One argument often made by supporters of corporal punishment is that no single discipline method works for every child. They point to approaches such as Thomas Gordon’s Parent Effectiveness Training (PET) and Teacher Effectiveness Training (TET), which emphasise communication, problem-solving, and positive discipline. While these methods are highly effective for many children, advocates argue that they are not universally successful. In settings such as schools, where staff may be responsible for hundreds or even thousands of pupils, they believe discipline policies must be capable of addressing every child’s behaviour, including those who do not respond to positive strategies alone.
Supporters of corporal punishment therefore argue that physical punishment should never be a first response. Instead, they see it as a last resort, used only after positive discipline techniques and other interventions have failed. From this perspective, the moral responsibility of teachers is to continue seeking ways to improve a child’s behaviour rather than abandoning them through exclusion or expulsion.
Critics challenge this position on ethical grounds. They argue that it is fundamentally wrong for an adult to inflict physical pain on a child, who is one of the most vulnerable members of society, in order to secure obedience. For them, the use of physical punishment is incompatible with modern standards of children’s rights and dignity.
Those defending corporal punishment respond that the greater moral failure is allowing a child to leave school without developing the self-discipline needed for adult life. They contend that if all reasonable methods have been tried without success, refusing to use an intervention that might be effective simply because it is unpopular or uncomfortable to administer could itself be viewed as unethical. Some also argue that, for certain children, a brief physical punishment may be less distressing than repeated detentions, lengthy exclusions, or permanent expulsion.
However, these arguments ultimately did not prevail in public policy. Corporal punishment in schools was abolished because governments increasingly concluded that physical punishment carried significant risks of physical and psychological harm, could damage relationships between adults and children, and was inconsistent with evolving standards of child protection and human rights. Research also showed that while corporal punishment might achieve immediate compliance, it did not consistently produce better long-term behaviour than non-physical disciplinary methods.
Another major factor was the increasing concern over school exclusions. Some supporters of corporal punishment argued that banning it removed one disciplinary option, leaving schools more likely to exclude difficult pupils. They pointed to reports that unlawful or informal exclusions had become widespread and argued that schools were too quick to remove challenging children rather than invest in supporting them.
For example, an inquiry led by the Children’s Commissioner for England reported that hundreds of schools were likely to have illegally excluded thousands of pupils, describing the practice as “a source of shame to the education system.” Supporters of corporal punishment cited findings such as these to argue that schools were giving up on children instead of finding effective ways to manage behaviour.
Despite these concerns, lawmakers concluded that the potential harms of corporal punishment outweighed its perceived benefits. Modern education policy instead promotes positive behaviour support, restorative practices, early intervention, and targeted support for pupils with behavioural difficulties. While debates continue over how best to manage serious misconduct in schools, the consensus in law and educational practice is that discipline should be achieved without the use of physical punishment.
