Another question naturally follows.
If punishment worked, did greater severity make it work better?
The survey provides little support for such a simple conclusion.
Small Punishments Could Work
Several respondents receiving comparatively modest punishments stated that they did not repeat their offence.
This indicates that severity alone was not essential.
The knowledge that a rule would be enforced could sometimes be sufficient.
Severe Punishments Could Fail
Conversely, substantial punishment did not guarantee success.
The boarding-school respondent who received repeated formal punishments continued committing dormitory offences.
The existence of a strong penalty did not eliminate the behaviour.
Individual Differences
Different pupils responded differently to the same threat.
A naturally cautious child might be deterred by seeing another pupil punished.
A more adventurous pupil might require personal experience.
A habitual offender might eventually become accustomed to punishment altogether.
The Teacher’s Judgement
This placed considerable responsibility upon teachers.
A fixed tariff could not take account of every pupil.
The teacher had to decide whether the child required a warning, detention, formal punishment or some other response.
Severity Could Become the Story
There was also a danger that excessive punishment might overshadow the original offence.
Instead of remembering why he had been punished, the pupil might remember only what he regarded as the teacher’s unreasonable severity.
At that point the intended moral lesson could be lost.
Certainty May Have Mattered More
The survey repeatedly suggests that certainty and consistency were at least as important as severity.
The pupil who knew that a clear rule would always be enforced had a reason to obey it.
An unpredictable system could encourage pupils to gamble upon escaping detection.
The evidence therefore provides no basis for assuming that the most severe school was necessarily the most orderly.
Discipline was more complicated than that.
