By Ogunniran Temitope
There was a time when a parent received a report that his or her child had been disciplined at school, and the first question was not, “What did the teacher do to my child?” but, “What did my child do?”
That simple question reflected something much deeper than parenting style. It reflected a culture.
A culture in which children were taught that adults were to be respected, rules were to be obeyed, wrongdoing had consequences, and correction was not necessarily an act of hatred. A culture in which parents understood that the school was not an enemy camp and the teacher was not a rival to the parent.
Today, that understanding appears to be changing.
Increasingly, we hear of parents storming school premises because their children were disciplined for violating school rules. A child brings a mobile phone or another prohibited gadget to school, and when the school confiscates it or imposes a sanction, the parent arrives to demand an explanation. A student keeps an unacceptable hairstyle or haircut, wears a uniform that is too tight, too short or otherwise contrary to school regulations, and the parent challenges the school for enforcing its standards.
A child refuses to complete an assignment, has incomplete notes, disobeys instructions or repeatedly violates school rules, and suddenly the conversation becomes about how the school has supposedly treated the child unfairly.
The question we must ask ourselves is: At what point did correcting a child’s wrongdoing become an offence against the parent?
More troubling is the direction this trend appears to be taking. What was once a parent confronting a teacher over the discipline of his or her child has, in some cases, escalated into parents confronting — and even physically attacking — other students whom they believe have wronged or offended their children.
That is a dangerous line to cross.
Recent reports surrounding an incident at Lagos State University have once again brought this disturbing issue into public consciousness. Whatever the specific circumstances of an individual incident may be, the larger question it raises deserves serious national reflection: What happens to a society when adults begin to settle children’s conflicts with their own hands?
Parents have a legitimate responsibility to protect their children. But what many have failed to realise is that advocacy is not the same as blind defence. True parental protection does not mean rushing to shield a child from every consequence of his or her actions. Sometimes, the best way to protect a child is to allow that child to face correction, accept responsibility and learn from wrongdoing. A parent who defends a child even when that child is clearly wrong may be protecting the child from a moment of discomfort, but ultimately exposing him or her to a lifetime of irresponsibility.
No responsible person should argue that a child should be subjected to abuse, humiliation, unlawful punishment or violence in the name of discipline. Schools must be accountable. Teachers must act professionally. Discipline must have boundaries. Children have rights, and those rights must be respected.
But protecting a child from injustice is fundamentally different from protecting a child from the consequences of wrongdoing.
A parent who hears that his child has been punished should be interested in knowing what happened. But the investigation should begin with the child.
“What did you do?”
Not:
“Who touched my child?”
Not:
“How dare a teacher punish my child?”
And certainly not:
“Which student did this to my child? I will deal with him myself.”
The first response teaches accountability. The second teaches entitlement.
When parents automatically assume that their children are innocent, regardless of the evidence, they may unknowingly raise children who believe that rules are for other people and consequences can always be negotiated away.
That is not protection. It is preparation for a difficult adulthood.
There is an uncomfortable truth that we need to confront: a child can be loved and still be wrong.
A child can be intelligent and still be dishonest.
A child can be talented and still be disrespectful.
A child can be precious to his or her parents and still break the rules.
A child can be bullied and, on another occasion, bully someone else.
A child can be a victim in one situation and the offender in another.
Good parenting requires us to hold these truths simultaneously.
Unfortunately, some parents have become so emotionally invested in protecting their children from discomfort that they have forgotten that correction is one of the greatest forms of protection.
A child who is never corrected at home may eventually encounter correction in the workplace, in marriage, in society or before the law; where the consequences can be much more severe.
If a student is disciplined for bringing a prohibited gadget to school, the lesson should be about respecting institutional rules.
If a student is sanctioned for an unacceptable haircut, the lesson may be about conformity to agreed standards within a particular institution.
If a child is punished for wearing an improper uniform, the lesson is about discipline and respect for regulations.
If an assignment is not completed or notes are consistently left unfinished, the lesson is about responsibility and diligence.
Parents may disagree with the severity or method of a punishment, and they have every right to raise such concerns through appropriate channels. But there is a difference between saying, “I believe the punishment was excessive; let us discuss it,” and saying, “Nobody is allowed to discipline my child.”
The first is responsible advocacy.
The second can become a recipe for indiscipline.
Traditional African societies understood something that modern society sometimes forgets: a child did not belong exclusively to his or her parents.
The old saying that it takes a village to raise a child was not merely a poetic expression. It represented a social philosophy.
A child could be corrected by a parent, grandparent, neighbour, elder, teacher or another responsible adult. The correction was understood as part of the collective responsibility to produce a morally upright human being.
The village did not necessarily see correction as an insult to the child’s parents.
If a child misbehaved outside the home, the community could intervene. The parent might even thank the person who brought the matter to his or her attention.
There was an understanding that character was more important than ego.
Today, however, we sometimes seem to have replaced “How can we correct this child?” with “How dare you correct my child?”
We have turned parental love into a shield against accountability.
And when every adult who attempts to correct a child is perceived as an enemy, the community gradually loses its ability to raise children collectively.
What are we teaching the Next Generation?
Children are watching us.
They observe how parents respond when they are corrected. They learn from the arguments their parents have with teachers. They hear when parents threaten school authorities. They see when an adult attacks another person because of a quarrel involving them and they draw conclusions.
If a child learns that his parent will always come running whenever he breaks a rule, why should he fear breaking rules?
If a child knows that his parents will challenge every teacher who disciplines him, why should he respect the teacher?
If a student learns that a parent can confront or physically attack a classmate on his behalf, what lesson has been learned about conflict resolution?
We should not be surprised when the child eventually carries that mentality into adulthood.
A society cannot continually produce adults who believe that every disagreement must be settled through intimidation, influence or violence when those same adults were never taught how to accept correction or responsibility as children.
Schools also have a responsibility. This conversation must not become an excuse for schools to act without accountability. Schools must examine their own disciplinary practices.
There is a distinction between discipline and abuse.
There is a distinction between correction and humiliation.
There is a distinction between reasonable consequences and excessive punishment.
Teachers should never use discipline as an opportunity to vent anger, settle personal scores or degrade students. School authorities must establish clear rules, communicate them to parents and students, apply them consistently and provide appropriate channels for complaints and appeals.
Parents should be able to ask questions.
They should be able to challenge decisions.
They should be able to demand accountability.
But they should do so through dialogue, school management, governing bodies and established procedures — not through threats, intimidation or violence.
The same standard must apply to everyone. We Must Restore the Meaning of Responsibility. Perhaps what we need most urgently is not another argument about whether parents are too protective or teachers are too strict.
Perhaps we need to recover the meaning of responsibility. Parents are responsible for raising children.
Teachers are responsible for educating and guiding them.
Schools are responsible for maintaining safe and orderly environments.
Communities are responsible for preserving moral standards.
And children themselves must gradually be taught to take responsibility for their actions.
A child should not grow up believing that someone else will always rescue him from the consequences of his choices.
We cannot build a responsible society by raising irresponsible children.And we cannot raise responsible children by teaching them that they are above correction.
The greatest duty of a parent is not to make a child comfortable at all times. It is to prepare that child for life.
Life will not always excuse bad behaviour.
Life will not always accept incomplete work.
Life will not always overlook lateness, disrespect, dishonesty or irresponsibility.
There will be employers who demand discipline. There will be institutions with rules. There will be relationships that require accountability. There will be authorities whose decisions cannot simply be overturned because someone’s parents are angry.
A wise parent therefore does not ask only, “How do I protect my child?”
The wiser question is:
“How do I raise a child who will not need to be protected from the consequences of his own wrongdoing?”
That is a very different kind of parenting.
Our children need advocates, but they also need boundaries.
They need love, but they also need discipline.
They need protection, but they also need accountability.
Perhaps the next time a child comes home complaining that a teacher disciplined him, the parent should pause before picking up the phone or driving to the school.
Sit the child down.
Listen.
Ask questions.
Because if we truly want a better society, we must stop raising children who believe that being loved means being exempt from correction.
Love without accountability produces entitlement.
Discipline without love produces resentment.
But love combined with discipline produces character.
And character, more than academic certificates, material possessions or social connections, is what ultimately determines the kind of society we leave behind.
