Found at: http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/articleprint/3201/-1/133/
|
Bring Back The Extended Family by Colville Petty
|
I spent part of Christmas Day flipping through the pages of the punishment record of the old East End Primary School for the period 1924 to 1931. It was time well spent because I was able to get a better appreciation of the nature of the discipline in our schools and Anguillian society back then – and of the kinds of efforts which were put into the moulding of a peaceful and law-abiding society.
|
|
Colville Petty: Historian/Curator, Heritage Collection Museum
|
The school’s mission was twofold. Firstly, the transmission of academic knowledge. Secondly, the passing on of a value system to ensure the creation and sustainability of a well-disciplined, peaceful and caring society.
With regard to the transmission of academic knowledge, the school spared no effort in making sure that the children learned their lessons. Fooling around was totally unacceptable. “Inattention at lesson” often carried four stripes, with a ‘leather-strap’, while “idl[ing] in class” carried six. Seven-year old Alford got four for “making grimace at another boy while lesson [was] going on.” And when Austin and Thomas were heard “talking about a boy’s parents during lessons” each of them was given nine stripes. Frances, age13, was luckier. She got six stripes for “persistent talking about another classmate’s dress.”
Children had to know when to talk and when not to talk. Talking out of turn or talking excessively usually carried a heavy penalty:
Talked during roll call – 12 stripes
Talked in line – 4 stripes
Talked after the bell was rung – 12 stripes
Talked aloud in class – 12 stripes
Talked during physical exercise – 4 stripes
Keeping noise outside school while awaiting admittance – 12 stripes
Talked immediately after being told to stop talking – 12 stripes
Persistent talking – 12 stripes
No distractions of any kind were tolerated. One dared not eat in class: eating “corn in class” – 3 stripes; and “drink[ing] water in school building” – 4 stripes.
In addition to paying attention to their lessons the children had to produce good work. Unsatisfactory or poor work was intolerable and punishable by stripes. There was a boy who got twelve stripes for “gross carelessness in work.” Another one got two for “careless writing.” So did Thomas, age 11, for “writing not properly done.” Then there were Geddes, Uriel, Alva and George, each getting four stripes for “very poor dictation.” One day some15 boys were given from two to six stripes for “Recitation not properly learnt.” The school abhorred mediocrity and therefore:
Poor work in Arithmetic – 5 stripes
Geography unknown – 2 stripes
Back then parents were glad that the school exhibited such interest in their children’s work. And that once they were in school they were well looked after. Actually, the children were not allowed to leave its grounds before the end of the afternoon’s session at about 3 o’clock. A boy who “went home without permission” got six stripes and all those girls, including Dulcina, Camelia and Rose, who “absented themselves to witness [a] wedding at St Augustine’s Church” got four. One day one of the Flemings’ boys from Mount Fortune got six stripes “for persistent talking.” He was extremely angry so he up with his books and went home. When he returned the following day he was given 12 stripes for “march[ing] “out of school after being flogged.” His parents did not go to the school to fight the teachers. They were aware and supportive of the school’s efforts in the development of their 11 year-old son and of its strict disciplinary code.
Some miscellaneous offences included:
Urinated near tank – 6 stripes
Failed to answer names – 2 stripes
Laughing during the singing of the evening hymn – 6 stripes
Entered school garden – 5 stripes
The school took an extremely high interest in every aspect of a child’s upbringing including his or her physical appearance. Untidiness carried a high penalty. Both boys and girls had to be properly groomed: hair combed, fingernails cleaned and feet washed. The school was like a second parent.
Now to the school’s other mission, that of passing on a value system to ensure the creation and sustainability of a well-disciplined, peaceful and caring society. Essential elements of that value system included good manners, courtesy and respect. In this regard, one of the many principles which the school sought to instil in its students was love and respect for each other. Love thy neighbour as thou love thyself. The school did a good job of this. The punishment records for the seven-year period which I examined show not one incident of serious bodily harm being inflicted by one child upon another. But there was an instance where a child was punished for use of a dangerous weapon: Amos, age 10, was given nine stripes for “drawing knife to cut a girl.” Incidents of serious injuries were negligible but there were acts like:
Putting manchineel in smaller boy’s eyes – 3 stripes
Pricking boy with pin – 2 stripes
Throwing stone at dog and striking another boy – 4 stripes
Pricking a boy with pen [nib] – 2 stripes
Flung ruler at boy – 6 stripes
Kicked girl in playground – 6 stripes
Smashing another girl and refusing to ask pardon – 2 stripes
In furtherance of respect for each other the use of abusive or indecent words was discouraged. “Using improper words” caused one child to get three stripes. David got twelve for “using very dirty language to girl who threatened to report him.” And children who were “quarrelling with each other” were given either 3 or 5 stripes.
The school also instilled the principle of truthfulness. The children were taught that lying was a sin and that “the truth will set you free.” Untruthfulness usually carried five stripes but 11-year old Uriel got twelve for “untruthfulness in order to get away from afternoon class.” A related principle which the school imparted was honesty and respect for other people’s property. It taught them not to covet and sought to stamp out stealing in all its forms. The offence carried no less than six stripes. Austin, 9 years, got six for “stealing a sugar cake.” And so did Charles for “eating another child’s lunch,” Ismay for “stealing [a] pen nib” and Catherine for “[attempted] stealing.” Others like Mary who “stole school book” and Geneva who stole “money belonging to school mate” got twelve stripes.
In addition to respect for other people’s property, children were taught that the acquisition of property was through hard work and that, irrespective of ownership, its destruction was society’s loss. In view of this, the lack of care of school property was not countenanced. Joseph, age 7, got three stripes for “throwing stones in pit of latrine.” James, age 8, was given six for “meddling with tap of [the water] tank.” Other offences having to do with the lack of care for school property included:
Broke school slate by fighting – 16 stripes
Soiled school book – 8 stripes
Scribbled in school book – 12 stripes
Marked school book – 3 stripes
Tore school book – 6 stripes
Wasted school ink – 9 stripes
Spilling ink – 3 stripes
Broke school ruler – 8 stripes
Carelessly breaking eraser – 4 stripes
The care of personal property was also emphasised. In those days parents were extremely poor and therefore teachers ensured that the children took care of what little school material they had. For example, a child “tore [his] exercise book” and was given ten stripes. A girl got six stripes because her “exercise book leaves [were] carelessly lying about the school.” And ten-year old Frances received two stripes for “tearing [her] book because of faults in Dictation.”
Punctuality was also one aspect of children’s upbringing on which the school placed much emphasis. Lateness, depending on the reason, sometimes resulted in some of them getting up to eight stripes. A group of children from Island Harbour were given four stripes each because they “loitered among the cherry trees and came to school late.” On another occasion five-year old Christopher got 4 stripes.
Respect for authority was another principle which the school instilled. The school recognised it as being critical to good order and that in its absence chaos would take its place. To this end it adopted a no nonsense approach to ensuring that its students got the message. Ernest, 16 years old, got twelve stripes for being “disrespectful to Head Teacher.” Edward, 13, got a similar number for being “insolent to Head Teacher.” And Eugenia, 11, was given twelve stripes for “spreading scandal on teacher.” Wherever the lack of respect for authority reared it ugly head the school meted out what it considered requisite corporal punishment:
Disobeyed order to sweep – 6 stripes
Interrupted Head Teacher whilst speaking – 6 stripes
Continued laughing in class when told to stop by Assistant Teacher – 12 stripes
Rude to Assistant Teacher – 6 stripes
Disrespectful to Assistant Teacher and disobedient to Head Teacher – 12 stripes
Used bad language towards Assistant Teacher – 12 stripes
Giving teacher an unbecoming answer – 3 stripes
Disobedience – 6 stripes
I want to mention here that having looked through the punishment record of the old East End School, for the years 1924 to 1931, two things struck me. One was the strict adherence to the proverb, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” The school did not spare the rod and certainly produced a well-disciplined community. I know that there are all kinds of arguments for and against corporal punishment in our schools and homes. I do not intend to be drawn into any discussion on them, suffice it to say that corporal punishment worked well for us despite its drawbacks. We kicked it out and replaced it with a style of punishment where, for example, if a child does something wrong he or she is banned from watching television for a day, or is denied a pair of Nike shoes or a cell phone for the next school-term or birthday. Today we are reaping the fruits of sparing the rod.
The other thing which struck me was the oneness – the unity – of school and home. The school was an extension of the home. It was part of an extended family. For example, when a child proved too difficult for a parent to handle, the school did the handling. I came across an entry where a brother and sister (Dorothy and Benjamin), both age 7, were “very unruly at home” and the Head Teacher gave them four stripes each. Then there was a child who was “disrespectful to [his] guardian” and given six. And Mary, 10 years old, got six stripes for “stealing from parent . . .”
I make the point that there was also the oneness of school, home and community. The punishment record of the old East End School suggests that the school was the village policeman and the village court with respect to matters concerning children. There was a child who struck an old man and the school gave him three stripes. And there was a 10-year-old girl who “pilfered limes in neighbour’s yard.” No one called the police. It was not a police matter. Let me correct myself. It was indeed a police matter. The school was the police. And the girl was taken to court. The school was the court. She was found guilty and given six stripes.
The school had no borders. There were few, if any, limits to its power and authority. For example, misconduct on the road, whether on the way to or from school, church or shop was something the school dealt with. It did not matter whether the act occurred on a Saturday or Sunday – or on Good Friday or Boxing Day. That was irrelevant. Whenever, and wherever, it occurred the children concerned did not escape the long arm of the school. There was an occasion when some boys were given three stripes each for being “disorderly in street and so causing a fight.” Then there was David, 10 years, who was given six stripes for “swinging on car.”
Back then the school, home and community were an extended family. The goals of one were the goals of the other. There were no conflicting signals. If one got punished in school for an offence it made no sense complaining at home because it meant more punishment. The same applied when someone in the community punished a child who was not his own. Each man was his brother’s keeper. And what hurt eyes made nose run.
My Christmas Day research has reinforced my long-held view that central to the creation of a well-disciplined, peaceful and caring society is a vibrant, healthy and meaningful relationship among school, home and community. Central to the sustainability of such a society is an extended family union of school, home and community inclusive of the church and civil society organisations. The closer we get to bringing back the principal elements of that extended family union, the closer we get to solving many of the social problems with which our society is presently confronted.