Landy (2002: 54) suggests that adult intolerance and a misunderstanding of the learner’s behaviour may result into the latter showing a lack of discipline. The unacceptable behaviour may be typical of the learner’s developmental stage but parents, educators, superintendents and principals may not be aware of it. Inappropriate adult expectations that are incompatible with the learner’s temperament and those that are a poor match for the learner’s maturational levels, and inappropriate reinforcement from them and a lack of knowledge and understanding by the learner about how to behave appropriately or about the consequences of their behaviours may encourage him/her to show undesirable behaviour (Brady, Forton, Porter & Wood 2003: 86). Developmental deficits also may heighten the risk of a lack of discipline among learners.
These internal factors (discussed from paragraphs 2.5.1.1 to 2.5.1.3) have an influence on the behaviour of the learner and may contribute to a lack of discipline from him/her at school. However, the nature-nurture controversy, that is the extent of the impact of external factors and the internal factors on the learner’s discipline, is also evident in the real roots of the lack of discipline and, in the effective management approaches to a lack of discipline in school. Though Fields and Fields (2006: 3) assert that effective discipline approaches must be based on knowledge of the learners’ physical, emotional, and intellectual development and on the individual characteristics of the learner, Walker, Ramsey and Gresham (2004: 46) assert that it is difficult to identify clearly the role of inherited factors within the learner in the development of a lack of discipline. It should be noted however that they acknowledge the evidence of Rathvon (1999: 67), Leaman (2005: 1) and Noguera (2001: 210) that socio-environmental factors play a major role in
56
the manifestation of a lack of discipline in learners. Furthermore, rather than viewing discipline problems as only related to the internal learner deficits, they should be viewed also as a result of the learner-environmental mismatches (Dupper 2010:26). Effective management practices in behaviour management place a primary emphasis on causes within the environment that are observed to be related to a lack of discipline in schools (Zirpoli 2008: 24). Therefore, on account of this pressing need for a fundamental paradigm shift in behaviour management approaches, the researcher considers that a study of the external factors also will help him in the construction of an effective discipline management model.
2.5.2 External factors
Externally, school and classroom climate and the learner interactions with peers and adults can cause a lack of discipline (Noguera 2001: 202-218). The family, the school, the culture, the community, the media and peer pressure are the factors that are analysed to understand how they lead to a lack of discipline among learners at school.
2.5.2.1 The family
The family has the primary responsibility for developing ethical behaviour in learners (Brooks & Goble 1997: 50; Joubert & Bray 2007: 82). However, in the modern societies, parents neglect their role of primary educators for learners and they become rather developmental liabilities for adolescents (Zirpoli 2008: 140), and this may give rise to bullying and victimisation by peers (Lee & Oh 2011: 544). Trembley et al. (2009: 118) and Oloyede and Adesina (2013: 141) claim that family characteristics are good predictors of a lack of discipline in children. Many risk factors in the family setting impact on the learner behaviour at school. Child neglect and abuse, the learner's exposure to parental criminality and violence at home, aggressive interaction between siblings, mentally disturbed parents, availability and the use of weapons and drugs at home, a huge family size and disruption in family functioning due to divorce or remarriage of one parent may influence the learner’s behaviour (Seegopaul 2016: 47; Elliot et al. 1998: 44- 111; Bear 2005: 80; Magwa & Ngara 2014: 84; Adigeb & Mbua 2015: 36).
57
Besides this dysfunctional lifestyle and the breakdown in the family structure, Steinberg (2001: 9), Rogers (1991: 23) and Zirpoli (2008: 140) identify a lack of parental discipline and control, and parenting skills to be a major cause of a lack of discipline in learners. Umo (2013: 88) defines parenting as the activity which involves bringing up and looking after a child by the biological parents, a biological parent or surrogate parents. From this perspective, Barber, Stolz and Olsen (2005: 139) identify three dimensions of parenting, namely parental support in terms of nurturing, affective and compassionate qualities; psychological control, in terms of parent choice to change the child’s feelings, to ignore or dismiss the child’s views or to withdraw love or affection; and behavioural control in terms of parents’ monitoring or knowledge of the child’s activities. These dimensions affect the child’s behaviour at school.
According to Mewasingh (2003:27), discipline begins at home when parents teach the learners right from wrong. However, parents' inadequate child rearing practices like harsh parental attitudes and discipline, parents’ power assertive methods, parents' permissiveness of aggression, coercive-hostile parenting, no secure attachment for the learners with their parents due to lack of parental interaction with them, a lack of social capital, families with no sense of the future, no self-control, no sense of responsibility, delegation and cooperation and with emotional, spiritual and physical poverty are more likely to encourage learners to engage in problem behaviour at school (Lorrain 1999: 19; Gurian 2001: 233; Berk 2002: 129; Brooks & Goble 1997: 51; McClelland 1999: 51). Parents who adopt a laissez-faire attitude, out of ignorance (Mouton 2015: 143; Mugabe & Maposa 2013: 116) inculcate lawlessness, indiscipline and anti-social behaviour in their children (Mabitla 2006: 19). In addition, Gasa (2012: 149-150) who states that the more negative the emotional self-concept of the learner is due to the negative family climate, the more aggressive the learner is. This is consistent with Hung (2007: 116) who provides the evidence that a lack of parental supervision, involvement and encouragement in the learner’s academic pursuit may result into a lack of discipline. Sampson (2002: 182-189), Elliot et al. (1998: 10) and Bear (2005: 80) reason that parents who set no clear and consistent limits, expectations and values for the learner and who
58
have no or little educational aspirations and understanding of the role of education in achieving life goals, convey a negative self-image to the learner with no confidence, motivation and self-efficacy in education. This is so because of working parents who have a lack of time to engage themselves in their children’s learning and education (Watson & Bogotch 2015: 260).
The socio-economic status of the family may have an impact on the parenting styles of the parents, which may influence the behaviour of the children of the family. Magwa and Ngara (2014: 84) postulate that poverty of some learners and the high socio-economic status of the family of other learners may force the former to rob others in order to meet their daily needs or they may rob out of frustrations of being deprived of some needs. Arum and Ford (2012: 57) concur that the greater the economic inequality and social distance among learners at schools, the more discipline problems occur.
Reid, Patterson and Snyder (2002: 125) and Walker, Ramsey and Gresham (2004: 23) postulate that under these conditions, the learner comes to school with negative attitudes about schooling, a limited repertoire of cooperative behaviour skills and a predilection to use coercive tactics to control and manipulate others. Leaman (2005: 3) and Ali, Dada, Isiaka and Salmon (2014: 263) concur that the learner with little structure, guidance and balanced discipline at home will struggle to relate to the school discipline. Parents are too busy with own personal and professional activities so that they have little time to supervise their children’s behaviour and activities (Asiyai 2012: 46; Van Breda 2014: 1058). Moreover, they are no more concerned with their children’s academic performance and behaviour at schools (Abidoye & Onweazu 2010: 12). When parents expose their children to antisocial behaviours and fail to teach them the necessary social skills for successful interactions, the latter are vulnerable to learn inappropriate behaviour from those who may take advantage of them (Umo 2013: 88). Moreover, Mestry and Khumalo (2012: 107) and Whitelock 2012: 65) point out that the lack of parental support impedes the enforcement of the school discipline by the school principal and educators. Schools limit parental involvement to fundraising, voluntary social events and orientations (Jodut 2015: 13; Chikudo 2016: 40). In the same vein, McNamara (2010: 10)
59
postulates that without parent’s active participation and support in the school policy implementation, there is likely to be an alarming situation of a lack of learner discipline in state secondary schools. Du Preez and Roux (2010: 19) also observe that when there is a discrepancy between values taught at school and those that are nurtured at home, disciplinary problems arise. So, parents should take up their primary and collaborative responsibility to discipline their children (De Atouguia 2014: 95). They should be part of the solution, not the cause of the problem of learners’ lack of discipline at school (Bennett 2015: 8).
With the centralisation of the education system in Mauritius whereby the Minister has the sole responsibility, authority and power to take policy decisions in education (Paragraph 2.4.4), parents who are politically affluent and who have political contact and relationships with the Minister directly or indirectly through the elected member of parliament in their constituency, may have recourse to political interference in the school matters in general and in the implementation of the school discipline policy by the principal in particular (White 2010: 18). This however may encourage learners to manifest a lack of discipline as the principal as well as the educators may feel disempowered to deal with the problem (Pascal 2015: 26; Smit 2013: 364).
2.5.2.2 The school
The school context, most importantly, helps to generate and shape the learners' attitudes, beliefs and behaviour. Elliot et al. (1998:17) and Leaman (2005: 2) acknowledge that the school is a little community or a microcosm of the community with its norms and social structure, a complete social environment that affects the learner's behaviour. The following characteristics of the school may encourage a lack of discipline among its learners:
Poor design and use of school space;
Overcrowded classroom due to large school population;
Lack of caring but firm disciplinary procedures;
60
Rejection of at risk learners by peers and educators;
Anger and resentment at school routines and demands for conformity;
Poor quality of principal leadership;
Lack of supervision by the principal;
No teaching of social behaviour skills;
No academic support for all learners;
Lack of individuality and autonomy in learning;
Lack of involvement in activities that raise the learner’s self-esteem;
Rigidity of procedures and classification, prescription of uniform standards of achievement in learning and conduct, interference with the freedom of the learner's growth;
Learners are not allowed to work and play, pursue their hobbies and organise social functions in the school;
Passive recipiency over shared activity;
The inefficiency of the school management in handling of discipline problems;
The non-existence of sports grounds in the school premise;
Lack of extra-curricular activities;
Harsh school rules and regulations.
(Ugboko & Adediwura 2012 : 42 ; Asiyai 2012 :43 ; Saiyidain 2000: 26-44; Walker et al. 2004: 282-283; Ramharai et al. 2006:148-189 ; Panchoo 2016 : 13)
It is clear from the above that some schools are neither creative nor active and they do not provide the learners with the opportunity and social network to be emotionally well- prepared to be responsible learners. Learners do not take the school as a place conducive for learning but a place for spending time (Thody 2011: 25; Modiba 2015: 299). In addition, Lukman and Hamadi (2014: 13) posit that in such schools learners disrespect their fellow learners, educators and the community members and engage in protest which promulgates violence, discrimination, harassment, bullying and intimidation, using weapons, drugs, alcohol and tobacco.
61
The pressure of academic competition coupled with the unavailability of extracurricular activities may also lead to a lack of discipline. Sampson (2002: 176) and Dupper (2010: 31) argue that extracurricular activities help learners develop the sense of discipline. In the same vein, Saiyidain (2000:26) mentions that the absence of extracurricular activities deprives learners to actively participate in the school life that is intrinsically valuable and pleasure-giving to them, exercising all their healthy, natural powers of action, cooperation and self-expression. Clayton (1997: 4) adds that competition is incompatible with the goal of building a community of learners and educators. Competitive situations rather are a setup for failure since not every learner can win (Hyson 2004: 30; Njoroge & Nyabuto 2014: 293). This is consistent to the discussion in paragraph 2.4.1 in the context of an elite education system.
The educator can be a factor of a lack of discipline in learners in the following ways:
Ineffective use of innovative teaching techniques;
Poor modeling of behaviour, like inconsistency, irresponsibility and lack of self- control;
Showing little interest in learners;
Providing ineffective guidance and feedback;
Using ineffective personal communication;
Failure to plan proactively;
Using coercion, threat and punishment;
Succumbing to personal frustration;
Latecoming to classroom;
Using of mobile phones in class;
Lack of empowerment to deal with discipline problems due to parental or political interference in educator authority;
Feeling of disempowerment due to learners’ challenging behaviour to his/her authority;
62
Lack of educator training or professionally uncertified educators in classroom management and learner discipline management;
Educators show their lack of trust in learners through their negative attitudes and expectations towards the latter in class;
Allocating low grades to learners with bad behaviour;
Absenteeism in class or leaving class unattended;
The educator’s self-defeating attitudes.
(Rampa 2014: 26; Daly, Der-Martirosian, Ong-Dean, Park & Wishard-Guerra 2011: 178; Manguvo, Whitney & Chareka 2011: 157-159; Gitome, Katola & Nyabwari 2013: 6; Asiyai: 2012; Khalil & Saar 2009: 144; Ogbu 2003: 127; Lorrain 1999: 20; Charles 2008: 24-25; Charles 2002: 2; Lewis 2009: 26; Wolhuter & Russo 2013: 1; Khalsa 2007: 52; Sprick 2009: 22; Kruger 2003: 207; Cushman & Kemp 2012: 48- 49).
The end of character education in public schools led to the degradation of values in schools. In the context of personalism (the focus on individual rights and freedom, self- worth, self-respect, self-dignity and autonomy), permissiveness, cultural relativism (values are culturally relative and should not be determined by the school stakeholders) and increased emphasis on academic and cognitive skills, character education and the teaching of values are no more an educational priority in schools (Bear 2005: 77-84). Also, after the Student Rights Contestation period (1969-1992), learners are given the basic right to freedom of speech and expression in school, the right to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches and the right to due process (Arum 2005: 60). However, the recognition of these learners' rights, following the Goss v Topez case in 1975, the Bethel v Frazer case in 1986 and the Tinker v Des Moines Independent
Community school in 1969 in the USA, the school authority to discipline learners was
undermined and learners feel free to manifest irresponsible behaviour as they ignore that they also have the responsibility to respect the rights of others (Charles 2008: 15; Rogers 1991: 85; Arum 2005: 60-61; Schimmel 2006: 1006). Beebeejaun-Muslum (2014: 134) reported that discipline problems in state secondary schools of Mauritius are the results of
63
the lack of authority and power of the principal, the School Management Team and educators. This lack of authority and power is coupled with the excessive emphasis by various ministries on the children’s rights without teaching them their duties and responsibilities to their family, the school and the society; some learners may even threaten to report any disciplinary actions or interventions which principals may take to maintain discipline to the police or the press (Ramharai et al. 2006: 204-205). According to Joubert and Bray (2007: 81), the emphasis on the children’s rights has empowered the learners to misbehave and disempowered educators and principals to maintain effective learner discipline. They are not able to take severe actions against learners who misbehave as each case of misbehaviour has to be referred to the Ministry of Education. The doctrine of in loco parentis, that is, the principal may take the place of the parents as to disciplining learners, among others, is no longer acceptable to the learners and parents (Skiba, Eckes & Brown 2010: 1072; Nakpodia 2010: 145).
In the Mauritian context, the Government of Mauritius has ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989), the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the child (1990) and passed the Child Protection Act 1994 and the Ombudsperson for Children Act 2003. All these Acts aim at promoting and protecting the rights of the child, and the government has a mandate to:
“(a) ensure that the rights, needs and interests of children are given full consideration by
public bodies, private authorities, individuals and associations of individuals; (b) promote the rights and best interests of children; and
(c) promote the compliance with the Convention of Rights of the Child.” (The
Ombudsperson for the Children Act 2003, Paragraph 5: 705).
In the Education Regulations 1957, the protection of the rights of the child at schools was already considered and enforced. Corporal punishment is prohibited in schools in Article 13(4) of the Regulations, and the Ministry of Education and Human Resources issues a circular letter to all schools at the beginning of each academic year stating that perpetrators of corporal punishment are liable to legal actions under the Child Protection Act 2003 (Newell 2015: 3).
64
Corporal punishment is defined as a kind of discipline that entails direct infliction of pain on the physical body of the learner (Moyo, Khewu & Bayaga 2014: 2). It is a reactive approach to discipline, including suspension and expulsion, that is used mostly in secondary schools of many countries (Sprick 2009: 19; Lewis 2009: 16), though it is outlawed following the constitutional rights of the child based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Tshalala (2012: 19) cites Greydanus, Pratt, Spates, Blake-Dreher, Greydanus-Gearhart and Patel (2003: 385) to mention that the aim of reactive discipline techniques is inflicting pain as a means of changing learners’ unacceptable behaviour to acceptable behaviour.
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child aims to promote and protect the rights and interests of the child. This is because many educators, administrators and parents believe that corporal punishment is necessary to teach learners a lesson and discourage them from similar practices in future (Mugabe & Maposa 2013: 112). Also, many parents view it as a traditional way to discipline effectively learners who misbehave by modifying their undesirable behaviour (Tshalala 2012: 48-49). However, Erkman and Rohner (2006: 252) maintain that many lower- and middle-class parents accept it as they want their children to obey and comply, whereas many middle-class and upper-class parents want their children to be independent and develop positive self- esteem. Moreover, punishment should not be used since it does not respect the learner’s human dignity and his/her welfare, and according to Govender & Sookrajh (2014: 7) the less educators and the principal use corporal punishment at schools the more they teach learners self-discipline. So, alternatives to punishment such as the research-based discipline preventions, interventions and strategies (Paragraph 3.5) have been scientifically implemented and successfully proven and there should be a shift from punitive to preventive disciplinary strategies (US Department of Education 2014: 57; Willougby 2012: 47) (Paragraph 5.3.1). However, Maponya (2015: 187) asserts that alternatives to corporal punishment do not work effectively.
65
In the Mauritian context, the National Children Council, the Child Development Unit and the Ombudsperson for Children operate under the aegis of the Ministry of Gender Equality, Child Development and Family Welfare to ensure that the above mandate is respected and enforced. Whenever any case of child abuse arising in the family, at