Tattle-telling

"Don't be a tattle-tale."

Here in the United States, primary grade students are often told by their teachers not to tattle-tale. What is the reason for this? After all, children first learn about right behavior through rules, even if they don't understand right away the rationale behind those rules. They expect that those rules will be enforced, and if they or others break them, that there will be consequences. That's how important the authority of the rules is. Or, the consequences of breaking a rule is very important, if only because of the mental association between punishment and the rightness of the rules, as children don't understand that breaking the rule in itself is bad, but associate the badness of breaking a rule with the punishment that should follow. If there are no punishments, then there doesn't seem to be a rationale for the rule, and one is tempted to think that it is ok to break the rule, so long as one doesn't get caught. Out the window goes respect for rules (and law in general).

Are teachers just too lazy to correct infractions, to enforce discipline? Or do they automatically assume that students who report others have a less than noble motive, i.e. to get someone else in trouble? And why would they assume this? While it is possible for some students to get some sort of pleasure out of seeing others get in trouble (perhaps because they have been punished--too harshly in some instances?), it seems to me that a more reasonable explanation is the one given above--children generally learn about morality through the imposition of rules first. I have no problem with Kohlberg on that point. So, their psychology is very rule-focused, with rules being associated with an external authority and discipline. If a student sees someone doing something wrong, unless they're taught to handle it on their own (and how many have the maturity to correct another), they turn to the authority figure.

When I was a teacher, I would listen to students' complain before making a judgment call about whether to take it seriously, and if so, how to proceed.

How much of it is bound with the attitude that one shouldn't be a "snitch"? Being a snitch in order to gain some external benefit from it, yes that is probably base. But for the sake of justice? What would the alternative be to "informing" on someone else, other than enforcing the law on one's own authority, as a citizen? One could think of plenty of abuses that could arise, as well as other bad consequences.

Now, some might argue that one should not busy one's self with the affairs of others, and rather worry only about what goes on under one's roof. I think I've seen someone make the case that in classical Greece, this was the ideal, rather than being a "busybody."