This study is underpinned by Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner 1979, 2000), which posits that a child’s behaviour is shaped by multiple interacting systems, including the microsystem (teachers and parents), mesosystem (school–home relationships) and exosystem (community and policy). Applying this lens, in this study, enables a better understanding of how teacher development, school leadership practices and parental styles collectively shape student discipline (Bronfenbrenner 2000; El Zaatari & Maalouf 2022). Furthermore, Bandura’s social learning theory (1977) provides additional insight into how students’ behavioural responses are learned through observation of authority figures, including teachers (Bandura & Walters 1977). In this study, these theoretical perspectives guide the exploration of discipline and teacher development as interconnected constructs rather than isolated phenomena.

The literature on student discipline in South African high schools highlights the complicated relationship between teacher attitudes (Rossouw 2003; Segalo & Rambuda 2018), leadership practices (Manamela 2021) and the broader educational environment (Prins et al. 2019). Mabeba and Prinsloo (2000) describe discipline in a learning environment as fostering order, providing guidance and regulating academic engagement. Gootman (2008) views discipline as a tool to help children develop self-control, motivation and a sense of self-worth while enhancing their critical-thinking skills. Discipline, therefore, involves teaching children to distinguish between right and wrong, recognise acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, respect the rights of others and cultivate the ability to manage their emotions, frustrations and everyday stresses through self-control. This emphasis on self-regulation underscores the role of the teacher as a developmental agent who models and reinforces appropriate behaviour, making discipline an inherently relational process (Bandura & Walters 1977).

School leadership plays a central role in maintaining discipline, with research indicating that leadership styles fostering positive relationships contribute to improved disciplinary outcomes (Mugizi et al. 2022). As discussed by Purwandoko & Anggraini (2023), transformational leadership, which involves inspiring and motivating staff towards a shared vision and fostering positive relationships, has been found to create effective classroom environments that support better behaviour management and are linked to better results from learners. This aligns with Hallinger and Heck’s (2010) argument that collaborative leadership increases school performance, particularly in academic and disciplinary contexts. Beyond leadership, teacher development is necessary for promoting effective discipline strategies. Silfani, Basikin and Hasan (2025) emphasise the need for professional growth programmes focused on classroom management, as teachers equipped with practical strategies are better positioned to address disciplinary challenges (Egeberg et al. 2021; Martin & Bertram 2024; Mkhasibe & Mncube 2020). The concept of distributed leadership, which empowers teachers, is also identified as key to successful school change and discipline management (Hoppey & McLeskey 2010). Alam, Fakhruddin and Raharjo (2024) also emphasise teacher training, but they do not assess whether current programmes sufficiently prepare teachers to manage students affected by trauma or socio-economic hardship. Importantly, teacher leadership and professional development must be viewed as integral to improving school discipline rather than as separate domains. Without a robust theoretical lens and holistic teacher support, discipline policies may be misapplied or unsustainable, especially in under-resourced contexts.

While existing studies offer valuable insights into learner discipline in South African high schools, this study identifies several theoretical gaps and limitations. Rossouw (2003) and Segalo and Rambuda (2018), for example, discuss the influence of teacher attitudes on student discipline; however, their analyses remain primarily descriptive and fail to account for the contextual variations across different socio-economic and cultural settings within South Africa. Given the country’s diverse schooling environments, a better exploration of how teacher attitudes interact with specific local challenges (such as overcrowded classrooms, resource disparities and community influences) would provide a deeper understanding of the issue. Similarly, Manamela (2021) emphasises leadership practices about learner discipline, yet the study does not engage with the changing effectiveness of different leadership styles across school types. While transformational leadership is widely praised (Purwandoko & Anggraini 2023), its applicability in under-resourced schools remains less explored. The assumption that transformational leadership universally leads to better disciplinary outcomes overlooks the structural limitations many South African schools face, such as inadequate teacher support, high learner-teacher ratios and systemic governance issues.

A theoretical framework is required to connect discipline management with teacher development. Existing research acknowledges the significance of teacher competencies and leadership, but often overlooks the psychological and institutional pressures that constrain teachers’ capacity to implement discipline policies. Moreover, teacher development cannot be examined in isolation from the systemic challenges (such as legal restrictions, parental involvement and socio-economic inequalities) that shape the school context. This underscores the need to explicitly theorise the interplay between teacher development and student discipline using an integrative lens (Bandura 1977; Bronfenbrenner 1979).

The assertion by Dube (2025) that collaborative leadership improves school performance is significant, but their study is primarily based on developed contexts. The transferability of their findings to South African schools, mainly in rural and township settings where hierarchical leadership and top-down management often prevail, requires further empirical validation. Similarly, Mugizi et al. (2022) correlate headteachers’ leadership styles with student discipline but do not interrogate how external factors, such as community violence and socio-economic instability, may dilute the effectiveness of school-based leadership interventions. According to Silfani et al. (2025), teacher development is decisive for effective discipline strategies. Nevertheless, existing research primarily focuses on classroom management techniques rather than the systemic issues that hinder their implementation.

The studies confirm that leadership styles influence discipline enforcement (Manamela 2021; Mugizi et al. 2022; Ibrahim 2022), yet they highlight a theoretical gap in how leadership interventions can be tailored to different school contexts (Mrutu, Anywar & Rachael 2025). Current literature (e.g, Mrutu et al. 2025) does not sufficiently explore how leadership styles interact with socio-economic challenges affecting discipline enforcement in South African schools. Similarly, most studies support the notion that inconsistent parenting affects school discipline (Khalid et al. 2025; Rossouw 2003; Segalo & Rambuda 2018; Tikoko & Kimame 2022), but less has been said about how schools can effectively collaborate with parents to address discipline issues. In other words, while existing literature discusses the impact of parenting on student behaviour, it lacks insights into structured parent–teacher partnerships for discipline management. Teacher development is widely recognised as essential for managing student discipline (Egeberg et al. 2021; Silfani et al. 2025). Although teacher training is emphasised, the literature often treats teacher discipline skills in isolation from the school’s leadership practices and parental contributions. This fragmented view weakens the understanding of discipline as an ecosystem shaped by both internal and external forces. A tiered intervention approach could be implemented, starting with Level 1 for minor infractions, which may involve verbal warnings and reflective activities like journaling on the consequences of misbehaviour. Level 2, addressing moderate offences, could incorporate restorative justice sessions where students engage in self-reflection and peer mediation. For serious offences at Level 3, temporary suspension paired with mandatory counselling sessions could help address underlying behavioural issues.

While other scholars emphasise training teachers in discipline strategies (Musundire 2025; Ndaba, Govender & Naidoo 2025), it does not address how policies and legal limitations affect their practical implementation (Zondo & Mncube 2024). In South African education history, legal and institutional frameworks significantly shape disciplinary practices (Mkhasibe & Mncube 2020). According to Mkhasibe and Mncube (2020), it has been confirmed that legal restrictions limit disciplinary measures. Still, they also uncover that many teachers avoid enforcing discipline because of the fear of backlash from parents and students. Existing literature discusses legal constraints, but it does not sufficiently explore the psychological and institutional pressures that deter teachers from taking disciplinary action. Recent studies (such as those of Purwandoko & Anggraini 2023) find that while many respondents support alternative discipline strategies, such as extra schoolwork, perceptions vary significantly between teachers and students.

The governing body is crucial in establishing and maintaining school discipline (Ibrahim 2022; Mkhasibe & Mncube 2020; Mrutu et al. 2025). It has a legal responsibility to ensure that appropriate structures and procedures are in place so that disciplinary actions against learners who display misconduct are administered fairly and reasonably, in line with the South African Constitution (Republic of South Africa 1996b) and the South African Schools Act (Republic of South Africa 1996a). This, for example, requires avoiding unlawful methods of discipline, such as corporal punishment, and using fair, policy-compliant measures that uphold learners’ rights (Fréchette & Romano 2017; Zuberi, Seni & Sungwa 2025). According to the South African Schools Act, only the principal has the authority to initiate disciplinary action in cases of serious misconduct (Republic of South Africa 1996a).

Recent studies suggest that perceptions of school discipline and punishment are influenced by gender, role (teacher versus student) and grade level (Potokri & Lumadi 2025). Research has shown that male students often face harsher disciplinary actions compared to their female counterparts (Potokri & Lumadi 2025), which may be attributed to gender biases in classroom management (Skiba et al. 2002). Additionally, disparities in educational attainment between black men and women have been linked to differences in school experiences, including the likelihood of having repeated a grade, which explains a portion of the gender gap in high school completion rates (Lundberg 2023). Teachers’ perceptions of student behaviour can also vary based on the teacher’s gender and experience, potentially affecting disciplinary outcomes (Watson, Plump & Durham 2022). Furthermore, students’ grade levels influence their views on discipline, with younger students often perceiving disciplinary measures as less fair compared to older students (Watson et al. 2022).

According to Potokri and Lumadi (2025), integrating these concepts into one coherent framework is critical. Teacher development and discipline management cannot be studied separately because teacher skill levels, leadership support, parental collaboration and the socio-cultural environment collectively determine how discipline policies are enacted. Hence, this study situates discipline management at the intersection of teacher development and leadership practices to fully understand the research problem and address its theoretical and practical gaps. From the literature reviewed, it has been noted that student discipline is a multidimensional issue that requires an integrated focus on teacher professional growth, leadership styles, parental partnerships and the broader socio-economic and policy environment. This integrative view directly informs the current research process, providing a holistic framework to explore discipline management and teacher development together.

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University of Zululand Research Ethics Committee (Certificate no: UZREC 171110-030PGD2023/72). Permission to conduct the study in selected schools was also granted by the KwaZulu-Natal Department of Education and school principals. Before data collection, all respondents were informed about the purpose, nature and potential risks of the study. Participation was entirely voluntary, and respondents were assured of confidentiality and anonymity. Informed consent forms were distributed to both teachers and students (and assent forms were provided to students under the age of 18), ensuring that respondents fully understood their rights, including the option to withdraw from the study at any time without consequence. Responses were kept securely, accessible only to the researcher, and data were reported in aggregate form to protect the identity of individual participants.

Table 1 presents the profile of respondents alongside general questions about discipline perceptions in schools.

The data in Table 1 show that male students represented the most respondents, and most participants were students in Grades 10 to 12. A striking 85% of respondents perceived students at their schools as generally disciplined, yet over 83% still felt that discipline needed to be enhanced, highlighting perceived shortcomings in current disciplinary practices. About two-thirds of respondents found punitive measures acceptable, and over 70% believed that disciplined students achieve better academically. These results are consistent with Rossouw (2003) and Ntshangase and Naidu (2014), who argue that discipline underpins a conducive learning environment. Similar recent findings by Zondo and Mncube (2024) and Musundire (2025) emphasise the vital link between discipline, behaviour and academic success in South Africa. Table 2 explores how perceptions about discipline differ between teachers and students.

Analysis of Table 2 reveals that teachers are more inclined than students to assert that ‘student discipline needs to be enhanced’ and that ‘well-disciplined students perform academically better than ill-disciplined students’. This observation aligns with the findings by Segalo and Rambuda (2018), who reported that teachers often perceive a direct correlation between student discipline and academic performance. Table 3 presents perceptions of different parenting styles and their influence on student discipline.

Table 3 presents respondents’ levels of agreement with various parenting styles related to child discipline. These parenting approaches are often believed to influence children’s behaviour in school, either directly or indirectly. While respondents did not strongly disagree with any of the statements, two stand out because of their high mean scores, indicating substantial agreement. Table 4 summarises views on approaches to enhancing discipline in schools.

Table 4 presents respondents’ views on strategies to improve discipline in high schools, highlighting three key statements that received the most support. The highest level of agreement was with the statement that ‘Parents can assist the school in disciplining misbehaved students’ (mean score = 2.23), followed by ‘Teachers should only discuss and reason with students to enhance discipline, and not punish them’ (mean score = 2.35), and ‘Teachers should punish students when they misbehave’ (mean score = 2.49). Table 5 highlights respondents’ views on barriers to enforcing discipline.

The results in Table 5 show respondents’ perceptions of the barriers to disciplinary punishments. Two statements need to be discussed as the mean score for these statements shows a higher level of agreement than others: ‘the principal’s leadership style can hinder disciplinary punishments in high schools’, and ‘the parenting style for individual students can hinder disciplinary punishments’. These again show that respondents think parents and school leadership efforts are needed to instil discipline in high school students.

The findings in Table 2 show that respondents generally believe that discipline in schools requires improvement. Interestingly, teachers were more inclined than students to agree that discipline must be enhanced and that well-disciplined students tend to perform better academically. This underlines a critical point that teachers view discipline as a cornerstone for learning, echoing findings by Segalo and Rambuda (2018) and Ntshangase and Naidu (2014), who assert that student discipline is closely tied to the academic environment. As students progressed to higher grades, they were more aware of the negative effects of indiscipline, suggesting that maturity and increased exposure to school policies may deepen students’ appreciation for discipline. Masingi (2017) supports this view, arguing that more mature students recognise the impact of misconduct on their academic achievements. These results highlight the need for disciplinary strategies that evolve alongside student development and maturity.

Table 3 demonstrates differences between teachers and students concerning parenting and discipline at home. Teachers attributed discipline problems more strongly to parenting styles, agreeing that parents often overlook their children’s misbehaviour or lack consistent boundaries. Students, however, were more sympathetic to soft parenting and more likely to agree that they deserve autonomy during their free time. This reflects a generational gap where teachers emphasise discipline and structure, while students advocate for flexibility. The findings also underscore a significant tension between school and home expectations of discipline, aligning with Saurombe et al. (2024) and Ndaba et al. (2025), who note that parenting styles profoundly influence students’ conduct. Given these diverging views, the school’s discipline policies must acknowledge parental influence as well as students’ developmental need for autonomy. Furthermore, in line with South African legal protections against harsh discipline (Republic of South Africa 1996a, 1996b), any strategies must strike a careful balance between guidance and respect for children’s rights.

As shown in Table 4, there is strong agreement across respondents that discipline requires collaboration between schools and parents. Teachers were notably more supportive of reasoning with students before resorting to punitive measures, yet they also acknowledged the need for consequences, especially when misconduct was serious. This resonates with the emphasis by Bakia-William (2024) and Zuberi et al. (2025), who highlight that while positive discipline is preferable, serious infractions may require stricter intervention. Additionally, teachers and students alike supported restorative strategies such as clean-up exercises, detention or extra homework as preferable forms of discipline. This points to a shared interest in constructive, non-violent discipline methods that correct misbehaviour without infringing on students’ dignity or rights, as required under South African legislation (Republic of South Africa 1996a). The findings illustrate the complex interplay between leadership, teacher expertise and parental involvement in enforcing discipline. Schools must leverage these partnerships to promote a disciplined and academically supportive environment (Makola 2023; Potokri & Lumadi 2025).

Table 5 explores the key selected barriers to applying effective discipline measures, which include leadership style, parental factors, legal constraints and fears of retaliation. Teachers expressed particular concern that leadership and legal restrictions can hinder their capacity to enforce discipline, often leaving them feeling powerless. This matches findings by Stanley (2014) and Makola (2023), who highlight systemic issues such as policy compliance and resource constraints as significant barriers. Moreover, most respondents noted that school discipline cannot improve without meaningful parental support. These findings underline the need for a holistic, collaborative approach that acknowledges the school’s legal obligations under the South African Schools Act and Constitution (Republic of South Africa 1996a, 1996b), while also offering school leaders the support to implement discipline measures fairly and consistently.

Although discipline is a shared concern, respondents also acknowledged the impact of parenting styles, legal obligations and gender differences. Many attributed careless discipline to parenting shaped by socio-economic hardship, indicating that parental capacity to support school discipline is often constrained (Makola 2023; Potokri & Lumadi 2025). This finding underscores the need for schools to establish partnerships with parents and community stakeholders that consider these structural realities. Respondents also noted that legal protections influence disciplinary practices. Schools must align policies with the South African Constitution and the Schools Act (Republic of South Africa 1996a, 1996b), especially concerning the prohibition of corporal punishment (Bakia-William 2024; Zuberi et al. 2025). Finally, male respondents showed stronger support for punitive measures than female respondents, who expressed greater empathy for parental challenges. These gender differences echo patterns noted by Watson et al. (2022), suggesting that personal and cultural expectations about discipline shape respondents’ perceptions and must be considered when designing school policies.

This study focused on a single sample, which may not fully represent schools with different socio-economic and cultural profiles. The reliance on self-reported data could also introduce social desirability bias, especially concerning sensitive topics like punishment and parenting. Furthermore, the study did not capture the perspectives of parents or school administrators, limiting the completeness of its findings. Future research could triangulate survey data with interviews, observations or school discipline records to obtain a richer understanding of discipline practices. Comparative studies across diverse school types (such as urban, rural and private) would highlight contextual differences. Researchers might also assess the impact of restorative justice on student behaviour and performance and apply advanced multivariate techniques (e.g. regression, structural equation modelling [SEM] or cluster analysis) to better explain the links between discipline and academic outcomes.