In Brief
- he Core Argument: Attorney Denelle Singh argues that while disruptive students deserve intervention and support, this cannot come at the expense of the safety of their classmates and teachers.
- Parental Responsibility: Singh backs the Prime Minister’s recent call for parents to take greater responsibility for their children’s behaviour, arguing that accountability at home is essential to school discipline.
- Proposed Solutions: The piece suggests measures such as mandatory parental conferences, parenting programmes and behavioural plans, with escalation for parents who refuse to cooperate.
- The Central Question: Singh warns that Trinidad and Tobago cannot afford to wait for another tragedy before addressing the balance between children’s rights and classroom safety.
By Denelle Singh
Imagine, as a parent, sending your child to school and trying to focus on your own work, only for your attention to keep drifting back to worry about whether your child is safe among his or her peers.
The Prime Minister recently called on parents to do better when it comes to their own children. She went a step further to remind the country of Jayden Lalchan, who took his own life because of constant bullying from another student.
There is an uncomfortable conversation that Trinidad and Tobago desperately needs to have: when did protecting a disruptive child become more important than protecting every other child in the classroom?
The recent debate over Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar S.C.’s statement on the treatment of persistently disruptive students has once again exposed the difficult reality confronting our education system. There is merit in ensuring that troubled children receive intervention, counselling and support. But intervention cannot come at the expense of the safety of everyone else. The rights of one child cannot be interpreted in a manner that effectively extinguishes the rights of twenty or thirty others.
Every child in Trinidad and Tobago—whether attending a so-called “prestige” school, a government secondary school, a denominational school, a primary school or a school in a community labelled “high risk”—has exactly the same right to enter that school compound and reasonably expect to return home safely.
The reality is that no child should have to calculate where to sit to avoid a bully, be afraid to use a bathroom, surrender lunch money, endure threats, tolerate assault or spend an entire school day looking over his or her shoulder. And parents should not have to send their children through a school gate wondering whether they will be beaten, bullied or terrorised before the afternoon bell rings.
This is where the conversation about children’s rights sometimes becomes dangerously one-sided. Yes, the disruptive child has rights, but so does the victim. The quiet child sitting at the back of the classroom has rights. The student being bullied has rights. The child who simply wants to learn has rights. The teacher trying to teach has a right to personal safety as well. Our education system cannot become so consumed with avoiding consequences for the aggressor that it inadvertently imposes consequences upon the innocent.
The Prime Minister’s insistence that parents must assume greater responsibility deserves serious support. Teachers are not substitute parents. Schools certainly have a responsibility to educate, guide and support children, and the State has an obligation to provide appropriate psychological, behavioural and social interventions. But the primary responsibility for teaching respect, boundaries, accountability and acceptable behaviour begins at home.
We have developed an unfortunate culture where, when a child repeatedly misbehaves, assaults another student or openly disrespects authority, everyone is examined except the parent. Yes, there are some children who come from broken homes or unfortunate circumstances, and they should be treated with appropriate sensitivity. But there are also parents who repeatedly refuse to engage, defend indefensible behaviour, attack teachers for disciplining their children and expect the school system to carry a responsibility that fundamentally belongs within the home.
Holding parents accountable is not about indiscriminately punishing mothers and fathers whenever a child makes a mistake. Children will make mistakes, and they will test boundaries. The focus must be on serious, violent, threatening or persistently disruptive behaviour, particularly where parents repeatedly refuse to cooperate with reasonable interventions. Accountability can therefore include mandatory parental conferences, parenting programmes, counselling, behavioural plans and other interventions, escalating where there is persistent refusal to engage. Responsibility without consequence eventually becomes nothing more than a suggestion.
Whose child are we prepared to sacrifice in order to avoid making difficult decisions about school discipline? We cannot wait until another bullying video circulates on social media. We cannot wait until another parent is crying in the media, begging for change. And we certainly should not wait until another tragedy forces the country to collectively ask why the warning signs were ignored.
Denelle Singh is an attorney-at-law with ten years’ experience practising in the area of family law, children’s law and civil litigation. She has specialised experience in the area of children’s law involving matters before the Court concerning children who have been removed from their parents’ care, and children in conflict with the law. She also practises before the Family Court in matters involving custody, access and domestic violence.
Disclaimer: This article is strictly for information and commentary purposes and does not constitute legal advice.
