It shoul be "body", because it's a general reference.
Also you could say "parts of their bodies".
P.S.: But anyway I don't like your sentence at all. I'd put it this way: «Teachers should be forbidden to beat children» (with neither fists nor rulers!)
I think that'd be dumb style-wise but OK grammar-wise. Also I'd say "...with such parts of body as...", but that could imply it is alright to beat them with elbows, for exampl...
«I'll delete 'foot' becuase it's even unimaginable»
I'm trying to say 'Teachers can use the rod for punishment at their discretion, but they shouldn't use their body.'
And I know Karete uses foot but that teacher beat the students with foot is unimaginable. I mean it can't be acceptable so I don't even need to mention 'foot'.
Ahn, this is just too odd for me to grasp. You can beat them with a rod as much as you want, but you cannot use an open palm to strike their bottom? Teachers may not hit children here in any way, so to say you can't spank them, but it's okay to beat them with a stick just doesn't fit into any mold I can come up with.
Teachers may not strike students except with the rod, I guess.
Teachers may punish students by means beatings with rulers, rods, paddles, or other similar weapons, but they should not lay hands on the students in any way so as to come into physical contact with them, such as by kicking or punching them.
A curious sentiment. Possibly a cultural difference.
I didn't mean that teachers can beat their students freely without using their body.
I'm writing my opinion about the following.
<Spare the rod no longer, teachers. The Supreme Court has ruled that states may allow, at their discretion, spanking in the schools. According to the decision, as long as a teacher gives a child fair warning and gives preference to lesser punishment