What are your thoughts on the relative merits of administering school corporal punishment in public or in private?

At my all boys English grammar school in the 60s both methods were in use but I never really understood the rhyme or reason. If you misbehaved in class the master would often call you out to the front of the class and deliver a good whacking on your behind with a plimsoll in front of the class. Other times he would tell you to report to him after class and give you the slipper in private.

I suppose one advantage from the teacher's point of view of giving a boy a vigorous spanking in front of the class was the deterrent value to all the other boys. On the other hand telling the boy to report after class to have his bottom slippered meant less disruption to the flow of the lesson. I can also see that if all punishments were delivered in public there would be less opportunity for abuse, overstepping any limits on corporal punishment set by the school, or even of the boy accusing the master falsely of such abuse.

Fronm the point of view of the boy bending over and having his bottom slippered I don't think it mattered very much. It wasn't especially humiliating or embarassing to be whacked in front of other boys. We saw it all the time and knew it could happen to us at any time.

If you were sent to the headmaster for the cane it was always, as far as I know, administered in private with just the boy and the headmaster in the room. Certainly the one time I was caned that was what happened. I and another boy were summoned to the headmaster's office and scolded severely together for our misdemeanour. But then when the head said he was going to cane us he told me to go and wait outside while he caned my friend. Then once my friend had been caned and left the study, he called me in, bent me over and gave me three healthy strokes of the cane. It hurt like hell but it wouldn't have bothered me any more if the other boy had watched. So why did he want to cane us in private?

Of course, the issue may be very different in a mixed school. Would boys object to being slippered or caned in front of girls? And if the school allowed corporal punishment for girls would it be OK to give them their spanking in front of the class? I suppose some teenage boys would get a kick out of seeing a teenage girl bending over and having her bottom smacked. But so what?

What do you think?

Fun slipperer Arthur Taylor at William Penn School (mentioned in other threads) always ‘oscarised’ boys in front the class. He only punished those in the first and second years and these rituals were seen by pupils as entertainment. "Oh good, a flogging" they would say as Arthur called a boy out.

Punishments were often accompanied by comments from Arthur such as, "Uncle John won’t love you any more" and "Faraday boys always have more bend." Both of these are references to JMH, one of our Honorary Life Members.

Punishments out of the ordinary tend to carry more significance that than the ordinary. For example, if punishment is normally administered in private doing it in public would add significantly to its perceived severity. Conversely, if "minor" punishments are administered on the spot in front of the class delaying them and administering them in private might equally increase their seriousness. All this is quite aside the actual force used in the punishment.

At my grammar school boys only were subject to the whack. The slipper was usually public in class or changing room and could be by any teacher.

Only the deputy head and head could cane and it was always in private. I always assumed it was to introduce some delay to the process but also allow the boy to receive more severe punishment in private. it was always over trousers so no problems with embarrasment at baring the bum etc

Interesting that Nick referred to the process of slippering as "the whack". At my (boys only) grammar school a caning was known as "the whack". I even once heard the headmaster suggest that a boy could well soon get "the whack" if there was a recurrence of some misdemeanour or other.

His more usual way of implying a caning penalty would result was to say that boys involved would be dealt with "good, hot and proper". We all knew what that meant!

My Maths teacher in the sixth form at an all boys school was a very quietly spoken and respected gentleman who on one occasion asked a boy who had repeatedly failed to produce homework, "Tor****, do you know what a swishing is?" On the hesitant reply of "Yes,sir" he was told to "come to see me in my room after school today."

We all knew what was to happen although I doubt if any of us had heard the expression "swishing" before.

The only parallel words uttered to me in the headmaster's study were, "I'm going to cane you!"

Interesting point about the delay before a private whacking being a way of making the punishment more serious. I can see that that would be so - waiting a few hours or even a day or two knowing that you were going get a very sore bottom after a swishing from the headmaster would no doubt be an uncomfortable experience in its own right.

If I think back to situations where I was told to report to a master at some later time for what I assumed would be a good slippering (or perhaps even the cane once in the case of the deputy headmaster) I was certainly apprehensive. But in three situations I can recall where this happened, I ended up getting some alternative punishment such as lines or even nothing more than a severe scolding. Perhaps the masters were using this delay as part of the punishment and never intended to whack me.

The time I actually got the cane from the headmaster I wasn't expecting it until I was called to the study so there wasn't much time to contemplate it. But the couple of minutes outside the study door listening to my partner in crime getting swished were certainly unhappy moments.

At my grammar school in the late 40s early 50's a caning was always referred to as 'the swish'. I believe it's an old term for a birching but I can't imagine there was ever a time when the birch was in use at The Royal Liberty, Gidea Park! If anyone knows differently I'd be interested to hear from them.

Nick says that he believes that some times punishment was given in private in order to be able to give the boy a more serious punishment. I think he's right but I still don't really understand the logic. Certainly at my school, canings were always given in private but I'm not sure why.

If corporal punishment is given to deter the other kids from similar behavious then surely it would be better to give it in public. If some wretched boy is to be given six of the best from the headmaster for bullying or stealing or cheating then wouldn't it be better for other boys in his class or house to see him getting his just deserts?

I suppose you could argue that this would be humiliating for the boy being whacked but I don't really buy that argument. At our school we were all used to seeing boys getting slippered in public every day and to getting a slippering in public ourselves occasionally. So if we were quite prepared to bend over and present our bottoms to a prefect or master for a public slippering, what's the difference in doing the same thing for a caning from the headmaster?

I suppose there might be some concern that the boy might show some signs of his pain when being caned - a squeal, a cry, maybe even breaking down and sobbing. And perhaps canings were administered in private for that reason, to avoid the boy being embarrassed in front of his peers by being unable to take his punishment like a man. But somehow I doubt that that was a real issue. Sure, a caning hurt a lot. But it was part of the culture to take a deserved punishment stoically. Indeed I suspect any boy woud be more likely to endure his strokes in silence if caned in public than he might in private.

So what am I missing? Why were the most severe corporal punishments usually administered in private?

I think it's just a continuation of the degree of seriousness again. At my school in the 40s/50s, as at yours, slipperings were given in public for the slightest things and for serious offences boys were sent to the dreaded 'Headmaster's Study' for the cane. For the most serious offences though, and usually when a boy was to be expelled as well, canings were given in public - at Prayers, on the stage. That was a very rare event and I only winessed two in my six years there. But it was the ultimate deterrent!
Incidentally, even those canings were given with the boy fully dressed.

Adding to the comments on Canings in private. I can confirm that in the mid 50s at the age of 10 I was caned in public by our teacher, I had been caught cheating during a test. It was a mixed school and I had to take up the position in front of the class, bending over the teachers desk. The three strokes were administered to my trousered bottom, and hurt like hell.
I was caned in private later in my school years during a period of time under the tuition of a lady my mother asked to give me extra lessons to help me with maths.This lady seemed to relish any excuse to have me bend over for her cane, I noticed she had several in a stand and every session started with a cane on her desk always ready??

No, Joseph - every session started with a little Hispanic man running around shouting "It's a plane! It's a plane!"

Dave suggests that six strokes are administered in privte to prevent the other boys/girls seeing the offender in distress. I can assure you that any more than two hard strokes of a senior school cane will have the offender in severe pain and unable to stay in position for the remaining ones. At our school as seniors we were held in position by another member of staff and believe me the intense pain in your bottom made your legs tremble and your cheeks clench and contract as if on fire.
This 'Lotta nonsence' person must be really sad to follow genuine correspondence and reply with childish comments. He would not last 30 seconds in a world of genuine discipline awareness.

Joe

You see this public private thing really is mysterious. What sense does it make to send a boy to the privacy of the headmaster's study for a caning for more serious offences (implying that the privacy is meant to impress on the wretched boy the seriousness of his offence) but then for really serious offences give the boy a thrashing in front of the whole school? Weird.

It worked though! Slipperings were commonplace events, most days you would see at least five or six in front of your own class - and God knows how many there were in total each day for the whole school! And you were very lucky to survive a week without experiencing the slipper yourself.
Being sent to the Headmaster's study for the cane though was something every boy really feared. It was the loneliness of being in the Great One's presence behind closed doors. And to be caned was the ultimate deterrent. Not many escaped it at some time in their school career though.
In those days expulsion was looked on as almost as bad as ruin! You were marked as a total failure and a disgrace. The caning before the whole School emphasised the point tenfold.
That's what I mean by it being a continuation of the seriousness of the offence.

Danny says "Being sent to the Headmaster's study for the cane though was something every boy really feared. It was the loneliness of being in the Great One's presence behind closed doors."

Ah yes, I think you put your finger on it Danny. A caning in any context was of course a punishment to be feared. But to be sent to be caned in the Headmaster's study was really scary. Entering that private sanctuary to which you were rarely summoned. Alone with this distant authority figure. Under his complete authority. You were totally helpless and powerless in his presence, on his territory. You knew that the reason you were there was to have extreme pain applied to your backside. But the unfamiliar place, the loneliness away from all your classmates, the placing yourself in his power somehow made the punishment far, far worse.

The time I was caned by the Headmaster in his study, I really didnt know what to expect, how a caning was actually administered. I didn't even know that canings were given over normal clothing, trousers and underpants for protection. God knows that was painful enough. But I was half expecting him to tell me to drop my trousers or maybe my underpants as well. His authority was so absolute that if he had told me to drop my trousers and pants and bend over for a bare bottom caning, I would have obeyed him. That uncertainty and the knowledge that the Great One had ultimate power over what punishment I would receive, made the anticipation of the caning much worse.

Thankfully he didn't tell me to drop my pants. Just took me by the shoulders, turned me round to face the door. and I bent over and presented my bottom to him for whatever punishment he decided I needed. He would decide. And he would punish. The waiting for that first stroke. The agonizing pain and the certainty that more were to follow. That awesome swishing noise that preceded each stroke, the sound of the cane whacking stretched trouser seat and then the pain, that awful burning.

And then standing up when it was all over, trying to hold back the tears, opening the door and walking as bravely as I could past the headmaster's secretary who was sitting outside the study door in the next room where she could hear the sounds of caning from the inner sanctum, sitting quietly at her desk typing away, smiling slightly at me as she sat comfortably on her soft round bottom that hadn't felt the sting of the cane, watching me as I walked painfully past her desk. How miserable I felt, thinking of that contrast between my pain and her comfort.

. . . and the little Hispanic midget pointing out of the office window and shouting "It's a plane! It's a plane!"

Yes, okay Lotta, whatever you say.

I was one of the last batch of pupils to be caned in English state schools, in 1986, at the age of 13. There can't be many under the age of 30 who have felt its sting - for my misdemeanour, a rather dangerous prank; I set off the school fire alarm on the last day before the school holidays. The 20 anniversary would be in about 3 weeks' time.

The procedure was that you were sent to the Head, allowed to make a statement. I couldn't really defend myself, and I heard him ring the prefects' room, and tell them that he needed 2 of them to come in, as he had to give a boy - then the dreaded words 'SIX OF THE BEST'. Fortunately my brother, who was deputy head boy, wasn't available, but I learned afterwards that he wouldn't have expected him to be a witness anyway. The two boys arrived, and escorted me to the toilet - a precautionary measure to prevent 'accidents'. They stood outside while I went into the toilets, and I was told 'he will check if you've put any padding down your pants', then I was escorted back. Another teacher was there, the large punishment book was open, and on the desk the junior cane.

He filled in the punishment book:

DATE
NAME
FORM
MISDEMEANOUR
NUMBER OF STROKES
SIGNATURE OF PERSON ADMINISTERING PUNISHMENT
SIGNATURE OF WITNESSES
Those witnessing signed their names, a teacher and 2 prefects.
There was a column for SIGNATURE OF PUPIL, which I was asked to sign later in the day.

He told me to remove my blazer and hang it on a peg. Then I had to pull out my shirt tail. Before I bent over, he said that if I jumped up before he had finished, he would start the punishment again. And when he had finished, I was to put my hands on my head, and not rub my bottom.

I had to bend over a chair, push my bottom out so that my trousers were tight, and then he prodded round with the cane to make sure there was no padding.

Like Joseph, I had to be held in position. That task was given to the prefects. By the time he had finished, I was crying bitterly. The junior cane was no picnic. I stood up, one prefect tucked my shirt in, and the other passed me my blazer. They escorted me back to the form room with my hands on my head. I hadn't been allowed to wipe my eyes, and the rest of the form knew what had happened.

After the end of the day, when I went to collect the letter to take home and to sign the punishment book the headmaster said that although I was the top boy in my year group, and had done a lot for the school, and my brother was deputy head boy, he had to treat me like anybody else. I told him, without being prompted, that I was very sorry for being so stupid. Then the hardest bit was when there was a knock on the door, and in came my brother - the first time I had seen him since the incident. He looked at me, and my eyes filled with tears, and I said 'I'm sorry for letting you down'. But the headmaster, who was basically a kindly man, who had the welfare of his charges at heart, said 'It's all over now - go and enjoy your holiday.'

According to the 'ethos' of our family, I could never say I hadn't deserved it. All the slipperings I had, I felt were just. But I wasn't slippered or caned again after that incident.

Sam, you live in a DREAM world.

Perhaps we all live in a dream world Lotta? Just as you cannot prove that Sam's discipline did not take place, you cannot prove that reality exists.

Of course, perhaps we should embrace the philosophy of Solipsism - the view that everything is a figment of 'my' imagination. There is nothing outside my mind. There is a branch of the Christian religion which seems to believe that pain is illusory. I never had a caned bottom. I don't need to sit on the toilet. The discomfort I feel is a figment of my imagination. There is no waste matter to come out of my body. Anything bad and evil doesn't exist.

This is all silly talk. But you can't prove whether I am right or wrong, and neither can I. Feeling doesn't count.

At our school, a lot of pupils lived some distance away, and after-school detentions were not practical. I think that was the reason that caning went on virtually 'up to the wire', ie until the punishment became illegal by act of parliament.