In the heart of Harlem, New York, is a private Pentecostal Christian school. Its population was approximately five percent Hispanic and ninety five percent Black (of this group, seventy five percent were African American and twenty five percent, Caribbean). This remained so until one Chinese five year old began attendance. Her admittance process was very different from the rest of the school's population. Her father, a recent immigrant, whose family owned the Chinese restaurant across the street, arrived at the school's administrative office one fall Monday morning, with the child. Upon approaching the Director of Admissions, he said: "School?" She affirmed that this was indeed a school.

He then reached into his pocket and pulled out several hundred dollar bills and said, "Money?" Smiling nervously, the Director attempted to explain the admissions process. The girl's father did not seem to understand. He spoke little English and the child spoke none. The admissions director then tried repeating the phrase "No! No money now; talk and write;" shaking her head and waving both hands, gesticulating that she could not yet admit the child.

Still the child's parent waved the fist full of bills saying insistently, "Money, money." He appeared to be extremely frustrated at this point. Sighing, she resignedly took them, counted two thousand dollars, (the full year's tuition) and gave him what remained. It took approximately one hour for them to understand each other, but somehow the admissions director gleaned enough information from him to fill out the pertinent information required. He wrote his signature on all the paperwork done, in his language. One document signed was the school's discipline policy. Since the school was a Pentecostal Christian one, the discipline policy was based on the biblical principle of "spare the rod and spoil the child" (Proverbs). He could not, of course read or write English. He did not understand the document. It was not explained to him. Therefore, by adding his signature, this parent agreed to having his child spanked as a means of discipline.

This policy was one on which the school's principal disagreed with the school's board many times. They made clear to her, that she could have it enforced or resign. She, however, did not take a clear position about this issue; she chose to stay and encourage teachers to use positive discipline methods instead. As part of this encouragement, she had guests come in and share ideas on positive discipline methodology: such as redirection and behavior modification. Thus, the discipline policy had been a controversial issue, and both the teachers and parents were split into con and pro groups over the school's "spanking" policy.

The parent then handed the child to the admissions director, said her name was Yung and left. He returned at three o'clock for her and did so every day. Though five, the child was placed in the first grade, where most of the children were already beginning to read. The admissions director's rationale was: "Those kinds of people were always smart and she would catch on in no time. Besides, we have no space in the Kindergarten."

A school year passed and the results of recently taken S.A.T. examinations were in. The scores placed Yung below Preschool grade level. In a staff meeting, the child's teacher was heard lamenting on her laziness and citing this as the reason for her test scores. She had decided that Yung should attend resource room sessions and if there was no improvement within the next month she would be disciplined for her laziness. The Principal and two teachers were against this plan of action. However, in recent years, she had expounded on the virtues of a shared vision among staff. As a consequence all decisions were arrived at through staff consensus. The majority of staff agreed, so the decision remained.

One morning, approximately one month later, Yung came to school with no homework. This was normal. The teacher decided that this was a definite marker of her ongoing "laziness." As had been the previously decided plan of action, she was spanked. When he picked her up, her father inquired about the ugly red mark in both her hands. The child explained. He approached the principal, obviously angry. Pointing at the child's hands, he sputtered "This?" The Principal's response was to show him the discipline policy-agreement he had signed. Angrily he left shouting "No school no more!"

Not long after, the school was contacted by a lawyer. Yung's father was suing the school for discriminating and abusing his child. Staff began discussing the situation among themselves. Some consequently discussed it with parents also. One Monday morning, the Principal arrived to work to find many parents (both blacks and Hispanics were represented in this group) protesting outside the school's doors. Upon even closer inspection, she realized that approximately five members of her forty member staff were protesting as well. The media was present. Many placards protested the archaic spanking policy, but many decried the school's stereotypical treatment of the schools minority group (i.e. Hispanics and the recent Chinese child). Some even implied that their children were disciplined more because they were not a part of the racial majority, and thus did not respond to adult authority in the same way.

Upon entering the school, she noticed immediately that attendance was unusually low. It was later discovered that only fifty five percent of the school's usual children in attendance, were present. There were parents in the bursar's office loudly demanding a tuition refund because they were removing children immediately. They had heard from others that the principal herself did not agree with the spanking policy. In view of this present situation, it was thought that she would discontinue it. Most of this group (as much as 40%) actually brought their children to this school because the students had a reputation for being well behaved. These parents felt that this was due to the schools' method of discipline.

QUESTIONS:

1. What should the principal do immediately?
2. What should be her long term plan? (Including the consideration if she should abolish the spanking policy or not)
3. Should she involve any external forces in solving her dilemma?
4. If so who or what?