The youth wing of the Coalition Avenir Québec (CAQ), which currently governs the province, recently suggested a series of reforms to education aimed at improving the behaviour and appearance of students in Québec’s public school system. The main recommendations include requiring all students to use “vous” instead of the more informal “tu” while addressing teachers and principals, compulsory uniforms for secondary students, and requiring students who exhibit violent or bullying behaviours, and their parents, to attend training courses to correct their behaviour. Ironically, Premier François Legault used less than formal language in his reaction. “I think it’s a damned good idea,” he said.
It is no secret that respectable behaviour, common courtesy, respect, and presentable appearances are lacking in segments of contemporary society. Social media comments and disrespect to staff in stores and offices are proof of that. People dressed inappropriately for work, school, or even shopping are further proof. However, should school be the only place where good behaviour is taught, and bad behaviour corrected? This is the sort of thing that parents had primary responsibility for in the past and should still be taking responsibility for currently. Teachers, principals, and school administrators should not be exclusively responsible for bad behaviour. However, when parents and youth stop taking responsibility for their own actions, a pattern which is all too common in our society takes hold—their irresponsibility surrenders them to the responsibility of the state.
School uniforms solve challenges such as the difficulty many families have with being able to afford adequate clothing for their children to wear to school. Uniforms eliminate the class-based rivalries that develop between students with, or without popular clothing items. And uniforms also solve the problem of students dressing inappropriately for school. The latter problem could again be easily solved by parents by simply not permitting their children to dress inappropriately. There is such a word as “no” and parents have the obligation to say things like “you are not leaving the house dressed like that.” By having young people learn at home to make responsible choices of what to wear, they will be more likely to make responsible choices of what to wear when they have graduated school and pursue careers.
There is nothing wrong with teaching students to address those in positions of responsibility with respect. Again though, this should be the role of parents first and foremost.
It is ironic that recommendations for a conservative turn in student behaviour and demeanour came from the youth wing of a political party, especially in Québec where the old practices of the provinces formerly denominationally administered school system, and the iconoclastic elements of the Quiet Revolution have led to a greater acceptance of informality, egalitarianism, and a firmly secular society. However, if ever implemented, these new policies would instead be administered and monitored by lay people rather than the clergy and consecrated religious of decades past.
If parents and youth do not take responsibility for themselves, they should not be surprised when the state takes responsibility for them.
