Teachers attacked

[oldspice]

Yes, our teachers threw board rubbers too.

 

We still have them for white boards but they are light, spongey things. Of course, we're not allowed to throw them at students nowadays. What works for me if someone is not paying attention is to stop talking and to look very hard at the culprit. This draws attention to them so that the whole class startsto look at them too. They usually get embarrassed. However, the real trick is not to talk too much in a lesson at all. A concise introduction with a variety of activities and a five minute plenary at the end is enough, I find.

[loulou]

I would never hit a child.

 

 

I would if they were being naughty.

[Scarlet Passion]

I was smacked as a child, but I don't consider that I was ever hit.

 

I think people forget or perhaps can't see any more that there is a difference between smacking and hitting. There is a difference between smacking/disciplining and abuse.

The difference is the intent behind the action. I would use smacking as a way of correcting unnacceptable behaviour.

I agree with Loulou it never did me any harm.

 

 

[oldspice]

I think the important point is that if you had to be smacked more than once it did not serve to correct unaccetable behaviour, it simply acted as a form of punishment.

The problem with smacking is that the person on the receiving end quickly associates the smack as a consequence of the bad behaviour, therefore, once the smack has been administered, the punishment is over and the smacker/smack receiver are all square. This does not change behaviour, it simply makes the smack receiver accept punishment for their actions.

 

[smurfboy]

I think people forget or perhaps can't see any more that there is a difference between smacking and hitting. There is a difference between smacking/disciplining and abuse.

I agree to an extent, but the problem is that if smacking is legal, where do we draw the line? What one parent considers firm discipline could be considered abuse by someone else, or the child. If a child is being genuinely hurt and tells their teacher (for example), what is to stop the parents saying 'it was only a smack because they were being naughty'? The lines become too blurred.

The phrase 'never did me any harm' seems to be coming up a lot - but perhaps what we should be asking is, does it do any good?

[Scarlet Passion]

I agree to an extent, but the problem is that if smacking is legal, where do we draw the line? What one parent considers firm discipline could be considered abuse by someone else, or the child. If a child is being genuinely hurt and tells their teacher (for example), what is to stop the parents saying 'it was only a smack because they were being naughty'? The lines become too blurred.

Yes I agree with that, and there should be a point at which all hitting stops, but I think even if you do hit your kids some part of you knows it is wrong and/or too much, too far. And obviously cases where the child complains of abuse like that should be investigated by people qualified to assess such things. But realistically, not simply from a standpoint of "Well any form of physical contact even for disciplinary purposes is abuse," because that simply is not so.

The phrase 'never did me any harm' seems to be coming up a lot - but perhaps what we should be asking is, does it do any good?

My mum would say yes, and I would agree with her.

I think I appreciated knowing that if I was naughty I would be punished. It gave me clear boundaries and a certain knowledge of consequences.

Both of which seem to be lacking in kids today. They know that whatever they do they not only will not be punished, in most cases they CANNOT be punished! What on earth does that teach them about fairness and honesty, or respect and self discipline?

How are they supposed to know what is and isn't acceptable behaviour if no-one ever punishes their behaviour however bad or criminal it gets?

 

My mum ended up with a child with good manners (holding doors open, and still saying please and thankyou even now!) I do not drink to excess, I do not smoke, have never touched drugs at all and apart from my one small brush with petty thieving as a youngster have never broken any laws. I study and revise when necessary, and I'm doing quite well in college and I am no where near as boring as I sound honest!

I think my mum is proud of me, and I would have no problems bringing up any kids of mine in exactly the same way, as it did work, for me.

Perhaps you would say I am one of the lucky ones and perhaps you are right, but I do know this. I do not resent or hate my mum for smacking me, I do not wish she hadn't and it did not make me violent towards other people. I don't fight ( but would defend myself if necessary) and I don't carry a weapon of any kind.

None of my teachers are afraid of me and they have no need to be.

[oldspice]

I don't think your mum needs to be hated or resented but you might have been just as nice and law-abiding without any smacking!

 

I wasn't smacked and I haven't smacked my children and we've all turned out okay.

[Scarlet Passion]

That is very true Oldspice.

I must admit that thinking about it, individual personality might be just as important to the person you turn out to be as environment, breeding, religion or anything else really. If you simply don't have the temperament or inclination to be a criminal/ruffian/undesirable then maybe that is how some people brought up in the hardest of circumstances rise above it, whereas some kids brought up in the most favourable of families with every advantage available to them turn out to be some of the vilest people ever born.

That is a good thought. Thanks.