Discipline is thought of as a natural part of the school environment. Most often it is defined as a set of rules about what is acceptable and what is unacceptable behaviour written by those in authority for those who are not. Even more often, there are a large subset of these rules which are unspoken, unwritten, ambiguous or ill-defined. This latter set, when obeyed leads to what is called 'samajh' (Hindi for understanding). Samajh is defined within the social norms that are relevant to the society in question at that point in time, especially with regard to childhood.
For example, while debate is sanctioned in a classroom, disagreeing with a teacher's judgement, however politely, is considered irreverent or at best, forgiven as being childish. This can be confusing because the same thinking skills encouraged in the first instance are rebuked in the second. While students are may be encouraged to work independently without supervision, become so absorbed in their work that they do not give into distractions; they are considered disrespectful if they do not simultaneously greet every teacher who walks by and not be irritated when a teacher someone older interrupts them for assistance.
Even though the rules, both clear and unclear are communicated to children, the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether behaviour is acceptable or not is placed with a supervisor.
The message to the child is clear. There will always be two sides. One of them is you. The other has control and authority. Your job is to make sure that you do as you are told. Thus, you are never completely responsible for your own actions. Someone else is accountable for your actions and thus for your being responsible or irresponsible.
It can get worse. The message can get extended to mean that if the child gets into trouble, so does his monitor. It is in the nature of a hierarchy. Thus the monitor's motivation to keep the child out of trouble is mainly to keep himself out of trouble. So the monitor and the child can collude and neither can be responsible. What the system successfully avoids doing however, is nurturing a sense of responsibility in the participant ... unless of course he is elected monitor. Thus, reinforcing the idea that hierarchical chains of power are the only the way to avoid anarchy and chaos.
There are simple, long term solutions that avoid or solve the above problems:
Let the rules be created by the participants. Make sure that the rules are not created by the loudest or eldest voice.Ensure that the participants feel the rules are needed. The litmus test is that every participant must stand to lose if the rules are broken. This is what will make self monitoring possible. Let the participants be self monitored. Create an tolerance for, and acceptance for and understanding of peer monitoring. Facilitate it so that it is clear this is not the same as ratting on each other or betrayal, but of each person having the right to protect their own rights, which get violated every time a rule is broken. Until an understanding develops, there could be anonymous ways of reporting the breaking of rules and a discussion of these transgressions in the public forum. Let the rules be clear. Allow time for the rules to be understood. If there is disagreement on what the rules should be, create a forum where every voice can be heard and appreciated. Wait for consensus before a rule is enforced. Consensus does not always mean that every one is ecstatic. It means that everyone agrees that what is decided is the best course of action for the time being and will support it wholeheartedly.Let the consequences for not following the rules be clear. Let them be created by the participants too. Further reading:http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030310/pf/030310-8_pf.html
For example, while debate is sanctioned in a classroom, disagreeing with a teacher's judgement, however politely, is considered irreverent or at best, forgiven as being childish. This can be confusing because the same thinking skills encouraged in the first instance are rebuked in the second. While students are may be encouraged to work independently without supervision, become so absorbed in their work that they do not give into distractions; they are considered disrespectful if they do not simultaneously greet every teacher who walks by and not be irritated when a teacher someone older interrupts them for assistance.
Even though the rules, both clear and unclear are communicated to children, the ultimate responsibility for deciding whether behaviour is acceptable or not is placed with a supervisor.
The message to the child is clear. There will always be two sides. One of them is you. The other has control and authority. Your job is to make sure that you do as you are told. Thus, you are never completely responsible for your own actions. Someone else is accountable for your actions and thus for your being responsible or irresponsible.
It can get worse. The message can get extended to mean that if the child gets into trouble, so does his monitor. It is in the nature of a hierarchy. Thus the monitor's motivation to keep the child out of trouble is mainly to keep himself out of trouble. So the monitor and the child can collude and neither can be responsible. What the system successfully avoids doing however, is nurturing a sense of responsibility in the participant ... unless of course he is elected monitor. Thus, reinforcing the idea that hierarchical chains of power are the only the way to avoid anarchy and chaos.
There are simple, long term solutions that avoid or solve the above problems:
Let the rules be created by the participants. Make sure that the rules are not created by the loudest or eldest voice.Ensure that the participants feel the rules are needed. The litmus test is that every participant must stand to lose if the rules are broken. This is what will make self monitoring possible. Let the participants be self monitored. Create an tolerance for, and acceptance for and understanding of peer monitoring. Facilitate it so that it is clear this is not the same as ratting on each other or betrayal, but of each person having the right to protect their own rights, which get violated every time a rule is broken. Until an understanding develops, there could be anonymous ways of reporting the breaking of rules and a discussion of these transgressions in the public forum. Let the rules be clear. Allow time for the rules to be understood. If there is disagreement on what the rules should be, create a forum where every voice can be heard and appreciated. Wait for consensus before a rule is enforced. Consensus does not always mean that every one is ecstatic. It means that everyone agrees that what is decided is the best course of action for the time being and will support it wholeheartedly.Let the consequences for not following the rules be clear. Let them be created by the participants too. Further reading:http://www.nature.com/news/2003/030310/pf/030310-8_pf.html
Comments