Lately, I was made aware of two troubling instances where MPs
intervened in favour of defiant students. Briefly outlining the two
cases:
The first involved a student who has a history of defiance.
Throughout the year, she already accumulated numerous defiantce and
violent offenses but she finally crossed the line and assaulted a
female teacher, leaving marks on the teachers body. She was
punished and made to promise, together with her parents that she
would leave the school if she broke another rule. Less than a week
later, her friend and her cornered a younger girl and repeatedly
slapped her in full view of the school. After being caught, she
still threatened to beat that girl up after school. She was asked
to leave.
The next was a student who repeatedly played truant. Sometimes
disappearing for weeks. Even his parents did not know where he
went. When he was in school, he assaulted another student. For
exams, his teachers had to call him every morning to remind him but
still he missed half of his papers. Sent for counseling, he
defaulted all sessions but two. Finally, he was asked to
leave.
So what did they do? They went to see their MPs, who ruled in their
favour and wrote helpful letters on their behalves. What troubles
me is this:
1. Do the MPs know what kind of students they are helping?
Inevitably, when parents see the MP, they would not portray the
offences of their children in full detail. Isnt it prudent and
wise for MPs to check with the school first? I heard from friends
that in such cases, the schools were labeled as being
uncompassionate and the offenders as victims. The school was
neither consulted nor had its records on the students examined
before a decision was made in favour of the offender.
2. What does the MPs action imply?
Since the MPs do not check the background of the student with the
school before he/she dole out compassion, does it imply that the
MPs do not trust or give due credibility to the school? Dont they
realize that schools do not remove students without very good
reasons? By siding with these recalcitrant children, the MPs had
given these students a reason to be bolder because they know that
the school cant touch them because they have their MPs backing.
Does it sound far-fetch that children would see it that way? Those
who have any association with todays youths and parents know that
it not unlikely at all. A schools authority is severely undermined
when MPs try to intervene in its discipline decisions.
3. What about the welfare of the rest of the students?
These students, as mentioned posed a threat to the other students
who really want to learn. While I agree that compassion is an
ingredient of education, so is discipline. Compassion should be
extended to repentant students, not those who do not cherish their
opportunity to learn and those who posed a threat to other
students. Without discipline, a school cannot teach. It also could
not ensure the safety of its students. I wonder what would an MP do
if a parent would appeal to the MP to pressure a school to remove a
bully? Probably it would be shunted back to the school as an
internal matter.
Schools could try all they want to keep the discipline, ensure
learning and good upbringing but its efforts are defeated because
students and parents know they could bring a greater authority to
bear on the school to get their way.
Any reason why a parent would want to rein in his children's
behavior in school if he knows that the school can be
overruled?
What do you think will happen to our youths?
Would we go the way of Japan?
Thoughts and comments please.
