Spotlight on Smacking

Spotlight on Smacking

Issue 14

Is smacking an acceptable and effective form of discipline or an unnecessary and archaic way to punish a child’s bad behaviour? Zoe Bolton looks at the arguments for and against smacking and explores some non-physical alternatives

Smacking is a controversial and highly emotive issue, which continues to dominate modern parenting. Those in favour say it has been unnecessarily stigmatised while the anti-smacking lobby continues to campaign for an outright ban. So, who is right? And what alternative methods of discipline are open to parents?

Smacking: The Facts

Smacking first became a major political issue in 2002 when the United Nations urged the Government to introduce an outright ban in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The House of Lords rejected calls for a ban in July last year, opting instead to amend the description of what constitutes ‘reasonable chastisement’ by introducing new legislation that allows parents to use only ‘mild smacking’ to discipline a child.

The new laws came into effect in January this year, making any punishment, which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts illegal in England and Wales.

Despite the fact that smacking has already been outlawed in Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark, the Government here currently has no plans to introduce an outright ban.

The Argument For

Perhaps one of the most persuasive arguments in favour of smacking is that between 80% and 90% of parents agree that it is sometimes necessary to smack a child. Pro-smacking groups say that the bad publicity about smacking has stigmatised a method of discipline that has been used effectively by parents for many years.

According to organisations like Family and Youth Concern, in some situations a disciplinary smack is a more kind and positive response than other approaches, which may be more drawn-out or risk causing emotional damage.

“The use of a moderate physical sanction by a parent as a disciplinary tool in the context of a warm, caring relationship in which the child is valued and cherished, is not a violent assault and is not more worthy of the description ‘hitting’ than an injection given by a doctor is termed ‘stabbing’,” says Norman Wells, director of Family and Youth Concern.

“Generations of parents have proved that moderate physical correction is by no means incompatible with a warm family life where children are loved, cherished, encouraged, played with, read to, and praised when they do well.”

Research has shown that in certain contexts parental smacking does have positive outcomes. This is particularly the case when it is used in response to disobedience or wilful defiance and is done in a controlled manner accompanied with a verbal explanation.

Experts also found that those parents who used moderate physical discipline were much less likely to resort to ridicule, fear and withdrawal of love, which can cause long term psychological damage to a child.

“Anti-smacking campaigners invariable fail to differentiate between harsh and abusive treatment and mild physical rebukes, accompanied by reason in the context of a warm and supportive parent-child relationship,” says Mr Wells.

“A recent analysis comparing physical correction with alternative disciplinary tactics found that smacking was more effective than other strategies overall, and resulted in lower levels of antisocial behaviour.”

Organisations that advocate smacking also point to the fact that there is already adequate legislation in place to protect children from excessive and unreasonable punishment, and that introducing a ban would only increase state interference in family life.

“A legal ban on smacking would inevitably lead to unnecessary police and social service investigations in loving families where children are not at the slightest risk of harm, says Mr Wells.

“This would have a traumatic effect on those families, and would vastly increase the caseload of social workers, leading to insufficient attention being given to children suffering serious abuse.”

For more information about Family and Youth Concern visit www.famyouth.org.uk

The Argument Against

According to anti-smacking campaigners, smacking is ineffective, unnecessary and a last resort for parents when they don’t know how to manage their child’s bad behaviour.

One of the main arguments against smacking is that while it may have the immediate effect of stopping the child from continuing to be disruptive, in the long-term it teaches them that it is acceptable to use violence as a solution to problems.

Research also shows that children don’t have to be smacked very often to start feeling distrustful and even fearful of their parents.

“Even when children have only been smacked a couple of times in the back of their mind is the feeling that it might happen again,” says Noël Janis-Norton, author of the book ‘Can’t Smack? Won’t Smack?’.

“Often children will remember the smack but do not remember what misbehaviour led to it. The physical shock seems to wipe that memory from their brain. This means that they are just as likely to repeat the behaviour.”

According to Mrs Janis-Norton, who is the director of the New Learning Centre in London, this is also made worse by the fact that almost all smacking is done when the parent is impulsively flying off the handle and losing their temper:

“Smacking is never used consistently because even parents who smack would rather not, so they always use it as a last resort and it shouldn’t be a last resort. Doesn’t it seem silly really that we can expect an impulsive action on the part of the parent to teach children self-control?”

The New Learning Centre is one of a number of organisations, including Barnardo’s and the NSPCC, that has pledged its support to the Children are Unbeatable alliance. The alliance continues to lobby for an outright ban on smacking, on the grounds that all physical punishment is wrong.

“It’s not as if a total ban will immediately stop people smacking, but what it does is create a cultural shift,” explains Mrs Janis-Norton. “In the Scandinavian countries that is what has happened. Once the law was passed, public opinion started to shift rapidly.”

Mrs Janis-Norton believes that one of the main obstacles to a ban in Britain is that parents feel that there is no alternative to smacking:

“If parents don’t know what else to do then they are going to keep on smacking their children as a last resort,” explains Mrs Janis-Norton.

“It’s a salacious argument really because it’s not as if smacking is effective. Sometimes it works in the short-term particularly if the child is not very impulsive but those children are extremely easy to manage without smacking, so what I want to say to people is that it doesn’t have to be this way because there are alternatives.”

For more information about the Children are Unbeatable alliance visit www.childrenareunbeatable.org.uk

What are the Non-Physical Alternatives?

In ‘Can’t Smack? Won’t Smack?’ Mrs Janis-Norton, who has raised two children and five foster children, outlines two main ways to prepare for good behaviour, with the aim of preventing the sort of disruptive conduct that can drive parents to smack.

The first of these is to organise the environment to make everyday tasks run more smoothly:

“Let’s say you have children, probably boys because boys are more boisterous, and you’re trying to get them ready in the morning and they just want to play and chase each other around,” says Mrs Janis-Norton.

“One way to prepare the environment for success is to put each child’s clothes into a separate room and have them dress in separate rooms. This will prevent the boisterous behaviour from taking place and make the morning routine much less stressful for the parent.”

The second way to prepare for success is to have a conversation to make sure that the child knows exactly what is expected of them:

“When parents tell a child to do something often they don’t listen, so preparing for success conversations work better because a parent asks the child how they think they should behave and does not by tell them how to behave,” explains Mrs Janis-Norton.

“Parents shouldn’t expect one conversation to do the trick. I recommend having lots and lots of these conversations, as they’re so friendly and relaxed because you’re talking about how the child should behave before the event rather than waiting until things go wrong.”

Another preventative measure recommended in the book is the use of descriptive praise where parents notice and mention all the things that a child is doing right rather than drawing attention to what they are doing wrong.

“If parents have children who tend to squabble with each other what usually happens is that when they are playing nicely the parent just ignores the good behaviour and takes the opportunity to get on with all those other chores that a parent has to do. The parent’s attention is then only drawn to the children when they start squabbling,” says Mrs Janis-Norton.

“What I advise is prolonging the good times by noticing and mentioning them to the children. This reinforces that the behaviour is positive and the praise encourages the children to repeat this good behaviour in the future.”

According the Mrs Janis-Norton, following these simple measures can reduce misbehaviour and help children to get into good habits.

“Smacking and shouting are the least effective ways to manage a child’s behaviour and I want to leave parents with the very strong message that life with children can be calmer, happier and easier without resorting to raised voices and physical chastisement.”

Can’t Smack? Won’t Smack, is published by Barrington Stoke and available at all good bookshops priced £12.99.

For more information about the New Learning Centre visit www.tnlc.info