Analysis of Policy and Practice

1

Analysis of Policy and Practice The “manage and discipline” policy does not have any defined method of instilling discipline. The model ought to be regarded as a collective descriptor of a recognizable, structural pattern of overlapping, co-occurring, and mutually reinforcing assumptions that are to the school's role as a key institution of moral and social regulations. In this case, the teacher is considered an agent for enforcing these norms. Even though the model appears to instill to some extent, it also falls short on various dimensions. In fact, it reinforces discipline by simply instilling fear as opposed to transforming the behavior. Armstrong’s claims that the model fails to address the ethical and legal needs of the students with disabilities and mental health difficulties are not far from the truth. Considering the magnitudes and the severity of these disabilities, the "discipline and manage" model may not help such learners achieve acceptable behavioral milestones, and continuous teacher support is called for in an attempt to alleviate the trend.

Buy this excellently written paper or order a fresh one from ace-myhomework.com

2

The manner in which discipline is instilled among these students is supposed to be informed by an understanding of the disabilities. Some of these disabilities, e.g., mental disabilities, tend to be neurological in nature, and therefore the “manage and discipline” model is too mechanical in handling discipline (Armstrong, 2018). It is likely to cause more harm than good. Helping such students to learn requires that one should be very approachable, friendly, and tolerant in equal measure to create a conducive environment for learning around them (Einfeld, Tonge & Clarke, 2013). When students develop extreme fear and start viewing the teacher as hostile, they are likely to become nervous. This may escalate their conditions, depending on the nature of the disability. Using the “manage and discipline” model can be an approach that is simply used to address the symptoms instead of the cause of the problem (Sullivan, Van Norman & Klingbeil, 2014). It also breaches or contravenes the entitlement of the child to stable psychological and emotional wellbeing, hence very unethical and illegal.

The “manage and discipline” model assumes that behavior can be quantified and controlled as a phenomenon. There have always been arguments revolving around the issue of nurture versus nature. If forces of nurture vs. nature determine the behavior, then it is hard to quantify discipline. As such, the “manage and discipline” model is premised on a wrong assumption (Burden, 2020).

It is normally the school's responsibility to ensure that they maintain a safe environment that is conducive to learning. School systems have the legal responsibility to maintain safe and violence-free schools. Part of the responsibility is supposed to include establishing a code of conduct that may include specific consequences for the violations of the code of behavioral conduct. The school authorities should discipline the children when the children violate rules by engaging in conduct that materially and substantially disrupts the rights of others to be physically

3

safe and educated (Armstrong, 2018). When conduct endangers the student or the other students, then the removal of the student can be imperative. All the students have the right to know the rules of conduct, and they are supposed to learn to master the school rules. Students with disabilities who need special education and related services have, by definition, problems in learning and skill development (Allison, 2014). Unlike their non-disabled counterparts, they may, in some instances, have difficulty demonstrating socially appropriate behaviors. The “manage and discipline” model does not embrace this spirit and is likely to affect learners with mental disabilities negatively.

The process and procedure of disciplining children is something that should be acceptable to all the stakeholders of the school. These stakeholders also include the children themselves.

The children are supposed to be involved in forming the code of discipline, and they have the right to either agree or decline the discipline code (Armstrong, 2018). Even on establishing and forming the code of discipline, the children are also supposed to be taught about the same to ensure that the expectations of how they are supposed to behave are well understood. Parents of children with disabilities should be given the opportunity to discuss the discipline code when it is a concern for their child and can also be partners in finding effective ways of assisting in maintaining the code and its intent effectively. Parents are also expected to be allies when it comes to helping predict problems associated with codes of conduct and their individual child's strengths and needs. Such discussions can generate Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals as well as necessary exceptions, which are likely to prevent the child from meeting a requirement of the school's code (Cvetkova Dimov, Atanasoska & Andonovska-Trajkovska, 2019). This kind of engagement is necessary, especially for children with mental disabilities.

4

In this century, learning is supposed to be individuals, and the same applies to behavior management ad disciplining of the children. This implies that IEP should be used as a tool in this regard. IEPs are designed to address both traditional academic needs and in "meeting each of the child's other educational needs that result from the child's disability." The law also says that schools shall consider, when needed, "strategies, including positive behavioral interventions, strategies and supports to address that behavior" that impede learning (Pinto, 2013). The “manage and discipline” model is not aligned with the principles of positive behavior interventions. In positive behavior interventions and supports, the schools teach students about the behavior expectations as well as strategies. Here, the focus is prevention as opposed to punishment. On the other hand, the “manage and discipline” model is more reactive than proactive, and it is more likely to oppress learners who may be misbehaving as a result of their mental disabilities (Maciver et al., 2019). Such learners ought to be treated in a very structured way that has been stipulated in the IEP or behavior support plan, and all the relevant stakeholders can only review the changes after the strategies stipulated have failed Indeed, the “manage and discipline” strategy promotes negative self-sustaining dynamics, characterized by trends such as out-of-school suspensions and expulsions, which are most widely used to discipline students. Students are also criminalized by these tendencies (Barrett, McEachin, Mills & Valant, 2017). In response to the initiatives that have not been working, which were widely informed by the "manage and discipline" model, many policies under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act were tailored towards reducing exclusion and suspension of students with disabilities. But, again, these initiatives have also fallen short from different fronts. For instance, the initiatives have failed to take into perspective the cultural and attitudinal changes that are very desirable for widespread and sustainable adoption. This implies

5

that the policies still embrace some aspects of the “manage and discipline” model, which has failed to address the behavioral needs of minority students, e.g., students who are mentally disabled.

The approach informed by the “manage and discipline” model can be termed as faulty from the very onset, and even the initiatives that continue to embrace it in an attempt to modernize education are more likely to fail (Al‐Daihani & Al‐Ateeqi, 2015). For instance, it has been reported from the Australian schools that there still exist some uncouth punitive actions still being taken as a mode of disciplining the children who have refused to reform. In addition, the recent scandal in the media reported exclusionary and restrictive practices used in some schools to address issues that revolved around disabled children. Some of these issues have led to investigations by the state education authorities, and this is even calling for further reforms in the country.

Obviously, when the dangerous behavior manifests as a result of the disability, expulsion will be inappropriate (Ageranioti-Bélanger et al., 2012). Services are needed to ensure that the behavior will be addressed, and that reoccurrence is prevented. Furthermore, if the behavior is also very dangerous, a more controlled and secure placement may be necessary (Armstrong, 2018).

In the discipline and manage model, the children’s behaviors have been reduced to variables that can be manipulated and managed. This is a wrong assumption, given that behavior can be molded and nurtured over time (Ahmed, 2020). Behavior may also depend on the surrounding of the child. When such important factors are not in place, managing and manipulating behavior may not be very possible. These factors are supposed to be even stronger for children with mental health issues. A more hands-on environment will be needed in this

6

regard; or rather hands-on interventions such as behavior therapies may also be of help (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013). Children with mental challenges may not be able to get along with other learners, given that they may not have developed their social skills to the same level as others. If the "discipline and manage" model would be the only way to deal with such learners, the chances are high that they will be isolated, suspended, or even expelled from their respective schools, which clearly goes against the rights of these children to be adequately included in education.

In a system that fully embraces the “manage and discipline” models, the learners with mental difficulties will be alienated unless there are proper placement programs and therapies for these learners. Excluding students who do not comply with the attempts to manage their behaviors is not aligned with the international commitments for inclusion that many countries have made (Ferreira et al., 2019). The exclusion of learners with mental disabilities can be a serious legal problem because such schools risk contravening the national and state disability legislations.

There has been an attempt to improve on the “manage and discipline” model through some evidence-based interventions, which has not been able to work. Some of the evidencebased practices that have been used include School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS) and Positive Behavior Support (PBS), among others (Mitchell & Bradshaw, 2013). However, it has still been contravening the UN Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and other legislation tailored towards addressing the problem. In addition, there was no much progress when it came to reducing exclusions and addressing the needs of the mentally disabled learners.

There are various techniques that teachers are supposed to learn in order to support these students. The behaviors of such students may be maladaptive for general education classrooms,

7

and therefore teachers should be well equipped with the required tools (Sprick, 2009). These tools include techniques like positive peer reviews, a lottery system, classroom behavior charts, among others. In addition, other evidence-based approaches should be installed to help teachers change tact in a genuine effort to include the learners with disability. Such soft approaches are more aligned with the required legislation and regulation to a better tune than the “manage and discipline” model.

Given that the “manage and discipline” approach has failed to provide a solution for behavioral problems, especially among the disabled and mentally challenged students, the buck stops with the custodians of discipline, who are mostly teachers. There is a need to address the perceptions and attitudes of teachers and equip them with the skills required to administer appropriate behavioral interventions, especially among disabled children. Indeed, there is a need for urgent reform on how well teachers are prepared, pre-service, and supported in-service to meet the behavioral needs of students with disabilities or mental health difficulties.

8

References Ageranioti-Bélanger, S., Brunet, S., D’Anjou, G., Tellier, G., Boivin, J., & Gauthier, M. (2012).

Behaviour disorders in children with an intellectual disability. Paediatrics & Child Health, 17(2), 84-88.

Ahmed, E. I. (2020). Classroom discipline management: A Mixed-Methods Study. The Journal of Classroom Interaction, 55(1), 64-76.

Al‐Daihani, S. M., & Al‐Ateeqi, H. I. (2015). Parents of children with disabilities in Kuwait: a study of their information-seeking behaviour. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 32(2), 131-142.

Allison, J. A. (2014). Market discipline beats regulatory discipline. Cato J., 34, 345.

Armstrong, D. (2018). Addressing the wicked problem of behaviour in schools. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 22(9), 997-1013.

Barrett, N., McEachin, A., Mills, J. N., & Valant, J. (2017). Disparities in student discipline by race and family income. Educationresearchalliancenola. org, 1-56.

Burden, P. R. (2020). Classroom management: Creating a successful K-12 learning community.

John Wiley & Sons.

Cvetkova Dimov, B., Atanasoska, T., & Andonovska-Trajkovska, D. (2019). School Discipline and School Indiscipline. Education-Journal of Education Research, 92-99.

Einfeld, S. L., Tonge, B. J., & Clarke, K. S. (2013). Prevention and early intervention for behaviour problems in children with developmental disabilities. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 26(3), 263-269.

Ferreira, M., Aguiar, C., Correia, N., Fialho, M., & Pimentel, J. S. (2019). Friendships and social acceptance of Portuguese children with disabilities: the role of classroom quality,

9

individual skills, and dosage. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 39(3), 183195.

Maciver, D., Rutherford, M., Arakelyan, S., Kramer, J. M., Richmond, J., Todorova, L., ... & Forsyth, K. (2019). Participation of children with disabilities in school: A realist systematic review of psychosocial and environmental factors. PloS one, 14(1), e0210511.

Mitchell, M. M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2013). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of school psychology, 51(5), 599-610.

Pinto, L. E. (2013). From discipline to culturally responsive engagement: 45 classroom management strategies. Corwin Press.

Sprick, R. (2009). Doing Discipline Differently. Principal Leadership, 9(5), 18-22.

Sullivan, A. L., Van Norman, E. R., & Klingbeil, D. A. (2014). Exclusionary discipline of students with disabilities: Student and school characteristics predicting suspension. Remedial and Special Education, 35(4), 199-210.