THBT parents THBT parents should be held responsible for their school going children's discipline discipline problems. OPPOSITION TEA !eput" #eader of the Opposition Speech $. %uasi&delicts ci(il la) *. !iscipline in school is different from discipline of parents +. People are mold through the societ",s influences not -ust through their parents. . /e propose re)ard s"stem than punishment The school are responsible for the acts and safet" of the school&going children. Article *$01 of the Ne) 2i(il 2ode pro(ides that teachers or heads of establishments of arts and trades shall be liable for damages cause b" b " their pupils and students or apprentices so long as the" remain in their the ir custod". .
This House believes that parents should not be held responsible for their schoolgoing children’s discipline problems We all know that every parent wants their children to be happy, respectful, respected by others, and able to find their place in the world as well-behaved adults. Nobody wants to be accused of raising a spoiled brat. nd that can be only done through discipline. Through discipline a parent can state what or what not to do or what is acceptable and what is not. !asically it is a restriction, teaching a child to abide "rules# impose his or her parents. This discipline involves punishment and rewards, both have a presumption of a positive result. !ut let us face the fact that it is not correct in many reasons that discipline primarily rests with parents. $iscipline rests not only through parents, it also rests with the school, relatives, church, and generally through the society. child is molded into someone he or she is, not through what his parents taught him but by the society. parent passing on to hi child the specific set of values and beliefs that should be complied with will %ust make a child more likely to misbehave or rebel due to the fact that his acts, language, everything about him will be mandated by his parent’s rules. Hence, if that child is away from home, the child will most likely feel free and do things what he cannot do when his parents are not around. &nlike if he is discipline by partly by his parent, school, church, relatives the child will think, speak, and behave more rationally because no one restricted him to do so. The child will tend to be more open-minded, and through that he can be a well-behaved adult someday. gain, this House believes that parents should not be held responsible for their school-going children’s discipline.
1) The philosophy underling the proposition is one in which the child is not solely responsible for his or her own behaviour. Even if the threats of parental punishment and involvement are successful in the short term in modifying a child’s behaviour, the long term sequlae is that the child’s good behaviour is predicated not on an understanding of the consequence of their behaviour and a consideration of their own long term interests, but merely out of fear and external consequences. n the long run, instilling this message is li!ely to lead to future misbehaviour as the external punishments, in this case imposed on the parents, fall away. "nce the child reaches an age at which the parents cannot be punished or the child does not care about parental punishment, building an ethic around such external consequences will fail to deter the child from misbehaviour. #$ee argument %) &) There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is simply un'ust. The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane individual is fully responsible for his or her actions. "ne can always point to dysfunctional families or other in(uences that may have had an eect on an individual’s actions, but the level of in(uence is impossible to quantify. Therefore, any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched proportionally to actions ta!en by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the principle of proportional punishment. *s a result, any 'ust system of punishment is bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not consistent with our principles. This argument functions best in the criminal 'ustice context, but applies in the school context as well. $chools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its e+cacy #which is disputed in the rst argument and later on) the policy should not be adopted. -) any children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as "ppositional /eant /isorder.012hile it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is 'ust as li!ely that in some of these households parents would crac! down violently #again, either emotionally or physically ) on their children. $uch actions by parental role models often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and in future generations. t is di+cult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong argument against its uniform adoption. %) * short argument, but a potentially powerful one. The assumption that children will not act out even more under such a regime in a bid to lash out at parents is
untenable. isbehaviour at school is often a rebellion against authority anyway, and the ultimate authority in most children’s lives is the parents. Therefore, as acting out against both of these institutions is consistent with the misbehaving mind set, it follows that tying school misbehaviour to parental detriments is unli!ely to aect the child and may even serve to encourage their bad deeds.
