THBT parents should be held responsible for their school going children's discipline problems.

OPPOSITION TEAM
Deputy Leader of the Opposition Speech
1. quasi-delicts, civil law
2. Discipline in school is different from discipline of parents
3. People are mold through the societys influences not just through their parents.
4. We propose reward system than punishment
The school are responsible for the acts and safety of the school-going children.
Article 2180 of the New Civil Code provides that teachers or heads of establishments of arts and
trades shall be liable for damages cause by their pupils and students or apprentices so long as
they remain in their custody. .

This House believes that parents should not be held responsible for their schoolgoing childrens discipline problems
We all know that every parent wants their children to be happy, respectful,
respected by others, and able to find their place in the world as well-behaved adults.
Nobody wants to be accused of raising a spoiled brat. And that can be only done
through discipline. Through discipline a parent can state what or what not to do or what
is acceptable and what is not. Basically it is a restriction, teaching a child to abide
rules impose his or her parents. This discipline involves punishment and rewards, both
have a presumption of a positive result.
But let us face the fact that it is not correct in many reasons that discipline
primarily rests with parents. Discipline rests not only through parents, it also rests with
the school, relatives, church, and generally through the society. A child is molded into
someone he or she is, not through what his parents taught him but by the society. A
parent passing on to hi child the specific set of values and beliefs that should be
complied with will just make a child more likely to misbehave or rebel due to the fact that
his acts, language, everything about him will be mandated by his parents rules. Hence,
if that child is away from home, the child will most likely feel free and do things what he
cannot do when his parents are not around. Unlike if he is discipline by partly by his
parent, school, church, relatives the child will think, speak, and behave more rationally
because no one restricted him to do so. The child will tend to be more open-minded,
and through that he can be a well-behaved adult someday.
Again, this House believes that parents should not be held responsible for their
school-going childrens discipline.

1) The philosophy underling the proposition is one in which the child is not solely
responsible for his or her own behaviour. Even if the threats of parental punishment
and involvement are successful in the short term in modifying a childs behaviour,
the long term sequlae is that the childs good behaviour is predicated not on an
understanding of the consequence of their behaviour and a consideration of their
own long term interests, but merely out of fear and external consequences.
In the long run, instilling this message is likely to lead to future misbehaviour as the
external punishments, in this case imposed on the parents, fall away. Once the
child reaches an age at which the parents cannot be punished or the child does not
care about parental punishment, building an ethic around such external
consequences will fail to deter the child from misbehaviour. (See argument 4)
2) There is an argument to be made that this form of punishment of parents is
simply unjust. The legal basis of punishment is based on the principle that a sane
individual is fully responsible for his or her actions. One can always point to
dysfunctional families or other influences that may have had an effect on an
individuals actions, but the level of influence is impossible to quantify. Therefore,
any level of punishment that is meted out to external sources cannot be matched
proportionally to actions taken by these outside parties, thereby abrogating the
principle of proportional punishment. As a result, any just system of punishment is
bound by this constraint, and shifting responsibility to external sources is not
consistent with our principles.
This argument functions best in the criminal justice context, but applies in the
school context as well. Schools that adopt this policy must examine the ethical
underpinnings of the policy, and if the policy itself is immoral, then regardless of its
efficacy (which is disputed in the first argument and later on) the policy should not
be adopted.
3) Many children that have consistent behavioural problems at school come from
dysfunctional families in which either physical or emotional abuse and neglect is
common. This has then resulted in behavior disorders such as Oppositional Defiant
Disorder.[1]While it would be nice to believe that parents would respond to the
stated incentives in a healthy way, it must be considered that it is just as likely that
in some of these households parents would crack down violently (again, either
emotionally or physically ) on their children. Such actions by parental role models
often lead to a vicious cycle in which the behaviour is then continued at school and
in future generations.
It is difficult to say what proportion of households may respond in this fashion, but if
even a small proportion of children are actively harmed by this policy, it is a strong
argument against its uniform adoption.
4) A short argument, but a potentially powerful one. The assumption that children
will not act out even more under such a regime in a bid to lash out at parents is

untenable. Misbehaviour at school is often a rebellion against authority anyway,

and the ultimate authority in most childrens lives is the parents. Therefore, as
acting out against both of these institutions is consistent with the misbehaving mind
set, it follows that tying school misbehaviour to parental detriments is unlikely to
affect the child and may even serve to encourage their bad deeds.