by Dr. Kathleen Smith

In a recent article about his new book, E.D. Hirsch argues that “child-centered individualism started the slide in American education.” Although he refers to the slide in academic outcomes, in my opinion, child-centered individualism is responsible for increased school disciplinary responses as well.

As an educator in Petersburg, including the time spent as a (deciding) member of many disciplinary hearing committees, I have listened to hours of parents communicating why their child or adolescent had disruptive behaviors so serious that they warranted referral for expulsion or alternative interventions outside the accepted convention of suspension.

For decades now, schools mostly follow constructivism theory — the child is taught to construct his/her own learning. However, when a child or adolescent is left alone to “construct a response to a situation” — like what to do when someone posts something ugly about you on social media, or what to do when you don’t like the teacher telling you what to do — the “constructed reaction” often opens the door for a multitude of responses not acceptable to general society (e.g. school shootings, suicide).

Heirs of Jean Piaget’s constructivism theory are parents who always have an excuse: the child’s family is in the middle of a divorce; his/her father just lost his job; he/she gets upset easily; he/she didn’t take his medication; or — my favorite — he/she should stand up for what he/she believes is right, even when dealing with an adult. They believe that what the child has constructed as a response is perfectly acceptable given the circumstances. His/her individual constructed response is more important than what society deems good or bad.

Locke followers, on the other hand, are old-school parents who fill the child’s “blank slate” with clear and concise knowledge of what is right and what is wrong. These are no-excuse parents. If it is wrong, don’t do it. The child is taught through adolescence to be nice to others and to respect peers, parents, teachers, and elders without excuse. Parents model society’s expectations. Yes, punishment prevails when norms are not followed. 

Unlike today’s restorative justice (now required of school administrators before embarking on a specific disciplinary punishment), children of old-school parents know and understand right from wrong before constructing his/her appropriate or inappropriate response.

Society as a totality creates norms; individual children do not. We wouldn’t have to do something with the adolescent acting out because of a bad social media post if some other adolescent knew it was unacceptable to post it in the first place. We wouldn’t need “restorative justice” after the fact, if we had more Locke followers as parents.

Constructivism has been an acceptable norm for decades. Most parents today were also raised by constructivist parents. Individualism and constructivism for kids are not bad things, but both must be predicated on acceptable norms that have already been explicitly taught by the adults raising the child. 

It may be too late to change today what we started decades ago; we reap what we sowed.

Leaving the construction of behavioral responses to a child’s demise is an invitation to chaos, i.e., a six-year-old shooting a teacher. To prevent chaos means changing society’s norms, and this takes decades. Perhaps it is worth the time.

Dr. Kathleen Smith has been an educator since 1975.  She has served as Regional Director for the Mid-Atlantic States for Advanced l Measured Progress and Director of the Office of School Improvement with the Virginia Department of Education.