Establishment of the common types of disciplinary actions meted on wayward students in public secondary schools in Naivasha sub-county, Nakuru County, Kenya.

Establishment of the Common Types of Disciplinary Actions Meted on Wayward Students in Public Secondary Schools in Naivasha Sub-County, Nakuru County, Kenya

*Dr. Naftal Michira Nyang’ara

Department of Psychology, School of Education, Laikipia University, P.O Box 1100-20300, Nyahururu-Kenya

*Corresponding Author

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9010115

Received: 30 December 2024; Accepted: 04 January 2025; Published: 05 February 2025

ABSTRACT

Disciplinary actions have been applied by teachers as an integral tool in the enforcement and maintenance of order in schools.  In spite of this there is little information on the common types of disciplinary actions meted on wayward students in public secondary schools.  This study therefore sought to establish the common types of disciplinary actions meted on wayward students in public secondary schools in Naivasha sub-county, Nakuru County, Kenya.  In order to realize this objective the study adopted a descriptive survey research design and simple random sampling in the selection of the study sample.  A study sample made up of 226 participants was purposively selected from a target population of 550 participants. The study utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods in data collection.  These included structured questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis.  Data was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively in the light of the research questions.  Data obtained was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version 22.0).  Qualitative data was analyzed thematically according to the study themes. The study revealed that; summoning of parents was the most commonly used method (50.7%) while the least was corporal punishment (40.7%); The study recommends that schools should encourage wide participation of stakeholders (including the students themselves) in determining the best disciplinary measures on wayward students; they should consider gender issues and student’s health condition while handling discipline in schools, there is need to have an updated discipline records for future referencing. The findings of this study may be of help to education policy makers, organizations that support education and government for policy direction and curriculum implementation.

Keywords: common types of disciplinary actions meted on wayward students.

INTRODUCTION

Disciplinary actions have been applied by school administrators and teachers as an integral tool in the enforcement and maintenance of discipline in public secondary schools in Kenya. Discipline of students has been a major concern for school management (Ritter & Hancock, 2007). Benbenishty (2005) postulated that indiscipline in schools is ranked as a major problem among learners. Disciplinary actions have also been one of the dominant themes in student’s acquring desirable learning behaviour.  More than half of American parents still use corporal punishment at age 12 (Straus & Stewart, 2000). However, a growing body of research has found that corporal punishment, while potentially effective in stopping immediate behavioral transgressions, may have a range of unintended negative effects on children. In Kenya, although corporal punishment may be common in public schools, the practice is outlawed.

Detention is another common form of disciplinary action in schools in the United States, Britain, Ireland, Singapore, Canada, Australia, South Africa and some other countries (Gershoff, 2000). It requires the pupil to go to a designated area of the school during a specified time on a school day (typically either break time or after school). It may also require a student to be confined in that part of school at a certain time on a non-school day, e.g. “Saturday detention” at some US, UK and Irish schools (especially for serious offenses not quite serious enough for suspension). Herrmann et al.(2008) put forward several explanations taken from the broader socio-psychological literature to explain punishment which can assist this study. Following them, it might be, that teachers act with a motive of conformity, that they want to treat students alike and punish errant ones alike. Nikiforakis (2008) talks of ‘counter-punishment’ which he argues is driven partly by a desire to retaliate punishments and partly by strategic considerations.

A key purpose of modern schooling has been the formation and conduct of beliefs, as well as the acquisition of prescribed knowledge, disciplinary actions in schools have frequently been overt and physically violent with learners most often being the target of teacher-administered punishment. Pacione (2008) warns schools not to get into a negative circle of punishing learners. This revolving door produces nothing positive and destroys learner’s self-esteem often producing dropouts. However, Dodge (2006), urges school systems to regard disciplinary referrals as opportunities to teach pupils valuable social skills that will promote success in future employment and at school.

According to Ritter (2007), discipline problem among learners is an issue of concern worldwide. Schools suspend and expel learners as a way of punishing bad behavior. This has become an issue of concern among educators, policy makers and public opinion in general, owing to the outbreak of aggressiveness among peers, violence within teacher-learner relationship and vandalism. The common school offences are stealing, dishonest, sex offences, disobedience, truancy, assault and insult, drug offences, suicide, strike or mass demonstrations (Otieno, 1998).

Biglan (2003) states that the school management employs a number of strategies in maintenance of school discipline. Schools typically respond to disruptive learners with external discipline. These consist of sanctions and punishment such as office referrals, corporal punishment, suspensions and expulsions. He however warns that segregation from antisocial peers can increase antisocial behavior and punitive approaches to discipline (Biglan, 2003). Dodge (2006), who argues that suspension and expulsion disproportionately affect learners with emotional and behavioral disorders that lead to school disengagement, lost opportunities to learn and dropout supports this (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006).

Although corporal punishment is sometimes justified as part of African culture, evidence on pre-colonial education system suggest that this is unlikely. This is because pre-colonial education systems were indigenous and was essentially for living. Straus & Stewart, (2000) argue that indigenous education has a collective and social nature and a lot of importance was attached to it, Straus & Stewart, (2000). African education was vocational-specific that prepared the youth for specific roles in the society. They also insist that education was very closely linked to the community’s everyday social life in both the material and spiritual perspective; it had a multiplicity of aims as well as methods. Indigenous education was used to mould character and provide high moral qualities in the youth and that it reflected gradual and progressive achievement in conformity with successive stages of physical, emotional and mental development of the child.

Brooks (2012) argues that punishment is a topic which concerns all actors in society. Why and how we should punish crimes remains pertinent, particularly when considering who it should be delivered by and to. Brooks, a philosophical-legal academic, addresses questions such as these in his critical introduction to the philosophy of punishment. In his book, simply titled ‘Punishment’, he accessibly and engagingly addresses the theoretical underpinnings of this topic and the practical implications of their application to in-depth case studies of capital punishment, juvenile offenders, domestic abuse and sexual crimes.

Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by the unified theory of punishment as postulated by Thomas Brooks. In his understanding of punishment, Brooks coherently presented his thesis in three sections: The first explores in detail the philosophical underpinnings of ‘general theories’ of punishment which includes; retributivism; deterrence; rehabilitation; and, restorative justice.

Brooks’ preferred model is a unified theory of punishment, which blends each of the previous six theories into a single, cohesive theoretical approach, which Brooks claims, rests upon the idea that different penal goals are compatible. This pluralist approach has its roots in late nineteenth-century British Idealism that popularised the works of Kant and Hegel. It is indeed compelling due to the complimentary use of each theory in combating negative aspects of the other, not to mention its flexibility ad infinitum in application. This may be the most ideal for a school setup, where punishment should aim to have an all-round effect on the learner. The consideration of how crime is punished is dealt with conceptually and operationally through a clear and consistent marrying of theory and practice, with extremely useful hypothetical scenarios that challenge a researcher to engage with their own moral views as well as those of society’s legal jurisprudence. Brooks reaches a comprehensive conclusion that collates theory and practice in a manner suitable to school administrators and discipline enforcers.

Brooks’s theory however, overconcentrates on  punishment in form of imprisonment and does not consider non-penal responses to crime, such as community sanctions or probation, as forms of punishment. It fails to address crimes committed in schools and other institutions that do not necessarily call upon response from the state or judicial agencies. He however introduces the significance of tying punishment to existing theories. He argues that it is important to understand punishment as a practice informed by theory. This can be of great benefit to teachers and administrators in High schools and more particularly Naivasha sub-county which was targeted in this study.

METHODS

The study adopted a descriptive survey design.  Surveys are concerned with describing, recording, analyzing and interpreting conditions that either exist or have existed.  The survey research design facilitated the study to critically analyze conditions or relationships that exist between teachers and students, opinions that are held within the said relationships, processes that are going on within the schools, effects that are evident or trends that are developing within the schools punishment systems. A study sample made up of 226 participants was purposively selected from a target population of 550 participants.  (Kathuri & Pals , 1993) states that, in purposive sampling, the researcher selects cases that offer in-depth information. The study utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods in data collection.  These included structured questionnaire, interview schedule and document analysis.

RESULTS

The study sought to establish the common types of disciplinary actions meted on wayward students in public secondary schools in Naivasha sub-county, Nakuru County, Kenya. Table 1 presents participant’s responses whether wayward students got quantized manual work.

Table 1: Wayward students get quantized manual work

Table 1 shows that majority (35.5%) of the participants were not sure whether wayward students got quantized manual work or not. However, 34.6% of the respondents agreed that the students are given quantized manual work, and a further 5.7% strongly agreed. This shows that 41.7% of the participants indicated that wayward students got quantized manual work. This implies that quantized manual is usually given to wayward students in public secondary schools. This is in tandem with responses from the interview of school principals that during a focused group discussion which revealed that quantized manual work was a common way of punishing wayward students.

The study sought to establish whether wayward students got detained as a form of punishment. Table2 presents participant’s responses whether wayward students were detained as a form of punishment.

Table 2: Wayward students get detained as a form of punishment

Table 2 shows that majority (32.2%) of the participants disagreed that wayward students got detained as a form of punishment. An additional 15.2% of the respondents strongly disagreed that wayward students are detained as a form of punishment. This gives a total of 47.2% of the participants indicating that detention is not utilized as a disciplinary measure in school. This implies that it is not usual for wayward students to be detained as form of punishment. This agreed with the interview that showed that there was limited detention as a form of punishing wayward students.

The study also sought to find out whether wayward students got suspensions as a form of punishment. The findings are as presented in table 3.

Table 3 Wayward students get suspended as a form of discipline

Table 3 shows that majority (42.7%) agreed that wayward students got suspended as a form of discipline, while a small response of 5.7% strongly agreed on the same. This shows that nearly one half of the respondents (48.4%) reported that suspension was used by their school. However, another less than a third of the respondents (29.9%) were not sure. Only slightly more than a quarter of the participants disagreed that wayward students got suspended as a form of discipline. This implies that wayward students got suspended as a form of discipline in most of the schools in Naivasha sub-county.

The researcher sought to find out whether parents were summoned when student made mistakes while at school. Participant’s responses are indicated in table 4

Table 4: Parents are summoned when student do something wrong

Table 4 indicates majority (46.4%) of the respondents agreed that parents got summoned when students did something wrong in public secondary schools of Naivasha sub-county. An additional 4.3% of the respondents strongly agreed that parents are summoned when students did something wrong in public secondary schools. This gives a total of 50.7% (more than half of the participants) who reported that their schools summons parents to address student’s wrong doing. This suggests that parents are usually informed of their children indiscipline in public secondary schools.

The study sought to find out if corporal punishment was meted to wayward students. The findings are as shown in the table 5

Table 5: Corporal punishment is given to wayward students

Table 5 shows that more than one third (37.9%) of the participants agreed that corporal punishment was meted out to wayward students while 2.8% of the participants strongly agreed that corporal punishment was usually administered as a way of punishment. This gives a total of 40.7% of the respondents who reported that their schools administered corporal punishment.  Furthermore, almost one third of the respondents (31.8%) were not sure whether or not corporal punishment is part of their schools’ disciplinary measures. This implies that though wayward students were subjected to corporal punishment in public secondary schools, there was significant ambiguity on the use of the disciplinary method.

The findings on whether students were expelled if found braking school rules. The findings of this is shown in table 6.

Table 6: Students expelled if found on wrong side of school rules

Table 6 indicates that a simple majority (40.8%) of the participants agreed that students were expelled whenever they broke school rules, and a smaller representation of 7.6% strongly agreed expulsion happens in public secondary schools. This shows that almost half of the participants (48.4%) indicated that expulsion was a disciplinary measure used in their schools notably, another 26.5% of the respondents were not sure on whether wayward students are usually expelled once found on the wrong side of the school rules. This implies that expulsion is a common issue for wayward students in almost half of the schools targeted in the study.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study sought information on the disciplinary measures used on wayward students. The study established the following findings. With regards to quantized manual labor, the study found that 40.7% of the respondents stated that wayward students got quantized manual work. This implies that quantized manual is usually given to wayward students in public secondary schools. On the use of detention, the study found that a total of 47.2% of t6he respondents indicated that detention is not used as a disciplinary measure in their school. This implies that wayward students were not really detained as form of punishment. On the use of suspension, the study showed that nearly one half of the respondents (48.4%) reported that suspension was used by their school. However, another less than a third of the respondents (29.9%) were not sure. Only slightly more than a quarter of the respondents disagreed that wayward students get suspended as a form of discipline. This implied that wayward students got suspended as a form of discipline. On whether or not schools summon parents regarding wayward students, the study found that a total 50.7% (more than half of the respondents) who reported that their schools summons parents to address student wrong doing. This suggests that parents are usually informed of their children indiscipline in public secondary schools. On the use of corporal punishment, a total of 40.7% of the respondents who reported that their schools administered corporal punishment.

It should be noted that almost one third of the respondents (31.8%) were not sure whether or not corporal punishment is part of their schools’ disciplinary measures. This implies that though wayward students are not usually subjected to corporal punishment in public secondary schools, there is significant ambiguity on the use of the disciplinary method. On whether expulsion was part of the school discipline measures, the study found that almost half of the respondents (48.4%) indicated that expulsion was a disciplinary measure used in their schools. Notably, another 26.5% of the respondents were not sure on whether wayward students are usually expelled once found on the wrong side of the school rules. This shows that while expulsion is a tool that is significantly widely used in the schools in the study location, there is also some confusion, among teachers regarding whether or not expulsion was part of the school rules.

REFERENCES

1. Benbenishty, R. (2005). School violence in Context: Culture, Neighborhood, Family, school, andGender. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
2. Biglan, A. (2003). Translating what we know about the context of anti-social behavior into a lowerprevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 479–492.
3. Brooks, D. Christopher (2012). Space and Consequences: The Impact of Different FormalLearning Spaces on Instructor and Student Behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces,
4. Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2006). Aggression and antiso-cial behavior in youth.New York.
5. Gershoff, E. (2000). A meta-analytic and theoretical review” Psychological Bulletin. Corporalpunishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences , 539–579.
6. Jeff Otieno, & Sekoh-Ochieng, J. (1998). “KNUT Calls Off Teachers Strike. Nairobi: Daily Nation.
7. Herrmann et al. (2008). Antisocial punishment across societies.
8. Nikoforakis, N. (2008). Punishment and counter punishment in public good games:can we reallygovern ourselves. Journal of Public Economics. , 91–112.
9. Pacione, M. (2012). The role of events in urban regeneration. In, S. Page, & J. Connell (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Events, pp. 385- 400. London: Routledge.
10. Ritter, J., & Hancock, D. R. (2007). Exploring the relationship between certification sources, experience levels, and classroom management orientations of classroom Teachers. New York: The Oxford Press.
11. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (2000). “Corporal punishment by American parents: National data on prevalencechronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family characteristics” Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review. New York.