Spare the rod: why we need to stop corporal punishment
Ending the use of corporal punishment in South Africa would go some way towards solving the high levels of school violence that have remained unchanged for the past five years.
Published on 13 May 2013 in
ISS Today
By
Chandré Gould
Senior Research Fellow, Justice and Violence Prevention
The results of the National School Violence Study (NCVS) of 2012 tell us at least one important thing: South Africa is not making progress in reducing violence in schools. The study, conducted by the Centre for Justice and Crime Prevention (CJCP), shows that over the past four years there has been no change in the violence experienced by learners. Just over a fifth of all children still experience some form of violence at school.
The study also confirms what we already knew: that violence at school cannot be addressed only through interventions at school. School violence is inextricably related to violence and victimisation at home and in our neighbourhoods – children whose communities are violent and who are exposed to violence at home and in their neighbourhood were found to be more likely to also experience violence at school. It is the complex relationship between personal and social spaces that makes violence reduction such a challenging problem to address.
Although the cycle of violence is enormously difficult to break, once broken, positive change becomes much easier to sustain. Much of the challenge lies in changing a highly entrenched view that violence is acceptable, if not desirable in certain circumstances. The National School Violence Study found that, despite the legal prohibition against corporal punishment, it is still widely practised at schools throughout the country. It may no longer take the form of a beating with a cane or hosepipe, but violence continues in other forms, such as hitting children’s knuckles with rulers; twisting ears; or sharp slaps to the back, face or hands. Children who are perceived as ‘naughty’, impulsive or attention seeking are most likely to get punished in this way. As a result, they are also the most likely to leave school, reject parental and other adult authority and play truant.
The CJCP’s National Youth Victimisation Study of 2005 found that just over half (51,4%) of young people had been hit, caned or spanked at school. The 2008 study of school violence showed that nothing had changed since 2005. The 2012 study again shows that nearly half (49,8%) of all school children have been hit at school by adults as a form of discipline. There were provincial differences. Almost three-quarters (73,7%) of children in KwaZulu-Natal have experienced corporal punishment, as have almost two-thirds (63%) in Mpumalanga and 66,9% in the Eastern Cape. In these provinces and in the Western Cape, the study shows that there has been a significant increase in the use of corporal punishment at school. Yet there was also a significant drop in the use of corporal punishment in Gauteng, from 61% in 2008 to 22,8% in 2012. There was also a drop, though less marked, in Limpopo, the Free State, the North West and the Northern Cape. There are likely to be important lessons to be learned from teachers in these provinces about how this change has been brought about.
The effect of this violence is felt throughout society. Parents and teachers who believe that discipline is best achieved through beating a child convey the message to that child that violence is an acceptable means of addressing a problem. As a result, children who experience corporal punishment can be expected to act violently themselves.
The National Development Plan (NDP) approaches the problem of violence from a developmental perspective by identifying that feeling safe at home, at work and in shared social spaces is necessary, perhaps even essential, for social and economic development. The NDP offers a grand vision, one in which all sectors contribute towards building a safe country. However, it cannot be expected to offer the kind of detailed plan for action that is necessary if we are going to overcome the problem of violence. What is now required is a practical, implementable, long-term plan that is the responsibility of a single entity to steward and steer.
The NDP correctly identifies non-governmental organisations (NGOs), sports bodies, the police, urban planners, local government, researchers and academics, social welfare departments, the youth, and arts and cultural organisations and departments as having a role to play in reducing violence. However, given the huge number of stakeholders, it is almost inevitable that we are doomed to repeat the same exercise that has been undertaken ad nauseum since the drafting of the National Crime Prevention Strategy in the early 1990s. That is, we will agree that the problem is complex and multi-faceted. We may be tempted to draw together the multiplicity of social actors that have a role to play, or that are already involved in violence and crime prevention at local and national level. But, in the end it will be left up to the departments that make up the justice, crime prevention, safety and security cluster to undertake a range of small studies and pilot interventions that are unlikely to be scaled up.
This is a policy-maker’s nightmare. It is no wonder that we have not yet been able to crack the nut of violence prevention, because in being expansive and inclusive the focus of action, support and collaboration tends to fall away. There is no centre to hold it all together and facilitate the flow of funds and knowledge, and no clear, practical plan. Since we are working with complex and fragile systems, it may be that a systems approach, or at least shift in perspectives about how to solve the problems simultaneously in numerous settings, is necessary. This has been the approach promoted by Dr Barbara Holtmann, whose model for building safe communities includes the identification of the specific roles and contributions of each government department. However, the impact of this work is hard to detect and sustain given the competing and intense demands on state departments, which often struggle with a shortage of basic skills.
What is needed is discrete, manageable interventions driven by inter-sectoral partnerships that focus on various strands of the problem driven by a long-term vision.
One arena in which this is beginning to happen is in the development of parenting interventions, which draw on the evidence of what works to build strong, positive bonds between parents and children from an early age to, among other things, prevent parents having to rely on harsh, violent discipline. Testing this approach, scaling this work up to a national level and sustaining implementation will require dedicated individuals with vision and commitment, supported by strong institutions.
Addressing the problem of violence at the most basic level of relationships in the home is a good place to start, but it is only part of the solution. What we can be certain of, though, is that for as long as parents and teachers hit children in the mistaken belief that it will make them behave better, we will not solve the problem.
Chandré Gould, Senior researcher and Reitumetse Mofana, Intern, Governance, Crime and Justice Division, ISS Pretoria
