It is wishful thinking to assume that we can control the behaviour of our students simply by knowing their needs. In truth, it is our students that are in control, and innately, they want to be in control! Attempts at usurping this innate desire to be in control is not only disempowering, but can also lead to a power struggle that leads to defiance, and at best, results in their contrived and superficial adherence to rules.

Therefore, teachers can only be social agents of influence. This is congruent with MOE’s vision for teachers to “Lead, Care and Inspire”, suggesting that our role as authority figures is one of positive influence, rather than of authoritative control.

We can adopt a mixture of student-directed and collaborative pedagogies as a foundation for designing the physical learning environment.

Teachers proficient in curbing disruptive behaviour are experts in the use of a variety of proactive intervention skills. Beyond that, a three-tiered, decision-making hierachy of remedial intervention skills provides a means to manage the inappropriate surface behaviours that are not brought back on task through proactive intervention skills.

To be effective, student management and discipline should be carried out at all times, by all school personnel and at all levels of the school in a consistent way. It is not uncommon to find teachers having different expectations on students’ behaviour because they see themselves playing an independent role and not as an integral part of the school. In this way, teachers’ effort is often duplicated or offset due to inconsistent student management strategies and a lack of communication among teachers.