Tread carefully in push to bring back corporal punishment

In February, a Standard Six pupil at Mikuyuni Primary School in Makueni County was reported to have died in hospital after an alleged beating from his teacher.

Similar cases have been reported in the past, a number involving serious injuries inflicted on learners by their teachers. Undeniably, others go unreported.

Corporal punishment in schools got  banned in 2001. In the same year, the Children Act which guarantees child protection from any form of abuse and violence was also enacted.  Ideally, the decision was as a result of long term deliberations by stakeholders.

It was a step toward discouraging the institutionalizing of physical punishment of learners. Indeed, before it was outlawed, some teachers had misused their powers beating up children and causing them grievous bodily harm even in cases where a tete-a-tete or doing some menial work like farm work, digging trenches or collecting leaves, would ordinarily act as a deterrent for wayward behaviour.

Recent cases clearly demonstrate that corporal punishment has done more harm than good to children. If such injuries and deaths are occurring when there is a ban, what happens if it is lifted?

Yet that is what the church believes will address rising cases of juvenile delinquency in schools and society.

Ironically, the church seems to have engaged the reverse gear. Instead of appreciating the gains that have been made towards protecting children- and exhorting parents to get involved in bringing up their children in “ in the nurture and admonition of the Lord”, they are drumming up support for what clearly has not worked in the past.

Their decision to start a discourse on corporal punishment given rising cases of indiscipline could be motivated by the scriptures which cautions parents not to “spare the rod and spoil the child”.

No doubt, discipline is necessary for good upbringing. Who administers the discipline matters as much as the act of disciplining itself. First, past actions by rogue teachers dissuade us from backing a thinking that bestows that responsibility on teachers alone and ignores the most critical person in a child’s upbringing.

Secondly, parenting is not transferable. The clergy would like to make us believe that cases of indiscipline can be handled better by teachers even where it is obvious that the matter at hand has to do with poor parenting skills- which because of the pressures of modern life is rampant and widespread.

Yet the truth is, the many cases of indiscipline in schools have their roots in dysfunctional homes and families.

Would that the church spent more time counselling parents on how to create a good environment for raising up well-behaved children who will grow up into responsible citizens. That would create a better influence than the cane.