Should corporal punishment (caning, strapping or paddling) be used in schools?
Echo Issue Outline: copyright © Echo Education Services
First published in The Echo news digest and newspaper sources index.
Issue outline by J M McInerney
Internet sources are shown in COLOURED, UNDERLINED HYPERTEXT. Readers can click on this to go directly to the relevant Internet site
What they said ...
`No one has a right to hit children, except in the most extreme circumstances where immediate safety is involved - and this does not happen in a school'
Judith Wheeldon, headmistress of Abbotsleigh
`We only feel the cane is necessary in extreme cases. We are talking about a "paddling on the bottom" which is valid in some cases and normal - it is not vicious or nasty'
Margaret Ratcliffe, secretary of the Religious Freedom Institute
Corporal punishment was outlawed in Victorian schools in 1983. It was outlawed in New South Wales 12 years later, at the end of 1995. Corporal punishment in New South Wales was prohibited under the Education Reform Amendment (School Discipline) Act. Under the Act all government schools in New South Wales were to cease any form of corporal punishment from the start of 1996. All non-government schools were to cease using corporal punishment from the start of 1997.
The prohibition of corporal punishment in New South Wales has been strongly resisted by a group of religious schools calling themselves the Christian Community Schools.
This has led to renewed debate on the question.
Background
The American Society for Adolescent Medicine has defined corporal punishment as the `intentional application of physical pain as a method of changing behaviour. It includes a wide variety of methods such as hitting, slapping, punching, kicking, pinching, shaking, choking [and] use of various objects (wooden paddles, belts ...)'
In Australia the term tends to refer to the use of smacking with the hand or other object, especially in New South Wales, smacking with a wooden paddle. This practice is referred to as paddling.
Corporal punishment in schools is currently illegal in all European nations except Britain. It is also illegal in Israel and Japan. In The United States, New Jersey was the first state to ban corporal punishment in schools, doing so as early as 1867. Twenty other American states have since followed suit.
In 1979, Sweden became the first European nation to prohibit corporal punishment of children by parents. A number of other European nations now have similar laws.
Arguments in favour of corporal punishment in schools
One of the main arguments offered in support of the use of corporal punishment in schools is that governments which outlaw corporal punishment are out of step with community thinking.
Critics of the New South Wales Government's decision to abolish corporal punishment in schools have noted that a Herald-AGB McNair Poll conducted in New South Wales and published on February 19, 1997, indicated that 53 per cent of those surveyed supported the use of such punishment by teachers or school principals.
According to this line of argument, if a majority in the electorate support the use of corporal punishment in schools then the wishes of this majority should be followed.
A related argument is that schools should be able to cane or strap students if this is what the parents of their students want.
This is the argument which has been put by New South Wales Christian Community Schools. These schools have been arguing with the New South Wales Government since the law regarding corporal punishment was changed at the end of 1995.
The Christian Community Schools have argued that the parents who send their children to them expect corporal punishment to be used, when necessary, in these schools.
Mr Bob Frisken, the president of Christian Community Schools, has said, `There has been a great deal of anger and unhappiness amongst parents on this issue ... Parents have a right to chose if they want their children educated in a similar way as they are brought up at home.'
Mrs Margaret Ratcliffe, secretary of the Religious Freedom Institute, a group of lawyers and parents who support the right of Christian Community Schools to use corporal punishment, has said, `We don't feel the state has the right to dictate how parents should bring up their children.'
A second argument raised in support of corporal punishment is that its supporters are not defending a cruel or excessive form of punishment. Such defenders of corporal punishment claim that an instrument like the cane would be used rarely and even then only for unusually difficult cases.
Mrs Ratcliffe has maintained, `We only feel the cane is necessary in extreme cases. We are talking about a "paddling on the bottom" which is valid in some cases and normal - it is not vicious or nasty.'
Relatedly it is claimed that corporal punishment should not be administered in anger but should be used judiciously, and preferably not by the teacher in whose class the misbehaviour was performed. (A study recently conducted in the United States indicates that this is the preferred method of administering corporal punishment there. In the USA it is also preferred that the punishment be administered in private, but before an adult witness.)
There are those who argue that such precautions prevent the punishment being misread by the student as some form of revenge by the teacher. Instead it is to be seen by the student as the considered judgement of the whole school that this form of punishment is an appropriate response to a particular sort of misbehaviour.
It has also been noted that it is not necessary to ban corporal punishment in order to guard against its misuse. Supporters of corporal punishment have claimed that there are sufficient safeguards in the provisions of the Crimes Act to prevent the improper use of corporal punishment.
It has also been maintained that corporal punishment has the benefit of immediacy and if clearly connected with the offence for which it is being administered helps the student learn to avoid the behaviour for which he or she is being punished.
Finally it has been claimed by those Christian schools that support the use of corporal punishment that the State is trying to limit their religious freedom.
According to this line of argument because some verses of the Bible appear to sanction the use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining children and because this biblical injunction is important to some religious groups, if these groups are denied the ability to send their children to schools which employ corporal punishment, their religious freedom will have been restricted.
Some Christian schools claim their authority to use corporal punishment comes from the book of Proverbs. Dr Peter Barnes, the head of the Nambucca Christian Community School, has cited the following verse from Proverbs, `He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him disciplines him diligently.'
Dr Barnes judgement on the significance of this verse is that it indicates that `God sanctions the use of corporal punishment.'
Arguments against the use of corporal punishment in schools
Those who oppose the use of corporal punishment in schools generally do so for four main reasons. They claim it is an ineffective means of trying to change students' behaviour; they maintain, it can be harmful, they consider it cruel and they also suggest that there are other more effective and appropriate means of shaping students' behaviour.
Opponents of corporal punishment maintain that it has no long term effect in positively modifying student behaviour. They claim that those students who appear to benefit from it behave only because they are afraid of possible punishment and cease to behave appropriately when they believe their misbehaviour will not be detected.
According to this line of argument, corporal punishment is not permanently effective because students behave out of fear, not because they can see that good behaviour is in their own best interests. It is also claimed that corporal punishment does not help students see that behaving well results in the teacher and other students being treated fairly.
Jean Jenkin, lecturer in education at the University of Western Sydney, Macarthur, has claimed, `Applications of the cane are spectacularly unsuccessful in developing appropriate behaviour and attitudes based on sound moral judgment.'
Secondly there are those who claim that corporal punishment may actually harm students because it can teach them socially undesirable behaviours.
Jean Jenkin has argued that returning to corporal punishment suggests that `physical force and control are the mechanisms necessary to ensure a future society of well-behaved men and women'. Other educators have suggested that this is a dangerous message to give children as it seems to legitimise bullying and any other forms of violence present in their own lives. It can, it is claimed, teach them that using force is the correct way to get what you want.
It can also, it has been suggested, teach students to be dishonest or deceitful in order to avoid a punishment they fear. This has also been suggested by Jean Jenkin who has claimed that corporal punishment leads to `covert' or hidden misbehaviour.
Thirdly, it has been claimed that corporal punishment can be a cruel form of punishment, inflicting injury on the student and causing pain and fear.
Judith Wheeldon, the headmistress of Abbotsleigh, has claimed that `Blows to the hands, for example, can have very serious consequences if muscles, ligaments or bones are damaged.'
It has been pointed out by its opponents that this form of punishment would be considered assault if it were practised by one citizen against another. It has also been pointed out that it has been abolished since 1905 in prisons, where it seems likely much more hardened offenders are found.
Fourthly, it has been claimed that there are other more desirable and effective means of encouraging appropriate behaviour in students. It has been suggested that if teaching is at an appropriate level of difficulty and suitably interesting then discipline problems among students largely disappear.
Jean Jenkin has summed up this position be claiming, `Teaching is the key - not control.'
It has also been claimed that more effective behaviour modification is achieved if students are treated as reasonable people and enabled to see why good behaviour at school is in their own interests and that of other students.
Jean Jenkin has claimed, `Teachers and parents can be taught to influence and guide their young charges towards reasonable behaviour ...'
Finally, there are those who argue that it may not be appropriate to attempt to use the Bible to justify the use of corporal punishment in schools.
According to this line of argument not every direction within the Bible should be literally followed. Sydney Morning Herald columnist, Peter Smark, has noted that the Bible in Deuteronomy Chapter 21, verses 18-21, advises the parents of a rebellious son to have him stoned to death. Mr Smark notes that such a punishment would not be considered appropriate today. He goes on to imply that the same may also be true of the biblical injunction that a loving parent should not spare the rod.
Relatedly, there are those who claim that the question of whether corporal punishment should be used in Christian Community Schools is not a question of religious freedom at all.
According to those who hold this view the question of corporal punishment in schools is a civil rights and educational issue, not a religious one. It involves questions regarding how best to motivate students. It also raises the question of what form of punishment might infringe the rights of a student as a citizen and a human being.
Further implications
It is difficult to determine exactly where this issue will go from here.
The New South Wales Government appears particularly determined not to allow corporal punishment to continue to be used in schools within that state and it also seems reluctant to make any exception for Christian Community Schools.
At least one Christian Community School has attempted to get over the ban by asking parents to come in and administer corporal punishment themselves. This does not seem likely to work as the NSW Government is investigating the legality of this action and intends to close any loophole in the legislation that currently allows corporal punishment to be given in schools. It would also seem unlikely that many parents would be able to come into schools to give corporal punishment, even if they were willing to do so.
However, if the Christian Community Schools persist in their intention to continue using corporal punishment, they face deregulation, which would mean they would not be able to continue functioning as schools. Given that the majority of the electorate appears to favour corporal punishment this has the potential to develop into a particularly difficult political issue.
On an international level the issue of corporal punishment has taken an interesting turn in England, which is the only European country in which corporal punishment is legally allowed in schools. A 12-year-old British boy is hoping to take a complaint before the European Court of Human Rights. The boy intends to bring an action against his stepfather for a caning given three years ago.
If the boy's case is heard and is successful, the result may be that corporal punishment can no longer be legally administered by British parents. This would bring Britain into line with many other European countries.
If a similar legal challenge were ever to be successfully mounted in Australia then schools would no longer be able to claim that their right to use corporal punishment on students derived from the same right enjoyed by parents.
It has already been recommended by all Australia's attorneys-general that parents who decide to allow schools to administer corporal punishment to their children will have to give explicit permission for it. The attorneys-general have judged that the power to use corporal punishment cannot be inferred from parents.
Sources
The Age
13/1/97 page 2 news item by Helen Pitt, `Christian parents ready for a legal battle to keep cane'
The Australian
15/8/97 page 3 news item by Jill Rowbotham, `Parents to rule on cane'
11/9/97 page 10 news item, `Boy's bid to outlaw smacking clears first hurdle'
The Bulletin
16/1/96 page 38 comment by Geoffrey Maslen, `Cane disabled, strap retracted'
The Herald Sun
11/9/99 page 28 news item by John Ferguson, `Major backs smack'
The Sydney Morning Herald
6/1/97 page 10 comments by Judith Wheeldon & Robert Frisken, `Cane and punishment'
13/1/97 page 3 news item by Helen Pitt, `Legal threat over school beating ban'
15/1/97 page 14 editorial, `Beating ban'
7/1/97 page 13 comment by Jean Jenkin, `Learning the hardest of lessons'
4/2/97 page 2 news item by Helen Pitt, `Christians call for parents to do the caning'
5/2/97 page 6 news item by Helen Pitt, `Christian schools look for loopholes to keep caning'
8/2/97 page 43 comment by Peter Smark, `Beware the biddings of the good book'
19/2/97 page 3 news item by Stephanie Raethel, `Majority support for caning in schools despite ban'
20/2/97 page 16 editorial, `Not the cane'
22/2/97 page 43 comment by Sally Loane, `Contradictory attitude leaves children unheard'
The Internet
The American Society for Adolescent Medicine has a position paper on corporal punishment in schools which can be found at http://www3.uchc.edu/~sam/corp-pun.html The paper argues against corporal punishment and also gives an overview of practices in other countries.
Comments on a Study of Corporal Punishment (in the USA) can be read at http://www.gasou.edu/aix2/edufound/pce/martin.html The comments, by Doug Martin, are based on a study of corporal punishment in American schools by T.L. Rose that was published in 1984. The comments support corporal punishment.