"Is the state really saying it loves children more than their parents do?"

Don Foster's amendment to the School Standards and Framework Bill poses a serious threat to the responsibilities and liberties of families. When the new clause was debated in Committee on 26 February, Education Minister Stephen Byers agreed to grant MPs a free vote on the proposal to outlaw the use of corporal discipline of children in independent schools. A Commons debate is anticipated before the Easter recess.

Some may wish to present the amendment as merely the extension to the independent sector of legislation which has applied to publicly-funded pupils since 1987, but the implications of the new clause are far more wide-reaching than that.

Legal

Corporal discipline is, after all, perfectly legal under both national and European law. Nowhere is it equated with abuse. Parents may physically chastise their children, provided that they do so in a manner that is 'moderate and reasonable'. In private childcare arrangements, they may authorise a trusted carer to similarly discipline their children if the need arises. And the same principle applies to privately-funded pupils in independent schools.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has consistently ruled that there is nothing inherently 'inhuman' or 'degrading' about physical correction. In its judgment on a case concerning school corporal discipline, the ECHR declared that 'a particular level of severity' had to be reached for a punishment to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. The judgment went on to say, "factors such as the nature and context of the punishment, the manner and method of its execution, its duration, its physical and mental effects and, in some instances, the sex, age and state of health" of the child being disciplined must all be taken into account (Costello-Roberts v the United Kingdom, 1993).

Furthermore, the European Convention on Human Rights itself requires States to "respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" (Article 2 Protocol No 1).

That said, why then are MPs voting on an amendment which, if carried, would limit parental choice? Are Mr Foster and his supporters really saying that responsible parents, after careful thought and sacrifice, are wrong to send their children to a school that uses corporal discipline? Are they suggesting that professionally-trained teachers are less competent than childminders to be entrusted with this responsibility? Are they really saying that the State loves children more than their parents do?

Broader concerns

Mr Foster's office has admitted that this amendment has been engineered by campaigners from EPOCH (End Physical Punishment of Children), whose sights are set on imposing an entire, unproven philosophy of child-rearing on every parent in the country by force of law. In their mind, the debate on preventing parents from delegating the right to use physical correction in schools is merely a staging-post on the way to forbidding them to physically discipline their own children in their own homes.

It is salutary to note that when the amendment was discussed in a Commons Committee, its supporters argued that "corporal discipline of any sort is child abuse" and "an outdated and barbaric ritual". Its abolition was viewed as "a question of fundamental human rights". The consequences of pursuing such arguments to their logical conclusion are obvious and deeply disturbing to the vast majority of families in the UK.

Do we really want to see independent schools and even our own families going the same way as state schools? Barely ten years after corporal discipline was outlawed in maintained schools, exclusions have reached record levels, violent assaults on teachers have multiplied, and the problem is steadily moving down the age range. We were sold a lie when we were told that the answer to violence in society is to legislate against physical correction.

What next?

The situation in state schools has now deteriorated to such an extent that in February 1998, the government felt compelled to issue draft guidance which advocated "in the most exceptional circumstances" measures which most of us would regard as violent and abusive (see p12).

Are our elected representatives seriously proposing the substitution of such guidance for a well-ordered system of discipline in independent schools, which allows room for a physical sanction? And, by logical extension of their argument, do they really want to hasten the day when the government is obliged to issue such 'guidance' to parents. We would suggest they ask the parents first!

This article first appeared in Families for Discipline newsletter, Issue 6, Spring 1998.

Copyright © 2001-2007 Families First. All rights reserved.