CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS:

HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY?

Murray Oswald, University of South Australia

Bruce Johnson, University of South Australia

Victoria Whitington, University of South Australia.

Correspondence to:

Murray Oswald

Faculty of Education

Magill Campus

St Bernards Rd

Magill South Australia 5072

Email: Murray.Oswald@unisa.edu.au

CLASSROOM DISCIPLINE PROBLEMS IN SOUTH AUSTRALIAN GOVERNMENT AND INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS:

HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY?

Background

The Education system in South Australia is of a tripartite nature consisting of the government, Catholic and Independent schools systems. While the government schools cater for the majority of students, the Independent school sector attracts over 25% of the total pool. Most of the Independent schools claim some religious affiliation, such as those under the umbrella of the Catholic Schools Board or Lutheran Schools Board. The Catholic schools attract almost seventy-five per cent of those students attending Independent schools. There has been a general public perception, encouraged by the media, suggesting that schooling in the non-government sector offers educational, social and other advantages over that of the government system (Teese, 1981).

The reasons why parents willingly choose to pay to send their children to Independent schools, and whether private schools offer advantages over their government counterparts, has been the focus of a number of studies. Several of these have examined the academic and socio-cultural differences in public and private sector schooling. Overseas research findings have highlighted the ongoing debate regarding which of the two systems might provide the more advantages (Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore, 1982; Falsey and Heyns, 1984; Alexander and Pappas 1985; Bickel, 1986; Wolfle, 1987). Similar research has been undertaken in Australia ( Maslen, 1982; Selby-Smith 1983; Carpenter, 1985: Johnston, 1990; Williams and Carpenter, 1990). Carpenter (1985) noted that Australian research has produced some inconclusive results, such as those relating to the differences in student academic outcomes between the two systems.

One significant factor influencing parents in sending their children to an Independent school has been the emphasis such schools have placed on high standards of discipline, a claim commonly made in their school prospectuses (Smolicz & Moody, 1978; Oswald, 1991; West & Varlaam, 1991). However, little research has been directed either toward examining how justified such claims might be, or in identifying the actual extent of discipline problems in the various Independent schools. A survey by Cohen and Thomas of disciplinary climates in Catholic, Independent and Victorian state schools found that the state schools had the highest incidence of ‘misdemeanours’ or discipline problems (notably in co-educational schools), with Catholic schools ranked next (Cohen and Thomas, 1984). Private all girls’ schools had the fewest reported numbers of incidents.

This present research sought to provide a more substantial body of comparative information concerning discipline problems in government and Independent schools in South Australia. Teachers in both systems were asked their views on the nature and frequency of discipline problems in their classrooms. They were also asked what changes in their schools might reduce discipline problems. The geographic locations of all schools and socioeconomic backgrounds of their students were taken into account in assessing comparisons between the two educational sectors.

Method

This comparative study was based on the data generated from similar questionnaire items from a survey in 1993 of Independent schools in South Australia and of the government schools in 1995 (Adey, Oswald & Johnson, 1991; Oswald, Johnson, Whitington & Dunn, 1994). The target populations for the studies were the entire population of teachers in the government and the Independent schools in the Metropolitan area of Adelaide in South Australia. It included teaching staff from all school and status levels employed for 50% or more of their school’s teaching hours per week. The total pool of government sector subjects numbered just over seven thousand teachers, and almost three thousand eight hundred from the Independent schools. A 20% random sample was taken from the government schools’ population using the computer resources of the state Department for Education and Children’s’ Services (DECS). As no central record of all teachers in the Independent schools system was available a different sampling method was required. Teachers in all the Independent schools were invited to participate in the study. Those teachers who volunteered were sent a questionnaire (together with an individual letter and a stamped, addressed return envelope) via school courier services provided by both government and Independent schools. Reminder letters were sent two weeks after the initial questionnaire. To preserve anonymity all participants were assigned a record number, which was stamped on the return envelope. This number was recorded on the returned questionnaire and checked off a master list. All responses were recorded in numerical codes and analysed using the SPSS for Windows package (Norusis, 1992).

The questionnaires used in the study covered the following issues:

(a) demographic and socio-economic characteristics of teachers and schools in each of the samples

(b) teachers’ views of discipline problems inside the classroom

(c) strategies used by teachers to manage difficult classes or students

(d) teachers’ views on needed changes to improve discipline.

Results

Data on Religious characteristics of independent sample.

A core characteristic of the independent schools is their religious affiliations, which have important relationships to a number of variables, including the clientele attending a particular school, socio-economic factors, and educational approaches. Religious affiliations were examined from several perspectives.

(i) Religious denomination.

An important feature of Independent schools is that many belong directly to a particular religious denomination (Table 1). For instance, the major proportion of teachers in the Independent schools’ sample was from the Catholic education sector (46.1%), nearly 70% of these being female.

Table 1: Religious denomination of school

Religious. Denomination % of teachers % male % female

Catholic 46.1 34.1 65.9

Anglican 13.0 62.3 37.7

Uniting 13.4 34.7 65.3

Lutheran 13.7 38.6 61.4

Baptist 2.6 37.5 62.5

Other Protestants 3.1 39.5 60.5

Non/Multi 8.1 39.8 60.2

Almost equal proportions (approximately 13%) of teachers were from the Anglican, Uniting and Lutheran church schools, with the remainder of the sample from other Protestant and non or multi-denominational groups (14%). Of each denomination, approximately 65% of teachers were female, except for the Anglican sector (37.7% females, 62.3% males).

(ii) Religious disposition

While ‘denomination’ identifies the religious classification of a particular group, ‘disposition’ indicates the personal theological/doctrinal leanings of individual teachers. As might be anticipated, the reported religious dispositions of the teachers in particular schools are consistent with the sample denomination characteristics (Table 2). Nearly half (46.6%) professed 'catholic' as their orientation, while 'liberal' was the next largest group (21.5%).

Table 2: Religious disposition of teachers’ schools

Religious disposition % of teachers % female % male

Charismatic 2.3 75.0 25.3

Evangelical 15.8 63.0 37.0

Liberal 21.5 49.2 50.8

Fundamentalist 2.9 54.3 47.5

Pentecostal 0.5 83.3 16.7

Orthodox 5.6 58.8 41.2

Catholic 46.6 64.8 35.2

Other 4.8 61.4 38.6

However, individual differences are apparent when comparing the denominational and dispositional characteristics reported by teachers (Table 3). While, as might be expected, the majority of teachers in Catholic schools identify themselves as 'catholic', greater variations in religious dispositions are apparent with the other religious denominations.

Table 3: Percentages of each denomination describing themselves as of particular disposition

. Catholic

Anglican

Uniting

Lutheran

Baptist

Other

Protestant

Non/

multi

Charismatic 1.0 0.6 1.3 0.6 12.9 8.6 11.1

Evangelical 0.3 9.1 7.0 76.8 67.7 11.4 12.2

Liberal 1.2 53.2 72.2 8.3 3.2 14.3 42.2

Fundamentalist

0.2 1.9 3.2 4.8 12.9 31.4 3.3

Pentecostal 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 14.3 0.0

Orthodox 0.5 20.1 7.6 4.8 0.0 14.3 5.6

Catholic 96.5 6.5 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0

Other 0.2 7.8 7.0 4.2 3.2 0.0 0.0

Anglican and Uniting schools’ teachers primarily identify themselves as 'liberal', then as ‘orthodox’, while Lutheran and Baptist as 'evangelical', and ’fundamentalist’. The remaining denominations indicated a much broader range of religious dispositions, especially the ‘Other Protestant’ group.

Other data analysis on gender comparisons showed females tended to be in larger proportions in those groups holding theological positions (e.g., Evangelical, Charismatic, Fundamentalist, Pentecostal), less common to those of mainstream churches, while also being well represented in the "liberal'' category.

(iii) Religious denomination and socio-economic status.

As is evident from Table 4 there is a close relationship between types of schools and the background of their clientele.

Table 4: Percentages of teachers who describe the approximate socio-economic status of the students at their school

.

Catholic Anglican Uniting Lutheran Baptist Other

Protestant

Non/

Multi

Mostly high 2.6 16.0 25.6 1.2 0.0 7.9 13.1

High/medium 18.7 44.4 47.6 17.6 9.7 5.3 37.4

Mostly medium

38.4 24.7 18.9 43.5 41.9 34.2 12.1

Medium/low 29.4 9.9 0.0 24.1 41.9 42.1 22.2

Mostly low 4.8 0.6 1.2 1.2 0.0 5.3 2.0

Evenly divided

5.1 3.1 3.7 11.8 6.5 5.3 12.1

Uncertain 0.5 1.2 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0

Teachers in the Anglican (60.4%) and Uniting (73.2%) schools suggest they tend to draw their students from largely high status socio-economic groups in the community, whereas the opposite is the case with the Catholic (21.3%), Lutheran (18.8%) and the remaining groups of schools.

On the limited number of dimensions canvassed above, a profile of the various schools begins to coalesce. Anglican and Uniting denominational schools seem to have students from similar socio-cultural backgrounds, and it is suggested there is also some common

features regarding socio-economic levels of the clientele from the Catholic, Lutheran and other denominational church schools.

Overall, the above results demonstrate the diversity of religious allegiances of the teachers making up the Independent school sample, and in turn the heterogeneous makeup of the independent schools’ population.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TWO SAMPLES

From the pool of government schools surveyed 59% of teachers returned their questionnaires, while 50.2% of the population of Independent schools’ teachers responded. A comparison of the samples and the parent populations suggests the samples are adequate representations of the populations of teachers in both school sectors (Table 5)

Table 5: Comparison of Sample and Parent Populations by Gender.

Independent Schools Government Schools

Gender Parent Pop % SamplePop. % Parent Pop. % Sample Pop. %

Female 61.0 64.7 63.0 60.9

Male 39.0 33.3 37.0 39.1

AGE OF TEACHERS

The Independent schools’ sample was made up of a significantly younger age group (mean age = 39 years, males 40 years, females 38 years) compared with that of the government school sector (mean age = 45 years, males 46 years, females 44 years). Overall there were proportionally more females than males in the younger age ranges, these differences being significant across both samples (Chi-square, P<.005). The Independent schools’ sample had a higher percentage of teachers in the 34 years and under age ranges, compared to the government sample (Table 6).

Table 6: Comparison between Independent and State schools: percentages of teachers in various age groups (State school teachers’ percentages in brackets).

Age % of teachers % female % male

<25 6.2 (1.2) 76.6 (87.5) 23.4 (13.5)

25-29 11.9 (5.3) 69.1 (87.1) 30.9 (12.9)

30-34 14.0 (15.2) 60.6 (66.3) 39.4 (33.7)

35-39 16.1 (26.8) 51.7 (63.2) 47.8 (36.8)

40-44 20.6 (23.1) 64.2 (57.5) 35.4 (42.5)

45-49 17.0 (16.6) 58.0 (53.6) 42.0 (46.4)

50-54 8.6 ( 7.3) 57.9 (65.6) 42.1 (34.4)

55-59 4.2 ( 3.7) 61.5 (73.5) 38.5 (26.5)

60+ 1.4 (0.8) 27.8 (70.0) 72.2 (10.0)

However, both school sectors have the greater percentages of teachers over the age of forty, suggesting possible concerns regarding teacher shortages may need to be addressed in the near future.

SCHOOL LEVELS FROM WHICH TEACHERS WERE DRAWN

Because of the variety of school levels present in the Independent schools sector, direct comparisons are difficult to make between the two systems. However a number of similarities can be highlighted, both in the overall proportions of teachers across junior primary, primary and secondary, and especially the percentages of male to female teachers (Table 7 ).

Table 7: Percentages of teachers from each school level.

Independent Schools State Schools

School Level % of teachers

% female

% male % of teachers

% female

% male

Secondary (8-12)

47.4 47.1 52.9 37.7 47.0 53.0

Primary(3-7) 20.2 59.8 40.2 46.5 66.6 33.4

Jun. Primary(R-2)

8.9 95.5 4.5 11.7 96.8 3.2

Middle(7-10) 6.3 78.2 21.8

J.P./Primary 12.6 83.3 15.4

Mid./Secondary 4.4 53.7 46.3

Other 4.1 76.5 23.5*

*refers to special schools, etc.

CURRENT APPOINTMENT STATUS

Both school systems have comparable staff employment structures. The percentages of teachers employed full-time are much the same for both sectors, as are those for teachers having permanent status (Tables 8A and 8B).

Table 8A: Percentages of teachers who worked full time or part time (State schools teachers’ percentages in brackets)

Time % of teachers % of female % of male

Full time 80.3 (87.27) 70.7 (73.1) 95.5 (97.9)

Part time 19.7 (17.3) 29.3 (26.9) 4.5 (2.1)

Table 8B: Percentage of teachers who were permanent or contract (state schools teachers’ percentages in brackets)

Tenure % of teachers % of female % of male

Permanent 89.3 (88.5) 86.4 (85.3) 93.8 (96.4)

Contract 10.6 (11.5) 13.5 (14.7) 6.2 (3.6)

In each case, female teachers are in greater proportions in the part-time, and contract positions.

Teaching position

The above gender characteristics of the sample are repeated in the case of positions of status held. Gender imbalances were evident across both the school systems regarding who occupied particular appointment levels.

Table 9: Percentages of all teachers at each status level. (State schools teachers’ percentages in brackets).

Position % of teachers

% female % male %of female

% of male

Head (Principal) 4.9 (4.2 34.4 (34.5) 65.6 (65.5) 2.8 (2.3) 8.2 (7.3

Dept. Head (Principal)

4.2 (5.3) 42.3 (41.2) 57.7 (58.8) 2.9 (3.5) 6.2 (8.5)

Sen Teacher (senior

coord, key teacher

17.4 (23.5) 42.9 (49.4) 57.1 (50.6) 12.2 (18.4 25.6 (51.9)

Teacher 69.8 (64.0) 67.7 (70.5) 32.0 (29.5) 77.6 (72.1)

57.5 (50.8)

Although males are in the minority, they hold a disproportionate number of the senior positions in both school sectors (Table 9). Further data analysis indicated that a larger percentage of males to females held positions of Head or Principal, and Deputy in both secondary and primary schools. It is only at the junior primary level that the female teachers hold more senior positions than do males, although the percentages of males in those positions are disproportionate to their numbers. The findings are similar in both the government and Independent schools samples, except at the junior primary level in Independent schools where no males were recorded as holding either Head or Deputy positions.

SCHOOLS AND THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS

Teachers were asked to estimate whether their students were from ‘relatively prosperous’, ‘neither prosperous nor disadvantaged’ or ‘economically disadvantaged’ backgrounds. (Table 10) summarizes the findings for both the government and various Independent schools.

Table 10: Percentages of teachers’ estimates of socio-economic ratings of their students: government and Independent schools compared.

Socioeconomic

Rating*

Govt

(N=871)

Indep

(N=1265)

Cath

(N=577)

Angli

(N=162)

Uniting

(N=167)

Luth

(N=172)

Other

(N=187)

Relatively prosperous

7.7 8.6 21.3 60.5 74.4 19.4 34.5

Neither 38.5 26.5 43.5 27.8 22.6 55.3 32.2

Econom disadvantaged

31.4 32.7 35.2 11.7 2.0 25.3 33.3

Don’t know 22.4 32.2

* State versus Independent: Chi-Square P=.000

Perceived socio-economic differences were evident in the responses of teachers from both systems. Differences were statistically significant both between the government and Independent schools and amongst the Independent schools as well. While the overall percentages for the category ‘economically disadvantaged’ was very similar across both systems, there were marked differences between the Catholic/Lutheran denominations as a group, and the Anglican/Uniting schools. These latter schools attracted larger percentages of student from more affluent backgrounds, as shown earlier (Table 4).

Until just prior to the time the surveys were undertaken, the Department for Education and Children’s Services (DECS) in South Australia had the state zoned into a number of areas for administrative purposes. Postcodes associated within each area were identified, as were those for all schools which were then matched with the particular areas. Table 11 summarizes comparisons between the government and Independent schools within these Metropolitan areas, together with the proportions of students over the three socio-economic ratings. Both the North and the West areas were reported as having the highest percentages of students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds, while the North-East and East suburban areas were identified with the more affluent student populations. These areas together with their socio-economic levels were matched closely with the statistical local areas set out in ‘Adelaide: a social atlas’ which summarised social and demographic characteristics, including level of income. education level, employment (Gardner, 1993 ). It is evident that different denominational schools draw their students from particular areas. For example,the Anglican and Uniting Church schools have large proportions of their students coming from the more prosperous city and suburban areas (N/E and East).

Table 11: Percentages of Government and Independent school teachers'

ratings of their students’ perceived socio-economic status by areas

Socio-Economic Status/Area

Schools: North West N/E East South

Government

Relatively Prosperous

5.3

3.5

24.0

20.8

9.3

Neither 45.0 47.2 55.6 61.1 51.4

Econom. Disadvantaged 49.7 49.3 20.4 18.1 39.3

Catholic

Relatively Prosperous

4.9

27.1

28.0

40.4

8.4

Neither 48.0 45.4 42.0 37.5 40.0

Econom.Disadvantaged 47.1 27.5 30.0 22.1 51.1

Anglican

Relatively Prosperous

57.1

79.8

Neither 60.0 42.9 20.2 33.3*

Econom. Disadvantaged 40.0 66.7

Uniting

Relatively Prosperous

82.2

Neither 16.3

Econom. Disadvantaged 1.5

Lutheran

Relatively Prosperous

16.7

33.3

0.0

Neither 45.8 53.3 65.2

Econom. Disadvantaged 37.3 8.4 34.8

Chi-square p=.000 *one school

as ‘economically disadvantaged’ (Nth and West), but much lower proportions of those students in the areas (N/E and East) which had high percentages of the ‘relatively prosperous’ students.

Difficult student behaviours Inside the classroom

A major focus of the studies was to survey teachers from government and Independent schools about their views on discipline problems encountered in their classrooms, and particularly the types and frequency of discipline problems they experienced. The questions explored were whether teachers from the two sectors faced similar or different types of discipline problems, and to what extent.

The most frequently occurring discipline problems encountered in classrooms were similar for teachers across both systems (Tables 12 & 13). In particular, the rankings of those most often occurring misbehaviors were almost identical for both the Independent schools and the government schools’ samples.

As might be anticipated, government schools, with the largest percentages of students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds showed the highest rates of incidents of misbehaviors. However, when the various denominations within the Independent sector were compared marked differences emerged. Contrasts were evident between the Protestant and Catholic schools where the latter reported rates of discipline problems similar to those for the government schools.

Comparisons between the government and Independent schools in the North area (which had the highest proportions of students from low socio-economic backgrounds) showed a range of differences in reported incidents of discipline problems amongst the religious denominations (Table 12). However, the reported occurrences from all school systems on the items ‘talking out of turn’ and ‘unnecessary noise’ suggested that such discipline problems were commonly experienced.

Results from schools of the East area showed the highest percentages recorded on the three most frequently reported items were from the Catholic system, followed by government schools. The order of rankings of the items was common to all schools.

Table 12: Percentages of teachers in the North area and their reported ‘several times daily’ occurrence of the most common discipline problems.

Religious Denomination

Discipline problem* Government Catholic Anglican Lutheran

Talking out of turn 64.0 50.5 37.9 42.9

Idleness & work avoidance 42.5 33.0 6.9 33.3

Hindering other pupils 46.5 32.0 6.9 45.8

Infringing class rules 29.5 20.4 3.4 44.4

Unnecessary noise 25.5 20.4 17.2 9.2

*Chisquare= .001 for all items

Table 13: Percentages of teachers in the East area and their reported ‘several times daily’ occurrence of the most common discipline problems.

Religious Denomination

Discipline problem* Government Catholic Anglican Lutheran

Talking out of turn 47.9 58.0 26.5 21.4

Idleness & work avoidance 26.6 29.5 11.3 22.2

Hindering other pupils 22.9 22.9 6.1 17.4

Infringing class rules 15.8 11.4 3.5 11.1

Unnecessary noise 15.0 11.4 5.3 8.3

*Chisquare= .001 for all items

The findings suggest that Catholic schools’ teachers in the East area were experiencing more frequent incidents of particular classroom problems than were their colleagues in other school systems. As shown earlier (Table 11), these Catholic schools had the highest percentages of economically disadvantaged students, compared with all other schools including those in the government sector.

How teachers manage difficult pupils

Through their training and experience teachers develop skills for managing their classes, and in particular for coping with the more difficult students. A number of questions in the surveys asked teachers to identify the strategies they use to manage classroom problems, and to indicate the effectiveness of such strategies.

Communication with students either individually or as a group were reported as the most preferred strategies for dealing with classroom based problems by a large percentage of teachers in both school systems.

Overall the findings revealed a high level of agreement regarding the selection of strategies both most and least preferred, across all school systems.

Strategy or sanction

Government Independent Catholic Anglican Uniting Lutheran

Reason with student in class

58.0 57.1 55.5 33.1 32.5 54.1

Discuss with whole class

41.8 29.1 36.7 21.1 13.6 30.4*

Reason with student outside class

41.5 38.0 42.4 30.5 24.2 43.9

Ignore behaviour

31.7 29.6 34.8 24.4 18.4 36.2*

Ask student to leave class

27.8* 13.7 17.4 7.6 6.8 15.8

Seek parental involvement

18.9 16.2 12.0 10.7 5.5 8.7

Loss of privileges

18.6 13.7 13.8* 17.0 20.0 2.5

Set extra work 18.4* 17.2 18.4* 15.9 5.4 23.6

Give detention 18.0* 11.7* 12.0* 10.8 3.1 19.3*

* Chisquare p=.01

Three of the four most often used strategies relied upon communication and relationship skills with pupils. Teachers also rated these three strategies as being the most effective ones. However, while the strategy to ‘ignore behaviour’, was frequently used it was also recorded as the least effective, (presumably because some students would not be affected by the teacher’s response to them so much as their peers’). Several other relatively common approaches, i.e. ‘verbal reprimand’, ‘set extra work’ and ‘give detention’ were also considered relatively ineffective strategies for management of classroom disruptions. Each of these practices tend to be teacher directed and punitive in nature, in contrast to the most preferred approaches which use conciliation, discussion and negotiation. From the results it is apparent that some teachers persist in using strategies which they also acknowledge had failed to satisfactorily resolve discipline problems (Adey et al 1991 ).

Significant differences between responses of teachers’ from different localities were identified in both the government and Independent schools’ samples. In most instances these were between the North area schools and the rest. For the government schools, the strategies ‘ask student to leave class’, ‘set extra work’ and ‘give detention’ were more often used by North schools teachers, to deal with difficult to manage students.

A similar pattern was evident in the Catholic and Lutheran schools. Their North area teachers used particular approaches significantly more often than colleagues in other areas (Table 14). An exception was that of the more frequent use of the strategy ‘ignore behaviour’ by Lutheran teachers in the East and South area schools.

needed strategies/priorities for action

Teachers views were canvassed on what might be the needed changes in schools which would enable them to deal more effectively with the management of behaviour problems (Table 15)

Table 15: Percentage of teachers who reported strategies or priorities needed at a school level to deal with discipline problems.

Government Independent Catholic Anglican Uniting Lutheran

Smaller classes

77.0 40.4 53.8* 27.7 25.8 13.0

More student counsel

51.7* 40.7 48.4 34.4 21.1 41.5

Tougher sanctions

43.1 29.8 39.1* 25.0* 16.3 25.1

More staff inservice

36.1 36.1 43.0 32.7 19.9 37.4

Firmer comm to students

35.2 32.5 38.6 26.9 28.7 28.1

More guidance for teachers

33.9 33.5 40.8 33.3 17.4 28.1

Build more school respect

32.4 13.5 18.5 8.3 3.2 10.5*

Involve parents more

31.7 17.6 20.5 12.3 9.3 19.3

More staff discussion

28.6 34.2 53.1 13.9 6.9 13.6

Change teaching styles

21.8 15.7 17.8* 12.7 12.4 13.5

Change school atmosphere

21.3 10.9 13.1 10.3 11.3 8.2

More team teaching

20.8 10.2 14.0 7.1 5.6 6.4

Change course content

17.2 9.2 10.4 10.3 10.6 4.7

* Chisquare p=.01

The majority of teachers focussed on two issues which they believed would facilitate better discipline management viz., ‘smaller classes’ (77% government; 40.4% Independent) and ‘more student counselling’ (51.7% government; 40.7% Independent). Amongst teachers in all the denominational groups, smaller class sizes was rated as a major issue, particularly in the Catholic sector (53.8%). More attention to the professional needs of staff was of significant concern for Independent schools, as reflected in the responses to the items ‘more staff inservice’ (36.1%), ‘more staff discussion’ (34.2%) and ‘more guidance for teachers’ (33.5%).

Strategies for change which involved classroom teaching practices, such as ‘more team teaching’, ‘changing course content’, ‘changing teaching style’ and ‘changing school atmosphere’, were amongst the least rated items. Clearly, changes in pedagogical practices and organisational procedures were not considered by teachers as effective ways for

reducing student behaviour problems. Relationship dynamics stood out as the most important areas needed to be addressed for improving discipline management.

Government teachers’ responses across locations was uniform apart from a significantly greater percentage of North area teachers indicating the needs for ‘more student counselling’. However, Catholic teachers from the West area gave more weight to the needs for ‘smaller classes’, ‘tougher sanctions’ and ‘change teaching styles’ than their counterparts in the other areas. Of note was the Anglican response from the East area for ‘tougher sanctions’, and of Lutheran teachers in the North East area schools for the need to ‘build more school respect’.

Summary

This comparative survey of discipline in the Independent and government schools in South Australia sought to demonstrate that while both sectors of education are often viewed as markedly different they share a number of common problems and perspectives. When each system was examined in their social context through teachers’ perceptions of students’ socio-economic backgrounds, a profile of two heterogeneous school systems emerged. As well as some differences being apparent between the government and several of the denominational schools, clear similarities were also demonstrated within regional areas. As a general observation both government and Independent schools service the community across the various ranges of socio-economic levels. However, the government and Catholic/Lutheran schools have the highest proportions of students from the more disadvantaged areas, and presumably are confronted with higher levels of discipline problems with students.

It is apparent that both government the Independent school sectors are composed of at least two subcultures, based upon socioeconomic and/or locality factors. The results of this survey suggests that when socio-economic and location of schools are considered together in the comparative processes, the boundaries between differences in reported discipline problems from the various schools across the two systems become somewhat blurred. As Carpenter has pointed out, when the backgrounds of students have been taken into account, differences between the government and Independent schools change ‘in quite complex ways’ (Carpenter, 1985).

A second issue concerns the general public’s perceptions of Independent versus government school systems as being ‘different’, in respect to issues such as academic outcomes and discipline climate. Parents of students perceive differences - real or otherwise - and choose schools accordingly, with the discipline culture of a school being one of the most important factors often influencing their choices (Hunter (1991; West & Varlaam, 1991).

The findings from this survey suggested a number of similarities in the discipline climate in schools of both sectors. Teachers in both government and Independent schools report experiencing the same most commonly occurring discipline problems. Those differences recorded were associated more with the extent and frequency of the perceived problems. Schools within the same locale tended to have similar reported rates of problems. The smallest percentages of teachers reporting problems were from a particular group of the Independent schools, notably the older Protestant Independent colleges located in the more affluent East areas. However, such schools have been able to choose their clientele or to pursue ‘selective recruitment’ (Graetz, 1990). In contrast government schools (and to some extent many Catholic schools) generally accepted students from all backgrounds and socio-economic levels, regardless of location (apart from several government specialist programs schools).

The general pattern of commonality of responses across the two school systems extended to both the approaches used to manage difficult students and the perceived changes needed. Within each of the school systems the effects of locality, its links with both socioeconomic status of students, and in turn the effects on the varying strategies used by teachers for coping was apparent.

A final observation is that regarding the commonality of the most frequently occurring classroom based problems reported by teachers from a variety of educational contexts (Borg & Falzon, 1989; Johnson, Oswald & Adey, !993: Wheldell & Merritt, 1988). While perceptions of troublesome behaviours recorded vary, partly because of the different social norms and behavioural expectations of teachers belonging to varying school cultures, a number of studies have demonstrated there are common concerns. (Jones, Quah & Charlton (1996). This present study has shown that the teachers Independent schools also share in those concerns.

references

ADEY, K., OSWALD, M. & JOHNSON, B. (1991) Discipline in schools: A survey of teachers in Metropolitan schools. Report No.1, University of South Australia, May.

ALEXANDER, K. L. & PAPPAS, A. M. (1985) School sector and cognitive performance: when is a little a little? Sociology of Education, V.58, April.

BICKEL, A. (1986) Achievement and social ascription: A comparison of public and private high schools. Youth and Society,V.18,2.

BORG, M. G. & FALZON, J. M. (1989) Primary school teachers' perceptions of pupils' undesirable behaviours. Education Studies, 15, pp. 251-260.

CARPENTER, P. G. (1985) Type of school and academic achievement. ANZ/S, V.21,2, July.

COHEN, B. & THOMAS, E. B. (1984) The disciplinary climate of schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 21, pp. 113-134.

COLEMAN, J., HOFFER, T. & KILGORE, S., (1982) Cognitive outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, V.55, April, pp. 1-30.

FALSEY B. & HEYNS B. (1984) The college channel: private and public schools reconsidered. Sociology of Education, V. 57, April.

GARDNER, P. (1993) Adelaide: a social atlas. Australian Bureau of Statistics, Belconnen, A.C.T.

GRAETZ, B. (1990) Private schools and educational attainment: cohort and generational effects. Australian Journal of Education, V.34, No. 2, pp. 174-191.

JOHNSON, B., OSWALD, M. & ADEY, K. (1993) Discipline in South Australian schools. Educational Studies, V. 19, No. 3, pp. 289-305.

JOHNSTON, G. L. (1990) The Sociocultural schism in Australian education. Australian Journal of Education, V. 34, No. 1, pp. 24-40.

JONES, K., QUAH, M. L., & CHARLTON, T. (1996) Behaviour which primary and special schools teachers in Singapore find most troublesome Research in Education, No. 55.

MASLEN, G. (1982) School Ties: Private Schooling in Australia. Sydney, Methuen.

NORUSIS, M. J. (1992) SPSS for Windows. SPSS Inc., Ill. U.S.A.

OSWALD, M. (1991) The growth of the new low-fee paying Protestant Independent schools in South Australia. 1972-1989.Unpublished M. Ed. Thesis, University of Adelaide.

OSWALD, M., JOHNSON, B. WHITINGTON, V. & DUNN, R. (1994) Discipline in Independent schools: A survey of teachers in Independent schools in South Australia. University of South Australia, February.

SELBY-SMITH, R. (1983). Australian Independent schools yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Australian Education Review, No. 19.

SMOLITZ, J. J. & MOODY, J. M. (1978) Independent schools as cultural systems, in Murray S. Smith (Ed), Melbourne Studies in Education 1978. Melbourne, University Press.

TEESE, R. (1981) The social function of private schools. Melbourne Working Papers, pp. 94-141.

WEST, A, & VARLAAM, A. (1991) Choosing a secondary school: parents of junior school children. Educational Research, V. 33, No 1, pp 22-30.

WHELDALL, K. & MERRETT, F. (1988) Which classroom behaviours do primary school teachers say they find most troublesome? Educational Review, 40(1), pp 13-27.

WILLIAMS, T. & CARPENTER, P G.(1990) Private schooling and public achievement. Australian Journal of Education, V. 34,1.

WOLFLE, L. M. (1987) .Enduring cognitive effects of public and private schools. Educational Researcher, May.