The Kamla Persad-Bissessar administration is moving towards legislation to hold parents accountable for the behaviour of their children, placing parental responsibility at the centre of its response to school violence.
The principle is difficult to dispute. Parents bear primary responsibility for their children’s welfare, development and conduct. The State cannot be expected to compensate indefinitely for parents who fail to supervise, guide or discipline their children. Yet, parental responsibility and parental punishment are not necessarily the same thing.
The real question is whether legislation can make parents better parents and, in turn, make children less violent.
If a parent is fined or sanctioned because a child repeatedly fights at school, what changes afterwards? Does the child’s behaviour improve? Does the family gain the skills needed to address the problem? Or does the underlying issue remain unresolved?
Recent experience suggests caution. Police have been deployed to high-risk schools and strong disciplinary measures have been advocated for violent students. Yet, reports of school fights continue. While consequences are necessary, they have not proven sufficient on their own.
Students who repeatedly assault or intimidate others cannot be allowed to undermine the safety and education of their peers. Accountability must exist. However, accountability without intervention risks merely shifting the problem rather than solving it.
The success or failure of any parental responsibility law will depend largely on what it requires both parents and the State to do. If the legislation focuses solely on penalties, it risks becoming another punitive measure in a society already struggling with violence. If, however, it combines parental accountability with counselling, parenting support, behavioural interventions and family services, it could form part of a more effective response.
Importantly, Trinidad and Tobago is not starting from scratch. The National School Code of Conduct already outlines parental responsibilities regarding attendance and education. Existing laws and institutions also address child welfare, protection and development.
This raises a legitimate question: does the country need another law, or does it need to enforce and properly resource those already on the books?
Child rights advocates have argued that existing legislation already establishes responsibilities for children’s education, safeguarding and development. They have also called for any new measures to be evidence-based and shaped through consultation with educators, parents, communities and children themselves.
That perspective deserves attention.
School violence is not simply an education issue. It reflects a wider societal problem in which violence has become increasingly normalised. Children do not develop violent behaviour in isolation. They are influenced by their homes, communities, peers, social media and the broader culture around them.
A parental responsibility law may help establish clearer expectations and consequences. But it cannot, by itself, solve student violence, nor can it address the wider culture of violence affecting the nation.
That requires a broader strategy: early intervention, stronger family support, effective counselling, meaningful consequences, safer communities and well-resourced social services. It also requires a sustained national effort to change attitudes towards violence.
Any proposed legislation should therefore be viewed as one tool among many. It can support a wider strategy, but it cannot be a substitute for one.
