An Exploratory Study of Corporal Punishment by Teachers in Zimbabwean Schools: Issues and Challenges Almon Shumba 1* , Amasa Philip Ndofirepi 2** and Martin Musengi 2*** 1 School of Teacher Education, Faculty of Humanities, Central University of Technology, Free State, Bloemfontein 9300, South Africa E–mail: ashumba@cut.ac.za and almonshumba@yahoo.com 2 Wits School of Education, Johannesburg, South Africa E–mails: ** <amasa.ndofirepi@wits.ac.za> and *** <Martin.musengi@students.wits.ac.za> KEYWORDS Corporal Punishment. Beating. Pupils. Schools. Perpetrators’ Files. Zimbabwe ABSTRACT This study sought to explore the issues and challenges faced by teachers on use of corporal punishment in Zimbabwean schools. A case study design that is mainly qualitative in nature with some aspects of the quantitative approach was used in this study. Data were collected manually from the perpetrators’ files kept at the Masvingo regional offices. The study found 17 cases of unauthorised corporal punishment in schools reported to the Ministry of Education, Sport and Culture in Masvingo region of Zimbabwe. Data were analysed using percentages and tables. The study found 17 cases of unauthorised corporal punishment were committed by teachers. These findings are merely a-tip-of-the-iceberg because most cases of corporal punishment are never reported to the authorities by the victims for fear of reprisals by the perpetrators. The implications of the findings were discussed in detail in the study. * Address for correspondences: Professor Almon Shumba School of Teacher Education, Faculty of Humanities Central University of Technology, Free State, Bloemfontein 9300 South Africa E–mail: ashumba@cut.ac.za, almonshumba@yahoo.com INTRODUCTION Research shows that corporal punishment has been a conventional method of disciplining chil- dren and has become a very controversial issue to eliminate in schools locally and internation- ally (Chemhuru 2010; Newell 1993; O’Brian and Lau 1995; Shumba 2003a; Shumba et al. 2010; Zindi 1995). In their study, Shumba et al. (2010: 6) found that the majority of the pupils (84.5%) believe that teachers physically abuse them because ‘they want to control pupils who do wrong things’. The study also found that pupils hold various myths and beliefs on why teachers use corporal punishment in schools, especially the conviction that corporal punishment is the only language that some pupils understand better in order to learn. By definition, corporal punish- ment refers to intentional application of physi- cal pain as a method of changing behavior (Shumba 2003a; Straus and Kaufman 1994) and includes such methods as hitting, slapping, spanking, punching, kicking, pinching, shak- ing using various objects such as wooden paddles, belts, sticks, electric cords or others (Grossman et al. 1995; Shumba 2003a,b, 2001). There are some child-rearing practices within the home that mandate parents to use corporal punishment when disciplining their own chil- dren (Chemhuru 2010; Shumba 2003a). How- ever, there are laws and regulations within the schools that forbid teachers from using corpo- ral punishment (Statutory Instrument 1 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe 2000: Statutory In- strument 65 of the Constitution of Zimbabwe 1992). In communities in which the school has developed as a recognizable social institution, corporal punishment has not only been toler- ated but has been prescribed as an essential part of the pedagogue’s function (Dow and Mogwe 1992; O’Brian and Lau 1995; Payne 1989; Sebonego 1994). Hence, the belief that corporal punishment is a necessary and effective way of disciplining children has become engrained and uncritically accepted in most traditions. This belief has been used as a justification for the kind of corrective action in society and schools. As such, it has become very difficult to draw a line between what happens in the school and the home since the school is an extension of what happens in the home (Shumba 2003a, b and 2001; Shumba and Moorad 2000; Straus 1994). The home culture is extended to the school by some teachers in the name of disci- pline, with teachers acting in-loco-parentis within the school (Shumba 2002; 2001). Hence, © Kamla-Raj 2012 Int J Edu Sci, 4(3): 279-287 (2012)