Well...

About corporal punishment, I'd think it should depend on the situation. I'd imagine it wouldn't have so great an effect, but humiliation and sense of failure when that belt meets the surface of your bottom may have some progressive development of behavior. It seems that corporal punishment would only cause the punished trouble-makers to have respect when facing higher authority, for I'm sure the trouble-doers would learn how to get away with mischief. I would say to not even bother, but if it's absolutely necessary, show the student who's boss. I'm not a big fan of corporal punishment as a tool for this school when considering that power granted to authorized staff members because some of the teachers and APs here seem really out of place (no pointing fingers). You might as well convince the trouble-doer that he/she did something terrible by using words, but to his/her own standards (so I mean don't make them watch those cheesy educational videos on bullying and such). We would have to place more consideration on the trouble-maker than to adopt a set of punishment methods to apply to every person, regardless of the effect on the individual personally. Or we could try something new, and mash together two ideas. Try corporal punishment involving baked potatoes. That will make them think.

I understand what you are trying to say and I understand the conditions were you allow teachers to give corporal punishment to student but I still think teachers should not hit students, period. I think some teachers would still take advantage of their authority and hit kids without needing a good explanation if they need to. For example now, teachers still give kids referrals for some things that are unnecessary at all.