Cash for caning.
Jun. 13th, 2005 12:26 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
davywavyFrom 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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
“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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 11:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:06 pm (UTC)No logical agrument against it? Yeah, right. How about the fact that quite a few people in this country are really rather poor. Would this tax be a sliding scale, and, if so, what would it be based on? Also, what would be the cost to implement the tax, with or without the 'added fairness' factor?
Is it fair to ask a family who are curently struggling finincally, whos child has never done a thing worong in class, to pay money simply for the peace of mind that, should their child slip up, as children often do, a teacher who has had a very bad day and who may be at the end of their teather, as people often are, won't give them 6 of the best?
Is it fair to allow a family who can easly afford the money to pay it and let their child, who is an utter manece, go reletivaly unpunished whilest a number of his class mates are beaten for the same or lesser offences?
If it is a sliding scale then surely that is just the rich subsidising the less well off in order to pay teachers extra wages, or where ever you prepose this money is going?
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:07 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:12 pm (UTC)Having had a long rant today about the nanny state (Don't do that, don't eat that, do that, eat this, don't play that, don't watch that, don't think) I think is part of it, kids arnt learning that if they do something wrong that bad things happen to them. They think that they can be little s**ts and their human rights defend them.
Bring Back Coperal Punishment, Destroy the Nanny State
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:13 pm (UTC)Or how about a bidding system? People could actually bid to put a cash value on their child's sensitive little heinie.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:13 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:15 pm (UTC)but reintroducing caning eh? can we make it compulsory to a certain few people i know who might happen to need (or perhaps Want) a Sound Thrashing?
Hee hee hee
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:16 pm (UTC)I think a bidding system may well be seen as favouring the well off.
Texas.
Date: 2005-06-13 12:32 pm (UTC)I made sure I didn't.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:48 pm (UTC)Leave it up to the kids and the principal. (Or Vice-Principal in those schools who use him/her for disciplinary functions.)
Yes, you heard me.
When a child has gotten to the point of requiring a paddle, the teacher sends the child down to the prinicpal, who offers them a choice. The whack, (from the prinicipal, who hopefully can keep temper in check.) or their current form of punishment.
I'm a youngin' compared to some of you, but even by the time I started school in the mid 80's, Ohio had already resigned the paddle to the dustbin. And my kindergarten and 3rd year teachers both still had their paddles, leaning up against the chalkboard in a corner for all to see. And you should've seen the kids avoid it like the plague, even though they knew it wasn't to be used. (Other than on birthdays, of course.)
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:49 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:51 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:52 pm (UTC)Alternatively, as there are significant cost-savings inherent in my system, it could be argued that families on benefits who siogn up to it simply receive greater benefits or tax credits, and those who decline continue to receive the usual benefits they do now.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:55 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:59 pm (UTC)How is a child going to feel when they realise that their parent cares more about tax cuts then their safty, and what about the stigma of being a childen who can be beaten? Do you REALLY think that that wont result in name calling and what ever?
Also, well, apart from these logical agruments I also think the idea is flawered because it envolves hitting a child. Obviously as a pinko bleeding heart I'm not really into the idea of corpral punishment, but that's only because I think hitting people is a bad thing, hitting children worse. If, however, you disagree with that sentement, if you believe it is exceptable to hit a child for not acting in a way that is felt to be exceptable, then fair enough, however I don't think you should attemt to moderate it in such a way. Either corpral punishment is moraly correct, or it isn't. Going around with this kind of 'opt out if you can afford to' crap is anoying.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 12:59 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:01 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:03 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:04 pm (UTC)Giving people an option, and expecting them to use it, are two different things. Duh.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:06 pm (UTC)The financial argument is still inarguable.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:09 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:11 pm (UTC)You might think the use of corporal punishment is bad, but then again you'd have the option to opt out of the system.
Personally, I plan to raise good children who'd never need any such punishment as they'll learn respect in the home. Shame more people don't follow that plan as then this one wouldn't have even been proposed.
no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:11 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2005-06-13 01:18 pm (UTC)Personally I feel that there are many other methods of punishment avaliable to teachers, though a lot of our 'liberal' schools don't really like them. I have no problem with a child missing vast amounts of breaks, being excluded from fun activities and the like. A lot of this works on the principle of children being taught the level of respect at a fairly early age of course, but I would rather that than beatings.
Basically, more emphasis on positive reenforcement at an early primary level and then later on children can be made to miss school trips and the like. At a secondary level this can be continued.
I object totally to this 'opt out' system. It creates yet more devides in the play ground, something which I feel is a very bad idea. It could lead to children resenting their parents, who SHOULD be the moral guide line. It just strikes me as a bad idea.
Obviously I havn't put as much thought into this as you, however I agree that the responsability SHOULD fall to the parents.