Corpun file 23452
Wanganui Chronicle, 29 October 1887, p.2
School Committee.
The ordinary monthly meeting of the Wanganui School Committee
was held yesterday afternoon at Mr Dudley Eyre's office.
[...]
Corporal Punishment.
Mr Allen moved the following three resolutions on the subject
of corporal punishment: --
1 -- That the Wanganui School Committee much regrets that the
Education Board has resolved, by a small majority, to sanction
the infliction of corporal punishment by others than head
teachers, as it considers that an interval should elapse between
the commission of an offence and the, perhaps, hasty and
passionate infliction of corporal punishment; and that the
committee hopes that the board may be able to reconsider its
decision.
2 -- That the Wanganui School Committee respectfully requests
the Education Board to define the meaning of the term
"corporal punishment," as applied in its instructions
to teachers; and also to determine in what form, and to what
extent corporal punishment is to be administered by male and
female teachers to girls and boys respectively.
3 -- That a deputation consisting of the chairman, the
secretary, and the mover wait upon the Education Board at its
next meeting to lay the foregoing resolutions before it.
Click to enlarge |
Mr Allen, in introducing the subject, said that the board
passed its resolution by one vote, therefore it might reasonably
be asked to reconsider it. The editor of Truth had said,
"the London School Board [the largest and most important in
the world] refused, by a vote of 30 to 15, to hand over the
unfortunate children to the indiscriminate violence of the
assistant teachers. ... I trust the ratepayers will ... refuse to
reelect a single one of those who voted in the minority." If
corporal punishment meant literally punishment by blows on the
body, that is to say, not on the head, or hands, was it allowable
or proper for men to corporally punish girls, or for women to
corporally punish boys? Supposing, as in many country schools,
there were boys as big as the mistress, how was she to punish
them corporally if they resisted. If corporal punishment meant
punishment by blows elsewhere than the body (e.g., on the head or
hands) was it allowable or proper for teachers to box children's
ears, at the risk of rendering them deaf, or to beat them on the
hands at the risk of breaking the tender bones of the fingers?
What instruments of torture were allowable? The cane, supplejack,
tawse, ruler -- round or flat -- birch? How many blows were to be
administered if a boy and girl committed a similar offence in a
school where there was only one teacher, was he to beat the boy
and not the girl? If the boy deserved corporal punishment in the
first sense, i.e. blows on the bare body, was the girl who had
committed a similar offence to escape without blows on the bare
body? Were teachers to deal out corporal punishment by some
definite rule, always in the same proportion; or were they to be
left to their own discretion, or indiscretion? What about
hard-handed and soft-handed children? Were delicate children who
committed offences to be exempted from corporal punishment, or
not? Why not?
Mr Allen then described some of his own experiences as a pupil
and as a teacher, and said that he was certain that blows oftener
caused hardening than softening; and that while blows might have
to be appealed to for lying, bullying, indecency, &c., but
only as a last resort -- "it was better to rule by love than
fear."
Mr Richards was glad the subject was introduced, as he had
been thinking very seriously about it, having heard of a recent
case of excessive punishment by an assistant teacher in the town
school.
Mr W. Austin, in seconding the first resolution, said that his
son bad been caned on the hand by a former Wanganui master, and
had thus permanently lost the use of one finger.
Major Neill said that he should vote for the second and third
resolutions, as he thought corporal punishment should be defined
and limited, but he considered that the first would be likely to
bring the committee into collision with the board. -- Mr Eyre
took the same view as Major Neill.
The Chairman (Mr Stevenson) thought that, as the committee had
made it known that they would investigate any complaints made in
writing, the first resolution was unnecessary, but he would
support the second.
On a division, Messrs Allen, Austin, and Richards voted for,
and Messrs Neill, Eyre, and Stevenson against, the first
resolution. The Chairman gave his casting vote against it, and it
was thus lost. The second and third resolutions were carried
unanimously.
| |
About this website
Search this site
Country files: School CP in New Zealand
The Archive up to 1975: New Zealand
|