European Court of Human Rights supports parental choice on physical correction in schools

29 March 2000

According to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), it may still be permissible for schools in the United Kingdom to use moderate and reasonable physical correction with the consent of a child's parents.

In a preliminary response to an application made by Liverpool headteacher Phil Williamson, the Court has stated the view that the precise wording of UK education law does not altogether rule out the use of corporal discipline in either maintained or independent schools.

All that the law does, in the view of the ECHR, is to say that a teacher is not entitled to employ a physical sanction by virtue of his position as a teacher. However, there is nothing in statute to prevent a parent from specifically authorising a teacher to use reasonable physical discipline in appropriate circumstances.

Until now, it has been widely assumed that any form of physical correction had been abolished in maintained schools in 1987 and that the ban had been extended to independent schools from September 1999. The Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) has taken the line that corporal punishment is now illegal in any school under any circumstances, even where all the parents of children in a given school supported its use. In August 1998, the DfEE stated that "This Department, OFSTED, or the police could investigate any breaches of the law, regardless of whether or not a complaint was received."

However, this has now been called into question by the European Court. In response to Mr Williamson's application on behalf of 40 independent Christian schools, the Legal Secretary in the Registry at the ECHR declared: "It is presumably most unlikely that a parent in a church school who had agreed to corporal punishment would bring an action against a teacher for exercising it; it would not be open to 'busybody' lobby groups to bring an action for assault or battery against a school or a teacher because they would not have locus standi and, there is no reason why a local authority or schools inspectors should be interested in bringing an action even if they had standing."

In an article published by Families First this week, Phil Williamson reflects on how his own school has been affected since he suspended the use of corporal discipline last summer pending the European Court's ruling. He writes:

"Perhaps the most noticeable thing has been the relative ineffectiveness of alternative forms of discipline and the deterioration of some teacher-pupil relationships. It is evident that certain children want to push the boundaries as far as they can. Standards have not dramatically fallen but one is aware that they are being eroded slowly but surely."

"It has taken decades to establish schools with reputations for secure happy children, pleasant friendly relationships and a conducive learning atmosphere where there is an emphasis on moral and academic development. In just a short space of time concern is being expressed about our difficulty in maintaining these things."

It was a concern to maintain standards of excellence in their schools which left Mr Williamson with no alternative but to challenge the right of the Government to ride roughshod over the views of parents in seeking to impose a blanket ban on all corporal discipline in schools. He therefore welcomes the initial response of the European Court which places responsibility for discipline back with their parents where it belongs.

When Parliament was debating corporal discipline in independent schools during 1998, Education Ministers stated: "It is the personal responsibility of parents to decide for themselves what disciplinary arrangements are appropriate for their child. It would not be appropriate for the State to impose its own view." In the event, however, they attempted to do precisely that when they voted to outlaw physical correction in all schools.

A spokesman for Families First commented, "For too long the Government has been inclined to pay lip-service to parental responsibilities. The European Convention on Human Rights requires all states to 'respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions.' Up until now this principle has been disregarded with regard to discipline in schools. We hope that the Government will now pay more respect for the sincerely-held convictions of many loving parents in the light of comments made by the European Court."

A final ruling on Phil Williamson's application to the European Court is not anticipated until early next year.

Notes for Editors

Phil Williamson has served as headmaster of the 200-pupil Christian Fellowship School in Edge Hill, Liverpool since 1981. His application to the European Court of Human Rights is supported by the parents of children at the school and by 40 other independent Christian schools.

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