While I’m sure there are differences between teaching in the UK and Australia, what I wrote might be giving you a false impression. Most of what you said there is pretty similar to here. 90% of my teaching course was pretty similar to what you are saying here – never use punishment, punishment is a last resort, it’s a sign you’ve failed to control the class, there are better ways to handle misbehaviour than punishment, misbehaviour is nearly always the teachers fault for not making the class interesting.
But the last 10% involved lecturers who were actually experienced teachers and who were trying to teach us the practicalities of teaching, not just particular theories. That’s the part where we got the advice on using whole class punishments. They were quite open about the fact that what they were teaching us didn’t match the rest of the course, but they said that they were trying to give us the realistic tactics we needed to teach, rather than just the theory.
Once I started teaching, the same thing applied really – the people in charge of the school – the Principal and other people who hadn’t been in a classroom in twenty years all took the line that bad behaviour was a sign of a bad teacher, and that punishment should be avoided. But those teachers still teaching used it when they felt it was needed – and by doing so, managed to use it as little as possible. You don’t avoid using it a lot by trying to never use it at all. You avoid using it a lot by using it quickly and decisively before a small problem becomes a big one.
The biggest imperative as far as school management was concerned was to avoid parents making complaints. Good kids rarely told their parents if they were unfairly punished as part of a group, and even if they did, because good kids normally have good parents, they were unlikely to complain at the drop of a hat. Bad kids who perceived even the slightest trace of injustice, real or not, would be straight home complaining to parents who’d be straight up to the school to yell at the school for ‘picking on my Jake all the time.’
It is an incredible luxury to be teaching in a school where you’re expected to maintain discipline, with punishment if necessary, and where parents are nearly all open to the idea that maybe sometimes their kid isn’t the one in the right, and only make complaints if they really think something is genuinely wrong, and when they do are seeking conciliation and a resolution, rather than just wanting to beat up the teacher.
The practice of belting an entire class was not uncommon in Scotland, although the extent of it varied widely school to school. It was usually brought about as a result of the teacher being absent from the classroom for a short period and, on his/her return, hearing substantial noise emanating from the class, or general disruption being apparent. When those responsible were asked to own up no one did and so the whole class, boys and girls, were belted as a punishment. Often the pupils would be called out to the front of the class one row at a time, belted and then returned to their seats. The next row would follow and so on until the entire class had been punished. Sometimes the teacher would have the class remain seated while he walked up and down the rows between the desks strapping pupil’s hands as they were held out for punishment. Other reasons for “whole class beltings” included an inability to sing together in unison, poor general levels of attainment in class tests and failure to bring textbooks or homework. It could seldom be said to be a fair punishment as it was most unlikely that all pupils present were guilty of the offence in question. One or two strokes per pupil given on the outstretched hands was the normal punishment, but up to six strokes each was not unheard of. The belt used was usually a Lochgelly tawse. Class sizes were generally in the range 20 to 35 so quite a bit of work was involved in strapping the lot of them!
You’re correct, of course, but perhaps it misses the point slightly! There was little worse in the staffroom than having a reputation for being unable to control a class and it didn’t go down well with the head. A lesson had to be given that noise or disruption would not be tolerated and, in general, classes did not repeat the uproar the next time that teacher left the room, although with some classes a lookout was posted at the door to listen out for approaching footsteps.
An efficient teacher could strap a row of 6 pupils in 10 seconda as long as they cooperated in having their hands held out quickly ready to take the belt. More time was spent in having the row of pupils shuffle out to the front to receive their punishment and shuffle back to their desks to sit and nurse their hot and stinging hands.
I don’t recall a single “whole class belting” that took more than 5 minutes to administer. Back then pupils respected the authority of the teacher and would not question his decision to use the belt. They came forward to be strapped like lambs to the slaughter.
I understand that in England there was a practice of using “the slipper”, usually a gym shoe, as a means of administering a less severe form of corporal punishment. This was not a feature of the disciplinary regime in Scotland’s schools. A few private schools in Scotland, who followed an essentially English curriculum, did use the cane as well as the tawse, and on the odd occasion in many schools, both private and local authority, a teacher would use a ruler, or such like, to administer punishment but, for the overwhelming majority of schools in Scotland, the leather tawse was the one and only instrument of punishment. Unlike the situation in a number of English schools, the Scottish pupil was not normally sent to the Headmaster or another senior member of staff to be punished, nor did he or she normally have to go the school office or another member of staff to borrow an instrument to be punished with. In Scotland virtually every teacher had their own belt ready in their desk drawer, or in their briefcase, or slipped over their shoulder under their jacket, ready to administer instant justice. The speed with which punishment was administered was rapid indeed. “You boy, not paying attention, come out here!” As the pupil made his way to the front of the class the teacher would open his desk drawer and remove his belt and give his command. “Get your hands up!” The pupil faced his teacher, stretched out his arms and placed one hand, palm uppermost, on top of the other. The teacher swung his belt up and over his shoulder before bringing it down hard up the length of the pupil’s hand. There would be a reaction and then “Again!” The hands would be raised again, usually with the other hand being placed on top. Again the belt would swing, the class would clearly hear the loud crack of leather striking palm as the tails made contact. “Back to your desk!” The pupil would walk back up the aisle and slump down in his seat, sullen faced and with two hands throbbing with extreme pain. The teacher would return his belt to his desk drawer and the lesson would recommence. Total time taken? Probably less than 30 seconds. Remarkable in its efficiency and effectiveness, and no paperwork required!
The biggest imperative as far as school management was concerned was to avoid parents making complaints. Good kids rarely told their parents if they were unfairly punished as part of a group, and even if they did, because good kids normally have good parents, they were unlikely to complain at the drop of a hat. Bad kids who perceived even the slightest trace of injustice, real or not, would be straight home complaining to parents who’d be straight up to the school to yell at the school for ‘picking on my Jake all the time.’
I like to think I was a good kid with good parents when I was at school. I did not get into trouble of my own making very often.
I and my brothers quickly learned is was no good complaining to our parents about perceived injustice at school, such as whole class punishments. They immediately sided with the teacher explaining they must have had cause, or how difficult the teachers task was, or that the unfair punishment probably balanced some unpunished real offence. This did not mean we did not feel aggrieved. I grew up understanding the world was not fair.
In those days schools, parents, other relatives, neighbours, sports and social organizations, and all authorities petty and great were allied to keep kids on the right path. The allies presented a united front.
I’m not so sure about a less “severe” form of CP but certainly less “serious”. I’m not sure if you’ve seen my previous posts on this subject so, to clarify, I don’t treat “serious” and “severe” as synonymous. The slipper can hurt a lot and the cane does not, necessarily, hurt more than the slipper. The slipper can be just as severe as the cane. The difference, as I see it, is that the slipper was an “everyday” punishment whereas the cane was only used by headteachers and was reserved for especially naughty girls (and boys). That made it a more “serious” punishment.
This “two tier” system had some advantages that appear to be absent from the Scottish system. In England, minor, everyday, misbehaviour could be dealt with by any teacher with his/her slipper. Serious matters were dealt with by the Head. with his/her cane. That represented a significant “step up”. It wasn’t just a matter of “Oh well, here we go again”, it was more a “Oh [dear], I’m really in for it now”
The different implement was significant. In Scotland, it was always the belt regardless of the seriousness of the offence. Being sent to the Head. might be seen as a bit of a “step up”; the Head. might use a heavier, more painful, tawse – but it was still a tawse, the same type of thing you might get from the teacher for talking in class. That, in my opinion, would lessen its psychological impact and blur the line between minor and serious misbehaviour.
Dr Dominum has said that, in Australia, when he was at school, they didn’t have the slipper either. Caning on the bare was used instead to distinguish serious offences from more minor ones. In Scotland, as the belt was always applied to the bare (I presume) hand, that distinction wasn’t possible.
Did Scottish schools have some method of distinguishing between punishments for serious and minor misbehaviour or was misbehaviour simply misbehaviour?
Although Scottish teachers’ straps were available with differing degrees of severity. most teachers’ owned and used a single strap. A very few had two straps and, if they did, might use the lighter one for girls and the heavier one for boys, or the lighter one for less serious offences and the heavier one for more serious ones.
When buying a strap at the commencement of their teaching career, many teachers considered the age group of the pupils they would be teaching and purchased a tawse appropriate in severity for that age group. Some teachers. of course, could lay the belt harder than others and almost reduce a pupil to tears with a single stroke. Others were less efficient. The Lochgelly 24″ 2 tail heavy school strap was the model most often used in Scotland’s schools and it featured an elongated handle so that the teacher could grip the belt at any point along the length the handle as he administered it, increasing or decreasing its effective length and with it the severity of the stroke that would be administered. Then there was the question of how many strokes were appropriate for the offence concerned. The teacher could decide on anything from a single stroke up to six strokes. Finally, he could decide exactly how hard he would aply the belt to the outstretched hands. With all these variables the teacher had all he or she required to administer an appropriate punishment from little more than a tap to something severe in the extreme so he could effectively deal with all manner of offences.
The sending of pupils to another teacher, or to the Headmaster, to be punished did happen, but it was fairly rare. The view was that it was the responsibility of the classroom teacher to control, and if required to discipline, his class not the duty of someone else. Sending pupils to another member of staff could be seen as an inability to cope and the process used up the valuable time of someone else. When it did happen it was sometimes because that particular class teacher did not have a strap, or did not believe in using one. Sometimes a pupil was sent to the Headmaster to be belted so that an example could be made of him or because he had refused to take the belt from his classroom teacher, or he had done something truly wicked. However, not all Head’s supported their class teachers in matters concerning CP so this technique would only work if the Head in question was one who believed that a visit to him by a pupil was not something the pupil would ever want to happen to him again.
There was also a feeling in Scottish educational circles that punishing the buttocks, even when covered with outdoor clothing, was somehow inappropriate, an embarrasment. especially if girls were present, and not part of Scottish education. Punishment on the clothed buttocks was banned back in the late 1950’s after which only the hands could be chastised and then only with a leather strap.
I can only say that the system worked. There was variation in the level of punishment according to the deed and the class teacher was respected, and sometimes feared, as a figure of authority including in matters concerning punishment.
I hope this explains the Scottish position, but I remain very interested in the position in England where it seems the cane was used less often and by fewer members of staff. Were there not times when some pupils regarded the slipper as a bit of a joke, or did it always hurt badly? Did pupils sometimes play up in front of their classmates as they were being punished? It just doesn’t seem to be the sort of instrument that could come near to equalling the tawse in its effectiveness and as a result did the same pupils get slippered time and time again?
There was also detention down this way. When I started at Grammar in 1963, this was on a Saturday morning & meant uniform had to be worn, too.
At MGS, about six masters used the slipper(or metal ruler/piece of wood if you were the Woodwork teacher!)when I started & none were using it by the time I left in 1970. I didn’t regard the size 11/12 firm-soled plimsolls in use as a joke & I only got the one 1-stroke(?)job from the aforesaid Woodwork master-and a bash on the head with the bit of wood, which broke the bloody wood, too!
I can’t say any of this acted as a deterrent to me. But detention struck me as a serious inconvenience until they shifted it in the 3rd year to Tuesday & Thursday nights, the former being Returned Work Detention for dullards or copiers of another’s homework(trust me to pick the wrong one in my Maths set to crib from!).
The latter was punitive detention(i.e. polishing classroom brass doorknobs etc.) & that was for misdemeanours. As with you, only serious stuff meant a visit to the Head, including smoking, the one time I got caned.
Would your Form Teacher have dealt with some of that sort of thing, or were teachers using the tawse confined to belting for offences committed under their own tender tutelage, as it were?
And, pardon another question, but am I right in thinking that most of Scotland was enthusiastically belting away virtually right up to Judgement Day in 1987? Or do you think it was dropping off well before then?
In this case I am sure my experience and memory is colored by the fact that the teacher was really angry. contrast that with other situations in which the atmosphere was matter of fact and low key ( possibly because it was recognized I was hyperactive ). Secondly I didn’t like and was already ‘apprehensive ‘ of this teacher, the others who punished me were people I liked and/or respected. Finally every other time I admit I deserved the punishment, or at least saw the reason for it . In this case I was sure it was wrong and unjust.
So it may not be the punishment alone that determines memory , but the events and perceptions surrounding it .
As to the 1968 recommendations . Lyn , my S.O. was a Scottish teacher in both state and private sectors before the respective abolition , and did use the tawse. she recalls that the agreement was signed by the EIS and then ignored by their members, especially the clause that insisted that the belt could not be used to punish academic failure in the classroom . She wouldn’t use it for that, she knew many who did.
You ask about teachers administering punishment to pupils not in their class. In many schools some teachers would have their belts with them in the corridors. When outside the classroom and on duty it was was usual for teachers to carry their belts held looped in one hand, or to have it slipped over their shoulder under their jacket.
Some teachers would be on “corridor patrol”. Their function was to supervise behaviour in the corridors when classes were changing rooms, or at break times or at the start and end of the school day. They would be on the lookout for offences such as “running in the corridor”, “going the wrong way up or down stairs”, pushing and shoving, excessive noise, rowdy behaviour etc. When they came across any such offences the pupil/s would be stopped, the belt produced, hands held up and the punishment administered on the spot, often in front of other pupils passing by. There were also “toilet patrols” set to check toilets for misbehaving pupils or smokers. Again they were belted on the spot. Some schools had “playground patrols” where punishment was administered for fighting, hitting windows with a football, boys being found in the girls playground etc. In these cases pupils were either belted in the playground or taken inside the school and belted there. “Belting the lates” was a common practice in many schools. The school entrance doors would be closed at 8.50am and any pupils arriving after that time would be detained just inside the school, boys near the boys entrance, girls at the girls entrance. At about 9.00am a male teacher would come along to the boys entrance and a female teacher to the girls entrance, line up the latecomers and work their way down the row belting each in turm. Seldom was an excuse accepted. Did anyone experience this at English schools, or was Scotland stricter on punishment than England was?
Thanks for your very interesting piece, and for your welcome. Glad I found this fascinating forum. Firstly the use of both the slipper (why do you call it that if it is a gymshoe”?) and the cane. I can see the message that is sent if a pupil has to attend the headmaster to be caned, all rubber legs and knot in stomach during the journey and a sore bottom on the way back! I can offer information on the Scottish education system and all aspects of the tawse but am less well informed about the position in England. Interesting you should say that there was variation. In Scotland there was variation too, from school to school and from teacher to teacher. Headmasters could wield much influence, some saw the tawse as the last option and discouraged their staff from using it unless absolutely necessary, while others encouraged their staff to use the belt for even the smallest of offences and would back them up by having a reputation of giving a very severe thrashing to any pupil that a teacher should have to send to him for punishment. Teachers too varied. I have known some who used it perhaps only a few times a week and others for whom using it 10 times in a 40 minute period (there were 8 periods in the day) would not be unusual.
My understanding is that there were possibly 3 major suppliers of canes to English schools, two based in London and one in the north, and a number of small producers. School canes could vary in both length and thickness with stouter models intended for older pupils. Ironmongers often supplied canes although most were supplied direct from the makers. Bamboo was less suitable as it was inflexible and could easily split during use. Rattan was much preferred as it was solid yet flexible and, I believe, very effective. I wonder how the proportion of straight canes used varied from those with a crook handle? I have never seen nor felt the cane so I depend on the views of the experienced! In some areas of England the leather school strap was used instead of, or as well as,the cane, particularly in the north and midlands. The main school strap supplier there was Cliffe of Walsall who produced a 22″ 3 tail strap in black or brown leather with a unique handle design almost resembling a cane. There was also Marshall of Manchester who supplied a strap not unlike that of McRostie of Glasgow in design but made from somewhat lighter leather. John Dick from Lochgelly in Fife supplied his famous and much more severe Scottish school straps to some English teachers as far south as London. I know a few ex pupils who were strapped with a “Lochgelly” when at school in England and all comment on what a very painful instrument it is, even when compared to the cane.
To look first at the situation down here in the run-up to 1987, I was always pretty clued up about MGS. So, the figure of 25 canings across the whole school in my time there that I posted some while ago here still strikes me as accurate.
However, let’s assume I was not quite as street-wise in my first two years and exactly that number again slipped under my radar. That’s still a mere 50 canings in 7 years. Average 7.14 a year and I think that was, for a school of c 750-775 eligible canees(VIth form excluded)about par for the course for the time, giving you a less than 1% chance of touching your toes in any given year.
Most of my contemporaries, male or female, at the local tech or secondaries, were probably far more likely to receive in-class slipperings than us, but trips for them to the Head for caning per capita were only slightly higher than us. I’m having to recall conversations over 40 years ago, but I’d suspect the figures were an average of 15-18 canings a year from 600 pupils, so that’s still only a 3% chance of getting caned.
Incidentally, all the secondary moderns were mixed, and only some caned girls as well. Again, a rough guess, boys got it about 3 times as much as girls at such places, so Jenny would have had around the same chance as me at MGS.
Even in those days, there were a few inner-city schools where the on-duty Master or Masters due to supervise dinner-time or its’ aftermath always carried a cane(London) or strap(Manchester & some parts of Liverpool)for the dispensation of instant justice. Whether they had Raiders Of The Loo Ark, I can’t be sure, but at MGS rooting out the smokers therein was left to praefects, always assuming of course that the praefects didn’t get there first for a Woodie!
I’d long thought CP at school had virtually died out by 1980, but the longer I’ve been on the forum, the clearer it’s become that it in fact returned to, or even exceeded, 1950’s levels up to 1977-78. This was mainly for boys, girls generally starting to fall out of the loop, but not entirely.
By around 1982/3, levels had dropped drastically & the casual/regular canings were starting to become legend and folk-lore. Most schools seemed to be reserving caning purely for the anti-social or deliberate rule-flouters. At which point, political and social pressures started to enter the fray and we first started to hear about the rights of the child.
And, Nelly, regarding lateness-there was simply a space reserved for them at the back of morning assembly. They filed in with the Catholics, Jews, Dissenters & other religions.
The only people asking questions might be your form Master, so the simple thing was to seek him out straight after assembly & before first lesson and apologise for your missing registration. As long as you either accepted responsibility for getting up late or didn’t invent a patently stupid reason such as leaves on the line at Surbiton(in another county!), you were OK.
An alternative strategy for avoiding assembly and the hated HM was to be there for registration. Then wander upstairs, down the back corridor where Chemistry & Physics labs were located & then on to the top of the staircase above the main entrance to the school.
Once you heard the distinctive tread below this point of the Lower School Head, “Frog” Newcombe making his way to the Junior(1st & 2nd years) Hall for assembly, you knew Moody was making HIS co-ordinated way down the stone cloister to the Main Hall for main assembly. Never failed.
And then, you were free to retire to the toilets with your Number 6, or Embassy on flusher days, and to read your Daily Mirror in peace.
just a quick note. Mean culpa, I must have missed your post when you estimated the numbers caned in MGS over your years. It certainly shows the difference with our place. First I suppose having four house master, a deputy head, and the Head ‘ licensed to cane’ meant there were likely to be more canings. We had just over 1,000 boys in those days , and I never totaled it up exactly , ( although the old boys have researched the punishment books) but it well exceeded your totals. On some days , several boys, especially for missing detention or smoking ….well 7 a week might be somewhat nearer , but still bit low , sometimes more , many more! I would have said (guesstimate) over five years ( excluding the sixth form where different rules applied) you must have had had a far better than even chance of being caned.
Most people I know ( except the no cane ‘A;’ stream until my upper fifth year ) were caned once , a few regularly . Of course when you run boarding , and therefore are around 24/7 there is a lot more opportunity………..and more meaning to ‘in loco parentis’
But then at our place the cane wasn’t reserved for heinous offenses , but was a mid range penalty , as I found to my cost! General attitude indeed!!!
I’ll ask around and try to get a better feel for the numbers involved.
‘When they said repent …..I wonder what they meant???’ (Leonard Cohen : The Future)
I know we can’t base our conclusions on the basis of one example, but your experiences appear to confirm what I have long believed, namely that the cane was used far less in England than the tawse was in Scotland. Lateness, for example, was usually punished with the tawse in Scotland while your lot apparently got off Scot free, if you’ll excuse the pun. Not fair at all!
In Scotland the use of the tawse varied according to the school in question, the decade under consideration, the catchment area of the school, the view of individual teachers and the Headmaster. Less academic pupils were generally strapped considerably more than those in A and B streams. The peak years for receiving the strap were from Primary 5 to Secondary 3. It was also used outwith these year groups, but usually less so. With boys, the year group most belted was age 14 and, perhaps strangely, with girls it was age 15. In general girls behaved better and applied themselves more to their work, but as they matured they could talk back and give the teacher cheek. As a result they were strapped less often. Boys worked less hard, broke more school rules, tended to fight and make a noise,swear, were disruptive and could show acts of bravado in front of girls in a class. As a result they were belted much more often. The worst example I know of involved a boy who was strapped 9 times in a single period lesson. Very few boys got through school without being belted and about 25% of them were routinely belted several times in an average week.
I recall during our school holidays going doen south to visit my uncle near London. I went to the school of my cousin in Coulsdon to wait for him coming out. Pupils poured out of the school, sauntered about and made their way home, but there was no sign of my cousin. Eventually 6 boys appeared, my cousin amongst them, all rubbing their hands and with terse expressions on their faces. Apparently they had all been sent to the Headmaster when the school closed in order to be caned. The delay had been due to the time it took to gather them all together, time for the lecture and the punishment that followed. I think they were each given a total of 4 strokes on their hands, and I can’t remember what it for, but I wonder whether the practice of punishing in this way was regarded as normal or was it unusual?
That brought back memories, on which I’ve commented before in this estimable Forum. In the early 1960s starting a Scottish holiday I spent the night at a B&B just north of Luss on Lomondside. The next day, having breakfasted and had a stroll round, I was loading the car to depart when the lady of the house emerged and asked if I could possibly give her daughter a lift to school as she had contrived to miss the school bus. I was happy to oblige, although this apparently meant going back south.
The girl, 14, 15 maybe, duly rapidly boarded and we set off down Lomondside. A shy young man, I didn’t make conversation other than to confirm the route. I drove circumspectly, so as not to alarm my young passenger. Fairly soon however the young lady decided that I wasn’t going fast enough. To my total consternation she announced that she’d get belted if we didn’t get there in time! I would have dearly liked to question her on this. Although I had some interest in school CP I’d never heard of belting as a school punishment, and I certainly wouldn’t have expected a girl to be corporeally punished for being late. Indeed, in response to your queries
On another theme there is a reference to a whole class recieving the slipper.
What on earth did a whole class do to merit such a punishment?
Having been at school in the same time frame I never could understand teachers logics regarding punishment.
NELLY
The only mass caning at MGS was 4 of my fellow 5th formers for dumb insolence. They were following one of the masters to the dining hall and were calling his nickname ever louder. This was the great(because he got me through O level Maths & with a grade 4)HP McCullum, or Merc as per nickname.
He suddenly spun round and spat out:
“Right, you lot–to the Headmasterrr!”(He was Somerset born & bred). The guilty 3 & one innocent bystander were caned there and then. Merc had a way with the English language, this quote regarding my mathematical abilities better illustrates the accent:
“Arr-yew stinkin’ great cabbige, McCook!”
I wonder if the incident of which you caught the tail-end might have been extended by a sift of suspects to eliminate the innocent. It strikes me as unusual for that sort of trouble to be taken, so it could have been a more mundane explanation, maybe that some of the guilty parties were on the games field and therefore off the premises that afternoon-Coulsden’s near enough my neck of the woods & most schools even then had distant playing fields in London and its’ suburbs. We had 6 rugby pitches at MGS, but often overflowed onto the public pitches in nearby Mote Park for games as well.
The Head might also have had earlier appointments he couldn’t interrupt, of course. Maybe, just maybe, he needed a quick sustainer from the hip flask before battle commenced!
I think the general line, even with our agreed lesser use of CP down here, was probably the same both sides of the border when it came to mob-handed misbehaviour-the Claude Rains/Captain Renault approach:
“Round up the usual suspects!”
AND Claude Rains was also born in Camberwell, SE5!
The only mass caning at MGS was 4 of my fellow 5th formers for dumb insolence. They were following one of the masters to the dining hall and were calling his nickname ever louder. This was the great(because he got me through O level Maths & with a grade 4)HP McCullum, or Merc as per nickname.
He suddenly spun round and spat out:
“Right, you lot–to the Headmasterrr!”(He was Somerset born & bred). The guilty 3 & one innocent bystander were caned there and then. Merc had a way with the English language, this quote regarding my mathematical abilities better illustrates the accent:
“Arr-yew stinkin’ great cabbige, McCook!”
I wonder if the incident of which you caught the tail-end might have been extended by a sift of suspects to eliminate the innocent. It strikes me as unusual for that sort of trouble to be taken, so it could have been a more mundane explanation, maybe that some of the guilty parties were on the games field and therefore off the premises that afternoon-Coulsden’s near enough my neck of the woods & most schools even then had distant playing fields in London and its’ suburbs. We had 6 rugby pitches at MGS, but often overflowed onto the public pitches in nearby Mote Park for games as well.
The Head might also have had earlier appointments he couldn’t interrupt, of course. Maybe, just maybe, he needed a quick sustainer from the hip flask before battle commenced!
I think the general line, even with our agreed lesser use of CP down here, was probably the same both sides of the border when it came to mob-handed misbehaviour-the Claude Rains/Captain Renault approach:
“Round up the usual suspects!”
A true gentleman, Sir! To save that poor girl from painful stinging hands. Or were you cheating the system? I was late fo school several times because the bus was late. The excuse was not accepted. “You should have left home in time to walk here” and the application of the belt followed. Very sore at any time, absolutely excruciating on really cold hands on a freezing winters day.
You are refering to a rural area where the use of the belt was usually less frequent, although it certainly was still used. It remains on record that, at a school a little north of where you were, over one hundred pupils were strapped one afternoon after being found out of the school grounds after the lunch break. The offenders were rounded up, formed into lines and a team of teachers arrived, belts in their hands, to belt the lot of them. It was in the towns, particularly the industrial ones, that the belt was most often used. You could walk into virtually any Scottish secondary school in the 50’s, 60’s and 70’s and hear the crack of leather being applied as you walked the corridors. I hope you thanked your parents for arranging to have you born south of the border!
Perhaps it did derive from a domestic situation where the use of a carpet slipper in parental chastisement was not uncommon in the 20th century. The school item was simply a thicker, heavier version of the same implement. I can see how a gymshoe could give a strong sting if soundly applied, but I would respectfully suggest that the tawse was even worse. The velocity at the twin tails end of a 24″ tawse at it flew with considerable effort over the shoulder of the teacher was such that the hand received an almighty whack with about the final 5″ of the tails leathering the length of the hand in that instant and the leather was very heavy, stiff and about 8mm thick. It more than took the breath away. Reactions would include “running on the spot”, cupping hand to mouth and blowing into it, shaking hand violently, yelps of “Aowww” and “Ooya”, deep intakes of breath, puffing and panting, squeezing hand shut and drawing the hand to the chest with eyes closed struggling to suffer the pain.
A number of schools can give reports of group or mass beltings. I saw one in a school one day in the late 60’s which resulted from food being thrown in the dining hall during the lunch break. The throwing spread and eventually the whole place was in uproar and the duty teacher had lost control. A prefect was sent to tell the Headmaster who arived very quickly with 4 members of staff. All had their belts with them. The doors were barred, silence demanded and the pupils were ordered to form up in lines. The Headmaster, Deputy Head and teachers stood at the top of the hall in front of the stage and, as the rows moved forward, the teachers belted every pupil present (there would be about 120) before sending them out to the playground. Quite a sight.
The school I was referring to was in Buckie, Aberdeenshire where over 100 were belted for being out of the authorised area.
In the 1960’s Messrs Jacobs, Young and Westbury of Haywards Heath produced around 15,000 school canes each year. In addition they held a contract to supply canes to the Inner London Education Authority up to, I think, the 1970’s. Their canes carried no makers stamp but their contract ones had the initials ILEA branded into the crook of the handle.
The other major London maker was John Gray and Co, an old established firm of walking stick makers who also produced school canes, many thousands each year. Other major suppliers were Cooper of Godalming, who supplied around 6,000 canes per year, and Wilson of Carlisle.
The canes were made from rattan with the nodules and tips carefully cut and sanded. Crook handles were formed by steeping one end of the straight cane in a vat of hot water for a day until it softened. It was then bent over a large diameter rounded length of wood and tied in position to form a loop at one end. After being allowed to dry out, the tie was undone and the crook end remained in shape to form a handle which prevented the cane from slipping through the hand when in use and provided the ability to hang it on a hook for storage.
Both firms made canes in different lengths and diameters for differing requirements. Sometimes known as “Junior” and “Senior” models, the lengths could vary from around 22″ to 38″ and the diameter from 6mm to 12mm. A typical example of a crook handled secondary school cane might be about 32″ long and 10mm in dimeter. It would be possible to flex it and bend it to a fair degree without it splitting. The tip was sanded to avoid cutting when it was used. Some canes could split or become “hairy” at the end and had to be replaced. They were inexpensive compared to a Scottish tawse. In the 60’s a school cane would cost about 10p (in new money) while a Lochgelly tawse was around £2.50. But the tawse was easily transported and was everlasting, often handed down from generation to generation of teachers and as good after 100 years of use as the day it was made.
A typical example of a crook handled secondary school cane might be about 32″ long and 10mm in dimeter. It would be possible to flex it and bend it to a fair degree without it splitting. The tip was sanded to avoid cutting when it was used. Some canes could split or become “hairy” at the end and had to be replaced.
For someone who wrote two days ago that you had never seen or felt a cane, you seem to have lots of information to impart. Much, but not all, of it is correct.
I strongly advise against trying to bend a cane as it damages the stem. Rattan canes don’t usually “split”, although they sometimes break or become weak close to the point where they are held, particularly if a backswing is used before the downstroke. The only way a cane would split or become hairy at the end is if it is hit repeatedly on a hard surface rather than its intended target.
On another point, I don’t think crook handles were commonly made by soaking and tying. The process would be far too cumbersome for manufacturing in quantity and the crooks would not retain their shape reliably.
I have handled a “modern” cane, but not an authentic school one, much as I would like to. My information mainly comes from a number of years of research on the subject, including manufacturers, films, photographs and written details of cane manufacture. I can assure you that school canes were made in the way I described, at least by the two most prolific manufacturers in England. It was a labour intensive industry by today’s standards, but they were produced in batches of perhaps 30 at a time affixed along the same pole and the “tieing and drying” procedure to form the crook did indeed work. Both the cane in England and the tawse in Scotland were entirely hand made. No machinery, no automation, just fairly repetitive work.
I have heard several reports of canes splitting at the ends, although I accept entirely that the majority did not. Your point that this was most likely due to the cane being used to strike a hard object is quite possibly the explanation, although I know of at least a couple of schools who appear to have used simple bamboo garden canes and these tended to split fairly easily, and I knew of a Headmaster in a London secondary school who ordered a heavy tawse on the grounds that his cane had developed a split at the tip and he was concerned that it might cause damage when used. He had heard of the Lochgelly tawse, ordered one up and was, by his own account, delighted with its effectiveness. In Scotland it was far from unknown for teachers to suddenly bring their belts down hard on the desk of an unsuspecting pupil. Made one hell of a noise and gave him/her quite a shock, but did no damage to the tawse. Perhaps the same could not be said of the cane if used in a similar manner.
As for flexibility, perhaps you could clarify the position for me? I have seen rattan school canes flexed to a half moon shape, but it may be that the degree to which one of these canes could be flexed depended on the diameter of the cane in question. It would perhaps be reasonable to expect that one of the lighter, say 6mm, canes would more ameniable to flexing than would a stouter 12mm example. Have you seen canes being flexed prior to use, or have you ever attempted to flex one yourself?
There was a master at Aylesford Secondary School(the one nearest to my house in Maidstone) famed for caning with split end canes-Hitchcock, not Alfred, but the Geography Teacher;boys only there, by the way.
I also saw our Maths teacher in 1R at MGS, Bert Rudling, tap the blackboard sharply with what I remember as a rattan pointer. He did this frequently & not as a warning re CP, just to gain attention.
Unfortunately, he did it once too often and the tip end, about 9 inches of the 3 foot flew off. I caught it, otherwise it would have parted my crew-cut, if such a hairdressing feat is possible! Damn good slip catch from a sitting position if I say so myself, even if it was two-handed.
Bertie left after one term though he’d been there 3 years already, but this wasn’t connected with teaching us. I think, as he was the only staff member in a bubble-car, he probably died trapped in his garage. Those things were hard enough to get into, but exiting was infinitely harder!