SURVEY: School punishment, too harsh or justified?

[OldSiamHand]

15 hours ago, smccolley said:

My son is not that diligent a student and when he has willfully ignored a  homework assignment,  I would not be opposed to a reasonable level of corporal punishment.

 

On the other hand, my daughter is ranked number one in the east on a number of subjects and she was spanked because another person in the class was bad. I called the teacher out on that one and it has stopped.

 

I think it depends on the student, but it takes a special teacher to know when it might be right... I don't think there are a lot of teachers in Thailand that know the difference.

whatever that means, it sounds impressive.  how does she compare against the champ from the west?

[Bluespunk]

13 minutes ago, OldSiamHand said:

Actually, the survey is worded in such a way that you are forced to choose the answer that schools can use punishment "under special circumstances" as opposed to "never".  To take an extreme example, what if the child is holding a knife or other instrument and is threatening another child and is about to inflict harm on that other child?  Your only option, as a teacher, is to take action that might result in the laying of hands on that child.   Those are "special circumstances" that would merit the laying of hands.  Never say never.    

The survey is referring to the use of violence as discipline, not the disarming of someone armed with a weapon. 

 

The two are not the same. 

 

So I repeat...regarding the use of violence as discipline is never justified. 

 

Any teacher assaulting a child has no place in the profession. 

Edited November 27, 2017 by Bluespunk

[smccolley]

Just now, OldSiamHand said:

whatever that means, it sounds impressive.  how does she compare against the champ from the west?

She probably does not compare very well to all students everywhere, but it does show that she is diligent and punishing her for other's behavior is not appropriate. It actually made her afraid to go to school until we confronted the teacher and it stopped.

[rkidlad]

20 minutes ago, OldSiamHand said:

Actually, the survey is worded in such a way that you are forced to choose the answer that schools can use punishment "under special circumstances" as opposed to "never".  To take an extreme example, what if the child is holding a knife or other instrument and is threatening another child and is about to inflict harm on that other child?  Your only option, as a teacher, is to take action that might result in the laying of hands on that child.   Those are "special circumstances" that would merit the laying of hands.  Never say never.    

Yea, that goes without saying. Laying hands on means to assault. Not to restrain. 

[connda]

10 hours ago, Bluespunk said:

The fact you laughed it off shows it does not work. 

 

Children need to understand why their behaviour is unacceptable. 

 

Violence (and striking a child is violence) does not do that. 

I may have laughed if off, but as a general rule, I didn't repeat the same behaviors twice. So actually, it worked just fine.

So, yeah, I'm a proponent of measured, thought-out corporal punishment.  My own child had two spankings in her entire life to stop very specific behaviors.  It's the last tool in the toolbox!   It got hauled out when her behavior bordered on endangering the herself or others, and considering that I virtually never used that option, when I finally did - I got her attention and the behavior stopped.

Regarding Thai teacher's liberal overuse of corporal punishment.  I'm with the rest of ya'll. It isn't the first tool in the toolbox of behavior management.  And it's overuse should be address and sanctioned by school officials.

Now, regarding the assertions by many of you that children should never receive corporal punishment under any circumstances:  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I doubt if I'm going to change your minds, or vice versa.  

[Bluespunk]

Just now, connda said:

I may have laughed if off, but as a general rule, I didn't repeat the same behaviors twice. So actually, it worked just fine.

So, yeah, I'm a proponent of measured, thought-out corporal punishment.  My own child had two spankings in her entire life to stop very specific behaviors.  It's the last tool in the toolbox!   It got hauled out when her behavior bordered on endangering the herself or others, and considering that I virtually never used that option, when I finally did - I got her attention and the behavior stopped.

Regarding Thai teacher's liberal overuse of corporal punishment.  I'm with the rest of ya'll. It isn't the first tool in the toolbox of behavior management.  And it's overuse should be address and sanctioned by school officials.

Now, regarding the assertions by many of you that children should never receive corporal punishment under any circumstances:  We'll have to agree to disagree.  I doubt if I'm going to change your minds, or vice versa.  

Been teaching 28 years and have never struck a child and never considered doing so.

 

There are much better and more effect methods of helping children learn appropriate responces and behaviours.

[connda]

2 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

Been teaching 28 years and have never struck a child and never considered doing so.

 

There are much better and more effect methods of helping children learn appropriate responces and behaviours.

I respect your approach and hope you had naught be successes.  

[Orton Rd]

21 hours ago, rkidlad said:

There's zero reason to be laying hands on a child. It's lazy and regressive. 

Quite right, a cane should be used not hands, long shwishy ones are best

[OldSiamHand]

28 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The survey is referring to the use of violence as discipline, not the disarming of someone armed with a weapon. 

 

The two are not the same. 

 

So I repeat...regarding the use of violence as discipline is never justified. 

 

Any teacher assaulting a child has no place in the profession. 

Discipline is using punishment to correct disobedience.  If you don't like that example, there are many others.  What if a student walks up to you and is about to strike you?  Would you consider grabbing their hand before they struck, or possibly pushing them out of the way, or raising your arm to counter the blow?  What if the student was hitting another student?  You'd likely restrain that student physically.  That's all physical discipline  (the survey does not refer to violent discipline, or assaulting a child as you state).

 

So I repeat. . . never say never.

[Bluespunk]

8 minutes ago, OldSiamHand said:

Discipline is using punishment to correct disobedience.  If you don't like that example, there are many others.  What if a student walks up to you and is about to strike you?  Would you consider grabbing their hand before they struck, or possibly pushing them out of the way, or raising your arm to counter the blow?  What if the student was hitting another student?  You'd likely restrain that student physically.  That's all physical discipline  (the survey does not refer to violent discipline, or assaulting a child as you state).

 

So I repeat. . . never say never.

And I repeat you are mixing up different things. 

 

The situations you describe are not discipline.

 

Self defence is not the same as striking a student as a disciplinary measure.

 

I’ve always found it is possible to stop students fighting each other without striking them.

 

Vilence is never justified as a means of discipline. 

[OldSiamHand]

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

And I repeat you are mixing up different things. 

 

The situations you describe are not discipline.

 

Self defence is not the same as striking a student as a disciplinary measure.

 

I’ve always found it is possible to stop students fighting each other without striking them.

 

Vilence is never justified as a means of discipline. 

No, I'm just reading the survey question.  The survey does not make any reference to violence as a means of "physical discipline" as you keep asserting.  There is no reference to striking students either.  The survey refers to physical discipline, which encompasses any physical contact.  If you've laid hands on the students who were fighting each other (assuming this is how you handled the situation) without striking them, then you used "physical discipline under special circumstances". 

Edited November 27, 2017 by OldSiamHand

[humbug]

3 hours ago, LazySlipper said:

IMHO the real problem is also the parents, but coming in very close second is the schools. Been here a long time and as a teacher first question I ask is, "What is the discipline policy?"

 

Most schools don't have one so I am left to improvisation. Lunchtime detention is out cos the little darlings must eat and relax. Copying lines is out because they will hate writing, even if they never have the intention of writing anything else other than their names. Timeout in the hallway is out cos you can't kick a child out.

 

The big problem is that schools are their to teach socialization and interacting with others to children. A school is meant to get the kids ready for the bigger world out their. Rather, they are taught that they live in a world without consequences. Proof to the matter, all we need to look at is the abhorrent driving demonstrated on Thai roads. Maybe if people stopped coming up with goofy child psychology theories and got back to basics their would be no survey asking about this problem because the problem wouldn't exist.

the teaching industry is close to becoming the factory work of our time so its no wonder thai/foreign teachers are unskilled to use behaviour analysis or trying to find the correct levels of students along with keeping disruptions to a minimum and allowing more focus and engagement.

 

negative re-inforcement and positive re-inforcement as well as observing throughout the day would be a start but then the pay/motivation is lousy and that is when the use of sticks is prevelant as they dont care to be better skilled or dont know how to better skilled as teachers. Then you have the huge competition for students even at the cheaper schools so everyone wants keep the client happy and paying the fees.

[Bluespunk]

32 minutes ago, OldSiamHand said:

No, I'm just reading the survey question.  The survey does not make any reference to violence as a means of "physical discipline" as you keep asserting.  There is no reference to striking students either.  The survey refers to physical discipline, which encompasses any physical contact.  If you've laid hands on the students who were fighting each other (assuming this is how you handled the situation) without striking them, then you used "physical discipline under special circumstances". 

The survey does indeed refer to physical discipline which equates as to striking a student as a means of discipline.

 

That is violence.

 

That is assault.

 

I haven't had to strike a child [and have never considered doing so] on any occasion, including breaking up fights.

 

I've never had a student move to strike me and I have worked with very disturbed young adults inside and outside schools.

[OldSiamHand]

5 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

The survey does indeed refer to physical discipline which equates as to striking a student as a means of discipline.

 

That is violence.

 

That is assault.

 

I haven't had to strike a child [and have never considered doing so] on any occasion, including breaking up fights.

 

I've never had a student move to strike me and I have worked with very disturbed young adults inside and outside schools.

Okay, now let's take it a step further.  You say physical discipline equates as to striking a student as a means of discipline.  If so, then why not state as much in the survey for a much clearer meaning (i.e. is  "striking a student as a means of discipline" ever acceptable?).  Instead we are left with "physical discipline"  which does not merely equate to striking students.  A teacher restraining the hand of a child striking another child would be "physical discipline".   

[Bluespunk]

Just now, OldSiamHand said:

Okay, now let's take it a step further.  You say physical discipline equates as to striking a student as a means of discipline.  If so, then why not state as much in the survey for a much clearer meaning (i.e. is  "striking a student as a means of discipline" ever acceptable?).  Instead we are left with "physical discipline"  which does not merely equate to striking students.  A teacher restraining the hand of a child striking another child would be "physical discipline".   

I disagree  completely on your definition of ''physical discipline''

 

The survey is about the use of physical discipline [i.e. the use of violence to discipline children] as a punishment, not stopping a fight.

 

However... I've never had to ''restrain hands'' in 28 years.

[OldSiamHand]

11 minutes ago, Bluespunk said:

I disagree  completely on your definition of ''physical discipline''

 

The survey is about the use of physical discipline [i.e. the use of violence to discipline children] as a punishment, not stopping a fight.

 

However... I've never had to ''restrain hands'' in 28 years.

You're of course more than entitled to disagree, but you prove my point with your language in brackets.  If the survey used that language rather than the more ambiguous "physical discipline" reference, I'd be on board.

[Nice Boyd]

On 11/26/2017 at 10:44 AM, Wilsonandson said:

Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves.

 

I was spanked and god knows what else, I have never laid a hand on my three children

[mrwebb8825]

I chose option 1 - my reasoning is that the Thai people are only about 100 yrs out of living in the jungle, riding buffalo and using elephants in war where as most of us are not from that type of a past.

I don't agree with anything more than a rap on the knuckles or a swat across the butt though.

[Scott]

This thread may be of interest: