5.3.1 Junior secondary schools
The empirical findings revealed that only one of the twenty junior secondary school learners reported that corporal punishment was no longer used in her school. This participant stated:
P20: “It was previously used but not anymore.”
However, the tone of her voice reflected doubt, and she could not look the researcher in the eyes while she was fidgeting with her hands. These reactions could have occurred because a teacher
168
could have influenced her not to give a true reflection of what was happening in the school lest they got caught. This is very probable as teachers had expressed their concerns about this particular study prior to the interviews. It was surmised that this particular student had been placed in a situation where rigid conditions had been established for learners to feel accepted and to be ‘part of the fold’. However, the other participants were not afraid to give a true reflection of what was happening in their schools. This is what they had to say:
P1: “Yes, the teachers use it almost every day.”
P2: “It is used but some teachers do not hit us as they fear that they might end up hurting us.”
P3: “Yes, it is still being used and the severity depends on the teachers and school principal.”
P4: “Yes, it is still being used here at our school and it is used too much.” P5: “They use it here at school and some of the teachers hit us too hard.” P6: “Yes, corporal punishment is still used and it is used frequently.” P7: “Yes, it is used in our school.”
P8: “The teachers use it here at school even though we attended a workshop together with other local schools here in the township where Department of [Basic] Education officials made it clear that corporal punishment should not be used in schools as it was banned a long time ago.”
Participant 8’s response is consistent with the South African Schools Act 84 of 1996 which abolished the use of corporal punishment in all schools. However, regardless of this ban, the findings revealed that some educators were still using corporal punishment. The persistent use of this form of punishment is often associated with various justifications which include the maintenance of discipline and order in the school. This finding clearly suggests that the continued use of corporal punishment is a matter of grave concern, particularly for the fact that it still occurs in schools in disadvantaged areas, and teachers need to develop strategies that reflect awareness of children’s right to protection.
169
Comments of a similar nature as those quoted above were also offered: P9: “Yes, we are hit.”
P10: “Yes, corporal punishment is used in our school and they use it too much.” P11: “Teachers do use corporal punishment here at school. They hit us too hard.” P12: “Yes we are beaten here at school.”
P13: “Yes they use it, they hit us too much and way too hard. Even this morning we were beaten for a very minor offense.”
P14: “Ms, here at school they use corporal punishment and they don’t care that the government does not want us to be hit.”
P15: “Yes, they use it and sometimes they [teachers] beat us for no reason.” P16: “Yes, they do use it.”
P17: “They use it and they say they are just ‘scaring’ us. The severity of the punishment depends on the offence a learner has committed.”
As the most logical explanation, one could elaborate on the latter statement by arguing that the type and severity of the punishment a child receives is dependent on the type of offence that was committed. Also, the justification given for the use of punishment is that the educators are only trying to ‘scare’ the learners. Participant 17’s response can be associated with the specific element in the deterrence theory which posits that only a specific offender may be deterred from committing a specific crime in the future. It may thus be surmised that some learners are persistently given a hiding by their educators in the hope that they will not repeat the offence. They may also strongly hold that punishing learners harshly will make them reluctant to reoffend in the future. However, the repeated and persistent use of corporal punishment strongly points to the fact that the notion of ‘scaring’ learners is a false premise as they are not deterred from reoffending, and thus educators feel ‘obliged’ to persist in the use of this form of punishment. The question must be asked: Do educators actually want to change learners’ behaviour, or is the use of corporal punishment so entrenched in their consciousness that they no longer care about its effects but just
170
about the position of power they exert when using it? Moreover, if teachers persist in its use they ignore the fact that the learners may sustain severe injuries and some may even die if the severity of the lashings is not controlled. For example:
P18: “They use is almost every day. This morning before you came [referring to the researcher] I was given two strokes on the buttocks.”
P19: “Yes, it is used, they use is way too much.”
5.3.2 Senior secondary schools
Similar responses were elicited when the learners in the senior secondary schools were interviewed. A minority of the learners also said that corporal punishment was no longer used in their schools, while the majority freely told the researcher that corporal punishment was still being imposed. The following were statements that denied the use of corporal punishment:
P1: “No, not anymore. It was used before but now they have stopped.” P2: “They used it before but not anymore.”
P3: “No, it is not used in our school.” (This boy laughed when he said it and looked away.) P4: “When it was still in use, it was used very often because the learners were misbehaving and they did not listen. Its use was very effective back then because we were misbehaving but they don’t use it anymore.”
P5: “Corporal punishment is not used in this school; teachers talk to us when we’ve done wrong.”
However, during my visit to the four schools I distinctly noticed punishment tools such as pipes and stick on some teachers’ desks and even in the library where the interviews were conducted. These ‘tools’ were clearly visible (nobody had thought of hiding them) which was a clear indication that corporal punishment was still being used in these schools. Therefore, the fact that some participants informed me that this form of punishment was no longer used in their schools reflected and important element in the culture of violence theory, which is the ‘herd instinct’ (my
171
view) that motivates both victims and perpetrators to remain silent about an injustice. Matthews et al. (1999:5) note that “the culture of violence can also lead to a culture of silence which can be attributed to either intimidation by perpetrators… [or to] such an acceptance of violence as a way of life that fewer people report victimization” (Lewis, 1997:n.p.). Even in situations where learners are beaten and abused by their educators, they cannot report such incidents as corporal punishment in most township and rural schools is considered ‘normal’ even though it has long been illegalised. The above responses are also enlightened by the theory of the subculture of violence, which suggests that there are certain experiences that act as causal factors in the development of the subculture. It further suggests that historical experiences translate into a culture which is then communicated from generation to generation as a set of philosophies even after the original underlying societal conditions have already disappeared.
Conversely, the rest of the participants in these two senior secondary schools distinctly referred to the persistent use of corporal punishment:
P16: “Yes. It is used. They beat us every day.”
P17: “Corporal punishment is used here at our school. In fact, our school is famous for having the most intense use of corporal punishment in the entire township.”
P18: “Yes, our teachers and the principal do hit us here at school.”
P19: “I have been in this school since grade eight and they have never stopped beating us.” P20: “Yes, it is still being used in this school. Some teachers give us beatings for no reason. If one or two learners have transgressed, they will beat the entire class and tell us that ‘an injury to one is an injury to all’.”
P21: “Yes, it’s still being used and a lot. There are certain teachers who are famous in the school for giving the most severe beatings. If you arrive late and one of those teachers is on duty at the gate, you are foolish if you don’t go back home and come back the next day because the beating you will get will leave you screaming like a mad person.”
P22: “Yes, it’s something that is used every day and the teachers are unremorseful about it.”
172
P24: “It’s still used here at school. They [teachers] usually give us no fewer than five [lashings]”.
P25: “Yes, it’s still being used here at school and also in other schools here in the township.” The majority of the respondents openly admitted that they had been victims of this form of abuse. Soneson and Smith (2005:4), who conducted a similar study, indicate that people who live in poverty, irrespective of their ethnic background, are generally inclined to use corporal punishment. The latter authors suggest that numerous boys and girls of all ages are subjected to corporal punishment in the home and at school. However, they exclude children from affluent settings and suggest that corporal punishment is not used as a disciplinary measure in these contexts. However, the fact that most children who reside in rural areas, including townships, are exposed to this severe form of punishment at home and at school was highlighted by this earlier study which found a general, but not a specific, pattern of corporal punishment being more frequently experienced by children in rural than in urban areas. High-income communities tend to use alternative non-violent forms of discipline. Similarly, Harber (2001) found that violent crime was prevalent in South Africa and that schools in underprivileged areas suffered from serious problems caused by gang- related crime.