Of course it is possible to teach without the paddle, many teachers have managed that for years. Looking at the issue in a cold and scientific light, the fact that a small but finite proportion of the school population will be damaged by paddling per se, and a much larger proportion CAN be damaged if it is not used judiciously and with compassion/moderation, is sufficient cause in the view of these professional communities to relegate it to history. It seems a good argument that as there are alternatives, the inherent risk factor alone is sufficient to cease.
However if that is interpreted locally as an attack on a system embedded for years, and, in the eyes of the majority ‘did me no harm’ then the attempt at abolition is seen as ‘outsiders’ getting involved in ‘our ‘ business. The argument is more difficult to sell and positions become entrenched.