Corporal punishment and pupil behaviour

[pap]

The Guardian is running a piece today which indicates that pupil behaviour has been worse since the end of caning.

 

In terms of our own child-rearing, we've played the corporal punishment trick very rarely. The kids are at ages now where we'll probably never do it again.

 

The practice was still lingering about when I was at Bassett Green, and every kid in the school knew it could be a consequence for bad behaviour. The trick was not getting caught for bad behaviour, and the easiest way to do that was not act like a teat.

 

Nowadays, discipline is either detention, exclusion or punitive measures for the parents. I'd argue that detention and exclusion aren't much of a deterrent to a determined delinquent.

 

Is the correlation between the abolition of corporal punishment and increasingly unruly kids linked? What about other factors, such as decreased family time and/or more time spent on anti-social activities? Are we perhaps guilty of putting our kids on a pedestal or treating them too much like friends? Or is it simply the case that we abolished corporal punishment without really having a good alternative?

 

Interested in all views here, but especially interested in hearing from the teachers.

[Minsk]

They have never had corporal punishment in schools here and the kids are far better behaved, and far more respectful to teachers and adults in general, than those in the UK. However, parents ARE allowed to smack their children.

 

Personally, I think that the children here are better behaved because 90% of them go to full time pre-school from the age of 2. I believe it is there, at such an early age, that they are taught respect.

 

Personally, I grew up when corporal punishment was given in schools and certainly saw it as a reason not to get caught breaking the rules. Thus I never received the cane or slipper (I did from my father though). However, my bother (who was much more of a thug and rebel than I) never let it stop him doing as he wanted when he wanted.

[Essruu]

Yes. I'd have no problem if schools reintroduced the cane. My daughter was shocked when I said as much a few years ago, but if she was caned then she would have deserved it for poor or ride behaviour. If kids behave and let the teachers get on with teaching them rather than having to try to control delinquents, then they'd have nothing to worry about.

[Colinjb]

Frankly, the role of any kind of authority figure (teacher, police office etc) has now been undermined by emphasis on rights rather then responsibility and a growing culture of parents seeking to 'look after their own' against anyone who would dare criticise a family member rather then try to instill good behaviour and a sense of right and wrong.

 

I'm sure we've seen the reaction of some parents to an acusation against a naughty child:

 

"I'm sorry to bother you, but your child just threw a stone through my window!"

 

"You WHAT!? How dare you suggest that!? What are you trying to say about my family!? You saying i'm an unfit mother....."

 

Focusing on the deterent for a crime cannot be the be all and end all here, the lack of fundamental respect for rules and guidelines in behaviour in the first place is the key issue. There needs to be a more cohesive front from parents and all other forms of authority towards children so that the boundaries of right/wrong cannot be blurred in the youngster as it grows up.... if a child does wrong it should know that there will be a punishment.

Edited 4 April, 2012 by Colinjb

[trousers]

The Guardian is running a piece today which indicates that pupil behaviour has been worse since the end of caning.

 

In terms of our own child-rearing, we've played the corporal punishment trick very rarely. The kids are at ages now where we'll probably never do it again.

 

The practice was still lingering about when I was at Bassett Green, and every kid in the school knew it could be a consequence for bad behaviour. The trick was not getting caught for bad behaviour, and the easiest way to do that was not act like a teat.

 

Nowadays, discipline is either detention, exclusion or punitive measures for the parents. I'd argue that detention and exclusion aren't much of a deterrent to a determined delinquent.

 

Is the correlation between the abolition of corporal punishment and increasingly unruly kids linked? What about other factors, such as decreased family time and/or more time spent on anti-social activities? Are we perhaps guilty of putting our kids on a pedestal or treating them too much like friends? Or is it simply the case that we abolished corporal punishment without really having a good alternative?

 

Interested in all views here, but especially interested in hearing from the teachers.

 

The three words that initially entered my head on reading that headline was "No sh*t Sherlock!"

 

IMO there's nothing for kids to be scared or afraid of these days hence no deterrent.

 

I never got the cane at school and detention a handful of times because I was fearful of the consequences of mis-behaving.

 

I know it's a much mocked non-PR cliche these days but the "it never did me any harm" retort is valid IMO. Most people who went to school "in my day" say that receiving the cane or slipper taught them a valuable lesson.

 

We somehow think that we're more sophisticated these days because we're "more humane" having banned the cane but we're actually doing our children a disservice, again IMO. Progress my arse!

 

Oh well, time to hand over to the PC brigade to tell me I'm a relic from bad times gone by....

[for_heaven's_Saint]

Nearly all the kids at the school I work at who are persistently violent towards other children have witnessed or been subjected to violence at home. Teaching kids that the best way to punish someone is to hit them is utterly wrong IMO.

[Bearsy]

Moany old buggers! Kids of today are awesome! Miles better than the kids u see in old movies and junk! Some probably are nawty but i bet that was never any different, kids was always fighting and stealing or whatever.

 

I bet 100 years ago bunch of old farts were sitting round saying "tut tut kids of today running wild, it never happened when we used to send 'em down the mines or whatever"

[trousers]

Nearly all the kids at the school I work at who are persistently violent towards other children have witnessed or been subjected to violence at home. Teaching kids that the best way to punish someone is to hit them is utterly wrong IMO.

 

IMO, I think teenagers are clever enough to work out the difference between corporal punishment and random acts of violence. Well, at least they were "in my day". But perhaps I'm guilty of viewing the past with rose tinted spectacles...? Possibly a valid accusation but I'm as convinced as I can be that the two are easily disguishable.

[bridge too far]

Nearly all the kids at the school I work at who are persistently violent towards other children have witnessed or been subjected to violence at home. Teaching kids that the best way to punish someone is to hit them is utterly wrong IMO.

 

This.

 

I was never hit as a child, although I was always scared my father might wallop me one day. The fear was worse than any potential punishment.

 

I never smacked my children and my children have never smacked their children. They resort to the 'naughty step' approach. Our rationale for this is that it says a lot about an adult if s/he has to resort to violence to win an argument. Explanation and reasoning is much more productive.

 

Whilst this article isn't directly related to corporal punishment, it does look into the effects of children witnessing violence.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17600454

[dingbattigger]

I think it may be a touch simplistic to blame the abolition of corporal punishment. Respect in any shape or form seems totally lacking in children today and it seems to stem mostly from a lack of family life with decent values. Most couples I know both have to work and have, to a large extent, tried to give their kids everything they feel they missed out on. Not saying that's wrong but having everything handed to them seems to have had the effect of raising a generation of "I want it, I should have it" kids who don't care how they get it.

 

Being taught to respect your elders or authority or indeed anyone seems very much a thing of the past.

[Minsk]

Frankly, the role of any kind of authority figure (teacher, police office etc) has now been undermined by emphasis on rights rather then responsibility and a growing culture of parents seeking to 'look after their own' against anyone who would dare criticise a family member rather then try to instill good behaviour and a sense of right and wrong.

 

I'm sure we've seen the reaction of some parents to an acusation against a naughty child:

 

"I'm sorry to bother you, but your child just threw a stone through my window!"

 

"You WHAT!? How dare you suggest that!? What are you trying to say about my family!? You saying i'm an unfit mother....."

 

Focusing on the deterent for a crime cannot be the be all and end all here, the lack of fundamental respect for rules and guidelines in behaviour in the first place is the key issue. There needs to be a more cohesive front from parents and all other forms of authority towards children so that the boundaries of right/wrong cannot be blurred in the youngster as it grows up.... if a child does wrong it should know that there will be a punishment.

 

Good post.

[bridge too far]

.........

 

Being taught to respect your elders or authority or indeed anyone seems very much a thing of the past.

 

But don't you think that respect is to be earned rather than expected? For example, if a young person is waiting to be served in a shop and an elderly person pushes in front of him or her, why should that elderly person be respected? They're just plain rude (and probably the first to moan about 'feral youth'.

[for_heaven's_Saint]

IMO, I think teenagers are clever enough to work out the difference between corporal punishment and random acts of violence. Well, at least they were "in my day". But perhaps I'm guilty of viewing the past with rose tinted spectacles...? Possibly a valid accusation but I'm as convinced as I can be that the two are easily disguishable.

 

I'm talking younger than teenager, but once it is instilled in them they're unlikely to change I'd say.

[Colinjb]

But don't you think that respect is to be earned rather than expected? For example, if a young person is waiting to be served in a shop and an elderly person pushes in front of him or her, why should that elderly person be respected? They're just plain rude (and probably the first to moan about 'feral youth'.

 

That elderly person shouldn't be respected. But a minority of behaviour should not be used as jusitification for undermining the whole ideal, otherwise everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator.

 

You get ars*holes in all walks of life, don't let them drag you down.

[trousers]

But don't you think that respect is to be earned rather than expected?

 

Nope :-)

[View From The Top]

Perhaps parents should trying raising they children properly, instill manners, respect, discipline and a work ethic instead of dumping them in school expecting the teachers to do it all.

[Turkish]

This.

 

I was never hit as a child, although I was always scared my father might wallop me one day. The fear was worse than any potential punishment.

 

I never smacked my children and my children have never smacked their children. They resort to the 'naughty step' approach. Our rationale for this is that it says a lot about an adult if s/he has to resort to violence to win an argument. Explanation and reasoning is much more productive.

 

Whilst this article isn't directly related to corporal punishment, it does look into the effects of children witnessing violence.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-17600454

 

It's not about winning an argument with a child though it is. It's about correcting wrong doing and discipline. Children were a lot more respect for teachers, police and authority in general when they were allowed to give them a clip round the ear if they were being badly behaved.

[Colinjb]

It's not about winning an argument with a child though it is. It's about correcting wrong doing and discipline.

 

Bullseye.

[dingbattigger]

But don't you think that respect is to be earned rather than expected? For example, if a young person is waiting to be served in a shop and an elderly person pushes in front of him or her, why should that elderly person be respected? They're just plain rude (and probably the first to moan about 'feral youth'.

 

If kids were taught respect they would be able to determine who does and who does not deserve it. It needs to be taught in the first place.

[bridge too far]

That elderly person shouldn't be respected. But a minority of behaviour should not be used as jusitification for undermining the whole ideal, otherwise everyone is brought down to the lowest common denominator.

 

Depends on how you class 'minority' I suppose. Not a day goes by when we don't read about corrupt police and politicians, paedophile teachers, priests and scoutmasters. They are, of course, unrepresentative of their professions, but to a somewhat naive young person (and to some extent, us too) they are all tarred with the same brush.

[bridge too far]

It's not about winning an argument with a child though it is. It's about correcting wrong doing and discipline. Children were a lot more respect for teachers, police and authority in general when they were allowed to give them a clip round the ear if they were being badly behaved.

 

But it is, in a way. It's saying 'That's not a very nice/safe/reasonable thing to do and these are the reasons why and the consequences' Not that tough a debate to be had, even with a toddler.

[Colinjb]

Depends on how you class 'minority' I suppose. Not a day goes by when we don't read about corrupt police and politicians, paedophile teachers, priests and scoutmasters. They are, of course, unrepresentative of their professions, but to a somewhat naive young person (and to some extent, us too) they are all tarred with the same brush.

 

Which is why it's important that they (the corrupt sections of society) are punished, made an example of and shown to not prosper/benefit from their actions. Then any sense of 'tarring,' is minimised and where possible, entirely removed.

Edited 4 April, 2012 by Colinjb

[Colinjb]

But it is, in a way. It's saying 'That's not a very nice/safe/reasonable thing to do and these are the reasons why and the consequences' Not that tough a debate to be had, even with a toddler.

 

That's not a debate, it's an explaination. Exactly the right thing to do.

[bridge too far]

That's not a debate, it's an explaination. Exactly the right thing to do.

 

And far, far better than a wallop.

[Turkish]

But it is, in a way. It's saying 'That's not a very nice/safe/reasonable thing to do and these are the reasons why and the consequences' Not that tough a debate to be had, even with a toddler.

 

No it isn't. A child has boundries of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, overstep them they are disciplined. Where does winning an argument come into it?

[bridge too far]

No it isn't. A child has boundries of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, overstep them they are disciplined. Where does winning an argument come into it?

 

There's always a first time to describe the boundaries and that's when discussions and explanations are to be had and then reinforced should breaches occur in the future. It's my experience, having raised three children all of whom are polite, non-violent and caring, that hitting is the easy way out. Raising children isn't easy and taking the easy way out doesn't solve any problems long term.

 

How many children do you have Turkish?

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

Always a controversial topic because it depends on so many things and despite it being an interesting read, I think it is typical of the attitude held by ATL - the most 'bed-wetting' of the teacher unions. Firstly, and there shouldn't be any hiding behind this, behaviour in a classroom is more often than not dictated by the lesson/teaching itself. If the lesson is fast paced/challenging then there isn't the opportunity for pupils to misbehave. If a lesson is poorly planned this is when problems occur and generally speaking, it is those that don't put the effort in whose behaviour management is appalling and have to keep setting their pupils detentions.

 

Secondly, I'm sorry parents, but teachers are not there to teach your child how to behave. The home is where boundaries should be set and respect taught. It will sound arrogant but (especially from someone without any children) it is amazing how well children behave when there is a clear routine and clear boundaries. The classes I have for example know what is expected of them and know that if they don't do what is expected of them then that is when the punishments occur. Setting a detention, but also crucially phoning home to tell a parent exactly what a child has done, tends to do the trick.

 

Finally, let us not forget that they are just children. In my experience if given a choice 99 times out of 100 a child will make the right decision, but the mistakes that they make with their behaviour do need to be dealt with and then we must move on because we are adults - we do know better. This 'rebuilding' process is very important as it allows pupils to learn from their mistakes and understand that once they have served their punishment it is done with.

 

FWIW, I wouldn't ever strike a child with a cane.

[dingbattigger]

Secondly, I'm sorry parents, but teachers are not there to teach your child how to behave. The home is where boundaries should be set and respect taught. It will sound arrogant but (especially from someone without any children) it is amazing how well children behave when there is a clear routine and clear boundaries. The classes I have for example know what is expected of them and know that if they don't do what is expected of them then that is when the punishments occur. Setting a detention, but also crucially phoning home to tell a parent exactly what a child has done, tends to do the trick.

 

 

FWIW, I wouldn't ever strike a child with a cane.

 

 

This, the bold bit. Mrs D and I have raised 4 polite, well mannered kids.

Edited 4 April, 2012 by dingbattigger
crap spelling

[Turkish]

There's always a first time to describe the boundaries and that's when discussions and explanations are to be had and then reinforced should breaches occur in the future. It's my experience, having raised three children all of whom are polite, non-violent and caring, that hitting is the easy way out. Raising children isn't easy and taking the easy way out doesn't solve any problems long term.

 

How many children do you have Turkish?

 

I'm one of six and if we misbehaved and overstepped our boundries we knew we'd be disciplined, it didn't do us any harm and i dont see it as my parents winning an argument against me everytime i was naughty as you seem to view it. They were the authority, there was no arguement to be had. We didn't get 50 lashes everytime we spoke at the dinner table obviously but if we did something knowing it was wrong we knew we wouldnt get away with it.

[Lord Duckhunter]

Interesting views on here.

 

As a father of 4, I've found that I lose my temper a lot less with my younger 2 (which I had in my 30's) than the older 2 (in my 20's). I did find it hard restraining myself sometimes, and I dont seem to have that problem now.

 

I always tried to behave like my Dad did, and I honsetly can not remember a time he ever raised his hand to me.My Mum used to dish out the slaps, and I did use to resent her for it. Once I got older that option had gone, and she couldn't control me, whereas my Dad could still make me fill bad even at 16/17 just by saying "you've let me down". He had a way with him, that made me feel bad and want to behave. Sometimes I would think, "just hit me" and lets move on. It was strange because he frightened me, but I knew he would never touch me.

 

The main difference when it comes to schooling was my Mum and Dad backed the Teachers. I remember getting sent off playing for the school for throwing the ball into another boys face, when a throw in went against us. I received the slipper for it. I didn't dare tell my Mum and Dad because they would have grounded me. Nowadays the Dad would be up the school complaining about the teacher. I'm not saying it is right to slipper children, but teachers should be backed. I've always followed the theory that they treat all kids equal and if mine have got a detention, then they deserved it. Provided they are not physical towards them, they can punish them as they see fit.

 

I think it's quite easy to jump to the defence of your kids, it's very much like supporting saints. I watched Sat games and thought "what a load of shiete", went up the pub that night and some bloke said "you lot were rubbish". I found myself getting annoyed and argueing with him, saying we were unlucky, it wasn't a peno ect. It was like, I can critise my team, but you cant. I think parents are like that with kids. They know little Johhnys a nightmare, but if the teacher punishs him, they're stright on the defensive. I try to take the emotion out of it and think for a while. I tell my Mrs I'll deal with it, because she'd be up the school raring up with the head.That's the thing I feel sorry for teachers about, their hand are tied by Mum's and Dad's who together with the modern thinking wont let them punish children.

[dronskisaint]

No it isn't. A child has boundries of what is and isn't acceptable behaviour, overstep them they are disciplined. Where does winning an argument come into it?

 

If a parent (adult) has to resort to hitting a child then they have lost the argument already. If a child avoids doing something because they will be hit if they do it rather than because they know why it is wrong then the adult has failed in being of sufficient intellect to convey the point. A common response to this is 'but I do explain why they've been hit once I've done it' - fine - then you have the argument/explanation so why punctuate it with violence.

 

If kids were born the same size and strength as adults without the 'maturity' would adults still feel it necessary to administer physical punishment? No?...so it's using physical superiority usually referred to as bullying. Yes? Then think on the consequences of two six footers battling it out only one has a greater ability to reason than the other!

 

There is no moral or intellectual argument for hitting kids - they then feel it's ok to do the same to their peers and so the violence inflicted at home perpetuates through the generations...all because the adult has not had the ability, patience or self-control to explain actions,reasons and consequences to someone who has been around a lot less than they have.

 

And no, I've never hit my two...my father was a headmaster and he used physical punishment on both his kids and his pupils...he changed his mind completely about ten years before he retired (sadly I was full grown by then), but he admitted that it was only because it was considered the norm to do so in that era that he had done so - he could not make any case for it once it had been thought through.

 

It can never be acceptable for an adult to hit a child..

[trousers]

Why does there always have to be a 'right' and 'wrong' way in most debates. Maybe what's right for one person is wrong for another?

[pap]

Some good views on this, and I can sympathise with many of them.

 

I think both of our kids have been slapped on a couple of occasions during their lives. Failure of imagination on our part? Possibly. But when a kid is screaming its head off for no good or discernible reason, or has just decided to be an unholy fecker for the day, there is little reasoning with them. It's rare, but it does happen. That's why I've got some sympathy with Turkish's view.

 

Both our kids know that there are limits to what they can get away with, and that their parents become considerably less friendly when that happens. So I think it does establish a hard boundary, and speaking for myself, the fear of getting caned at school probably did keep me in line.

[Turkish]

]If a parent (adult) has to resort to hitting a child then they have lost the argument already[/b]. If a child avoids doing something because they will be hit if they do it rather than because they know why it is wrong then the adult has failed in being of sufficient intellect to convey the point. A common response to this is 'but I do explain why they've been hit once I've done it' - fine - then you have the argument/explanation so why punctuate it with violence.

 

If kids were born the same size and strength as adults without the 'maturity' would adults still feel it necessary to administer physical punishment? No?...so it's using physical superiority usually referred to as bullying. Yes? Then think on the consequences of two six footers battling it out only one has a greater ability to reason than the other!

 

There is no moral or intellectual argument for hitting kids - they then feel it's ok to do the same to their peers and so the violence inflicted at home perpetuates through the generations...all because the adult has not had the ability, patience or self-control to explain actions,reasons and consequences to someone who has been around a lot less than they have.

 

And no, I've never hit my two...my father was a headmaster and he used physical punishment on both his kids and his pupils...he changed his mind completely about ten years before he retired (sadly I was full grown by then), but he admitted that it was only because it was considered the norm to do so in that era that he had done so - he could not make any case for it once it had been thought through.

 

It can never be acceptable for an adult to hit a child..

 

This is what i am not getting, maybe i am not liberal enough to get it. A parent, as well as many other things, is a figure of authority over their child, they are there to instill values, morals, discipline and work ethic into a child. Therefore a young child and a parent do not have "arguements" There is no argument to be won, no arguement to be lost. The parent sets the boundries, if the child oversteps them they are punished. There is no arguement so i dont understand why some of you are banging on about smacking a child as winning or losing arguements.

Edited 4 April, 2012 by Turkish

[Turkish]

Some good views on this, and I can sympathise with many of them.

 

I think both of our kids have been slapped on a couple of occasions during their lives. Failure of imagination on our part? Possibly. But when a kid is screaming its head off for no good or discernible reason, or has just decided to be an unholy fecker for the day, there is little reasoning with them. It's rare, but it does happen. That's why I've got some sympathy with Turkish's view.

 

Both our kids know that there are limits to what they can get away with, and that their parents become considerably less friendly when that happens. So I think it does establish a hard boundary, and speaking for myself, the fear of getting caned at school probably did keep me in line.

 

I think you've got it right, as i said before i'm not talking about parents terrifying their children with beatings if they put a foot out of line but there's nothing wrong with a good smack if they continue to be naughty and explaining and talking to them doesn't do the job. And all this nonsense about it meaning the parent has lost the arguement is utter ******, parents shouldn't be arguing with young children FFS!

[paulsfc]

There is a definite difference between smacking a childs bum as a means of discipline and beating your child. My daughter has had a smacked bum on rare occasions, sometimes a little shock can do the trick, though it is an extreme rarity when exceptional or repeated bad behaviour is involved. Like with all the things if you use it all the time it would cease to be effective either as punishment or detterent. This would be true of the cane as well I would guess. I'm not old enough to have seen it's use but I bet there were loads of kids that got caned fairly often, which would suggest to me it isn't that effective. My guess would be that it only be the well behaved kids that really feared it anyway. Like with ASBO's, getting the cane would almost be a badge of honour to some.

 

I think the real route cause of the lack of respect and self discipline in schools stems from parents who either don't possess the skills to parent or can't be bothered to . How on earth you solve that I don't know.

[Window Cleaner]

The Guardian is running a piece today which indicates that pupil behaviour has been worse since the end of caning.

 

In terms of our own child-rearing, we've played the corporal punishment trick very rarely. The kids are at ages now where we'll probably never do it again.

 

The practice was still lingering about when I was at Bassett Green, and every kid in the school knew it could be a consequence for bad behaviour. The trick was not getting caught for bad behaviour, and the easiest way to do that was not act like a teat.

 

Nowadays, discipline is either detention, exclusion or punitive measures for the parents. I'd argue that detention and exclusion aren't much of a deterrent to a determined delinquent.

 

Is the correlation between the abolition of corporal punishment and increasingly unruly kids linked? What about other factors, such as decreased family time and/or more time spent on anti-social activities? Are we perhaps guilty of putting our kids on a pedestal or treating them too much like friends? Or is it simply the case that we abolished corporal punishment without really having a good alternative?

 

Interested in all views here, but especially interested in hearing from the teachers.

 

We had a couple of real cane maniacs at Taunton's. One even gave you the choice of 3 canes, the short stubby, the long whippy and the regular size. They all hurt a fair bit but there was nothing which might cause you lasting damage and you did sort of think twice about being a knob again. Think I must have six of the best 3 or 4 times in my years there and I really don't think it did me any harm whatsoever.I was also suspended from the First XI for 2 matches at football for getting into a fight with a team-mate in the Cage,probably over a Girl's Grammar girl, most fights amongst 15/16 year old were over that. The only thing that that taught me was to fight over girls on the bus or on the Common.

 

mind you your average kid was pretty robust in those days,cuts,bruises,playing footer every day without shinpads,getting the occasional whack from a stick or a cricket bat,rock or brick chucked at you every now and again..didn't even flinch so a couple of smart whacks from Mr Whippy wouldn't have the same effect as it would on most of today's WII and PS3 namby pambies.Might be altogether more damaging to them.

Edited 4 April, 2012 by Window Cleaner

[Colinjb]

This is what i am not getting, maybe i am not liberal enough to get it. A parent, as well as many other things, is a figure of authority over their child, they are there to instill values, morals, discipline and work ethic into a child. Therefore a young child and a parent do not have "arguements" There is no argument to be won, no arguement to be lost. The parent sets the boundries, if the child oversteps them they are punished. There is no arguement so i dont understand why some of you are banging on about smacking a child as winning or losing arguements.

 

I agree, if a parent resorts to hitting a child it's because they themselves have lost self control, not an arguement. They have lost all moral high ground but they are still the figure of authority.

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is what i am not getting, maybe i am not liberal enough to get it. A parent, as well as many other things, is a figure of authority over their child, they are there to instill values, morals, discipline and work ethic into a child. Therefore a young child and a parent do not have "arguements" There is no argument to be won, no arguement to be lost. The parent sets the boundries, if the child oversteps them they are punished. There is no arguement so i dont understand why some of you are banging on about smacking a child as winning or losing arguements.

 

Bit too Victorian for my liking.

 

As I said I've got 4, and they are all pretty decent, well behaved normal kids/adults.

 

Your approach reminds me of an old guy who does some work for me. He told me that back in the 50's when he was a teenager, his Dad was on his case all the time. One day he said to his dad "if I had the bus fare, I'd go to Torquay and sign up for the Army" (he lived in Devon somewhere). His Dad asked how much it was, when he was told the amount, Dad reached into his pocket, got the exact money out and said "**** off then" as he handed it to him. He told me he never set eyes on his Dad again and he didn't die for another 40 years.

 

My approach is more like an older brother than a Dad, and if that's wrong, then it's wrong. There are no books or manuels with being a Dad, you just do the best you can, and hope they turn out ok (which touch wood, mine seem to have)

[Turkish]

Bit too Victorian for my liking.

 

As I said I've got 4, and they are all pretty decent, well behaved normal kids/adults.

 

Your approach reminds me of an old guy who does some work for me. He told me that back in the 50's when he was a teenager, his Dad was on his case all the time. One day he said to his dad "if I had the bus fare, I'd go to Torquay and sign up for the Army" (he lived in Devon somewhere). His Dad asked how much it was, when he was told the amount, Dad reached into his pocket, got the exact money out and said "**** off then" as he handed it to him. He told me he never set eyes on his Dad again and he didn't die for another 40 years.

 

My approach is more like an older brother than a Dad, and if that's wrong, then it's wrong. There are no books or manuels with being a Dad, you just do the best you can, and hope they turn out ok (which touch wood, mine seem to have)

 

Really? Does it not make you really annoyed hearing a parent talking nicely and politely to their little kid while the precocious little git is creating havoc, ignoring the parent and generally behaving like a little sod? It does me. As i said before, i dont agree with lashings for the slightest misdemenour, but if they are persistantly misbehaving, ignoring the parent and explaining their wrongdoing isn't working then there is nothing wrong with a smack.

 

I really dont understand this arguement business, i'd never have dreamt of arguing with my parents, not because i was scared of being smacked but because we didn't do that, we knew from a very young age you dont argue with your parents and didn't answer them back. I really dont see how smacking a child is losing an arguement, little kids shouldn't be arguing in the first place!!!

Edited 4 April, 2012 by Turkish

[Lighthouse]

A delicate subject.

 

I think corporal punishment is more suitable for younger children as they are less reasonable and wont respond to a reasoned explanation as much. When I was little I got a whack if I miss behaved, Grandma even used to whack me with a wooden spoon. It taught me from a young age to respect my elders and not act like a little w*nker. I've never really misbehaved since then. I think if kids were subjected to this kind of discipline from a young age, it wouldn't be nescessary for corporal punishment into their teens.

[Micky]

If they are outta line, giv'em a slap.

[Turkish]

A delicate subject.

 

I think corporal punishment is more suitable for younger children as they are less reasonable and wont respond to a reasoned explanation as much. When I was little I got a whack if I miss behaved, Grandma even used to whack me with a wooden spoon. It taught me from a young age to respect my elders and not act like a little w*nker. I've never really misbehaved since then. I think if kids were subjected to this kind of discipline from a young age, it wouldn't be nescessary for corporal punishment into their teens.

 

Yes, i agree with all you say there and got the wooden spoon treatment too!

[Lord Duckhunter]

Really? Does it not make you really annoyed hearing a parent talking nicely and politely to their little kid while the precocious little git is creating havoc, ignoring the parent and generally behaving like a little sod? It does me. As i said before, i dont agree with lashings for the slightest misdemenour, but if they are persistantly misbehaving, ignoring the parent and explaining their wrongdoing isn't working then there is nothing wrong with a smack.

 

I really dont understand this arguement business, i'd have dreamt of arguing with my parents, not because i was scared of being smacked but because we didn't do that, we knew from a very young age you dont argue with your parents and didn't answer them back. I really dont see how smacking a child is losing an arguement, little kids shouldn't be arguing in the first place!!!

 

If you drum behaviours into them at an early age then you're half way there. It's about respect, my 4 have so much respect for their Mum that they wouldn't dream of upsetting her. With me, it's more a question of boundries, they know not to push it too far, but know I would never hit them (well 2 of them are taller than me, so good luck with that). We're not some sort of trendy modern parents, but it seems to work. I dont sit down and discuss anything with them, they do wrong and they're punished. Grounded, no mobile phone, no PC, no TV, whatever it takes. The first thing I ask at parents evening is "how are they behaving", before I find out about their work. I also tell the teachers "any issues call me". It seems to work, the older 2 have decent jobs and the next one's just got into grammar school

[Frank's cousin]

The three words that initially entered my head on reading that headline was "No sh*t Sherlock!"

 

IMO there's nothing for kids to be scared or afraid of these days hence no deterrent.

 

I never got the cane at school and detention a handful of times because I was fearful of the consequences of mis-behaving.

 

I know it's a much mocked non-PR cliche these days but the "it never did me any harm" retort is valid IMO. Most people who went to school "in my day" say that receiving the cane or slipper taught them a valuable lesson.

 

We somehow think that we're more sophisticated these days because we're "more humane" having banned the cane but we're actually doing our children a disservice, again IMO. Progress my arse!

 

Oh well, time to hand over to the PC brigade to tell me I'm a relic from bad times gone by....

 

TBH though this is a classic case of how teh 'PC brigade' get the blame for something when the reality has nbothing to do with PC. Is primarily a combination of potential litigation and the ABUSEs of that power that were frequently communicated in the media - There has been a cultural shift interms of respect for authority and in the level of responsibilty parents teach their kids - indeed half teh battle is often with the parents themselves who will side with their little angels rather than their teachers - as teh parents have no respect for the teachers either - only 30 years ago aged 12 we still had the cane, which was grim enough, but what was worse was what awaited you from parents if you ahve been bad enough at school to warrant it...

 

...but seriously it would be wrong to hang this at the door of PC - its a direct result of the 'over use' and abuse which in some cases bordered on brutality - as such historic cases came to light through the media, the natural reaction is one of banning as its the only way to control the abuses - sadly it also means that the restricted and appropriate use of such punishment is lost with it. There is a huge amount of truth in the 'it never did me any harm', as for most folk thats true, me included.... but the ban is to help the 1 in 100 (estimated/figure of speech) who WERE harmed by it - both physically and psychologically. Sadly there wa sno appropriate alternative to deal with the fall out.

[pap]

Tongue slightly in cheek, but isn't there an important lesson that kids get out of corporal punishment? Such as "if you step too far over the line, you are likely to get a slap". That's a lesson for general life, isn't it? I wonder how people that are bereft of this valuable lesson fare in day-to-day situations.

 

'Did you hear about poor James? A local thug accosted him saying that he was going to "knock his f**king jaw off". James reasoned with the boy and explained that it was an anatomical improbability! How we laughed on the way to the maxilliofacial ward!"

[Frank's cousin]

Tongue slightly in cheek, but isn't there an important lesson that kids get out of corporal punishment? Such as "if you step too far over the line, you are likely to get a slap". That's a lesson for general life, isn't it? I wonder how people that are bereft of this valuable lesson fare in day-to-day situations.

 

'Did you hear about poor James? A local thug accosted him saying that he was going to "knock his f**king jaw off". James reasoned with the boy and explained that it was an anatomical improbability! How we laughed on the way to the maxilliofacial ward!"

 

A sort of 'Violence never solved anything, but taught when to keep my gob shut' sort of thing ;-)

[belgrave]

I went to glen eyre in the 70's, which was pretty wild most of the time. Glen eyre was big on corporal punishment, caning, slapping, trainer-ing - courtesy of the PE dept - and various other forms of kid abuse.

 

The corporal punishment had zero impact on how we all behaved as far as I can remember. You name it, it went on there - and we got caught and caned for it.

 

It was probably more brutalising than corrective in its impact.

 

I certainly wouldn't hit my kids

[Saint137]

I was at WPBS in the mid 80s and it was certainly a deterrent, as was the slipper in middle school. There was a definite fear although getting caned was also a badge of honour. Only got caned once, it ****ing hurt, and it did make me think about my behaviour. A mate got rulered by the woodwork teacher but then he had just lobbed a chisel at someone.

 

Favourite of the games masters was to get you to bend over, touch your toes, and either boot you between the legs or hook you with a hockey stick.

 

But then it was a boys school I suppose...

[solentstars]

I went to glen eyre in the 70's, which was pretty wild most of the time. Glen eyre was big on corporal punishment, caning, slapping, trainer-ing - courtesy of the PE dept - and various other forms of kid abuse.

 

The corporal punishment had zero impact on how we all behaved as far as I can remember. You name it, it went on there - and we got caught and caned for it.

 

It was probably more brutalising than corrective in its impact.

 

I certainly wouldn't hit my kids

 

Agree I just think this thread is just another example of a golden age that never was and a sign of people has they get older forgetting how it really was,

 

Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk