As Willert & Willert suggest, ‘positive behaviour supports developed through the implementation of simple reinforcement strategies…can have a significant influence on the social climate of an entire school.’ (As cited in Zirpoli, 2012, p. 257). With this in mind, this paper aims to analyse and compare the School’s management, welfare, and discipline policies with positive behaviour support models, specifically Mayer’s (1999) constructive discipline approach. The School reflects the view that the world is multifaceted and ever changing. If you only have one way for your classroom to ‘be right’ you are setting yourself up for continued frustration and failure. Skilled teachers understand that the classroom is a complex, unpredictable, messy,
8). While some schools adhere exclusively to one particular model, the School, using effective school wide behaviour support programs, draws its content from various dominant models. These include Glasser’s Choice Theory; in which people are responsible for their own behaviour, Restorative Justice; to bring resolution, restitution, and restoration of relationships damaged by behaviour, Ford’s Responsible Thinking Process; where students are responsible for their behaviour and need to find ways to achieve goals without disrupting others, and Roger’s Positive Behaviour Leadership; which includes the establishment of clear rules, rights, and responsibilities. (School Policy, 2012, p. 9). The theoretical basis of the policies are consistent with Mayer’s (1999) Constructive Discipline approach of which the ‘emphasis is on prevention and teaching desirable behaviour rather than punishing, reducing or eliminating undesirable behaviour.’ (p. 38).
The School policy states that ‘values and rules have prominence when students are faced with making decisions and judgments about how they should behave and relate to others.’ (2012, p. 10). Based on the National Goals for Schooling in Australia, the School values are acceptance, self-discipline, honesty, manners, opportunity, respect, and