Editorial: Discipline essential to education

Warwick May, the principal of Greenmeadows Intermediate, sees no reason to apologise for his school possessing the highest disciplinary rate in the Auckland region. Rightly so. If he wishes to justify his approach, he need point only to the changes that a regime of strict discipline has wrought. Five years ago the Manurewa school was losing students through violence and bullying. Today it is regarded throughout the community as a safe environment, its roll has grown and it boasts more teachers.

Parents rarely quibble with a school's attempt to impose high standards of behaviour. They know that anything less erodes their children's ability to learn, and to pass all-important exams. Pupils are also receptive to stricter standards, albeit somewhat reluctantly when they encompass the likes of uniform and personal appearance. Even the less academically inclined want to belong to, and take pride in, their school - especially if it is, in many ways, a surrogate parent.

Regrettably, the importance of this message is lost on some educationists. While no principal knowingly allows his school to be a place of ill-discipline, some are more assiduous about standards than others. Some, indeed, would squirm if their school had Greenmeadows' record of topping the region's stand-down list and possessing the sixth-highest rate of suspensions.

This helps to explain a Maxim Institute study that found three-quarters of parents rated lack of discipline their biggest concern about schools. Many felt that children were missing out because of classroom "chaos and disorder". The Minister of Education's response was to attack the messenger, labelling the institute "fundamentalist and right-wing". That was unbecoming, given the uniformity of response to the study. And unconstructive, given the difficulties confronting schools in discipline.

In many respects teachers today are expected also to be social workers. Many parents simply abrogate their responsibility for instilling moral and ethical values, and for imposing discipline. They seem not to care that teachers see children for only a relatively short time, and that such work is a considerable distraction from their main role. Or that instilling discipline has become a more vexed proposition since the demise of corporal punishment.

Today schools' preferred vehicles for punishment when counselling and such like fail are the stand-down, a temporary ban after which the student automatically returns to school, and suspension, the formal removal of a pupil until the board of trustees decides whether he or she can return. Neither is totally satisfactory.

Stand-downs are obviously favoured at Greenmeadows; Mr May says they are sometimes effective in delivering a short, sharp shock to parents. Suspension delivers an even sharper message. But for parents with little sense of responsibility, both can be of minor consequence. Other parents choose to see the school as confrontational, rather than take the opportunity to work with it to remedy the behavioural problem.

Whatever these imperfections, schools have few other tools. Detention can be an effective form of punishment for minor transgressions because it deprives pupils of free time. But its impact is usually short term, and it does not remove the disruptive student from the classroom. The overseeing teacher is also deprived of time. For serious misbehaviour, stand-downs and suspension are, effectively, the only practical options.

Parents have the right to expect their child's education will not be spoiled by bad classroom behaviour. Likewise, they have a responsibility to ensure their child is not a disruptive influence. When ill-discipline characterises a school, they should insist on higher standards. And provide backing that gives the principal confidence to orchestrate the best-possible learning environment.