An unusual punishment could sometimes have greater effect precisely because it was unusual.
The 1959 account of a thirteen-year-old boy punished for the standard of his work provides a particularly useful example.
An Unexpected Decision
The respondent stated that teachers at his school did not normally cane pupils themselves.
He was therefore surprised when his teacher decided to do so.
The unusual nature of the event gave it additional significance.
Poor Work
The offence was not fighting, smoking or truancy.
It concerned the standard of his work.
The teacher evidently believed that the pupil was capable of doing better and that the poor standard resulted from insufficient effort or care.
Four strokes were administered in an empty classroom.
The Result
The pupil stated that he became much more careful with his work for the remainder of the year.
He regarded the punishment as effective.
This is an interesting contrast with schools where corporal punishment occurred frequently.
Rarity and Impact
If a teacher punished pupils every day, the event could become routine.
If a teacher almost never used the cane, the sudden decision to do so sent a strong message.
The pupil understood that the teacher regarded the matter as exceptional.
Reputation Without Frequent Use
This suggests that disciplinary authority did not necessarily require frequent punishment.
A teacher could maintain order through reputation, expectations and ordinary sanctions while reserving corporal punishment for rare occasions.
Indeed, rarity might increase its deterrent value.
A Wider Lesson
This case demonstrates again why raw totals are misleading.
A teacher who caned one pupil in a year might have exercised enormous disciplinary influence.
Another who punished pupils weekly might have found the method increasingly ineffective.
Frequency and effectiveness were not necessarily the same thing.
Sometimes the unusual punishment was memorable precisely because it broke the ordinary pattern of school life.
