TheRemovalofCorpon l PuaisbmentFrom theSc:boolSyllem:
Somelbia l Lolt orSomnbial Gained!
By RobutRobia MtGn lb
A tbaislubmitt ed10theSc:bool ofGn duale Studies in part ialfullilmenlof the
requirementsfor thedq;r«of Mulen of Educalion
MemorialUnivenity .fNewfoundland
Auplt.t",
SLJobn ' l Newfoundla nd
ABSTRACT
Thesecondhalfof the twentiethcenturywitnesseda charlgeinsocietythatno longer accepted physicalpunishmentof childrenatthe bands ofadults, whetherthe adult be the parentofthe child or any otherpersonacting"inlocoparentis".Thisc.bange resultedincorporalpunishment being removedfromschoolsintheprovinceof Newfoundland and Labrador as legislatedbylaw.A similar law currentlyexists in each
ofthe provincesand territoriesin thecountryof Canada.
Researchontheeffectsof corporalpunishmenthassuggestedthatithasa negativeimpacton thegrowth ofchildrenmentally,emotionally,andsocially.Itis believed that this fo nnofpunishment did Iinle todeter childrenfrom future acts of misbehaviour,nor did it meet theneed of teachingmore appropriateactionsundersimilar circumstances.Thisphysicalactionofcorporalpunishmentisnow consideredtobean act ofphyslcalabuse.
Theaim of thisstudy wastoinvestigatetheattitudes and perceptions ofscbool administrato rs regardingbehaviour panerns of childre nsince theremo val of corporal punishment fromtheschool system. andtogel •betterunderstandingoftheirattitudes and perceptionstowar dsthealternativestocorporalpunishmeut.Thestudywas qualitativeindesignandusedtheopen-endedinterviewtechnique.Intotal.there were fifteenschool administratorsinterviewed.
Theadministrators interviewedinthisstudy genenllyagreed that therehasbeena riseinthe frequencies ofinappropriatebebaviounsincethe removalofcorponJ
ii
punishmentfromtheschoolsystem.Therewereseveralreasons that were suggested to explain thisriseinoccurrences of inappropriate behaviours. but few oftbose interviewed felt itwas as a result of the absenceofcorporaJpunishment.Some ofmereasons suggestedforthe rise includedan increase in thenumber ofsingleparentfamilies, change in family structure, andchangeinsocietyexpectations.
Thealternativesto corporalpunishment were believedtobesatisfactorily effective in theschools ofse-.-eral oftheadministratorsinterviewed. while severalolbers feltthey were notsatisfactory.Despitethefacethat there wereseveraladministratorswho feltthatthealternatives to corpora! punishmentwereeffective,aUof thoseinterviewed suggested thatthereneeds tobeagreater emphasis inthe provinceof Newfoundland and Labradortoprovideschool-basedpersonnel withmore effectivemethods andresources of dealingwithchildrenwhocontinuouslymisbehavein theclassroom.This need sterns fromthebeliefthatmany childrenno longer respect,norfear,the disciplinaryactions that canbehandedout byneither theirparents,teachers,northelaw.
ltisbecauseoflhi,weaknessinthecurrentmethods of disciplinethatexistin Newfoundland schools that administntors feu forthe safetyof studentsand teachersif thetrend towardsanincreaseininappropriate behaviours continuesto persist.Whatis needed,theysuggest,are more innovative disciplinarymeasures that canonly be brought aboutas theresultofgreaterfinancialandhumancommitment.The time for that commitment,they feel,isnow.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I wouldlike tothankmysupervisor, Dr.Marc Glassman,forhisvaluable assistanceandguidancein thepreparatiooof thisdocument AlsothankstoDr.Jerome Delaney whohelpedin the completionof thisthesispaper.
Iwouldlike tothankmywife, Louise,and mydaughter.Mandy,for beingso supportive and patientwith meover thelastthree years thatI havebeenworkingatthis program.Louise,thanksforconvincingmethat thiswas somethingthat Icould accomplish.lamgratefulthatyouweretherewithme.
Iextend thankstomyparents.RobertandLucy,forreminding meovertheyears ofthe importance ofaneducation and thevalueof dedication.
IwouldalsoliketothanJc myfather-in-law.Cecil andmysister,Mabel.for makingmysummerstaysawayfromborneso comfortab4eThewelcome youextended mewill notbeforgotten.
ThankstoPat Dohey,who helpedme throughthatfirsttoughyear.Your patienceandcomputerskillswere greallyappreciated.
Finally.thanks(0thefifteenpanicipanuinthisstudywhowere so accommodatingtomyetron.s.
iv.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABST RACT
AC KNOW LEDG EM ENTS TAB LEOFCO NTENTS
CHAPT ER.,STA TE M ENT OFmE PROBLEM
.i .. . ... . .iii.
iv
. 1
.4 ..5 . ...5 Introduction.
Background oft heStudy. Purpose of theStudy. Significance of theStudy.. CHAPT E R1:DESIGNOF THEST UDY
...12 .13
.15 . .. . .. 17 .. . . .10
. 8
.9
. 11
ResearchDesign SiteSelection.. DataCollection.. Major Research Questions. DataAnalysis. Definition ofKey Terms.
CHA PTE R 3:LITERATURE REVIEW HistoryofCorporalPunishmentinSchools. SupportforCOf'POraiPunishment. ArgumentsAgainstCorporalPunishment
AlternativestoCorporalPunishment.
CHAPTER 4:PRESENTATION AND ANALYSISOF DATA Organizationof InterviewDati _
AnalysisofInterviewDati....
.. . . .30
.. . . .35 .... . . . .35 ResearchQuestionIII-Has the frequencyofinapproprialc behaviours increased.decreased.or remainedthesamesincethe removalof
corporal punishmentfrom your school?Why?. . ..35
ResearchQuestion#2 - Hastheseriousnessof inappropriatebehaviours escalatedsincetheremovalof corporal punishment?Elaborate. . .... ..45
ResearchQuestion#3 •With theremovalof corporalpunishment from schools. hasthe attitudeof students towardsthe consequences of
inappropriate behaviourschanged?If yes, inwhat ways? 51
ResearchQuestion#4-Do theteachersoh hescbooIfedcomforuble withthealternativesto corporalpunishment?Explain.. . . .•..• . •61
Research Question115-Ingeneral,dothestudents whohavebeen subjected tothealternativesto corporal punishment seem tohave benefitedascomparedtothose who weresubjected to corporal
punishment?Explain. 84
ResearchQuestionN6.Ifgiventheopportunity,wouldyoureinstate the use ofcorporalpunishmentinyourschool?Why or whynot?. _.92
CHAPTER S:SUMMARY,DISCUSSION,CONCLUSIONS,AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary Discussion.
.100
. 109
vi.
GeneralPerceptionof CorporalPunishment. . .. ..109
TendenciesofStudcnts TowardsMoreorLessActs
ofInappropriateBehaviours .. .. ..112
StrengthsofCorporalPunishment ..114
Reasons for Abolishmentof CorporalPunishment. .. I IS Alternativesto Corporal Punishmentin Newfoundland
Schools .. II7
StrengthsoftheAlternatives toCorporalPunishment. . ..118 Weaknessesof the AlternativestoCorporalPunishment. 119 Significance of the Familyin Dealing WithDiscipline
in theSchool ...121
Significanceof Society in DealingWith Disciplinein
the School. .... ...122
EffectsofAmalgamation on SchoolDiscipline. .. ... 125
EffectsofEmploymenton SchoolDiscipline 126
Conclusion. . . ..128
Recommeodaticns. ..130
REFERENCES. 134
APPENDlX .. . . .. . .. .138
CHAPTERt
mE PROBLEM
Intr oductionDisciplinehas beenahighlypersonalandemotionallychargedissue in the educationsystem withinthis century.Behavioral scientistsandeducators,suchas Clarke (1984)and Prinsloo (1994), havestruggledfor yearswith whatistheuideaI" formof disciplineinschools.Whathasbeenagreeduponisthatdiscipline,...cuts acrossaU aspectsofour lives,and new conceptsneed tobe carefullyconsidered,triedout,and then modifiedaccording toeach teacher',feelingsandthe natureaf the class and the students The improvementofdisciplineis• task requiringthecommitmentoftimeandresources"
(Hyman.1991.p.136).Thestrugglefor coecrereevidenceandresults onthevarious methodsofdisciplinecontinues;timeand resources havebeenmadereadilyavailable, and progress is slowlybeing experienced.
Thele galrights ofchildren,the emergenceof new policieson discip line.and
increased publicpressureforschoolpoItcyaccountability basbadsevereimplicationsfor educationalpracticesindealingwiththediscipliningof students.The Newfoundlandand Labrador schoolsystemhas searchedfor decadesforthe most effectivewayofdealing with studentdiscipline.
Traditionally,parentshavesenttheircllik1reootr to teachers to whomtheyhave granted the autho rita tive positionofia loco parmtil,"meaningthatparentsgive their
authoritytoteachers when childrenare sent to school"(Lundell, 1982,p.6).Thisterm was originallyconceivedoCasthe relationshipoCeducatortopupiland theauthority impliedwhenueating disciplinarymatters.Thisimpliedpower and authority sothatthe teachercouidproperly restrainandcorrect studentswhen required,andwasperceivedas essential in theeducation and trainingcf students.Whileit isstillcritical inthe disciplinary process,the conceptofiDloco paRDtisbasundergoneconsiderable modification,andthus.too,havethe methods of disciplining students.
Many educators todayhavebecome limitedin theoptions availablein dealing with discipline problemsin theschoolas comparedtolessthantwentyyean ago.A 1982 report (Lundell. 1982) on the levelsofdisciplineCortheeraincludedtenoCthe most frequently used behaviourcontrol methods.These includedverbal reprimand,revoking privileges.corporal punishment,parentconference, detention,suspension.expulsion.
psychologicaltesting, counselling,and therapy.Asthe rightsof thestudentsincreased overtheyears,dueprocess forthestudentbecameessentialandcorporalpunishment came undertire.This criticismof corporal punishmentwas ironicconsidering that a SupremeCourtdecision intheUnited Stateson April 19.1977,just fiveyearsearlier, upheld the useof corporalpunishment.Atthetime.,themessageof thiscourtdecision had asignificantimpacton schooling.WhileitwasnolongerLegal tobeatwivesand sailorsinthe country,the law still allowededucatorstostrike studentsin an attemptto altertheir behaviours(Lundell,1982).Despitethisearlierruling,themove awayficm corporal punisbmentwas welcomedbymany,butitremainstobeseea iftbe resultshave beenpositive.
Slatftllftlt of'the Problem Backgro und totheStudy
Disciplinecontinuestobe inthe forefrontofconcerns foradministrators,teachers, parents,andlocal school boards.Principalsare morelikelyto losetheir jobsfor failingto maintaindiscipline than theyare for any other reason (Charles,1996).In asurvey conductedonteacher/principalopinions,a!most a thirdofallteachersnationwideclaimed thatthey have,at variouspoinuintheircareers, seriously COllSidered bv;ngthe professionbecauseof studentmisbehaviour(NationalCenter for EducationStatistics, 1987).This surveydidmuchin bringingtotheforefrontthe imponanceof future developments inschooldiscipline.
Ideally, thegoal of disciplinewasto "reduce theneed forteacher intervention over timebyhelpingstudentslearnto control their ownbehaviour.Whenteachers apply various disciplinetechniques,theyhopeDOtonly tlw misbehaviour willcease,butthat students will intemalize self-disciplineanddisplayit in theclassroom anddsewbere"
(Charles,1996,p.3)_Theconcernaboutdisciplineisgrowing yearbyyear.Recent
studiesofthe educationprofession list disc:ipline u a majorproblem withwhichteachers mustcontend anda significantfactorinteachersleavingtheprofession.Infaet,problems withdisciplinearebelievedtoberesponsiblefor the departureof 40percent or more of new teachers fromtheeducationprofessionduring theirfirstthree yearsof experience (Charles. 1996).
Purp ese ortheStudy
Thepurpose oflhis study was toexamine whetherrbe removal of corporal punishmentfromNewfoundland'sschoolsbashadapositive or Degativeinfluenceon school disciplineproblemsandoverallschoollife.Thestudyfocussedonthe alternative methodsofdisciplinethat administratorshave usedinplaceofcorporal punishment.
gaining an understandingofhow effectively thesemethodshave workedinachieving theirintendedpurpose.Theresponses of administratorsprovidedinsightinfobow these alternativemethods ofdisciplinehavefaredinbeing perceivedasa moreorless appropriatemeansof dealingwithstudents lbat contill.1e to misbehave intheprovince's schools
SignificanceortheSfudy
The effects ofdisdplineon schooling haveanimpacton muchmore thanthelives of those upon whom thedisciplinaryactionisexercised.Intheprovinceof Newfoundland and Labrador recently,fewer andfewer studentsaredroppingout of schoolin searchof employmentopportunitiesthat donotrequirethe acquisition ofat least ahighschool graduationcertificate.This treedisperhapsmainlydue 10 the realizationthat thefishery00longertansustainthe oumben1Iw:itdid
m
than a decade ago,along with the realization thai thevast majorityof oecupations now availablerequire ahighschoolcertificationatthevery least.Asit.resultof lhis trend, classrooms havebeensubjected to students whoarein attendancebecausethey needhighschool aedits10meettbeminiJm.mrequirements needed tobeconsideredforemployment.ratherthan for reasons ofwanting10be
educated.Thedisciplineproblemsthat thesestudentscanbeexpeaed to create, along withthosethat the studentswhoare interestedInschoolcreate,aremakingit increasingly necessarythaithemethodsused touw thesemisbeha'o'i.oursare effective.The resultsof thisstudy mayprovevery beneficialindecidingonthefutureof discipline inschools. The majorityof research conductedonthistopichasbeen quantitative in nature.This qualitative approach mayprovidefor greater opponunityto deduce meaningfromthe open-ended questionsput beforetheparticipants.Theresearch proposedinthisstudyhas potentiallylaid the groundwork for a futurestudythatwishesto take acloser lookat the successthat adminisuatorsareexperiencinginschooldisciplineintheaftermathof the eliminationof corporal punishment.
COAPTER 1
DESIGNOF mE STUDV Resea rchBested
AccordingtoBogdanandBiklen(1992) qualitativeresearchers"proceed on theoreticalassumptions(thatmeaningandprocessare crucialin understandinghuman behavior.thatdescriptive dataiswhatisimportant10 collect,andtbatanalysisisbest doneinductively) andondata.toIlectiontraditions(likeputicipantobservation, unstructured interviewing, and document analysis).Theseprovidetheparameters,the tools,and thegeneralguideof howtoproceed."(p.55).The open-ended interview methodis often looked upon as oneof the most effective meansof conducting educationalresearch.Yin (1994)Slatedthat mostcommonly"interviewsareof anopen- endednatureinwhich you ask:key respondentsforthefactsof"matter aswellas forthe respondents'opinionsabout events,In somesituations, you mayevenasktherespondent 10proposehis or herown insightsintocertainoccurrencesand mayuse such propositions as the basisforfurtherinquiry"(p.84).
BestandKahn(1993)seethis opee-eeded format inwhichthesubject is encouragedto answerinhisor herown wordsatsome lengthasbeinglikelyto provide greaterdepthofresponse.Infact, theysuggest lhat this methodisoften superiorto other data-gatheringdevices. in part duetothegreaterwillingllC$Sof subjectsto talkthanto write,andsecondlybecausethispenetrationCltpIoitstheadvantage ofgetting beneath·
the-surfacereactions.
This studyhasutilizedtheepee-endedinterviewasthe primarymethodofdata collection.Miller(1991)statesthat.'"theinterviewWIrangefromIhighly structured situation withaplannedseriesofquestions,to •veryinformal talkwith00structure except forsome areas of discussiondesiredbytheinterviewer"(p.159).Qualitative research.bywayof tbeinterview,permiuthe researcher torecordandunderstandpeople intheir own terms. Patten (1986)characterizesqualitativeresearchasproducing data which"consistofdetailed descriptions of situations,events.people...about their experiences, attitudes,beliefs, and thoughts"(p.22).Panon suggests that depth and detailemerge throughdirectquotationand carefuldescription.Theinterviewtechnique isonesuch methodin seekingoutthis depthanddescription.AsPatlan(1986)reveals,
"Directquotationsareabasicsource ofraw datain qualitative measurement.revealing
respondents'levelofemotion.the wayinwhich theyhaveorganizedtheirworld.their thoughtsaboutwhatishappening.theirexperience:s,andtheirbasic perceptions"(p.28).
Itisthisinsightthatwillallowfor qualitativeresearch.whichhas.asitsmainobjective,a driveto understandthemeaningofones'experiences.
SiteSelectionndAccess
Themethods of discipline usedinschoolsacrosstheprovince ofNewfoundland and Labradorvaryfromschool board toschool board andfromschoolto school. The focus cf'thisstudywastodetermineifthe alternativesto corporalpunishment in these schoolsare regarded as beingeffectiveintheopinionofthosewhoadministerthis discipline- school administrators.Theadministrators who wereinterviewedwere randomlychosenfromhighschoolsinone of Newfoundland's schooldistricts. Eachof
theseadministratorsbadserved as administratorsbothbefore the eliminationof corporal punishmentand after.A totalof15 school administratorswereinterviewed.Each interviewsessiontookplace outside thephysical settingof the schooltoprovide for greater reflectionand minimumintetT\lption.
Dl tlColI«tion
Aqualitlt iveapproachservesbestforthepurposes oflhi! study.Wiersma(1995) definedthe role ofthismethod asbeingdone forthepurpose ofunderstanding social phenomena,theexactintentionofthisstudy.Bogdan and Biklen(1992)describethe interviewas"apurposefulconversation. usuallybetweentwo people...thatis directed by one inorderto get infonnation"(p.96). Itis designedto basicallyfindout what is on someone else'smind.Panon(1990)stalesthat "thepurposeofopen-ended interviewing
is not toputthings insomeone'smind,but toICCeSStheperspectiveoftheperson being
interviewed"(p.278)
Thisstudyposed open-endedquestionstoa selectionof15 school IdministBtors who werechosenbasedontheirsuitabilityforthepurposes oftheresearch.Theexact wording and sequenceof questionsweredeterminedin advance.Allintervieweeswere askedthesame questioosinthesame order.Allquestions were worrledinacomp4etely open-ended fermat.The questions used includedexperienceandbehaviorquestions, opinionof advantage/disadvantagequestions,knowledgequestions,andbackground questionsthat elicitrespondenu'desaiptionsof themsetves. Eachoftheseisusedin Patton'stypologyasoutlinedinLeCompte and Preissle(I99J),and served besttomeet theexpectations andobjectivesof the study'spurpose.
10 Panon (1986) prefers thismethodofinterviewingbecause'"thetruly open-ended question doesnot presupposewhichdimensionoffeeling,analysis.orthoughtwillbe salient fortheinterviewee.Tbctrulyopen-endedquestion permitspersonsbeing interviewed totake whatever directionandusewbatev~wordstheywantinorderto represent whattheyhavetosay-(p.213).BestandIWln(1993)notethatthepreferred methodfordata collectionisto taperecordtheinterviewifthe respondentis willing. Each of'the participantswere asked to allowfor therecording oflhe interviewsessionso astoguaranteethereportingof theirexactresponses,a requesttowhicheachinterviewee complied. Eachtapedsessionwas thentranscribed topermit easier analysisofthe information gathered
Prior tothe actualinterviewsessionseachpanicipating school administratorwas providedwitha letter~ainingtheintendedpurpose of the study.Thewrittenconsent ofeachparticipant wasrequestedregardingthepossibletape recordingofeachsession Atthis timethe principalswerereassuredoftotal confidentiality to ensurethattheir identitywouldbeprotected.Forthatreason,eachprincipalwillbe representedbythe term"interviewee"only,and
an
audiorecordingswereused onlybytheresearcher.Eventually.afterallthedataneededwastranscribed, thesetapesweredestroyed.An effort wasmade to givemeaningtoandinterpret theresponsesof the participantsto get a morein-depthunderstandingof attitudestoward thealternatives of corporal punishment.
Thisqualitativeapproachallowedmoreopponunities for interpretation thanmostofthe studiespreviouslyconductedon thistopic which havetended tobequantitativeforthe mostpart.
\I Major RaurtbQaatio8'
The major research questionsthatthisstudy addressedwere:
I.Howdo school administratondescribe the influencethattheremoval of corporalpunishmentbas badon scbooldisciplinc?
2.Doschool administratorsperceivecorporalpunistunent tobemoreeffectiveor lesseffectivethan today',alternativemethods ofdiscipline?
The questionsthatwere askedintheinterview to seek out the responses tothese questions included:
I.Hasthefrequency ofinappropriatebehaviorsincreased. decreased,orremained thesamesince the removal ofcorporalpunishmentfrom yourschool? Why?
2.Hasthe seriousnessof inappropriatebehaviorsescalated sincethe removalof corporal punishment?Elaborate.
3.Withtheremoval of corporalpunishmentfromschools,bastheattitudeof students towardsthe consequencesof inappropriatebehaviorschanged?[( ye s,inwhat ways?
4 Dotheteachers of theschoolfeel comfonabtewiththe alternativesto corporal punishment?Explain.
5.Ingeneral, do thestudentswhohavebeen.subjectedto the alternativesto corporal punishmentseemto havebenefitedas compared tothosewhowere subjected to corporalpunishment?Explain.
6.Ifgiventhe opportunity,wouldyou reinstatethe use of corporalpunishmentin your school? Whyor whynot?
12 OataAnalys ls
IntheopinionofPatton(1990),"the challenge [ofqualitativc inquiry)isto make sense of massiveamounu ofdata,reducethevolumeof information,identifythe significant patternsandconstruct. framework for communicatingthe essenceofwbat the data revealed"(p,372).This stage of theresearch beganonce alloClhe taped sessionshad beentranscribed,Thefirststepin analysingqualitativeresearchinvolves organizingthe data.Becausethe methodbeingused inthis studyisthatof an interview,the data was organized bygroupinganswerstogether acrossrespondenu.Oncethe datahadbeen organized. the researcherdescribedtheviewpcieuofparticipants.Itwas only after the datahad been organized and describedthatthe researcherbegan the most critical phase cfthe analysis process,interpretation."Interpretation involves explainingthefindings, answering "why"questaons,attachingsigolficance to panteular results,andputting patternsinto ananalytic:f'nmework"(panon.1990.p.375).The benefit of usingopen· ended interviewsis thatallrespondentsanswer the samequestions,thus increasing the comparability ofresponses.In addition,it facilitatesorganizationandanalysis of me data.Thisaidedtheresearcher as an attempt was madeto c:anfullyint~etand report the findingsofthestudy.
BestandKahn(1998) bring attentiontotheimponance of confidentialityin reportingresearch resultswhereinformationhasbeengatheredthrough themeansof interviewingparticipants.Theystate that, "Theethicalresearcherholds aJlinformation thathe orshe maygatheraboutthesubjectinstria confidence,disguisingthe panicipant'sidentityinallrecordsandreports.No one shouldbeina positionto threaten
13 the subject's anonymity nor shouldanyinformationbe releasedwithouthisor her permission"(p.43)_Itwasthe intendedpurposeoCtile researcher tocoecealnames, locations.andother identityinginformationsothatthepeoplewhohadbeeninterviewed would havetheiridentityprotected.Priortotheactualinterview sessioneach of the
respondents was providedwithawritten confirmationthatalldatawouldremain anonymous.ensuringthemthattheirtdentity wouldbeprotectedatallcosts.Inaddition.
theinterviewees were guaranteedlhatalltapedinterview sessionswouldbedestroyed
once thenecessarydata had been transcribed.
Patton (1986) statesthat"w hen strugglingwiththeprocessof analysisitishel.pful tokeep in mindthat thebasicpurposeof qualitative;uWyslsistoproyjde useful. meaningful, andcredible answersto the evaluationquestions"(p.327).Therefore the researchermadeallattemptsto consciouslyguardagainst subjectivity,whichoftenleads tobias.unreliability,andirrationalreportingof thc researchfindings.Objectivitywas exercisedtoensurethatthefindingsclearlyreflectedtheresponses of those interviewed.
thesubjects to whomthis studywu dependentupon.
DefinitionorKeyTtrms
Punishmentcanbedefined byitseffects:"Itisa consequencewhichreducesthe behaviorwhichprecededorcausedit. In other words,personsprefer toavoidaversive situations and doingthingswhichwillput theminan aversivesetting.Thus,theonlyuse of punishmentisto reduce or eliminatebehaviors.Punishmentteaches whatDOtto do"
(Vockell,1978.p.II).
Corporal punishmentis most commonlydefined as the act of disciplining
14 studentsbyinflicting physicalpainas apenaltyfor offensiveorimproper behaviour (Buechler.1989;Gaffney,1997).Morespecifically,corporal punishmentbasbeen defined(Gaffney,1991;Lundell, 1982)as anyprocesswhichintentionally inflictsa physicalhunupon any pan of a bunW'lbodyfor the purposeof punishmentorcorrection of'tbepersonor with thehopeofdeterr ingthesame person.or others.fromcommitting actswhichnecessitatehisJherbeingpunishedorcorrected.Basically, corporal punishmentmeansthe purposefulandintentionalhittingoft he studentwithabandor stickwiththe purpose ofinflictingpainor discomfortinanattempt to changean undesired behaviour.Corporalpunishmentisgrantedbyauthority10parentsand therefore:10schoolpriDcipalsandteachenas they aet'inlocoparentis'."Authorityis 'powerover' and authority in schoolis conferredon teachersandprincipalstwice-first throughtheir rolesandsecondlythrough their knowledge.Authoritygivesteachers,and especiallyprincipals,explicitpermission touseviolenceasameansof correction"
(Thompson.1994,p.25).
Pain,then.maybedefinedasthe essenceofpunishment.,whetherit be physicalor mental.Allformsof punishmentthat havebeendevisedby man have the goal of inflictingpainorsuffering upon theindividual.Thispainmaysometimes beintheform ofphysicalpain,whileatothertimesit can be the inflictionof psychicalsuffering.For the majorityof punishments.painisacombinationof both physicalpainandmentalpain (Scott.1974).
IS CHAPTERJ
SELECTED REVIEW OF mE LITERATURE HistoryofCorpo ra l PunishmentilllSchools
In thepast,"parentsandteachers haveusedpunishmenttomotivatetheyoung andtoteach them tobehaveproperty"(Charles.,p.32).The:punishmentthathasbeen exercised intheschools ofthecountry hasbeenreferred toascorporalpunishment.J.
fonnofpunishmentlonginexistence and longsupported.Infact,in early colonial America."oldworld traditionsandreligiousconvictionsmadecorporal punishmenta way oflifc"(paquet.1982.p.8).Thispunishmenttookon manyforms.Inmost casesit consistedofapplying apaddle 10thebackside ofthe misbehavingstudetU(Rosen,1991;
Buechler,1989;Prinslcc,1994 ).Someschoolsrequiredthatthepate ntbeprese nt when
punishmentwas being applifd, althoughmanyweregrantedtherighttoapplythis punishmentwithoutconsultationwiththeparentbecauseoftheirright10act"inloco parentis".Itwuhopedthatthepunishmentadministered wouldhavemorethan•shon tenn effect,that"itwould helpto conveytothe childwhatmatters morallyratherthan justwhatothersexpect"(MUM,Jobostone&:Cbalmen.1992).Corporalpunishment was supportedasameansof promotingrespeetforlawandorder,teachinggood citizenshipandacceptanceofresponsibilities,and aninexpensivewayofencouraging wholesome learningand protectinglife andtimboInaddition,it was always readily availableand easilyapplied(James,1969).
Upuntilthelast.decade,thecourtshadupheldcorporal punishment asalegitimate
.6 means ofdiscipliningstudents.Whiletherehadbeen manyilttemptsto give constitutional protectiontostudents againstcorporalpunishment,theattemptsforthe mostpanfailedand"in locoparentis"continuedtoberecognizedandrespectedby the courts(Departmentof EducationalAdministrationandCounselling. 1997).Principals arguedthatcorporal punishmentshouldbeadministeredundercertain circu.mslancesand thatmuch ofthecontroversy surroundingthetssuCofcorpora!punishmentcooldbe:
avoidedwithadequateteacher training (Wright" Moles,1985).The courts agreed,but suggestedthatif corporalpunishmentwas tobeused.thenapolicyshouldbe in placethat was consistentwithstatutorylaw,not cruelorexcessive.andootmalicious.thatinvolved anappropriate instrument,left nopermanentorlastinginjury,andsuitedthe age and sex of thechild(Departmen tof'Educaticnal AdministrationandCounselling,1997).In Canada..theseregulationswere spelledoutinSection43oftheCriminalCode.Hereit was instructedthat"the strilringof children mustbereserved for'correction'andmust notbe'excessive'.Itis left tothejudgmentcftheteacher or principal10decidebow muchcorrection isnecessary"(Thompson&Sharp,1994,p.2S).
Inrecentyears.theuseofcorporal punishmentinbome:s,schools.prisons, asylums.andthe armedforceshasprovokedwidespreadconcernandpublicity.The controversyovercorporalpunishmenlbasa complexhistorywlUchcan be traced back hundredsofyears.Alookbackat thishistory illuminates whatsocietyat the time considered tobe"deviant"behavior,subject10punishment,aDdwhatitregardedas
M nonnar
andthereforeacceptablebehavior.Alsoilluminatediswhatsocietyconsidered tobeacceptablemeasuresofcorrective punishment.Someofthemore dramaticand17 stunningcourt casesof the lasl decade in both Canada and the United States havehinged onwhatis acceptable andwhatis excessiveinterms ofl imitstodiscipline
In recentyears,theNewfoundlandcourts have mostoftenbeenhighlightedwith the abuseand violence children receivedat the hands aCthe RomanCatholic Christian Brothers.Once again, the defencein most of thcsecases claimed that the steps taken to correcttheseoftenunrulyboyswere Slepsthatwerenecessaryconsideringthe nature of the boysin their care.
Studying thehistory of corporal punishmentcan reveal how societal attitudes towardviolence,pain, discipline,andultinw d yhumannaturehave changedovertime Inshott."the history ofpunishmentcansave as alensto illuminatemajor cultural changesin a society" (Glenn, 1984,p.I).Thispaper brings10 lightthe evolutionof changing perceptionsof society towards appropriatemethods of punishmentover time, eventuallyleading totheabolishmentofcorporal punishmentinNewfoundland'sschools.
Support for Corporal r.aisb..ftll
Amidalltheargumentsinoppositionto corporalpunishment,therearethose who positthat parents and teachershavethechoiceofeitherphysicallydisciplining students ontheonehandor spoilingthemon theother.Manywill agreethatbothhave potential forextremelynegative results;however,itisdifficultto ascertainwhich techniqueis
lnthe homeandinthescbool.corporal punishmenthas10Dgbeenused to belp develop properactsof conductinstudents and children.Inmanycasesteachersand parentsdeclare that thismethodof punishment istheonlymethodthat canadequately
18 deal with problemchildren.The alternativesare often ineffective,totally disarming the educatorand parent.Thesadtroth islhat in manycommunitiesschools ate nolongerthe safe havenswhere childrenlearn, buildsocialrelationships,andprepare forthefutureas prcdocnve,successfuladults.lncreuingly,thereis growingpublic:recognitionand concern aboutthetoll violenceistaking onswdtnts, teachers.andschooladministraton
Inone extreme caseof an educatorfeelingtotallydisarmed(Madherc.1998),a Baltimore,Maryland,highschoolprincipalorderediImasssuspensionof 1200students Theprincipaladmittedthather actionsweresimply a"cry forhelp".Thisact broughtto theforefrontthe breakdownof disciplineinurbanschools.particularlyatthemiddleand secondary levels.Therewas anobvious need for more effectiveandcomprehensive approaches10discipline than thealternativedisciplinarystrategiesofdetention, suspension,andexpulsiollInthepopularimagination,andinthe mindsof some politicians.the disappearanceoftherod wulamentable.Intheiropinion."schools were safer,moreorderly places withmore learning goingonwhenteachersruled withthe ferule or the paddle"(Butchart&.McEwan, 1998,p.21).
Others (Wright&.Ollie.1985;Abrahams,1992)suppon ed theirstance,arguing thatthe abolition of corporalpunishmentwouldleaveteacherspowerlessto control students,especiallythosewhomight otherwisethreatenteachen_This anitude supponing theneed forcorporal punishmentwasstronglyreflectedin the homeThis faa shouldnotbesurprisingconsideringthetmiitiooal viewtakenbyparentstowards corporal punishment.Infact,studyafterstudyhadshownthat almostallAmericans had approvedofhittingchildren.OwensandSuaus (I97S)uncoveredan amazingstatistic
\9 showing an86percentapprovalofcorporalpunishmentin theborne.AsimilarNational FamilyViolence Surveyrevealedthat71percentofthe 2143aduhssurveyedbelieved tha tspanking wasnormalandappropriate (Straus.GellesandStei.nmett,1980).More recently,theGeneral SocietySurveyof 1470adultsfound that 84 percentagree that,"Itis somet imesnecessaryto disciplinea childwitha good bardspanking"(Lehman,1989).
Intheprovince of Newfoundlandand Labrador.Manin andBush(1984) discoveredthatevenstudentssometimes feltthatcorpor al punishmentwasnecessaryat timestodealwith themostdisruptive ofpupils.Inthewordsofone studentinterviewed.
"lthink thatthe strapshouldbebroughtbackbecause studentsseem to showlessregard
forpropertywhen thereisnopunishmentexcept expelling.Most students,the hard cases,don'tcareif they getexpelled very much duetothe fact that theyare failingand just dislike school,"(p.10)
Perhaps even moresurprisingisthefact thai even thevictims ofcorporal punishmentthemselves often prefer thisformof punishmentoveralternativemethods.
Tomany.theonedearadvantageofcorporalpunishmentisthatitoften canbedelivered immediatelyandquickly.Othermeansofdisciplineoften takeprolonged periodsof time.
somanystudentspreferto"so aheadandgetitover with"(VockeU.1978).10addition.
hearguesthatphysicalpunishmentmakesthemostsense:withchildrenwho arelJUly incapableofrespondingto anyother formof punistunent.
Asfortheconcern ofcorporaJpunishmentfittinginto the category ofwhatistobe consideredhumaneinaschoolsetting, Vockdl(1978 )claimsthat corporal punishmentis notnecessarilytheworstwaytopunishchildren.Baseduponhisfindingsherevealsthat,
20
"publicridiculefrom aparent orteacheris oftea viewedbychildrenas being muchmore
cruel thana privatelyadministeredspanking.Asamatter of fact,withmost older children. it'sthehumiliationaspect ola spanking dw burts morethantheactual physical impact"(p.109 ).ThefindingsofVockeUhaw:toweighheavilyonthemindscfthose studyingtheimpact of corporal punishmentonchildrenbecausehis reportsreflect informationgatheredfromtheactual victimsof corporalpunishment- thechildren.
ArgumentsAgainstCorpo ral Punishment
Corporalpunishmenthasbeen •panofSoct dy forhundreds, eveethousands.of years.Datingback to biblicaltimes., this methodof punishmenthasoften been deemed appropriate andnece ssary.Supporte rsputfo rth theargumentthattheLord.Himself,
proclaimedthat corporalpunishment wuaccep table."Spare the rod andspoilthechild"
hasbeenconnect ed toBible readings asmuchashasthe ten commandments.Opponents arguethissupposedsupport of corporal punislunentin theBible sayingthat."Thereisno authority in theBible for thecorporalpunishment of childrenwithrod or otherwise, except in the Proverbsof Solomon.Itis only Solomonwho recommendschild-beating.
NevertheLord"(New ell,1989,p.14).
Intheyear 1699 , aScottish schoolmasterbythenameofRoben Carmichael was found guiltyforthemurderof one oChisscholars.Basedon the records ofthe case, Carmichaelgave theboythreesuccessive beatingsandinrageandfury, "diddrag him fromhis desk,and beat himwithhisbandupontheheadandbackwithheavyandsevere strokes. and afterhe(theboy)wasoutof bis(Carmichael)hands beimmcdiatdy died"
(Scott, 1974, p.39).Tbcjuryfoundthat the beatingtheboywas subjected to atthe hands
21 ofCarmichadwasthecauseofdeath.Carmichaelwassentencedtosevenstripesand banishment from Scotland for life
The situationintheabovecase servesto revealoneafthe dangersof corporal punishment.Ifpunislvnentdoes notworkimmediately,"thepunisher must increase the frequency,duration. and intensityoftkepunishment untilitfinallyworks.That is one reasonwhyspanking.whenineffective.tanescalateto severeabuse"(Hyman,1997,p.
9).Unfortunatelyinthe Carmichaelcase,theseverity ofthebeatingresultedinthe death ofa child. the mostsevere of punishmentsfor aninappropriate action.
The worldwidetrendistowardabolitionofcorporal punishmentinschools Mostcivilized nationseliminatedthepractice withinthelasttwohundredyean.Inthe United States twenty-sevenstates forbid corporalpunishmentinschools.No state forbids parental spanking,whilethirty-sevenstates prohibitfosterpatentsfrom spanking (Hyman, 1997).Thedecadethatsaw thefirstmajorshift fromcorporal punishment occurredin the1970'swhen,accordingto records filedbythe Officeof CivilRightsin theDepartmentof Education (Maurer,1984).the numberofpaddlingswerereducedby almosthalfThismajorshiftwu acaeditcdto negativepublicity,court eases, beigblmed awarenessofchild abuse.,andthe exampleof thousandsof successfulschool districtsthat act asdemonstrationprojects.Itwasnow importantthatsocietypresentitselfasmore professionalized andmorallyresponsibleforthedutyof care owed itsyouth.Thewaysof the past wereseen tohavebeenprimitiveandthereWil.!ireasonforoptimismthatthis trendshould, andwould,contioue.AUfactorscontributedto the erodingof the old acceptanceof spanking as anappropriatepenaltyfordisobedienceanddisruption
22 Campaigns againstcorporalpunishmentofchildrendate backtopre-CivilWar America.Corporalpunishmentwascarriedoutwithsuchfrequencyandseverityinthose daysthat itwouldbeinstead termed physicalabuseinmodemsociety.However.at that time it was considered legallyandmorallyacceptable."TheearlymneteentlKentury campaign againstccepcrelpunishmentwasDOtintendedtoeliminateall hittingof children.Theymerely wantedtodefinethe dividinglinebetweenabuse and punishmer1t"
(Straus,1994,p.19).11hasbeenthisfinelinebetweenabuse and punishmentthathas caused suchuncertaintybothin the courts and inthe homeastowhatismerelya parent/teacher rightto discipline.as opposedto tanyingouta violentactagainstanother.
This new focusof corporalpunishmentas a fonn of abusespreadacrossCanada..
and indeed,therestaCme world.A 1978surveyinTexashadfoundthatonly.third of the adult populationhadconsidered hittinga childwith.beh or wooden paddle tobe physicalabuse.When thesurvey was repeatedin1991,almosthalf sawthese actsas physicalabuse (Straus.,1994).Thereasons forthisshiftin thinking wereobvious.The distinctionbetween corporalpunishmentand physicalabusedependsonwhether the child ispsychologicallydamaged. and researchresultswere pointingtothisconsequenceof corporalpunishment Inmost cues wherea childishitfrequently,psychological problemssuch as severelackofselfesteem,severe aggression towards other children, anxiety,or withdrawaloccur.Theactofpunishmentthen becomes anillegal act,anact of abuse.
Clearly,corporalpunishmenlisbothlegaland violentinprovincesor states that permititsusc. "Comparethedefinitions of corporal punisluneutandviolenceandyou
23 willsee thatallbutone ofthe keydements are identical.BothatCintentional, andin bothcasestheintentionisto causepain.Theonlydiffcmxeis thatviolencealsocoven actsthatcause injury.lfparents causean injury,the sameactis nolongerlegalcorpora]
punishment.itisphysical abuse"(Straus..1994, p.7).
Opponents ofcorponJ punishment claimthatthereis very tinle evidenceshowing thatphysicalpunishmentpromotes characterdevelopmentorproduceslasting behavioral change.Infact.opponentsclaimthatcorporal punishment canbecounterproductiveby increasingrather than curtailing antisocialbehavior instudents (Buechler,1989).These antisocial behaviorsofteninclude acts ofavoidance.A personwhohas been physically punished is likelyto avoid both,..theperson whodid the punishingif itseems thatdUg punisheris likely to strikeagain,and(b)thesituationin whichtbeperson was punished ifitseemsthatmorepunishmentwill beincurredbysticking aroundn(VockeU,1978,p.
23).This serves to complicatetheproblemnow thaI theleatherhastheresponsibility or taskaf not onlyhelping stUdenuunlearn the inappropriatebehavior,butalsocfbelpingto recreatethatfeeling of being securein theschoolenvironment.
The earlierresearch ofJames(1969)found similar attitudesofcorporal punishment as an actof,andcauseofantisocialbehavior,asitwas seen as"asurvivalof anearlier barbaricage,a carry-overfromthedays ofprimitive savagery,ill-becomingthe lifeofpresentdaycivilizedman"(po8).Straus (1994) expandedonthisperception of corporal punishmentas archaicinstatingthat"corporal punishmentisinconsistentwith human values.Regardlessof whether corporal punishmentbasanyadverseeffects,it contradicts humanitarianvaluesandtreatment"(p.9).This attitude towardscorporal
24 punishment reflects tbatof Scott(1974),who claimsthatcorporal punishment is essentiallyanunccnstmcdvepenalty.AIbest,Scottfedswtit."can exercise: no positivereformative influence;attheworst.itmayproduce reactionswhichmakethe individualwhoreceivesitless willing.orless able,thanhewasbeforetolead anhonest andusefullifein thecommunity"{p.xvi].
NumerousstudiesbyBandur. (citedinLundell.1982),an authorityinthe fieldof socialleaming,indicate thatmanyaggressivebehaviorsarclearnedthroughmodelling, and hebelievedthattheviolence usedin corporal punishmentwouldfosteraggressive acts.Hebelievedthatwhenachildsaw an adultpunishanother person in a physical mannerfor violating arule,thenthechildlslearningthatthisbehaviorisappropriate (Lundell,1982),This modelling behaviorbecomes especiallyserious whenteecbers use suchovertlyaggressivetacticsasspanking, hitting,andverbalabuseastheir punishment techniques. Itisbecauseofthislearnedbehavioropponentsarguethatcorporal punishmentshouldberemoved fromschools.Theyclaimthatthis aggressiveme&n5of dealingwithmisbehavior modelledviolenceanddid linletopromoteproperproblem- solvingskills (Richardson&.Evans, 1994).
Theresearchshows thatitisthismodellingthathubeenamain drivingforcein thesurvivalofcorporalpunishmentas •methodofdisciplining.People' s own childhood experiences~whetheror nottheir parentshit them~heavilyinfluence their laterattitudes of the use of physicalpunishment.Despitethefactthat theauthority figureswho administerthispunishmenttendtousethistreatmeDtas awaytoachieveamorally correctend,itcarriesapowerful messagethatit isokaytousephysicalviolence,and this
25 messagetends tocarryoverto adulthood.One exampleshowsthat a Swedimopinion pollin 198 1revealedthat41 percent oftbose whobad been physicallypunishedbelieved
thatit was necessary to useitin bringingupcbildree,comparedwithonlyIIpercent out
ofthosc who hadnotbeenhitbyteachersor parents(Newell,1989).
Miller (1990),anotherprominentauthorityin the fieldofsocial bebevic rs.
presented results that were verysimilarto thefindingsof Bandura.She arguedthatas long as schools inflictpunishmentonstudents for their"own good",theydestroythe child'ssense ofself wonh andtheir mechanisms for understandingthatsuchpunishment
is wrong (Thompson&Sharp,1994). Thechildrengrow up believingthatpunishmentis
not onlyright.butalsothatitisnecessary.Millerfoundthateven thosechildrenwho
were"controlled"throughtheuscofcorporal punishment were notuansfonnedinto
betterbehavingstudentsandwerevery difficultto direct throughanyothermeansthan physitalpunishment.Unable 10showaggressioninreturntotheteacher orprincipal administeringthe punishment,thechildrentheninternalizetheanger which will eventuallyberecycled in their treatmentof others(Thompson&Sharp, 1994;Charles, 1996).Inthiscasethe studentoften becameangryor blamedtheindividualresponsible for thepunistunenlrather thanenminingpenoaalresponsibilityforthe problem.
Therefore,accordingto Glasser(citedinJonesItJones, 1998),punishmentallowsthe student toprojectblamerather than to accept responsibilityfortheirbehaviors.At the sametime,theirfeelingofpowcrtcssnessleadsto furtba'complicationsbecausewhen studentsperceivethattheyhavelittlepowerandinfluence,theyoftenreactby becoming moreaggressive(Warner,Weist&Krolak,1999).This findingcorrespondswith the
26 findingsof Glasser(19 88),who discoveredthat95percentorall studentdiscipline problemsinschools are causedbystudents'tackof powerandthatmisbehaviorisan attemptto gainsomesenseofpower.
Notonlydoestheviolenttreatmentofthestudent create .highdegreeof anger, but italsoprovestothestudentthatschoolis.negativeplace(Rosen.1997).This findingcoincideswiththatofShort(1994).whofoundthat,McorporaJpunishmentis costlyto children who are puniihed.Corporalpunishmentincreases alienationand anxietyinchildrenand decreasesinterestinandcommitmenttotheschool"(p.84).This effect,intum,maythen lead tothe creationof sucha climatethatcorporalpunistunent was originallyusedtoremedy.
Gaffney(1997) conductedastudyofpreseviceteachcnonthetopic ofcorporal punishmentthatcasusomeinteresting light onleadler attitudestowardscorporal punishment. He foundthatthemajorityofhispartitipants were againstpermittingthe use of corporalpunishment in schools.Those who didfeelthat thismethod of punishmentwasacceptablefeltthatitshouldbeused as alastresortandshouldonlybe administeredwiththe parents'permission. However,thesesameparticipantsindicated thattheywouldnotadminiscer physicalpunishment10theirown children.Theyfeltthat corporal punishmentdid not lcath respect, did not leadtothe devetcpmemof character. did notdeteraggressioninstudents, nor didilbetter preparepupilsto liveinsociety.
Theseteachers seemedto ding to this "last resort"asjustification lhal they were dealing withtheproblem 00matter howineffective theirmethodseemedtobe.
Thefindings of Jamcs (1969)producedresuluthatpointed10 corporal
27 punishmentas a failureaf meteacher'scompetencein maintainingacceptabledassroom management.Thearticlesreviewedinthisstudydepid.ed corporalpunishmem asa crutch10 supportpoor teaching.Comments rcsuri'acedregularly from teachersinthe classroom that corporal punishment was notan alternativeneededby good teachers.It was found that to some"corporal punishmentwas an admissionar rear and insecurity on thepartof those whoused and advocatedit.Such persons were incapableof handling pupils'problemsin constructiveways.Corporalpunishmentwasusedbytheminan efforttocompensate for theirOYmweaknesses"(p.10).Even outsidetheschool,James suggested.corpora! punishmentwasduetoan aduh's desireto fortehis wayupon the child.torelievetheirown feelingsof confusion andanger.Viewedin tbis light,corporal punishmentis a failureon the panof teachers.Ritchie(1981)mirroredthis claimingthat,
"Corporal punishmentisan assaultonthe dignityOrlM individualandan offensive act againstthe dignity aCthe teachingprofession.Quitt simply,it isunprofessional behavior"(p.86).
Mostteachersmeanwellwhentheyadminister punishment.Theybelieve punishmentisthe best way to motivatestUdentstobehaveproperly.When the disobedientbehaviorceasesforIperiod oftimepriorto punishment., they are often convinced into thinkingthatthe punishmentwassuccessfulinitspurpose.However.
whenteachers becomeawareof the long-rangeeffects of punisbmentonstudents, they naturallywanttolearnmorerespectful methods ofmotivl ting stUdentstobehaveproperly (Nelson,Lou"Glenn,1991).
Thelong term resultsof puniWneruare, forthemostpart,rebellionor
28 compliance.Compliance mayseemlikea good thing,butthe underlyingeffectsoften includelowered self esteem,reduced tonfidence..andblind obedience Nelson,LonaDd Glenn(1991 )positthat:
Somestudents whoare punishedcomply.However.theirbehavior is often motivated bythefearof getting intotrouble instead of thc desire to cooperateout ofrespect forselfandothers.Otherstudenuopenly orpassively rebelinresponse topunishment.In anycase,punishment awes thedevelopment of an external locus ofconu olinsteadof anmtemallocu.sof controlbasedon self-disciplineand social interest.(p.102)
Anotherconcernfor those whoopposedtheuse of corporal punishmentare the number of inconsistenciesinvolvedinitsapplication.Resultsindicateddifferencesbysex and aBCinthefrequencyof bothmetingoutandrecetviegpunishment.Theuse ofcorporal punishme ntwas foundtobemuchmore frequentandsevere asthe age ofthe child increased(Clarke,1984).Richardson and Evans(1994) alsofound inconsistenciesin the exercisingof punishment.claimingthat itwasindiscriminatorilyapplied to blackmales in elementaryschoolsandthosewithleaming/menul/behavioraldisabilities. Summary
There havebeenmany findingsinthelasttwodecadeswhich have givenrisetoa newlookat thereal value ofcorporalpunishment.Most ofthesefindingssuggestthat corporal punishmentisan outdated,archaic, inlwmanemeans of dealingwithproblems in the homeorschool.Straus(1994)found that theimmediate effectofcorporal punishmentwasindeedtostopmisbehavior,butthelong term effectusuaI1y resultedin increased chances of more inappropriatebehaviorsandactsofdelinquency,andlaterin life,depression, child abuse,wife beating,andevenimpairedlearning.Dueto such
29 findingsit was suggested thai:itisnotmoreimportant tomakechildren payforwhatthey havedonethantolearnfromwhatthey havedone.Punishmentoftenonly leadsto negativeself-evaluation.andif .childisconstantlytherecipient ofpumshmcnt. he orshe islikelyto forma verynegative Kifconcept (vc ckell.1978).Thisin tumoften leadsto retaliatorybehaviorswhen anopportunity arises where thereis a Jess chance for reprimand(vcckell,1978).Corporalpunishment temporarily suppresses behavior.it doesnOI teachnewbehavior(Hyman.1997).
Perhapsthemostdamagingof findings ontorpOR!punishmentwasthe realizationthatthismethodof discipline wasoftenDOtusedasalastresort,forwhichit wasinitiallyintended.Studiessuggestthat corpora!punishmentisoftenthefirst punishmentfornonviolentand minormisbehaviors(Hyman.1997).Inessence.thestrap hadbecomeasubstitute or replacementforallother sourcesof discipline in manycases, evolvingasa waytodealwiththe matterin a quickandsupposedly effectivemanner.
Thiswasdisturbing toresearchers suchas Nelson.LonandGlenn(1997), whodeclared thatin order to make children feel better we donot:needtomake them fedworsewith suchdrasticmeansof discipline.
The evidenceandargumentsagainstcorporalpunishmentbegantomountaDd gainsupport fromsocietyasawhole.Itwas realizedthatwith corporalpunishmentthe punishmentceases when thepainstopsbuning.Corporalpunishment was not servingto reduceinstancesof misbehavior.Alternatives were needed;alternativesthat were more humane.modem,andeffective.
30 Ahrmativtsto Corporal Paaishmmt
Areflection on mostoftherecentliteratureoncorpora!punishment wouldseem tosugges t thatcorpo ral punishment nonnallyshould not be used because so manyother effectivewaysareavailabletoeliminate undesirab lebehaviors.Thecommontheme to alternativesbegins withtheapproachteacherstakeinthedirect disciplining of students in theirclassrooms.Researchhasfoundthat,-reachersmusttakethefirststepto eliminate humiliationandpunishmentinorder tocreate antmironmentthatisnurturing, respectful.andcond ucive 10learning"(Nelson, Lon&Glenn, 1997,p.10]).Bolstering thisview,Vockell(1918) concludesthattheonlysere wayto insure humanetreatment of childre nisto developattitudes oflove andconcern for children
Asast~towardsthetreatmentofpunishmenl.most researeberswou ldagree that the cnebestmethodisprevention.Anenvironmentwherestudentsaresubjectsof positivereinforcement lendsitselfto prevention.In suchan environment children are treated in such a waythat they experiencepride in themselvesboth intrinsicallyand extrinsically.Theyaretaughtlhatappropriate behaviorbringswithitcertain privileges andrewards.Thatisnot10 sayWtthere: bastobeac:onstantmaterialrewardfor compliance.Tothecontrary.childrenlearnthatgoodbehavioris rewardinginitselfas theycome10 enjoythemselvesetschool.
At times when punishmentis deemed necessary.for it tobe effective,Vockell (1978)concluded thatthechild shouldseethatit isthe behaviorthatisbeingpunished andnot theself.Thepunisheranaidin thisaspectbyspecify;ngthebehaviorthatis beingpunishedandbypunishing as soooas possibleafterthemisbehavior.The
31 punishmentshouldbematchedwiththe severityofthemisbehavior andshouldbein conjunctionwiththereinforcementof an alternatebehavior.In thi,waytheteacherwill be teaching whattodo,as wellaswhat not to do.It was concludedthatifcorporal punishmentinschools wu declared tobecruel. inhumane. degrading,andagainstthe constitutionalrightsof children,educatorswouldhavetoundergoaparadigmshiftin their viewsofschooldiscipline (Prinsloo.1994).Asad realiutionlayinthefactthat, accordingtoBrophyandMcCaslin(eitedinJones kJones. 1998):
Teachersreceiverather limitedtrainingin classroommanagementand their responsestostudent misbehaviortend to beII.looselyconnectedmanagement,and their responsestostudent misbehaviorarcoftentacit ideas about coping with chronicstudent behaviorproblems.basedoncommonsenseandpersonal experience,ratherthanwell-ertieulered theorieslearnedthrough formaleducation.
(p.275)
Findingsconvergeontheconclusionthatteacherswhoapproachmanagementasa processofestablislUng and maintaining effectivelearningenvironmentstendtobemore successfulthan teacherswhoemphasizetheir rolesasauthorityfigures or dlsciplinarians. Itis inevitable that teacherswillbeexpectedto assumetheirroles assymbolsofauthority
in schools andmust requiretheirstudcnu to conformtocertainrulesandprocedures
However. theserulesandprocedures are notcodsintbcmsdves.Theyarc ameansby whichtheclassroom maybe organized as an environmentthat supportslearning, whkb is thepurposefor which schools wereestablishedinthefim place.Aslearning institutions,
"itseems contradictory that childrenwho havedifficulty wouldbepunishedratherthan
receiveinstructioninbowto behavemore productively"(JoneskJones,p.217).
Theresearchfindingsof Brophy(1998)alsosuggcsr: that manyoftbediscipline
J2 problemsteachersexperienceinthe classroomare due tofailures in theirmanagement techniques.Heclaimedthatthekeytosuccessfulmanagementisthe teacher'sabilityto maximizethe amountoftimethat students spendontask,activdy engagedinacademic activities.Management skillsintheartofmakingtransitionsbetween activitieswere also looked uponasanessential preventionto classroom behaviordisruptionsand student miscond uct. Theseperiod s oft imefree from instru ctionareoften the mo stunstructured
periods inan average schooldayandoftenlendthemselvesto inappropriatebehaviors Brophyfeltthatan effort to minimize theseshortminutesof exemptionfrom instruction woul dbring about a decr easeintheinstancesof studen tmisbehavior.
Ingeneral,argumentsabout theeffects ofcorporal punishmentwere based upon philosophical.political,logical,psychological,moral, legal, pedagogical, sociological and theoreticalgrounds.RichardsooandEvans (1994)proposed elevendifferent alternativestophysicalpunishment.Amongthese elevenalternativeswere:
nonacknowledgemenrofdisruptivebehaviorandreinforcementofappropriatebehavior;
signal interference;prolCimitycontrol;interestboosting; tensionreductionthrough humour; hurdle helping;programrestructuring;directappeal;theuse of routineto providesecurity,and positivestudentremovalfromtheclusroom.. It wualso recommendedthatteacher-educationprogramsprovidebehavior-maaegemeotcourses
Pressmanand WeinsteiD(1990)hadconstructed asimilarlist ofalternatives four
yearsearliersuggestingsuspensionsfor ten daysorless;long-term suspcnstonsand
expulsions;disciplinatytransfers;inscboolsuspensions;andextracurricularactivity exclusions.Radin(1988)constructedalistofberown,lDlkingthe recommendationthat
33 theschool socialworkerbeusedto help implementmorebumanestrategiesof discipline.
Shefeltthatstrategiessuch astimeoutprocedures, assignmenttoalternative schools,use of peersandparents,andsocialandcognitiveskilltraining were alternativesthatcould replacecorporal punishment: whilemaintaining the purposeof correctingstUdents' misbehaviors.
Maurer(1984)proposed alternativestocorporalpun ishmentthatweresimilarto thoseoffered by other researchers. 'Time out'was suggested as a means to removethe child fromtheimmediate scene oftbe incident.This momc:ntofisolationgivesthechild an opportunity to cool down from the incidentandachancetoreflectupon the action whichledto thereprimand.Token economy.a systemwherebytokenswere handedout forgood behaviortobecashedinforsomerewardorprivilegelater,was alsosuccessful. This fonnof preventionrankedhighwithencouragingthechildwithenthusiasmintimes ofgoodbehavior.
Incaseswhere approachessuchas timeoutandtoken economydo not work, Hyman(1990)suggests that withdrawalof privilegcsshouldbeused to discipline studentsfor unacceptable behavior.lfthismethoddoesnotadequately dealwith the situation, detentionandin-schoolsuspalSionmaybetested.Whenthematterpersists beyondthis stageHymannotes thatthe matteris quite serious.Thatis the timeto callin the schoolpsychologist,not hitthe studentor psychologicallydemeanhimor her for the misbehavior.
OneparticularQSewhichturnedoutto adequatelydealwithmisbehaviorsexempt corporal punishmentwas experiencedatSilverRidge E1emcmarySchoolinWashington
34
This puti cularschoolhadaprob'emwithdisobedient studentsmockingthe mild penalties administer edforviolating rules.Theadministrationof tbescbooIintroduteda proactivemethod tocurbmisbehaviorcalled"MeaningfulWork".Thisapproacbwas basedon thebeliefthatstudentswhomisbehave often lacka senseof meaningand power in school.To addressthe problemthese studentswere giventheresponsibility ofa certainchorevarying fromraisingtheflagto belpingoutinthe cafeteria.Interestingly, when the students'basicneedsof feelingimportantweremet..misbehaviorwas decreased oreliminated(WISe.,1998).It hadbeenproven thatalternativestocorporalpunishment can work.
lS CRAPTER~
PRESENTATION ANDANA LY SIS OF DAT A
Open-endedinterview!funnedthebasis ofobtainingdataforthis qualitative studyafthe attitudesandperceptions of principalsand vice-principalstowardsthe removal of corporalpunishment fromtheschoolsystemintheprovince ofNcwfoundland andlabrador.These interviewsalsoserved to giveaDinsightontheirevaluationof the alternativemethods ofdisciplineintroduced asaresultafthe removalofcorporal punishmentfromtheclassroom. Thischapter presentsandanalysestheinterviewdata collected fromthe 6ftecninterviewees.
Organizat ionof Inleniew Data
Open-endedinterviewswereheldwithfifteen administratorsfromthe juniorand seniorhighschool divisions.All individualsinterviewedwere interestedand knowledgeablewithregards to corporal punishmentanditsimpacton the classroom setting both beforeand afteritsremovalfromtheschoolsystern.Notallofthe
intervieweesansweredthequestionsinthe cua order astheyappearontheinterview
schedule.Thiswas becerse someafthe intervieweesprovidedmuchmore in-depth responsestosome of the questionsas compared to others,resultinginsomequestions being answeredbeforetheywerefonnallyasked.
Analysis ofIDlcn"Dati
Interviews werecooductedwithfifteenadminisuatonfromthejuniorhighm:1 highschool divisions.The intervieweeswere alleitherprincipals orvice-principals.The
36 interviewswere approximatelyone hour long.
RtsnrtbQuation
1#.
H.sthe fnq uencyofinappropriate belaaviouniatrustd.dtcl'UHd.or remained the samesineetbertmonl ofcorpo ral puaishm tll t fro.. ),ourschool! Why!
A littleover halfoftheadministratorsinterviewedfelt the frequencyof inappropriate behaviours increasedaftertheremovalof corporal punishmentfromthe schoolsystem. whileaUof the others fcltthatithadremainedthe sameat;before the
removalof corporalpunishment. Those who feltthat therehadbeenanincreasesaidthat
theincreasewasmainlyinsuch inappropriatebehavioursas fighting.bullying,
harassment,verbalabuseorbothteachers andother students.sassingteachers.and damagingschool propertyor thepersonal properties of other students.The majority of thosewhofelt that therehadbeenan increaseinthefrequency or inappropriate behaviourssuggestedthatthisincreasecould notbecreditedtotheremovalof corporal punishment. The reasons forthiswerevaried.Someof these included:
"None oftoday'skidswere around whencorporalpunisbrnentwasbeingused.In fact,Idoubtifmanyofthcm wouldknowwhatcorporalpunishmentwas uyou askedthemBecausethey neversawthestrapbeingusedI don'tthinkthattheir increase in inappropriatebehaviourscanbe attributed10theremovalof the strap"
•Webadkids whowereintrouble every twple of dayswhenwedid have corporal punishmentinthescbool.So1certainlywouldn'tsaythatit is because
J1 we got rid ofcorporaJpunishment.lf itdidn't control behavioursinthefirstplace how canitberesponsiblefor anincreaseininappropriatebehavioun?-
"lfyouwereto sizeuploday as comparedto ten or fifteen years ago,eveninour
schoolbackthentherewa-cothermethodsbeingusedto dealwithproblems.The strapwas seldomlyused.Weoftenfounditjua asmuc;banintimidation factorto hitadeskorlet a roarout.That wouldusuallybe eooughSo thestrapwunota controlling factorinthefirst place.·
Manyottbosewhowa-cinterviewedfeltthatanincreaseininappropriate behaviours wasmortlikely the resultof thanges SIKhas anincreasedawareness., or changein the rights of swdents.Someof those interviewedclaimedthatchildrenhave
becomemore aware oftheirrights through the variousformsofmediaandfeel thatthey
havethe-right-to notbedisciplinedinapbY5icalnwmer.Theintervieweesclaimedthat
childrenoften usethisknowledgeas. formof intimidationathomeandinthescboolto remindthose in authoritythattheyare·untoucbablc·.Thefollowing quotesrevealthe growingconcerns Oflhc intervieweesinrelationtothistrend:
"Theyareuptodate on their rights. They areup todateon ourrights.They
knowthatwithonequick callSocialServices,whichisnow known as Healthand CommunityServices.,willbeintoinvestigate.·
38
"In recentyearsI an seethatparentsfeelthreatened.ThekidsleUthem that
they'llgotoSocialServices.They'UleUtheparentthattheydon'chavetheright totalktothem in a certain way.Parentssaythat iflheytell the child they'Udo this or thatwiththemiftheycontinue to misbehavethe childthreatensSocial Services.Sothereisan intimidationfactor.ParentswillteUyou thaithey can't handlethechildrenat heme."
"Kidsinschool nowknowthesystembetter,thelegalsystem.Theyhearabout
coon caseswhererulingshavegoneagainstparentsandteacherswhere punishmenthasbeen•physicalreprimand.Theywillletyouknowrea! fastthat theyknowwhatisand is notallowedtohappen to them."
One oftheintervieweesaddedthat parents,inaddition tothe students,areoften the oneswhocome to defendthechildagainstcertainformsof punishmentonthe groundsoflhestudents'rights.Theintervieweeseemedfrustratedat thenotion of a parentopposingtheschoolin the schools'attemptto cornet.child forsomewrong doing.Theintervieweeclaimedthatthiswas somethingthat didDOtexistinthe school communityyears ago,at leastnot to anygreatextent.Itwas statedthatmanyparents have assumedtheroles of"lawyers· as theyfirstchallengetheteacher andthea the administration.Iftheygetno satisfaction heretheyoften go funher totheschoolboard oreventhelaw.Therewereconcernsthatparentsperbapscontributetotheincreasein
inappropriate behavioursbecausetheyoftentend to defendtheactionsoftheir childDO
39
matterhow severethese actions arc.Severalinterviewees explained thatmany of these children are doingthesamethingsathomeandbecauseoflhistheirparentsdo not see a problem with the child's actingoutinsthool.They feltthat this defence onthepan.of theparentssendsa very negativemessageto the childconcerningtheinappropriateness oftheir behaviours.One administratorexpresseddisgust at one particularincident:
•Thenyouhadtheparentofw onewhohaddownloaded the waytomakeapipe bombontheInternet come onthenewsandsay dw she feltthather son should nothavebeen suspended!This inthesamemonth asmassacres inAlben a and Colorado!She should havebeenthankful that a studentintheStates bad contactedtheCanadian authoritiesbeforesomething tragiccook! havehappened. Andshedefendedherchildbysayingthathe wasdoing no harm, thatthe school boardwas over reacting! What kindof messagedid he learnfromthis?-
Severalof theintervieweesmadereferencetocourtcases wheretheyknewof teacherswhohadbeen threatenedwithcourtactionforthemostminorof physical contactswhich resultedinchargesofbothphysicalandsexual.assaults.A numbtt of those interviewedalso notedthatbecausestudentsarenow seento havesomanyrights thatthereisadanger that astudentor groupof studentscouldfabricatea storywhich could veryeasilydestroy a person'sprofessional career.Oneof those interviewed related acasewhichalmostmadeittothetrialstage:
-I know of a case outsideourboardwherea teacberflickedsomebodyon thehand likeyou wouldOicka buddyandtherewasathreatof court action overit.This
40 wasavery respectedpersonin the religiouscommunitywhohad hisreputation andjob puton the linebecauseof a disobedientstudentwithaparentwhoover reacted.Ithasgonetoofar.·
Many ofthe intervieweesalso attributedthe increaseinstudentactsof disobediencetoa changeinsocietyandthehome.Itwasfeltthatmany oftoday's parentsdon'tparentin thesame waythatparentingwascarriedoutyeanago.Asoneof theinterviewees responded,"Thewayinwhichtheyarereared,ornotrearedathome,has alottodo withit.~
Thereseemedtobe a generalconsensusamongsttheadministratonth~inyean pastparentswereinmuchgreatercontrolof theirchildrenathome,andbecausethere was greater controlover kidsat hometherewas a morefirmapproachto disciplinethan there istoday.Severalcrlhcrespondentsnotedthatif studentswere disobedientinthe schoolyears ago,thesupponforthesehooIfromthehomewas there.AsODeofthe interviewees responded:
"One timeyouwould get dealtwithathomefor beingdealtwithat school.You could alwayscounton parentstoreinforcetheideathatmisbehaviourwouldDOt betolerated.·
Severalof therespondentsreplied that manycbldrenbecomeproblems in school todaybecausemanymothers areDOWhavingchildrenat •youngerage and arelivingas singleparents.Thesesingleparentswere saidtobeill preparedfor therequirementsof raising children ontheirown.andbecauseoftlUsweakness, it was suggestedthat it was
41 easier forthese:paren1Jnot to dealwithactsof lnappropriatt behaviours atbornethanit would betodealwith them.Forthis reason,itwasfeltthatmanychildrencome to school misbehavingbecausetheyhadnot felt consequencesfor these actions at home.It
is important tonotethatinexplainingfurther.mos'respondentsclarifiedlhatthesesingle
parentswere notmerelyavoidingtheirparentingdutiesduetolack of interestorlack of responsibility,but wereinsteadsooverwhdmcdwithotherduties of parenting that disciplinewasoften toomentallyandphysicallydrainingfor most toadequatelyaddress ona consistent basis.Oneadministratorshareda personalexperience:
·We dealtwithaGradeSeven student with whomwehadbeenhavingalotof
behaviour problemslikenot doinghomeworkandactingoutin classThemother saidthatitwasaloteasier togiveintohimthanto dealwithhisbebavlours.The fatherisnot apartoftbefamilyand shewujU5tfindingittoodifficulttodeal with."
Anotherof theinterviewees echoed thisdissatisfactionwiththelack of parent supportin the discipliningofchildren:
"Ithinkthatparentsneedto rake greaterownership oftheirkids.Theyexpect us todisciplinetheirkidsbecausethey don'twane tohaveCo gothroughthetrouble ofhavingCodo it. Ichinkthat l wouldliketo see more parentalownership and involvementinthetypeof disciplinethaeisbandedoutandmakingsure thatifa studentis sent home.suspended forildayortwo,for example,that thesituationat borne correspondstothe situation that weputthe studentin.Inotherwords.dce't letthe studentspendthe daybomegoingaroundon thetaree-wbeeler."
42 Severalof the interviewees madespecific referenceto the common-unstructured family·thattheysaw as contributing to aniDauseinstudentmi.sbebaviour.Therewasa concernforhowmuchtime childrenspendinthehomewithoutanadultpresent.Itwas feltthat many parents spendmuchof their time out ofthehome forsocialreasons andnot fornecessaryreasons suchas employmentcommitments.Itwas pointedout thatmany Newfoundlandcommunities haveaveryhightmemploymentrate,with even me highest employmentrates probablyrankingverylow ascompared to therestofCanada.Thus., reasons forleavingthebornemightnotbeforemploymentcommitmentsfortheva.sl majorit'fofparents.
Itwas felt thatbecause manyparents spendasmallportion of theirtimeinthe home"parenting",thaimany oflhc childrenthatcome toschool are being"reared" on the streets.Itwas notedthatthis wouldnotbeacceptable years ago as parentswouldoct wantneither themselvesnortheirchildren tobelookeddownuponw;thdisrespectinthe communityas eitherpoor parentsnor poorly rearedchildren.The interviewees expressed the beliefthatparenting
was.
responsibilitythat washeldin highesteemin years gone by,andthatthatesteemhasgivenwayto a morerelaxedapproachto childupbringing. Therespondentsinthe survey also expressed• concern with the current-tr end-of lookinguponhigh scboolchildrenasadultsandtheproblem of parents grantingthese teenagers theprivileges of adults.Asoneintervieweesaid'"lt seemsas though thereis an attitudeinsocietythesedaysthatkidsneedto
growup realfast.It'salmostISiftheygraduateto adulthoodmuch earlier.The bigproblemwiththisisthattheyare giventheprivilegesofaDadultinmany
43
cases,whileatthesametimetheyarestilltheseyoung.immaturechildren.·
Manyoftheother interviewees respondedinasimilarf'asbjODmentioningthatchildren these daysare exposedto fartoo muchatamuchtooearlyage.This exposure,it was often felt,gavechildrentheinappropriatenotion ofthemselvesas adultswhoare above therulesof the school.
Itwasfeltthatbecausetbe schoolinmanytaSCSno longerhasthe supportof the homeinitsanempt todisciplinechildren. that the-handsaCmeadministrationweretied- as tohowto effectively dealwiththesestud~swhoareCOftSWltdisciplineproblems These administrators who feltthattheywerelacking parent support weremostoften the sameadministratorstoexpressthishelplessnessindealingwithproblemchildren.
SeveralaCmeuaervieweesfeltthat thefrequencyof inappropri:u c bdlaviounbas remainedthesamebeforeand aftertheremovalof corporalpunishmentfromthe school system.Theywereclear instatingthat they did not knowifcorporalpunishment.orthe absenceofit,shouldhavecausedanyreal changeinthe frequency ofstudent misbehaviours.Whateachofthemdiddaim,however,wuthatthey feltthatstudents probablyhaverefrainedfromcausingmore problemsforteachers becauseofarespect thattheyhavecome10fecifortheirleachcn.
Three ofthe respondentsinparticular feltthat studentstodayseetheir teachersput agreat deal of effort in their ownpersonal time10 studentactivitiessuchaschoir,sports teams,concerts,student lead ersbip,UIdafter·schoollechDologyclubs.Outofthisadded effortthey feltcame a respectforthe teachers'commitmentto themandtheir community.Itwas notedthatbackas recentlyas fifteenyearsago therewere VftYfew,if
