LNAT Sample Essay - What Disciplinary Sanction Should Teachers Be Allowed to Use?

Disciplinary sanctions in schools, just like in any other organization, should have the intent of rehabilitation. To educate and ensure that students do not recommit the same mistake, I argue that disciplinary sanctions must ultimately be for the benefit of the individual student and the student body as a whole.

To best answer this question, we require to ask another. What is the fundamental purpose and essence of sanctions? In the context and setting of a school, it is to instill positive change in the student. This is indisputable, and hence any sanction that violates this yardstick can be seen as inappropriate. For example, the sanction of public caning is an act of invoking physical pain and embarrassment unto a student in front of the entire school. Such an act predicates on using pain to instill fear, with schools hoping that such will deter others from committing the same mistake. A utilitarian might argue that at the expense of one student who committed the mistake, the rest of the entire student body will refrain from acting similarly - and this is ultimately for the good of the school’s maintenance of discipline and order. However, such a school of thought is untenable. When a school turns to instilling fear in the entire student body simply to deter, there is no learning and understanding that takes place. Students will not understand the reason behind not doing an act, and what good does this do to student development? A school’s quintessential principle is to nurture students to grow and mature in the right way, much rather than to force fear into their innocent minds. Hence, sanctions involving physical violence are unacceptable for teachers.

Disciplinary sanctions that teachers should be allowed to use should also be of a proportional nature to the mistake that the student has made, whereby it is fair for the student. This promotes learning and rehabilitation, which is ideal for schools and students alike. If teachers were to utilize harsh punishments for the simplest of mistakes, this will lead to a two-fold response from students. Say a direct suspension were to be made by a teacher for a student who arrived late to school for the first time. A student, who has virtually no power to appeal against the sanction, will not only feel unfairly let down, but in a worse scenario even grow a disdain towards the school and its policy. This can result in increased disobedience and insubordination amongst students, and in the long run even cause higher absenteeism or drop-out rates. All of which is to the detriment of a society’s education system and in no way, shape, or form would this be ideal for students. Hence, it is beyond doubt that teachers must follow strict protocols to invoke proportional and fair sanctions to students.

Ultimately, in more normative terms, disciplinary sanctions that teachers should be allowed to use must be rehabilitative. This means that with every sanction, it must be thought through with the intent to nurture and teach the student the rationale behind why he or she is getting punished. Whilst it is important to ensure a student receives appropriate punishment, it is way more vital to make sure that the individual knows why he is being sanctioned, and that he should not do so in the future. Countries with prison systems that focus on rehabilitation rather than punishment see the lowest recidivism rates, and I believe schools have a lot to take away from this fact.

In sum, teachers should use disciplinary sanctions that ultimately rehabilitate students in a proportional nature to benefit both the individual and the student body. I believe this best fulfills the fundamental yardstick and reason of institutional sanctions.

#LNAT #Essay #Sample #UCAS