The American education system is witnessing a revolution. An increasing number of teachers and institutions are abandoning traditional and antiquated techniques in favor of evidence-based approaches that have been shown to facilitate the wellbeing of learners. In the past, teachers were quick to resort to such punishments as suspensions and expulsions that were imposed on students who cause trouble. After it was determined that these approaches were ineffective and potentially harmful, teachers and schools have moved towards new techniques which focus on helping students to control their behavior. In her essay, Katherine Reynolds Lewis (2015) underscores the tremendous impact that the new techniques continue to have on learning. Lewis’ assertion that teachers are frustrating sustained student development as they pursue temporary gains and immediate peace is well-founded and accurately reflects the situation in American classrooms.
Before discussing Lewis’ arguments, I feel the need to begin with an outline of my personal perspectives. I agree with Lewis that teachers need to focus their efforts and attention away from controlling students. Instead, they should be driven by a desire to lead students to control their own behavior. I think that this approach is far more sustainable and leads to better outcomes. I have had some experience with teachers with difficult students in their classes. These teachers described grappling with agony as they endeavored to change the behavior of these students. Their efforts were futile as they did not result in sustained improvements in the behavior. It is true that initially, the students complied with instructions because they feared punishment. However, over time, the interventions that the teachers implemented lost their effectiveness. One of the teachers described a student who was being held in a juvenile detention center for involvement in burglaries. The case of this student highlights the ineffectiveness of overly harsh penalties. I remain convinced that compassion and understanding hold the key to creating classrooms where discipline thrives.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In her essay, Lewis identifies three outcomes that teachers should strive to achieve in their students. These are autonomy, an ability to relate to others and the sense that students are competent. In outlining these outcomes, Lewis argues that the harsh penalties that teachers impose hamper their ability to deliver these outcomes. For example, such punishments as suspensions and expulsions are designed to enable teachers to control student behavior. By assuming control of the actions of their students, teachers essentially violate their freedom and independence. Lewis asserts that instead of seeking to control students, teachers should adopt approaches that place students in charge of their own behavior. Furthermore, the penalties that schools implement could leave students feeling incompetent. Essentially, when they attempt to control student behavior, schools are basically saying that their students are incapable to controlling their own behavior. In addition to diminishing student competence, these punishments also needlessly burden school with the responsibility of ensuring that students conduct themselves as required. As Lewis asserts, unfairly harsh punishments also make it difficult for students to engage with their peers. For productive, warm and healthy interactions to occur, students should be in control of their own behavior. Since the punishments rob students on the power to control their behavior, they essentially create an environment where fruitful engagements among students can flourish. In summary, Lewis’ essay lays out the serious damage that the consequence-based punishments that schools adopted can have on students.
As I have stated in the section on my personal experiences, I fully support Lewis’ arguments. I believe that certain punishments can have disastrous consequences. Instead of helping learners to leverage their wisdom and competence to behave properly, these punishments assign teachers the role of keeping their students in check. The arguments that Lewis raises in her article find support in literature authored by other scholars. For example, in his text, Cooper (2010) cautions that while punishments may result in some short-term gains, in many cases, they strip students of their autonomy and may lead the student to developing negative attitudes regarding school. Cooper is not alone in recognizing the potential for damage that punishments carry. Such other scholars as Moyo, Khewu and Bayaga (2014) also acknowledge the importance of using techniques which promote autonomy and help students to develop a sense of accountability and personal responsibility. Zainuddin and Perera (2017) also agree that teachers should focus on building autonomy and competence while challenging students to relate properly with others. There is no doubt that Lewis is part of a large group of scholars who are convinced that punishments mostly yield adverse outcomes in students.
So as to achieve a balanced discussion, it is necessary to consider the views of scholars who disagree with Lewis. Gebrezgabiher et al. (2017) are among the scholars who have acknowledged that there is some benefit that is derived from the use of harsh techniques to modify student behavior. In their article, they make it clear that they are vehemently opposed to the use of such punishments as those that involve violence. However, they share the views of some teachers who believe that the punishments are necessary to promote good behavior. It is true that Gebrezgabiher and his colleagues do not endorse punishment. They simply indicate that it can have positive effects. One should note that an overwhelming majority of scholars and researchers share Lewis’ view that punishment undermines the autonomy and competence of students.
In closing, the use of punishment in schools remains a contentious subject. On the one hand, there are individuals like Lewis who insist that punishments have a negative effect on the learning process and the development of children. On the other hand are those who feel that punishments are needed so as to promote positive behavior among learners. It is clear that those in the former camp make a more compelling case. As Lewis makes clear in her essay, punishments rob students of their autonomy and frustrate their efforts to engage with their peers. There is indeed a need for schools to move away from traditional punishments and embrace techniques which recognize student autonomy.
References
Cooper, J. M. (2010). Classroom teaching skills. Boston: Cengage.
Gebrezgabiher, G. G., & Hailu, G. K. (2017). Corporal punishment in children in school: a critical literature review. International Journal of Advancements in Research & Technology, 6 (5), 72-87.
Lewis, K. R. (2016). What if everything you knew about disciplining kids was wrong? Mother Jones. Retrieved March 9, 2019 from https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/schools-behavior-discipline-collaborative-proactive-solutions-ross-greene/
Moyo, G., Khewu, N. P. D., & Bayaga, A. (2014). Disciplinary practices in schools and principles of alternatives to corporal punishment strategies. South African Journal of Education, 34 (1), 1-14.
Zainuddin, Z., & Perera, C. J. (2017). Exploring students’ competence, autonomy and relatedness in the flipped classroom pedagogical model. Journal of Further and Higher Education, 43 (1), 115-126.
