THE INQUEST

THE INQUEST

The inquest had gone on for hours, and the class-teacher was still giving her evidence. Her lawyer, adamant that she was not going to carry the blame had rehearsed her evidence several times before coming to Court.

“My client Sir, is a highly trained professional.  She is a mature, experienced classroom leader, and has a string of successful students emerging from her care, year after year.

“As is usual, on this occasion her communication was extremely clear, and the children – for the most part – satisfactorily cooperative.  As you would well know Sir, there are always one or two in a classroom who seem to have a need to be defiant – or at least uncooperative.”

“Mmmm.  Yes Mr Andrews” the Judge replied, “I would like your client to give me a full description, in her own words, of what happened on that, as I understand it, somewhat hot, Tuesday afternoon.

“Well Sir, yes it was a hot day and my group’s allocated swim time was 1.30 pm.  My instructions to the students – all around 10 years of age – were the same as on each such occasion.  Children respond well to clarity and consistency.”

“And those instructions Mrs Barrows?”

“Mrs Barrows, kindly tell the Judge exactly what you said to the children.  The actual words you used.”

     “I said – It is time for our swim now.

              Get your togs and towel.

              Line up in two lines at the door.

              Now we will walk, quietly, in line, to the pool.”

“And what happened then”?

     “They did exactly as I instructed, and walked quietly in two lines to the pool”

“And then?”

     “Then they all changed into their gear, and as they emerged from the changing sheds they entered the pool.”

          “I see.  And your next instruction?”

     “It is usual to let them have a few minutes free play – for the girls to warm up, and for the boys to burn off their excess energy.

     So I gathered them all to the side of the pool and let them know that they had five minutes ‘free play’ before the actual instructional session.”

“Mrs Barrows, tell the Court what, and why, you said at that stage.”

     “Well, as is usually the case in every classroom in this country, I have two or three pupils – usually boys – who are typically boisterous, frequently uncooperative, and even overtly disobedient.  They don’t – or won’t – listen to, or comply with the rules.”

          “The rules?”

     “Yes Sir.  We have four basic school rules when in the pool.  No ducking.  No splashing.  No bombing, and No diving.”

          “And you reminded the class of this?”

     “Yes, very specifically – and even deliberately looking at each of these probable offenders as I reminded them of those four rules.”

“So all of the children heard those rules, and you took particular effort to ensure that the more unruly of the group were specifically addressed?”

     “Yes”

“So what did you observe to happen then?”

     “Well, thirty three of my thirty six students were specifically cooperative – as I would expect them to be.  They played, and enjoyed being in the pool.”

“And the other three?”

     “Within moments I noticed one was splashing another in the face – who responded by jumping on top of, and ducking the first.  The third boy saw this, climbed out of the pool, leapt off the side, and bombed the other two.  The exact scenario the rules are designed to avoid.”

“So what was your response to this behaviour?”

     “I called all three to the side and checked that they had heard the rules.  I asked each in turn, and on request they each repeated the rules to me – as I knew they could.

     So having checked that they had heard, knew, and remembered the rules, I checked that they were aware of their own actions – their own behaviour.  I asked the first to tell me why I had called him to the side of the pool, and he said ‘Because I was splashing’.  When I checked with the second he acknowledged that it was because he was ducking the other boy, and the third volunteered that it was because he bombed the other two.”

“So Sir, it is evident that my client communicated very clearly and effectively with the pupils concerned.  She gave clear spoken instruction.  She checked that they had heard, understood and remembered the rules, and she even checked that they were aware of their own actions.

I put it to you that she conducted herself in a fully professional manner, and that she is without fault, or to blame in this situation.

The three boys in question have a history of repetitive behaviour and discipline difficulty and may be regarded as potentially ODD – that is, Oppositional Defiance Disorder.  Psychologists tell me that we don’t really understand this condition Sir, but there are some boys who just seem to need to defy directions, rules and guidelines.  As a Judge I am sure you will be aware of this.

          “I see. 

At this stage Mr Andrews I would like to hear from the School Principal.”

“Yes Sir.  Mr Jacobs, as Principal, please advise the Court of your involvement on that day.”

     “As Principal I accept ultimate responsibility for discipline in my school.

My first involvement on that day was when I saw the three lads in wet swimming gear walking across the quadrangle towards my office.  I have to add at this point that this was not the first time the three have had to report to me, and my immediate reaction was – ‘When will these three lads learn?’

As is our agreed procedure with staff, I immediately checked to see if the lads knew, and understood why they had been sent to me – had they heard, understood and remembered the instruction, and were they aware of their own offenses.”

          “And your conclusion?”

     “The same as that of my staff member.  Thirty-three members of the class heard the instruction and cooperated – and this clearly signals to me that there is no lack, or difficulty, in the teacher’s communication style.  These same three boys are repeat offenders.  We have given them many chances and at some stage we have to decide that it is the end of the road.”

“Thank you.  We have yet to hear from the School Psychologist.

Mr Beckham, you have heard the accounts from the class-teacher and the Principal. Please, your perspective on this situation.”

     “Sir, it is a common scenario in classes and school systems, not only in this country, but across the globe.

We have what is commonly referred to in layman’s terms as the ‘Naughty Boy Syndrome’.  Mostly, but not exclusively, these are boys who seem to need to do exactly what they have just been told not to do – commonly within moments, or minutes of being told.

Parents and teachers find this so frustrating, and it often leads to heavy-handed discipline, punishment, as adults desperately try to find ways to get the cooperation of the child.

Unfortunately there are always a few who can’t be reached, they tend to become surly and resentful, and often end up living socially marginal lives, in and out of trouble – or even prison.”

          “Is there no hope?”

     “Many approaches and therapies have been tried, but with marginal success – ranging from Behaviour Modification to Boot Camp, and anything between, and our prisons are now over full.

     However there is however another school of thought with a different and interesting emphasis.  Let me approach this in a reverse sequence.

The literacy rate in our prisons is extremely low.  We know that our prisons are disproportionately filled with males – many of them school failures both academically and behaviourally.  We also observe that the rate of left handedness in our prisons is greater than in the general population. While left-handedness seems to be between 5 and 10 percent in the general population, some claim that it is as much as 50 percent in the prison population.”

          “Are you suggesting that there is some connection between male left-handedness, school achievement and personal behaviour Mr Beckham?  It seems a little remote, please explain.”

“My explanation Sir is tentative, and in crude terms only.

Right-sided, that is right-handed, right-footed, and right-eyed people tend to use their opposite side brain, and do most of their conscious thinking in their left frontal brain area.  This would appear to include about 85 percent of the population.

The other 15 percent may be left-sided, or perhaps – and more to the point – a mixture of left and right sidedness.  This apparently causes them to do their predominant conscious thinking in their right brain.  The suggestion Sir, is that we don’t all think in the same manner, that this is not a matter of choice, and that very few people are aware of how they think at all.

The significance apparently lies in the tendency of right-sided, left-brained people to process information using language as a thinking tool.  They think in words, just as I am talking to you right now.

By chance these people find school to be a user-friendly place, as our education system uses language as its basic teaching system.  Our teachers are required to teach in language, meaning that the pupils need to learn via language, and what they have learned is assessed via language – written exams.  This suits the majority well, and is for them a highly successful system.”

     “And the others?  What of this ‘right brain style?”

“Those others, the other 15 percent Sir, may well be the ones who struggle with our education system, and even with our rules system.

The right-brain style Sir, tends to be expressly pictorial.  These people apparently do most of their thinking in pictures, and in their number we tend to find architects, engineers, artists, musicians and hands-on, practical workers – farmers, builders, plumbers, electricians, drivers.  The suggestion Sir is that their picture-thinking style has advantages in these sorts of activities, but that it is a real disadvantage in our language-based school system, and it is a real struggle for them to do well.”

     “This is all very interesting and may perchance be valid Mr Beckham, but I cannot yet see how it is related to the incident with the three boys that we are dealing with in this Court today.”

“As I understand it, it is that tendency to think in pictures Sir.

Let me explain as it was explained to me.

If I ask you to think of a tennis racket, it is almost inevitable that you will see a picture a tennis racket in your head.”

     “Yes, I see my own old Spalding.”

“If I mention the words ‘Teddy Bear’, it is similarly the case that you will picture some personal version of such a soft toy.  However, if I tell you ‘Do not think of a step-ladder’, what happens?”

          “I immediately picture a step-ladder, then remove it promptly from my mind so as to cooperate with your instruction.”

“But you do initially think of a step-ladder.”

          “Yes.”

“Now Sir, don’t think of, or even consider the Eifel Tower”.

          “I did because you named it.”

“Yes, precisely.

Now consider the picture in a child’s mind when a parent says “Don’t spill your drink.”

          “I think I follow the pattern. The words created the picture….”

“Yes Sir.”

          “… and the picture, so planted in the brain, acts hypnotically so as to induce the person – in this case our three lads – to behave in the very way they have been instructed not to.”

“Yes.  The other pupils, who think mainly in language – that is, in words – probably do have much the same picture in their minds, but for them, the word message predominates, and they comply with the words, and are seen to be cooperative.

The picture thinkers are less able to focus on the words and their consequential behaviour is more likely to follow the picture that the words left in their pictorial brain.  For them the command “No diving” generates the urge to dive, and they are as confused as the rest of us as to their own behaviour.”

          “And the solution to the problem would thus rest with ….?

“The adult Sir.  The professional.  We can’t change the way the child thinks – this is their natural process.  But we can educate our adults.  If this explanation is indeed valid, we need to help teachers, parents – and perhaps Social Workers and Counsellors – and with due respect Sir, our Judges, to understand that their own language – by stating what is not allowed – causes some people to act in certain ways, and to appear disobedient, oppositional, non-compliant, naughty – to be seen as being behaviour problem children.”

          “A case of blaming the victim?”

     “My colleague who explained this to me suggested that these children are like diesel engines – perfectly good motors, until we put petrol in their tanks.”

Laughton King

1.1.13