학생 처벌에 대한 윤리적 고찰

서지정보

ㆍ발행기관 : 이화여자대학교 교과교육연구소 ㆍ수록지정보 : 교과교육학연구 / 7권 / 2호
ㆍ저자명 : 오은경

목차

I. 서 론
II. 청소년의식의 무도덕성
III. 학생 처벌의 도덕적 근거
IV. 교육행정가의 학생처벌에 대한 숙고
참고문헌

한국어 초록

학생처벌은 주로 질서유지라는 행정적인 편의를 위해 시행되어 왔다. 처벌의 근거로 제시되는 잘못의
제지, 예방, 교도의 측면에서 검토해 볼 때, 그 효과에는 의문이 생기고, 교육적 효과는 거의 없다. 학교
는 교정기관이 아니라, 교육기관이다. 잘못을 한 학생은 처벌해서 교정되는 것이 아니라, 자존, 자율, 자
기 통제를 배울 수 있도록 내적 동기를 고무해 주는 것이 필요하다. 이러한 교육적 환경이 될 수 있도록
교육행정가는 현재의 교육적 악조건들을 개선하는 일을 우선해야 한다.

영어 초록

Decisions made about student punishments have been arbitrary or capricious in schools. The
punishment was chosen for its deterrent effects. Punishment may deter the individual punished
or others from doing the same thing; punishment may help rehabilitate the guilty party; and
punishment may separate a potentially dangerous person from society.
The point of punishment is to balance the scales of justice, "an eye for an eye." Justice
demands that evil be punished. Thus, punishment is not intended primarily to deter further
evil; it is designed to provide retribution. Viewing punishment as retribution explains why it
is right to punish the guilty and not the innocent. Obviously, if the guilty person has not been
punished, retribution has not been received. Similarly, the retribution theory explains why the
punishment must fit the crime. If the retribution exceeds the evil, the scales of justice have not
been balanced.
Perhaps the weakest point in the retribution theory of punishment is the suggestion that the
universe somehow requires that evildoers be punished with a compensating quantity of pain.
However, the retribution theory is not likely to be successful. We deem to be able to conduct
meaningful ethical arguments. Ethical claims are not simply matters of taste. Perhaps many of
our real moral dilemmas can be resolved by moral reflection. Certain kinds of disciplinary
practices are morally wrong. Especially the corporal punishment of students does not work. It
does not do what it is supposed to do. Why, then, do teachers resort to corporal punishment?
It's a shortcut. It usually stops the unruly behavior at the moment, temporarily. It has no
positive permanent effects that we know of. It has many negative effects. The psychological
harm is done to all in the class and the lesson of violence is well learned. The most important
point is that it does not achieve the stated purpose of maintaining discipline because it is
treating the symptoms, not the underlying cause, unruly behavior.
The use of corporal punishment is a failed practice. The child displaying unruly behavior is
a child crying out. Unruly behavior is a cry for help, and we answer such pleas for compassion
and understanding with the end of a paddle. Teacher can not whip the hurt out of this child.
His behavior continues and worsens and leads to failure after failure. He grows to adulthood
and becomes another of our modern and enlightened society's losers-miserable and a burden
to all of us.
There are alternative to the use of corporal punishment-alternatives that maintain classroom
discipline and provide an environment for learning and a place for effective and rewarding
teaching. Instead of paddling the student into temporary submission, why can't our teachers be
trained to recognize a student with problems and have at their disposal the referral sources for
psychological help or family counseling?
The training of teachers, administrators, the referral sources, the identification and counseling
will take money. We will probably need to decrease classroom size to allow teachers to meet
the emotional as well as the intellectual needs of students. Educational administrators are
always complaining of short money. But isn't the future worth such an investment? We must
invest in our children or lose our future.

참고 자료

없음