INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material submitted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or “ target” for pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is “Missing Page(s)” . If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the Film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th at should n o t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed, a definite method o f “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Departm ent. 5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. University Microfilms International 300 N. Z eeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8303788 Gonick, Alan M artin A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SELECTED FACTORS ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES O F EDUCATORS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Michigan Stale University University Microfilms international P h.D . 300 N. Zecb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 1982 A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SELECTED FACTORS ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES OF EDUCATORS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By Alan Gonick A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Education 1982 ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF SELECTED FACTORS ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES OF EDUCATORS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By Alan Gonick Research has shown chat physical punishment increases aggression and has suggested its receipt during childhood is a factor that influences corporal punishment attitudes and practices of adults. The purpose of this study was to examine: I) the relationship between educators ' attitude toward corporal punishment in school and the physical punishment they experienced as children; 2) the relationship between educators' corporal punishment practices and the physical punishment they experienced as children; and 3) the influence of other selected factors on educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices. Fifteen hundred Michigan educators were surveyed on their corporal punishment attitudes and practices and on eleven background factors. The significance of relationships was tested by using both the chi square and one-way analysis of variance. The strength of these relationships was determined by using the correlation ratio squared. The results indicated that significantly more educators who received corporal punishment as children favored and used corporal punishment in school than educators who did not receive it as children, with one exception. The exception was educators who received corporal punishment at school as teenagers. These educators did not differ Alan Gonick significantly in their attitude toward corporal punishment from educators who did not receive corporal punishment at school as teenagers. Significantly more educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children favored and used corporal punishment in school than those who did not observe it. These relationships were not significant for educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children. Educators who favored corporal punishment in school were typically males, teachers, younger educators, teachers of shop, physical education or coaches and those who use it on their own children. Educators who used corporal punishment in school were typically males, principals and those who use it on their own children. The strength of the associations found in this study was weak. However, this finding is not surprising given the considerable time separation between childhood exposure to corporal punishment and adult corporal punishment attitudes and practices. Based on the study's results, implications for decreasing and abolishing the use of corporal punishment in schools were suggested. Recommendations for future research were also discussed. Copyright by ALAN MARTIN GONICK 1982 This dissertation is dedicated to Harry ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Louis Romano, who chaired my committee, for the help and encouragement he has provided throughout this project. My appreciation to him extends beyond the dissertation itself, for over the years his influence as teacher and advisor has been very important to me. I also want to thank Professors Lawrence Borosage, John Suehr, and M. Ray Denny, the other members of my committee for their kind assistance and very thoughtful advice. X am indebted to many organizations and individuals for their moral, technical and material assistance. I number among those who gave assistance the National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools, the Michigan Department of Education, the Michigan State University Department of Education and its Office of Research Consultation, Donna Swift, Darcy Woodard, Marilyn Walker, Dr. Ronald Goldman, Dr. Fred Ignatovich and others too numerous to name. Last, I thank my wife, Marie, and my son, Aaron. Their loving support enabled me to undertake this study and their encouragement enabled me to see it through to its completion. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER I PAGE INTRODUCTION.... ....................... I ................................... I The Problem. Purpose of the Study............................. 8 Hypotheses........................................ 8 Limitations....................................... 9 Definition of Terms.............................. 10 An Overview of the Study......................... 11 II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE.............................. The History of Corporal Punishment .............. Corporal punishment in anceint times....... Corporal punishment an American tradition.................................. The Law and Corporal Punishment.................. Legal foundations of corporal punishment................................ Laws governing the use of corporal punishment................................ The Prevalence of Corporal Punishment........... The Case For Corporal Punishment.............. The Case Against Corporal Punishment...... Punishment and Aggression........................ Summary........................................... III 13 13 13 16 22 22 30 34 37 46 63 73 DESIGN OF THE STUDY.................................... 79 The sample....................................... 79 The questionnaire................................ 79 Questionnaire administrationprocedures............ 82 Hypotheses......................................... 83 Analysis of data.................................. 86 Summary..................................... 88 iv PAGE CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA...................... SECTION SECTION I: II: SECTION H I : SECTION V IV: 89 DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE........... 89 RESULTS OF COMPARING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND MAILINGS......... 103 ANAYLSIS OF ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES.............. 106 STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES.......................... 143 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS............. 146 Summary........................................... 146 Conclusions and Implications..................... 151 Recommendations for Future Research............. 157 APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE......................................... 159 APPENDIX B. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES AND EACH BACKGROUND FACTOR STUDIED........................ 169 BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................... 179 v LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 PAGE RESPONDANTS' ATTITUDE TOWARD THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL.................................. 90 2 ATTITUDE INDEX............................................ 91 3 RESPONDANTS1 USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL....... 92 4 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS.................................... 94 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL........... 95 RESPONDANTS' CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL........... 96 7 RESPONDANTS' SEX CHARACTERISTICS...................... 97 8 RESPONDANTS' AGE CHARACTERISTICS...................... 97 9 RESPONDANTS'MARITAL CHARACTERISTICS...................... 98 10 LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE............................ 99 11 POSITION OF RESPONDANTS.................................. 99 12 SIZE OF SCHOOL RESPONDANTS WORK I N ....................... 100 13 LEVEL OF RESPONDANTS' MAJOR TEACHINGASSIGNMENT.......... 101 14 RESPONDANTS1CURRENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT.................. 102 15 RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON HIS/HER OWN CHILD (CHILDREN).................................. 103 RETURNS FROM FIRST MAILING PLUS FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD AND SECOND MAILING IN RELATION TO RESPONDANTS* ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL................................................ 104 5 6 16 vl PAGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 RETURNS FROM FIRST MAILING PLUS FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD AND SECOND MAILING IN RELATION TO RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............... 105 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL.............................................. 107 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUTE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL................................... 108 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL........................... 109 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL........... 110 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL.................. 112 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL.................. 113 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL........... 115 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL.............................................. 116 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL................................. 117 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL........................... 118 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL........................................... 120 vii TABLE 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 PAGE RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL................................... 121 RESPONDANTS' SEX CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................ 123 RESPONDANTS' AGE CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................ 124 RESPONDANTS' MARITAL STATUS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................... 123 RESPONDANTS' LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL...................... 126 RESPONDANTS' POSITION IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENTIN SCHOOL......... 127 SIZE OF SCHOOL RESPONDANTS WORK IN IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................ 128 LEVEL OF RESPONDANTS' MAJOR TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL...................... 129 AREA OF RESPONDANTS' CURRENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL...................... 130 RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON THEIR OWN CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL.................................... 131 RESPONDANTS' SEX CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL................ 133 RESPONDANTS' AGE CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL................ 134 RESPONDANTS' MARITAL STATUS IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL................... 135 RESPONDANTS' LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................ 136 RESPONDANTS' POSITION IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL................... 137 f 42 43 viii TABLE 44 45 46 47 48 49 PAGE SIZE OF SCHOOL RESPONDANTS'WORK IN IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT INSCHOOL.......... 138 LEVEL OF RESPONDANTS' MAJOR TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................ 139 AREA OF RESPONDANTS' CURRENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL............................................ 140 RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON THEIR OWN CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL............................................... 141 STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES................. 144 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES AND EACH BACKGROUND FACTORSTUDIED........ 169 ix CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The Problem The use of corporal punishment as a form of discipline has been a controversial issue in American education for more than a hundred years. A great deal of writing on educational and psychological issues per­ taining to corporal punishment presently exists that generally opposes its use. Most opponents of corporal punishment contend corporal punishment in the schools is ineffective in providing lasting changes in behavior and has the potential of producing a number of undesirable side-effects such as aggression. A common defense of corporal punishment is that it is used only rarely, and then only with thoughtful discretion.* Research indicates the use of corporal punishment to be much more extensive than many people believe. One national study found that corporal punishment was applied in seventy-four percent of the school districts that were *Adah Maurer, All In The Name Of The 'Last Resort* (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 43. 9 Irwin Hyman, Ellen McDowell, and Barbara Raines, Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 1. 1 2 polled. 1 Dallas, Texas, recorded over 24,000 paddlings in 1972, 2 and during a two-month period of the same year, the Houston Public Schools reported 8,279 paddlings. 3 Many cases exist in which little discretion can be evidenced from the manner and degree in which physical pain was inflicted. In fact, there has been a number of reports of considerable bodily harm resulting from corporal punishment. A child in Florida suffered an oozing hematoma as a result of being paddled.^ An Iowa boy was permanently disabled as a result of having his face slammed down onto his desk,^ and a Wisconsin boy had his eardrum punctured as a result of being thrown against a wall.^ Despite a great deal of theoretical and related research evidence contraindicating the use of corporal punishment in the schools, currently no known hard data exists to support its elimination. To date, research on corporal punishment has been limited and has primarily involved surveys of incidence and ^■"Corporal Punishment OK if used sparingly: School Administrators opinion poll," Nations Schools, 87 (May, 1971), p. 39. ^"It's time to hang up the hickory stick," Nations Schools. 90 (November, 1972), p. 9. q E. Elardo, "Implementing Behavior Modification Procedures in an Elementary School: Problems and Issues," quoted in Hyman et a l , Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools; An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues, p . 1. ^M. Nussbaura, L. Hilmer, and R. Precap, "Brief of the National Education Association as Amicus Curial in Support of Petitioners," quoted in Hyman et a l , Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues, p . 1. ^Oskaloosa Herald (Iowa), 23 October, 1976, quoted in Maurer, All In The Name Of The 'Last Resort, p. 45. ^Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Leader-Telegram, 20 November, 1976, quoted in Maurer, All In The Name Of The 'Last Resort, p. 45. 3 attitudes. Research on punishment, to include laboratory studies with animals and applied studies with humans, has been extensive. Since corporal punishment in the schools is a form of punishment, findings from punishment investigations can contribute to our understanding of corporal punishment. Bongiovanni, of the National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools, has conducted an extensive review of punishment research during the past ten years. Bongiovanni concludes: The implication for school personnel is that the use of corporal punishment may provide a living model of aggression which may be imitated by the classroom children. Such a model may provide a problem solving method which can be utilized by the child in various settings. In addition, by visibly punishing a child in the presence of others, the other children may become fearful and anxious. Such conditions are not conducive to socialization or learning. The available research on punishment, when applied to schools, suggests that it is ineffective in producing durable behavior change, is potentially harmful to students and personnel, and is highly impractical in the light of the controls necessary for maximal effective­ ness. The maximal effectiveness of corporal punishment can only be achieved by close adherence to the basic principals and factors which have been shown to in­ fluence its ultimate effectiveness as a behavior reducing method. In light of the role of school personnel in education, and the welfare for the student, corporal punishment appears to be impractical, t£me consuming, and contrary to the goals of education. A number of field studies indicate that severe parental punishment is a precursor of aggression in humans. Eron, Walder, and Lefkowitz ^Hyman et al., Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues, p. 9. 2Anthony F. Bongiovanni, A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 40. 4 found that the higher the intensity of punishment at home, the higher the level of aggression exhibited by the child, as rated by his own peers.^ Sears, Maccoby, and Levin found that mothers who severely punished aggressive behavior, had more aggressive children than mothers who lightly punished aggression. 2 Climent, Rollins, and Plutchick investigating medical and psychiatric variables related to violent behavior, found five non-medical variables related to violence, one of which was severe parental punishment. 3 Studies of antecedents of delinquent behavior support the notion that violence breeds violence. Button found a disproportionate number of juvenile delinquents were the recipients of severe parental punishment during their developmental years. The thesis of the above research, as stated by Button, was "violence begets violence."^ Welsh has developed a developmental theory of juvenile delinquency that he refers to as his "belt theory of juvenile delinquency." Welsh states, "I was astounded to find that the recidivist male delinquent who had never been exposed to belt, board, extension cord, or fist, was virtually non-existent."^ ^Leonard Eron, Leopold Walder and Monroe Lefkowitz, Learning of Aggression in Children (Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971), p. 91. ^Robert R. Sears, Eleanor E. Maccoby and Harry Levin, Patterns of Child Rearing (New York: Harper, 1957), p. 262. ^Carlos E. Climent, Ann Rollins, Frank R. Ervin and Robert Plutchik, "Epidemiological Studies of Woman Prisoners, I: Medical and Psychiatric Variables Related to Violent Behavior," American Journal of Psychiatry, 130 (September, 1973), p. 987. ^Alan Button, "Some Antecedents of Felonious and Delinquent Behavior," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11 (Fall, 1973), p. 35. ^Ralph Welsh, "Severe Parental Punishment and Delinquency: A Developmental Theory," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (Spring, 1976), p. 17. 5 Research on disciplinary practices of different cultures show a strong relationship between a culture's childhood disciplinary practices and the level of aggression in the particular culture. Whiting has shown that cultures with a high crime rate invariably use corporal punishment as their chief method of socialization, but in cultures with a low crime rate, corporal punishment is de­ emphasized. ^ Sollenberger^ and Porteus^ report two cultures that are practically crime free, both of which are virtually free of severe parental punishment. Previously cited research has shown physical punishment in­ creases aggression. The use of physical aggression in punishing children teaches them, through imitation, that it is appropriate to use physical force in the future to control the behavior of others. These findings suggest the receipt of physical punishment during childhood may be a factor that influences the corporal punishment practices and attitudes of adults. It is possible that educators who use or advocate the use of corporal punishment do so simply because they themselves were corporally punished as children. A number of other factors appear to be related to educators' practices or attitudes regarding corporal punishment. ■'‘Beatrice Whiting, (ed.). Six Cultures (New York: Roberts' study Wilery, 1963), p. 7. ^Richard T. Sollenberger, "Chinese-American Child Rearing Practices and Juvenile Delinquency," Journal of Social Psychology, Ik (February, 1968), p. 17. ^S. D. Porteus, Annual report, the Juvenile Court, Honolulu. Quoted in R. Welsh, "Severe Parental Punishment and Delinquency: A Developmental Theory," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (Spring, 1976), p. 17. 6 of corporal punishment in Michigan Middle Schools found a higher percentage of principals in small schools (less than five hundred students) paddle students than principals in schools with five hundred and one, or more, students.* This study also found a higher percentage of younger principals (age thirty-five or less) paddle students than principals over age thirty-five. 2 Reardon and Reynolds' study of corporal punishment in Pennsylvannia found more male teachers and principals favor corporal punishment than their female counterparts. 3 This study also found differences in corporal punishment attitudes of principals to be related to their years of teaching experience, A greater number of principals with seven or more years of teaching experience favored the use of corporal punishment than principals with fewer years of teaching experience.4 Thomas's study of attitudes toward corporal punishment found attitudes of teachers to be related to the level and area at which they work, and to their marital C status. Elementary and Senior High teachers were less in favor of using corporal punishment than Junior High teachers. Attitudes of special area teachers (counselors, nurses, etc...) were in general more opposed to the use of corporal punishment than Elementary, *Robert Roberts, "The Use of Paddling in Michigan Middle Schools," (Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1976), p. 16. 2Ibid., p. 26. ^Francis Reardon and Robert Reynolds, Corporal Punishment in Pennsylvannia (Department of Education, Division of Research, Bureau of Information Systems, November, 1975), p. 28. 4Ibid., p. 30. ^Bruce Thomas, "A Study of the Attitudes of Educators Relative to the Use and Value of Corporal Punishment," (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburg: 1973), pp. 49-50. 7 Junior High, or Senior High teachers. Single teachers were more opposed to the use of corporal punishment than married or divorced teachers. Whether or not educators use corporal punishment on their own children is another factor that would likely be related to their use of corporal punishment in the public schools. The position educators (i.e., teachers or principals) hold would also likely influence their corporal punishment attitudes or practices as a result of differences in training and responsibilities associated with these positions. What relationship exists between educators who use or advocate the use of corporal punishment in the public schools and the physical punishment they sustained as children? Do educators differ significantly in their corporal punishment practices or attitudes on the basis of such factors as their marital status, sex, age, level and area in which they work, years of teaching experience, role, size of school they work in, and practice of corporal punishment on their own children? Clearly, a need exists for research on corporal punishment that is designed to answer these questions. This investigation will obtain information on factors that influence educators1 corporal punishment attitudes and practices. This study should contribute to the understanding of corporal punishment and its dynamics. This study should also help make decisions regarding the use of corporal punishment that are beneficial to children, and the learning environment. 8 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study is to investigate: l)the relationship between educators' corporal punishment attitudes and the physical punishment they experienced as children; 2)the relationship between educators' corporal punishment practices and the physical punishment they experienced as children; and 3)the influence of other selected factors on educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices. Hypotheses Hypothesis X : A positive relationship exists between educators' attitudes regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis II: A positive relationship exists between educators' attitudes regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis III: A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis IV: A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis V : Educators who favor the use of corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who oppose the use of corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 9 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6. Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8. Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Hypothesis V I : Educators who use corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who do not use corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6. Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8. Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Limitations This study will be limited to the characteristics of the educators being studied. Further limitations will exist as a result of the following: 1. The respondants* ability to accurately recall the amount of corporal punishment they experienced during their childhood. 2. The degree of frankness and sincerity of responses to the instruments administered. 10 3. The type of students with which the educator is currently working. 4. Current policies, procedures, and regulations, both state and local presently in existence. Definition of Terms Corporal Punishment A form of discipline characterized by the use of physical force such as paddling or spanking. Educators' Attitudes Actual feelings toward the use of corporal punishment. Imitative Learning "Imitation is a process by which matched or similar acts are evoked in two people, and connected to appropriate cues."*- "Imitative learning can be clearly demonstrated if a subject performs sufficiently novel patterns of responses which are unlikely to occur inde­ pendently of the observations of the behavior of a model, and if a subject reproduces these behaviors in substantially identical form. Public Schools 2 Public Schools refers to Michigan public, elemen­ tary, and secondary schools in school districts which maintain grades of kindergarten through twelvth grade, or one to twelvth grade. Any school which receives full support of its program from state or federal sources will be excluded. *N. E. Miller and J. Dollard, Social learning and Imitation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941), p. 10. ^Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A. Ross, "Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (1961), p. 576. 11 Punishment "The presentation of an averslve stimulus contingent upon a response. School District A school district is a legal entity created by the Michigan State Legislature for the purpose of operating and maintaining public education within the boundaries established by law. Elementary School Educatorn^-A teacher or principal employed in a Michigan Public Elementary School and listed as such in the Michigan Department of Education 1978-79 professional register. Middle School Educator A teacher or principal employed in a Michigan Public Middle School and listed as such in the Michigan Department of Education 1978-79 professional register. Junior High School Educator A teacher or principal employed in a Michigan Public Junior High School and listed as such in the Michigan Department of Education 1978-79 professional register. An Overview of the Study Chapter II contains a review of the pertinent literature and addresses; the history; legality and prevalence of corporal punishment; the case for and against the use of corporal punishment; and related research findings on punishment and aggression. A description of the design of this study is given in Chapter III which covers the research sample, the development and administration of the survey instrument, the hypotheses, and the data analysis methods. In Chapter IV the results of this study are presented and analyzed to determine the relationships between each of the factors that are 1C. Myers, Punishment: Problems in definition (Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association's Annual Meeting (60th), Washington, D.C., March - April, 1975), p. 4. 12 investigated and the corporal punishment attitudes and practices of educators. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, conclusions, a discussion of the findings and implications for future research. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE The History of Corporal Punishment The use of corporal punishment in the public schools represents a traditional practice which has, for some time, remained a subject of increasing contraversy. A historical overview of corporal punishment will help to explain how violence, in the form of inflicting physical pain on children, has become a widely used disciplinary approach in today's public schools. Corporal punishment in ancient times Since the beginning of recorded history, corporal punishment has been a universally popular form of chastisement. The Ancient Egyptians used the rod or strap as a synonym for instruction. Throth, the god of learning, supposedly placed the rod on earth to educate the stubborn. The Egyptians further justified the use of severe physical punishment on the grounds that people must be educated by the same methods that are used to train animals.^ The Hebrews also likened children to animals to be trained by physical blows. Their religious dogma justified and prescribed the *James Mulhern, A History of Education (New York: Company, 1959), p. 74. 13 The Ronald Press 14 use of barbaric punishments. Testament advised: To insure proper conduct, the Old "Chasten thy son while there is hope; and let not the soul spare for his crying," and "He that spareth the rod hateth the son; but he that loves him chastises him betimes." If all else failed, for the treatment of a stubborn and rebellious son, the book of Deuteronomy prescribed: "stone him to death 1" In ancient China, corporal punishment was practiced in every school, until Confucius put an end to it. The Chinese used a rod of split bamboo that cut the flesh causing terrible wounds.^ The Russians educated peasants and soldiers with a stick before they abolished corporal punishment. 2 In ancient Greece, schoolmasters regarded the rod as an indispensible instrument of correction. And in Rome, to hold out the hand for the cane was a Latin way of saying, "to study."^ The use of severe and often brutal corporal punishment in the schools of antiquity extended through medieval times. During the middle ages, the church dominated educational theory and practice. In accordance with the Christian doctrine of 'original sin1 children were believed to be inherently had to be beaten out of them. evil and possessed by the devil who Medieval schoolmasters did not hesitate to use severe physical punishment to drive the evil out of children. ^■George Ryley Scott, The History of Corporal Punishment (London: Torch Stream Books, 1949), p. 95. ^Wm. W. Cooper, Flagellation and the Flagellants. the Rod (London: William Reeves, 1910), p. 243. A History of % . I. Marrou, A History of Education in Antiquity (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956), p. 159. 4Ibid., p. 272. 15 In sixteenth century Europe,t the rod was considered such an important part of education that princes were provided whipping boys to be physically punished for the offenses committed by their royal masters.* Corporal punishment was so severe that occasionally death would result. In Scotland, for the murder of one of his students, a schoolmaster was sentenced to seven stripes and banishment from Scotland for life. 2 In Germany, children up to the ages of eighteen or twenty years were subjected to the rod. One German schoolmaster kept a record of the corporal punishment he inflicted during his fifty-one years of teaching. The totals were: Blows with a cane 911,527 Blows with a rod 124,010 Blows with a ruler Blows with the hand 20,989 136,715 Blows with a book 22,763 Blows over the mouth 10,235 Blows over the ears 7,905 Raps on the head 1,115,800 The same man had punished pupils 613 times by making them kneel on small triangles of wood. 3 Corporal punishment was not only used on boys. years ago, girls were regularly birched. Up to one hundred The birching (corporal ^Cooper, Flagellation and the Flagellants, p. 428. 2 Scott, The History of Corporal Punishment, p. 98. ■^Luella Cole, A History of Education (New York: Co., 1959), p. 447. Reinhart and 16 punishment) of girls was abandoned in the middle of the ninteenth century due to the growth of Victorian prudery.* Corporal punishment an American tradition During the colonial period, American education was, as in Europe, predominantly influenced by the church. Paul Nash in his article "Corporal Punishment in an Age of Violence," states the following about the Puritians and corporal punishment: In America, the spirit of Puritianism has been a continuing influence in this respect. Seventeenth century New England provided the archetypical example of the fruits of this spirit. Since adults were compelled to adhere to orthodoxy by the most rigorous and cruel repression, it is not surprising that children were punished in a variety of brutal ways. Faults and sins were smelled out with fanatical zeal. The Puritian was not interested in the cause of the wrongdoing and the possible reformation of the miscreant. His theological view of life as an unremitting struggle between God and the Devil, drove him to a concern only with the attribution of blame and the subsequent administration of punishment. It is important for us to examine our attitudes to see how far we retain the incrustations of this Puritian tradition.^ Thus, America embraced the age-old tradition of the rod as a necessary instrument of restraint upon sin and immorality, and as an aid to learning. One schoolhouse in Massachusetts, built around 1793, had embedded in the floor an ominous whipping post to which erring children were tied and whipped by their master in the presence of their classmates. A school in North Carolina, a century ago, enforced the following disciplinary code: *Scott, The History of Corporal Punishment, p. 104. 2 Paul Nash, "Corporal Punishment in an Age of Violence," Educational Theory (October, 1963), p. 296. ^John Manning, "Discipline in the Good Old Days," Phi Delta Kappan (December, 1959), p. 94. 17 For boys and girls playing together, four lashes; for falling to bow at the entrance of strangers, three lashes; for blotting copy book, two lashes; for scuffling, four lashes; for calling each other names, three lashes; and so o n .^ Disciplinary measures during the colonial period were also influenced by the character of the teachers. hired were untrained. Most of the teachers that were In many localities, the poverty of the times made it a common practice to secure indentured servants as teachers. Servants who were accustomed to being beaten by their masters, exercised their authority as teachers with a liberal application of the rod. Falk quotes Johnson in his book on old-time schools and school-books for a description of punishment in the eighteenth century: The ferule was the standard implement for reforming the erring pupil, but some masters used a ratton or a cowhide. Even a cat-o'-nine tails were not unknown. It was a time when young men were publicly whipped in colleges, and the severity of the treatment meted out to the pupils in the minor schools is not surprising. One New York master had a short ladder beside his desk, and when he called forth a culprit for punishment, the boy had to step on the ladder to receive his caning. It is related of a certain rustic schoolmaster that he kept a long birch rod with the butt-end resting on his chair, so that he could use it without raising. Another master would sit with his feet on the table and call -on all the boys to march around the table in single file. As they passed in front of him, he hit them each in turn with his ruler. In this way, though, some of the innocent may have suffered, he made sure that none of the guilty escaped. But not all the discipline in the old schools was muscular. Instances are recorded of an offender being ordered out to cut a small branch from a tree, and when he returned with it, the teacher squared and partially split the larger end and fitted the cleft on the culprits nose. Pinched and ridiculous, the boy was forced to stand in full sight of the school until the teacher relented. 1Ibid., p. 95. 2Arnold Falk, Corporal Punishment (New York: Press, 1941), p. 47. Columbia University 18 Corporal punishment remained a major disciplinary approach from the colonial period through the end of the ninteenth century. The results of a questionnaire that was sent to twenty Massachusetts school superintendents in 1900, revealed that corporal punishment was used in almost all of their schools.^ When objections were raised to the brutality of school discipline, church authorities accused those who raised the objections of attempting to discredit the "doctrine of original sin." In one instance for example, Horace Mann, editor of the "Common School Journal," and members of the Massachusetts Board of Education, were accused of being anti-religious and of trying to remove all religious Instruction from the school. Although Mann attacked the practice of indiscriminant and often brutal use of corporal punishment, he did not favor its abolishment from the schools. Horace Mann felt that teachers should have the authority to use corporal punishment in moderation, should other methods fail. Mann, however, did oppose the use of physical punishment as a means of obtaining absolute authority and unconditional subordination. In his attempt to obtain reform respecting the use of corporal punishment, Mann notes that in one school, to which he ascribed the motto, fear, force, and pain, 250 students received 328 separate floggings in one week.^ ^Morris Jones, "Legal Status of Corporal Punishment," California Journal of Adult Research (May, 1964), p. 142. ^Arnold Falk, Corporal Punishment, p. 67. 19 In the last half of the ninteenth century, growing opposition toward the use of corporal punishment, as a means of discipline, was noticeable in a number of areas. Editorial comment on the practice, controversies among educators, and the increase in the number of court cases and decisions reflecting a more human interpretation of the law, were indicative of the growing opposition.*-Progress in the educational thinking of the judiciary was evidenced in the 1853 case of Cooper v. Mr. Junkin. The Supreme Court of Indiana commented: The husband can no longer moderately chastise his wife, nor, according to more recent authorities, the master his servant or apprentice. Even the degrading cruelties of the naval service have been arrested. Why the person of the schoolboy should be less sacred in the eye of the law than that of the apprentice or the sailor is not easily explained.^ In practice, corporal punishment became less frequent and subject to greater limitations. An emerging trend to use corporal punishment as a last resort, the elimination of its use for girls, and the requirement that whenever corporal punishment was used, it must be recorded, reflected the change in sentiment toward this disciplinary practice. Further progress in limiting or abolishing corporal punishment during the ninteenth century is found in the report of the United States Commission of Education in 1900. This report indicates the abolishment of corporal punishment in Manhatton, Richmond, the Bronx, and Philadelphia. *~Ibid., p. 79. ^Ibid., p. 89. In Chicago, Baltimore, Cleveland, and St. Paul, 20 corporal punishment was virtually abolished through restricting its use to actual or threatened violence on the part of the student. In Syracuse, Toledo, and Providance, it was eliminated in grades above primary, and the state of New Jersey abolished corporal punishment from all of its schools.^ It must be noted that while the above represents a general trend toward abolishing corporal punishment, in actuality the rod remained a primary instrument of governing children in ninteenth century American schools. Falk summarizes this period as follows: Corporal punishment, however, remained a definite part of school procedure. That it remained so was due to the tacit consent of the majority, who were still rooted in the traditions exploded by the newer scientific attitude and completely out of harmony with the new social demands. Added to this was the inability of the teacher, whose intellectual and professional perspective did not reach very far, to conceive of orderly conduct on the part of pupils unless restrained by the easy availability of the rod as a disciplinary agency. While for the most part, corporal punishment was rooted in the tacit consent of the public, there also emerged from time to time, eloquent defenses of the use of the rod. Such defenses reiterated the authoritarian conception of society, the religious sanction of the use of the rod, and the conception of retributive justice as part of the divine plan. It is interesting to note that those who shaped the theory and practice of teaching through textbooks were, for the most part, committed to the use of the rod and defended it on the basis of the beliefs just indicated. Progress towards the elimination of corporal punishment was not due to the initiative of the teaching profession. It came rather as a result of a changed social situation and the pressure of groups outside the school. 1Ibid., p. 91. 2Ibld., p. 107. 21 By Che end of the ninteenth century, the practice of corporal punishment had been abolished in many countries. Corporal punishment was banned in Poland since 1783, in the Netherlands since 1850, in France since 1887, in Finland since 1890, and in Sweden since 1958. Other countries that have abolished corporal punishment include: Luxemburg, Austria, Denmark, Belgium, Cyprus, Japan, Ecuador, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Qatar, Mauritius, Norway, Israel, the Phlllipines, Portugel, and all Communist Block countries. In the United States, during the present century, opposition to the use of corporal punishment has increased considerably. Bernard Bard in his 1973 article, "The Shocking Facts About Corporal Punishment In The Schools," points out that over sixty groups are working to eliminate the practice of corporal punishment.* Some of the major groups include the National Education Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the American Orthropsychiatric Association, the Commission on Administrative Behavior Supportive of Human Rights of Phi Delta Kappa, and the American Psychological Association, to name a few. In spite of the growing opposition to corporal punishment in the schools, Its incidence has increased in the last twenty years. 2 An article which appeared in a Michigan newspaper on February 13, 1980, ^Bernard Bard, "The Shocking Facts About Corporal Punishment In The Schools," Parents' Magazine (February, 1973), p. 44. ^Walter G. Hapkiewics, Research on Corporal Punishment Effective­ ness Contributions and Limitations (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, 60th, Washington D.C., March - April, 1975), p. 6. 22 lends support to this conclusion. The title of the article is: "Union City Board Lifts Ban on Paddling."* The Law and Corporal Punishment Legal foundations of corporal punishment Fundamental legal principles governing many aspects of public school operation in the United States exists by virtue of the common law. The common law of a country is a body of legal principles which derive its authority from the customs of the people and the judgements of the courts. In the absence of statutory provisions, common law provides guidance to jurists in reaching decisions. The common law doctrine of "in loco parentis,” meaning in place of the parent, has traditionally provided American courts the legal basis for permitting the use of corporal punishment in the schools. Sir William Blackstone, an eighteenth century English jurist, is believed to have been the first to have applied this doctrine. Blackstone reasoned that when a private tutor contracts to teach the child of a landowner, he has the legal right to deal with an infractious child as the parent would in the same situation, including, the use of reasonable corporal punishment. 2 ^Battle Creek (Michigan) Enquirer and News, 13 February, 1980, p. B-8. ^Alan Reitman, Judith Follman, and Edward Ladd, Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools: The Use of Force in Controlling Student Behavior, (New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1972), p. 10. 23 Over the years, the use of corporal punishment in schools has generated considerable activity in American courts. Much of this activity has involved two major issues - the reasonableness of the punishment inflicted, and the constitutionality of corporal punishment in the public school. A case heard by the Supreme Court of Indiana, in 1888, assisted in establishing standards for judging the reasonableness of a punishment. In this case, a Circuit Court found a teacher guilty of assault and battery for whipping a student. The Supreme Court of Indiana indicated punishment should be neither cruel or excessive, should be in proportion "to the gravity of the offense and within the bounds of moderation." The Supreme Court felt the punishment that the teacher inflicted was neither cruel or excessive and reversed the Circuit Court's judgement. In doing so, the Supreme Court stated, "...when complaint is made, the calm and honest judgement of the teacher as to what the situation required should have weight as in the case of a parent under similar circumstances." Therefore, what a parent would do under similar circumstances is considered an important element in judging the reasonableness of a punishment.^ No precise rule has been established as to what is to be considered excessive or unreasonable punishment. The courts have stated that each case must depend on its own circumstances. In judging the reasonableness of punishment, the courts have taken into consideration a number of factors in addition to those previously ^Vanvactor v. State, 15 N.E. 341 (1888). 24 stated. These factors include the apparent motive and disposition of the offender,* the influence of his example and conduct on others, the sex, the age, size, and physical strength of the pupil that is punished, the punishment. 2 and the instrument used to inflict 3 A teacher who administers unreasonable corporal punishment can be held personally liable on civil and/or criminal charges of assault and battery. punishment inflicted However, the law presumes that any is necessary, reasonable, and proper and that the teacher who administers it is presumed innocent and to have done his duty.^1 Accordingly, the burden of proving that a punishment was unreasonable rests with the complaintant. Therefore, it is not surprising that most corporal punishment cases heard by Appellate Courts have been decided in favor of the teacher.^ Two examples serve to illustrate judicial decisions regarding the reasonableness of punishment inflicted. In Danenhoffer v. State, an eleven year old boy was whipped by a school superintendent, the appellant, for disobedience. The superintendent was prosecuted and found guilty of assault and battery. The Supreme Court of *Calway v. Williamson, 130 Conn. 575 (1944). ^Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 114 (1859). ^Vanvactor v. State, 15 N.E. 341 (1888). 4Ibid. c JEdmund Reuter, Jr., and Robert Hamilton, The Law of Public Education (New York: The Foundation Press, Inc., 1976), p. 557. 25 Indiana in reversing the judgement of the lower court indicated that the boy deserved the punishment and the superintendent had the right under the law to administer it. The Court stated, "...we do not think that the evidence shows that the boy was whipped by the appellant with that unreasonable severity which would or ought to subject him to punishment for assault and battery."* In Boyd v. State, a teacher beat an eighteen year old boy for using objectionable language. The punishment included striking the boy with a stick, striking him three times in the face with the fist, and hitting him several times over the head with the butt end of a switch. The teacher was tried and convicted of an assault and battery charge. The Court noted, "There was ample room for the inference of legal malice, in connection with n unreasonable and immoderate correction." The second major issue that has generated considerable judicial activity has been the constitutionality of corporal punishment in the public schools. There are two primary areas in which the constitu­ tionality of corporal punishment has been argued. One is based on the Eighth Amendment's prohibition against cruel and unusual punish­ ment. This argument considers the application of physical punishment to children to be cruel and unusual on several grounds. The most important of these being the contention that corporal punishment of children violates their democratic freedom and their dignity. 3 * *-Danenhoffer v. State, 69 Ind. 295 (1879). ^Boyd v. State, 7 So- 268 (1890). ^Reitman, Follman, and Ladd, Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools: The Use of Force in Controlling Student Behavior, p. 9. 26 The other argument is based on the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution which provide that no one shall be deprived life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law. "Implicit in these provisions is the right to bodily integrity, the violation of which must be interpreted as a deprivation of liberty. The preservation of physical integrity against illegal intrusion has well established legal precedents. It is the motivating concept behind our criminal law statutes dealing with assault, battery, and murder. These statutes provide that duly constituted authorities may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property only in accordance with due process of the law."^ By extention, this argument contends that the right of an educator to administer bodily punishment without due process constitutes a violation of the Federal Constitution's due process provisions. A review of some cases that involve constitutional Issues reveals agreement among the courts that corporal punishment in the schools does not violate the Federal Constitution. In Sims v. Board of Education, a craft teacher gave a student three blows for violating school rules after a template belonging to the school was found In his possession. The U.S. District Court of New Mexico ruled that neither due process, equal protection privileges, and immunities, free speech, or cruel and unusual punishment clauses of the Constitution invalidated the New Mexico School Board policy of administering corporal punishment to students. iIbid., p. 7. ^Sims v. Board of Education, 329 F. Supp. 678 (1971). 2 27 In Simms v, School District No. 1, a suit was brought against a teacher and school district for the use of physical force in removing a student from the classroom. The plaintiff, while being physically removed from the room for disruptive behavior, was shoved by the teacher into the classroom door. The above resulted in the plaintiff's arm going through the glass window resulting in injuries to his arm. The plaintiff brought action to recover from assault and battery. The plaintiff contended the use of physical force constituted corporal punishment which is forbidden by the Constitution, sound educational policy, Oregon statute and school district policy. The Court said that the common law rule authorizing corporal punishment had not been modified by the state statute or the school district policy. The Court held that no violation of state or federal prohibitions to cruel and unusual punishment had occurred. The Court ruled in favor of the school district and teacher.^ In Ingraham v. Wright, the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari on two questions regarding the use of corporal punishment in public schools: First, whether paddling school children to maintain discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and second, if paddling is con­ stitutionally permissable does the due process provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment require prior notice and an opportunity to be heard.^ ^•Simms v. School District No. 1, Oregon, App., 508P.2d.236 (1973). ^Ingraham v. Wright. 45 U.S.L.W. 4364 (April 9, 1977). 28 In this punishment suit, two teenage boys from Florida were spanked by school officials, so severely that they required medical attention. One was struck twenty times with a wooden paddle for disrupting the class. The paddling caused a hematoma which re­ quired medical treatment and kept the student out of school for eleven days. The other plaintiff was paddled on the arms for minor misdeeds causing him to loose the use of his arm for a week. In considering the Eighth Amendment question, the five judge majority held that the constitutional bar against cruel and unusual punishment was designed to protect only those convicted of crimes. "We adhere to this long standing limitation and hold that the Eighth Amendment does not apply to the paddling of children as a means of maintaining discipline in public schools,"^ wrote Justice Powell. The petitioners argued that the Eighth Amendment should be extended to ban corporal punishment in the public schools because it would make little sense if school children could be beaten without constitutional redress, while hardened criminals suffering beatings by their jailors, have a valid claim under the Eighth Amendment. Powell stated, we find this claim an "...inadequate basis for wrenching the Eighth Amendment from its historical context and extending it to traditional disciplinary practices in the public 1Ibid. 29 schools...the school child has little need for the protection of the Eighth Amendment... the openess of the public schools...affords significant safeguards against the kind of abuse from which the Eighth Amendment protects the prisoner. In delivering the minority opinion, Justice White said, "the Eighth Amendment places a flat prohibition against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment. This reflects a society judgement that there are some punishments that are so barbaric and Inhumane, that we will not permit them to be imposed on anyone, no matter how opprobrious the offense... therefore ...similar punishments should ...not be imposed on persons for less culpable acts, such as breaches of school discipline. Thus, if it is constitutionally impermissable to cut off someone's ear for the commission of murder, It must be unconstitutional to cut off a child's ear for being ty late to class." In ruling on the question of due process, the majority dismissed the need for procedural safeguards of prior notice and a formal hearing as burdensome and time consuming. Justice Powell stated, "Hearings - even informal hearings - require time, personnel and a diversion of attention from normal school pursuits." The court held that existing common law remedies provide sufficient safeguards in that children can always initiate civil or criminal action if they have been punished unnecessarily or excessively. 1Ibid. 2Ibld. 3Ibld. q 30 The minority objected to the dismissal of due process pro­ cedures prior to the infliction of corporal punishment. Justice White stated, "The infliction of physical pain Is final and irreparable; it cannot be undone in a subsequent proceeding. The logic of this theory would permit a state that punished speeding with a one day jail sentence to make a driver serve his sentence first without a trial and then sue to recover damages for wrongful imprisonment."* Laws governing the use of corporal punishment The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution empowers the states with the responsibility for education. Accordingly, statutory legislation and board of education policies are the primary sources of regulation for the operation of public schools. Federal intervention concerns only those areas of public education which address constitutionally protected rights. One such con­ stitutional issue is the administration of corporal punishment. To date, interpretation of the common law by the Federal courts has resulted in no constitutional barriers to the use of corporal punish­ ment. Therefore, states have been free to develop statutes concerning corporal punishment in their schools. Currently, most states have statutes that either explicitly or indirectly deal with corporal punishment. 1Ibid. A 1970 research bulletin 31 of the National Education Association (N.E.A.) had this to say about state corporal punishment statutes: About one-third of the states expressly provide by statute that one of the teachers1 duties is to maintain order and discipline among pupils. The N.E.A. concluded: While most states lack statutes that expressively extend to teachers the privilege of disciplining pupils by corporal punishment, indirect statutory restrictions or sanctions on corporal punishment may exist apart from the school laws. The restrictions to be noted are those in the laws forbidding cruelty to children. Such laws exist in virtually all states and under them the teacher would be liable if the physical chastisement used to correct a pupil's conduct is excessive or administered by a dangerous instrument, or in an improper manner. Also noteworthy is the recognition of the authority of the teacher to apply corporal punish­ ment in the penal codes of some states. This re­ cognition appears through the exclusion from the definition of the crime of assault and battery of the exercise by the teacher of force, reasonable in manner and moderate in degree, to restrain and correct a pupil.1 The statutes of forty-seven states either allow or endorse the use of corporal punishment. Only two states, Massachusetts and New Jersey, have statutes that specifically prohibit the use of corporal punishment. 2 The statute of Massachusetts reads, "The power of the school committee or of any teacher or other employee or agent of the school committee to maintain discipline upon school property shall not include the right to inflict corporal ^"Corporal Punishment and the Law," N.E.A. Research Bulletin, 43 (May, 1970), p. 47. ^Friedman and Hyman, An Analysis of the Legislation Regarding Corporal Punishment in the Schools (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 16. 32 punishment upon any p u p i l . T h e New Jersey statute reads, "No persons...shall Inflict or cause to be inflicted corporal punishment upon a p u p i l . . . M a i n e ' s statute is ambiguous and Maryland's statute limits the use of corporal punishment. However, due to contradictory by-laws in Maryland's statute, corporal punishment is left to local discretion. Notably, the municipal legislation in several cities in the United States also enjoins corporal punishment in public schools. Among these municipalities are Chicago, Baltimore, New York City, Philadelphia, and the District of Columbia. q In Michigan, School Code Act No. 269 of the Public Acts of 1955, as amended authorizes the use of corporal punishment in Michigan schools. This act reads as follows: Section 755. Any teacher or superintendent may use such physical force as may be necessary to take possession from any pupil of any dangerous weapon carried by him. Section 756. Any teacher or superintendent may use such physical force as is necessary on the person of any pupil for the purpose of maintaining proper discipline over the pupils in attendance at any school. Section 757. No teacher or superintendent shall be liable to any pupil, his parent or guardian in any civil action for the use of physical force on the person of any pupil for the purposes prescribed in Sections 755 and 756 o f this Act, as amended, except in case of gross abuse and disregard for the health and safety of the pupil. ^Massachusetts, C. 71, S. 37 G. ^New Jersey, 18A: 6 - 1 . ^Reitman, Follman, and Ladd, Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools: The Use of Force in Controlling Student Behavior, p. 32. 33 Twelve states make no mention of physical punishment of school children. A New Jersey Department of Education survey (1976) re­ veals that only one of these states, West Virginia, fails to practice corporal punishment. Thirty-two of the remaining thirty- three states explicitly authorize the use of corporal punishment. In the remaining state, Hawaii, permission to use corporal punish­ ment has been temporarily suspended pending investigation of an ambiguous statute.* A majority of the states grant authority to administrators and teachers to inflict physical punishment. Statutes in seven states, however, extend this authority to other employees, at times including non-certlfied employees such as bus drivers. Thirteen states do not designate who may inflict corporal punishment. Limitations on the authority appear in the legislation of some states. The most predominant restriction, found in ten state statutes, is that the punishment be "reasonable." Statutes in nine states provide for various other restrictions such as: approval of the principal, parent notification and/or approval, the presence of another person, administering of the punishment without "undue anger," and the absence of other students. Seventeen states permit physical punishment without any state legislated restrictions.3 The statutes of nineteen states specify those purposes for which physical discipline may be utilized; "maintenance of discipline" is the most commonly used rationale, found in fourteen of these states. ^Friedman and Hyman, An Analysis of the Legislation Regarding Corporal Punishment in the Schools, p. 16. ^Ibid., p. 16. ^ibid., p. 16, 2 34 Additionally, justifications for corporal punishment include: purposes of restraint, correction, promoting the welfare of the child, quelling misbehavior, and increasing obedience. Fourteen states fail to define what is and what is not a "proper" purpose for the use of corporal punishment.^ The Prevalence of Corporal Punishment In the absence of laws prohibiting corporal punishment, school boards can make whatever regulations they wish regarding its use. Falk’s early study of corporal punishment suggested only a small minority of school boards prohibit its use, and Nash in his article in Education Theory, believes this still to be true. Recent research indicates that the use of corporal punishment in the United States is extensive. One national survey of 100 school districts in 1976, found ninety percent of the large districts (over 10,000 students) and sixty-nine percent of the small districts (under 10,000), have used corporal punishment. This study also found regional differences in the use of corporal punishment. Regionally, the use of corporal punishment ranged from a high of 100% (18 districts) in the south to a low of 50% in both the north and east. In the west, 18% of the 21 districts reported administering corporal punishment,^ *Ibid., p . 16. ^Nash, "Corporal Punishment in an Age of Violence," p. 296. Richard Musemeche and Charles Sauls, "Policies and Attitudes on Corporal Punishment," Phi Delta Kappan (November, 1976), p. 283. 35 Another study analyzed survey data from 116 schools from the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Virginia, and Delaware. Of the 76,643 students enrolled in the schools surveyed, there were 4,335 incidents of corporal punishment; that is, one in every 17 students received corporal punishment. The authors note that this figure assumes that each incident of corporal punishment was applied to a different student. Therefore, the data do not take into account the number of corporal punishments that may have been administered to a single student. This study also found considerable differences in the use of corporal punishment in respect to the students' race and sex. Minority group children, particularly males, were corporally punished far more than their white peers, sometimes at a rate of 4 to 1. Male students received 4 to 5 times as many corporal punishments as females. The authors stated that the differences found in respect to race and sex, seems to raise definite civil rights issues.’ *' A number of other studies have also shown that a large number of children are corporally punished each year in the United States. A survey commissioned by the Pittsburg Board of Education in 1968, found that 60% of the respondant teachers hit children at least once during the year. Most of the above corporal punishment occurred in grades one through four. 2 ■*Glackman, Martin, Hyman, McDowell, Berv, and Splno, "Corporal Punishment, School Suspension, and the Civil Rights of Students: An Analysis of Office for Civil Rights School Surveys," Inequality in Education, no. 23 (1978), p. 61. Irwin Hyman, Eileen McDowell and Barbara Raines, Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 6. 36 A report mandated by the state of California, which covered 92% of the state's school districts, revealed 46,022 cases of corporal punishment in the 1972-73 school year.^ A survey conducted by the Vermont State Department of Education in 1975, obtained responses from 415 school districts with a total of 109,294 children. Uhile the data did not reveal the frequency of corporal punishment per child, the reported figures indicated that one child out of every 379 could have been the recipient of corporal punishment. In contrast with the Pittsburg study, previously discussed, this study found 41% of the paddlings occurred in grades one through four and 51% in grades five through eight. 2 In Michigan, an unpublished study conducted by Roberts at Michigan State University, found of the 92 Middle School Principals surveyed, only thirty-four percent did not paddle any students in the 1975-76 school year. Q This study also found a higher percentage of principals in small schools (less than five hundred students) paddled students than principals in schools with five hundred and one, or more students. Eighty-three percent of the principals in small schools paddled students as opposed to fifty-six percent of the principals in the larger schools.4 In addition, this study *Adah Maurer, "All in the Name of the Name of the 'Last Resort:' The Abuse of Children in American Schools," Inequality in Education, no. 23 (1978), p. 22. ^Hyman, McDowell, and Raines, Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues, p . 6. ^Robert T. Roberts, "The Use of Paddling in Michigan Middle Schools" (Unpublished paper, Michigan State University, 1976), p. 10. 4Ibid., p. 16. 37 found a higher percentage of younger principals (age thirty-five or less) paddled students than principals over age thirty-five. Eighty-six percent of the younger principals paddled students as opposed to sixty percent of the principals in the thirty-six to forty-five year old bracket and sixty-two percent of the principals in the forty-six and older classification.* Another investigation of the prevalence of corporal punishment in Michigan's schools surveyed 100 Middle School and 100 Junior High School principals. An analysis of the 149 respondants found that 71.8% of the Middle School Principals and 72.5% of the Junior High School Principals administered corporal punishment to some extent to boys. In addition, 45.1% of the Middle School Principals and 38.1% of the Junior High School Principals administered corporal punishment to girls.2 Given the magnitude of corporal punishment in the United States, it is not surprising that many arguments have been raised both for and against the infliction of pain as a disciplinary approach. A look at some of these arguments follows. The Case For Corporal Punishment The public in 10 of 11 Gallup Polls taken to date, declared school discipline as the number one problem in American Education. 3 *Ibid., p. 26. ^Ivan Diamond, "A Study of the Use of Corporal Punishment in Selected Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of Michigan" (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976), pp 173-174. ^Thomas R. McDaniel, "Exploring Alternatives to Punishment: The Keys to Effective Discipline," Phi Delta Kappan, 61 (March, 1980), p. 455. 38 For many, discipline means the use of corporal punishment in response to a child's misbehavior. One nation-wide survey found that half of all American adults approve of school teachers striking students, given proper cause.^ An even greater percentage of teachers favor the use of corporal punishment than that found among the general public. A 1969 teacher opinion poll taken by the National Education Association found that almost two thirds (65.7 percent) of the Elementary School teachers and almost one half (47.5 percent) of the Secondary School teachers favored the use of corporal punishment in the schools. 2 Among those who favor the use of corporal punishment, reasons given in support of its use have varied. Perry, in 1915, wrote, "a painful experience is sometimes the only thing to impress a dull mind."3 In 1950, English and Foster said a little spanking given in early childhood might have been far more preferable than severe punishment at the hands of an impersonal world at a later age.^ Most of the reasons that favor corporal punishment are specifications of the following propositions: It's necessary to protect teachers and maintain a functioning learning environment. It's good for students. ^•Rodney Stark and James McEvoy III, "Middle-Class Violence," Psychology Today, 4 (November, 1970), p. 54. %.E.A. Task Force on Corporal Punishment, Report of the Task Force on Corporal Punishment (Washington, D.C.: N.E.A., 1972), p. 49. 3Arthur C. Perry, Jr., Discipline as a School Problem (New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1915), p. 192. ^Spurgeon 0. English and Constance J. Foster, "How Bad Is It To Spank Your Kids?" Better Homes and Gardens, 28 (June, 1950), p. 253. 39 The school's clients favor it. It isn't used much anyway. It's legal.* John Wilson, in his article, "Sometimes Teachers Should Spank Students," believes the purpose of corporal punishment is to help a student in the future to think before doing something that he knows is wrong. Wilson feels that corporal punishment, when properly used, can be an effective learning experience that helps students grow mentally and emotionally. 2 Wilson points out that for corporal punishment to be effective, it should not be used out of anger, but should be administered in a calm and judicial setting. He believes that the punishment should be sufficiently severe to set up a barrier to further misbehavior of a similar type. Wilson, also believes that the punishment episode should be followed by a definite positive acceptance of the student.3 Wilson feels that corporal punishment can separate a basically good student from his Inappropriate actions. He also feels that corporal punishment should be used as a reformative tool. Wilson points out that in most cases, corporal punishment provides a second last resort that should be used with students who would, in its absence, be subject to expulsion.4 ^N.E.A. Report of the Task Force on Corporal Punishment, p. 8. 2John A. R. Wilson, "Sometimes Teachers Should Spank Students," The Educational Forum, XXIV (January, 1960), p. 218. 3Ibid., p. 218. 4Ibid., p. 219. 40 Lansing Reinholz, in his article, "A Practical Defense of Corporal Punishment," believes that corporal punishment is a necessary tool for educators and a desirable alternative to permanent suspension. Reinholz also believes that corporal punishment provides a deterent to the disruption of the educational process. *■ Reinholz points out a number of restrictions that must be placed on the use of corporal punishment for it to be beneficial and not harmful. One restriction is to use punishment that is reasonable in force, so that the child is not physically harmed. 2 To further prevent injury, a child should not be restrained in order to receive corporal punishment. Another restriction is that the grievant should not do the punishing since he or she is probably angry at the time of the incident. Other restrictions include using corporal punishment only as a last resort and giving the student a choice between it and permanent suspension. 4 The final restriction given is that corporal punishment should be used no more than once with a child. In this regard, Reinholz notes that if corporal punishment is tried and found to be unsuccessful with a child, chances are it will not work in the future with the same child. C ■'■Lansing K. Reinholz, A Practical Defense of Corporal Punishment (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, 84th, Washington, D.C., September 3-7, 1976), p. 6. ^Ibid., p . 3. ■^Ibld., p . 3. ^Ibid., p . 4. 5Ibid., p. 5. 41 Frank Howard, attorney for the defendants in the famous Supreme Court case of Ingraham v. Wright (1977); provides the legal rationale for the use of corporal punishment by school personnel. In his article entitled, "A Legal Defense for Corporal Punishment in the Schools," Howard points out two traditional justifications for using corporal punishment. First it helps correct misbehavior and Instills durable behavior in children; and second, it is needed to maintain an orderly climate for learning. *Howard believes that the case against corporal punishment faces several obstacles. These obstacles include its historical acceptance, which dates back to biblical times, its widespread use among parents and educators, and the official sanction that it has received in most states of this country. Other obstacles to the case against corporal punishment include the rising concern over violence in the schools and the fact that experts disagree on the utility of corporal punishment.2 Howard points out a number of theories that have been advanced In federal cases which have challenged the use of corporal punishment; and legal arguments given in opposition to these theories. theories discussed by Howard Involve constitutional issues. The They are based on the Eighth Amendment's prescription against cruel and unusual punishment and the Fourteenth Amendment rights for due *Frank A. Howard, Jr., A Legal Defense for Corporal Punishment in the Schools, (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 25. 2Ibid., p. 25. 42 process and for parents to control the rearing and upbringing of their children.* Howard’s legal arguments pertaining to all but the last constitutional issue, are reflected in the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ingraham v. Wright (1977), which has been discussed earlier. On the.issue of parental right, Howard points out that this issue was settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Baker v. Owen in 1975. In that case, the lower court held that, "while the child is in the public school, the state's interest in correcting misconduct and maintaining order prevails over the parental point of view." The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. The Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Ingraham v. Wright (1977) provides further justification for the continued use of corporal punishment in the schools. In denying that the use of corporal punishment violates children's constitutional rights, the opinion of the courts' majority, written by Justice Powell, assumes that corporal punishment is an effective disciplinary approach and that it is needed to maintain an orderly learning climate.-* Powell cites the lower courts' contention that, "Paddling of recalcitrant children has long been an acceptable method of promoting good behavior and instilling notions of responsibility and decorum Into 1Ibid., p. 26. 2Ibid., p. 26. ^Arnold C. Farley, Karole J. Kreutter, Richard R. Russell, Sheryl Blackwell, Harris FInkelstein, and Irwin A. Hyman, "The Effects of Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools: A Preliminary Survey," Inequality in Education, no. 23 (1978), p. 57. 43 the mischievous heads of school children. Owen, Blount and Moscow, in their book, "Educational Psychology," point out a number of frequently stated arguments given by educators and psychologists both for and against the use of corporal punishment. The authors state that defenders of corporal punishment make the following points: 1. Most children are aware of their own need for control and recognize the justice of being punished for their misbehavior. 2. There are some circumstances in which psychological punishment does not work as well as corporal punishment. In addition, some children prefer corporal punishment as opposed to psychological punishment. 3. There is little evidence that corporal punishment increases aggression. 4. There is little evidence that alter­ natives to corporal punishment are more effective in all situations. 5. Teachers who avoid behavior problems through the use of techniques that are more time consuming than corporal punish­ ment do so at the expense of the other students in the class. The use of time consuming alternatives to corporal punishment reduces the time that is available for instruction. In addition, since the world outside the school punishes misbehavior, the school provides a good place for students to learn this fact. 6. In almost all cases, corporal punishment is not administered in the school out of vengence. 1Ingraham v. Wright, 45 U.S.L.W. (April, 1977), p. 4366. 44 7. The availability of corporal punishment deters misbehavior, and therefore, it should not be prohibited. Robert Ebel in his article, "The Case For Corporal Punishment," believes that the possibility of being corporally punished with a rubber tube, in his elementary school days, had a desirable affect on his behavior. Ebel also believes that progress in educational development would seriously suffer if approaches like n corporal punishment were totally eliminated. In discussing teachers who successfully avoid behavior problems, Ebel believes that these educators may not necessarily be the most effective. Ebel notes that the occasional use of punishment can help pupils learn that the world punishes misbehavior. Ebel maintains that corporal punishment research is unlikely to provide definite answers regarding the case for or against its use. He believes that the results of corporal punishment research should be viewed with considerable skeptism due to the difficulty of conducting sound research on this subject. Ebel notes that experimental research using physical punishment will not be permitted In the schools. He questions whether experimental or retrospective research designs could isolate the effects of corporal punishment from other variables. Ebel also questions whether the results of ^Steven Owen, H. Parker Blount, and Harry Moscow, Educational Psychology (Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1978), p. 314. ^Robert L. Ebel, "The Case For Corporal Punishment," Michigan School Board Journal, (September, 1976), p. 13. ^Ibid., p . 14. 45 punishment research could be generalized to other settings. He points out that the characteristics of students and teachers in schools that allow corporal punishment could be different from those in schools that prohibit its use.l Ebel also points out that seldom is evidence presented to support the claim that punishment teaches children aggression or that more effective disciplinary approaches than corporal punishment exist. Furthermore, he maintains that most young people need and prefer firm authoritive guidance to indecisive or unpredictable parent or teacher reactions. 2 In ending his article, Ebel presents thirteen propositions which summarize his case for corporal punishment. Many of the beliefs that are reflected by these propositions are held In common by other writers who support the use of corporal punishment in the schools. Ebel’s thirteen propositions follow: 1. To punish is to impose a penalty for a fault, offense, or violation. 2. Socially sanctioned controls on individual behavior are necessary to group living, and punishment Is one effective means of social control. 3. The need for punishment cannot be avoided by the use of rewards since withholding of a reward becomes automatically a form of punishment. 4. When punishment is administered by one with the authority and power to do so, It is almost always in response to an offense by the one punished. Seldom is it an expression of the punisher’s "need to punish." *Ibid., p . 14. 2Ibid., p. 14. 46 5. Punishment is intended more often and more directly to serve the needs of the group than to serve the needs of the individual, 6. The use of punishment is necessary to develop the child's sense of personal responsibility. 7. Habits of behavior established under threat of punishment may disappear once the threat is removed, unless as is usually the case, other good reasons for maintaining the behavior assume the behavior control function. 8. Punishment, judiciously applied, can strengthen the bonds of respect and affection between child and adult. 9. There are no good reasons to believe that psychological stress is less harmful or more lasting in its effects than physical pain. 10. Any form of punishment can be used wisely or abused. 11. As the child grows older, the effectiveness of physical punishment is likely to diminish, and the effectiveness of psychological punish­ ment is likely to increase. 12. There are no good reasons to believe that unwise adults are more likely to misuse physical than psychological punishment. 13. The focus of an experimental research study on the effects of punishment is likely to be so narrow, so unique, so artifical, that the generalizability of the finding will be severely limited.* The Case Against Corporal Punishment Numerous papers on corporal punishment have appeared that generally oppose its use. Most authors agree that corporal punishment in the schools is ineffective in producing durable 1Ibid., p. 14. 47 changes In behavior and has the potential of producing a number of undesirable side-effects. A 1973 article in the American School Board Journal entitled, "Beating School Children: A practice that doesn’t improve their behavior or their learning," reflects the opinion of many psychologists and researchers regarding the effectiveness of corporal punishment.^ The first sentence of this article states, "Corporal punishment doesn't work." To illustrate this point, the article raises this question, if corporal punishment is effective, why does it have to be used over and over? To further make this point, the article quotes the following statement from Morris Blgge and Maurice Hunts' book entitled, "Psychological Foundations of Education:'1 Through reward, behavior may be stamped in; but the converse - that through punishment it can be stamped out - 'does not hold. Whereas reinforcement can be controlled to good advantage, in the long run punishment works to the disadvantage of both the punished organism and the punishing agency. Its results are neither predictable nor dependable. Extinction - permitting a behavior to die out by not reinforcing it - and not punishment is the appropriate response for breaking habits.2 The experimental literature on punishment points out a number of principles about physical punishment. These principles can increase our understanding of the effects of corporal punishment, the circumstances that determine its effectiveness, and its potential to produce harmful side-effects. ^Beating School Children: A practice that doesn't improve their behavior or their learning," The American School Board Journal (June, 1973), p. 19. 2Ibid., p. 19. 48 Animal research on the effects of physical punishment has shown that punishment has, in general, the effect of depressing a response that has been previously conditioned through some kind of positive reinforcement.* One of the best known experiments is that of Estes who trained a group of rats to press a lever for food. Estes then divided the trained rats into an experimental group and a control group. With the experimental group, Estes stopped the delivery of food for each bar press and also punished each bar press with an electric shock. With the control group, Estes stopped the delivery of food for bar pressing but did not punish this group through the delivery shock. Estes found that the bar pressing response extinquished more rapidly in the experimental group than the control group. However, when Estes stopped shocking the experimental group, the bar pressing returned to about the same level as that of the control group. Estes concluded that physical punishment does not permanently change behavior, but merely suppresses the punished response during the period that the punishment procedure remains in affect. 9 The duration of the suppression effect and the extent of the suppression effect appears to be primarily a function of the punishment intensity. The greater the Intensity of the punishment, the greater is the duration^ and extent of the suppression. York: In *Robert W. Lundin, Personality an Experimental Approach (New The MacMillan Company, 1961), p. 248. 2w. K. Estes, "An Experimental Study of Punishment," Psychological Monographs, 57 (1944), p. 14. H. Azrin and W. C. Holtz, "Punishment." In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application (New York: Appleton - Century - Crofts, 1966), p. 410. 49 fact, extremely severe punishment can produce a total and enduring suppression of behavior that will prevent a return of the punished behavior even after the punishment is no longer present.* In an education setting, punishment intensity poses a serious problem for school personnel. To maximize the effectiveness of corporal punishment each blow would have to be very intense. As the intensity of corporal punishment increases, the danger of injurying the child also Increases. Therefore, school personnel would have to administer corporal punishment that is limited in intensity and effectiveness or run the risk of inflicting physical damage through the use of intense punishment. In addition to the intensity of the punishing stimulus many other factors have been found to determine the effectiveness of punishment. In their review of punishment research, Azrin and Holtz in 1966 described a variety of these circumstances: Let us summarize briefly some of the circumstances which have been found to maximize its effectiveness: 1. The punishing stimulus should be arranged In such a manner that no unauthorized escape is possible. 2. The punishing stimulus should be as intense as possible. 3. The frequency of punishment should be as high as possible. 4. The punishing stimulus should be delivered immediately after the response. 5. The punishing stimulus should not be increased gradually but introduced at maximum intensity. lIbid., p. 396. 50 6. Extended periods of punishment should be avoided, especially where low intensities of punishment are con­ cerned, since the recovery effect may thereby occur. Where mild intensities are used, it is best to use them for only a brief period of time. 7. Great care should be taken to see that the delivery of the punishing stimulus is not differentially associated with the delivery of reinforcement. Otherwise, the punishing stimulus may acquire conditioned reinforcing properties. 8. The delivery of the punishing stimulus should be made a signal or discriminative stimulus that a period of extinction is in progress. 9. The degree of motivation to emit the punished response should be reduced. 10. The frequency of positive reinforcement for the punished response should similarly be reduced. 11. An alternative response should be available which will produce the same or greater reinforcement as the punished response. For example, punishment of criminal behavior can be expected to be more effective if non-criminal behavior, which will result in the same advantages as the criminal behavior, is available. 12. If no alternative response is available, the subject should have access to a different situation in which he obtains the same reinforcement without being punished. 13. If it is not possible to deliver the punish­ ing stimulus itself after a response, then an effective method of punishment is still available. A conditioned stimulus may be associated with the averslve stimulus, and this conditioned stimulus may be delivered following a response to achieve conditioned punishment. 51 14. A reduction of positive reinforcement may be used as punishment when the use of physical punishment is not possible for practical, legal, or moral reasons. In light of the numerous factors that influence the effectiveness of punishment, corporal punishment cannot be applied effectively in the schools. This conclusion was reached by Anthony Bongiovanni in his article, "A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools."^ To support his conclusion, Bongiovanni used the circumstances that maximize the effectiveness of the punishment procedure, described above by Azrin and Holtz, to create a hypothetical procedure for using corporal punishment most effectively in the schools. Bongiovanni points out that his purpose in creating the hypothetical procedure was to show how impractical and inappropriate such a procedure would be in an educational setting. Bongiovanni's punish­ ment procedure follows: 1. The individual administering the punishment should arrange the environment in such a manner as to prevent the student from escaping. 2. The individual administering the punishment should use as intense a blow as possible. 3. The same form of punishment should be applied each and every time the undesired behavior occurs. 4. The punishment should be delivered immediately, preferably during the preparatory stages of the undesired behavior. 1Ibid., pp. 426-427. ^Bongiovanni, A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools, p. 36. 52 5. The punishment should not be introduced gradually, but quickly and with the element of surprise. 6. Extended periods of punishment should be avoided, so as to curtail any compensatory recovery. 7. The punishment should not be associated with any forthcoming pleasure or rein­ forcement in order to avoid the punish­ ment becoming a discriminative stimulus for reinforcement. 8. Strict control over sources of rein­ forcement of the undesired behavior should be exercised at all times. 9. Alternative behaviors which are capable of earning the same reinforcement as the undesired behavior should be made available. ^ Bongiovanni also points out that the successful use of corporal punishment could involve even more factors than those included in his hypothetical procedure. He states, "each case is unique and requires individual analysis of the behavior in question. To the extent that a comprehensive analysis of the behavior cannot be made, the ultimate effectiveness of punishment will decrease."2 Punishment research has also shown that punishment has the potential of producing a number of harmful side-effects. These include generalization, anxiety and stress, a negative self-image, escape or avoidance, and aggression. Punishment has the effect of generalizing its surpressing characteristics to other related behaviors that the socializing ^Ibid., pp. 38-39. 2lbid., p. 39. 53 agent may not wish to surpress. In school, punishing a child for a specific behavior could result in the temporary suppression of other related behaviors.^ For example, a child who is verbally chastised for an inappropriate remark may remain silent on all subjects. Or he may stop responding altogether for a time, to include not writing, reading or working. Likewise, spanking an active child for being out of his seat could temporarily reduce his activity level in other areas as well. The use of punishment has also been shown to produce strong emotional concomitants.^ Conditions such as aroused anxiety, tension and stress can impair the Intellectual thought processes. Brian Gilmartin In his article, "The Case Against Spanking," points out that people who are nervous do not learn as well as they do when they are relaxed. He further notes that the ability of people to think clearly is particularly impaired when they are in the presence of the punishing agent. Gilmartin believes that parents and teachers who spank children to facilitate learning In effect slow down learning as a result of the anxiety that is produced.^ Research evidence on the effects of teacher behavior on learning indirectly supports this condition.4 *Beth Sulzer and G. Roy Mayer, Behavior Modification Procedures For School Personnel (Illinois: The Dryden Press Inc., 1972), p. 180. ^Bongiovanni, A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools, p. 39. ^Brian G. Gilmartin, "The Case Against Spanking," Human Behavior, (February, 1979), p. 20. ^Hyman et al., Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools; An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues, p . 5. 54 Adequate studies on the effects of corporal punishment on learning could not be identified. However, the literature contains a number of studies of the effects of teacher disapproval and criticism on achievement. Since corporal punishment can be considered an ultimate form of teacher disapproval, these studies provide Information on the possible effects of corporal punishment on achievement. Rosenshein and Furst reviewed 17 studies on the effects of teacher use of criticism. Practically all of the studies reviewed reported negative corralations between teacher criticism and student achievement. Rosenshein and Furst concluded that, "teachers who use extreme amounts and forms of criticism usually have classes which achieve less in most subject areas. Another undesirable side-effect of physical punishment is its influence in the development of a low self-image in children. Gilmartin states that it has been scientifically established that a strong relationship exists between the frequent use of physical punishment and the development of a low self-image in children.^ In this regard, Sulzer and Mayer in their book, "Behavior Modification Procedures for School Personnel," point out that after children are punished, their statements about themselves or about school are more likely to be negative.^ This is particularly important ^■B. Rosenshein and N. Furst, "Research in Teacher Performance Criteria." In B.O. Smith (Ed.), Research in Teacher Education (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971), p. 51. ^Gilmartin, "The Case Against Spanking," p. 21. ^Sulzer and Mayer, Behavior Modification Procedures for School Personnel, p. 182. 55 since research has shown that what a student says about himself is related to school achievement.^ Still another undesirable side-effect of punishment is its potential to produce socially disruptive behavior. Azrin and Holtz note, "It is in the area of social disruption that punishment does appear to be capable of producing behavioral changes that are farreaching in terms of producing an incapacity for an effective life." 2 When we punish a response, we usually desire a reduction in the punished response while desiring other behaviors to remain relatively unchanged. However, one side-effect of the punishment process Is its tendency to reinforce behavior that is successful in escaping or avoiding the punishment. As a result, any behavior of a child that succeeds in terminating or avoiding punishment would be strengthened. This effect of punishment could increase the liklihood of tardiness, truancy, and dropping out of school.3 In this regard, Azrin and Holtz state: The end result would be termination of the social relationship, which would make any further social control of the Individual's behavior Impossible. This side-effect of punishment appears to be one of the most undesirable aspects of having punishment delivered by one individual against another individual since the socialization process must necessarily depend upon continued interaction with other Individuals.^ lw. W. Wattenburg and C. Clifford, "Relation of Self-Concepts to Beginning Achievement in Reading," Child Development, 35 (1964), p. 464. ^Azrin and Holtz, "Punishment," p. 439. 3Ibid., p. 440. ^Ibid., p. 440. 56 One of the strongest arguments against the use of physical punishment is its potential to produce aggression. This harmful side-effect of physical punishment will be discussed in detail later. For now, it is important to note that aggression, which results from the use of physical punishment, is a major source of the social disruption discussed above.^ Turning now to the literature on corporal punishment, the majority of writers agree that the potential benefits of corporal punishment are outweighed by its potential to do harm. In 1972, the Task Force on Corporal Punishment of the National Education Association conducted one of the most thorough investigations of this subject to date. After reviewing the literature, conducting site visits to schools, interviewing parents, teachers, students and administrators, and examining and evaluating all of the reasons identified both for and against the use of corporal punishment, the Task Force reached the following conclusions: 1. Physical punishment is an inefficient way to maintain order; it usually has to be repeated over and over. 2. Physical punishment may increase disruptive behavior. 3. Physical punishment hinders learning. 4. Physical punishment is not suitable for any children, regardless of their socio-economic status. 5. Physical punishment is most often used on students who are physically weaker and smaller than the teacher. 6. Physical punishment is often a symptom of frustration rather than a disciplinary procedure. *Ibid., p. 442. 57 7. Infliction of physical punishment is detrimental to the educator. 8. Physical punishment does not develop self-discipline. 9. Physical punishment develops aggressive hostility. 10. Physical punishment teaches that might is right. 11. Physical punishment by educators is not comparable to that inflicted by parents. 12. Students may prefer physical punishment to other alternatives offered them, 13. Limitations on the way physical punishment is to be used are often regularly ignored. 14. Physical punishment is legal in many places, but Its constitutionality is being challenged In several court suits. 15. The availability of physical punishment discourages teachers from seeking more effective means of discipline. 16. The use of physical punishment inclines everyone in the school community to regard students as less than human and the school as dehumanizing.* Based on these conclusions, the Task Force recommended the elimination of corporal punishment from all schools in the Nation by 1973. To assist in this effort, the Task Force proposed a model statute to outlaw corporal punishment in the schools, but allow the use of physical restraint to protect teachers or pupils from injury, to obtain possession of a weapon, or to protect property. *N.E.A., Report of the Task Force on Corporal Punishment, p. 7. 2Ibid., p. 29. 58 The N.E.A. task force also prepared a list of 30 alternatives to corporal punishment for maintaining discipline in the schools.^ The report of the American Civil Liberties Union on Corporal Punishment also contains several strong arguments againBt the use of physical pain to discipline school children. The report contends that the use of corporal punishment in the public schools is illegal. The A.C.L.U. believes the use of corporal punishment denies students their civil liberties and raises constitutional questions regarding the rights of students and the use of authority in educational institutions.^ The A.C.L.U. also believes that corporal punishment is an ineffective disciplinary approach and that its use is unnecessary in light of the availability of alternative approaches. The report quotes from Dr. Charles T. McElvaney's testimony to abolish corporal punishment in the state of Maryland: There are today means of sustaining desirable behavior or modifying undesirable behavior which are precise, specific, predictable, and effective. The methods have been demonstrated, supported by research findings, and are continuing to be developed. Materials, procedures, and personnel are available to make these methods available to educators who do not already have them. A reinforcement system relying primarily on a reward system is used. There are ways of making un­ desirable behavior unrewarding and it disappears.3 The A.C.L.U. further believes that the practice of corporal punishment is psychologically and educationally damaging to young 1Ibid., pp. 27-28. 3Alan Reutman, Judith Foliman and Edward T. Ladd, Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools (New York: A.C.L.U., 1972), p. 1. 3Ibid., p. 4. 59 people. The report states: The most important fact about violent bodily punishment is the high probability of its doing the victim an affirmative injury, psychologically, educationally, or both. While the kind of injury may vary considerably, depending on the age and emotional condition of the victim, it is likely to be serious.* The A.C.L.U. report points out that corporal punishment can produce fear and anxiety which can interfere significantly with the learning process. Fear and anxiety can block the development of emotional strength and maturity that is needed to achieve selfdiscipline, the report notes. o There are other characteristics of corporal punishment that the A.C.L.U. believes makes its practice in the public schools a threat to the welfare of children.3 First, when harsh treatment is used on small children, a ripple effect results which produces emotional disturbance and anxiety in the entire group. A second characteristic of corporal punishment is that its use is more tempting to frustrated or angry educators than any other option, and it can be enormously satisfying to use. A third characteristic has to do with violence. The authors believe that the administration of corporal punishment provides children with a model of violence which can contribute to violent tendencies later in their life. The fourth and final characteristic of corporal punishment, that the A.C.L.U. believes can be harmful, is its effect on the development 1Ibid., p. 15. ^Ibid., p. 16. 3Ibid., p. 16. 60 of sexual behavior. The authors maintain that their is sufficient evidence to suggest that the receipt of violent bodily punishment during childhood, particularly on the buttocks, strengthens tendencies toward sexual aberrations in later life. Harvey Clarizio in his 1975 article, "Some Myths Regarding the Use of Corporal Punishment in the Schools," explores four of the most common myths surrounding corporal punishment. The first myth is that physical punishment is a "tried and true" method. "It is good for students. It helps them develop a sense of personal responsibility, learn self-discipline, and develop moral c h a r a c t e r . T h e punishment literature disproves the premise that punishment is a "tried and true" approach. Bongiovanni, in his review of the literature points out that the numerous conditions that are necessary for physical punishment to be effective are often not met in the school.2 Clarizio notes Feshbach and Feshbach's contention that the degree of physical punishment used by parents is positively correlated with various forms of psychopathology, especially delinquency and acting-out behavior.3 The second myth discussed by Clarizio is that "occasional paddling contributes substantially to the child's socialization. ^Harvey Clarizio, Some Myths Regarding the Use of Corporal Punishment in the Schools (Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, April 2, 1975), p. 1. ^Bongiovanni, A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools, p . “40. ^Clarizio, Some Myths Regarding the Use of Corporal Punishment in the Schools, p. 1. 4 Ibid., p. 3. 61 Clarizio maintains that infrequent or "judicious” use of physical punishment works to the disadvantage of the child and the teacher. He points out that to be effective in suppressing behavior, punishment (unless traumatic) must be applied consistently. However, in a school setting, it is almost impossible to monitor the behavior one wishes to eliminate close enough so as to punish it each time it occurs. Consequently, corporal punishment in the school is applied inconsistently. Clarizio states, this results in a situation in which the undesired behavior is intermittently reinforced. Thus, Clarizio concludes that occasional use of punishment, through a schedule of intermittent reinforcement, in effect strengthens the very misbehavior that it is intended to weaken. The third myth discussed by Clarizio is that, "corporal punish­ ment is the only recourse in maintaining order. It is the only thing some kids u n d e r s t a n d . C l a r i z i o believes this myth may in fact mean that some kids may not have been exposed to other more constructive forms of discipline. He points out that it appears that physical punishment may be the only thing that some teachers understand. He also points out that in school systems that have abolished corporal punishment, students and teachers survive nicely without it. The fourth myth discussed by Clarizio is that, "those involved with schools favor the use of corporal punishment. Clarizio cites a 1974 study by Patterson that indicates approximately 55 to 6 5 % of ^Ibid., p . 4. ^Ibid., p. 7. 62 all school officials see corporal punishment as an effective approach and favor its use. In contrast, he states that one third of the parents and most students do not consider corporal punishment an effective technique. Clarizio acknowledges that some students accept or favor corporal punishment as a means of correcting behavior, but they do so for a number of undesirable reasons. He points out that some children accept corporal punishment as an easy way out because it doesn't take much of their time, and it doesn't require them to change their behavior. For others, Clarizio states, it is a good way to demonstrate their toughness and endurance. Still others feel guilty about their misbehavior, Clarizio notes, and corporal punishment provides them a quick sense of relief. Finally, Clarizio asserts that it is educationally indefensible to support any of these reasons for favoring corporal punishment. Hyman, McDowell, and Raines in their previously cited article, discuss additional myths about corporal punishment in the schools. They point out that one popular notion is that corporal punishment is necessary in order to protect teachers.* In this regard, they cite the N.E.A. task force report that states corporal punishment is no more effective in protecting teachers than it is in improving behavior. Another myth that Hyman, McDowell, and Raines discuss is the notion that "corporal punishment is only used as a last resort."2 ^Hyman et al., Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the School: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues, p. 12. 2Ibid., p. 12. 63 They restate Maurer who contends that this notion is deceptive because referrals to the school counselor, psychologist, and mental health agencies are scheduled after the "last resort." In addition, the N.E.A. task force report points out an obvious problem in supporting corporal punishment on the basis that it is used only as a last resort. The task force states, "If corporal punishment caused lasting improvement in students' behavior, it would be a good first resort. As it is, it's best omitted altogether. John Valusek in his book, "People are not for Hitting," points out that the vast majority of all personal violent interactions involve the infliction of painful force upon another person against his will. Valusek makes the following observation: Please note that at present we can hit any or all of our children in our homes, schools, churches, and in most child care institutions, any time we wish to do so provided we call our hittlngs, "spankings," perform them with good intentions, and do not break any bones or bruise the flesh to excess in the process. It is my contention that this historically approved and presently sanctioned practice provides the initial impetus for teaching them how to become hitters themselves. When and if that teaching is reinforced by other factors, many of the novice hitters move on to become users of more extreme forms of violence, up to and including the killing of other persons. Extensive research data are now available to lend support to these observations.2 A review of the research on punishment and aggression follows. Punishment and Aggression Experimental psychologists, conducting basic research with ^N.E.A. Report of the Task Force on Corporal Punishment, p. 22. 2John E. Valusek, People are not for Hitting (Wichita, Kansas: John E. Valusek, 1974), p. 75. 64 lower organisms, have found physical punishment to produce two types of social aggression. The first type, termed operant aggression, is an attack against the source of the punishment. The aim of this aggression is to destroy or immobilize the individual who is delivering the punishment. Operant aggression appears to be maintained by the potentially favorable consequences of eliminating the source of the punishment.* The second type of aggression is termed elicited aggression. Elicited aggression has been found to occur when painful stimuli are delivered to an organism in the company of another organism. A good example of elicited aggression is contained in a 1962 study by Ulrich and Azrin. In it, paired rats were placed in an experimental chamber and observations were made of their behavior prior to the presentation of painful foot-shock. during this period did any aggression appear. At no time However, upon the delivery of the foot-shock, the rats attacked each other. Unlike operant aggression, in elicited aggression the attack is directed against any nearby organisms, even those who have had nothing to do with the delivery of the pain.2 Elicited aggression has been demonstrated to exist in many species^ and to be elicited by several different kinds of painful ^Azrin and Holz, Punishment, p. 440. 2R. E. Ulrich and N. H. Azrin, "Reflective Fighting in Response to Aversive Stimulation," Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5 (October, 1962), p. 511. ^Roger E. Ulrich, Ronald R. Hutchinson and Nathan H. Azrin, "Pain Elicited Aggression," The Psychological Record, 15 (January, 1965), p. 113. 65 stimuli.* Elicited aggression has even been demonstrated to result in attacks against inanimate objects. It is particularly important that elicited aggression appears to be a general response to painful stimulation. In this regard, Azrin and Holz state, "Since physical punishment requires the delivery of aversive stimulation, this social aggression would be expected as an elicited reaction to physical punishment."^ These authors further point out that, "Our main objective of eliminating a response by punishing that response may have the completely unexpected effect of producing aggression by the punished organism."^ These research findings have serious implications regarding the use of corporal punishment in the schools. Corporal punishment could endanger the safety and welfare of students, school personnel, and school property through the production of violence and vandalism. Well behaved children who are in the proximity of a punished child could be the target of the punished child's elicited aggression. School personnel could also be attacked and school property could be destroyed."* The use of corporal punishment in the schools also provides children with a model of aggressive behavior that has been *Roger E. Ulrich, "The Experimental Analysis of Aggresstion," (Un­ published Article, Western Michigan University, 1967) , pp. 5-6. 2N. H. Azrin, R. R. Hutchinson and R. D. Sallery, "Fain-aggression toward inanimate objects," Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7 (1964), p. 223. Azrin and Holz, Punishment, p. 441. ^Ibid., p. 441. ^Bongiovanni, A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools, p. ,40. 66 demonstrated to be imitated by young children. Not only do children imitate the aggressive behavior they have observed, but they also become more aggressive in general.^ Bandura, Ross, and Ross, in their research on the imitation of aggression, gave pre-school children an opportunity to watch adults or filmed cartoon characters assaulting an inflated plastic clown. Compared with children who had watched non-aggressive behavior, these children subsequently engaged in considerably more aggressive behavior against the inflated clowns.^>3 ^he investigators concluded that, "mere observation of aggression, regardless of the quality of the model subject relationship, is a sufficient condition for producing imitative aggression in children."^ In another study, Owens and Straus tested the hypothesis that (1) "The greater the observation of violence as a child, the greater the approval of violence in adult life," and (2) "The more a child is a victim of violence in childhood, the greater his approval of violence in adult life." They found that the observation and receipt of violence in childhood was moderately correlated with approval of interpersonal violence as an adult. ^Gary C. Walters and Joan E. Grusec, Punishment (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company, 1977), p. 146. 2 Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, and Sheila A. Ross, "Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (1963), p. 3. ^Albert Bandura, Dorothea Ross, Sheila A. Ross, "Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (1961), p. 575. 4Ibid., p. 582. ^David J. Owens and Murray A. Straus, "The Social Structure of Violence in Childhood and Approval of Violence as an Adult," Aggressive Behavior, 1 (1975), p. 199. 67 Most psychologists agree that physical punishment can produce aggression through the mechanism of imitation. Child Psychologist, Boyd McCandless, in his 1967 book, "Behavior and Development," states, "Children Imitate or model upon aggressive adults, thus the finding is reasonable that arbitrary and unreasonable methods of control and high levels of physical punishment are associated with aggressive child and adult b e h a v i o r * Walters and Grusec in their book, "Punishment," state, "The evidence seems strongly to favor the contention then, that children imitate aggression whether they are frustrated or not and that their aggression can be directed toward both people and inanimate objects. Finally, the American Psychological Association in their resolution which opposes the use of corporal punishment in the schools states: research has shown that, to a considerable extent, children learn by imitating the behavior of adults, especially those they are dependent upon. And the use of corporal punishment by adults, as having authority over children, is likely to train children to use physical violence to control behavior rather than rational persuasion, education and intelligent forms of both positive and negative reinforcement.3 The empirical research on punishment, that has been reviewed, provides extensive and rather compelling evidence that physical York: ^Boyd R. McCandless, Children: Behavior and Development, (New Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967), p. 152. ^Walters and Grusec, Punishment, p. 146. ^Resolution Against Corporal Punishment, American Psychological Association, Division of School Psychology, in Open Forum, (Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977), p. 52. 68 punishment produces aggression. Since corporal punishment is a form of physical punishment, the obvious extrapolation is that its use on children within the schools would increase their level of aggressiveness. Experimental studies of the relationship between corporal punishment in the schools and aggression are non-existant. However, a variety of field studies, in a number of disciplines, support the idea that they are positively related. We will now briefly review some of the literature to document this Important point. Studies of child-rearing practices have consistently found that children whose parents rely on physical punishment tend to be more aggressive than those of parents who use other disciplinary approaches. This evidence comes from studies such as those by Sears, Maccoby, and Levin in 1957,^ McCord, McCord, and Howard in 1962, 2 and Eron, Waldon, Toigo, and Lefkowitz in 1963. 1 Even when the physical punishment is directed against aggressive behavior it increases the very behavior it is designed to inhibit. quote from Eron, Waldon, and Lefkowitz's 1971 book. The following "The Learning of Aggression in Children," Illustrates this point: We anticipated that punishment for aggressive behavior would lead to inhibition of aggression in situations similar to the one in which punishment was originally administered. Findings of field studies contradicted these predictions derived from laboratory research in that increased aggression ^R. Sears, E. Maccoby, and H. Levin, Patterns of Child-Rearing, (New York: Harper, 1957), p. 226. ^William McCord, Joan McCord, and Alan Howard, "Familial Correlates of Aggression in Non-Delinquent Male Children," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (1961), p. 82. ^Leonard D. Eron, Leopold 0. Waldon, Rotnolo Toigo, and Monroe M. Lefkowitz, "Social Class, Parental Punishment for Aggression, and Child Aggression," Child Development, 34 (1963), pp. 853-854. 69 was routinely found to be associated with increased punishment for this behavior. It was believed at first that the contradiction was due to lack of control for intensity of punishment in field studies. ...However, the results with punishment intensity as related to peer - rated aggression, remained the same - the more intense the punishment by the parents at home, the higher the aggression as rated by the children's peers at home.1 Child abuse investigations also support the contention that physical punishment produces aggression. One finding that consistently emerges from the child abuse literature is that parents who abuse their children, were themselves abused, physically or emotionally, as children.^ Dr, David Gil, a prominant child abuse investigator, in 1969 wrote in the American Education Magazine: A teacher who uses physical force against a child, teaches the child and all the children in the classroom that physical force is an appropriate means for human interaction. If such children grow into child abusing parents, they are practicing what they were taught in school.^ Robert Hagebak, in his article, "Disciplinary Practices in Dallas Contrasted with School Systems with Rules Against Violence Against Children," points out that Dallas, Texas, had over 20,000 cases of corporal punishment reported during the 1972 school year. Hagebak, further notes, that Texas ranks number one in child abuse in the ^Eron, Waldon, and Lefkowitz, Learning of Aggression in Children, p. 91. ^John J. Spinetta and David Rlgler, "The Child-Abusing Parent: A Psychological Review," Psychological Bulletin (Vol. 77, 1972), p. 298. ^David Gil, "What Schools Can Do About Child Abuse," American Education Magazine (April, 1969), p. 3. 70 nation, and Dallas, has a rate almost double that of the rest of the state.* Juvenile delinquency studies have also found a positive association between physical punishment and aggression. These studies have reported a greater use of physical punishment by parents of delinquent boys as compared to non-delinquent boys. 2 3 * Ralph Welsh, in his article, "The Belt Theory of Discipline," points out that the use of severe parental punishment, such as a belt or its equivalent, is an important percursor to habitual male delinquency.^ In summarizing his findings from ten years of investigating the effects of corporal punishment on discipline, Welsh states it appears that: 1. As parental discipline increases in intensity, so does the probability that the child will engage in increasingly aggressive delinquent activities; the most violent people in our society experienced the most violent childhoods (the following were all beaten children: James Earl Ray, Sirhan Sirhan, Gary Gilmore, Adolf Hitler, Arthur Bremer, Lee Harvey Oswald, and now Jim Jones). In our sample of 77 delinquent males and females, the relationship between violent child-rearing and the aggressive level of the delinquent act was striking. Robert Hagebak, Disciplinary Practices in Dallas Contrasted with School Systems with Rules Against Violence Against Children. (Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 80th, Honolulu, Hawaii, September, 1972), p. 3. ty A. Bandura and R. H. Walters, Adolescent Aggression, (New York: Ronald, 1959), p. 220. ^S. Glueck and E. Glueck, Unravelling Juvenile Delinquency (Harvard University Press, 1950), p. 261. ^Ralph S. Welsh, "The Belt Theory of Discipline," Discipline (The National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools, Winter, 1980), p. 3. 71 2. More delinquents come from poor than affluent homes, but our data clearly indicates that parental punishment practices are more important than socio-economic class in preceding delin­ quency . 3. The more violent the child-rearing in a culture, primitive or otherwise, the more probable that culture will be crime ridden. We found that black males were more aggressive than white males, but because the black culture apparently utilizes more capital (SIC) punishment than do whites. 4. Since the effects of severe parenting are no respector of group or social class, so called normal parents can expect to have aggressive children proportional to the degree they physically discipline their children. 5. Since severe parenting is highly related to aggression, known abused children probably have one of the highest probabilities of becoming delinquent of all societal sub-groups. 6. Differences in conditionability between delinquents and normals are primarily due to habituation to fear, reducing the delinquent's ability to rely on anticipatory fear responses and avoid potentially delinquent situations. In-born constitutional factors are probably of secondary Importance in regard to individual differences In conditionability between delinquents and non-delinquents. 7. Although modeling (observing the spanking parent and seeing the father abuse the mother) will further potentiate the child's aggressive level, the child's inability to avoid pain is the critical variable In altering the child's ability to cope with his own aggressive impulses. Turning now to the corporal punishment research, the available evidence has tended to confirm the findings of a positive relation­ ship between physical punishment and aggression. 1Ibid., pp. 3-4. On the whole, the 72 research suggests that the use of corporal punishment Is positively associated with overt aggression and with attitudes that favor the use of pain to control the behavior of others. In one English study divisional education officers identified, for inspectors, the best and worst behaved schools in their area. Through this method a list of 15 good and 15 bad schools was compiled. Inspectors then determined, from each school, the percentage of pupils caned in one term and the percentage of children who had appeared in juvenile court over a three year period. The social background of the area that each school was located in was also assessed. This was accomplished by ascertaining the rateable (taxable) value per person for each area and the number of people that were living more than two to a room. These were the results: It is notable that the schools where corporal punishment was absent had the best records of behavior and delinquency, despite being in areas with the lowest average rateable value. It is also notable that behavior deteriorates and delinquency increases as corporal punishment increases.^ In another study, which was conducted in Portland, Oregon, Lee Hardy and Virginia Miller found that the amount and severity of corporal punishment was correlated with the cost of per pupil vandalism against school property. They concluded that vandalism is a form of retaliation against the source of pain and embarrassment. ^Times Educational Supplement, 13 (October, 1961), p. 478. 2Adah Maurer, “All in the Name of the 'Last Resort': Abuse of Children in American Schools," Inequality in education, no. 23 (1978), p. 25. 2 73 Finally, Keith James in his nation-wide study of corporal punishment surveyed the attitudes of 14,714 people toward the use of corporal punishment in the public schools. The 4,405 respondants comprised four groups (publics) that consisted of a random sample of individuals, a stratified sample of educators and jurymen, a stratified sample of union members, and homes in San Mateo County, California, whose children were attending the Ravenswood School District. Among the many findings of this study, James reports that people who had frequently been subjected to corporal punishment in the schools were strongly favorable toward its use, while those who had never been subjected to corporal punishment were strongly opposed to it. Similar findings were obtained with regard to those who had known of others having been subjected to corporal punishment in the schools. Those who had known of others being subjected to corporal punishment favored its use as compared with those who had never known of others being subjected to it during their school careers.^ Summary The history of corporal punishment. Ancient civilizations dating back to the Egyptians used corporal punishment as an instrument of education and as a means of insuring proper conduct. It was justified on the basis that people should be trained like animals, *Keith F. James, "Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools," (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958), p. 199. 74 and it was sanctioned by the religious dogma of the times. The severity of corporal punishment in the schools of antiquity and in medieval times often resulted in injury and occasionally resulted in death. In America, the use and condoning of violence through corporal punishment dates back to the colonial days. It was influenced by the religious doctrine of the Puritians and used as a method of "beating the devil" out of errant children. Punish­ ment devices such as rods, canes, and sticks were prominent im­ plements of eighteenth century classrooms. By the end of the ninteenth century, it continued to be a major disciplinary approach in this country though some progress was made in limiting or abolishing it. To date, numerous nations have abolished the use of physical pain to discipline children. Many groups are working to abolish this practice in the United States. Currently, corporal punishment remains legally sanctioned in American schools and its incidence appears to have increased in the past twenty years. The law and corporal punishment. The common law doctrine of "in loco parentis" has been the traditional legal basis for teachers to use "reasonable" corporal punishment in the schools. Most litigation has involved the reasonableness of the punishment Inflicted and the constitutionality of its use. In judging the reasonableness of a punishment, the courts have used broad guidelines, not precise rules. teacher. Most appellate court cases have been decided in favor of the The constitutionality of corporal punishment has been challenged on the basis of the U.S. Constitution’s cruel and unusual punishment clause, and due process provisions, The U.S. Supreme 75 Court in Ingraham v. Wright, decided that no constitutional violation was involved in the use of corporal punishment. In the absence of constitutional barriers to the use of corporal punishment, states have developed statutes concerning its use. The statutes of forty-seven states have allowed corporal punishment, two states have prohibited its use, and the statutes of one state have been unclear. The prevalence of corporal punishment. Survey data have revealed that; most school districts In the United States have allowed the use of corporal punishment; larger districts have used more than smaller districts; and, Southern districts have used more than Northern and Eastern districts. Published data on the number of cases of corporal punishment have been limited and have varied from a total of A ,335 cases in five states (reported by 116 schools) to 46,022 cases in one state (reported by 92% of the state's school districts). Blacks and males have received a much greater amount of corporal punishment than whites and females. In Michigan, most Middle School principals have paddled students. A greater percentage of these principals have paddled students in small schools than in larger schools, and a greater percentage of younger Middle School principals have paddled students than older principals. The case for corporal punishment. The general public has expected the schools to maintain discipline and has regarded the use of corporal punishment as a necessary and legitimate means of doing so. Educators have also supported its practice as a means of main­ taining an orderly learning environment. Some writers have claimed 76 corporal punishment teaches children that the world punishes mis­ behavior; that its availability in school deters disruptive behavior; and that, some children prefer physical punishment to psychological punishment. Others have contended that corporal punishment is less time consuming to use than other methods, is the only thing some children understand, and is a desirable alternative to permanent suspension. Corporal punishment has been recommended as a necessary tool for educators, it has been con­ sidered good for students, and has been defended as a historically accepted and legally sanctioned practice. Some have defended its practice on the grounds that there has been little evidence that supported the claim that punishment increased aggression or that there were more effective disciplinary approaches than corporal punishment. Others have maintained that it is needed to protect teachers and that it is used only as a last resort. The case against corporal punishment. Punishment research, applied to corporal punishment in the schools, has suggested corporal punishment is ineffective in producing durable changes in behavior, is impractical due to the numerous conditions that determine its effectiveness, and has the potential of producing many undesirable side-effects. Research has shown that physical punishment, unless extremely severe and traumatic in intensity, does not change behavior permanently. The potential benefits of corporal punishment are outweighed by its potentially harmful side-effects. Physical punishment was found to generalize its suppressing effects to behaviors that the punisher did not intend to suppress. It produced aroused anxiety and stress that were found to impair learning. It 77 has been shown to be related to a negative self-image. Physical punishment has also been demonstrated to produce socially disruptive escape, avoidance, and aggressive behavior which reduces future control of the individual. The N.E.A. has recommended that corporal punishment be abolished and has claimed corporal punish­ ment is inefficent, it increases disruptive behavior, it develops aggressive hostility, and it hinders learning. They also maintained corporal punishment is detrimental to educators, its use is often a svrnntom of frustration, regulations reeardine its use are often lenored. and it discourages educators from seeking more effective disciplinary approaches. The A.C.L.U. has contended corporal punishment in the schools is illegal, inefficient, and unnecessary as well as educationally and psychologically damaging to children. The case against corporal punishment has also been based on charges that it is not a tried and true method, that the occasional use of corporal punishment works to the disadvantage of the child and the teacher, that it is ineffective in protecting teachers and that the notion that it is used only as a last resort is deceptive. Punishment and aggression. Experimental research has demon­ strated that physical punishment produces operant aggression that is directed against the source of the punishment, and elicited aggression that is directed against any nearby individual or in­ animate object. These findings have suggested that corporal punish­ ment in the schools can produce violence and vandalism that can endanger students, school personnel, and school property. Experi­ mental research has also found that the use of corporal punishment 78 provides children with a model of aggression that has been demonstrated to be imitated by young children. Most psychologists have agreed that physical punishment can produce aggression. Child-rearing studies have shown that children whose parents rely on corporal punishment were more aggressive than those of parents who used other disciplinary approaches. Child abuse investigations have found that parents who abuse their children were themselves abused as children. Juvenile delinquency studies have also found a positive relationship between physical punishment and aggression. These studies found that parents of delinquent boys used more physical punishment than parents of non-delinquent boys. Corporal punishment research has found that juvenile delinquency and vandalism costs were greater in schools that used corporal punishment than they were in schools that did not. It was also found that people who experienced (observed or received) corporal punishment during their childhood favored the use of painful punishment to control others and that people who never experienced corporal punishment opposed its use. CHAPTER III DESIGN OF THE STUDY This chapter contains a description of the procedures used In the Investigation and addresses the following areas: l)The sample; 2)The questionnaire; 3)Questionnaire administration procedures; 4) Hypotheses; and 5)Analysis of data. The sample A random sample of 1,500 Michigan educators (1,100 teachers and 400 principals) were accessed from a computer tape which con­ tained the 1978-79 Michigan professional register. The sample con­ sisted of Elementary School, Junior High School, and Middle School teachers and principals. The population in this study consisted of the entire professional teaching and principal staff with assignments from grades Kindergarten to Ninth in the State of Michigan as identified by the Michigan Department of Education in its 1978-79 census. There were 63,254 educators in the population. The questionnaire A questionnaire acceptable to this writer could not be located to test the hypotheses of this study. Since the focus of this investi­ gation addressed a highly contraverslal and sensitive Issue among educators, considerable care had to be taken to design a questionnaire 79 80 that would elicit their participation. The literature was searched and consultation was obtained from people in and out of education. Donald Orlich's book, "Designing Sensible Surveys," served as a primary guide source in developing the questionnaire.* A (2) part questionnaire (Appendix A) was designed to collect the information needed in this investigation. Part one (I) of the questionnaire gathered background information from the educators. Part two (2) of the questionnaire gathered information on the educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices as well as their own childhood experiences in receiving and observing corporal punishment. In part two, only Items 2, 3, 4, 6 , 8 , 12, 13, 19, and 25 - 30, were considered part of this investigation. The remaining items were included to gather information for subsequent studies. Two color coded forms of the questionnaire were developed, one for teachers and the other for principals. Both forms were essentially alike with the exception of the following: 1. Minor variations were made in the wording of the forms to address them to the respondants' position, (i.e. teacher or principal). 2. Part I of the teachers' form contained two questions that were not included in the principals' form. They were question 9 which gathered information on the level(a) of the respondants' major teaching assignment, and question 10 which elicited information on the respondants' current teaching assignment. Educators were asked to check the response that best described their reaction to each statement in part II of the questionnaire. ^Donald C. Orlich, Designing Sensible Surveys (New York: Redgrave Company, 1978), p. 95. 81 Information on educators' attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment was obtained from statement thirteen which reads, "My own attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school is." Five response choices followed. The first four responses favored the use of corporal punishment and were each weighed one point. The fifth response opposed the use of corporal punishment and was weighed as 2 points. In addition, an index of educators' attitudes toward the use of corporal punishment was constructed from questionnaire items 2, 3, 4, 6 , 8 , and 12. For these items, weights for responses to positively oriented or favorable statements toward the use of corporal punishment, statements 2, 3, and 12 were as follows: Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree 1 2 3 4 Point Points Points Points The scoring was reversed for statements 4, 6 , and 8 , which were negatively oriented or unfavorable. Information on the corporal punishment practices of educators was obtained from statement nineteen which reads, "During the past school year (1978-1979), I used corporal punishment to discipline students." For this statement, response choices and their corresponding weights ranged from "once a week on the average," (weighed one point) to "never" (weighed six points). Statement twenty-five elicited information from the educators regarding their use of corporal punishment on their own children. Statements twenty-six and twenty-seven obtained Information on the educators' childhood experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home and at school. And, statement twenty-nine obtained Information 82 on their childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at home and at school. Response choices for statements twenty-five to twenty-seven, and their corresponding weights follow: Once a month or more More than once a year Once a year orless Never 1 2 3 4 Point Points Points Points Response choices, and their corresponding weights, for state­ ment twenty-nine were as follows: Often Occasionally Rarely Never 1 Point 2 Points 3 Points 4 Points Following the development of the questionnaire, it was administered in person to a small group of educators that were engaged in graduate work at Michigan State University, On the basis of advice obtained from this group, revisions in wording, format, and instructions were made. The questionnaire was then administered to a pilot group of teachers and principals in one of Michigan’s school districts. The pilot test returns were analyzed by computer, minor revisions in the research instrument were made, and the final question­ naire was administered to this study's research sample. All of the educators and schools that were involved in the pilot test were excluded from the final study. Questionnaire administration procedures The questionnaire and a cover letter (Appendix A) were mailed to the sample of educators at their school district address. The cover of the questionnaire contained a return address and a prepaid postage return method. Three days after the initial mailing, postcards were 83 mailed to the entire sample of educators as a reminder and a plea to return their questionnaires, if they had not yet done so. Three weeks after the postcards were mailed, the rate of receiving returns dropped to zero. Of the 1,500 questionnaires mailed out, 821 were returned by the respondants; 5 could not be delivered for miscellaneous reasons. At this point, a second questionnaire along with a new cover letter, and an addressed prepaid postage return method were mailed to all of those who did not respond to the initial mailing. The purpose of this second mailing was to determine if educators who had not responded to the initial mailing and follow-up postcard had corporal punishment attitudes and practices which were different from those who did respond. This second mailing resulted in a total of 295 questionnaires that were returned. In all of the 1,500 questionnaires mailed out, there were 1,116 returned of which 1,101 were completed; a net return of 73 percent. Hypotheses It seems clear that little effort has been made to explore factors that influence the physical punishment of children, especially in the public schools. In this study, background factors pertaining to the developmental histories .of educators are of primary interest. These factors in­ clude educators' childhood experiences in receiving corporal punishment and in observing its use on other children. This study is also interested in the influence that other back­ ground factors, suggested by the literature to be related to the 84 administration of physical punishment, have on the corporal punishment of children. What follows are the general hypotheses with each of the testable null hypotheses appearing below them: Hypothesis I: A positive relationship exists between educators' attitude regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who received corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school, prior to becoming teenagers or as teenagers) do not differ in their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not received it. Hypothesis II: A positive relationship exists between educators' attitude regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who observed corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school) do not differ in their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not observed it. Hypothesis III: A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who received corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school, prior to becoming teenagers or as teenagers) do not differ in their use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not received it. Hypothesis IV: A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who observed corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school) do not differ in their use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not observed it. 85 Hypothesis V : Educators who favor the use of corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who oppose the use of corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator’s position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Null hypothesis: Educators who favor the use of corporal punishment in school will not differ from educators who oppose the use of corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Hypothesis V I : Educators who use corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who do not use corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Null hypothesis: Educators who use corporal punishment in school will not differ from educators who don't use corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children 86 Analysis of data The purpose of this study was to describe as accurately as possible the extent of association between variables and not to test for cause and effect relationships between variables. The primary interest was to discover which of a considerable number of factors were related to the corporal punishment attitudes and practices of educators. The chi square test of association was used to compare the response frequencies of educators' corporal punishment attitude and practices with each of the factors in this study to determine if any of these comparisons were significant at the .01 or .05 levels.^ Determination of the degree or strength of these comparisons was made through the use of the correlation ratio squared (eta squared). The eta squared expresses the extent to which one variable can be predicted or explained in terms of the other. This particular measure of association was employed because of its suitability in examining curvilinear and linear relationships as well as relationships that involve qualitative variables. 2 A secondary analysis (Appendix B) was performed using a one-way analysis of variance to test the significance of those comparisons that were initially examined with the chi square. While the analysis of variance is a more powerful statistic than the chi square, some writers have considered it inappropriate to use with ordinal level York: ^Paul A. Games and George R. Klare, Elementary Statistics (New McGraw-Hill, 1967), p. 506. ^John H. Mueller and Karl F. Schuessler, Statistical Reasoning in Sociology, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1961), p. 322. data.^*^ Since much of the data in this study was at the ordinal level, the analysis of variance was used to supplement the chi square test and not as the primary data analysis technique. To determine whether educators differed significantly in their corporal punishment attitude on each of the background factors, the analysis of variance was performed on the attitude index previously described. The reliability of the attitude index was calculated using the Alpha Coefficient of internal consistency. Using the Alpha technique, it was determined that the reliability coefficient for the six items was .8835. According to Oppenheim, a coefficient between n 0.80 and 0.85 would have been quite acceptable. The obtained coefficient was well within the desired range which indicates the six items are fairly homogenous and, therefore, highly reliable. The statistical procedures described above were conducted using the computer at the Michigan State University Computer Center. Completed questionnaires were hand scored and machine-punched on computer cards. tape. The computer cards were then stored on a computer The data were analyzed using programs from the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Programs used included Frequencies, Reliability, Crosstabs, and Breakdown. ^Donald C. Orlich, Designing Sensible Surveys, p. 144. ^Sidney, Siegel, Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences, (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956), p. 19. 3a . N. Oppenheim, Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement, (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966), p. 140. 88 Summary This Investigation used survey methods to study the influence of selected background factors on educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices. A questionnaire was developed to collect data relative to eleven factors. The questionnaire was administered by mail to a random sample of fifteen hundred Michigan educators. The data that resulted was analyzed to test the significance of six independent hypotheses. Chi square, correlation ratio, and one-way analysis of variance were used in data analysis. CHAPTER IV PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA In this chapter the data are presented and analyzed in respect to its relationship to the null hypotheses. Section I contains a description of the sample in terns of the corporal punishment variables (i.e. educators' attitudes and practices), and the background factors measured. Section II reports the results of comparing the corporal punishment variables between the first and second mailings. In Section III all of the associations between the background factors and the corporal punishment variables are examined. In Section IV the strength of these associations are examined. SECTION I: DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE Respondents' attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school This variable was measured in two ways. Each respondant was asked to indicate what Is his/her own attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in the school. is given in Table 1. The distribution of responses Eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondants favor the use of corporal punishment in the school. 89 Nineteen percent 90 TABLE 1 RESPONDANTS ATTITUDE TOWARD THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=1085) Number Attitude Cumulative Percent Favor its use at the discretion of teachers 43 4.0 Favor its use at the discretion of principals 181 20.6 Favor its use at the discretion of teachers and principals 488 65.6 Favor its use restricted to specific circumstances deter­ mined by the board 165 80.8 Oppose its use 208 100.0 (19%) of the respondants oppose Its use. In addition, an index of educators attitudes toward corporal punishment was constructed. Each respondant was asked to indicate which of four possible response choices best describes his/her reaction to each of six statements. These statements are: Complete elimination of corporal punishment in the schools would have serious consequences. Someone in the schools should have the authority to use corporal punishment. Corporal punishment breeds aggressive behavior by providing an aggressive model for the student. Corporal punishment is not an effective method of maintaining discipline. Corporal punishment should not be allowed in the schools. Corporal punishment is the only thing that will work with some students. Each response choice was assigned a score of 1, 2, 3, or 4. For each 91 respondant, a mean score was computed from his/her responses to the six statements. The range of mean scores was from 1 to 4. Generally, it could be expected that an individual who strongly favored the use of corporal punishment would have a mean score on the lower portion of the scale and one who strongly opposed the use of corporal punishment would score on the upper portion of the scale. Table 2 presents the distribution of respondants mean scores on the attitude index. median is 2.17. The mean score for the index is 2.25 and the Seventy-five percent (75%) of the respondants have TABLE 2 ATTITUDE INDEX (n=1101) Number Cumulative Percent 1.00 - 1.75 228 20.7 1.76 - 2.50 596 74.8 2.51 - 3.25 192 92.3 3.26 - 4.00 85 100.0 Mean Score Mean = 2.25; S.D. = .64; Mdn. - 2.17 mean scores on the lower portion of the index indicating that they favor the use of corporal punishment. This finding is similar to the previous one in which eighty-one percent (81%) of the respondants indicated that they favor the use of corporal punishment in schools. It suggests that the two methods of measuring the respondants attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in the schools provide similar results. 92 Respondants use of corporal punishment in schools Table 3 presents the distribution of responses to questionnaire statement nineteen, "During the past school year (1978-1979), I used corporal punishment to discipline students." Fifty-six percent (56%) of the respondants indicated that they used corporal punishment at least once during the 1978-1979 school year of which twenty-six percent (26%) indicated they used it two or three times. Thirteen percent (13%) of the respondants used corporal punishment an average of once a month. Forty-four percent (44%) of the respondants indicated that they did not use corporal punishment during the year in question. Three hundred and sixty-eight respondants did not give frequency information on their corporal punishment practices. TABLE 3 RESPONDANTS USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=733) Frequency Used Number Cumulative Percent Once a week on the average 29 4.0 Once a month on the average 65 12.8 Once every other month on the average 37 17.9 Two or three times during the past school year 190 43.8 92 56.3 320 100.0 Once during the past school year Never 93 Background factors Background factors constitute the broad framework of influences within which corporal punishment attitudes and practices emerge. Categories that will be examined include: 1. Respondants' childhood experiences in receiving corporal punishment. 2. Respondants' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment. 3. Sex characteristics of respondants. 4. Age characteristics of respondants. 5. Marital characteristics of respondants. 6. Respondants' years of teaching experience. 7. Position of respondant. 8. Size of school respondant works in. 9. Level of respondants' major teaching assignment. 10. Area of respondants* current teaching assignment. 11, Respondants' use of corporal punishment on his/her own children. Childhood experiences in receiving corporal punishment Table 4 presents the response distribution for questionnaire item 26, which addressed the respondants' experiences in receiving corporal punishment prior to becoming teenagers. It can be seen that eighty-seven percent (87%) of the respondants received corporal punishment at home, and thirty-four percent (34%) of the respondants received corporal punishment at school during their childhood years. 94 TABLE 4 RESPONDANTS* EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS Frequency Punished Number Cumulative Percent At Home (n=1070) Once a month or more 106 9.9 More than once a year 388 46.2 Once a year or less 441 87.4 Never 135 100.0 Once a month or more 14 1.3 More than once a year 72 8.1 Once a year or less 275 34.0 Never 701 100.0 At School (n=1062) In contrast, the response distribution for questionnaire item 27, presented in Table 5, indicates that as teenagers, thirty-six percent (36%) of the respondants received corporal punishment at home and fifteen percent (15%) of the respondants received corporal punishment at school. Childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment In Table 6 is presented the response distribution for questionnaire item 29, which assessed the respondants* childhood experiences in observing other children disciplined through the use of corporal punishment. Eighty-seven percent (87%) of the respondants had seen 95 other children receive corporal punishment at home. Of these respondants, seven percent (7%) had seen corporal punishment administered often, forty-four percent (44%) had seen it administered occasionally, and thirty-six percent (36%) had seen it administered rarely. TABLE 5 RESPONDANTS TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL Frequency Punished Number Cumulative Percent At Home (n=1075) Once a month or more 27 2.5 More than once a year 86 10.5 Once a year or less 272 35.8 Never 690 100.0 6 .6 31 3.5 Once a year or less 119 14.7 Never 908 100.0 At School (n=1064) Once a month or more More than once a year 96 TABLE 6 RESPONDANTS CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME AND AT SCHOOL Frequency Observed Number Cumulative Percent At Home (n=1079) Often 79 7.3 Occasionally 470 50.9 Rarely 391 87.1 Never 139 100.0 78 7.3 Occasionally 439 48.1 Rarely 376 83.1 Never 181 100.0 At School (n=1074) Often Similarly, eighty-three percent (83%) of the respondants had seen other children receive corporal punishment at school, of which seven percent (7%) had seen corporal punishment administered often, forty-one percent (41%) had seen it administered occasionally, and thirty-five percent (35%) had seen it administered rarely. Sex characteristics The sex composition of the sample is presented in Table 7. Men outnumber women 572 to 516. 97 TABLE 7 RESPONDANTS SEX CHARACTERISTICS Sex Number Percent Female 516 47.4 Male 572 52.6 Age characteristics The age characteristics of the respondants is presented in Table 8. Two percent (2%) of the respondants are under twenty-five years of age. Eighty-nine percent (89%) are within the twenty-five to fifty-four age range. Only nine percent (9%) of the sample are over fifty-four years of age. TABLE 8 RESPONDANTS AGE CHARACTERISTICS (n=1089) Age Category Less than twenty-five (25) Percent 1.8 Twenty-five (25) to twenty-nine (29) 13.2 Thirty (30) to thirty-four (34) 20.2 Thirty-five (35) to thirty-nine (39) 17.5 Forty (40) to forty-four (44) 15.2 Forty-five (45) to forty-nine (49) 11.9 Fifty (50) to fifty-four (54) 11.6 Fifty-five (55) to fifty-nine (59) 6.0 Over fifty-nine (59) 2.6 98 Marital characteristics Table 9 presents the distribution of the respondants1 marital status. Eighty-two percent (82%) of the respondants are married. Single and divorced respondants comprise eighteen percent (18%) of the sample. TABLE 9 RESPONDANTS MARITAL CHARACTERISTICS (n=1090) Marital Status Percent Married 81.8 Single 12.5 Divorced 5.7 Length of teaching experience The distribution of responses is given in Table 10. The sample consists of respondants whose teaching experience is less than one year and as long as forty-three years. Half of the respondants (50%) have had from six to fifteen years of experience. Thirty-seven percent (37%) of the respondants have had over fifteen years of experience teaching. 99 TABLE 10 LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE (n=1074) Length of Experience Percent Less than six (6) years 12.8 Six (6) years to ten (10) years 27.9 Eleven (11) years to fifteen (15) years 22.5 Sixteen (16) years to twenty (20) years 14.6 Twenty-one (21) years to twenty-five (25) years 12.5 Over twenty-five years 10.0 Position of respondants Table 11 presents the distribution of the respondants' current positions within their school systems. The sample is re­ presented by more than twice as many teachers (732) than there are principals (320). Forty-nine respondants did not indicate their current position. TABLE 11 POSITION OF RESPONDANTS (n=1052) Current Position Number Percent Teacher 732 69.6 Principal 320 30.4 100 School Size In Table 12 is presented the distribution of the size of the school the respondants work in, in terras of student enrollment. Six percent (6%) of the respondants work in schools having under 250 students enrolled, Sixty-seven percent (67%) work in schools having 250 to 749 students enrolled, and twenty-seven percent (27%) of the respondants work in schools having over 750 students enrolled. TABLE 12 SIZE OF SCHOOL RESPONDANTS WORK IN (n=1071) Student Enrollment Percent Under 250 5.5 250 to 499 35.9 500 to 749 31.3 750 to 999 17.0 Over 1,000 10.4 Level of Teaching Assignment For the teachers represented in this sample, Table 13 presents the distribution of the level of their major teaching assignment. Nine percent (9%) of the respondants teach kindergarten. Twenty-four percent (24%) of the respondants have teaching assignments in grades one to four, and sixty-two percent (62%) have assignments in grades five to eight. grade. Five percent (5%) of the respondants teach at the ninth 101 TABLE 13 LEVEL OF RESPONDANTS' MAJOR TEACHING ASSIGNMENT (n=752) Level of Assignment Percent Kindergarten 9.4 First Grade 6.4 Second Grade 5.1 Third Grade 5.6 Fourth Grade 6 .6 Fifth Grade 4.5 Sixth Grade 13.4 Seventh Grade 28.3 Eighth Grade 15.4 5.2 Ninth Grade Current leaching Assignment Table 14 presents for the teachers represented in this sample the distribution of the area of their current teaching assignment. Nine percent (9%) of the respondants consist of shop teachers and physical education teachers and coaches. Another nine percent (9%) consist of music, art, home economic, and library teachers. The remaining special area teachers such as health specialists, guidance counselors, special education teachers, etc.,,, account for fifteen percent (15%) of the respondants. Teachers of all other subjects such as math, science, history, language, etc..., comprise sixty-seven percent (67%) of the respondants. 102 TABLE 14 RESPONDANTS' CURRENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT (n=752) Area of Assignment Percent Shop 2.6 Physical Education/Coach 6.2 Music, Art 4.6 Home Economics 2.5 Library 1.7 .4 Health Specialists Guidance Counseling 3.9 Remedial Education 2.5 Special Education 6.2 Other special areas (Enrichment, Drama, etc) 1.8 All other subjects 67.4 Use of Corporal Punishment on Own Child In Table 15 Is presented the distribution of the respondants' use of corporal punishment on their own children. Two hundred and ninety-two respondants Indicated they do not have children. Of the seven hundred and thirty respondants remaining, eighty-one percent (81%) use corporal punishment on their own children at least once a year or less. Of these respondants, thirty-four percent (34%) use corporal punishment more than once a year, and eleven percent (11%) use it at least once a month. Nineteen percent (19%) of the respondants Indicated they never use corporal punishment to discipline their children. 103 TABLE 15 RESPONDANTS USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON HIS/HER OWN CHILD (CHILDREN) (n=730) Frequency Used Percent Once a month or more 11.4 More than once a year 33.6 Once a year or less 35.7 Never 19.3 SECTION II: RESULTS OF COMPARING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND MAILINGS Initial analysis of the data were conducted to determine if there were any differences in corporal punishment attitudes and practices between educators who had returned the questionnaire as a result of the first mailing and follow-up postcard from those who had returned the questionnaire as a result of the second mailing. Table 16 shows the assocatlon between returns from the first mailing, plus follow-up postcard, and second mailing in relation to the respondants1 attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. A 5 x 2 chi square analysis indicated this association was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X^ = 5.89, d.f. = 4). The null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. 104 TABLE 16 RETURNS FROM FIRST MAILING PLUS FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD AND SECOND MAILING IN RELATION TO RESPONDANTS' ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=1081) Attitude First Mailing/Postcard Number Percent Second Mailing Number Percent Favor its use at the discretion of teachers 28 3.5 15 5.4 Favor its use at the discretion of principals 140 17.5 40 14.3 Favor its use at the discretion of teachers and principals 369 46.1 119 42.5 Favor its use restricted to specific circumstances deter­ mined by the Board 120 15.0 43 15.4 Oppose its use 144 18.0 63 22.5 801 100.0 280 100.0 Totals X2 = 5.89; d.f. = 4; Sig. = .20 It may be concluded that there were no significant differences in attitude of educators toward the use of corporal punishment in school between the first and second mailings. Table 17 shows the association between returns from the first mailing, plus follow-up postcard, and second mailing in relation to the respondants' use of corporal punishment in school. 105 TABLE 17 RETURNS FROM FIRST MAILING PLUS FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD AND SECOND MAILING IN RELATION TO RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=729) Frequency Used First Mailing/Postcard Number Percent Second Mailing Number Percent Once a week on the average 22 4.0 7 3.9 Once a month on the average 50 9.1 15 8.3 Once every other month on the average 29 5.3 8 4.4 Two or three times during the past school year 148 27.0 41 22.7 67 12.2 24 13.3 232 42.3 86 47.5 548 100.0 181 100.0 Once during the past school year Never Totals X2 = 2.26; d.f. = 5; SIg. = .81 A 6 x 2 chi square analysis indicated this association was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X 2 = 2.26, d.f. = 5). null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. The It may be concluded that there were no significant differences in educators use of corporal punishment in school between the first and second mailings. 106 SECTION III: ANALYSIS OF ASSOCIATIONS BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES The attitude of educators toward the use of corporal punishment and their use of corporal punishment were examined for their relation to eleven background factors thought to be associated with them. Childhood Experience in Receiving Corporal Punishment in Relation to Attitude Toward Its Use in School The first background factor examined for its relationship to the respondants' attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school was the respondants' childhood experiences in receiving corporal punishment. Hypothesis I; A positive relationship exists between educators' attitudes regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who received corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school, prior to becoming teenagers or as teenagers) do not differ in their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not received it. To test Hypothesis I each of the four conditions in which educators received corporal punishment as children were examined for their association with educators' attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. TheBe conditions are: At home prior to becoming teenagers At school prior to becoming teenagers At home as teenagers At school as teenagers Table 18 shows the association between respondants' experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers and attitude toward its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, 107 corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in attitude toward corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers and those who did not (X 2 = 15.82; d.f. *= 1; Sig. = .0001). 1 Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers (82.6%) favored its use in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers (67.7%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. TABLE 18 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n=1055) Corporal Punishment Received At Least Once A Year Or Less No. Col.% No. Col.% Favor its use 762 82.6 90 67.7 Oppose its use 160 17.4 43 32.3 992 100.0 133 100.0 Attitude Totals Never X 2 = 15.82; d.f. » 1; Sig. = .0001 •*-Catagories in this study's chi square contingency tables were combined where necessary for computation and interpretation purposes. 108 Table 19 shows the association between respondants' experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers and attitude toward its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in attitude toward corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers and those who did not (X^ = 4.88; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .02). Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers (84.8%) favored its use in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers (78.9%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. TABLE 19 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n=1047) Corporal Punishment Received Attitude Favor its use At Least Once A year Or Less Col. % No. No. Col.% 301 84.8 546 78.9 54 15.2 146 21.1 355 100.0 692 100.0 Oppose its use Totals X ^ = 4.88; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .02 Never 109 Table 20 shows the association between respondants' teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home and attitude toward its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in attitude toward corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at home as teenagers and those who did not (X2 = 19.66; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001). Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at home as teenagers (88%) favored its use in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at home as teenagers (76.5%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. TABLE 20 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n=1060) Corporal Punishment Received Attitude Favor its use Oppose its use Totals At Least Once A Year Or Less Col.% No. Never No. Col.% 336 88.0 519 76.5 46 12.0 159 23.5 382 100.0 678 100.0 X 2 = 19.66; d.f. = X; Sig. = .0001 110 Table 21 shows the association between respondants' teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school and attitude toward its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was no significant difference in attitude toward corporal punishment among educators who received corporal O punishment at school as teenagers and those who did not (X = 1; Sig. = .11). = 2.42; d.f. Although, more educators who received corporal punishment at school as teenagers (85.8%) favored its use in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at school as teenagers (80.1%). The null hypothesis for this association cannot be rejected. TABLE 21 RESPONDANTS" TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n=1050) Corporal Punishment Received Attitude Favor its use Oppose its use Totals X 2 ■= 2.42; d.f. At Least Once A Year Or Less No. Col. % No. Col. % 133 85.8 717 80.1 22 14.2 178 19.9 155 100.0 895 100.0 " i; s i g . = .11 Never Ill Overall,-it may be concluded that educators who received corporal punishment at home or at school prior to becoming teenagers, and educators who received corporal punishment at home as teenagers were significantly more likely to favor its use in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment as children. In contrast, educators who received corporal punishment at school as teenagers did not differ significantly in their attitude toward corporal punishment from those who did not receive it as teenagers. Childhood Experiences in Observing Corporal Punishment in Relation to Attitude Toward Its Use in School The next background factor examined for its relationship to the respondants' attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school was the respondants' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment. Hypothesis II: A positive relationship exists between educators' attitudes regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who observed corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school) do not differ in their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not observed it. To test Hypothesis II educators' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at home and their childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at school were each examined for their association with educators' attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. Table 22 shows the association between respondants childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at home and attitude toward its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was no significant difference in attitude toward corporal punishment among educators who observed corporal 112 2 punishment at home as children and those who did not (X - 2.39; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .12). Although, more educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children (81.6%) favored its use in school than educators who did not observe corporal punishment at home as children (75.6%). The null hypothesis for this association cannot be rejected. TABLE 22 RESPONDANTS’ EXPERIENCE IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n==1064) Corporal Punishment Observed Attitude Rarely To Often No. Col. % No. Col. % Favor its use 758 81.6 102 75.6 Oppose Its use 171 18.4 33 24.4 929 100.0 135 100.0 Totals Never X 2 = 2.39; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .12 Table 23 shows the association between respondants' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at school and attitude toward its use in school, A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in attitude toward corporal punishment among educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children and those who did not 113 ( x 2 = 13.74; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0002). Significantly more educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children (83.2%) favored its use in school than educators who did not observe corporal punishment at school as children (70.9%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. TABLE 23 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n=1059) Corporal Punishment Observed Attitude Rarely to Often No. Col.% No. Col.% Favor its use 732 83.2 127 70.9 Oppose its use 148 16.8 52 29.1 880 100.0 179 100.0 Totals Never X 2 = 13.74; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0002 These results half support the hypothesized direct relationship between observation of corporal punishment during childhood and attitude toward its use in school. Educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children did not differ significantly in their attitude toward its use in school from educators who did not observe corporal punishment at home. The XIA opposite is true of educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children. These educators were significantly more likely to favor its use in school than those who did not observe corporal punishment at school. Childhood Experiences in Receiving Corporal Punishment in Relation to Using It in School Next, the respondants' childhood experiences in receiving corporal punishment was examined for its relationship to the respondants' use of corporal punishment in school. Hypothesis III; A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis; Educators who received corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school, prior to becoming teenagers or as teenagers) do not differ in their use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not received it. To test Hypothesis III each of the four conditions in which educators received corporal punishment as children were examined for their association with educators' use of corporal punishment in school. These conditions are: At home prior to becoming teenagers At school prior to becoming teenagers At home as teenagers At school as teenagers Table 24 shows the association between respondants' experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers and its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for 115 continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in the use of corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers and those who did not (X2 = 16.41; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001). Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers (59.5%) used it TABLE 24 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n=710) Corporal Punishment Received Frequency Used At Least Once A Year Or Less No. Col.% Never No. Col.% At least once during the school year 375 59.5 28 35.0 Never 255 40.5 52 65.0 630 100.0 80 100.0 Totals X 2 = 16.41; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers (35%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. Table 25 shows the association between respondants' experiences 116 in receiving corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers and its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in the use of corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers and those who did not (X2 = 26.11; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001). Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers (69.5%) used it TABLE 25 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL PRIOR TO BECOMING TEENAGERS IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n=705) Corporal Punishment Received Frequency Used At least once during the school year Never Totals At Least Once A Year Or Less No. Col.% No. Col.% 182 69.5 219 49.4 80 30.5 224 50.6 262 100.0 443 100.0 Never X 2 = 26.11; d.f. >= I; Sig. = .0001 in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers (49.4%). association can be rejected. The qull hypothesis for this 117 Table 26 shows the association between respondants' teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home and its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in the use of corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at home as teenagers and those who did not (X 2 = 28.82; d.f. = 1; Sig. s .0001). Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at home as teenagers (69.7%) used it in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at home as teenagers (48.8%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. TABLE 26 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n-717) Corporal Punishment Received Frequency Used At least once during the school year Never Totals At Least Once A Year Or Less Col.% No. No. Col.% 184 69.7 221 48.8 80 30.3 232 51.2 264 100.0 453 100.0 X 2 «* 28.82; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 Never 118 Table 27 shows the association between respondants' teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school and its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in the use of corporal punishment among educators who received corporal punishment at school as teenagers and those who did not (X2 = 15.46; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001). Significantly more educators who received corporal punishment at school as teenagers (73.9%) used it in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment at school as teenagers (53.5%). The null hypothesis for this association can be rejected. TABLE 27 RESPONDANTS' TEENAGE EXPERIENCES IN RECEIVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n=707) Corporal Punishment Received At Least Once A Year Or Less No. Col.% No. Col.% At least once during the school year 85 73.9 317 53.5 Never 30 26.1 275 46.5 115 100.0 592 100.0 Frequency Used Totals X 2 = 15.46; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 Never 119 Overall, it may be concluded that educators who received corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school, prior to becoming teenagers or as teenagers) were significantly more likely to have used it in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment during their childhood. Childhood Experiences in Observing Corporal Punishment in Relation to Using It in School The next background factor examined for its relationship to the respondants' use of corporal punishment in school was the respondants' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment. Hypothesis IV; A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Null hypothesis: Educators who observed corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at school) do not differ in their use of corporal punishment in school from those who had not observed it• To test Hypothesis IV educators' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at home and their childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at school were each examined for their association with educators' use of corporal punishment in school. Table 28 shows the association between respondants' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at home and its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was no significant difference in the use of corporal punishment among educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children and those who did not (X^ = .30; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .58). Slightly more educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children (56.9%) used it in school than educators who did not observe corporal punishment at home as children (53.3%). The null hypothesis 120 for this association cannot be rejected. TABLE 28 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT HOME IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n=719) Corporal Punishment Observed Frequency Used Rarely To Often No. Col.% No. Col.% At least once during the school year 357 56.9 49 53.3 Never 270 43.1 43 46.7 627 100.0 92 100.0 Totals Never X2 = .30; d.f. = 1; Sig . = .58 Table 29 shows the association between respondants' childhood experiences in observing corporal punishment at school and its use in school. A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that there was a significant difference in the use of corporal punishment among educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children 2 and those who did not (X = 3.86; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .04). Significantly more educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children (58.3%) used it in school than educators who did not observe corporal punishment at school as children (47.8%). association can be rejected. The null hypothesis for this 121 TABLE 29 RESPONDANTS' EXPERIENCES IN OBSERVING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AT SCHOOL IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n=714) Corporal Punishment Observed Frequency Used Rarely To Often No. Col.% Never No. Col.% At least once during the school year 349 58.3 55 47.8 Never 250 41.7 60 52.2 599 100.0 115 100.0 Totals X2 « 3.86; d.f. » 1; Sig. = .04 These results half suppport the hypothesized direct relationship between observation of corporal punishment during childhood and Its use in school. Educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children did not differ significantly in their use of corporal punishment in school from educators who did not observe it at home. In contrast, educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children were significantly more likely to have used It in school than those who did not observe corporal punishment at school. Social Demographic Factors in Relation to Attitude Toward Use of Corporal Punishment in School Next, nine social demographic factors were each examined for their relationship to educators' attitude toward the use of corporal 122 punishment in school. Hypothesis V: Educators who favor the use of corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who oppose the use of corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Null hypothesis: Educators who favor the use of corporal punishment in school will not differ from educators who oppose the use of corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children 1. Sex Characteristics of Respondants Table 30 shows the association between sex of respondants and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school. More female and male educators favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. However, the proportion of males that favored the use of corporal punishment in school (83.5%) was slightly greater than females (77.9%). A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that this finding was significant at the .02 level (X d.f. = 1 ) . 2 “ 5.19; The null hypothesis for this comparison can be rejected. It may be concluded that males were significantly more likely to favor the use of corporal punishment in school than females. 123 TABLE 30 RESPONDANTS'SEX CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=1071) Attitude Female Male No. Col.% No. Col.% Favor its use 394 77.9 472 83.5 Oppose its use 112 22.1 93 16.5 506 100.0 565 100.0 Totals X 2 - 5.19; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .02 2. Age Characteristics of Respondants Table 31 shows the association between age of respondants and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school. More educators in each age group favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. However, the proportion of educators that favored the use of corporal punishment in school was slighlty greater in the 34 or under age group (85.2%) and the 35 to 44 age group (81.5%) than the 45 or over age group (75.5%). A 2x3 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was significant at the .004 level (X ^ = 11.00; d.f. = 2). null hypothesis for this comparison can be rejected. The It may be concluded that younger educators (age 34 or under) were significantly more likely to favor the use of corporal punishment in school than older educators (age 35 or over). 124 TABLE 31 RESPONDANTS' AGE CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=>1072) Attitude Favor Its use Oppose its use Totals 34 or Under No. Col.% 35 to 44 No. Col.% 45 or Over No. Col.% 322 85.2 286 81.5 259 75.5 56 14.8 65 18.5 84 24.5 378 100.0 351 100.0 343 100.0 X 2 = 11.00; d.f. = 2; Sig. = .004 3. Marital Status; of Respondants Table 32 shows the association between marital status of respondants and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school. More educators in each marital status category favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. A slightly greater proportion of married educators (81.5%) and single educators (79.1%) favored the use of corporal punishment in school than those who were divorced (74.2%). A 2 x 3 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X 2 = 2.29; d.f. = 2). The null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the marital status of educators and their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. 125 TABLE 32 RESPONDANTS' MARITAL STATUS IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=1073) Attitude No. Married Col.% No. Single Col.% No. Divorced Col.% Favor its use 715 81.5 106 79.1 46 74.2 Oppose its use 162 18.5 28 20.9 16 25.8 877 100.0 134 100.0 62 100.0 Totals X 2 = 2.29; d.f. = 2; Sig. = .31 4. Respondants' Years of Teaching Experience Table 33 shows the association between respondants' length of teaching experience and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school. More educators in each teaching experience category favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. The proportion of educators with 15 or less years teaching experience who favored the use of corporal punishment ranged from 81.2% (11 to 15 years experience) to 84.1% (6 to 10 years experience). In comparison, a slightly lower proportion of educators with 16 or more years experience favored the use of corporal punishment in school. For these educators proportions ranged from 75.8% (21 to 25 years experience) to 77.5% (over 25 years experience). A 2 x 6 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X d.f. = 5). 2 = 7.13; The null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the number of years that educators had taught and their attitude toward 126 TABLE 33 RESPONDANTS1 LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=733) Attitude Less Than 6 Years No. Col.% No. 6 To 10 Col.% 11 To 15 No. Col.% 16 To 20 No. Col.% 21 To 25 Col.% No. Over 25 Years No. Col.% 136 84.0 248 84.1 194 81.2 120 77.4 100 75.8 79 77.5 Oppose its use 26 16.0 47 15.9 45 18.8 35 22.6 32 24.2 23 22.5 Totals 162 295 100 239 100 155 100 132 100 102 100 Favor its use 100 X2 = 7.13; d.f. = 5; Sig. = .21 127 the use of corporal punishment in school. 5. Position of Respondants Table 34 shows the association between position of respondants and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school. More teachers and principals favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. However, a slightly greater proportion of teachers (83.6%) favored the use of corporal punishment than principals (76.7%). A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that this finding was significant at the .01 level (X2 = 6.55; d.f. = 1). null hypothesis for this comparison can be rejected. The It may be concluded that teachers were significantly more likely to favor the use of corporal punishment in school than principals. TABLE 34 RESPONDANTS' POSITION IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=1036) Attitude Teacher Principal No. Col.% No. Col.% Favor its use 601 83.6 243 76.7 Oppose its use 118 16.4 74 23.3 719 100.0 317 100.0 Totals X 2 = 6.55; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .01 6 . Size of School Respondants Work In Table 35 shows the association between size of school respondants work in and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in 128 school. More educators in each student enrollment category favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. Almost equal proportions of educators in the enrollment categories examined favored the use of corporal punishment in school. These proportions ranged from 80.3% (500 to 749 students enrolled) to 83.2% (750 to 999 students enrolled). A 2 x 4 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X^ = *79; d.f. = 3). null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. The It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the size of school that educators work in and their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 35 SIZE OF SCHOOL RESPONDANTS W O R K IN IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=1055) Student Enrollment 1000 Or More No. Col.% 999 To 750 No. Col.% 749 To 500 No. Col.% 499 Or Less No. Col.% Favor its use 86 80.4 149 83.2 265 80.3 353 80.4 Oppose its use 21 19.6 30 16.8 65 19.7 86 19.6 107 100.0 179 100.0 330 100.0 439 100.0 Attitude Totals X 2 = .79; d •f. = 3; Sig. = .85 7. Level of Respondants/ Major Teaching Assignment Table 36 shows for teachers the association between level of 129 their major teaching assignment and attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school. More teachers in each assignment level category favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. Eighty-four and two tenths percent (84.2%) of the teachers with major assignments in grades five to eight and in grade nine favored the use of corporal punishment in school. A slightly lower proportion of teachers with major assignments in kindergarten and in grades one to four (78.9% and 82.3% respectively) favored the use of corporal punishment in school. A 2 x 4 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X 2 = 1.39; d.f. = 3). null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. The It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the level of educators major teaching assignment and their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 36 LEVEL OF RESPONDANTS' MAJOR TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=739) Attitude Kindergarten No. Col.% First Grade thru Fourth Grade No. Col.% Fifth Grade thru Eighth Grade No. Col.% Ninth Grade No. Col.% Favor Its use 56 78.9 144 82.3 383 84.2 32 84.2 Oppose its use 15 21.1 31 17.7 72 15.8 6 15.8 71 100.0 175 100.0 455 100.0 38 100.0 Totals X2 = 1.39; d.f. = 3; Sig. = .70 130 8 . Area of Respondants' Current Teaching Assignment Table 37 shows for teachers the association between the area of their current teaching assignment and their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. More teachers in each assignment category favored the use of corporal punishment in school than opposed its use. A slightly greater proportion of shop teachers, physical education teachers, and coaches (90.6%) favored the use of corporal punishment in school than did subject area teachers (84.0%) or all other special area personnel (76.0%). A 2 x 3 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was significant at the .01 level (X^ = 8.54; d.f. = 2). hypothesis for this comparison can be rejected. The null It may be concluded that shop teachers, physical education teachers, and coaches were significantly more likely to favor the use of corporal punishment in school than other special area personnel and subject area teachers. TABLE 37 AREA OF RESPONDANTS' CURRENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n-712) Attitude Shop Teachers Physical Education Teachers Other Special Area Coaches Personnel No. No. Col.% Col.% Favor its use Oppose its use Totals Subject Area Teachers No. Col.% 58 90.6 127 76.0 404 84.0 6 9.4 40 24.0 77 16.0 64 100.0 167 100.0 481 100.0 X 2 = 8.54; d.f. = 2; Sig. = .01 131 9. Respondants' Use of Corporal Punishment on Their Own Children Table 38 shows the association between respondants' use of corporal punishment on their own children and their attitude toward its use in school. More educators, who used and did not use corporal punishment on their own children, favored its use in school than opposed its use. However, a considerably greater proportion of educators who used corporal punishment on their own children (86.4%) favored its use in school than educators who did not use corporal punishment on their own children (54%). A 2 x 2 chi square analysis,corrected for continuity, indicated that this finding was significant at the .0001 level (X 71.96; d.f. = 1 ) . rejected. 2 = The null hypothesis for this comparison can be It may be concluded that educators who used corporal punishment on their own children were significantly more likely to favor its use in school than educators who did not use corporal punishment on their own children. TABLE 38 RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON THEIR OWN CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THEIR ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS USE IN SCHOOL (n=719) Attitude Favor its use Oppose Its use Totals Frequency Punished Own Children At Least Once A Year Never Or Less No. Col.% No. Col.% 501 86.4 75 54.0 79 13.6 64 46.0 580 100.0 139 100.0 X2 = 71.96; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 132 In summary, the following social demographic background factors were associated with attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school: respondants' sex, age, position, area of current teaching assignment, and use of corporal punishment on their own children. The chi square test of association was not significant for attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school and respondants' marital status, length of teaching experience, school size, and level of major teaching assignment. Social Demographic Factors in Relation to Use of Corporal Punishment in School Next, the above social demographic factors were each examined for their relationship to educators' use of corporal punishment in school. Hypothesis VI: Educators who use corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who do not use corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Null hypothesis: Educators who use corporal punishment in school will not differ from educators who do not use corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1 . Sex 2 . Age 3. Marital Status 4 . Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position 6 . Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8 . Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children 1. Sex Characteristics of Respondants Table 39 shows the association between sex of respondants and use of corporal punishment in school. A greater proportion of male educators 133 (64.8%) used corporal punishment during the 1978-79 school year than female educators (43.2%). A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that this finding was significant at the .0001 n level (X = 31.97; d.f. = 1). can be rejected. The null hypothesis for this comparison It may be concluded that males were significantly more likely to have used corporal punishment in school than females. TABLE 39 RESPONDANTS' SEX CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=723) Frequency Used No. Female Col.% At least once during the school year 124 43.2 282 64.8 Never 163 56.8 153 35.2 287 100.0 435 100.0 Totals .. — — No.” Male CdlT% X 2 = 31.97; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 2. Age Characteristics of Respondants Table 40 shows the association between age of respondants and use of corporal punishment in school. There were more educators in each age group that used corporal punishment in school than there were educators who did not use it. However, the proportion of educators that used corporal punishment in school was slightly greater in the 35 to 44 age group (59.1%) and the 34 or under age group (55.9%) than the 45 or over age group (53.8%). A 2 x 3 chi square analysis indicated that this 134 finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X^ = 1.40; d.f. = 2). The null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the age of educators and their use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 40 RESPONDANTS' AGE CHARACTERISTICS IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=723) Frequency Used 34 or Under No. Col.% At least oi.c-i— >- *-12-4------- S5-.3--- — — during the school year Never Totals 35 to 44 No. Col.% 1-50— — 45 Or Over No. Col.% ^59. - ! ™ --- *33---- '~'53vG' 98 44.1 104 40.9 114 46.2 222 100.0 254 100.0 247 100.0 X 2 = 1.40; d.f. = 2; Sig. = .49 3. Marital Status of Respondants Table 41 shows the association between marital status of respondants and use of corporal punishment in school. There were more educators in each marital status category that used corporal punishment in school than there were educators who did not. A slightly greater proportion of married educators (57%) used corporal punishment in school than single educators (52.6%) or divorced educators (52.5%). A 2 x 3 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X^ = .79; d.f. = 2). comparison cannot be rejected. The null hypothesis for this It may be concluded that there were no 135 significant differences between the marital status of educators and their use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 41 RESPONDANTS' MARITAL STATUS IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=725) Frequency Used Married No. Col.% Single No. Col.% Divorced No. Col.% At least once during the school year 346 57.0 41 52.6 21 52.5 Never 261 43.0 37 47.4 19 47.5 607 100.0 78 100.0 40 100.0 Totals X 2 = .79; d.f. = 2; Sig. = .67 4. Respondents' Years of Teaching Experience Table 42 shows the association between respondents' length of teaching experience and use of corporal punishment in school. The proportion of educators that used corporal punishment ranged from 49.4% for those with over 25 years teaching experience to 64.8% for educators with 16 to 20 years experience. With the exception of educators with over 25 years experience, there was a slightly greater proportion of educators in each teaching experience category who used corporal punishment than there were educators who did not use corporal punishment. A 2 x 6 chi square analysis indicated that this comparison was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X2 = 6.78; d.f. *» 5). null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. It may be The 136 TABLE 42 RESPONDANTS' LENGTH OF TEACHING EXPERIENCE IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n-733) Frequency Used Less Than 6 Years No. Col.% 6 To 10 No. Col.% 11 To 15 Col.% No. 16 To 20 No. Col.% 21 To 25 No. Col.% Over 25 Years Col.% No. At least once during the school year 62 60.2 107 54.9 79 52.0 70 64.8 57 58.2 38 49.4 Never 41 39.8 88 45.1 73 48.0 38 35.2 41 41.8 39 50.6 103 100 195 100 152 100 108 100 98 100 77 100 Totals X2 = 6.78; d.f. = 5; Sig. - .23 137 concluded that there were no significant differences between the number of years that educators have taught and their use of corporal punishment in school. 5. Position of Respondants Table 43 shows the association between position of respondants and use of corporal punishment in school. A much larger proportion of principals (65.9%) used corporal punishment in school than teachers (48.7%). A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that this finding was significant at the .0001 level (X^ = 20.26; d.f. *= 1). rejected. The null hypothesis for this comparison can be It may be concluded that principals were significantly more likely to have used corporal punishment in school than teachers. TABLE 43 RESPONDANTS' POSITION IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n-711) Teacher Frequency Used Principal No. Col.% No. Col.% At least once during the school year 195 48.7 205 65.9 Never 205 51.3 106 34.1 400 100.0 311 100.0 Totals X 2 = 20.26; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 6 . Size of School Respondants Work In Table 44 shows the association between size of school 138 and use of corporal punishment in school. Fifty-eight and five tenths percent (58.5%) of the educators in schools with 499 or less students enrolled and 57.8% of the educators in schools with 500 to 749 students enrolled used corporal punishment. In comparison, 51.5% of the educators in schools with 750 to 999 students and 48.6% of those in schools with 1,000 or more students used corporal punishment. A 2 x 4 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X2 = 3.52; d.f. = 3). comparison cannot be rejected. The null hypothesis for this It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the size of school that educators work in and their use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 44 SIZE OF SCHOOL RESPONDANTS WORK IN IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n-711) Student Enrollment Frequency Used 1000 Or More No. Col.% 999 to 750 No. Col.% 749 to 500 No. Col.% 499 or Less No. Col.% At least once during the school year 35 48.6 53 51.5 129 57.8 183 58.5 Never 37 51.4 50 48.5 94 42.2 130 41.5 72 100.0 103 100.0 223 100.0 313 100.0 Totals X 2 = 3.52; d.f. = 3; Sig. = .31 139 7. Level of Respondants' Major Teaching Assignment Table 45 shows for teachers the association between level of their major teaching assignment and use of corporal punishment In school. Fifty-one and two tenths percent (51.2%) of the teachers with major assignments in kindergarten and 54% of those with major assignments in grades one to four used corporal punishment in school. A slightly lower proportion of teachers with major assignments in grades five to eight and in grade nine (48.3% and 33.3% respectively) used corporal punishment in school. A 2 x 4 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X^ = 2.86; d.f. = 3). null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. The It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the level of educators' major teaching assignment and their use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 45 LEVEL OF RESPONDANTS' MAJOR TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=401) Frequency Used Kindergarten No. Col.% First Grade thru Fourth Grade No. Col.% Fifth Grade thru Eighth Grade No. Col.% Ninth Grade No. Col.% At least once during the school year 21 51.2 54 54.0 117 48.3 6 33.3 Never 20 48.8 46 46.0 125 51.7 12 66.7 100.0 100 100.0 242 100.0 18 100.0 Totals 41 X 2 = 2.86; d.f. = 3; Sig. - .41 140 8 . Area of Respondants* Current Teaching Assignment Table 46 shows for teachers the association between the area of their current teaching assignment and their use of corporalpunishment in school. A slightly greater proportion of shop teachers, physical education teachers, and coaches (59.5%) used corporal punishment in school than did subject area teachers (50.6%) or all other special area personnel (40.7%). A 2 x 3 chi square analysis indicated that this finding was not significant at either the .01 or .05 level (X2 = 4.24; d.f. = 2). The null hypothesis for this comparison cannot be rejected. It may be concluded that there were no significant differences between the area of educators' current teaching assignmentand their use of corporal punishment in school. TABLE 46 AREA OF RESPONDANTS' CURRENT TEACHING ASSIGNMENT IN RELATION TO THEIR USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOL (n=390) Frequency Used Shop Teachers Physical Education Teachers Other Special Area Subject Area Coaches Personnel Teachers No. No. Col.% No. Col.% Col.% At least once during the school year 22 59.5 35 40.7 135 50.6 Never 15 40.5 51 59.3 132 49.4 37 100.0 86 100.0 267 100.0 Totals X 2 = 4.24; d.f. = 2; Sig. = .12 141 9. Respondants' Use of Corporal Punishment on Their Own Children Table 47 show the association between respondants' use of corporal punishment on their own children and their use of corporal punishment in school. A considerably greater proportion of educators who used corporal punishment on their own children (63.1%) used it in school than educators who did not use corporal punishment on their own children (29.3%). A 2 x 2 chi square analysis, corrected for continuity, indicated that this finding was significant at the .0001 level (x2 = 33.59; d.f. = 1). rejected. The null hypothesis for this comparison can be It may be concluded that educators who used corporal punishment on their own children were significantly more likely to have used it in school than educators who did not use corporal punishment on their own children. TABLE 47 RESPONDANTS' USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT ON 1HEIR OWN CHILDREN IN RELATION TO THEIR USING IT IN SCHOOL (n=504) Frequency Punished Own Children Frequency Used At Least Once A Year Or Less No. Col.% Never No. Col.% At least once during the school year 260 63.1 27 29.3 Never 152 36.9 65 70.7 412 100.0 92 100.0 Totals X2 = 33.59; d.f. = 1; Sig. = .0001 142 To sura up the analysis, the following social demographic background factors were associated with use of corporal punishment in school: respondants' sex, position, and use of corporal punishment on own children. The chi square test of association was not significant for use of corporal punishment in school and respondants' age, marital status, length of teaching experience, school size, level of major teaching assignment, and area of current teaching assignment. Appendix B presents the results of an analysis of variance between the corporal punishment variables and each of the background factors studied. Of the thirty comparisons examined with the chi square statistic, similar results were obtained on all but one using the analysis of variance. The exception occurred in comparing the respondants' teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school to their attitude toward its use in school. On this comparison, the chi square statistic was not significant but the analysis of variance was. It is not surprising that in the analysis of fifteen associations which involved educators' attitudes the results of the two statistical tests used differed on one, particularly since the tests were performed on different attitude measures. The chi square analyses were conducted on questionnaire item 26, whereas the analysis of variance was performed on the attitude index. As such, the one discrepancy could reasonably be attributed to minor differences between the two attitude measures employed. 143 SECTION IV: STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES Table 48 shows the strength (eta squared) of each of the associations that were found to be statistically significant by the chi square test. The eta squared can be interpreted as the total variation in one variable explained by the other. proportion of the For example, respondants' use of corporal punishment on their own children accounts for 10 percent of the variance in their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school. As such, one's estimate of respondants' attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school is improved by 10 percent when one knows whether the respondants use corporal punishment on their own children. The strength of association between each of the background factors and the corporal punishment variables was found to range from weak to slight. Given this finding, considerable caution must be taken in interpreting the results of this study. The weak associations can only show that the background factors examined are but a few of the factors explaining the degree to which educators use or corporal punishment in school. favor the use of Any attempt to account for most of the variance in educators' corporal punishment practices and attitudes and thus provide a more complete explanation, must take into account factors in addition to those which have been examined in this study. 144 TABLE 48 STRENGTH OF ASSOCIATION BETWEEN BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES Association ETA SQRD Percent Explained Variance Respondants* experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers in relation to their attitude toward its use in school .02 2 Respondants1 experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers in relation to their attitude toward its use in school .005 .5 Respondants1 teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home in relation to their attitude toward its use in school .02 2 Respondants* experiences in observing corporal punishment at school in relation to their attitude toward its use in school .01 1 Respondants* experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home prior to becoming teenagers in relation to their using it in school .02 2 Respondants* experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school prior to becoming teenagers in relation to their using it in school .04 4 Respondants* teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at home in relation to their using it In school .04 4 Respondants' teenage experiences in receiving corporal punishment at school In relation to their using It in school ,02 2 Respondants* experiences in observing corporal punishment at school in relation to their using it in school .01 1 Respondants* sex characteristics in relation to their attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school .005 .5 145 TABLE 48— Continued ETA SQRD Percent Explained Variance Respondants1 age characteristics in relation to their attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school .01 1 Respondants' position in relation to their attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school .01 1 Area of respondants' current teaching assignment in relation to their, attitude toward use of corporal punishment in school .01 1 Respondants' use of corporal punishment on their own children in relation to their attitude toward its use in school .10 10 Respondants* sex characteristics in relation to their use of corporal punishment in school .0,4 4 Respondants* position in relation to their use of corporal punishment in school .03 3 Respondants' use of corporal punishment on their own children in relation to their using it in school .07 7 CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Summary Research has shown that physical punishment increases aggression and has suggested its receipt during childhood is a factor that influences corporal punishment attitudes and practices of adults. Possibly, educators who use or advocate the use of corporal punishment do so because they themselves experienced physical punishment as children. This study sought to determine: l)whether educators' attitude toward and use of corporal punishment are related to the physical punishment they experienced as children; and 2)which of a number of other factors are associated with educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices. Hypotheses This study was designed as a descriptive analysis of the relationships represented by the following hypotheses: Hypothesis I : A positive relationship exists between educators' attitudes regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis II: A positive relationship exists between educators* attitudes regarding the use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis III: A positive relationship exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' receipt of corporal punishment during their childhood. 146 147 Hypothesis IV: A positive relationships exists between educators' use of corporal punishment in school and the educators' observation of corporal punishment during their childhood. Hypothesis V : Educators who favor the use of corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who oppose the use of corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator's position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6. Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8. Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children Hypothesis V I : Educators who use corporal punishment in school will differ from educators who do not use corporal punishment in school on the following factors: 1. Sex 2. Age 3. Marital Status 4. Years of teaching experience 5. Educator’s position (i.e., teacher or principal) 6. Size of school educator works in 7. Level of educator's major teaching assignment 8. Area of educator's current teaching assignment 9. Use of corporal punishment on their own children 148 From these general hypotheses testable null hypotheses (Chapter III) were developed. Procedures The following steps were carried out in completing this investigation: 1. Pertinent literature was reviewed for background information. 2. A list of all Michigan Teachers and Principals with assignments from grades kindergarten to ninth was obtained and a random sample of 1,100 teachers and 400 principals was selected. 3. A two part questionnaire was developed and field tested to collect background information from the educators and information on the educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices. 4. The questionnaire and cover letter were mailed to the sample of educators. Three days later, postcards were mailed to the sample of educators as a reminder to return their questionnaires. Three weeks after the postcards were sent a second questionnaire along with a new cover letter were mailed to all of those who did not respond to the initial mailing. Of the 1,500 questionnaires mailed out, there were 1,101 completed questionnaires returned for a return rate of 73 percent. 5. Data were analyzed using the Michigan State University Computer and the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The chi square test of association and one-way analysis of variance were used to test the significance 149 of the six null hypotheses. The eta-squared was used to determine the strength of each relationship that was found to be statistically significant. A Findings 1. A large majority of the Michigan educators surveyed (81%) indicated they favor the use of corporal punishment in school. 2. The majority of the educators surveyed (56%) indicated they used corporal punishment to discipline students during the 1978-1979 school year. 3. A large majority of the educators (87%) also indicated they received or observed corporal punishment as children. 4. Hypothesis I was substantiated for educators who received corporal punishment at home or at school, prior to becoming teenagers, or at home as teenagers. Significantly more of these educators favored the use of corporal punishment in school than educators who were not corporally punished as children. This hypothesis was not supported for educators who received corporal punishment at school as teenagers. These educators did not differ significantly in their attitude toward corporal punishment from those who did not receive it. 5. Hypothesis II was half supported. Educators who observed corporal punishment at school as children were significantly more likely to favor its use In school than those who did not observe it. However, educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children did not differ significantly in their attitude toward its use from those who did not observe it. 6. Hypothesis III was substantiated for educators who received corporal punishment during their childhood (at home or at 150 school, prior to becoming teenagers or as teenagers). Significantly more of these educators used corporal punishment in school than educators who did not receive corporal punishment during their childhood. 7. Hypothesis XV was also half supported. Educators who observed « corporal punishment at school as children were significantly more likely to use it in school than those who did not observe it. Educators who observed corporal punishment at home as children did not differ significantly in their use of corporal punishment from those who did not observe it. • 8. Hypothesis V was partially supported. Educators differed significantly in their attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school due to the educator's sex, age, position, area of current teaching assignment, and use of corporal punishment on their own children. No significant differences were found in educator's attitude toward the use of corporal punishment in school due to their marital status, length of teaching experience, school size, and level of major teaching assignment. Overall, the liklihood that educators would favor the use of corporal punishment in school could be expected to increase if an educator is a male, is a teacher, is below 35 years of age, teaches shop, physical education or coaches and uses corporal punishment on his own children. 9. Hypothesis VI was also partially supported. Educators differed significantly in their use of corporal punishment in school due to the educator’s sex, position, and use of corporal punishment on their own children. No significant differences were found in educators' use of corporal punishment in school 151 due to their age, marital status, length of teaching experience, school Bize, level of major teaching assignment, and area of current teaching assignment. Overall, the likelihood that educators would use corporal punishment in school could be expected to increase if an educator is a male, is a principal, and uses corporal punishment on his own children. 10. The strength of association between the corporal punishment variables and each of the background factors studied was weak. Conclusions and Implications This study adds to the growing body of literature which indicates physical punishment and aggression are related. Of the twelve associations between educators' childhood experiences with corporal punishment and educators favoring or using corporal punishment in school, nine were statistically significant. All four of the associations between educators' receipt of corporal punishment as children and their use of corporal punishment as adults were significant. The strength of the associations found in this study were quite weak. However, while they are weak, they are higher than might have been expected given the time separation between childhood exposure to corporal punishment and adult corporal punishment attitudes and practices. In the years between childhood exposure to corporal punishment and adulthood, a multiplicity of factors are operating to influence corporal punishment attitudes and practices. Given that over time the effects of exposure to corporal punishment could be substantially reduced by the influence of other variables, the associations found in 152 this study are of considerable Interest. Nevertheless, the conclusions must be accepted with caution. The weak associations found can only show that experiencing corporal punishment during childhood is but one of the factors that likely Influences corporal punishment attitudes and practices of adults. A more complete explanation of the degree to which corporal punishment is approved or used by educators must take into consideration such factors as soclo-cultural variables, the overall proportion of punishment versus positive reinforcement educators experienced as children, the reinforcement history of educators as it pertains to their own aggression, school district policies, administrative regulations and styles and the availability of alternative disciplinary approaches. In the present study, the environment (at home or at school) in which educators received corporal punishment as children made little difference in respect to their subsequent approval or use of corporal punishment as adults. Both childhood receipt of corporal punishment at home and at school were found to be related to adult approval and use of corporal punishment. In contrast, the environment in which educators observed corporal punishment as children was important. Childhood observation of corporal punishment at school was found to be related to adult approval and use in school where as childhood observation of corporal punishment at home was neither related to adult approval or use of corporal punishment in school. This finding is consistent with research conducted by Meyerson in 1966 on post observational conditions affecting the 153 performance of aggressive behavior.* Meyerson found that the level of imitative aggression increased with increasing similarity between the setting in which the aggressive actions are observed and the real situations that the viewer later encounters. The hypothesized relationship between the corporal punishment variables and each of the social demographic factors studied received only partial support. As expected, the major predictor of educators' corporal punishment attitudes and practices was their use of corporal punishment on their own children. A majority of the educators experienced corporal punishment themselves as children. On this basis, the role modeling theory of aggression would suggest that these educators would use physical punishment on their own children and both approve and use corporal punishment in school. Other social demographic factors found to be related to educators favoring the use of corporal punishment in school included their sex, age, area of current teaching assignment, and position. For the first three factors, the results of the present study are consistent with earlier findings. In respect to the position of educators, prior research relating this factor to educators' corporal punishment attitude does not exist. However, given that teachers have the primary responsibility of maintaining discipline in the classroom, it is not surprising that this study found that more teachers than principals favor the use of corporal punishment in school The present study also found that more males than females and *L. Meyerson, The Effects of Filmed Aggression on the Aggressive Responses of High and Low Aggressive Subjects (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Iowa, 1966). 154 more principals than teachers use corporal punishment in school. Although prior research does not exist to compare these findings with, they are of interest themselves. One of the most frequent arguments of those who favor the use of corporal punishment in school is that it is necessary to protect teachers. As such, it is reasonable to expect that more females and teachers would use corporal punishment for self-protection than males and principals. These expectations are contradicted by the results of this study. Overall, the findings in this study are congruent with theoretical expectations concerning the influence of physical punishment and they have important implications for educators and laymen alike. Corporal punishment of children remains a pervasive practice in Michigan's public schools. A majority of this state's educators in grades kindergarten through nine have used corporal punishment at least once during the 1978-79 school year and an even greater number favor its use. An Implication of this finding is that efforts to curtail or abolish corporal punishment in Michigan will meet strong opposition from this state's educators. The present study found that a significant relationship exists between experiencing corporal punishment during childhood and favoring as well as using corporal punishment as an adult. This finding in collaboration with results from earlier research suggests that one reason educators favor or use corporal punishment is because they themselves experienced corporal punishment as children. support this interpretation. The data The vast majority of the educators in the present study indicated that they either received or observed corporal punishment as children. 155 The above finding seems to favor the contention that physical punishment leads to an increase in aggressive behavior and that the mechanism for this increase is imitation. implications. This finding has serioue Over the past several years violence and vandalism in American public schools have Increased substantially. In 1978, William Glasser, a distinquished psychiatrist and author of "Schools Without Failure" stated, "We should abolish corporal punishment for many reasons, but if for no other reason than the fact that it causes more problems of vandalism and violence than it solves."^- To the extent that corporal punishment Increases aggression those who use it may be Inadvertently contributing to that violence. Further, since educators and parents often use corporal punishment to decrease aggressive behavior, they may be producing results opposite to those they intend. The data about the influence of social demographic factors on corporal punishment attitude and practices suggest that some groups of educators have a greater likelihood of favoring or using corporal punishment than others. The extent to which educators could be expected to enter a public school with a readiness to favor the use of corporal punishment appears to be greater among males, teachers, young educators, teachers of shop, physical education or coaches, and educators who use corporal punishment on their own children. Likewise, the extent to which educators could be expected to enter a public school with a ■^William Glasser, "Disorders In Our Schools: Phi Delta Kappan (January, 1978), p. 331. Causes and Remedies,” 156 predisposition to use corporal punishment appears to be greater among males, principals, and educators who use corporal punishment on their own children. School districts that are interested in reducing the level of corporal punishment in their schools could consider these social demographic factors in selecting staff and in designing inservice training programs. Finally, the findings of this study have implications for State policy makers, local school boards, and school administrators. These findings, in conjunction with findings from earlier research, suggest that a positive relationship exists between corporal punishment and aggression. The present study does not conclusively prove that corporal punishment leads to an increase in aggressive behavior nor was that its intention. It is highly unlikely that future research will ever definitively establish a causal relatonship between punishment and aggression. However, the weight of the evidence to date does indicate that the potential of corporal punishment to produce harmful psychological and/or physical effects is greater than its potential to produce beneficial results. The emminent behavioral psychologist and author B. F. Skinner has stated, "I do not believe corporal punishment is necessary in education and I think every effort should be made to abandon it." In the absence of research indicating that the use of corporal punishment in the schools is either safe or effective, it would be prudent to establish policies and regulations prohibiting Its use. . F. Skinner, "Letters To The Editor: Educational Leadership, (October, 1973), p. 61. Corporal Punishment," 157 Recommendations for Future Research To the knowledge of this investigator, this study was the only attempt in Michigan to systematically gather and statistically analyze data on educators' corporal punishment practices in order to examine factors believed to influence these practices. In that no other investigations of the corporal punishment practices of Michigan teachers and principals exist, there is an obvious need for research to replicate and validate these findings. In view of the limitations of this study that were noted in Chapter I, attention needs to be given to the respondants' ability to accurately recall the amount of corporal punishment they experienced during childhood. Ex post facto studies designed to collect retro­ spective data on two or more occasions, separated by months or even years, should enable the researcher to determine the reliability of his/ her information. It might also prove fruitful to attempt to obtain data on educators' childhood experiences from more than one source. The above data could possibly be obtained from the respondants1 parents, siblings, or teachers and could be used to check the accuracy of the information obtained from the respondants. Consideration should also be given to determine the veracity of the educators In reporting their current corporal punishment attitudes and practices. This is particularly important given the degree of controversy surrounding the use of corporal punishment In the schools, the existence of policies and regulations governing its use and the number of court cases that have involved corporal punishment. Data gathered from students, colleagues, or supervisors could be help­ ful in assessing the frankness and sincerity of information obtained from educators. 158 Further attention also needs to be given to develop interval level scales to measure educators' corporal punishment practices and attitudes and to measure educators' childhood experiences with corporal punishment. Interval level data would enable the use of a variety of multivariate analysis techniques which could not be used with nominal or ordinal level measurements. These techniques could determine the amount that the background factors taken in combination contribute toward explaining the variance in educators corporal punishment practices and attitudes. This determination could help to develop theories for the prediction of corporal punish­ ment practices and attitudes. Other factors that could directly influence or mediate educators' corporal punishment practices and attitudes should also be investigated. In addition to those mentioned in the conclusions and implications section of this study, priority should be given to examining educators' knowledge of alternatives to corporal punishment, their familiarity with the research literature on punishment, and school district policies and regulations governing the use of corporal punishment. A need also exists for research that is designed to identify differences between educators who use corporal punishment themselves and those who send students to school administrators to be corporally punished. Whether the above groups of educators differ on the amount of corporal punishment they use and on the type of student offenses they use it for should also be determined. Additional research should especially be done on the relationship between the use of corporal punishment and the rates of school vandalism. This research could have important Implications for theories which contend that physical punishment increases aggressive behavior. APPENDICES APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE M IC HI G A N STATE U N IV E R S I T Y EAST LANSING ■ MICHIGAN • 48SH COLLEGE OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON H AIL October, 1979 Dear Colleague: An effort Is currently In progress to study discipline and corporal punishment in selected elementary, junior high, and middle schools In Michigan. The pur­ poses are to survey current, as well as past, practices and attitudes regarding the area of punishment. Your assistance in accurately completing this survey Is requested. Please respond to each item in Part I and Part II of this survey. The term corporal punishment, as used in this questionnaire, is defined as: "A form of discipline characterized by the use of physical force such as paddling or spanking". Your questionnaire has been distributed to a carefully selected random sample of educators throughout Michigan. Therefore, your completion and return of the ^Discipline Survey" enclosed In this booklet 16 essential to the success of the study. In order to monitor returns, a code has been assigned to each questionnaire. However, neither you, your school, nor your district will be identified in reporting the results of this study. You will remain anonymous. It should take about fifteen (15) minutes to complete the questionnaire. Vhen you have finished, please mail the questionnaire through the prepaid postage return method that has been provided for your convenience. Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Sincerely, Louis Romano, Ph.D Alan M. Gonick Research Assistant Professor, Michigan State University 159 160 DISCIPLINE SURVEY PART I DIRECTIONS: Please put a check (/) in the blank Bpace next to your answer to each question. Check only one answer for each question. 1. Your sex is: 2. Your race is: Female ____ Male Oriental Caucasion Black Other (Please specify) 3. 4. Your age is: 19 or under 40 - 44 20 - 24 45 - 49 25 - 29 50 - 54 30 - 34 55 - 59 35 - 39 60 or over Your marital status is: Married Single Divorced 5. Please write your number of years teaching experience: 6. Your current position is: 7. The student enrollment at your Bchool building is: 1000 or more 750 - 999 500 - 749 250 - 499 249 or less 8. You are principal of: An Elementary School A Junior High School A Middle School Teacher ________ ____ Principal/Assistant Principal 161 9. The level(s) of your major teaching assignment is (check one or more): Kindergarten FourthGrade EighthGrade First Grade Fifth Grade Ninth Grade Second Grade Sixth Grade Third Grade Seventh Grade 10. Please list your current teaching assignment (Example - 2 social studies classes, 1 physical education class): 11. Do you have any dependent children of your own: Yes 12. Is there a board policy concerning corporal punishment in your school district: Yes 13. No No If your district has a corporal punishment policy, who can administer corporal punishment: Teachers Principals Teachers and Principals Policy prohibits the use of corporal punishment No policy exists 162 DISCIPLINE STUDY PART II DIRECTIONS: 1. Please put a check (/) in the blank space next to the response that best describes your reaction to each statement. Unless in­ structed otherwise, check only one response to each statement. Teachers Bhould consult with a child's parents to determine the most effective disciplinary method for the child: STRONGLY AGREE 2. AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE AGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE____ DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE _ DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE The gravity of an offense is an important consideration in determining what form of discipline to use: STRONGLY AGREE_________ AGREE____ 10. DISAGREE____ Corporal punishment should not be allowed in the schools: STRONGLY AGREE 9. A GREE____ A child's Bex is an important consideration in determining what form of discipline to use: STRONGLY AGREE 8. STRONGLY DISAGREE____ Corporal punishment 1b not an effective method of maintaining discipline: STRONGLY AGREE 7. DISAGREE The formal training I received to become a teacher was inadequate in the area of school discipline: STRONGLY AGREE 6. AGREE Corporal punishment breeds aggressive behavior by providing an aggressive model for the student: STRONGLY AGREE 5. STRONGLY DISAGREE Someone in the schools should have the authority to use corporal punishment: STRONGLY AGREE 4. DISAGREE Complete elimination of corporal punishment in the schools would have serious consequences: STRONGLY AGREE ___ 3. AGREE DISAGREE____ STRONGLY DISAGREE____ It is more effective to reward good behavior than to punish bad behavior: STRONGLY AGREE_________ AGREE____ DISAGREE____ STRONGLY DISAGREE____ 163 11. In-service training in disciplinary methods may provide more effective ways of dealing with problem children than currently used methods: STRONGLY AGREE 12. AGREE____ STRONGLY DISAGREE____ Corporal punishment is the only thing that will work with some students: STRONGLY AGREE 13. DISAGREE____ My own attitude AGREE DISAGREE____ toward theuse of corporal punishment I favor its use at the discretion of teachers I favor its use at the discretion of principals I favor its use at the discretion of STRONGLY DISAGREE in school Is: teachers and principals I favor its use restricted to specific circumstances determined by the board I oppose its use 14. In your school building, what proportion of the total teachers do you think use corporal punishment: 75% or more 501 332 252 or less 15. Have you ever used corporal punishment in school to discipline students: Once a month or more More than once a year Once a year or less Never 16. Is corporal punishment in your school building administered by: (A) Teachers (B)___ Principal/Assistant Principal (C)___ Teachers and Principal/Assistant Principal (D)___ It is not administered by anyone DIRECTIONS: If you checked (A) or (C) in question sixteen (16), please answer the questions in SECTION I , then go to question twenty-five (25) and continue. If you checked (B) in question sixteen (16), please answer the ques­ tions in SECTION II, then continue with question twenty-five (25). If you checked (D) in question sixteen (16), SKIP SECTIONS I AND II. Please go to question twenty-five (25) and continue. 164 17. When a student continually disrupts my class, I use corporal punishment: Immediately, to reinstate an atmosphere that is conducive to learning After first trying at least one other disciplinary approach After first trying all other disciplinary approaches I am aware of I would not use corporal punishment 18. 19. What follows is a list of student offenses for which corporal punishment might be used. For each offense that you use corporal punishment, please put a check under ye s ; if you do not use corporal punishment for the offense, put a check under n o . YES NO .... .... (A) Insubordination ................................... (B) D i s r e s p e c t .......................................... .... .... (C) Physical assault on other student (fighting) . . . . ____ ____ (D) Physical assault on school e m p l o y e e .............. ..... .... (E) Continued disruptive behavior in class ............ .... .... (F) Destruction of school property ..................... .... .... (G) Disobedience ........................................ .... .... (H) Possession or use of weapons at s c h o o l ............ .... .. . During the past school year (19 78-1979), I used corporal punishment to discipline students: Once a week on the average Once a month on the average Once every other month on the average Two or three times during the past school year Once during the past school year Never 20. In the past school year (19 78-19 79), I used corporal punishment to discipline: 20 or more children 15 - 19 children ' 10 - 14 children 5 - 9 children 4 or fewer children No children 165 S E C T I O N 21. II When a student continually disrupts my class, I send the student to the prin­ cipal's/assistant principal’s office to be corporally punished: Imriediately, to reinstate an atmosphere that is conducive to learning After first trying at least one other disciplinary approach _ _ _ After first trying all other disciplinary approaches I am aware of I would not send a student to the principal’s/assistant principal's office to be corporally punished 22. 23. What follows is a list of student offenses for which corporal punishment might be used. For each offense that you send students to the principal’s/assistant principal’s office to be corporally punished, please put a check under y e s ; if you do not send students to the above office to be corporally punished for the offense, put a check under n o : YES NO (A) I n s u b o r d i n a t i o n .................................... .... .... (B) Disrespect .... .... (C) Physical assault on other student (fighting) . . . . ____ ____ (D) Physical assault on school employee ............... .... .... (E) Continued disruptive behavior in class ............. .... .... (F) Destruction of school property ..................... .... .... (G) Disobedience........................................ .... .... (H) Possession or use of weapons at s c h o o l ............. .... .... ................... ..................... During the past school year (1978-19 79), I sent students to the principal'a/ assistant principal's office to be disciplined through the use of corporal punishment: Once a week on the average Once a month on the average Once every other month on the average Two or three times during the past school year Once during the past school year Never 24. In the past school year (1978-1979) the number of children I sent to the principal’s/assistant principal's office to be disciplined through the use of corporal punishment is: 20 or more children 15 - 19 children 10 - 14 children 5 - 9 children 4 or fewer children No children 166 25. I use corporal punishment to discipline ray own child (children): Once a month or more More than once a year Once a year or less Never Do not have children PLEASE RESPOND TO PART I AND PART II OF STATEMENTS 26 - 29 26. Prior to becoming a teenager, corporal punishment was used to discipline me: PART I - AT HOME Once a month or more More than once a year PART XI - AT SCHOOL Once a month or more j___ More than once a year Once a year or less_______________ ____ Once a year or less Never 27. Never When I was a teenager, corporal punishment was used to discipline me: PART I - AT HOME Once a month or more PART IX - AT SCHOOL Once a month or more More than once a year_____________ ____ More than once a year Once a year or less_______________ ____ Once a year or less Never 28. Never When corporal punishment was used to discipline me, the punishment was usually administered in a: PART I - AT HOME Severe manner Moderate PART II - AT SCHOOL Severe manner manner (spanking)_______ ____ Moderate manner (spanking) Mild manner_______________________ ____ Mild manner Corporal not used 29. punishment was__________ ____ Corporal punishment was on me not used on me During my childhood, I saw other children disciplined through the use of corporal punishment: PART I - AT HOME PART II - AT SCHOOL Often______________________________ ____ Often Occasionally Rarely Never 30. Occasionally ____ Rarely ___ Never Are you willing to complete a short four (A) item questionnaire a few months from now as part of this research effort: Yes No 167 FOLLOW-UP POSTCARD Dear Colleague: You should have recently received a questionnaire concerning school discipline and corporal punishment. This is just a reminder to ask your help in completing and returning that questionnaire. If you have already done so, thank you. If not, please take the few minutes necessary to complete the questionnaire since your participation in this study is very Important to us. Thank you for your cooperation. Louis Romano Professor of Education Michigan State University 168 COVER LETTER FOR SECOND MAILING M I C H I G A N STATE U N I V E R S I T Y COLLEGE OF EDUCATION EAST LANSING • MICHIGAN • 48814 DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION AND HIGHER EDUCATION ERICKSON HALL November, 1979 Dear Colleague: Several weeks ago Dr. Romano and I sent a letter to you requesting your help In a study of discipline and corporal punishment in Michigan's schools. If you have already responded to that request and your completed Discipline Survey has not yet been received, please disregard this reminder and accept our thanks for your cooperation. If you have not yet found time in your busy schedule to com­ plete and return the survey, I would like to take this opportunity to encourage you to do so at your earliest convenience. As indicated in the previous letter, the study you are asked to take part in is based upon a carefully selected sample of educators throughout Michigan. For the study to be successful, it is necessary to obtain responses from those elementary, junior high, and middle school educators that have been selected. The type of data required is not available through other sources; therefore, we are dependent upon the participation of each of the teachers and principals selected. Your response is essential to the success of the study. A copy of the Discipline Survey and the previous letter, which contains expla­ nations, is enclosed. The survey has a prepaid postage return method provided for your convenience. As stated in the previous letter, neither you, your school, nor your district will be identified in the reporting of this study. You will remain anonymous. Questions or comments concerning the study or requests for a summary report of the findings are welcome. From my own experience, I know there are many demands made upon your time. For this reason, your willingness to take a few minutes to make this study a success will be most appreciated. Sincerely, Alan M. Gonick Research Assistant Enclosures APPENDIX B ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES AND EACH BACKGROUND FACTOR STUDIED TABLE 49 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE BETWEEN CORPORAL PUNISHMENT VARIABLES AND EACH BACKGROUND FACTOR STUDIED Standard Number Mean Deviation F d.f. Signiflcance Respondents’ Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At Home Prior To Becoming Teenagers Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or less 934 2.22 .63 Never 135 2.47 .71 Total 1069 2.25 .65 18.73 1068 .0001 Respondents* Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At School Prior To Becoming Teenagers Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or less 361 2.15 .62 Never 700 2.30 .66 Total 1061 2.25 .65 11.94 1060 .0006 Respondants1 Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At Home Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or less 385 2.10 .61 Never 689 2.33 .65 Total 1074 2.25 .64 169 32.40 1073 .0001 170 TABLE 49— Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signlfd.f. lcance Respondants’ Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At School Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or less 156 2.09 ■64 Never 907 2.27 .64 Total 1063 2.25 .64 11.04 1062 .0009 Respondants' Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Experiences In Observing It At Home Corporal Punishment Observed Rarely to often 939 2.24 .63 Never 139 2.32 .71 Total 1078 2.24 .64' 1.73 1077 .19 Respondants' Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Experiences In Observing It At School Corporal Punishment Observed Rarely to often 893 2.21 .62 Never 180 2.42 .72 Total 1073 2.25 .64 15.79 1072 .0001 Respondants* Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At Home Prior To Becoming Teenagers Corporal Punishment Received 630 3.02 2.46 Never 80 4.25 2.40 Total 710 3.16 2.48 At least once a year or less 17.78 709 .0001 171 TABLE 49— -Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signifd.f. lcance Respondants1 Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At School Prior To Becoming Teenagers Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or less 262 2.53 2.31 Never 443 3.53 2.50 Total 705 3-16 2,48 27.92 704 .0001 Respondants' Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At Home Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or leBS 264 2.52 2.30 Never 453 3.56 2.-50 Total 717 3.18 2.48 30.87 716 .0001 Respondants' Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Experiences In Receiving It At School Corporal Punishment Received At least once a year or less 115 2.30 2.21 Never 592 3.32 2.50 Total 707 3.16 2.48 16.62 706 .0001 172 TABLE 49— Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signlfd.f. lcance Respondants' Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Experiences In Observing It At Home Corporal Punishment Observed Rarely to often 627 3.15 2.48 % Never 92 3.34 2.51 Total 719 3.18 2.48 Respondants' Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Experiences In Observing It At School Corporal Punishment Observed Rarely to often 599 3.09 2.47 Never 115 3.61 2.51 Total 714 3.17 2.48 4.29 713 .04 Respondants' Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Sex Characteristics, Age Characteristics, And Marital Status Sex Characteristics Female 515 2.29 .65 Male 572 2.21 .64 1087 2.25 .65 Total 4.27 1086 .04 173 TABLE 49— -Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signifd.f. Icance Age Characteristics 34 or under 383 2.16 .59 35 to 44 356 2.25 .67 45 or over 349 2.34 .66 1088 2.25 .65 Married 891 2.25 .65 Single 136 2.23 .66 62 2.38 .59 1089 2.25 .65 Total 7.30 1087 .0007 1.45 1088 .23 Marital Status Divorced Total Respondants' Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Length Of Teaching Experience And Position Length Of Teaching Experience Leas than 6 years 165 2.21 .60 6 to 10 298 2.22 .61 11 to 15 242 2.23 .69 16 to 20 157 2.27 .67 21 to 25 134 2.32 .62 Over 25 years 105 2.33 .70 1101 2.25 .65 Total 174 TABLE 49— Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signif­ d.f. icance Position Teacher 731 2.18 .63 Principal 320 2.38 .66 1051 2.24 .65 Total 14.35 1050 .0001 RespondantB1 Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Size Of School And Level 0£ Major Teaching Assignment Student Enrollment 1000 or more 110 2.25 .62 999 to 750 182 2.24 .68 749 to 500 335 2.25 .69 499 or'less 443 2.26 .61 1070 2.25 .65 71 2.25 .66 First grade thru fourth grade 178 2.25 .59 Fifth grade thru eighth grade 464 2.14 .62 38 2.25 .70 751 2.18 .63 Total .03 1069 .99 Level Of Teaching Assignment Kindergarten Ninth grade Total 1.82 750 .14 175 TABLE 49--Contlnued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signifd.f. icance Respondants* Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment In Relation To Their Area Of Current Teaching Assignment And Use Of Corporal Punishment On Their Own Children Area Of Teaching Assignment Shop teachers, physical education teachers, coaches 37 3.03 2.49 Other special area personnel 86 3.96 2.47 Subject area teachers 267 3.47 2.50 Total 390 3.54 2.50 At least once a year or less 588 2.17 .60 Never 141 2.68 .70 Total 729 2.26 .65 . 2.13 389 .12 38.23 728 .0001 Use Of Corporal Punishment On Own Children Respondants' Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Sex Characteristics, Age Characteristics, And Marital Status Sex Characteristics Female 287 3.84 2.48 Male 435 2.76 2.39 Total 722 3.12 2.48 34.32 721 .0001 176 TABLE 49— Continued Standard Humber Mean Deviation F Signifd.f. icance Age Characteristics 34 or under 222 3,21 2.49 35 to 44 254 3.05 2.46 45 or over 247 3,31 2.50 Total 723 3.18 2.48 607 3.15 2.48 Single 78 3.37 2.51 Divorced 40 3.37 2.53 725 3.19 2.48 .70 722 .50 .40 724 .67 Marital Status Married Total Respondants' Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Length Of Teaching Experience And Position Length Of Teaching Experience Less than 6 years 103 2.99 2.46 6 to 10 195 3.26 2.49 11 to 15 152 3.40 2.51 16 to 20 108 2.76 2.40 21 to 25 98 3.09 2.48 Over 25 years 77 3.53 2.52 733 3.18 2.48 Total 177 TABLE 49— Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signif d.f. lcance Position Teacher 400 3.56 2.50 Principal 311 2.70 2.37 Total 711 3.19 2.48 21.53 710 .0001 Respondants1 Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Theii Size Of School And Level Of Major Teaching Assignment Student Enrollment 1000 or more 72 3.57 2.52 999 to 750 103 3.43 2.51 749 to 500 223 3.11 2.47 499 or less 313 3.08 2.47 Total 711 3.19 2.48 41 3.44 2.53 First grade thru fourth grade 100 3.30 2.50 Fifth grade thru eighth grade 242 3.58 2.50 18 4.33 2.43 401 3.53 2.50 1.17 710 .31 .95 400 .41 Level Of Teaching Assignment Kindergarten Ninth grade Total 178 TABLE 49— Continued Standard Number Mean Deviation F Signifd.f. icance Respondants1 Use Of Corporal Punishment In School In Relation To Their Area Of Current Teaching Assignment And Use Of Corporal Punishment On Their Own Children Area Of Teaching Assignment Shop teachers, phyaical education teachers, coaches 37 3.03 2.49 Other special area personnel 86 3.97 2.47 Subject area teachers 267 3.47 2.50 Total 390 3.54 2.50 412 2.84 2.42 Never 92 4.53 2.29 Total 504 3.18 2.48 2.13 389 .12 503 .0001 Use Of Corporal Punishment On Own Children At least once a year or less t 18.42 BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Azrin, N . , and Holtz, W. "Punishment." In W. K. Honig (Ed.), Operant Behavior; Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1966. Bandura, A., and Walters, R. H. Ronald, 1959. Adolescent Aggression. Cole, L. A History of Education. 1959. Cooper, W. W. the Rod. New York: New York: Reinhart and Co., Flagellation and the Flagellants. London: William Reeves, 1910. A History of Eron, L . , Walder, L., and Lefkowitz, M. Learning of Aggression in Children. Boston: Little, Brown and Co., 1971. Falk, A. Corporal Punishment. Press, 1941. Games, P., and Klare, G. Hill, 1967. New York: Colombia University Elementary Statistics. New York: McGraw- Glueck, S., and Glueck, E. Unravelling Juvenile Delinquency. Harvard University Press, 1950. Lundin, R. Personality an Experimental Approach. McMillan Company, 1961. New York: Marrov, H. I. A History of Education in Antiquity. Sheed and Ward, 1956. McCandless, B. Children: Behavior and Development. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1967. The New York: New York: Miller, N. E., and Dollard, J. Social learning and imitation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941. Mueller, J . , and Schuessler, K. Statistical Reasoning in Sociology. Boston: Houghton-Mifflln Co., 1961. 179 180 Mulhern, J. A History of Education. Press Co., 1959. New York: The Ronald Oppenhelm, A. N. Questionnaire Design and Attitude Measurement. New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1966. Orllch, D. C. Designing Sensible Surveys. Company, 1978. New York: Redgrave Owen, S., Blount, H . , and Moscow, H. Educational Psychology. Boston: Little Brown and Co., 1978. Perry, A., Jr. Discipline as a School Problem. Houghton Mifflin Co., 1915. New York: Reuter, E . , Jr., and Hamilton, R. The Law of Public Education. New York: The Foundation Press, Inc., 1976. Rosenshein, B., and Furst, N. "Research in Teacher Performance Criteria." In B. 0. Smith (Ed.), Research in Teacher Education. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1971. Scott, G. R. The History of Corporal Punishment. Stream Books, 1949. Sears, R. R . , Maccoby, E. E . , and Levin, H. Rearing. New York: Harper, 1957. London: Torch Patterns of Child Siegal, S. Nonparametrlc Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1956. Sulzer, B . , and Mayer, G. Behavior Modification Procedures for School Personnel. Illinois: The Dryden Press, Inc., 1972. Valusek, J. People are not for Hitting. Valusek, 1974. Wichita, Kansas: Walters, G., and Grusec, J. Freeman and Co., 1977, San Francisco: Whiting, B, (Ed.). Punishment. Six Cultures. New York: John E. W. H. Wilery, 1963. Periodicals Azrin, N., Hutchinson, R,, and Sallery, R, "Pain-aggression toward inanimate objects," Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7 (1964), pp. 223-228. Bandura, A., Ross, D . , and Ross, S. A. "Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (1961), pp. 575-582. 181 Bandura, A., Ross, D., and Ross, S. "Imitation of Film-Mediated Aggressive Models," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 66 (1963), pp. 3-11. Bard, B. "The Shocking Facts About Corporal Punishment In The Schools," Parents1 Magazine, XLVIII (February, 1973), pp. 44-45. Battle Creek (Michigan) Enquirer and News, 13 February 1980, p. B-8. "Beating School Children: A practice that doesn’t improve their behavior or their learning," The American School Board Journal (June, 1973), pp. 19-21. Button, A. "Some Antecedents of Felonious and Delinquent Behavior," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 11 (Fall, 1973), pp. 35-37. Clement, C. E . , Rollins, A., Ervin, F. R. and Plutchnik, R. "Epidemiological Studies of Women Prisoners, I: Medical and Psychiatric Variables Related to Violent Behaviors," American Journal of Psychiatry, 130 (September, 1973), pp. 985-990. "Corporal Punishment and the Law," M.E.A. Research Bulletin, 43 (May, 1970), pp. 46-48. "Corporal Punishment OK if used sparingly: School Administrators opinion poll," Nations Schools, 87 (May, 1971), p. 39. Ebel, R. "The Case for Corporal Punishment," Michigan School Board Journal (September, 1976), pp. 13-14. English, S., and Foster, C. "How Bad Is It To Spank Your Kids?" Better Homes and Gardens, 28 (June, 1950), pp. 253-254. Eron, L . , Waldon, L., Toigo, R . , and Lefkowitz, M. "Social Class, Parental Punishment for Aggression and Child Aggression," Child Development. 34 (1963), pp. 849-867. Estes, W. "An Experimental Study of Punishment," Psychological Monographs, 57 (1944), p. 14. Farley, A., Kreutter, K . , Russell, S., Finkelstein, H., and Hyman, I. "The Effects of Eliminating Corporal Punishment in Schools: A Preliminary Survey," Inequality in Education, no. 23 (1978), pp. 57-60. Gil, D. "What Schools Can Do About Child Abuse," American Education Magazine (April, 1969), p. 3. Gilmartin, B. "The Case Against Spanking," Human Behavior, 8 (February, 1979), pp. 18-23. 182 Glackman, T . f Martin, R., Hyman, I., McDowell, E., Berv, V., and Spino, P. "Corporal Punishment, School Suspension, and the Civil Rights of Students: An Analysis of Office for Civil Rights School Surveys," Inequality in Education, no. 23 <1978), pp. 61-65. Glasser, W. "Disorders in Our Schools: Causes and Remedies," Phi Delta Kappan, 59 (January, 1978), pp. 331-333. "It's time to hang up the hickory stick,” Nations Schools, 90 (November, 1972), pp. 8-9. . Jones, M. "Legal Status of Corporal Punishment," California Journal of Adult Research, XV (May, 1964), pp. 142-9. Manning, J. "Discipline in the Good Old Days," Phi Delta Kappan (December, 1959), pp. 94-99. Maurer, A. "All in the Name of the 'Last Resort:' The Abuse of Children in American Schools," Inequality in Education, no. 23 (1978), pp. 22-28. McCord, W . , McCord, J., and Howard, A. "Familial Correlates of Aggression in Non-Delinquent Male Children," Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 62 (1961), pp. 79-93. McDaniel, T. "Exploring Alternatives to Punishment: The Keys to Effective Discipline," Phi Delta Kappan, 61 (March, 1980), pp. 445-458. Musemeche, R . , and Sauls, C. "Policies and Attitudes on Corporal Punishment," Phi Delta Kappan, 53 (November, 1976), pp. 283. NaBh, P. "Corporal Punishment in an Age of Violence," Educational Theory, XIII (October, 1963), pp. 295-308. Owens, D . , and Straus, M. "The Social Structure of Violence in Childhood and Approval of Violence as an Adult," Aggressive Behavior, 1 (1975), pp. 193-211. Porteus, S. D. Annual report, the Juvenile Court, Honolulu. Quoted in R. Welsh, "Severe Parental Punishment and Delinquency: A Developmental Theory," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (Spring, 1976), pp. 17-20. Skinner, B. Response in "Letters to the Editor," Educational Leadership (October, 1973), p. 61. Sollenberger, R. T. "Chinese-American Child Rearing Practices and Juvenile Delinquency," Journal of Social Psychology, 74 (February, 1968), pp. 13-23. Stark, R . , and McEnvoy, J. Ill, "Middle Class Violence," Psychology Today, 4 (November, 1970), pp. 52-54, 110-112. 183 Times Educational Supplement, 13 (October, 1961), p. 478. Ulrich, R . , and Azrin, N. "Reflexive Fighting in Response to Aversive Stimulation," Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 5 (October, 1962), pp. 511-520. Ulrich, R . , Hutchinson, R . , and Azrin, N. "Pain Elicited Aggression," The Psychological Record, 15 (January, 1965), pp. 111-126. Wattenburg, W . , and Clifford, C. "Relation of Self-Concepts to Beginning Achievement in Reading," Child Development, 35 (1964), pp. 461-467. Welsh, R. "Severe Parental Punishment and Delinquency: A Developmental Theory," Journal of Clinical Child Psychology (Spring, 1976), pp. 17-20. Welsh, R. "The Belt Theory of Discipline," Discipline, The National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools, 1 (Winter, 1980), pp. 3-4. Wilson, J. "Sometimes Teachers Should Spank Students," The Educational Forum, XXIV (January, 1960), pp. 217-219. Other Sources Bongiovanni, A. F. A Review of Research on the Effects of Punishment: Implications for Corporal Punishment in the Schools. Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. Boyd v. State, 7 So. 268 (1890). Calway v. WilliamBon, 130 Conn. 575 (1944). Clarizlo, H. Some Myths Regarding the Use of Corporal Punishment in the Schools. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association, April 2, 1975. Danenhoffer v. State, 69 Ind. 295 (1879). Diamond, I. "A Study of the Use of Corporal Punishment in Selected Middle Schools and Junior High Schools in the State of Michigan." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Michigan, 1976. Eau Claire (Wisconsin) Leader-Telegram, 20 November 1976, quoted in A. Maurer, All In The Name Of The ’Last Resort■* Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. 184 Elardo, E. "Implementing Behavior Modification Procedures in an Elementary School: Problems and Issues," quoted in I..-A*- Hyman, E. McDowell and B. Raines, Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues. Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. Friedman, R . , and Hyman, I. An Analysis of the Legislation Regarding Corporal Punishment in the Schools. Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977. Hagebak, R. D. Disciplinary Practices in Dallas Contrasted with School Systems with Rules Against Violence Against Children. Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association (80th), Honolulu, Hawaii, September, 1972. Hapkiewlc3, W. Research on Corporal Punishment Effectiveness Contributions and Limitations. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (60th), Washington, D. C., March - April, 1975. Howard, F. Jr. A Legal Defense for Corporal Punishment in the Schools. Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977. Hyman, I. A., McDowell, E . , and Raines, B. Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues. Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. Ingraham v. Wright, 45 U.S.L.W. 4364 (1977). James, K. "Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Southern California, 1958. Lander v. Seaver, 32 Vt. 144 (1859). Massachusetts, C. 71, S. 37 G. Maurer, A. All In The Name Of The fLast Resort.* Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment In the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. Meyerson, L. "The Effects of Filmed Aggression on the Aggressive Response of High and Low Aggressive Subjects." Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1966. 185 Myers, C. Punishment: Problems in definition. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Education Research Association (60th), Washington, D. C., March - April, 1975. National Education Association Task Force on Corporal Punishment. Report of the Task Force. Washington, D. C.: N.E.A., 1972. New Jersey, 18A: 6-1. Nussbaum, L . , Hilmer, L . , and Precup, R. "Brief of the National Education Association as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners," quoted in I. A. Hyman, E. McDowell and B. Raines, Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in the Schools: An Overview of Theoretical and Practical Issues. Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. Oskaloosa Herald (Iowa), 23 October 1976, quoted in A. Maurer, All In The Name Of The 'Last Resort.'1 Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, 1977. Reardon, F. J,, and Reynolds, R. N. Corporal Punishment in Pennsylvannia. Department of Education, Division of Research, Bureau of Information System, November, 1975. Reinholz, L. A Practical Defense of Corporal Punishment. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association (84th), Washington, D. C., September 3 - 7 , 1976. Reitman, A., Follman, J , , and Ladd, E. Corporal Punishment in the Public Schools: The Use of Force in Controlling Student Behavior. New York: American Civil Liberties Union, 1972. Resolution Against Corporal Punishment, American Psychological Association, Division of School Psychology. In Open Forum, Proceedings Conference on Corporal Punishment in the Schools: A National Debate, The National Institute of Education, February, 1977. Roberts, R. T. "The Use of Paddling in Michigan Schools." paper, Michigan State University, 1976. Unpublished Sims v. Board of Education, 329 F. Supp. 678 (1971). Simms v. School District No. 1, Oregon, App., 5Q8P. 2d. 236 (1973). Thomas, B. "A Study of the Attitudes of Educators Relative to the Use arid Value of Corporal Punishment." Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pittsburg, 1973. 186 Ulrich, R. "The Experimental Analysis of Aggression." article, Western Michigan University, 1967. Vanvactor v. State, 15 N.E. 341 (1888). Unpublished