The aim of the study was to determine the consistency prevailing between the disciplinary
practices in the schools and the principles of the Alternatives-to-Corporal Punishment strategy.
The three main research questions that guided the study were to determine (1) How much
variance of offences can be explained by disciplinary measures of alternative corporal punish-
ment? (2) How well do the different measures of alternative corporal punishment predict
offences? (3) Which is the best predictor of offences given a set of alternative measures?
Twenty-nine schools participated in the survey and five schools participated in the case study,
so the achieved sample was 34 schools. From the 29 survey schools, one principal and one Life
Orientation (LO) teacher participated. All in all 58 people participated. The results revealed
that 66.60% of the variation in the offence of vandalism was explained by the predictors. When
vandalism was predicted it was found that School identification (β = .693, p < .05), gender (β
= –.180, p < .05), coordination of disciplinary committee (DC) meetings (β = .116, p < .05),
communication with parents (β = 1.070, p < .05) and monitoring compliance to DC (β = .852,
p < .05) were significant predictors. Responsibility, school location, experience as a principal,
availability of policy, capacitation on discipline, counselling, recording of sanctions and
monitoring implementation of sanctions were not significant predictors (varying β and p > .05).
The results reveal that there was no established consistency between the disciplinary practices
in the schools and the principles of the alternatives-to-corporal punishment strategy.

doi: 10.15700/201412120952