If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
I'd say there are more effective and less violent ways to teach your child boundaries.
You suggested there was a direct causal link between corporal punishment being withdrawn and the rise of violent crime.
I don't think its a good idea.
Which stats? Quote some.
Worse in what way? I agree some things are worse, some things are better.
Well I think it actually has got worse, violence is much more on TV and is portrayed as a way of getting results, much more so than when I was a lad.
So the lesson moves from, get out of line and get controlled violence inflicted on you by a responcible authority figure (in the overwhelming majority of cases tearchers giving a slap were just this)
The lesson is now, if you use violence you get what you want and wont have it inflicted back at you, teachers are mostly powerless to stop this, there is no danger of the violence coming back at you.
Im reminded of types of people who hang around in gangs (or small groupes)and like a reason to give someone a kicking, but have nerver had one them selfes, those who have arnt usually so keen to inflict it opon another with out good reason
I can quite believe that society has become more violent as a whole in the last few decades, but I have great difficulty - as a social historian - believing that we're a more violent society than, say, a century ago. And even, to be honest, although people look at the 1950s and '60s as a more civil and peaceable time, I don't see gangs of mods and rockers with flick-knives fighting in town centres in 2005...
Not everyone sees the boundaries as being the same, unfortunately.
Thats not the point in those days, the kids taking part in violence had fear of authority, of the cane of the police giving them a kicking, and generally they were a little bit more honerable as regards who they handed their kicking out to.
Now adays they definatly have no fear of schools, and limited fear of the police, there was no universily popular gangster culture in those days, as opposed to the likes of 50 cent.
So police brutality is a good thing?
Now women have far more choice, and babies are hard to adopt as it is possible for their mothers to raise them. Its far easier to leave an abusive partner - things have improved - regardless of the fact that there are those who bemoan the changes and would like to turn the clock back. Far fewer women are forced to endure abusive relationships, and far fewer men see beating women as legitimate.
In terms of kids, there is no doubt in my mind that a moral panic is being manufactured before our very eyes - nor is there any doubt that kids are subjected to stringent marketing, that violence on TV and video games does have an effect on some, and that many kids have less parenting due to the demands of the labour market.
But to think that the answer lies in inflicting pain on childrens bodies and minds, is pretty damn barbaric.
However you choose to look at it.
No, you're wrong: it is the point. I agree that the form of violence in society has changed a bit, but what I was trying to say is that violence hasn't come from nowhere. It's always been there, and I don't think that the abolition of corporal punishment in schools - which was the original point of this thread - has altered it much.
I also think it's an extremely good thing that teachers and, especially, policemen can't deal out casual violence whenever they feel like it.
Spot on.
I wish I'd said that. I agree with every word.
Yes and in the old days the world was flat and people died of diseases that are now curable does that mean if we go back to corpril punishment this will all change, Im not saying that everything was better in the old days, just not everythings worse, some things were better.
I'm not saying it should be as extreme as it was before, because it was often taken way to far! For example, the punishment only being carried out by the head teacher after 3 cases of bad behaviour by a student. There would obviously be a written policy on it in every school if it was brought back in, unlike before when teachers could pick on someone if they were having a bad day themselves and felt like taking it out on someone.
It's interesting how this argument always develops. Children don't do what they are told, therefore they should get caned. Would it work the other way round: Welshbabe, if a kid didn't want to do his homework, would it be acceptable for him to cane you to excuse him from it? If not, why not.
All corporal punishment does is teach people that violence is how you maintain power. It's perfectly true, of course, but is it something we want in schools? Even more importantly, given that some of you think it acceptable to cause pain to weaker humans, would it be OK to beat up a wheelchair bound man who runs over my feet? A short sharp shock, he won't do it again.
Either violence is acceptable in a society or it is not. violence against children to "teach" them cannot be acceptable if I cannot beat the next person who cuts me up when I'm driving.
Although I wouldnt expect you to understand where I'm coming from when you haven't been in the situation of being a teacher!
That is all very well ... but so what? You've not made any sort of case for reinstating corporal punishment beyond a few vague assertions about the good old days and how much more violent society has become - which perhaps it has, but I can think of several reasons for that aside from the abolition of caning. If you think it's a good idea, then make your case - but you've not convinced me so far.
Btw, much of what I have read on the subject suggest that the effect of corporal punishment on behaviour was marginal. A good teacher would rarely have to use it: bad teachers used it to cover up for their own inadequacies. And in either case, being able to take a caning became a bit of a badge of honour on the part of some - which hardly suggests that it was that great a deterrent, does it?
Of course, as a 23-year-old barely out of teacher training college you have soooo much more than theory to back up your case... :rolleyes:
Thats why i suggested just the head teacher having the responsibility!
The relevance of that is...?
Ok I've only taught in 4 different schools for 60 weeks fair enough but I have more of an idea than you!
Also the last time i checked, this was a free country and I have a right to my own oppinion, however much experience I have of it!
Well several of my teachers managed it without having to hit anyone. They were good teachers who were fair and respected their pupils, I guess that is how it is done.
Respect is earned not a right. An awful lot of teachers seem to forget that.
Oh, for goodness sake, only you know because only you in the whole world have been a teacher or worked in a classroom. If my mother can control kids without even raising her voice then anyone can, it comes down to ability I am afraid.
Teachers who would need the threat of violence to maintain order are not very good teachers.
So that certain teachers dont abuse it duh!
Its talking to a bunch of idiots on here as you keep twisting my posts! Just remembered why I stopped coming on here......its full of sad people with no lives! Bye
So it's OK to beat someone if you are senior?
If I was a boss of a company, could I beat the staff if they talk instead of working? IF they use the internet for personal things? Spend too long at the bogs?
Should I be able to hit someone who smokes in the corridor?
Should the headmaster be able to beat his staff who don't do the job properly?
Yes, we keep twisting your posts by asking you to clarify a position.
Poor schnookums. Have a big hug.
FYI you said we wouldn't understand because we're not teachers, implying that your opinion has greater credence because you have been a teacher for ten minutes. That's not how it works, hon. If you are going to sulk instead of defend your position, or contemplate a new one, then ta-ra :wave:
Respect isn't a by-product of a teachers qualification - its something that human beings have to earn. Thats most commonly done through communication, fairness and showing respect to the other human being. It also helps in teaching if you provide stimulating and challenging lessons.
Threatening the big stick isn't a way of earning respect, especially if you then have to rely on someone else to back you up and administer it on your behalf
:eek:
Instilling fear into children isn't the same as earning respect.