If discipline in the typical public school classroom was returned to the way it was in the 1950s, when the teacher had total control over classroom discipline and could administer, with disgression, infrequent paddling, the learning-curve would immediately, and dramatically, rise.

Educational psychology is an extremely imprecise discipline, one that lends itself more to trendy and politically convenient explanations for aberrational behaviors of school-age children than correctly diagnosing, and positing solutions for, such behaviors.  A recent “New York Times” article seemed to bear this out in its reporting of certain recent studies, one an international longitudinal developmental study of kindergarteners who displayed anti-social deportment while interacting with other children in classroom settings, and a National Institute of Mental Health study of ADHD, learning impaired children, which, supposedly, showed conclusions that aberrant behaviors of five-year-olds aren’t, generally, a genuine future concern for parents.  I heartily disagree with these conclusions, and I’ll tell you why.

As a rule, most teachers actually know as much about the study and prediction of human behavior as psychologists usually do about the art of teaching.  This truism seems to be more applicable today than at any other time during the history of the American public school.  Since the late 1950’s, when control, and enforcement, of public school classroom discipline passed, from that of the teacher, to inept administrators, there has been a dismally chronic spiral in the adolescent learning curve. 

Really, isn’t that what it’s all about?  What's keeping Johnny and Jane from learning?  Attention deficit was, hardly, an issue in the 1950-era public school classroom.  If six-year-old first-grader Jamie was disturbing the class during a writing or spelling lesson by excessive talking or, perhaps, throwing paper-wads, the usually proficient teacher would immediately address the problem before the class, have Jamie understand that her behavior was inappropriate, and, then, insist that Jamie stand in the corner for a few minutes to reinforce the rule.  In most cases, Jamie would return to her seat and not repeat the offense.  If, perchance, Jamie insisted on repeating the bad behavior, the teacher would resort to use of the ubiquitous paddle, which in most cases was hanging conspicuously on the wall, to issue a two-swat punishment for, again, breaking the rule.  The use of this minute corporal punishment had already been endorsed by the parents during PTA visitations with the teacher.  During the administering of the swats, tears would be shed for a few minutes by Jamie while the teacher would personally emphasize her concern for the child.  Then, not wanting to be the subject of any further punishment, Jamie would return to her seat to pay attention and not repeat the bad behavior.  Over a period of time, Jamie would internalize the rationale for the correct behavior and discover the benefits of conforming to its standard.   

This, foregoing, scenario is what Dr. James Dobson, and millions of parents, who presently send their children to private and parochial schools, recommend for disobedient children.  In his book, “Dare to Discipline,” Dr. Dobson emphasizes that a child must know that a particular behavior is improper at the time a disciplinary punishment is administered.  This applies at home and at school. 

Presently, in most public school classrooms, the student is verbally warned by the teacher not to repeat a disruptive behavior.  If the student persists, a referral for the disruptive child is immediately written by the teacher (which takes at least ten minutes of precious class-time) to an assistant principal.  Then the teacher orders the student to exit the class and report to the administrative officer who handles discipline.  This inane process was, in the early 1970’s, originally called affirmative discipline, and was recommended for public school systems by a majority of government-funded educational psychologists, who cited highly controversial studies by university pundits as solid evidence for their postulations. 

Having taught both primary and secondary public school students for nearly ten years, from 1988 until 1998, I have nothing to say in support of school district-sponsored affirmative discipline.  As a master’s-level certified teacher, in both Washington State and Texas, I can state with authority that affirmative discipline does not work.  Elementary, middle-school, and high-school students who are allowed to leave their classrooms, after infringement of prescribed rules, to be disciplined  for their improper deportment from someone other than the teachers, whom they disobeyed, usually repeat their improper behaviors soon after.  Moreover, kids who act-up during lessons more-than-likely want to leave the classroom.  Therefore, when the referral is written and the student is told to report to the assistant-principal’s office, her behaviors leading to the expulsion are reinforced.

In a nutshell, teachers can’t successfully deliver planned lessons without first getting the students’ concerted attention.  Recalcitrant problem students have, however, realized over-time that, by disrupting a class, they can, both, upset a teacher’s lesson-plan and obtain a referral out-of-class, to an assistant principal.  By the teacher not dealing with the discipline problem in the classroom, at the time it happens, the student’s bad behavior becomes a chronic happening that, like a revolving door, just keeps occurring, taking everyone involved in a big circle while never actually resolving the problem.  Even the other quiet students in a classroom realize, early-on, just how vulnerable a teacher is to persistent disruptions under affirmative-discipline, and which emotional buttons to push to in order to turn an ordinary forty-five minute history or math lesson into a fifteen-minute crisis.  On eventually realizing that the teacher has no real control over them in the classroom, these, seemingly, quiet students are tempted to occassionally act-up in class, and some do. 

I distinctly recall when I was a six-grader at an elementary school in a public system in East Texas.  If I had then acted-up in class by breaking the teacher’s disciplinary rules, I knew full-well the exacting consequences.  First I was punished in front of the class, by the teacher, and was required to apologize to the entire class for wasting their precious time.  Then I had to take a note home to get signed by both of my parents, which set-out in detail my poor classroom conduct.  That usually resulted in a very undesirable punishment from my parents, for they never accepted my word, as to what happened, over the word of my teacher.  At that particular school, the only time a student was sent to the principal was when rebellion occurred against the teacher’s classroom discipline.  And though it hardly ever occurred, when it did, the sad result was a genuine motivation for the other students not to buck the system.   

Hence, I never looked forward to breaking a class rule, and became as much afraid of disappointing my teachers, with improper behavior, as touching the eye of a hot stove.  This continuing process, and my state of mind, led directly to my establishing good personal learning habits which followed me throughout my public school education and, later, throughout my university, undergraduate and graduate, study.

Therefore, I can only say that what worked well then, in the 1950s, would work just as efficiently in 2008, that is, if most parents would, again, buy into that system, and gear-up their children at home to take learning as seriously as any essential task, and to strictly obey classroom rules set by teachers.