Laying down the rules

Recently it was reported that a 'libertarian conservative' objected to Katherine Birbalsingh's strict disciplinary code, on the grounds that it was infringing the child's liberty. I would not usually bother with such trifles, but for some reason I feel like examining it - to consult the sacred books of Libertarian orthodoxy and issue a fatwa to resolve matters amongst the laity.

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure where these venerable texts are located and my British Library card is long out of date (or did I return it in protest over the Biafra - Nigeria War? I forget), so may have to make it up as I go along.

So, we have a scruffy child who won't do his homework. To what extent is it permissible to force him to conform?

To the extent that his parents deem correct.

A child by definition is not fully responsible, nor fully at liberty to do as he pleases, and the parent retains a kind of 'power of attorney' over his affairs. This is the rule, and covers the majority of circumstances. There will be exceptions, but these should not unbalance our view of the issue. The exceptions arise where the child is beyond parental control, due to the child's aberrant behaviour, or the parents' failure in their duty through neglect, incapacity or malice.

But leaving such exceptions aside, and saying only that the principles of justice and equity, to be expected in a civilised, law-governed country, must naturally be applied in such circumstances (and acknowledging that this is not always the case), this rule I declare is based on these presumptions; that the parents love the child; that the child may resent the imposition of discipline, but that this is of secondary importance, as long as the parents consider it in the child's best interest to be so disciplined; furthermore, I believe that common sense and long-standing social norms have set out the boundaries of parent/child and teacher/child relationships. It is reasonable for a teacher to insist that a child obeys the rules, assuming these to be reasonable. The contractual relationship is that the parent has empowered the teacher, who thus acts in loco parentis.

Application of parental authority must take into account the child's individual nature, and is not unlimited -the child is never to be seen as a possession of the parents, the authority over the child is only temporary. This being the case, it is wise for the parents to seek a suitable education for their child, one that fits both the child's nature and the parents' understanding of what a good education consists of. This brings us to larger issues of a political nature, concerning the provision of education and its current organisation under a large degree of state control.

If a libertarian were to take issue with Katherine Birbalsingh, it would be surely over her commitment to state-run education, not in her insistence on discipline, which is absolutely her right to require of any child given into her charge. Even then, it must be remembered that she is first and foremost a teacher, and her views on political issues are separate to her ability to do that job. If there must be a state-run system, the more teachers like Birbalsingh there are the better, and it is one indictment among many that her ilk find themselves levered out of positions of authority within it. So any remonstrance I would make to her would be of the mildest kind, asking her to reconsider her support for a system that has done her down.

Finally, driving the argument from the libertarian point of view, is the belief that a freer system, made up of independent and heterogeneous schools in competition with each other, without such centralised control and interference as now exist, would serve society, the parents, teachers and children, better than the present model.

Further arguments can always be made, disputing the legitimacy of the taxes raised to pay for it, and the malign influence of state-enforced conformity. Nevertheless, we should assume that schools will continue to exist whatever role the government takes, and however they are paid for, and in such places discipline will be required. So, returning to the original question:

So, we have a scruffy child who won't do his homework. To what extent is it permissible to force him to conform?

To the extent that his parents deem correct, always remembering that the child's presence in the school signifies agreement between the parents and the school on any such matter of discipline and that the school retains the right to throw out any child who causes the parents to break this agreement.