School vandalism

Press, 22 October 1980, Page 22

School vandalism

Sir, — May I ask Ross Lindsay (October 20) whether it was help from Heaven or the development of classroom management skills by teachers that enabled Poland in 1783, the Netherlands in 1850 s, Finland in the 1890 s, Norway in 1935, Sweden in 1948, Israel and Japan in the 19505, Denmark in 1968, and the Inner London Education Authority in 1973 to abolish corporal punshment in schools.—Yours, etc., JOHN DOBSON, Psychiatrist, Community Mental Health Team. October 21, 1980.

Sir, — I write in support of Ross Lindsay (October 20) concerning choice of punishments; the right to be able to use comoral punishment in certain situations must remain, especially when pupils have been advised that' it may be used. During the International Year of the Child the rights of children were highlighted. Alas, one was missing — the child’s right to be disciplined, and to have limits placed on his or her behaviour. I have observed with sadness over the last six years; the aftermath of lack of appropriate discipline in lots of families, and a number of schools. I am convinced that all methods of discipline will have their appropriate place as we try to reinstate in our young people an awareness of right and wrong, good and evil, kind and unkind, constructive and destructive. — Yours, etc., A. G. WTNNICOTT. October 21, 1980.

Sir, — A recent correspondent labels my views “absolute garbage.” I smile and nod. .1 agree. The correspondent uses the word “categorical” to mean “uncategorical.” I shall henceforth use “categorical” wherever I would once have used “uncategorical.” The correspondent makes public the steps that at least one .headmaster

had to take to prevent one keen disciplinarian from exercising his “judgment.” I wring my hands. Were the results disastrous? “Disastrous.” I echo. The strap and the cane are used, he says, with “discretion” and “effectiveness.” Yes, yes, I reply. Always, always. Readers puzzled by my change of attitude will realise, of qourse, that my “behaviour” has been “modified” by a “technique” (long abandoned by the Army and the prisons) whereby some people have the “right” to hit other people. Without risk, be it noted. Do such teachers have my respect and that of their pupils? Yes, yes. Always, always. — Yours, etc., .

KEN MCALLISTER. October 20, 1980.

Sir, — Ross Lindsay’s letter (October 20) is an unfortunate example of parttruth with little enlightenment. Indeed, corporal punishment works —- but in the presence of the punisher. That, and its ease, reinforces the punisher to continue using such methods. Behaviour , modification demands more thought. In schools its greatest effect is in helping children enter less conflictual relationships and in improved attainment. Its least effect is in authoritarian application and in having children carry on with regularly boring programmes. Perhaps it was there that Ross Lindsay’s understanding went astray. Removal of corporal punishment will be detrimental only if teachers do not retrain in available alternative methods. Finally, a principal banning corporal punishment is an example of professional leadership with a realistic and humane belief that most teachers', given training, and opportunity, have the wish and ability to interact more positively with their pupils. That is confidence in one’s staff — not lack of it. — Yours, etc., MICHAEL J. DAVIDSON. October 20, 1980.