Corporal Punishment in Schools.

Te Aroha News, Volume I, Issue 48, 3 May 1884, Page 3

Corporal Punishment in Schools.

_ — : = — <♦ v. i .Without going length of sayings that all corporal punishment, even of very young children, is, wrong, it may safely be affirmed that an excess of • the rod, or an injudicious use of it, is just as, likely to /'spoil the child " as is the total abolition of the healthy instrument of correction. The case under the consideration of the City Schools Committee last night, involving a serious complaintagainstthe head-master of Nelsonstreet public school, is one which aptly illustrates the point we are seeking to elucidate. The facts seem plain and undeniable. A little girl named Hicks was kept at home to assist her mother on wnshing day, and despite the fact that she next day took a written note explaining the cause of absence, she was severely caned by Mr Brabazon, whose " one or two slight slaps " were sufficient to render swollen and discoloured the little one's Lender hands. The girl's mother, on calling to remonstrate with the teacher, was not very civilly received, and a threat was used that the child would be whipped every time she was kept at home. A natural rosult of this was that the mother resolved not to allow her child to go to school at all, rather than have her submitted to such unjust and cruel treatment. The whipping, whether severe or otherwise, was in the circumstances unjustifiable, stupid, and cruel; and any teacher who would on principle administer such punishment does not deserve to hold his place for a single day. The effects of that kind of discipline on the child nature is incalculably mischievous— souring the disposition, confusing all ideas of right and wrong, and giving a distaste for education. We are willing tobelieve that Mr Brabazon did not act deliberately in administering the punishment complained of, but it is scarcely less excusable to have done so in a moment of passion or irritation. In his explanation, Mr Brabazon does not help his case when he tries to justify his action, by stating that the girl Hicks was very frequently absent and on the occasion in question brought the excuse "two days successively, although she with others was warned not to bring them." "When pupils are necessarily absent at the call of their parents, and such is duly certified, no teacher has a right to administer the cane. He may have a praiseworthy zeal for the cause of education, and interest in the advancement of the " young idea," but he is egregiously wrong if he tries to correct irregular attendance of the kind instanced by caning the child. However much on educational grounds the teacher may deplore frequent absences, his plain duty is to receive the excuses offered by parents; the work of "compulsory officer " -alls upon other shoulders, when deemed necessary. The City Schools Committee have taken a moderate view of the circumstances in reminding Mr Brabazon of the regulation that " Children should not be unnecessarily punished;" they might well have gone further and stated that they considered- the whipping of the girl Hicks came within that category. The public ought also to be assured that punishment is not administered on such a principle in the public schools as a whole, bub that justice tempered with mercy, not harshness aggravated by irritation, is the rule in the treatment of our youth. We do not imagine that the Board of Education, at the request of the Committee, will be able to "provide some better discipline than beating ;" we rather trust to the humane feeling of the teachers that they will use the rod with careful discrimination and true corrective effect.