Connect with like-minded professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Behaviour' started by Mr.Chips, Dec 6, 2006.
Most of the postings would disappear I am sure of that. Never harmed anybody.
When wound up and angry, I feel like I could happily throw kids out of the window for behaving badly, and rudely and without any social skills whatsover...
But I really don't think, as a punishment, I could cane someone myself, just wouldn't feel comfortable doing it.
"Never harmed anybody"
The comp where I went ditched corporal punishment after a pupil fractured a teacher's cheekbone immediately after the receiving the cane - so I beg to differ!
Kids in my school would take the cane from you and hit you back with it.
Quite rightly too
We have no right to hurt our pupils
My dad worked in a secondary modern in the 1960s-1970s. He rarely used the cane and did not like using it; nevertheless, friends who were taught by him and colleagues who taught with him (in the 70s) say he was a firm disciplinarian. He said the worse the caner, the worse the behaviour; kids used to hit them back, swear at them, run away.
It was just a way of letting of steam, not a punishment. He used to see 'daft' kids caned on a Friday for what would have got a glare on a Monday. It was one thing that really wound him up.
He told me that this 'kids took it like a man' & it 'kept control' bow locks was all part of the myth of the good old days. If a kid will risk a punch in the face to insult another kid's mum, that kid will not fear another form of violence.
I remember my grandfather saying
"take the cane out of the schools and you'll fill the prisons"
i have to say, the state some of my kids get me in, i could throttle them, let alone give them the slap, so i for one don't believe i should have the power to so much as raise a finger, lest the red mist descend ad ill be done...
I agree with Gillian Shepherd and Rhodes Boyston that behaviour probably would improve if it was brought back.
As to the pupil who fractured that teacher's face, borstels also existed at that time, and I hope he ended up in one.
Badpower - you sound a bit too pious. Given the near animalistic behaviour and the roaring anarchy I have witnessed in schools, and the abuse I myself have suffered from these louts, I can never be that prim and preachy about pupils' rights. I agree with Tismee's granddad.
I'm sure it would improve. Corporal punishment never deters the really naughty students, but deters the sheep. Staff would find that while Shane and Darren continued to lark about in the corner, it would stay in the corner rather than spreading to the whole class.
Nevertheless, it could never be reintroduced - society has changed too much.
IMO the problem is not the use of it. It's the threat of it. The threat is sufficient to deter "the sheep" as it is so accurately put.
At present the sheep are told something like "adults can do nothing to you ; if they do something you don't like complain" (and they'll get into serious trouble).
It's the sheep that are the problem though. There are vastly more of them than there are the real problem children, who won't benefit from caning (and should probably be in Spec. Ed).
Probably correct that it cannot be reintroduced. However, some form of deterrent is required, and this, IMO anyway, needs to be something that the sheep will find unpleasant - and it will also need to be enforcable. There is no point in having a sanction that they can simply refuse to do.
What we really need is an attitude shift. We won't get it.
"Corporal punishment never deters the really naughty students, but deters the sheep."
So as long as there's an underclass of 'really naughty' students to take out our frustrations on by beating half-senseless that's OK is it?
"As to the pupil who fractured that teacher's face, borstels also existed at that time, and I hope he ended up in one."
Short answer is I don't remember but I think it illustrates the futility of punishments involving violence. If they DID bring back corporal punishment would the government go on a massive spending spree to recruit extra police etc to protect teachers from reprisals? Would they hell....
The cane is not the answer. The answer is supportive parents and a relevant curriculum for all and the re-opening of special schools.
We aren't going to get supportive parents. The parents of some the children I teach have not known discipline and don't know how to raise these children. We MUST bring back the cane. It's no good saying, "The world has changed," or "It's barbaric."
Schools are heading for a crisis whilst the government are concerned with league tables. With better discipline we would see better exam results. I was caned, slippered and strapped at school but not very often. It did me no harm. My parents never had to hit me but I can see how necessary corporal punishment was at school. We need to get the bandwagon rolling...'BRING BACK THE CANE'.
Generally I prefer the kids to learn because they want to and see the value of education rather than through fear of being beaten?
If the parents have raised the children to be violent yobs, bringing back the cane is not going change that.
In fact, it is likely to harden them further, so they can then go out and beat up you and me.
Jane56 said: "If the parents have raised the children to be violent yobs, bringing back the cane is not going change that.
In fact, it is likely to harden them further, so they can then go out and beat up you and me."
Of course, if it is a deterrent for thugs inside school, then there's no reason why it can't be a deterrent for thugs outside of school, whatever their age....
But that's the point, Wolf. They learn violence at home. They then learn more violence at school. So violence is a way of life. It is NOT a deterrent.
The argument that corporal punishment doesn't work because some kids are still naughty is weak, sentimental and cyclical. You cannot prove it either way whether something is a deterrent. There is always a handful of idiots who will call the bluff. That doesn't mean that frameworks of law and justice should be glibly abandoned.
Some adults still commit endless crimes. It doesn't mean that prisons, fines and cautions should suddenly vanish.
Corporal punishment is not 'violence'. Even the thickest yob can work out a qualitative difference between mugging or attacking someone, and being societally punished for for a misdemeanor.
How long is it before do-gooders, trendies and liberals suddenly turn their attention to prisons as being too unpleasant for advanced liberal sensibilities? Is it not coercion and an infringement of human rights to confine someone within a concrete box for ten years, regulating their activiies, movement and company?
There are greater issues here than the rights of the individual. The right of a teenage yob to go about his loutish behaviour without any obstruction from teachers or the police is an infringement on the rights of everyone else to an education and peace and quiet.
I think the ultimate argument clincher against the liberals, wets and Guardian readers is the fact that the 'enlightened' approach is not working. School discipline is in a terrible, terrible mess, and too many pupils are behaving in a way that is barely civilised.
Jane56: this APPEARS to be commonsense, until you consider this fact: as the use of "official" violence (such as corporal punishment in school, smacking by parents, capital punishment etc) has decreased, so "unofficial" violence (that is, against the law) has increased.
Also, I remain unconvinced of your argument that it is not a deterrent - it appears to be in some parts of the world such as Singapore, which is remarkably free of the kind of thuggish behaviour so prevelent on the streets of the UK.