1. UNION UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
We hereby recommend that the Dissertation by
Debora R. Gaten
Entitled
Elementary School Principals’ Perceptions of Corporal Punishment
Be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Education
In Educational Leadership
_________________________________________________________________
Jennifer Grove, Ed.D., Ed.D. Program Director (Date)
Dissertation Committee
_________________________________________________________________
Jennifer Grove, Ed.D., Chairperson (Date)
_________________________________________________________________
Shirley Hilliard, Ed.D. (Date)
_________________________________________________________________
Nina Staples, Ed.D. (Date)
PR
EVIEW
2. STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE
In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Doctor of Education Degree at Union University, I agree that the Library shall make it
available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation
are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of the
source is made.
Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this dissertation may
be granted by my research chair, or in her absence, by the Head of Interlibrary Services
when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes.
Any copying or use of the material in this dissertation for financial gain shall not be
allowed without my permission.
Signature ______________________________________________
Date __________________________
PR
EVIEW
3. Elementary School Principals’ Perceptions of Corporal Punishment
A Dissertation
Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Doctor of Education Degree
Union University
Debora R. Gaten
August 2008
PR
EVIEW
6. iii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to the loving memory of my father, Nathaniel Gaten, Sr.
(1923–2001), and in honor of my mother, Elizabeth Wells Gaten. You were my first
teachers. Thank you for instilling in all eight of your children a strong work ethic. To my
siblings, Retha, Flora, Nathaniel Jr., Frankie, Rickie, Linda, and Adell, thanks for your
support. To my nieces and nephews, you inspire me.
PR
EVIEW
7. iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I give honor and praise to God who planted this dream in my heart long
before I graduated from high school and who has allowed me to realize my dream. I
thank God for allowing my path to cross the path of truly remarkable people like my first
principal, Mr. Arnold Harris, and my current principal and mentor, Ms. Regina Nichols. I
would like to acknowledge and thank the following members of my dissertation
committee for their support, encouragement, guidance, and understanding as I went
through this process: my research chair, Dr. Jennifer Grove, Dr. Shirley Hilliard, and Dr.
Nina Staples. I would like to thank the members of my cohort, especially Adlai Shaw and
Thomas Rogers for their openness to exchanging ideas and information. I would also like
to thank Dr. Susan Kiernan who was so gracious in authorizing my use of the survey
instrument she created. To my best friend, Mr. Alfred Harris, Sr., thank you for your
encouragement, patience, and support. This would have been even more difficult without
you.
PR
EVIEW
8. v
ABSTRACT
The use of corporal punishment is one of the most controversial disciplinary practices in
public education. Twenty-eight states have banned its use, but it is still practiced in 22
mostly southern states. There is mounting criticism concerning its effectiveness, and
research is mixed regarding how effective it is in modifying behavior. The purpose of this
study was to determine whether elementary school principals’ assessments and
perceptions of corporal punishment differ substantially. School enrollment was also
examined to determine whether it affected elementary school principals’ perceptions of
corporal punishment. Specifically, do principals who work in larger schools have
different perceptions than principals who work in smaller schools? The overall goal of
the study was to investigate whether there was a significant difference in the number of
office referrals of schools that employ corporal punishment and those that do not. The
sample population of this study consisted of 20 elementary school principals. At the time
of the study, all principals were employed by a suburban school district located in the
Southern region of the U.S. The school system is nearly one-half the size of its urban
counterpart. Participants completed the Corporal Punishment Scale Survey that contained
questions to determine if they perceived corporal punishment as an effective means of
discipline. The results of this study imply that the overall perceptions of corporal
punishment for elementary school principals were favorable, even though, most
principals in the study did not use corporal punishment as a school disciplinary measure.
PR
EVIEW
9. vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER PAGE
1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................6
Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 7
Research Questions ....................................................................................................7
Significance of the Study............................................................................................8
Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................9
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................10
Past Practices in Discipline.......................................................................................11
Religious Beliefs........................................................................................11
Race and Gender .......................................................................................16
Inappropriate Behavior and Its Impact on Achievement .........................................18
The Corporal Punishment Issue ..............................................................................27
Legal Implications ..................................................................................................45
Best Practices ..........................................................................................................47
Summary .................................................................................................................52
3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 54
Description of the Study ......................................................................................... 54
Design .....................................................................................................................54
Participants ..............................................................................................................55
Procedures ...............................................................................................................55
Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 56
Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................58
Delimitations of the Study........................................................................................ 59
4. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................61
Research Question One ............................................................................................61
Research Question Two ..........................................................................................68
Research Question Three .........................................................................................71
Summary of Findings ..............................................................................................73
PR
EVIEW
10. vii
5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................74
Conclusions .............................................................................................................74
Research Question One..............................................................................74
Research Question Two.............................................................................75
Research Question Three...........................................................................77
Recommendations ...................................................................................................78
Implications .............................................................................................................80
Discussion ...............................................................................................................81
For Future Studies ...................................................................................................83
Closing Summary ....................................................................................................84
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................87
APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................97
PR
EVIEW
11. viii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
1. Gender of Participants ..............................................................................................62
2. Age of Participants ..................................................................................................63
3. Race of Participants ................................................................................................64
4. Years Experience as a Principal ...............................................................................64
5. Highest Degree or Level of Education Earned ........................................................65
6. Corporal Punishment Used as a Disciplinary Measure ...........................................66
7. Number of Times Corporal Punishment Administered Yearly ..............................67
8. Relationship Between Demographics and Use of Corporal Punishment .................68
9. Perceptions of Corporal Punishment ......................................................................69
10. School Enrollment ..................................................................................................70
11. Test of Between-Subjects Effects ...........................................................................71
12. Weekly Office Referrals .........................................................................................72
13. Test of Between-Subjects Effects ...........................................................................73
PR
EVIEW
12. 1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
The use of corporal punishment is one the most controversial practices in public
schools. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000), it is estimated that
schools in the United States administer corporal punishment between one and two million
times a year. Andero and Stewart (2002) reported that, under common law, teachers and
other school personnel have the right to administer reasonable corporal punishment--the
infliction of physical pain on a student for misconduct. The immediate aims of such
punishment are usually to halt the offense, prevent its recurrence and set an example for
others. The purported long-term goals are to change the child’s behavior and to make it
more consistent with the adults’ expectations. Mason (2005) asserted that just the threat
of corporal punishment might keep a boy or girl out of prison. In 1974, the American
Psychological Association and several other national groups denounced corporal
punishment in schools. Since that time, 28 states have outlawed corporal punishment.
However, it has remained an option for school principals in the remaining 22 states,
including Tennessee. West Tennessee schools generally mandated corporal punishment
to the principal or assistant principal, although a teacher could carry it out if an
administrator was present as a witness (Garlington, 1998).
Reportedly, school principals face a major challenge where student disruptive
behavior is concerned: Increases in teenage crime, pregnancy, substance abuse,
PR
EVIEW
13. 2
violence, gang activity, truancy, and dropout rates all have a major effect on the
education of American youth. Most of these problems have social origins that are beyond
the scope and ability of public schools to remedy (Mayer, 2001). However, there is one
major obstacle to quality teaching that most schools do not adequately address--the hour-
by-hour disruptions that occur in the classroom. This obstacle is the routine failure of
students to arrive in class, on time, with needed materials including pencils. Although
only a minority of the student population becomes habitual disrupters, these students’
behaviors are insidious and interfere with the teachers’ responsibility and ability to teach
and with the disciplined students’ right to learn (Souza, 2000). Annual Gallup Polls of
public opinion have frequently identified the lack of discipline as a common complaint
about public schools. The single most common request for assistance that teachers ask of
their administrators is for help in managing problem behaviors (Mayer, 2001). Without a
safe learning environment, teachers cannot teach, and students cannot learn.
Souza (2000) contended that although teachers are neither parents of their
students nor officers of the law, they have assumed two duties: (a) to take assertive and
proactive measures to ensure that each student is protected from harm resulting from the
disciplinary offenses and crimes committed by other students, outsiders, and student
offenders themselves; and (b) to use disciplinary action and, when necessary, law
enforcement to deal effectively and impartially with misbehavior.
Toby (1998) asserted that the public is more shocked by violence that occurs in
schools than when it occurs on the street. He contended that students are more prone to
misbehave in school now than in the past because school discipline has become lax. In
PR
EVIEW
14. 3
the past, school discipline implied that students knew that bad behavior would be costly
for them. The punishment of misbehavior was costly to students a generation ago because
schools were orderly; students knew that teachers cared whether they misbehaved. It was
understood they might give bad academic grades or unfavorable disciplinary reports
when they observed such misbehavior. An orderly school was one in which students
respected all teachers, including any disapproving teacher whom they might encounter in
the hallways, stairs, cafeteria, or schoolyards. The basis for school discipline lay in the
students’ awareness that teachers were vigilant and capable of invoking penalties. The
possibility of sanctions was threatening to students because they considered success in
school important. What requires explanation, according to Toby, is why students stopped
believing that teachers cared about their behavior and why teachers, even if they care,
stopped enforcing good behavior.
Discipline in our schools is a major issue. Sesko (1999) alleged that parents are in
favor of a strict disciplinary policy for troublemakers until their child is the one identified
as the troublemaker. Each school district has its own disciplinary policy, but many
administrators have failed to follow their policy for fear of being sued, said Sesko. On the
contrary, lawsuits against public institutions are most often successful because
administrators fail to follow or enforce existing disciplinary policies, not because they do
so. Many administrators lose their effectiveness because they do not challenge issues they
believe to be important. In many cases, an administrator’s decision concerning discipline
is reversed by his or her superior. Teachers feel unsupported because administrators seem
to appease the parents of troublemakers at the expense of everyone else involved. When
PR
EVIEW
15. 4
parents meet with the administrator to discuss their children’s behavior, they often defend
them, thus, enabling them to behave poorly by removing the consequences for their
actions, alleged Sesko. Schools usually do not pursue the matter any further.
Another problem that is prevalent in many schools, according to Sesko (1999), is
that there is a different set of rules for different students. The administrator dispenses
whatever penalty he or she believes is appropriate for a student whose parents are
supportive of the disciplinary process. On the other hand, for students with parents who
complain loudly or the students who excel athletically, the penalty is frequently modified
to be less punitive. Oftentimes, the administrator is at fault for creating a double standard,
thus, sending a mixed message to students and parents alike. Unfortunately, schools
cannot do anything with those members of society who refuse to take responsibility for
their own actions. Within the schools, student disruptions must be addressed.
As society attempts to pinpoint the root source of the acts of violence that plague
our public schools, a single cause for the current state of affairs in these institutions
cannot be isolated (Sesko, 1999). However, some believe that defiance, chaos, threats,
cursing, and assaults have risen from rare to frequent in many schools since the
elimination of corporal punishment (Edwards, 1999; Fredricks, 2001). There was a time
when parents held schools in such high esteem that children knew if they were in trouble
at school they would be in even more trouble at home. Today, it is more common for a
student to use his or her cell phone on the walk to the office to call a parent to intercede.
Ideally, parents would teach their children how to behave at home, unfortunately, that
may not happen. If the nation desires orderly schools and higher test scores, it must allow
PR
EVIEW
16. 5
educators a diverse toolbox of disciplinary methods in which corporal punishment
continues to be an option (Mason, 2005). If difficult behaviors are not addressed in a way
that produces the desired results early on, children may progress to more serious
behaviors (Edwards, 1999).
In 1998, a proposal was brought before the school board of a large urban school
district in West Tennessee to ban corporal punishment because of its implication of being
cruel and inhumane. The proposal was rejected in a 6 to 3 vote. Until recently, this large
urban school district’s principals administered corporal punishment by using wooden
paddles on the buttock and leather straps on open palms (Garlington, 1998). In 2004, the
issue of banning corporal punishment was revisited.
According to Bitensky (2004), national statistics for the 1999 – 2000 academic
year indicated that Black students were administered corporal punishment at a rate that
was more than twice their makeup in the population. Specifically, Blacks comprised 17%
of students, but received 39% of the corporal punishment. Whites comprised 62% of all
students, but received 53% of the corporal punishment. Along similar lines, a West
Tennessee School study published in 2004 confirmed that in the largest school district,
Black students and boys were overwhelmingly more likely to get paddled than their
White and female counterparts. A reported 97% of the 27,918 paddlings in 2003 were
given to the district’s Black children, while only 2% were given to White children
(Bitensky, 2004). There are 118,000 students in this particular school system.
The decision by the School Board in 2004 to review the district’s corporal
punishment policy generated a debate over the use of physical force to discipline
PR
EVIEW
17. 6
students. One resolution that was studied by the board committee would ban the practice
altogether. Another proposal would keep the punishment, but clarify the policy to
specifically give parents the right to decide whether they would allow their children to be
physically punished. Many parents of Black students in the district support corporal
punishment. While the 118,000–student district policy called for using corporal
punishment only as a last resort, in November 2004, school board members voted 5 to 4
to end the practice (Gehring, 2004b).
Statement of the Problem
In 2005, the school system’s leadership announced that student disciplinary
referrals had declined. This result was attributed to the school district’s implementation
of the Blue Ribbon Behavior Initiative Plan (Memphis City Schools, 2005a, 2005b). The
Blue Ribbon Plan was created to promote academic achievement and positive student
behavior. The plan promotes a proactive rather than a reactive approach to soliciting
positive student behaviors (Memphis City Schools, 2006). Because many teachers believe
that little will be done to a student who misbehaves in their classroom, they simply do not
refer students to the principal. Equally disconcerting is the stark reality that new teachers
leave the profession at an alarming rate. In leaving, teachers report overwhelmingly that
lack of discipline and related support from administrators are compelling influencers.
There is slight hope that inadequately controlled school systems can successfully recruit
and retain high quality instructors. In the absence of those high quality teachers, the
problem will likely worsen at an accelerated pace (Fredricks, 2001).
PR
EVIEW
18. 7
The key to strengthening appropriate behavior in our schools is a full-scale review
of a school district’s disciplinary plan. Anything short of that will produce nothing more
than new versions of the current conflicts between teachers, administrators, and parents
(Sesko, 1999). Corporal punishment remains an option for one school district in the dual
school system of this West Tennessee City. This study investigated current perceptions of
elementary school principals regarding corporal punishment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to determine whether principals’ assessments and
perceptions of corporal punishment differ substantially. School enrollment was also
examined to determine whether it affects elementary school principals’ perceptions of
corporal punishment. Specifically, do principals who work in larger schools have
different perceptions than principals who work in smaller schools? The overall goal of
the study was to investigate whether there is a significant difference in the number of
office referrals of schools that employ corporal punishment and those that do not.
Research Questions
This study was organized around three primary research questions:
1. Do the demographics of elementary school principals influence the frequency
of their use or non-use of corporal punishment?
2. Is there a significant difference between elementary school principals’
perceptions of corporal punishment based on size of school in which they
work?
PR
EVIEW
19. 8
3. Is there a significant difference in the number of office referrals of schools that
employ corporal punishment and those that do not?
Significance of the Study
Check (2001) explained that discipline models and techniques to maintain order
in the classroom have been essential factors in the teaching profession since the
establishment of formal education. Check contended that teachers in present day are
confronted with problems far greater than in previous years. Novice teachers are entering
the profession at a more difficult time, and, according to Check, might find it difficult to
maintain order in the classroom. He also questioned whether experienced teachers can
subsist. Teaching has one of the highest dropout rates of all the professions with more
than half of all teachers quitting within the first five years of their teaching career
(Fredricks, 2001). Most cite students’ hostility and defiance as determining factors in
their decision to leave the profession.
The significance of this study resides in the unfortunate existence of declining
discipline in public schools. It is critically urgent that a credible system of maintaining
good order be devised, authorized, and implemented. Once corporal punishment was an
accepted form of discipline, but as more states and school systems ban its use,
educational policymakers and administrators must employ more accepted techniques and
models of discipline. This study will add to the body of literature regarding the
perceptions of principals relative to the impact of corporal punishment in elementary
schools.
PR
EVIEW
20. 9
Definition of Key Terms
Corporal punishment. “A discipline method in which a supervising adult
deliberately inflicts pain upon a child with a device such as a paddle, ruler, or strap, in
response to a child’s unacceptable behavior and/or inappropriate language” (American
Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1988).
Classroom management. The coordinated activities of a teacher including
participating in daily routines, special events, student discipline, and academic instruction
(Emmer, 2001).
Disruptive behavior. Student behavior that is counter-productive to the goals of
the teacher, school and class in terms of academic achievement (Ennis, 1996).
Safe and orderly schools. Schools where students and teachers feel safe and
where learning takes place in an atmosphere that is conducive for optimum teaching and
learning (Shanker, 1995).
Antisocial behavior. Recurrent violations of socially prescribed patterns of
behavior, usually involving aggression, vandalism, rule infractions, defiance of adult
authority, and violation of the social norms and mores of society (Mayer, 2001).
PR
EVIEW
21. 10
CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
School discipline has been a constant concern of both educators and the public.
Increasing rates of youth violence and disruptive behavior in our nation’s schools present
a major challenge to teachers, administrators, students, and their parents (Winbinger,
Katsiyannis, & Archwamety, 2000). For teachers, discipline problems pose serious
threats to their ability to teach. It is a source of stress and fear. For administrators,
handling frequent discipline problems consume time and resources needed for the
continuation of quality instruction. For students and parents, concerns range from the loss
of opportunity for academic achievement to physical harm. In an effort to understand the
scope and nature of school disciplinary problems and to identify recommendations for
best practices, current literature relevant to the study was reviewed. The review is divided
into five major sections. The first section explores past practices concerning discipline
and parental support. The second section identifies the causes of disciplinary problems
and its impact on achievement. The third section provides a discussion of the arguments
in favor of and against corporal punishment. The fourth section addresses legal
implications, and the fifth section investigates current research-based best practices in
discipline.
PR
EVIEW
22. 11
Past Practices in Discipline
Religious beliefs. Those who quote the bible to justify their use of physical
punishment on children may hold strong Anglo-Saxon Protestant values, according to
Richardson, Wilcox, and Dunne (1994). Historically, Anglo-Saxon literature depicts
children as victims who are often treated as property. Child abuse is an integral part of
the stories written by English novelist, Charles Dickens. The American practice of
corporal punishment is firmly rooted in the Anglo-Saxon colonial traditions. The right to
physically punish children in schools evolved from the position of “in loco parentis” or in
the place of the parent (Richardson et al., 1994). Several studies suggest that aspects of
fundamentalist and evangelical religions foster support for, and the use of corporal
punishment (i.e., Bartkowski & Wilcox, 2000; Danso, Hunsberger, & Pratt, 1997). A
large percentage of contemporary religious conservatives consider the Holy Bible to be
without error. They feel that it provides guidance to manage all human conduct, including
child rearing. Accordingly, parents are “devinely ordain” as authority figures and their
role should remain unchallenged (Bartkowski, 1995). Pastors in this tradition tend to
emphasize biblical passages lauding the child’s obedience to parental authority. Critics
charge that Conservative Protestants encourage, or at least tolerate the physical abuse of
children. Some Conservative Protestants even suggest that corporal punishment shapes
the nature of children (Capps, 1995). Many believe that all individuals are born
predisposed to willful conduct and rebellion against all forms of authority. They suggest
that these tendencies are dangerous and must be corrected immediately. In view of that,
children who grow up without proper discipline will not respect authority figures, and
PR
EVIEW
23. 12
they will be unable or unwilling to submit themselves to the will of God. Therefore, they
will not enjoy the fruits of spiritual salvation (Bartkowski, 1995). “Shaping the will” of
children becomes an important priority to conservative religious parents. Many cite
religious scripture to support their claim that corporal punishment is the biblically
ordained consequence to overt challenges to parental authority.
A historical perspective from the 1700’s described the value of corporal
punishment as follows:
In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their
will. Therefore, let a child from a year old be taught to fear the rod and to cry
softly. In order to do this, let him have nothing he cries for, absolutely nothing,
great or small; else you undo your own work. At all events, from that age, make
him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it. Let none
persuade you it is cruelty to do this; it is cruelty not to do it. Break his will now,
and his soul will live and he will probably bless you to all eternity. (Susanna
Wesley, as cited in Donohue, 1996, p. 4)
According to Donohue (1996), this passage was stated by Susanna Wesley in the early
1700’s. By the time Susanna Wesley died in 1742, she and her husband, Samuel, rector
of the Anglican Church, had 19 children, 9 of whom died in infancy and of the 10 who
survived, 2 became Methodist “saints.” John Wesley, who also became an Anglican
priest, was the principal founder of the Methodist Church, and Charles Wesley was
considered one of the greatest English hymn writers. Donohue concluded that if Mrs.
Wesley did employ this fierce pedagogy with her own gifted sons, it apparently left no
rancorous memories. When he was 77, John Wesley said that throughout his whole life,
he had not “felt lowness of spirits for one quarter of an hour” (p. 4). Donohue stated that
parents in the United States today who follow Mrs. Wesley’s “recipe” for rearing children
would be liable to arrest for child abuse.
PR
EVIEW
24. 13
Donohue (1996) asserted that some Evangelical parents still cite Proverbs 12:24
“The man who fails to use the rod hates his son,” as a biblical warrant for tough love. He
further stated that in the 19th
Century, American public school teachers employed
corporal punishment whenever they felt so disposed. Bergman (2004) added that children
at that time would not have considered complaining to their parents. He further stated that
children would not have thought about challenging a teacher’s actions because parents
communicated to them that the teacher was the boss, and they had to follow the boss’s
rules. At one time in history, parents held schools in such high esteem that children knew
if they were punished at school, they would be punished more severely when they arrived
at home (Mason, 2005).
Equally supportive of corporal punishment is a conviction based on moral
authority by Danso et al. (1997). They conducted two studies in 1997 to assess how
religious beliefs and endorsement of right-wing authoritarian attitudes linked to the kinds
of goals parents establish for their children and their approval of corporal punishment. A
seven-page questionnaire was mailed to 360 second-year undergraduate students in a
northern university. Two hundred-fifteen responses were received from 148 females and
67 males. Questionnaires with missing data reduced the number to 204. The age of the
participants ranged from 18 to 22 years with a mean age of 19.69. Of the 204 participants
in the first survey, Danso et al. found that those who considered themselves
fundamentalist Christians put greater emphasis on obedience, and had greater approval of
the use of corporal punishment in child rearing. In the second study, Danso et al.
replicated the first study but used parents instead of college students. Students from a
PR
EVIEW
