Munoz1
Mayra Munoz
Mrs. Vogt
AP Literature
9 March 2016
Research Paper
Discipline plays a vital role in education. Although there are various methods of
discipline, the most controversial are assertive discipline and corporal punishment. The
reason I chose this topic is because I am looking into the field of education. My
argument is that all schools should completely ban corporal punishment because of its
many negative effects. The detrimental effects of this can be life long; but like always
there is a counter-argument. For example, if a teacher were to hit a student others would
be afraid of the teacher and would obey him or her immediately in fear of it happening to
them, thus providing a quick fix for the bad behavior. However assertive discipline
provides a positive learning environment, without the use of violence, physically or
mentally.
Developed by Lee and Marlene Canter, Assertive Discipline is an approach
toward classroom management. This method is also referred to as the “take-control”
method, because the teacher controls their classroom, but it is done in a positive manner.
A high level of teacher control is the priority in this discipline. The approach lets teachers
set rules and directions which clearly explain the boundaries of acceptable and
unacceptable student behavior. It then teaches these rules and directions and asks for help
from parents and/or administrators when needed to handling certain behaviors of
students. The overall goal of Assertive Discipline is to allow teachers to involve all
Munoz1
students in the learning process, but keep them focused, rather than becoming interrupted
by students’ bad behavior. The main idea of this approach is that the teacher develops an
easy to understand discipline plan which contains rules that students must follow at all
times, positive influences for obeying these rules, and consequences when students
disobey them. However, the students usually start off new every day and are free of all
previous consequences. When students act well, they get recognized for it, which in turn
should lead to children following the rules. This not only leads to better classroom
behavior, but it also leads the misbehaving children wanting to act good so that they may
be recognized for their good, rather than punished for disruption of the class. Not only do
teachers like using this method because it is easy to incorporate and is generally effective,
but it is most widely used as a method to maintaining classroom behavior. (Wikipedia)
One of the most widely-known methods of discipline is in fact, Assertive
Discipline. Even though it focuses more on trying to get children to behave appropriately,
it still seems to be effective in almost all environments as an efficient way of disciplinary
action in the school setting. With this method, students will learn positively and be able
to focus more in classrooms. Not only does this allow a greater understanding in the
classroom setting, but it also leads to good behavior over the course of the school year.
(Wikipedia)
Assertive Discipline, also known as the Canter approach, seems so ideal in the
school environment, that many school districts across North America have adopted it. For
the majority of these districts, this method has worked wonders, but even through its
widespread popularity there are critics. Most of the criticisms focus on the rigidness and
severity of the approach. They also complain that this method is retroactive, rather than
Munoz1
proactive because they feel that students should be taught to be responsible for their
behavior in the first place, rather than having to be taught in school. Two of the most
vocal critics of the Assertive Discipline approach are Richard Curwin and Allen Mendler.
Their model, Discipline with Dignity, recommends more of a preventative approach to
dealing with misbehavior. Most misbehavior, such as talking in class or out of turn,
tardiness, disruptions, etc., are minor problems that while irritating, are not bad or
dangerous, and may be fixed through more direct instruction. Discipline with Dignity
focuses more on the student who is in danger of failing because his or her bad behavior
interferes with their ability to learn. There are pros to the Assertive Discipline method
however. Classroom management is not only easy, but the discipline plan is very easy to
develop as well. Also the responsibility of the misbehavior is placed on the student,
because it is their fault they misbehave. With any method there are cons as well, and this
one seems to focus on the fact that it is teacher-centered. The Assertive Discipline is
based on making the classroom run smoothly, without interruptions (Fitzer).
It seems more schools choose to adopt the Assertive Discipline plan because of its
easy development and classroom control. With most of North America using this method,
it is only likely to believe that it is best, but Discipline with Dignity seems to counter that.
Focusing more on the student may be better for them, but it takes more work on the
teachers and the school’s side to make it work efficiently. How it would maintain
behavior while individually focusing would definitely be more of a challenge than the
Assertive Discipline approach (Fitzer).
The main focuses of the Assertive Discipline program are the ideas that no
student has the right to prevent a teacher from teaching, or another student from learning,
Munoz1
and that it is the teacher's responsibility to enforce them. This program places teachers in
the main, disciplinary role and the students in second. With a method as rigid and
straight-forward as this, there is no room for teacher discretion. A teacher must be able to
stick to the rules provided, no matter what the reason is for the misbehavior. Assertive
Discipline doesn’t take into effect the causes of the misbehavior outside the classroom,
which is where it is originated from in the first place. “When I began teaching in 1994
this was the method of discipline. As a new teacher I really liked Assertive Discipline,
probably because it was so black and white and gave me an opportunity to really teach
my subject. That was until I took a job in a high poverty, low income district. I soon
realized that this method of discipline really resulted in an escalation of behaviors instead
of a resolution to them. My students were truly dealing with issues that this form of
management ignored. If I was going to be successful, I had to change my management
style so that the students were not leaving my room on a consistent basis, yet they were
stopping unwanted behaviors. This is when I began to, in my opinion, grow up as a
teacher and realize that other techniques were available and even worked better than this
rather black and white technique.”, says teacher Bonnie McArthur (WikiEd).
This point of view clearly states the fact that the outside world has an influence on
children’s behavior and that the Assertive Discipline plan disregards all outside actions
causing the bad behavior. While this plan may work differently in various regions and
schools, it’s a great method with a simple effect. Those who use this plan may invariably
have to adjust and change settings in order to maximize its benefits (WikiEd).
Several factors make up the Assertive Discipline model. A clear indication of the
rules of the classroom needs to be provided to students in order for them to understand
Munoz1
what they should and shouldn’t do. Second, the teacher should always remind students of
these rules and indicate the consequences of wrongdoing. When students act in a negative
manner, the teacher should establish a positive method of disciplining the student instead
of a negative one. The severity of the punishment depends solely on the actions and
should not be taken too far, but allow the teacher to set limits. These factors form a
“corrective” way of punishment, and mainly try to get students not to learn proper
behavior and not to repeat their bad behavior, so that they may receive complements
rather than consequences (Miguel).
While teachers have the right to establish a positive learning environment for their
students, the students also have the right to choose how they behave. Whether or not they
acknowledge the rules, they are themselves and can act how they choose. The Assertive
Discipline method however, allows students to want to act well in class in order to
receive positive feedback. Encouragement and classroom control are the main factors in
this method (Miguel).
Corporal punishment is a disciplinary method in which a supervising adult inflicts
pain towards a child in response to a child's inappropriate behavior or language. The aims
of this punishment are usually to fix the issue, prevent it from happening again, and set an
example to others. The long-term goals however, are to change the child’s behavior and
to accommodate the adult's expectations. In corporal punishment, the adult usually hits
various parts of the child's body with a hand, paddle, or other items expected to cause
pain and fear. This shows the child that to settle conflicts one should use physical force
and cause pain. These children may in turn do such behavior themselves. They may also
never develop trust, have secure relationships with adults or learn the skills to settle
Munoz1
disputes or gain authority in less violent ways. The American Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry disagrees with corporal punishment in schools and takes issue
with laws in some states legalizing such corporal punishment (Corporal Punishment in
Schools).
The fact that an adult is physically able to punish a student is absurd. In no way
should putting down a child and inflicting pain benefit them, even in school discipline.
The damages to children through this method could result in loss of trust with all adults
and behavior may cease, yes, but the detrimental effects of it are not worth it. Having
“good” behavior in a school environment with the use of inflicting pain if needed, isn’t
necessary (Corporal Punishment in Schools).
Every year, hundreds of thousands of students are shown corporal punishment in
schools. Students of color and students with disabilities are unfairly targeted to corporal
punishment, damaging their learning of a supportive environment. According to the
Department of Education, African Americans make up 17.1 percent of public school
students nationwide, yet they account for 35.6 percent of those who were paddled during
the 2006-2007 school year (Human Rights Watch). The Department of Education has
reported that students with disabilities constitute 13.7 percent of all public school
students, and they make up 18.8 percent of those who are affected by corporal
punishment (Human Rights Watch). In many of these disability cases, students were
punished for showing behaviors relating to their disabilities, such as autism or Tourette's
syndrome. Painful physical punishments do not improve students' in-school behavior or
academic performances. One recent study found that in states where corporal punishment
is used frequently, schools have performed worse academically than those in states that
Munoz1
do not allow it. Also, many children who have been punished by hitting, paddling or
other physical disciplinary practices have reported problems with depression, anger, and
fear. Corporal punishment is a deteriorating disciplinary form that is poor in producing
thriving educational environments (Human Rights Watch).
Bias in punishment can clearly be seen through these statistics. Corporal
Punishment basically favors the teaching producing physical damage onto a misbehaving
student in order to correct them and prevent future disruption. However, it appears that
factors of race and handicap abilities in students are a target for bias in punishment. A
teacher may choose preferences in punishment simply because of the teacher’s own
thoughts or opinions, and there is nothing that can be done against them. As well as
hurting students physically, students have also shown a decrease in academic scores,
which is far from what this method should be doing (Human Rights Watch).
Corporal Punishment has been supported for thousands of years from legal and
religious teachings, including those based in Christianity. It has been a regular method for
disciplining children since ancient times, and only in the past 30 to 40 years has there
become an increasing outcry against such practices, especially with school children.
Corporal punishment is now illegal in many European areas, but still remains a big issue
in many other countries around the world. The debate focuses on the advantages of
corporal punishment as a quick, easy, and effective corrective measure versus arguments
that it can cause serious psychological damage in the long run as well as physically and
emotionally harm the child being punished. Like all things, there are pros and cons to this
method as well. Although mainly focused on cons, positive effects are a quick fix to bad
behavior and allowing the student to still remain in class rather than be sent out and miss
Munoz1
teaching. However, the cons are shown much more. This punishment shows society that
it is okay to hit children, that it can damage the trust of a student with a teacher, and the
fact that it is rather difficult to distinguish between punishment or abuse, whether or not
teachers realize it or not (Subulica).
Even though Corporal Punishment has been around for so long, it’s about time
change is becoming more visible in society. Inflicting physical damage onto children
because of bad behavior only makes things worse. Sure it’s easier on teachers and keeps
the student in the classroom environment, but its effects on the child mentally are far
worse than those physically. Damaging a child’s trust or feeling of safety around adults is
crucial in any lifestyle, and this method doesn’t help. The world isn’t the same as it was
thousands of years ago, and the world as a whole has developed a whole new sense of
expectations since then. Because of this, there are many other effective methods of
punishment available which still incorporate control of misbehavior in the classroom
(Subulica).
While Corporal Punishment such as paddling, spanking and hitting students
vanished from private schools by the 1960s, it is still legal in public schools of 20 states,
including North Carolina. Canada banned corporal punishment in 2004 and no European
country permits corporal punishment. As of now, the United States Congress has not
acted on requests from organizations such as Human Rights Watch and the American
Civil Liberties Union to banning corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is not
allowed in the military, mental institutions and prison, yet it is still legal to hit students in
20 states. The fact that Corporal Punishment as a disciplinary measure is not part of any
Munoz1
education curriculum shows that educators on every level know that it has no place in the
classroom. Discipline can, and should be taught by example (Kennedy).
Being able to use Corporal Punishment on students, but not the military or
prisoners seems extreme. Children will misbehave, but it is the duty of the teacher to
reinforce their rules in a positive manner and still be able to provide an example, rather
than inflicting pain or damaging a child’s social beliefs or feelings. 20 states out of the 50
states in the United States is almost half, and what makes it worse is that these are public
schools, upon which more students attend than the already vanished punishment in
private schools. The statistics of it all and the long term effects are detrimental. There is
absolutely no reason as to why Corporal Punishment should still be allowed in the school
setting (Kennedy).
Education today is constantly changing and discipline plays a major role in
student learning. In this changing world, some forms of discipline aren’t as widely
accepted as they used to be, and need to be improved with today’s society. Even though
corporal punishment is almost entirely gone, it is still allowed in almost half of the United
States. Being an educator requires that a positive use of discipline should be used in the
classroom environment to increase the potential of students. The debates over this issue
are basically whether or not a child should be hit in order to make them learn and stay
focused. As society sees it as well, I believe assertive discipline is the best method an
educator can use in classroom management. Not only does it provide a positive learning
environment for students, but it also ensures that they still receive the great education and
safety that they deserve, because they have rights to.
Munoz1
Works Cited
“Assertive Discipline”. WikiEd. December 4, 2010. Web.
“Assertive Discipline”. Wikipedia. December 4, 2010. Web.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools”. American Academy of Child & Adolescent
Psychiatry (AACAP). December 4, 2010. Web.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools and Its Effect on Academic Success”. Human
Rights Watch. April 15, 2010. December 5, 2010. Web.
Fitzer, Kim. “Lesson 2-Question 1 Curwin & Mendler - Required”. EdPsy399OL.
December 4, 2010. Web.
Kennedy, Robert. “2 Reasons for Banning Corporal Punishment”. About.com.
December 5, 2010. Web.
“Miguel. “The assertive discipline approach to classroom management”. Miguel
bengoa elt. February 14, 2008. December 4, 2010. Web.
Subulica, Ina. “Corporal Punishment in Schools”. International debate education
association. August 24, 2009. December 5, 2010. Web.