Browning-Wright (2009), Du Preez et al (2002) and Grote (2006) present three approaches in which discipline can be transferred or taught to learners and all these approaches have features that are aligned to the argument that discipline is ‘the establishment of ‘control’ or ‘self-regulation and moral commitment’. The three approaches are traditional, liberal and laissez-faire.
2.3.1.1 Traditional
In the traditional approach discipline is realized by following instructions, obeying enforcement of rules and accepting authority. A disciplined classroom has the following features: an orderly class of learning, respect for the rule of law, central authority which resides in a teacher, active support of school policies, and power residing in adults (Du Preez et al, 2002:89). According to Grote (2006:9) in the
26 traditional approach the premise is that crime must always be followed by punishment and discipline is a teacher directed activity whereby teachers seek to lead, guide, direct, manage, and confront a learner about the behaviour that disrupts the rights of others. Browning- Wright (2009:2) adds that the teacher prefers vigorous discipline and expects swift obedience. The strength of this approach is that expectations are clear, roles are explicit, it is dilemma free, predictable and practical, and it has wide community support. The disadvantages of this approach are that it is authoritarian, repressive, fails to teach discipline, fosters conformity and is inflexible (Du Preez et al, 2002:89).
This approach is more aligned with the argument that discipline is more like the establishment of control and it is reactive. This kind of approach may look ideal when looking at the well-defined systems and the smooth management of the school because there will be order in the school as there is no ambiguity about the expectations and it has the support of the community. The danger with this approach is that the key people who are to benefit from the school, the learners, on whom the approach is supposed to impact positively may not be happy due to the authoritarian and repressive manner in which things are done and the risk is that the ultimate objective of producing disciplined learners may not be reached because the learners can choose to be rebellious and even dropout of school.
2.3.1.2 Liberal
This school of thought has the following features: cooperation, resolution of differences, negotiations of processes and policies, life skills for learning, resolution of rules, inherently good members, group decision making, and power resides with stakeholders (Du Preez et al, 2002). Porteus et al (2001:88) adds that this approach puts an emphasis on the process in which rules are made so teachers facilitate the participative process to define and agree on expectations and the consequences between learners, teachers, parents and other role players. According to Du Preez et al (2002:90), the strengths of this approach are that it is humane and reasonable, respects rights, is democratic, leads to harmony and is widely accepted by caring professionals. The risks are that the approach lacks strength and direction, is too
27 psychological and too individualistic and fails to prepare learners for life in a hierarchical society.
The general overview of this approach gives an impression that it is consultative, open, transparent and considerate, and aims to inculcate self regulation and moral commitment; this is the approach that is usually encouraged in South African schools. Taking a closer look at the approach the following risks need to be highlighted: it is good to be consultative but it is also important to note that the level of knowledge of those consulted needs to be considered, e.g. if one consults learners on issues related to a disciplinary strategy that can be used in schools, in protecting themselves, there is a chance that learners can tell teachers what they want to hear. If the school is already using corporal punishment, for example, there is a chance that learners will support it.
For parents, learners or teachers to decide about their needs, it is also important to check their knowledge base in terms of their competency to decide.Can they make informed decisions? If not, what can one do to bring them to that level?, e.g. in a primary school phase due to the age of the learners and their level of knowledge, the consultative approach cannot always be fruitful if learners are not given a background of the systems in place and clarity on all the options that they have to choose from.
Secondly, in most cases democracy is looked at in terms of the majority and it is evident having a bigger number agreeing on something doesn’t necessary qualify it as right or wrong.School leaders or teachers need to advise other stakeholders that what is important is the justification and appropriateness of the decision and not the numbers. Lastly, being too psychological and too individualistic can compromise the progress or productivity as there can be continuous conflicts emanating from the school challenge of trying to strike a balance or striving to be consistent in a very diverse environment. Because it is impossible to satisfy each and every person, the risks involved in a lack of uniformity are very high and in such instances school leaders need to make a ruling in issues where there seem to be differing opinions. Learners need to be guided to understand that in life they will not always get their way.
28
2.3.1.3 Laissez-faire
Browning-Wright (2009:4) and Du Preez et al (2002:92) note that schools using the laissez-faire approach claim that their objective is to acquire/offer: individual harmony, self-actualization, true self-discipline, no repression, freedom, own personal fulfilment, own responsibility, a range of alternatives where power is within oneself.The strengths of this approach are that it respects individuality, there is free choice and it promotes self-discipline. The weaknesses are that it is socially irresponsible, fails to provide learners with needed guidance, is mystically romantic and the students’ sense and reflect the laissez-faire approach. As a result, there is lack of discipline and very little learning occurs (Browning-Wright, 2009:4).
Like the liberal approach the laissez-faire one seems to be promoting self-regulation and moral commitment but the fact that a child is not living in a vacuum but coexists with other people becomes a challenge as it seen to be promoting selfishness and discouraging the community spirit. When contemplating which decision to take, the child is directed to think about what he/she stands to benefit as an individual and not weigh it against the benefit of the bigger group. Looking at the background of the schools in South Africa where most communities are impoverished, breeding such individuals would not be an advantage for the good of the communities.Some of the values promoted in education are “ubuntu” (humanity), empathy and social cohesion.Concentrating on the self makes it difficult for one to live according to these values. Freedom is a good virtue but it is also important to note that the ‘free choice’ needs to be regulated as it might infringe on other people’s rights, so it is important to emphasize being considerate and tolerant when dealing with other people.
In conclusion, the above mentioned approaches seem to be creating problems when they are used in silos but considering the fact that each one has strengths that could lead to the production of disciplined learners and the smooth running of the school, it sounds logical to believe that a combination of the three approaches could lead to an approach that could make schools work and ultimately contribute to the improvement of learners’ behaviour. Combining the strengths of the three approaches could create a progressive model, that is, the strength of the traditional approach is that expectations are clear, roles are explicit, it is dilemma free, predictable and practical,
29 and has wide community support but it is also imperative that before those roles and expectations are enforced, consultations with the key beneficiaries must be held (liberal). If the learners are too young to adopt or reject the proposed policy, at least a reason for having such a policy must be shared with the learners so that the learners can accept it and have a sense of ownership for whatever policy is in place. As much as there will be one overarching policy, it is important to note that there will be special cases that will have to be given individual attention and special provisions will have to be made if necessary (laissez-faire), e.g. a school policy might stipulate that a certain length of hair is permissible but in a case where a learner through a parent has requested special exemption due to health reasons, that case could be treated as an exception and in this sense the approach the approach doesn’t seem coercive or imposing rules on learners. Nevertheless, in addition to the argument as to what approaches should be used to developeffective discipline practices, some theorists believe that there are also certain internal and external aspects that influence a learner to behave in a certain manner (see below).