Approaches to Managing Bullying at Port Stephen’s College

Bullying is a challenging behaviour that is a significant issue in Australian schools,

which can cause negative life-long phycological and physical effects on the students

involved. After recent instances of bullying at Port Stephen’s College it is important for

teachers to become more aware of tactics to identify and manage the situation in an

appropriate way. Bill Rogers’ and Lee and Marlene Canter’s behaviour management models

can outline affective strategies for managing instances of bullying in the school.

It is important for the teacher to recognise the issue and use effective pedagogical

practices to eliminate challenging behaviours before they become serious. Bullying is an

action that is malicious and hurtful. Bully’s use different tactics to hurt the victim including

hitting, name calling, spreading rumours and manipulating the people around the victim to

treat them in a hurtful way (Kuykendall, 2012). Recently there have been instances of

bullying that have occurred at Port Stephen’s College. By using Bill Rogers and Lee and

Marlene Canters’ approaches to behaviour management teachers will be equipped with the

knowledge to reduce bullying within the classroom. The Positive Behaviour Leadership

model created by Bill Rogers is based around the principles of rights, respect and

relationship. Students are expected to take responsibility for their behaviour and respect the

wants and needs of the other students in the classroom. Lee and Marlene Canter have taken

an authoritarian approach to behaviour management where their Assertive Disciple model is

used to encourage the students to cooperate, and the teacher provides incentives or

consequences depending on the student’s behaviour. These behavioural management Commented [SC1]: Practical approaches to manage
challenging behaviour.
strategies are effective models for addressing the challenging behaviours in the classroom and

will provide a resolution to the current bullying incidents at Port Stephen’s College.
 Bullying has been a common phenomenon for decades and is often an unspoken and

accepted issue in the schoolground, it has been considered to be a regular childhood

experience (Mishna, 2012). Having a disagreement is different to bullying. In a disagreement

both parties care about the topic and should be working together towards solving the

problem. However, bullies are not interested in solving the problem, rather they intend to hurt

the victim, they use words or actions repeatedly in order to cause distress and harm to the

victim. Bullies can cause physical, verbal and emotional harm in their attempt to intimidate or

exercise control over the victim (ReachOut.com, 2018). Bullying is regarded as a type of

interpersonal violence and has been linked to ‘increased drug use, eating disorders and

depression’ (Kuykendall, 2012). 27% of Australian students between years 4 to 9 reported

being bullied frequently in a study conducted in 2009 (Cross, et al., 2009). Bullying can be

caused by people who have high self-esteem and want to dominate over others to improve

their social status which causes the victim to feel guilty, hopeless, alone, depressed, unsafe,

confused and afraid. (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2011).

An incident occurred recently at Port Stephen’s college in which Student A was

sitting with a group of friends and they were joking with each other and calling each other

names. Student A didn’t recognise that he was going too far, causing Student B to become

offended by the name calling. Later in the day Student B sought revenge by coming up

behind Student A and using his foot to push Student A’s knees out from under him, causing

Student A to fall over. Student B noticed Student A’s fear and enjoyed the power that he got

out of hurting him and repeatedly tried to sneak up behind him over the next few months.

Student A started getting anxiety because of this and became afraid when people were behind

him. This incident would not have occurred if appropriate behaviour management strategies

Page 1 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 were in effect. If Bill Rogers’ and Lee and Marlene Canters’ behaviour management models

are used within the school it is believed that there would be a reduction in bullying.

Bill Rogers created the Positive Behaviour Leadership Model in an effort to show pre- Commented [SC2]: Bill Rogers Leadership Model

service and practicing teachers a model of behaviour management which incorporates

effective and respectful discipline and also allows cooperation within the school (Edwards &

Watts, 2008). Rogers believed that if we describe certain groups of students as hopeless and

unlikely to succeed, then we have brought in motion a self-fulfilling prophecy. Research has

found that teachers who believe that their students are ‘good’ are prone to treat them in

certain ways, such as giving more feedback and encouragement and giving them more

opportunities (Rogers, 2009). The Positive Behaviour Leadership Model falls under the

democratic, non-interventionist category as the students have the ability to manage their own

behaviour by working together with the teacher to set out the expectations

Rogers has five principles which outlines his approach to discipline, the first principle

entails that the students, teachers and parents should all have clear rights and responsibilities

with a focus on respect. There should be a rule-setting discussion at the beginning of the year

which is based around the rights to respect people, property and feelings, the right to learn

without disruption, and the right to feel psychologically and physically safe. His second

principle is based around reducing embarrassment in the classroom. The teacher is

disrespectful if they use embarrassment to control a student which is damaging to their

relationship, and also encourages negative behaviour. Rogers’ third principle talks about

promoting the use of appropriate choices in class. By giving the students choices it is

showing confidence that they are able to act responsibly and make the best decision. The

fourth principle encompasses respectful discipline. He believes that all students should be

Page 2 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 treated the same way by the teacher by letting them have their opinion if they break the rules,

not holding grudges and being a respectful role model for them to follow. The final principle

is about clearly communicating expectations which is where the teacher should avoid self-

fulfilling prophecies by judging the student as a failure. Instead they should instil in them the

confidence that they are able to succeed (Edwards & Watts, 2008). It is important to Rogers

that clear rules are discussed and established at the start of the year enabling the students to

understand the reasoning behind them, they should then be posted on the wall for the class to

see for future reference, and also published in the classroom agreement, which outlines the

responsibilities of the students, teacher and parents, then they are signed by the student and

the teacher. The consequences for breaking the rules are linked to the rule in and attempt to

teach accountability and self-discipline. The students should learn that complying with the

rules results in positive outcomes (Edwards & Watts, 2008).

Rogers states that the teacher should also identify their preferred teaching style at the

beginning of the year. He believes that authoritative, democratic and decisive teachers are

successful as they have a clear behaviour plan with rules and appropriate consequences.

Using a positive tone and language helps to create a positive ethos within the classroom

(Edwards & Watts, 2008). Using an intervention framework allows the teacher to apply

corrective strategies which match the seriousness of the behaviour. Ranging from tactical

ignoring to exit procedures, Rogers has nineteen strategies that can be used in this framework

(Edwards & Watts, 2008). Although Rogers’ Positive Behaviour Leadership Model is seen as

a non-interventionist approach, it has the ability to encompass other teaching styles and

approaches such as the Canters’ Assertive Discipline approach.

Page 3 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 Lee and Marlene Canter’s model of Assertive Discipline was developed after being in Commented [SC3]: Lee and Marlene Canter – Assertive
Discipline
a classroom where the teacher’s attitude was that no student was going to stop them from

teaching, or stop other students from learning (Canter, 1988). The model’s underlying

principle is ‘that teachers have a right to teach, and students have a right to learn.’ (Tauber,

2007). Choices and consequences are presented to the students with the knowledge that they

will be rewarded or receive the consequence depending on their behaviour. Canter believes

that assertive teachers do not punish the student because the student is responsible for

choosing the consequence of their actions (Canter, 1988). The Canters’ model falls within the

authoritarian, interventionist theories where the teacher is in control of the classroom and

behaviour. The Assertive Discipline approach claims that ‘children want and need clear limits

on their behaviour…’ (Porter, 2007) the children will feel accomplished when they attain the

standards and they appreciate being acknowledged.

The Canters believe that the students do not receive the support and discipline at

home making them not respect their education, and the behavioural problems created by this

can be prevented by maintaining order in the classroom. The teacher should create an

effective lesson design and offer incentives for hard work. The relationship between the

teacher and student should be warm and positive allowing the teacher to have influence in the

classroom (Porter, 2007). A discipline plan should be used to help avoiding making hasty

reactions and helps to receive support from parents and staff. The plan should comprise of

three parts: firstly, immediate and observable rules should be established for the various

academic activities and procedures, the students can assist in creating the rules with the

support of the teacher. The second component suggests that the teacher should strive to

‘Catch them doing good’ (Porter, 2007) and give the student supportive feedback by

providing positive verbal praise and contacting their parents to let them know of the student’s

Page 4 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 good behaviour. By reinforcing those students who are behaving, it should encourage those

who are not to change their behaviour. The students should be rewarded using both individual

rewards and whole class rewards, with the idea that students are less likely to misbehave if

the consequence effects the whole class. The third component outlines how to correct

disruptive behaviour. The Canters believe that the consequences for bad behaviour are not

punishments, however they are natural responses to the bad choices made by the student. The

consequences progress from mild to strict responses (Porter, 2007).

Although Rogers’ Positive Behaviour Leadership Model and the Canters’ Assertive

Discipline approach come from different perspectives, they also have some similarities. Both

Rogers and the Canters believe that the student should have the right to learn and the teacher

should have the right to teach, and both approaches have consequences which progress

depending on the situation and discourage the students from misbehaving. The wish for

students to succeed and behave well is also apparent in both approaches. By using the

similarities between the two models, it would make an effective way to eradicate challenging

behaviours within the school. The freedom of being able to use your own teaching style in

Rogers’ model allows the teacher to incorporate the Canters’ approach to adjust to the

situation.

Port Stephen’s College provides anti-bullying policies to help provide a safe

environment for the students and staff which outline the expectations and responses to

bullying in the school. The school employs a proactive response through whole school

approaches such as the peer mentoring program. Reactive responses are also made once a

claim has been made and the consequences align with the school’s behaviour policy. The

bullying problem at Port Stephen’s College could be reduced as a whole school by using the

Page 5 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 two models outlined. The students should be aware of the rules and consequences to their

actions. Rogers would have the students taking responsibility for their actions and the Canters

would be reinforcing the good behaviour and discouraging the bad behaviour. The bullying

instance would have had a different outcome as both Student A and B would have clear

behavioural expectations and guidelines, and would be encouraged to respect each other and

strive to be well behaved. Port Stephen’s response to this bullying incident was not handled

in an appropriate way as both students were hurt unnecessarily, and the emotional and

physical abuse that student A endured was unnecessary.

Future plans to discourage bullying in the school should include the involvement of

parents and carers in the behaviour of their children. Both Rogers and the Canters believe that

the parent or carer’s involvement is critical to maintaining an effective behaviour

management strategy. By contacting the parent or carer with the expectations and in Roger’s

case the rights of the students, teachers and parents they have a clear understanding of what is

expected from their children and are able to have an active role in maintaining the positive

behaviour of their child.

Bullying is a challenging behaviour in which the bully intimidates the victim through

physical and/or psychological harm which can cause life-long trauma. Recent instances of

bullying at Port Stephen’s College have brought the school’s behaviour management

strategies to light, and changes to the behaviour models have been recommended to reduce

the reoccurrence of bullying within the school. Bill Rogers’ Positive Behaviour Leadership

Model outlines strategies to encourage positive behaviour among the students. He suggests to

create a rule-setting discussion at the start of the year in which the students are able to discuss

the rights and responsibilities of the teacher, the students and the parents. He also gives

Page 6 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 examples of consequences which increase in severity depending on the situation. Lee and

Marlene Canters’ Assertive Discipline Model can be used alongside Rogers’ model, as even

though they both have different approaches to behaviour management, there are also

similarities which allow them to work together. The Canters believe in encouraging the good

behaviour through positive incentives and discouraging bad behaviour through consequences

which also increase in severity. The anti-bullying policy at Port Stephen’s College outlines

the expectations and responses to bullying in the school. By introducing the models outlined

by Rogers and the Canters, and also involving the student’s parents or carers in their

behaviour management strategies, teachers at Port Stephen’s College will be able to create an

environment in which students feel safe and accepted, devoid of bullying.

Page 7 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604
 References
Australian Human Rights Commission. (2011). What is bullying?: Violence, Harassment
and Bullying Fact Sheet. Retrieved from Australian Human Rights Commission:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/what-bullying-violence-harassment-and-
bullying-fact-sheet
Canter, L. (1988). Assertive Discipline and the Search for the Perfect Classroom. Retrieved
from Young Children:
http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/stable/42726042
Cross, D., Shaw, T., Hearn, L., Epstein, M., Monks, H., Lester, L., & Thomas, L. (2009).
Australian covert bullying prevalence study. Perth: Child Health Promotion
Research Centre, Udith Cowan University. Retrieved from Bullying.NoWay!:
https://bullyingnoway.gov.au/WhatIsBullying/FactsAndFigures
Edwards, C. H., & Watts, V. (2008). Classroom Discipline Management. Milton: John WIley
& Sons Australia. Ltd.
Kuykendall, S. (2012). Bullying. Santa Barbara: Greenwood.
Mary Mackillop College. (2017, 07 01). Anti-Bullying Policy. Retrieved from Mary
Mackillop College:
http://www.mmc.qld.edu.au/enrolments/Documents/MMC%20Anti-
Bullying%20Policy.pdf
Mishna, F. (2012). Bullying: A Guide to Research, Intervention and Prevention. New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Porter, L. (2007). Student Behaviour: Theory and Practice for Teachers. Crows Nest: Allen
and Unwin.
ReachOut.com. (2018). Bullying. Retrieved from ReachOut.com:
https://au.reachout.com/everyday-issues/bullying
Rogers, B. (2009). How to Manage Children's Challenging Behaviour. United Kingdom:
SAGE Publications Ltd.
Tauber, R. T. (2007). Classroom Management: Sound Theory and Effective Practice.
Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
Whitted, K. S., & Dupper, D. R. (2005, July 1). Best Practices for Preventing or Reducing
Bullying in Schools. Retrieved August 25, 2018, from EBSCOhost:
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.ezproxy1.acu.edu.au/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?v
id=1&sid=e7821b2d-87f1-4d38-9a4a-f1440c792add%40sessionmgr4009

Page 8 of 9
Stephanie Christelow EDFD604