1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Bring back the Cane

Discussion in 'Behaviour' started by Mr.Chips, Dec 6, 2006.

  1. Dodat, you had me all the way up to when you said the PGCE needs extending. I am myself a PGCE student and Inclusion, SEN provisions and BM is all we are taught during our university sessions.

    There is pleanty of time to learn the skills you need in the time given in one year if you have a good team at the university and at the school placements you go to to show you.

    Having two years of training would be far to much, especially seen as after a while you do begin to be taught how to suck eggs, there is only so much you can actually be taught/shown as far as inclusion and SEN goes anyway as every child/class is different and you need to adapt to that not try and use standardised responses to everything.
     
  2. Autismuk, thanks for your response to my comment earlier.
    Jane 26 I'm afraid it isn't true that violence doesn't solve anything. qv WW2. Also I think that if you believe that you should tell the most powerful people in this world because they clearly don't agree either.
    In my own case I am entirely opposed to any form of premeditated physical violence.
    The problem we have has stemmed from an act of the UN which was intended to protect abused and exploited children in the less civilised parts of the planet. It seems to have had little effect on that because those countries don't give a stuff about the UN, and who can blame them when America doesn't either. However it has had a dramatic effect on us because as usual no one thought about the consequences.
    It seems to me that it is no coincidence that this thread is running so strongly at a time when we have discovered that we can't find space for adult criminals because the prisons are full of teenagers. We are doing society a terrible diservice by allowing young people to come out of school thinking that discipline is meaningless only to discover that once they enter the adult world they are subject to an absolutely bewildering and ever increasing list of sanctions. The messages are so mixed that it is enough to make one start to agree with David Icke.
     
  3. #238 Jane56

    I cannot agree with what you have asserted here. I do not believe it to be true or provable. There are far too many exceptions to have such a general rule to human behaviour. Again there is an assumption here that physical punishment is equitable with the kind of violence carried out in a street fight or robbery or by a bully. It is not, in fact if you take a case in mind that of using coporal punishment against a bully. Does it actually compel the bully to further bad behaviour? I could easily assert that it puts them in the place of the victim and provides them with some empathy by giving them a simple example that being hurt by someone more powerful is unpleasant.


    Behaviour of any kind must have consequences, it is fundamental to learning otherwise individuals never know what is workable, acceptable or not. What is certain is that since the cane was abolished behaviour has declined from the mischievous risk taking that was commonplace to a malicious and violent psychopathy that the antipunishment lobby have no answer for. So how can the no contact, teach them by example ideology claim any victories when it simply isn't working? How many more teachers have to be assaulted, property stolen and destroyed, and bullying victims commit suicide, before the well meaning and witless decide to tackle the current situation?

    The kids in class that are inclined to behave can't even learn for the interference of a minority that won't behave. We have some of the worst literacy, and numeracy rates in the developed world and I'd say that the lack of education, lack of self esteem and resultant poor economic prospects of school leavers is far more pernicious of society and far more likely to create thieves, thugs and wife and child beaters than the occasional punishment of a wayward and wilful schoolboy.



     
  4. oldandrew: "Meanwhile, back in the real world....."

    bookwork: "Exactly- usernameinuse - join the real world"

    LOL! This idea that if someone doesn't happen to have the same experience of the world as you do, it's de facto "unreal", is an interesting one. Many of us choose to work in different setups to mainstream schooling *because* we can see so many things about it that are contributing to the situation and believe that unless the whole culture changes then you'll see little long-term benefit. The work that's being done in these other areas is exploring what works, while the school system is demonstrating very clearly what doesn't work. And, oldandrew, if you don't believe violence begets violence, then perhaps it's time *you* joined the real world.

    If the prejudice I've seen peppering these forums is anything to go by, it's fair to say that many of you are contributing to the situation. Some of the comments about the kids and parents are ridiculously one-sided, and bear about as much relation to the real world as some of you seem to think my comments do. If the same things were being said about people with different coloured skins, you'd be in trouble.

    It just underlines the point I was making about coming from the heart and the uselessness of trying to instill morals by imposition. Making racial prejudice illegal has obviously done little to address the fundamental predisposition to prejudice in this society.

    In the real world, all teachers are not saints and all parents and children are not lazy, stupid, manipulative or motivated by the basest ulterior motives. This is tribalism at its worst and can only lead to more division and a worsening situation.

    Dodat's list has some good points, particularly the one about being consistent. I'd also add "walk your talk". Children may be uneducated, but they're not stupid and they can see right through a disingenuous PC mask to the real feelings underneath. I've talked to many kids about their reasons for being disruptive and disrespectful, and selective, often prejudiced application of the rules and hypocrisy on the part of the teaching staff are in the top five. And no, the kids weren't lying. I've spent enough time talking to teachers (some of whom are good friends of mine) to know.

    Conflict resolution requires understanding, an ability to listen to all sides, and the validation of everyone's points of view. You teach these things to the kids, after all, don't you? How do you expect them to believe you if you don't believe them yourselves?
     
  5. Asmodeus: "Again there is an assumption here that physical punishment is equitable with the kind of violence carried out in a street fight or robbery or by a bully. It is not, in fact if you take a case in mind that of using coporal punishment against a bully. Does it actually compel the bully to further bad behaviour? I could easily assert that it puts them in the place of the victim and provides them with some empathy by giving them a simple example that being hurt by someone more powerful is unpleasant."

    No, I don't think so. All it's done is to show the bully that there's a more powerful bully on the block, and has done absolutely nothing to offer them another way of seeing the world or behaving. Consequently they will make all the right noises about having learned the lesson, and just keep their bullying out of your sight. You haven't solved the problem at all.

    Bullies are just the other side of the coin to the vulnerable children, which is why the two groups attract each other. The bullied wear their vulnerability on the outside, while the bullies have it on the inside. They're often very frightened people and have evolved this way of behaving to (over)compensate for the extreme vulnerability they feel inside. They target the obviously vulnerable because they can't handle having their own vulnerability reflected back to them. If you really want to stop the bullying then you need to work with the frightened child inside.
     
  6. Maimonides: "It seems to me that it is no coincidence that this thread is running so strongly at a time when we have discovered that we can't find space for adult criminals because the prisons are full of teenagers. We are doing society a terrible diservice by allowing young people to come out of school thinking that discipline is meaningless only to discover that once they enter the adult world they are subject to an absolutely bewildering and ever increasing list of sanctions. The messages are so mixed that it is enough to make one start to agree with David Icke."

    Indeed! But the way I see it, this goes way back before the UN and involves the bulk of European society. We've got to look at the bigger picture here. It's rooted in the whole conceptual premise of how we operate our societies. We are intrinsically bullying cultures, inflicting our way of life anywhere and everywhere we've felt impelled to, getting our way by being the biggest bullies on the block. (Do you honestly think that's an appropriate demonstration of the efficacy of violence as a "solution"? And that the endorsement of a corrupt US administration is somehow justification for that viewpoint?) But we've hit the ceiling with the development of nuclear weapons. There's no way we can up the ante any more without committing planetary suicide, so we've gone as far as we can with this behaviour in an outward direction. So now it's imploding on us, coming home to roost. We are seeing in our youth the reflection of our own raw nature uncontained by any "civilising" inhibitions.

    Yes, removing corporal punishment has probably precipitated this to some extent, but reintroducing it is NOT the answer. It just perpetuates our cultural barbarism and will merely intensify the implosion. We need to learn a different way of being -- all of us, not just the kids -- one founded on mutual respect that emphasises self-discipline instead of societal discipline. Fortunately there are models from other cultures we can adopt here, not least those that were used to draft the American constitution (which is now being so systematically shredded by said corrupt administration).

    Check out this article if you want to read more:
    http://www.orionmagazine.org/pages/om/07-1om/Lopez-Lyons.html
     
  7. "The problem we have has stemmed from an act of the UN which was intended to protect abused and exploited children in the less civilised parts of the planet. It seems to have had little effect on that because those countries don't give a stuff about the UN, and who can blame them when America doesn't either. However it has had a dramatic effect on us because as usual no one thought about the consequences."

    Not sure where you're getting this from, but corporal punishment, and the rules by which it's governed, have absolutely nothing to do with the UN. As should be indicated by the fact that most major states abolished the practice in schools before the UN came into existence...
     
  8. usernameinuse - No, I don't think so. All it's done is to show the bully that there's a more powerful bully on the block,


    No punishment was adminsitered with this as an intended objective. It was done as a deterrent not as an example that bullying was the way to go. Your explanation of the mechanism of bullying may have its merits. What does a bully fear?
     
  9. (Do you honestly think that's an appropriate demonstration of the efficacy of violence as a "solution"? And that the endorsement of a corrupt US administration is somehow justification for that viewpoint?)

    No usernameinuse I don't think that. It was an unsuccessful attempt at irony.

    Cassander. sorry I got that wrong. Goes to show you shouldn't always believe what you are told. However the UK was still practising corporal punishment in schools long after the UN came into being.

    I really would be interested to understand the detail of the legal and historical background to all this.
     
  10. "LOL! This idea that if someone doesn't happen to have the same experience of the world as you do, it's de facto "unreal", is an interesting one."

    No. However, if someone writes essays covering everything up to and including global politics - but says nothing about how to deal with violence other than "if we were nicer it wouldn't happen in the first place" then they aren't living in the real world. You can no more abolish violence than you can abolish sin. The question is not "why does violence happen?" it's "what do we do about it?". Those that advocate surrender and then start fantasising about a world where we do not have to defend ourselves are doing nobody any favours. To paraphrase Malcolm X, we should be non-violent with children who are non-violent with us.

     
  11. Historically, A large number of countries legislated against corporal punishment in schools in the nineteenth century. This includes most of Catholic Europe (France, Portugal, the Austrian Empire, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg), a large chunk of South America (Brazil, Peru, Argentina, Paraguay) and even a few bits of the USA (New Jersey). The first country to ban corporal punishment in schools was actually Poland, in 1776.

    Of course, legislating against something doesn't necessarily change people's actions. Murder has been illegal for a long time, but people are murdered all the time.

    In legal terms, the use of corporal punishment in Britain was defended, until recently, not by statute, but by case law, going back as far as the time of the Star Chamber. This merely allowed teachers to punish in what a later judge described as a "moderate and reasonable" way. In practice, the nineteenth century saw a fair few children beaten to death by their teachers, so it wasn't really achieving these rather modest aims. Moreover, legal retrenchment in the twentieth century actually broadened the power of punishment possessed by teachers, until teachers were claiming the right to punish children for any act committed not in parental presence (even if parental permission was granted for said act) and permissable force went up to and included breaking a child's jaw.

    Parents were not, of course, particularly happy about their children being treated in such a way and in the 1970s the European Court of Human Rights decided that parents had a right to insist that their children weren't treated like this. After a couple of compromises were attempted, the Thatcher government eventually decided to tackle the problem in the most simple way possible, and got rid of the practice with the Education Act 1986 (2).

    That's the very, very short version.
     
  12. Asmodeus: "No punishment was adminsitered with this as an intended objective. It was done as a deterrent not as an example that bullying was the way to go. Your explanation of the mechanism of bullying may have its merits. What does a bully fear?"

    The problem is that the intended objective is only as clear as it is to you, *not* to the child on the receiving end, who may be seeing it quite differently. You might be handing out punishment for bullying and the child might know that 3 other kids in the class (who you didn't catch) have been doing the same thing and are not being chastised for it. Your "judicial violence" then becomes no more than arbitrary in the child's experience, or a good lesson in not getting caught.

    What does a bully fear? Pretty much the same things we all fear in greater or lesser measure, and just as varied. In individual cases you can get a clue from the individual children they pick on, since those children will often represent an overt depiction of the inner problem. Bullies can grow up in an environment where it's not acceptable to show weakness or fear (the infamous British stiff upper lip), so they have to bury it and act tough, and they pick on the dependent clingy kids because they haven't had someone to cling to when things got scary. They might grow up in an environment where it's not acceptable to act or think differently from their 'tribe', so they might pick on the kids that are 'different' because they're too frightened to exhibit their own uniqueness. There are lots of reasons.

    But this isn't just true of bullies. One of the most valuable things I ever learned studying psychology is that the things that push our buttons are very often the things in our own natures that we're denying to ourselves. So it's pertinent to ask why are bullies pushing our buttons instead of inviting our understanding and compassion? IMO it's because, as a society (aside from individually), we can't face up to the fact that we're one of the biggest bullies on the block. We've made such a virtue out of the victim (overcompensating for that which can't be owned), that there are kids (and adults) who play that role to the hilt and accusations of bullying are not always directed at the right individual. Both bullies and victims of bullying need help to bring things into balance. There's no "good" and "bad" here, just people who are vulnerable and hurting.
     
  13. Cassander thankyou for your succinct and helpful reply.
    I apologise to all for my own inaccurate post.

    'One of the most valuable things I ever learned studying psychology is that the things that push our buttons are very often the things in our own natures that we're denying to ourselves.'

    How true that is Username. I agree entirely with that. It gets to the nub of the problem.
     
  14. oldandrew: "The question is not "why does violence happen?" it's "what do we do about it?". Those that advocate surrender and then start fantasising about a world where we do not have to defend ourselves are doing nobody any favours. To paraphrase Malcolm X, we should be non-violent with children who are non-violent with us."

    I guess you haven't been taking in what I've written then. The first step to "what do we do about it?" is to ask "why does violence happen?". You don't solve a problem unless you look at what's causing it. Violence is a part of human nature, yes, but it arises *in response* to context, not (by and large) of its own volition apropos of nothing at all. So "why does violence happen?" is a crucial question here. And the extent of the problem says there are no quick and easy solutions.

    I don't think anyone here is advocating surrender because surrender simply continues the battle analogy. What I'm saying is that we shouldn't be seeing this as a battle at all. Our kids are in trouble, our society is in trouble, so let's see what we can come up with by putting our heads together about it.

    And as for the reactive "we should be non-violent with children who are non-violent with us", who's supposed to be setting who an example here?
     
  15. "I guess you haven't been taking in what I've written then."

    Judging by what you've just written I've understood it perfectly. You object to talk of battle, you object to fighting back. You blame it on "society" and "context" so you have an excuse while you advocate disarming the victims. The fact is violent children have existed in all societies and at all times and the only thing that's ever kept it under control is the use of force.
     
  16. "Judging by what you've just written I've understood it perfectly. You object to talk of battle, you object to fighting back. You blame it on "society" and "context" so you have an excuse while you advocate disarming the victims. The fact is violent children have existed in all societies and at all times and the only thing that's ever kept it under control is the use of force."

    ROFLOL! OK, I can see we're going to have to agree to disagree on this. Personally I think your reasoning is part of what's got us into this mess to begin with. It doesn't solve the problem of violent behaviour. It merely attempts to control it, pushing it out of sight for it to emerge elsewhere where there's less resistance. One of the reasons why domestic abuse is such a huge problem in this country, which in turn sows the seeds of violence in the next generation.

    What's the more healthy approach. Control the symptoms or cure the disease?
     
  17. usernameinuse - The psychological analysis is interesting enough but if we accept this as the wisdom then what to do with it? What in your view then is a workable solution?

     
  18. "What's the more healthy approach. Control the symptoms or cure the disease?"

    Why not do both ?

    I agree with you that there's more to this than simply battening down on the children. One has to make a huge cultural switch (that I'm not even sure is possible any more) dumping the bullying self interest world-owes-me-a-living mentality that is running rampant (and starts with our Government who are a bunch of thugs IMO).

    Simply reintroducing CP or even firm sanctions will not solve all the problems of the world, or even education.

    What I would suggest is that controlling the symptoms would give some breathing space for teachers whilst we attempt to rebuild the country's .... ethos ?

    It would be nice if we could all do what you do but it simply isn't affordable (irrespective of wasted money). Nor, in most cases is it necessary.

    What *I* think we need to do is the following. This isn't an exhaustive list obviously, but these three points are probably the most important.

    (1) reinstate Special Education/Therapeutic education/whatever for those children who are seriously behaviourally disordered (like yours, I would imagine) and deal with them seperately (and also for those with other serious problems, but we are talking behavioural stuff here).

    (2) have some effective sanctions that would keep control of the bulk that aren't really SEBD (or whatever) but play along because it looks fun and there's no real reason not to. If you don't like caning, fine, how about things like enforced litter picking and the like (not opt outable by parents). See the earlier posts on CAVING (which does not require physical sanctions).

    (3) rebalance the "children never lies" mentality of Social Services and the Police thus shifting the balance of power and control to the teachers instead of the children. Things like Mitchelhill (one of many) make the job virtually impossible (if the children want it to be)."I'll get you done".
     
  19. "It doesn't solve the problem of violent behaviour. It merely attempts to control it, pushing it out of sight for it to emerge elsewhere where there's less resistance."

    On the one hand we have my solution that doesn't solve the problem of violent behaviour and merely attempts to control it.

    On the other hand we have your solution which doesn't solve the problem of violent behaviour AND doesn't attempt to control it either.

    I think mine has more going for it.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Blog at: http://infet.co.uk/blog/index.php/a/a Last updated 26/1/2007
     
  20. WolfPaul

    WolfPaul New commenter

    usernameinuse said: "It doesn't solve the problem of violent behaviour. It merely attempts to control it..."

    May I humbly suggest that if violence were to be controlled totally, then the problems it causes would be totally solved.

    Therefore all the posters that are suggesting methods of controlling violence are in fact suggesting solutions to the problem.

    Furthermore, although I appreciate you hold your views very dearly, usernameinuse, the reality is that your approach removes the necessity for indivuals to take responsibility for their own actions. This is IMHO is the SINGLE biggest cause of violence in our society today, not just among the young.

    usernameinuse: we've tried all the variations of your "solutions" for a number of decades now. They sound very good; the problem is simply this: they don't work.
     

Share This Page