Banishing the punishing

Jun 23, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Permit me to be the first perhaps to congratulate or hail the passing of a Bill to eradicate corporal punishment in schools. I am sure that I will be among a long list of so many.
Today, such actions, especially outside of the Third World regions would correctly label such behaviour as child abuse. Plainly put, corporal punishment is quite literally the infliction of punishment on the body.
I recall seeing children receiving corporal punishment in school, and this was during my formative years, and confessedly I found it very degrading to say the least, In addition, I can clearly recall the look on the face of the distributor, and it was not one of emotional concern.
Deterring and altering wrong behaviors instantly was the main advantage of corporal punishment, while the disadvantage was that it would definitely cause pain and harm.
This aspect was certainly not an issue that was given any degree of consideration. Corporal punishment in schools, for as long as it has been perpetrated, has always conveyed the wrong message and teaches the wrong lesson.
It is often said that punishing a wrongdoer by inflicting pain conveys the message that violence is an appropriate way to settle differences or to respond to problems. One teaches the child that if one dislikes what somebody does, it is acceptable to inflict pain on that person.
This implicit message is believed to reach the level of a contradiction in those cases where the child is hit for having committed some act of violence — like assaulting another child. Where this happens, it is claimed, the child is given the violent message that violence is wrong.
The child is told that he was wrong to commit an act of violence and yet the parent or the teacher conveys this message through violence. As far as long term effects are concerned, it is alleged that significant numbers of people who commit crimes were physically punished as children.
It is these arguments that lie behind the adage “violence breeds violence.” If beatings send a message, why don’t detentions, imprisonments, fines, and a multitude of other punishments convey equally undesirable messages?
There were other ways to change students’ wrong deeds without causing pain, but they would take more time to reach the same effect.
Doubtlessly, this Bill would provide students with an environment free from any physical harm.
However, as one disadvantage mentioned before, it would take teachers or drillmasters more time to teach students how to correct their bad behaviors.
Next, there is a cluster of arguments about the relationship between corporal punishment and teacher-pupil relations.  First, it is claimed that for a teacher to employ corporal punishment, indicates that the teacher has failed to discourage pupil wrongdoing in other ways — by moral authority, by a system of rewards, or by milder punishments.
As a former elementary and secondary school teacher, I am no stranger to the fact that far too many teachers fail to foster an atmosphere of mutual respect between their pupils and themselves. They lack the ability or the inclination verbally to communicate expectations to children — first gently and then more strenuously.
They do not first employ milder forms of punishment but rather resort to the cane in the first instance. Some might not believe in rewarding good behavior, only in punishing bad.
However, from the claim that corporal punishment often indicates teacher failure, we cannot infer that it necessarily demonstrates such failure or even that as a matter of fact it always does.
It is true that when the teacher resorts to corporal punishment this indicates that his prior efforts to discourage the wrongdoing failed. Just as school corporal punishment is seen by its opponents as originating in failed pedagogical relationships, so it is believed to compromise them further.
Thus it is perceived as exacerbating the very problems from which it arises.
The pupils, it is said, begin to fear their teachers and view them as enemies rather than concerned custodians charged with furthering their well-being and development, both mental and otherwise. Education does not thrive in an atmosphere in which children live in fear of those who teach them.
This opens the way for another objection in this cluster of arguments-that physically punishing children leads to an unquestioning acceptance of authority.
If children fear their teachers, they are unlikely to ask questions or challenge views that their teachers present to them. The idea here is that children can be beaten into submission to authority.
Therefore, the government should take some measures to help teachers, or it might seem quite difficult and impractical to reach the goal and purpose of Zero Corporal Punishment in School Policy.
Yvonne Sam . M. Ed. BSCN.

---

---