Differences Of The Lived Experiences Of Teachers And The Policy Documents Written On The Disciplinary Process Within Schools

Introduction

School, excluding the influences of peers and family can be seen as one of the main influences on a child’s development. Over the past 3 years, I have been involved in teaching and mentoring students in secondary school, whilst being within the educational system myself. This has meant that I have developed an understanding of the school system from the perspective of student and teacher. Professionally, I am a trainer for a charity fundraising organisation, so in a lot of aspects of my life there are levels of teaching contained within everything I do. As a result of this, I wanted my project to help me to develop a sociological understanding of the lived experiences of the teachers contained within the school system, as this was the field that I was less experienced in. Interestingly, the participants within this study were all teachers who had previously taught me at secondary school level therefore I was able to relate their teaching strategies to how I experienced them when they were applied within the classroom that I was in. Although this project has developed my own personal sociological understanding, I have attempted to remain reflexive as a researcher at all times within this project, by separating my own perspectives from the questions and outcomes of the research project. Sociologically, my interests are related to class inequalities and how class inequality is manifested through the educational system. Originally, my interests were developed through the works of Marx, Bourdieu and Goldthorpe, after the completion of this project my interests have broadened into ideas viewing the educational system as a bureaucracy and the negative effects relating to this bureaucratic education.

Chapter 1

Literature Review

Sociology of Classroom Discipline

The sociology of education has become an important topic to study within the sociological discipline (Saha, 2008). Within this field, many sub-categories surface that can be subject to sociological analysis in themselves. In order to make some sense of the disciplinary process contained in many mainstream schools today, this part of the literature review is going to sociologically examine the traditions and events that may have proceeded where these processes emerged.

Discipline within schools can be suggested to have greatly changed in the last few centuries. From the first recorded sociological studies of the educational process, educational researchers have argued that the disciplinary procedures contained within schools are continually influenced and changed by the current social climate (Waller, 1932). Butchart (2010) suggest the early 19^th century saw the first educational reform where the educational system could be viewed as a bureaucratic entity. As the educational system began to be affected by bureaucracy, students had gone from being viewed as individuals to being viewed as groups that were subject to strict monitoring. Before this reform, there was an observable hierarchy contained within schools where teachers used to exploit their positions by using forms of physical aggression to exert control, which as a consequence, predominantly governed the disciplinary process. Post 1870, most schools saw an end to using corporal punishment and began to oversee a different structure to the disciplinary approach where students were introduced to the notion of increased surveillance as the students had to stick to a rigid bureaucratic system. With the school system being predominantly bureaucratic, the educational process became rigidly standardised and Butchart (2010) argues that schools are now at a stage of promoting the consumerist ideology with school curriculums being applied nationally.

The 20^th century school system saw the birth of intelligence testing (Allen, 2012). At this time, schools ‘organised behavioural space’ (Rose, 1999: 140), and this system meant that students were easily monitored and classified based on behavioural and educational attainment. Foucault’s (1975) analysis can be interpreted here as he suggests ‘power continues to influence us through the production of knowledge’ (Allen, 2012: 1). For Foucault, as the educational system has been strictly monitoring trends and groups within the school system for a century, individuals lives can be easily accessed and understood by those in control of the surveilling and monitoring process. On the one hand, through this strict process, individual’s lives can be monitored closely and on the other hand Foucault argues that there is an observable loss of individuality within schools as individuals are grouped into specific categories based on their educational abilities. As a consequence, discipline within the school system isn’t always directly observable. Researchers have argued that power in schools takes its form through the architecture in the way the seating plan is arranged in a hierarchical way (Allen, 2012). As a result of these standardised school systems and hidden methods of power, researchers argue that the new educational process is categorised by the production of increased self-disciplining which predominantly takes the power away from the teachers (Butchart & Ronald E, 1995) & (Peim, 2001).

The Sociology of Classroom discipline attempts to explain and describe the procedures by which the disciplinary process has gone through over the last few centuries. The sociological framework of the history of classroom discipline used in this literature review will attempt to understand and analyse the views of teachers on this process today. Classroom discipline as a whole is an important concept for teachers and parents (Langdon, 1996) and it has been shown in many studies that one of the most important pedagogical issues that concern teachers is classroom discipline (McKinley & Merrit, 1985 Guernsey & Peary, 1986 Robertson, 1998). According to several studies, the majority of teachers believe that a well-behaved class is one of the most important indications of successful teaching (Placek & Dodds, 1988 Parker, 1995). Lewis (1999) suggests that discipline is a sub-category of classroom management where discipline can be viewed as an automatic response to a student’s behaviour within that particular classroom setting. Consequently, it has been argued that without effective classroom discipline it is difficult to teach children even the basics of subjects (Lewis, 1997).

Classroom management is therefore crucial in order to effectively teach and discipline a class. Lewis (1999) reiterates that teachers use a number of different methods to effectively discipline a class, however they may find difficulty in applying rigid disciplinary procedures in a live classroom setting, as every classroom is always different. Some researchers have argued that the way in which teachers want to teach and discipline their students will on some occasions be in direct contradiction to how these teachers have been brought up and therefore in effect, cloud their judgement (McDaniel, 1987). Foucault’s (1975) observation of power over the students in the school system can also be applied to the stresses and pressures that teachers experience within the school. Some teachers working in a school may experience different levels of ‘institutional pressure’ (Lewis, 1999) as they may not want to go against what the policy states in the school when trying to effectively discipline children in the classroom (Martin, 1994).

Zounhia et al (2003) explored the reasons for pupils behaving appropriately in class depending on several subjects of the school curriculum, and the teachers’ strategies to maintain discipline. One hundred and forty-five pupils, aged 13-15 years, responded to questionnaires about reasons for behaving appropriately and their perceptions of strategies used by their teachers to maintain discipline. The results indicated that in all subjects of the school curriculum the reasons for pupils being well behaved are mainly self-determined. In computer science, physical education and mathematics pupils adopt significantly more self-determined reasons for behaving appropriately than in foreign languages, physics and religious education. Despite the differences among teachers’ specialties, in order to maintain discipline teachers usually employ strategies that emphasise intrinsic reasons for discipline, in this sense there is a strong overlap with parenting and the modern forms of authority previously discussed in the literature review. In all school subjects there is a strong correlation between reasons for pupils’ good behaviour and their perceptions about strategies used by their teachers to maintain discipline.

While in theory the idea of self-disciplining is all well and good, recent studies show that around one in ten children and young people in Great Britain are potentially diagnosed with a mental health disorder, with the consequence being that in the average UK classroom of 30 there will be at least three young people with a diagnosable psychological difficulty (Green, McGinnity, Meltzer, Ford & Goodman, 2004). Additionally, figures show that the on going discussions around models of learning need to take into account recent statistics around young people’s existing and underlying problems that may have a significant affect to how teachers should be disciplining a class. When developing a sociological understanding of the sociology of classroom discipline, it is important to understand what influences directly affect the classroom as a whole and contribute to the disruption of the classroom environment. If a child is suffering from a mental health issue this situational factor needs to be taken into consideration when developing appropriate policies for classroom discipline.

Identification of Disruptive Behaviour within Schools

The concept of disruptive behaviour has been suggested to be one of the most problematic factors within the classroom as it effectively disrupts student learning (Ghazi et al 2013). There are however several discourses on the topic of disruptive behaviour as some researchers have suggested that disruptive behaviour is a socially constructed phenomena. Some researchers have suggested “disruptive behaviour is a social event that will have meaning for the individual and be made sense of by those around him or her in different ways” (Macleod 2011: 1)

Applying the concept of disruptive behaviour to state schools, students within these schools feel insecure due to lack of effective disciplinary measures to deal appropriately with aggression and unpleasant situations (Ghazi et al 2013). Teachers are often not well prepared to manage the causes of disruptive behaviour in the classroom at secondary level. Consequently, this may explain a lack of school engagement among adolescents in this country. This lack of school engagement may lead to serious consequences like drug and alcohol abuse, teenage pregnancy and a tendency towards crime (Caraway, Tucker, Reinke, & Hall 2003). Caraway et al (2003) aim to identify psychological variables of individuals that facilitate or obstruct school children`s` level of scholastic engagement, thereby attempting to understand how to enhance and increase adolescents` motivation to achieve at their psychological equilibrium. The researchers examined the degree of association of three specific self-variables (self-efficacy, goal orientation, and fear of failure) with school engagement for secondary school students. And while these three barometers of engagement may not define discipline or levels of unruly behaviour, they do provide a clear idea of how students themselves can override behavioural issues with specific psychological techniques and skills.

The Sociology of Education therefore explains that there are many variables that teachers and students experience that will positively or negatively affect their positions within the school system. In an attempt to understanding the differences between the lived experiences of the teachers and the policy documents written on the disciplinary process, the findings from the interviews conducted will be outlined in Chapter 3. Before this however, I will describe and justify the methodological approach adopted in order to effectively answer the research question.

Chapter 2

Methodology

Methodology & Methods

This methodology section will entail how the research process was ‘constructed and conducted’ (Sarantakos, 2005: 30) and will enable the reader to understand what decisions and appropriate procedures were used to effectively answer the research question and render it possible for replication (Schensul, 2012: 70). For the purpose of this research, a qualitative research strategy was utilised as it permitted a deeper analysis than quantitative measures and enabled the analysis of ‘words rather than quantification’ of a particular research topic, this being the disciplinary process within the educational system (Bryman, 2012: 36). In order to effectively answer the research question, the means of data generation used in this study were in the form of semi-structured interviews and document analysis. Particularly for this research topic aiming to capture participants understanding, semi-structured interviews were adopted as it enabled the flexivity to understand the ‘monitoring, reflection and resultant change processes’ that have been occurring within the educational system (McKie, 2002: 70). The methodology adopted meant that the results would generate findings that were ecologically valid due to the interviews mainly being conducted in a conversational manner (Bryman, 2012). In addition to the semi-structured interviews, to induce a comparison between teachers lived experiences and the policy contained within the school, policy documents on the disciplinary process were accessed on the school website as it enabled the comparison of the teacher’s interpretation of events they experienced and the documented policies relating to those particular events within the school (Tim, 2011).

The interview schedule was informed by the literature review as this process meant that the research question could be answered and investigated as effectively as possible. All of the interviews took place at the school and the individual teachers selected the appropriate rooms so that the interviews could take place in a quiet location. At the time of the interviews, three materials were needed: the sheet of paper with the interview schedule questions, an informed consent sheet and an audio recorder to adequately code the participant’s viewpoints. All the interviews were recorded with an Olympus VN-711 PC Digital Voice Recorder. The interviews were then transcribed onto a Microsoft Word Document and saved to a pass word protected computer file. Hard copies of all of the interviews were imminently after the coding.

To understand how the teachers experiences differ from what the policies state about the disciplinary process within schools, the policies were researched by going on the school website. After these policies had been extracted and noted down, a direct comparison was made between the experiences of teachers and how they differ and relate to what the policies state on the website, these comparisons are discussed in Chapter 3.

When reflecting on the process of generating data from conducting semi-structured interviews, this method seemed appropriate in answering the research question as it enabled the annotation of qualitative data about the disciplinary process (Tim, 2011). As this research is of a qualitative nature, using semi-structured interviews helped in answering the research question. When conducting these interviews, one variable came to the surface, which may influence how future research is conducted. Some researchers have argued in qualitative semi-structured interviews, that the participants may be reflecting on ideas other than those we are asking them (Mason, 2002). Within this research, the participants discussed important topics that could be subject to sociological analysis that had not been identified in the research process within the literature review. Most of the teachers reiterated that their profession was increasingly categorised by structuralism and accountability. Although the educational system is a very broad topic and this research paper is only at undergraduate level in future, it may be appropriate to add a section within the interview schedule specifically on ideas of managerialism and bureaucracy as this may generate interesting findings about the disciplinary process within schools.

Sampling

During my time at the placement, some issues arose which meant that I could no longer continue my work at the placement. Firstly, this caused a lot of anxiety due to me not believing I could continue on my dissertation accordingly. Fortunately, I decided to continue on the same topic and remain researching the educational process and I decided to contact teachers from my secondary school to take part in the project. Consequently, purposive sampling was used as it enabled the researcher to identify ‘participants according to preselected criteria relevant to a particular research question’ (Mack, 2005: 5). Patton (2002) however suggests there are different forms and alternatives to this type of sampling where the researcher engages with the ‘ maximal variation in the sample’, which enables results from participants which will bring a range of varied and different participants within this particular teaching domain (Flick, 2008: 28). No financial remuneration was offered to participants in the study however each participant indicated that their decision to contribute to the study was driven by a desire to help and support the research topic on the educational system.

The participants in this study were all teachers ranging from ages 40-55. To effectively establish the ‘variety in the phenomenon under study’ (Flick, 2008: 27), the teacher’s interviewed had different levels of teaching experience from the perspective of what they teach and the levels of management that they had experienced within the school. In total, there were 5 participants, 3 male and 2 female. In terms of generalising these findings, the sample contains some limiting factors to appropriately generalise the results. Firstly, due to the research containing 5 participants who had worked at the school for a long time, means their perspectives may only be specific and generalisable to that particular school. This research being at undergraduate level meant that there were time constraints on the study and therefore the sample only containing 5 participants was appropriate for this research.

Time constraints were an issue firstly because of the limitations of being an undergraduate research project. The second limitation to this factor was in attempting to find an appropriate time to meet with the teachers. On some occasions there were times where the interviews had to be rescheduled as some of the teacher’s had either forgotten about the interview or were off sick. To minimise these effects, different teachers had to be found to make sure the schedule of the research study was adhered to.

Access

To gain access within this study was to effectively correspond with the sample in this research in line with the appropriate ethical and academic methods acceptable for sociological qualitative research (Jensen, 2008). Some issues of access may have arisen if this research was studying children’s views of the disciplinary process within schools however as this research was focusing on teachers, access was not a problem. Feldman et al (2003) argued the importance of developing and sustaining a relationship with the participants involved. Fortunately, the desired sample for this study did not bring many issues, as I had been a student at the school 6 years ago. As a consequence, all of the participants involved were pleased to take part and the appropriate location was to use the school for the semi-structured interviews.

Role of Researcher

As a sociological researcher, there are a variety of roles that can be adopted. For this particular study, the role of the researcher can be described as an objective viewer, as I was not an employee of the school, I was an outsider looking in (Simon, 2015). To ensure the validity and reliability of all the results concluding from this project, I tried to reflect on the methodology used and attempted to be as reflexive as possible within the research process. At all times I tried to incorporate a neutral stance where my values and biases did not affect the findings generated from the results (Bryman, 2012). Lynch (2000) argued the term reflexivity needs to be interpreted with vigilance and to effectively be reflexive within a study means to be methodologically self-conscious whereby the researcher is ‘taking into account one’s relationship with those whom one studies’ (Bryman, 2012: 394). As a former student of the school, who had been taught by all of the teachers interviewed, I may have had a bias be it positive or negative to the teaching strategies employed by those particular teachers. Regardless of this, I attempted to not let this influence any of the topics discussed and any of the outcomes of the research.

Ethics

The research design appropriate for this study was in line with the main ethical principles which ensured there was no harm to participants, the participants were given total informed consent before the study, there was no invasion of privacy and the participants were not deceived during the research process (Diener & Crandall, 1978). Before commencing the process of data collection, a meeting was set up with the dissertation supervisor to establish whether the research project was in line with the appropriate sociological ethical standards. Once this had been verified, a descri ption of the study and a letter of informed consent (see Appendix 1 & 3) were sent to the participants who had previously agreed to take part in the study. As some of the teachers did not send the consent forms back, a hard copy was taken to each interview for them to read, check and sign. The participants were reminded that there would be no harm done to them within the research process and that they were not obliged to take part in the project and had a right to withdraw at anytime during or after the interviews had taken place. To protect the identities of the teachers, they were told that they would all be given pseudonyms and that all of their responses were to be kept strictly confidential and destroyed when finished with.

Some researchers have argued that the research process can harm participants in the sense they may loose an aspect of their self-esteem (Diener & Crandall, 1978). As the research questions were making the participants reflect on their teaching abilities and strategies, this may of aroused thoughts of uncertainty as to how they discipline their students in the future. After all of the interviews were conducted, none of the participants presented any form of distress or uncertainty, however they were reminded to speak to me if they had any further questions. Overall, as this research was in line with the appropriate ethical standards, concluding from the interviews there seems no obvious deception or harm to any of the participants involved in this project.

Data Analysis

Thematic coding analysis was employed for this research as this method of analysis allowed the assembly of the central themes and subthemes apparent from the semi-structured interviews (Bryman, 2012). To effectively identify the main themes, once all of the interviews had been coded, the data was explored to distinguish between similarities and differences within the data and repetitions that could be understood sociologically (Ryan & Bernard, 2003). Some variables within the data were repeated more than others in the interviews and these will be discussed in Chapter 3. The method of data analysis was broken up into three separate frameworks. Firstly, I transcribed the interviews and coded the material, which made the data neater for analysis. Secondly, I identified the key themes that had been made apparent from the teachers. Thirdly I constructed a thematic coding network where this process enabled the exploration of the key themes identified and this also allowed sub-themes to be developed from this (Attride-Stirling, 2001). Overall, this method of data analysis seemed appropriate for this project as it was not time consuming and enabled the data to be viewed clearly, and made it easier for sociological analysis.

To conclude, this methodology section enables the readers of this paper to understand the decisions and procedures appropriate for this study. Some researchers have criticised qualitative research for being too subjective, difficult to replicate or containing a lack of transparency (Bryman, 2012). In an attempt to counteract these criticisms, I feel this research tries to balance itself between objectivity and subjectivity. Primarily this research is subjective as I am investigating the views and lived experiences of teachers, however I tried to be objective in being a reflexive researcher. This methodology section has been detailed to enable further replication, however if this project were to be replicated using different participants from a different school, the findings would be to some extent inconsistent. In terms of transparency, the research process and design contained no factors where the participants who have been deceived or not known the full extent of the variables intended to study.

Chapter 3

Findings

Within this section, I am going to present the key themes identified by the data collected in this research. Whilst analysing the data, three main themes became apparent and I will be discussing these themes in this chapter. Firstly, I will explain how the teachers interviewed view the educational system as a bureaucracy and as a subtheme I will identify the loss of individuality that the teacher’s feel as everything has to be accounted for within the school. Further to this, I will show that teachers feel like actors within their classroom setting and I will outline the findings from the questions relating to how teachers discipline their students and how this differs to the school policy on the disciplinary process.

The five teachers interviewed all taught different subjects, to protect the interviewee’s identities the teachers will be given pseudonyms. The first was a teacher called John who has been working at the school for 23 years and was head of the lower school but now is head of house as the school structure has changed. Alex, who was the second teacher interviewed is head of maths and has been a teacher for 18 years. The third teacher interviewed was a lady called Jessica who has been a teacher for 23 years, she used to be head of sixth form however she recently stood down from this role as she found it too strenuous on her character to constantly portray students in a negative way as she was continually disciplining them. Chris, who was the fourth teacher interviewed, has been a teacher for 15 years and takes pride in putting on the best theatre performances on for the school. Finally, Amy who has been a teacher for 25 years has a passion for looking after students, as she is heavily involved in the Scouts team and the choir.

1-Bureaucratic Education

Out of the five interviews conducted, all of the teachers described still enjoying teaching students within a classroom setting. John stated ‘I still love teaching, standing in front of a class teaching making sure they’re learning is just a phenomenal buzz’, Alex described his experience as ‘I don’t think I feel any less enjoyment than I did when I first started’ and Amy after 25 years said ‘I very much enjoy teaching, I am absolutely passionate about languages’.

One of the main themes identified in this research however is that they all described a noticeable change in the last 20 years within the educational system. Although John said he loved teaching, he went on to say the #145past 5 or 6 years I am looking forward to retiring, which is a horrid thing to say at age of 48’. Although teaching their subject seems to still remain a positive experience for them when they are in their classroom, most of the teachers have described an observable difference from when they started teaching. All of the teachers interviewed presented a frustration with the school system they were working in and Jessica described schools now as being very ‘corporate’ and thinking that ‘schools are being run by managers and run like businesses’. John reiterated a frustration as ‘ I don’t enjoy the daily grind of the profession, I spend way too long on a daily basis not working directly with children’. Jessica went on to explain:

‘ When we first started teaching there were much more fluid relationships because we didn’t have guidance on what to do in the classroom, there wasn’t a rigid structure like there is now’.

Consequently, most of the teachers seem to see the school in a very managerialist way and refer to it as being a business like organisation.

The Educational System as a bureaucratic entity has also infiltrated its business like structure into the classroom. As a result of these changes, teachers have described an increased feeling of responsibility towards the student’s individual work: Jessica identified ‘if they don’t do their essay I think it’s my fault’. This system seems to have added pressure to teachers in a way that it is very ‘numbers driven’ as Chris describes. Amy goes on to reflect that there is ‘so much pressure on results’. With this system being very rigid and structured, teachers have gone on to suggest they cannot be individuals anymore and the aspect of simply teaching children is overturned in some way as everything has to be accountable with so little time to do so. Amy reiterates the time constraints teachers are on by saying

‘ In our timetable we get 10% planning and preparation time, the reality of that is for every 50 minute period I teach I get 5 minutes to plan, mark and assess’.

1.b Loss of Individuality

The first identifiable theme in this research was the idea of bureaucracy and as a result of this bureaucratic organisation the teachers have described how they cannot be individuals in their classrooms. Firstly, the teachers have identified they have to stick to a rigid structure and have described this change as ‘incredibly frustrating’ as they cannot to some extent be individuals within their own classroom as they can’t teach their classroom ‘their way’ (John). In 1994 John describes that there were:

‘No school rules that had to be followed every lesson, and now the rules are not just here they are nationwide’.

Furthermore, some teachers identified how all aspects of their teaching was now standardised:

‘How you teach, how you decorate your classroom, what you wear’ (Jessica).

It is important to note that some of the teachers seemed frustrated because they cannot be individuals in their classroom and some teachers described how they attempted to be themselves as much as they could within the classroom. As an example, Jessica portrays that ‘ I hope I’m honest with who I am in front of the kids’. However, the teachers themselves sometimes have to take on a role as a senior member of the school for example being head of department, head of maths or head of sixth form. Jessica stated:

#145 I’m not comfortable being a teacher sometimes because I find it quite hard not being myself. When I stepped down from the leadership team last year I said I wanted to be nice again because I am fed up of drilling people in discipline and concentrating only on negatives which when you’re a leader you tend to do’.

On the one hand, teachers experience a loss of individuality in their profession and they also have suggested that students can no longer be individuals within the school. The first recognisable concept here is the idea of uniform which at the school is a strict rule that needs to be followed at all times. The code of conduct on the school website states ‘Pride in appearance by wearing the correct school uniform’. The policy at the school entails that at the end of every lesson students need to stand up in silence behind their chairs and before they leave the teachers need to check if their uniform is up to school standard i.e. top button done up and shirt tucked in. Jessica describes this policy as something ‘that’s not important to me but I have to do it’, whereas Chris suggests that ‘it’s a shame that it takes something away from someone’s development’ however they think that it can reduce issues of ‘bullying’ within the school.

Consequently, the lack of individuality allowed in the school environment inhibits the growth of independence in the pupils. As a result of this, the system seemed to take pressure away from students in some ways and applied to teachers. Jessica presents the idea that ‘ I don’t think children are as independent anymore as they can abdicate responsibility to teachers’. The teachers in this study have described this lack of individuality as a result of the educational system being a bureaucracy, and they have further suggested that everything they do has to be accounted for within this system.

1.c Accountability

Most of the teachers interviewed presented the idea that teaching children is only one aspect of their profession now. Amy developed this idea by saying ‘ for every class we teach we have to rank rate the pupils on how likely they are to meet their targets’, therefore creating the idea that children’s ability in the school system is now standardised. She further goes onto identify that:

‘It’s about bureaucracy and accountability, everything has to be accountable’.

The fact that everything has to be accountable means that this for Jessica is all part of the ‘bureaucracy’ and puts ‘pressure’ on the teachers themselves. Chris suggests that:

‘We’ve stepped away from looking at individual kids now we look at them as a set of results and I don’t think you can do that I think it’s very dangerous in the long run’.

Jessica presents the idea that’ it’s more the climate from the top that demands results at all costs’. She further goes onto suggest that ‘its systems, its deadlines and I don’t think it’s realistic’. The teachers all focus on this business like system being very damaging to the student’s experience and the teacher’s profession as a whole.

2. Teachers as Actors

Some of the teachers in this study explained that when they are in front of a classroom they are performing a particular role. Amy suggests:

‘Being a teacher is a very privileged job as you get to play a role and how big that role is, is going to depend on the child’.

Alex suggested that ‘ the classroom is an unusual social construct you are not with your mates down the social club’. The teachers therefore identify that behaviours within the classroom need to be appropriate for that particular setting. As Alex goes on to reflect:

‘ I can say what I want when I want to say it, what you’re saying is appropriate for that lesson content’.

The data therefore creates the idea that teachers have to play a particular role within the classroom. 2 of the teachers particularly described their experience in the classroom setting as a ‘buzz’ reflecting how they may feel like actors when performing a particular role on a stage. In conveying this role, has brought up interesting findings on how teachers deal with behaviour management and discipline within the classroom.

3. Discipline

To induce a comparison between the lived experiences of teachers and the policy documents written on the disciplinary process, in this section I will present the views of the teachers on how they discipline a class, then I will outline the key procedures the school has on the disciplinary process.

One of the main findings relating directly to discipline is that effectively disciplining the classroom is by force of the teacher’s personality, character and reputation. Although all of the teachers interviewed had different levels of responsibility in the school, all of them thought that a teacher’s reputation is an important indicator for effective and sustainable classroom management. Alex explained this in detail by suggesting that you can have ‘two teachers doing exactly the same thing in the classroom’ however the class would be more inclined to respect the teacher’s rules if there was a ‘perceived hierarchy’ about that particular person. All of the teachers suggested that discipline has its challenges at the start of a teacher’s career as they have not had the chance to build up a reputation within a school. Jessica argued:

‘It is harder when you go into a school as a new teacher because they don’t know you’, 8 years down the line she now portrays that ‘ now I’ve got a reputation which means when I go to a lesson it doesn’t matter who is in there they will shut up and do as they’re told’.

A teacher’s reputation therefore seems a key indicator in effective discipline management. Some of the teachers interviewed described that their personality and character directly influences how they discipline a classroom. Alex suggests that:

‘The most important thing is personality, the students need to know that you care about how they do and they need to understand that you are on their side’.

For Alex, he feels it’s about ‘enjoying what you do’ and ‘wanting students to learn’. Amy suggests that her ‘passion for teaching’ helps her to manage the classroom. Further to this, John feels that his character and personality within the classroom needs to also be followed by good rapport with the children: ‘ I genuinely believe if you get better rapport with the kid you get better results’. Personality and reputation seems to aid the teachers to effectively manage the classroom. In addition to this, 3 out of the 5 teachers identified how they provide clear boundaries for the students to adhere to. Jessica works on a ‘zero tolerance’ basis she says she has:

‘Very very clear boundaries and expectations so students know if they cross them it’s going to be dealt with’.

John suggests he disciplines a class by a ‘force of character and expectation, I make it very clear from the start what I expect in the class and that it is my classroom they are coming in to’. For Alex, classroom discipline is important as if a child is being disruptive, they are ‘negatively impacting on other people’s learning’, and Amy agrees with this statement by suggesting that disruptive behaviour ‘is stopping other people from learning’. Most of the teacher’s reiterated the importance of clear boundaries Alex however suggests there needs to be an appropriate level of respect between teachers and the students:

‘We used to have teachers in the school who would say this is how and what should happen because they are kids, no nobody should respect you because you are a teacher or an adult that shouldn’t be happening. I don’t see that. Everybody should have respect because they respect each other, period’.

For Alex, he shouldn’t be respected simply because he is a teacher, he feels respect is earned and learned throughout the school system from the aspect of teacher and student.

The Behaviour Management Policy on the school website introduces it’s main principles as ‘ celebrates excellence, centred on a happy and supportive environment’. The main policies on behaviour management are all introduced with positive reinforcement strategies with a concentration on the policies being ‘simple, consistent and fair’. The school reiterates an importance on encouraging positive behaviour and chastise any negative behaviour. The policy document describes:

‘The behaviour of students in a classroom is first and foremost the responsibility of the classroom teacher’.

The website does not entail what they feel constitutes disruptive behaviour however they have specific structured processes to follow when a child is misbehaving or disrupting the classroom and learning experience. This structured process takes it’s name as the ‘Sanctions Escalation Process’ which contains four levels: the first coincides with the teacher dealing with the behaviour, the second is the responsibility of the subject tutor, the third is with the house leader and the four is dealt with by the principal. It is important to note that at each of these levels the school stresses an importance to contact the parents of the students:

‘Classroom detentions should be communicated home with a descri ption of the issue and a structured target for the student to focus on’.

In comparing the views of the teachers on the disciplinary pro cess and looking at the policy documents generates some consistent findings. Jessica previously described a feeling of increased pressure and responsibility because it is the classroom teachers responsibility to deal with the behaviour management process first and foremost. As the policy documents state that the behavioural management process is essentially the teacher’s responsibility, Jessica’s feeling can therefore be understood. All of the teachers interviewed described having their own individual ways to discipline a classroom and it became apparent that none of the teachers follow a structured procedure when disciplining their classroom: they feel that a number of factors have to come in to play for effective classroom management. Alex reinforced this by presenting the idea that:

‘You can be given techniques but nothing is ever straightforward as here is a blueprint of how to have classroom management. It’s here are some ideas here are some tools, do they suit your personality, do they suit your situation do they work?’

Although all of the teachers discipline their classrooms differently, they all have to some extent follow the Sanctions Escalation Process. Amy has portrayed this school escalation policy in a negative way by suggesting:

‘Then you have to challenge the behaviour, I’m expected to send an email to the parents and copy in the tutor, saying why I gave it to that child’.

After this process Amy argues:

‘Giving a detention kind of seems like too much effort half of the time’.

Although the disciplinary process takes place primarily in the school, the website reiterates an importance of integrating the students’ parents within this process. Amy argues:

‘Parental response is huge. If you have got a parent that supports the school pretty much no matter what the child’s response is going to be better. They are the ones you don’t need to discipline’.

The five teachers interviewed all interpreted their experiences of the disciplinary process in similar and contrasting ways. To understand why some of their experiences of classroom management were different than those expected in the policy documents on the school website, the teacher’s lived experiences will be understood sociologically in Chapter 4.

Chapter 4

Discussion

In this chapter I will attempt to understand in a sociological context the findings that have been made apparent from the interviews. Most of the findings produced have taken the focus away from understanding the differences between the policy documents and the lived experiences of the disciplinary process. The data produced seems to suggest there are wider issues contained within the educational system that affect the smaller processes contained within the school. To understand why the teachers believe the school system is a bureaucracy, ideas of managerialism will be explored in this chapter. This idea of managerialism will be examined in line with the idea that the educational system is subject to neoconservative policies and new right ideologies.

The Sociology of Classroom discipline examined by the literature review introduced ideas of how the educational system has changed over time. In Chapter 1, I attempted to identify in the literature review why and how these educational changes have happened, and the interviews established and developed sociological understanding of how the teachers and students are affected by this process. The main problems that the teachers explained in the interviews were how this bureaucratic and numbers driven system has negatively affected their teaching experience. This idea has been supported by Simkins (2000) who suggests since the general election of 1998 schools were now much more focused on the publication of academic results to make the school look appealing to positively inform parental choice. As a result of this, teachers have to stick to rigid procedures to maintain an academic standard within their classroom. As these teachers have to perform a particular role because of this strict policy, the teachers described feeling they cannot be individuals within their classroom. This loss of individuality can be related to the ‘modern professional’ who as a result of the new school system is ‘bureaucratised ‘ (Busher & Saran, 1995). These ideas can be linked back to Foucault’s (1975) analysis of power identified in the literature review, where he argued students would experience a loss of individuality. However, it could be argued that this bureaucratised process has infiltrated into the teacher’s professions and they no longer can be individuals within their classroom.

Foucault’s identification of this loss of individuality in line with the teachers can be associated with Busher & Saran’s (1995) perspective who identify that teaching as a profession has been ‘deprofessionalised’ as the policy documents introduced by the schools have created a new dividing line between the management and the workforce within the school. Researchers have recognised that schools are now in a stage of organisational control and they have understood this concept by the term ‘managerialism’ (Pollit, 1993 Clarke & Newman, 1997). Most of the teachers reiterated that the changes within the educational system could be seen as negative to the school and their professional role. Simkins (2000) has supported this idea by suggesting the concept of managerialism in some instances can negatively impact the workers or teachers by disempowering their educational and professional choices. The idea of managerialism, when being applied to schools can be seen as a negative consequence to the system as teachers are being ‘driven to burnout’ (Whitty, 1997: 305).

The findings from this study have suggested the importance of developing an understanding as to why the teachers feel demotivated within their profession when looking at their experiences in terms of the disciplinary process. Connell (1985) has argued that the ‘new’ Sociology of Education has to some extent overlooked the subjective experiences of the teachers in the system as this form of sociology assumes teachers to be ‘more or less well controlled agents of the capitalist system’ (Connell, 1985: 2). Some of the teachers in this project reiterated because of the rigid disciplinary procedure, they might not give a detention because it would cause too much hassle. In conjunction with the school policy, which identifies all disciplinary procedures in a positive way, there seems to be a difference between what the policies state and how these teachers live through these processes. Further to this, although all of the teachers still describe enjoying teaching within a classroom setting, they all suggested they feel demotivated by the profession itself. Teachers have been suggested to now being ‘proletarianised’ (Lawn & Grace, 1987:9) and this has been supported by the Sociology of Education (Carlson, 1987 Ball, 1988 Hatcher, 1994). Subsequently this idea of proletarianism in conjunction with the findings from this study assumes that teachers are now going through a process of being deskilled and working under worsening conditions (Hatcher, 1994 Harris, 1994). Proletarianism therefore can aid in explaining why teachers describe a disconnection between their profession and their experiences within the classroom.

The research identified in this discussion implements an explanation as to why the teacher’s are experiencing a loss of individuality, demotivation and pressure within their professional field. These explanations however do not provide an adequate understanding as to why this bureaucratic system exists and why it still exists considering the negative consequences it has on teachers and students. It could be argued that the educational system in Britain has been re-established through the means of Neoliberalisation associated with neoconservative policies (Dumenil & Levy, 2004 Harvey, 2005). Neoliberalist ideologies consume society through means of privatization, commodification and state redistributions and seem to go from a transition of ‘public and popular realms to the private and class privileged domain’ (Harvey, 2005: 161). Firstly, this privatization of education reiterates the concerns of the teachers who describe schools as being corporate and run like businesses. One aspect of the neoliberalist society is deregulation which encourages schools to be self-regulated and self-governed however deregulation has been argued to increase modes of ‘surveillance and control mechanisms’ (Hill, 2007: 212). As a result of teaching as a profession becoming deregulated and bureaucratised, this combines with the teacher’s feelings of a loss of autonomy within the classroom (Hill, 2007 Busher & Saran, 1995).

The neoliberalist state therefore identifies the conflicting issues that the teachers are experiencing within the educational system. Further to this, the idea that schools are now categorised by neoconservative policies relates back to the findings from this project. Neoconservative policies have been understood by Mahoney & Hextall (2000) who suggest that schools are now being run according to regulations of new public managerialism which means that the school system is being run in line with business models and ideologies. One important aspect of neoconservative policy is the policy of employment, which concerns itself with making sure that teachers and students are in line with all policies that are applied to the educational system (Hill, 2007). In the literature review, there was an explanation of an observable hierarchy in the school through architecture (Foucalt, 1975) and ideas of increased surveillance for students (Butchart, 2010). It could be argued that teacher’s are now subject to this surveillance through new public managerialist policies as their curriculum and time spent within and out of the classroom to focus on students’ work is limited (Hill, 2007), all of these theories of which have been reiterated by the teachers in the interviews.

It could therefore be argued that the educational system can be categorised by policies of New Public Management (Tolofari, 2005). This ideology helps to develop an understanding as to why teachers believe that their school is being run like a business. Manning (2000) suggests New Public Management focuses on ‘a management culture that emphasises the centrality of the citizen or customer, as well as accountability for results’. When applying this theory of management to the educational system, Grace (1994) argues that New Right ideologies focus on this system as a ‘commodity in the marketplace and that this commodity would be delivered more effectively by market forces’ (Grace, 1994: 126).

Consequently, the findings from this project aid in developing a micro and a macro sociological analysis of the educational system as a whole (Alexander, 1987). When looking at the lived experiences of the teachers within the school in comparison to the policy documents written on the disciplinary process, a micro sociological analysis of this process would be to understand the negative experiences of the teachers resulting from a frustration of working under bureaucratic conditions where everything has to be accounted for and they subsequently cannot be individuals within their own classroom. A macro analysis of these processes would be to look at ideas of the neoliberal state and new right ideologies pressurising the school system through means of privatisation and deregulation to create policies in a particular way. Hill (2007) describes how all of these processes can be seen as a resultant plan for World Capital. The plan for World Capital in education is a capitalist plan ‘for’ education which attempts to develop a ‘workforce from which surplus value can be extracted’ (Hill, 2007: 204). There is also a capitalist plan ‘in’ education, which focuses on the educational system as a profitable and consumerist organisation that links back to ideas discussed in this chapter of the school being a bureaucracy due to it being privatized.

At the beginning of this research process, I did not expect to generate results from the interviews that could be explained by neoliberal ideologies. At first, it came a surprise that the teachers were so controlled and that aspects of their profession had to be controlled so the processes within the school could be accounted for. It seems unfortunate that the teachers who put so much effort into teaching as a result of these processes feel like they have no control over many aspects of their profession. In the future, I would contemplate carrying out further research into ideas of World Capital and the Neo-Liberal state as this research has made it clear that these phenomenon’s affect micro processes within society in a negative way and I feel it is important to acknowledge and discuss appropriate policies against these ideologies.

Conclusion

The policy documents contained on the school website seem to provide an over simplification of the experiences that the teachers and students go through within the school on a daily basis. Although it may be challenging to identify the challenges teacher’s may experience within a classroom setting, the findings from this project identify there are many differences between the policy documents and the lived experiences on the disciplinary process within the school. Most of the teachers interview presented a frustration with this rigidly structured system, with some of them not enjoying this side of their profession at all. Further research on the teacher’s experiences found that in order to understand the teacher’s feelings, there is a need to look further at the macro processes in society that affect the teachers. The Neo-Liberal and Neoconservative policies seem to put pressure on the educational system where forms of individuality in this system are no longer present.

This project as a piece of sociological research can benefit in developing an understanding of the struggles that teacher’s experience in mainstream schools. Some researchers have argued that Sociology as a discipline, through it’s theory and research can influence wider social, economic and political forces (Burawoy, 2004). Burawoy (2004) outlines this concept as ‘public sociology’, which attempts to use sociological perspectives to inform debates around moral and political affairs. When attempting to apply this project to public sociology, political discourses could be stemmed from understanding the views of teachers and how their experiences affect their roles as professionals. Consequently, this could encourage teachers to feel appreciated within their profession and stimulate them to maintain a sense of individuality within their own classroom.

References

Allen et al (2012). Response to Intervention in Middle Schools: Practises and Outcomes in Learning Disabilities: Research and Practise. Blackwell Publishing

Allen, A. (2012). Using Foucalt in Education Research. Accessed online October 2014. Available at https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Using-Foucault-in-education-research.pdf.

Burawoy, M. (2004). Public Sociologies: Contradictions, Dilemmas and Possibilities. Social Forces. 82 (4)

Butchart, R. (2010). Schooling the Freed People: Teaching, Learning and the Struggle for Black Freedom, 1861-1876. University of North Carolina Press.

Guernsey, M & Peary, M. (1986). Classroom Management: Theory into Practise. New Orleans.

Langdon, Carol, A. (1996). The Third Phi Delta Kappa Poll of Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Public Schools. Phi Delta Kappan. 78 (3).

Lewis, R. (1997b). Discipline in Schools. In L, J. International Encyclopaedia of the Sociology of Education. Pergamon: Oxford.

Lewis, R. (1999). Teachers Coping with the Stress of Classroom Discipline. Kluwer Academic Publishers: Netherlands.

McDaniel, T. (1987). Practising Positive Reinforcement: Ten Behaviour Management Techniques. 60.

Merritt, D. (1998). Language Intervention in the Classroom. Singular Publishing Group: San Diego.

Parker, M, David, J. (1995). Organization, Management and Academic Subjectivity. Accessed Online December 2014.

Peim, N. (2001). The History of the Present: Towards a Contemporary Phenomenology of the School. History of Education. 30 (2).

Placek, J & Dodds, P. (1988). A Critical Incident Study of Preservice Teacher’s Beliefs about Teaching Success and Non Success. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport. 59.

Robertson, J. (1996). Effective Classroom Control. Hodder & Stoughton: London.

Rose, N. (1999a). Governing the Soul: The Shaping of the Private Self. London: Free Association Books.

Saha, L. (2008). Social Psychology of Education 11 (1). Accessed online November 2014.

Normal 0 false false false EN-US JA X-NONE

Tim, M. (2011). Social Research: Issues, Methods and Process. Open University Press: New York.