Corporal Punishment and academic success

An analytical report on Corporal Punishment’s negative impact on the academic success of our youth and the failing views of proponents of

corporal punishment and opponents of zero tolerance.

Letter of Transmittal

From: David Massaad, Sociology Major Student

To: Future teachers attending UTEP

Subject: Corporal Punishment and Its Effect on Academic Success

Corporal Punishment has a harmful effect on students’ academic success. It remains legal in nineteen U.S. states. Academic records have shown that schools who institute corporal punishment trail behind those who have abolished it.

Problematic students exposed to corporal punishment either return to the classroom and continue their disruptive behavior, or may withdraw from school altogether. This continued disruption affects non-problematic students in their strife to excel academically. These students are not being educated on the skills of independently guided behavior—the concept of self-discipline. Opponents of zero tolerance do not stress that good behavior must come from within.

Evidence suggests that corporal punishment instills negative behaviors and causes the development of disorders in students which in turn hamper motivation and learning. These statements call upon these questions to be addressed:

Why is corporal punishment still being used in our schools? To analyze its economic and deep rooted reasons.

What are the justifications of opponents of zero tolerance? Their failure to address self-discipline

What is corporal punishment teaching students about academic success? How student’s attitudes about learning are being affected

What is being done to abolish corporal punishment? How opponents of corporal punishment are fighting back

Executive Summary

Introduction:It has been shown through academic records that schools who institute the use of corporal punishment trail behind those who have abolished it. These students are not being educated on the skills of independently guided behavior—the concept of self-discipline.

Purpose:Address the use of corporal punishment and its harmful effects on academic success and to promote the use of a reformed zero tolerance policy in U.S. schools.

Scope:The goal is to call future teachers to reinforce their beliefs of the dangers of corporal punishment on students’ academic success and to work to end its use in schools. To achieve this goal, research will analyze the following four questions:

Why is corporal punishment still being used in our schools?

What are the justifications of opponents of zero tolerance?

What is corporal punishment teaching students about academic success?

What is being done to abolish corporal punishment?

Methods:The most convincing evidence is Iqbal Ahmad’s direct link between corporal punishment and student motivation and learning through questionnaires answered by Pakistani students.

Conclusions and Recommendations:Use of corporal punishment does not promote academic success. It has never been shown to better the minds of teachers and students in a learning environment. There is no need for corporal punishment to instill discipline. Educators and school administrators have so many other options other than subjecting our students to physical and emotional pain.

Table of ContentsAbstract…………………..Cover Page

Letter of Transmittal………………....1

Executive Summary…………………2

Table of Contents……………………3

Introduction…………………………...4

Study Focus One: The Continued Use of Corporal Punishment in Schools………………………………..5

1. Economic Reasons……………….5

2. Moral Reasons…..........................5

Summary…………………………......5

Study Focus Two: Policies of Opponents to Zero Tolerance……6-7

1. Purpose of Zero Tolerance...........6

2. Opponents of Zero Tolerance and Their Claims………………………..6-7

Summary……………………………...7

Study Focus Three: Corporal Punishment and Its Negative Impact on Academic Success………………………........8-9

Summary………………………..........9

Study Focus Four: The On-Going Battle to Ban Corporal Punishment……………………...10-11

How it is Fought…………............…10

2010 Hearing…………………....10-11

Summary…………………………….11

Results Discussion…………………12

Conclusions and Recommendations…………………13

References………….......................14

Glossary of Terms………………….15

Table of Figures:

Figure 1- States Allowing Corporal Punishment…………………………...4

Figure 2- Hypocrisy of Corporal Punishment…………………………...5

Figure 3- Zero Tolerance Creates Safe Learning Environment…………6

Figure 4- Seal of the U.S. Department of Education…………..6

Figure 5- Corporal Punishment and Academic Success Video………….10

Table of Tables:

Table 1- Relationship to CP and student motivation and learning…....8

Introduction

This analytical report stresses the use of corporal punishment and its harmful effects on students’ academic success. Currently, corporal punishment remains legal in nineteen U.S. states. It has been shown through academic records that schools who institute the use of corporal punishment trail behind those who have abolished it.

Figure 1: States that still allow corporal punishment in schools (in red).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporal_punishment

Nearly all problematic students exposed to corporal punishment return to the classroom and continue their disruptive behavior. This continued disruption affects non-problematic students in their strife to excel academically. These

students are not being educated on the skills of independently guided behavior—the concept of self-discipline1. Opponents of zero tolerance do not stress that good behavior must come from within.

It is evident that corporal punishment instills negative behaviors and causes the development of disorders in students which in turn hamper motivation and learning. A disorder recently discovered was Educational Induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (EIPSD). The disorder developed in half of all students subjected to severe physical punishment and was a result of the negative emotions and feelings instilled in them. These statements call upon these questions to be asked:

Why is corporal punishment still being used in our schools?

What are the justifications of opponents of zero tolerance?

What is corporal punishment teaching students about academic success?

What is being done to abolish corporal punishment?

1 Self-discipline means that responsible behavior should be encouraged by intrinsic factors, and not the promise of reward or fear of punishment.

Case Study 1: The Continued Use of Corporal Punishment in Schools

1. Economical Reasons 2. Moral Reasons

Corporal punishment is effective economically. Proponents of corporal punishment offer several advantages over other forms of punishment. Corporal punishment is quicker to implement, costs nothing, and deters unruliness2. Quicker implementation means that school officials can turn their attention to other important matters. Schools who implement the use of corporal punishment save thousands of dollars every year. They argue that there is a difference between the use of physical force by authorities such as teachers, and private citizens using physical force to meet their own ends.

Figure 2: The Hypocrisy of Corporal Punishment. Source:

Corporal punishment is still allowed because of deep rooted moral reasons. It was encouraged by the attitudes of the church towards the human body, flagellation being a common means of self-discipline. This had an influence on the use of corporal punishment in schools, as educational establishments were closely attached to the church during this period. Nevertheless, corporal punishment was not used uncritically. It wasn’t until the eleventh century when opponents to corporal punishment began speaking

2 Sources Select Resources. (n.d.). Corporal Punishment.

out against the use of corporal punishment in the treatment of children. Many of these attitudes and beliefs still survive today.

Summary:At a time of limited money

and resources, corporal punishment was the only

logical means of punishment. But the abundance of money and resources during modern times should call for an end to corporal punishment’s harsh methods of disciplining children.

http://babyresearch.blogspot.com/2012/04/coproral-punishment-of-children.html

Case Study 2: The Policies of Opponents of Zero Tolerance

1. Purpose of Zero Tolerance

Zero tolerance policies were first enacted as a way to enforce suspension and expulsion policies in response to drugs, weapons, and violent acts in schools. Critics of zero-tolerance policies argue that these policies have come to mean district wide policies to mandate harsh and pre-determined punishments for a wide variety of offenses, but zero-tolerance policies have proven to be effective in keeping schools safe, especially in areas where violence is a major problem.

Figure 3: Zero tolerance policies can create a safe learning environment.

2. Opponents of Zero Tolerance and Their Claims

Opponents claim that use of zero tolerance has been ineffective in its 20 year history. Arguments have been made by the U.S.

Department of Education (USDE) and the American Psychological Association (APA) that zero tolerance has been proven to be unreliable in deterring school disruption and violence.

The USDE makes claims that students expelled or suspended from school are unsupervised during daytime hours. They argue that these students must be kept in school if they are to remain candidates to receive the education they deserve.

Figure 4: Seal of the U.S. Department of Educationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Education

The APA states five assumptions made by

proponents of zero tolerance which are contradicted by statistical data: 1) The increase in school violence and the need for a forceful, no-nonsense strategy for violence prevention. The data has shown that incidences of school violence has remained stable during 20 years of zero tolerance and are small in proportion to school disruptions. 2) The increase in consistency of school discipline and thereby the clarity of the disciplinary message to students. Suspension and expulsion rates vary widely across schools and is due to characteristics of school personnel rather than the behavior and attitudes of students. 3) The removal of problematic students creates a more conductive learning environment for other students. They claim that data has shown the opposite effect and that schools spend too much time on disciplinary practices. 4) Punishments of zero tolerance have a deterrent effect on students, thus improving overall

behavior. Suspension and expulsion creates a higher likelihood of dropping out and failure to graduate3. 5) The overwhelming support by parents of zero tolerance to ensure safety in schools and students feeling safer knowing transgressions will be dealt with in no uncertain terms. Many communities react negatively if they feel their children’s right to an education is being threatened.

Summary:

It is understandable that opponents to zero tolerance want to save severely problematic students. But those who are behaved and take education seriously must not be harmed because of the few misguided students. These students are not being educated on the skills of independently guided behavior—the concept of self-discipline. Opponents of zero tolerance do not stress that good behavior must come from within.

Case Study 3: Corporal Punishment and Its Negative Impact

Corporal punishment does not improve academic performance. Statistics have shown that schools that use corporal punishment do worse academically than those who don’t. Students subjected to punishment have reported

problems of fear, anxiety, and depression and withdraw academically. The students also exhibited difficulty concentrating, lower achievement in school, intense dislike of authority, and school avoidance and drop out4. The table on the right lists a direct

3 The data predicts higher future rates of misconduct among those suspended or expelled.

negative correlation between student motivation and learning.

Corporal PunishmentMotivation Learning

Table 1: Correlation Between Independent Variable Corporal Punishment and Dependent Variables Motivation and Learning

Variable CP Motivatio Learning

nCP 1

Motivation

-.783 1

Learning -.674 -.676 1Source: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/res/article/viewFile/29257/1767/

Using a correlation design, this study surveyed 250 school teachers in a Pakistani town. A self-administered questionnaire was used to collect data. Statistical software was used to analyze the data. The data items consisted of three main variables with corporal punishment as independent variable and student motivation and classroom learning as dependent variables. To examine the relationship between the stated research variables, ANOVA5 was used along with Regression Analysis6.

Students develop negative attitudes toward learning as a

result of physical punishment. Corporal punishment may place teachers and parents in a position where they have to choose between academic performance and physical well-being of students and may lead to parents withdrawing their children from school. Other students not subject to physical punishment may be affected. Corporal punishment creates a threatening atmosphere that can affect their performances. Students learn that aggression is the way to solve problems.

Summary:

4 Human Rights Watch and American Civil Liberties Union. (2010, April 15). Corporal Punishment in Schools and Its Effect on Academic Success. Joint HRW/ACLU statement.5 Analysis of variance (ANOVA) is a collection of statistical models used to analyze the differences between group means and their associated procedures ( "variation" among between groups), developed by R.A. Fisher.

6 In statistics, regression analysis is a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables.

Students need the love and support of their teachers as well as their parents. Each student must be taken seriously, challenged to think, brought to the peak of his/her performance, and

be shown that they can make a difference. Use of corporal punishment on students will never reveal to them their full potential.

Case Study 4: The On-Going Battle to Ban CP

1. How it is Fought Currently, 19 states allow the use of corporal punishment in

their schools. There are many private and government organizations who are working to abolish corporal punishment in the states that still allow it. Three were mentioned earlier: Human Rights Watch (HRW), American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the APA. Objections to corporal punishment are in the forms of petitions and hearings to federal and state governments, depending on the size and power of the organization. A recent hearing in 2010 introduced a bill that would end all corporal punishment in schools. The bill was never brought to a vote. Most objections are in the form of petitions by small organizations.

2. 2010 Hearing

Dr. Greydanus suggests that an important technique in maintaining classroom control is to develop an effective communication and positive relationships between parents, students, and teachers.

Figure 5: Corporal Punishment and Academic Success Hearing Video

Source: www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAaAFo-C9Ic

School officials should possess: 1) expertise in child and adolescent development, 2) generally enjoy working with children, 3) have a strong desire to help youth learn, and 4) promote an environment that clearly demonstrates that students are

valued, respected, and understood7. The emphasis should be on positive educational interactions between teachers and students.

Students, as well as their parents, should be carefully involved in decision-making about school issues affecting them, including the development of educational goals and disciplinary rules, along with positive behavioral support. Schools should have peer support programs that encourage

acceptable behavior.

Summary:

There is no need for corporal punishment to instill discipline. Educators and school administrators have so many other options other than subjecting our students to physical and emotional pain. Many problems already exist in schools and they must not add to the problems by changing the corporal punishment policy to make it easier to physically punish students.

7 Greydanus, D. E. (n.d.) Corporal Punishment in Schools and Its effect on Academic Success. Testimony presented at Michigan State University/Kalamanzoo Center for Medical Studies.

Results Discussion

Case Study 1: The Continued Use of Corporal Punishment in Schools

Corporal Punishment was most prevalent during the dominance of church doctrine. Although its use was based on deep rooted moral reasons, it was used because of no financial cost and its quick implementation. There was little knowledge of its dangers and consequences. Today, these dangers and consequences are well known in a time of increased knowledge and resources.

Case Study 2: The Policies of Opponents of Zero Tolerance

It is apparent that proponents of zero tolerance place more importance on receiving an education. They will not allow the disruptions of a few misguided students to prevent the education of the non-disruptive students. Again, the idea is self-discipline.

Opponents to zero tolerance do not realize that without self-discipline, they cannot receive the education they deserve.

Case Study 3: Corporal Punishment and Its Negative Impact

The results show that students who are subjected to corporal punishment are less motivated toward learning than those who are encouraged and not physically punished. Students who are punished and discouraged hesitate to participate in classroom activities. This greatly decreases their motivation and learning. It is suggested that teachers should avoid corporal punishment to ensure student learning. Teachers must look for other positive alternatives to create a supportive learning environment.

Case Study 4: The On-Going Battle to Ban CP

Opponents to zero tolerance are on a campaign to create mass awareness of the consequences and ineffectiveness of corporal

punishment in our schools. But until there is a change in the cultural stance of proponents of corporal punishment, it will continue to be used and government will continue to block legislation to ban it.

Conclusions and Recommendations

At a time of limited money and resources, corporal punishment was the only logical means of punishment. But the abundance of money and resources during modern times should call for an end to corporal punishment’s harsh methods of disciplining children. It is recommended proponents of corporal punishment recognize the consequences of an ineffective and archaic form of discipline.

It is understandable that opponents to zero tolerance want to save severely problematic students. But those who are behaved and take education seriously must not be harmed because of the few misguided students. These students are not being educated on the skills of independently guided behavior—

the concept of self-discipline. It is recommended opponents of zero tolerance recognize good behavior must come from within.

Students need the love and support of their teachers as well as their parents. Each student must be taken seriously, challenged to think, brought to the peak of his/her performance, and be shown that they can make a difference. Use of corporal punishment on students will never reveal to them their full potential. It is recommended proponents of CP recognize the long-term consequences of its implementation.

There is no need for corporal punishment to instill discipline. Educators and school administrators have so many other options other than subjecting our

students to physical and emotional pain. Many problems already exist in schools and they must not add to the problems by changing the corporal punishment policy to make it easier to hit students.

Advocates of corporal punishment note that physical punishment should be given out in limited doses, based on the offense and without attempt to physically harm. However, this is often not the case, and many students are hurt.

ReferencesAre Zero Tolerance Policies Effective

in Schools? American Psychological Association Zero Task Force, 63, 852-862. (2008) doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.852

Bear, G. (2010). National Association of

School Psychologists. Discipline: Effective School Practices (Report No. S4H18). Retrieved from the National Association of School Psychologists website: http://www.nasponline.org/publications/booksproducts/HCHS3_Samples/S4H18_Discipline.pdf

Erin. (n.d). What is Corporal

Punishment? [Web Log Post] Retrieved from http://tospankornottospank.blogspot.com/

Greydanus, D. E. (n.d.) Corporal

Punishment in Schools and Its effect on Academic Success.

Testimony presented at Michigan State University/Kalamanzoo Center for Medical Studies. Retrieved from http://edworkforce.house.gov/uploadedfiles/04.15.10_greydanus.pdf

Human Rights Watch and American Civil

Liberties Union. (2010, April 15). Corporal Punishment in Schools and Its Effect on Academic Success. Joint HRW/ACLU statement. Retrieved from http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/04/14/corporal-punishment-in-schools-and-its-effect-on-academic-success-hrwaclu-statement

Iqbal, A., Said, H., Khan, F. (2013). Effect

of Corporal Punishment on Student Motivation and Classroom Learning. Canadian

Center of Science and Education (Report No. ISSN-19187173 E-ISSN 1918-7181). Retrieved from academia.edu website: http://www.academia.edu/4375439/Effect_of_corporal_punishment_on_s tudent_motivation

Sources Select Resources. (n.d.). Corporal

Punishment. Retrieved from http://www.sources.com/SSR/Docs/SSRW-Corporal_Punishment.htm

U.S. Department of Education Opposes

Zero Tolerance Linked to Suspensions (2014) [Web Log

Post]. Retrieved from http://www.shargel.com/2014/01/23/us-dept-of-education-opposes-zero-tolerance-linked-to-suspensions/

U.S. House of Representatives. (2010,

April). Corporal punishment and academic success hearing. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.

Whittaker, S. (2013, June 7). Corporal

Punishment Makes Children Dumb. Namibian. Retrieved from http://www.nospank.net/whittaker.htm

Glossary of Terms

A

American Civil Liberties Union   ( ACLU )- a nonpartisan non-profit organization whose stated mission is to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

The   American Psychological Association   ( APA ) - is the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States and Canada. It is the world's largest association of psychologists with around 137,000

members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students.

Analysis of variance ( ANOVA ) - a collection of statistical models used to analyze the differences between group means and their associated procedures

Archaic- old; outdated; passe

E

Educational Induced Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (EIPSD)- disorder developed in students as a result of physical or verbal abuse inflicted upon them.

F

Flagellation- flogging, whipping or lashing is the act of methodically beating the human body with special implements such as whips, lashes, and rods

H

Human Rights Watch   ( HRW )- an international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights.

R

Regression analysis- a statistical process for estimating the relationships among variables. It includes many techniques for modeling and analyzing several variables, when the focus is on the relationship between a dependent variable and one or more independent variables.

S

Self-discipline- concept that responsible behavior should be encouraged by intrinsic factors, and not the promise of reward or fear of punishment.

U

The   United States Department of Education- a Cabinet level department of the United States government.