Managing Students Behaviour at Nihon Junior High School - Literature review Example

Managing Behaviour at Nihon Junior High School Introduction One of the greatest challenges of school leadership, being vital to school management, is managing student behaviour. Why? First, human behaviour is so complex, dynamic, and diverse that understanding and dealing with it is truly challenging. There is no single strategy that fits all. Second, various educational researches (Takakura et al. 2001; Wright et al. 2007; Maguire et al. Braun 2010; Shook 2012) have long recognised the impact of student behaviour on the educational process – Disruptive behaviour interrupts teaching and learning Public Agenda (2004). Hence student behaviour is a matter of great concern of the school and the society as a whole (Powell and Tod 2004; De Jong 2005; Maguire et al. 2010; Wood et al. 2012). Problems on student behaviours are not new but are as old as schools and they occur in any school systems (Hulac and Benson 2010). Alarmingly however, it is worsening, as the recent spate of news on school violence, school shooting, and school bullying show. Today, effective student behaviour management has become among the top agenda of many schools worldwide (Wood et al. 2012), including Japan which schools were envied before for their discipline. Just like any other junior high schools (henceforth, JHS) in Japan, Nihon JHS (henceforth Nihon) is currently confronting the challenge of effectively managing its students’ increasing disruptive behaviours. Cognisant of the critical impact of student behaviour on effective learning and pressured by various reports on the collapse of school discipline in Japan (Jordan and Sullivan 1999; Hindell 1999; 2000; Hadfield 2000; Valentine 2012), this research paper seeks to analyse Nihon students’ behavioural problems, especially bullying, ultimately to find solutions from best practices worldwide. It is hoped; this will help Nihon and even other JHS in Japan become effective in managing student behaviour. Also, it will bring to light other issues (e.g. inclusion, teacher training, school codes, and family-school partnership) significant to the improvement of Japan’s educational system which likewise merit further research. Specifically, this paper seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What are the common student behavioural problems facing Nihon? 2. How do Nihon school leaders perceive student behavioural problems? 3. What strategies have been designed or implemented to manage Nihon student behavioural problems? Are these effective? A literature-based methodology is utilised for this research study, exploiting a plethora of literature on various strategies and approaches in managing student behaviour worldwide. These are rich enough to answer the questions this research paper addresses. Claims and findings of carefully selected and reviewed literatures are analysed in the context of Nihon’s current student behavioural problems as to their nature and causes in a macro and micro context, and in terms of examining the usefulness of various strategies found effective in other schools worldwide. From this analysis, a conclusion is made – Effective student behavioural management is both a strategic (school leadership) and a tactical (classroom management) tasks grounded on holistic understanding of students and achieved collaboratively among all stakeholders. 2 Review of Literature Literatures regarding school leadership and student behavioural management abound, mostly agreeing generally on various points pertinent to this study: (1) student behaviour has worsened raising serious attention from school leaders and policy makers; (2) student behaviour is affected by various factors in and outside of schools; (3) student behaviour impact on student learning and well-being, the whole education process, and the school; (4) there is no single strategy that fits all; effective student behaviour management lies on the understanding of the problem; and (5) the role of school leadership is vital to effective student behaviour management. How does Nihon’s particular situation fit in these studies? What best practices can be useful to Nihon? Along these concerns, related literatures are carefully selected, reviewed, and analysed. 2.1 Common student behavioural problems facing Japanese JHS today Student behavioural problems in junior high schools are unsurprising, given the complex process teenagers normally undergo at this stage of human growth and development – “a period of internal disharmony” (Anna Freud cited in Adams 2005, p. 4). Various literatures (Simons-Morton et al. 1999; Eccles, et al. 1991; 1993; Hill and Tyson 2009, cited in Sigelman and Rider 2009, p. 337-338) note the especial difficulty students normally go through when shifting to JHS because of the major physical and psychological changes they simultaneously experience at this time, making them more prone to behavioural problems. Van Ryzin et al. (2012) and Simons-Morton et al. (1999) add that these seemingly harmless behavioural problems of JHS students can potentially worsen when they are alone with their friends. Chen (2008) agreeably notes that the JHS students’ vulnerability to peer group pressure purposely to belong or to become popular oftentimes makes them more susceptible to disruptive behaviours. To this, many literatures (Jessor and Jessor 1977, Feldman and Elliott 1990, Dryfoos, 1990, cited in Simmons-Morton 1999, p. 100; Ludwig and Pittman 1999, Schwartz 1999, Hawkins and Herrenkohl 2003, cited in Wright et al. 2007, p. 33) forewarn that the emergence of anti-social behaviour at the early stage of adolescence – JHS – if not averted, can create more serious problem behaviours like substance abuse, unwanted pregnancy, school drop-out, and violence. These observations are similarly noted among JHS students in Japan. Japan is well-known for its disciplined citizens, attributable mainly to its disciplinarian school system where Japanese youths spend most times of their lives (Johnson and Johnson (1996). Unlike in the US where youths are only required to complete 180 days of classroom instruction a year, Japanese youths are required to complete 240 school days a year or 6 days a week (Treml 2001, p. 108). Compared with other industrialised countries, specifically Australia, Canada, England and the US, Japan has least student problem behaviours with tardiness and absenteeism the most prevalent, while skipping classes, violating dress code, cheating, profanity, vandalism, theft, abuse and injury the least prevalent in a descending order (Gu et al. 2011, p. 24). But today, most Japanese schools are confronted with worsening student problem behaviours in terms of severity and prevalence. In fact, the term ‘gakkyu hokai’ (classroom collapse) has become a common word to describe how classes almost stop due to disruptive student behaviours (Jordan and Sullivan 1999; Hindell 1999; 2000; Hadfield 2000). Although most classrooms in Japan’s JHS still function normally as usual, the increasing and worsening occurrences of student disruptive behaviours are jeopardising the disciplined reputation of Japanese schools. The classroom that used to accommodate obedient, studious, and respectful students has now become playground of unruly students – A wide spreading problem Japanese people have never imagined will ever happen in Japan. The gravity of the problem even provoked one local government to remind parents on the basics of manner and discipline – an act highly unusual because for the Japanese to remind themselves of courteousness is like reminding a fish how to swim. Yet, this vividly illustrates the severity of the problem. Even teachers who were used to be sensei are at lost now how to handle the unexpected growing discourteousness and boldness of their students; many teachers have found themselves to near nervous breakdown. (Jordan and Sullivan 1999) Teachers’ nervous reaction is not unfounded because school violence has also risen. Cases of school violence in Japan rose to 25.7% in 1998 with 29,885 reported cases at the primary, junior high and middle schools, and with violence against teachers rising to 19.2% (Hindell 2000, p. 1). More than this, Japan is greatly bothered about the increasing occurrences and the devastating effects of bullying. In 1996, there were 60,000 reported bullying cases nationwide mostly among JHS; whereas, 16 bullying-related suicides (‘Ijime saiaku’ 1996, cited in Treml 2001, p. 107-108) were reported in 1984-1985. However, Naito and Geilen (2002) clarify that despite the growing cases of much publicised school bullying-related suicides in Japan, Japanese schools remain least dangerous and problematic compared to US schools. Unfortunately, extreme bullying profoundly negates the well-preserved achievement driven, highly structured and conformist reputation of the Japanese educational system. Understanding bullying or ijime in Japan, though similar with bullying in general, is differentiated by the Japanese culture (Hilton et al. 2010). Comparative studies of school bullying between western countries and Japan (Taki 2001; Kanetsuna and Smith 2002; Hilton et al. 2010) differentiate Japan’s ijime from western bullying as follows: Western bullying is more physical in nature (e.g. hitting, punching, kicking, elbowing, hair pulling) and predominantly happens in school yard in the absence of authority against a weaker student by a stronger and bigger student; whereas, ijime is more psychological in nature (i.e. isolating or shikato, labelling, ignoring) and mainly a classroom occurrence done anytime by peers against anyone different. To Taki’s analysis, this means; any student is prone to ijime by their contemporaries. Furthermore, unlike western bullying which is more likely a manifestation of problematic student, ijime is actually done by ordinary students who suffer from all phases of stress, most especially study. As Treml (2001) notes, Japan’s educational system is well-known for being highly demanding and stiff. It takes one to go through a needle in order to get a university education. Students have to push their way to enter most prestigious schools through extreme discipline, attending juku (cram school), involving in club, and going through an intensive academic curriculum under strict teacher’s supervision. These school pressures make Japanese students stressed and over fatigued. One student describes how study creates stress and triggers ijime among students: “With entrance examinations leading to jobs into good companies, everyone is really jittery. We take turns targeting someone and knocking them around.” (Gakkou de okottieru 1997, cited in Treml 2001, p. 109) Furthermore, various studies (Boulton and Underwood 1992; Charach et al. 1995; Hoover et al.1992; Morita et al.1999, cited in Hilton et al, p. 414; Nansel et al. 2001, cited in Schimek 2006, p. 7) have found that bullying happens most in the advent of adolescence, which means transition to JHS. Therefore, school bullying in JHS is something school leadership should have been prepared with in the first place. 2.2 School leadership perceptions on JHS student behavioural problems Widespread perception shows that effective learning entails desirable teaching-learning behaviours and that disruptive behaviours often interrupts learning resulting to poor student academic achievement, poor teacher retention, and poor school performance (Simons-Morton et al. 1999; Public Agenda 2004; Hulac and Benson 2010; Maguire et al. 2010; Shook 2012; Lopes et al. 2012; NSWDET 2007, cited in Wood et al 2012, p. 376). As such, student behavioural problems are perceived to be a constant challenge to the teaching-learning environment; hence the institution of classroom and behaviour management – “the formal systems, the technologies through which the school imposes and maintains its view of order” (Maguire et al. 2010, p. 153). Therefore, school discipline is seen indispensable to create and maintain a safe and orderly school environment for effective learning (Cameron 2006). However, to effectively manage behavioural problems of students require understanding their epistemology and causality. Moreover, school leaders should capacitate teachers learn managing the mechanisms that engender positive student behaviour (Sprick and Daniels 2010). Of which, various literatures and studies have much to say, mostly contradicting the Japanese school systems, which to Treml’s (2001) description have highly valued conformity and collectiveness, disliked singularity, fostered competitiveness, and tolerated corporal punishment and teacher’s intimidation and bullying. Contrary to widespread belief, Bandura’s social learning theory argues that disruptive behaviours are not commonly caused by internal pathology, rather a product of the reciprocal interplay between person and environment, which he termed reciprocal determinism (Powell et al. 2009, p. 29). For example, Schultz, Florio and Erikson (1982, cited in Margutti and Piirainen-Marsh 2011, p. 306) claim that students’ misbehaviour at school is family-related; Lopes et al. (2012) suggests that the way people think and behave is closely related to their emotions; Kyriacou (2002) argues that good discipline entails good teacher-student relationship founded on mutual respect and rapport. As such, behavioural problems’ primary locus of cause can be understood in three continuum categories: Type I problems – caused primarily by a deficient or hostile environment and systems; Type II problems – caused by a mismatch between individual personalities and the nature of the individual’s environment; Type III problems – caused mainly by individual pathology (Center for Mental Health in Schools [CMHS-UCLA] 2008, p. 6). As to why students misbehave, Hulac and Benson (2010, p. 257-258), citing Chance (1998), note that student disruptive behaviours frequently and constantly occurring, usually serve some functions that may fall into four categories: (1) to gain peer or adult attention, (2) to acquire something desired, (3) to escape peer or adult attention, and (4) to avoid something or some tasks unwanted. Other theoretical explanations are the Choice Theory – one behaves purposely in order to gratify the ‘basic biological and psychological needs of survival, love and belonging, power, freedom and fun’ (Edwards and Watts, 2004); Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) – stresses personal competence and environmental integrity over pathology (Carr et al. 2002); and Democratic Discipline Model – grounded on the belief that all behaviour is goal-driven, whereas, misbehaviours result from faulty beliefs and reasoning (Edwards and Watts 2004). (Cited in De Jong 2005, pp. 365-66) 2.3 School leadership and strategies in managing student behaviour The widespread student behavioural problems besetting schools today imply that effective student behaviour management has become strategic in school improvement hence the educational leadership’s strategic task (Frost 2000; Day et al. 2001; Eacott 2011). As Kanetsuna and Smith (2002) emphasise, the task of school leadership to transforming the school climate against bullying is an important preventive step to bullying. The impact of leadership on school capacity is illustrated in four conceptual models: (1) direct effects model – leadership as the primary driver for changes in student performance, (2) mediated effects model – leadership effect change in student performance by capacitating the school for improvement, (3) reversed mediated effects model – school performance impacts on student performance, school capacity and leadership, and (4) reciprocal effects model – the reciprocal relationship between leadership and school improvement capacity affects student performance. (Hallinger and Heck 2010, p. 96) Just as school improvement is complex and demanding that is perceived and addressed in various ways (Harris 2009; Waite 2010; Eacott 2011; Maguire et al, 2010), so is effective classroom and behaviour management. Underlying each strategy is the type of school leadership being espoused. For example, proactive leadership promotes proactive classroom and behaviour management instead of the traditional reactive approach like suspension and expulsion (Larson 1998; Babkie 2006), which results are found negative (Cameron 2006; Shook 2012). Some of the suggested proactive strategies are respectful treatment of students, use of authentic and specific praise to all students, provision of explicit instruction, organisation of classroom into an healthy communicative space between teachers and students and among students, clarification of rules and expectations, consistency in enforcing rules and managing classrooms, routine for all classroom activities, active engagement for purposeful learning, identifying potential bullying situations, exploration of alternatives to negative intervention; and staff development on classroom management skills (Larson 1998, pp. 284-286; Babkie 2006, pp. 184-187; Shook 2012, p. 135). Related to this is the careful manipulation of group contingencies, which Hulac and Benson (2010, p. 261) argue, allows classroom teachers teach students positive behaviours rather than be stressed in suppressing disruptive behaviours, promotes mechanism critical to effective teaching, and minimises the number of adult needed to supervise students, thus economically and practically advantageous. Whereas, productive leadership perceives effective student behaviour management to necessitate a common vision that is collaboratively enacted and implemented by staffs whose relations should necessarily be supportive to each other (Niesche and Keddie 2011, p. 74). Similarly, distributed leadership endorses the efficacy of a leadership practice that is a product of the interaction between people (leaders and followers’ knowledge and skills) and their situation (Spillane 2005, pp. 144-45). Meaning, effective student behaviour management entails a positive working system between school leaders and staff, thus the need for organisational improvement allowing such relationship (Chatwin 2004). Furthermore, Maguire et al. (2010) argues; disruptive school behaviours are associated more with inadequate curriculum, inappropriate pedagogy, or unequal treatment of students rather than weak discipline policies. To address these, a behaviourist approach is inadequate, rather a more humanist approach – a holistic approach, emphasising interpersonal and intergroup relations (Sapru 2008, p. 378). The holistic perception of the individual involves understanding the individual’s emotion. To this Lopes et al. (2012) propose the importance of emotional management and situational judgments to help students avoid interpretation bias that can stir unduly emotional reactions thus enabling them respond to situations appropriately. A broader perspective is pedagogical leadership – views effective education settings to involve productive and synergistic relationship between the academic community and the community as a whole, grounded on the belief that learners are affected by their locality and the culture. Thus, teaching and learning, which processes lie mainly on the communication of knowledge, should be understood within the framework of the community ecology. (Male and Palaiologou 2012) Therefore, effective student behaviour management should be contextualised both in the school and the community. To sum-up can be best articulated in De Jong’s (2005, pp. 357-65) seven core principles of effective student behaviour management. (1) It should be viewed from an eco-systemic approach. (2) It should encompass a health-promoting approach for a safe, supportive and caring environment for students. (3) It must promote inclusiveness, responding to the diverse students’ potentials, needs and resources. (4) It should uphold a student-centred philosophy, focusing on the student as the centre of the education process and the student as a whole entity. (5) It should promote quality learning experience. (6) It should foster positive relationships, particularly teacher-student relationship. (7) It is enhanced both internally (school support structures) and externally (family, education department, community and interagency partnerships). Whereas best practice is characterized as (1) a well-defined comprehensive policy on behaviour management, (2) a health-promotive culture, (3) a meaningful, engaging and interesting curriculum, (4) an effective pedagogy, (5) a democratic, empowering and positive classroom management approach, (6) a well-established internal and external support structure and partnership, and (7) a flexible alternative learning environment. 3 Analysis 3.1 The research locale Nihon is a small public school with only 520 students (284 boys and 236 girls) and 14 classes (5 classes each for 1st year and 2nd year, and 4 classes for third year) with an average class size of 37. Students mainly come from Nihon Elementary School. Student entry to Nihon is not selective. Although admission requires the enrolee’s elementary records related to personal data, academic performance, disciplinary record, social relationships, and extra-curricular activities; these, however, have no bearing at all on the status of the student – whether the student will be admitted or not, or be on probation or not. Japan’s compulsory education ends after completing JHS; as such, schools have no right to reject a student. Corollary to this is Japan’s mass promotion which allows students proceed to JHS whether they are ready or not, thus making the work of schools, especially teachers, extremely difficult. Furthermore, this makes the pressure on JHS greater because from here students need to qualify university education. Failure to do so usually reflects back to the JHS where students come from, needless to say that the growing problem of Nihon on its worsening student disruptive behaviours greatly affect student academic achievement. Meaning, if Nihon students’ disruptive behaviours continue, their academic performance will be affected adversely which may affect negatively their university education, consequently putting Nihon’s reputation in jeopardy. Furthermore, the nature of the student behavioural problems are found to be related to bullying – an epidemic in Japan that has destroyed young innocent lives. Thus the greater is the need to arrest the problem. 3.2 Common student behavioural problems Daily staff morning meetings at Nihon reveal an escalation of problem behaviours of students which though diverse – such as inattentiveness in class, passivity in class recitation, coming to class late, and absenteeism – are found to be largely related to bullying. Homeroom teacher reports have it that victims are arbitrarily ignored and isolated, and verbally abused (insulted, ridiculed, and negatively labelled); that it usually occurs within the school premises (corridors or classrooms) during the 10-minute break interval between classes (the time period after taking lunch prior to the next class section) and even during class hours when the victim is called by the teacher to recite. The effect of which, as teachers observe, are adverse – Some victims have lost their initial capability of responding verbally to questions raised by teachers in class, perhaps for fear of sustaining further harassment. There are also some incidents of student absenteeism due to perceived increasing victimization and harassment. Notably Japan’s homogeneous society and highly collectivist culture make it emotionally unbearable for students to be arbitrarily ignored and excluded. This further deteriorates their social connectedness as it creates in them a feeling of inferiority complex. 3.3 School leaders’ perception on student behavioural problems School leaders of Nihon perceive that the growing behavioural problems of students are negative effects of school bullying that occurs daily within school premises and classrooms, and within and outside the sight of school authority, specifically teachers. Therefore, the root of the problem is bullying. So, central to Nihon’s effective student behavioural management is the prevention of school bullying. 3.4 Nihon’s strategy in managing student behavioural problems The school has adopted a number of anti-bullying strategies including placing ‘no bullying’ posters or banners on visible spots around the school; empowering students, particularly victims, develop the habit of exposing their bullies to the homeroom teachers; advising or counselling students publicly or privately to strengthen their social contact capabilities; regularly reminding students during weekly school assemblies of the dangers associated with bullying; and in extreme cases, meeting with victims and/or bullies and their parents to settle matters involving bullying. But these interventions seem ineffective because bullying and other behavioural problems among students persist. 3.5 An examination on Nihon’s leadership style and management of student behavioural problems Nihon’s leadership style is basically reactive in the sense that its strategy deals with the effects of problem and not the root of the problem. It could be argued that Nihon is in fact hitting the root of the problem – which is bullying. But to look at Nihon’s problem this way is problematic in two ways. First, though it could be true that other student behavioural problems (i.e. absenteeism, tardiness, and passivity in class recitation) are effects of bullying; it is unwise to think just so, because there are other factors in the educational process closely associated with these perceived bullying-related student behavioural problems, for example, as Maguire et al (2012) note, inadequate curriculum, inappropriate pedagogy, or unhealthy teacher-student relations. Come to think of it, if a student whom the teacher called to recite is bullied and as a consequence the bullied student is discouraged to recite again reflects back on the teacher. Bullying appears to be the immediate problem; but it took place in-front of the teacher. So the question is what did the teacher do? In short, teacher effectiveness could also be examined. In the first place, effective classroom management rests largely on the efficacy of the teacher. As Wiseman and Hunt (2008, p. 19) argues: The effectiveness of student behaviour management “rests, to a large extent, on the teacher having a good understanding of the characteristics of positive learning environment and having the necessary skills to create them.” Second, if central to student behavioural problems is bullying then the question should basically be its causality, as the CMHS-UCLA (2008) explains, and functionality, as Hulac and Benson (2010) note. It is not enough to post and consistently remind students that bullying is bad. This only magnifies the problem and may only create an atmosphere of fear – A negative feeling that bullies can effectively manipulate. This neither addresses the root of the problem. It is like posting ‘danger zone’ in the highway without rectifying what makes that zone dangerous. Furthermore, the school is small both in terms of student population and physical size, so monitoring and managing student activity and behaviour should not be that difficult. In fact, even the size of Nihon’s classes is manageable, plus the good facilities the school provides to make learning convenient. So, even from a reactive perspective, it appears that the school fails to optimise the advantages it has to discourage bullying and to effectively manage student behaviour. For one, the records student submit upon enrolment, though have no bearing on the status of students, are in fact a very good starting point for the school to have an initial grasp of the nature of their students. By having so, the school can initially profile their students – This can give school leaders the idea as to the needs of their students consequently enlightening them as to the approach best suited for the students. Unfortunately, Nihon seems not creative enough to initiate change to its leadership and management practices. Another thing, since the school is not that big (that it did not require a security guard), the visible presence of school authorities in areas of the school where bullying usually occur may deter bullies. In fact, the principal can do this as part of his/her oversight function or a shift among head teachers may do. Furthermore, with a moderate class size, managing student behaviour inside the classroom should not be that difficult. If not, this implies problem in teacher efficacy which can be rooted out from what Treml (2001) describes as the stiff and highly demanding Japanese education system. As such, it is recommended that Nihon adopt a proactive leadership, because this type of school leadership not only creates a positive school environment that best prevents bullying, as various literatures suggest (Treml 2001; Kanetsuna and Smith 2002; De Jong 2005; Schimek 2006; Allen 2010), but in doing so it will also lead school leaders to understanding the problem in a holistic approach and it will also help empower school leaders to effectively deal with other student behavioural problems. Thus it will help the school perceive and address student problems in a broader perspective. Besides this will also be a good evidence to show that the authoritative Japanese educational system from which Japanese schools take their guidance needs to be changed. One thing good about Nihon’s leadership strategy though is its collaborative approach, as manifested in its daily staff meeting through which student problems are discussed with the school staff. This in-placed collaborative approach will make the adoption of proactive leadership more acceptable and easier. 4 Conclusion Nihon students’ behavioural problems though seen by school leadership to be an effect of bullying are in fact student problems common among Japanese schools, which if analysed from a broader perspective seem to be a natural reaction of a changing student population to a Japanese education system that no longer responds to modern student needs. And unfortunately, Nihon is a microcosm of this Japanese education system. Thus Nihon’s reactive approach is ineffective because it only addresses the effect of the problem and not the root and deals with the problem from a limited perspective. As such, a proactive leadership strategy is recommended not only to effectively deal with Nihon’s student behavioural problem, but also to serve as an eye-opener for the need to change Japan’s educational system. Reference List Adams, G. R. 2005. Adolescent development. In: Golluta. T. P. and Adams, G. R. eds. Handbook of adolescent behavioural problems; evidence-based approaches to prevention and treatment. [online book] US: Springer. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=acJ6dIS64ecC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Allen, K. P. 2010. Classroom management, bullying, and teacher practices. The Professional Educator, 34 (1) Spring, pp. 1-16. Babkie, A. M. 2006. Be proactive in managing classroom behaviour. Intervention in School and Clinic, 41 (3) January, pp. 184-187. Cameron, M. 2006. Managing school discipline and implications for school social workers; A review of the literature. Children & Schools, 28 (4) October, pp. 219-227. Chatwin, R. 2004. Subject leaders and school strategy: exercising upward influence? Management in Education [online] 18 (1), pp. 12-17. Available at: http://mie.sagepub.com/content/18/1/12.refs.html [Accessed February 25, 2013]. Chen, G. 2008. Dealing with behvaioral issues in middle and high school. Public School Review. [online] Available at: http://www.publicschoolreview.com/articles/49 [Accessed February 25, 2013]. Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA. 2008. Conduct and behaviour problems related to school aged youth. [online] Los Angeles, CA: Author. Available at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/conduct/conduct.pdf [Accessed March 5, 2013]. Day, C., Harris, A. and Hadfield, M. 2001. Challenging the orthodoxy of effective school leadership. International Journal of Leadership in Education [online] 4 (1), pp. 39-56. Available at: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals [Accessed April 4, 2013]. De Jong, T. 2005. A framework of principles and best practice for managing student behaviour in the Australian education context. School Psychology International [online] 26 (3) June, pp. 353-370. Available at: http://spi.sagepub.com/content/26/3/353.refs.html [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Eacott, S. 2011. Leadership and strategies: reconceptualising strategy for educational leadership. School Leadership & Management [online] 31 (1) October, pp. 35-46. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.540559 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Frost, D. 2000. Teacherled school improvement: agency and strategy: part 1. Management in Education [online] 14 January, pp. 21-24. Available at: http://mie.sagepub.com/content/14/4/21 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Gu, H., Lai, SL., and Ye, R. 2011. A cross-cultural study of student problem behaviors in middle schools. School Psychology International [online] 32 (1), pp. 20-34. Available at: http://www.ccd.asia.edu.tw/Dean/21.%20A%20Cross-cultural%20study%20of%20student%20problem%20behaviors%20in%20middle%20schools%20(SSCI,%20IF=%200.446,%20rank%201).pdf [Accessed March 2, 2013]. Hadfield, P. 2000. Turmoil grips Japan’s schools as pupils rebel over discipline. The Telegraph [online]. August 20. Available at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1353465/Turmoil-grips-Japans-schools-as-pupils-rebel-over-discipline.html [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Hallinger, P. and Heck, R. H. 2010. Collaborative leadership and school improvement: understanding the impact on school capacity and student learning. School Leadership & Management [online] 30 (2) April, pp. 95-110. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632431003663214 [Accessed March 23, 2013]. Harris, A. 2009. Leadership succession. School Leadership & Management: Formerly School Organisation [online] 29 (5) November, pp. 421-423. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632430903152245 [Accessed March 23, 2013]. Hilton, J. M., Anngela-Cole, L., and Wakita, J. 2010. A cross-cultural comparison of factors associated with school bullying in Japan and the United States. The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families [online] 18 (4), pp. 413-422. Available at: http://tfj.sagepub.com [Accessed February 26, 2013]. Hindell, J. 1999. Disorder in Japan’s schools. BBC News [online]. February 11. Available at: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/276853.stm [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Hindell, J. 2000. Japan grapples with a breakdown of discipline in class. The New York Times [online] February 14. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/14/news/14iht-rclass.2.t.html [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Hulac, D. M. and Benson, N. 2010. The use of group contingencies for preventing and managing disruptive behaviors. Intervention in School and Clinic [online] 45 March, pp. 257-262. Available at: http://isc.sagepub.com/content/45/4/257 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Johnson, M. L. and Johnson, J. R. 1996. Daily life in Japanese high schools. Japan Digest. [online] Available at: http://iis-db.stanford.edu/docs/142/digest9.pdf [Accessed February 21, 2013]. Jordan, M. and Sullivan, K. 1999. In Japan schools, discipline in recess: old order making way for disorder in formerly rigid classrooms. Washington Post Foreign Service [online] January 24, p. A01. Available at: http://www.tomcoyner.com/japan_schools_discipline_in_recess.htm [Accessed February 28, 2013] Kanetsuna, T. and Smith, P. K. 2002. Pupil insight into bullying, and coping with bullying. Journal of School Violence. [online] 1 (3), 5-29. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J202v01n03_02 [Accessed February 10, 2013] Larson, J. 1998. Managing student aggression in high schools: implications for practice. Psychology in the Schools, 35 (3), pp. 283-295. Lopes, P. N., Mestre, J. M., Kremenitzer, J. P. and Salovey, P. 2012. The role of knowledge and skills for managing emotions in adaptation to school: social behaviour and misconduct in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal [online] 49 (4), 710-742. Available at: http://aerj.aera.net [Accessed February 10, 2013] Maguire, M., Ball, S., and Braun, A. 2010. Behaviour, classroom management and student ‘control’: enacting policy in the English secondary school. International Studies in Sociology of Education [online] 20 (2) August, pp.153-170. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2010.503066 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Male, T. and Palaiologou, I. 2012. Learning-centred leadership or pedagogical leadership? An alternative approach to leadership in education contexts. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice [online] 15 (1) December, pp. 107-118. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2011.617839 [Accessed April 8, 2013]. Margutti, P. and Piirainen-Marsh. 2011. The interactional management of discipline and morality in the classroom: An introduction. Linguistics and Education [online] 22 (2011) September, pp. 305-309. Available at: journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/linged [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Naito, T. and Geilen, U. P. 2002. Bullying and ijime in Japanese schools: a sociocultural perspective. [online] Available at: http://www.uwegielen.com/Bullying%20and%20Ijime%20in%20Japanese%20Schools%20A%20Sociocultural%20Perspective.pdf [Accessed March 3, 2013]. Niesche, R. and Keddie, A. 2011. Foregrounding issues of equity and diversity in educational leadership. School Leadership & Management [online] 31 (1), pp. 65-77. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.545381 [Accessed April 8, 2013]. Powell, S. and Tod, J. 2004. A systematic review of how theories explain learning behaviour in school contexts. [online] London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education. Available at: http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=xjNFKFrgrG8%3D&tabid=123&mid=928. [Accessed February 27, 2013]. Powell, R. A., Symbaluk, D. G., and Honey, P. L. 2009. Introduction to learning and behaviour, 3rd ed. [online book] CA: Cengage Learning. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=WkF8B-Ovl50C&pg=PA28&dq=Bandura%E2%80%99s+social+learning+theory&hl=fil&sa=X&ei=bu1gUZfzH4isrAfYioCADA&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Bandura%E2%80%99s%20social%20learning%20theory&f=false [Accessed April 7, 2013]. Public Agenda. 2004. Teaching interrupted: Do discipline policies in today’s public schools foster the common good? [online] Available at: http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/5612.pdf [Accessed February 27, 2013]. Sapru, R. K. 2008. Administrative theories and management thought, 2nd ed. [online book] New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=x8BINKzfkqsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Administrative+theories+and+management+thought&hl=fil&sa=X&ei=zyhpUY6gLIe8rAej1IFI&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Administrative%20theories%20and%20management%20thought&f=false [Accessed February 27, 2013]. Schimek, TA. 2006. Analysis of middle school student bullying experiences and student reported school climate. Guidance and Counseling thesis, University of Wisconsin-Stout. Shook, A. C. 2012. A study of preservice educators’ dispositions to change behavior management strategies. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth [online] 56(2), pp. 129–136. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2011.606440 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Sigelman, C. K. and Rider, E. A. 2009. Life-span human development. [online book] Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=8smBuRecmDsC&printsec=frontcover&hl=fil#v=onepage&q&f=false [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Simons-Morton, B. G., Crump, A. D., Haynie, D. L. and Saylor, K. E. 1999. Student-school bonding and adolescent problem behavior. Health Education Research: Theory and Practice [online] 14 (1), pp. 99-107. Available at: http://her.oxfordjournals.org/ [Accessed February 20, 2013]. Spillane, J. P. 2005. Distributed leadership. The Educational Forum [online] 69 (2) Winter, pp. 143-150. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131720508984678 [Accessed February 20, 2013]. Sprick, R. and Daniels, K. 2010. Managing student. Principal Leadership [online] September, pp. 18-21. Available at: http://www.principals.org/Content/158/PLSept10_sprick1.pdf [Accessed March 5, 2013]. Takakura, M., Nagayama, T., Sakihara, S. and Wilcox, C. 2001. Patterns of health-risk behavior among Japanese high school students. Journal of School Health [online] 71 (1) January, pp. 23-29. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11221536 [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Taki, M. (2001). Japanese school bullying: Ijime. Understanding and preventing bullying; An international perspective. [lecture] [online] Canada; Queensland University October 19. Available at: http://www.nier.go.jp/a000110/Toronto.pdf [Accessed March 3, 2013] Treml, J. N. 2001. Bullying as a social malady in contemporary Japan. International Social Work [online] 44 (1), January, pp. 107-117. Available at: http://isw.sagepub.com/content/44/1/107 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Valentine, C. 2012. What’s wrong with Japanese education? Japan Today: Japan News and Discussion [online]. March 23. Available at: http://www.japantoday.com/category/opinions/view/whats-wrong-with-japanese-education [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Van Ryzin MJ, Stormshak EA, Dishion TJ. 2012. Engaging parents in the family check-up in middle school: longitudinal effects on family conflict and problem behavior through the high school transition. Journal of Adolesecnt Health [online] 50 (6) June, pp. 627-633. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22626491 [Accessed February 28, 2013]. Waite, D. 2010. On the shortcomings of our organisational forms: with implications for educational change and school improvement. School Leadership & Management [online] 30 (3) July, pp. 225-248. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2010.485183 [Accessed April 7, 2013]. Wiseman, D. G. and Hunt, G. H. 2008. Best practice in motivation and management in the classroom, 2nd ed. [online book] Springfield, Illinois: Charles Thomas Publisher. Available at: http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=dVbdbxhJstIC&pg=PA19&dq=effective+classroom+management+rests+largely+on+the+efficacy+of+the+teacher&hl=fil&sa=X&ei=VPBoUdjuB4GJrQf8yoHICQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=effective%20classroom%20management%20rests%20largely%20on%20the%20efficacy%20of%20the%20teacher&f=false [Accessed April 7, 2013]. Wood, PB., Spandagou, I., and Evans, D. 2012. Principals’ confidence in managing disruptive student behavior. Exploring geographical context in NSW primary schools. School Leadership & Management [online] 32 (4) September, pp. 375-395. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2012.708329 [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Wright, R., John, L., Livingstone, AM., Shepherd, N., and Duku, E. 2007. Effects of school-based interventions on secondary school students with high and low risks for antisocial behaviour. Canadian Journal of School Psychology [online] 22 (1) June, pp. 32-49. Available at: http://cjsp.sagepub.com [Accessed February 10, 2013]. Read More