By Amado P. Macasaet
Little thought was given by the authors of the child abuse law that classroom teachers in public schools are substitute parents who help rear the pupil to be a responsible citizen.
Part of that obligation or duty is to discipline the child with the rod when necessary. It used to come in the form of a pinch on the ear, a light knock on the head or a light whip on the butt.
The law considers these disciplinary acts as abuse of the rights of the child.
I would not be brought to court for trying to discipline my little children with what the law describes as child abuse. The obligation of teachers to do the same in substitution of the parents should not be punishable either.
Values formation of children is largely influenced by what they see in their parents at home. Tender loving care should be the best way but this is usually accompanied by occasional — meaning when necessary — use of the rod or stick. As they always say, sparing the rod spoils the child.
If classroom teachers are to be considered as substitute parents, they must be assigned the duty of using the rod so child will not be a brat. That obligation —denied the teachers by the child abuse law — is as important as teaching the children to learn the three Rs, reading, writing and ‘rithmetic.
It is not uncommon for teachers to see one or two or some of their pupils with welts on their arms. Most of the time the welts inflicted by their parents for reasons intended to make the child understand they must grow up with a sense of responsibility to themselves, to their parents and to their God, not necessarily in that order.
Some children are beaten black and blue by their parents hooked on drugs. The state does not have the resources to watch over all of them. There are not enough social workers to do the job.
On whose shoulders does this duty fall? On the shoulders of the classroom teachers, who else! They are with the grade school children. They are with the young minds most parts of the day. When at home on vacation or on weekends, many parents do not find enough time to care for their children in the matter of disciplined behavior.
They are too busy trying to make little money to make both ends meet for their children.
It must be assumed that classroom teachers in public schools have as much desire to see their pupils grow up to be responsible citizens. Sparing the rod, so to speak, is not one of the ways. The law does not allow the rod.
Light corporal punishment, a pinch on the ear or a slight whip on the behind, will land the teachers in court for child abuse. The classroom teacher abandons the duty of value formation with the sparing use of the stick.
This might well be the reason some children become brats. The law falsely presumes that child abuse happens in the classroom. Even more wrong is the belief classroom teachers in public schools are capable of inflicting serious physical harm on their pupils.
Has anybody heard of a child beaten black and blue by their teachers and had to be brought to a medical clinic or to a physician? We have long known of parents who do the same but are not charged in court for physically abusing their children.
Child abuse is committed at home by parents, not by teachers in the classrooms.
The worst effect of the child abuse in relation to classroom teachers is the loss of respect for elders. The classroom is a state run by authorities. They punish wrong doers. They will tell me there should be due process before punishment is meted. Due process in classrooms is best left to the teacher’s judgment.
Maybe government authorities should make a comparison between those who went through public schools with teachers who had the authority to use the stick and the present situation where punishment is imposed on teachers who try to discipline pupils.
Tongue lashing, in place of the stick, is a more cruel way of punishing the child when he defies the rules of proper behavior.
Clearly in keeping with the times, the public school system has undergone remarkable changes that do not benefit the child.
In the old days, one of the more important subjects in the elementary schools was character and conduct. The subject has been kept with a Filipino name. How does a young mind develop character and conduct if his or her teacher is not allowed by law to do it with the sparing — only with necessary — use of the rod.
In the barrio school where I completed elementary education, the boys are taught industrial arts. The purpose, clearly, is to get the young minds to learn some trade when they grow up, marry and raise a family.
We also had gardening. Growing vegetables in small plots encouraged the children to love and care for plants as a means of survival for those who are in extreme want. Gardening is no longer a subject in elementary school education. The school buildings sit on a small space that does not leave room for the children to do gardening, but industrial arts can be taught in the classrooms or in a workshop.
Again in my time the girls had home economics as a major subject. It was deleted from the curriculum decades ago. The girls had to be taught proper housekeeping before they reached their teen years.
Not knowing much about home economics must be the reason poor families hire househelp even if they can hardly afford the costs.
In a manner of speaking, the present educational system in public elementary schools breeds laziness and disrespect for authority.
***
email:amadomacasaet@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment