The great spanking debate

The debate on whether school-sanctioned physical punishment is legal in private schools was recently put to rest when a landmark High Court ruling found that corporal punishment is outlawed at all Namibian schools.
While corporal punishment has been banned at state schools since 1991, some argued that it was legal at private schools and necessary to maintain discipline.
In a newsletter issued by Windhoek Gymnasium private school in April 2010, the school addressed questions surrounding the use of corporal punishment following a complaint by a parent against four teachers.
In the newsletter, the school informed parents that “the responsible administration of corporal punishment by a private school is not against the law in Namibia.”
The newsletter noted that while some parents did not want their children subjected to corporal punishment, the majority of parents “fully supported the system of corporal punishment”.
The case was eventually argued in court in 2013, and the teachers were found guilty of common assault.
That ruling was overturned last week following their successful appeal, when the High Court set aside their convictions and sentences on the basis that evidence had shown the teachers were not aware their acts were unlawful.
High Court Judges Elton Hoff and Naomi Shivute ruled that sections of the Education Act make it clear that a blanket ban on the use of corporal punishment is applicable at all Namibian schools, including private ones.
The court said “that no amount of consent either from parents or from the learner himself can nullify or invalidate the prohibition” of corporal punishment at all schools in Namibia.
According to principal of Tanben College in Windhoek, Leo Svotwa, corporal punishment “is a subject of contention among teachers” in Namibia.
He said corporal punishment does not form part of Tanben College’s disciplinary code as “we believe that corporal punishment has an effect of cultivating a tradition of violence in the learners … they will be made to think that issues can be solved by violence or force.”
Svotwa explained that the school uses alternative forms of discipline including talking to parents and psychologists and making use of detention.
He said many argue that the “more traditional approach shows the benefits of corporal punishment,” especially if “administered rationally, it can yield positive results.”


Nevertheless, “if abused, it can be a vice to learners’ motivation as it can breed fear among learners.”
He concluded that with Namibia’s “history of violence, we have to encourage dialogue and alternatives to corporal punishment.” He warned that “in most cases teachers may end up victimising learners or abusing them rather than disciplining them.”
According to the Legal Assistance Centre (LAC), studies have shown that children who are beaten learn to see violence as a legitimate response to problems, and have less opportunity to observe non-violent methods of responding to others.
Hein Daiber, director of Private School Swakopmund said corporal punishment is not part of the school’s teaching philosophy or values and that “it is impossible to “teach any student to solve problems without resorting to violence by resorting to corporal punishment.”
Windhoek’s St George’s principal Riette Hanekom said the school “does not believe in corporal punishment and definitely does not believe it is an effective disciplinary tool”.
Instead, the school teaches students “respect for the law and uses a positive discipline method – definite boundaries”, among other strategies.
“Corporal punishment is not a tool of discipline at our school,” said Nicola Brodie, office administrator at Waldorf School Windhoek. “A good and educated pedagogue does not need corporal punishment to discipline a learner or a class.”
However, it is not always easy to argue against its use, at school or privately, in a country where it is “still too generally accepted”, she said.
The Gymnasium newsletter of April 2010 stated that corporal punishment is “seldom applied, only as a matter of last resort and done in a responsible manner.” The disciplinary method was applicable “to boys only”.
During the trial, a teacher testified that corporal punishment was applied “with the purpose to discipline, educate and correct his behaviour”.
According to the LAC, studies found that “the aim of discipline is to teach a child the difference between right and wrong, but corporal punishment does not do this.”
Instead, research links corporal punishment to a variety of problems, including increased aggression, depression and other emotional problems, poor academic achievement and poor relationships with parents.
The LAC argues that “the prevention of violence in society should begin with efforts to reduce the use of corporal punishment on children.”
Colette Rieckert, managing director at Windhoek Gymnasium, responding to a question on the High Court ruling and whether corporal punishment still forms part of the school’s disciplinary code, said the school’s legal team is “busy interpreting the details of the judgment and the actual effect on our school’s disciplinary procedures”.
“As in the past, we continue with alternative disciplinary measures, such as detention.”
Asked whether the school believes alternative measures will be effective, she said: “In most cases other measures are effective as well. In general, our learners are respectful and positive towards our well-ordered school system, and mostly cooperate well with school management and teachers.”
Last week, the court found that interpreting the relevant sections in the Education Act as only applicable to public schools “would result in an absurdity that learners enrolled at state schools are protected against invasive punishment, yet those enrolled at private schools are not.”

JANA-MARI SMITH