In 1866, at the Allston Grammar School in Cambridge, a
major case of corporal punishment was addressed by the school committee.
A teacher had struck a girl named Josephine Foster on the hands 15-20 times
with a whip. The teacher’s explanation was that she had been whispering and
had been acting so disorderly that she had to be held down by another teacher
and the principal. Mr. and Mrs. Foster felt that this brutal act of punishment
was unnecessary and they brought the case to trial. In the end, corporal
punishment was not abolished and the case was closed, but this was the first
time people had spoken out against corporal punishment. This shaped a major
turning point in the way teacher’s treated their students.
Corporal punishment has existed since the beginning of
man. In the Bible there are various scriptures that mention violence against
children and how children should behave: “He that spareth the rod hateth
his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth chronicles “God tells the Jews
that if they fail to follow his commandments; then I will walk contrary unto
you in fury; and I, even I, will chastise you seven times for your sins.
Any ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters shall
ye eat.”[1] This passage demonstrates
that even in the Bible it was believed that if children did not behave they
would be brutally penalized.
When the Puritans first settled in the Mass Bay Colony
they believed that they were the chosen ones ,similar to the Hebrews who had
believed that they were entering into the wilderness. The original intention
of the early Puritan school was for children to learn to read the Bible.
The Puritans believed that when children misbehaved, they needed to be taught
a lesson. As the Bible played such a major role in everyday Puritan life,
they used scriptures that advocated beating children to keep them in line.
In Puritan churches children were often whipped with a rod for misbehaving,
while adults would be lightly tickled with a feather. Many Christians believed
in “the dogma of Eternal pain”[2] People who were highly religious believed children had to accept
agony if they misbehaved. The Puritans felt by inflicting pain, the children
would obey their parents as well as God and the Government. This way everyone
would know the rules and would share the same thoughts. Ideas expressed in
the classroom that did not come from the Bible were deemed unacceptable.
Even though the Josephine Foster case was unsuccessful
in abolishing corporal punishment in Cambridge, word quickly spread and parents
in other towns began to speak out. In 1868 parents in Beverly, Massachusetts
expressed the desire to rid their schools of corporal punishment, but the
school committee’s attitude was that if they gave into the parents wishes,
their children would start to misbehave. How would discipline be enforced?
“Abolishing corporal punishment would be abolishing civil government.” (see
Appendix
A) As the years progressed, the school committee had more excuses to keep
corporal punishment because without it they were afraid the children’s behavior
would become chaotic. In 1869, the Beverly school report on corporal punishment
was concerned mostly with the qualification of the teacher or, in other words,
how much experience or education they had. The report states that corporal
punishment was rarely used because the teacher had more patience. The major
rationale for inexperienced teachers was to use corporal punishment. One wonders
if corporal punishment was usually only used by unqualified teachers, which
could be found by looking at censuses of the teachers and their backgrounds.
If the parents were complaining so much, just how many unqualified teachers
were there? Beverly’s final position on school discipline was simply “all
teachers must govern” [3]
By 1871, a group of parents in Beverly were outraged because
the schools would not compromise on the issue of corporal punishment by lessoning
the brutality in the school system. The parents thought it was a “relic of
English barbarism”[4] Here is one example of how one-way corporal
punishment is used. Child #1 is told to read and stutters on a word, then
corrected. Child #2 stutters on the same word and is corrected. The teacher
tells the children the next person to stutter on this word will be punished.
Child #3 nervous and flustered that he/she will mess up on the word, and unfortunately
pronounces the word wrong and is beaten. The parents felt that this kind
of action did not call for corporal punishment and was not significant, except
to intimidate the child from wanting to read in class. Teachers felt that
“even if the mistake was not made purposely, if scholars are going to be so
forgetful and careless as that, they need something to make them remember!”
The school committee was not about to change their position on corporal punishment,
although their prevailing attitude was for corporal punishment to be used
in only the most extreme cases. (see Appendix
B)
The Superintendent of the Cambridge schools attempted unsuccessfully
to abolish corporal punishment in 1879. In 1880 the Cambridge school board
felt that corporal punishment was being administered far too often. In all
boys’ grammar schools there were 12,976 boys attending the school and 10,973
incidents of corporal punishment was recorded. (Showing that 84 ½ percent
of the time corporal punishment was being administered ).[5]
This form of discipline was forbidden in colored schools
and in some all- girls schools. In the girl’s case, the reasoning was that
they had a different mentality then boys, and when they were beaten it could
be a long term affect on their life. In the case of colored schools, it was
probably because they had been beaten so much in the south that the colored
schools sought to avoid that approach to discipline. It seemed teachers had
no problem beating white males. They felt it would make them manlier and
the teachers believed that if young white males were faced with harsh discipline
by their parents and teachers, the young men would grow up and do the same
thing to their children so that corporal punishment could be passed down to
each generation.
By the late 1800’s corporal punishment was abolished in
most parts of Europe, starting with Sweden, because they felt that corporal
punishment was not a successful way to attain discipline in schools. Even
places as close as New York started to resist the rod. New York was centuries
ahead of Massachusetts in abolishing corporal punishment. On May 18,1870 New
York state’s Board of Education had a meeting to discuss a second attempt
to abolish corporal punishment. The first time they approached the subject
parent- groups were only partially successful. In 1865, they passed a by-
law stating that only a principal or vice principal could inflict corporal
punishment on the students. Any teachers using it would be immediately fired.
The male teachers protested, showing that once again the males liked the idea
of corporal punishment as their main tool for discipline. In one month alone
in 1866 there was a 20% decrease in the number of disciplinary actions that
employed corporal punishment . Although more children were attending school
everyday, there was almost no corporal punishment administered in 1867. (However,
in 1868 an increasing number of teachers refused to obey it). Corporal punishment
ended for good in New York in 1877, mainly because schools began to realize
that corporal punishment had an adverse affect on student discipline. Still
Massachusetts did not see any advantages to abolishing it.[6]
Even though there was a domino effect of abolishing corporal
punishment in other countries and states, Massachusetts was doing just the
opposite to keep a firm grasp on their students. A justification of this refusal
to change came on June 15,1903 in Beverly, involving a young boy named Walter
Woodberry, who had been attending Cove School. There was a hearing named “the
School Committee vs. Mr. And Mrs. Woodberry”. Walter had been misbehaving
and the school resorted to corporal punishment and later suspension. The parents
wrote a letter to the school requesting that Walter not be beaten if he was
bad, and that the school, instead resort to some other form of alternative
punishment. The school committee told the parents they could not grant this
wish and whenever Walter was bad they would administer Corporal punishment
, despite the parent’s wishes. The teachers held moral authority over the
parents, In those parents had little say in what they felt their child deserved
for punishment, proving it was not unusual for the school to go against parental
requests.(see Appendix
C)
Between 1906-1915, one grammar school in Beverly had an
exceptional amount of corporal punishments. The Hardie School was located
by the Beverly Common and later became Monserratt College of Art. The Hardie
School had enrolled children that came from middle- to – upper class families
and seemed to be quite motivated to learn, when looking at the graduation
rate compared to other schools in Beverly. During these years most school
would have around six to twelve incidents of corporal punishment per year.
However ,one year the Hardie school had 29 when most schools had an average
of eight. Even when there was a decrease in the number of cases for one year,
Hardie was far above the curve in the corporal punishment rate. Although
Hardie was seemingly stricter than the other grammar schools, there ironically
is a correlation between the large number who were beaten and the number of
children that successfully graduated. Their graduation rate may have helped
teachers justify their adherence to corporal punishment. Not only they would
say, did it make a child mature , it also made the children more studious
and educated. (see Appendix
D)
Corporal punishment remained powerful in Massachusetts
for 70 years. It was not considered appalling until the late seventies. Anti-corporal
punishment groups started forming, and eventually in Massachusetts action
was taken to finally make it illegal. “Corporal punishment” today seems like
an ancient phrase to most people, when in fact it was not made illegal officially,
until 22 years ago . The average person does not even realize that in the
United States today there are still 27 states where corporal punishment is
still legal and used more then people can imagine, especially in the southern
states. Corporal punishment may never be abolished completely, but it is odd
to think that in a state like Massachusetts, not only were our grandparent’s
victims of corporal punishment; even our parents faced the symbolism of discipline
through the paddle.
Works Cited
"An Address to the People of Cambridge From the School
Committe Concerning a Recent Case of Corporal Punishment in the Allston Grammar
school." Press of John Wilson and son, 1866. Monroe
C. Gutman Education Library, Harvard University.
City of Beverly Annual Report of the School Committee for
1906. Beverly: The Allen Print, 1907.
Eighteenth Annual Report of the School Committee of the
City of Beverly, Mass., 1912. Beverly: The Beverly Printing Co. 1913.
Hyman, Irwin A. and Wise, James H. Corporal punishment
in American education: readings in the history, practice, and alternatives.
Philadelphia:Temple University Press, 1979.
Hewes, Dorothy W. "Locus of Control as a Tool for
Historians". <www.froebelfoundation.org/locushewes.html.>
Ingersoll, Robert Green. "Corporal Punishment (1891)".
<www.infidels.org/library/historical/robert-ingersoll/corporal-punishment.html.>
Municipal document for 1910 of the City of Beverly, MA.
Beverly: The Allen Print, 1911.
Ninteenth Annual Report of the School Committee of the
City of Beverly, Mass., 1913. Beverly: Garden City Press, 1914.
Paintal, Sureshrani. "Banning Corporal punishment
of children". (Epoch-USA).
Randall, Dennis. "Corporal Punishment in School".
<www.familyeducation.com.>
Report of the School Committee of the Town of Beverly
for the year 1870-71 . Boston: Press of rockwell and churchill, 1871 .
Report of the School Committee of the Town of Beverly
for the year 1867-68 . Beverly: Office of the "Citizen." 1868.
Report of the School Committee of the Town of Beverly for
the Year 1868-69 . Beverly: Office of the "Citizen." 1869 .
Reports on Corporal Punishment of New York. Board of Education,
1877.
Seventeenth Annual Report of the School Committee of the
City of Beverly, MA., 1911. Beverly: The Beverly Printing Co. 1912.
"The Corporal Punishment Archives. An historical survey
of Juvenile Corporal Punishment in Great Britain. "
Twentieth Annual Report of the School Department of the
city of Beverly, MA. 1914. Beverly: The Beverly Printing co., 1915.
Twenty-First Annual Report of the School Department of
the city of Beverly, MA. 1915. Beverly: The Beverly Printing Co., 1916.
Annual report of the School Committee of Boston, MA.1880.
Boston: Rockwell and churchill, 1881. <www.home.freeuk.com/mkb/mainpage/htm.>
Wilson, John. "Corporal Punishment Revisited."
Cambridge Journal of Education, Vol.32 Issue 3 (Nov. 2002), 409.