The authority to administer corporal punishment varied considerably from school to school. In some establishments the cane was reserved almost entirely for the headmaster or headmistress. In others, deputy heads, housemasters, senior mistresses and ordinary classroom teachers were also permitted to use it.
This distinction was important because the identity of the person administering the punishment often indicated its seriousness.
A minor offence might be dealt with immediately by a teacher using the slipper. More serious or repeated misconduct could result in the offender being sent to a senior member of staff.
Thus there existed, in many schools, an informal scale of punishment.
A warning might be followed by lines or detention. Continued misconduct could bring the slipper. More serious offences might result in the pupil being reported to the headmaster and receiving the cane.
The precise arrangement depended upon the school.
The Headmaster’s Study
Of all the settings associated with corporal punishment, none possessed quite the reputation of the headmaster’s study.
For the pupil concerned, being sent there often meant that the ordinary authority of the classroom teacher had been exhausted.
The punishment itself was usually more formal than a classroom slippering. The pupil might be required to wait outside, sometimes in the company of other offenders. On entering, the offence would be stated and the punishment announced.
The cane was then produced.
One former grammar-school pupil recalled being caned by the deputy headmaster in 1957 for failing to hand in three pieces of homework. He received four strokes in the deputy head’s office.
Interestingly, he subsequently described the punishment as only partly effective because he later committed the same offence again.
A year later the same contributor became involved in much more serious misconduct, including truancy and stealing. On that occasion he was sent to the headmaster and received eight strokes.
Whatever view may be taken of such severity, the recollection illustrates the disciplinary hierarchy clearly. Failure to complete homework and involvement in theft were not regarded as equivalent offences and did not receive equivalent punishments.
The Authority of Senior Staff
Deputy heads and other senior teachers also feature prominently in the accounts.
One grammar-school boy recalled being punished during his first weeks at a new school after repeatedly talking in class. He was sent outside by his teacher and encountered a senior mistress making her rounds.
She took him to her office and administered three strokes of the cane. Afterwards he was required to return to the classroom and apologise to his teacher.
The same pupil was later caught running in a corridor by the deputy headmaster and again received three strokes.
On another occasion, repeated failure to complete homework resulted in six strokes from the senior mistress.
Such accounts demonstrate that corporal punishment could form part of a highly organised disciplinary structure rather than being restricted to the headmaster personally.
The Ordinary Teacher
At the other end of the scale stood the classroom teacher.
The slipper was particularly useful for immediate discipline because there was no need to refer the offender elsewhere.
A teacher who discovered a pupil talking, misbehaving or failing to follow instructions could deal with the matter on the spot.
This immediacy was regarded by supporters of corporal punishment as one of its principal advantages.
The offence occurred; the punishment followed; and the lesson continued.
There was little administrative machinery.
Yet this arrangement placed considerable responsibility in the hands of individual teachers. One teacher might use corporal punishment rarely, while another might resort to it frequently.
Consequently, pupils could experience very different standards of discipline within the same school.
Individual Reputation
Teachers inevitably acquired reputations.
Pupils quickly discovered which masters were strict, which were lenient and which were particularly likely to use the slipper or cane.
Such reputations formed part of the unofficial knowledge passed between generations of schoolchildren.
A new boy might be warned by older pupils not to talk in a particular master’s lessons or not to arrive without his homework.
The threat of punishment therefore existed even when no punishment was actually administered.
This may explain why statistics based solely upon punishment books can never provide a complete picture of the system.
The authority of the cane did not depend entirely upon how frequently it was used.
Its effectiveness as a deterrent depended partly upon the pupil knowing that it could be used.
