Student suspensions: the influence on students and their parents.

Partington, Gary

In this study, students in Years 8-10 who were suspended from school were interviewed during their suspension to obtain their views on the validity, efficacy and consequences of suspension as a strategy in behaviour management. Their parents were interviewed for their views on the effect of the suspension on the family and on the student. Periods of suspension were from two to ten days, and were supposed to be spent in the care of the parents. The findings indicate mixed consequences of suspension depending upon the context in which it occurs and the characteristics of the student. The study suggests that student responses reflect the extent to which they accept the authority of the school, with more resistant students being less submissive and coming from families where the school is viewed negatively. Alternative strategies to suspension might be more effective for the target students as suspension did little to improve behaviour or performance.

Introduction

Student suspensions from school for limited periods are regarded as a penultimate solution to the management of student behaviour in schools, with the final step being exclusion from school altogether. Accompanying the abolition of corporal punishment in the 1980s in most Australian state schools, alternative strategies for managing disruptive students were sought. Generally suspensions followed by exclusion were implemented. According to the Education Department of Western Australia, suspension serves multiple purposes, including removal from the school environment, reduced opportunities for reinforcement of behaviour, and a period of respite between the incident and resolution. In addition, it provides an opportunity for the student, teachers and parents to reflect on the incident and its behaviour and allows `a considered, positive resolution and re-entry plan' (Education Department of Western Australia, 2001).

The effectiveness of suspensions in accomplishing these goals, however, has been under pressure in recent years (Costenbader & Markson, 1998; House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, 1996; Hyman & Perone, 1998). The use of suspensions, exclusions and expulsions to `move on' difficult students was noted by the House of Representatives Committee. In Western Australia, the annual increase in the number of suspensions suggests that exclusions have become a device for ridding schools of undesirable students quickly, instead of a means of solving problems within the school. Only about 4 per cent of students were suspended in 1999 and, of these, two-thirds were suspended only once. The figure glosses over the concentration of suspensions in the early years of secondary school, however: male students in Years 8 to 10 would form the bulk of those suspended and the proportion would be far higher in this group.

Statistics of the use of suspensions for student control in Western Australia showed an upward trend in suspensions from just over 2500 in 1993 to over 17 000 suspensions involving over 9000 students by 1999 (Education Department of Western Australia, 2000). The steady annual growth has continued since suspension was identified as a principal strategy when the Managing Student Behaviour policy was introduced in the mid-1980s. Recent changes to the policy (Education Department of Western Australia, 1998, 2001) appear to have maintained the trend.

The increased incidence of suspensions does not reflect an increase in the total number of students in schools. It may, however, point to the possible disaffection from school of a significant proportion of students who see no future for themselves at school. A breakdown of statistics by school district (Education Department of Western Australia, 1999) revealed that districts with higher proportions of low socioeconomic and indigenous students are more likely to experience higher rates of suspension than other districts. An analysis by school was not available but, when the author was seeking schools to participate in the study, it was clear that some schools employed suspension as a control device much more than others--even schools close both geographically and in student social background.

Although only a minority of students are suspended from school, there are clear indications that the majority of students do not like school and this contributes to student misbehaviour in school, particularly for those students who feel they are not being served effectively by the school. In a study of five schools in the Geraldton district of WA, it was found that only one third of nearly 1200 students surveyed liked school. In the high schools studied, the proportion liking school fell as low as 29 per cent (Geraldton Regional Community Education Centre, 1995). Although 85 per cent of teachers in these schools considered that students received individual attention for their personal needs at least sometimes, most (80%) considered that their schools offered limited opportunities for students to participate in decision making. These statistics were reported for primary schools as well as high schools but the extent of alienation was much greater in high schools. It is likely that the high level of alienation reported in high schools is typical of such schools across the state, particularly in the compulsory years.

The suspension of a student signifies the failure of the range of prior behaviour management practices that teachers are trained to employ within the class to keep students compliant. These strategies include such practices as `proximity praise and reward, rule reminder, warnings, loss of privilege, isolation in class, detention, isolation partner teacher, isolation from all classes, in-school suspension, suspension' (Education Department of Western Australia, 1998, p. 11). Failure of these strategies signifies the limitations of schools as institutions that are responsive to the diversity of students they accommodate. Narrow definitions of behaviour, language, attitudes and knowledge limit the flexibility of schools to accommodate this diversity. This gives rise to differential treatment: some students, because of their characteristics, receive favourable treatment whereas others are targeted for harsh treatment, consistent with the teachers' view of them as resisting the hegemony of the school (McLaren, 1998). In order to maintain the prevailing values and knowledge of schooling, students who challenge the system are `moved on' to eliminate their disruptive influence.

Certain behaviours are targeted by the school for the strongest treatment. These behaviours include those that are least acceptable to the dominant culture in society, including physical and verbal abuse, offences against property and violation of school rules. There are sound grounds for some of these behaviours but others, such as violation of school rules, give teachers the latitude to discipline students as a consequence of their social group membership rather than because of any danger to the teachers or students of that student's behaviour. Lewis and Lovegrove (1987) claimed that, despite serious offenders being a minority in schools, the management behaviours of teachers engender fear and negative attitudes in the majority of students, distract them from their work and may promote sympathy for the miscreants. The teacher behaviours preferred by students include calmness, rule clarity and reasonableness [of rules], appropriate punishments, fairness and acceptance of responsibility [for maintaining discipline] (Lewis & Lovegrove, 1984). Given the social construction of schooling, teachers in many schools believe they have few options apart from suspension when student misbehaviour exceeds the limits set by the school.

The prevailing policies in operation in many schools tend to ignore the influence of external factors and focus only on the behaviour at issue, attempting to deal with that in isolation from influences on it. Students' lives, however, are influenced by their environments, and external influences create tensions and stresses which can lead to disruption in class and in the playground. Teachers are similarly influenced by factors other than the immediate situation before them (Partington, Waugh, & Forrest, 1995) and escalation can occur so that a simple act of misbehaviour becomes a serious offence.

Giroux (1992) observed the significance of context in the lives of students, and argued that it is not possible to compartmentalise either their lives or the lives of teachers. Current behaviour management policies endeavour to do this, however, and the increasing rate of suspensions, dropping out of school by the students most influenced by their negative contexts, and greater anger and anxiety among students and stress among teachers are likely consequences.

Description of the study

The present study investigated students' perceptions of their suspension with the purpose of ascertaining the effectiveness of' suspension as a deterrent and a means of resolving behaviour problems. Interviews were conducted with fifteen suspended students, their parents and teachers in two state high schools in Western Australia. Eleven of the students were boys, with one Year 8 student, six Year 9 students and four in Year 10. Two of the girls were in Year 9, with one each from Years 8 and 10. Both schools were in low socioeconomic status suburbs and each had approximately 650 students. My contact with parents was arranged differently by the schools. In one school, Martin High, parents were contacted directly by the school to arrange an interview with me. In the other school, Foster High, the administration sent a letter home inviting parents to participate in an interview with me if their child was suspended during the term. As a consequence, most of the participants were from the first school--where all the parents who were contacted agreed to take part in an interview and to allow me to interview their child. However only four students were interviewed from the second school because parents had to make the initial contact. There appeared to be a social class difference between the participants in the two schools as a result: the parents from the second school were more articulate, lived in more expensive homes and were professionals. Those in the first school were more likely to be working class, unemployed and single parents. This also resulted in a difference in the tenor of the interviews: in the first school, parents were more likely to be resigned to their children's suspension. In the second school, the parents were quite intense about the issues. This contributed to the perceptions of parents to suspension.

In most cases, interviews were conducted in the homes of the students because they were on suspension. Two students were interviewed at school because their suspension--for one day--was over by the time I could reach them.

The effectiveness of suspension as a control measure

Students viewed suspension in a variety of ways. For some students, particularly those who were unaccustomed to suspension, it was a shameful experience. For others, the suspension created feelings of strong resentment and frustration as a consequence of their powerlessness in relation to the school authorities. For a minority, being suspended was just another plank on the path to exclusion and they took it in their stride, seeing it as a convenient legal way of staying home. One student at Martin High, Damien, on 27 days' suspension, was untroubled by the prospect that one more suspension could result in his exclusion from school. He saw it as an opportunity to transfer to an out-of-school program for persistent offenders. Many of his offences were for swearing, which he used to escape from class:

 I: Why do you swear at the teachers?

 Damien: That's the only way of getting out of it, you know if you say the
 wrong thing to them you can get out, that's it, you'll never be back in
 that class. Before Miss Davis over there, our Science teacher, me and John,
 one lesson, we was mucking up, she told us to get out the class, she
 doesn't even let us in there no more, `cause we mucked up.

Damien was a chronic offender who was uncontrollable in class, did not like school and disrupted the learning of other students. His removal may have been in the best interests of the rest of the school, but the origins of his misbehaviour could well have been in the lack of fairness in the school system (Wehlage & Rutter, 1986) and inappropriate strategies used to regulate his behaviour at crucial stages of his schooling. McManus (1995) noted that increasing the level of teacher-student discussion (oracy) in relation to discipline matters lowered exclusion rates in schools. The rapid eviction of Damien, however, suggests a lack of dialogue related to the behaviour problem. In a study of discipline and indigenous students, Partington, Waugh, and Forrest (1995) found that breakdown in communication between teachers and students was a common feature of disciplinary acts against students.

Another consideration in the present study may have been the differential treatment of some students by teachers. During the interviews, most students who received multiple suspensions indicated that other students did not receive the same treatment for similar offences. Although the lack of consistency in awarding suspensions that was reported by students might be explained in terms of the context of the events, it is likely that teachers do award suspensions differentially.

Attitudes towards suspension appeared to reflect the degree to which the students accepted the school's hegemony. Students like Damien were no longer convinced of the power of the school to influence their behaviour, whereas those who were ashamed of suspension reflected the mores of the system. Among parents, responses ranged from weary acceptance of a continuing problem to aggressive challenging of the school's perception of the child. In Foster High, all the parents interviewed were opposed to the school's use of suspension, arguing for alternative strategies both at teacher and school level. One parent whose Year 10 son, Victor, was suspended stated:

 It sounded like he [the class teacher] really didn't handle it wonderfully
 and I can understand why, because I know how he is. However, I feel like,
 when you are teaching adolescent kids you really should be better equipped
 to deal with these situations in a least confrontational manner. It was
 very confrontational I would say, his behaviour and actually I mean he
 ended up throwing Victor's work in the bin. (Rose Smith, interview)

This parent had prior experience of the success of intervention programs in previous years and at Victor's primary school. Her assessment of the potential for the school to manage her son without suspending him mirrors research that indicates that the rates of suspension in schools with similar demographic characteristics can be markedly different (Hyde & Robson, 1984; Reynolds, 1989). The adoption of alternative programs can be beneficial to students such as Victor. Many parents were aggrieved that the schools did not institute programs to interest their children and use strategies that would assist them in meeting the demands of conformity. Their fears for the future of their children are well founded, given the links between offending at school and criminal activity later in life (House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training, 1996).

Interaction in the classroom

For students who come from homes that are stable, experience the same values that are represented in the school, have parental support, and are able to relate well to other students, there are relatively few problems in fitting into secondary school. Students who differ from these characteristics, however, have a much more difficult time with school discipline because it rarely makes concessions for the differences they bring to school (Anyon, 1995, Ministerial Council on Employment, Education and Training, 1999). Unfortunately, in most schools, teachers are not in a position to make such concessions. First, most do not know the circumstances surrounding the students' lives, and are unable to judge the appropriateness of modifications to the disciplinary code. Second, to make concessions on such grounds for one student would necessitate making concessions for other students on equivalent grounds and this threatens the hegemonic nature of the school's authority. Teachers are aware of the countervailing uses of power by students to contest this hegemony. Third, a climate of acceptance and trust is needed for such a situation to develop, and it is rare for teachers--especially in secondary schools--to have either the counselling skills or access to the privileged information necessary to implement such processes.

At a broader political level, the unwillingness of educational bureaucracies to accommodate the different kinds of structures, curricula and practices necessary for effective instruction precludes change (Anyon, 1995). It is difficult for schools and education systems to break away from traditional, functionalist approaches to schooling in which conformity and social equilibrium are paramount (Tomlinson, 1997).

Foucault (1991) developed the concept of `docile bodies' to explain the way in which authorities, by regarding the body as an object, manipulate it to conform to a standard.

 Normalization becomes one of the great instruments of power at the end of
 the classical age. For the marks that once indicated status, privilege and
 affiliation were increasingly replaced--or at least supplemented--by a
 whole range of degrees of normality indicating membership of a homogeneous
 social body but also playing a part in classification, hierarchization and
 the distribution of rank. In a sense, the power of normalization imposes
 homogeneity; but it individualizes by making it possible to measure gaps,
 to determine levels, to fix specialities and to render the differences
 useful by fitting them one to another. (p. 184)

This description reflects the functioning of the school system. It demonstrates structural bias against students who refuse, or are unable, to be normalised. Students are objectified and treated as parts of the system rather than individuals with expectations, needs and beliefs that distinguish them from one another. The discrimination is particularly strong against those students who are not advantaged by parental background to be able to fit easily into the school (McLaren, 1998; Wehlage & Rutter, 1986).

For many students, teachers who approach them in a confrontational manner are a particular source of difficulty. For example, Victor had been suspended for three days for refusing a teacher directive. However, preceding this, was an earlier refusal during a class when the teacher directed him to remove a shirt that did not conform to school dress code. His refusal resulted in scab duty (picking up rubbish in the yard), a task he performed during lunch break. In the next class with that teacher, the senior teacher for the subject took him to another room and `busted' him.

 Victor: I was frustrated with him because that was something that had
 nothing to do with him, apart from [being in] the same department. So I
 just thought why should he be involved and I was sort of angry with myself
 for going off and I was wondering what had happened to me. I asked him why
 he was busting me for something I did in another class and I didn't think I
 got an answer to that and so I just started going off at him and I walked
 out of the room.

 I: When you say `going off--what, swearing or ...

 Victor: Yes, I sweared at him in a very loud voice.

 I: Why?

 Victor: Well, I was so frustrated.

Consistent with Victor's perception of the wrongdoing by the teacher, Beynon (cited in Robinson, 1992) found:

 `Hegemonic masculinity' was reinforced through coercive and severe
 authoritarian discipline measures, usually associated with male teachers.
 Regularly, sheer physical terror was part of the technique employed by
 headteachers to achieve their disciplinary goals. (p. 278)

Certainly the experiences of Victor would fit this model of discipline. The action of the senior teacher in taking him aside and intimidating him was quite contrary to the school's Managing Student Behaviour policy, which stated, `This [policy] provides a non-confrontational strategy, and avoids the effects of a punitive system'. The failure to follow appropriate procedures led to Victor's subsequent actions which escalated the event from what should have been an isolation room detention to the three-day suspension. Normal detention, in which Victor could have reflected on his behaviour, would have been quite sufficient. Such intimidation, although possibly common in schools, receives little attention in research literature and is neglected by education administrators (Hyman & Perone, 1998).

A number of students were angered by confrontations with teachers that resulted in them swearing at the teacher. Swearing breaks down the formal relationship between the teacher and the students and demonstrates that the students no longer perceive the teacher as higher in status and deserving respect from them--an important factor in discipline (Reid, 1986). Although responsibility for swearing rests largely with the students, teachers need to handle such situations so that student dignity also is maintained and anger does not occur.

An instance of inappropriate teacher action was clearly the cause of Karen Brown's suspension at Martin High. An Indigenous Year 10 student, Karen attended school without the correct uniform because her clothes were in the wash. According to the school rules, she had to obtain a `dress code' which was a note legitimating her inappropriate attire for that day. This clothing included a rather expensive brand label track suit top. A teacher stopped her in the corridor and asked if she had a dress code. Even though it was confirmed that she did, the teacher criticised Karen for her dress:

 Karen: [The teacher said] `You can afford to wear these clothes and you
 can't even afford to buy a blue scrappy old jumper' and I said, ` I didn't
 want to buy one' and she said, `Well my kids don't even get these clothes
 and you can afford them'. And I said `Well!'. And then I asked her for my
 slip back and then she gave it back to me, then while she was saying
 something and then I accidentally swore at her.

This confrontation, initiated by the teacher, was contrary to school policy: Karen had gone through the correct channels to obtain a dress code which enabled her to wear the non-conforming clothing and the teacher had no right to interrogate her over her dress. Other students reported similar interactions with teachers which led to them becoming aggressive and retaliating by swearing, which earned them a suspension.

These reports of the actions of teachers give a possible insight into observations of the varying nature of student behaviour with different teachers (Hargreaves, Hestor, & Mellor, 1975; McManus, 1995). The above teachers acted in ways that exceeded their institutionally sanctioned behaviours but, because the students then infringed school rules, they set themselves up for penalties. In a review of research on the assertive discipline model--on which the schools' discipline models were based--Cope (1995) reported that `personal responsibility and problem solving is not taught to pupils, they just react to consequences' (p. 28). Instead the deliberate aggression of the teachers reinforces to these students that the teachers have institution support from the school and against this the students are powerless. As a consequence, it is the students who are at risk of being labelled as deviant, a status that invites further repression.

The community and the school

School functions on different social rules from family or community. At home, few children are subjected to rigid authority from their parents, and relationships are much more egalitarian than a generation ago. Even the workplace, in most cases, has changed since the rigid authoritarianism of the industrial age, as described by Foucault (1991). At a time when many schools are choosing more responsive strategies to manage students (Conway & Izard, 1995; Gagne, 1996; Reynolds, 1989), some secondary schools continue to demand obedience to what is becoming a questionable authority. These schools operate as hierarchical institutions in which the teacher is supposedly dominant over the students. The assumption of authority by teachers in high schools, however, is a tenuous claim today. As Slee (1999) observed, discipline needs to distinguish between authoritarianism and authoritativeness, `where discipline connotes connection between learner, the curriculum and the pedagogy utilized in its transmission, and the organizational structure and character of the school' (p. 4).

Changing community standards regarding coarse language also make it problematic that rigid rules regarding swearing will ensure a conforming student population. In the past 25 years, change in public acceptance of words once proscribed has been dramatic. One parent reflected on this change in her neighbourhood:

 Joan: Around these neighbourhoods you can walk down to the local shop and
 along the journey you will find a two year old that's going to tell you
 right where to get off, so to me it seems like its become common language
 around here which doesn't help situations at all either and because it's
 become such a common language those teenagers are using it in every day
 sense, but they know that as soon as they aim it at the teacher, holiday
 time and that's all they do.

The school is a site for the conflict of value systems and for the public subjection of students to the authority of the teachers. As Tattum (1984) noted, the way in which this authority is exercised to control students is publicly humiliating and offensive to them and they are aware of the denigration to which they are being subjected. This awareness was made clear by one student in the present study who contrasted the treatment she received from a relief teacher with the kind of treatment she received at home:

 Janet: That teacher had no right to say that to me, `cos all I was doing
 was asking for a pen, for Christ's sake. (Interjection from mother: `Oh,
 Janet!') If I say, `Oh, mum, I'm going out to have a drink of water now',
 would you go, `Go to your room and stay there for an hour? Would ya? You
 see, that teacher, she was just telling people off for no reason, and I
 just happened to be the student that was at a boiling point. See, if it
 wasn't me it would have been someone else.

Janet's response was to tell the teacher to `get f'd'. As she said, `I was sitting there and I was going, "Oh, I didn't even do anything" and like everyone in the classroom was like stunned `cos I was getting busted for no reason'.

If we were to attribute such behaviour to individual pathological behaviours, as Jenkin (1996) suggests, it would leave the institution free of any responsibility for the construction of situations in which students are pushed beyond their limits. However, as a consequence of their participation in the system of student management that they operate, teachers and school administrators must share responsibility for the construction of students as trouble makers (Wehlage & Rutter, 1986).

Physical violence

Five of the students in the present study who were suspended had been fighting. Considerable school resources are devoted to the repression of fighting, and when it occurs it is dealt with severely. In the schools investigated, fighting attracted the longest suspensions, with Martin awarding a maximum ten-day suspension and Foster five. Among the teachers, violence was perceived as a major problem and the need to control it may explain the severity of the penalties. The lower socioeconomic status of the neighbourhood may have contributed to teachers' perceptions. As a consequence, fighting could lead rapidly to exclusion: in the first school, a student would need to be caught fighting only three times in order to accumulate the necessary 30 days' suspension before he or she could be excluded.

Given the large numbers of students who come together in secondary schools across Australia, acts of physical violence are relatively few. As in the above examples, most students who are aggressive express this aggression verbally rather than physically. Even so, according to the definition used by the Education Department of Western Australia (1995) violence is `any action--physical, verbal, sexual or psychological--used against a person that is injurious, unjust or unwarranted'.

For many Australians, violence is a part of the daily routine of life and is regarded as an appropriate method of resolving issues. Malin (1989), for example, found that, in the socialisation of Indigenous children, parents incorporated a belief in the efficacy of fighting to resolve problems. This may be reflected in the over-representation of Indigenous students in trouble at school. It may also be a characteristic of many other families. Despite the claim of various authors that violence is a sign of individual psychological disorder (Costenbader & Markson, 1998; Jenkin, 1996), for many children violence is an appropriate response to threats. This is a social, rather than a psychological, issue. Although there will be some students who are individually pathological regarding violence, it is likely that the majority of violent acts are committed as a consequence of being socialised into a belief that resolving conflicts violently is socially acceptable. Tattum (1984) argued:

 Pupil behaviour can be regarded as a preservation of self in response to a
 daily onslaught on their identity. In their efforts to preserve their
 self-image in an institution which regularly subjects them to negative
 definitions and degrading experiences, many of the youngsters responded
 with similar abuse and violence.

There is an assumption among teachers in such schools that children possess the skills to employ alternative strategies to violence (Partington et al., 1995). However, these skills need to be taught, a task that requires a focus on talk rather than violence (McManus, 1995; Morrison & Inverardi, 1995; Reynolds, 1989). Acknowledgement of the contribution of the students to solving the problems of violence and misbehaviour may be the first step for such schools.

Students' perceptions of powerlessness

It was clear from the interviews that some students who were suspended had committed acts out of frustration at their powerlessness. Acts of violence such as swearing appear to result from incidents in which the relative power differential between students and teachers is made clear to the student. Teachers who maintain a polite veneer of equality in the classroom (Manke, 1997) and so avoid bringing this differential to the fore are less likely to experience violence from students.

Failure to respond to the concerns of students exacerbates discipline issues and leads to escalation. Partington et al. (1995) found that teachers were partly responsible for escalation in about half of the discipline problems studied, and primarily responsible for one quarter of the cases. In the present study, escalation of minor problems into events warranting suspension also occurred as a consequence of teachers ignoring the students' concerns. This happens most often among students who have acquired a record of misbehaviour. When students develop a reputation, teachers appear to ignore their arguments, preferring to operate on their own prejudices about the student. Teachers are in a position to construct an enduring image of students and, for their part, students are aware of the power of teachers to construct their reality for them. In two cases in this study, students who felt that they were powerless to clear themselves of what they considered were unfounded charges carried out the acts of violence that teachers were accusing them of. In both cases, it appeared that they thought they might as well commit the offence that warranted the already awarded disciplinary action. If the same rules of evidence and accusation operated in schools as operates outside them, students would be cleared of many of the acts they are accused of. As Hyman and Perone (1998) point out, the contribution of teachers to discipline problems may do more to cause alienation, aggression and violence than to cure it.

Parents of these students also demonstrated powerlessness in their interactions with the school. Typical of this was Victor's mother. As we saw earlier, Victor had been suspended for three days in questionable circumstances and, although his mother was alert to the injustice of his suspension, she did little to rectify it. It is likely that a parent who was more familiar with the education system's power structure could have extracted an apology from the school for the behaviour of its teachers.

The students at home

With one or two exceptions, most parents described their children in endearing terms. Relationships in most homes appeared to be cordial with the children being helpful, participating in household chores, being intelligent, lively and positive. The context of students' home lives, however, strongly affected their behaviour at school. Unfortunately the schools were either unable or unwilling to take context into account. For example, the departure of Bob Tang's father followed by a severe beating at school were considered by his mother to be key factors in his behaviour at school:

 Rita: We've had a lot happen in the last 12 months that I think has made a
 big impact on him, as far as the people he's hanging out with. I don't know
 if you know, my husband and I, well he took off 12 months ago with someone
 else and has had very little contact with the kids, still to this day. I
 mean in January he had contact and he's only recently contacted them again.
 In between that time Bob was taken out of the school boundaries by boys
 with screwdrivers and beaten up in the school grounds by these same
 children to the extent where we've had to get restraining orders put on the
 kids because they really did hassle him which made Bob turn to a lot of the
 Aboriginal children in the school as his mates because I think he feels
 protected and he was good and scared, but these kids aren't noted for being
 good kids and he's really changed, he's turned around.

This parent was called to the school earlier in the year to collect Bob when he was `running amok' around the school as a consequence of refusing to go to contract room because he believed he was not in the wrong. Coincidentally his father had moved with his new partner from Perth to a coastal town and his older brother went to live with them.

 Rita: The oldest boy left me and went to live with his dad and Bob had
 broken up so, absolutely broke his heart.

McManus (1989) reported a similar situation in which the school responded unfeelingly to a student whose mother was dying. There clearly needs to be a closer link between the school and the home in cases of student misbehaviour. The relevance of home context was clearly enunciated by Tattum (1984):

 Children arrive at school with different attitudes, expectations and
 behaviour patterns; but recent research recognises that schools are very
 different in their policies and practices, and that some, rather than
 support pupils who arrive with personal problems and difficulties, actually
 contribute to their difficulties and exacerbate the pupil's problems.
 Conversely, there are schools which provide a supportive atmosphere for
 their pupils which is conducive to good behaviour and academic success.
 (p.94)

Most parents were very concerned about their children's behaviour at school. The benefit of a close link with the school was evident in a number of cases in the present study. These parents had regular discussions on the progress of their child--in one case, weekly--and they were able to influence the school's handling of their child much more effectively than the parents who had little contact. It may be that a lighter penalty, noted for one boy by another who had been suspended for a similar offence, was a consequence of the former boy's father maintaining a dialogue with the deputy principal over the behaviour of the student. This reflects the greater resources, and their more effective use, among some families compared with others (Collins & Thompson, 1997).

Few of the parents thought suspensions were desirable. Although one school principal considered that this was because it disrupted their work as they had to remain home to care for their child, this was not a major concern for most parents. All considered that there needed to be more support for the students. Despite the intentions of the state policy on suspensions, few students received effective counselling on their return to school. Eva Lee described her daughter Janet's return to school after suspension:

 I: So the deputy, what did he say to you?

 Mrs Lee: He just told me what happened and said that he wasn't going to put
 up with that sort of behaviour in the school, which I can understand,
 because I mean I won't put up with it here, so I mean I can see his point,
 but the thing is there's got to be more, there's just not enough. I mean
 they get suspended, they go back to school and that seems to be the end of
 it, so she got suspended twice in three weeks.

 I: What would you like to see?

 Mrs Lee: I think there's got to be some sort of counselling or something
 there, or I don't know, there's got to be something more, I mean even
 sending work home with them while they're suspended, make them do their
 work at home, I mean that surely has to be an option because she's losing
 out, I'm losing out and she's home to annoy me and doing nothing, which I
 mean, I guess they're thinking is, OK you just go home, been suspended you
 think about what you've done to them, over the next four days, but what
 else is there, there's nothing.

There was no program available to these students to redirect their energy towards more profitable pursuits in school. Nor was there sufficient support for them to catch up on their work so that they could perform at an appropriate level in class. Both these factors severely inhibited the students' opportunities to turn over a new leaf at school.

Throughout the interviews, two key issues occupied the parents: the loss of instruction and the need to redirect their children so that they no longer offended at school. Several parents could see quite clearly that their children were heading down a path that led to exclusion and failure in later life and this was a grave concern.

Towards improvement

Only a minority of students are suspended each year, yet it is clear that at least some of these believe that there is no real justice at school and take matters into their own hands. Compounding this situation is the apparent bias in the system that results in the differential treatment of students.

Many behaviour management strategies have been implemented in schools, but often these are based on an individual pathology model in which the student is seen to have a psychological problem that needs remedying. Assertive discipline (Canter, 1976), the original Glasser (1969) model (more recent work by Glasser acknowledges the importance of context); and Skinnerian models (Charles, 1992) all focus on the individual as the source of the problem without acknowledging social and cultural influences. Behaviours that are considered to warrant suspension, however, are often socially constructed. In other contexts, these behaviours may be praised or rewarded, or at the least ignored as of no consequence. Jenkin (1994), for example, noted the lack of consistency in the application of suspension across borders. In London, students were likely to be suspended for what would be regarded as the relatively minor matter of bringing matches and fireworks to school. In Toronto, it took the much more serious offence of bringing illicit drugs and alcohol to school.

In contrast to both the above reasons for suspension, the situation in Western Australia, where swearing is a prime target for suspension, seems almost comical. Societal change has resulted in swearing becoming much more socially accepted and is no longer seen as a mark of deviance. The fact that one student was suspended for uttering swearwords as part of a joke points to the difficulty of arguing the pathology model. It is likely that the majority of teachers, particularly males, swear as a matter of course outside the classroom. Increasingly courts of law are refusing to convict citizens tried for obscene language charges: perhaps it is time the schools caught up. It would be more appropriate to teach students to use alternative terms. The English language is replete with a breadth of terms which can be used to express feelings.

Schools that ignore the occurrence of unjustified suspensions act in breach of policies that espouse equity, fairness and communication. In contrast, the practices employed by some teachers engender fear, distrust and frustration. These are not good emotions to carry while attempting to learn. The potential for confrontation in less than hegemonic conditions often results in escalation of minor incidents to bring about suspension. In effect, the actions of some teachers contribute to school violence (Hyman & Snook, 2000; Partington et al., 1995).

Parents recommended a number of solutions to the problems they perceived in suspensions. Chief among these was the need to ensure their children maintained their learning. The recommendation that suspension be carried out in a school-supervised environment during which time students engage in productive work is a sound approach that is commonly used in America. In-school suspension has the advantage that students continue working while they are suspended from their classes. In a description of the Macarthur Suspension Support Project, Jenkin (1994) reported:

 It was devised in response to a perceived gap in services for difficult
 students, and in the belief that such students required more, not less,
 teacher input when their behaviour, academic skills and self-esteem were in
 decline. Observation of the unrestricted and unsupervised antics suspendees
 engaged in during the period of suspension also reinforced the need for
 intervention.

However it requires additional personnel to manage the system (Gootman, 1998). Students need to be supervised and, desirably, taught during suspension. Gootman recommended that counselling of students should occur during in-house suspension. Often the staffing profile of a high school does not cater for such staff, especially trained counsellors. During data gathering for this research, schools reported a decline in staffing ratios, making it difficult to provide the support needed just to maintain an isolation room for students in trouble. Jenkin reported other demands on schools that implement in-school suspension: rooming, academic programming, criteria for selection of candidates, record keeping and follow-up. However, there appears to be no conclusive evidence of the effectiveness of in-house suspension compared with other approaches to discipline.

Perhaps the major desirable change within the existing structure is the implementation of more pastoral care at the classroom level. McManus's identification of oracy as a counter-exclusion strategy is significant. He noted that increased attention to talking through problems with the students would lead to improvements: `Teachers spend more time in interaction, explaining programmes, encouraging pupils to talk themselves through their problems, and commenting on their feelings and reactions' (McManus, 1995). A range of alternative strategies outlined in the 1995 National Conference on Behaviour Management (Conway & Izard, 1995) incorporated the notion of counselling students at risk of offending. In the present study, the year master at one of the schools reported on the success of a skills program which operated weekly for 40 minutes. This gave teachers and students the opportunity to work together on team-building activities which `really helped them'.

The better performance of primary schools in handling student discipline was noted by parents, although changes in students as a result of the onset of adolescence affect high school discipline. Even so, the structure of the primary school is better suited to a pastoral care model, and secondary schools should move to a model in which a small group of teachers--or an individual teacher--is responsible for a group of students over an extended period of time. The present scheme of class changes every hour or so encourages anonymity, alienation and conflict.

More radical, but perhaps more realistic, is the implementation of changes to structures. The model of secondary school as a factory, feeding students through subjects every hour or so, is obsolete but continues as the dominant model for instruction. Its main advantage is cheapness anti this, allied with inertia to change, is inhibiting the introduction of alternative, more community oriented forms of schooling. Gillborn, Nixon, and Rudduck (1993) proposed a range of changes in schooling that would reduce problems of discipline and cater more effectively for students. They identified five focusing concepts--expectations for achievement; consistency of teacher responses to disorder; dialogue between teachers, students and parents; more active engagement by students in their learning; and shared respect between the school and its community--that contribute to `ensure that discipline is an educational matter and not just a system of punishment and control' (p.3).

The issue, however, is not just the adoption of alternative approaches by teachers but the willingness to do so. Achieving change in teachers is a difficult enterprise, particularly when it involves an assault on their values and beliefs (Kagan, 1992). In this study, Kagan reviewed research on teacher change as a result of inservice and preservice programs. Most of these programs were ineffectual, a result that does not augur well for the introduction of the kinds of changes identified by Gillborn et al. (1993). If changes are to occur, there have to be strong incentives for teachers to adopt them.

At present, government schools in Western Australia are choosing to implement middle school reforms. The report of middle school reform (Cumming, 1996) identified a range of benefits of such reforms. Teachers are able to consult with students to identify problems and with parents to discuss situations, work as a team to solve problems, and ensure students experience success and maintain a caring and supportive environment. In addition, teachers were encouraged to use supportive strategies and negotiate processes rather than impose sanctions on students. These benefits stem from the structural changes that middle schooling offers: teachers are able to develop greater knowledge of students in their care; more resources to implement changes are available as a result of restructuring of the school; and attitudes that support students rather than condemn them are encouraged.

As was observed in the introduction, most students do not like their schools. The structures and practices that lead to this dislike are bound to interact with individual students who do not have the personal or social resources to avoid offending their teachers and so end up being suspended. Rather than seeing these students as individually pathological, they must be seen as the trailing edge of the whole body of students and a product of the interaction of the school with its community. All too often, the worst records of suspension are in schools in poorer districts and this is a reflection of the lack of interaction--and understanding--of the school for its community. Changes have to offer more than new school policies regarding discipline and order. Instead holistic changes such as those identified by Gillborn et al. (1993) are essential.

Alternative strategies of school behaviour management based on nonconfrontational philosophies appear essential. Approaches based on co-operation, goal development and self-discipline have been developed (Halsey, 1993; Nicklin Team, 1994] and demonstrate the effectiveness of non-punitive management. Mackrill and Breheney (1996), for example, described an approach that took into account many contextual factors in the management of student behaviour. They concluded:

 The pursuit of school effectiveness must be a very carefully thought out
 process, involving all stake holders. The key to success is the development
 of strong interpersonal relationships between children, teachers and
 parents. (p.332)

There is no doubt that the students interviewed for this research are no angels. Even so, they deserve a fair go at school and it is clear they are not getting it. The implication for all students is that school is not a fair place to be, which is quite contrary to the professed goals of education. Worst of all, the students who suffer most from such injustice are those who have the least resources to support themselves: students whose parents are unwilling to come to the school to stick up for them, those who are immersed in emotional problems, and those who are culturally or racially different. As Davis and McCaul note (1997), civil rights commonly afforded adults--freedom of movement, association and belief--need to accompany those usually identified with school--nurturance, protection and care. At present these freedoms are absent in many of our schools.

 Carol: Yeh, well, I don't think getting suspended and getting sent home is
 really the answer because they're just going to lay around home and sit and
 watch telly, eat and you know, like nothing's happened. Something else
 should come out of it.

Keywords

behaviour problems classroom techniques discipline secondary school students student behaviour suspension

References

Anyon, J. (1995). Race, social class, and educational reform in an inner-city school. Teachers College Record, 97(1), 69-94.

Canter, L. & Canter, M. (1976). Assertive discipline. Santa Monica: Lee Canter & Associates.

Collins, J. & Thompson, F. (1997). Family, school and cultural capital. In L. J. Saha (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the sociology of education (pp. 618-623). Oxford: Pergamon.

Conway, R. & Izard, J. (Eds.). (1995). Student behaviour outcomes: Choosing appropriate paths. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Cope, B. (1995). Classroom management/discipline models in review and action. In R. Conway & J. Izard (Eds.), Student behaviour outcomes: Choosing appropriate paths. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Costenbader, V. & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary school students. Journal of School Psychology, 3 6(1), 59-82.

Davis, W. E. & McCaul, E. J. (1997). Children and youth at risk. In L. J. Saha (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the sociology of education. Oxford: Pergamon.

Education Department of Western Australia. (1995). Behaviour management in schools: Policy and procedures. Perth: Author.

Education Department of Western Australia. (1996). Policy on exclusion and suspension. Perth: Author.

Education Department of Western Australia. (1998). Making the difference: Behaviour management in schools policy. Perth: Author.

Education Department of Western Australia. (1999). Annual report 1998-99. Perth: Author.

Education Department of Western Australia. (2000). Annual report 1999-2000. Perth: Author.

Education Department of Western Australia. (2001). Behaviour management in schools. Perth: Author. http://www.eddept.wa.edu.au/regframe/index.cfm

Foucault, M. (1991). Discipline and punish. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Gagne, A. (1996). Success at contact: The argument for alternative schools for at-risk youth. Alberta Journal of Educational Research, 42(3), 306-324.

Gillborn, D., Nixon, J., & Ruddock, J. (1993). Dimensions of discipline: Rethinking practice in secondary schools. London: HMSO.

Giroux, H. (1992). Border crossings: Cultural workers and the politics of education. New York: Routledge.

Glasser, W. (1969). Schools without failure. New York: Harper & Row.

Halsey, C. (1993). Attitude and behaviour change in young people: An evaluation of Project Turnaround. In D. Evans, M. Myhill, & John Izard Eds.), Student behaviour problems: Positive initiatives and new frontiers (pp. 226-237). Melbourne: ACER.

Hargreaves, D. H., Hestor, K. H., & Mellor, J. M. (1975). Deviance in classrooms. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment, Education and Training. (1996). Truancy and exclusion from school: Report of the inquiry into truancy and exclusion of children and young people from school. Canberra: AGPS.

Hyde, N. & Robson, G. (1984). A study of student suspensions (Discussion paper No. 21). Perth: Education Department of Western Australia, Research Branch.

Hyman, I. A. & Perone, D. C. (1998). The other side of school violence: Educator policies and practices that may contribute to student misbehavior. Journal of School Psychology, 36(1), 7-27.

Hyman, I. A. & Snook, P. A. (2000). Dangerous schools and what you can do about them. Phi Delta Kappan, 81(7), 488-501.

Jenkin, J. (1996). Resolving violence through education: An anti-violence curriculum for secondary students. In J. Izard & J. Evans (Eds.), Student behaviour: Policies, intewentions and evaluations. Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Kagan, D. M. (1992). Professional growth among preservice and beginning teachers. Review of Educational Research, 62(2), 129-169.

Lewis, R. & Lovegrove, M. (1984). Teachers' classroom procedures: Are students' preferences being met? Journal of Education for Teaching, 10, 97-105.

Lewis, R. & Lovegrove, M. N. (1987). The teacher as disciplinarian: How do students feel? Australian Journal of Education, 31, 173-186.

Mackrill, V. & Breheney, C. (1996). Making peace at Mayfield: A whole school approach to behaviour management. Paper presented at the 1996 national conference on the behaviour management and behaviour change of children and youth with emotional and/or behaviour problems, Hobart.

Malin, M. (1989). Invisibility in success, visibility in transgression for the Aboriginal child in the urban classroom: Case studies at home and at school in Adelaide. Unpublished PhD, University of Minnesota.

Manke, M. P. (1997). Classroom power relations: Understanding student-teacher interactions. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

McLaren, P. (1998). Life in schools: An introduction to critical pedagogy in the foundations of education (3rd ed.). New York: Longman.

McManus, M. (1995). Troublesome behaviour in the classroom. London: Routledge.

Ministerial Council on Employment, Education and Training, Taskforce on Indigenous Education. (1999). Achieving educational equality for Australia's Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: Draft Discussion Paper. Canberra: Author.

Morrison, J. & Inverardi, L. (1995). A bad reputation gets the boot: A bad reputation throws down the gauntlet. In R. Conway & J. Izard (Eds.), Student behaviour outcomes: Choosing appropriate paths (pp. 60-66). Melbourne: Australian Council for Educational Research.

Nicklin Team. (1994). Prolific partnership: In praise of parent participation. In M. Tainsh & J. Izard (Eds.), Widening horizons: New challenges, directions and achievements: Selected papers from the 1994 national conference on behaviour management and behaviour change of children and youth with emotional and/or behaviour problems (pp. 95-108). Melbourne: ACER.

Partington, G., Waugh, R., & Forrest, S. (1995). Perspectives on discipline of Aboriginal students. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education conference, 26-30 November, Wrest Point Convention Centre, Hobart.

Reid, K. (1986). Disaffection from school. London: Methuen.

Reynolds, D. (1989). Effective schools and pupil behaviour. In N. Jones (Ed.), School management and pupil behaviour (pp. 29-44). London: Fahner.

Robinson, K. H. (1992). Classroom discipline: Power, resistance and gender. A look at teacher perspectives. Gender and Education, 4(3), 273-287.

Slee, R. (1999). Folk devils and the morality of the panics over classroom discipline. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Tattum, D. (1984). Disruptive pupils: System rejects? In J. F. Schostak & T. Logan (Eds.), Pupil experience (pp. 90-105). London: Croom Helm.

Tomlinson, S. (1997). Sociological perspectives on failing schools. International Studies in the Sociology of Education, 7(1), 81-98.

Vanderslice, R. (1999). Developing effective in-school suspension programs. Delta Kappa Gamma Bulletin, 65 (4), 33-38.

Wehlage, G. G. & Rutter, R. A. (1986). Dropping out: How much do schools contribute to the problem? Teachers College Record, 87(3), 374-392.

Author

Gary Partington is Associate Professor and co-ordinator of research in Kurongkurl Katitjin, the School of Indigenous Australian Studies, Edith Cowan University, 2 Bradford Street, Mt Lawley, Western Australia 6050.