This blog post examines the changed classroom landscape following the implementation of the corporal punishment ban and contemplates the direction education should take, balancing student rights and the authority of teachers.
On March 18, 2011, South Korea’s ‘Enforcement Decree of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act’ was amended, establishing the ‘Corporal Punishment Ban Law’. Previously, corporal punishment inflicting physical pain was permitted only when deemed unavoidable for educational purposes. However, under the amended law, corporal punishment involving the use of tools or the body to inflict physical pain on students was prohibited. This was also a result of growing societal demands since the 2000s, as films and cases related to school violence emerged, spreading negative perceptions of corporal punishment within schools. Particularly, the incident known as the ‘O Jang-poong Teacher Case’ shocked many when a video of a teacher assaulting a student spread rapidly online, becoming a significant catalyst for the implementation of the Corporal Punishment Prohibition Act.
The implementation of the corporal punishment ban law in Korea occurred during a period when debates over teachers’ authority and students’ human rights were intensifying. While students were increasingly recognized as subjects whose rights must be protected, opinions emerged that the role and authority of teachers required reexamination. Consequently, in some schools in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province, the corporal punishment ban law is currently enforced, prohibiting teachers from physically punishing students. However, in other regions, corporal punishment is still permitted to a limited extent, or indirect forms of punishment remain in place as substitutes. These differences in the application of the law continue to spark controversy within the education sector and among parents. Some argue that the ban on corporal punishment has made student discipline more difficult, while others support the position that the ban represents a progressive direction, improving the school environment and respecting student autonomy.
However, since the ban, incidents of students disregarding teacher authority or even physically assaulting teachers have frequently surfaced in the media, emerging as a significant social issue. As the perception grows that the ban has weakened teachers’ authority, voices from educators expressing difficulty maintaining classroom order are also increasing. Some teachers feel their authority is gradually eroding within a school atmosphere lacking control and an environment emphasizing respect for student autonomy. Consequently, calls to reinstate corporal punishment have emerged, signaling the need for new discussions on effective disciplinary methods in educational settings.
However, many argue these negative effects do not apply to all students, and that the problematic behavior of specific students should not lead to the reintroduction of oppressive control where all students face corporal punishment. Those opposing corporal punishment argue that, from a fundamental human rights perspective, punishment involving physical pain should be prohibited, and that teachers need to diversify their capabilities and educational methods. It is important for teachers to strive to resolve problems through deeper communication with students, and opinions are emerging that it is essential to develop new alternatives to control students without resorting to corporal punishment.
During the Joseon Dynasty, the relationship between teacher and student was a strict vertical hierarchy, and teachers utilized corporal punishment as a natural educational tool to impart proper instruction. At that time, corporal punishment was perceived as a means symbolizing authority and educational purpose. However, the adoption of the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ by the UN in 1948 marked the beginning of a global movement emphasizing respect for fundamental human rights. Consequently, legal regulations prohibiting or restricting corporal punishment began to be introduced in many countries worldwide. In line with these changes, many experts today argue that even corporal punishment administered within schools for educational purposes can be considered physical violence from a contemporary perspective. For students subjected to corporal punishment, the experience can cause significant not only physical pain but also mental stress, potentially leading to psychological trauma. Consequently, calls are growing for corporal punishment to be phased out internationally as a violation of human rights.
Globally, perceptions of corporal punishment are changing, and many developed countries are moving toward legally prohibiting its use in educational settings. For example, Sweden enacted legislation in 1979 banning all forms of corporal punishment, the first country in the world to do so. Subsequently, most European nations adopted corporal punishment bans modeled after Sweden. Within this global trend, the number of countries permitting corporal punishment is gradually decreasing. The recognition is spreading that banning corporal punishment enhances educational quality and respects students’ human rights. In Korea, the implementation of a corporal punishment ban law can be seen as part of the effort to align with this global trend.
Corporal punishment can inflict emotional scars on students and often leaves both the punishing teacher and the punished student with unpleasant experiences. While corporal punishment may serve as the quickest and most powerful tool for teachers to control students, it is considered an outdated method because dialogue and rational communication with students are entirely feasible. As social beings, people can resolve problems through dialogue and employ far more advanced methods for discipline and education than corporal punishment. In other words, various methods to effectively teach and guide students without corporal punishment must be developed and applied.
Those advocating for corporal punishment argue it is an efficient method for maintaining discipline and order. However, this efficiency primarily serves the convenience of the teacher. Corporal punishment may seem to correct a student’s mistake immediately, but it actually bypasses the process of helping the student recognize their error and learn to behave correctly. Even if it is somewhat troublesome for the teacher, devising alternatives to corporal punishment to foster students’ autonomous and positive growth is what constitutes true education.
The current educational environment can be described as a transitional period, caught between the ban on corporal punishment and the erosion of teacher authority. The debate continues: should corporal punishment be reinstated as a quick and powerful means of control, or should new methods be sought that respect human rights and autonomy while still teaching students discipline? As society changes, education must change too. It is time for creative and positive disciplinary methods to replace corporal punishment.
