Corporal Punishment
Introduction
The use of corporal punishment in home and school has been
widely debated. Some believe it is a means of discipline while
others call it abuse. Corporal punishment is harmful to children. It
could lead to emotional and physical problems. Corporal
punishment is so readily at hand that it discourages some teachers
from trying alternatives. Educationally, corporal punishment has
been generally defined as : the infliction of pain by a teacher or
other educational official upon the body of a student as a penalty
for doing something which has been disapproved by the punisher
(1).
Corporal punishment doesn't work. It does not have a long-lasting
effect on behavior, although it creates all kinds of side-effects. The
teacher and parent acting as a model, teaches that hitting is a
solution to problems and that people can hit if they are big enough
and in a position of power. Teachers and parents discount
systematic evidence of ineffectiveness of corporal punishment in
the literature. Such evidence is often scorned as impractical and
theoretical. They ignore their own practical evidence that corporal
punishment does not have the desired effect on discipline in a
school or home. There is no evidence that discipline is better when
corporal punishment is used, and in many places the schools and
homes with the most corporal punishment have had the worst
discipline (2).
Corporal punishment in the home and school are banned in a
number of countries: Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Finland, Italy,
Norway and Sweden. Bans are currently being debated by the
Governments of Germany, Ireland, Poland, Spain and Switzerland.
A private member's bill by Canadian Member of Parliament Svend
Robinson proposes the repeal of Section 43 of the Canadian
Criminal Code which permits parents to use "reasonable force"
when disciplining children. About 20 states in the US prohibit
corporal punishment in public schools (3).
30 states continue to authorize corporal punishment in their
schools. Though estimating that this problem has been
underreported by two to three times, there were over 1 million
occurrences identified in the 1986-1987 school year with 10,00020,000 students requesting subsequent medical treatment. The
highest incidence tends to be in the south and southwest
(particularly Florida, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Mississippi,
Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia, and Kentucky), while the lowest is
in the northeast, where a number of states have outlawed this.
Current studies indicate that physical punishment is more common
in grades kindergarten throughout 8 (versus high school), in rural
schools (versus urban), in boys (versus girls), and in disadvantaged
children (versus middle-class and upper-class caucasians) (4).
References
(1) Wineman, D. and James, A. (1967). Policy statement: corporal
punishment in the public
schools. Detroit: Metropolitan Detroit Branch of the American
Civil Liberties Union
of Michigan.
(2) Hyman, I. and Wise, J. (1979). Corporal punishment in
American education. Philadelphia:
Temple University Press.
(3) www.religioustolerance.org/spanking.htm. Corporal
punishment of children (spanking).
What Are the Problems of Corporal
Punishment?
Shaming, humiliating and beating a child are, at the very least,
counterproductive. Corporal punishment is an abuse of power. It
suggests that might makes right and actually encourages a child to
do the same (1). When one brutalizes children, one lowers their
self-esteem, teaching them poor self-control, leading them into
unsatisfying relationships with others, and in some cases, causing
them to be brutalizing adults.
Physical intervention is a commonly practiced form of discipline
used by parents and is probably the most longed for by teachers of
all ages when they get frustrated by problem behavior. Whether it
is the belief that "every kid needs a good strapping now and then,"
as one parent said, or "controlling children is easy I just make them
kneel on rice when they're bad," as a teacher stated (2). Corporal
punishment is perceived by most people who deal with children as
either the way to successful "control" or as a last-resort measure.
However, the major issue that parents and teachers should consider
in relation to discipline is how the essential processes used can
contribute to a high level of intelligent socialization and character
development in children. All too often the problem of discipline
seems to be viewed only on how children can be controlled (2). On
the other hand, many parents and teachers today have been so
intimidated by psychological publications and by legal action that
resulted from child abuse that they are, in fact, afraid to assert
themselves with their children.
In short, in this country many parents and teachers are not sure of
what is right and what is wrong concerning physical punishment as
a means of discipline. The use of corporal punishment in schools
promotes a very precarious message-that violence is an acceptable
phenomenon in our society. It sanctions the notion that it is
meritorious to be violent toward our children, thereby devaluing
them in society's eyes (3). It encourages children to resort to
violence because they see their authority figures or substitute
parents using it. It also sanctions the use of physical violence by
parents toward their children. Parents are not trained to use
alternatives to corporal punishment and encouraging them to hit
their children is a dangerous message to promote in our violent
society. Many parents were abused themselves as children, and this
will only worsen the violence our children must face. The result is
that we are harming our children in teaching them that violence is
acceptable, especially against the weak, the defenseless, the
subordinate-a message which will negatively effect generations yet
unborn. Violence is not acceptable and we must not support it by
sanctioning its use by such authority figures as school officials (4).
References
(1) Baler, L. (1988). Who's in control? New York: Poseidon Press.
(2) Walt, K. (1991). Discipline for character development.
Alabama: R. E. P. Books.
(3) www.3.uchc.edu/~sam/corp-pun.html. Corporal punishment in
schools.
(4) Dubanoski, R., Inane, M. and Gerkewicz, B. (1983). Corporal
punishment in schools:
myths, problems, and alternatives. Child Abuse and Neglect, 7,
271-278.
What Are the Effects of Corporal
Punishment?
Children and their parents progress through social and emotional
developmental stages in relation to each other. For school-aged
children and their teachers, these stages become developmental
tasks which they must accomplish to assure optimal cognitive
development. Discipline is necessary for the accomplishment of
these tasks. Discipline is also important for the safety and physical
well-being of ht child as well as for his or her social, emotional and
cognitive development (1).
However, discipline and corporal punishment are not synonymous.
The aim of all discipline of children must be the development of
character in the form of a social conscience (2). The American
society will not successfully develop its children unless at the end
of eighteen years of life they understand that they live in a society
with others and therefore that they are responsible for the good of
that society. Punishment is what adults resort to when discipline
fails.
A child will not progress through the developmental tasks.
Corporal punishment inhibits the accomplishment of each stage.
According to Erik Erikson, the developmental stages of schoolaged children are: trust versus mistrust, autonomy or doubt,
initiative, industry versus inferiority, identity versus role
confusion. By school age, the child should have developed what
Erikson calls basic trust. The parrelled developmental task of the
teacher is to learn the cues. Corporal punishment erodes the
youngster's basic trust, stimulates mistrust, anger, and resentment.
Corporal punishment undermines the teacher's ability to interpret a
pupil's basic needs and to provide and environment of mutual trust
conducive to learning. By school age the child should also have
developed a feeling of autonomy. The teacher, therefore, has the
task of accepting growth and development and learning to delegate
some control to the students. Again, corporal punishment slows the
development of a child's feeling of autonomy and produces some
degree of shame and doubt. By school age most children have
achieved some degree of what Erikson call initiative, that is, to be
able to move out in the world and appropriately assert himself or
herself. The teachers must separate themselves from their pupils
and allow the children to develop independently while the teacher
models optimal behavioral standards. Corporal punishment is
demeaning, inhibits initiative, and stimulates in many children the
development of shame, guilt, anger and the wish to retaliate.
Others are uncovering data which show a direct relationship
between severe corporal punishment in early childhood and
delinquency later in the life cycle (3). The school age child must
learn to learn and to develop industry versus inferiority or the
ability to learn, work and accomplish. His or her teacher has the
task of accepting some degree of rejection and loss of control yet
managing to be there when needed without intruding
unnecessarily. Corporal punishment interferes with these processes
by producing in the child some feeling of inferiority, helplessness,
and inability to accomplish while thrusting the teacher into the role
of intruder rather than learning facilitator or teacher. The school
age child explores roles and relationships and struggles to develop
his or her own identity, that is, who he or she is in relation to
others. The teacher, therefore, must adjust to changing classroom
rules, relationships, and interactions. Once again, corporal
punishment interferes. The child may see himself or herself in
relation to the authority figure administering the corporal
punishment. The teacher loses some flexibility in interrelating with
the individual student and with the class (4).
In addition to interfering with the developmental tasks of both
teacher and pupil, corporal punishment may be physically harmful
to the child. There are a number of recorded incidents of severe
tissue damage, CNS hemorrhage, lower spine injuries, sciatic
nerve damage, and even blood clots due to paddling. There exists a
whole range of orthopedic complications which can result from
striking the hand of a child with a cane, ruler, strap or other such
implement. The hand is particularly sensitive to injury because of
the proximity of the ligaments, tendons, nerves and blood vessels
to the skin, which does not have underlying protective tissue.
Younger children are even more susceptible to permanent
deformity because of the possibility of injury to growth plates in
the bones. Injuries can range from fractures to dislocation,
particularly to the terminal phalangeal joint, which could possibly
lead to premature osteoarthritic changes. There are also risks of
developing severe infections in the fascial spaces of the hand,
particularly if there are pre-existing undiagnosed subungual
infections (5).
Corporal punishment is one teacher-child interaction harmful to
children. Corporal punishment inhibits learning, interferes with the
accomplishment of each of the important developmental tasks of
children and their teachers, and has the potential for physical harm
to the child. Corporal punishment should be considered as child
abuse and prohibited in all our schools (6). Children who are
regularly treated with excessive punitiveness learn to become
immune to pain. You often hear them say so as they grow older:
"Okay, hit me. I won't cry." This is not a desirable consequence,
because in the process of learning to steel themselves against pain,
they become a little less human. They learn to shut off their
emotions and become more mechanical beings (7).
References
(1) Hymen, I. and Wise, J. (1979). Corporal punishment in
American education: readings in
history, practice, and alternatives. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
(2) Walsh, K. (1991). Discipline for character development.
Alabama: R. E. P. Books.
(3) Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: W. W.
Norton.
(4) Friedman, A. and Friedman, D. (1977). Parenting: a
developmental process. Pediatric
Annual, 6, 564-578.
(5) www.silcon.com/~ptave/hands.htm.Corporal punishment to
children's hands.
(6) Maurer, A. (1976). Personal communication.
(7) Balter, L. (1988). Who's in control? New York: Poseidon Press.
What Are the Solutions to Corporal
Punishment?
In order to maintain classroom control, the teacher must display an
attitude of respect for the students. Students must feel that they are
loved and understood. There must be positive not negative
attitudes on the part of the teacher and student. The students
parents should be involved in decision making about school issues
affecting them, including educational goals and disciplinary rules.
The lack of parental involvement in the education of their children
is cited by teachers as one of the major causes of current classroom
disciplinary difficulty (1).
Inappropriate behavior can be reduced by using extinction. This
technique removes or eliminates the reinforcers which maintain the
inappropriate actions. Use of a calm voice when giving instructions
will eliminate any problems. Teachers should receive as much
training and support as possible. Other solutions are parent-teacher
conferences, revocation of privileges like recess, after school
detention and counseling. Studies of the incidence of corporal
punishment go so far. They tell us that corporal punishment is
widely used and generally approved. What is needed are direct
naturalistic studies to determine correlations among behavior,
achievement, and attitudes in schools that use corporal punishment
and those that do not.
Even more important, however, than increasingly sophisticated
studies of incidence is the development and understanding of the
use of solutions to corporal punishment. In a sense, the need is for
a program to educate teachers, parents, and school administrators.
Society needs to work along with the schools in order to eliminate
the use of corporal punishment. The negative effects of corporal
punishment must be well publicized, and recognized by the public
at large as well as the clinical community, resulting in a social
atmosphere condemning it. Therapists need to make a clear
distinction between different types of corporal punishment;
spankings on the rear with the open hand are probably not so
damaging as the belt and stick, and the therapists who hysterically
condemn all corporal punishment.
Schools need to be well staffed with family therapists who can
enter the home when a child has been found to be unusually
aggressive, or has shown other evidence of parental maltreatment.
The dangers of severe parenting must be pointed out, and other
alternatives to discipline provided. Training for parenthood should
be government mandated and should begin in the early grades (3).
Corporal punishment is ineffective in producing durable behavior
change; it is potentially harmful to students, school personnel,
parents and property ; it is highly impractical in light of the
controls required for maximal effectiveness.
References
(1) Kelly, J. (1983). Solving your child's behavior problems: an
everyday guide for parents.
Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
(2) Hymen, I. and Wise, J. (1979). Corporal punishment in
American education: readings in
history, practice, and alternatives. Philadelphia: Temple University
Press.
(3) Egerton, J. (1976). Back to basics. Current, 186, 27-33.
Bibliography
Balter, L. (1988). Who's in control? New York: Poseidon Press.
Dinkmeyer, D. (1982). The parent's handbook: step. Minnesota:
American Guidance Service.
Dubanoski, R., Inaba, M. and Gerkewicz, B. (1983). Corporal
punishment: myths, problems, and alternatives. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 7, 271-278.
Egerton, J. (1976). Back to basics. Current, 186, 27-33.
Falk, H. (1941). Corporal punishment: a social interpretation of its
theory and practice in the schools of the United States. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Friedman, A., and Friedman, D. (1977). Parenting: a
developmental process. Pediatric Annual, 6, 564-578.
Greven, P. (1991). Spare the child: the religious roots of
punishment and the psychological impact of physical abuse. New
York: Random House.
Hyman, I. (1990). Reading , writing, and the hickory stick: the
appalling story of physical
violence in American schools. Boston: Lexington Books.
Hyman, I. and Wise, J. (1979). Corporal punishment in American
education: readings in history, practice, and alternatives.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Maurer, A. (1976). Personal communication.
Paley, V. (1979). White teacher. Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press.
Riak, J. Plain talk about spanking. Booklet available from PTAVE.
Walsh, K. (1991). Discipline for character development. Alabama:
R. E. P. Books.
Wineman, D., and James, A. (1967). Policy statement: corporal
punishment in the public schools. Detroit: Metropolitan Detroit
Branch of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan.
Where the states stand on corporal punishment:
Alabama--Legal
Alaska--Illegal
Arizona--Legal
Arkansas--Legal
California—Illegal California 1986 CA Educ. Code
49000
Colorado--Legal
Connecticut--Illegal
Delaware--Illegal
District of Columbia--N/A
Florida--Legal
Georgia--Legal
Hawaii--Illegal
Idaho--Legal
Illinois--Illegal
Indiana--Legal
Iowa--Illegal
Kansas--Legal
Kentucky--Legal
Louisiana--Legal
Maine--Illegal
Maryland--Illegal
Massachusetts--Illegal
Michigan--Illegal
Minnesota--Illegal
Mississippi--Legal
Missouri--Legal Montana--Illegal
Nebraska--Illegal
Nevada--Illegal
New Hampshire--Illegal
New Jersey--Illegal
Section
New Mexico--Legal
New York--Illegal
North Carolina--Legal
North Dakota--Illegal
Ohio--Legal
Oklahoma--Legal
Oregon--Illegal
Pennsylvania--Legal
Rhode Island--Restricted*
South Carolina--Legal
South Dakota--Illegal
Tennessee--Legal
Texas--Legal
Utah--Illegal
Vermont--Illegal
Virginia--Illegal
Washington--Illegal
West Virginia--Illegal
Wisconsin--Illegal
Wyoming--Legal * banned by every school board in the state
CALIFORNIA CODES
EDUCATION CODE
SECTION 49000-49001
49000. The Legislature finds and declares that the
protection
against corporal punishment, which extends to other
citizens in other
walks of life, should include children while they are
under the
control of the public schools. Children of school age
are at the
most vulnerable and impressionable period of their
lives and it is
wholly reasonable that the safeguards to the integrity
and sanctity
of their bodies should be, at this tender age, at least
equal to that
afforded to other citizens.
49001. (a) For the purposes of this section "corporal
punishment"
means the willful infliction of, or willfully causing
the infliction
of, physical pain on a pupil. An amount of force that
is reasonable
and necessary for a person employed by or engaged in a
public school
to quell a disturbance threatening physical injury to
persons or
damage to property, for purposes of self-defense, or to
obtain
possession of weapons or other dangerous objects within
the control
of the pupil, is not and shall not be construed to be
corporal
punishment within the meaning and intent of this
section. Physical
pain or discomfort caused by athletic competition or
other such
recreational activity, voluntarily engaged in by the
pupil, is not
and shall not be construed to be corporal punishment
within the
meaning and intent of this section.
(b) No person employed by or engaged in a public
school shall
inflict, or cause to be inflicted corporal punishment
upon a pupil.
Every resolution, bylaw, rule, ordinance, or other act
or authority
permitting or authorizing the infliction of corporal
punishment upon
a pupil attending a public school is void and
unenforceable.