I love your use of textual evidence and analysis here to convey your point. I realized the same thing while i was reading as well that this is how Rousseau’s idea of education is different. I would just like to add one point.

Jose says in the novel how he watched the teacher “beating him with a bamboo cane on his legs, or a ruler in the palm of his hand (Zobel, 65).” We might’ve assumed that this beating only occurs if one misbehaves or if one does not excel in school but we see this isn’t the case. In this novel a good teacher is a “teacher who ‘explained’ well and beat severely (Zobel, 103).” Here, no one has the freedom to enjoy childhood. He would do chores for “a couple of cents (Zobel, 75)”, which differs from Rousseau’s standpoint of childhood. Unlike in the novel, Rousseau believes that one should “treat [their] scholar according to his age (Rousseau, 8).” A child should be guided and rebuked but not beaten since as a kid they cannot endure that. This applies especially to infants where Rousseau states that they do not remember most things so rebuking them is a waste of time.

Also, at the very end you said “ Not only does it not work, but it works against the teachers and discourages the students to learn. Overall, it is a lose-lose situation and no one benefits.” Although I agree that beating may discourage students from learning, I don’t think its a lose-lose where no one benefits. Many parents beat their kids as a form of discipline and although it may sound harsh, the child refrains from making that mistake again in fear of getting hit. Therefore the students intentions may be off but he/she will be sure to pay attention.