This is the central question, and the recollections provide no simple answer.
There are certainly examples in which punishment appears to have worked.
Some former pupils say they received the cane once and never repeated the offence. Others say that they learned their lesson.
Yet there are equally clear examples of children being punished repeatedly for precisely the same behaviour.
Smoking provides perhaps the clearest illustration.
Numerous former pupils recall being caned, strapped or slippered for smoking. Yet some continued smoking and were punished again.
One pupil remembered being caned but remarked that it did not stop smoking behind the gym.
Another described receiving the cane for smoking at least three times a week.
If the purpose was deterrence, this can hardly be regarded as an unqualified success.
The same pattern appears with talking, truancy, fighting and general misbehaviour.
Some pupils became compliant.
Others simply became accustomed to punishment.
This suggests that the effectiveness of corporal punishment depended greatly upon the individual child.
For a naturally cautious pupil, one experience might be sufficient.
For the rebellious child, repeated punishment could become merely another part of school life.
There is an additional problem.
Even where punishment stopped a particular act, it is difficult to know precisely what lesson had been learned.
Did the pupil conclude that smoking was unwise?
Or merely that smoking where a teacher could discover it was unwise?
Did the child understand why disrupting a lesson affected other pupils?
Or simply learn that talking when a particular teacher was present resulted in pain?
Punishment can suppress behaviour without necessarily changing the beliefs behind it.
That distinction may explain why physical discipline sometimes appeared wonderfully effective in the short term while producing disappointing results with persistent offenders.
