Sixty chapters of evidence now allow several broad patterns to be identified.
They should not be mistaken for precise national statistics.
They are instead recurring features within the survey testimony.
Variety Was the Rule
The strongest conclusion is variation.
Different schools used different implements.
Different teachers possessed different powers.
Different offences attracted different responses.
England and Scotland could follow different traditions.
Primary and secondary schools could approach discipline differently.
Formal and Informal Punishment
A second major distinction is that between formal and informal punishment.
The headmaster’s caning was memorable and more likely to be recorded.
The teacher’s immediate slippering might leave no written trace.
Any historical assessment based only upon formal punishment books will therefore be incomplete.
Effectiveness Varied
The third conclusion concerns deterrence.
Many respondents stated that they did not repeat the particular offence.
Others were punished repeatedly.
One pupil even believed that experiencing his first substantial punishment reduced his fear and contributed to later misconduct.
There is consequently no evidence for the claim that corporal punishment always worked.
Neither does the survey support the opposite claim that it never worked.
Fairness Was Crucial
Perhaps the most consistent theme is fairness.
Former pupils often accepted punishments they believed deserved.
Their strongest objections concern incidents in which they believed themselves innocent, unfairly singled out or punished excessively.
The pupil’s perception of justice strongly influenced how the event was remembered.
The Social Dimension
Punishment also had a social life.
Classmates watched.
Stories circulated.
Teachers acquired reputations.
Parents reacted.
Pupils worried about embarrassment or attempted to demonstrate toughness.
The punishment therefore extended beyond the individual teacher and child.
A Cautious Conclusion
The evidence should encourage neither nostalgia nor exaggeration.
Corporal punishment was one method within a much larger disciplinary system.
Its importance differed from school to school.
For some pupils it was a rare event.
For others it was familiar.
For still others, the threat was sufficient and they completed their schooling without experiencing it personally.
The task of this survey is therefore not to produce a simple verdict.
It is to reconstruct the system as accurately as the evidence allows.
And that evidence increasingly suggests that the most misleading question is:
“What was school corporal punishment like?”
A better question is:
“What was it like in this particular school, under this particular teacher, for this particular pupil, at this particular time?”
Only when those distinctions are preserved does the historical picture begin to become clear.
