Who now gets strapped for doing what?

Press, 22 September 1980, Page 16

Who now gets strapped for doing what?

This is the second of two articles on corporal punishment in New Zealand schools by JOHN LEVERSEDGE, a Christchurch teacher.

One of the present myths regarding corporal punishment is its widespread use. But I can well remember my own schooling and the daily ritual of “one” for each spelling mistake. This practice of strapping for failure to learn is now specifically banned.

Corporal punishment is to. day normally used only as a last resort—when other forms of correction have failed. In spite of this fact, there is abhorrence in a section of the community that infliction of. pain is still an accepted part of the education process. The pressure is such, that Education Boards are considering making amendments to their bylaws. Even the primary teachers’ union, the N.Z.E.1., is investigating the whole matter amongst its members in preparation for a policy decision.

What are the prime objections to strapping a recalcitrant child? The strongest opposition to the frequently heard claim that “it didn’t do me any harm” comes from psychologists and psychiatrists. They inform us of the long-term damage such treatment can do to children. They claim that punishment succeeds only in suppressing ■ the deviant behaviour for a short time. They claim also that hitting the child serves only to teach the miscreant to deal with others in a similar way. Further, the opponents of corporal punishment point out that because so many countries have either never permitted ; corporal punishment or have abolished its use’ altogether, there must be alternatives. The Johnson Report, for example, refers to “caring” classrooms,

rather than those filled with “conflict.” How might, this ideal climate be attained? Seven basic principles all equally spuriqus, seem to be offered for teachers to follow; 1 Ignore the antics of the disruptive as they onlywant to gain attention. 2 Use behaviour modification techniques (or bribes as they are more commonly known) to get what you want.

3 Write only names of well-behaved-pupils on the blackboard. This makes sense, as it would save a considerable amount of time and blackboard space. 4 Create an atmosphere where pupils are free to leave the classroom whenever they like. Perhaps this is one way of reducing the teacher-pupil ratio to a

manageable. size! 5 Reason with the contrary pupils who do not want to complete set tasks. In other words pander to their self

indulgent appetites. 6 Ensure that programmes are interesting enough to capture every pupil’s imagination and interest. 7 Negotiate the rules of acceptable behaviour with the pupils. The strange thing is that the proponents of this "warm and free” atmosphere state quite categorically that effective teaching can only take place in conditions free from apathy, disruptiveness and violence — the very things , which the measures suggested promote. At the other extreme are those who feel not enough corporal punishment is administered by our teach-

ers. In decrying the “kid glove” methods of today, they remind us of the acknowledged increase in disobedience, disruptiveness and destructiveness in our schools — not to mention falling academic standards. . Most New Zealanders, thinking about corporal punishment, evidently do not conjure up the spectre of a sadist beating the daylights out of some pathetic child. Like many teachers, they see corporal punishment not only as an effective way of dealing with repeated transgressions but also as a deterrent to others. No one can dispute the sobering effc- this type of punishment has on the rest of the class. Indeed, it is a fact of life that orderliness in society is largely based upon constraints rather than rewards. We only have to reflect on our own traffic behaviour to acknowledge this point. Psychologists now admit that punishment is effective provided it forces the sub: ject to select an altematve response which is then rewarded. They speak of “negative reinforcers” where punishments are given until the desired response is made, and then rewarded. Having acknowledged that punishments do work, what would be the effect of reducing the range of options available to teachers. Banishing corporal punishment would leave suspension as the ultimate deterrent. All this does is give the suspended child an unrestricted right to roam the streets. What type of child is usually punished physically Acknowledging the dangers of sterotyping, the common denominators are usually unstable home backgrounds, “cold” family relationships and leisu.e that is either unrestricted or nonexistent. These manifest themselves at school in the form of defiant and disruptive behaviour and physical aggression.

One has every sympathy for the tragic background of these deprived children who are entering our schools in ever increasing numbers. However, we should remember that most of us have, at various times in our lives, crosses to bear. ■ • -

To compound the situation, these children also lack parental encouragement essential for good study habits. So, at best, they are indifferent about school work. This, coupled with curricular geared to the enthusiastic and able pupil plus the “soft’ approach to discipline, hats led to a new breed of pupil — a breed the authorities are at last becoming alarmed about. These pupils have become double failures — failures in acceptable behaviour and failures in academic achievement.

What many educationists fail to realise is that even though deprived pupils respond well to care and attention on a one-to-one basis, this cannot be maintained under the normal classroom constraints of large numbers and inadequate space. What is more, teachers find that the familiarity built up in any counselling situation is frequently used aganst them in the class, setting, resulting in insolence, flared tempers and disorder.

It is time the policy makers discovered that sound scholarship in our schools is dependent upon teachers maintaining a barrier between themselves and their pupils. Token lip service to providing full-time counsellors is no solution. Given these conditions is k little wonder that some teachers, usually the relatively. inexperienced, rely on corporal punishment to maintain order in the classroom. Should this aid be suddenly taken away in the name of humanising the education process?