Editorial
How can corporal punishment persist?
Double defiance by a principal
We are aghast at the news of 14 students at Kushtia Police Lines School and College having been ruthlessly caned by their principal. This brutality perpetrated on students by none other than the head of the institution is an anachronism that refuses to be banished.
As we express our revulsion against the high-handedness of the principal, we also note how the lack of supervision leaves heads of institutions to their own devices.
In spite of a government ban on corporal punishment and guidelines to implement it in pursuance of a High Court ruling, the malady is yet to be obliterated. Habits die hard with some teachers sticking to obsolete ideas. Thus, somehow incidents of teachers physically punishing students have been occasionally reported. Had prompt action been taken against offenders, their ilk wouldn't have dared it.
Now, what was the Kushtia school-goers' fault? The students merely failed to attend coaching classes reportedly made mandatory by the authorities for those of classes eight, nine and ten. The parents and guardians could not simply afford the monthly fees ranging between Tk 700 and Tk 1500 extra.
Recently, the education ministry placed some restrictions on coaching students by teachers of the same institution. How could the principal then make coaching mandatory in the Kushtia school and college?
Student coaching beyond school hours is sort of an imposition necessitated by unfinished classroom instructions. What is worse, some authorities take recourse to it more on commercial than academic considerations. Receiving tuition is a prerequisite for scoring good marks and that's why it is accepted more as a norm than a kind of aberration.
The Kushtia incident must be probed and an example made of the ruthless principal. He can be faulted on two counts: first, he has violated the ban on corporal punishment; and secondly, he allegedly made coaching mandatory. So, he deserves to be dealt with according to rules.
Comments