Cash for caning.

[davywavy]

From time to time my sister has an argument with a colleague. The argument usually starts when education is in the news, and her colleague usually starts it by remarking that teachers are underpaid. To this I typically reply that there are plenty of people in sordid and badly paid jobs who face worse risks, such as bankruptcy and death, without the comfort of a vocation, and anyhow teachers get about half the year off. This never has any effect. Her colleague has a friend who teaches; the friend has to deal with a lot of stress in her job; she spends a lot of her so-called ‘time off’ in marking and preparation; no job is more vital than the tutelage of the young; therefore teachers ought to get more money. So, last time, sister decided to try a different tack.
“Tell you what. You ask this friend of yours which she’d prefer – an extra two thousand quid a year on her salary, or bringing back the cane.”
“But don’t you think that hitting children is barbaric … never justified … only teaches them that violence solves violence … reasoning with them is so much better … etc ...”
“Yes, whatever, never mind all that, just ask her.”
And there she left it.
Shortly after this, sister and I were chatting about this conversation and I resolved to pursue the matter. The next time I found myself having drinks with a couple of friends, both teachers at an ordinary comprehensive, I decided to put the same question to them. Which would they prefer, cash or the cane? Their answer was prompt and unanimous. The cane. No contest.
“What, you’d prefer it to an extra two K a year?”
They nodded in unison. “Absolutely.”
I was fascinated. How much, I wondered, would you have to offer them before they went for the money instead? Well, certainly more than two thousand, they said. Three thousand? Five? Ten? More? And at this point something rather remarkable transpired. Of course it has to be borne in mind that none of us was entirely sober. But the question sparked off what I can only describe as a bidding war. We quickly established that they’d prefer a reintroduction of the cane as a deterrent to any annual pay rise below five grand a year, but that wasn’t all. Provided, my friends agreed, that they were allowed full access to what was, twenty-odd years ago, a teacher’s standard arsenal – the slipper, the cane, the tweaked ear, the pellet of chalk, the roundhouse clip round the back of the head, the sarcastic comment and teh verbal sally – they both told me that they would be prepared to forego a full £20,000 a year for the privilege.
Now, according to the DFES website, there were at the last count around 214,700 secondary school teachers in England alone. And I suppose it is possible that my friends are both abnormally sadistic deviants, although to be honest I feel it’s unlikely. But even supposing them both to set twice as high a premium on the value of caning as the average, it’s still impossible not to conclude that abolishing the cane has had the same effect on the morale of England’s teachers as an aggregate drop in pay of over £2billion a year.
Whichever way you look at it, this is a staggering sum. Nor, as far as I know, was it really anticipated, even by union representatives, in the run up to the caning ban. No wonder teachers are dissatisfied. In the long term they have indisputably lost out on a massive scale, and it does not therefore seem at all unreasonable to take a look at ways in which their loss might be addressed, in so far as is now possible.
One way, obviously, is to pay teachers more. That would presumably be acceptable to teachers, but my more cynical readers might say it runs a fair risk of setting off a whole round of wage claims from other public sector employees keen to evaluate grievances of their own. Or there’s the opposite approach: freeze teachers’ pay, and reverse the ban on corporal punishment. This would, I trust, be feasible - though by no means straightforward these days under European law - and would avoid the call for extra revenue. The real difficulty is that some parents are just implacably opposed to caning. “If someone laid a finger on my kid,” went one online comment I read from silver_blue, “I’d take a baseball bat to them.”* Nobody ought to have to teach in the face of this sort of threat.
Luckily, however, there is a third option. And that is to restore choice to the parents themselves. Suppose a tax was levied to compensate teachers for the cutback in disciplinary options, but that parents who consented for their offspring to receive corporal punishment could claim exemption from it. In this way, the demands of all parties could be satisfactorily met. Parents who had no objection to the use of the cane need not be obliged to defray the cost of its abolition. People like my sister’s colleague, who wanted to reward teachers for working under stressful conditions, would be free to do just that. And teachers themselves could be reimbursed on a pro-rata basis for any noli me tangere pupils remaining in their charge. Everybody would gain. It isn’t often that a Government gets the chance to placate one group without provoking another, and so it is with some complacency that I lay before you, for their consideration, this scheme in its outline form. I can’t be bothered to think of a palliative name for it, though, so as a private working title, may I suggest “Cash for Caning.”
And if anyone doubts that the scheme would be popular, I can attest that people who have heard it through so far have been unreservedly appreciative, apart from my colleague. The two teachers in particular thought it was splendid. Though they did point out that bleeding-heart detractors might try to liken it to a protection racket, or some kind of dubious financial arrangement between a supplier and Wackford Squeers. And it’s true one would soon see where people’s priorities lay. “But from a logical point of view,” they admitted, “there are no arguments against it at all.”

*This demonstrating the consistency of his claim that whilst teachers using the cane only teaches children that violence breed violence, him using a baseball bat would teach his children no such thing.

Comments

[inskauldrak.livejournal.com]

Humour aside - what about the belt? (Y'know of the same thickness that gets used in gang-fights).

My Mum had to use it during her teacher training - 'had' meaning a teacher/trainer told her she needed to. She still feels physically sick at the memory.

Also, there is a secondary point that if violence is necessary to enforce discipline - a lot of the basic respect and authority battle has already been lost.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, to be blunt, I think the consensus (certainly within teaching) is that the 'basic respect and authority battle' has already been lost.
I'm simply calling for reinforcements.
Most of the anti- voices to corporal punishment seem to think that if the can ewere reintroduced then schoolteachers would simply turn into whirling dervishes of whacking frenzy for the slightest infraction.
As possibly the only person here who was at school (and is able to remember) when corporal punishment was legal, I can assure you it wasn't like that at all.

[inskauldrak.livejournal.com]

this was the anti-voice of a teacher who doesn't like the basic principal of hitting children or the idea that she should be expected to do so as part of her job description.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Where did I say, anywhere, that teachers would be 'expected to'. Stop putting words in my mouth, 'cos it pisses me off.

Giving people an option, and expecting them to use it, are two different things. Duh.

If you're a teacher...

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

...I challenge you.
print off the above, hand it could the staff room, and ask your colleagues what they'd prefer - corporal punishment or a pay rise.
And how much of a pay rise before they'd forego the return of corporal punishment, if it were a choice.

Re: If you're a teacher...

[inskauldrak.livejournal.com]

... I'm *not* a teacher as you well know.

"Where did I say, anywhere, that teachers would be 'expected to'. Stop putting words in my mouth, 'cos it pisses me off."

"Giving people an option, and expecting them to use it, are two different things. Duh."

Well I'm afraid. Duh. That once people know that teacher A will use the cane and Teacher B won't, a differential in authority exists. For the very best teachers this will be a very minor issue as they have natural authority, but for those that can teach well but might be reluctant to use corporal punishment, they could (I say could, rather than would) be seen to have less authority.

As to 'expected to' - I was talking about the fact that when corporal punishment was commonly used, as per the example of my Mum's teacher training, it was expected that a Teacher should be able to show that they could use the belt. Not the cane but the belt.

The reason we're so much at odds on this is that I've seen my Mother's face when she looks back on that one moment after over thirty years and still feels horrible about it when she thinks back.

The use of wit, verbal put-downs, being able to *move* a pupil I quite agree with.

But whilst you seem to have had a good experience of teachers that used corporal punishment, what safeties would you place upon this to stop crap teachers who're just sad bullies hitting children because they're only teaching because they've failed at their first career?

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Well, to be blunt, I think the consensus (certainly within teaching) is that the 'basic respect and authority battle' has already been lost.

As possibly the only person here who was at school (and is able to remember) when corporal punishment was legal, I can assure you it wasn't like that at all.

These two statments say to me that Corporal punishment was used in a different time. The respect that existed when you were at school has, by your own words, now gone. It is not logical to assume that Corporal punishment if re-introduced will be ab;e to be used in the same way as it once was.

Besides, your agrument was based on raising teacher moral, not bringing respect back to the class rooms. If that is your aim then how on earth can you justify some children being punished and others not? That is a crazy agrument. It wont as not all of the pupils will be caned.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Raised teacher morale would lead to a lesser need for corporal puishment. However, my primary argument was a financial one. Everyone else dragged other factors into it and I'm responding to them. Like one does in debates.
The financial argument is still inarguable.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Unless you believe, as I do, that hitting a child is not exceptable.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Or you look at the other objections I've been raising. ;)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

If you don't think that using corporal punishment is acceptable, then raise them to have displine and respect in the home. Then it'll never be an issue.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

I would not want my children growing up in a world where the state is able to beat those who break it's laws, it's that simple.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

But you do live in a world like that. You might hate it, but it's no less reality.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

I know, it's why I'm a member of AI. Positive action brother! ;)

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I want to join Am Nasty International. It's more fitting.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Hey, I never said I was a NICE guy. *Grins*

See, even though we don't agree and didn't reslove anything, that was fun and I luvs ya!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

One question - I thought that the original post was a) funny and b) amusing satire. People seem to ahve taken it far more seroiusly than intended. Did it not come accross as such?

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

Afraid not. It came across as an actual idea. At least it did to me.

But then again I'm no fun at all sometimes.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

You've never any fun.
Remind me to grief you next time I see you.

[sherbetsaucers.livejournal.com]

As you well know that is already covered by our constitution.

Unless you do it at a non-cam event.

Between games for example.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

Because there would never, ever, be a mistake, I'm sure. I mean, it's not like my teacher at primary school hit me, leaving me in tears, and without absolute no conception of what I'd supposedly done wrong to deserve it.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Oh, I got that all the time. Life is full of random injustices.

[silver-blue.livejournal.com]

But I don't see how creating a situation where those kind of random injustices are possible can help to create any kind of greater discpline. I lashed out AFTER the situation above, because I was hurt, frustrated and angry. I wouldn't have been violent if someone hadn't been violent towards me in the first place.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Really? We reacted in entirely different ways then. I learned early that life is random and unfair and really the only person I could rely upon to make life make sense was me (and even that is an inconsistent process, to say the least). I'd consider it to be a fairly valuable lesson I learned and worth what it took.

[puddingcat.livejournal.com]

It clearly is arguable. It may not be on the assumptions you're making, but I believe (as, apparently, do most people who've replied so far) that those assumptiosn are flawed.