Teachers Should Have The Right To Punish Pupils Physically If The Parents Consent
In Britain corporal punishment was fully banned in 1998 bringing independent and Private schools into line with the banning of corporal punishment in state schools in 1987. Corporal punishment in schools is banned in most European countries as well as most Canadian states and more than half the US states. It is still widely used elsewhere and is even more widely used by parents in the home. As there is at least a perception that behaviour in school is getting worse it is not too surprising then that the idea of corporal punishment in schools is still popular. If a parent is willing to physically punish their child should they not be willing to allow teachers to do so?
Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.
The other options to discipline pupils are not helpful.
Without any possibility of physical punishment there is not much that can be held over a student. Detention may well be the best possible punishment as it provides a chance to teach the student something while showing that they can have their time wasted too. However the supposedly worse options are not much of a discouragement. As a head teacher in the US puts it
[[Eric Adelson The Principal and the Paddle, Newsweek, 25/4/09, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/04/24/the-principal-and-the-paddle.html%5D%5D However the more severe punishments prevent education rather than encouraging it. Suspensions and expulsions are assuming that the child considers it a punishment. Suspension simply delays learning and expulsion simply moves the problem on responsibility is shifted from school to another school or to the courts.[[http://www.jjpl.org/Publications_JJ_InTheNews/JuvenileJusticeSpecialReports/BBY/kentucky/kentucky.html]] Neither solves the problem of misbehaviour.
What qualifies as more severe?
The sensitivity of students/children to abuse differs from person to person. A student/child may be traumatized by a slap on the wrist equally as much as another student is affected by a severe fatal beating. There is no black and white standardized measure for the intensity of physical-verbal abuse each of us can handle.
Getting permission from parents to hit their children; only makes matters worse. This is equivalent to handing over a free pass to abusive parents to indirectly abuse their children. Secondly, a child is relatively secure when being admonished in his/her own home by his/her own parents(less embarrassing; relatively easier to understand and forgive) ; knowing that a stranger is hitting you with your parents' permission is thus worse than being directly abused by your parents.
"The use of any kind of force against children as a disciplinary measure is illegal in 24 countries around the world"
Parental consent would create two 'classes’ of pupil.
A big problem with the proposal is that it is not black and white. ‘If Parents Consent’ sounds like a nice qualifying phrase, after all we all want parents involved and their permission for something like this. However this will almost certainly lead to problems where some will consent and others will not. If this occurs what happens then, are the teachers still not allowed to punish anyone so leaving everything how it was? Or can teachers only be allowed to use physical punishment for those pupils whose parents agree so creating two types of pupils with differing rights.
Having these two different classes of pupils will likely cause extra difficulties rather than solving problems. Now we have a situation where pupils are obviously not equal. Some will get the stick if they misbehave while others will not. This may well make those whose parents have not given consent more willing to disrupt rather than less because they will see themselves as having a kind of immunity. At the same time the teacher will have difficulties because s/he will have to treat disruption from different members of the class differently.
Parents who give permission to hit their child; do not think there's anything wrong with it. They have grown up with the mentality cited in the yes point above.
If schools in general do not give them the choice of letting headmasters/mistresses/the-faculty reprimand their children by the use of force.
Then they will admit their kids into Catholic-Schools and Madrassahs where the quality of education is not comparable to public schools in Britain and private schools in the U.S.A(and most of the world) respectively.
Allowing parents with these ideas to choose from a wider variety of schools; gives their children equal opportunity to those children who hail from rather pacific homes that do not believe that 'sparing the rod spoils the child'.
Denying parents the choice; denies students/children the right to better quality education.
We shouldn't even have to go to school.
School is a falsity. REPLY: You are totally wrong about that. We at least progress the best when we do what we do in life voluntarily. School is abysmal and if it should exist at all it should be optional. That would make people a lot happier. It's an abomination to dogmatically make young people go to school for no reason let alone hit them! Only disgusting adults who have personal problems would hit children and coerce them into doing things they don't want to do.
So-called "education" is a hollow word used as a smokescreen to con people. School is enforced because of scum that desire to oppress their fellow human being and because they know there's no real reason to go to school so the only way to make people go is by coercing them. Using coercion on people is a abominable. Especially on vulnerable and defenseless young people. School is not responsible for your 4th point so you can't say that. And I definitely don't think that school has bettered us. Something so totally oppressive and demeaning cannot be helpful. I am utterly NOT grateful for school and you can be dead sure of that. It only served to leave me with emotional wounds. Looking back on it I can say that if I'd had the choice I would have certainly said no to it. And we learn the most when away from school. There are people who think the same as me on this matter. We need to respect people's right to say no to school. School is a big spurious lie and being introduced to it at age 5 is a horrifying experience. I'm wondering just how many hints people need to realise that school's a bad thing.
School gives us knowledge, otherwise we remain ignorant
Be thankful of School 1) you don't have to work I used to say school was terrible then I started working trust me school is paradise compared. 2) without education we would be ignorant of so many things and therefore wouldn't improve our society we wouldn't even have improved society this far if it wasn't for school when school was introduced to the masses we progressed leaps and bounds compared to the years before. 3) school is enforced so that young people cannot be taken advantage of by employers or even parents. 4) you wouldn't even know how many points I've made let alone understand what I've written if it wasn't for school, illiteracy was common before free education
Sets a terrible example to students
Before I discuss this point, I would like to point out that the last point made by the proposition is almost entirely irrelevant to the motion at hand. Yes, school is a place of learning- but learning what? That we have the right to be violent towards others? Teachers are meant to be mentors and role models towards young, impressionable school children. What kind of example are we setting if teachers can physically punish students? Do the proposition WANT a generation of wrongly influenced, violent children???
I believe the point of the argument before was aimed at the argument of not going to school rather than for beating I know I added the bottom bit to it and although I am arguing in the yes section I believe almost definitely no, but I understand what your saying.
What do you think?