Fighting Indiscipline in US Public Schools - Research Paper Example

? Laws on Corporal Punishment Background One of the main challenges in United s public schools is indiscipline. This problem is attributed to many factors, including weak teacher-student relationships, family-related factors, poor disciplining approaches, and changes in technology that have led to new dimensions of indiscipline (Zolotor et al., 2011). For over the years, the problem has been the focus of the stakeholders as they try to find ways of addressing the problem. Teachers, parents, students, and educators have been involved in various ways in trying to find solution to the problem. The law makers have also not been left behind; lawmakers in many states have different views regarding how to address the problem of indiscipline in US public schools (Lenta, 2012). One of the approaches of disciplining that has been at the center of debating among the lawmakers and educational stakeholders has been the corporal punishment. Different states in the United States have either banned or allowed corporal punishment as a way of disciplining in US public schools. It is worth noting that majority of the states have prohibited corporal punishment, but the rest have not banned the practice (Bloom, 2010). Corporal punishment in schools entails official punishment of students for deviant behaviors or violation of school rules and regulations. It involves striking student a number of times in a premeditated and methodical manner (Human Rights Watch, 2008). Normally, the punishment is administered either on the hands or across the buttocks, using wooden yardstick, wooden paddle, leather strap, or a rattan cane. Its advocates consider it appropriate because they believe that it provides an immediate response to misbehavior and indiscipline, and that after its administration students can quickly go back to classroom and continue with learning. However, its opponents argue that other disciplinary approaches can be equally or even more effective. The opponents further argue that corporal punishment can amount to abuse or violence (Sparks, 2013). Rollins (2012) argues that good conduct and discipline is an important ingredient for success of students in schools. It is also argued that all educational stakeholders agree that there is need for effective ways of addressing the challenge of indiscipline in the US public schools. However, there seems to be a disagreement on which are the best approaches of instilling good conduct and discipline. In particular, there is a disagreement on whether corporal punishment is a good approach of instilling discipline in public schools. Corporal punishment has been used as a way of disciplining for many years, and there are those who believe that it has been tested and proved to be an effective way of disciplining students (Brookmeyer, Fanti, and Henrich, 2008). The proponents of corporal punishment argue that the very nature of corporal punishment achieves better outcomes compared to other methods of disciplining. The opponents of this practice hold the view that it is often cruel, brutal, and ineffective, and therefore cannot be relied upon to instill good conduct and discipline. Both arguments have been backed up by several researches. As a matter of fact, even the opponents of the practice agree that corporal punishment to some extent can significantly reform the behaviors of children in school and family settings as well. A study by the National Centre for Educational Research and the National Centre for Social and Criminal found out that about 70 percent of teachers and parents prefer corporal punishment as a mode of punishment (Sajkowska & Wojtasik, 2009). Parents who prefer corporal punishment as a mode of punishment are also comfortable if the punishment is implemented in school. Conversely, many of those parents who do not prefer it as a method of punishment in school are against its use in schools, be it private or public schools. The debate surrounding corporal punishment is mainly on whether, when effectively administered, it can reduce the incidences of indiscipline such as drug abuse (Council of Europe, 2007). It is an alternative of instilling discipline that has been appreciated over the year. Nonetheless, there have been numerous complaints regarding it as a disciplining alternative. The complaints have been ranging from cruelty to brutality and ineffectiveness. These complaints have been related to the argument that most of the teachers administering corporal punishment lack appropriate skills of applying corporal punishment and other approaches of disciplining students. It is argued that many teachers have not acquainted themselves with other means of disciplining students and end up relying too much on corporal punishment (Garland, 2011). The merits, demerits, and nature of corporal punishment have been subject of research for a number of years now as stakeholders in the education sector, including the lawmakers, try to weigh their options regarding corporal punishment. Some of the research findings are what have influenced the decision of some states’ lawmakers to ban the practice in their respective states (Donnelly and Straus, 2010). Statistics on how corporal punishment is administered in US public schools show that there are other aspects that are associated with the practice, and they cannot be ignored. A critical examination of the statistics reveals issues that need to be evaluated (Marshall, 2012). For example, statistics show that there is a higher likelihood for black and Hispanic students to be paddled compared to the white students in the US public schools. This finding, for example, has stirred debate on the need of using corporal punishment in school and its implications. While it is appreciated as a means of instilling discipline that can be effective, it is feared that it can perpetuate vices such as racism and therefore become counterproductive in the long run. In some instances, corporal punishment can achieve unintended objectives (Dupper & Montgomery, 2008). For example, some studies have found out that its constant application can potentially lead to the increase of the violence level among subjects. It has also been found out that it has the potential of increasing the chances of students to commit crime in the future. This is because they tend to express anger by committing deviant and criminal activities such as destruction of school property and molestation of other students (Kant & March, 2009). Historical Perspective The topic of corporal punishment in the US public schools has been a subject of debate for many years. It is mainly conceptualized in two contexts. The first context is its conceptualization as a means of punishment for crime offenders. The second conceptualization is in respect to it as a way of instilling discipline among children and students in schools. It has been a conventional method of disciplining children and students in schools since the colonial times (Human Rights Watch, 2008). The roots of corporal punishment in the US can be traced to England, which was America’s colonial master and which remains the only European nation that has legalized the practice. Available literature reveals that the formal history of corporal punishment can be traced back to mid-seventeenth century and particularly during the American Revolution. It is only during the past forty years that there emerged a growing public outcry condemning the practice of corporal punishment in public schools (Marshall, 2012). The American Orthopsychiatry Association and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) in 1972 sponsored a formal subject regarding this topic. Only two states (New Jersey and Massachusetts) had legally banned corporal punishment in public schools. New Jersey was the first state to legally ban corporal punishment as a disciplinary action in public schools in 1867. Other states, over the years, have illegalized corporal punishment, and the number now stands at thirty-one states (Garland, 2011). Corporal punishment was first sanctioned by the America’s Supreme Court in the late twentieth century. In 1977, the Supreme Court sanctioned corporal punishment in the case of Ingraham v Wright (Sajkowska & Wojtasik, 2009). This case was taken to court after some students from Florida junior school received corporal punishment that resulted in one of them being taken ill and later hospitalized. These students’ parents sued the school district on the basis that, as a means of punishment, corporal punishment was a violation of the 8th Amendment of the United States Constitution because it amounted to unusual and cruel punishment. The parents further argued that corporal punishment should be administered as required by the principle of due principle. Based on this argument, they were of the view that the school violated the 14th Amendment of the Constitution while administering corporal punishment to students (Bloom, 2010). In Ingraham v Wright, the Supreme Court held that there was no violation of the 8th Amendment because its provisions only prohibited unusual and cruel punishment of crime offenders who have already been convicted. The court noted, therefore, that the amendment did not apply to paddling of public school students as a way of instilling discipline (Lenta, 2012). It reached the conclusion that teachers are allowed to apply reasonable corporal punishment as a way of instilling good conduct rather than use excessive punishment. After the Ingraham v Wright, there was another landmark court decision regarding corporal punishment in public schools. The case of Hall v Tawney in 1980 handed down the Ingraham decision. Since these landmark court decisions, thirty-one American states have banned corporal punishment in public schools, but nineteen other have not illegalized practice, and they have allowed its use as a way of instilling good conduct and discipline among students (Rollins, 2012). It can therefore be argued that although the corporal punishment history in the United States can be traced back to the mid-eighteenth century during the American Revolution, the topic became a subject of greater public debate in the 1970s. Mainly, the topic has been subject of numerous debates concerning its legality, as well as illegality. The topic of corporal punishment is no longer viewed as an educational issue only but also as a legal and political issue. Therefore, when making decisions regarding it, all aspects, including educational, legal, and political, must be taken into account (Dayton, 2009). Theoretical Framework The topic of corporal punishment has been researched for many years as researchers seek to understand its nature, merits and demerits, particularly as a method of disciplining students in schools. There are a number of theories that underpin corporal punishment in schools (Miller, 2011). There are two theories that will form the theoretical framework for this topic: social learning theory and social control theory. Social learning theory was first proposed by Albert Bandura, and it holds that children tend to learn certain skills and behaviors through trial and error conditioning. The theory argues that children learn through observation, as well as by vicarious learning of the behavior of older people and their peers (Akers & Jensen, 2009). They also learn from the positive and negative consequences of the acts of their peers and older people. Social learning theory propositions are informed by the arguments that all learning types cannot be accounted simply by direct reinforcement (Donnelly & Straus, 2010). It is for this reason that observation is central to internal mental conditions and learning. This theory further makes an acknowledgement that learning alone does not mean that the behavior of a child will change (Prati, 2012). Social learning theory acknowledges that students can learn new information without portraying new behaviors. It is based on this acknowledgement that it emphasizes on modeling process; corporal punishment is critical in the modeling process. It can be used to shape modeling process and observational learning (Kumpulainen & Wray, 2010). It can be used to ensure that students are not detracted from paying attention to learning. It can also be used to encourage dedicating full attention to learning by punishing inattentiveness. Based on social learning theory, corporal punishment can be said to be instrumental in facilitating the performance of the good behavior, observed or prescribed (Prati, 2012). As a form of punishment, corporal punishment will play a crucial role in motivation. Observing corporal punishment being administered on other students will motivate learners to avoid behaviors and acts that may lead them to be punished. However, it is important to note that this theory has been criticized for dealing with limited aspects of how corporal punishment is administered in schools and the consequences that come up in the process (Miller, 2011). Social control theory is the other theory that underpins corporal punishment and provides some explanation of the practice. This theory argues that delinquency and deviant behaviors are primarily a result of failure of social and person supervision over behavior of an individual that is deemed antisocial (Rankin & Wells, 2011). This theory states specifically that it is the responsibility of the society to ensure that rules and norms are applied in a timely and concise manner. The theory goes ahead to elaborate that the society should minimize delinquency by developing and applying various control mechanisms. It advocates for control mechanisms that foster social conformity and order. It addresses specific factors that determine whether or not an individual will engage in deviant behaviors or criminal activity. The theory examines how the rules and norms establishment within a society serve to maintain a level of order and conformity. It holds that the violation of norms should lead to varied levels of punishment depending on how prevalent the norm can be (Sparks, 2013). Social control theory acknowledges that varied degrees of punishment should apply to violations of norms. Corporal punishment is therefore a critical form of punishment for violation of school rules and regulations. Corporal punishment provides a mechanism of reinforcing good conduct and discipline in public schools in order to keep delinquency and indiscipline at bay (Miller, 2011). This theory supports the argument that has been fronted by the proponents of the corporal punishment that it would discourage children from being drawn into indiscipline and anti-social behaviors. The theory further acknowledges that corporal punishment is one of the fundamental control mechanisms that are already in place to instill discipline and good conduct (Sparks, 2013). References Akers, R. L., & Jensen, G. F. (2009). Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: guide for the new century. New Brunswick, N.J: Transaction. Bloom, S. (2010). “Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child? A Legal Framework for Recent Corporal Punishment Proposals.” Golden Gate University Law Review, 2.5: 91-101. Brookmeyer, K.A., K.A. Fanti and C.C. Henrich. (2008). Schools, parents, and youth violence: A multilevel, ecological analysis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35(4), 504?514 Council of Europe. (2007). Abolishing corporal punishment of children: Questions and answers. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub. Dayton, J. (2009). “Corporal Punishment in Public Schools: The Legal and Political Battle Continues.” Education Law Reporter, 8.9: 1-13. Donnelly, M., & Straus, M. A. (2010). Corporal punishment of children in theoretical perspective. New Haven: Yale University Press. Dupper, D. R., & Montgomery Dingus, A. E. (2008). Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers. Children & Schools, 30(4), 243-250. Garland, D. (2011). The Problem of the Body in Modern State Punishment. Social Research, 78(3), 767-798. Human Rights Watch. (2008). A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment of Children in US Public Schools. Human Rights Watch Publications. Kant, A. R., & March, R. E. (2009). Effective strategies for addressing challenging behaviour in schools. AASA Journal of Scholarship & Practice, 1(3), 3-6. Kumpulainen, K and Wray, D. (2010). Classroom Interaction and Social Learning: From Theory to Practice. New York, NY: RoutledgeFalmer. Lenta, P. (2012). Corporal Punishment of Children. Social Theory & Practice, 38(4), 689-716. Marshall, M. (2012). Discipline without stress, punishments, or rewards: How teachers and parents promote responsibility & learning. Los Alamitos, Calif: Piper Press. Miller, P. H.. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology. New York: Worth Publishers. Prati, G. (2012). A Social Cognitive Learning Theory of Homophobic Aggression Among Adolescents. School Psychology Review, 41(4), 413-428. Rankin, J. H., & Wells, L. E. (Eds.). (2011). Social control and self-control theories of crime and deviance. Surrey, UK: Ashgate Pub. Rollins, J. A. (2012). 2012: Revisiting the Issue of Corporal Punishment in Our Nation's Schools. Pediatric Nursing, 38(5), 248-269. Sajkowska, M., & Wojtasik, L. (2009). Protecting children against corporal punishment: Awareness-raising campaigns. (Prote?ger les enfants contre les cha?timents corporels.) Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publ. Sparks, S. D. (2013). Students' Social, Emotional Needs Entwined With Learning, Security. Education Week, 32(16), 16-21. Zolotor, A., et al. (2011). Corporal punishment and physical abuse: population-based trends for three-to-11-year-old children in the United States. Child Abuse Review, 20(1), 57-66. Read More