[HPFGU-OTChatter] Re: School Daze; Was Summer Birthdays

[Shaun Hately]

On 15 Oct 2003 at 16:22, msbeadsley wrote:

> > Heh - I might have tried that if I'd thought I'd have had a hope at 
> > all of winning - but I was attacked by groups of over 100 kids at a 
> > time. Fighting back in any form just didn't work.
> 
> It boggles my mind that you survived. It *must* have been hell. I 
> thought getting beaten up just a couple of times by individuals and 
> mugged once by a group of several girls was bad enough. I still 
> wonder that you didn't wait until you could get a tormenter alone and 
> have a go at one of them now and then; or did dire repercussions 
> always follow?

It just wasn't really an option. That school kept us all in a fairly restricted area - it 
really was not that possible to get anyone alone. Fact is most of the times I was 
attacked took place in clear view of teachers - it was just that they didn't care at all 
about doing anything about it. It was a combination of factors - one was that the 
school leadership was *very* anti-punishment, and *very* pro-freedom - so even if 
teachers wanted to take action, they knew they'd rarely get backup. Partly it was 
they'd embraced a very new method of conflict resolution in the school, which 
meant that bullies were seen as people with problems who needed help - which I 
can agree with to an extent, in many cases, but this school went way too far - and 
so if any action was taken, it involved getting the bully counselling. It might have 
even worked for some of them - but the whole system broke down when they were 
dealing with serious assaults, which needed much more serious treatment. And it 
broke down further still, when there were so many kids involved, they couldn't 
hope to deal with it through counselling, because there just weren't the resources.

Two days a week I was relatively safe - Tuesday and Thursday when I could go to 
the library at recess and lunchtime. Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, the 
library was set aside for use by girls only - and I had to be out on the playground.

After I was finally left unconscious by a beating, and an ambulance had to be 
called, the school came up with a solution - it gave me lunchtime detention for the 
rest of the year. That way, nobody could get at me at lunchtime. Seemed to me 
rather weird, though - they couldn't give the bullies detentions because that might 
negatively impact their self opinions. But they could do it to the victim.
 
> > Only once at the school from hell, did I take any action to defend 
> > myself - grabbing the hair of a boy who was crushing me against a 
> > wall with his motorised wheelchair in clear view of a teacher who 
> > did nothing - except come after me with a detention for defending 
> > myself. I'm not sure if that bully was worthy of protection because 
> > he was in a wheelchair (which he used to great effect as a weapon), 
> > or if it was the fact that his mother was a Cabinet Minister, that 
> > gave him special privileges.
> 
> This is a good reminder that just because someone has special needs 
> or is a member of a minority or may have suffered that they are not 
> necessarily "nobler" than the general populace. The world is not made 
> up of good guys and Death Eaters, to paraphrase.

In actual fact, this guy wasn't that bad - I had a fair amount to do with him a few 
years later, and he was a nice enough fellow then - but back in Year 7, he'd been 
in the situation where he knew he was a potential target, and in a school where 
there was little sign anyone would do anything to stop that, he took the approach 
of joining the bullies for protection. I don't like what he did - I could never have 
made that choice - but he was in a pretty awful situation as well.
 
> > I don't think corporal punishment reinforces acceptance of 
> > violence. I never have. I think kids are easily intelligent enough 
> > to understand the difference between corporal punishment and 
> > violence in general, and understand that the latter is not 
> > acceptable, even in environments where the former is - and there's 
> > studies to back that up.
> 
> There are also studies which illustrate that corporal punishment 
> *does* reinforce acceptance of violence. The American Academy of 
> Pediatricians cited this as a reason in the statement they issued 
> opposing the use of corporal punishment in schools.

This is an issue, I've had to look at on a number of levels. Primarily, because I'm 
on a series of committees for my old school (the good school!) looking at things 
like bullying and discipline and other things as well. In addition, my paid 
employment involves looking at studies, all sorts of research, into public safety 
issues, and analysing those studies (and often the raw data if it's available) to 
work out if they really show what the authors claim they show, and if the data is 
reliable (for example, are sample sizes large enough, etc). And as I'm studying in 
a large University with many large reference libraries, including a specialist 
Education library, I have pretty access to the studies.

The thing is - I've looked at a lot of data, and studies, including those commonly 
cited by the AAP - the one they most commonly cite as showing what you are 
describing is Murray Straus 'Spanking and the Making of a Violent Society'. I've 
looked at that study and others - and, IMHO, they're not academically credible 
enough to make recommendations based on them - what they may be is a pointer 
to where further research is needed (Straus certainly identifies issues that need to 
be examined further to see if they are true - but he doesn't show more than the 
possibility that they *may* be true).

That AAP, by the way, has also moderated its position on corporal punishment in 
schools over the last five years, because it has accepted that the data it was 
using is sketchy as well. As a body they still don't support it (though a significant 
number of its members disagree with that position) but it's not controversial at all 
to point out the weakness of the studies they used - that's accepted. Their 
position now seems to be more like 'We have evidence that this *might be* a bad 
idea, so why risk it until we have more data', rather than 'We have evidence that 
this *is* a bad idea'.

I can understand that position and I think it's a reasonable one on the face of 
things. But my view is, in a situation where you have conflicting data, with studies 
on both sides, you maintain the status quo until you have better data. I'd oppose 
any schools reintroducing corporal punishment if they don't have it, until there's 
better data, *but* I also don't think schools that are using it should abolish it until 
there's better data either (at least, not over that particular issue - there may be 
other good arguments for abolition in certain cases, for example, if it's being used 
in a racially unbalanced way which seems to be possible in some parts of the US).

The best analysis I've ever seen on Corporal Punishment in schools (and the one 
that most closely matches my perceptions, and experiences) is now 31 years old, 
and would need to be redone before I'd want to rely on it - but my feeling is that it 
is probably still accurate *with regards to the type of school I attended* - that's the 
other issue - the area isn't black and white. It does come down to the attitudes in 
particular schools, and groups, etc. I'd certainly agree there are some schools it 
shouldn't be used in, but I just think it has a place for some schools as well. 
 
> Kids also "understand" that smoking cigarettes leads to bad breath, 
> general smelliness, stained teeth, addiction, expense, burn holes in 
> favorite garments, and health problems. And they are swayed in 
> significant numbers every year to take up the filthy habit; how does 
> *that* happen to "easily intelligent enough" kids?

There's a real difference between 'understanding' and how people respond to 
those understandings - especially kids. But I don't think the situations are 
comparable.

When talking about whether or not corporal punishment leads to a reinforcement 
of acceptance of violence, we are - by definition - talking about attitudes 
('acceptance') of something. We are talking about understanding. So in that case, 
understanding is a core issue.

When talking about smoking, understanding is *far* less important than actions. 
It's not the core issue - though it can have some impact on it.

If physical punishment in schools, lead to increased student-student violence, 
you'd have a situation where actions became more important than understanding - 
but trying to work out if that's the case or not is extremely difficult. Here in my 
state, where corporal punishment was banned in state schools 20 years ago, the 
level of reported violence in those schools has more than quadrupled over those 
20 years - but nobody can clearly say what the causes of that are, or quantify it 
(or for that matter, even be entirely certain how real the increase actually is).  

In the few schools that have continued to use corporal punishment, levels have 
remained constant and lower - but, again, saying what the causes of that are, is 
*very* tricky.

I actually know someone who is trying to get funding to do some serious research 
into this at the moment - I'd love to see that happen.
 
> I like, and conclude with, the following quote by Dr. Benjamin Spock:
> 
> If we are ever to turn toward a kindlier society and a safer world, a 
> revulsion against the physical punishment of children would be a good 
> place to start.

Spock, frankly, baffles me on this. He was (probably more than anyone else) most 
responsible for the fact that the use of corporal punishment diminished over the 
period from around 1960 or so. Yet, in 1989, he started saying that the fact that 
"ever-rising figures for murders within the family, wife abuse, and child abuse in 
America" were a reason to stop parents spanking their kids...

His position doesn't seem to make much sense to me, honestly - he's partly 
responsible for the decreased use of corporal punishment - but when crime and 
abuse figures are up, he claims it's because of spanking. So apparently less 
spanking leads to increased societal violence, so we should do less of it...

No, I don't believe that - but it is pretty much the position he took in 1989. So I find 
it rather hard to take his statements on that seriously.

I'm not anti-Spock - I think he did a great deal of good, overall (though he made 
some mistakes on a few issues - some of which he admitted). But while he was a 
leader in the field in 1946, I think he's been superseded - and while many of his 
ideas have remained in the mainstream, others have been modified.

And the statement above - well, I just can't really agree with it. While a kindlier 
society, and a safer world, are great ideas in theory, kids have to live in the world 
we have now. I'm of the personal opinion that part of my childhood was 
deliberately sacrificed my people for their own politico-social ends, and I didn't 
like it. No matter how worthy their ultimate goals were, I'm the one who had to pay 
the price for them. They didn't.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia