Heaping blame on parents over rising indiscipline in schools is wrong

Parents inspect a dormitory that was set on fire at Magereza Academy in Naivasha. [Antony Gitonga, Standard]

Public anger has been directed at fathers and mothers for the unrest that has gripped secondary schools. The attack on parents is basically an attack on the family unit—the smallest unit of social organisation children are born into and grow.

The media quoted policy and opinion leaders saying that the parents had abdicated their duty to mould their children. Student indiscipline and unrest in schools was evidence of this abdication. The criticism was not entirely misplaced.

It is in the family that fundamental decisions about the education and training of children are made or not made. It is within this setting that children first learn their own individual identity, acquire language, and develop cognitive skills. It is here also that children are socialised into particular ways of thinking about morals, cultural values, and social roles. The family is in this context, the primary agent which socialises children into the folkways—the good and the bad—of the community.

It is a mistake, however, to entirely attribute students’ indiscipline and unrest to the parents or the family. The family is not the sole agent of socialisation of children or young people. Family is not the only structure or institution in the society which influences the behaviours, values, norms, and social skills of children.

Children step out of the family setting and enter into other institutions.

“While the development of a child’s character is not the sole responsibility of the school, historically and legally, schools have been and still remain major players in the shaping of the character of the child. Young people spend much of their lives within school walls. There they learn either by chance, or design, moral lessons about how people behave,” Kevin Ryan, director of the Centre for the Advancement of Ethics and Character, School of Education, Boston University says.

The family should not therefore be wholly blamed for the increasingly brazen and destructive behaviours students are exhibiting.

Student indiscipline has dominated secondary schools that admit some of the best minds from primary and junior school. We expect these students to be more motivated and focused to learn. But they disrupted normal school routines and were sent home.

It is easy to cite overcrowding and delayed disbursement of capitation or reduced capitation as possible causes for the student’s anger. Congestion can strain school infrastructure and cause discomfort.

It is very easy to clutch at the structural aspects of school reform as solely responsible for the unrest. But this doesn’t give us the whole picture behind the anarchy. There might be other issues—over and above structural issues—that are causing disorder in schools.

Are we communicating to the students why they are in school? What are the basic reasons for the 12 years of basic education? Are schools facilitating the attainment of these reasons by the students? Do the reasons resonate with the students to a level where they can summon their tenacity and persistence to the very end? Does school make sense to them? Does it give them meaning to learn?

This is because meaning is key to understanding and acting on expected behaviour.

“Without meaning, learning has no purpose. Without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention,” American educator Neil Postman says in his book, The end of education: Redefining the value of school.

The reasons why schools exist in society are not self-evident to students. Appealing to good performance, the promises of university education and a good job, even a STEM job may not appeal to the students. Who said that they desire university education? Who said they want to be at the top of the class or the nation in the national examinations? Who said that they are dying to qualify for university education?

These things may not appeal to the children whose parents are rich, powerful and influential in the society.

We must redefine what life is to the students and then help them see the connection of education to this purpose. In other words, it is not enough to teach content—although the content is critical—schools must connect these things to the personal lives of the students.

What students learn must be relevant to their personal lives, and not connected to some far-off  reward: Straight “A” in KCSE, competitive course in a university or a lucrative career.

This year’s student unrest should provide an opportunity to study the problem and address it once and for all.