CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22412, 7 May 1936, Page 15

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

EDUCATION BOARD'S VIEW INSISTENCE ON REGULATIONS The question of what check the Auckland Education Board has over corporal punishment in schools was discussed at a meeting of the board yesterday, when Mr. W. J. Campbell drew attention to correspondence that had appeared in the press on the subject, and asked whether punishment books were being kept as required by the board's regulations. The chairman, Mr. T. U. Wells, said rery explicit instructions as to when corporal punishment could be given were set out in the regulations and if obeyed, as was expected of teachers, there should be no cause for complaints of excessive punishment. Reports of punishments inflicted were required each term from every school and they were examined by the secretary, Mr. D. W. Dunlop. Mr. Dunlop said that occasionally he had written to teachers regarding punishments, but generally the returns did not indicate that the number was at all large. They could not be certain that every punishment was entered up, but teachers were required to sign the forms. "The trouble is that teachers who misuse their right to punish, would be the sort who would not enter it up," said the Hon. A. Burns. "Parents do not complain for fear their children are victimised." The chairman said he was certain the great majority of teachers carried out the regulations loyally. Perhaps a few cases of undue punishment occurred, but they were very few to-day. Teachers who had to use the cane to obtain results were not worthy of a position under the board. It strongly disapproved of the use of corporal punishment for inability to-do school work, but thought the teacher should have the right to use it for serious offences. If definite complaints were received they would be investigated. A statement was subsequently issued that the board in committee had decided to censure a teacher who, it considered after an investigation, had inflicted excessive punishment, and to warn her that if she failed to enter up a punishment in future, it would consider the advisability of terminating her engagement.