CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16205, 15 April 1916, Page 9

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT.

Kir,—Though Rev. P. S. Smallfield's article on corporal punishment was undoubtedly a strong one, may 1 suggest that his arguments were sometimes, inconsistent with modern tendencies? It is difficult to reconcile oneself to his statement that girls should never bo caned, but boys sometimes should be caned. May I ask if girls do not often practise the similar tricks, such as facetious questions, sotto voce fimnyisms, intentional denseness of comprehension? Well, of course, we know all about hygiene for girls, who. should never be caned. Quite so, neither should boys, for they possess the same nerves as girls. We also know how necessary i* is for teachers to be doctors, dentists,"etc.— poor teachers ! if an "experienced" teat her should be ignorant of modern hygiene then he would fly to the care—for this let us send him bricklaying or baking. If a class is unruly, of course, blame the Laeber, but blame him because i:e is not educator enough to show by example what good behaviour is. Fancy teaching cowed children ! This fighting one's way to victory is all right lor wild bulls, but the sterling qualities of a good pi rsonalky would scorn the cane. Why /ear the cheeky answer from a stray child? One answer of this sort would probably have the boy suspended; no need to h'a.e a menagerie of temper and an exhibition of pain-bea;-ing in front of the class. One cannot immediately undo home influence, so let us teach more and cane less. To conclude, we may well wonder why bO children in a class should worry a go,-! teacher. If he is good he knows hat m can teach only about 12 to 15 rtttm. Tho obsolete teacher knows full well that SO children are beyond him m nearly-allsub-jects, and so flies to the cane to drive the work home. Yes! dozens of them do .t. Why don't wo get entirely away fromthese Prussianising methods? KoOTET.\Btr.:.S.