asked the Minister for Education the reasons for the recent change in the regulations covering corporal punishment in schools; the purpose of these new regulations; and the practical effect which they are expected to have on the practice of corporal punishment in schools.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Corporal Punishment in Schools.
39.
The purpose of the new rule is to ensure that there will be a positive rather than a negative approach to the matter. It is framed on the basis that the teacher in the school holds for the time being the place of the parent and, that being so, the teacher must in relation to the control of the pupils under his charge act as would a just and wise parent. The rule contains ample provision to deal with any case in which a teacher does not act accordingly. My predecessor made a full statement to the House on the 4th May, 1961, in relation to this matter of corporal punishment. I want to endorse what he said when he stated, as reported in the Official Report, Vol. 188, No. 12, Col. 1776:
"The teacher holds for the time being the place of the parent and so for the time being carries in this matter the rights of the parent. In these circumstances it would be unreasonable for me to forbid the teacher to adopt any deterrent that might be adopted by a just and wise parent, and a just and wise parent might on occasions deem it necessary to inflict an adequate amount of corporal punishment in order to control the child and bring him up in the way he should go.
Even a parent, however, has no right to inflict excessive punishment and is liable to court penalties if he causes injury to the child. In that regard, I wish to say that I personally abhor excessive punishment of any kind, either physical or mental. I will go further and say that I will not countenance any punishment in the schools that goes beyond the limits of adequacy."
I am sure that the teachers are under no misapprehension as to what constitutes excessive corporal punishment and I can see no grounds whatsoever for the sensational interpretations of the effect of the new rule to which we have recently been treated in some organs of the public press.
In view of the fact that the new regulations are somewhat vague and the fact that the speech to which the Minister refers is somewhat vague, would he be more specific and say, for example, if corporal punishment can now be administered for failure at lessons? This is an omission from the 1965 regulations. Can he say whether or not corporal punishment can be inflicted on any part of the body, other than by use of a rod, a cane or strap? Would the Minister say why the prohibition on the boxing of ears and pulling of hair has been omitted from the 1965 regulations, in view of the fact that it was specifically mentioned in the previous regulations?
The Deputy is under a misapprehension in regard to the new rule. It is divided into four subsections, and No. (2) says:
Corporal punishment should be administered only in cases of serious misbehaviour and should not be administered for mere failure at lessons.
It says "should not". Why not "must not"?
It is a question of wording. To go any further in regard to what Deputy Corish said on the question of the boxing of children's ears, pulling of hair, and so on, the reason they are omitted is that it does seem to be quite inappropriate in a rule of the Department of Education. The new rule has a positive approach instead of the negative approach of saying: "You may not do this or that." Subsection (1) reads:
Teachers should have a lively regard for the improvement and general welfare of their pupils, treat them with kindness combined with firmness and should aim at governing them through their affections and reason and not by harshness and severity. Ridicule, sarcasm or remarks likely to undermine a pupil's self-confidence should be avoided.
Subsection (4) read:
Any teacher who inflicts improper or excessive punishment will be regarded as guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher and will be subject to severe disciplinary action.
I want to stress that there has been no question of giving licence to teachers to assault and batter children. They are expected to act in a way a just parent would act and if they fail to do so, they are subject to severe disciplinary action.
I accept that the vast majority of teachers would not act in any inhumane way towards children but what we have to guard against is the minority who may act against the spirit of the regulations. The Minister should not be so vague in this regard. He talks about excessive punishment, improper treatment. They should be defined in somewhat the same manner as they were defined in the last regulations. As it is, there is a licence. It is all very well to say that teachers must behave as parents with the children but the Minister should be a little more specific because there have been examples, isolated though they may have been, of excessive and improper punishment, boxing of ears, pulling of hair, and other such punishments. The Minister did not answer another question I asked. Is it now permissible to administer punishment on other parts of the body than the hands?
To answer the last part first, in certain circumstances it could be. It would be a very unusual case in which this would be permissible but I can visualise circumstances in which it would happen and they would be circumstances in which a just and wise parent would deal with his own child by administering corporal punishment other than on his hands. However, it would not be a normal case. On the question whether we should try to be specific in the rules——
I did not say absolutely specific, a little more than the 1965 regulations are.
No matter how specific one is, somebody can think of another way round it. Having regard to what the old rule says, we did have cases under the old rules that none of us would want to see happening in the schools. However, the wording of the rule, specifically mentioning certain things, does not prevent their happening. The essential thing is that when such matters occur and they are reported, they should be dealt with and dealt with fairly but firmly. This is the essential nature of what is involved here and I repeat what my predecessor said, that in such cases it is appropriate to have a fair and impartial investigation and, where it is found that a teacher has acted in a way unbefitting a teacher, take disciplinary action.
If a case came to the Minister's attention where it had been proved that a teacher had struck a child, boxed him on the ears or on the head, would the Minister be prepared to take appropriate disciplinary action?
I could not give a blanket answer to that. Every case must be answered on its merits. In the normal way, if a teacher does this, there is a prima facie case that he is guilty of conduct unbefitting a teacher. There may be circumstances in which he can rebut this but there would be a prima facie case against him.
Would the Minister agree that all the rules in the world will not prevent the isolated cases of which we have heard? Further, will he agree that all this rule-making by bureaucracy shows a distinct lack of confidence in the decent teacher?
I would agree with the first part of the Deputy's supplementary question because I should like to make that point, but I do not agree with the second part.
It has been admitted that most of the teachers are normal and decent and will the Minister not agree that there are some abnormal pupils and quite often the teacher has to defend himself against such pupils?
I think I said in one of my original supplementary questions that we accept that the majority of teachers are humane but we have to protect the children against a minority.
They are problem children, problem parents——
You cannot go on that.
Question No. 40.
(Interruptions.)
If a teacher has to defend himself against children, he should get another job.
I am saying that they are in the minority.
40.
asked the Minister for Education whether he caused an investigation to be carried out into a complaint of beating in a school (details supplied); if so, the date and nature of such investigation; whether the pupil in question or his parents or medical advisors were consulted by the Department's inspector; if not, why; and whether the findings of any such investigation were communicated to (a) the school manager (b) the teacher and (c) the parents of the pupil.
As is the normal practice in such cases, when resort was had to legal proceedings the official investigation by my Department was suspended. The Deputy is no doubt aware of the outcome of these proceedings and in view of it I do not propose to take any further action in the matter.
Is the Minister aware that a statement was made in court regarding the findings of an inquiry which the Minister now tells us was never held?
I am not aware of any such thing.
I would ask the Minister to look up the records. It is a very serious matter.