In this blog post, we examine how the classroom landscape has changed since the implementation of the law banning corporal punishment and consider the direction education should take while balancing student rights and teachers’ authority.
On March 18, 2011, the “Act on the Enforcement of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act” was amended in South Korea, establishing the “Law Prohibiting Corporal Punishment.” Previously, corporal punishment—which inflicts physical pain—was permitted only when unavoidable for educational purposes; however, under the amended law, corporal punishment that causes physical pain to students using tools or the body is now prohibited. This was also the result of growing social demand since the 2000s, when negative perceptions of corporal punishment in schools spread following the emergence of films and cases related to school violence. In particular, the incident known as the “Oh Jang-pung Teacher Incident”—in which a video of a teacher assaulting a student spread rapidly online—shocked many people and served as a major catalyst for the implementation of the law banning corporal punishment.
The implementation of the ban on corporal punishment in South Korea took place during a period when debates over teachers’ authority and students’ human rights were gradually intensifying. While students were being redefined as subjects whose human rights must be guaranteed, opinions emerged that the role and authority of teachers needed to be reevaluated. Consequently, the ban on corporal punishment is currently enforced in some schools in Seoul and Gyeonggi Province, prohibiting teachers from punishing students physically. However, in other regions, corporal punishment is still permitted to a limited extent, or indirect forms of punishment that serve as substitutes for corporal punishment remain in practice. These disparities in the application of the law continue to spark controversy among educators and parents. While some argue that the ban on corporal punishment has made it difficult to control students, others support the position that the ban represents a progressive step toward improving the school environment and respecting student autonomy.
However, since the ban on corporal punishment, incidents where students disregard teachers’ authority or even assault them have frequently been reported in the media, emerging as a major social issue. As the perception that teachers’ authority has weakened due to the implementation of the ban on corporal punishment becomes widespread, teachers’ complaints about the difficulty of maintaining order in the classroom are growing louder. Some teachers feel that their authority is gradually eroding amid a school atmosphere where discipline has weakened and there is a growing emphasis on respecting student autonomy. Consequently, calls to reinstate corporal punishment have emerged, signaling the need for a new discussion on effective disciplinary methods in educational settings.
However, these side effects do not apply to all students, and many argue that we must not return to an oppressive system of control where all students are subjected to corporal punishment again simply because of the problematic behavior of a few. Those opposed to corporal punishment argue that, from the perspective of basic human rights, corporal punishment involving physical pain should be prohibited, and that there is a need for greater teacher competence and diversification of educational methods. It is argued that it is important for teachers to strive to resolve issues through deeper communication with students, and 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 guidance to their students. At that time, corporal punishment was perceived as a symbol of authority and educational purpose. However, with the UN’s adoption of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” in 1948, a global movement to respect basic human rights gained momentum, leading many countries to introduce legal regulations banning or restricting corporal punishment. In line with these historical changes, many experts today argue that even corporal punishment administered in schools for educational purposes can be considered physical violence. From the perspective of the student receiving corporal punishment, not only physical pain but also significant mental stress can be felt, which may lead to psychological trauma. Consequently, there is a growing call for corporal punishment to be phased out as a violation of human rights within the international community.
Globally, perceptions of corporal punishment are shifting, and many developed nations are moving toward legally banning corporal punishment in educational settings. For example, Sweden enacted the world’s first law banning all forms of corporal punishment in 1979, and since then, most European countries have followed Sweden’s lead by introducing similar bans. Amid this trend, the number of countries permitting corporal punishment is gradually decreasing, and the recognition is spreading that banning corporal punishment is the path to improving the quality of education and respecting students’ human rights. In Korea, the implementation of the law banning corporal punishment can be seen as part of an effort to align with this global trend.
Corporal punishment can leave emotional scars on students and is likely to be an unpleasant experience for both the teacher administering it and the student receiving it. While corporal punishment is sometimes used by teachers as the quickest and most powerful tool for controlling 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 of discipline and education than corporal punishment. In other words, various methods must be developed and applied to effectively teach and guide students without resorting to corporal punishment.
Those who advocate for corporal punishment argue that it is an efficient method for maintaining discipline and order. However, this efficiency largely serves to provide convenience for teachers. While corporal punishment may appear to correct a student’s mistake immediately, it effectively bypasses the process of helping the student recognize their own error and learn to behave appropriately. Even if it is somewhat troublesome for teachers, 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 phase caught between the ban on corporal punishment and the need to uphold teachers’ authority. The debate continues over whether to reintroduce corporal punishment as a quick and powerful means of control, or to seek new methods that teach students discipline while respecting human rights and autonomy. As society evolves, so must education; we have reached a point where creative and positive disciplinary methods are needed to replace corporal punishment.
