Teachers should be caregivers, not bullies

The debacle on caning in our schools has featured in the news in the recent past and shows that we have a chronic problem.

Some of the macabre stories we have heard put some teachers in the dock and paint them as bullies. Do not get me wrong; most teachers out there are professionals, doing their best to support learners’ dreams.

The debate on the use of the cane in schools brings out the stark contrast between the reality on the ground and some of the recommended approaches to deter misbehaviour among students, as taught during teacher training.

Teachers are supposed to be warm in their custodial role. So, why are some teachers such bullies? Ordinarily, bullies are persons whose inadequacies stem from their feelings of low self-worth.

Several paradigms are used to justify caning. The traditional view invokes personal experiences, that “we were caned and we succeeded”.

In this case, learners are subdued to any authority. Those inclined to the biblical view support the cane without considering other forms of discipline.

Caning diminishes the confidence of learners as it instils fear. In addition, research has shown that caned children, or children whose caregivers are authoritarian, tend to withdraw from most contexts of engagement, including participation in class. This detracts their learning opportunities in the short term.

Ultimately, children could learn that violence is an acceptable form of retribution, even becoming bullies themselves.

This is dangerous for a civilised society that ought to nurture the principles of negotiation, respect, and justice that engender mentally healthy citizens.

Children have rights. The United Nations successfully lobbied nations, including Kenya, to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child during its General Assembly in 1989.

Through articles 19 and 54, the convention provides a framework to safeguard the holistic welfare of children.

GOOD LEARNING ENVIRONMENT
Both provide a basis for governments to address child rights and to protect them from violence, abuse, and neglect by their caretakers.

Kenya has also enacted child-friendly laws. Further, Unicef came up with the concept of child-friendly schools, which is a model to re-engineer child safety.

Unequivocally, in all of these frameworks, teachers are legal agents of children’s rights. Therefore, they stand accused when they fail to maintain child-friendly schools or implement the rights of the child.

The Teachers Service Commission is clear about registering all qualified teachers before they are allowed to practise as a safeguard against unprofessionalism.

By punishing the teachers who violate learners, violence in schools will be eliminated. Teachers’ terms and conditions of work should be improved to shield teachers from excessive stress.

Further, Kenyans should be persuaded to accept counselling to improve their mental health as a service for normal development as opposed to the prevalent misconception that such treatment is only for the mentally unstable or those facing life-threatening illnesses.

Continued professional training and periodic review of teachers ought to be foundational to continued certification, contrary to the current one-off registration.

Ultimately, if schools can be made safer through performance contracting, then no doubt this should be supported by all those who mean well for Kenya’s future generations.

Finally, teaching should be reserved for individuals who genuinely care for the wellbeing of learners.

The writer is an associate professor of educational psychology and director, Institute of Open Distance Learning, Moi University. [email protected].