Spare the Rod
by Jane Bluestein, Ph.D.
*Excerpt from Chapter 17, ”Behavioral Safety: Discipline
and Cooperation,“ from Creating
Emotionally Safe Schools © Deerfield Beach, FL: Health
Communications, Inc., 2001).
Give into the power of the teacher the fewest possible coercive measures,
so that the only source of the pupil’s respect for the teacher is
the human and intellectual qualities of the latter.
—Albert Einstein
Corporal punishment does for childhood what wife beating does for
marriage.
—Jordan Riak
How are we going to teach our children it is not okay to hurt others
when we keep hurting them?
—Jane Nelsen, Lynn Lott and Stephen Glenn
The higher the incidence of corporal punishment in a school, the
higher the level of vandalism and delinquency.
—The National PTA Fact Sheet on Corporal Punishment
During my first year of teaching, the interns who co-taught in the first
grade had a student who was frequently referred for hitting and swearing
on the playground. The teachers contacted the child’s mother to
let her know what was going on, and that they were working to correct
this problem. Within the hour, the mother walked into the class and before
anyone could stop her, reached under her coat and pulled out a long plastic
strip from a model-car race track and proceeded to beat her son, swearing
at him all the while.
There are so many things wrong with using corporal punishment as a disciplinary
technique that it’s hard to know exactly where to start. In the
United States, this tradition traces its roots back to England—which,
interestingly, was the last European country to ban its use in schools,
in 1986. (Poland was the first, in 1783.) According to an October 1998
report, school corporal punishment is prohibited in every industrialized
country in the world except the U.S., Canada and one state in Australia.
In the U.S., 27 states have banned corporal punishment in schools; in
ten other states, more than half the students are in districts with no
corporal punishment. Nonetheless, during the 1993-94 school year, nearly
half a million young people in the United States were subjected to this
practice. There is little equity in how
this form of punishment is doled out. In the U.S., the incidence of school
paddlings are highest in the southern and southeastern states, while in
the northeast, where many states have outlawed this form of discipline,
the frequency is much lower. Further, corporal punishment is more common
in elementary and middle school than high school, more widely used in
rural schools than on urban campuses, and inflicted more frequently on
boys than girls, as well as disadvantaged children, disabled children
and ethnic minorities.
Those are the numbers. But behind every statistic is the heart of a child—and
the impact of every incident that child has withstood—or witnessed.
“ Human
society has moved away from hitting other human beings. . . The only beatable
person left is the child,” says Jordan Riak, director of Parents
and Teachers Against Violence in Education.
A large and diverse group of professional organizations have come out
against corporal punishment and many have worked actively to abolish its
use in families and schools, as the wide-ranging and long-lasting negative
outcomes of this outdated practice become more well-known.
For all it’s hurtful potential, perhaps the most logical argument
against corporal punishment is the fact that, in terms of achieving any
long-lasting, positive outcomes, it simply does not work. The Society
for Adolescent Medicine affirms that “physically punishing children
has never been shown to enhance moral character development, increase
the student’s respect for teachers or other authority figures in
general, intensify the teacher’s control in class or even protect
the teacher.” Retired principal
Sid Leonard agrees: “The same ones kept coming back for more. Hitting
children did not seem to improve their behavior. It seemed to be reinforcing
the very behaviors I was attempting to eliminate.”
Child advocate Penelope Leach notes that if corporal punishment worked,
“you’d expect that one or two beatings would have been enough
to ‘teach a lesson’ to any child.” But, she argues,
history tells the opposite story. Looking at “the naughtiest pupils”
who supposedly needed physical punishments the most, she affirms that
the beatings “did not make them into better pupils who ‘needed’
it less.”
Not
only does corporal punishment not change students’ behavior for
the better, it can actually make it worse. “Physical punishment
harms the child physically and emotionally,” reports columnist Michael
Pastore. “Hitting children increases their hostility and teaches
violence. And because hitting creates a frustrated and unhappy child,
hitting increases, not decreases, the child’s antisocial behavior.”
One long-term study confirmed that the more hitting children suffered
at the beginning of the study period, “the higher the level of antisocial
behavior at the end, independent of other traits that can affect such
behavior.” Then, too, there is the
risk of retaliation. Riak compares hitting a child to “pouring gasoline
on a fire you want to extinguish.”
In a report on crime in school in Australia, author Dennis Challinger
warns, “Many students no longer accept punishment gracefully, and
there is always the risk of a student reacting to violence with violence.”
Leach cites as “the clearest evidence that physical punishments
don’t help to produce well-behaved, socialized people,” studies
of violent criminals and other “notorious individuals” whose
childhoods included excessive physical discipline.
Many other studies and observations concur, suggesting a high correlation
between corporal punishment and increased bullying, disruptions and other
violent student behaviors.
Corporal punishment is part of a product-oriented system that obstructs
opportunities for children to experience valuable learning processes,
like those involved in finding more constructive ways to get their needs
met. Leach warns that no matter how calmly, logically or carefully we
explain our reasons for hitting, “reason always gets lost in the
feelings the punishment produces.” Depending on the child’s
age, feelings can range from amazement and horror to rage and humiliation
(which is often taken out on someone or something else). These feelings
“leave no room for remorse or determination to do better in the
future.” Keith and Janie Osborn
share concerns about children whose behavior indeed appears to be inhibited
by a fear of physical (or other) punishments, only comply until the authority
turns his or her back. Once the threat of reprisal is removed, there is
no internal reason for restraint. Even when this threat inhibits unwanted
behavior, in and of itself, it fails to teach or inspire children to make
more appropriate choices on their own.
Corporal punishment has been linked to low self-esteem, depression, alcohol
abuse, suicide and adult violence. In
schools, it contradicts our goal of connecting and creating community,
and it significantly undermines emotional safety and a child’s enthusiasm
for learning. (In addition to compromising
emotional safety, the fact that during the 1986-1987 school year, somewhere
between ten and twenty thousand students in the United States required
medical treatment as a result of school corporal punishment makes this
a concern for children’s physical safety as well.)
Studies also show that corporal punishment has a negative impact on a
child’s intelligence. Researcher Murray Straus observed that while
children who were hit “didn’t get dumber,” they did
fall behind the average rate of cognitive development. He attributes the
impact on intelligence to the fact that parents who did not hit tended
to use more verbal interaction and cognitive stimulation in dealing with
their children. Corporal punishment has
also been shown to aversely affect school achievement. By the same token,
children raised without corporal punishment are more likely to complete
a higher education and reap greater job benefits as adults.
People argue the need for corporal punishment as a way for teachers to
protect themselves, but using physical force to protect oneself or others
from harm, to gain control of a weapon or protect property is not considered
corporal punishment, and few, if any, would dispute the value of physical
intervention in some survival situations. When we’re talking about
corporal punishment, whether we refer to it as part of a system of violent
childrearing or, more euphemistically, as a spanking or a “swat,”
we’re talking about the intentional use of physical force designed
to cause a child physical pain, but not injury, ostensibly to correct
or control the child’s behavior.
And while its value is also professed as a “last resort” in
favor of preserving order, evidence indicates that corporal punishment
is often a first response, even for minor infractions, and that at worst,
in schools where this practice is abolished behavior remains about the
same. (In fact, when more positive alternatives are invoked, there is
usually a significant decrease in disruptive student behavior.)
But there is cause for hope. When Sweden became the first country to
outlaw corporal punishment of children—not only in schools, but
at home as well—Pastore reports that adults found “gentler
and wiser ways to work with their children.” In fact, in countries
in which corporal punishment has been banned, a shift in thinking seems
to have occurred as well. Instead of seeing this practice as a normal,
accepted method of teaching or parenting, adults who resort to physical
punishments are widely thought to lack competence and skill in dealing
with children, and seen as people in need of help.
The bottom line will always come down to our intention: If our goal is
to teach responsibility and self-control, build community and raise kids
to be respectful, considerate citizens, we will choose different behaviors
than we would if our goals included exacting revenge, causing pain or
disempowering children. If our goals are positive, corporal punishment
will not be among the intervention strategies we select, no matter how
well-supported by tradition they may be. “Good school discipline
should be instilled through the mind, not the behind,” says president
of the National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment, Robert E. Fathman.
The sheer hypocrisy of using violence to try to teach respect, self-control
or non-violence should, in itself, stop us in our tracks. For it makes
absolutely no sense for us to raise our hand to a child—much less
a strap or a paddle—and then bemoan the rise of violence and antisocial
behavior in our schools and communities. Hitting kids sacrifices values
and long-term outcomes for an occasional short-lived victory. It makes
us look weak, ineffective, unskilled and unprofessional. Cut it out. There
is a better way.
Link to PTAVE, publish their phone number for free Child Safe Zone stickers.
*This excerpt was copied taken from the final draft of
the manuscript. The material in the book may vary slightly.
© 2001, Jane Bluestein, Ph.D.
Einstein.
Quoted in Patricia Daigle, “Opposing
Corporal Punishment in Two Lands,” Contra Costa Times. (13 December
1986)
Jane Nelsen, Lynn Lott and Stephen Glenn,
Positive Discipline A-Z (Rocklin, Calif.: 1999), 152.
“Corporal Punishment: Myths and
Realities,” Fact sheet prepared by The National PTA (1991). Available:
PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/pta.htm.
“Facts About Corporal Punishment,”
presented by the National Coalition to Abolish Punishment in Schools,
(October 20, 1998). Available: Center for Effective Discipline Web site,
[Internet, WWW], Address: http://www.stophitting.com/facts_about_corporal_punishment.htm;
also “Corporal Punishment in Schools,” Position Paper of the
Society for Adolescent Medicine, Journal of Adolescent Health (1992):
13:240-246. Available: PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/sam.htm.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools”
(Society for Adolescent Medicine); “Corporal Punishment: Myths and
Realities;” “Corporal Punishment,” Position Statement
of the National Association of School Psychologists (April 18, 1998).
Available: PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/nasp2.htm.
Note: Compare the 1984 statistic in which one in 2000 students were physically
punished in Connecticut and Utah, with Arkansas’ ratio of one in
eight.
Robin Warnes, Robin. “Childhood Abuse:
Corporal Punishment, A Survivor’s Testimony,” Available: [Internet,
WWW], Address: http://freecenter.digiweb.com/education/abuse. Note: Warnes
was one of a number of people who felt that the act of observing a classmate
being humiliated, berated or paddled was a serious trauma for most children.
Quoted in Augustin Gurza, “Spanking:
An Idea Whose Time Has Gone,” Los Angeles Times (March 21, 2000).
Available: PTAVE (Parents & Teachers Against Violence in Education)
Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/gurza.htm.
Among these organizations are the Americn
Medical Association, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, The National
Center on Child Abuse Prevention, the American Academy of Pediatrics,
the American Bar Association, the National Education Associaiton, the
National PTA, the National Association for the Education of Young Children,
the American Association for Counseling and Development, the American
Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the Association
of Junior Leagues, the Council for Exceptional Children, the National
Association of Elementary School Principals, the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, the National Association of School
Psychologists, the National Association of State Boards of Education,
the National Committee to Prevent Child Abuse, the National Mental Health
Association and the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Children.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools,”
(Society for Adolescent Medicine).
“Facts about Corporal Punishment.”
Penelope Leach, “Spanking: A Shortcut
to Nowhere,” (1999). Available: PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW],
Address: http://nospank.org/leach.htm.
Michael Pastore, “Too Many Parents
Still Hitting on Wrong Idea,” Philadelphia Inquirer (16 January
1999).
Brenda C. Coleman, “Study: Do Not
Spank,” San Francisco Examiner (15 August 1997); also “Spanking
Makes Children Violent, Antisocial,” excerpt from The American Medical
Association News Update, (August 13, 1997). Available: PTAVE Web site,
[Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/straus.htm. Note: In this
study, antisocial behavior was defined as “cheating or lying, bullying
or being cruel or mean to others, not feeling sorry after misbehaving,
breaking things deliberately, disobeying at school or not getting along
with teachers. Also note: In this same study, researchers discovered that
children who had been spanked even once during the week before to the
base interview showed an increase in antisocial behavior two years later.
(Physical punishments other than spanking were not included.)
Quoted in Carol E. Robinson, “Alamo
Advocate Aims to Ban Punishment at Home, School,” San Ramon Valley
Times (3 July 1994)
Quoted in Quarles, 23; also Derril Farrar,
“Hands Off!” Sunday Telegraph. (4 September 1983).
Leach; Alice Miller, For Your Own Good:
Hidden Cruelty in Child-Rearing and the Roots of Violence (New York: Farrar,
Straus and Giroux, 1984), 142-145; Jordan Riak, Plain Talk About Spanking
(Alamo, CA: PTAVE, 1996), 4-5.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools
(RE9207), Position Statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee
on School Health (1991). Available: PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address:
http://nospank.org/aap2.htm; “When Discipline Silences, Forever,”
The Philadelphia Inquirer, Metro Section (14 January 1999). Available:
PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/silenced.htm;
“Corporal Punishment in Schools,” Policy Statement by the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (Approved, June 1988).
Available: PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/aacap.htm;
“Corporal Punishment: Myths and Realities;” Coleman; “Spanking
Makes Children Violent, Antisocial;” Pastore; Beane, 125; “United
Nations Committee on Rights of Child, Eighteenth Session, Geneva (May
18-June 5, 1998). Available: PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address:
http://nospank.org/uncrc.htm; Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish, “Experts
Speak Out on Punishment,” How to Talk so Kids Will Listen &
Listen So Kids Will Talk (New York: Avon Books, 1980), 115-117.
Leach.
D. Keith Osborn and Janie Dyson Osborn,
Discipline and Classroom Management (Athens, GA: Education Associates,
1977), 27; also Doyle; “Corporal Punishment: The Position of the
American School Counselor Association,” (Adopted 1995). Available:
PTAVE Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/asca.htm.
Laurie A. Couture, “Corporal Punishment:
Society’s Remaining Acceptable Violence,” Available: Child
Advocate Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http:// http://www.childadvocate.org/AcceptableViolence.htm;
Pastore; “Spanking Makes Children Violent, Antisocial;” “Corporal
Punishment in Schools (American Academy of Pediatrics).
Jordan Riak, “Abuse in Schools is
Out!” Article reprint prepared by Parents and Teachers Against Violence
in Education. Alamo, CA: PTAVE (Copyright waived, no date); Rogers and
Frieberg. Note: In addition to condemning the use of corporal punishment,
Couture also notes that being subjected to corporal punishment as a witness
is traumatic itself.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools,”
(Society for Adolescent Medicine). Note: This report suggests that these
numbers represent fairly conservative estimates.
“Want Smarter Kids? Don’t
Sapnk Them,” Reuters, (August 3, 1998). Available: PTAVE Web site,
[Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/straus4.htm.
Pastore; “Spanking Makes Children
Violent, Antisocial.” “Corporal Punishment in Schools”
(American Academy of Pediatrics).
”Spanking Makes Children Violent,
Antisocial;” Couture.
“Corporal Punishment in Schools,”
(Society for Adolescent Medicine); Doyle; “Corporal Punishment:
Myths and Realities.” Among the infractions which resulted in physical
consequences reported in the literature and survey responses were incomplete
homework, not singing loud enough, talking, not understanding an assignment,
laughing, not holding pencils correctly (Epp, 15), whispering, giggling,
not finishing their milk (“Corporal Punishment: Myths and Realities”),
not being able to spell a word, being late to class, forgetting gym shorts,
touching sports equipment left on the playing field (Warnes), spilling
milk or talking in class.
Couture; “Bigotry by any other name...”
Report to Friends—August 1999. Available: PTAVE (Parents & Teachers
Against Violence in Education) Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/msg4.htm;
“A Lesson Learned: Spare the Rod,” Bangkok Post (Sept. 15,
2000). Available: PTAVE (Parents & Teachers Against Violence in Education)
Web site, [Internet, WWW], Address: http://nospank.org/thai2.htm.
“Facts About Corporal Punishment,”
presented by the National Coalition to Abolish Punishment in Schools,
(October 20, 1998). Available: Center for Effective Discipline Web site,
[Internet, WWW], Address: http://www.stophitting.com/facts_about_corporal_punishment.htm.
The complete bibliography
of this book is available on line.
Learn more about this
book, Creating Emotionally Safe Schools.
Read what people
are saying about this book.
Jane’s other articles
Handouts from Jane’s
presentations
Back
For a bookmark-friendly version of this page, click here. Then bookmark this page.
© 2008, Jane Bluestein, Ph.D., Instructional Support Services, Inc.
Last updated on
October 16, 2006 1:29 PM
|