The
Alternative? Eliminate Corporal
Punishment by Preventing its Need, and Implementing Interventions that Actually
Change Student Behavior
Dear Colleagues,
Early in
my career—well over 30 years ago—I spent a fair amount of professional time
working with colleagues (many within the National Association of School
Psychologists—NASP) to abolish corporal punishment from all schools across the
country. Supported by research and
practice, I was involved in press conferences with other national association
leaders, testimony to state legislative committees, and television and radio
talk shows (nope—there were no internet or webinars then—but I did work with
“Captain Kangaroo” on this issue).
On
numerous occasions, I presented with Dr. Irwin Hyman (now passed) from Temple
University. This always entailed an
unpredictable theatre of the absurd—because you never knew what Irwin would do.
You see,
Irwin was as subtle as a brick wall.
Using his sarcastic, bombastic, in-your-face style, he would castigate
those wanting to defend and retain corporal punishment using vivid, multi-colored
pictures of students’ beaten and blistered behinds.
Asking
federal or state senators or representatives if they wanted their own children
to experience such acts of child abuse at another’s hand, Irwin hoped that the
horrific atrocities depicted in his slides would disgust, deflate, and
eventually dissuade his audience of policymakers.
Quite
honestly, it didn’t work.
_ _ _ _ _
My part in
the drama was to present the facts.
Citing statistics, research, and results, my logical appeals were to the
senses.
Surely,
anyone who:
* Recognized
the inherent bias in who got “swatted” (mostly minorities and students from poverty);
* Recalled
that the punishment was not changing behavior (many students were swatted
incessantly); and
* Realized
the emotional trauma caused by the event (ranging from more serious acts of
student violence to student depression and school phobia). . .
would ban this practice and substitute more
effective ones in its place.
But some
of the legislators (go figure) had no sense.
Indeed, quite honestly, I’m not sure I was any more successful than
Irwin in changing enough minds or (especially) votes—for example, within the
legislatures where we testified.
_ _ _ _ _
What
did I learn from all of this?
* I
learned that some people’s minds are changed largely through emotional
arguments. . . while others are changed by facts and figures.
* I
learned that people change their minds when enough cognitive dissonance
has been created. But too much
dissonance overwhelms them, and too little dissonance under-motivates them.
* And, I
learned that when people (like legislators) listen to either emotional or
factual arguments, politics typically trumps principles.
In other words, using facts with those who are
emotionally connected to an idea, usually doesn’t work. Nor will using emotional
arguments with those who are data-based.
Moreover,
legislators are more concerned with the electorate’s dissonance than with
their own. They rarely recommend
policy decisions when they are dissonant with their “core constituencies.” Finally, legislators focus on constituencies
that vote (i.e., the adults who “run and fund” the schools), rather than those
who cannot vote (i.e., the students who are corporally punished).
But
remember, this latter statement is not entirely true. . . the majority of our
states have abolished corporal punishment in the schools.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
The State of
Corporal Punishment in the States
This past
August, Education Week published an investigation entitled, A
Persistent Practice: Corporal
Punishment in U.S. Schools.
Featuring
(on an emotional level) the story of an adult Mississippi man whose life has
been severely impacted by the corporal punishment that he received as an 8th
grade student, the Report cited (on a factual level) the following statistics:
* Corporal
punishment is still used in 21 states, with over 109,000 students (in more than
4,000 schools nationwide) paddled, swatted, or physically punished during the
2013-2014 school year.
* The U.S.
Education Department estimates that this number has steadily decreased from
more than 300,000 corporal punishments in 2000.
* Texas,
Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, Georgia, Tennessee, and Oklahoma physically
disciplined the most students during the 2013-2014 school year.
* In
Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, low-income
students are significantly more likely to attend schools that use corporal
punishment when compared to same-state schools with higher-income students.
* African-American students disproportionately
receive corporal punishment.
African-American students make up 22% of all students attending schools
using corporal punishment, but they receive 38% of those schools’ corporal
punishments.
* Relative
to the actual rates of corporal punishment nationwide, African-American
students receive corporal punishments at twice the rate of Caucasian
students—10% to 5%.
_ _ _ _ _
Relative
to State laws overseeing corporal punishment:
* The only
thing that is consistent is the inconsistencies across the states in our
country.
* As
noted, 21 states still allow corporal punishment through law or statute, but
some states simply allow it, some states leave the decision to their individual
school districts, some states give parents the right to refuse its use, and
some states require parent permission to use it.
* Some
states do not describe what corporal punishment entails, some specify the
inappropriate behaviors where corporal punishment can be used, some define both
the size of the paddle and the number of swats, some require specific implementation
procedures and documentation, and many do not discuss the need to train “the
deliverer of the swats.”
* Finally,
the Education Week report found schools that were still using corporal
punishment, even though its state or district had banned it.
_ _ _ _ _
Why Schools Still
Use Corporal Punishment, and What the Research Says
There are
many different reasons why some districts and school still use corporal
punishment.
Among
them are the following:
* History
and tradition
* No one
has questioned the practice, and/or knows the research and its (negative)
psychological, behavioral, and educational impact
* The
State “gives them permission”
* The
Bible “gives them permission”—for example, “When you spare the rod, you spoil
the child”
* It is a “good”
alternative to school suspension—at least keeping students in school, rather
than “running the streets”
* It’s
fast and easy to administer—better than having to oversee a consequence or
restorative practice, or to conduct a parent conference
* Parents
want the school to use corporal punishment
* It is a
“last resort” to “turn the student around”
* It has
“worked” in the past to change other students’ behavior
* “It was
used on (and helped) me when I was in school” (that is, current staff’s past, personal
experiences being corporally punished provide a rationale for using it with today's students)
But.
. . unless corporal punishment is used simply as an act of “institutional
revenge” or racial prejudice. . . its presumed goal is to decrease or
eliminate students’ inappropriate behaviors, while increasing the same students’’
appropriate, prosocial behavior.
And so,
the questions are:
“Does the
research and practice demonstrate that corporal punishment works?”
“If it
does work, was this the only approach that would have changed a specific
student’s behavior. . . or would a less extreme approach—that more directly
addressed the underlying reasons for the inappropriate behavior—have worked?”
[Spoiler
Alert: No--to both questions.]
_ _ _ _ _
In its
2014 Position Statement on Corporal Punishment, the National Association
of School Psychologists (NASP) states that corporal punishment is “the
intention infliction of pain or discomfort and/or the use of physical force
upon a student with the intention of causing the student to experience bodily
pain so as to correct or punish the student’s behavior (Bitensky, 2006).”
Supporting
its recommendation to abolish corporal punishment in all schools nationwide—and
based on its review of the research, the NASP Position Statement states or
cites the following:
* Conclusion:
“Corporal punishment is a technique that is easily abused, leads to physical
injuries, and can cause serious emotional harm.”
Support.
Two meta-analyses (Ferguson, 2013; Paolucci & Violato, 2004) pooled the published
research on corporal punishment involving well over 50,000 individuals finding
that the practice “was positively correlated with internalizing (e.g., anxiety,
withdrawal, post-traumatic stress syndrome) and externalizing (e.g., anger,
aggression, defiance) symptoms in children.”
_ _ _ _ _
* Conclusion.
“(Corporal punishment) negatively affects the social, psychological, and
educational development of students; it contributes to the cycle of child abuse
and proviolence attitudes of youth. . . in that children learn that violence is
an acceptable way of controlling the behavior of others” (Andero & Stewart,
2002; Gershoff, 2010; Owen, 2005).
Support. “(The) negative side effects of corporal
punishment include running away; being truant; fearing teachers or school;
feeling high levels of anxiety, helplessness, and humiliation; being aggressive
or destructive at home and school (Griffin, Robinson, & Carpenter, 2000);
and increased risk for physical abuse (Gershoff, 2010).”
_ _ _ _ _
* Conclusion.
“(T)here is no clear evidence that corporal punishment will (a) lead to better
control in the classroom, (b) enhance moral character development in children,
or (c) increase the students’ respect for teachers or other authority figures
(Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003).”
Support.
“Whereas the intent of school corporal punishment may be to correct student
behavior, corporal punishment has been repeatedly found to be no more effective
than nonviolent forms of discipline (Gershoff, 2010). . . Alternatively, the
use of positive support systems (e.g., reinforcement and rewards provided for
the display of acceptable behavior) has been shown to be extremely effective in
addressing problematic behaviors and promoting desirable behavior in students (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014).”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Creating
Dissonance: Corporal Punishment
Questions for Schools and Administrators
In a
nutshell, the discussion thus far demonstrates the following:
When it
occurs in schools and districts nationwide, Corporal Punishment:
* Has been
disproportionately administered to African-American students;
* Has
increased—rather than decreased—many troubling students’ inappropriate
behaviors;
* Has
emotionally traumatized some students;
* Demonstrates
inappropriate social problem-solving (from the adults who administer it), and
teaches that violence is an acceptable way to control others’ behavior; and
*
Negatively affects the social, psychological, and educational development of the
students who experience it.
But. . .
once again, none of this is new. . . and none of this information is likely to
change the opinions of those (a) who emotionally believe that corporal
punishment works or is deserved. . . or (b) who are not experiencing enough
dissonance between the facts and their beliefs.
So
let’s try one more track. . .
_ _ _ _ _
For those
who truly believe that corporal punishment works, please consider the
following questions:
1. If the
corporal punishment is considered a “strategic intervention” whose goal is to
eliminate students’ inappropriate behavior while increasing their appropriate
behavior, how many times and how many swats should they receive before
concluding that this strategic intervention is not working?
Implication: The corporal punishment data show that many
students are swatted on multiple occasions.
If you believe that a student’s behavior should change (for example)
after five different days of three swats each, shouldn’t you then conclude that
the “strategic intervention” of corporal punishment is not working after the 6th, 7th, and 8th administration, and try
something else (or, at least, reconsider what is prompting the inappropriate
behavior)?
_ _ _ _ _
2. If
students’ inappropriate behaviors change within the specified number of swats
(from above), could we not have used a less violent or emotionally hazardous
approach to attain the same results?
Implication. Given the research on corporal punishment’s
negative impact cited above, should we not be using the mildest and least
intrusive intervention necessary to facilitate a student’s change of behavior?
_ _ _ _ _
3. If
students have not learned and mastered the interpersonal, social
problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, or emotional
coping/self-control skills needed to eliminate their inappropriate behavior, how
will corporal punishment teach them
these skills?
Implication. One of our “mantras” is:
You
can’t motivate a student out of a skill deficit.
If corporal punishment is being used to “motivate”
a student to demonstrate more appropriate behavior in the future, it will
not work if the student does not have the behavioral skills to perform that
desired behavior.
The
academic parallel is: If students are
failing their tests because they have not learned and mastered the material, the
failing grade is not going to motivate them and change what they do not know,
they need additional instruction.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Corporal
Punishment Alternatives: Prevention and Strategic
Intervention
Beyond passing a federal or multiple state laws, the best way to
eliminate corporal punishment is to ensure that:
* All students learn, master, and can apply interpersonal, social
problem-solving, conflict prevention and resolution, and emotional coping
skills;
* All districts and schools have behavioral accountability systems that
explicitly identify (and reinforce) the behaviors expected of all students,
while also differentiating among (and strategically responding to) (a) annoying
behaviors, (b) classroom disruptions, (c) major disruptions and antisocial
interactions, and (d) dangerous and extreme behaviors;
* All teachers have positive, effective and, developmentally-sensitive
classroom management skills—as well as research-based approaches to address the
annoying behaviors and classroom disruptions noted above;
* All administrators have support staff skilled in behavioral assessment
and intervention, so that they can help identify and implement those strategic
or intensive interventions needed for students demonstrating significant antisocial
or dangerous/extreme behaviors; and
* All parents/guardians and community agencies/ organizations are
involved complementary in activities
that support students’ social, emotional, and behavioral learning, mastery, and
proficiency.
Expanding briefly on the second-to-last
point, when students exhibit significant behavioral challenges, or do not
respond to the preventative approaches above, an assessment process is needed
(guided by school psychologists, counselors, social workers, and other
behavioral assessment and intervention specialists) to determine the underlying
reasons for the students' inappropriate behaviors. The assessment results then should be linked
to strategic or intensive interventions that focus on eliminating the problematic
behaviors, and replacing them with appropriate behaviors.
_ _ _ _
_
Below is a YouTube presentation that
describes the components above in more detail, and explains how they were
implemented in schools across Arkansas as part of a ten-year positive
behavioral support initiative.
| State-wide Impact of Positive Behavioral Support Systems in Arkansas |
In addition, an expanded discussion on Effective
School Discipline, Classroom Management, and Student Self-Management: The
Five Components that Every School Needs is
available on our Blog site.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
For the past
four or more years, the US Departments of Health and Human Services, Education,
and Justice—along with the Center for Disease Control—have funded national
technical assistance centers, grants, and publications focusing on the
effects of trauma on school-aged students and how we need to have
trauma-informed and trauma-sensitive staff and schools.
The recent
trauma research has noted that minority students and other students from poverty
backgrounds often come to school with the highest number of trauma indicators.
And yet, there is a clear contradiction when some of
these students’ inappropriate behaviors are trauma-related, and schools respond to these behaviors with a potentially trauma-inducing corporal
punishment.
I am not
suggesting that this connection exists in all schools—I am simply calling
attention to this potential.
_ _ _ _ _
Similarly,
we need to note the disproportionate number of minority (especially African-American)
students who are corporally punished.
NOTE: I am not condoning these students’
inappropriate behavior. I am
concerned that how we respond to these students’ behaviors differs by
race.
Critically, this is an issue for all districts, schools, and communities.
Indeed, even if your state has abolished corporal punishment, disproportionality has existed—especially relative to discipline and special education—in schools across the country for decades. Disproportionality also exists in our communities—for example, relative to traffic stops, stop and frisk, incarcerations, and the “school to prison pipeline.”
Relative to education, the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) once again explicitly requires districts and schools to report on and change disproportionality when it exists.
Indeed, even if your state has abolished corporal punishment, disproportionality has existed—especially relative to discipline and special education—in schools across the country for decades. Disproportionality also exists in our communities—for example, relative to traffic stops, stop and frisk, incarcerations, and the “school to prison pipeline.”
Relative to education, the new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) once again explicitly requires districts and schools to report on and change disproportionality when it exists.
But if
our educational response is to take the surface-level steps that change the numbers, rather than confronting the deeper community and school cultural issues that change our behaviors,
this issue will remain for the next generation of educators.
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _
Corporal
punishment is inextricably embedded in the school and community factors that
relate to culture, class, school safety and discipline, classroom climate and management,
and peer interactions and student self-management. Its continued presence is incompatible with
the science of behavior, the practice of building relationships, and the
emotions that all educators feel when we help students succeed.
As we plan
for the full implementation of ESEA, let’s (re)open this (sometimes difficult)
discussion. Let’s address both
the letter as well as the spirit of this law. And let’s put blame aside (relative to past
practices), so that we can be emotionally freed up to do the right things that
we know can and will work.
_ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ _ _
As always, I look forward to your thoughts
and comments. I am always available to
help you and your schools (and agencies) build effective, sustainable,
multi-tiered approaches that positively impact students’ academic and social,
emotional, behavioral skills and outcomes.
Feel free to contact me at any time, and
remember to look at my website (www.projectachieve.net) for
the many free resources that are available there.
Best,
Howie
