In his paper, 'On the Necessity of School Punishment', Michael Hand defends school punishment on logical grounds. In this reply, I show why this argument fails. First, I claim that the concept of a rule of obligation does not, in and of itself, establish that punishment is necessary. Second, I claim that a rule of obligation does not justify punishment on the grounds that it is necessary for social order or norm-conformity. Finally, I argue that a rule of obligation does establish the necessity of punishment, but only by assuming that social pressure and punishment are one and the same thing. The problem with this move, however, is that the necessity of 'punishment' becomes a trivial truth with little practical or normative guidance to offer educators. [For Michael Hands' "On the Necessity of School Punishment," see EJ1254033.]