- Communication specialist Kennedy Buhere argues that while parents play a vital role in raising children, schools remain key institutions in shaping character, values and behaviour.
- He contends that student unrest cannot be blamed entirely on families and calls for a deeper examination of school environments and practices.
- The article urges education stakeholders to address structural, behavioural and motivational factors contributing to learner indiscipline.
Public opinion directed its fury at fathers and mothers for the unrest that gripped secondary schools during the second term.
The attack on parents was basically an attack on the family unit—the smallest unit of social organisation into which children are born and raised.
The media quoted policy and opinion leaders as saying that parents had abdicated their duty to mould their children. Student indiscipline and unrest in schools was cited as evidence of this abdication.
The criticism was not entirely misplaced.
It is in the family that fundamental decisions about the education and training of children are made—or not made. It is within this setting that children first learn their individual identity, acquire language and develop cognitive skills. It is here also that children are socialised into particular ways of thinking about morals, cultural values and social roles.
The family is, in this context, the primary agent that socialises children into the folkways—the good and the bad—of the community.
Schools as Agents of Socialisation
It is a mistake, however, to entirely attribute students’ indiscipline and unrest to parents or the family.
The family is not the sole agent of socialisation of children and young people. It is not the only structure or institution in society that influences behaviours, values, norms and social skills.
Children step out of the family setting and enter other institutions.
“While the development of a child’s character is not the sole responsibility of the school, historically and legally, schools have been and still remain major players in the shaping of the character of the child. Young people spend much of their lives within school walls. There they learn either by chance, or design, moral lessons about how people behave,” Kevin Ryan, Director of the Centre for the Advancement of Ethics and Character, School of Education, Boston University, says.
The family should not therefore be wholly blamed for the increasingly brazen and destructive behaviours students are exhibiting.
Student indiscipline dominated secondary schools that admit some of the best minds from Primary and Junior School, if we go by the placement examinations students sit in Class Eight and Grade Nine respectively.
We expect such students to be more motivated and focused on learning. Yet many disrupted normal school routines and were sent home.
It is easy to cite overcrowding, delayed capitation disbursement or reduced capitation as possible causes of student anger. Congestion can strain school infrastructure and cause discomfort.
It is equally easy to clutch at the structural aspects of school reform as solely responsible for the unrest. But this does not provide the whole picture behind the anarchy.
There might be other issues—over and above structural challenges—that are contributing to disorder in schools.
Does School Make Sense to Learners?
Are we communicating to students why they are in school?
What are the basic reasons for the 12 years of basic education?
Are schools facilitating the attainment of these reasons? Do those reasons resonate with students strongly enough for them to summon the tenacity and persistence needed to complete their education?
Does school make sense to them? Does it give meaning to learning?
Meaning is key to understanding and acting on expected behaviour.
“Without meaning, learning has no purpose. Without a purpose, schools are houses of detention, not attention,” American educator Neil Postman says in The End of Education: Redefining the Value of School.
The reasons schools exist are not always self-evident to students. Appeals to good performance, university education, lucrative careers or STEM professions may not necessarily motivate every learner.
Who said every student desires university education? Who said all learners aspire to top national examinations?
These assumptions may not appeal even to children from wealthy, powerful and influential families.
We must redefine what life means to students and help them connect education to that purpose.
The Question of School Hours
The relevance of what students learn must connect to their personal lives and not merely to distant rewards such as a straight A in KCSE, a competitive university course or a lucrative career.
In communication studies, there is a concept known as noise. Noise refers to anything that interferes with communication between a speaker and an audience. It may be external or internal, and it can disrupt understanding at any point.
Similarly, the way school programmes are organised can either support or hinder learning.
One of the most important policy documents ever developed by the Ministry of Education is the Basic Education Regulations, 2015.
The regulations provide that learners should be taught for a maximum of six hours each day. Official class hours begin at 8.00 a.m. and end at 3.30 p.m.
The implication is that learners should rest or engage in self-directed learning before 8.00 a.m. and after 3.30 p.m. There should be no formal teaching or syllabus coverage outside those hours.
Students should use evening prep time for personal study and assignments before getting adequate sleep.
The Cost of Ignoring Policy
When schools introduce teaching sessions from 5.00 a.m. or continue formal lessons between 7.00 p.m. and 9.00 p.m., they place unnecessary strain on learners.
Such schedules deny students the eight hours of sleep psychologists recommend.
Failure by school authorities to adhere to the Basic Education Regulations is one reason many students dislike boarding school.
When former Education Cabinet Secretary Prof. Jacob Kaimenyi presented the regulations to Parliament in 2014, some school heads opposed them.
Critics argued that reducing teaching hours would make students lazy. Yet the regulations were intended to protect learner welfare and improve the quality of learning.
In the early years of the 8-4-4 system, syllabus coverage was not rushed. Completion often occurred in the third term rather than in the first or second term as happens in many schools today.
The focus was on learning, not merely finishing the syllabus.
Gross abuse of school hours, as envisioned in the Basic Education Regulations, has without equivocation made school life detestable for many learners.
There are many other factors that stimulate indiscipline, including peer pressure and the easy availability of hard drugs.
These too contribute to mayhem in schools.
This year’s unrest should provide an opportunity to study the problem comprehensively and address it once and for all.
What is happening in schools in Uganda and Tanzania that makes students there comparatively orderly?
READ ALSO: KISE wins top national award for improved performance and service delivery
The characteristics of middle-class families in those countries are substantially similar to those in Kenya. The differences, if any, are minimal.
Perhaps the answer lies not only within families, but also within the schools themselves.
By Kennedy Buhere
You can also follow our social media pages on Twitter: Education News KE and Facebook: Education News Newspaper for timely updates.
>>> Click here to stay up-to-date with trending regional stories
>>> Click here to read more informed opinions on the country’s education landscape
