Dean said:
In all probability, there soon will be. A new Education and Training Act is currently being debated in Parliament and that Act does contain a prohibition on the registration of schools using corporal punishment (which will basically lead to an eventual ban - independent schools have to re-register every six year or so, and cannot operate without registration), and it's expected to pass Parliament very shortly. If it passes (and that is almost certain), then I would be very surprised if any independent school failed to obey such a law - and if they did, I would support the full weight of the law coming down on that school.

But no such law exists yet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For any Australians who may know:

So if this law does get passed then CP will be abolished completely in all schools in Victoria, government, religious and independent within 6 years?

When will the vote be taken on such a law?

Are religious and independent schools who are operated by religious entities trying to get around the language of the new law by claiming exemption through exercise of religious freedom arguing the old, standard ploy of Biblical admonition to "withold not the rod of correction"?

So if this law does get passed then CP will be abolished completely in all schools in Victoria, government, religious and independent within 6 years?

Technically it'd be within just under seven years, I think. The way the law is most likely to work is that it won't take effect until the 1st January 2007, so any private school that was reregistered this year wouldn't be subject to the new conditions, and wouldn't have to seek re-registration until 2012 and would then be forced to comply from the start of school year 2013 - it's rare for regulations to be forced on a school in the middle of a school year (and school years in Australia match the calendar year, unlike northern hemisphere practice where they straddle the calendar year). But, yes, basically that's how it looks like it will work.

When will the vote be taken on such a law?

We don't know. The way it works is that the law has to pass both Houses of Parliament - the Legislative Assembly (the lower house - where both day to day decisions are taken) and the Legislative Council (the upper house, which serves primarily as a place of review). It has to be read three times in one House, then voted on and then three times in the other House and then voted on.

The current Act has had its first and second reading in the Legislative Assembly earlier this month. It's Third Reading may occur this week (possibly on Tuesday). If it does, it will be voted on, probably be passed and it will then pass to the Legislative Council - which has until October to go through the same process. They might do it much quicker, or they might not. We might have a better indication by the end of this week.

Are religious and independent schools who are operated by religious entities trying to get around the language of the new law by claiming exemption through exercise of religious freedom arguing the old, standard ploy of Biblical admonition to "withold not the rod of correction"?

Some independent schools do have concerns about the impact the new Act might have on religious issues in schools, and have made it clear that they might seek exemptions if they believe this act damages their religious independence. But the issue isn't related to corporal punishment - the act is something like 450 pages long and the section relating to corporal punishment is about three paragraphs in one section of it. Their concerns are about a variety of different issues scattered throughout the Act. It's possible that if schools did seek an exemption on religious grounds, it might have an impact on corporal punishment, I suppose - but the main issue is that these schools want to be sure religious practices and religious education in general are protected. I haven't heard of anyone arguing specifically about corporal punishment.

Thanks for your response.
_______________________________________________________________
Dean wrote:
It's possible that if schools did seek an exemption on religious grounds, it might have an impact on corporal punishment, I suppose - but the main issue is that these schools want to be sure religious practices and religious education in general are protected. I haven't heard of anyone arguing specifically about corporal punishment.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

What specific religious issues are being raised if not the issue of corporal punishment?

In the U.S., certain religious groups have used the isolated remarks in the Book of Solomon interpreted to support CP as grounds for continuing the practice in schools sponsored by these religious groups under the guise of religious freedom. Generally these are fundamental Protestant groups. While they are except from the ban in states that ban CP in schools, they are not exempt from assault & battery laws. It does happen that you will sometimes see teachers or principals at these schools charged with battery or child endangerment. More rarely, you might also find some people at this type of school charged with sexual abuse with a CP component.


It will be interesting to see what the Catholic Independent schools in Victoria do in this regard as here in the States the Catholic Church has, I am fairly certain, taken a position against corporal punisnment in schools. One would think that it would be more difficult to suggest CP as a religious freedom issue if there is no consistency.

I hope you will keep us posted relative to the progress of the education bill and its movement through your legislative chambers.

What specific religious issues are being raised if not the issue of corporal punishment?

Please bear in mind that I haven't read the entire Education and Training Act - it is nearly 450 pages long - and so I can't be sure of everything contained within it.

But from what I have heard and read the religious concerns are based around the fact that the new Act is intended to 'tolerate' religion.

Some religious schools are concerned by the idea that religion is something that will merely be tolerated in schools. They feel that the word 'tolerate' implies that religion will be treated as something that is really viewed as undesirable in education and is being allowed to feature in education only reluctantly.

Personally I think they are worried about nothing. The problem has been created by the fact that this Act affects both state schools and private schools - and a feature of state schools is that they are meant to be secular. The 1872 Education Act was based on three principles - that basic education should be 'Secular, Compulsory and Free'. Since the 1950s, it has been accepted practice that limited religious education is permissable under strict conditions in state primary schools (it can't use school resources, beyond half an hour of class time a week and incidental stationary, must be taught by volunteers from outside the school and must be totally voluntary on the part of parents, and for older children, on the part of the children as well) even though this seemed to be a violation of the 1872 Act. The new Education and Training Act is merely trying to legalise that accepted practice, but without weakening the general principle that state schools should be secular - and that's the reason for the use of the word 'tolerate' rather than anything stronger. But because the Act will affect private schools as well, there are some concerns.

And there are practical implications - students have to do the VCE (Victorian Certificate of Education) here during their final two years of secondary school to 'graduate' (in an American sense - we don't use that word in secondary schools here). Part of this process involves sitting exams in the subjects a student chooses to study.

Last year, due to an oversight by the Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, the examination for studying Hebrew was scheduled on a Jewish holy day - a day where observant Jews can't travel or even write. And the VCAA resisted calls to change the day of the exam. They were forced to make alternative arrangements on the grounds that student's religious beliefs must be given significant respect. The new Act could potentially weaken that.

It will be interesting to see what the Catholic Independent schools in Victoria do in this regard as here in the States the Catholic Church has, I am fairly certain, taken a position against corporal punisnment in schools. One would think that it would be more difficult to suggest CP as a religious freedom issue if there is no consistency.

It'd be interesting to see what happens in this regard - especially as the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne is an loyal Old Xavierian (and I believe all the subsidiary Bishops went to independent Catholic schools as well - at least one went to the second Catholic school in the APS, St Kevin's.)

I hope you will keep us posted relative to the progress of the education bill and its movement through your legislative chambers.

I certainly will keep people abreast of any developments I hear of.

Dean said:
But from what I have heard and read the religious concerns are based around the fact that the new Act is intended to 'tolerate' religion.

Some religious schools are concerned by the idea that religion is something that will merely be tolerated in schools. They feel that the word 'tolerate' implies that religion will be treated as something that is really viewed as undesirable in education and is being allowed to feature in education only reluctantly.

Personally I think they are worried about nothing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would certainly agree with that assessment. I don't know what your dictionary says for the word "tolerate" but mine says "to allow to be without prohibition, hindrance or contradiction". "Merely tolerated" seems a bit of an oxymoron.
_______________________________________________________________________________

Dean said:
The problem has been created by the fact that this Act affects both state schools and private schools...

But because the Act will affect private schools as well, there are some concerns.

And there are practical implications - students have to do the VCE (Victorian Certificate of Education) here during their final two years of secondary school to 'graduate' (in an American sense - we don't use that word in secondary schools here). Part of this process involves sitting exams in the subjects a student chooses to study.

Last year, due to an oversight by the Victorian Curriculum Assessment Authority, the examination for studying Hebrew was scheduled on a Jewish holy day - a day where observant Jews can't travel or even write. And the VCAA resisted calls to change the day of the exam. They were forced to make alternative arrangements on the grounds that student's religious beliefs must be given significant respect. The new Act could potentially weaken that.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A lot of this seems a red herring---very minor issues that can easily and quickly be resolved
_________________________________________________________________________________

Dean said:
It'd be interesting to see what happens in this regard - especially as the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne is an loyal Old Xavierian (and I believe all the subsidiary Bishops went to independent Catholic schools as well - at least one went to the second Catholic school in the APS, St Kevin's.)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the concept that the Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne is a loyal Old Boy, my guess is that he will employ every religious excuse available to maintain CP in Catholic independent schools but will never once use the words "corporal punishment" in any discussion. When asked any questions, he will suddenly be struck with cases of both hysterical deafness and selective mutism but will smile a lot. <G>. Just a guess based on my experiences with the issue of CP and Old Boys when discussing the reality of its practice here and now. <G>
____________________________________________________________________________________

Dean said:

I certainly will keep people abreast of any developments I hear of.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks I would appreciate that.

Aside: Does anyone know of any internet URLs where one can obtain fair, honest, recent and reliable information on this Education Law issue as well as the use of CP in Aussie Schools?

Dean---Is Victoria the only area of Australia where CP is still permissible? Or is it permissible in other parts?

I would certainly agree with that assessment. I don't know what your dictionary says for the word "tolerate" but mine says "to allow to be without prohibition, hindrance or contradiction". "Merely tolerated" seems a bit of an oxymoron.

It's not really - when you look at other things that the state government says are tolerated in this state, I can understand why there's some concern. Prostitution is tolerated. There's talk about tolerating some drug use as well. So the use of the same word when it comes to religion - I'm not surprised it causes concern. Although I do think the concern is greater than it needs to be.

A lot of this seems a red herring---very minor issues that can easily and quickly be resolved

The thing is, this issue wasn't easily resolved. It should have been easy to resolve - all that would have been required is for the VCAA to reschedule the Hebrew exam to another day within the - I think it is three week long - VCE examination period. It really would not have been hard at all to do that. But the VCAA initially refused and insisted that it was impossible. And a lot of people believe that the reluctance to change the decision was based on prejudice against Jewish schools operating within the VCAA. The VCAA is a statutory authority, which means that despite being fully government funded, it has significant protection from public scrutiny, and a lot of people feel it has a bias against private schools in general, and religious private schools in particular. Part of the reason the VCAA (and it's predecessors, VBOS and VCAB) was set up was to try and deal with the fact that private schools outperform state schools academically - to level the playing field. And there is a real belief that the VCAA acts against private schools on occasion - by lowering their VCE marks.

This is one reason why private schools are worried about the new act - because there is already concern about bias in the system against them. And some Jewish schools are especially worried.

The fact it was so hard to get the VCAA to move on the Hebrew exam simply made their concerns even stronger. It should have been an issue that was easy and quick to resolve - but it wasn't.

Aside: Does anyone know of any internet URLs where one can obtain fair, honest, recent and reliable information on this Education Law issue as well as the use of CP in Aussie Schools?

I'm afraid I don't know of either - the Education Minister really does seem to be rushing this Act through Parliament with as little public scrutiny and discussion as possible - and that's meant there hasn't really been that much time for people to get organised to discuss it, or talk about it.

Dean---Is Victoria the only area of Australia where CP is still permissible? Or is it permissible in other parts?

It is also permitted in private schools in the states of Queensland and Western Australia.

Dean, I certainly cannot speak to the bias perceived, imagined or actual against private schools by the VCAA. I am sure their perspective on the matter is very likely different from the perspective of the private schools. That said, it does seem a bit odd that it was so difficult to move the test date for the Hebrew exam to another day within a 3 week period, particularly for so valid a reason.


Do you know if CP is used and acknowledged as being used in private schools in the states of Queensland and Western Australia? And has this potential change in Victoria caused any rumbling in either of those two states?

Do you know if CP is used and acknowledged as being used in private schools in the states of Queensland and Western Australia? And has this potential change in Victoria caused any rumbling in either of those two states?

It is definitely in use in some independent schools in Queensland and at least two schools (both relatively new Christian schools) acknowledge it is part of their system of discipline - it's referred to as 'corporal correction'. These are Caloundra Christian College and Jubilee Christian College.

I don't know if it is in use in Western Australia, but would be surprised if there's no schools using it - but I don't know of any that acknowledge it.

And, I doubt what is happening in Victoria is having any impact elsewhere. What happens in one Australian state in terms of education doesn't normally have much impact on what happens in other states - Australia's education systems predate Australia's federation as a single nation, and they tend to be very independent of each other.

Dean wrote:

It is definitely in use in some independent schools in Queensland and at least two schools (both relatively new Christian schools) acknowledge it is part of their system of discipline - it's referred to as 'corporal correction'. These are Caloundra Christian College and Jubilee Christian College.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks for the information, Dean, but you do realize that I couldn't help laughing that the historian who knows nothing about CP being used in independent schools in his own state of Victoria does know about its use in independent schools in Queensland. LOL

There is not doubt you are a wealth of information....just getting some of it from you is the trick. <VBG>

Really, thanks for the information on this and your opinion on the effect of Victoria's present situation on other states.

"It will be interesting to see what the Catholic Independent schools in Victoria do in this regard as here in the States the Catholic Church has, I am fairly certain, taken a position against corporal punisnment in schools. One would think that it would be more difficult to suggest CP as a religious freedom issue if there is no consistency." (Halliwell)

There has been quite a lot of consistency in the Catholic Church as this list of abolitionist states before 1900 shows:-

1783 Poland
1820 Netherlands
1845 Luxembourg
1860 Italy
1867 Belgium
1870 Austria
1881 France
1890 Finland

Looks like a near wipeout to me, Catholic-wise.

In 1999 I wrote to the Vatican three times in six months trying to get clarification on the Church's attitude. Did they approve of Catholic priests in the English-speaking world doing things to children that priests outside didn't do? Did they approve of something that vanished from Italy a century and a half ago?

But I never got a reply. I guess, for them, no reply is better than any reply, because any reply damns them.

Rangy Strider

Randy,

Interesting post.

I attended a parochial school during part of my boyhood and corporal punishment was used although it took more of the form of banging heads together, slapping wildly, throwing chalk at students---that sort of thing. A friend of mine attended a Catholic boys' high school were he was taught by Brothers who used the strap liberally, on the clothed bum in class or on the bare bottom behind closed doors if send to the Principal of the school. My school years spanned the early 1950's through the mid 1960's. By the time I graduated from high school, CP was not used in public schools (with the exception of my P.E. Teacher in high school who used to paddle although he was the only one in the school who did or even hinted at the possibility of it but for some unknown reason he seemed somehow to get away with it unquestioned) and was officially banned by the Arch Diocese in which I resided for parochial schools.

Here in the U.S. paddling is still to this day used in 22 states to some extent or another although the federal ruling on CP in public schools leaves it to individual states to made their own decision and even in states that allow CP, individual school districts set policy regarding its implementation in their district that comforms to state regulation. So in places like Texas which still allows paddling, it is prohibited in Dallas the local school board policy.

The U.S. Dept of Education is always a few years behind in releasing their statistics on paddling in the U.S. but last count hundreds of thousands of school kids were still being paddled in public schools in the U.S. primarily in Southern and Midwestern states. In my part of the U.S. it is prohibited in all of the surrounding states and is also prohibited by the Catholic Church in their schools.

Thanks for the information, Dean, but you do realize that I couldn't help laughing that the historian who knows nothing about CP being used in independent schools in his own state of Victoria does know about its use in independent schools in Queensland. LOL

Yes, but that's only because Colin Farrell discovered these schools and put the information on his website, making it very easy to find.

Dean wrote:

Yes, but that's only because Colin Farrell discovered these schools and put the information on his website, making it very easy to find.
--------------------------------

So is that where you do your research?

So is that where you do your research?

Generally, no, it's not. In fact I have sent Colin quite a bit of material over the years.

I do my research mostly in libraries - academic libraries, primarily those associated with the University of Melbourne, Monash University, and Deakin University. I also make some use of the State Library of Victoria. In particular the University of Melbourne has a fairly large library specifically devoted to the subject of education, with a lot of historical material on its lowest floor.

I certainly do refer to the corpun site on occasion - it's got quite a lot of interesting material - and more significantly in this case, Colin has an interest in what is happening currently as well as historically.

I said I would give updates on the passage of the Education and Training Bill (which contains a prohibition on the registration of schools that use corporal punishment) through the Victorian Parliament and it seems an appropriate time for an update, even if it is to report no progress.

Parliament is now in recess until the 28th March having sat for three days this week (for a total of six days this year - the Victorian Parliament spends relatively little time in session). While some people did expect the third reading of the Education and Training Act, and a vote on the Act to occur this week in the Legislative Assembly, this has not occurred. There has been no debate on the Act.

However, signs have started to emerge that in addition to people involved with homeschooling and with private schools, having concerns about the Act, there seems to be a growing number of people involved with state schools with concerns about the Act. While it is fairly unlikely that the Minister would respond to the concerns of homeschoolers or private schools, she will find it much more difficult to ignore concerns of those involved with state schools. Their major concern seems to be with the fact that legislation concerning private schools and state schools are being included in the same Act, which will subject state and private schools to similar conditions, blurring the line between such schools. In particular they have concerns that this threatens both the Secular and Free principles of education in this state - the 1872 Act which this Act is designed to replace was based on the three pillars that state school should be 'Secular, Compulsory, and Free'. These principles have been eroded over the years, and quite a few people seem to believe that the new Act further weakens the first and third pillar.

I would still expect the Act to pass - but I think there may be more debate on it than the Minister wanted before it does.