Paradigms
The disciplinary paradigm that is present in most of America’s schools
is similar to the criminal justice system in this country. It is one of crime and
punishment with few attempts made at reform. The reasons that discipline is handled
in this fashion include expediency in the name of time and resources as well as questions
regarding the public schools role to serve en loco parentis. Unfortunately,
this system does not address the root of disciplinary problems. As such, the school
is doing a disservice to its students by not helping them to understand what they
did wrong and helping to set them back on the correct path.
Discipline in most American schools is simply a matter of stimulus and response.
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. For example, talking in
class might lead to a trip to the vice-principal, fighting might lead to an afternoon
in detention, and cheating on a test might lead to a one week suspension. Each of
these punishments is considered an appropriate way to deal with each respective transgression.
The question that must be asked is whether or not this is an effective means of dealing
with student transgressions.
There are two ways in which to answer the question of whether or not a traditional
disciplinary paradigm is an effective way to deal with student offenses. The first
way focuses on deterrence. Proponents of this view make the point that the specter
of punishment deters students from stepping out of line. They argue that when students
do step out of line, a strong punishment will insure that it will not happen again.
Most schools that employ a traditional disciplinary paradigm make use of a code of
conduct like the one at Norwell High School (www.ssec.org/Norwell/Code_of-Conduct.html)
These codes of conduct often times enumerate primary rules and the schools behavioral
philosophy. However, they do not explain the basis on which these rules were formulated.
Students are taught what they can and cannot do, but they are not taught why.
Another example of this paradigm is a bill (www.leg.state.fl.us/session/1996/senate/bills/billtext/html/billtext/sb2490.html)
passed in the Florida Senate in 1996. This bill explores at length the procedures
for dealing with disciplinary problems in Florida’s public schools. It is interesting
to note that no mention of reform is made in the entire text of the bill.
Opponents of this system argue that the traditional disciplinary paradigm is not
an effective means of dealing with student transgressions. Although punishment may
serve as a deterrent, it does not address the root of disciplinary problems. Likewise,
harsh punishments do nothing to reform students.
There is evidence to support this contention. By looking at the impact of education
in our correctional facilities (novel.nifl.gov/newworld/CORRECT.HTM)
it is possible to conclude that education is important in the reformation of criminals.
This can be generalized to public education. If children are morally educated, then
they are less likely to have disciplinary problems. When they do have discipline
problems, they are more likely to overcome those problems.
Proponents of character education adopt this second point of view. They see traditional
punishment centered discipline as problematic because it does little in the way of
reform. It is their contention that it is more important to solve the root of the
problem than it is to fight the symptom. In order to have true discipline, they argue,
children must be taught to be moral actors.