Historically, we can see evidence of how thinking such as this was applied to various situations in Britain. In the past corporal punishment was seen an acceptable form of discipline not only in the classroom. The Royal Navy was infamous for its use of tyrannical and agonising forms of punishment. In the late seventeenth century, besides many sailors being press-ganged into the navy, once on board the usually fearsome Master of Arms, was given the powers to discipline his men, as he saw fit. The methods usually involved some sort of flogging, often with a cat o nine tails. This was seen as an acceptable, and even the only, way to discipline men and boys. It is hardly surprising that inefficiently trained teachers used this model to control their classrooms. (See appendix 1)
The other armed forces were also famed for their use of violence and punishment as control. During the period of the Great British Empire, more soldiers were killed, or unable to carry on their service in the colonies, due to beatings from their own superiors, than they suffered at the hands of the warring natives. All this historical evidence shows that generally Britain had always relied on corporal punishment as a form of control. It had become deep rooted into a majority of society, especially the upper classes, by the mid seventeenth century.
This is a brief history to the background of society’s experiences with corporal punishment, leading up to the nineteenth century. To take such a model into schools seems now archaic, brutal and cruel. It is interesting to see how the thinking of the country changed over a time, and how we have now, as society, as well as the teaching profession, generally accepted that corporal punishment is not the best way to change the behaviour of a child. As early as 1891, Robert Green Ingersoll, cited on Is Corporal Punishment degrading? Said:
Physicians no longer regard corporal punishment as a sure cure even for insanity and it is generally admitted that the lash irritates rather than soothes the victim of melancholia.
A number of policies, legislation, and incidents during the past one hundred years, have been influential over the change in corporal punishment. Any legislation is, by its very nature, a reflectance of the mood of society in which it was produced. This means that as the political, social, or economic situation in the country changes, so do the attitudes regarding education. With an issue such as corporal punishment there will always be a difference of opinions, as can be proven throughout history, the laws and legislation passed usually reflect the most popular views of the time.
Prior to 1870, it had not been mandatory for children to attend school, after the Education Act of that year all children were required to attend school up to the age of 14. Robert Lowe, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time said of the Act: It is now time to educate our masters. The theory behind the act was sound, the government felt that all children deserved the same education, and that all children, and parents would be grateful.
When taken out of context, it is hard to see any fault with the Act of 1870, however, by making all children attend school meant that the children could not work for a living. In a tome when most families in Britain were very poor, a sizeable family was the only way to survive. With all family members working, usually in factories, enough income could be generated to buy food. With children now being forced into full time education, most families lost at least one income per household. With this being the Prime Minister, Gladstones, first foray into educational reform, a devout religious man, he wanted education for all classes so that they could read the scriptures for themselves. The reasoning behind this educational reform basically was due to Gladstones desire for the working classes to be educated enough to read and understand the Bible. He also wanted the support of the growing proletariat class who had been given the vote in 1867.
It is easy to see why the initial reaction of most working class parents was firmly against the Act. The child was not able to work, and the parents still had to provide food and clothing. Because of this, the parents resented sending their children to school, and truancy was rife in urban cities. When the children did get to school they were largely, unruly, disruptive, and not-inclined to be there. These factors led to classrooms to be full of pupils who did not want to be there, controlled by teachers who were unused to the demands of the working class life.
As in the Navy, teachers were left with one solution. Newell has stated that:
It was the introduction of compulsory school attendance by Act of parliament in 1870 that opened the way for the regulation and control of corporal punishment.
The compulsory attendance meant that gradually schools were filling up, as children realised that a day in school was easier than a day at work, and even the working class parents saw that the education their children were getting was beneficial. This meant that there were larger classes and the teachers needed the extra control that any form of corporal punishment gave them. The education act of 1870 also established School Boards which were given powers to make their own independent rules. As stated in Spartacus 1870 education reform act.
These more liberal controllers of many local schools meant that the beginnings of reform could start, and persons like Professor Huxley could make suggestions for legislation more easily.
While some parents originally did not want their children to be in school, the beatings given out to misbehaving children were not appreciated. After calls from parents for regulation, (not abolishment) of corporal punishment, Professor Huxley developed a set of regulations that were designed to hold the deliverer of the punishments accountable. The parents and government were not averse to the children in schools being punished, but it was generally felt that at times some teachers were using corporal punishment as a pre emptive to bad behaviour. The practice needed regulations.
Huxley’s recommendations, taken from Newell were that all occurrences of corporal punishment were to be recorded in a book. Also that pupil teachers (prefects) were prohibited from punishing other students. Finally that the head teacher became directly responsible for every punishment that occurred in the school. Huxley was able to make these recommendations, as the climate in which British society found itself was one of Liberal reform. Earlier Gladstone had attempted to address the inequalities in the university system, with the University tests Act, The Civil Service Reform, and The Trade Union reform. All of these were designed to give greater rights to the whole of society.
It seems that these regulations were put in place to reduce the amount corporal punishment was used in schools. During the 1870s and 80s however, schools continued to use the cane as the accepted form of punishment. The economic difficulties of the working classes at the time, and the British governments expanding foreign, rather than domestic policy, meant that the issue was largely ignored in this period.
It was again Huxley in 1885 who added two further clauses to his original recommendations. By this time schools were expanding at a greater rate than ever before in Britain, and many were now of mixed sex. In line with this Huxley (from Newell 1972:18) stated that headmasters were not allowed to administer corporal punishment to girls, whose punishment had to be delivered by an assistant female. This regulation tied in with the attitude of society of the time. Other females should only punish females, as the weaker sex. Huxleys second further clause was to try and ensure that the punishment book was looked at and checked from time to time.
With the 1971 regulations many heads found that they could continue to punish children for any discrepancy, as there was no one to check and regulate the punishment book. These second clauses were further testament to Gladstoness liberal stance of politics. The Trade Unions Act of 1971 had recognised unions as official bodies, and given the working classes the power to complain about unfair conditions in the work environment, and many of these adults were beginning to place the same values on their childrens education.
In 1944 there was perhaps the biggest and most influential act of parliament regarding education, of recent times. Many antagonists for the cause against corporal punishment felt this would be a time to build upon the foundations Huxley had started. The act, however, did little more for the case of corporal punishment than to condone its continuous usage. It has been suggested that the education reform act of 1944, coming at a time of general uncertainty post war was considered radical enough, without the added contention of corporal punishment, for the public and government to accept. Perhaps the rapidly declining British Empire, and The USA and USSRS distaste for imperialism, meant that British society needed to hang on to part of its heritage in this period of intense change. Indeed it was many years until the issue of corporal punishment was discussed again in parliament.
As Britain entered the sixties, society was, especially among the younger generation, becoming more peaceful, and anti establishment. Post war society was reluctant to again enter any relations with other countries that would lead to more fighting or violence. This was highlighted when what is now known as the EEC, was formed in 1957. Although Britain didnt join until 1973, the public and the government could see the benefits of being on peaceful terms with the other European countries. This helped promote an anti violence attitude in domestic British society also. As the public mood became heavily centred on peace there was more of a call for the abolishment of corporal punishment. The Newsom Report of 1963 claimed that: Corporal Punishment is humiliating for pupils and teachers.
In 1967 the Plowden report investigated several schools. Its findings regarding corporal punishment reflected the views of society. In a peaceful, politically stable nation, the report made the following statement:
After full consideration, we recommend that the infliction of physical pain as a recognised punishment in primary schools should be forbidden.
After the Plowden report was published, it was only deemed as a matter of time before Corporal Punishment was abolished officially by government. As it was the majority of teachers, schools and LEAS had already stopped using physical punishments. However as the years progressed no official law was introduced. Pressure groups were being formed, most notably STOPP (Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment).
In 1969 the government dropped all plans to abolish corporal punishment, mainly because many schools, especially primary schools had already stopped using it. It was clear that, long the lovers of tradition, Britain seemed unwilling to abolish an institution that had been the basis of schooling since it began. Enraged, STOPP campaigned furiously, and by 1973 had managed to help secure a ban in London maintained schools.
By 1983, following the suggestions made by Plowden and the efforts of STOPP in London only fifteen LEAs had followed the Plowden Reports advice and banned corporal punishment. The most influential of these were: The Inner London Education Authority in 1981, and Newam and Derbyshire in the same year. The new Conservative government, under Margaret Thatcher, was busy attempting to make modernise radically a reluctant Britain. The Miners strikes and the emerging professional class meant that tensions in society were taught. A developing section of society was becoming richer working in the cities and earning money, and the more manual industrial workers were becoming poorer as Britain began importing cheaper products from emerging countries such as Japan and China. However in the build up to 1983 British societies mood was high after Thatchers desiccate handling of the Falkland crisis in 1982.
The government introduced a law that gave every parent the right to forbid the school from beating their child. This element of choice was what society now expected and the government delivered. Parents, whatever their financial situation, were living in a society which was very much based on individual success and materialism. This meant that parents expected to be able to have a choice in everything, from what car they drove, to how their child was educated. The people of Britain at this time were making more choices that effected the way that they lived their lives. Money from the state for health and pensions was at an all time low, and in the Thatcher society of monetarism, with people forced to decide for themselves how much pension they were going to save, the British felt powerful again and demanded changes to how their children were punished.
In 1987, twenty years after Plowden suggested it, corporal punishment was abolished in the state sector.
With even the threat of corporal punishment gone, the government, in 1989, commissioned the Elton Report to investigate means of behaviour management. As Blanford stated:
The Elton Report did much to illustrate the need for clear management of discipline in schools.
The report was an important document as it outlined good practice in controlling behaviour. Teachers that relied on corporal punishment in the past, from this report were told that: punitive regimes seem to be associated with worse rather than better behavior.
As Britain moved away from the idea that violence is a good deterrent, schools were able to develop strategies to help the children, as well as control or stop any deviance. The last section of the Elton Report highlights good practice examples found in different schools.
As society was moving farther towards equality for all, in 1991 the Childrens Act was introduced. Building on Eltons recommendation that there should be: clearly stated boundaries of acceptable behaviour, and of teachers responding promptly, and firmly to pupils who test those boundaries.
Punishments [that] make the distinction between minor and more serious misbehaviour clear to pupils, and [that] should be fairly and consistently applied.
The Childrens Act gave children the right, and ability, to officially complain about unfair treatment. From 1989 and the Childrens act, there was a worrying trend in schools, as is highlighted on www.part1.htm-TOPpart1.htm-TOP, that: any physical contact with a child is in some way unlawful.
Chapter 56 of the 1996 Education Act re-clarified the state of corporal punishment in schools, and again deemed that the punishment cannot be justified if it was inhuman or degrading (1996:section 548). After the Childrens Act, teachers were afraid to go near children, and make any physical contact, the Education Act of 1996 did little to help this feeling. In 1997 the government introduced The Education Act, which clarified a teachers right to use physical contact with the intention to restrain or control a child. After section 550 of the 1996 Act, in 1997 the government produced the additional section Power of members of staff to restrain pupils. This was designed to help teachers that, until now, had been fearful of intervening in violent or disruptive situations. Any physical contact with children prior to 1997 could always be misconstrued, and many teachers were afraid to put themselves in situations that could danger their careers.
While all the legislation and arguments had been occurring over the years regarding corporal punishment in state schools, the private sector was still able to use and deliver corporal punishment. It was not until 1998 that finally corporal punishment was abolished in the independent sector. Britain has evolved over the last two hundred years, from a nation whose teachers regularly beat children in schools, to where a teacher could make no physical contact with children at all. We have now developed the use of reasonable force to control rather than to punish. This ability for teachers to be able to touch their children again is the beginning of a period of stability in the case of corporal punishment. The vast majority of teachers and parents never want to see the return of corporal punishment, but there are some who see 1997s Act as a way of re-introducing it. Cited on The Case Against Corporal Punishment, Mark Benedict of the Christian Family Benefits states:
I also believe the scriptural reference to the rod best corresponds to a switch or perhaps a flexible paddle
On the same site, a woman we only have named as Sharon tells us her worrying view of the subject:
I have heard terrible stories of children becoming spoiled, drug using, atheists if they arent spanked. To counter this assumption by some of society that corporal punishment is good for a child, psychologist H. Stephen Glenn, again on the same site, states that:
Corporal punishment is the least effective method [of discipline]. Punishment reinforces a failure identity. It reinforces rebellion, resistance, revenge and resentment. And what people who spank children will learn is that it teaches more about you than it does about them, that the whole goal is to crush the child. Its not dignified, and its not respectful.
These two views of the issue are one, or the other, most people can identify with today. With society split, it seems that the debate regarding corporal punishment in schools is set to continue for another two hundred years. It seems unlikely that, no matter what legislation a government will introduce, the majority of teachers will resort back to corporal punishment as a means of controlling their class. However, with teachers coming under more and more pressure, class sizes increasing, along with the number of difficult, and challenging children, the issue of corporal punishments place in education may not be settled for sure.
