Experiences of school leaders' shifting paradigms from punitive to positive school-based discipline, The
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This qualitative study used a phenomenological approach to describe Manitoba school leaders’ subjective experience of shifting from punitive to positive school-based discipline and the influence of laws on that shift. Multiple interviews spread over four months, with three school leaders, a teacher, behaviour consultant and school peace officer, generated transcripts which were used to describe the essence of the transition experience. Push and pull factors, such as the impact of punitive and positive discipline on behaviour, academic performance, and inclusion, served as catalysts for a journey. The journey was fuelled by beliefs about the role of the school and discipline, and school leaders’ belief systems. Canadian federal and provincial laws impacted participating school leaders’ shift from punitive to positive school-based discipline. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Manitoba Human Rights Code positively and directly influenced school-based discipline by encouraging school leaders to utilize approaches that safeguarded legal, equality, and protected rights. The Manitoba Public Schools Act, Education Administration Act and Safe Schools Charter, did not encourage a shift from punitive to positive school-based discipline, due to the ambiguous justification of suspension as a disciplinary measure. The study generated implications and recommendations for school leaders, policymakers, and for further research. Contributions from this research include suggested positive language to use with students and the I-RISE model, a positive discipline framework that can be utilized by school leaders to support students and maintain a positive school environment.\n\t\tKeywords: school-based discipline and the law, punitive discipline, positive discipline, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Manitoba Public Schools Act
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".