If one child is to disrupt a whole class of pupils, is that fair? Surely the majority have greater rights than a minority or than - as is often the case - just one child?

Why should a teacher have to give the greater part of her day to one or two disruptive children, rather than to the of the rest of the class? Turf out the one who is causing constant problems and you will have law and order and an environment conducive to teaching and learning.

The teacher is employed to do a job, but she is not allowed to do it because of one hooligan.

Many parent and teachers subscribe to that viewpoint. They believe in suspending the disruptive child in order to teach him a lesson, to give the teacher a chance to teach and to give the rest of the children an opportunity to learn.

I am not of that opinion. I believe that suspension is counterproductive, especially at primary school level.

Suspend the disruptive child from primary school and watch that child deteriorate. We are all too familiar with the sayings, "mol an oige agus tiochfaidh si" and "success breeds success". There is truth, too, in the opposite of those maxims. Derision, sanctions and constant failure will breed in the child an inferiority complex which may manifest itself in either withdrawal and shyness or in disruptive and aggressive behaviour.

Teachers will know that the child who is aggressive and difficult to teach and control in class is disruptive because he or she is experiencing difficulties of some kind. The problem may be with another child, perhaps even a sibling, with a parent, a home problem or even classwork, with social activities, with the teacher, or it may result from a genetic condition - Asperger's syndrome, dyslexia, a language problem etc.

The important point to realise is that a child is bold for a real and genuine reason - and not just in order to torment the teacher or the parents. To suspend the child from the classroom may solve the teacher's problem temporarily. What about the child's problem?

The child with problems may disrupt the class in order to attract attention. Dismissing or ignoring him will achieve nothing. Suspending him makes him into the failure that he already may have come to believe he is. He may even be justified in that belief, for he may by then be branded a failure, a nuisance, a distraction, by the teacher.

He will not conform to the "norm", as the teacher and the school would like him to. He has foisted and forced acceptance of his uniqueness and individuality on the teacher and on the class. He has achieved this to such an extent that he becomes larger than the collective body of pupils in the class. He will not be shepherded. Teachers and schools naturally feel happier dealing with flocks which conform to the "norm".

Of course, we must distinguish between schooling and teaching. Children must learn rules of conduct. They must learn to conform to acceptable social behaviour. They must follow a timetable. They must learn to talk, walk and even dress as requested. This is the schooling aspect of education. Acquiring knowledge and learning skills which will be useful in later life make up the pedagogical aspect of education.

The schooling dimension treats children as part of a group, a class or a team. The disruptive child does not want to be schooled. It is his objections to this which affect control and order in the classroom.

The child may object, too, to subject matter which he sees as irrelevant to him and to his needs. Subject content may be unattractive to the child who has other problems on his mind.

A case could be made for applying some flexibility in schooling and in subject content for the disruptive child. Our aim must be to mollify the abhorrence he holds for school. The teacher will need to be pliable enough to see that.

At the end of the day, the child is more important than the drills of school or even than the subject matter of the curriculum. The child is not objecting to learning per se, but to schooling and to how curricular material is presented. Suspending a child suppresses and consequently depresses him; he is a failure. It gives him pleasure too, ironically, in that he is liberated from the monotony of school work and school routines. He comes to enjoy the failure. He also now feels he is a hero. Returning to school after a period of suspension may be difficult for a child. He is forced to eat humble pie. He will receive a warning from the teacher and the principal. He may be berated and feel belittled by some of his classmates. He may receive praise and acceptance from other members of the class. The effects of the suspension will force him to conform. That conformity will soon become tedious. The drudgery of schooling and the boredom of classwork will surface again.

Then his old problems will reemerge. He will resent being forced to conform. The teacher's attitude towards him may have hardened and his respect for, or empathy with, that teacher may diminish.

Creating outcasts through the educational system leaves society with greater social problems. Suspension could breed in the child a resentment and distaste for the institutions which exist to help him. He may feel alienated and, as a result, cause problems in his own neighbourhood. He may take to stealing or vandalism or seek solace in drugs or alcoholic drink. His continuation in education might come into question. His future work prospects could be diminished and his negative attitude to school may transfer to his own children in later life. We may, through suspension, help to nurture a delinquent.

The disruptive child needs help, not condemnation. He needs consistency and firmness from the significant adults in his life. He may need counselling. He needs attention - not suspension.

Pat Keogh is principal of Scoil Ard Mhuire, Belgard, Co Dublin.