Every teacher’s dilemma in this day and age

The school year has started in the public schools and in some private schools nationwide. As teachers prepare for the coming of the students, many are perplexed with the existing laws that make “disciplining” the students in school a challenge.

Very recently in a lecture on the Child Protection Policy of the Department of Education, Dean Ulan P. Sarmiento III of the San Beda College Alabang School of Law cautioned teachers on the “dos and don’ts” in the exercise of special parental authority over minor pupils. The bottom line is – the law requires so much from teachers in caring and disciplining pupils while under their custody, but restricts them with too little tools in the performance of this obligation.

It is indeed a gargantuan challenge to deal with our children belonging to Generation Z or i Generation (born mid90s to around 2012). These are children of Millennials (late 70s to early 90s) and the Generation X (60s – 70s). These children play computers, Ipads, Iphones and other electronic gadgets at a very young age. They access the internet daily, confine themselves in their rooms, listen to pop and indie music, and are digital and techie in so many ways.

Decades ago, our parents would get mad at us if we tell them we were scolded by our teachers in front of the class for failing to pass a homework. They would not mind if we were shouted at and hit with a chalk or eraser for not listening; smacked on the hand with a ruler for uncut and dirty fingernails; asked to stand in the corner of the room for being noisy; etc. These were part of growing up and most of us may claim that we were more disciplined during our time.

Times have changed and the difficulty of adapting to the generational shift in permissible disciplinary methods often leads to administrative complaints or even court cases against teachers for even the very mundane reasons. A teacher who angrily confronts a student for cheating or presses a forefinger on the head with the usual “ilagay mo yan sa kukote mo” comment, may be charged for child abuse on the allegation that the pupil suffered emotional or psychological injury. The most daunting challenge to a teacher now is not how to prepare a lesson plan, but how to effectively teach and discipline more “unruly” children, with passionately confrontational parents, and under very restrictive rules. Teachers may be tempted to see nothing and hear nothing just to be safe, but this is not possible because of their significant responsibility in the formation of students.

The Family Code mandates the school, its administrators and teachers to “have special parental authority and responsibility over the minor child while under their supervision, instruction or custody”, and that they “shall be principally and solidarily liable for damages caused by the acts or omissions of the unemancipated minor.” Thus, if a pupil stabs another pupil with a pencil while in class, or even outside the campus but in a school-related activity, the teacher, subject to the defense of due diligence in the supervision of the child, shall be principally liable, while the parents, judicial guardians or the persons exercising substitute parental authority over said minor are only subsidiarily liable.

While parents have more leeway in imposing discipline over a child under their parental authority, a different standard applies to a teacher exercising special parental authority. The Family Code categorically prohibits teachers from resorting to any form of corporal punishment or infliction of physical pain to discipline their students. In view of alarming statistics on occurrence of physical, verbal and sexual abuse and violence in schools, the Department of Education issued Order No. 40, Series of 2012 (Child Protection Policy), which listed the following prohibited acts: Psychological or physical abuse; Violence; Exploitation; Discrimination; Corporal Punishment; Bullying; and other forms of abuse. This is a cause for concern to teachers, and therefore a must for them to understand, is the vast expansion of the concept of corporal punishment to include all kinds of imaginable pains and emotional setbacks.

Corporal punishment is no longer limited to the usual whipping, beating, kicking, hitting, slapping, or lashing, tweaking the ear, pulling hair, shaking, twisting joints, cutting or piercing skin, dragging, or pushing. It also includes holding weights for an extended period and kneeling on stones and the like; depriving a child of his physical needs; exposing a child to discomfort including sunlight, excrement or urine; tying up a child or locking him inside a room or closet; verbal abuse or assaults, including intimidation or threat of bodily harm, swearing or cursing, ridiculing or denigrating the child; forcing a child to swear a sign, to undress or disrobe, or put on anything that will make a child look or feel foolish, which belittles or humiliates the child in front of others; permanent confiscation of personal property of pupils, students or learners, except when such pieces of property pose a danger to the child or to others; and other analogous acts.

Requiring the child to perform a task like cleaning the restroom may be considered child exploitation. Any act or omission causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering to a child is psychological violence. I am wondering if these covers giving too much homework as well?

What should teachers do then to mold their students into responsible and law-abiding citizens? Maybe do nothing and just pray for a miracle? It is literally a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation. Understandably, teachers would also clamor for a “Teacher Protection Policy” from the government. Yet, it is just a matter of perspective.

The Department of Education prescribes the art of “Positive Discipline” as a better and more effective alternative. I therefore enjoin all teachers to download from the internet the material entitled, Positive Discipline In Everyday Teaching: A Primer for Filipino Teachers jointly published in November 2015 by the Department of Education, E-Net Philippines, and Save the Children. It provides that “Positive discipline is about finding long term solutions that develop students’ own self-discipline; Clear and consistent communication; Consistent reinforcement of your expectations, rules and limits; Teaching courtesy, non-violence, empathy, self-respect, and respect for others and their rights; and Increasing students’ competence and confidence to handle academic challenges and difficult situations; etc.”

In its totality, positive discipline would require a teacher to have the skills of a guidance counselor, the understanding of a psychologist, and the patience of a catechist. A teacher should remain healthy and problem-free so that there will be no stress in class. A teacher must manage his anger to the very minimum or must learn the art of smiling regardless of his emotions. Can this be achieved? Why not? But it is indeed a very challenging task. I hope this becomes part of the training program every teacher undergoes in Teacher Education Institutions (TEIs).

I am glad that the Department of Education came up with the Child Protection Policy. But I think its high time for Secretary Briones and her team to revisit it. Lest, educators give up or get discouraged with the support DepEd is giving them nowadays. Clearly, there are areas in the policy that have weakened the ability of schools to educate and discipline students.

Times have changed. A recalibration of the students’ and teachers’ rights must be done immediately. We definitely need to strike a balance between the educator and the student, in order to produce better Filipino citizens for the country’s future.