After all, cell phones are not the only items that are forbidden in exam spaces. Any dictionaries, electronic calculators, translator devices and extra notes are not permitted. Even students' personal bags are not allowed near examination desks. Why were the cell phones the only items tagged for destruction?

Furthermore, the public display of this punishment is, likewise, an extreme measure unnecessary in this context. Like public beheadings during the French Revolution or struggle meetings during the Cultural Revolution, creating public punishment places far too much emphasis on the crime and the perpetrator, rather than on the appropriate behaviors schools should be modeling. It is rarely noted how considerably a public "event" (i.e. the smashing of the phones) gives the poor behavior more attention, thus inadvertently reinforcing the said behavior. Most people assume it accomplishes deterrence, but the topic on everyone's lips after such a display is not the exam content or results, or how to study more effectively, it is the punishment inflicted on those who brought their phones in despite regulations. In effect, all appropriate focus is lost.

Regardless of whether or not the school forewarned the students of the consequences were they to break the rules, there is no justification for the use of such blatant violence inherent in the destruction of private property. Even though the students personally swung the hammers to smash their individual phones, the school contract was developed without their consent and they had no choice but to sign it. In this way, the school has modeled very poor behavior indeed. In short, the school had an invisible hand on each of those hammers.

Mianchi high school cannot now avoid the costly compensation promised to parents for the replacement of their children's phones. This invariably creates another layer of administrative inefficiency within the academic system – a system designed to educate, not compensate.

The message is loud and clear: those in positions of authority in Chinese schools have the right to utilize violent measures in order to enforce regulations. Such methodology will only be met with disdain by students, especially those resenting the destruction of their private property. In the end, why risk angering students into other, unpredictable forms of disobedience?

If teachers and students adopt a series of policies based on mutual respect and common sense, and in particular consequences for poor behavior that are contextually relevant, then there is a much greater chance that students will respond in kind. Chinese schools need to engage in more mature punishments, leading by moral example.

The author is a columnist with China.org.cn. For more information please visit:

http://www.h5a3.com/opinion/emberswift.htm

Opinion articles reflect the views of their authors, not necessarily those of China.org.cn.