WI corporal punishment retained in US public schools?

As a formal school teacher I would like to say that the studies finding that corporal punishment does more damage are complete bullshit!!! Most american public schools have become complete disasters because the kids know that they will not face any relevant consequences for bad actions. The current time outs are have NO effect at all, in fact for some incurring the time out type of punishment is a point of honor.

I agree with this 100%. I grew up in the period when this was still allowed and there were far fewer problems then we have now. I also taught school when we weren't allowed to touch the students in any way shape or form for any reason. When the kids know this, they know THEY have the upper hand. This wasn't in California or some other bastion of American liberalism, it was in Nebraska.

Their is another problem too though that must be addressed. Parents who think their children can do no wrong. My dad always told me when I went to school if I ever got in trouble at school, I'd get it twice as bad when I got home. Fortunately, I didn't have to put him to the test often. Today, if a kid gets in trouble at school, the parents hire a lawyer.
 
Getting away from what effects corporal punishment has, why was it abolished in the first place?
Many reasons exist beyond the studies that concluded corporal punishment was harmful.

First, there was little evidence corporal punishment was effective. After all, if you are going to do something, you need not show it is harmful, all you need to do is show it is effective.

Second, there were questions as to its application and to due--i.e., was the punishment being applied in a rational fashion.

Third, questions of liability. Most teachers and other school officials were trained in how to <strike>torture</strike> apply corporal punishment children safely. Children were injured.

Fourth, arising from third, school districts faced liability for injuring or allegedly injuring children. Some of these suits were frivolous but some were not, as some children suffered disproportionate or even severe injuries.

Fifth, many parents objected to teachers striking teachers. Many parents viewed schools beating their children as the state being overly intrusive in family matters.

Sixth, in general public opinion turned against corporal punishment. While this trend was not overwhelming, combined with other factors, this was yet another reason.

Just consider the legal basis for corporal punishment. Why should a school official be able to commit an assault and battery against a child--particularly with no judicial procedure? We would not allow such a process against an adult, so why would allow it against a child, someone who is far less able than an adult to defend his or her position? Children simply do not waive their rights due to their age.

That said, I am old enough to have seen and experienced corporal punishment first hand. I am large man, 195 cm tall and over 100 kgs, and I was a large child. The few swats I endured were of no consequence to me physically or emotionally. Even as a child, though, I found it repugnant because corporal punishment was applied unfairly. I repeatedly witnessed it applied inappropriately by bullying and/or frustrated teachers, often on students not guilty of the accused transgressions. I found that teachers that had to resort to it did so because they lacked skills to do anything else.

Call me wet or a bleeding heart, but I just think hitting children accomplishes little.
 
Last edited:
As someone who experienced it enough at home (Including times FOR not meeting standards at school), I can say that it did little to change me. I've come to appreciate society's standards less through fear of force than through desire to help people. The physical force applied by my parents didn't change any academic problems I had.
As for my school, I'd safely say that, if corporal punishment was used more, I'd have a FAR lower opinion of my teachers than I do now. (I have a high opinion of most of them.)
 
Interesting discussion, but no one's figured out how to retain corporal punishment yet. I'll modify the OP to 1970 if that makes the task a little easier. Now, answer the OP. :)
 
I have it--science demonstrates that beating children is good for them, as well as fun for adults.:D

Interesting discussion, but no one's figured out how to retain corporal punishment yet. I'll modify the OP to 1970 if that makes the task a little easier. Now, answer the OP. :)
 
Ah that's because that's an example of doing it wrong. Here in Singapore, schools have the option of retaining corporal punishment and as a trainee teacher I taught in a school much like the one you describe where caning just make the boys more defiant and rebellious. They were doing it wrong, just like your school.

You don't use it as a common punishment. If it's commonly dealt out then, as you say, collecting the most strokes turns into a contest of who's got the biggest balls. Caning is your nuclear option and should be used as such. Caning is used to humiliate a student and instill fear in the rest. Caning is your signal that the school authorities no longer cares about rehabilitation in this individual case and simply wishes to extract obedience through pain. It is not pleasant, it's not nice and it's not supposed to be.

Essentially you use caning for the most heinous of crimes, infractions that would receive something just short of expulsion- in cases of expulsion a caning should be administered before expulsion to make sure the (former) student knows that going against authority results in pain.

I should elaborate

A few more points

-Corporal punishment should never be carried out by random teachers. A discipline master should be appointed who holds power of corporal punishment upon a recommendation from a teacher supported by an executive decision by the principal. This makes sure the punishment is not seen as arbitrary or a spur of the moment anger reaction from a pissed off teacher.

-Corporal punishment should not be carried out in private. When I was a student (at this same school I was a trainee at, before discipline went downhill) canings were public. At assembly, the discipline master and the student would be paraded in front of the school. The student would wear a pad over his kidneys and bend over to receive his stroke(s) on his clothed buttocks. This takes away the element of coolness and makes sure it's a humiliating punishment which places the transgressor in a vulnerable position.

A few more thoughts to come. Please note that I now teach in a civilised junior college where corporal punishment is never ever carried out and I feel bad when I growl at students because I'm actually a softie. It's because of this that I suffered when I trained at that undisciplined secondary school where I was an old boy.
 
Corporal Punishment makes kids more aggressive and violent? I wonder if the self-proclaimed experts who do these studies take into account that ours is a generally aggressive and violent species to begin with. The paddle or switch might just be enough to bestow a little order on the youth so they can grow up to be lawful evil instead of chaotic evil. These studies are almost as bad as the ones about violent video games. News flash: the Romans didn't go around crucifying people because they played too much Doom.
 
According to the current psychological studies:

A population that is on average more aggressive and more rebellious; a greater degree of child abuse; children who are, on average, worse-behaved.


Cause or effect?

Was the population more aggressive (if indeed it was) due to corporal punishment, or did it go along with corporal punishment because it was more aggressive?
 
Corporal Punishment makes kids more aggressive and violent? I wonder if the self-proclaimed experts who do these studies take into account that ours is a generally aggressive and violent species to begin with. The paddle or switch might just be enough to bestow a little order on the youth so they can grow up to be lawful evil instead of chaotic evil. These studies are almost as bad as the ones about violent video games. News flash: the Romans didn't go around crucifying people because they played too much Doom.

I sometimes think the obsession with things that "make" people violent (or scapegoating "psychopaths" and "sociopaths" as the primary doers of violence) is people being in denial of that fact.
 
Last edited:
Cause or effect?

Was the population more aggressive (if indeed it was) due to corporal punishment, or did it go along with corporal punishment because it was more aggressive?

Back in the day, people were into bear-baiting and bull-baiting for kicks, so it wouldn't surprise me if the population as a whole was more aggressive.
 
Look at the kids society these days, was it more or less disciplined than before? I highly doubt it was more disciplined.
 
Cause or effect?

Was the population more aggressive (if indeed it was) due to corporal punishment, or did it go along with corporal punishment because it was more aggressive?

Effect. Apparently teaching kids that dominance should be asserted through force has its price.

Still not sure if there is any way for corporal punishment to survive in US short of a complete cultural overhaul.
 
Effect. Apparently teaching kids that dominance should be asserted through force has its price.

That's teaching reality, because that's what the government is.

(Lest the "in a democracy, we are the government" theorists show up, unless you've got a government job, you're not part of the government, you're part of the electorate.)

Flocc described it quite well--pain is the price of disobedience. Police use physical violence all the time to subdue suspects, and there are few who dispute their right to do so.
 
That's teaching reality, because that's what the government is.

(Lest the "in a democracy, we are the government" theorists show up, unless you've got a government job, you're not part of the government, you're part of the electorate.)

Flocc described it quite well--pain is the price of disobedience. Police use physical violence all the time to subdue suspects, and there are few who dispute their right to do so.

The government is one thing. However, corporal punishment tends to lead to more kids growing up to use violence to assert authority on a personal level. After all, if their authority figures hit them, why shouldn't they respond in kind?
 
This is why I'm skeptical of a lot of the "corporal punishment makes bad kids" studies is because they don't specify WHY these things happen.

The studies I've seen also don't really control very well for the fact that spanking is declasse in America so parents who spank are more likely to be less educated, less intelligent, lower status, less well-off,etc., and presumably this also has an effect. Correlation != causation.
 
The government is one thing. However, corporal punishment tends to lead to more kids growing up to use violence to assert authority on a personal level. After all, if their authority figures hit them, why shouldn't they respond in kind?

This is a just-so story that proves nothing. The same logic could be used to say that putting criminals in jail only teaches them to kidnap people.

On topic, the POD for this one is hard. Not spanking kids is part of a whole constellation of societal evolution that doesn't look very contingent from where I sit. Perhaps you could get the Supreme Court to not constitutionalize school discipline decisions (very doable, IMHO) and that would make some difference, but not a huge amount.

Probably what you need is some POD aways back that decides that jail and juvenile detention is actually not very effective at rehabilitation and that retains caning or some other form of physical punishment for young or minor offenders. If the criminal justice system retains a physical punishment option, you are more likely to see the schools keep it around as an in extremis option also. Though I think the criminal justice physical punishment is likely more consequential than school physical punishment is.
 
As a formal school teacher I would like to say that the studies finding that corporal punishment does more damage are complete bullshit!!! Most american public schools have become complete disasters because the kids know that they will not face any relevant consequences for bad actions. The current time outs are have NO effect at all, in fact for some incurring the time out type of punishment is a point of honor.

I taught a year of "alternative ed" and my wife teaches elementary school in an "under-performing" district, and I have to AGREE with everything said above. Additionally, I have talked to people from places like South Korea where they still have corporal punishment (or at least did in the 1990s) and they all agree that the fear of the teacher saying "go to the office" is very compelling there and the teachers have an easier time. Well regulated corporal punishment is the way to go I believe.
 
The government is one thing. However, corporal punishment tends to lead to more kids growing up to use violence to assert authority on a personal level. After all, if their authority figures hit them, why shouldn't they respond in kind?

That's why you depersonalise it. Make it into an administrative process- a teacher can send a child to the principal/discipline master. These figures must agree that caning is an appropriate response and it is then carried out in full view of the society (i.e. the school). The message is that sometimes wrongdoing can have painful consequences, just like in life. As I've said before, caning is the nuclear option- it shouldn't be used casually and it's never the specific teacher who makes the decision to cane.

The cop may arrest you but he doesn't decide your sentence. Same principle.
 
Top