asked the Minister for Education whether he permits the use by teachers of the strap in punishing children in primary schools.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Punishment in Primary Schools.
I presume that in asking this question the Deputy has in mind Rule 96 (3) of the Rules and Regulations for National Schools, which lays down, inter alia, that “only a light cane or rod may be used for the purpose of corporal punishment, which should be inflicted only on the open hand.”
The implication of this rule is that the teacher, who, under the authority of the manager, is in loco parentis and so has for the time being all the authority of the parent, on the one hand may not literally lay a finger by way of punishment on a pupil and on the other may not use a strap. The rule, containing this implication, and purporting, as it does, to define arbitrarily the means and method of correction, seems to me to be a clear infringement of parents' natural rights and, in addition, a prejudicing of a possible court action.
I therefore propose to have the rule suitably amended so as to delete such references to the means and methods to be used, but to emphasise that any improper or unreasonable punishment will be regarded as conduct unbefitting a teacher and will be visited with very severe sanctions.
May I take it that the Minister will permit the use of the strap, go back to the barbarity of an adult beating a child with a strap? That is an unthinkable attitude for a responsible Minister to adopt. May I take it that the Minister will permit the use of the strap in future?
I told the Deputy that it is not proper for the Minister to indicate or to authorise or to prohibit the means or methods. It is a matter entirely for the school manager and, subject to him and his authority, for the teachers in the school to correct children and to decide what means of correction are necessary. That is primarily a natural right of the parent and the teacher or manager in loco parentis has, naturally, that responsibility and the corresponding authority from the parent.
The Minister has just read Rule 96 (3). The Minister has in the past taken this right to define the method by which children will be beaten in schools. The whole question of beating children is completely wrong. However, it has been laid down by Ministers in the past. His predecessor sitting over there laid it down. Why does he decide to change this rule now and permit the extravagant use of the strap, which it will mean, by whoever uses the strap in future? Instead of restricting this flagellating, adults beating children, he is extending it.
I do not think the Deputy should get away with the suggestion that there is extravagant use of any means of punishment in the schools. There is no such thing. As I told the Deputy in reply to his last question, my responsibility is to ensure that proper instruction is given in the schools and, to that end, to ensure that the teachers are properly qualified to give that instruction. I can enforce sanctions in respect of any improper behaviour and, in that connection, in respect of any unreasonable punishment administered by the teachers in the schools. Beyond that my authority does not go.
Explain Rule 96 (3).
It could be a mistake to spare the rod and spoil the child.