Was anyone here punished at home for getting a bad report from school?

If you had been caned at school was it mentioned in your report?

A very interesting topic. Although I attended school after cp had been banned, my best friend was often grounded for bad school reports, right up until we left. Any grade less than a C or a B in some subjects and he was grounded.

I think I have heard of schools that entered in your end-of-term report the number of canings in the term. This might just be hearsay as I don't remember ever seeing such a report with my own eyes.
At my grammar school the report said how many detentions you'd had but not how many canings. This was odd, since caning was supposed to be the more serious of the two punishments. It meant that you could get the cane without your parents knowing, which saved much embarrassment and possibly further trouble at home. (There was none of this contacting your parents malarkey in those days.)

Yes, I was punished at home for getting bad reports - my mother wasn't worried about my actual academic marks, but in each subject we also got a letter grade from A to E representing the amount of effort the teacher felt we'd made and if I got D or Es, then I got punished (I got money for As).

The school I attended from 1985 to 1988 started officially recording corporal punishment in 1986 (we got the strap at my school) and from that date onwards, the fact that you'd been strapped was meant to be in your report. But as the vast majority of strappings were never officially recorded, most of the time they weren't on your report either. Out of the numerous strappings I got at school only one was recorded in the Strap Book and that one was on my report. However, my mother also got a letter telling her I'd been strapped at the time it happened, so the report told her nothing new.

It caused a bit of a fuss with Mum actually, that letter. That strapping got recorded because it was much worse than most strappings I received - worst I ever got in fact - and because I'd never told my mother when I'd been strapped, she was under the impression that it had never happened before. And while she had no objection to corporal punishment, she did think that what I got was too severe for a first strapping. I wound up having to admit that it wasn't my first, but in fact my fifth (and even then I was fudging things by not counting hand strappings - I'd had at least five of those as well).

A few weeks ago I posted a message on unfair House beatings. I was punished thrice once when 14, again when 16 after a very poor Christmas report. The last that summer when my House master in his end of year report referred to several beatings he had to administer. My father decided to take out the strap which I felt was unfair as my poor arse had already been thrashed for whatever the misdemeanour was.

That is interesting - my school too recorded detentions on the end of term reports but not canings. I though that strange at the time (1950's/60's). Canings were quite common at the school.

My father caned me at home for bad reports - or rather for reports that did not show any improvement on a subject by subject basis.

I also caned my own son in the early 80's for school related matters including bad reports at a time when his school had just stopped using corporal punishment.

John--So glad you were not MY father.

Dean & Ben -So glad I did not attend YOUR schools.

Well, only you can judge where you would have been happy. But I was very happy at that school. I could have done with less strapping, certainly, but there were a lot of good things about the place as well.

Well, only you can judge where you would have been happy. But I was very happy at that school. (Dean)

Yes, that is certainly true and I am sure you were happy at school as your description above makes it sound very pleasant---almost like a holiday resort. Personally I would have been on edge all the time, doing far less well that in an environment where fear of bodily harm wasn't hovering constantly.

The strapping you describe certainly sound like a wonderful experience---very encouraging for a boy and something that would make most boys very, very happy. One wonders why your mother made such a fuss. Goodness, as someone who favored corporal punishment, didn't she just see it as a bigger dose of happiness for you? Tell me, how long did you carry the marks of this joyous event to share with others? What a shame there were no digital cameras back then---think of the scrapbook possibility.

I could have done with less strapping, certainly, but there were a lot of good things about the place as well. (Dean)

Okay without being facetious or resorting to sarcasm---I am sure there were many things at your school that were positive and appealing. I am actually glad it worked for you.

For me, the fear and threat of the strap would have detracted from all of those good things and ultimately, the experience could have been nothing but bad. I will always believe that a family (including the kind of family one finds in the school setting) to be dysfunctional when fear of bodily harm controls the behavior of those in the family. The possibility of being excessively strapped at school by a powerful Master at his whim for any reason, to me is no different than being strapped at home by an alcoholic dad who is likely to strike unexpectently with little provocation. In dysfunctional families there also can be many good things in the periphery but they are all tainted by the dynsfunction that is at the center. Families ruled by fear and threat of pain in my mind are definitely dysfunctional.

John, you live in an incestuous paedophilic dream world where imaginary canes and imaginary boys' imaginary bottoms are never far apart.

Are you related to George, by any chance?

The thing is, you're making assumptions that simply didn't apply in the school I was in. If they had, the environment would have been a very different one, and I don't think it would have been very positive at all for anyone.

There was no reason to worry about the "possibility of being excessively strapped at school by a powerful Master at his whim for any reason."

Our teachers couldn't use the strap at their whim for any reason. There actually had to be a pretty good reason for someone to get the strap - you had to be doing something you knew to be wrong, and you had to be doing it deliberately, and even then most of the time you wouldn't have got the strap. It wasn't the teachers whim that got you strapped. It was your misbehaviour. Now, I know there have been some schools where that wasn't true - but I didn't go to schools like that. At my school it would have been totally unreasonable to fear the possibibility of being strapped at a Master's whim, or to fear being strapped without a pretty good reason - most of the time a very good reason.

We weren't 'struck with very little provocation'. We had to do something either pretty serious, or we had to do something after repeated warnings before the strap came out - and quite often both.

The only times I was ever scared of getting the strap was when I knew I'd done something wrong, or when I was contemplating doing something wrong (and I wasn't always scared in the second case). Fear wasn't hovering constantly for me, and I doubt it was for anyone else. You didn't need to be afraid of the strap if you hadn't done anything wrong or weren't doing anything wrong.

Being strapped didn't make me happy. It made me disctinctly unhappy, in fact. But unhappy over this for - at most 20 hours out of the 5000 or so hours I was at that school, when I was very happy for at least hundreds of those hours. It was a very small amount of time.

As for my mothers attitude - while my mother didn't object to corporal punishment, she thought that six cracks with the strap (the maximum allowed) was excessive for the first time a boy was given the strap. And she believed it was the first time I'd been strapped because I hadn't told her about the other times. Her impression was that I'd spent over two years at the school being really well behaved - and that this was the first time I had been in significant trouble. That wasn't quite true. Once I was forced to tell her the truth (or at least most of the truth) she calmed down and switched the focus of her anger from the school to me.

And I'm not sure how long I carried the marks of that strapping for. They were there that night because my mother saw them, but I don't know how long they lasted. I would guess a few days because I don't recall much comment in the changing rooms at school and we had sports training twice a week, and normally people did comment if someone was showing signs of the strap.

There was no reason to worry about the "possibility of being excessively strapped at school by a powerful Master at his whim for any reason." (Dean)

Of course there was. It may not have happened frequently but by your own description you were strapped severely and it was at the discretion of a Master who had the power to do so.


Our teachers couldn't use the strap at their whim for any reason. There actually had to be a pretty good reason for someone to get the strap - you had to be doing something you knew to be wrong, and you had to be doing it deliberately, and even then most of the time you wouldn't have got the strap. (Dean)

Well there is one of our big differences in how we look at things...I can't imagine any good reason for beating a child with a strap. You can. You accept it. You accept that they did it at your school. And you try to validate it as a just and positive thing. I don't buy it. Never have. Never will.

It wasn't the teachers whim that got you strapped. It was your misbehaviour. (Dean)

Nonsense. It was the choice of the teachers and administration that caused the strap to be used on kids. Your misbehavior may have gotten you punished/in trouble. Being beating with a strap as that punishment was determined by the adults in charge. In a very real sense it was the teacher's/administator's whim that got children strapped, not their misbehavior. The choice could have been made to deal with the misbehavior in a number of other ways.

We weren't 'struck with very little provocation'. We had to do something either pretty serious, or we had to do something after repeated warnings before the strap came out - and quite often both. (Dean)

I find this to be very little provocation. This is what you don't seem to get---there are some adult who find other adults beating on children to be an abhorent practice that is used under the guise of discipline and excused and justified by its use under certain conditions that the adults define as serious and repeated.

The only times I was ever scared of getting the strap was when I knew I'd done something wrong, or when I was contemplating doing something wrong (and I wasn't always scared in the second case). Fear wasn't hovering constantly for me, and I doubt it was for anyone else. You didn't need to be afraid of the strap if you hadn't done anything wrong or weren't doing anything wrong. (Dean)

That's you. That would not have been me. Do not confuse you with me or assume that your feeling would have been mine or anyone else's. I'm glad for you that you weren't in fear of being stapped. I'm not so glad that you consider beating children with straps acceptable. If that sort of approach was good for you then you were lucky because that was the situation you were in. What child never does anything wrong? And in the absense of being a perfect child, the strap hung over students' heads like the sword of Mr. D. You may not have feared that. But you certainly do not speak for me or for everyone.

As for my mothers attitude - while my mother didn't object to corporal punishment, she thought that six cracks with the strap (the maximum allowed) was excessive for the first time a boy was given the strap. (Dean)

Great. So what you are saying is that your mother found beating children with a strap to the point that they carried marks for at least a few days acceptable as long as it wasn't the child's first encounter with a strap?

And I will assume from your consistent defense of the practice that you find it acceptable also.

Dean,

Have you been trying to explain how things were or are you suggesting how things should be? My clear impression is the former. How long ago were you strapped?

Mostly just explaining how things were. I'm fairly neutral when it comes to corporal punishment in schools myself. I don't think it did me any harm whatsoever, and I think it did me some degree of good. But I think that good could probably have been achieved in other ways and I've no real problem with the idea of using other ways instead if they work.

But frankly, I find Rez's statements odd. I've seen him describe schools like mine as 'cult-like' - I think that was his term - I can't remember which thread it was in, and I don't want to spend time checking at the moment. He talks about feelings of constant fear which nobody I have ever heard of who went my school or similar schools would ever say they experienced. He seems to assume he has some great insight into the school I attended and the type of school I attended and so he can make sweeping statements about what was wrong with the place. Well, I don't think he can. I think he knows very little about the school I attended and the situations we faced and the attitudes we had and I think he's way off the mark in describing the environment we were in. What he describes is so alien to my experiences, I don't think it has any relevance whatsoever.

He didn't experience my school and e knows basically nothing about how we felt. What he is describing - I would be stunned if any person who attended my school at the time I attended it, even came close to feeling the type of fear he describes. Is it possible? Sure - anything is possible. But I don't see any reason to accept that he is seeing something real, when I've never seen anything like this described.

A few years ago my school was the subject of quite a comprehensive history being written, and as part of that they surveyed a very large number of ex-pupils. Those ex-pupils generally described the school in extremely positive terms - but there were some exceptions on some issues, but nobody described the presence of the strap in any really negative way. Nobody described anything like a feeling of omnipresent fear even those who'd been at the school in an era when the strap was much used than it was in mine - I was at the school from 1985-1988, aged from 10 to 13. This was an era when the strap was still in reasonably regular use - but nothing like it reportedly had been in the past.

Of course there was. It may not have happened frequently but by your own description you were strapped severely and it was at the discretion of a Master who had the power to do so.

But not 'for any reason' and that is what you have said. That's an important qualifier. Yes, we were strapped at the discretion of a number of teachers (mostly Masters, though at least one Mistress had the power as well, and yes it could be quite severe. But not 'for any reason'. There had to be a pretty good reason.

You've also changed from the word 'excessive' to the word 'severe' above - and again there's a real distinction between those two words. The worst strappings we received were fairly severe, yes, by my personal definition of the word. Were they excessive? I suppose that depend again on the definition of 'excessive'. The law at the time (indeed, even the law today, about twenty years later) didn't consider it excessive given our age and health. It was well within the standard accepted as acceptable within our society. Personally, I think it came close to the line, but at a distance of 19 years, I can't say for certain whether it was excessive or not.

There's no magic line in the sand where something suddenly becomes 'excessive'. Nor is there for 'severe'. I can say the worst strapping I received was clearly severe in my personal view, but I cannot judge if it was excessive, personally. Legally it was not, but personally I don't know. I'm an historian, not a Doctor or a Lawyer or a Psychologist.

Your opinion can differ. That's fine. You're entitled to it. But there's so simple answer to it.

But the most important point in my view that our teachers could not do this for 'any reason'. They needed a pretty good reason.

Well there is one of our big differences in how we look at things...I can't imagine any good reason for beating a child with a strap. You can. You accept it. You accept that they did it at your school. And you try to validate it as a just and positive thing. I don't buy it. Never have. Never will.

Fine - you can't accept it. That's fine. Hold any opinion you like. But why do you expect everyone else to agree with you?

Did I accept the strap when I was at school? Yes, I did. The alternative was to leave. Do I accept that they did it? Of course I do - it's a matter of historical fact that they did.

Do I try to validate it as a just and positive thing? No, not really. It was just in the very narrow sense that I don't recall anybody ever being punished for something they hadn't done, so punishment was deserved - whether this punishment was the right thing or not? Positive though? No, I don't really think of it as all that positive. I just don't think of it as negative. It didn't do me any harm. And I don't know of anyone else who went to my school in my era (or indeed in other eras) who has ever said that it did them any harm. It's not that I think this was particularly positive - but I am not going to lie and say it was negative, when it wasn't negative.

I think it had some positive effect on my behaviour, but only a relatively slight one that I suspect could have been achieved in other ways. The senior school - where I went after this school - virtually never used corporal punishment (although it existed in theory for extreme cases) and maintained discipline perfectly well without using it, and in fact, did so in a better way in my view, by concentrating more on getting us to think about our behaviour rather than grossly trying to deter bad behaviour and reward good. That was truly positive. When they had to use negatives, they tended to use detention (personally I would have preferred the strap given that a detention meant I didn't get home until really late).

But I'm not saying the strap was particularly positive - just that I don't think it was particularly negative. I don't know anyone at my school who would say they were harmed by it.

And though I don't think it was incredibly positive for me, I do know people who say it was for them - that they feel it made a really big difference in modifying their future behaviour. And another, a close friend, who says that the presence and use of the strap made him feel safe for the first time in his schooling because he was finally at a school where there was real punishment for those who tried to bully him. Those are other peoples views, not mine, and I can't really assess them - I just mention them because I don't hear negatives. I only hear neutral stories and a few positives.

Assuming negative results in the face of such evidence makes no sense to me.

Nonsense. It was the choice of the teachers and administration that caused the strap to be used on kids. Your misbehavior may have gotten you punished/in trouble. Being beating with a strap as that punishment was determined by the adults in charge. In a very real sense it was the teacher's/administator's whim that got children strapped, not their misbehavior. The choice could have been made to deal with the misbehavior in a number of other ways.

I don't believe it is nonsense. If we have behaved ourselves, we wouldn't have got strapped. That was the single most relevant fact. Teachers wouldn't have had any reason to decide on a punishment if we hadn't misbehaved. Certainly they had considerable autonomy in deciding how to punish misbehaviour - but it was the misbehaviour that created the situation more than any other factor. Without that misbehaviour, there would have been no punishment at all.

I find this to be very little provocation. This is what you don't seem to get---there are some adult who find other adults beating on children to be an abhorent practice that is used under the guise of discipline and excused and justified by its use under certain conditions that the adults define as serious and repeated.

Actually I do understand that. But I don't really understand why those adults find it necessary to use emotive terms like 'beating on children' to make their or to claim that what happened to us was any worse than it really was. If you think it is wrong to use a strap under any circumstances, you can just say that. That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion and it seems to me a fine and moral position deeply concerned with the welfare of children.

If you think the case is already made, you don't need to try and make the case
stronger by suggesting we lived in constant fear - which we didn't - or that the strapping was 'excessive' or 'severe' - which is purely a matter of opinion - or that our teachers could strap us at their whim - which they could not - or that they could do it for 'any reason' - which they could not.

I can understand you believe the use of the strap was wrong and unjustified.

I really can't understand why you feel the need however to tell us that it was worse than it was. If you think it was wrong, then surely you already think it was bad enough. It doesn't have to be worse.

That's you. That would not have been me. Do not confuse you with me or assume that your feeling would have been mine or anyone else's. I'm glad for you that you weren't in fear of being stapped. I'm not so glad that you consider beating children with straps acceptable. If that sort of approach was good for you then you were lucky because that was the situation you were in. What child never does anything wrong? And in the absense of being a perfect child, the strap hung over students' heads like the sword of Mr. D. You may not have feared that. But you certainly do not speak for me or for everyone.

I don't 'confuse you with me'. Believe me, I can see very clear differences.

However, I just don't see how the way you think you would have felt if you had been going to my school is somehow more important or significant than the way I know I thought when I was going to the school.

With respect, you come from a different culture to mine. You come from a different country to me. You come from a different background to me. You developed different attitudes to me, different beliefs, and had different experiences.

Personally I think mine are more relevant to the type of schooling I experienced as that was a school in my country and in my culture (my background was somewhat different from the norm for my school - though not incredibly so - but overall I was a good fit).

Great. So what you are saying is that your mother found beating children with a strap to the point that they carried marks for at least a few days acceptable as long as it wasn't the child's first encounter with a strap?

I think so, yes, but I'm pretty sure she also considered the nature of the misbehaviour involved. But, yes, I think she found this acceptable.

And I will assume from your consistent defense of the practice that you find it acceptable also.

You can assume whatever you like. But I don't see any reason to paint it as any worse than it was. If it was excessive then it was excessive. It doesn't need to be turned into something worse than it was.

I don't know if a letter was sent to parents after someone was caned at my secondary school.
What I do know is that if you got the cane it was noted on your school report under a heading " Refered to headmaster for" then the reason was detailed.
Mimi

But not 'for any reason' and that is what you have said. That's an important qualifier. Yes, we were strapped at the discretion of a number of teachers (mostly Masters, though at least one Mistress had the power as well, and yes it could be quite severe. But not 'for any reason'. There had to be a pretty good reason. (Dean)

In your mind, perhaps. And I would strongly suspect that a Master who wanted to strap a child for any reason but could not validate it for some misbehavior easily had the wherewithall to compound minor infractions into a major trend that would allow him to use the strap. Again apparently you believe it is perfectly acceptable for at least some reasons to beat a child with a strap "severely" and call it with good reason. I do not.

You've also changed from the word 'excessive' to the word 'severe' above (Dean)

Consider them used synonymously. Beating a child severly IS excessive.

Personally, I think it came close to the line, but at a distance of 19 years, I can't say for certain whether it was excessive or not. (Dean)

Because as with most Old Boys, apparenlty your loyalty to the dysfunctional family of your school is stronger than your distaste for beating children.

There's no magic line in the sand where something suddenly becomes 'excessive'. Nor is there for 'severe'. I can say the worst strapping I received was clearly severe in my personal view, but I cannot judge if it was excessive, personally. Legally it was not, but personally I don't know. I'm an historian, not a Doctor or a Lawyer or a Psychologist. (Dean)

But you are great at engaging in psychobabble when it comes to the defense of hitting children severely with a strap. The semantic debate between "excessive" and "severe" is subtefuge to hide behing the real issue---children were hit so hard with straps that it caused bruising that last for at leas a few days. You find it acceptaable. I don't.

Your opinion can differ. That's fine. You're entitled to it. But there's so simple answer to it. (Dean)

I disagree. I think there is a simple answer: Children should be treated at least as well as criminals and house pets. Neither of those groups are beaten as children continue to be in schools in parts of Australia and America. I think the answer is very, very simple.

Fine - you can't accept it. That's fine. Hold any opinion you like. But why do you expect everyone else to agree with you?

Because in 2006, I would hope that it would be the accepted civilized opinion that children were more than property to be smacked around with straps or canes. I don't expect you to agree. In fact I expect you not to agree as is clearly evidenced in what you right. It is not the only practice that goes on in the work that I find both anachronistic and barbaric.

Did I accept the strap when I was at school? Yes, I did. The alternative was to leave. Do I accept that they did it? Of course I do - it's a matter of historical fact that they did. (Dean)

Clearly you did. I never doubted that.

Do I try to validate it as a just and positive thing? No, not really.(Dean)

You have spent reams upons reams of cyberspace paper defending the practice...as you are doing right now.

I just don't think of it as negative. It didn't do me any harm. (Dean)

Cleary, I think it did. You empathatic response to children is certainly less than I find acceptable. You have just stated that beating children to the point of damage and marking is not negative. I find that difficult to comprehend in any logical way.

But I'm not saying the strap was particularly positive - just that I don't think it was particularly negative. I don't know anyone at my school who would say they were harmed by it.(Dean)

Certainly not while you were there. They likely wouldn't dare. You have no idea what eveyone who has ever passed through your school felt in their heart of hearts about CP. You just do not know---even though apparently you think you do.


I don't believe it is nonsense. (Dean)

Of course you don't---that would put too much responsibility on adult. It is easier to justify beating children if you put the blame for the choice of punishment on them rather than the actual adults wielding the strap. Adult made the choice to beat children for misbehavior, not the children.

But I don't really understand why those adults find it necessary to use emotive terms like 'beating on children' to make their or to claim that what happened to us was any worse than it really was. (Dean)

Because that IS what happened. They took a fairly thick strip of leather and they beat children with it, often hard enough to raise marks, create black and blues, etc. This is beating. You may not like the word used but it is accurate.

If you think it is wrong to use a strap under any circumstances, you can just say that. That's fine - you're entitled to that opinion and it seems to me a fine and moral position deeply concerned with the welfare of children. (Dean)

Yes---that's the crux of it---the welfare of children. And the moral way they are treated. Here we stand on different sides of that line to be sure.

With respect, you come from a different culture to mine.

Your culture is therefore one that promotes the beating of children? Part of my culture does do and I am equally appalled with that.

Great. So what you are saying is that your mother found beating children with a strap to the point that they carried marks for at least a few days acceptable as long as it wasn't the child's first encounter with a strap? (Rez)

I think so, yes, but I'm pretty sure she also considered the nature of the misbehaviour involved. But, yes, I think she found this acceptable. (Dean)

I really don't know how to respond to that. The cycle cotinues?

And I will assume from your consistent defense of the practice that you find it acceptable also. (Rez)

You can assume whatever you like. But I don't see any reason to paint it as any worse than it was. If it was excessive then it was excessive. It doesn't need to be turned into something worse than it was. (Dean)

Then let me ask you straight out seeing that you are being rather evasive. Do you have children. Do you punish them by hitting them with canes, straps, paddles or other implements. Have you ever bruised them? Do you find that acceptable?

In your mind, perhaps. And I would strongly suspect that a Master who wanted to strap a child for any reason but could not validate it for some misbehavior easily had the wherewithall to compound minor infractions into a major trend that would allow him to use the strap. Again apparently you believe it is perfectly acceptable for at least some reasons to beat a child with a strap "severely" and call it with good reason. I do not.

Could a teacher at my school who wanted to strap a child have manufactured a reason to do it? Possibly, although I think it would have been very difficult because others would have stepped him to stop him doing so. While I was at the school, one member of staff was told to stop using the strap simply because some people thought it was no longer appropriate for a non-teacher to have that power. If any teacher had been considered to be abusing their power in any way, shape or form, I am certain the same thing would have happened.

But whether a teacher could have done this or not, I can say that I have never, not even once, heard of it happening. The possibility it could have occurred is utterly irrelevant given that it did not occur. We knew when boys got the strap. We knew the reasons behind it. And I have never heard of a case at my school where somebody created an excuse to strap a boy.

Consider them used synonymously. Beating a child severly IS excessive.

So a mild beating isn't excessive then? You're the one saying the terms are synomous. If that's true, a mild beating wouldn't be excessive.

The terms are not synonyms, whether you use them that way or not.

Because as with most Old Boys, apparenlty your loyalty to the dysfunctional family of your school is stronger than your distaste for beating children.

I'm moderately loyal to my school yes - in the sense that I generally only criticise in private, and work where I have expertise to try and improve it (specifically I am trying to get it to adopt a more comprehensive and modern way of teaching history than it had in the past). But believe I do have real criticisms of it.

I don't consider it to be dysfunctional. I certainly don't consider it to be dysfunctional in comparison to the vast majority of other schools in this state. But it has faults that really aren't relevant to this discussion.

But you are great at engaging in psychobabble when it comes to the defense of hitting children severely with a strap. The semantic debate between "excessive" and "severe" is subtefuge to hide behing the real issue---children were hit so hard with straps that it caused bruising that last for at leas a few days. You find it acceptaable. I don't.

As I have said, I am not saying such things are acceptable - at this distance in time, I can't make that judgement. You're the one claiming I find these things acceptable but that is not what I have said. I don't see why you feel the need to misrepresent me.

I disagree. I think there is a simple answer: Children should be treated at least as well as criminals and house pets. Neither of those groups are beaten as children continue to be in schools in parts of Australia and America. I think the answer is very, very simple.

Fine - you think the answer is simple. Personally, I distrust simple answers to complex issues.

You have spent reams upons reams of cyberspace paper defending the practice...as you are doing right now.

No, I'm not defending the practice. Merely asking that we stick to the facts in discussing it, rather than emotionally classifying successful schools as dysfunctional, emotionally invoking images of students living in constant fear when we did not live in such fear. And claiming that teachers could punish at whim for any reason, when in fact that did not occur in the school under discussion.

Cleary, I think it did. You empathatic response to children is certainly less than I find acceptable. You have just stated that beating children to the point of damage and marking is not negative. I find that difficult to comprehend in any logical way.

My empathatic response to children is less than you find acceptable? Listen - you know precisely and absoluely nothing about my response to children. But, just for the record, I'm a Scout Leader and have been, on and off, for the last decade. I like kids a lot, as it happens, and devote a major amount of my free time to working with them. And they seem to like me as well.

Certainly not while you were there. They likely wouldn't dare. You have no idea what eveyone who has ever passed through your school felt in their heart of hearts about CP. You just do not know---even though apparently you think you do.

Yes, they most certainly would have dared. Apparently you've now decided that we were all cowards - although if so, it's interesting that we didn't go around living in fear all the time the way you seem to think you would have done. Believe me, we had no hesitation whatsoever in speaking out about things that we disagreed with in our school and were, in fact, strongly encouraged to do so.

And no, I do not think that I know what everyone who ever passed through my school felt in the hearts about corporal punishment. But nor do you. You're talking about your feelings as if it is at all likely we would have had them.

I can tell you all sorts of things I know boys at my school felt negatively about. Many felt negatively about the shorts we had to wear in winter in Grades Five and Six. Some felt very negatively about the lack of privacy we were afforded when changing for sport in Forms I and especially in Form II. Quite a large number felt negatively about the fact that sport was compulsory. That we only had a tuck shop one day a week. That we weren't allowed to wear a jumper without a blazer over it. Many - very many of us - very, very strongly object to the practice of penals (our schools form of detention) as it was formally practiced. It really isn't that hard to find out what we objected to, and what we viewed as negatives.

And the use of the strap never figures very strongly.

Why on earth do you think we don't know what was negative and positive in our schooling? Most of us were surveyed extensively in the late 1990s for a history book on the school. We have reunions, we have a vibrant Old Boys Association, we stay in touch. When people at dinner parties find out what school we went to, we always get quizzed on what was it like to go there? It's a perennial deal - we're constantly getting and giving feedback on our schooling.

Because that IS what happened. They took a fairly thick strip of leather and they beat children with it, often hard enough to raise marks, create black and blues, etc. This is beating. You may not like the word used but it is accurate.

Actually it's a pretty thin strip of leather - I nicked a strap from the school from my last day and you don't get leather much thinner in my experiences.

And in all the strappings I experienced - and that was a few times - I was only marked on one occasion. And I wasn't marked black and blue. I saw marking from the strap on other boys perhaps one percent of the time they were strapped. This didn't happen 'often'. It happened rarely. And your belief that it happened often simply indicates how little knowledge you have of the school we're talking about here.

There were, I believe, schools where marking may have been much more common - but that bears no resemblance to what happened at my school.

Then let me ask you straight out seeing that you are being rather evasive. Do you have children. Do you punish them by hitting them with canes, straps, paddles or other implements. Have you ever bruised them? Do you find that acceptable?

No, I don't have children. My wife is pregnant, however, so hopefully in about 4 months.

I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever using an implement of any sort to hit a child. My wife is even more adamant on this point. I am not ruling out occasionally smacking a child on the bottom with my hand, but that's the extent of any corporal punishment I can ever see myself inflicting.

My own attitude to school cp is one of total opposition, but I also think there's no need to make it out to be worse than it was. Because what it was was bad enough. At my school in Africa, like Dean's in Aus, you weren't caned on a whim. The kind of arbitrary justice that I sometimes hear about on this forum never happened at my school. There was at least consistency. You knew what was a caneable offence and what wasn't. It's just that caneable offences began at a fairly trivial level - talking in class after being warned (usually twice, sometimes just once), answering back, handing in homework late several times in succession, that sort of thing. Even many who approve of cp would have thought the retribution disproportionate.

But you can't call it whimsical. At my school it was a system. Punishments were ordered in writing, signed and dated by the teacher, and you had the right of appeal to the Rector of the school. I don't ever remember him supporting any boy's appeal, but it might have happened. Still, there was a kind of order in it which gave it the illusion of respectability. You can say that it was your own misbehaviour that caused the punishment, not the whim of the teacher, but you can say the same about being "flogged around the fleet" in Napoleonic times. The fact is that our school was a very violent school, but very little of that violence was coming from the boys. The continual imposition of violent punishments for non-violent offences was a blatant breach of Christian morality, and cannot be defended on the grounds that "it was expected" or "we had to accept it" or "it was part of the ethos" or suchlike justifications.

But of these justifications, the most irritating by far is "It never did me any harm". If it hadn't done me any harm I wouldn't be on this forum now. I assume most here would have to say the same. There is a wound somewhere in our heads, an attraction/repellance paradox, which at its mildest can merely be called a tendency to waste time stewing over ancient history. At its worst, it is responsible for perverting normal sexuality. In some cases it destroys marriages. Whether mild or severe, that counts as damage.

For example, Dean has said that his mother approved of corporal punishment. But would he be willing to let her know how much time he spends on this forum, and explain to her what he thinks he is doing here? If not, why not? And if he did tell her, would she still think as much of corporal punishment as she did before? Would it not occur to her that the things she approved of had played some part in shaping Dean's mind? If sometimes mothers said things like "it'll do him good" when they found out their son had been beaten (even though most of them never had to suffer such things themselves), would they still say so twenty years later when they found their son to be exhibiting an abnormal interest in the subject?

I myself would hate my mother to know I posted here. But that's because my mother never said she approved of cp. During my schooldays I never said anything to her about it, and she never asked me. I suppose she knew it existed, but she probably thought it was imposed for offences that were so serious that it wouldn't have crossed her mind that I could ever commit them. As far as I know, my mother was unaware that I had ever had such punishments. About seven years ago I did tell her, and she was shocked - or professed to be. How much self-deception was involved there, I can only guess, but my sister says she knew very well, and was quite angry at her denials. The truth is probably somewhere in between. I think my mother just preferred not to know, that's all, and that's why she never asked me.

Rangy Strider

Us folks down here in Burgess Hill are delighted at your good news, Dean. Please convey our good wishes for a safe confinement in September to Emma. Even though she don’t wanna be, we always think of her as one of our members. Her writing is much admired.

Could a teacher at my school who wanted to strap a child have manufactured a reason to do it? Possibly, although I think it would have been very difficult because others would have stepped him to stop him doing so. (Dean)

Why would others step in? I would suspect just the opposite. CP was valued, approved, practiced and defended. I cannot imagine that one Master would have too much to say about what another Master did if they wanted to strap a child.

While I was at the school, one member of staff was told to stop using the strap simply because some people thought it was no longer appropriate for a non-teacher to have that power. If any teacher had been considered to be abusing their power in any way, shape or form, I am certain the same thing would have happened. (Dean)

I would tend to find that highly speculative in favor of your school. This is certainly as I would expect your response to be. But I think beating children with straps in and of itself is an abuse of power.

So a mild beating isn't excessive then? You're the one saying the terms are synomous. If that's true, a mild beating wouldn't be excessive. (Dean)

You are playing semantic games here again, Dean, in order to avoid addressing the real issue at hand. Mild CP need not be abusive. CP that utilizes straps, belts, paddles, canes, etc. that causes severe pain and leaves bruises, abrasions, etc. is excessive and is what I consider a beating. Beating is what occurred at your school. My belief is that a spanking that causes a slight reddening of the skin that dissipates within minutes, although still a poor approach with children, would not rise to the level of beating and therefore would not be excessive or severe.

I'm moderately loyal to my school yes (Dean)

That is perhaps the biggest understatement I have heard in a number of years.

I don't consider it to be dysfunctional. I certainly don't consider it to be dysfunctional in comparison to the vast majority of other schools in this state. But it has faults that really aren't relevant to this discussion. (Dean)

What is relevant is that you apparently feel beating children is not dysfunctional behavior and that your school was not dysfunctional because they perhaps didn’t beat children as hard or as often as at other schools?

As I have said, I am not saying such things are acceptable - at this distance in time, I can't make that judgement. You're the one claiming I find these things acceptable but that is not what I have said. I don't see why you feel the need to misrepresent me. (Dean)

So make a statement straight out instead of tap dancing. Do you find the severe strapping you received at your school acceptable on its face? If yes, then you indeed are saying that such things are acceptable. Distance in time has no relevance. Do you defend the practice of slavery similarly based on distance in time or was it always a bad practice? If beating children is a noxious behavior now then it was a noxious behavior then, socially acceptable at the time or not.



Fine - you think the answer is simple. Personally, I distrust simple answers to complex issues. (Dean)

There is nothing complex about the concept that adults should not beat children. You choose to define it as complex because it is the only way you can justify the practice. What is complex about taking the position that a behavior that would be considered criminal if done to criminals and pets should be considered criminal if done to children?


No, I'm not defending the practice. Merely asking that we stick to the facts in discussing it, rather than emotionally classifying successful schools as dysfunctional, emotionally invoking images of students living in constant fear when we did not live in such fear. And claiming that teachers could punish at whim for any reason, when in fact that did not occur in the school under discussion. (Dean)

I am definitely sticking to the facts. You just don’t like them nor the language I am using which is perfectly representative of the behavior being described. You don’t want the discussion of beating children to be an emotional one? And you apparently do not know the different between the meaning of the would “could” and “did”. I have granted that apparently you did not live in fear---but others could. And while some teacher may not have punished at whim, the system allowed for that possibility so they could.

My empathetic response to children is less than you find acceptable? Listen - you know precisely and absoluely nothing about my response to children. (Dean)

I know that you defend beating them with straps. That certainly tells me quite a bit about your empathy for children. You may not like what that tells me but it is a clear statement.

But, just for the record, I'm a Scout Leader and have been, on and off, for the last decade. I like kids a lot, as it happens, and devote a major amount of my free time to working with them. And they seem to like me as well. (Dean)

And your point is….what? You’ve worked with kids, yet you defend the practice of beating children with straps, bruising them. Am I to be impressed with a Scout Leader who find no problem with brandishing a strap? And if that is not your position then state your position plainly and clearly….cause all I seem to get from you is justification for beating children as a punishment technique.

You're talking about your feelings as if it is at all likely we would have had them. (Dean)

No, I am not. I am expressing my feeling as an alternative point of view to your assertion about all children at your school. And I cannot believe, just as there were others like you at your school, that there could not have been others also there like me.


And the use of the strap never figures very strongly. (Dean)

Again, Dean the Mindreader/Clairvoyant, speaks for everyone and know the mind and hearts of everyone.

Why on earth do you think we don't know what was negative and positive in our schooling? Most of us were surveyed extensively in the late 1990s for a history book on the school. We have reunions, we have a vibrant Old Boys Association, we stay in touch. When people at dinner parties find out what school we went to, we always get quizzed on what was it like to go there? It's a perennial deal - we're constantly getting and giving feedback on our schooling. (Dean)

To be honest I think that there was a good deal of conditioning that went on in your schools that was reinforced through regimentation, rules, and the strap. I think those who become loyal Old Boys are little different from those in other cult-like organizations that have been conditioned to give the standard response. Not all Old Boys have such positive things to say about their experiences with the strap or cane in school or for the way the school was run. These Old Boys are not the kind you find in Old Boys Associations.

Because that IS what happened. They took a fairly thick strip of leather and they beat children with it, often hard enough to raise marks, create black and blues, etc. This is beating. You may not like the word used but it is accurate. (Rez)

Actually it's a pretty thin strip of leather - I nicked a strap from the school from my last day and you don't get leather much thinner in my experiences. (Dean)

More word games---very thick, thick, thin, very thin, the fact is that these straps were used on children and with sufficient force to cause bruising that lasted at least a few days. These children, including you, were beaten despite how vigorously you try to down play or defend it.

And in all the strappings I experienced - and that was a few times - I was only marked on one occasion. And I wasn't marked black and blue. I saw marking from the strap on other boys perhaps one percent of the time they were strapped. This didn't happen 'often'. It happened rarely. And your belief that it happened often simply indicates how little knowledge you have of the school we're talking about here. (Dean)

So beating children is okay as long as they are only marked once in a while and bruising that last a few days doesn’t occur to frequently? You are the one who initially raised the issue of the severe strapping you got that caused bruising. One percent for you is apparently acceptable collateral damage in a system that always has the option to raise that number? One percent is way too much for me.

There were, I believe, schools where marking may have been much more common - but that bears no resemblance to what happened at my school. (Dean)

I love it when a bad practice is defended by referring to a worse practice. Bottom line: still a bad practice.

No, I don't have children. My wife is pregnant, however, so hopefully in about 4 months. I have absolutely no intention whatsoever of ever using an implement of any sort to hit a child. My wife is even more adamant on this point. I am not ruling out occasionally smacking a child on the bottom with my hand, but that's the extent of any corporal punishment I can ever see myself inflicting. (Dean)

Then why in God’s name to you so vehemently protest my pronouncement that children should not be beaten and that your school despite the era and despite any positive things it did for children was absolutely dead wrong on this issue?

Congratulations on your impending fatherhood. I certainly hope you are seriously in earnest in your decision about CP in your family.

My own attitude to school cp is one of total opposition, but I also think there's no need to make it out to be worse than it was. Because what it was was bad enough. At my school in Africa, like Dean's in Aus, you weren't caned on a whim. The kind of arbitrary justice that I sometimes hear about on this forum never happened at my school. There was at least consistency. You knew what was a caneable offence and what wasn't. (Rangy)

Well this is part of what I mean by whim. The “whim” part has to do with delineating a list of caneable offenses that are arbitrarily chosen as those that exact a beating. Central to the process is the behavior eliciting the caning in the disciplinary approach rather than the child being the center of concern and consideration. After all isn’t the point of discipline to make the child better and to develop a sense of responsibility and morality? Certainly discipline has to be more than a menu for how many strokes of the cane for what in a ritual of retribution.

Having raised a couple of children myself and having worked for many, many years with children and with those who work with children, one thing I know is the exact same misbehavior can mean many different things depending on the circumstance and the child involved.

The other piece of what I mean by whim is that masters could choose to beat a child essentially at their discretion within the parameters of a particular list of misbehaviors. Circumstances meant little. Explanations meant little and were often ignored. And the entire system supported and encouraged the use of CP.

I find these passages from Arthur Marshall’s Whimpering in the Rhododendrons quite expository:

“There was a tremendous amount of official beating. The head was a devout believer in the efficacy of cane and slipper. He did not beat boys particularly hard, but he beat them perpetually. He beat them for quite minor misdemeanours and be beat them for doing nothing at all. There was a great deal of talking after ‘lights out’. Quite rightly, the head wanted to stop this---although he was psychologically incapable of understanding that allowing children to talk, perhaps for ten minutes, would be regarded as a privilege which would not be abused. Instead, the head crept about the place in tennis shoes, like a cat burglar. When he pounced on a dormitory, he expected the talkers to ‘own up’ at once; if they did not, all the boys in the dormitory were beaten. This was insane. Small boys, still asleep, were lugged from their beds and told to bend over.”

“On Monday morning there was a dreadful ordeal called Reading Over. The headmaster, arrayed in a silk gown, used to descend from an upper-floor staircase which was hidden from view by a red curtain; on his right sat two masters, on his left sat two others in gowns. In front of him the whole school were assembled on chairs. Each division was called up in turn and stood in the order of the last week’s marks; they changed their places as the marks were read out, according to the variation of the week. Thus, sometimes a b oy who had been nearly at the top would go down nearly to the bottom. Then the comments on the boys’ work were made by each division master, and any striking event of the week were read out by the headmaster. And if one had done anything bad it was not that it came to light. If it was very bad the boy was told that he would be severely punished: this meant flogging with a birch, which took place in the headmaster’s sitting room over a block on which a rug was stretched. The headmaster fortified himself for the execution by first drinking a glass of Marsala. At the time, the boys took these floggings as a matter of course, but it has been put on record by boys who wer at this school,and who have since attained the age of reason, and some of them to positions of importance, that these floggings were exceedingly severe.
This Monday ordeal was a permanent shadow, for the boys who lived for the greater part in complete uncertainty, never knowing whether they had or not committed some terrible crime; for some of the worst crimes were unexpected, such as spoken or implied criticism of the food, to speak to another boy if you met him outside the school during school hours, to have missed getting the message telling you to stop talking in meals, to turn on the electric light, to eat any food , even a grape, if brought by your parents. And it was a curious fact that the boys was sometimes quite unaware until Monday that he had committed any offense.”


But you can't call it whimsical. At my school it was a system. Punishments were ordered in writing, signed and dated by the teacher, and you had the right of appeal to the Rector of the school. (Rangy)

But the misbeahviors that were considered serious were in fact based on whim---arbitrary and capricious, particularly in light of the fact that circumstance or the boy involved seemed to have played very little part in the decision to cane just the misbehavior. How ironic too it must have been for boys beaten with the cane for smoking when the cane was held in a hand with fingers stained by nicotine.

I don't ever remember him supporting any boy's appeal, but it might have happened. Still, there was a kind of order in it which gave it the illusion of respectability. (Rangy)

Well yes, the ILLUSION of respectability. Indeed. ILLUSION.

But of these justifications, the most irritating by far is "It never did me any harm". If it hadn't done me any harm I wouldn't be on this forum now. I assume most here would have to say the same. There is a wound somewhere in our heads, an attraction/repellance paradox, which at its mildest can merely be called a tendency to waste time stewing over ancient history. At its worst, it is responsible for perverting normal sexuality. In some cases it destroys marriages. Whether mild or severe, that counts as damage. (Rangy)

Agreed…and not the least of the damage is the apology so many beaten boys grown to manhood make for those who beat them and by so doing enable the behavior to continue so that there is another generation of beaten children in places where the practice continues and thrives. I honestly cannot understand these people who defend so vehemently the practice of beating children whether that behavior occurs in the present or did occur in the past.

Why would others step in? I would suspect just the opposite. CP was valued, approved, practiced and defended. I cannot imagine that one Master would have too much to say about what another Master did if they wanted to strap a child.

Which just goes to show that you really have no idea how my school worked, or the attitudes of the staff within it.

For a start, not all teachers approved of corporal punishment. There were at least two who were adamantly opposed to it, and there may well have been others.

Secondly, even some of those (perhaps even all of those although I have no way of knowing that for certain) who approved of corporal punishment only approved of it when it was used appropriately - when it was used for fairly serious offences. To suggest that they would have turned a blind eye to inappropriate useage, not in line with school policy is simply not justifiable. The two teachers who most used the strap - the Form I and Form II masters - were actually instrumental during my time at the school in further restricting its use - far from turning a blind eye to misuse, they sought to narrow the definition of appropriate use.

The school's most senior teacher had a history, going back twenty years at the time I was at the school of stepping in any case where he felt the strap was even coming close to being misused. He used the strap himself on occasion, but only in cases that were very clearly in line with policy. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that he would have taken action if he saw a hint that a fellow staff member was acting inappropriately - because he had done so, even as a relatively junior member of staff - and by my time at the school, he was a very senior member.

What is relevant is that you apparently feel beating children is not dysfunctional behavior and that your school was not dysfunctional because they perhaps didn’t beat children as hard or as often as at other schools?

You're the one who keeps using the term 'beating' not I. I don't consider that what occurred at my school to justify that terminology. I don't believe that moderate corporal punishment is dysfunctional, and it certainly wasn't dysfunctional in my view at a time when it was the norm, and generally accepted educational practice.

So make a statement straight out instead of tap dancing. Do you find the severe strapping you received at your school acceptable on its face? If yes, then you indeed are saying that such things are acceptable. Distance in time has no relevance. Do you defend the practice of slavery similarly based on distance in time or was it always a bad practice? If beating children is a noxious behavior now then it was a noxious behavior then, socially acceptable at the time or not.

I'm not tap dancing. I simply do not feel equipped at the age of 31 to fairly judge events that happened to me at the age of 12. I remember the pain I experienced only vaguely, and I can't fairly judge how severe it really was from that memory. I didn't really see the marks - my mother saw them, but they weren't exactly in the easiest position for me to get a clear view of them. I can remember looking over my shoulder to see what I could see, but all I can really remember seeing is some redness. I can't even recall bruising, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some.

I am an historian - and as such I do think distance in time has some relevance as to how we should judge things - but that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that at this distance in time, I can't assess the evidence. If I had photographs, if I could remember the pain vividly and with certainty - then yes, I could make an assessment. But I can't. I cannot say how bad it was with any certainty.

At the time, I didn't think it was abusive, or unacceptable - but I was 12 then and I didn't have the same experience of life I had today, and the same moral sense that I have today. I'm not prepared to assume my attitude of 1987 was an accurate one - but I can't recall things well enough to say if my opinion would be different today.

It's not tap dancing. It's a product of the fact that I don't claim to have a perfect memory - I've got a pretty good one, but not a perfect one and so I just can't make a fair judgement of events that occured 19 years ago.

I am definitely sticking to the facts. You just don’t like them nor the language I am using which is perfectly representative of the behavior being described. You don’t want the discussion of beating children to be an emotional one? And you apparently do not know the different between the meaning of the would “could” and “did”. I have granted that apparently you did not live in fear---but others could. And while some teacher may not have punished at whim, the system allowed for that possibility so they could.

No, you are not sticking to the facts.

You know virtually nothing about the school I attended.

Yet, you have claimed in the message I am replying to now that the teachers at that school would have stood by while other teachers violated the policies of the school. That isn't true - but even if it was true, you would have absolutely no way of knowing if it was true. It's not a fact.

You have talked about students living in constant fear as if that is something that was likely to be a feature of the school. Well, as someone who was there and who knows dozens of others who were there, I've never heard anyone describe anything like that. I will concede that I don't know everyone who went there, I don't have contact with everyone who went there, and I can't be 100% certain that somebody might not have these feelings even I do know them and have contact with them.

But I think I am in a far better position than you to judge if this is the case. Is it theoretically possible someone might have had the attitudes you are describing at my school? Yes, it is theoretically possible. Do you have any possible way of knowing this to be the case? No, you do not. So again, this is not a fact.

You do not 'stick to the facts'. You make up emotional arguments without regard at all to whether or not they have any validity.

You build up straw men so you can knock them down.

That's a common enough debating tactic but it's a recognised logical fallacy.

And your point is….what? You’ve worked with kids, yet you defend the practice of beating children with straps, bruising them. Am I to be impressed with a Scout Leader who find no problem with brandishing a strap? And if that is not your position then state your position plainly and clearly….cause all I seem to get from you is justification for beating children as a punishment technique.

My point is that I do not lack an empathetic response to children. In fact, I have a great deal of empathy for children. I like them and they like me. A lot.

You have no way of knowing whether I lack empathy or not. Again, your claims that I do not, are not based on fact.. You do not stick to facts. You have to try and make things out to be worse than they are in order to attack them, it seems to me.

No, I am not. I am expressing my feeling as an alternative point of view to your assertion about all children at your school. And I cannot believe, just as there were others like you at your school, that there could not have been others also there like me.

There may have been. But I've never ever heard someone say anything like that, and so assuming their existence to make an argument seems very odd to me.

Again, Dean the Mindreader/Clairvoyant, speaks for everyone and know the mind and hearts of everyone.

No - not a mindreader. A normal reader. Somebody who has read and listened to many many people associated with the school - who has read and listened to their praise for it, and their complaints for it. No psychic talent required. Just a pair of good eyes and basic literacy skills.

To be honest I think that there was a good deal of conditioning that went on in your schools that was reinforced through regimentation, rules, and the strap. I think those who become loyal Old Boys are little different from those in other cult-like organizations that have been conditioned to give the standard response. Not all Old Boys have such positive things to say about their experiences with the strap or cane in school or for the way the school was run. These Old Boys are not the kind you find in Old Boys Associations.

Just for the record - every boy who attended my school in the era I described is a member of the Old Boys association. Our parents paid for our lifetime membership in our first set of school fees. I'm not entirely sure if there's any way you can actually quit.

And when they've polled us, they generally get very close to a 100% response rate. Those who disliked the school - and there are some, though not many - seem to be rather eager to outline the things they disliked. And this doesn't figure much at all.

And, yes, the school did have a great deal of conditioning reinforced by a variety of methods. I think most people would acknowledge that.

And believe me I am very aware that many Old Boys of many schools have serious complaints about the way corporal punishment was used in their schools. I'm talking about one school here, though - not every school in creation. With regards to my school, I just don't see complaints and certainly not from my era.

More word games---very thick, thick, thin, very thin, the fact is that these straps were used on children and with sufficient force to cause bruising that lasted at least a few days. These children, including you, were beaten despite how vigorously you try to down play or defend it.

If it's just 'word games' - if it doesn't matter whether the strap was thin or thick, then why did you feel the need to describe it as thick, when in fact it was thin? If it doesn't matter to your argument, why did you have to make it worse? Why can't you attack what actually happened, rather than having to make up something to attack?

So beating children is okay as long as they are only marked once in a while and bruising that last a few days doesn’t occur to frequently? You are the one who initially raised the issue of the severe strapping you got that caused bruising. One percent for you is apparently acceptable collateral damage in a system that always has the option to raise that number? One percent is way too much for me.

And you're the one who claimed it happened often when it did not. If that doesn't actually matter, then why did you have to claim it happened often rather than rarely? If one percent of the time is way too much for you - then why did you feel the need to claim it happened often?

I can understand you believing that what happened at my school was unacceptable. What I don't understand is why you feel the need to exaggerate it. If it's unacceptable, it's unacceptable.

Then why in God’s name to you so vehemently protest my pronouncement that children should not be beaten and that your school despite the era and despite any positive things it did for children was absolutely dead wrong on this issue?

What I primarily protest is misrepresentation of what actually happened.

But even if you were basing your position entirely on the reality of what happened at my school, I don't see any reason why I should accept your 'pronouncement' on anything at all. I've seen no reason to suppose you are omniscient and all knowing. Why should I accept your 'pronouncements'?

Congratulations on your impending fatherhood. I certainly hope you are seriously in earnest in your decision about CP in your family.

Thank you - and I am.

But of these justifications, the most irritating by far is "It never did me any harm". If it hadn't done me any harm I wouldn't be on this forum now. I assume most here would have to say the same. There is a wound somewhere in our heads, an attraction/repellance paradox, which at its mildest can merely be called a tendency to waste time stewing over ancient history. At its worst, it is responsible for perverting normal sexuality. In some cases it destroys marriages. Whether mild or severe, that counts as damage.

I just want to make something clear here.

I am not a spanko. My wife is, so I am quite familiar with the context but I am not.

I know a lot of people here are spankos and that's fine - whatever rocks your boat. But my reasons for being here are different.

I am an historian, and I'm primarily interested in institutional histories and social histories. My job involves researching and writing histories for any institution that is willing to pay for one - and one of the largest groups that will do this is schools. Companies, military units, etc, tend to be other popular ones. I have a very strong interest in school history in particular, and for whatever reason one of the things that people most seem to want included in histories of particular schools is their record on corporal punishment.

It is a subject that interests me, mostly because it's the biggest historical change I saw in my own schooling. When I started school in 1980, corporal punishment was routinely part of virtually every school here. By the time I finished school in 1992, it was the preserve of a few (mostly very wealthy, very privileged) independent schools such as the school I attended. It was one of the biggest and most interesting changes I lived through - the introduction of the VCE was probably a bigger deal educationally but it wasn't all that interesting.

And my wife is a spanko - and when we first met, she asked quite a few questions about my experiences - not at our first meeting, but fairly soon after. And she asked me quite a few questions about what had happened in other schools - stories I'd heard from friends for example - and once I worked out she was a spanko, let's just say that while I'm not sexually interested in this type of thing myself, it was decidedly in my interests to find as much interesting information for my new girlfriend as I could.

For example, Dean has said that his mother approved of corporal punishment. But would he be willing to let her know how much time he spends on this forum, and explain to her what he thinks he is doing here? If not, why not? And if he did tell her, would she still think as much of corporal punishment as she did before? Would it not occur to her that the things she approved of had played some part in shaping Dean's mind? If sometimes mothers said things like "it'll do him good" when they found out their son had been beaten (even though most of them never had to suffer such things themselves), would they still say so twenty years later when they found their son to be exhibiting an abnormal interest in the subject?

Actually my mother is aware of my interest in corporal punishment as she has a tendency to haunt op shops and so I've asked her to keep a lookout for certain books for me.

My relationship with my mother isn't very good though it's healing slowly. Frankly, that aspect of my childhood was dysfunctional. So in all honesty, I don't think I would care much about what she would think even if I was a spanko. In fact, I think up until a few years ago, I'd have loved to have tried and hang some sort of guilt like that on her if I could have.

Which just goes to show that you really have no idea how my school worked, or the attitudes of the staff within it. (Dean)

Try to be more global and less focused on your school---which according to your description had little in common with many other schools of its type (which I find a bit difficult to believe). According to your recollections in defense of your school, after initially describing the severe beating you received, suddenly it is different from the pack and its staff was different from similar staffs described in innumerable places and by other Old Boys as being much the way I suggest. It is easy to simply deny by saying “just goes to show that you really have no idea of how my school worked”. That, however, is as likely a rose-colored perception by an Old Boy who has great emotional attachment to his school that apparently allow him to justify its barbaric practice of beating children as it is likely that my perception is without any merit. As with any situation, if the good outweighed the bad for you then your defense and odd unwillingness to affirmatively admit that in this situation your school was wrong like others, then it suggests to me that if I have no idea how your school worked because I was not there then you truly have no idea how your school worked because you cannot view its practices except through a haze of warm nostalgia and appreciation for the good that it did do for you.

Your school did use a mean looking strap to beat children. Your website contains pictures of those straps that you took as souvenirs. Your school today continues to smack and cane children. Those are facts. There are parameters for administration of CP certainly but there is also great discretion about the administration of CP at your alma mater ever today. You cannot in truth deny this. And do you support this?


For a start, not all teachers approved of corporal punishment. There were at least two who were adamantly opposed to it, and there may well have been others. (Dean)

And if one of them caught a boy smoking or engaging in a mandatory CP offense, what happened, Dean?
Simply washing one’s hands and saying “I am not guilty of the blood of this child” really doesn’t cut it.

Secondly, even some of those (perhaps even all of those although I have no way of knowing that for certain) who approved of corporal punishment only approved of it when it was used appropriately - when it was used for fairly serious offences. (Dean)

Of course “appropriately” did not include CP that was neither severe not left bruises, did it? Your sever beating that you described and that left you bruised fell within the realm of “appropriate”. When abuse and disrepect for children is defined as “appropriate”, it allows for a lot of repellent behavior.

To suggest that they would have turned a blind eye to inappropriate useage, not in line with school policy is simply not justifiable. The two teachers who most used the strap - the Form I and Form II masters - were actually instrumental during my time at the school in further restricting its use - far from turning a blind eye to misuse, they sought to narrow the definition of appropriate use. (Dean)

So what was the consequence for the Master who strapped you severely and cause you to be marked? Or do you also define such a beating of children as appropriate?

You're the one who keeps using the term 'beating' not I.

Because that is what it is. Just cause you don’t like the word and it makes you uncomfortable (and it should) does not mean that it does not accurately describe what transpired. Children hit with straps severely and hard enough to cause lasting bruising are being beaten. You’re playing those semantic games again.

I don't consider that what occurred at my school to justify that terminology. I don't believe that moderate corporal punishment is dysfunctional, and it certainly wasn't dysfunctional in my view at a time when it was the norm, and generally accepted educational practice. (Dean)

You are great at avoiding issues and questions. From this I conclude that you feel that children being hit so hard as to cause intense pain and lasting bruises is “moderate corporal punishment”. I will also conclude from this remark that the use of staps, canes, paddles and other implements used to hit children are also considered by you to fall into the relam of “functional”. And by justifying all of it because of the time era in which it occurred, you would equally justify slavery in the same way.

I simply do not feel equipped at the age of 31 to fairly judge events that happened to me at the age of 12. I remember the pain I experienced only vaguely, and I can't fairly judge how severe it really was from that memory. I didn't really see the marks - my mother saw them, but they weren't exactly in the easiest position for me to get a clear view of them. I can remember looking over my shoulder to see what I could see, but all I can really remember seeing is some redness. I can't even recall bruising, although I wouldn't be surprised if there was some. (Dean)

But at age 31, you do feel very equipped to fairly define your school’s behavior as justified in beating children with straps and causing bruising. You have been defending this practice for pages and pages, in message after message.

I am an historian - and as such I do think distance in time has some relevance as to how we should judge things - but that isn't the issue here. The issue here is that at this distance in time, I can't assess the evidence. If I had photographs, if I could remember the pain vividly and with certainty - then yes, I could make an assessment. But I can't. I cannot say how bad it was with any certainty. (Dean)

Even historians need to make moral judgements. And every person has to define what they find moral behavior for themselves. I find beating any children with implements and bruising them to be immoral behavior for any reason at any time.

At the time, I didn't think it was abusive, or unacceptable - but I was 12 then and I didn't have the same experience of life I had today,

Just because you were led to believe by those in authority that it was neither unacceptable nor abusive and that it should be considered a positive, normal part of life, doesn’t make it so. You are no longer 12 and if as a 31 year old adult you cannot see the immorality of the situation then this back and forth between us is more pointless than it appears.

and the same moral sense that I have today. I'm not prepared to assume my attitude of 1987 was an accurate one - but I can't recall things well enough to say if my opinion would be different today. (Dean)

Then why the continued hesitation to plainly state it as I have: Beating children with implements and causing brusing as it occurred in almost all schools and as it still occurs today in selected school in Australia and America and other countries was and is an immoral practice that should never have been practiced and should now be stopped.

I am definitely sticking to the facts. You just don’t like them nor the language I am using which is perfectly representative of the behavior being described. You don’t want the discussion of beating children to be an emotional one? And you apparently do not know the different between the meaning of the would “could” and “did”. I have granted that apparently you did not live in fear---but others could. And while some teacher may not have punished at whim, the system allowed for that possibility so they could. (Rez)

No, you are not sticking to the facts. You know virtually nothing about the school I attended. (Dean)

Not true. I do know about the school you attended. I cannot prove that to you without betraying a confidence so I will not do it….but I do know about your school.

Yet, you have claimed in the message I am replying to now that the teachers at that school would have stood by while other teachers violated the policies of the school. (Dean)

I didn’t say that. I said that the policies allowed for beating and bruising children and that it was an immoral policy that the adults there promulgated, accepted, promoted and gladly used.



You have talked about students living in constant fear as if that is something that was likely to be a feature of the school. Well, as someone who was there and who knows dozens of others who were there, I've never heard anyone describe anything like that. I will concede that I don't know everyone who went there, I don't have contact with everyone who went there, and I can't be 100% certain that somebody might not have these feelings even I do know them and have contact with them. (Dean)

I refer you to posting I have made quoting students who attended school like yours who talk about the constant fear. Are you suggesting that no students like these attended your school?

But I think I am in a far better position than you to judge if this is the case. Is it theoretically possible someone might have had the attitudes you are describing at my school? Yes, it is theoretically possible. Do you have any possible way of knowing this to be the case? No, you do not. So again, this is not a fact. (Dean)

Then your statement that no student lived in fear is equally not a fact.

You do not 'stick to the facts'. You make up emotional arguments without regard at all to whether or not they have any validity. (Dean)

Amazing to me that you can be devoid of emotion when the issues is beating and bruising children. Was that lack of empathy beaten into you as a boy?

My point is that I do not lack an empathetic response to children. In fact, I have a great deal of empathy for children. I like them and they like me. A lot. (Dean)

From where I sit and from what you say ON THIS ISSUE, my judgment is different from yours as it pertains TO THIS ISSUE. Here I find you almost devoid of empathy.

Your definition of “fact” seems to be whatever is part of your belief system. Anything else despite testimony or evidence to the contrary you deny as fact. It is a nice closed system you have there. Surprising for a historian. Do you discout the person testimony I have reprinted from Boy or Rhododenrum as being lies because they don’t fit with what you want to believe?


Just a pair of good eyes and basic literacy skills. (Dean)

Believe me I have good enough literacy skills to see through your tap dancing. Interesting that you would resort to this sort of insult to try to enhance your position.


Just for the record - every boy who attended my school in the era I described is a member of the Old Boys association. Our parents paid for our lifetime membership in our first set of school fees. I'm not entirely sure if there's any way you can actually quit. (Dean)

Not too cultish!

And believe me I am very aware that many Old Boys of many schools have serious complaints about the way corporal punishment was used in their schools. I'm talking about one school here, though - not every school in creation. With regards to my school, I just don't see complaints and certainly not from my era.

Your school is not simply your school the few years you were there…although you have presented evidence yourself of at least one severe beating and bruised bottom. Your own post speaks to the merits of my argument. Our difference is that you see the way you were treated as moral and I see it as immoral.


And you're the one who claimed it happened often when it did not. If that doesn't actually matter, then why did you have to claim it happened often rather than rarely? If one percent of the time is way too much for you - then why did you feel the need to claim it happened often? (Dean)

I think once is way too often. And we both know that over the course of years, it happened way, way more than once. If it happened to you in the time period you went to your school then you know it happened in the 60’s and 50’s and 40’s. CP that is painful and significant continues to happen there today.

Why should I accept your 'pronouncements'? (Dean)

Why should I accept yours? You are obviously biased in favor of your school.

And to date you still have not condemned straightforwardly the practice of hitting children with implements severely enough to bruise them without trying to justify it. Either you support the practice now and in the past or you don’t. Which is it, Dean?