A Missed Opportunity

Anne Davis offers a personal reflection on the defeat of James Pawsey's amendment to the Education Bill

When MPs defeated James Pawsey's amendment to the Education Bill in January, they rejected an opportunity to represent the views of their constituents in a matter that has already been mishandled for too long.

Mr Pawsey's amendment concerned the restoration of corporal punishment in maintained schools. Not the return of caning, as it was represented in the media, but rather an evolution of choice, paying due respect to the philosophical convictions of parents and teachers alike (as mandated by the European Convention on Human Rights). It was an eminently sensible and reasonable amendment, catering as much for those who do not recognise the value of physical discipline as for those who do.

Better than exclusion

The main thrust of the proposal was to provide an alternative to exclusion, which many believe to be seriously damaging to the excluded pupil and which, far from 'strengthening the family', will often exacerbate existing problems. I believe carefully monitored physical discipline is infinitely preferable to exclusion, not least because it avoids:

• rejecting the child
• a breakdown, however temporary, of the education of the excluded child
• the possibility of pushing the 'problem child' unsupervised onto the streets

Ninety per cent of parents support the responsible use of physical discipline in the home and, according to recent surveys, two-thirds of the electorate support the right of schools to use this deterrent for bad behaviour. At the moment, that 67% are denied any choice in the matter (so much for parent power); their views and wishes are totally ignored. This lack of respect for the majority view - when there is no empirical evidence to prove them wrong - is not consistent with democracy. Neither is it compatible with common sense, particularly when the present system, in some cases, is shown so spectacularly to be failing.

Although there was no official whip on Labour MPs, not a single honourable Member from their benches voted for Mr Pawsey's amendment, even though a number are believed to be privately in favour. John Major applied a partial whip, allowing his backbenchers a free vote, but not his ministers, demonstrating a gross misjudgment on his part.

Whatever one's view on the physical discipline of children, what made the carefully-constructed amendment so workable was that it offered physical punishment solely as an alternative to exclusion for any pupil whose behaviour had already merited that punishment. The parents of the pupil would then decide which strategy to accept.

Respect for all

But it not only offered parents a choice; it also respected the views of those responsible for determining the discipline strategy of the school - the headteacher and the governing body. No headteacher would have been mandated to offer corporal punishment if it went against his personal convictions. The amendment was utterly permissive and liberal in that it afforded respect for all points of view without compromising any.

Despite the baying of the 'politically correct', Mr Pawsey's proposal was not a retrograde move but, like the renewed emphasis on whole class teaching and a phonic approach to reading, one which showed we can learn from the mistakes and injustices of the recent past. For those who think it did not go far enough, it nevertheless offered the hope that it could be a catalyst for further reform, if it proved to do what they believed it would.

An urgent need

What is the point of discussing tougher measures for criminals while still refusing any reasonable and moderate check on unruly school children? This confused thinking has resulted in a fourfold increase in expulsions of primary pupils since 1990, with assaults on teachers reaching 4,000 a year and overall expulsions in England and Wales rising to 11,000 a year.

When Gateshead principal John Burn called for the immediate reinstatement of corporal punishment in schools last September, he predicted 'the rise in expulsions will reach such a pitch within a few years that corporal punishment will have to come back.' Let's hope our parliamentary representatives have the courage to act before yet more damage is done to our children and their schools.

This article was originally published in Families for Discipline newsletter, Issue 5, Spring 1997.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.