October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

1

THE PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS IN BOTSWANA TOWARDS

THE ABOLISHMENT OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Dr. VC Ngwenya, Mophato Private School, P O Box 605, Francistown, Botswana.

ABSTRACT

This research investigated the perceptions of parents and teachers towards the abolition of

corporal punishment (CP) in three Primary Private Schools in Botswana. A survey design was

used to gather data on biographic information, the definition of CP, its legality, Children‟s

Rights, other forms of punishment and the perceptions of the respondents towards the

abolition of CP by means of a questionnaire consisting of twenty-five pre-coded response

items. The responses of thirty-three parents and thirty-five teachers revealed that detention

was the most preferred form of punishment both at home and school. Although CP was found

to be justified if administered within the law, its results were temporary as parents claimed

that it hardened the culprits. The research revealed that CP should not be abolished even

though parents claimed that it violated the liberties of children. Parents further loathe the

barbaric, degrading and inhumane manner CP was administered sometimes.

KEYWORDS: Child Abuse. Children‟s Rights. Conventions. Education law. Floggings.

Punitive.

Introduction

Corporal punishment was first abolished in Sweden (1979) (Groves, 2009), although initiated

by Poland (1783). Even in the United States of America, 27 states out of 50 have outlawed CP

whereas in England, Scotland and Ireland the use of CP is illegal unless it is done in self-

defence or defence of the other (Groves, 2009).The latter view is justified on the premise that

whether or not, it was reasonably necessary for the protection of the person attended to.

However, in some 23 states and the world over where CP is sanctioned by the law, its use is

controversial and the users of it have always been caught up in legal wrangles. Influenced by

such global debates on CP, in Botswana schools, it is equally illegal save that which is

regulated by the Education Act of 1968 (Government of Botswana, 1968). Since the issue of

CP has become global, learners in Botswana schools are equally conscious of their rights as

enshrined in the Charter of Children‟s Rights to which the Botswana government is a

signatory (Childline Botswana, 2008). However, these statutes sanction the excessive use of

CP, not the minimal one which exists and goes unreported in the home and school as well

(Ditshwanelo, 2007).

Despite the existence of legislation banning the wayward use of CP in Botswana, teachers in

schools continue to administer unofficial forms of CP which have seen some of them being

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

2

arraigned before the courts facing charges of child abuse under the penal laws of the country.

Those who were made to face the wrath of the law have been discharged from the teaching

service yet some section of society on the other hand, clamour for the return of the

“stick.”Society in this context, believes that the absence of the stick in schools is what is

making children‟s behaviour to be wayward. Such parents argue that children have been so

much empowered by the Charter on Rights to the extent that they have been reduced to

spectators in certain instances where they are supposed to voice their concerns. They are

being forced by circumstances to let their children go scot free in situations which they could

not get away with in the African traditional society. Contrary to this view, the situation is

further complicated by the fact that adults who break the law in Botswana are subjected to

public judicial floggings at a community gathering and consultation assembly known as a

“kgotla” (Childline Botswana, 2008) yet their children are treated as “sacred cows” in

schools. Advocates of CP argue that, if bears and monkeys can spank their little ones when

they cross the line, why not humans (Groves, 2009). In that view, the concern of this study is

to investigate the perceptions of parents and teachers towards the total abolishment of all

forms of CP in Botswana schools, which is a pivotal area of controversy in this study.

Background to the research

Botswana is a signatory to the United Nations 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child which

seek to enact “appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect

the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent

treatment, maltreatment or exploitation . . . ." Paradoxically, it retains CP in schools (Botswana

Press Agency, 25 June 2003), which has made it a contentious issue among democratic

institutions. This is buttressed by the Constitution of Botswana which protects every person from

inhuman or degrading punishment or treatment but states that nothing contained in or done under

the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this section

(Government of Botswana, 1965). This piece of legislation does not sanction legalised CP which

is administered in homes, schools and penal institutions (Ditshwanelo, 2007). The law can only

be evoked on the offending person when the nature of punishment exceeds „reasonable

correction‟ (Government of Botswana, 1965).

Traditionally, the generality of Batswana do not believe that children have certain freedoms

which have to be listened to when it comes to measures of discipline (Ditshwanelo, 2007).

Children‟s Rights as enshrined in various legal documents are viewed by many Batswana as

“foreign concepts” being imposed on people who have their own systems of the law and only

save to brew misunderstandings in their cultural and traditional set up (Ditshwanelo, 2007). Even

under customary law, children‟s democratic space is non-existent as demonstrated by their non-

presence at a kgotla meeting (Ditshwanelo, 2007). Their cultural values centre on the concept of

Botho literally meaning respect for the adults and to the bulk of the Batswana; this can be

achieved through discipline (Ditshwanelo, 2007). Discipline in their opinion means the

administration of CP (Ditshwanelo, 2007).Those who are religiously oriented corroborate this

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

3

view by citing the Bible: "He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him

correcteth him betimes" (Proverbs 13:24). Of noteworthy in this context are the Magistrate and

Customary courts in Botswana which continue to administer judicial floggings for both petty

and serious offences to offenders above fourteen and below the age of forty within restricted

jurisdictions (Ditshwanelo, 2007), perhaps emulated from Canada which does the like within

different age limits.

By the same vein, in schools, CP is sanctioned by the Education Act of 1968 and prescribes how

it should be administered (Nkomazana, 2005). Advocates of CP believe that its absence in

schools in general, and private schools in particular is what is brewing spoilt brats in the society.

They further argue that, that which is sanctioned is neither present. However, Human Right

movements such as Ditshwanelo and Childline seem to be at cross roads with the cultural

thinking of the Batswana. They are advocating for the total abolishment of all forms of CP in the

home, school and courts. It is arguments such as these which have compelled the researcher to

investigate the perceptions of parents and teachers towards the abolishment of CP in Botswana

schools.

Models of corporal punishment

There are two distinct models which emerge from the empirical researches conducted by

renowned philosophers and legal brains on CP. These are Consequentialism and Retributivism

(Benatar, 2013). The former looks at the effectiveness of CP, either as a general deterrence,

special deterrence, rehabilitation or reform, and incarceration. The assumption in this view is that

rational beings who wish to avoid punishment and perceive a threat of punishment as associated

with committing crimes will have some motivation to avoid committing crimes (Oliva &

Pawleas, 2001). On the other hand, the punished should derive happiness from the moral

education received and rehabilitation. Similarly, one may be made to pay restitution or reparation

for the crime committed, yet the incarcerated is further prevented from committing similar or

new offences, hence, making society happy as well. In Retributivism, punishment is justified if is

deserved and is believed to be the offenders desert (Benatar, 2013). As opposed to the

Consequentialists, Retributivists are not concerned about the consequences of punishment

although they do consider the means of punishment. Thus an important question for them is

whether CP is an acceptably cruel or degrading form of punishment or not. Its major thrust is that

the guilty must be punished fairly, although it is difficulty by any standards to match the offence

with the crime. However, the scope of this study is not to explore theoretical perspectives in

detail, but to determine whether CP (as a way of moulding futuristic behaviour or reforming the

past), should be brought back for disciplinary purposes or abolished against the raging debates

highlighted above, as the world has become a global village. The debate rages against the

floggings permitted under the Islamic legal system in countries such as Saudi Arabia and

Northern Africa (Benatar, 2013).

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

4

Corporal Punishment

Most of Europe and South Africa have abolished CP as championed by Sweden, yet there are

some countries such as Botswana which continue to use it in a sanctioned manner both at school

and in judicial circles. Those member states who are opposed to it according to Groves (2009)

believe that:

Children of school age are at the most vulnerable and impressionable period

of their lives and … the safeguards to the integrity and sanctity of their bodies

should be, at this tender age, at least equal to that afforded to other citizens.

The implication of this assertion is that children need special protection from those teachers

who may use CP in a punitive manner, although sanctioned by legal statutes. On the other hand,

teachers need to play the game according to prescribed rules. If it is prohibited then compliance

is the best answer. If statutes sanction that which must be administered by the principal, then

teachers should stick to that. It is easier for the teacher to take the juvenile delinquent to the

principal than to be summoned to the office to answer for one‟s wild behaviour. In that view, CP

in this study according to Groves (2009) refers to:

a form of physical punishment that involves the deliberate infliction of pain

as retribution for an offence, or for the purpose of disciplining or reforming a

wrongdoer, or to deter attitudes or behaviour deemed unacceptable.

The term usually refers to methodically striking the offender with the open hand or with an

implement, whether in judicial, domestic, or educational settings. In this study it refers to the

whacking of the offender with an implement which is a cause of concern in educational circles.

Advocates of such an approach are influenced by Skinner‟s school of thought which is based on

the principle of reinforcement. It asserts that learning should be predictable and controlled

(Mdabe, 2005). The assumption in this regard is that if the consequence of human action were

bad, then negative reinforcement such as punishment may be used as a deterrent measure.

However, the critics of the carrot and stick approach, caution that, the use of CP in such a

scenario is temporary as its absence makes the behaviour which was supposed to be suppressed

recur, a situation which parents and teachers need to be wary of. Basically, there are three forms

of CP: domestic CP which is administered by parents or the legal guardian on the minor at home,

school CP which is usually done by the school administrator or the teacher and judicial CP which

is part of the criminal sentence ordered by the court of law. The study is more concerned with

that which occurs in schools either as a formal ceremony or in a ritual manner infront of other

learners to save as a deterrent.

The United Nations Charter on Children‟s Rights condemns such practices whether sanctioned

by legal statutes or not (Ditshwanelo, 2007). Opponents of the practice claim that CP is an

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

5

infringement on the rights and liberties of the Charter for Children‟s Rights (Mdabe, 2005). The

arguments raised against the practice are that it leads to abuse, is degrading, psychologically

damaging, stems from and causes sexual deviance, teaches the wrong lesson, arises from and

causes poor relationships between teachers (or parents) and children and is not deterrent (Oliva

& Pawleas, 2001). In their view CP breeds violence, lowers one‟s self esteem, is cruel and

violates the learner‟s rights (Mdabe, 2005). Little wonder that Oliva and Pawleas (2001) view CP

as having the fewest assets and greatest number of liabilities as it prevents learners from

developing a feeling of independence and self-confidence. Such learners have been found to be

suicidal, dejected, rebellion and aggressive in their adulthood according to a research conducted

by the United Nations.

Cases of teachers being brought before the courts for having overdone CP are abound, let alone,

in Botswana state schools where the stick is frequently administered silently by teachers for

minor offences such as backwardness, lateness, absenteeism, failing a test or an assignment,

none of which are endorsed by the statutes (Ditshwanelo, 2007). Benatar (2013) condemns such

regular us of CP for the smallest of the infractions and the extreme harshness it is administered.

The argument he advances is that if judicial floggings used under the penal law have failed to

deter would be offenders, how can CP achieve this major objective in schools. Cases reported in

the “Mmegi” and “Voice” newspaper by Molefe and Pansi (2006) and Kenosi (2013)

respectively, where one of the pupils was hit on the head with a belt buckle as the teacher was

administering mass punishment on latecomers and a fifteen year old girl who had her butts

beaten black and blue using a stick for failure to accomplish homework, are tips of an iceberg of

many other cases which go unreported. Such barbaric behaviour by professionals whether for a

worthy cause or not cannot be tolerated by democratic societies which subscribe to the liberties

of an individual as enshrined in their constitutions. It does not bring the school and profession to

disrepute but puts the debate of bringing the cane back to schools under the microscope, hence

this study. The study is based on the premise that, if slavery has been outlawed, wife bashing is

illegal and physical punishment for prisoners has been banished, why then should the flogging of

learners (on bare buttocks or on their undergarments) be considered as a parental right and be

encouraged in schools.

The Education Act of 1968

CP is legal in Botswana and is sanctioned by the Education Act (Corporal Punishment)

Regulations 1968 (Government of Botswana, 1968) and is further pronounced in the Education

Act (Primary and Private Schools) Regulations (1991, articles 11-12) which is more relevant to

this study. This is in collaboration with the Children‟s Act (2009) article 61 which prohibits the

“unreasonable” correction of a child therefore allowing the “reasonable” correction. Further to

that when article 6 is put together with article 27, expressly state that the legal provisions

protecting a child‟s dignity and prohibiting cruel treatment do not preclude the use of corporal

punishment (Children‟s Act, 2009), which Human Right movements in Botswana are

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

6

vigourously fighting to repeal. The latter institution wants CP to be abolished in all educational

settings, public and private, all institutions accommodating children in conflict with the law

including under customary law. On the other hand, the government justifies the use of CP in

schools, as it claims that what happens there is entirely controlled by the law (Childline

Botswana, 2008). Even the Children‟s Act (2009) empowers the Minister to put parental

guidance programmes in place for the appropriate use of CP in both schools and the home,

hence, the under mentioned provisions.

In Botswana Primary Schools, the regulations state that CP can only be administered for serious

or repeated offences. This must be administered by the school head or a teacher in the presence

of the head. When being administered, a light cane can be used on the palm of the hands or the

child‟s bottom. The latter is preferred because this fleshy body part is robust and can be chastised

accurately, without endangering any bodily functions; it heals well and relatively quickly; while

the former although an alternative form of inflicting pain on the offender; is considered delicate

and sensitive hence the need for one to exercise due care.

The length of the cane should not be more than one metre and the diameter one centimetre.

There may be no more than ten strokes given to a child. Under no circumstances should a male

teacher inflict CP on a girl child whom he believes to be over ten years of age because of the

softness of the skin. When deemed necessary, the girls should only be hit on the calves or palms,

not on the head, arms, back or buttocks. An observation which some critics feel is discriminatory

in this era of equal rights, although Human Right movements blow the trumpet the loudest when

the girl child is ill-treated. Despite that outcry, a record of the offence, date committed, the

strokes administered and the name of the person administering the punishment must be captured.

What this means is that, some form of CP is allowed in schools although in a regulated fashion.

In no way whatsoever can a classroom teacher administer punishment at willy-nilly without

observing the juridical restrictions alluded to above. This does not mean that all forms of CP

have been abolished in schools; minor forms of it do happen behind the backs of school

administrators as long as they tend to be “reasonably correct” as stipulated by the Children‟s Act

(2009). It only surfaces when the teacher has rendered it punitively and the parent of the culprit

alerts the school authorities, let alone, if the lacerations caused require medical attention. In the

latter, the injured learner will require a Police Report before the medical personnel renders

attention. In such instances, it becomes difficult for the school authorities to conceal the deed

save to remind the miserable teacher the consequences of violating the statutes on CP.

Depending upon the gravity of the injury as a result of such actions by the teacher, s/he is left to

stand litigation by the wronged parents on his own without any legal back up from the school or

ministry. This move is meant to safe guide children from the abuse they can be subjected to in

the hands of punitive classroom practitioners. However, some educationists in particular and

society in general, now feel that the absence of the cane is what has seen a multitude of juvenile

delinquents mushrooming from all corners of the school. This has culminated in cyber bullying

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

7

which has been brought about by the various social networks such as the Facebook and

cellphone.

Outcries from advocates of the cane are clamuoring for its immediate return in schools. Some

teachers feel that their authority which they used to wield in the medieval past has been eroded

by the removal of the cane. The tongue and other forms of punishment such as loss of privileges,

detention, isolation, suspension, transfer, and expulsion (Koenig, 2008) which they are supposed

to use instead of CP are not bearing any fruition to them at all. Instead, they feel that they have

been left toothless and disempowered against a background of some negative press reports of

some beatings which have taken place elsewhere which have portrayed teachers as being too

aggressive and primitive sometimes (Ditshwanelo, 2007). Contrarily, to the current democratic

thinking which is enshrined in various Human Right Charters, the proponents of CP believe that

it is quicker, costs nothing and deters unruliness, hence, this study.

Research Methodology

In this article, the researcher seeks to answer the question: “What are the perceptions of parents

and teachers towards the abolishment of corporal punishment in Botswana Primary Private

Schools?” A quantitative (normative) paradigm was adopted in the form of a survey design.

Issues raised in this regard were the biographic data of the respondents, the definition of CP and

their perceptions towards CP. A self-completion questionnaire was developed containing 25-

items and was used to collect quantitative data from both teachers and parents on the above

referred to attributes. The bulk of the responses were rated by means of a three-point Likert-type

scale with options ranging from agree, disagree and undecided as an escape clause. Precoded

responses were employed in all cases so as to enhance the response rate of the respondents

within the limited time frame and facilitate the processing of data gathered. Bias and ambiguity

were eliminated when the prototype questionnaires were pilot tested.

Sampling

The lottery method (Johnson & Christensen, 2004) was employed to select respondents who

participated in this study. For the purpose of selecting parents, names of pupils were used in the

lottery draw instead. Both names of teachers and pupils were written on separate pieces of papers

designed for this purpose and put in two separate revolving containers. The papers were tossed

up so that they could be thoroughly intermixed. After that a randomly chosen pupil conducted

the draw. The selected names from the two pools were recorded and the papers were tossed back

into the containers again. This was meant to ensure that every individual had the same

opportunity of being chosen. The procedures were undertaken several times until the required

samples were drawn from the pool. In the event that the same paper was drawn twice, the paper

was thrown back into the pool and the name on it was ignored. Thereafter, the entire masses of

papers were tumbled again and another draw was conducted until the number of participants was

achieved. In that way bias in the selection process was either minimised or eliminated.

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

8

The analysis methodology followed acknowledged the fact that data collected were of a nominal

nature since various variables in the data were classified into categories. Frequency tables and

descriptive statistics were used to describe each questionnaire included within this aspect.

Respondents

Thirty-three parents out of forty and thirty-five teachers out of thirty-six participated in this

research thus giving a response rate of (82,5%) and (97%) respectively. Out of the eight

questionnaires not included seven were not returned and the eighth one which was returned was

blank. This was taken to imply the latter group of would-be respondents was not eager to

participate in this research. Despite that set back, the high return of the questionnaires motivated

the researcher to proceed with the analysis of the results.

Result

Question 1-3 captured biographic data of parents and teachers. The frequency distribution of the

various biographic characteristics is presented in Table 1.

Table 1: Biographic data of the respondents

PARENTS N=33 TEACHERS N=35

1. Gender Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Male 11 33 12 34

Female 22 67 23 66

2. Age-Range Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Below 25 yrs. 0 0 2 6

26 – 35 yrs. 7 21 8 23

36 – 45 yrs. 19 58 11 31

46 – 55 yrs. 6 18 9 26

Above 56 yrs. 1 3 5 14

3. Age-Range

AGE OF FIRST BORN TEACHING EXPERIENCE

Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Below 10 yrs. 0 0 5 14

11 – 20 yrs. 23 70 11 31

21 – 30 yrs. 9 27 16 46

Above 31 yrs. 1 3 3 9

Generally, the bulk of respondents in either case were women of which (67%) of these were

parents and (66%) were teachers. Coincidentally, the majority of parents (58%) and teachers

(31%) interrogated seem to be aged between thirty-six to forty-five years old. Of noteworthy

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

9

in this context is that most parents are within the fertility range which means the majority of

them could be having more than one child at these schools. A further scrutiny of the data

reveals that (79%) of parents and (71%) of teachers who participated in this research were

above thirty-six years old which makes their observations credible. However, when

information on when most of the parents had their first born is looked at in comparison to the

teaching experience of teachers, interesting observations are made. Twenty-three parents‟

(70%) first-born children were either eleven or above whereas the majority of teachers (55%)

have equally taught for more than twenty-one years. The latter group is a force to reckon and

their input is highly respected in the teaching fraternity. What this data is suggesting here is

that the respondents under observation were really qualified to make valid and reliable

contributions on a phenomenon of this magnitude.

At this juncture, it was imperative to ascertain whether the respondents really knew what CP

was through question 4 and the results are manifested in Table 2.

TABLE 2: DEFINITION OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

PARENTS N=33 TEACHERS N=35

4. Definition Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Using a stick 9 27 10 29

Pulling ears and pinching 2 6 0 0

Spanking on the bottom or palm 1 3 0 0

Any deliberate cause of pain on the body 21 64 25 71

It was really encouraging to note that the majority of both parents (64%) and teachers (71%)

knew what CP entailed. However, what was disturbing though were the ten teachers (29%)

who likened CP with the use of a “stick” only. Had it been the five who happen to have taught

for a period of less than ten years (Table 1), it would have been insignificant, more so, that

they are still novices in the teaching field. Teachers are generally considered to be enlightened

and should really know what CP is all about, not the narrow definition some chose. Perhaps

an interview would have clarified this perception. On the other hand, the twelve parents

(36%) who chose a “stick”, “pinching” and “spanking” as their definition of CP seem not to

be aware that the use of such practices do inflict pain on the body or may cause harm, hence,

implying that they are indirectly aware of what CP entails although in a narrow sense. In that

light therefore, the researcher concluded that both respondents were aware of what CP is all

about.

Having established the respondents‟ view on CP, there was need to ascertain the extent to

which it is used either at home or school through question 5.

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

10

TABLE 3: THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN THE HOME/SCHOOL

PARENTS N=33 TEACHERS N=35

5.Rating Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Regularly 0 0 1 3

Sometimes 15 45 8 23

Rarely 18 55 26 74

The generality of parents (55%) and teachers (74%) who populate the communities under

their jurisdiction claimed that they rarely used CP in disciplining the juvenile delinquents who

break whatever rules they are expected to adhere to. However, a glance at the percentage of

parents (45%) and teachers (23%) who claim to use CP sometimes implies that there exists in

both at home and in the school degrees of CP whether legal or not, thus confirming the

African and Religious belief alluded to earlier on. In that view, the percentages although

below half are too high to be ignored. Similarly, teachers who continue to use CP as a

disciplinary measure needed to be probed further so as to find out what motivated them to

take the risk against the law.

At this stage of the research, there was need to find out the preferred forms of punishment the

respondents use either at home or school respectively through question 6.

TABLE 4: FORMS OF PUNISHMENT USED AT HOME/SCHOOL

PARENTS TEACHERS

6. Form of punishment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Detention 12 27 23 30

Isolation 6 14 16 21

Manual labour 2 5 3 4

Live with a relative 1 2 0 0

Denying of privileges 11 25 0 0

Sending learners out 0 0 22 29

Suspension 0 0 1 1

Expulsion 0 0 1 1

Corporal punishment 12 27 11 14

Interesting to note in Table 4 was that parents perhaps depending on the nature of offence

preferred to use either detention (27%) or CP (27%), followed by denying their children

privileges (25%), isolation (14%), manual labour (5%) and disownment (2). On the other

hand, teachers opted for detention (30%). When the culprit continued to disrupt lessons, then

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

11

s/he was sent out of the classroom (29%) followed by isolation (21%). When these forms of

punishment used were non-deterrent, it appears CP (14%) took its toll. Whether this was

legal or not, was difficult to conjecture. Thereafter, manual labour (4%), suspension (1%)

and expulsion (1%) followed.

What the above statistics seems to be implying is that when parents are disciplining their

children, without hesitation, CP comes to mind whereas with teachers, it is the fourth

preferred remedy to deter would-be behaviour. With CP being interchangeably used by both

respondents as alluded to (Table 3) and advocated for by literature reviewed, there was need

to find out whether both parties knew the legality of CP as pronounced by the Education Act

of 1967 through question 7.

TABLE 5: CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IS LEGAL

PARENTS N=33 TEACHERS N=35

7.Rating Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Agree 20 61 18 51

Undecided 2 6 2 6

Disagree 11 33 15 43

Table 5 reveals that parents (61%) and teachers (51%) were aware of the legality of CP in

schools, whereas (33%) and (43%) respectively disagreed. The undecided ones were considered

insignificant. A further scrutiny of the data reveals that teachers who are informed members of

the community were more ignorant than the parents who participated in this study.

Since Children‟s Rights are considered as foreign and bringing more confusion than order in the

African cultural set up, there was need to discover what the perceptions of respondents were on

this attribute through question 8.

TABLE 6: CHILDREN’S RIGHTS

PARENTS N=33 TEACHERS N=35

6. Rating Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Agree 11 33 22 63

Undecided 5 15 5 14

Disagree 17 52 8 23

Table 6 above reveals that Teachers (63%) who are involved with learners of different social

backgrounds concurred with the assertion while parents (52%) disagreed. The contradictory

perceptions could have emanated from the fact that the bulk of parents (79%, see Table 1)

investigated were below the age of forty-five, implying that they were perhaps literate and

conscious of the role Human Rights play in this contemporary era. Despite this controversy,

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

12

against the backdrop of the outcry from both respondents that children were becoming rowdy

due to the disempowerment of teachers when CP was banned in schools, both respondents were

requested to suggest possible corrective measures through question 9.

TABLE 7: FORMS OF PUNISHMENT TEACHERS SHOULD USE AT SCHOOL

PARENTS TEACHERS

9. Form of punishment Frequency Percent Frequency Percent

Detention 15 36 26 27

Isolation 3 7 14 15

Manual labour 7 17 8 8

Sending pupils out 1 2 12 13

Denying learners certain privileges 0 0 14 15

Suspension 1 2 8 8

Expulsion 2 5 3 3

Corporal punishment 13 31 10 11

Table 7 manifests that parents preferred detention (36%), CP (31%) and manual labour

(17%) as forms of punishment. On the other hand teachers preferred detention (27%),

isolation and denying them privileges which are tied at (15%), sending learners out of the

classroom (13%) and CP (11%). Teachers may be suggesting so because they are contractual

workers and most of them being foreigners; prefer cosmetic forms of punishment so as to

safeguard their jobs. Perhaps that could be one of the reasons why the latter group preferred a

softer stance as compared to an aggressive one advocated for by parents. However, the few

teachers (11%) who preferred CP cannot be ignored in this study as their use of such

punishment jeopardises their career if found out. What this data is suggesting is that

respondents view CP as a necessary evil schools cannot do without for the purpose of

maintaining discipline regardless of the consequences. The parents‟ consistence on this

attribute (see, Table 4) cannot be in vein. Little wonder that when they were questioned on

the legality of CP in schools, (61%) responded in the positive. With that established, there

was need to ascertain the perceptions of parents and teachers on CP in general, through

questions 10 to 25.

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

13

TABLE 8: PERCEPTIONS OF PARENTS AND TEACHERS TOWARDS THE USE

OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

A= agreed. U= undecided and D= disagree

Perception ratings

Parents N=33 Teachers N=35 Q Corporal punishment A U D A U D

10. is a deterrent way of disciplining learners.

24 73

3 9

6 18

22 63

2 6

11 31

11. violates the children‟s rights. 12 36

2 6

19 58

17 49

2 6

16 46

12. is the best way of disciplining children.

12 36

4 12

17 52

6 17

0 0

29 83

13. hardens the behaviour of children. 19 58

2 6

12 36

11 31

7 20

17 49

14. is a temporary deterrent for wayward behaviour.

21 64

8 24

4 12

14 40

11 31

10 29

15. is a traditional way of disciplining children.

17 52

4 12

12 36

27 77

3 9

5 14

16. is disciplining children using a cane. 15 46*

4 12

14 42

23 66

5 14

7 20

17. is only meant for boys at home/school.

2 6

1 3

30 91

4 11

3 9

28 80

18. is justified if applied within the law. 19 58

4 12

10 30

26 74

6 17

3 9

19. is abused in some homes/schools. 25 76

2 6

6 18

34 97

0 0

1 3

20 is inhumane, degrading and barbaric. 10 30

6 18

17 52

14 40

5 14

16 46

21. denies children to develop independence and self-confidence.

9 27

7 21

17 52

17 49

1 2*

17 49

22. is justified if deserved. 17 52

2 6

14 42

23 66

1 3

11 31

23. corrects past behaviour. 19 58

2 6

12 36

13 37

3 9

19 54

24 reforms the offender. 17 52

2 6

14 42

14 40

6 17

15 43

25 should be abolished. 14 42

2 6

17 52

8 23

6 17

21 60

*Adjusted to give a summation of 100

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

14

Question 10 reveals that both parents (73%) and teachers (63%) concurred that CP was

deterrent, although for a short while as claimed by parents (64%). When this view was cross-

checked with question 23 and 24 respectively, parents (58%) corroborated the fact that CP

had the capacity to correct past wayward behaviour while teachers (54%) denied. The same

parents (58%) further confirmed that CP when administered legally (see, Table 5), is equally

reformative, confirming some existence of elements of Consequentialism. However, parents

(58%) cautioned through question 13, that constant use of CP on juvenile delinquents may

harden them. Interesting in this scenario was that both parents (52%) and teachers (77%)

admitted that although CP was the traditional way of disciplining learners, it was not the best.

Since contemporary society is awash with issues of fundamental rights as enshrined in

various international conventions, there was need to examine this line of thought through

question 11, 17, 19 and 20. Parents (52%), perhaps because of the biological bondage

between them and their children claimed that CP violated Children‟s Rights while teachers

had mixed reactions on this perception. However, when the issue of Child abuse was raised

teachers (97%) who had remained silent on the latter perception were well pronounced as

compared to parents (76%) who responded in the affirmative on the same attribute. This

collaboration of minds by both respondents on Child abuse could have been triggered by

some of the abuse cases reported in this study. In the absence of an interview the researcher

was not clear whether respondents were referring to their spheres of influence or to the

opposite. Paradoxically both parents (58%) and teachers (74%) concurred that CP was

justified if administered within the law, thus subscribing to the retributivism paradigm.

Similarly, the preferential treatment which girls are usually afforded when it comes to

punishment was condemned with the scorn it deserves as parents (91%) and teachers (80%)

disputed that CP should be discriminatory. All things being equal, CP when administered on

juvenile delinquents for whatever reasons was found to be inhumane, degrading and barbaric

by the parents (52%). By the same margin parents confirmed that it denied children to

develop independence and self-confidence. Curious though was the silence of teachers on

both issues yet they are the major players when it comes to the administration of CP.

Finally, through question 22, parents (52%) and teachers (66%) admitted that CP was

justified if deserved by the culprits and was legally done as alluded to earlier on. Despite the

punitiveness by which CP was administered by both respondents either at home or school

respectively, parents (52%) and teachers (60%) were in league that it must not be abolished,

perhaps, confirming the fear of the “organised anarchy” which have characterised schools

due to its absence.

Conclusion

The broader perceptions emanating from this empirical research are that the bulk of respondents

were conscious of what CP was and disregarded it as the best way of dealing with juvenile

delinquents as its results were temporary. Generally, detention was a preferred form of

punishment by either party although parents opted for CP as well over and above the more

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

15

physical ones as opposed to the softer forms teachers relished. Going by the parents‟ view on CP,

the minimal forms of it which exist unreported in schools are not a surprise. Similarly,

respondents concurred that CP was justified and deserved if it was administered within the law,

thus subscribing to the retributivists school of thought although parents further cautioned that

constant use of it hardens behaviour and violates the fundamental rights of children. In addition

to that the empirical research further revealed that both respondents disliked CP practices which

are discriminatory and denied that it should be abolished, thus, subscribing to the adage of old of

'Spare the rod, and you will spoil the child,' implying that discipline must be returned to the

school.

Recommendations

In the light of the above findings, there is need, therefore, to hold a stakeholders‟ conference

where parents and teachers will be made aware of the legality of CP and under what

circumstances it can be administered as a way of correcting wayward behaviour in a

“reasonable” manner. At this workshop all participants should be made aware of the fact that

inflicting a minimal amount of pain is permissible as long as it does not become “unreasonable”

and punitive. In that way, they will appreciate the Children‟s Rights as enshrined in various

international conventions and as advocated for by Human Rights movements domiciled in

Botswana. Parents condemn the barbaric, degrading and inhumane manner CP is administered

sometimes which makes it a contentious issue.

Above all, both parents and teachers should be conversant with the other forms of punishment as

CP was found to be a temporary deterrent which saves to harden human behaviour.

References

1. Benatar D 2013. Corporal punishment. Cape Town: University of Cape Town.

2. Botswana Press Agency, 2003. June 25. www.corpun.com

3. Childline Botswana, 2008. End all corporal punishment of children. Botswana Country-

Report.

4. Ditshwanelo, 2007. The Botswana centre for human rights : human rights, not human

wrongs. Website by Cyberplex Africa.

5. Government of Botswana, 1965. Constitution. Gaborone: Government Printers.

6. Government of Botswana, 1968. Education Act. (Corporal Punishment) Regulations.

Gaborone: Government Printers.

7. Government of Botswana, 1991. Education Act. (Private Primary Schools) Regulations

(Article 11-12). Gaborone: Government Printers.

8. Government of Botswana, 2009. Childrens’ Act. (Article 61). Gaborone: Government

Printers.

9. Johnson B & Christensen L 2004. Education research: quantitative, qualitative and mixed

methods. Boston: Pearson.

10. Kenosi D 2013. Teacher charged for assaulting student. The Voice, Weekly, May 17, p10.

October 2013, Volume: I, Issue: X

16

11. Koenig LJ 2008. Smart discipline for the classroom: respect and cooperation restored. 4th

Edition. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.

12. Mdabe PM 2005. The perceptions of educators, learners and parents on the banning of

corporal punishment at a secondary school level. Durban: University of KwaZulu Natal.

13. Molefe D & Pansi O 2006. Botswana: corporal punishment and children‟s rights. Mmegi,

Daily, May 22, p5.

14. Nkomozana F 2003. Religious and moral education for everyone. Gaborone: Macmillan.

15. The Bible, 1971. Revised Standard Version: Proverbs (13:24). England: Collins Clear-

Type Press.