Many years ago, I attended an all-boys Catholic high school (of great academic distinction).
Behavior problems in the classroom and on campus were referred to the Prefect of Discipline (there were actually two of them). Upon "acting out" the student was told to report to the Prefect; the Prefect's office was always in operation, but most of their "work" was done after school in a dedicated classroom. Both Prefects were large men - one a football coach, and the other an ex-Marine drill sergeant.
The Prefect was told about the student's infraction and devised a punishment or assignment based on what the problem was. Corporal punishment was theoretically an option, but never actually occurred. OTOH, the students could be physically restrained (forced to sit quietly at a desk), which occasionally involved a tiny bit of violence. A fighting infraction was occasionally met with a "fighting" punishment - going at it with one of the prefects, with boxing gloves on. The results were not surprising.
Typical punishments might be, doing some janitorial work like cutting grass, policing litter from the common areas, or washing blackboards. An academic punishment might be doing problems from the current chapter in the subject where the infraction took place. You could not leave the detention room until the assignment was done and checked, and every problem was answered correctly. Sometimes detention was delayed for an hour or so, just to make it more inconvenient for the offending student (i.e., come back at four o'clock).
The inconvenience of detention, as it affected the student's transportation needs or participation in extracurricular activities was addressed with the general principle of, "Tough shit." Coaches were in agreement that a practice or game that was not attended due to detention were not excused. We were in high school, after all, and it was all on us.
If the Prefect was not able to address the problem adequately through these normal means, the next step was (a) in-school suspension - two or three days spent under the thumb of a Prefect, or (b) out-of-school suspension.
Of course, the bottom line - the ultimate punishment - was expulsion from school.
When speaking to teachers in today's schools, the lack of discipline is one problem that comes up regularly. If you don't think that the introduction of a Prefect of Discipline, as described above, would go a long way toward helping that situation, I invite you to ask yourself why not. On what rational basis do we shelter our Little Snowflakes from the normal and natural results of their mis-behavior? On what basis to we subject our non-offending students to the aggravation of having to sit in class with chronic disruptors? On what basis do we hamstring our teachers and force them to enforce minimally offensive behavior requirements that significantly detract from their Mission? Do you really think there is something in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits running schools with appropriate discipline?
Behavior problems in the classroom and on campus were referred to the Prefect of Discipline (there were actually two of them). Upon "acting out" the student was told to report to the Prefect; the Prefect's office was always in operation, but most of their "work" was done after school in a dedicated classroom. Both Prefects were large men - one a football coach, and the other an ex-Marine drill sergeant.
The Prefect was told about the student's infraction and devised a punishment or assignment based on what the problem was. Corporal punishment was theoretically an option, but never actually occurred. OTOH, the students could be physically restrained (forced to sit quietly at a desk), which occasionally involved a tiny bit of violence. A fighting infraction was occasionally met with a "fighting" punishment - going at it with one of the prefects, with boxing gloves on. The results were not surprising.
Typical punishments might be, doing some janitorial work like cutting grass, policing litter from the common areas, or washing blackboards. An academic punishment might be doing problems from the current chapter in the subject where the infraction took place. You could not leave the detention room until the assignment was done and checked, and every problem was answered correctly. Sometimes detention was delayed for an hour or so, just to make it more inconvenient for the offending student (i.e., come back at four o'clock).
The inconvenience of detention, as it affected the student's transportation needs or participation in extracurricular activities was addressed with the general principle of, "Tough shit." Coaches were in agreement that a practice or game that was not attended due to detention were not excused. We were in high school, after all, and it was all on us.
If the Prefect was not able to address the problem adequately through these normal means, the next step was (a) in-school suspension - two or three days spent under the thumb of a Prefect, or (b) out-of-school suspension.
Of course, the bottom line - the ultimate punishment - was expulsion from school.
When speaking to teachers in today's schools, the lack of discipline is one problem that comes up regularly. If you don't think that the introduction of a Prefect of Discipline, as described above, would go a long way toward helping that situation, I invite you to ask yourself why not. On what rational basis do we shelter our Little Snowflakes from the normal and natural results of their mis-behavior? On what basis to we subject our non-offending students to the aggravation of having to sit in class with chronic disruptors? On what basis do we hamstring our teachers and force them to enforce minimally offensive behavior requirements that significantly detract from their Mission? Do you really think there is something in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits running schools with appropriate discipline?
