A Critical Discourse Analysis of School-Based Behavioural Policies - Reconceptualizing Understandings of Responses to Student (Mis)Behaviours

Oct 15, 2026

Students labeled as having “behaviour problems” face particularly poor academic and social outcomes. In many Canadian provinces, Safe Schools legislation mandates district and school responses to student misbehaviour, often justified by concerns about bullying and violence, including “zero-tolerance” approaches. This research uses critical discourse analysis of Manitoba’s Safe and Caring Schools documentation to examine how provincial policies construct school-based responses. Recommendations emphasize revising policies toward non-deficit, reconceptualized views of children and ethical responses to student behaviour.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Abstract

Context and Purpose: Safe Schools Policies in Manitoba

Conceptual and Theoretical Framework: Poststructural Understandings of (Mis)Behaviour

A Critical Discourse Analysis of School-Based Behavioural Policies: Reconceptualizing Understandings of Responses to Student (Mis)Behaviours Cara Colorado & Melanie D. Janzen University of Manitoba Abstract Students who have been labeled as having “behaviour problems” in the school system have some of the worst academic and social outcomes of any student group. In most Canadian provinces, responses to students who misbehave are legislated through Safe Schools policies intended to guide districts and individual schools in responding to student misbehaviour. In this research project, we conducted a critical discourse analysis of Manitoba’s Safe and Caring Schools documentation in order to analyze the ways in which provincial policies construct school-based responses to behaviours. Based on our analysis, recommendations for policy-makers to better support students include revising policies to reflect reconceptualized views of children, non-deficit understandings of behaviour, and ethical responses to student behaviour. Keywords: safe schools,(mis)behaviour, post-structuralism, critical discourse analysis, policy, culturally competent schools In the last two decades, Manitoba, in line with other education jurisdictions across Canada and the United States, implemented Safe Schools legislation, which outlines responses to student misbehaviour in the school system. This legislation and its supporting documents have been implemented, in large part, asa response to concerns over bullying and school violence (Roher, 2007). However, these policies, often implemented as “zero-tolerance” policies (Winton, 2012), can further alienate those students already marginalized in the public school system, thereby exacerbating their negative schooling experiences, including lack of school success (Dufresne et al., 2010; Finlay, 2003; Rankin et al., 2013). Since behaviour can be understood as not merely disordered conduct, but also as a form of communication, of protest, of learning or dialogue (Millei & Petersen, 2014), we use the term (mis)behaviour,“in an attempt to signal the binaried and subjective nature of children’s behaviours, and importantly, the socially constructed nature of these ideas”(Janzen & Schwartz, 2018, p. 120). This is an ongoing reminder that often, student behaviours are deemed misbehaviours insofar as they are labeled as deviant or inconvenient by the school system (Gore & Parkes, 2008). Students who exhibit (mis)behaviours in the classroom continue to be at greater risk than other students of segregation, exclusion, poor academic achievement, and low graduation rates (Dufresne et al., 2010; Eber & Nelson, 2007; Gore & Parkes, 2008; Gresham et al., 2013; Thomas & Loxley, 2007; Zwiefler & DeBeers, 2003), Insofar as we know that behavioural difficulties can be effects of negative experiences, trauma, learning disabilities, and mental disorders (Gates et al., 1996; Kumperscak, 2015; Rydell, 2010), and are not simply markers of “bad kids”, it is incumbent on policy-makers to ensure that schools policies do not further marginalize those students who may already be vulnerable. In recognition of this, there has been a recent push in Canada to make policies more progressive and supportive of both the “offender” and the “victim”(Roher, 2007; Winton, 2012). Context and Purpose: Safe Schools Policies in Manitoba Since the Safe Schools Charter became provincial law in Manitoba in 2004 (Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, 2004), mandating that each student be provided with a “safe and caring school environment”(Government of Manitoba, 2004b), a number of documents providing guidelines, directives, and supports to school-based Safe Schools initiatives have been created. This paper is drawn from a larger research project (Colorado, 2018) in which a critical discourse analysis was conducted of Manitoba Education’s documents supporting Safe Schools legislation. The aim was to analyze critically the ways in which the discours

FAQs

What problem does the study address regarding students labeled with “behaviour problems”?

It examines how such labeling is associated with some of the worst academic and social outcomes for those students, and how policy-driven responses shape those outcomes.

How does the paper analyze Manitoba’s Safe Schools documentation?

It applies a critical discourse analysis to investigate how provincial policies construct school-based responses to students’ (mis)behaviours.

What does the authors’ framework suggest about the meaning of “behaviour” and language?

Behaviour is treated as communication and dialogue, while discourse is seen as reflecting and generating power through socially constructed norms rather than acting as neutral descriptions.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by Danger Angel