Updated paragraphs: note argument terminology
In a stern and resolute tone, Ms Snowden advocates the re-introduction of corporal punishment on the grounds that it is an effective disciplinary tool in the classroom. Her key points revolve around the recent comments of an educational adviser, Dr Donnelly, whose “first-hand” experience as a teacher lends credibility to her view that teachers need access to stricter methods. Both Ms Snowden and her “mentor” champion corporal punishment and, using cause-and-effect reasoning strategies, suggest that “time-out” is an inadequate consequence of the ban . Specifically, Ms Snowden seeks to vex concerned parents, by singling out unruly and boisterous students who are exploiting “time-out” methods, which are not a deterrent to disruptive behaviour. She also seeks to target and isolate teachers and policy makers who are not providing a secure learning environment. Alliterative phrases such as “tough talk” and a “stern stare” suggest that alternative methods of discipline are inadequate. By appealing to a student’s universal right to an education, she seeks to justify the reintroduction of corporal punishment to the school cohort and shame students who jeopardise or undermine others’ rights. Certainly, parents are encouraged to recognise that there are merits in a stricter form of punishment.
Contrastingly, Mr Scott condemns corporal punishment on the grounds that it is an unnecessary and unjust disciplinary tool. If Ms Snowden praises Dr Donnelly’s proposals and believes that recalcitrant students are benefiting from the current system, Mr Scott decries such policy proposals. Adopting an outraged and candid tone, he bases his argument upon several anecdotal examples – both his own and that of another student – to show how “sadistic” priests are the ones to exploit a culture of permissible violence. According to Mr Scott, at the age of five he received “six of the best”, for no apparent reason, and he challenges members of the school community and policy makers to empathise with the humiliation he experienced. This anecdotal evidence impugns the gratuitous nature of the punishment and shames those who neglected their duty of care. Likewise, other similarly brutal punishments that reinforce his own, focus on “broken” hands, as a consequence of not wearing a uniform. These examples also cast aspersions upon teachers’ motives and shame their actions. The rhetorical question, “are these the senior staff” who would be given the “discretion” to punish, provokes doubts about the teachers’ mental stability and their desire to punish and humiliate students. Such a portrayal will no doubt alarm many concerned parents who have teenagers in high school and who believe in the child’s rights to a safe environment as well as their right to learn without fear. Such parents are also likely to concur with Ms Peace’s view, rather than Dr Donnelly’s, that we must not teach that children that “violence is socially acceptable”; rather, she believes, we must all recognise that school leaders should find more appropriate ways to resolve conflicts in the classroom.
- See a quick and effective paragraph plan (based on our quick checklist)
- See this link for table/ comments /ideas and summaries
- See updated paragraphs: note argument terminology
- Back To “Turn to” Summary Page