Whole School Approach to Behaviour Management - Term Paper Example

REPORT: WHOLE- SCHOOL APPROACH TO BEHAVIOUR MANAGEMENT By student’s Name: Code+ Course: Instructor’s Name: University Name: City, State: Date of submission: Executive Summary This report aims at examining the current structures of whole-school approach to behaviour management between two selected primary schools, one in Australia and the other in the United States of America. Recent research has proved that adoption of a whole-school approach to behaviour management is the only effective way of implementing various school programmes aimed at increasing the well being of students and preventing anti-social behaviours in primary schools. The approach entails team work among the school community to ensure that each and every child maintains a positive, rewarding and happy experience pertaining the school. Parents and teachers in this approach are seen as true partners in the process of learning, which encourages students to participate in their own learning process, work-hard to produce the best outcomes, maintain discipline in schools, show support to others as well as being considerate to them and to attach great value in their quest for pursuit of academic excellence. Introduction: Behaviour management approaches in schools have been seen to contribute greatly to societal changes experienced today. An overview regarding the history of management of behaviour in classrooms entailed a range of approaches often portrayed as negative such as corporal punishment which is greatly attached to the works of the behavioural theorists back in the twentieth century (De Jong, 2005).However, contemporary trends in behaviour management try to avoid a coercive style of managing behaviour and concentrates more on non-coercive behaviour management. Conversely, it’s worth noting that the adoption of the non-coercive style to behaviour management does not imply that the teacher is no longer in charge of the classroom. Recent literature has come up with a distinction between ‘authoritarian’ and the ‘authoritative’ styles in classroom management. The latter is considered the best and the most effective style in improving the social as well as academic outcomes for the learners (Gore & Parkes, 2007). Key Features to This Approach This report intends to compare a scenario where two primary schools are involved in the adoption of a whole school behaviour management approach. The criteria for choosing the two primary schools under examination was based on their exemplary performance which is a reflection of effective adoption of the whole-school approach to behaviour management (Sugai &Hornerand ,2000). The two schools are classified and categorized as A and B according to their remarkable academic excellence in their respective countries. Where A is one of the best was performing primary school in Australia and B as one of the best performing Catholic primary school in the United States of America. A’s approach to whole-school behaviour management was categorized into roles and responsibilities that the teachers, the principals, the students and the learning coordinators have towards each other in ensuring effective implementation of whole-school behaviour management. In this respect, the teachers’ responsibilities included; Developing as well as the delivering quality curriculum, which is diverse in order to meet the needs of individual students. Rating student’s performance using a specified performance data so as to enhance their teaching programs as well as offering the best to the students in the classroom. Providing a detailed report of student’s educational progress to the parents, the principal as well as the students. Communicating on their own professional development needs to the principal in order to help them better serve the students. Providing information relevant to the Learning Support Coordinator regarding any concerns on education relating to their students conduct in class. Principal’s responsibilities included; Providing a good link between the school staff and the parents Providing support to the teachers regarding the development as well as management of behaviour (Lewis,2006) Providing assistance with regards to designing and implementing programs meant to individual children who might have behaviour problems. Ensuring the establishment of a review committee meant to monitor the management plan on school behaviour. Student’s responsibilities entailed; Learning from their teachers as much as possible, being responsible for their own behaviours, being attentive, cooperative in class and completing the tasks on time as well as following orders issued by the staff all the times. Following the school rules and regulations, avoiding infringement on other student rights and ensuring that the school is tidy and clean. Conducting themselves in a manner that will not endanger others, have respect for other people’s private property and participating fully in the education programs for the school. Responsibility for learning support coordinator encompassed; Development of a culture that is inclusive within the school, consulting as well as collaborating with the teachers to improve the learning outcomes for the students who might experience difficulty in learning and providing a better grounds for the training of competent staff. Collecting as well as maintaining relevant data and documents pertaining to students who have difficulties in learning, ensuring the school resources are used in the most effective and efficient manner and informing the school administration on the school performance. On the other hand B’s approach to whole school behaviour management included; Principal’s Responsibilities; The principal was responsible for ensuring that the pastoral care is reached to all members that make up the school community. Student’s bad behaviours can negatively affect the wellbeing of other students, the members of staff and other stakeholders. Pastoral care therefore calls for the principal to ensure just and reasonable balancing of the needs, obligations, rights, needs as well as the wellbeing of any involved party. Also the principal may have the authority to address action that may be seem to be beyond the school formal behaviour management , consideration certain issues and guided by certain principles that may include; justice, health, communal and personal safety and the duty of care. Parents’ Responsibility The parent have to ensure that the child is attending the school, provide the child with the necessary materials for smooth learning in school, access the relevant information regarding the child’s performance in the school, attend the meetings organized by the school to discuss the child’s welfare and support the school in its effort to ensure the child gets the best education outcomes (Astill, Feather and Keeves, 2002) Students’ Connectedness and Engagement A sense of belonging forms a vital element of wellbeing and better interaction with others within the community, students need to have good behaviours in order to be accepted and valued within and outside the school premises. Therefore the school forms the integral part of shaping and enhancing the student’s wellbeing (Goddard & Brien, 2003). If a student behaves badly, the behaviour management process is at the forefront to make sure that the behaviour is corrected for the student to remain acceptable and engaged in the community. Theoretical Underpinnings Recent research into behaviour management carried out by Westling ( 2010) indicates that behaviour management forms the core part of the student’s performance within and outside the school compound. In cases where the students misbehave their education is adversely affected and this may also affect the overall performances of other students in the whole school. Bad classroom behaviours have a negative implication on the teacher’s performance since they seem to interfere with the time assigned for an individual teacher in classroom and tend to disrupt the classroom activities as the teacher may concentrate more on behaviour management rather than teaching. In this scenario, both schools are guided by the school mission, vision and the core values that make sure the students are properly engaged in their own behaviour management by the school administration. For example, school A’s mission is to challenge the students to achieve their very best in their academic endeavours through community support which enables them to celebrate their efforts as well as success in academics. Their mission is based on the learning desire and the ability to maximise their opportunities in education, capacity to grow socially, physically, academically and attain the creativity to their full potential, and enabling a child to develop a social conscience by encouraging him/her to contribute positively to his/her family, the school as well as the wider community (Bacchini, Affuso, and Trotta, 2008). On the other hand school B is not left behind as it uses its mission, vision and core values to ensure the effective whole school behaviour management provides the best learning outcomes. Its vision is; ‘creating a positive school culture that is fair and respectful’; its mission is to build a school environment that is safe and supportive, that promotes pro-social values as well as behaviours and respond to the students at individual level and improve their relationship with the outside community. Its core values include; respect, compassion and forgiveness. Therefore their respective missions, visions and the core values helps in creating a positive learner-centred classrooms which bases its focus on specific child’s academic performance as well as effectively addressing the emotional and social needs of the students which are paramount to their academic success. According to research conducted by Professor Ramon Lewis (1998), who has worked with numerous schools in Australia as well as the rest of the world, there are two fundamental areas which have a significant bearing on the success of these selected schools. These areas include: 1. Rights and responsibilities. In this case, he argues that responsibility comes with all rights. Teachers as well as students have the right to learn and it’s their responsibility to provide other student with an opportunity to learn too. 2. Relationships. Learning being a social event, a good relationship between the students and the teachers is vital for better learning outcomes and a teachers ought to have a meaningful personal relationships with their students (Maag & Katsiyannis,2006). Therefore a consistent approach to whole school behaviour management provides an excellent bases for students to realise that the school rules and regulations exist to protect and guide them to achieve their set goals and objectives rather than curtailing their freedom and that there are consequences for choices they make in reference to set rules. Maintaining Appropriate Behaviour and Correcting Inappropriate Behaviour As noted by Marzano and Marzano (1998), student needs vary across individuals and teachers are usually faced with difficulties in balancing student needs in relation to the collective needs of the whole class. They further noted that schools might be the only avenue where diverse needs of students can be sorted out. The schools reality demands that the classroom teachers be in the forefront to curb disruptive behaviours although the task has not been considered as their core business (Eber, Nelson, & Miles, 1997). They categorised the disruptive behaviours as; passive, perfectionist, aggressive, socially inept and the attention problems. Under the aggressive category he classified the behaviours as covert, oppositional and hostile. Therefore the schools adopt various strategies in dealing with these disruptive behaviours. Effective teaching as well as learning outcomes demands a well organised and orderly classroom. A researcher by the name Traynor (1998) in an attempt to review literature regarding the whole school approach to behaviour management came up with five distinct methods that are widely used by the teachers in classroom management which are also largely applied by the two selected schools in behaviour management. These strategies includes; coercive, task-oriented, intrinsic, authoritative and laissez-fare. These two schools (A&B) however use authoritative and intrinsic strategies in their behaviour management process. Authoritative strategy entails the management of behaviour by teachers through enforcement of certain reasonable and specific set of rules pertaining to the classroom. The main objective of schools A& B adopting this strategy is basically channelled towards improving the student control of himself or herself as put across by Traynor (1998). Gaddy and Kelly (2006) also supported fully by Traynor. They cited his work and concluded that firm, sensitive as well as fair policies form the key components as far as school discipline is concerned. Schools A&B in an attempt to prevent disruptive behaviours have incorporated a whole school approach to behaviour management. They address the issues of disruptive behaviours by ensuring there exist a positive partnership among all the stakeholders of the school community (teachers, parents, students as well as the support staff) where each and every party play a distinct role in addressing disruptive behaviours such as bullying and promoting a culture that is positive. All teachers join together in managing the disruptive behaviours even when there exist no direct responsibility regarding the specific students who might be involved. Members of the school community join hands in bid to address disruptive behaviours by incorporating school’s programmes in the context of National Safe School Framework. They co-join them in the school curriculum and as such all teachers have incorporated various aspects of National Safe School Framework into their strategies of teaching as well as their day to day interactions with the parents, their colleagues and most important the students. On the other hand a system of rewarding positive behaviours has been implemented where well behaved students are given merit awards, credits and free time. Similarly, in an attempt to correct bad behaviours, consequences for inappropriate behaviours have been put in place. It may involve warnings as outlined in the classroom management policies, isolation in class and loss of privileges. For example, badly behaved students are excluded from games to compensate for the lost time. Therefore this approach to behaviour management among these two schools has seen them produce better educational outcomes enabling them to be part of the leading schools in their respective countries. Staff, Students and the Parent Involvement in the Policy and Procedures Effective leadership that incorporates all the stakeholders, that is the staff, parents and students is the key to coming up with efficient policies and procedures that can enhance better behaviour management among the primary schools in Australia and the US as evident from schools A & B that have been able to produce excellent learning outcomes (Bulkley, 2011). Lack of cooperation and interest among the parents, the students and the teachers may be a great hindrance to effective implementation of policies meant to enhance whole school behaviour management. According to a study carried out in Australia by Rigby and Thomas (2003), strong leadership which involved contribution from the parents, the staff and the teachers was seen in various schools as an effective remedy to disruptive behaviours. Similarly research by Craig, McGrath and Stanley (2003) found that effective inclusive leadership played a great role in behaviour management in schools. Most schools that had better learning outcomes and exemplary performance all over Australian was as a result of inclusive leadership. Therefore for school leaders to be effective in their endeavours there is need to initiate collaborative development as seen in the management of schools A & B. Students , parent and the staff work together to ensure that management of behaviours is effective. Peterson (1994) argues that leaders have a responsibility to work towards developing a professional culture that is supportive and collaborative and that enhances continuous improvement created through an atmosphere of shared goals, collegiality and based on trust. In a culture that is collaborative teachers usually discuss ideas, issues and day to day problems they might experience in their teaching process. As evident in school A & B, school leaders in collaboration with their staff ought to incorporate the school capacity (e.g. resources, skills, staff and the services) in order to have effective policies. When this is fully accomplished then success can be achieved. All the stake holders are entitled to a forum where they discuss failures and mistakes as well as sharing uncertainties and this results to collaborative problem solving techniques as in the example of schools A& B. Under this technique the stakeholders unanimously agree on what seems to be important and although disagreements may arise in the process, the aim of this program is to foster improvement as outlined by Fullan (1991) Safe School Policies Staff, parents and students need to collaborate to develop a transparent, comprehensive and detailed safe school policy. Such a policy may include plainly stipulated class rules and the displayed consequences. This policy has been executed fairly and consistently in school A & B. The policy is essential in relation to adoption of whole school behaviour management where the anti-social behaviours are addressed. Successful implementation of this policy is in line with the National Safe School Framework and has been seen to produce academic outcomes in both schools and it has been incorporated with the school systems, programmes, procedures and strategies .However development on class rules policy can take a while as outlined by Smith (2003). Class rule policy need to be communicated widely and it should be easily accessible among the stakeholders that form the school community. It should be inclusive of specific features as seen in the example of schools A & B. The school should have a statement as well as the description of its stand on anti-social behaviours such as bullying, harassment and violent behaviours and the actions to be taken towards its full implementation according to the guidelines on National Safe School Framework. Class rule policy also addresses bullying which is a common anti-social behaviour in school as everyone’s problem and not only a problem to the aggrieved party. Such a policy also creates a proper stand where the school community share the anti-bullying along with anti-harassment message to ensure a conducive learning environment for all students without fear of intimidation by others. Hence there is need to review existing school policies, practices as well as protocols to ensure they marry with the pro-social values as per the guidelines of National Safe School Framework. These policies regarding the safe school should inculcate a positive culture defined by various characteristics which may include; a call for all stakeholders to support and care for each other. Everyone ought to have a sense of belonging and take it as his/her responsibility to ensure safety for everyone, maintain a positive relationship among themselves and have pro-social behaviours, inculcate values such as mutual respect and cooperation among all the school stake holders. As argued by Schaps (2003), positive values may lead to better academic outcomes in schools and increased motivation among the students, greater concern for each other’s welfare, improved pro-social behaviour in the classrooms as well as in the play ground, inclusive attitude towards each other and a good interpersonal behaviour. Other policies that need to be incorporated in the school curriculum includes the policy on environmental education for sustainability which incorporates all dimensions school operations, learning and teaching, physical surroundings as well as enhanced relationships with the local community. Conclusion Consistency between schools’ safe policy , however should be in line with discipline policies (Morales, 2001).The school may either implement non-punitive approach to discipline management as suggested by McGrath (2006) or the Restoration approach as suggested by Armstrong (2006) to the bullying management as their preferred action which should also be incorporated in other existing school policies. Donna Cross (2006) suggests that this policy need to have continuity where there is transition from primary schools to secondary school levels (Cairns, Perrin and Cairns,1985). Research has shown that schools that directly involve the parents in their development and implementation of prevention programmes have better learning outcomes as in the case of school A &B and are attributed to greater success. In their detailed evaluation on the workability of school-based Protective Behaviour programmes, Hawkins & Briggs (1999) established that for such school programmes to be successful parents need not be left out. Their argument was based on the fact that failure to involve and inform parents may wittingly or unwittingly affect the learning outcomes as parents often do not accept or comprehend the already established programme without their consent. Kumpfer (1997) found that it is likely for children to cooperate better with parents than with teachers since children may seem to understand safety skills better when taught by parents rather than their teachers. Working closely with parents entails coming up with positive ways meant to engage them in disciplinary policies of their children (Kaufman, & Moss, 2010). Peer counselling support should also be incorporated with the school policies to produce better outcomes as far as the management of anti-social behaviours is concerned. Peer counselling systems enables the students to feel more empowered and directly engage them in discipline management. Students feel more comfortable sharing their issues of concern among themselves rather than with the teachers. Hence for better implementation of class rules the school management need to engage expert teachers in the behavioural management. The way a teacher treats a student, the respect he or she accords the learners, and the care and commitment he or she demonstrates to them form the attributes of an effective teacher. References Armstrong, M. (2006). ‘Restorative responses to bullying’, in H. McGrath & T.Noble, Bullying solutions: evidence-based approaches for Australian schools. Sydney: Pearson Education. Astill, B. R., Feather, N. T., & Keeves, J. P. (2002) ‘A multilevel analysis of the effects of parents, teachers and schools on student values’, Social Psychology of Education, Vol.5, pp.345–363. Bacchini, D., Affuso, G. & Trotta, T. (2008) ‘Temperament, ADHD and peer relations among schoolchildren: the mediating role of school bullying’, Aggressive Behaviour, Vol.34, pp.447–59. Bulkley, K.E. (2011). ‘Charter schools: Taking a closer look.’ Kappa Delta Pi Record, 47(3), 110-115. Retrieved from http://www.kdp.org/publications/pdf/record/sp11/Record_Sp_11_Bulkley.pdf Cairns, R. B., Perrin, J. E. & Cairns, B. D. (1985) ‘Social structure and social cognition in early adolescence’ Journal of Early Adolescence, Vol.5, pp.339-355. De Jong, T. (2005). A framework of principles and best practice for managing student behaviour in the Australian education context. School Psychology International, 26(3), 353 – 370. Donna Cross, (2006). ‘The Friendly Schools Project: an empirically grounded school-based bullying prevention program’, Australian Journal of Guidance & Counselling, 13 (1), 36– 46. Eber, L., Nelson, C. M. & Miles, P. (1997). School-Based Wraparound for Students with Emotional and Behavioural Challenges. Exceptional Children, 63 (4), 539-555. Fallan, M. (1992). The new meaning of educational change. London: Cassell. Gaddy, S. & Kelly, J. K. (2006). ‘Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program: a multilevel study’, Prevention & Treatment, 6 (21). Geving, A. M. (2007). Identifying the types of students and teacher behaviours associated with teacher stress. Teaching and Teacher Education, 23, 624- 640. Giallo, R., & Little, E. (2003). Classroom behaviour problems: The relationship between preparedness, classroom experiences and self-efficacy in graduate and student teachers. Australian Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 3, 21-34. Goddard, R., & O’Brien, P. (2003). Beginning teacher perceptions of their work, well-being and intention to leave. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 6, 99- 188. Gore, J. M., & Parkes, R. J. (2007). On the mistreatment of management. In A. Phelan and J. Sumsion (Eds.), Critical reading in teacher education. New York, NY: Sense Publishing. Hawkins, R.M.F. & Briggs, F. (1999). ‘The value of “Keeping Ourselves Safe”: the views of intermediate school students & their parents’, SET, 3 (1), 1–4. Kaufman, D., & Moss, D. M. (2010). A new look at preservice teachers’ conceptions of classroom management and organization: Uncovering complexity and dissonance. The Teacher Educator, 45, 118-136. Kumpfer, K. (1997). What works in the prevention of drug abuse: individual, school, and family approaches, in Secretary’s youth substance abuse prevention initiative: resource papers (pp. 69–106). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. Lewis, R. (2006). Classroom discipline in Australia. In M.C. Evertson & C.S. Weinstein (eds.) Handbook of classroom management. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum. Maag, J. W., & Katsiyannis, A. (2006). Behavioural intervention plans: Legal and practical considerations for students with emotional and behavioural disorders. Behavioural Disorders, 31, 348-362. Marzano & Marzano,(1998). Classroom management that works. Research-based strategies for every teacher. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Development. McGrath, H. & Stanley, M. (2006a). ‘A comparison of two non-punitive approaches to bullying’, in H. McGrath & T. Noble, Bullying solutions: evidence-based approaches for Australian schools, Sydney: Pearson Education. McGrath, H. (2006). ‘What Australian and international research tells us about whole-school programs for preventing bullying’, in H. McGrath & T. Noble, Bullying solutions: evidence. Morales, C. A. (2001). Discipline: Applicable techniques for student teachers. Education, 101, 115- 117. Peterson, K. (1994). Building collaborative cultures: seeking ways to reshape urban schools. Monograph of the North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. Read More