Εικόνες σελίδας
PDF
Ηλεκτρ. έκδοση

Excessive silence.-Recapitulation.-Force sometimes needful.

remembered, this is the stillness of constraint, not the stillness of activity. It is an unhealthy state both of body and mind, and when attained by the most vigilant care of the teacher, is a condition scarcely to be desired. There should be silence in school, a serene and soothing quiet; but it should if possible be the quiet of cheerfulness and agreeable devotion to study, rather than the "palsy of fear."

Thus far I have confined myself to those qualifications in the teacher, and to those means which, under ordinary circumstances and in most districts, would in my opinion secure good order in our schools. With the qualifications I have described in the mental and moral condition of the teacher, and the means and suggestions above detailed combined, I believe a very large majority of our schools could be most successfully governed without any appeal to fear or force.

But as some schools are yet in a very bad state, requiring more than ordinary talents and skill to control them; and as very many of those who must teach for a long time to come have not, and cannot be expected to have all the qualifications described, and much less the moral power insisted on, it is unreasonable to expect, taking human nature as it is, and our teachers as they are, that all can govern their schools without some appeals to the lower motives of children, and some resort to coercion as an instrumentality. I should

Punishment defined.-Comments on definition.

leave this discussion very incomplete, therefore, were I not to present my views upon the subject of

[blocks in formation]

As a great deal has been written and spoken upon the subject of school punishments, I deem it important that the term, as I intend to use it, should be defined at the outset. I submit the following definition:

PUNISHMENT IS PAIN INFLICTED UPON THE MIND OR

BODY OF AN INDIVIDUAL BY THE AUTHORITY TO WHICH HE IS SUBJECT; WITH A VIEW EITHER TO REFORM HIM, OR TO DETER OTHERS FROM THE COMMISSION OF OFFENSES, OR BOTH.

It is deemed essential to the idea of punishment that the inflictor have legitimate authority over the subject of it, otherwise the act is an act of usurpation. It is also essential that the inflictor should have a legitimate object in view, such as the reformation of the individual or of the community in which his example has exerted an influence, otherwise the act becomes an abuse of power. Infliction for the purpose of retaliation for an insult or injury, is not punishment; it is revenge. Whenever, therefore, a teacher resorts to such infliction to gratify his temper, or to pay off, as it is expressed in common language, the bad conduct of a pupil, without any regard to his reformation or the prevention of similar offenses in the school, the pain he inflicts is not punishment; it is cruelty. Very great importance is to be attached to the motive in this ma

Whence authority is derived.-Dr. Webster.-A common error.

ter; because the same infliction upon the same individual and for the same offense, may either be just and proper punishment, or it may be the most unjustifiable and revengeful abuse, according to the motive of the inflictor.

The authority to inflict punishment in general, is either by the constitution of God or of civil society. "The punishment of the faults and offenses of children by the parent," says Dr. Webster, "is by virtue of the right of government with which the parent is invested by God himself." The right to punish the offenses of children while at school, is by the common law vested in the teacher, as the representative of the parent for the time being. It is the declaration of this law as interpreted from time immemorial, that the teacher is in loco parentis-in place of the rent.

Some have alleged that fear and shame, the two principles addressed by punishmen are among the lowest in our nature; and ..ve hence endeavored to show that punishment is always inexpedient, if not indeed always wrong. To this 1 answer, that both fear and shame are incorporated in our nature by God himself; and hence I infer they are there for a wise purpose. I find, moreover, that God himself, in his word and in his providence, does appeal to both of these principles; and hence I infer that punishment in the abstract is not wrong, and after the higher motives have been addressed, not altogether inexpedient.

Living in a community as we do, where the right of punishment in general, is assumed by our government,

The right assumed.-Plan of discussion.-Two classes.

and the right of teachers to punish is conceded by our laws, I do not feel called upon to establish the right by argument; I shall assume that the teacher has the right to punish in the sense in which I have defined punishment,—and shall therefore proceed to consider the various kinds of punishments used in our schools, and to distinguish those which are justifiable from those which are not; and also to consider some of the conditions and limitations of their use.

In preparing the way to do this, I may remark that punishments consist of two classes. 1. Those which address themselves directly to the mind; as privation from privileges, loss of liberty, degradation, some act of humiliation, reproof, and the like. 2. Those which address the mind through the body; as the imposition of a task-labor, for instance,-requiring the pupil to take some painful attitude, inflicting bodily chastisement, &c.

I have mentioned the two classes for the purpose of calling attention to the fact, that there are those who approve of the first class, and at the same time denounce the second, scouting the idea of reaching the mind through the senses of the body. This seems to me, however, to indicate a want of attention to the laws of our being; for in the economy of nature we are made at every point sensitive to pain as a means of guarding against injury. Why has the Creator studded the entire surface of our bodies with the extremities of nerves, whose function is to carry to the brain with lightning speed the intelligence of the approach of danger? And

Mind may be reached through the body.-Improper punishments.

why should this intelligence be transmitted, if its object is not to influence the will, either to withdraw the suffering part from immediate danger, or to avoid those objects which cause the pain? The mind, then, by the economy of nature, or rather by the arrangement of God, is capable of being influenced through the bodily sensations; and those who deny this, either do not observe attentively, or, observing, do not reason fairly as to the laws of our being. With these preliminary observations, I now proceed to consider,

I. IMPROPER PUNISHMENTS. Some punishments are always wrong, or at least always inexpedient. The infliction of them either implies a wrong feeling on the part of the teacher, or it promises no wholesome result on the part of the pupil. I shall mention in detail, 1. Those that from their nature excite the feeling in the pupil, that an indignity has been committed against his person. No man is ready to forgive another for wringing his nose. There is almost a universal sentiment that this organ is specially exempted from such insult. Nearly the same feeling exists as to pinching or pulling the ear, or twisting the hair, or snapping the forehead. Each child feels that these parts of his person are not to be trifled with, and the feeling is natural and proper. Now, though it is not common for teachers to wring the noses of their pupils, it is very common for them to do each of the other things enumerated. I have often seen such punishments, but I think I never saw any good come of them. The pupil always looked as if the teacher had done despite toward

« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »