Warnings appear repeatedly in the survey and deserve consideration in their own right.
They formed an intermediate stage between acceptable conduct and formal punishment.
A Chance to Stop
The simplest purpose of a warning was to give the pupil an opportunity to correct his behaviour.
The nine-year-old throwing paper in 1953 had been told to stop.
Had he done so, the punishment might never have occurred.
By continuing, he converted a minor piece of mischief into deliberate disobedience.
A General Warning
Warnings could also be issued to an entire school or class.
In the 1952 snowball incident, pupils had been clearly informed that snowball throwing was forbidden and that offenders would be sent to the headmistress.
The respondent nevertheless broke the rule.
From the school’s viewpoint, the subsequent punishment therefore followed an announced consequence.
More Than One Warning
One account from a private English school specifically states that two previous warnings had been given before the pupil received a formal punishment from the headmaster.
The respondent later regarded the punishment as effective.
This suggests a deliberate progression:
warning,
second warning,
formal punishment.
Why Warnings Matter
Warnings alter the meaning of punishment.
There is a considerable difference between a pupil being punished without knowing that his behaviour was prohibited and a pupil deliberately continuing after being told to stop.
The latter case was more likely to be interpreted as defiance.
The Teacher Who Warned Too Often
Warnings could nevertheless lose their value if never enforced.
A teacher who repeatedly threatened consequences but failed to carry them out risked weakening his or her authority.
For a warning to deter, pupils had to believe that the threatened consequence was real.
Certainty Rather Than Severity
This raises an important possibility.
Effective discipline may have depended less upon severe punishment than upon certainty.
A moderate consequence which pupils knew would follow misconduct could exert greater influence than a severe penalty which was rarely or unpredictably imposed.
The survey cannot prove this statistically.
But many of its accounts support the importance of clear warnings followed by predictable action.
The warning was therefore not merely a preliminary to punishment.
It was itself part of the disciplinary system.
