The Science of the Adverse Effects of Corporal Punishment in Schools - Assignment Example

August Discipline, Beliefs, and Constitutionality versus the Science of the Adverse Affects of Corporal Punishment in Schools Some people believe in the saying: “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” The United States is only one of the two United Nations (UN) members that have signed, but not ratified, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, thereby contributing to the use of corporal punishment in schools in half of its states that do not yet ban corporal punishment (Hinchey 97). Corporal punishment in school refers to different kinds of physical punishment that seek to change student behavior (Greydanus et al. 385). It can range from hitting students with anything, such as baseball bats and paddles, to subjecting students to harsh physical exercises or degrading punishment (Greydanus et al. 385). The most common type of corporal punishment in schools is paddling students’ buttocks (Farmer and Stinson 1038). The debate on corporal punishment emphasizes it pros and cons on various aspects of student behavior. Corporal punishment in schools have the pros of affirming personal, religious, and cultural beliefs about punishment’s role in changing misbehaviors, getting instant behavioral changes, and constitutionality, however, its cons outweigh these pros, especially when it is not an effective form of changing bad behaviors across settings and timeframes, it is not effective in improving respect for authority, it does not enhance moral behaviors and self-control, it promotes the belief that violence is a legitimate way of reacting to unwanted behaviors, it can lead to discriminatory disciplinary practices, and it violates children’s rights because it leads to numerous negative academic and health effects. Supporters of corporal punishment assert that it reinforces personal, religious, and cultural beliefs about punishment that the government should not interfere with. Donald Greydanus et al. mention the claims of pro-corporal punishment that corporal punishment is aligned with personal, cultural, and religious beliefs that the state should not control. People who have experienced corporal punishment are more likely to allow teachers to also do it on their children and they also have cultural beliefs that physical punishment is acceptable in disciplining children (Greydanus et al. 387). David R. Dupper and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus, as well as Harold G. Grasmick et al., provide studies where some religious denominations support corporal punishment in schools. People who have conservative Evangelical Protestant religions believe that teachers should implement corporal punishment in schools because it is an effective form of discipline for children (Dupper and Dingus 246; Grasmick et al. 184). Schools practice disciplinary measures that their communities value as part of their cultures and religions. The government cannot prevent corporal punishment that these schools and communities see as acceptable and appropriate disciplinary methods. The main weaknesses of these studies though are that they do not further understand what makes people believe in corporal punishment in schools and why they connect it to disciplined behaviors. They lack in-depth interviews that expose the beliefs and attitudes of people, not only on violence, but on what makes up discipline and proper ways of raising children. Moreover, these studies do not have strong theoretical foundations. They are not based on tested theories regarding human behaviors that can help explain the causes of corporal punishment in schools. These studies should also look into the factors that come before and cause school-based corporal punishment practices. Apart from supporting various beliefs, corporal punishment can result to instant behavioral changes that improve class control and learning. Corporal punishment is painful and shameful, so it can immediately make students follow their teachers or stop bad behaviors. Shailynn Krow explains in her article that corporal punishment can discourage bad behavior because it is an “unpleasant” experience that both young and old students do not want to experience. She notes that even the threat of corporal punishment can prevent future bad behaviors, since not many students like to experience these painful beatings in front of other students. Dupper and Dingus add that the study of Owen in 2005 show that corporal punishment is related to “increased immediate compliance” (245). These studies suggest that corporal punishment is effective in affecting student behaviors quickly, which is good for classroom control. If these children immediately stop bad behaviors, their teachers can concentrate on teaching the class and the class can learn better. Though these studies indicate that corporal punishment can make students instantly follow their teachers or school superiors, they did not consider the examples where corporal punishment did not make children change their bad behaviors. How about those instances that students remain resistant to changes? What do these examples say about the effectiveness of corporal punishment in disciplining children? These studies should also consider how and when corporal punishment effectively changes and how and when it does not effectively change student behavior. Besides the potential effect on behavior, corporal punishment is also constitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court case of Ingraham v. Wright in 1977 supported the constitutionality of corporal punishment in schools. Students, namely James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews, experienced physical injuries from the paddling of their teacher. They argued in the court that this corporal punishment violated the Eight Amendment that prohibits cruel and unjust punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment that ensures due process of law (Hinchey 96). The Supreme Court did not support these arguments because it stated that corporal punishment is a traditional practice in American homes and schools, so it is not unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment only covers criminals and not school students (Hinchey 96). The court ruling supports corporal punishment in schools as a just form of punishment. Corporal punishment gets support from this Supreme Court ruling that defends its constitutionality. The Constitutionality of corporal punishment in schools is not unsurprising because the U.S. has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The country respects children’s rights, but it does not want to completely disregard parents’ rights in disciplining their children. Additional studies are needed in understanding what the implications of ratifying this UN Convention on parental rights are. As long as some parents think that corporal punishment is right at home and at school, this UN treaty will never be fully implemented across the nation. Despite these pros of corporal punishment, its opponents argue that it is not an effective form of discipline and classroom control, according to several sources that used anecdotal and empirical studies. Dupper and Dingus mention from different studies that are based on anecdotes and statistics that corporal punishment is not effective because it does not result to long-term changes in classroom behaviors (245). The fact that the same students get spanked again and again means that spanking is not an effective method of changing bad behaviors (Dupper and Dingus 245). Greydanus et al. present the view of the Society for Adolescent Medicine on corporal punishment in schools. They note that supporters of corporal punishment claim that it is an effective form of classroom control, it improves respect for authority, and it develops morality and self-control. They stress that these claims are wrong because of the absence of convincing empirical studies that support them (Greydanus et al. 388). These studies show that corporal punishment is ineffective in disciplining children because students continue these bad behaviors in other times and places. These studies have the main strengths of being based on empirical studies and noting anecdotal differences, but they lack further analysis on how corporal punishment can be prevented. On the one hand, these studies have empirical basis because of the quantitative and qualitative research designs of mentioned researches. On the other hand, they cannot convince teachers and parents who think that corporal punishment is a good disciplinary method. They should also study how they can change rigid mindsets about corporal punishment’s effectiveness. Aside from not preventing long-term bad behaviors, corporal punishment is not effective in improving respect for authority, and it does not enhance moral behaviors and self-control. Greydanus et al. mention studies that prove that corporal punishment does not improve how children respect teachers and older school personnel (388). Instead, they may even show rebellion that disrespects authority even more (Greydanus et al. 388). Moreover, Greydanus et al. stress that studies do not give strong evidence that corporal punishment improve moral actions and students’ ability to control bad behaviors: This student very likely will learn techniques that actually lead to reduced self-control, with negative behavior characterized by more acting out, school absence, malingering, recidivism, and overt academic revocation (388). They indicate that students do not learn good behaviors from violent models of behaviors. Moreover, instead of improving self-control, students will feel more out of control because of the psychological effects of corporal punishment. Dupper and Dingus cite Hyman’s 1995 study: “The use of corporal punishment in schools has been shown to be associated with damaging physical and psychological outcomes that can affect some children for the remainder of their lives” (245). Corporal punishment can make children so anxious and distressed that the more that they may not be able to control their behaviors. Corporal punishment can have long-term negative effects on behaviors. These studies are valid and useful in showing that corporal punishment has various negative effects on children and that they are not effective in many ways. Scientific studies are increasingly showing that it can have bad effects on mental and social development (Greydanus et al. 388; Healy). These studies also emphasize that it is not the only way of effectively changing student behaviors too. They recommend different ways of disciplining children, which should be more effective than corporal punishment, depending on many factors, such as if the method fits the children’s personality or the setting of the punishment, among other factors. Furthermore, corporal punishment promotes the belief that violence is a legitimate way of reacting to unwanted behaviors. Scholars are concerned of what corporal punishment teaches kids about violence. Greydanus et al. assert that the primary disadvantage of corporal punishment is that it promotes a cycle of violence that spreads from schools to homes and communities (Greydanus et al. 388). When children see violence or experience violent in schools, they believe that it is a legitimate way of getting the response they want (Dupper and Dingus 245). Violence becomes a model of behavior changes for students that can have far-reaching effects until they are adults, or even as children. When they have bad experiences, they might think that violence is a good way of making the other person stop. Corporal punishment teaches kids that violence is good because it generates compliance and obedience. Apart from promoting violence against others, corporal punishment reflects and reinforces discrimination. Corporal punishment is affecting minority and disadvantaged student populations more than others. Alice Farmer and Kate Stinson say that from their review of corporal punishment literature: “African American students and students with mental or physical disabilities are corporally punished at disproportionately high rates…” (1039). Cynthia Northington agrees that minority students get spanked more than whites. She cites the National Research Council Institute of Medicine’s report in 2004 which shows that: “While African Americans represent approximately 17% of the student population in the United States, they are twice as likely as white students to be recipients of corporal punishment” (57). Patricia Hinchey confirms these findings and notes the complaints in Mobile, Alabama against corporal punishment because it affects black students more than whites even when the former make up less than half of the student population (98). Children with disabilities also experience corporal punishment, probably even because of their disabilities. Alice Farmer reports the story of a student with autism who receives extreme physical punishment that results to the child’s emotional distress at home and school. Farmer and Stinson already stress how students with disabilities experience beatings because of their symptoms. Corporal punishment is wrong because it promotes discrimination in classrooms. It shows that violence is directed toward people who are different physically and mentally. Finally, corporal punishment violates children’s rights. Children should be protected from anything that can physically, emotionally, and psychologically harm them. Dupper and Dingus assert that corporal punishment has numerous direct and indirect negative effects on children. Some of these effects are poor academic performance, school anxiety and distress, and more “aggression against school property, peers, and authorities” (Dupper and Dingus 245). Eddy Ramirez adds that when minority students are spanked more than whites, that several studies prove, they are more likely to fail in school and drop out. Corporal punishment is bad for kids. It is emotionally and mentally damaging in the short and long-run. Furthermore, Farmer and Stinson argue from a human-rights perspective. They say that “[c]orporal punishment violates internationally recognized human rights to freedom from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment or punishment, and freedom from physical violence” (1042). They stress that corporal punishment disrespects human dignity because it violates human rights. Corporal punishment disrespects children’s dignity because it treats them as objects that can be changed through violence. The pros of corporal punishment are support for beliefs, immediate behavioral changes, and constitutional support, while the cons are its adverse impacts of health and academic performance, ineffectiveness as a discipline and behavior-changing tool, promotion of violence, discrimination, and rejection of authority, further loss of morality and self-control, and lack of respect for children’s rights. Its cons outweigh its pros, so schools should not practice corporal punishment anymore. Instead, positive reinforcement and other alternatives are available for school personnel. Spare the rod because the rod will hurt the child even more. Spare the rod in schools, and instead, build up students who do not know violence and will not practice violence in any aspect of their lives. Works Cited Dupper, David R., and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus. “Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers.” Children & Schools 30.4 (2008): 243-250. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 July 2014. Farmer, Alice. “Stop Beating Students with Disabilities in Schools.” TheHuffingtonPost.com. The Huffington Post, 11 Aug. 2009. Web. 26 July 2014. . Farmer, Alice, and Kate Stinson. “Failing the Grade: How the Use of Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools Demonstrates the Need for U.S. Ratification of the Childrens Rights Convention and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” New York Law School Law Review 54.3 (2009/2010): 1035-1069. Academic Search Premier. Web. 26 July 2014. Grasmick, Harold G., Morgan, Carolyn S., and Mary B. Kennedy. “Support for Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A Comparison of the Effects of Socioeconomic Status and Religion.” Social Science Quarterly 73.1 (1992): 177-187. PsycINFO. Web. 26 July 2014. Greydanus, Donald E., Pratt, Helen D., Spates, C. Richard, Blake-Dreher, Anne E., Greydanus-Gearhart, Marissa A., and Dilip R Patel. “Corporal Punishment in Schools: Position Paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine.” Journal of Adolescent 32.5 (2003): 385-393. Elsevier. Web. 26 July 2014. Healy, Michelle. “Study Links Physical Punishment to Later Mental Disorders.” usatoday.com. USA Today, 2 July 2012. Web. 26 July 2014. < http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/health/story/2012-06-28/spanking-mental-problems/55964610/1>. Hinchey, Patricia H. “Corporal Punishment: Legalities, Realities, and Implications.” The Clearing House 77.3 (2004): 96-100. JSTOR. Web. 26 July 2014. Krow, Shailynn. “The Advantages of Corporal Punishment in Schools.” eHow.com. Demand Media, 03 Apr. 2011. Web. 26 July 2014. < http://www.ehow.com/ info_8159068_advantages-corporal-punishment-schools.html>. Northington, Cynthia. “The Corporal Punishment of Minorities in the Public Schools.” Multicultural Perspectives 9.3 (2007): 57-59. Academic Search Premier. Web. 23 July 2014. Ramírez, Eddy. “Paddlings Widespread in South, Study Says.” usnews.com. U.S. News & World Report, 21 Aug. 2008. Web. 26 July 2014. < http://www.usnews.com/ education/blogs/on-education/2008/08/21/paddlings-widespread-in-south-study-says>. Read More