A social norms approach to
eliminating corporal
punishment in the Eastern
Caribbean
By Lisa McClean-Trotman, Communication for
Development Specialist, UNICEF Office for Barbados and
the Eastern Caribbean
7/14/2010
University of Pennsylvania
Executive Summary
This paper analysed the UNICEF Office for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean efforts to eliminate
the practice of corporal punishment in the Eastern Caribbean. It argues that in the period before
2007, UNICEF’s approaches failed primarily because in taking the rights-based approach it focused
on what was bad about the practice and not on the script, or the reasons or on the positive values
of why corporal punishment was being practiced. In addition, the approaches failed because there
was no social pressure to abandon the practice and even though by law teachers were prohibited
from administering corporal punishment, the legal sanctions were weak.
The paper also shows that in the post 2007 period, when UNICEF began to re-categorised the
issue, to engage teachers and other stakeholders; to change the script and sought to address the
normative expectations of the teachers, it was only then that it began to make some headway in
the abandonment of the practice.
The paper recommends that among other things, UNICEF continues to: support Ministries of
Education (MoE) in the Eastern Caribbean to take the bottom-up approach by engaging teachers
and other stakeholders in the process; encourage MoE to creatively document the success stories
of schools abandoning the practice and to publicly share them; enhance future KAP studies by
including questions to understand social norms dimensions of the practice; support Ministries to
enhance the learning environments of the students and that it encourages Ministries to conduct
research to learn about the networks and to use this information to implement a diffusion
strategy aimed at the complete abandonment of the practice.
A social norms approach to eliminating corporal punishment in the Eastern Caribbean
Background
The UNICEF Office for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean covers ten countries: Antigua and
Barbuda, Barbados, British Virgin Islands, (BVI) Dominica, and Montserrat, St. Kitts and Nevis, St.
Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines and the Turks and Caicos Island. With the exception of the
British Overseas Territories (BOTs) of BVI, Montserrat and the Turks and Caicos Islands, all of these
countries are independent nation states.
These countries all share a similar history of British colonial rule and have similar cultural values. All
of the independent countries have signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In the case of the BOTs, the Convention has been extended to them by the UK government. All of
the independent countries have submitted at least one state report to the UN Committee on the
Rights of the Child. While the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has praised these countries’
efforts at achieving universal primary and secondary education, one area that has been of concern
is the use of corporal punishment in schools and in the homes. Of concern also is the fact that this
practice in schools is supported by law as it is on the statute books of the independent Eastern
Caribbean countries.
This practice possibly dates back to British colonial rule when corporal punishment was used to
discipline slaves. While the UK has abolished the practice in its schools between 1986 and 1987,
Caribbean countries have sought to retain the practice. For example in the case of Barbados, the
Revised Education Act of 1981 permits the use of corporal punishment in schools. In a document
developed by the Ministry of Education called “Guidelines for administering corporal punishment”,
it states that Corporal Punishment is a "last resort" and shall be administered with "a proper
instrument" (no details provided) by the principal or his designee. Where possible, female students
should be punished by a female member of staff. The student must be informed beforehand of the
reason for punishment, and it must be recorded in a punishment book. Parents may exempt their
offspring from Corporal Punishment by filing a statement by a medical doctor that it is detrimental
to the child's mental or emotional stability.” According to the document, corporal punishment
should be used to “maintain discipline and to enforce the school rule.” Even though corporal
punishment is supposed to be administered equally to boys and girls, research conducted by Dr.
Barbara Bailey of the University West Indies, cave Hill Campus, suggested that students felt it was
administered more to boys than to the girls. In addition, anecdotal evidence indicates that it is not
used as a last resort and also that teachers administer it even though legally they are not suppose to
do so. There have also been cases of students being harmed by the practice so in the interest of
protection of children UNICEF has sought to address the issue.
What has been UNICEF’s approach to eliminating the practice of corporal punishment?
UNICEF has been in the Caribbean region since 1976 and has made some attempts to encourage
governments to abolish the practice of corporal punishment in schools. The approaches of the
UNICEF Office for Barbados and the Eastern Caribbean (UNICEF BECO) can be analysed in two
periods: pre-2007and post 2007. In the pre-2007, the approach could be described as follows:
Advocacy with key stakeholders
UNICEF has convened meetings on the issue with key political stakeholders - namely Ministers of
Social Transformation and Ministers of Education. The key messages were that the practice is bad
for children; it is a violation of their rights and that it is violence against children. UNICEF has also
advised them of the comments of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child about the use of
corporal punishment not being in keeping with the CRC. UNICEF has also sought to hold discussions
and meetings with religious leaders around the topic.
Legal norm approach
In addition, UNICEF has used opportunities such as the OECS1 Family Law legal and judicial Reform
Project, (which was focusing on the revision of family law to make them in conformity with the CRC
and CEDAW), to advocate for the removal of corporal punishment from the statute books.
Media message
A media campaign to engender support for the family law revision process (referred to above) was
developed by OECS Secretariat and UNICEF BECO. and UNICEF used the opportunity to develop a
message against corporal punishment. The message was “stop violence against women, men and
children – no one deserves to be hit.” This did not lead to any change in behaviour. Again the
implicit message was that corporal punishment is bad.
Response to the strategy
Education practitioners and policy makers generally supported the retention of the practice. Some
argued that they had experienced it and it didn’t do them any harm. Other arguments for its
retention included that it was a US-based ideology which was being imposed on Caribbean culture
and that in a Caribbean context, it cannot be categorised as violence against children. It was also
argued that some US states had abolished the practice and this was responsible for the state of
violence now seen in US schools and this was not what was wanted for Caribbean schools.
In a similar vein, religious leaders continued to argue for the retention of the practice and often
quoted the biblical verses of “spare the rod and spoil the child” and “foolishness is bound up in the
heart of a child but the rod of correction will drive it out.” They argued that abolishing it would be
against the bible. In essence, none of the above, including the media campaigns, led to an
abandonment of the practice as there was no social, moral or legal pressure to do so, there was a
disconnect between the legal, moral and social regulatory mechanisms.
1
The OECS is a sub-regional grouping of Eastern Caribbean states almost similar to EU. The
Secretariat/Headquarters is based in St. Lucia. All of the countries covered by UNICEF BECO, with the
exception of Barbados, are either full members or associate members of this sub-regional group.
Change of approach by UNICEF to eliminating the practice of corporal punishment -2007 and
beyond
In 2007, UNICEF began to change its approach to eliminating the practice of corporal punishment.
Firstly, as oppose to dealing with corporal punishment at the broader societal level, UNICEF sought
to focus on one particular group – teachers. The Caribbean Union of Teachers was engaged and the
Head of the Barbados Union of Teachers – herself a Principal and a strong advocate for the use of
corporal punishment volunteered her school- The Hillaby Turner’s Hall Primary - to be used as a pilot
in the use of alternatives to corporal punishment.
UNICEF also made the decision not to use the word corporal punishment in any of its
communication and hence the term “Changing the Classroom Culture” was coined for this pilot at
the Hillaby Turner’s Hall Primary. “Changing the Classroom Culture “pilot took a whole school
approach to addressing the issue of discipline in that it involved working with parents, teachers,
students. UNICEF also began to use the term positive behavioural management in 2008 and in 2009,
the more generic term of child -friendly schools (CFS) was used. The latter term began to meet some
resistance in 2010 as some teachers at other schools said that the term implied that their schools
were not child-friendly. So UNICEF started using terms such as making schools “more child-friendly”
by implementing a variety of practices namely: learning ready classrooms; healthy lifestyles and
teaching life skills; promoting students’ participation and implementing positive behavioural
management techniques.
Sensitization and Research
Sensitization meetings were held with parents, staff and students to orient them to the project and
to address any fears and reservations. Research was conducted to gather baselines on the practice
among teachers. In addition, meetings and focus groups were held with the teachers, staff, students
and parents to understand the issue from their perspective.
Adding additional support staff
Additional support staff was added to the school and these included a psychologist; a Special Needs
Teacher, who dealt with students who had learning difficulties; a support counsellor whose role was
to support teachers as they implemented alternatives to corporal punishment and apparent
volunteer whose role was to liaise with the parents and the PTA.
Capacity Building
Training was done for the teachers on positive behavioural classroom management techniques;
motivation as it related to behaviour; understanding students with learning needs among other
topics.
Study tours
In addition, UNICEF facilitated study tours to Ohio and to Jamaica for educators to see alternatives to
corporal punishment being used in schools which formerly had disciplinary problems.
Documenting and sharing the Hillaby Turner’s Hall Primary School experience
A newsletter called In Touch was developed to share what was being done at the Hillaby Turner’s
Hall Primary School. It was shared with teachers at other schools in Barbados and in the eastern
Caribbean and also with education policy-makers throughput the region.
What were the Results?
Abandonment of the practice of corporal punishment by teachers at the Hillaby Turner’s hall Primary
School. In 2008, the teachers at the Hillaby Turner’s Hall Primary School made the commitment that
they would no longer be administering corporal punishment and they would only allow the Principal
to do this if she so desires. The Principal also reduced significantly her use of the practice and began
to advocate that alternatives can work.
Teachers at other schools began abandoning the practice of corporal punishment. In addition, having
learnt about the Hillaby Turner’s Hall experience through meetings and the use of various media
(such as newsletters, news articles etc), the Ministry of Education in Barbados decided to expand the
process to 10 other schools and teachers at these schools are now using other alternatives to
corporal punishment. In addition, the Ministries of Education in Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica and
St. Lucia also decided to introduce this process in schools in their countries. To date, teachers at 33
schools have either abandoned the practice or reduced its use significantly and are using positive
approaches to discipline with their students.
More open public discussion on the issue in the media. Unlike pre-2007, persons began using radiocall-in programmes and other media, to voice their opinions with many of them openly admitting
that they were against the practice.
Ministries of Education more receptive to working with UNICEF on positive alternatives to the use of
corporal punishment. This was evidenced by the number of other countries that express interest in
making their schools more child-friendly and by the fact that MoE in three other countries came on
board (Dominica, St. Lucia and Antigua and Barbuda) and introduced alternatives practices in schools
in these countries. A total of four countries are now involved and have committed to including more
schools in the CFS process each academic year.
Is the practice of corporal punishment influenced by social norms?
Although UNICEF is beginning to see some tangible results in terms of the practice being abandoned
as teachers are using positive alternatives to disciplining, there still is some strong resistance to the
idea of abandoning the practice of corporal punishment by some teachers. So the question must be
asked of whether this practice is influenced by social norms within the teaching community and
even within the wider society?
Definition of social norms
Bicchieri defined social norms as “customary rules that govern behaviour in group and societies in a
particular situation.” According to her, they emerge without human planning or from individual
design. Bicchieri uses the framework below for determining whether a social norm to exits.
According to her: R is a behavioural rule for situation S. R is a social norm in a subset of population P
if a significant portion of Population P has
1. Contingency: That is knowledge that the rule exist and applies the rule to the particular
situation
2. Conditional preference based on normative empirical expectations. That is, Population P
prefers to conform to R in situation S based on the condition that he/she believes that a
significant part of the population is also conforming to the rule in the given situation. He/she
believe this because they have observe persons adhering to the rule when the situation
arises
3. Conditional preference based on normative expectation with or without sanctions. That is, P
believes that a significant portion of the population expects him/her to behave in this
particular way if the situation (S) arises and sometimes there can be social pressure to follow
the rule (informal sanctions).
Using this definition, it can be argued that the practice of corporal punishment in the eastern
Caribbean is influenced by social norms. This is based on the following;
1. There is contingency. Parents and teachers know that the unspoken rule(R) is that when
children misbehave (S), they should be given lashes. This rule is guided by the belief that
lashes will help them [children] to become more discipline and to prevent them from
performing the infraction again. This rule (R) is also supported by Christian values held by
Caribbean people of “spare the Rod and Spoil the Child” and which Caribbean people hold
dearly to.
2. There is conditional preference which is based on empirical expectations. That is, parents
believe that a significant portion of the population is administering this form of discipline
because they observe others disciplining their children in this way when they misbehave (S).
For example they see it administered in different settings such as e.g. supermarket; church,
while shopping in department stores. They also hear persons saying they would administer it
if the child does not behave for e.g. of such statements are often heard in public: “I would
wring my hand in you if you do not listen/behave.” So the assumption is that this is the way
“good parents” discipline their children. Teachers, especially those who are new to the
profession, also observe their peers administering it to maintain discipline in the classroom,
so there is the expectation that this is what they too are suppose to do to keep a welldisciplined classroom. In addition being part of the Christian community they hear from
trusted religious leaders that this is the correct way to discipline children.
3. There is conditional preference based on normative expectations. These normative
expectations have informal sanctions. That is, parents believe that this is how society
expects them to discipline their children when they misbehave. They would be looked upon
negatively by others (such as spouse, parents, co-workers, friends) if they do not follow the
rule when the situation arises. They would perceived as a “bad mother” “a soft father,” or
as a parent who “cannot control their children”. Similarly, teachers also believe that this is
how parents and their peers (co-workers) expect them to discipline children if they
misbehave. In the case of teachers, some parents approach them and give them permission
to administer it as they see necessary. Similarly teachers are appreciated by their principals
and sometimes by students if they can keep their classrooms under control- they are seen as
a “good teachers” who can “manage their classrooms well”; who can keep their “classes
quiet so that learning can take place.” So in essence there is social pressure to follow the
rule (R) when the situation arises.
WHY DID EARLIER STRATEGIES FAILED AND THE STRATEGIES FROM 2007 BEGIN TO WORK
Given that the practice is guided by social norms, it is important to analyse from a social norms
perspective why the pre-2007 strategies failed and the latter strategy began to work. It can be
argued that the earlier strategies failed because of the following reasons:
1. The UNICEF interventions was not seeking to understand the different scripts or the reasons
and the values behind the practice of groups who engaged in the practice That is, for each
group there is some positive value behind when they sought to engage in the practice of
corporal punishment. There is a particular goal they wanted to achieve and UNICEF was not
seeking to see how it can understand and perhaps use this positive value as an entry point.
2. Further, UNICEF’s communication (both implicit and explicit) focused on what was bad
about corporal punishment. It was the traditional approach to Human Rights which tends to
focus on violations. This approach comes across as an outsider being judgemental about a
practice in a developing country and it often meets with resistance. If the focus was on the
scripts of the teachers, it would have been recognised that the objective was to have an
atmosphere/environment where children could learn and UNICEF’s communication focus
would have been more on how do we achieve this rather than focusing the discourse on
whether corporal punishment was good or bad.
3.
UNICEF did not analyse this practice from a social norms perspective. This would have
entailed understanding and addressing the expectations and conditional preferences of
different groups (parents, teachers, religious leaders, politicians).It did not do the research
to see if there was social dilemma among the teachers, and if there was, how could this be
address this. Rather UNICEF took the approach of advocating for its complete removal from
the Education Act, perhaps thinking that law would make a difference. But as has been
noted before, in the case of Barbados for example, legally teachers are not supposed to
administer corporal punishment but they still did. It could be argued that this was because
government’s legal intervention was top-down and failed to utilise the strategy of collective
engagement at the grassroots level with the teachers, as they were the ones that would
have been affected by the law. This would have led to more buy-in/ownership on their part
and perhaps a reduction of the practice by them, if not total abandonment.
Given the above, it can be argued that the post 2007 strategies began to work for the following
reasons. There was:
1. Engagement. This was done through meetings, and conducting formal research on the views
of the teachers as well as that of the ancillary staff, students and parents of children at the
school. This research revealed social dilemma among the teachers: in a survey asking them
how they thought children should be punished, lashing was not high on their list of ways of
how they felt children at the school should be disciplined but ironically they still felt they had
to do it. Perhaps this was because they were not trained in alternatives and also because of
the informal social sanctions that would have experienced from parents, their peers, if they
did not practice it.
2. Addressing of the social dilemma (described above) through capacity building. UNICEF
sought to address this social dilemma by providing training in Positive Behavioural
Classroom Management techniques among other topics for teachers. By providing this
training, teachers were provided with workable alternatives to corporal punishment. This,
along with allowing them to discuss through engagement, helped them to decide to make a
commitment to collectively abandon the practice of corporal punishment after one of their
training sessions.
3. Re-categorization of the issue. Similar to what was done by Mockus in Bogota, UNICEF recategorised the issue and sought to understand the script of the teachers. Instead of
focusing on corporal punishment being bad and being violence against children in its
communication, UNICEF began to use other terms, such as Changing Classroom Culture and
Child Friendly Schools, which were more positive, more acceptable and which created a
different discourse. The emphasis was on the goal of seeing how we all can work to create
classrooms that were conductive learning. Such classrooms were characterised by children
resolving their conflicts peacefully; teachers focusing on the positive behavioural
management; and having a school environment which was supporting children to engage in
positive behaviours. The term corporal punishment was no longer used in its
communication.
4. Addressing of the normative expectations of the teachers. As was noted before, teachers
believed that everyone else was lashing as a means to maintain classroom discipline. The
UNICEF- supported study tours to schools in Ohio and in Jamaica showed that teachers in
similar circumstances were not engaging in the practice. This helped to modify their
empirical expectations. The normative expectations were also addressed through sharing
the findings of a public opinion poll on corporal punishment which UNICEF commissioned in
2009. This opinion poll showed a decline in public support for the use of corporal
punishment in schools in Barbados between 2004 and 2009. This helped to address the issue
of pluralistic ignorance in that it showed that not everyone was expecting teachers to
adhere to the practice of corporal punishment.
5. Working with the mantra “I believe what I see” UNICEF’s supported study tours, its
documentation and sharing the Hillaby experience through the In Touch magazine and
other media gave teachers in other schools in Barbados and in other Eastern Caribbean
countries, the incentive to abandon the practice and try other positive ways to help them
to achieve order in the classroom. It also helped to reduce the negative sanction that was
associated with not adhering to the practice.
Recommendations:
Eliminating corporal punishment in schools throughout the eastern Caribbean will be long process
but the fact Ministries of Education are now willing to engage with UNICEF on positive behavioural
management techniques, along with the fact that some teachers have abandoned it is indeed a
positive sign. The abandonment must come from the bottom-up and not top-down as was seen in
the abandonment of FMG/C in the Tostan countries. The bottom-up approach empowers people to
make the change as they are more engaged and they feel as though they are part of the process and
hence buy-in or ownership of the change is easier. It will bring a better connection between the
legal, moral and social regulatory mechanisms. Thus in moving forward it is recommended that
UNICEF:
1. Continues to encourage Ministries of Education to engage teachers, principals, students and
parents, as they introduce alternative practices to corporal punishment in others schools. In
other words , that they [the Ministries of Education] do not revert to top-down approach as
was reflected when the Education Acts were revised to prohibit the use of the practice by
teachers in schools .
2. Continue to support Ministries of Education to document the process through creative
means and to share this documentation with schools that are implementing the practices as
well as with schools that have not. This will help to address any pluralistic ignorance and it
helps the Advocates of corporal punishment to see that Caribbean schools and society is not
falling into chaos just because teachers are no longer administering corporal punishment.
3. Support research to understand the networks of the teachers. Use this knowledge from this
research to influence the development of a diffusion strategy. This diffusion strategy should
include: pairing or twinning schools: That is, have schools that have abandoned the practice
partner with other schools that might be considering abandoning the practice to offer some
support to the teachers there. The strategy could also include exchanges: As one school
abandons the practice, bring teachers from other schools within that network to teach at
the school for a term/semester to experience this environment for a period of time;
4.
Rethink the type of studies/research that it does. While KAP are important, it is also
important to include questions to ascertain whether the problem is guided by social norms.
That it is questions to understand the expectations, such as how do you think others expect
you to discipline,” should be included – and questions should also be included which will
help governments to understand why persons engage in the practice (i.e.) to help
understand the script. Questions are also needed to help understand the networks. It is
important to know among the teachers who listens to whom; who trusts information from
whom; who are the central nodes within the various networks as they seek to develop the
diffusion strategy.
5. And finally, UNICEF should support Ministries of Education to enhance the classroom
learning environments with the necessary learning aids for teachers to work with students
with differ abilities. Many of these classrooms need basic learning charts and other
resources and it is difficult to talk about alternatives approaches if teachers do not have
some of the basic tools with which to work. As was seen in the case of Tostan when
organisations work on enhancing the conditions and the quality of life of a community, by
meeting some of their needs, the community sometimes become more receptive to new
ideas.