4.3Serious 17.3 15.7Not very serious 38.5 43.6Not at all serious 30.1 30.3No problem at all 9.0 6.1

Results

Teachers' Discipline Problems with Individuals

Primary and junior primary teachers reported that they encountered manyfrequently occurring, but relatively minor discipline problems with individualpupils in their classes. Table I gives a comparison of percentage numbers (andmeans of ratings of responses) of teachers on the types of problem behaviourthey identified were occurring from 'several times daily' (5), 'daily' (4) throughto 'seldom or not at all' (1). Over 90% of teachers acknowledged that the typesof problem behaviour they identified were typical, or fairly typical, of theirexperiences in classrooms Qackson [1968], Lortie [1975], Doyle [1978], andGood & Brophy [1984] have documented the common day-to-day problemsfaced by teachers working with large numbers of students for extended periodsof time.)

The most frequently reported problem behaviour (talking out of turn,hindering other pupils, and moving around the classroom, for example) were so

TABLE IV. Percentages of teachers indicating changes to improve discipline (with mean of ratingscores in brackets)

Strategy/proposal for change Junior primary teachers (%) Primary teachers (%)

Smaller classes 53.1(1.64) 53.0(1.66)More student counselling 47.6 (1.69) 55.6 (1.56)**More in-service training in discipline 47.0 (1.67) 42.6 (1.72)Firmer statement to pupils re 'dos' & 'don'ts' 39.3 (1.88) 37.3 (1.82)More staff discussion 47.0(1.74) 39.3(1.79)Tougher sanctions 24.3(2.13) 34.6(1.91)**More guidance for teachers re discipline 32.7 (2.05) 33.8 (1.96)Build more community respect for schools 32.7 (2.05) 33.8 (1.96)Build more parent involvement 28.0 (1.97) 33.9 (1.87)More guidance for regional office 30.2 (1.98) 30.8 (2.01)Change school atmosphere 18.7 (2.40) 17.5 (2.32)Change teaching styles 15.9(2.22) 15.7(2.10)**More team teaching 13.1(2.28) 14.9(2.29)Change curriculum content 6.7 (2.56) 10.8 (2.42)**

**significant at p = 0.05: r-test.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 295

TABLE V. Behaviour of individuals that was difficult to deal with

Behaviour difficult to deal with Junior primary teachers (%) Primary teachers (%)

Talking out of turn 37.8 21.1Physical aggression to students 22.2 17.5Verbal abuse to students 11.1 13.4Idleness and work avoidance 4.4 16.5Hindering others 8.9 7.2Not being punctual 6.7 4.1Making unnecessary noise 4.4 3.1Cheeky comments 0.0 5.7Infringing class rules 0.0 4.1Verbal abuse to teachers 2.2 2.6General rowdiness 0.0 2.1

common that they appear to be everyday features of life in junior primary andprimary classrooms. Two types of behaviour (idleness, cheeky remarks) wererated significantly differently, each being viewed as a greater problem at primarylevel. Being able to handle frequent but minor pupil misbehaviour would appearto be a prerequisite skill required of teachers if they are to fulfil their otherteaching duties adequately. The results also suggest that differing skills may berequired of junior primary versus primary teachers in coping with particulartypes of behaviour (see Table V).

While there are basic similarities between the frequency of misbehaviourmost difficult to deal with cited by primary and junior primary teachers, the levelof difficulty experienced by them when dealing with certain discipline problemsvaried. For instance, 'talking out of turn' and 'physical aggression to students'were reported as difficult behaviours to deal with by a greater proportion ofjunior primary teachers than primary teachers, while the reverse was true for'idleness and work avoidance' (see Table V).

Although it is acknowledged that the most frequently reported misbe-haviours were relatively minor breaches of classroom discipline, it is disturbingto note that pupil to pupil verbal abuse and physical aggression occur with ahigh frequency in primary and junior primary classes, i.e. almost daily or daily.It seems that the harassment of pupils by other pupils in classrooms is relativelycommon. On the other hand, the verbal abuse and physical intimidation ofteachers by pupils appears to be quite rare. Despite common rhetoric claimingthat students generally lack respect for their teachers and treat them in ways thatreflect this, an overwhelming number of teachers failed to report experiences ofphysical aggression and verbal abuse by pupils towards them in their classrooms.

Discipline Problems with Classes

Teachers were asked to indicate whether they were teaching one or more classeswhich were difficult to deal with overall. Significantly, 63.2% of primary

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

296 B. Johnson et al.

teachers and 75.2% of junior primary teachers reported no difficulty with theclass or classes they taught. However, it is also significant that 36.8% of primaryteachers and 24.8% of junior primary teachers did! The most frequently dealtwith behaviour in the 'difficult' classes was students 'talking out of turn'. Thiswas uniformly reported at both levels.

When asked to rank types of behaviour according to the relative difficultyof handling it in 'difficult' classes, teachers again identified 'talking out of turn','idleness' and 'hindering others'. That junior primary teachers reported 'talkingout of turn' as the most difficult behaviour to deal with is not surprising. It isdoubtful that children at this level have yet fully accommodated social ruleswhich impinge on this 'indiscretion'. It is arguably a much more blatantanti-social behaviour when evident amongst older students.

It is also interesting to note that verbal abuse of pupils by other pupils wasreported as a behaviour which, while not as prevalent as others, was relativelydifficult to handle in these kinds of classes. On balance, this appears as more ofan issue in 'difficult' primary school classes than elsewhere. Student to studentphysical aggression, on the other hand, was more of a problem in 'difficult'junior primary school classes. Younger children may often respond impulsivelywhen challenged and demonstrate less restraint than older children. A verysimilar pattern is apparent for 'infringing class rules'. Contending with socialimmaturity is clearly a feature of classroom management in junior primaryclasses.

Discipline Problems around the School

Using similar scaling methods to those referred to in Table I, teachers reportedthat the problems of 'lack of concern for others', 'physical aggressiveness tostudents', and 'unruliness while waiting' in the school yard ranked as the mostprevalent problems (see Table II). Other results indicated that 90% of teachersraised all these types of behaviour as problems which confronted them in theschool yard at least once or twice a week. The incidence of school yard problemsinvolving 'verbal abuse to students' and 'physical aggression to students', wasalso rated highly.

While aggressive behaviour, both verbal and physical, was a feature ofstudent-student interactions in the school yard, teachers themselves reportedthat they were rarely the focus of such aggression. However, it is to be noted thatthe reported response levels between junior primary and primary teachers weresignificantly different, with higher incident rates by the former group. Thefindings indicated that 5.1% of junior primary teachers compared with 2.3% ofprimary teachers (statistically significant difference between the two groups)were subjected to physical aggression from pupils in the school yard. However,when these results are extrapolated to actual numbers in the parent population,the findings take on more serious dimensions. These figures represent approxi-mately 125 primary and 60 junior primary teachers in schools in the totalmetropolitan area of Adelaide who, within a week, may be the target of physical

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 297

aggression by students in the school yard. Even so, it is important not toover-dramatise this extrapolation.

Difficult Pupils

Teachers were asked to identify the number of students they encountered in theclassroom and in the school yard who were difficult to manage. About 80% ofteachers reported that very few students (one or two or less) were difficult todeal with in the classroom or in the school yard. These proportions remain moreor less the same for teachers at primary and junior primary levels in bothclassroom and school yard situations. Consequently, it is reasonable to suggestthat only a small minority of students are responsible for the types of difficultbehaviour reported earlier.

While only a few students appeared to behave in ways that teachers founddifficult to manage, it is interesting to note the characteristics of these 'difficult'students. The 'difficult pupils' group is predominantly male (Houghton et al.[1988] reported a similarly high proportion of 'difficult' males in secondaryschools), and contains students of average to below average ability, who comefrom families which, in a disproportionate number of cases (nearly 40%compared with 23% in the general school population), receive governmentassistance to support their children's education (Education Department ofSouth Australia, 1990). These results seem to support the stereotype whichportrays members of 'difficult students' groups as being made up of socio-economically disadvantaged boys with below average ability.

Perceptions of the Seriousness of Discipline Problems

As pointed out in the Elton Enquiry (Department of Education and Science,1989), one of the most pressing questions asked about schools by people in thecommunity concerns the seriousness of discipline problems in schools. An ideaof how primary and junior primary teachers currently perceive the seriousness ofdiscipline problems in their schools can be gauged from Table III. Over 20% ofteachers reported that there were either 'serious' or 'very serious' disciplineproblems in their schools.

Many factors are likely to influence teachers' perceptions. One of the mostinteresting findings of the study relates to the influence of teaching experienceon teachers' perceptions of the seriousness of discipline problems. Contrary toprevailing beliefs about inexperienced teachers having problems with discipline,the influence of teaching experience on perceptions of the seriousness ofdiscipline problems is not as pronounced as might be expected. While thedemographic data reveal a trend for teachers, as they become more experienced,to perceive discipline problems as less serious, such perceptions appear tochange very slowly over the first 9 years of teaching. It is only when theexperienced group of teachers (20 + years' experience) is compared with thevery inexperienced group (less than 4 years' experience) that the influence of

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

298 B. Johnson et al.

TABLE VI. Percentages of teachers reporting strategies used (with means of rating responses in

brackets)

Strategy or sanction used often Junior primary teachers (%) Primary teachers (%)

Reason with pupil in class 73.0 (3.92) 70.5 (3.77)Reason with pupils outside class 50.3 (3.24) 49.8 (3.26)Discuss problem with whole class 57.7 (3.48) 52.5 (3.27)Ignore minor disruptions 46.5 (3.00) 37.5 (2.90)Have pupil leave class 30.7 (2.61) 29.4 (2.60)Set extra work 9.1(1.95) 23.9(2.49)**Removing privileges 32.5(2.67) 27.6(2.51)Seek parental involvement 23.4(1.28) 23.5(2.34)Keeping pupils in (detention) 9.7(1.88) 18.8(2.24)**Conference with pupil/parent 12.5(1.13) 9.5(1.68)Refer pupil to another teacher 2.0 (1.36) 3.8 (1.39)Send pupil to principal 3.4(0.73) 4.5(1.47)Remove from school/counselling 0.0 (1.05) 1.3 (1.09)

**significant difference at p = 0.05: t-test.

teaching experience on teachers' perceptions of the seriousness of disciplineproblems seems pronounced.

Managing Difficult Classes and Pupils

Teachers were asked to identify those strategies or sanctions that they actuallyused to respond to difficult students and classes. Teachers were also asked todistinguish between these strategies and alternative approaches which could beused to manage student behaviour, by using rating scales ranging from 'often,very often' (5) through to 'rarely or never' (1) and on their relative effectiveness.The results suggest that many teachers at both primary and junior primary levelspreferred to use reason or discussion as their main management strategy (seeTable VI). However, it is also evident that a significantly larger proportion ofprimary teachers used punishments (setting extra work, detention). Juniorprimary teachers, on the other hand, were less inclined to set extra work as apunishment, preferring instead to ignore minor misbehaviour. Understandably,the setting of additional work, or keeping pupils in was not often used at juniorprimary level.

When reflecting on these responses it is important to note the diversity ofstrategies which were used frequently by teachers. It demonstrates the complex-ity of behaviour management in school settings generally, and in particular,highlights differences in the strategies used by primary and junior primaryteachers. When primary teachers were asked to indicate the effectiveness of thediscipline strategies they used, their responses revealed an apparent paradox.Often used discipline strategies were frequently identified as both effective andineffective in dealing with disruptive behaviour (see Table VII). Roughly equal

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 299

TABLE VII. Most effective and ineffective discipline strategies

Junior primary teachers (%)

Strategy or sanction Most effective

Reason with pupil in classReason with pupils outside classDiscuss problem with whole classIgnore minor disruptionsHave pupil leave classSet extra workRemoving privilegesSeek parental involvementKeeping pupils in (detention)Conference with pupil/parentRefer pupil to another teacherSend pupil to principalRemove from school/counselling

18.37.2

22.38.6

10.81.4

13.77.92.94.30.70.70.0

Least effective

4.84.81.2

20.54.8

21.73.63.67.22.46.0

15.71.2

Primary teachers (%)

Most effective

21.210.117.73.1

16.33.78.07.62.76.80.81.20.0

Least effective

13.411.817.44.59.54.1

13.011.44.35.90.83.20.4

numbers of primary teachers reported different assessments of the effectivenessof several discipline strategies (for example, discussing problems with the wholeclass, reasoning with pupils outside of the class, and ignoring minor disrup-tions), suggesting that there may be some truth in the adage that, 'particularstrategies work for some teachers and not for others'.

Further analyses of the responses of teachers who reported using strategiesfrequently revealed that for all but three strategies, an overwhelming majority ofteachers who used the strategies rated them as effective. However, over 50% ofteachers who used 'ignoring' as a regular student management strategy acknowl-edged that it was ineffective. Unlike other strategies, 'ignoring' was identified asan ineffective strategy by those who used it frequently. Why teachers persistedin using a strategy that they acknowledged to be ineffective may be linked to theconstraints on teachers' time to react in other ways. It may be that manyteachers are unable, on occasions, to invest the time and energy required toimplement alternative disciplining strategies. They may choose to ignore minordisruptions knowing that to do otherwise would involve them in time-consum-ing and distracting alternative responses that may, in the longer term, prove tobe more disruptive to classroom order than tacitly allowing a minor misde-meanour to go unconnected.

Changes to Improve Discipline

Teachers were asked to identify any changes that they believed would help themdeal better with difficult pupil behaviour. The primary focus of a majority ofteachers was the size of their classes; at least 53% believed that they would bebetter able to manage difficult pupil behaviour if they had fewer students in their

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

300 B. Johnson et al.

classes (see Table IV)- Statistically significant differences were found betweenthe two groups on four items (more student counselling, tougher sanctions,change teaching styles, change curriculum). In each case, primary teachers seemto be suggesting a greater need than do junior primary teachers for each of thesetypes of strategies to be given more emphasis.

The other major areas for action relate to increasing training and supportiveservices (i.e. counselling for students, training for teachers, more staff discus-sion) and implementing more interventionist strategies (firmer communicationto students, 'tougher sanctions'). These preferences, which were given similarpriorities across all levels of schools (except notably for a lower call by juniorprimary teachers for 'tougher sanctions'), have important implications forcurrent philosophies guiding the management of student behaviour in schools,and for the professional development of teachers.

Of added interest are those strategies teachers viewed as least helpful. Theseincluded strategies directly related to aspects of their teaching (teaching styles ormethods, team teaching, and changing curriculum content). This may indicatea reluctance by many junior primary and primary teachers to accept changes ininstructional arrangements as a means of improving student behaviour. Theseteachers appear to attribute the causes of student behaviour problems to factorsother than those linked to their specific instructional practices.

At a more general level, teachers were also asked to identify those strategiesor actions that were needed by their schools to improve discipline in the school.Results reflected the pattern established in teachers' personal preferences, withsmaller classes being identified by 30% of junior primary and 20% of primaryteachers as the most needed strategy to improve student behaviour managementwithin teachers' schools.

Summary of Results

What Were Teachers' Routine Disciplining Experiences with Students, Both in theClassroom and around the School, and What Particular Types of Pupil Behaviour DidTeachers Find Difficult to Deal With?

(i) Teachers encountered many relatively minor discipline problems withindividual pupils in classroom settings. The most common misbe-haviour included hindering other students, and talking out of turn.Serious misbehaviour like physical destructiveness and aggressiontowards teachers was relatively uncommon.

(ii) While there appear to be only minor differences between the types ofproblems reported by primary and junior primary teachers, the levelof difficulty experienced by teachers when dealing with this misbe-haviour varied. Primary teachers, for example, found idleness andwork avoidance more difficult to deal with than did junior primaryteachers. On the other hand, junior primary teachers had moredifficulty dealing with students talking out of turn.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 301

(iii) The majority of teachers had few or no difficulties dealing with theirclasses. However, a significant minority did report difficulties.

(iv) Difficult to manage classes were characterised by students talking outof turn, and students hindering each other. At junior primary level,physical aggression between students was a problem in difficult tomanage classes.

(v) The school yard presented different discipline problems for teacherscompared with those they faced in classrooms. Almost all teachersreported a lack of concern for others to be a problem in the schoolyard. Many teachers also reported that verbal abuse and physicalaggression between students were common problems. Teachersthemselves, though, were rarely the target of student abuse or aggres-sion.

How Serious Did Teachers Think Problems of Discipline Were in Their Schools?

(vi) About 80% of teachers reported that discipline 'problems' in theirschools were not very serious or not a problem at all.

(vii) About 80% of teachers reported that very few students were difficultto deal with, suggesting that a small minority of students may beresponsible for most disruptive behaviour in schools. Studentsidentified as difficult to manage were usually males, considered bytheir teachers to be of below average ability, and from socio-econom-ically disadvantaged backgrounds.

How Did Teachers Try to Deal with Difficult Pupils and Difficult Classes?

(viii) When dealing with difficult classes or pupils, teachers used reasoningand discussion strategies most often, rather than sanctions like deten-tion or the removal of privileges.

(ix) However, teachers used many strategies and had differing views abouttheir effectiveness.

What Actions Did Teachers Think Might Best Be Taken to Help with Problems ofDiscipline in Their Schools?

(x) Predictably, over a half of the teachers cited reducing class sizes as astrategy that would help them cope better with discipline problems.Other approaches suggested related to increasing support services andtraining in the area. Changing instructional arrangements (teachingmethods, curriculum content) were viewed as potentially least help-ful.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

302 B. Johnson et al.

Conclusions

Most discussion about discipline and student behaviour management focuses onissues and practices relevant to classroom settings (see, for example, Thornburg,1984; Kaplan, 1990; Woolfolk, 1990). Research into discipline problems invari-ably concentrate upon the classroom environment. Steed's study (1985), whichprovided opportunities for teachers to report on disruptive behaviour in thewhole school setting, showed that teachers report mainly classroom-basedincidents.

The findings of this study on classroom-based discipline problems closelyparallel those from earlier research. Lawrence & Steed's (1986) rankings of thetypes of behaviour of most concern to teachers (aggression to other pupils,inattentiveness, disobedience), and those recorded by Merrett & Wheldall(1984) and Wheldall & Merrett (1988) closely match the results shown in TableI. Borg & Falzon's (1988) study of primary schools in Malta and Gozo alsoprovides some interesting cross-cultural comparisons. Alley et al. (1990) askeda somewhat different question to teachers, viz., what caused them 'discomfort',and while their results gave a differing mix of responses, they neverthelessyielded issues of concern similar to this study. Steed (1985) suggested that theissue of discipline outside the classroom poses its own set of difficulties forteachers. This may be due, in part, to an absence of adequate guidelines forteachers to make judgements about appropriate/inappropriate behaviour, orabout how to confront pupils not known to them. Yet the problems faced byteachers in the playground and school setting are of significant concern to them.High response rates for the questions about the extent of problems experiencedby teachers around the school, and their concern about those problems,confirms this view (see Table II).

Physical aggression towards teachers is most apparent in junior primaryschools where the immaturity of students influences their capacity to deal withteacher intervention in emotion charged school yard situations. Teachers are notlikely to be in grave physical danger in such situations simply because of theiroverwhelming strength advantage. However, the stresses associated with dealingwith overt aggression from even young students should not be overlooked.

The problems of most concern facing teachers in the school yard are clearlyof a different nature from those in the classroom. While classroom problemsmight be classified as disruptions to the social and academic functioning of agroup or learning environment, school yard problems are more of the nature ofinterpersonal violence (physical and/or verbal aggression). Clearly, the issue ofdiscipline outside the classroom needs to be given greater attention.

Lawrence & Steed's (1986) survey of 85 headteachers and 36 principalpsychologists on coping behaviour gave findings which closely match this studyon effective strategies (see Table VI), and needed changes as perceived byteachers (see Table IV). However a notable difference between the two studiesis that while Lawrence & Steed's (1986) subjects believed that more skill-basedchanges were needed (changes in teaching styles, changing curriculum), teach-

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 303

ers in the present investigation gave greater priority to the need for developingmore effective interpersonal and relationship skills (smaller classes, counselling,in-service training in discipline management). These differences in perceptionsof most needed changes between headteachers and principal psychologists andclassroom-based teachers, appear to be a consequence of the contrasting rolesand responsibilities of the two groups. For instance, further analysis of thegroups responding to seriousness of discipline problems in their schools (TableIII) showed that principals/deputy principals considered seriousness levels to besignificantly lower, compared with the reports of classroom teachers.

The three most often used discipline strategies in primary and juniorprimary schools involved some form of discussion and 'reasoning' betweenteachers and students about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour. Giventhat the most frequently reported types of misbehaviour were relatively minorbreaches of class and school yard order, it is not surprising that most teachersindicated a preference for these rational and educative strategies rather thancoercive and punitive strategies. However, a significant number of primaryteachers questioned their effectiveness. Although teachers were not askedspecifically which strategies were or were not effective in dealing with particulartypes of misbehaviour, it is fair to speculate that those teachers who confrontedmore serious misbehaviour were more likely to judge 'reasonable' strategies asineffective. Other, more interventionist strategies were needed. Consequently,the study lends credence to the view that teachers need a repertoire of behaviourmanagement strategies to deal with a variety of misbehaviour (Wolfgang &Glickman, 1986).

While some teachers may learn to use a variety of strategies 'on the job', astrong case can be made for the inclusion of specific and comprehensive courseson student behaviour management within pre-service and in-service teachereducation awards. Clapp (1989) noted that learning about specific disciplineproblems and their management has been given little attention in teachertraining courses, an issue also addressed in the recommendations of the EltonReport (Hanko, 1989). It is evident that such training is a prime need of currentteachers who lack an effective repertoire of discipline strategies; nearly a half ofjunior primary teachers cited the desire for further training in the area. Thenature and extent of training offered remains an issue of considerable impor-tance yet to be adequately addressed by employers, teacher educators andprofessional associations. While teachers are coping, they are also saying thatthey require greater training and development opportunities to develop a widerrepertoire of effective student behaviour management strategies.

The study has described the perceptions of discipline in schools held byprimary and junior primary teachers in metropolitan Adelaide, South Australia.Without simplifying the issues too greatly, it is reasonable to suggest that theperceptions of these teachers are more positive than those represented in thepopular media and in some academic circles (Balson, 1984). While teachersreport difficulties with some individuals and classes, they do not generalise theseproblems to the entire school system in ways that the media often does. This

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

304 B. Johnson et al.

study establishes an empirical bench-mark against which assertions based onanecdotal and very limited experiences can be evaluated. Consequently, it canserve to reassure the wider community of the continued orderly functioning ofgovernment primary and junior primary schools at a time when state educationis under siege from a variety of quarters.

Overall, the findings of the study do not support a view of a governmentschool system in chaos. On the contrary, it is apparent that primary and juniorprimary teachers and schools are coping. However, it is equally clear that manyteachers experience persistent but minor discipline problems on a regular basis.It is reasonable to suggest that these difficulties not only impede the teachingprocess but also act as a major source of teacher stress. The results raise anumber of important issues of relevance to primary education.

REFERENCES

ADEY, K., OSWALD, M., & JOHNSON, B. (1991) Discipline in South Australian Schools: a survey ofteachers—survey no.1: teachers in metropolitan schools (Adelaide, Report to the EducationDepartment of South Australia, University of South Australia).

ALLEEY., R., O'HAIR, M. & WRIGHT, R. (1990) Student misbehaviours: which ones really troubleteachers? Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer.

ATKINSON, J. (1989) Responding to Elton: a whole school approach, Support for Learning, 4(4),pp. 242-248.

BALSON, M. (1984) Discipline: the major educational problem, Education Magazine, 41, pp. 2-4.BARCAN, A. (1979) Discipline in N.S.W. Schools (New South Wales, NSW Committee of Inquiry

into Pupil and Discipline in Schools).BORG, M.G. & FALZON, J.M. (1989) Primary school teachers' perception of pupils' undesirable

behaviours, Education Studies, 15, pp. 251-260.BORG, M.G. & FALZON, J.M. (1990) Primary school teachers' perception of pupils' undesirable

behaviours: the effects of teaching experience, pupil's age, sex and ability stream, BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 60, pp. 220-226.

CLAPP, B. (1989) The discipline challenge, Instructor, September, pp. 32-34.COHEN, B. & THOMAS, B. (1984) The disciplinary climate of schools, Journal of Educational

Administration, xxii, p. 2.DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (1989) Discipline in Schools (England and Wales)

(London, HMSO).DOYLE, W. (1978) Research on classroom realities: who needs it? paper presented at the Annual

Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto.EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (1989a) Three Year Plan (Adelaide, Government

Printer).EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (1989b) School Discipline: policy and guidelines for

practice (Adelaide, Government Printer).EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (1990) Student Census: July 1990 (Adelaide,

Statistics Unit).GOOD, T.L. & BROPHY, J.E. (1984) Looking in Classrooms (New York, Harper & Row).HANKO, G. (1989) After Elton—how to 'manage' disruption? British Journal of Special Education,

16(4), pp. 140-143.HOUGHTON, S., WHELDALL, K. & MERRETT, F. (1988) Classroom behaviour problems which

secondary teachers say they find most troublesome, British Educational Research Journal, 14,pp. 3-12.

JACKSON, P.W. (1968) Life In Classrooms (New York, Holt Rinehart & Winston).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Discipline in Australian Primary Schools 305

KAPLAN, P.S. (1990) Educational Psychology for Tomorrow's Teachers (St Paul, West PublishingCompany).

LAWRENCE, J. & STEED, D. (1986) Primary school perception of disruptive behaviour, EducationalStudies, 12(2), pp. 147-157.

LEWIS, R. & LOVEGROVE, M.N. (1988) Students' views on how teachers are disciplining class-rooms, in: R. SLEE (Ed.) (1988) Discipline in Schools: a curriculum perspective (Macmillan)

LEWIS, R. & LOVEGROVE, M.N. (1989) Parents' attitudes to classroom discipline, Journal ofAustralian Studies, 25, pp. 11-22.

LEWIS, R., LOVEGROVE, M.N. & BURMAN, E. (1991) Teachers' perceptions of ideal classroomdisciplinary practices, in: M.N. LOVEGROVE & R. LEWIS (Ed.) Classroom Discipline(Melbourne, Longman Cheshire).

LORTIE, D. (1975) Schoolteacher: a sociological study (Chicago, IL, University of Chicago Press).LOVEGROVE, M.N., LEWIS, R., FALL, C. & LOVEGROVE, H. (1985) Students' preferences for

discipline practices in schools, Teaching and Teacher Education, 1(4), pp. 325-333.LOVEGROVE, M.N. &LEWIS, R. (Eds) (1991) Classroom Discipline, (Melbourne, Longman

Cheshire.MERRETT, F. & WHELDALL, K. (1984) Classroom behaviour problems which junior primary

school teachers find most troublesome, Educational Studies, 10(2), pp. 87-92.STEED, D. (1985) Disruptive pupils, disruptive Schools: Which is the chicken? Which is the egg?

Teachers? Teacher Education Quarterly, Summer,.THORNBURG, H. (1984) Introduction to Educational Psychology (St Paul, West Publishing Com-

pany).WHELDALL, K. & MERRETT, F. (1988) Which classroom behaviours do primary school teachers

say they find most troublesome? Educational Review, 40(1), pp. 13-27.WOLFGANG, C.H. & GLICKMAN, C.D. (1986) Solving Discipline Problems: strategies for classroom

Teachers (Boston, MA, Allyn & Bacon).WOOLFOLK, A.E. (1990) Educational Psychology, 4th edn (Englewood Cliffs NJ, Prentice Hall).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

New

Yor

k U

nive

rsity

] at

09:

59 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014