The argument was that this was the only way we can keep discipline in our classes, and this view had sincere believers among many good teachers. Nearly, but not quite as many, good teachers disagreed. But every time the PPTA put it to the vote, members opted to keep the cane. A new tactic was needed. CAVE adopted guerrilla tactics to win a hearts and minds campaign.
School punishment books were "borrowed", their contents analysed and made public. Predictably, they showed that the same students were being caned over and over again. As a deterrent or a corrective, it was hard to argue that corporal punishment worked. Parents also shared photos of the injuries their children had suffered after receiving corporal punishment. The goal was to persuade teachers, parents and the government that banning the cane was possible and desirable and would result in less violence overall in schools.
Marshall was replaced and banning corporal punishment seemed to fall off the to-do list. Then, in , and with an election looming, Labour finally moved to make corporal punishment illegal. On 23 July , section a of the Education Act became law and corporal punishment was no longer allowed to be used by anyone employed by, supervising or in control of a school.
It was a big win. Almost no schools were using corporal punishment. Thus, teachers who acted reasonably while using a minimum of force would not be subject to prosecution. The long historical debate over the physical discipline and punishment of children arose from different perspectives on appropriate forms of child rearing and pedagogy.
At one end of the spectrum were adults and educators who believed that social order, good behaviour, and moral development required the regular use of disciplinary instruments such as the rod and the strap. At the other end were those who felt that physical discipline constituted, or would lead to, the abuse of children. The majority of Canadian adults most likely occupied a middle range on the spectrum, neither believing in the moral virtues of strapping, nor persuaded that occasional physical discipline constituted child abuse.
Polls consistently showed that Canadians were divided on the question. But the political struggle to ban the use of physical discipline in Canadian families and households continued. The bill she sponsored in was passed by the Canadian Senate in June, but because of the dissolution of Parliament for the November federal election, it was not taken up by the House of Commons.
A fuller version of this article appears in the Canadian Historical Review 91, vol. Join the EdCan Network now for unlimited access to thousands of online articles, to receive our print magazine and access special discount programs. Thousands of courageous educators rely on our network for content and analysis that can support them working under the radar to reach every learner despite the limitations imposed by the system.
You can too. Not ready to join right now? Check out EdCan Wire for more free content. As far as most students are concerned, they consider it greater punishment to have their parents contacted. Some even ask for the strap, rather than have us call home. Neumann agreed that quite possibly the strap would have greater value as a deterrent on the elementary level where expulsion from the school is less of a threat than at the secondary level.
Often it is the easiest way to solve disciplinary problems. Corporal punishment can become the first resort and not enough time is spent examining what the real problem is. At best it was only a temporary corrective device. Over the past six or seven years, the strap has been used less each year, Mr.
She described raising the school leaving age as an "artificial way of increasing retention rates", and said the publicising of school performance data was "a grab for the populist middle class". Strap to be banned in all Victorian schools.
Please try again later. The Age. September 16, — Save Log in , register or subscribe to save articles for later.
0コメント