At Park, I have had to sit in classes in which I could barely hear my own thoughts. Knowing that an absence of silence is commonly seen as an absence of discipline, I made naive judgments. I regarded the “disruptive” students contemptuously. When the noise became disorderly, teachers and students would shush those responsible for it. Though I would never shush someone, I admittedly wanted to. Yet, in reflecting on silence and the space it fills in academic spaces, I had wondered if it should exist in the capacity it does.
It is commonly the responsibility of teachers to address and manage their classes and the disruptive student behavior within them. In establishing safe and conducive educational settings, teachers need to intervene by directly addressing “disruptive” students, by redirecting their attention or by reminding them of expected behaviors in class.
Though students have a responsibility to contribute to positive educational settings and have an appropriate dialogue with their teachers and their peers, there is no formal, universally recognized civic duty to directly address “disruptive” behavior in a class. Students are supposed to be considerate of their peers, yet they have the choice to address any behaviors they disagree with when obliged by their confrontational nature. This choice should always be given, though students should not feel overtly inclined to it.
Firstly, the desire to shush people concerns societal expectations. A quiet class is considered to be ideal almost always. It encourages focus, eliminates distractions and defends students’ inclination to correctly process information, reflect conceptually and self-regulate. Despite this, a class that is not silent is more equitable and sensible. An absence of silence demands that students be more productive in teaching and being taught. Beyond this, it encourages students’ critical thinking skills, imitating socio-cultural normalities which define conflict resolution, empathy and negotiation in an authentic existence.
Secondly, a desire to shush people concerns self-righteousness and ignorance. When students shush their peers, their correction is commonly considered unkind and ineffective, as it insinuates that their peers’ voices or opinions are not valuable or important enough to be heard. Though students might believe they are helping the class by shushing “disruptive” students, it is important to see that many of their corrections come from a place of misunderstanding, unintentionally discouraging their peers from participating in class. Their feeling of dominance in shushing their peers gives them a sense of control, which is ignorant of the cause of “disruptive” behaviors.
Truly disruptive behaviors should not be accepted in an educational setting, yet most disruptive behaviors are misinterpreted, and therefore, most “disruptive” students are misjudged. As students, high school gives people an opportunity to socialize; for some, high school is the only place to truly socialize. Therefore, for a certain population of students, being able to speak constantly is just as important to their academic success as silence is to their peers’ success in school. Beyond this, as young adults, some high school students have not practiced self-regulation within silent spaces; therefore, isolating them in an academic setting is very harmful, having a psychological impact through perpetrating emotional suppression and beliefs of social incompetence.
All in all, though it is important for silence to be valued in educational settings because it brings academic structure and social balance, it is important to not silence students for fear of pressuring them to disengage with true academic expectations and socio-cultural normalities. It is for this reason that you should think twice before caving into annoyance — before shushing someone.
