Alternative School Discipline Principles and Interventions: An Overview of the Literature

Abstract

Increasing evidence shows that punitive discipline is ineffective and detrimental. Using empowerment theory and the opportunity-to-learn conceptual framework, this literature review seeks to broaden school personnel’s knowledge of alternative discipline interventions. Searching ERIC and JSTOR databases, we looked for English language, North American literature published between 1996 and 2016 that discussed alternative individual and school-wide disciplinary approaches. The literature we found indicates that punitive measures are counter-productive; that several alternative disciplinary models share common principles; and that studies point to favourable outcomes of some alternative school discipline models. While the transition towards alternative discipline may require additional resources and years of adjustment, a healthier school climate can foster the empowerment and academic achievement of marginalized students.

Examining the Within-Individual Effect of Delinquency on Psychosocial Maturity in Mid-adolescence

“…While not the focus of the current study, future research should directly examine how the experience with school punishment may be harmful to one's psychosocial maturity and consider alternative school disciplinary measures that encourage healthy developmental outcomes. For instance, school discipline strategies that focus on encouraging healthy developmental outcomes, such as promoting school orientation and modeling positive decision-making, may support psychosocial maturity development (see Jean-Pierre and Parris (2018) for a review of alternative disciplinary measures).…”

What makes a response to schoolroom wrongs permissible?

“…Jean-Pierre and Parris-Drummond (2018) note that restorative practices derived from the above alternative criminal justice practices have been applied in schools. Restorative practices view misconduct as stemming from a ‘fracture in the relationship between the student and the school community rather than a breach of norms’ (p. 418).…”

“…They argue that neither fractured relationships, nor the harm and needs that follow student misconduct, are addressed by punitive responses. Responses to wrong which remove the wrongdoing student prevent the repair of relationships and remove opportunities for the wrongdoing student in particular to learn from the wrong (Jean-Pierre and Parris-Drummond, 2018: 418). In short, they frustrate remedial correction and fortification for the wrongdoing student.…”

“…In short, they frustrate remedial correction and fortification for the wrongdoing student. The authors report that ‘restorative schools’ use collective efforts across the school community to create and sustain a healthy school climate and disciplinary practices that students perceive as fair, through the building of ‘caring and nurturing relationships between students and school staff’ (Jean-Pierre and Parris-Drummond, 2018: 417–418). Such practices resonate with characterisations of caring as efforts to ‘maintain, continue, and repair’ the shared social world so that we can live in this complex web of interconnections ‘as well as possible’ (Tronto, 1993: 103).…”

“…Such practices resonate with characterisations of caring as efforts to ‘maintain, continue, and repair’ the shared social world so that we can live in this complex web of interconnections ‘as well as possible’ (Tronto, 1993: 103). Some existing schemes in ‘restorative schools’ employ a peer-mentor approach, empowering students themselves to play a part in helping to resolve conflicts and respond to wrongs (Jean-Pierre and Parris-Drummond, 2018: 424). Restorative approaches allow for the consensual engagement of wrongdoers, victims, witnesses and students as facilitators, in the learning occasion of doing right in response to wrong.…”