You are on page 1of 34

Chapter 1


Background of the Study

Discipline refers to training and experience that corrects, molds, and strengthens

individuals' mental faculties and moral character. It also refers to punishment which intends to

correct and which is enforced by those in authority or may be self-imposed. Discipline refers to

the control gained by enforcing obedience, and it refers to the systematic orderly behavior

defined by codes or rules set forth by institutions for their members. Discipline also refers to

self-control, to the development of skills that help individuals resist temptation, act positively,

and function both independently and cooperatively in ways which enhance personal development

and community life. All of these definitions have been central to educators' efforts to find the

most effective and useful way to support child development and learning. (

In taking charge of students and teaching them, twentieth-century educators repeatedly

face the challenge of designing codes of conduct. Doing so requires attention to multiple and

sometimes seemingly conflicting issues: school organizational needs, the goals of education, and

the nebulous area of personal rights both for those in charge and for those being controlled.

Educators have to identify features conducive for learning and then set forth rules and

consequences for misconduct which would allow problem children to be handled constructively

while the behaving majority of students continues to learn without disruption. In short, educators

have to define ways to support classroom productivity, encourage student academic progress, and

bring misbehaving individuals back to positive conduct so they could resume learning. In this
task, educators, administrators, and staff became increasingly conscious of legal issues connected

to students' rights, juvenile legal status, and the handling of student crime.

Richard Curwin, a professor of Education at San Francisco State University, devised criteria

for making policies more effective. His suggestions were: 1. To use positive rather than negative

statements; 2. To be definite about proper and prohibited behavior; 3. To be brief; 4. To spell out


Policy has been defined as a rule of conduct, just, obligatory, promulgated by

legitimate authority, and of common observance and benefit. It is a rule of conduct. Policy tells

us what shall be done and what shall not be done. As a rule of human conduct, policy takes

cognizance of external acts. It is obligatory. Policy is considered a positive command imposing a

duty to obey and involving a sanction which forces obedience. It is promulgated by legitimate

authority. All policies are enacted by a competent body. In the Cagayan State University, Student

Policies are approved by the board of Regents. Violations are resolved and penalized by the

Student Tribunal. Evidently, policy is intended by man to serve man. It is of common observance

and benefit. Policy regulates the relationship of men to maintain harmony in society and to make

order and co-existence possible.

Policy must therefore, be observed by all for the benefit of all. If we go against the law,

we forfeit the benefits that it guarantees us.

It has been said that in almost everything, there are two sides. Think yin and yang, day

and night, good and bad, head and tail, positive and negative, truth and lies, life and death. The

same principle applies in this study.

If one really gets down to the basics, humankind can only be classified into two: the

sticklers who have law- abiding behavior ingrained and inculcated in their very souls, and the
delinquents who have their perennial law breaking habits down pat. In Platos theory on the

ideal society, there would be no trouble at all in implementing the law. Compliance would be

inherent in the natural order of things and delinquency would definitely be unheard of. But was

there ever a time when ideals turned into reality? A perfect society with everyone and everything

in its proper place is just about as farfetched the concept from the real Philippine scenario as the

Theory of Relativity from Grimms Fairytales. If we take time to contemplate our actions as well

as those of our fellowmen, we would realize the absurdity of this notion. For some reasons, with

the advent of the 21st century, our communes seem to have become more permissive, and along

with this new newfangled permissiveness evolved more scoundrels, blackguards, rakes, rogues-

all of them law- breakers.

Dura lex sed lex. The law is harsh but it is still the law. There are instances when the law

may seem harsh but this does not mean that we are precluded from complying with it.

Policies may also be viewed as a means of social control: the control of social behavior

that affects others. In modern pluralistic societies, there are many organs of social control. For

instance, in the Philippines, in addition to legal institutions---national and local---there are

churches, corporations, political parties, trade associations, labor unions, professional

organizations, social clubs, and of course, schools. Such organizations, through rules and

regulations, control some of the behavior of their members. But these organizations act only for

their groups. Their rules govern only a limited number of people. Furthermore, people associated

with an organization can ordinarily terminate their relationship and thereby free themselves from

the encroachment of the organizations rules and regulations.

Sanctions or techniques of control are varied and complex. The state exercises control of

educational systems to a certain degree as provided by first paragraph, Section 4, Art. 14 of the

1987 Constitution:

The state recognizes the complementary roles of public and private institutions in the

educational system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational


Cagayan State University, like any other organization, also impose social control to their

students through the implementation of the Policies on Student Discipline based on the

University Student Manual. Expulsion is the most powerful technique in securing compliance of

its rules and regulations from its members. Aside from expulsion, there are many other sanctions

available to the school including denial of admission, revocation of scholarship, confiscation of

ID or library card, imposition of civil liability for certain kind of conduct, dissolution of minor

organization and denial of withholding some rights and privileges for a certain period of time.

However, the existence of these do not absolutely ensure discipline. It entirely depends on how

these policies and rules of conduct are complied with.

It is therefore in this context that the researchers pursued a study on the Awareness and

Compliance of Students of Cagayan State University to Policies on Student Discipline.

Conceptual Framework

Human life is group life. It is people living together, sharing a common culture that

regulates their collective existence and provides methods for the satisfaction of their needs and

their adaptation to their environment. Normative systems prescribe the behavior required of

members to maintain order and stability. Norms are rules and regulations, formal or informal

which specify the modes of behavior and the acceptable means to achieve desired ends and the

actions permitted or prohibited to certain members of a group (Hunt et. al. 2002).

Since members of a social group, which in this study refers to the group of students, are

bound together by their adherence to a common norm which is codified in a document like the

student manual. Hence, some degree of conformity to these group norms is necessary. However,

the erosion of confidence in these norms may lead to anomie- lawlessness and social

instability- and tends to destroy the group. Thus, it should be safeguarded by formal or informal

means of control, censure, and punishment of those members to follow the acceptable patterns of

behavior. Social order can be maintained only if social life is organized, instituted, defined and

regulated through policies and rules.

Many theories about discipline shift attention from external punishment and reward

systems to internalization of socialization skills and moral sense. For example in Schools without

Failure, William Glasser explains the short-term value of external punishment and the limitations

of trying to control others through fear tactics. Theorists like Abraham Maslow, in Motivation

and Personality, and W. Edwards Deming, in Out of the Crisis, suggest a return to humane

education principles and affirmation of human goodness. Many thinkers want educational

institutions to finds their path into a new way of being which creates the learning moment, which

sees misbehavior as an opportunity and instills faith in human nature as it pursues learning and

instructs through misconduct. Marvin Marshall, in Discipline without Stress, Punishment, or

Rewards, urges people to remember that so long as they are manipulated by outward threats of

punishment or hopes of reward, they may be neglecting intrinsic values which in the end are the

ones that satisfy, induce self-control, and energize toward self-improvement. These affirmations

have to be balanced with the seriousness of turn-of-the-millennium juvenile crimes and the
awesome responsibility of educators to keep children safe while they engage in learning.


Following this frame of thought, a study on the Awareness and Compliance of Students

of Cagayan State University to Policies on Student Discipline evolved.

As illustrated in the conceptual paradigm, the independent variables in the study include

the profile of the respondents such as age, sex, course, year, civil status, and religion, and the

status of the Policies on Student Discipline along student attire, student conduct. The dependent

variables, on the other hand, are the respondents Level of Awareness and their Level of

Compliance to Policies on Student Discipline. The profile of the respondents was assumed to

affect their level of awareness as well as their level of compliance. Moreover, their level of

awareness was assumed to have relationship to their level of compliance.

Conceptual Paradigm

Diagram 1. A paradigm showing the relationship of the dependent and

independent variables of the study.

Independent Variables Dependent Variables

Profile of Respondents
Level of Awareness to the
- age
Policies on Student
- sex
Discipline along:
- course
- year
- Student Attire
- civil status
- Student Conduct
- religion

Status of the Policies and

Regulations on Student
Discipline based on the
University Student Manual

- Student Attire
- Student Conduct Level of Compliance

- Student Attire
- Student Conduct

Statement of the Problem

Generally, this research endeavored to assess the level of awareness and compliance of

students to the policies imposed on Student Discipline.

Specifically the researchers aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What is the profile of respondents with respect to:

1.1 age

1.2 sex

1.3 course

1.4 year

1.5 civil status

1.6 religion

2. What is the status of the existing policies and regulations on student discipline in the

University in terms of the following:

2.1 Student Attire

2.2 Student Conduct and Discipline

3. What is the level of awareness and compliance of respondents on the existing policies and

regulations on student discipline in the University in terms of the following:

3.1 Student Attire

3.2 Student Conduct and Discipline

4. Is there a significant relationship between the profile of the respondents to their level of

awareness and compliance to the Policies on Student Discipline?

5. Is there a significant relationship between the level of awareness and their level of compliance

on the Policies on Student Discipline?

6. What are the problems encountered by the respondents in complying with the Policies on

Student Discipline in terms of:

6.1 Student Attire

6.2 Student Conduct and Discipline

Research Hypotheses

1. There is no significant relationship between profile of the respondents and their level of

awareness and compliance to Policies on Student Discipline.

2. There is no significant relationship between the respondents level of awareness and their

compliance to Policies on Student Discipline.

3. There is no significant relationship between the respondents level of awareness and their

compliance on Policies on Student Discipline..

Significance of the Study

This study will greatly benefit the whole institution of Cagayan State University-Carig

Campus specifically to the following:

To the administrators, this research will be a guide to them for the proper implementation

of the Universitys Policies and Regulations on Student Discipline. Furthermore, the

implementors will be able to determine the level of awareness of students pertaining to these

policies and regulations and will benefit them for the dissemination of this academic information

to interested parties.

To the implementors, this study will hopefully contribute for a more effective compliance

to the University policies and regulations and will widen their knowledge regarding these, which

is essential to every student as a part of this institution.

To the researchers, this study will serve as a tool to broaden the scope of their knowledge

with regards to the rudiments of policies and regulations in general and the policies of the school

in particular.

This study will also serve as a basis for further study to future researchers.

Scope and Delimitation

This research was limited only to the undergraduates of CSU-Carig. Students belonging

to the graduate school and undergraduates belonging to other campuses were not included.

The respondents of the study were undergraduates enrolled in CSU-Carig. Out of the

4215 students coming from the College of Arts and Sciences (CAS), College of Information and

Technology (CIT), College of Public Administration (CPA), College of Veterinary Medicine

(CVM), College of Engineering (CoE), and College of Technology (CoT) as per manifested by

the records of the Registrar, 365 were taken as respondents. One hundred forty-five (145) came

from CAS, 62 from CIT, 12 from CPA, 11 from CVM, 67 from CoE and 68 from CoT.

This study was conducted to determine the profile of the respondents and to assess their

awareness and compliance to policies and regulations regarding student discipline. Moreover,

relationship of their profile to their level of awareness and compliance was determined.

Likewise, their level of awareness to their level of compliance.

This study was conducted from November 2005 to January 2006.

Definition of Terms

Disciplinary Actions refer to the sanctions that could be meted out by the Student

Disciplinary Tribunal to the students who violate school policies. Disciplinary action may take

the form of expulsion or dismissal from the University, withholding of graduation and other

privileges, suspension from any class, reprimand, warning or expression of apology by the

student. The gravity of the offense committed and circumstances attending its commission shall

determine the nature of the disciplinary action or penalty to be imposed (CSU Student Manual,


Expulsion is an example of a disciplinary action which is the act of driving out any

student from the University. Any student who is expelled is no longer eligible to enroll in any

college/campus in the University (CSU Student Manual, p. 61).

Policies on Student Discipline refer to the set of rules and regulations promulgated by the

school that sets forth guidelines and standards for proper attire and conduct or deportment inside

the school premises.

Profile of Respondents refers to the personal data or information of the respondents such

as age, sex, course, year, civil status and religion.

Student Attire refers to the prescribed garments to be worn by the students when going to

school. On MW, for gentlemen, plain white polo shirt, white undershirt, black pants with leather

shoes. For ladies, white long-sleeved blouse, checkered maroon skirt, a tie and closed shoes for

ladies. On TTh, for gentlemen, plain white shirt with collar, colored pants and leather shoes. For

ladies, short-sleeved blouse, skirt, tie and closed shoes.

Student Conduct refers to the actions or behavior exhibited by the students. A students

conduct may be classified into two: behavior that is in accordance with the Policies on Student

Discipline and behavior that is in violation thereof.

Suspension is the denial or deprivation of attendance from classes for a definite period

not exceeding the prescribed class days. It is the prohibition from participating in all aspects of

university life for a specified period of time such as the balance of a current semester or all the

subsequent semesters. When a student is suspended from the University, the student is prohibited

from entering the grounds or any property owned, operated or controlled by the University.

When the term of suspension has ended, the student may apply for readmission.

Chapter 2


Discipline represents different ways of looking at the world. Each distinctive discipline

represents a particular perspective that has developed, been articulated and been shared by a

large number of persons. (Miller Martin, 1980 )

It implies that our acts reflect our personality and how a person interprets and perceives

life. Discipline was also defined as a training that develops self-control and efficiency. It is a

system of rules that leads to orderly conduct ( Websters 9th Edition Dictionary, p.360 ).

Theories of Personality. The standard of proof for incidents of non-academic misconduct

shall be a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of evidence shall be defined as evidence

that a reasonable person would find persuasive or more likely than not to have occurred.

From Aristotle to Shakespeare, Plato to Freud, Adler to McGraw, humans have always

been interested in one fascinating topic, Themselves !! For the last 120 years, psychologists have

been constructing a variety of theories to account for human behavior, and the consistency within

human behavior which we ascribe to individual personality.

Personality theorists with diverse outlooks and backgrounds have developed some

amazing insight in to human personality. The ideas of Sigmund Freud generate as much interest

now as they did one hundred years ago.

Student discipline has been a point of concern and contention for most of the history of

higher education in the United States; today is no exception. Perhaps no other single subject so

dramatically reflects our attitudes about students and how we define our duty and our

relationship with them. From the earliest dissatisfactions with pious and moralistic paternalism in
the colonial colleges, to recent controversies over hate speech versus First Amendment rights,

student behavior and institutional responses have vexed faculty and administrators with a set of

issues both fundamental and timely. Why do we concern ourselves with student behavior at all?

What should be the "reach" of the institutions of higher education? What standards of behavior

should colleges expect? How are those standards best communicated? By what processes should

misconduct be adjudicated? If standards are broken, how should institutions respond? What is

our overreaching purpose in student discipline? How do we know when it is met? Who should be

responsible for it?

Student discipline comprises a set of complex and inter-related issues that deserve careful

examination and reasonable recommendations. This report provides both, with an eye toward

new trends in responding to and preventing student misconduct, and to programs that avoid

unduly legalistic processes, while enhancing student development in the continuation of the

institutional mission.

What role should colleges and universities play in student discipline? Once student

discipline was a central part of the college mission; today, it has moved to the periphery of most

campus agendas. Since the demise of "in loco parentis," most campuses have been left without a

guiding reason for engaging in student discipline, and most faculty are, at best, only marginally

involved in day-to-day matters of student conduct. Even campus administrators are ambivalent

about their overall duty for student behavior.

Urgent present-day concerns about such behavioral problems as crime on campus, hate

speech, date/acquaintance rape, alcohol (and other substance) abuse, and academic dishonesty,

coupled with demands for greater supervision of students, the increasing litigiousness of a civil-

liberty minded populace, as well as an increase in older, more consumer-oriented students, have

left campus leaders understandably wary, while searching for new ways to fashion policy in this

area. As a legacy of the student rights movement of the 1960s and 1970s, and the accompanying

judicial scrutiny of disciplinary decisions, today's codes of conduct tend to be heavy on process

and light on real guidance for the student. It is time for colleges and universities to rethink their

purposes for engaging in student discipline and fashion rules and processes that follow logically.

Hoekema (1994) has proposed a useful and thoughtful analytic framework and conceptual model

for thinking about codes of conduct, based on three overarching moral/ethical principles:

preventing harm, upholding freedom, and fostering community. Many campuses could benefit

from a close consideration of this approach.

Where should institutions begin in reconsidering student discipline, and who should be

involved? Colleges and universities are urged to reconsider their approaches to student discipline

by attempting to integrate the academic and nonacademic worlds of students through a broad-

based, unified approach that demonstrates and reinforces the importance and integrity of

institutional values. They should begin this process by reviewing and clarifying institutional

values as they are already articulated in mission statements, codes of conduct, and academic

integrity policies. Given the current high level of concern about student cheating, it may be the

best and safest place to begin; few would argue with the academia's hand in this domain. Faculty,

administrative and student affairs staff, and students should all be involved in a collaborative

effort. Honor codes are in resurgence and should be carefully considered. There is a growing

body of research that supports their efficacy, and while they are certainly not a panacea, the very

process of considering an honor code should stimulate the kind of value-focused dialogue

necessary for the campus to become a more moral community. Another good place to begin

promoting such community building is in the curriculum. Astin (1995) recently proposed a

"citizenship curriculum," which could foster the basic democratic values reinforcing and

undergirding the campus disciplinary program. Many colleges and universities are instituting

interdisciplinary courses to meet general education needs and to challenge the values of a

materialistic, philosophic student body. Shouldn't there be room for a course, perhaps even a

required course, that directly addresses student rights and responsibilities in the campus


What more do we need to learn about student discipline? Although institutions of higher

education in the United States have been engaged in the practice of student discipline for more

than 300 years, we know surprisingly little about the effectiveness of our efforts. Research in

student discipline should be conducted in three areas. First, institutional research should be done

on existing disciplinary programs to determine their present effectiveness. Like any other student

development program, these efforts should be periodically and systematically evaluated to ensure

they are meeting their goals. The practice of disciplinary counseling should be of particular

interest. It is a commonly employed response to student misbehavior, yet it has been questioned

on the basis of ethics and efficacy. Second, student behavior, and how it is affected by the

predominant student culture, its various subcultures, and how they compare to the faculty

culture, should be studied. Conventional survey techniques, as well as qualitative methods,

especially ethnographic, should be used to conduct "culture audits." Third, student development

theories need to be operational and tested in the disciplinary context. If traditional quantitative

methods do not seem to convey the richness of data needed by disciplinary practitioners, then

qualitative methods should be encouraged. The case study method is a useful way of linking

developmental theory to disciplinary practice, yet it is rare in the student personnel literature.

In what ways must campuses change to foster the development of disciplined students?

Colleges and universities and their students would benefit by thinking about student discipline in

less adversarial and more developmental ways. Many disputes that now fill campus judicial

systems might be better resolved through mediation. If disciplinary counseling is too problematic

in the way we currently think about our disciplinary/judicial systems, perhaps we need to

reframe our approach to include such methods as "caring confrontation," wherein the student's

behavior is critically examined in a supportive relationship, and the central goal of the process is

to see what can be learned from the situation, but not so much the determination of guilt and the

application of punishment.

Student affairs leaders, and in particular the chief student affairs officer (CSAO) on

campus, must actively and positively embrace their responsibility to encourage the building of

moral/ethical communities on campus. The best student discipline program is the preventative

type that creates a campus environment of caring and compassion, and one that deters hateful

and destructive behavior by virtue of commitment to the community. One of the most effective

ways to achieve the building of such a commitment is through service learning. College students,

especially young college students, who have had the opportunity to learn about the needs of

others through service to them, are far less likely to engage in the kinds of selfish and immature

behaviors that account for the bulk of the disciplinary caseloads at most institutions. Counsellors,

with their expertise in experiential learning, and with the opportunity to promote such programs

though a myriad of student services, are in a unique position to contribute to the curriculum and

promote the development of the whole student.

The importance of building more caring and collaborative communities of learning on

our campuses has been a consistent theme in the literature on higher education for almost a
decade. Student discipline can play a vital part, but first, institutions must clarify their values,

and then campus leaders including both academic affairs and student affairs must take

responsibility for developing disciplinary programs which are fair, humane, and uphold those

values for the betterment of the individual student and for the community as a whole.

The complexities of modern life and changes therein, means that people confront more

problems than before and that they have more difficulty in achieving satisfactory solutions. They

find that older patterns of thinking and older stocks of knowledge are inadequate guides to new

situations. For these reasons, people as individuals, are in greater need of assistance today than

they were in the past. To obtain this assistance, they look to various organizations that have

assumed responsibility for guidance services. These organizations may be the school, church and

private or public service agencies ( General Psychology by Aquino, p. 294 ).

The school is considered as a very sacred place for learning. As cited by Salvador Araneta

in his book entitled Education Philosophy, p.36, It is the responsibility of the school to fight

indolence among their students, to eradicate moral turpitude, subject them to educational crucible

of discipline, disciplining their muscles, their hearts and their minds.

Furthermore, it was explained that on the student conduct and discipline, the definition or

specification of certain offenses of breaches and of discipline, in separate resolution of the

council approved by the Board of Regents shall not be construed to exclude other offenses or

breakdown against the rules of discipline promulgated by the University President, the Campus

Deans and faculty members in those cases not provided by the offense. The disciplinary action

shall be instituted for the conduct prohibited by laws or the rules and regulations promulgated by

the duly constituted authorities of the University.(CSU Student Manual, p. 45)

In the colonial era, the Puritan belief that humankind is innately tainted by the Original

Sin of Adam and Eve led adults to see children as contaminated by an evil element which needed

to be driven out by force. Puritans believed that all disobedience and academic error was the

work of Satan, and children's innate proclivity for evil had to be destroyed through pain and

humiliation. The idea that suffering corrects became fundamental to institutional design, whether

that design was the stocks in which prisoners were displayed for public abuse or the raised stools

and dunce caps intended to correct student misbehavior or ignorance through humiliation. "To

spare the rod." it was believed, led inevitably to spoiling the child, so slapping, spanking, and

whipping were generally understood as beneficial educational tools.

By 1910 attendance at public school was mandatory; children were thus absent on a daily

basis from parental direction and placed under the authority of educators. This transfer extended

teachers' roles to parental disciplinarians; teachers functioned in loco parentis, meaning in the

place of parents. During the first decades of the 1900s as teachers were stepping further into

these parental roles, State legal systems were beginning to evolve ways to handle juvenile

offenders which intended to distinguish them from adult perpetrators. One value attached to this

development asserted that while adults should be punished for their crimes, children should be

rehabilitated for theirs, thus formalizing a beginning to the separation between juvenile

misconduct and suffering as its remedy.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, good discipline was evinced as students sitting

quietly while they learned by rote. The conventional wisdom saw education as a process of

controlling student behavior while information was transferred from teacher to student. This

model continues to shape concepts about classroom activities and goals. Challenging this model,

however, were the increasingly popular post-World War II theories of Benjamin Spock (1903-
1998) who disapproved of rigid child-rearing techniques and urged adults, parents and teachers

alike, to be more affectionate and flexible. Some critics of Spock's theories asserted that they

contributed to a growing attitude of permissiveness and relativity which blurred children's

understanding of right and wrong and encouraged self-defeating traits like selfishness, indolence,

or noncompliance. Additionally, in the second half of the twentieth century, healthcare

professionals and educators became more informed about how student misbehavior may be

connected to physiological or psychological problems, like attention deficit disorder,

hyperactivity, or emotional disturbance. Changes in the family unit, increase in the Hollywood

celebration of violence, and effects of illegal drug use also affected students' ability and

willingness to learn in school. Finally, in the 1990s, juveniles committed serious felonies on

school property, some of which converted schools temporarily to war zones. Reactions to these

events caused many people to advocate for a return to more stringent controls of students, which

in some circles acquired to the label, zero tolerance.

Some principles are inherent in a positive, developmental approach to student conduct. 1.

Developmental attitude, and manner of conduct administrators. A genuine developmental

attitude must be modeled from the initial confrontation through the entire process. A manner of

honesty, straightforwardness, concern, and respect must be felt by the student. The use of

manipulation, threats, or intimidation are not part of developmental conduct. Examples of

developmentally based terminology: conduct, referred, confronted, conduct meeting, student

referred, inappropriate behavior, responsible, not responsible. Examples of punitively based

terminology: discipline, written-up, busted, hearing, accused, offender, guilty, innocent. 2. Win-

Win vs. Win-Lose. Staff and community feel reasonably sure that the inappropriate behavior will

not continue, and the student involved feels s/he received an appropriate response for the
behavior that occurred. When a win-win conduct process is implemented, both the community

and the student are able to reconvene with a positive, supportive relationship. 2. Respect for the

rights of the individual. This includes giving full due process, assuming the student is not

responsible until proven responsible, and only incurring sanctions on individuals that are

appropriate to the behavior. 4. Respect for the rights of the community. Effective conduct

meetings discuss the rights of a community and how individuals must respect those rights. 5.

Due process. This includes adequate notice of referral, right to a fair conduct meeting, right to

know the nature of inappropriate behavior, the right of appeal, the opportunity to be heard and

present all sides of the case, and that the decision is based on all information presented at the

meeting. 6. Prompt, fair, and consistent. Student conduct procedures must be done in a timely

and organized way so as to maximize the "teachable moment". Meetings are most effective when

held as soon as possible after the alleged behavior - a week or less is preferable. Fairness

involves giving both sides of a conflict equal time to voice their concerns, speak for themselves,

and to discuss the behavioral concerns. Consistency does not mean equal sanctions for equal

violations of policy. Individual life circumstances, attitudes, and stressors must be taken into

account in a developmental conduct process, with sanctions imposed based upon the

developmental issue a student needs to address. Conduct administrators must be qualified to

assess this. However, consistency does apply to the procedure. 7. The "teachable moment".

Developmental conduct looks for the "teachable moment" - the point at which the student

displays an interest in, or ability to, understand key developmental goals. All conduct processes,

from confrontations to meetings, must have as their goal the creation of the "teachable moment."

8. Choices. A conduct process that is not control oriented offers choices to students. The choices

offered may be very limited, but the attitude reflected is one of options. Choices that might be

offered include social cooperation vs. acceptance of the consequences, or choosing self-

responsibility vs. submitting to peer pressure. 9. Shared expectations and informed populace.

Often violations of policy, apathy, and lack of commitment occurs because students are not

aware of what the staff or community expects of them. 10. Student orientation. A developmental

conduct process always reflects what is best for the student and the community. Questions like

"How can the student best benefit from this process?" "What does the student need to learn from

this process?", and "What is an appropriate response from us to help the student advance

developmentally?" are good questions to focus on throughout a conduct meeting. 11. Sanctions

are appropriate to the inappropriate behavior and developmentally intentional. The most

effective sanctions will be those that address the cause of inappropriate behavior, are non-

punitive in nature, and directly relate to developmental issues that the student needs to learn.

Sanctions imposed will be situational and dependent on the student's attitude, commitment to

changing behavior, level of self-responsibility, and personal circumstances in his or her life. 12.

Documentation is timely, confidential, and professional. 13. Follow-up on sanction completion.

14. Evaluation of the conduct process for the individual. To be most beneficial, this evaluation

needs to take place both immediately after the meeting and again in a month's time. It should

address:a. effectiveness of the conduct meeting; b. purpose of the sanctions; c. student's reactions

to the meeting and sanctions; d. observed growth in the student; e. recurrence of student

inappropriate behavior.

When an incident involving a student occurs, documentation regarding the incident will

be forwarded to the Office of Student Conduct. At this time, the student involved will be

contacted by the Student Conduct Coordinator or the appropriate person in the Office of Housing

and Residence Life to discuss the conduct process, initiate the first meeting, to inform the student
as to the nature of the incident and the identified inappropriate behavior, and to forward copies of

relevant documentation.

There are two levels to the conduct process. The first level is referred to as the first level

conduct meeting, the second level is referred to as the second level conduct meeting or

theUniversity conduct board. The University Contact will determine if the incident should be

dealt with at the first or second level.

The first level conduct meeting is designed to handle incidents of a less severe nature and

most first-time incidents. At this level, the student may have the option of whether to have this

meeting with a designated Student Affairs Administrator or with a committee composed of two

students and one administrator. The Student Conduct Coordinator will decide when this option is

appropriate. Generally, students may choose between these two options if the incident is minor

and the student accepts responsibility for his/her behavior.

The second level conduct meeting/University conduct board is designed to handle

incidents of a more severe nature or situations where the first level conduct meetings are not

being effective. This board will consist of five members, composed of faculty, staff, and students

when appropriate.

The conduct meeting is designed to be informal and conversational. The meeting should

include introductions of all present; review of relevant information about the student's past and

present behavior; opportunity for the student to respond to and answer questions from the

committee, administrator, or board; an opportunity for other students or university members

involved to make a statement about the incident if appropriate; and presentation of the decision.

The administrator/committee/board will make a decision regarding responsibility and sanction. If

the sanction of suspension or expulsion is called for, this must be made as a recommendation to

the Chancellor who will make the decision. The student(s) will be notified in writing of the

committee's decision, and a record will be kept in the Office of Residence Life.

Some of the reasons a student may appeal include: * a belief that the sanction was too

harsh; * discovery of new information that might affect the decision of the administrator,

committee, or board; * substantial violation of the conduct system procedures; * violation of

Constitutional rights.

Decisions regarding the appeal process which remain unsatisfactory to the student may be

appealed to the Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs within three school days following

notification of the decision.

Each decision regarding sanction will take into consideration the nature of the incident,

the previous history of the student, special life circumstances of the student, and what is

necessary to promote appropriate behavior.

Some typical sanctions which may be applied are: 1. THE WORK SANCTION or

EDUCATIONAL ASSIGNMENT is a project assigned to the student. This sanction will be

designed specifically for the student in order to address the incident and be educational in nature.

2. RESTITUTION is appropriate monetary reimbursement for action which results in loss,

damage, or actual expense. 3. AREA RESTRICTION is defined as excluding a student for a

specific time period from any University facility. 4. LOW HOUSING PRIORITY is defined as

removing a student from his/her place in the housing assignment process and placing him/her at

the very end of the waiting list for University housing for the upcoming year. If the student has

already received an assignment, it will be forfeited and the student's name placed at the end of
the waiting list. 5. EXCLUSION FROM UNIVERSITY RESIDENCY is defined as removing

the student's privileges to live in any University residence facility for a specified period of time.

This decision would be based on awareness that the student's continued presence would interfere

with the living or learning atmosphere within the residence facility. 6. RESIDENCE FACILITY

RELOCATION is removing a student from his/her present assignment to a different room or

facility. 7. EVICTION from a University Residence Facility is removal of a resident from a

University residence facility for a specified period of time. A student who is evicted from a

residence facility is prohibited from returning to or visiting any University residence facility. A

student who is evicted will not be eligible for refund of unused room or board plan charges. 8.

REPRIMAND is an official notification by the Office of Student Development. A Reprimand

will extend for a period of time not less than one semester. Repeated incidents within this time

period will result in a more severe sanction. Record of the action will be kept on file and may be

used in sanctioning for incidents after the allotted time period. 9. GENERAL PROBATION may

be imposed for any breach of the student code of conduct. In no case shall a probationary period

be for less than three months. During the probationary period, involvement in another incident

may result in suspension. After the probationary period, the record of sanction may be used in

sanctioning for similar incidents. 10. SPECIFIC PROBATION may be imposed for any violation

of this code for a specified period of time. During this time, a student may not represent the

University in any way. In no case shall a probationary period be for less than three months. The

student must become an non-participatory member of any organization, athletic team, or club to

which s/he belongs. The student may attend meetings and practices but may not vote or

participate in activities which represent the University. The student may not, during the period of

probation, actively try to join or participate in any University recognized organization or athletic

team. The proper administrative officials will decide whether the student retains any loans or

scholarships given by the University for representing or serving the University in any way.

During the probationary period, involvement in any incident may result in suspension. After the

probationary period, the case can be used in sanctioning for similar incidents. 11. SUSPENSION

severs the student's relationship with the University for a specified period of time and may be

either immediate or delayed. In those instances when the student has shown potential threat to

life or property, their right to visit campus may be revoked. The penalty of suspension is only a

recommendation to the Chancellor of the University who is the only official who has the power

to suspend any student for disciplinary means. The Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs or a

designee will screen person(s) who have been suspended from UNCA upon their petition to

return. 12. EXPULSION severs the student's relationship with the University immediately and

permanently. In those instances when the student has shown potential threat to life or property

their right to visit campus may be revoked. Expulsion is only a recommendation to the

Chancellor who must review and make the final decision. 13. INTERIM SUSPENSION severs

the student's relationship with the University immediately after the preliminary investigation. In

those instances when the student has shown potential threat to life or property their right to visit

campus may be revoked. The sanction of interim suspension shall only be exercised in those

instances which there is reasonable case to believe that the student's alleged violation is of such a

serious nature that their continued presence at the University is potentially dangerous to the

health and safety of the University community, its property, or its educational mission. Only the

Chancellor may suspend a student for an interim period prior to the outcome of the conduct

meeting. If the recommendation of the conduct meeting is that the suspension be revoked, the

student will be reinstated immediately without penalty.


The Code of Student Conduct is the University's policy regarding non-academic

discipline of students. Academic discipline of students is not covered by this Code, but rather

falls within the jurisdiction of the individual academic units of the University.

The issues involved in the process of developing codes of conduct constitute an important

part of pedagogical debate and ongoing courtroom deliberation. A properly written document has

to meet four criteria in order to carry a legal presumption of validity: First, the rules have to be in

writing. Regulations students had to obey without a specific verbal command must be in writing.

Second, the rules have to be specific: Policies should be clearly stated to students, and without

referring to an outside source or document the rules had to explain what was expected and what

was prohibited. Next, the writing had to be authorized: The writer of the rules has to have the

authority to define them. Next, the written rules have to be published. The code of conduct has

be printed and distributed, for example in student handbooks, in letters to parents, in public

announcements during class time and assemblies, and in postings on bulletin boards.

The primary purpose for the imposition of non-academic discipline in the University

setting is to protect and preserve a quality educational environment in the campus community.

The University is not designed or equipped to rehabilitate students who do not abide by this

Code. It may be necessary to remove those students from the campus and to sever the

institutional relationship with them, as provided in this Code.

The University's Code of Student Conduct is set forth in writing in order to give students

general notice of non-academic prohibited conduct. The Code should be read broadly and is not

designed to define non-academic misconduct in exhaustive terms.

The University reserves the right to take necessary and appropriate action to protect the

safety and well-being of the campus community. The Code applies to incidents that take place on

University premises or at University-sponsored activities.

When the University is notified, the Vice President for Student Affairs, in consultation

with the Provost, may determine that acts prohibited by the Code but not committed on

University premises could also be grounds for disciplinary action. Such action will be taken if a

student has acted in a way that substantially interferes with or endangers the University

community, or behavior with significant potential to disrupt the educational environment. Such

acts include, but are not limited to, drug trafficking offenses and acts or threats of violence

against persons.

Students may be accountable to both civil authorities and to the University for acts which

constitute violations of law and of this Code. Those accused of violations are subject to the

University disciplinary proceedings outlined in this Code during the pendency of any criminal or

civil proceedings, or of any other University proceedings, regarding the same conduct. Accused

students may not challenge the University disciplinary proceedings outlined in this Code on the

grounds that criminal charges, civil actions, or other University proceedings regarding the same

incident are pending or have been terminated, dismissed, reduced, or not yet adjudicated. The

University will refer matters to Federal and/or State authorities for prosecution when appropriate.

Furthermore, this is the scenario in Florida. Students are expected to conduct themselves

according to generally accepted standards of personal and professional behaviour. Inappropriate

student behaviour may not only impair the ability of other students to perform to their potential

but may also hinder the ability of CSI staff to operate effectively and meet the needs of all


CSI courses help students along the path to a career in the financial services industry

where personal honesty and integrity are essential. The student code of conduct has been

established to maintain the integrity of CSI courses and to protect individual rights.

Students should be familiar with and understand how they are affected by these policies.

Familiarity with and adherence to these guidelines will allow students to make the most of their

educational experience with CSI.

The following are examples of unacceptable conduct that may be subject to disciplinary action:

1. Copying, collaborating excessively on, or selling assignments or cases.

2. Cheating on exams by copying or allowing another student to copy exam answers,

impersonating a student, or being in possession of study notes during the exam.

3. Falsifying, or modifying without authorization, any examination paper, record, or report.

4. Attempting to re-construct the content of an exam.

5. Engaging in any conduct that misrepresents academic performance.

It is the intent of the Student Rights and Responsibilities that students understand that

individual rights involve associated responsibilities, and that individual rights must be viewed in

relationship to the health, safety, and welfare of the majority of students within each school. The

principal shall assume administrative responsibility and instructional leadership under the

supervision of the Superintendent, in accordance with rules and regulations of the School Board

for planning, management, and operation of the school to which he/she is assigned. The faculty

and staff shall assist in the orderly operation of the school and assure the rights of students.

The dress and grooming of St. Johns County Public Schools students shall contribute to

the health and safety of the individual, promote a positive educational environment and not

disrupt the educational activities and processes of the school. Because inappropriate clothing

worn by a student is detrimental to the school program, the wearing of the garments suitable for

school shall be encouraged. These rules on personal appearance of students are meant to be a set

of guidelines to enable the students of St.Johns County Public Schools to dress casually but

reasonably. Nothing in these rules shall be construed to preempt the authority of the principal to

act in specific cases when, in his/her opinion, a student is attempting to use this policy to disrupt

the educational process or the good order and discipline of the school.

Waivers to the Student Dress are recommended through the School Advisory Council for each

individual school and approved by the School Board. Examples would be school uniforms, no

shorts, all shirts tucked in; pants must have belts, etc. Physical cleanliness consistent with the

maintenance of good physical health and to avoid offense to others is mandatory.

Chapter 3


This chapter presents the methods and procedures utilized in the study. It elucidates

on the manner with which the researchers conducted the investigation and this includes data

gathering, statistical treatment, locale of the study and the respondents.

Research Design

This study used the Descriptive-Correlational Method of research. The aforementioned

design helped the researchers determine the profile of the respondents. Moreover, it was used to

determine their level of awareness and compliance to the Policies on Student Discipline.

Likewise, it was employed to test the relationship between the profile of respondents and their

level of awareness and compliance on the Policies and Regulations on Student Discipline as well

as the relationship of level of awareness and compliance.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted at Cagayan State University-Carig Campus. Cagayan State

University has a total area of 19.33 hectares, with seven colleges of which one is post-graduate.

The study was composed of respondents from five undergraduate colleges which

included the College of Arts and Sciences, College of Engineering, College of Technology,

College of Public Administration and College of Veterinary Medicine. The present total

population of the under graduate students at Cagayan State University Carig Campus is 4,215 as

was manifested by records from the Office of the Registrar.

Respondents and Sampling Procedure

The respondents of this research were the students of Cagayan State University- Carig

grouped according to their respective colleges. The total population of the respondents was based

on the records of the University Registrars Office.

Stratified Random Sampling was employed in the selection of respondents. Moreover

Slovins formula was utilized to determine the samples-respondents of the study. Five percent

was the margin for error.

Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents according to their colleges computed

through stratified random sampling.


CAS 1,673 145

CIT 723 62
CPA 137 12
CVM 126 11
CoE 775 67
CoT 781 68
TOTAL 4,215 365

Research Instruments and Data Gathering Procedure

The survey questionnaire was used as the principal instrument to gather data. Part 1 dealt

on the profile of the respondents such as age, sex, course, civil status, religion and ethnicity. Part

2 consisted of the policies on student discipline imposed by the school and their assessment in

the level of awareness and compliance to these policies. Furthermore, the researchers conducted

interviews with the authorities and students to supplement and validate those gathered from the


Letters of request asking permission to conduct the survey were forwarded to the college

deans. After the approval, the questionnaires were floated personally by the proponents to the

respondents taking into consideration the sampling scheme used. Each questionnaire was

accompanied with a cover letter stating among others the plea for honest and accurate answers.

Retrieval of the questionnaires was done as soon as the respondents finished answering.

Data Analysis and Statistical Content

The data were analyzed through frequency count, percentage and weighted mean for

descriptive data while hypotheses were analyzed through chi-square for nominal data and

Pearson-Product Moment Correlation for ordinal data.

The Three-Point Likert Scale was used to assess the respondents level of awareness and

compliance to the policies on Student Discipline. This scale was utilized:

On Awareness On Compliance

3 Aware 3 Complied

2 Partially Aware 2 Partially Complied

1 Not Aware 1 Not Complied