The SMT of the participant school must be aware of the different management styles and its implications for the management of girls involved in physical abuse. Bucher and Manning (2005:56) find that a safe school is one in which the total school climate allows for interaction in a positive, non-threatening manner that reflects the educational mission of the school while fostering positive relationships and personal growth. It is
the task of the SMT to ensure that action is taken in a school to address violent and aggressive behaviour, thus ensuring safe schools. Squelch and Lemmer (1994:56); Kruger and Van Schalkwyk (1997:20); Van Deventer and Kruger (2003:142); as well as Zabel and Zabel (1996:124) distinguish three prominent educator classroom management styles, namely an autocratic or authoritative, a democratic or participative and a laissez-faire or permissive classroom management style.
In order to manage a school an appropriate management style must be used. What will constitute an appropriate management style will depend on the situation (Van Deventer & Kruger 2003:144). According to Tiwani (2010:38) each situation requires a unique course of action by the educator and each situation will therefore have to be analysed and adapted to the educator’s personality, and the forces in the environment or situation. Educators have to ensure that the barriers that underlie the learners’ behaviour are addressed through relevant strategies such as creating safe learning environments, communicating safety and order, providing effective classroom leadership, focussing on instructional issues, and developing high expectations for learners.
2.5.1 An autocratic management style
The autocratic management style is characterised by the strong leadership role of the educator; one-way communication, little opportunity for creative thinking or learner participation; rigid discipline and an unapproachable educator (Unisa 2006:6). Autocratic educators have a low opinion of human nature, and believe that learners cannot control their own behaviour. They believe that they must use their authority to control learners by determining and enforcing standards of behaviour in the classroom. In this management style the educator becomes an authoritarian figure who exerts too much control, imposes strict rules, makes a great fuss over any minor infringement of the rules, and tends to be paranoid about opposition to his/her authority. Instead, learners become ill-disciplined and uncooperative, and develop a negative attitude towards the learning area, and according to Jackson (2002:57), some learners may even refuse to go to school.
While this style of leadership is characterised by a one-way communication between the educator and his/her class and a lack of harmonious relations, Van Deventer and Kruger (2003:144) maintain that it has the advantage of good performance. This management
style implies that learners work well in a strictly controlled learning environment; they do not take responsibility for their actions; they tend to “fear” certain educators, especially those who are authoritative; they lack self-control; and continue to misbehave despite being subjected to beatings and sarcasm. This management style encourages learners to be rebellious, as they retaliate and show off their resistance (Tiwani 2010:36). An autocratic management style will not be conducive for girls who engage in physical abuse as the aim of the SMT is to be corrective rather than to encourage rebelliousness and further aggression.
2.5.2 A democratic or participative management style
The democratic management style is characterised by a calm and inviting teaching attitude, namely self-expression by learners and a team spirit between educator and learners (Unisa 2006:6).
The participative leadership style contains individual and collective goals. It requires the use of strategy backed by compassion (Pontefract 2013:69). Zabel and Zabel (1996:124) argue that democratic managers balance the educator-directed and learner- centred activities so that they can assume more directive approaches to determine content and learning activities. Sound and effective discipline should exist in a democratically-led and democratically-managed classroom. Furthermore, Kruger and Van Schalkwyk (1997:22) contend that an educator who adopts this management style will let his/her learners take part in decision making, in classroom policy, rules and procedures, the organisation of class activities, and the maintenance of order in the class. Learners should be involved in all issues that relate to them so that they may also regard themselves as part of the solutions to classroom-related behaviour problems. The democratic management style has the primary objective of building commitment and consensus among the various stakeholders at school. This style encourages educator input in decision making and motivates by rewarding team effort (Cardinal 2013:1). The democratic management style allows learners to develop in a responsible and self- controlled manner. These learners could thus play a vital role in the decision making process with the SMT in finding positive ways to solve their disputes. This management style will be suitable and applicable to the proactive approach of learner discipline.
2.5.3 A laissez-faire or permissive management style
According to Tiwani (2010:37) permissive educators believe that if left alone, learners will make good decisions and behave favourably. Under this management style few rules are set and learners are allowed a great deal of freedom. They do more or less as they please. According to Van Deventer and Kruger (2003:142), the laissez-faire leadership style, is characterised among other things, by little attention to policy- making, which then results in poor discipline. While it is true that no single classroom management style is 100% better than the others, the laissez-faire management style is more destructive, as it gives learners a free reign to do as they please (Tiwani 2010:37). The laissez-faire leadership style allows too much freedom to learners (Unisa 2006:6) and this is not suitable to the management of learners who fight as there has to be parameters within which Discipline Policy exists.
I regard the disciplinary models of Ginott and Dreikurs as the best suited disciplinary models to aid in the management of physical abuse and those are discussed below.