But while about to pack his things and leave, he asked to say something. And he was permitted to do so. In mitigation, he told the panel of judges if they were aware that they had just kicked out a first class student and therefore, denied the school an opportunity to shine.
That was a life changing mitigation. He was asked to step outside, and a few minutes later, he was given a very light punishment. The rest is history. The man has done well in life. So appreciating the complexities and intricacies associated with school educational management may not be fully realised through the lens of a pure academic exercise.
It requires an in-depth study of real life cases involving student disciplinary matters. It is academically easy to spell out what punishment would be meted out to a student for violating a specified code of conduct. In reality, when an assault on the rules has taken place, it can prove difficult to execute and apply retribution as the rules may dictate. In some cases, managers are compelled by circumstances to tamper justice with mercy, while in other cases, there could be a clash between rooting for morality and what is academically expedient for a school.
Here is a scenario of a school worth studying. The scenario clearly shows a contest between standing on the side of the law and a desire to drive the academic agenda of a school. All seemed well for the school that was gearing to repeat an outstanding feat achieved in the previous academic year.
A week prior to the commencement of final examinations, something unusual gave the principal a bit of headache. Ten most academically gifted boys caused some unexpected mayhem in the school boarding hostels after going on a drinking spree and returned to the hostels to unsettle the otherwise peaceful and serene school environment.
Not only did they quarrel and pick up fights with other students, but they also deprived them of their sleep. The head prefect tried to calm the situation but to no avail. He then escalated the matter to the school principal for consideration. The stakes were high.
While there was no doubt about the gravity of the matter, the principal was in a dilemma. On the one hand, rules are rules and must be observed, and therefore, in dealing with the matter, the principal had to send a clear message to root out such behaviour and possibly deter other potential offenders.
But chasing high flying students was considered academically suicidal. It was a luxury the school could not afford. These were no ordinary but were very talented students who were poised to uphold the school’s high performing pedigree. And the school could fare badly if excluded from the examination.
The school was a high performing school renowned for academic excellence. The linchpin of the school’s enviable academic record was the principal. He was a disciplinarian, no-nonsense, and uncompromising education manager. He also led by example and was a true inspiration to students and teachers alike. To him, order and discipline could not be compromised.
Clear high expectations and clarity of purpose governed the school.
The principal, an orator of note, used his oratory skills to effect, often exploiting the school assembly to reinforce a positive behaviour system while reprimanding any noticeable detour from the expected norm.
Instances where the school administration of justice was kept on its toes were few and far between. Suspending or expelling the students from school was the most logical and correct right course of action if order and discipline were to be restored.
Mindful of the big picture of securing good learning outcomes, it was nonetheless academically expedient to spare them and allow them to walk away with a light sentence. The boys expected no leniency, considering the seriousness of the matter. All in all, students should never tempt fate. They should respect school rules and their teachers. Justice should take its course. Mercy is not guaranteed, and no student should bank on it.
