First you close some schools, then you open some schools

I must say that this thread has diverted somewhat.

80% of parents smack, so I know I am in the minority, but I hope this discussion has triggered some thought in those of you who make up this statistic.

It has, but probably not the ones you are hoping for.

“smacking is ineffective and can lead to abuse”

A rather simplistic view there. Yes smacking a child can degenerate into something much more sinister, but there are usually other contributing factors. A parent giving a child a quick whack on the gluteus maximus isn’t likely to let it become a thorough beating with a lump of wood that leaves the kid with scars unless there is alcohol/drugs or a mental condition involved.

Most adults know the line that is not to be crossed in disciplining children; to suggest they don’t is an insult.

The bill currently before the NZ parliament is being hotly debated. Indeed it proposes that “parents are allowed to use necessary force for performing the normal daily tasks that are incidental to good care and parenting,” (Thanks to todays Crikey)

I am not a parent, so I have never had to make the choice to smack a naughty child. But I have run alternative education programs for teenagers excluded from the normal education environment and have seen a lot of kids that could have done with a firm guiding hand.

Danman, unfortunately one of the byproducts of living in Canberra is that is always a plentiful supply of people who are only too happy to share their thoughts on how you should live your life.

How can people who do not know me or my parents tell me that smacking is ineffective.

What a load of bollocks

If other methods have failed, smacking won’t work either.

I invite all readers who smack their children to think seriously about their motives, as well as their discipline plan as a whole. I would also invite them to read expert opinions on the issue (Robin Barker and Michael Carr-Gregg are two Australian authors who spring to mind). There is a lot of research on this issue, and the fact that many countries are banning smacking (New Zealand is the latest) reflects current expert opinion that smacking is ineffective and can lead to abuse.

80% of parents smack, so I know I am in the minority, but I hope this discussion has triggered some thought in those of you who make up this statistic.

The only reason parents smack their kids is to make themselves feel better (ie. anger release)

I’m sorry but that is crap. Parents don’t enjoy smacking their kids. It is a device that they (should) use sparingly, when a child’s behaviour escalates and other methods have failed.

If you are hitting your kids hard enough to hurt them, then that is abuse, if you don’t hit them hard enough to hurt them then its not really effective. The only reason parents smack their kids is to make themselves feel better (ie. anger release).

Smaller class sizes.
Smaller schools.
Parents leading by example.
Children being given responsibility at an early age.
Special schools or classes for difficult students.

So what’s an alternative solution that works then ?

Hit me with your radical ideas.

I wasn’t hit as a child and it didn’t hurt me either. Whole coutries are banning smacking, it is not a radical idea.

Also, the number of you who were hit more than once shows me that it was not effective in changing your behaviour.

So you told your kids to take some time out and think about what they’ve done, and they’ve never done anything wrong again?

I guess parenting is a very personal thing.

No one likes to have their attention drawn to their shortcomings or possible shortcomings as a parent.

I am sure that there are many right ways to bring up children – just because they are not the way you would do it does not make it wrong.

I think parenting is difficult enough without people coming under undue scrutiny.

I think what I am saying is that just because its not the way that you would do things – does not make it at all wrong.

There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Maybe we should instead concentrate on actualnegative insinces of parenting – not peoples different methods of parenting.

I find it interesting how many people who advocate violence against children use the line “I got hit and it never did me any harm”.

(a) I didn’t get hit and it didn’t do me any harm either.

(b) How do you know? Unless you have an identical twin who wasn’t hit as a control, you don’t know how it could have negatively affected you.

(c) The very fact you are proposing to hit your own children (or mine) proves to me that it did have a negative effect on you.

Also, the number of you who were hit more than once shows me that it was not effective in changing your behaviour.

Look, you are not going to change my mind. Call me a left wing pinko if you like (I’ve been called worse) but I’ll continue to discipline my children, as well as those I teach, in a way that is socially and morally responsible and has shown to be effective in changing behaviour.

naive or a case of knowing the difference ?

By the way, did anyone else get their mouth washed out with soap for swearing?

I certainly did. It was yellow sunlight soap and it was rather unpleasant. Could have been worse though I guess, Solvol or oatmeal soap could have been used. Only happened once, I learnt very quickly not to swear within earshot of my mother.

By the way, did anyone else get their mouth washed out with soap for swearing?

Oh yes, that’s one that never stops working.

I didn’t really get physical punishment, maybe once or twice in my life – because my parents could control me with non-violent methods, I caused a bit of trouble as a teenager nothing over the top or out of the ordinary, paid my dues when required and now I have turned out pretty well, same goes for my two younger brothers.

Another Sample of 3 but without physical punishment.

forbids parents … to cause pain lasting more than an undefined short period time

Wow, that really clears things up.

For the record, I and my brothers all copped a whack every now and then, which included our long-suffering mother having to replace her wooden spoons a number of times.

This didn’t teach us negative behaviour, nor that it’s ok to hit someone when they do something you don’t like. It taught us that if you did something wrong, you were punished in a way that you took notice of.

We usually got to the point of being whacked because we didn’t respond well to the “go to your room” or “think about what you’ve done”, but once we copped a smack, that’s where it stopped.

Also, if we did something really bad, as happened on one or two occasions, our father marched us down to the cops himself.

There you go. Sample size of 3. All turned out pretty damn well.

By the way, did anyone else get their mouth washed out with soap for swearing?

All Australian states and territories legally allow a parent or guardian the right to administer reasonable (i.e., not excessive) physical punishment to a child (Tucci., et al, 2002). New South Wales is the only state that has placed legislative limits on physical punishment to a child. This legislation was passed in 2000 and forbids parents to hit their children on the head, or to cause pain lasting more than an undefined short period time (Tucci et al., 2002). found on http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs6.html

Snahon – if you think the line between mild punishment and a beating wouldn’t get blurred, then you are very naive.

which is also the current problem with the education system as a whole – lack of flexibility for different learning methods negative and positive. Perhaps in the later stages of high school, children’s learning styles should be coupled with various teachers teaching methods, once again including methods of punishment for misbehaviour. But I would assume that if children were learning in a manner that suited their personalities, there may be less need for punishment.

a) It teaches negative behaviour…

As opposed to letting a child who doesn’t have the maturity to ‘understand’ the difference from right and wrong sit in the corner to think about what they did wrong…

b) The line between a mild physical punishment and a beating is blurred.

How? I thought is was pretty intuitive really…

Agreed AD, they need to have a range of possible responses and use the ones that work on the individuals, not 51% in a study conducted in Denmark.

There are two big problems with corporal punishment as I see it are;

a) It teaches negative behaviour ie. it tells them that when someone does something they don’t like it is ok to beat them.

b) The line between a mild physical punishment and a beating is blurred.

To add to that, let say that for example you have a child that is getting abused at home and therefore brings their problems to school, eg cause trouble. They cop a beating for this, I can only see that fcking the child up and potentially making them worse.

Apparently not.

GnT is an over-protective left wing pinko. I would not be surprised if she were teaching at one of our fine establishments in this city right now. Perhaps it was her that put all the kiddies on the road at Kambah to cry in front of the media that their school was closing down ?

A discipline response is one that does not involve the child. Let’s not confuse the word discipline here, there is the discipline in the child to obey the command, and then there is discipline which is a punishment for doing something against the rules, of which I am referring to.

As already detailed by teachers who post on this forum, child discipline is ineffective. It needs to be followed up by disciplinary action to ensure that their own discipline follows suit.

Of which I am talking about taking them aside and administering punishment. Perhaps a machine that administers a measurable force, to an agreed (school rules) rate of lashes dependant on the severity of the crime is necessary, however this isn’t even getting near brutality.

The amount of people who have stated already that at the time, on reflection, it was a good thing and it did me no harm indeed should be weight enough.

The basic problem here is an assumption by the moral pygmies in the education system that violence is *never* an appropriate response.

They’re reliant on the herd effect of people who are willing to sanction violence as a response occasionally necessary to keep them safe from a very dangerous minority who regard violence as being an entirely appropriate way to get what they want.

Fortunately children can see the fallacies and obvious contradictions of this flawed philosophy (a semester of the history of any period of human existence should show it up nicely) and realise that anything their teachers say is simply to be kept in storage until the next test and then discarded as the bollocks it is.

So what you’re teaching them is to swallow the lie to get ahead, wonderful.

The other worrying thing is the assumption that even if behavioural research has been conducted well that what works in a majority of cases is appropriate in all cases.

Serious people know this is a suicidally dangerous way to approach the world, but it seems serious people don’t set education policy.

(For example: in the cast majority of cases if the light is green then it is safe to drive through the intersection, but if there is an oncoming truck showing no signs of slowing down only the dimmest of driver would proceed)

GnT – to be so narrow minded to assume that any type of pain inflicted on a child as a course of discipline is abuse is wholly absurd.

You can administer discipline without going over the top.

A smack on the arse for misbehaving is a bit different to beating a child until they show signs of bruising and bleeding.

Perhaps you not knowing the difference between discipline and beating is reason enough to remove yourself from the gene pool – as it appears that you would not have the backbone or gall to discipline your children appropriately.

Maybe thats not the way it is – but its the picture you have painted in my mind.

The premise behind corporal punishment is to cause the child pain, so the pain is a consequence for misbehaviour. If you are not hitting hard enough to cause pain, how can it possibly work? If you are hitting hard enough, isn’t that a ‘beating’? So, if a smack on the bum is ‘nothing’, Why are you doing it? (Serious question – think about it please).

Now I’m not saying that time out or detention will always work in correcting a child’s behaviour. But it is the most effective technique – more effective than hitting.

El, “I never came to be taught that violence ‘is an appropriate response’ because I copped a cane in primary school”. Yes you did, because you are now advocating violence against children.

schmerica – I won’t name my school. I don’t want the Dept after my arse charging me with misconduct.

I was speaking in general re: behaviour cards (which I have seen – 1/2 the class on them).

Nyssa – which school do you teach at?

Oh and I have to add, when you have 1/2 your class on behaviour cards, time out doesn’t work.

Neither does detention – they don’t show. Give them a “bad” report on their card and they tear it up. Yes they may get an in school suspension or a home suspension but to quote one ex student “I just stayed home and watched day-time tv” – like that’s a punishment for their negative behaviour/s.

PART is basically a specialised course for teachers in “legally” physically restraining a child from either 1) self harm or 2) harm to another student or to a teacher.

el, corporal punishment doesn’t exist in schools – hence the lack of “as much need”.

If your child is naughty, smack them. They won’t do it again. If you sit them in the corner to ‘think about what they’ve done’ they are probably thinking about how to not get caught doing it again next time. You can SMACK your child, but you can’t beat them. (I think) Beating is when you bruise the child, break the skin, leave a mark, or use an object to strike a child. A smack on the bum by a parent can be a good thing.

Sorry GnT, but I have to disagree with ‘The most effective behaviour management technique for little kids is some kind of time out. That sort of ‘punishment’ will only work on certain students. It can be effective, especially if the child is acting out and seeking attention from other students, but is not effective for all students.

You can try ‘Grandma’s Rule’ which is basically saying ‘Do what I want you to do, then you can do what you want to do’ Any behaviour that is enjoyed and that occurs often can be used to reinforce behaviours that are not enjoyed and do not occur often

And you could always try positive and negative reinforcements…

A reward is to give them something they want (positive reinforcement) or to take away something they don’t want (negative reinforcement)

Instead of continually picking on the child for the negative things he/she are doing, congratulate them on postive things.

When I was younger and my family would go out for dinner, if I mucked about my mother would ask me ‘Would you like to go to the toilet?’. This was her way of saying ‘I will take you to the toilet and smack you’. I eventually figured out that if she asked me if I wanted to go to the toilet, I’d sit down and shut the hell up.

I agree with nyssa76 and el.

I have given permission for a teacher to PART my child.

Sorry nyssa, is there an explanation available for that term? Never heard it before, myself.

let me be the first to tell you that a smack on the bum is nothing.

Agreed.

If parents better disciplined their children there wouldn’t be a need for corporal punishment.

I’d agree with that entirely if it said ‘there wouldn’t be as much need for corporal punishment’.

Even ‘good’, well behaved kids will push the boundaries at school from time to time.

GnT – I never came to be taught that violence ‘is an appropriate response’ because I copped a cane in primary school – What I did learn was to not be a disruptive little sh!thead in class.

GnT, I smack my children occasionally. I have given permission for a teacher to PART my child.

As someone who experienced abuse as a child, let me be the first to tell you that a smack on the bum is nothing.

It is a last resort. And in the case of my son it was a loss of privelages, groundings, X-Box sold etc before the smack on the bum today – which finally sent the message home that his behaviour in class is unacceptable.

If parents better disciplined their children there wouldn’t be a need for corporal punishment.

Teacher’s can and do use detention, however, you know as well as I, that in a high school you have a hard time getting kids to turn up if it isn’t the class preceeding recess or lunch.

Then you have parents who don’t care, defend their child’s actions…yadda yadda yadda.

Yes, I am against corporal punishment. First of all, it has been shown to be ineffective in changing behaviour. It doesn’t work. Second, it teaches children that violence is an appropriate response. Third, it can cause physical and psychological damage – ever heard of child abuse?

Some of you seem to think that due to a lack of corporal punishment teachers have no control in the classroom. On the contrary, most teachers implement plenty of behaviour management techniques (otherwise known as ‘discipline’) that allows them to maintain control.

The most effective behaviour management technique for little kids is some kind of time out. For high school kids usually a loss of privileges works well, eg detention (staying in at recess).

I am actually dumfounded that so many people seem to think it is fine to hit a child.

I had plenty of C/P as a kid and I turned out fine too. I got whacks I deserved, and whacks I didn’t deserve, and didn’t get a whole lot of whacks I did deserve, so it all balanced out in the long run. Bit like life really…..? Only suggestion, should be delivered by a disinterested third party, so the emotion stays well out of it…..copped a couple of slightly over the tops from those fired up by whatever interchange lead to the whack.
I can reed, rite, end spel gud, end cownt too ate orlso.
But then I went to a range of schools from tiny primary to huge colleges and was expected to behave like a human being, show respect, and do the work to pass the subject.

No-one’s joking GnT.

I copped a cane *once* in class and learnt my lesson quick smart. And fair cop too – I deserved it.

I’m not against the cane. Never was. Hell my own son deserved it today due to his anti-social behaviour in the classroom.

When you have children pulling knives on one another and then the airy-fairy “there there” BS, what are we telling the students?

It’s ok to pull a knife because there are never any consequences for their bad choices.

GnT,

I am guessing from your comments that you are opposed to corporal punishment… I personally see no problem with persuasive percussion when appropriately applied. Like I said, a good whack never hurt anyone; it teaches what you should not do, and perhaps more significant, what not to be CAUGHT doing.

BTW, I recall when doing yr 12, the (much) lower ‘maths’ class literally had “tell the time on this clock face” maths questions. WTF is up with that? Yet instead of educating children, they can go and do vocational training.

why do I get the feeling that GnT is a great supporter of the current teaching (and discipline) methodologies surmised by neanderthalsis ???

neanderthalsis, you hit the nail on the head “…they should…”.

“A good whack never hurt any of us”

Excuse me????!!!

I will continue to assume you are all joking.

And as for the cane, when you were taught by Irish nuns and Christian Brothers, you soon learnt respect for authority and right from wrong. A good whack never hurt any of us. I’m not saying it should be applied indiscrimanately, but it would have its’ uses.

Snahon,
By the time kids are offered Vocational Training in schools they should already have a broad foundation in functional literacy and numeracy. VET subjects are only offered in senior years whereas foundational skills should be taught in the formative years for schooling. A child should be able to read and comprehend a text, structure a sentence and paragraph and even form a logical thesis by the time they reach grade 10.

It has become evident all to often that kids are leaving school after 10 or even 12 years of schooling, with low functional literacy and numeracy. Indeed, the last IALTS survey (conducted in 1996) had 45% of the adult population as functionally illiterate. The ABS did another survey in 2006 and the results are not yet released, but most in the aduly education community are predicting no great change.

The problem generally lies in the established curriculum and the practiced teaching methodologies of our pedagogues.

Post modernist teaching principles have been deeply entrenched for some time. Events and texts are contextualised to suit modern interpretations and the Marxist sentimentalities of the curriculum designers. Children are openly encouraged to steer their own learning journey that enables them to embrace the neo-cultural zeitgeist of modern society (which is why a 12yo can make a 10 slide powerpoint presentation on the environment but can’t write a basic paragraph or form a cohesive sentence).

I should perhaps end my rant there…It could get ugly otherwise.

The cane modified my behaviour, detention was a bit of fun where I’d get to meet the other interesting kids in school.

Maybe I was a bad kid, but I think there are a lot of us out there.

Maelinar, Danman, Thumper – you’re joking, right?

Funny how when they had the cane (or meter ruler as it was in my experience ) in schools – that there was not drunken lynch mobs of youths in town ready to punch anyone for anything.

^^ and clearly I wasn’t taught enough about grammer… oh well time to get off my soap box.

“… school life becoming less scholarly and more socially focussed..” – and that is exactly what is wrong with schools. School is about learning, not minding kids for several hours a day. Likewise teachers should have the power for appropriate punishment instead of the “now johnny please stop that” crap.

All that crap about vocational training and preparing kids for work is rubbish. Kids should be learning about proper use of grammer, spelling, maths, history, etc. These building blocks assist in being able to critically *think* and use reason and logic instead of learning how to ‘do’.

Kids have the rest of their life to learn ‘vocational’ training based on interests, however, there is only a finite amount of time to teach kids how to think, analyse and comprehend and critique.

This is where those small, community-focused schools were really good. The local bully didn’t get too far because the entire community quickly learned who it was, and put a lot of pressure on the school and the parents to take action. the school quickly learned to have a preventative program to train kids about what was and wasn’t socially acceptable.

It works (at primary school) because the bully never gets away with it (and they’re too young to notice the lack of ‘bullets’). Couldn’t say if it be the same for high school, though.

Spanking a little shithead can be argued is more ‘pc’ than allowing them to go unpunished.

Overzealousness issues aside, the complexities of school life becoming less scholarly and more socially focussed gives rise to bringing in disciplinary actions that can be distributed by somebody that is not your primary carer, for afterall, isn’t school quickly becoming the new daycare ?

Sending in teachers without any effective punishment mechanisms is like travelling to Iraq without ammunition. Go wave your gun at the students, they’ll quickly work out you’ve got nothing to back yourself up with.

Now Mael, that wouldn’t be very “PC” now would it?

Bring back the cane.

This Govt cares nothing for the educational wellbeing of students, or they wouldn’t have closed the behavioural units (to allow teachers to actually teach a class than deal with 1 violent student) and shafted the community re: Towards 2020 aka a pathetic, hastily put together policy.

O nyssa76, everyone knows that super schools will solve everything. They must! The govt. is pushing so hard for them. They have to be the answer. Surely the govt. wouldn’t be focusing on cost rather than educational and social outcomes?

Super schools aren’t the “be all end all” of educational policy.

Sounds reasonable to me too. Close a heap of good schools, sell off the land, pay out an election budget, and build new schools in new suburbs to make it look like you have an education policy.

Just remember, these flash new super-schools had better be able to withstand a single super-hailstorm… And what will happen in 30 years time when the population is super-old? Can we cram them all into super-retirement homes?

The social consequences are, as we know, not a consideration.

sounds like reasonable consolidation to me…close down a whole lot of small school and open one large central school.

If only Barrs left hand knew what his right hand was doing. He should be careful not to blow it too early (the budget for it that is) or else he may end up with a GDE style budget leaking everywhere.

Here’s a radical idea – why not have a school in both Dickson AND Gunghalin?

Gunghalin is a fair hike from say Campbell, and Dickson is a fair distance from Amaroo.

“consulting” with teachers and parents

Dickson college teachers / parents: Boo!
Gunghalin teachers / parents: Yay!

There – all done.

Mind you, if facing the electorate doesn’t seem like a fun prospect, all the Soviet has to do is extend the terms.

What a ****ing joke of a democracy.

Why bother consulting with teachers or parents? Neither group are going to tell him what he wants to hear.

The next chance for community consultation appears to be at the ballot box.

There isn’t a need. Most kids go to Dickson or Lake Ginninderra and have for 10 years.

I wonder if he’s actually considered “consulting” with teachers and parents. That would be a first.

Not entirely unreasonable. After all, just because you don’t need a school in say Dickson, doesn’t mean there isn’t a need for a new one in Gungahlin.

Eejits.