School discipline was concerned not only with what pupils did but with whether they admitted doing it.
Honesty could therefore become part of the disciplinary process.
Being Caught
The simplest case was the pupil caught directly by a teacher.
There was little room for argument.
The boy running along a corridor who encountered a senior member of staff had been seen committing the offence.
Likewise, a pupil caught talking after being told to remain silent could hardly dispute what had happened.
In such circumstances the question was generally not guilt but punishment.
The Denial
More difficult were cases where a pupil denied the accusation.
The 1958 case involving alleged cheating illustrates the problem clearly.
The pupil maintained that another boy had copied his work rather than the reverse.
The school rejected his explanation.
His parents later accepted it.
The disciplinary issue therefore became a dispute over truth.
No increase or decrease in punishment could resolve the central problem if the wrong pupil had been blamed.
Admitting Fault
Several respondents show a noticeably different attitude when they accepted responsibility.
They might dislike the punishment while still describing it as deserved.
One contributor, reflecting upon a formal punishment, stated in substance that he had no grounds for denying his guilt.
This acceptance appears closely connected with his conclusion that the punishment had been effective.
Confession and Leniency
The survey does not contain enough systematic evidence to establish whether confession regularly resulted in a reduced punishment.
Individual teachers undoubtedly differed.
Some may have regarded honesty as a reason for leniency.
Others may have believed that admitting an offence merely confirmed the need for the penalty already decided upon.
What matters is that truthfulness formed part of the moral framework surrounding school discipline.
Informing on Others
Another difficulty arose when pupils knew who had committed an offence but refused to identify the culprit.
Teachers might regard this silence as obstructive.
Pupils could regard informing as disloyal.
The school and the playground therefore operated according to different expectations.
A child could satisfy one code only by breaking the other.
Responsibility
The strongest disciplinary accounts are often those in which responsibility is clear.
The pupil knew the rule.
He broke it.
He was caught.
He accepted that he had done wrong.
Punishment followed.
Whether one agrees with the method or not, the sequence was understood.
The most troublesome cases were those in which responsibility remained disputed.
Corporal punishment could enforce obedience.
It could not establish truth.
If the original judgement of guilt was wrong, the punishment merely made that error more serious.
