Comments on a Study of Corporal Punishment

by Doug Martin

The use of corporal punishment has been widely debated in both homes and in schools. Many believe it to be a traditional, trusted means of discipline while others go so far as to call it abuse, seeing no place for it at all. Terry L. Rose (1984) of the University of North Carolina at Charlotte conducted research through a survey of principals in all sections of the United States. Answers to questions concerning the manner and frequency of punishment were analyzed while taking into account demographic, procedural , and opinion variables. This paper will discuss the details and findings of this research as well as the debate over corporal punishment along with its pertinence to schools.

Rose begins the article by acknowledging the presence of controversy about corporal punishment. Next, the author cites Supreme Court decisions upholding corporal punishment and the call for a return to basics in education as cause for the debate. A brief description of both sides of the argument is also given. The purpose of the research , Rose says, is to describe the reported use of corporal punishment in American public schools. Rose then presents the methods and results of the study.

For the selection of respondents, two states were selected from each of the nine U.S. census districts. Ten school districts in the eighteen states were chosen from which 103 were considered usable. Principals from 324 schools received a survey out of which 232 returned usable information. Those whose gender could not be deduced from names were rejected from analysis. Twenty-two questions were asked concerning respondents' use of corporal punishment. Questions were answered by selections of three or more choices or requiring a yes or no answer except for one which could not be predicted. Results were divided into four categories: general results, demographics, administrative/procedural, and administrative opinion.

Results were detailed for each question individually then conclusions were drawn and put together in discussion. Corporal punishment was found to be administered in every region, in communities of all sizes and at all grade levels. The majority of principals of either sex used corporal punishment and applied it in a private setting along with a witness from the instructional staff. A variety of behaviors, mostly violence toward people or property, resulted in corporal punishment ranging from tardiness to fighting. Rose cited two guidelines for effective use of punishment from studies of subhuman species: consistent and immediate application. Consistent use of corporal punishment each time a target behavior occurs was found difficult to show because of vague descriptions of those behaviors. The requirement for immediate application was concluded to be unfulfilled due to the evidence of delays from moving students from one place to another for punishment.

Two conclusions from administrative/procedural results expressed the delivery of corporal punishment by someone who is not angry at the time and application in a private setting. Rose also found that some of the principals did not think corporal punishment was effective on certain behaviors in specific students and that it was used less frequently with female students. Even with all these conclusions, Rose suggests more research is needed to disprove or verify the effectiveness of corporal punishment.

The author makes some good points before presenting results and makes sound conclusions afterwards. One of the best aspects of the report is that the author did not write it to argue a certain viewpoint but rather to focus on the object of the research. This brought out questions for the reader to contemplate for himself. There is certainly no question of the author's scholarship considering the extensive list of references used.

Before getting to the research , the author makes the excellent point that most opinions, professional and public, come from folklore and experience rather than evidence through scientific research. Whether it is a parent raising a child or a teacher in a classroom, it takes years for the parent to know what works in disciplining that child or for that teacher to learn enough about students to command control in the control.

As for the research results, the first conclusion I agree with concerns using corporal punishment in privacy at school by someone who is not upset at the time. Punishment of a student in front of everyone else is quite humiliating and the punishment itself provides enough humiliation. Delivery of the punishment by an administrator rather than a possibly angered teacher reduces the chance of punishment turning into abuse. Having a witness serves in that capacity as well. As the author says, it is encouraging to know most principals respect student privacy by administering punishment in this manner.

Near the end of the article the author suggests that teachers need to document how effective or efficient all disciplinary procedures are and do so in cooperation with the parents. They should be able to gather information on how different procedures affect different behaviors. It makes sense that the more a teacher studies this type of data the better that teacher will become at deciding what is best for maintaining control of individual students and of the classroom as a whole.

About corporal punishment in general, whether in school or elsewhere, I would have to say it is a tried and true method of discipline, especially for younger children. While looking for information on the subject, I was disappointed to find that nearly every article and essay condemned it. In all fairness, there are other ways to discipline for certain undesired behaviors. However, when it comes down to a situation of outright defiance, the best thing for that child is a good spanking administered with love, patience and understanding.

There are those who would label any advocate of corporal punishment among the child abusers of the world. One article opposing this form of discipline cited a doctor who blamed corporal punishment for cases of students needing treatment for broken arms, nerve and muscle damage, and cerebral hemorrhage (Black, 1994, p. 47). Anyone with the least shred of common sense can see that these are clearly cases of child abuse and have nothing to do with proper corporal punishment. Along with the physical danger, many opponents claim it causes psychological and emotional damage. Psychologist Dr. James Dobson points out that improper punishment aimed at harming the child can be damaging but discipline directed at the unwanted behavior causes the child to accept the discipline. He also say that Òwhen authorities talk about the emotional dangers, they fail to discriminate between these two important approachesÓ (Dobson, 1970, p.36). Unfortunately , some parents and educators forget that love and understanding must be applied along with corporal punishment or any type of discipline. It must be remembered that discipline and love are not opposites but that one is a function of the other (Dobson ,1970, p. 29). In other words, corporal punishment must involve letting the child know what has been done wrong and why the punishment is necessary, not just beating the child in hopes that he will understand. Dr. Dobson comes to these conclusions not through empirical research but through years of experience as a teacher and parent.

Finally, when looking back at the words of King Solomon in the book of Proverbs, we find that he was not such a bad psychologist himself. In Proverbs 13:24 he says, ÒHe who spareth his rod hateth his son, but he who loveth him is chasteneth him betimes.Ó All those years ago, Solomon knew that defiance and disobedience were in a child's nature and that a good spanking would drive it out of him (Prov. 22:15). In Proverbs 23:13 we are informed that proper corporal punishment will not harm a child or cause him to die. Also, how often do we see evidence of Solomon's warning that a child left to himself, undisciplined, will disgrace his mother?

To conclude, I strongly believe corporal punishment has an important place in the home as well as in schools. The results from Rose's study showing nearly 75% of the administrators polled are using corporal punishment makes a strong case in favor of it. The main problem today is this type of punishment often does not start at home which makes for extreme difficulty in maintaining its effectiveness in schools, some of which have held on to this and similar values that the United States started out with.

REFERENCES

Black, S. (1994, April). Throw away the hickory stick. Executive Educator, pp. 44-47.

Dobson, J. (1970). Dare to Discipline. Wheaton: Tyndale House Publishing.

Holy Bible, KJV (1968). National Publishing Company.

Rose, T.L. (1984). Current uses of corporal punishment in American public school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 427-441.

Back to the "Psychology For Contemporary Educators" page