HOLDING STUDENTS RESPONSIBLE

Basic ethics of human development require that we desist from taking the path of least resistance in addressing human need. Students must be outfitted with the confidence that there is reliable equipment, accessible to them, to deal with the unkind realities of life... True education affects the heart more than the head.

While one must appreciate the volume of attention being given to the pressing issue of school violence, I am becoming increasingly worried over some features of the fight, well-intentioned as they may be. Even in dealing with the matter of empirical research, a certain balance is necessary. A fairly recent local newspaper story carried the caption: “Violence in schools — students should not be held responsible.” The report dealt with a research piece which was the feature presentation at a seminar on school violence. Outlining certain problems which children encounter in the home — domestic violence, abandonment, step-parents and violent video games — “the expert on school violence” as the report described him, “insisted” that students “should not be held responsible for their violent behaviour in schools.” In reading his work, I don’t think much difficulty would have been confronted in one’s attempt to discern the passionate concerns of the expert. His theories and conclusions as they pertain to (possible) causation, as well as the correlation aspect in his action research, did provide some interesting light. I however continue to experience a nagging uneasiness in my mind over the statement, “Students should not be held responsible for their violent behaviour in schools.”

My understanding (and professional training) as a counsellor, pastor, teacher, administrator and parent has always guided me to believe that even in circumstances as described by the expert, it is absolutely imperative for students/teens who are involved in negative, aggressive or anti-social behaviour, to be clearly informed that, primarily, they will be held responsible for their conduct. Basically, the consequences of their action will also be their burden. Such awareness, apart from being based on reality, is more likely to inspire attitude adjustment and responsible behaviour.

I would be among the first to agree that the ills enumerated by the expert, must be regarded with utmost seriousness, as being key contributors to the very troubling malady in our schools. However, care must be taken to ensure that these are not used as materials to furnish the students with excuses for their violations. It could be tantamount to arming the student with carte blanche, in terms of unacceptable behaviour. The intelligent approach would be to inform and educate the affected students as to what’s happening with them emotionally and psychologically. Then, in a spirit of empathy and love, let them know that in life, pains, unkind people and circumstances, of various kinds, usually come with the
territory.

The child must however, be informed that he/she does not have to slavishly surrender to negative realities and emotions, and suicidal tendencies. The unkind challenges of life can be effectively conquered. This kind of character-development approach is necessary. Towards this end, students can be taught coping skills, self-management, anger management, problem-solving skills, basics in conflict resolution, and above all, moral and spiritual values. The importance of the spiritual in an effective education system cannot be over-emphasised. We see it in the immensely superior success rate at the denominational/church schools. True education affects the heart more than the head. The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart. This is one of the reasons that TM is not the answer. But more on this another time. Providing practical support systems and drawing the student’s attention to peers who are coping well with similar challenges, will also assist immensely. In many cases, there will be the need for providing assistance in the areas of self-esteem, affirmation and validation. Basic ethics of human development require that we desist from merely taking the path of least resistance in addressing the challenges of the individual.

Young people must be adequately outfitted with the confidence that there is very reliable equipment, fully accessible to them, to effectively deal with the unkind realities of life. They must be endued with the persuasion that they do not have to helplessly allow themselves to be a victim of unpleasant, or even callous, circumstances. They should be enlightened to the fact that nature has wired them with the instinct to fight back and that trust in God empowers them to fight back according to the rules. For those students who may have already been on a prohibited route, we can assist them with professional guidance in vital areas such as “dehabituation,” “rehabituation,” “deculturing” and “reculturing.” In other words, we should make them aware that there is solid hope for behavioural changes and adjustments, and a new beginning is very possible and attainable.

It would be deceptive, and indeed dangerous, for school students, in those critical formative years, to go  away with the idea that life — in the real world — caters for them to be perpetrators of criminal activity, egregious or otherwise, and then find refuge before the courts, by resorting to scapegoating gimmicks such as blaming things like family dysfunctions or similar kinds of social ills. In dealing with the challenges of youth, whether they relate to school violence or otherwise, my preferred approach leans towards the strengths theory, rather than the constraints concept. “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me.” Phil 4:13