Core.Com: Higher: Exemplar answers to generic questions on Parents demand the right to smack
Core Skill Communication
Parents demand the right to smack
1. Summarise the main information in the text – in your own words – and
explain how the heading, subheading and graphics (if present) connect
with the main ideas.
Answer: This article reports on the results of a survey carried out by the Scottish
Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) in response to a proposal from the Scottish
Executive to make smacking children under three illegal. Parents from 131
schools returned the following results
 just over half of the respondents (56%) were opposed to the proposed
legislation
 most parents (84%) were opposed to a complete ban on smacking for all
ages
 nearly all respondents (94%) believed it should be illegal to hit children with
an implement
The article includes the opinions of
 Judith Gillespie, Development Manager of SSPTV
 Kay Tisdall, Director of Policy and Research of Children in Scotland
 Ann Hill, Chief Executive of the Scottish School Boards Association
 Mike Russell, SNP Education Spokesman
Judith Gillespie used her personal experience to argue that smacking is
necessary in difficult/dangerous situations and that a law against this would be
unenforceable.
Kay Tisdall argued that there were alternative methods of dealing with child
behaviour and that parents needed educating in these.
Ann Hill agreed with Judith Gillespie that in certain circumstances smacking was
the only way to protect children, and that a law banning this would put them at
risk.
Mike Russell believed most parents in Scotland do not want smacking banned,
as the results of the survey suggested.
The main heading dramatises the fact that more than half parents who
responded have reacted against the proposed legislation.
(240 words. Original article is 774)
Glenrothes College: Core Skill Communication 2004—2005
page 1 of 4
Core.Com: Higher: Exemplar answers to generic questions on Parents demand the right to smack
2. What’s the attitude of the writer to the subject?
Answer: The writer seems to support the idea that parents should be allowed to
smack children – even under the age of three. The tone of the heading –
“Parents demand the right to smack” overstates the actual results of the survey in
which 44% actually supported the Scottish Executive’s proposal to make
smacking young children illegal. She introduces the views of four people, only
one of whom (Kay Tisdall) argues that smacking is a bad idea. When she quotes
Miss Tisdall’s words, she includes ‘I am not an expert’ which undermines Miss
Tisdall’s authority immediately. Kay Tisdall makes a good point that ‘there is
extensive research that smacking doesn’t work very well’ but the writer does not
attempt to develop this idea. Instead, she goes on to quote Ann Hill who argues
that she has certainly smacked her children in ‘moments of danger’ which, she
says, is ‘the only practical response’. The writer seems to assume that the reader
will agree.
3.
a) State the likely purpose(s) of the communication.
b) Identify the type of writing and intended readership.
a) Answer: The main purpose of the communication is to report on the results of
a newly published survey. This is clear from the continued references to statistics
reported by the SPTC (94 per cent of families backed….”). The first few
paragraphs basically summarise the results of the survey and even the
conclusion to the piece quotes Mike Russell’s comments on the findings.
A secondary purpose may be to rally opposition to the proposed legislation: three
out of four people asked to comment on the survey findings agree that a total ban
on smacking children under three is undesirable. The main heading of the article
suggests that opposition to the legislation is much stronger than it actually is:
“Parents demand the right to smack”. In fact, 44% agree that smacking is wrong
and 94% agree that smacking ‘with an implement’ is out of order.
(Note: Some readers may argue that the secondary purpose is to highlight the whole issue of
smacking. That’s OK – but the reasoning will be rather different, and so will the evaluation – see
page 4.)
b) Answer: This is a newspaper report from a quality newspaper. The layout in
columns is typical of a newspaper and the formal register and complex language
suggest this type of communication: “…children under three do not understand
reasoned verbal explanations…” The intended reader would be the typical
broadsheet newspaper reader – an educated adult, possibly a parent, with an
interest in childcare. This is indicated by the seriousness of the approach and the
fact that three professional views are quoted and one politician – not one view of
an ‘ordinary’ parent.
Glenrothes College: Core Skill Communication 2004—2005
page 2 of 4
Core.Com: Higher: Exemplar answers to generic questions on Parents demand the right to smack
4. How effective is the communication in meeting the purpose(s) you
identified in your previous answer?
Answer: The article is successful in reporting the results of the survey clearly and
effectively. The most interesting result is summarised in the first paragraph and
referred to in the main heading. The Scottish Executive’s proposal is then
explained so that the reader can understand the issue in question. Three
subsequent paragraphs report the responses to the main questions in the survey
using percentages to clarify the results. The language is simple, factual and easy
to understand: “56 per cent of the 2,500 parents who responded said they should
retain the option of smacking very young children”. The article also explains the
context of the survey – to whom it was circulated and over what time period.
The views of four ‘experts’ are then introduced which makes the article slightly
more interesting, since these are personal opinions, rather than statistical results.
In terms of rallying opposition to the legislation, the article is fairly effective. The
headline suggests to the reader that opposition is already overwhelming, which
helps to make the case. The first line refers to ‘a majority’, which again implies a
bigger majority than it actually is. Mike Russell’s views are used to conclude the
piece and he clearly believes a large majority of people are not in favour of the
change (though he doesn’t actually say what he personally feels about it). The
case against smacking is persuasively put in the words of Judith Gillespie: “Any
parent can lose control – should they be made into criminals?” Most readers
would probably relate to this feeling. Generally the language which argues
against the proposed legislation is emotive and persuasive: “The reality of having
three children under five put paid to some of those idealistic theories.”
(283 words)
If the purpose identified was to highlight the issue of smacking – the evaluation
might read as follows:
The article succeeds in highlighting a topical issue to a certain extent by
introducing the views of four experts. These people make points and then the
counter-argument is made by the next ‘expert’. For example, Judith Gillespie
argues that ‘A smack can sometimes be the only way of dealing with a
dangerous situation”. Then Kay Tisdall “rejected suggestions that smacking is a
way of dealing with a child who keeps returning to a source of danger”. Ann Hill
picks up this same point and suggests that she also thinks smacking is a
protective mechanism, rather than the reverse. Mike Russell’s comment really
adds very little: he simply says he is not surprised in the findings. The issue is
Glenrothes College: Core Skill Communication 2004—2005
page 3 of 4
Core.Com: Higher: Exemplar answers to generic questions on Parents demand the right to smack
therefore opened up, but only to a fairly superficial extent. Kay Tisdall’s
references to ‘extensive research’ aren’t picked up. She mentions ‘different
options’ but nobody explains what they are in detail. Everyone seems to agree
that ‘abuse’ is wrong, but the problem of defining reasonable force is not
addressed at all. No ordinary parents express opinions in the article – only
professional people with a vested interest in this legislation. The main heading
‘Parents demand the right to smack’ does successfully catch the attention –
because it sounds for a moment as though parents are trying to win a right to hit
their children (in fact they already have this right). The word ‘demand’ is also
emotional and therefore interesting. The fact that this is a Scottish issue, is also
indicated in the first line (“A majority of Scottish parents”) and this would draw the
eye of the intended reader. However, the article could easily have explored the
issue in more depth and in a more interesting way: child psychologists might
have had something interesting and authoritative to say. Cases of violence in the
home might also have been discussed: in this article it sounds as though nobody
in Scotland ever really batters their kids – and this tempts the reader not to take
the issue seriously. For some children, it is a very serious issue indeed.
(342 words)
Glenrothes College: Core Skill Communication 2004—2005
page 4 of 4