Can someone give me feedback for my LNAT essay?

This is my first LNAT essay, just wondering if the structure is right,

“What disciplinary sanctions should teachers be allowed to use?”

In educational settings, teachers can be observed utilising an array of disciplinary sanctions. These sanctions vary from being malicious to benign. Arguably, this argument can be confuted due to disciplinary sanctions altering over decades as a result of cultural awareness. In former years more malign disciplinary sanctions were imposed upon students, such as corporal punishment. Contradictorily, in the contemporary time more benign disciplinary sanctions are used: detentions, phone calls to parents, and even a restricted lunch. Isolation can be perceived as both malign and benign. It would be more plausible to argue that in the contemporary world teachers should utilise the privilege of disciplinary sanctions provided to them such as detentions or phone calls home. The use of isolation as a sanction is debatable- it should only be applied when other students’ safety or education is severely disrupted by students. Teachers abuse the legislations promulgated, and non-statutory advice provided for isolation and sanctions by utilising it in unneeded circumstances due to their lack of patience.
Arguably, teachers uphold the notion of an ‘Agentic State’ and base the concept upon being ‘agents’ of the state. Their disciplinary sanctions are accounted for by the state, making them more likely to be imposed upon students. This is established in the non-statutory advice allowing head teachers and teachers to lock children in a room -classified as isolation- away from other pupils due to disruption caused. However, the use of isolative disciplinary sanctions by authority can be seen as potentially violating the liberty of an individual. The beneficial use of isolations can be associated with John Stuart Mill’s liberal idea of the ‘harm principle’. The concept of the state’s limited interference with society’s affairs is praised unless someone infringes an individual’s rights or liberty through conduct causing harm. This situation can be paralleled to an educational setting as students are isolated when they cause harm or disruption upon students. Generally, teachers are encouraged to use disciplinary sanctions by the state due to legislation promulgated such as the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which reinforces the notion of an agentic state.
Another plausible argument is that contemporary disciplinary sanctions, such as short detentions or phone calls home to parents, are the most benign methods. These ensure that students uphold fear; helping to achieve complete obedience towards authority figures. Arguably, this establishes the development of an ‘authoritarian personality’ ensuring absolute obedience and respect towards authority figures. Teachers should be allowed to use disciplinary sanctions such as detentions and phone calls home to alter students’ behaviour and ensure a mutual relationship of respect is established- informal contract between student and teacher. Informal contract referring to a mutual agreement in relation to behaviours displayed by student in an educational setting.
However other contemporary disciplinary sanctions utilised -restricted lunch- can be perceived as upholding an increasingly malign nature. This is due to the liberty of students being undermined in relation to individual rights. Teachers overlook individual rights and focus on the collective rights of students. Placing a child in isolation not only diminishes their right to education due to time wasted, but also can result in emotional consequences due to lack of social contact. Arguably, teachers could disregard this account and focus on the collective rights due to the student placed in isolation constantly disrupting education of all students collectively.
Considering both sides of the argument, it is more plausible to argue that teachers should have the privilege of choosing the type of disciplinary sanctions imposed upon students. However, there should be a clear regulation between the level of liberty that is diminished in the sanctions used. Corporal punishment is no longer used, but there are other contemporary disciplinary methods utilised which can be considered as ‘malign’, due to infringing upon students’ liberty. There is non-statutory advice allowing authorities to put children in isolation, in addition to a promulgated that concludes isolation as a moral act. Hence, teachers should be allowed to use disciplinary sanctions that do not completely infringe personal liberty such as short detentions or phone calls home.