The culture violence is visible in ways the student’s explain the persistence and prevalence of violent discipline. They point out how their teachers and principals are “always hitting”, “always scolding” and “always angry”. Prevalence is also visible in terms of the places these punishments are enacted. Youth note that teachers who punish do not consider the place nor who witnesses them. Students are subject to punishment inside and outside classrooms. Although, punishments were mostly enacted in classrooms, the students mentioned sheds (temporary store rooms), bathrooms and sports grounds as spaces outside the classroom where they have been disciplined violently. These practices are enacted in the presence of peers, teachers and even parents.
…show more content…
For instance, Kala talks about how the entire class hides when a teacher walks by. When asked why she explains, “Soon as they (teachers) come in itself, if he is coming to our class for the first time he tells us all his rules, one is that we have to be in his class every day, if we don 't come, if we miss one day of school even, after our class teacher hits for missing school he will also ask us about it and hit us again.” The widespread culture violence must not be interpreted in ways that suggest that the normalization of violent practices makes students immune to them, or that everyone in authority engages in these practices. In fact, youth are capable of pointing out alternatives ways that teachers use that are effective means of disciplining students. They suggest consultative processes, typically preferred by those who are being wronged (Morrel, 1999). For example, Arini points out how “Sometimes teachers take them (they students) aside and individually advise them, (What works is when teachers) Advise and talk to students, Advising and talking to them individually without pulling the parents into …show more content…
Yet, there is no evidence in their narratives which suggests where one occurrence of violent discipline, secures their safety in the future. In fact, it seems that the students who are disciplined violently seem to become more and more susceptible to future discipline through being labeled as “naughty” or “disrespectful.” Being repeatedly disciplined, marks certain youth as trouble makers, following the irrational logic that if youth are being disciplined violently, then they must be naughty, and being naughty warrants harsher intervention. Furthermore, being “naughty” is not limited to student behavior, rather it is extends to who students are. Therefore, factors such as village of origin which students have no control over makes students susceptible to discipline. In this sense violent discipline is a mechanism used to exert authority through a mechanism fear, specifically targeting the most vulnerable students within the school system. This assertion is supported by the accounts youth give about being targeted. For instance, Puvi talked about how he considered switching from health to technology hoping he would be able to get a job in future (Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013). In this case he obtained official permission and did not do anything “naughty”, but due to being
For instance, Kala talks about how the entire class hides when a teacher walks by. When asked why she explains, “Soon as they (teachers) come in itself, if he is coming to our class for the first time he tells us all his rules, one is that we have to be in his class every day, if we don 't come, if we miss one day of school even, after our class teacher hits for missing school he will also ask us about it and hit us again.” The widespread culture violence must not be interpreted in ways that suggest that the normalization of violent practices makes students immune to them, or that everyone in authority engages in these practices. In fact, youth are capable of pointing out alternatives ways that teachers use that are effective means of disciplining students. They suggest consultative processes, typically preferred by those who are being wronged (Morrel, 1999). For example, Arini points out how “Sometimes teachers take them (they students) aside and individually advise them, (What works is when teachers) Advise and talk to students, Advising and talking to them individually without pulling the parents into …show more content…
Yet, there is no evidence in their narratives which suggests where one occurrence of violent discipline, secures their safety in the future. In fact, it seems that the students who are disciplined violently seem to become more and more susceptible to future discipline through being labeled as “naughty” or “disrespectful.” Being repeatedly disciplined, marks certain youth as trouble makers, following the irrational logic that if youth are being disciplined violently, then they must be naughty, and being naughty warrants harsher intervention. Furthermore, being “naughty” is not limited to student behavior, rather it is extends to who students are. Therefore, factors such as village of origin which students have no control over makes students susceptible to discipline. In this sense violent discipline is a mechanism used to exert authority through a mechanism fear, specifically targeting the most vulnerable students within the school system. This assertion is supported by the accounts youth give about being targeted. For instance, Puvi talked about how he considered switching from health to technology hoping he would be able to get a job in future (Somasundaram and Sivayokan, 2013). In this case he obtained official permission and did not do anything “naughty”, but due to being