The suspension of corporal punishment by the Ministry of Education is most commendable. It is an archaic method of discipline that fails to recognize the true nature of childhood. The government’s decision opens up the way to promote the holistic development of children, rather than subjecting them to violence and abuse in our school system. Some support the use of corporal punishment on religious grounds, while some teachers are at a loss how to cope with problem students.
One thing which is for sure: the ensuing debate should cause us to reflect on how we conceptualize childhood. Also, this debate should inspire us to challenge our understandings of violence and abuse. Notwithstanding the nuances of this subject matter, we should all agree that government has a particular responsibility to protect children at all times.
Corporal punishment in schools is nothing short of physical and psychic abuse. Though perpetrators may use varying intensity of force, the child is hurt in more ways than one, regardless. Quite apart from the associated physical pain, corporal punishment is also intended to instill fear in a child. Beating makes use of a physical force and also causes psychological trauma. Beating children conveys to them the notion that violence or the use of physical force is a means through which to resolve conflicts.
The fact that corporal punishment is a long-standing tradition in our society, in tune with our culture and religious beliefs, does not cancel the fact that it is abusive. How can we say that a child who was beaten by a teacher was not harmed, when in fact the child experienced pain and in many instances shed tears?
Power imbalance is yet another crucial factor which must be present in order for an act to be considered abusive. Whether or not someone is a supporter of corporal punishment, it would be absurd for this individual to suggest the teacher-child relationship is not characterized by a power imbalance. This imbalance of power is evident when we consider that teachers are granted the authority to decide whether or not to use corporal punishment in an instance with the child having no say in this decision; but I guess being guilty of breaking a rule automatically strips the child of all its rights, human and otherwise.
It would be very instructive to hear the voice of children on the issue of corporal punishment. Are we afraid of hearing children describe the pain and fear they experience when being beaten? The violent nature of corporal punishment is even more apparent given that children are beaten for behaving like children. A developmental perspective on childhood asserts that children are not miniature adults, since childhood is a period during which the child goes through a series of physical, cognitive, emotional, moral and social changes towards the goal of becoming a mature and competent individual; in short, an adult.
Notably what we consider indiscipline is what supporters of the developmental perspective would describe as child exploration, or experimenting, which is a key process through which children learn about the world. Notwithstanding the explorative nature of children, in many instances they are beaten for acting in keeping with the nature of childhood, especially when the exploration has led to them contravening a societal norm or the directives of a teacher.
Teachers inspire our children and youth to challenge the status quo to the extent that societal transformation can be attained. Our teachers must be commended for their sterling efforts and the outstanding results they continue to produce. As it relates to the corporal punishment debate and suspension of corporal punishment, teachers—like children—should have a say in this process.
Though I recognize the need for input from teachers, I am not entirely sure that they should be asked whether corporal punishment should be suspended in schools. There requires no consultation on whether children should be abused in any way. If an act of punishment is violent and abusive, it should immediately be abolished. Notwithstanding, there is an ever-present need to consult teachers and other pertinent stakeholders on matters pertaining to professional development, classroom management, school safety and what can be done to enhance the holistic development of students.
The suspension of corporal punishment has led to teachers and union officials calling on the Ministry of Education to provide teachers with training in alternative methods which are to be used to discipline children in schools. In the spirit of lifelong learning and recognition of the need for continuous professional development, I strongly support this call. However, it would be remiss of me if I did not point out that teachers, as part of their training at the Sir Arthur Lewis Community College, were never encouraged to use corporal punishment.
The Class Management Course at the SALCC never taught corporal punishment as a strategy to be used to discipline children. There exists no educational psychology or classroom management textbook which urges teachers to use corporal punishment; neither any academic theory in the field of education which advocates its use.
Oh sorry. I just remembered the Bible says: “If you spare the rod, you spoil the child.” As counterproductive as is the suggestion, it is addressed to parents, not school teachers. Suspending corporal punishment is a bold act which allows for our country to keep its end of the bargain as a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child which has for years called for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Nevertheless, given that we are entering unchartered waters, the Ministry and other relative stakeholders should educate the public on the benefits of abolishing corporal punishment and provide teachers with strategies on how to positively influence the behaviour of children in the school system.
