Accounts from Greenfield Primary School in Oldham, previously circulated though now difficult to trace to their original publication, appear to suggest that at one period the only officially authorised instrument of corporal punishment within the jurisdiction of the West Riding County Council Local Education Authority was “a thin flexible cane”, supplied by the authority itself. According to the regulations, such punishment was to be administered solely by the head teacher, by the teacher temporarily in charge of the school, or by a properly authorised assistant teacher possessing not less than three years’ experience after qualification. Girls were to be punished only by female staff, while children in the infants’ departments were exempt from caning save in exceptional circumstances, corporal punishment in those cases being restricted to the use of the open hand.
The punishment records covering the years 1974 to 1982 indicate that pupils aged between six and eleven received disciplinary punishments almost exclusively “with the flat of the hand” upon the buttocks, with a single instance described as a slap upon the back of the leg. If the Local Education Authority regulations reproduced in the punishment book were indeed still operative at the time, it would appear that older pupils ought properly to have been punished only with the authorised cane, unless the term “infants” was being interpreted unusually broadly to include all primary-age children.
One is left to conclude either that the authority’s regulations were observed rather loosely in practice, which was by no means uncommon, or that the punishment register itself originated somewhat earlier than 1974 and that the regulations reproduced within it had already been superseded by the period covered in the entries shown. It is perhaps surprising that journalists and broadcasters of the time seldom troubled themselves with such discrepancies, though naturally some readers are more attentive to administrative detail than others.
Knowledge of educational practice in Greater Manchester during earlier decades is by no means universal. Nevertheless, it has often been suggested that many schools in the region followed the commonly accepted convention whereby girls were punished upon the hands while boys were punished upon the buttocks, usually by a teacher of the same sex as the child concerned. Exceptions and local variations undoubtedly existed. Certain secondary schools, whether mixed or single-sex institutions, administered the cane or strap upon the hands of both boys and girls alike. The continued use of the tawse in Scotland provides a notable example of regional variation.
Comparatively little attention has been paid over the years to the relationship between domestic discipline and disciplinary methods employed in schools. During the 1950s and into the 1960s many families continued to regard corporal punishment as an acceptable means of correcting both boys and girls, although practices naturally varied considerably from household to household. Some families never employed such methods at all, while others considered them entirely proper and necessary. In that social climate, school corporal punishment was frequently regarded merely as an extension of parental authority.
Unlike schools, however, family discipline was subject to few clearly defined regulations unless conduct crossed the uncertain boundary into physical abuse. In most cases discipline was administered moderately and within the accepted conventions of the period, though regrettably this was not always so. It was not uncommon for boys to speak openly of punishments received at home, and some appeared noticeably more accustomed than others to severe disciplinary measures at school, suggesting that similar practices may already have formed part of their domestic upbringing. Families differed widely in their attitudes: some objected strongly to corporal punishment in schools, while others imposed additional sanctions at home if informed that a child had been punished during the school day.
Practices once widely accepted have now passed firmly into history, the transition from official approval to legal prohibition having taken place within living memory.
As with school discipline, accounts of corporal punishment within the home range from the entirely ordinary to the deeply troubling. Some of the more extreme stories are undoubtedly true, while certain apparently modest accounts are less reliable than they first appear. Readers must therefore exercise their own judgement.
One contributor recalls no personal experience of corporal punishment within the family, having been regarded as an obedient and compliant elder child whose comparatively mild behaviour contrasted sharply with that of a more unruly younger sibling. The writer’s mother, however, did at one stage purchase a cane from a local shop selling children’s goods, apparently in the hope that its mere presence might deter misconduct by the younger child. In the event, the cane was never used and was quietly disposed of at the earliest opportunity.
It has also been suggested that this purchase may have been influenced by a family acquaintance employed as a domestic cleaner, a woman described as representing decidedly traditional views on child discipline. Though no direct knowledge existed regarding the treatment of her own children, it was widely assumed that corporal punishment formed part of their upbringing. She reportedly spoke quite openly of one daughter having been caned at school and warned that similar punishment might await other children whose behaviour failed to meet her approval. Given her views regarding even the most well-behaved youngsters, it seems likely that she would have advocated particularly stern measures for more troublesome children.
