Corpun file 22886
The Times, London, 19 March 1921
To Cane Or Not?
Headmaster of Rugby's Views
Click to enlarge |
The question of "Punishment in the Schools" was
again discussed last evening, at a conference convened by the
Medical Officers of Schools Association, at the Medical Society's
Rooms, Chandos-street, Cavendish-square, W. Mr. R.C. ELMSLIE,
president of the association, was in the chair.
At a meeting held on February 15 the members of the
association passed a resolution urging that, in view of the
evidence of damage caused by caning on the hand, and the
possibility of impairment of function, this form of punishment
should be forbidden. Yesterday it was the turn of the
educationists to state their views. They were divided on the
point. The elementary school teachers generally stood by the
practice of caning on the hand, and the public school headmasters
and others supported castigation on the breech.
A suggestion that the "tawse" (a fairly broad strap,
fringed at one end), which is used in Scottish schools -- on the
hand -- might well be substituted for the cane in England, as
being far less potentially injurious in use, received a good deal
of favour. DR. E.H.L. NASH, who opened the discussion, said that
the tawse stung ferociously, but the sting was only temporary.
No Substitute for "Lines."
CANON A.A. DAVID, headmaster of Rugby, said that punishments
had decreased very much in number during the last 15 or 20 years.
Boys were better trained in preparatory schools to good order,
and at the public schools were less bored. A great many offences
by boys were due to boredom. He had never been able to find a
substitute for "lines."
"I am not going to give up the stick," he continued.
"But I am not going to display it, nor allow it to be used
to emphasize grammatical mistakes or false quantities. It must
not be used in hot blood, but at a decent interval after the
offence, and quite coldly. There's no use telling the boy it
hurts you more than it hurts him. He doesn't believe you, and it
isn't true."
He was surprised, he said, to learn that caning on the hand
was still in use. He was absolutely opposed to that. He did not
think caning on the body was degrading. Some boys might be too
sensitive mentally to be caned, but according to the mothers of
England 90 per cent of our boys were highly strung. (Laughter.)
Mr. C.W. CROOK, late president of the National Union of
Teachers, said he thought the dangers of caning on the hand were
very much exaggerated. If an elementary schoolteacher applied the
rod to "that part of the body Nature intended to receive
it," he was bound to leave a weal, and was liable to be
taken before a magistrate and accused of "brutality."
If they were not to cane on the hands, how were they expected to
cane girls? Some girls needed corporal punishment as much as
boys. What the Council schools wanted was the power to expel.
Mr. M.J. RENDALL, headmaster of Winchester, said that at his
school the hand was held, as it were, sacred -- it did so many
things.
Mr. J.R. ECCLES, headmaster of Gresham's School, Holt,
condemned corporal punishment of any kind, and said that
punishments which he employed with success in his school included
making a boy play cricket when he would rather cycle, making him
tidy up rooms or sweep the fives court, making him "bell
fag," and making him tell his parents.
| |
About this website
Search this site
Article: UK school CP
Other external links: UK school CP
Archive up to 1975: UK
Picture index
|