Discipline overthrown by the new-found tyranny of niceness

Kenneth Minogue
The Weekend Australian
21st March 2009

WHY have the British (and to some extent other Anglophones) allowed family and school life to collapse so extensively?

The collapse has not happened on all levels of society but it is widespread enough to affect everyone. The statistics, for what they are worth, are remarkable. According to Dispatches, a program aired on British television in January, a poll conducted for the National Union of Schoolmasters-Union of Women Teachers suggested that 97 per cent of teachers had disruptive children in their classes. Almost three-quarters (74.4 per cent) claimed to have problems with physically aggressive children, while almost half (45.5per cent) noted the disruptive behaviour of a minority was a daily occurrence.

In some British primary schools, each class is equipped with women who function as behaviour support assistants. They take over the disruptive children and thus allow the tranquillity needed for a little actual teaching. A difficult child, reported Dispatches, might be asked to choose -- choose! -- whether he was prepared to go back into class and behave, otherwise he would be shepherded into a "quiet room" without distractions to cool down. These children are 10 or younger, and the pathos of their being asked to make choices when they have never acquired the integrated mentality needed for that sophisticated act is piteous to behold.

Think back before the watershed 1960s and the contrast is instructive. Then, children had defined places in a classroom and learned rapidly the decorum necessary for school life. There was no question of choosing whether or not to behave because there was an order of conduct enforced by the teacher and it applied to everyone. The teacher was an authority figure and, like all authority figures, inspired a certain amount of fear, part of which depended on the possibility of physical punishment. Such punishment was seldom used, but it was part of an understood world. As a supply teacher in a variety of primary and secondary modern schools across Brixton, south London, for 18 months in those days, I only once had occasion to call for the cane, which was sent (with the caning record book) straight up from the headmaster's office. As I raised the cane over the offender's hand, a chorus came from the class: "Mustn't raise the cane above your shoulder, Sir, LCC (London County Council) regulation." These were children who had not yet been accorded the absurdity of rights, but they understood very well that they lived under a rule of law.

The insistent question is this: How is it that so many schools have moved from the orderly world of that time to the violent distraction and educational failure of today? It is a complicated story in which the causal links can only be speculative. We must recognise, of course, that we are a different society from that of two generations ago, better no doubt in some ways, worse in others, and the causal links we detect are only part of the story.

To lose one's grip on the centrality of punishment in our civilisation is to destroy the crucial balance between punishment and reward. Without the balancing severities of punishment and criticism, praise and reward take on the aspect of bribes, which demeans those who give and those who receive. But themanagers of our world increasingly resort to inducements.

Seventeen and 18-year-olds from poor families in Britain have been given educational maintenance allowances to induce them to stay on at schools after the age of 16. Schools reported that most of the beneficiaries exploited the system, turning up to the classroom only to qualify for the grant.

The idea that people should be paid to perform their duties is a pure case of the corruption that has doomed underdeveloped countries to poverty. The destruction of the punishment-reward balance is importing the same moral collapse here.

The niceness movement, then, is a central part of the answer to the question: How have we moved from the disciplined and largely successful schools we had before 1960 to the disorderly educational failure common, though obviously not universal, today? Much that happens in schools depends on family life, of course, and some of the most radical changes clearly have little to do with politicised compassion.

From television to the mobile phone, the enclosed character of family life has been opened to outside influences, of which the most powerful is probably the peer group. The peer group locks individuals into the much narrower experiences of contemporaries rather than the intergenerational wisdom of the family.

Nevertheless, the niceness movement has powerfully changed family life. Sixties' liberation detested the frustrating conventions by which (to put it crudely) sex had to be traded for commitment. Commitment is painful, especially to individuals with little talent for controlling impulse. Many restrictive conventions were abandoned so that the young should be free to follow wherever their impulses might lead.

Divorce became easier, yet the number of couples getting married dramatically declined. This left many of the resulting children in an unstable world, especially if they belonged to what was euphemistically called a single-parent family. Single parenthood often resulted from misfortune and could work well, but public concern has focused lately on one cohort of such abbreviated families: that of teenage pregnancy. In the past, the pregnant teenager faced painful options: the shotgun marriage, adoption or the backstreet abortionist. The state responded compassionately by providing accommodation and financial support to these young people.

But many of the children of such relationships grew up to be no less feckless and impulsive than their mothers. In the 1990s, the British government made a late start in trying to identify the fathers of these children, partly to pay for child support and partly to involve men as well as women in these problems. They have not had much success. The children of such unions have been prominent in the annals of gangland and delinquency. This is a classic case of compassion in one generation leading to misery in the next.

My argument is, then, that the collapse of family and school discipline largely results from a dominant moral sentiment that we may call "the niceness movement". Niceness as a political sentiment has many departments -- political correctness is one, for example -- but I am concerned largely with its sentimental undermining of authority in family and classroom. The selling point of this niceness was, as it were, that pupils would become a nicer, gentler generation, but in fact the disorderly tendencies that teachers soon lost the power to check have spilled over into the playground, where bullying has long been increasing, and from the playground this disorder has spread into the streets. Thus can politicised compassion lead to misery.

Moral vices prosper by dressing themselves as virtues. Niceness presents itself as benevolence but is often merely an evasion of hard decisions that the realities of human nature require. And it has spread throughout our societies because it is often popular with voters. The road to hell, it is said, is paved with good intentions, and so is a good deal of democratic politics.

One last point about this moral corruption: it is in important ways irreversible. I have emphasised that the campaign against physical chastisement in schools and families is an important element in the collapse of discipline. But one cannot have discipline back merely by changing the rules because it would need a platoon of soldiers to deal with the riots likely to follow any revival of the cane. Nor could one withdraw the rights to sustenance that dependent mothers have acquired in the 20th century.

This does not mean that there will not be a backlash against politicised decency as its nastier consequences become intolerable. That backlash is likely to make the well-judged pains of past practice look merciful indeed. But that is what happens when moral structures collapse.

A very thought-provoking article, Doctor Dominum. It should be noted at the outset that not all British state schools are in the sad state described. Unfortunately far too many are.

There is a lot that could be said, but I and other people, yourself included, have said most of it already in this estimable Forum.

As long as we allow a situation to exist where children, and indeed their parents, are regarded, and regard themselves, as having many rights but absolutely no responsibilities in schools in particular and in society generally, then the situation will only get worse. In this respect the most recent UK governments, with their 'nanny state' mentality, have a great deal to answer for.

Many teachers themselves were only too eager to sacrifice classroom discipline to fashionable political correctness. Their just reward was to see the prestige of their profession and the pleasantness of their working environment decline at an unprecedented rate, and serve 'em right, pity their salaries weren't hit as well! Sadly, those responsible have mainly retired on large pensions, leaving the unfortunate new entrants to a once august profession to face apalling working conditions and the prospect of being mentally exhausted and unable to continue in teaching by their mid thirties.

Unfortunately the two most practically relevant paragraphs of the report are the last two, and I make no apology for repeating them:

One last point about this moral corruption: it is in important ways irreversible. I have emphasised that the campaign against physical chastisement in schools and families is an important element in the collapse of discipline. But one cannot have discipline back merely by changing the rules because it would need a platoon of soldiers to deal with the riots likely to follow any revival of the cane. Nor could one withdraw the rights to sustenance that dependent mothers have acquired in the 20th century. This does not mean that there will not be a backlash against politicised decency as its nastier consequences become intolerable. That backlash is likely to make the well-judged pains of past practice look merciful indeed. But that is what happens when moral structures collapse.

I would not want to be a school pupil when the tide finally does turn, as it inevitably will as the money runs out and Britain verges on becoming a third world nation. Unfortunately the excesses and abuses which marred school discipline in what is now to many people 'the bad old days' will be repeated with the full sanction of a frightened and desperate society. A society which will perceive only the threat it faces and not it's own responsibility for that threat through craven acquiescence to morally flawed doctrines like political correctness.

I think the idea of the choice between going back to class or choosing the quiet room is excellent.

Gives the temper tantrum time to cool off and the rest of the class a chance to be learning again. Practical politics, frankly.

The writer also ignores the facts. Compared to our school days, we no longer(thank God!) have deaf, dumb, blind or Downs Syndrome children automatically institutionalised, they are often present in normal society and that means the classroom.

Yes, and they are not the only additional "demands" on today's primary/junior teachers. Childhood asthma & diabetes has been increasing at an horrific rate for years and though easily medically manageable, that's another distraction.

AHDH & mild autism are also now readily diagnosed, ditto Dyslexia, instead of the sufferers being stuck in the corner with a Dunce's cap or worse.

Put all that together, and most of those sorts of kids and their attendant problems, none of which is their fault, can be found in the average junior/primary classroom.

So, do we exclude them from receiving or viewing any disciplinary sanctions and label them as subnormal/different? Do we on the other hand acknowledgement that these kids are more likely to be sensitive and in need of delicate handling; so, in fact, anything that minimises bad behaviour disruption in today's classroom like the quiet room is a win-win situation, for all concerned.

I'd also dispute the facts re Child Support. At least 20% of our families had an absent MOTHER for starters, and approximately 66 or 68%(forget which) are now in a nuclear family environment ie mother and stepfather, mother & long-term partner etc., even if one of their biological parents isn't there.

The real problem is down to a 20/25-year belief throughout our society in the philosophy of the pig-trough. Before which time, the idea of teachers striking for more pay was not quite the done thing, if not unthinkable.

It was once a vocation-so why shouldn't it still be?

Mind you, so was banking and look at it now!

The other part of that problem is the parents. Can you imagine those who've been bought up to believe if you want anything you can get it teaching their children that it's good to share, good manners to take the plainest biscuit etc at Grannies?

Anyway, Kylie's father wrote an interesting article, but he's only superficially aware of today's classrooms and how they are made up.



Steve M

Hi Steve. You say:

Anyway, Kylie's father wrote an interesting article, but he's only superficially aware of today's classrooms and how they are made up.

On the contrary, he's only too well aware of how today's classrooms are 'made up'. He's aware, and says, that cohorts of expensive teaching assistants are being deployed in classrooms to help in doing what one teacher used to do by themselves for twice as many children, and considerably more effectively!

I have to pay for those teaching assistants. So presumably do you. You're entitled to your own view of the situation, but speaking for myself I'm quite happy to pay for any and all necessary assistance for children who need it because of genuine problems. That's not where the teaching assistant effort goes for the most part though. Those aren't the children who need 'quiet rooms'. The ones who get that treatment and absorb most of the extra help are children like the one who plagued a headmistress friend until he moved on.

That particular lad had a penchant for kicking other children and setting fire to the school. He necessitated a full time teaching assistant to monitor his depredations, and if thwarted in either of his favourite activities his temper tantrum needed the isolation quiet room treatment. Nothing wrong with him, he was just an evil little so and so, made thus by his parents who made him seem almost civilised. He was just one of a whole galaxy of 'bad' children who made, and still make, that school a less than happy place for its better behaved children.

When I was at school the teachers would have quickly sorted out the lad. No teaching assistants, no hand wringing social workers or do-gooders. Just a little well targetted CP and a lot of common sense. As for his parents, their neighbours would have taken care of them, with the police and the courts to fall back on if that failed. And so on for the rest of their ilk and their disruptive offspring. Result, in my primary school at least, around 100 children in the final year taught by two teachers in two classes of about 50. Number leaving the school unable to read properly and do simple arithmetic. Around 3 a year. Look up today's figures for that and weep! And that wasn't some comfortable and wealthy town in a nice part of the country. It was a tough mining community with more than its fair share of poverty and deprivation.

And finally (because even Another_Lurker can only sustain rant mode for so long! ) you mention asthma as amoungst the things schools have to deal with which excuse all the extra cost and kerfuffle. Sorry, but you can't tell me anything about asthma. Had it as a kid to the extent that I lost about about a quarter of my school time up to secondary school. No inhalers or injections in those days. Even at 5 you had to know how to do your breathing exercises, because that's all there was if you got an attack, and teachers couldn't do those for you. The problem with asthma now is that despite the fact that with modern inhalers it is relatively easy in most cases to deal with an attack, parents can't be bothered to train their children properly to deal with it themselves and expect the teachers to do it for them, which they have neither the training or the time to do.

I think the idea of the choice between going back to class or choosing the quiet room is excellent.

To an extent, I agree, Steve. For the child who genuinely has episodes he (it's more often boys than girls) genuinely either can't control, or finds extremely difficult to control, this type of choice is quite an appropriate one to offer and it does create more options for the child, and gives them something positive they can do. I also believe in the very old principle that every dog gets one bite - that is, that any child should be allowed to occasionally get away with acting inappropriately for no particularly good reason and so I don't see anything wrong with even a child without identified issues occasionally being able to take advantage of this type of thing.

But the problem is, while this might sometimes be appropriate for some children in some circumstances, that doesn't make it the most appropriate way of dealing with it in all circumstances. The child who is perfectly capable of controlling inappropriate temper tantrums and who simply refuses, time and time again, to exercise the self discipline needed to do it, is not in the same category as the child who finds it extremely difficult, but nonetheless does his best and sometimes finds his best isn't good enough for the situation at hand - and it's incredibly unfair to treat the second child as equivalent to the first. Different children have different needs, and need to be treated differently at times to take those needs into account. One size fits all solutions rarely work all that well. An inappropriate intervention strategy for one child may be utterly inappropriate for another. And by the same token a strategy that works very well if it's used once a term or even once a month, may become inappropriate if it's being used every day.

We have students at my school who have standing permission to leave a classroom and go elsewhere in certain situations. One, in particular, with a history of anger management issues has standing orders to walk out and find me, or one of a number of other teachers (there's a list so one of us should always be available) if he finds himself 'losing it'. He's rarely needed to do this - the mere fact that he knows he can seems to serve as a safety valve - but we put it in place for him. Would we put it in place for his entire class? No - because they don't need it. He does. (Having said that, if another boy felt the same way and decided to act in a similar fashion and walk out, even without authorisation, I'd be very sympathetic to his view and would almost certainly regard him as having done the right thing - because we can't predict every situation - but he'd better only have done it for a pretty good reason. I don't want to put up with boys trying to game the system).

Gives the temper tantrum time to cool off and the rest of the class a chance to be learning again. Practical politics, frankly.

The problem is that while it is appropriate to think of the needs of the 'rest of the class' to resume learning, we still have a duty to think of the child who has left the classroom and his needs. In my view, far too much of modern educational thinking seems to be based around the idea that if something is working for the majority of children, it's all right to ignore the existence for the minority for who it isn't working (in itself, this isn't confined only to 'modern' educational thinking - traditional ideas could be every bit as likely to ignore the needs of some children, but the difference is the traditionalists didn't turn it into a deliberate strategy). Getting the troublesome student out of the classroom so he's not disrupting the class may be better than leaving him in there - but we still have a duty to try and find something that works for him as well. Now, once again, if this only happens occasionally, that might not be anything to worry about - if he misses the occasional lesson, he can probably catch up. But if it happens regularly, something else needs to give.

The writer also ignores the facts. Compared to our school days, we no longer(thank God!) have deaf, dumb, blind or Downs Syndrome children automatically institutionalised, they are often present in normal society and that means the classroom.

For some schools, that's certainly a significant factor, and yes, for the most part, mainstreaming is a good thing, as long as it's done appropriately. That means additional support is needed in some cases. But the problem is, just because it's needed in some cases, doesn't mean that every single 'problem' posed by a child is appropriately handled by simply assigning additional support to it.

I believe educational management should be about giving teachers as wide a range of options in dealing with situations in their classrooms as possible. That means I'm entirely in favour of trying to come up with new ideas and strategies and appropriately resourcing them where resources are needed to make them work. But at the same time, I don't believe in removing options that might work in some cases, too. And I believe there are occasions where corporal punishment is an appropriate intervention.

We need to have something in place for the Downs child if we have one in the classroom. We need to have something in place for the blind child if we have one in the classroom. We need to have something in place for the child with anger management problems, and the child with severe ADHD. Absolutely.

We also need to have something in place for the child who is just plain naughty sometimes. We need to have something in place for the child who is perfectly capable of controlling his behaviour, and chooses not to if he thinks he can get away with it. We need to have something in place for the child who gains pleasure in teasing other children. We need to have something in place for the child who is too bone idle to do his homework and who is suffering academically because he lacks the self discipline to do what is best for himself.

AHDH & mild autism are also now readily diagnosed, ditto Dyslexia, instead of the sufferers being stuck in the corner with a Dunce's cap or worse.

Overdiagnosed in many cases, unfortunately. At least in Australia and the US - I'm not sure if overdiagnosis is a problem in the UK or not?

The thing is - far more important than whether or not these things are overdiagnosed or not, is that all too often we lose sight of the fact that there are differing degrees of these conditions. ADHD is a prime example - the vast majority of children with the condition have a relatively mild case that can be managed quite readily.

I actually find corporal punishment to be much more likely to work effectively with boys with mild cases of ADHD - I stress, I am talking about mild cases here, only. Mild ADHD makes it more difficult for children than normal to control impulsive behaviour, but they can still do it. For a lot of these, corporal punishment provides an added incentive to control and so they become much more likely to learn how to do it.

The problem is, for a child with a severe case, it's not enough of an incentive and it's use in those cases crosses the line into being unfair, quite easily. I'm of the opinion that a great many of the incorrigible cases of the past where boys were caned time and time again and their behaviour didn't get any better were cases of severe ADHD. It didn't matter how hard they tried, they just didn't have that type of control.

As for autism - if we talk about Asperger's specifically, again, corporal punishment seems to have a special role to play in my experience in managing mild cases. In this case, it seems to be more a matter of other traditional ways of handling misbehaviour being less appropriate for an Asperger's child which elevates the chance of corporal punishment being an appropriate intervention. I suspect that if I was a child today, I'd have been diagnosed with mild Aspergers myself. I had a lot of the common markers as a child. But it wasn't diagnosed back then - not until very recently actually.

Put all that together, and most of those sorts of kids and their attendant problems, none of which is their fault, can be found in the average junior/primary classroom.

So, do we exclude them from receiving or viewing any disciplinary sanctions and label them as subnormal/different? Do we on the other hand acknowledgement that these kids are more likely to be sensitive and in need of delicate handling; so, in fact, anything that minimises bad behaviour disruption in today's classroom like the quiet room is a win-win situation, for all concerned.

In my view, those aren't the only options - yes, these children may need somewhat different handling from other children in some cases, but the inherent assumption that that means more delicate handling seems rather flawed. Some need a more delicate approach, sure, but some are just likely to need a more stringent approach.

Apologies for the delay in responding-bit of a madhouse Chez Steve at present.

Wonder if the over-diagnosis syndrome comes from frustrated social workers? We had a number of cases in the 1990's, high profile alleged incest type of abuse & in the end, it came out looking like a total witch-hunt, at least as far as Orkney(?) & North Staffordshire(?), the 2 biggest went.

In both cases, when you read what the kids were saying, a trained chimp could have seen the resemblance to what tortured witches confessed to in 15th century Scotland. Surreal & quite crazy, but they still ended up getting it totally wrong, taking dozens of kids into care and smashing families up.

Now, are they doing with it AHDH? Could be. Err on the side of caution? What do you think, gents? In an era of convenience food, could this be a convenience disease/disorder?

And what about the grief culture? I don't mean when you have something like the bush fires, because that could genuinely traumatise anybody on the doorstep of it.

I'm thinking back to my infants' days-1957/8. 3 classmates died from polio, seemed every time we went off for half-term or end of term, another one died.

First victim, we were simply told in class that so and so had died and gone to heaven. Every one had funeral faces for the day.

Second one, we got the same, but by morning break several of us were wondering if heaven wasn't getting a bit crowded, or going to at this rate. And it was one of the girls who posed the question about whether the maggots would be put off by the iron lung-course not, 'cos you didn't get buried in it!!

The third one, no heaven mentioned-think our musings must've got back to Miss Jeavons!!

AND-not a grief counsellor in sight. This could be where the three of us may totally agree things have gotten totally out of hand.

Though perhaps we ought to count our blessings that we don't have special assemblies/masses/festivals of light every time Johnny's goldfish is floating in the morning. Or is this going on?


Steve M

Hi Steve. You'll have to do a lot better than the above post I'm afraid. Not a single point I can disagree with!

Seriously, I think you identify some of the problems which currently beset society in general, and in particular the interface between society and schools.

Social Workers: It is very easy to demonise social workers, and I'm (only partly I'm afraid) ashamed that I frequently do. We need social workers to protect and if necessary nurture the most vulnerable and helpless people in society, be they very young, very old, or any age in between. In my view social workers are currently not very good at doing this.

What I think social workers are currently very good at is, in some cases, things we don't need them to do. We don't need them to persecute and hinder 'middle class' (not the ideal term, I use it for want of a better one) people whose lifestyle and affluence offends their politically correct view of the world. However they often do this. We don't need them to support the feckless and chronically lazy, whose real need is a good kick up the backside and firm orders to get themselves sorted out. However, they seem to spend most of their time doing this.

It is the children of this latter group of social worker 'clients' who are often encouraged by their parents (and their social workers) to believe that not only are they entitled to disrupt their own and everyone else's education, but that the school should actively assist them in doing so. I am told the mantra 'my (or his or her) social worker says .....' echos through the corridors and classrooms of many schools. Indeed I understand it sometimes drowns out even the ringing of the mobile phones that little Wayne and Kyle have to bring to school so that they can summon their parents and/or social workers if a teacher annoys or gainsays them in any way.

Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder: This (or rather these, because it is actually at least two conditions) is one for the experts, and I'm not an expert. However, I do think ADHD and other labels are being applied too readily to children who possibly have a temporary minor problem in some area of their lives. Further, I think this labelling is sometimes being done by totally unqualified people, often the child's parents (or their social workers). Just as with 'give a dog a bad name and hang it', label a child as having ADHD and eventually it probably will have, even if the initial condition was an easily avoidable food allergy or something similar.

Excessive Public Grief and molly-codling: You give away your age with the polio reference, Steve. It is dreadful to think of the depredations of polio when we were young. The reaction of the staff and pupils of your school is pretty much how things were handled in my era too. Schoolmates did die. Disease, accidents, all took their toll. That, sadly, is life, and schools are supposed to prepare children for life. As you say, not a grief counsellor in sight. Do you feel you were scarred for life by their absence? I suspect probably not, and nor do I.

Contrast our experience with what happened at a comprehensive school near me when a male pupil, very sadly, died as a passenger in one of those accidents to which under-powered but overly tarted-up cars full of young men seem to be prone. The school closed for the following day, during which emergency staff meetings and governor's meetings were held. When the school reopened trained 'grief therapists' were on hand and were duly besieged by weeping pupils, effectively another school day lost. Will those children be better equipped to face the future vicissitudes of life than we were? Somehow I doubt it!

You say:

Though perhaps we ought to count our blessings that we don't have special assemblies/masses/festivals of light every time Johnny's goldfish is floating in the morning.

And you ask:

Or is this going on?

To which the answer is probably not yet, but it's coming!

A_L, could a few bad social workers bring down the good ones, as that
happens in all walks of life.
I too believe the weak need and should be defended, whether by social
workers or whoever. What I detest is the vulnerable taken advantage of.
I firmly believe you and Steve are of the same mind there too.

I don't know if you agree with me, but with a passage from the begining
of this thread of a teacher sending for the cane from the Headmaster
is rubbish. A teacher who used the cane would have an array of their own.
Also, when anyone was caned, no one would say a word, why? Because you
was glad you weren't the recipient.
I think you like me witnessed quite a lot of canings, did you find what
I've said true? The teacher could have taken a run the length of the room
and no one would have said a word, if they had, they probably would have
been told they're exchanging places.

Hi Paul B, you say:

A_L, could a few bad social workers bring down the good ones, as that happens in all walks of life.

You are quite right. I am perhaps a little too hard on social workers. I've no personal experience of them doing their job at all. However, I have to say there do seem to be a large number of cases in the media where the only logical explanation I can see for the victim's suffering is that a social worker screwed up. I also encounter social workers supervising parties of children and handicapped people at a sports facility I use, and I'm not impressed. Mind you, they may not think much of me either!

You also say:

I too believe the weak need and should be defended, whether by social workers or whoever. What I detest is the vulnerable taken advantage of. I firmly believe you and Steve are of the same mind there too.

Absolutely. I was brought up on the ideas in Rudyard Kipling's poem The Children's Song. Some of those ideas are not regarded as very politically correct these days (especially by social workers ) so I won't risk offending anyone by quoting all of it. It is perhaps better know as the hymn "Land of our Birth, we pledge to thee" and anyone interested can find it here at the bottom of the page. In the current context the relevant verse is:

Teach us the Strength that cannot seek, By deed or thought, to hurt the weak; That, under Thee, we may possess Man's strength to comfort man's distress.

Something for all of us to aspire to.

I'm afraid that I can't agree with you about the section of the foundation post where the author of the article discusses caning a child when acting a supply teacher in Brixton, South London around or just before the 1960s being 'rubbish'. I don't think a supply teacher would have been likely to have an 'array' of canes, even if teachers were allowed to have their own canes. It would have been much too inconvenient to carry them around from school to school. Even in those days supply teachers, by the nature of their employment, moved from school to school frequently.

In addition it was, I think, sometimes the case that there was only one 'authorised' cane in use in a school, held by the Head Teacher or a nominated Deputy. Sometimes only the cane holder was authorised to use the cane, sometimes other teachers could cane, but had to request the cane (and the punishment book) from the authorised holder so that he or she was formally notified that a caning was taking place. These arrangements might be because of local authority regulations or because of the school's own practice.

In this case the author refers to the children quoting 'LCC (London County Council) regulation' when he raised the cane too high. He may mean 'LEA (London Educational Authority) rgulations' - it would be an understandable slip after 40+ years, but in any case I'm not sure when the LEA came into existence. In any event the authorities responsible for public education in London certainly did have various regulations concerning caning, as you'll probably recall from the recent 'Girl caned at Bacons by the infamous Mr Ing' thread. It may be that at that time these regulations extended to the holding of a cane within a school and to how it was to be used.

The question of the children drawing attention to the way the cane should be used is, I agree with you, perhaps a little unusual. However, those London children were often fairly bright and outspoken. Look at what some of them have become on this estimable Forum! I think whether they would quote the regulations might depend on how they perceived that particular caning and the teacher administering it. With older children, if the caning was seen as justified and the teacher as a reasonable and likeable person, I think they just might. Children do often have a strong sense of fair play, and they may have thought that that particular teacher would wish to play fair. But yes, it would be unusual.

Contrary to your comment, I haven't witnessed a lot of canings. In fact I didn't witness any at school at all. The cane wasn't used in my primary school, and at secondary school the cane was reserved to the prefects' court and the Headmaster, both of whom caned in private. I never got the cane from either agency, and I was never a full prefect, so I didn't witness any canings. Lots of slipperings in both schools, a variety of smackings and rulerings at the primary school and near impalements on long window poles hurled as spears at the secondary school, but no canings!

Another_Lurker:

In this case the author refers to the children quoting 'LCC (London County Council) regulation' when he raised the cane too high. He may mean 'LEA (London Educational Authority) rgulations' - it would be an understandable slip after 40+ years, but in any case I'm not sure when the LEA came into existence.

Actually the LCC was an education authority, as were the boroughs in the old county of Middlesex. In the mid sixties the LCC and these boroughs (plus a few in some other counties such as Hertfordshire) were reorganised to form the the Greater London Council and the present London Boroughs; the county of Middlesex was abolished. Education in the old LCC area was taken over by ILEA, the Inner London Education Authority. London boroughs outside the old LCC area became education authorities.

ILEA was abolished in 1990 and the inner London boroughs then became education authorities as well.

Some while ago I moved to a small rural town and to a street with a lot of young families. Two brothers live across the street from me. They are very well behaved and physically very active and competent. They spend hours and hours playing cricket and Rugby in season. The 11 year old never uses his full strength against his brother when tackling. The 8 year olds ball skills already exceed my own at my peak (not saying much). The boys have chores which they do willingly. They work and play hard. I have never heard the boys argue or their parents speak harshly to them. These kids are not unique. They have grown accustomed to being successful but fully understand it takes effort to succeed. I suggest there is more to be learned from families that work than those that don't.

A_L politically correctness! The word makes my blood boil, we must call
Christmas "The Winter Festival." We can't celebrate St George's Day.
To me it's totally unbelievable.

I wrongly made the assumption you had witnessed class room canings,
this happened quite regularly at the school I attended, the slipper
was used daily though. The Headmaster caned in private as well as in
public, not the ritual caning we hear in front of the whole school, but
outside the class room, or on the spot in the school grounds.
There was a cane or canes in every class room, so a teacher wouldn't need
to fetch one from the Headmaster.
A punishment book would probably be kept by the Head, but I've never
seen one and as far as I'm aware they were not used at my school, but at
my wife's school if a boy was caned by the Headmaster it was recorded, as
was the slipper when used on the girls, by the deputy Headmistress.

I state what I have actually seen, or what people I know and can totally
trust have told me.

On the subject of social workers the basic requirements should be common
sense and experience of life.

Wonder if the over-diagnosis syndrome comes from frustrated social workers?

Well, it can't just be social workers - but yes, a lot of the overdiagnosis does stem from frustration by a variety of the people involved with children - parents and teachers primarily, in my experienced. ADHD should really only be diagnosed by a specialist doctor - in the ideal case, a psychiatrist and most places do require this, but many doctors seem to wind up rubber stamping a recommendation from a teacher, rather than truly going into an in depth diagnosis themselves. Now, I'd say I'm as qualified as just about any teacher to tell if a child has ADHD - I'm a highly trained educational psychologist as well as a teacher of great experience - but even I shouldn't have my opinions on this rubber stamped, and a lot of teachers who put forward cases of 'ADHD' for review are far less competent to do so than myself.

Now, are they doing with it AHDH? Could be. Err on the side of caution? What do you think, gents? In an era of convenience food, could this be a convenience disease/disorder?

Definitely, in quite a few cases. There are genuine cases of ADHD but there are many cases where it seems to have been misdiagnosed as well, and in a lot of those cases I think it comes down to people wanting to have a label to hang on a child that excuses the child's behaviour, and also excuses teachers and parents from doing what they need to for the child. "He has ADHD and that explains why he constantly disrupts the class" is a lot easier than "He's misbehaving because I don't have the classroom management skills needed to deal with his behaviour and I need to develop them." The same sometimes goes for parents "Charlie misbehaves because he has ADHD" is a lot more palatable than "Charlie misbehaves because we spoil him, let him eat whatever he likes so he's constantly hyperactive, and don't enforce a bedtime so he's too tired to concentrate in class." There are parents who do everything right - and if their child displays ADHD behaviours, ADHD may well be the anwer. But there's plenty of other cases too.

The same applies to an extent with the new trendy diagnosis of choice - Asperger's Syndrome. Again, it's a very real condition, but again, it also seems to be being overdiagnosed - or perhaps with Asperger's it's more accurate to say mild cases fall within the realm of 'normal' and so diagnosis a mild case doesn't really accomplish much. There have always been children who were slightly socially inept, bright but lacking common sense, or social skills. We didn't used to see a need to diagnose them with anything. Again, it can reach a level where diagnosis is both appropriate and useful, and in even more extreme cases can be essential. But a lot of cases don't reach that threshold. But again, sometimes it's convenient to the adults in a child's life - much easier to say that Wiremu is an Aspie, than to suggest he might develop more social skills if he joined the boy scouts or played cricket or got on a skateboard, instead of sitting in front of his XBOX all day.

AND-not a grief counsellor in sight. This could be where the three of us may totally agree things have gotten totally out of hand.

Most definitely. In my view, this is yet another example of modern education trying to treat all children as if they are nearly identical and not taking enough account of individual needs.

There are 'sensitive' children who do tend to react to tragedy in a way where counselling is useful. There are also children who can shrug off the most serious trauma imaginable and simply get on with things. And then there is everybody else who is in between.

It's probably true that in the past, schools didn't do the best job they could in dealing with the first group of children, and that is unfortunate and something that was worth fixing. But we've gone from one extreme to the other. Some children may need grief counselling in serious cases. The more serious the case, the more likely they are to need counselling. But some children just don't need it - and if you give it to kids who don't need it, they start to feel like there's something wrong with them for not needing it... you create a cycle.

Schools bring in the counsellors far, far too easily nowadays. And when they bring them in, they tend to make far too many children see them.

Now, to an extent, I'm in bit of an atypical and rather fortunate position in this regard. My school is able to afford to keep a trained counselling staff on retainer. There's always a counsellor in the school during school time, and if need be, we can easily bring in a few others to supplement that. If it comes down to it, I'm also fully trained and qualified, and three other permanent staff members are either qualified psychologists or counsellors. Not to mention, quite a few who have the skills, even without formal qualifications. My point is, we have quite a lot on tap here already. It's very rare that we'd have any need to bring in large numbers of grief counsellors unless some massive tragedy hit the school itself. Even if something happened, that required twenty or thirty boys to need a little help, we could probably handle that ourselves.

My colleagues in local state schools aren't so lucky. They generally 'share' a single counsellor between them. If something happens there that requires twenty or thirty children to need counselling, then the only way they can get it is to pull out all the bells and whistles of a full departmental response - and if they do that, they'll probably get more than they need. But - well, if you do have twenty five kids who need help, and your choice comes down to helping only two - or having one hundred or more see counsellors (including the twenty five who need to) - then the latter is probably your better option.

Though perhaps we ought to count our blessings that we don't have special assemblies/masses/festivals of light every time Johnny's goldfish is floating in the morning. Or is this going on?

The most ridiculous case I've heard of personally were grief counsellors being called out because a teacher had confiscated a bunch of 'electronic pets' (tamagotchis) because they were disrupting classes and then they 'died' due to lack of attention.

DOC

I'll respond properly to all your interesting points asap, especially re once having been a parent and when it really matters re ground rules.

But for the moment, I'm rolling around laughing about the ruddy Tamagotchi. Best laugh I've had for ages-know I should feel sorry, but who for-the kids, the Tamis or the clowns who arranged the "service"!

Thank you!


Steve M

I'm afraid I was a little pushed for time yesterday, so responses/comments applicable to several of the above posts here. My apologies to anyone who disproves of this style of posting.

Hi Alan Turing. Thank you for the correction/explanation. I realised afterwards that I'd said LEA when I meant ILEA. My excuse is that I was somewhat annoyed at the time as Network54 appeared to be having some sort problem and was going on and off-line at a rapid rate so that I kept losing my entry page. Seems to happen in the small hours for some reason, which is usually when I'm posting!

Clearly Mr Minogue was correct in saying LCC, since his account related to 'before the watershed 1960s' and you say the LCC was around until the mid 60s. Interesting to speculate on Mr Minogue's age, since you don't usually do supply teaching until you've got a few years normal teaching under your belt, let's say mid twenties, so doing supply teaching pre the 1960s probably puts him well into his mid seventies now.

Hi KK. An interesting observation. I suspect the two lads you comment on must be paragons of virtue. In my experience most lads fit enough to be active in sports are inclined to push the discipline limits every now and again. And two young brothers existing in total harmony - almost contrary to nature IMHO! You comment that:

there is more to be learned from families that work than those that don't.

Absolutely 100% correct. Sadly the silent majority seldom gets any attention until it gives politicians a good kicking at election time, and even then the effect quickly wears off with the new lot of politicians!

Hi Paul B. I'm glad we agree about political correctness. In general it is the refuge of those who are incapable of thinking for themselves and therefore like to be told what they should believe in terms their limited brain power can easily encompass.

Re witnessing canings. I hoped I'd been fairly careful to define my actual personal experience of school CP in my postings here, but I'd obviously managed to give you a wrong impression, for which I apologise. It may stem from the one time I recounted an incident at second hand, though with partial personal confirmation. I'm happy to say that the CP regimes at both schools I attended seem to have been rather milder than at your schools. As I've said elsewhere I never actually saw a cane throughout my schooling except for the one which lay ceremoniously on the table during my one appearance before the prefects court at secondary school. Happily I only got lines!

Hi Doctor Dominum. A most interesting thread. Your comments have caused me to try to acquaint myself with at least a basic knowledge of ADHD and Asperger's Syndrome. In the latter case at least I initially thought I had some concept of what it meant. On that basis I was concerned by your assertion in one of your posts above that:

As for autism - if we talk about Asperger's specifically, again, corporal punishment seems to have a special role to play in my experience in managing mild cases.

Which seemed to me to be both wrong and rather heartless.

However I was mistaken! I have always contended that school corporal punishment certainly worked for me. My very first experience of it as a little lad convinced me that I didn't wish to encounter it again. I wasn't 100% sucessful, but I worked hard enough and behaved well enough to avoid all but one more incident. In the process, I'm very happy and grateful to say, I also ensured a reasonably pleasant and remunerative career for myself. As I read up on Asperger's I realised the desriptions applied to someone I knew rather well - myself when very young!

You mention that you had a lot of the common markers of Asperger's as a child. In my own case I had just about every indicator I found in descriptions of the condition. I think that had consideration of Asperger's been around in my early school days then a positive diagnosis would have been an absolute certainty!

I don't have sufficient information to deduce if this factor might account for the fact that school CP was undoubtedly rather more effective with me than it was with at least some of my contemporaries. However it certainly convinces me of the validity of your statement above regarding the role of CP in managing mild cases of Asperger's Syndrome. I'm making an assumption that my own case was in reality mild, since although some of the symptoms persisted into early adulthood I'd say I'm pretty well free of them now. Although come to think of it, don't they include excessive verbosity and an obsession with detail?

I found your comments on grief counselling extremely interesting. I have to confess that, belonging as I do to the 'stff upper lip, get on with life and make the best of it' generation, I've always sneered at this aspect of modern life. Possibly I was wrong.

And finally, your 'confiscation of tamagotchis' story brought back alarming memories. The then very young daughter of a friend once insisted that I was better qualified than her parents to look after her tamagotchi while she was in hospital for a short period. She was probably right, because there was no way her dad would have spent every waking moment 'petting' and trying to 'feed' the darn thing like I did. Even so it went into a sulk and nearly starved itself to death before I was able to restore it, barely alive, to its young owner who happily rapidly revived it. Who says computers are just machines!

Just read your comments Steve. Believe me, kids took their tamagotchis very seriously. I think it was partly competitive as well, who could keep them alive longest. Doctor Dominum's account may have been one of the very few cases when the full grief therapist thing may have actually been required!

A brief footnote. Reading my above post has almost convinced me that I should replace this ancient keyboard. Never mind the spelling mistakes, to which I'm prone anyway, just count the obvious missing letters. And after all they couldn't possibly be down to my careless typing, now could they!

A-L wrote: And two young brothers existing in total harmony - almost contrary to nature IMHO!

Unfortunately, in Westernised societies siblings often act as rivals when they could and should be natural allies - the advantages of cooperation are great. Such rivalry is not universal and is not common in less developed Asian countries, in my limited experience.

There is something wrong with our child rearing practices. What are children for? They are very expensive and often unsatisfactory pets. They can't be put to sleep or given away when you tire of them.

KK, you say:

What are children for? They are very expensive and often unsatisfactory pets. They can't be put to sleep or given away when you tire of them.

Hmm, even by my standards a touch cynical! We were all children once and I don't suppose that many of us were considered perfect little angels!

However, I have to agree with you that sibling rivalry is not universal. It seems to me that in poorer societies children often depend on older siblings for care for much of the time. Furter, that care seems to be freely and generously given, even when the older sibling concerned is, by western standards, very young indeed!

I wonder if affluence gives rise to sibling rivalry. Possibly competition is engendered when the prizes to be competed for are plentiful and obvious?