CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Evening Star, Issue 23324, 21 July 1939, Page 10

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO OTAGO SCHOOL HEAD MASTERS CONFLICTING OPINIONS EXIST STUDENT TEACHERS NOT ALLOWED TO PUNISH From time to time there arise isolated eases of pupils in primary schools receiving corporal punishment at tbs hands of teachers—punishment which is considered unjust and harsh by the parents. Always a very debatable subject, it is a very live one in Otago at the moment. A memorandum to head masters on the question was sent out by the Otago Education Board some time ago, the object of the board being to ascertain what corporal punishment was used in the schools. In nearly all instances corporal punishment is left in the hands of head masters or mistresses, who usually exercise a wise discretion, but isolated eases of punishment being meted out by junior teachers do arise, as, unfortunately, in the case cited by a writer in our correspondence columns. If her statement is correct—and there is no reason to think otherwise—the student complained of acted definitely in breach of the regulations. Corporal punishment of pupils by student teachers is prohibited by the Otago Education Board, and instructions on this point are very definite to student teachers at the Training College. This point was clarified by the principal of the college (Mr J. A. Moore), who states that long before any batch of students go from the college a notice is prominently displayed. One, under date March 3, and headed ‘‘Corporal punishment,”' now adorning the walls of the college reads as follows: —“ Students should carefully bear in mind, that they are not permitted to inflict corporal punishment on pupils of a class to which they are sent for practice and observation*” As already stated, corporal punishment is allowed in the schools under the jurisdiction of the Otago Education Board, but that does not mean the board acquiesces in an indiscriminate use of the strap or cane, and its views on the subject are set out in a by-law. That by-law is as follows: BOARD’S VIEW. “ While not prohibiting corporal punishment, the board enjoins teachers to have recourse to it sparingly and with due deliberation. Its frequent infliction is always to he accounted an indication of defective discipline. The board views it as a serious offence to strike a pupil on any part of the head.Girls are not to be subjected to corporal punishment unless in exceptional cases.” From time to time the board draws the attention of teachers to the by-law. This was last done in October, 1935, in this way:— ... ‘‘ From inquiries and complaints which reach board members and the office it would seem that there is still too much corporal punishment for lessons and school work. There has been a marked improvement in this respect during the past two years, but ther® still appear to be some teachers who do not seem to know that the board strongly disapproves of corporal punishment as an aid to teaching and for term examination work, also that there is a by-law which states that girls are not to be subjected to corporal punishment unless in exceptional circumstances.” Head masters generally do not favour the total abolition of corporal punishment, but rarely do they inflict it for other than gross breaches of discipline. Apparently, from its interpretation of its own by-law, this is the view of the board, and undoubtedly, were punishment of pupils left solely in the hands of head masters there would be little about which to complain. When approached to express an opinion on the subject, the chairman of the board (Mr J. Wallace) said it was sub judice in so far as he was concerned. The board had sent the circulars out to head masters, and when, all the replies were to hand the subject would be discussed > by the board. The circular to which Mr Wallace referred was set out in the form of a questionnaire, and asked for information on the number of teachers * whe gave corporal punishment for errors or inability to. do • lessons, or for misdemeanours. The board also asked by what moans punishment was inflicted, and what punishment did a head master allow assistants to inflict without reference to him. Further information was sought whether punishment below. Standard I. was permitted and for what purpose. The response to this circular will be a matter for discussion by the, board at some date vet to be fixed. So far as the general public is concerned, opinions are divided on the question of corporal punishment, bub the belief is fairly general that if its infliction were left in the hands of the head masters of schools there would be few complaints from parents about unjust treatment of their children. it is felt that head masters would use their authority in this regard very sparingly, but head masters themselves are of the opinion that to deprive them of this authority altogether would be. at step in the wrong direction. The Canterbury Education Board has definitely prohibited! corporal punishment in schools under its jurisdiction, but it is understood the move has not' been received with approval by teachers, the argument being that pupil* knowing that corporal punishment cannot be inflicted upon them are not so amenable to discipline.