i

UNION UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF EDUCATION

We hereby recommend that the Dissertation by

Debora R. Gaten

Entitled

Elementary School Principals’ Perceptions of Corporal Punishment

Be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of

Doctor of Education

In Educational Leadership

_________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Grove, Ed.D., Ed.D. Program Director (Date)

Dissertation Committee

_________________________________________________________________

Jennifer Grove, Ed.D., Chairperson (Date)

_________________________________________________________________

Shirley Hilliard, Ed.D. (Date)

_________________________________________________________________

Nina Staples, Ed.D. (Date)

PREVIEW

ii

STATEMENT OF PERMISSION TO USE

In presenting this dissertation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

Doctor of Education Degree at Union University, I agree that the Library shall make it

available to borrowers under rules of the Library. Brief quotations from this dissertation

are allowable without special permission, provided that accurate acknowledgement of the

source is made.

Permission for extensive quotation from or reproduction of this dissertation may

be granted by my research chair, or in her absence, by the Head of Interlibrary Services

when, in the opinion of either, the proposed use of the material is for scholarly purposes.

Any copying or use of the material in this dissertation for financial gain shall not be

allowed without my permission.

Signature ______________________________________________

Date __________________________

PREVIEW

3

Elementary School Principals’ Perceptions of Corporal Punishment

A Dissertation

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the

Doctor of Education Degree

Union University

Debora R. Gaten

August 2008

PREVIEW

3323766

3323766

2008

Copyright 2008 by

Gaten, Debora R.

All rights reserved

PREVIEW

ii

Copyright (2008) Debora R. Gaten

PREVIEW

iii

iii

DEDICATION

I dedicate this dissertation to the loving memory of my father, Nathaniel Gaten, Sr.

(1923–2001), and in honor of my mother, Elizabeth Wells Gaten. You were my first

teachers. Thank you for instilling in all eight of your children a strong work ethic. To my

siblings, Retha, Flora, Nathaniel Jr., Frankie, Rickie, Linda, and Adell, thanks for your

support. To my nieces and nephews, you inspire me.

PREVIEW

iv

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I give honor and praise to God who planted this dream in my heart long

before I graduated from high school and who has allowed me to realize my dream. I

thank God for allowing my path to cross the path of truly remarkable people like my first

principal, Mr. Arnold Harris, and my current principal and mentor, Ms. Regina Nichols. I

would like to acknowledge and thank the following members of my dissertation

committee for their support, encouragement, guidance, and understanding as I went

through this process: my research chair, Dr. Jennifer Grove, Dr. Shirley Hilliard, and Dr.

Nina Staples. I would like to thank the members of my cohort, especially Adlai Shaw and

Thomas Rogers for their openness to exchanging ideas and information. I would also like

to thank Dr. Susan Kiernan who was so gracious in authorizing my use of the survey

instrument she created. To my best friend, Mr. Alfred Harris, Sr., thank you for your

encouragement, patience, and support. This would have been even more difficult without

you.

PREVIEW

v

v

ABSTRACT

The use of corporal punishment is one of the most controversial disciplinary practices in

public education. Twenty-eight states have banned its use, but it is still practiced in 22

mostly southern states. There is mounting criticism concerning its effectiveness, and

research is mixed regarding how effective it is in modifying behavior. The purpose of this

study was to determine whether elementary school principals’ assessments and

perceptions of corporal punishment differ substantially. School enrollment was also

examined to determine whether it affected elementary school principals’ perceptions of

corporal punishment. Specifically, do principals who work in larger schools have

different perceptions than principals who work in smaller schools? The overall goal of

the study was to investigate whether there was a significant difference in the number of

office referrals of schools that employ corporal punishment and those that do not. The

sample population of this study consisted of 20 elementary school principals. At the time

of the study, all principals were employed by a suburban school district located in the

Southern region of the U.S. The school system is nearly one-half the size of its urban

counterpart. Participants completed the Corporal Punishment Scale Survey that contained

questions to determine if they perceived corporal punishment as an effective means of

discipline. The results of this study imply that the overall perceptions of corporal

punishment for elementary school principals were favorable, even though, most

principals in the study did not use corporal punishment as a school disciplinary measure.

PREVIEW

vi

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER PAGE

1. INTRODUCTION .........................................................................................................1

Statement of the Problem ...........................................................................................6

Purpose of the Study ................................................................................................. 7

Research Questions ....................................................................................................7

Significance of the Study ............................................................................................8

Definition of Key Terms ............................................................................................9

2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE ......................................................................................10

Past Practices in Discipline .......................................................................................11

Religious Beliefs ........................................................................................11

Race and Gender .......................................................................................16

Inappropriate Behavior and Its Impact on Achievement .........................................18

The Corporal Punishment Issue ..............................................................................27

Legal Implications ..................................................................................................45

Best Practices ..........................................................................................................47

Summary .................................................................................................................52

3. METHODOLOGY ..................................................................................................... 54

Description of the Study ......................................................................................... 54

Design .....................................................................................................................54

Participants ............................................................................................................. .55

Procedures ...............................................................................................................55

Instrumentation ....................................................................................................... 56

Data Analysis ..........................................................................................................58

Delimitations of the Study........................................................................................ 59

4. FINDINGS .................................................................................................................61

Research Question One ........................................................................................... .61

Research Question Two .......................................................................................... 68

Research Question Three ......................................................................................... 71

Summary of Findings .............................................................................................. 73

PREVIEW

vii

vii

5. CONCLUSIONS AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................74

Conclusions .............................................................................................................74

Research Question One ..............................................................................74

Research Question Two .............................................................................75

Research Question Three ...........................................................................77

Recommendations ...................................................................................................78

Implications .............................................................................................................80

Discussion ...............................................................................................................81

For Future Studies ...................................................................................................83

Closing Summary ....................................................................................................84

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................87

APPENDIX ......................................................................................................................97

PREVIEW

viii

viii

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

1. Gender of Participants ..............................................................................................62

2. Age of Participants ..................................................................................................63

3. Race of Participants ................................................................................................64

4. Years Experience as a Principal ...............................................................................64

5. Highest Degree or Level of Education Earned ........................................................65

6. Corporal Punishment Used as a Disciplinary Measure ...........................................66

7. Number of Times Corporal Punishment Administered Yearly ..............................67

8. Relationship Between Demographics and Use of Corporal Punishment .................68

9. Perceptions of Corporal Punishment ......................................................................69

10. School Enrollment ..................................................................................................70

11. Test of Between-Subjects Effects ...........................................................................71

12. Weekly Office Referrals .........................................................................................72

13. Test of Between-Subjects Effects ...........................................................................73

PREVIEW

1

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

The use of corporal punishment is one the most controversial practices in public

schools. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics (2000), it is estimated that

schools in the United States administer corporal punishment between one and two million

times a year. Andero and Stewart (2002) reported that, under common law, teachers and

other school personnel have the right to administer reasonable corporal punishment--the

infliction of physical pain on a student for misconduct. The immediate aims of such

punishment are usually to halt the offense, prevent its recurrence and set an example for

others. The purported long-term goals are to change the child’s behavior and to make it

more consistent with the adults’ expectations. Mason (2005) asserted that just the threat

of corporal punishment might keep a boy or girl out of prison. In 1974, the American

Psychological Association and several other national groups denounced corporal

punishment in schools. Since that time, 28 states have outlawed corporal punishment.

However, it has remained an option for school principals in the remaining 22 states,

including Tennessee. West Tennessee schools generally mandated corporal punishment

to the principal or assistant principal, although a teacher could carry it out if an

administrator was present as a witness (Garlington, 1998).

Reportedly, school principals face a major challenge where student disruptive

behavior is concerned: Increases in teenage crime, pregnancy, substance abuse,

PREVIEW

2

2

violence, gang activity, truancy, and dropout rates all have a major effect on the

education of American youth. Most of these problems have social origins that are beyond

the scope and ability of public schools to remedy (Mayer, 2001). However, there is one

major obstacle to quality teaching that most schools do not adequately address--the hour-

by-hour disruptions that occur in the classroom. This obstacle is the routine failure of

students to arrive in class, on time, with needed materials including pencils. Although

only a minority of the student population becomes habitual disrupters, these students’

behaviors are insidious and interfere with the teachers’ responsibility and ability to teach

and with the disciplined students’ right to learn (Souza, 2000). Annual Gallup Polls of

public opinion have frequently identified the lack of discipline as a common complaint

about public schools. The single most common request for assistance that teachers ask of

their administrators is for help in managing problem behaviors (Mayer, 2001). Without a

safe learning environment, teachers cannot teach, and students cannot learn.

Souza (2000) contended that although teachers are neither parents of their

students nor officers of the law, they have assumed two duties: (a) to take assertive and

proactive measures to ensure that each student is protected from harm resulting from the

disciplinary offenses and crimes committed by other students, outsiders, and student

offenders themselves; and (b) to use disciplinary action and, when necessary, law

enforcement to deal effectively and impartially with misbehavior.

Toby (1998) asserted that the public is more shocked by violence that occurs in

schools than when it occurs on the street. He contended that students are more prone to

misbehave in school now than in the past because school discipline has become lax. In

PREVIEW

3

3

the past, school discipline implied that students knew that bad behavior would be costly

for them. The punishment of misbehavior was costly to students a generation ago because

schools were orderly; students knew that teachers cared whether they misbehaved. It was

understood they might give bad academic grades or unfavorable disciplinary reports

when they observed such misbehavior. An orderly school was one in which students

respected all teachers, including any disapproving teacher whom they might encounter in

the hallways, stairs, cafeteria, or schoolyards. The basis for school discipline lay in the

students’ awareness that teachers were vigilant and capable of invoking penalties. The

possibility of sanctions was threatening to students because they considered success in

school important. What requires explanation, according to Toby, is why students stopped

believing that teachers cared about their behavior and why teachers, even if they care,

stopped enforcing good behavior.

Discipline in our schools is a major issue. Sesko (1999) alleged that parents are in

favor of a strict disciplinary policy for troublemakers until their child is the one identified

as the troublemaker. Each school district has its own disciplinary policy, but many

administrators have failed to follow their policy for fear of being sued, said Sesko. On the

contrary, lawsuits against public institutions are most often successful because

administrators fail to follow or enforce existing disciplinary policies, not because they do

so. Many administrators lose their effectiveness because they do not challenge issues they

believe to be important. In many cases, an administrator’s decision concerning discipline

is reversed by his or her superior. Teachers feel unsupported because administrators seem

to appease the parents of troublemakers at the expense of everyone else involved. When

PREVIEW

4

4

parents meet with the administrator to discuss their children’s behavior, they often defend

them, thus, enabling them to behave poorly by removing the consequences for their

actions, alleged Sesko. Schools usually do not pursue the matter any further.

Another problem that is prevalent in many schools, according to Sesko (1999), is

that there is a different set of rules for different students. The administrator dispenses

whatever penalty he or she believes is appropriate for a student whose parents are

supportive of the disciplinary process. On the other hand, for students with parents who

complain loudly or the students who excel athletically, the penalty is frequently modified

to be less punitive. Oftentimes, the administrator is at fault for creating a double standard,

thus, sending a mixed message to students and parents alike. Unfortunately, schools

cannot do anything with those members of society who refuse to take responsibility for

their own actions. Within the schools, student disruptions must be addressed.

As society attempts to pinpoint the root source of the acts of violence that plague

our public schools, a single cause for the current state of affairs in these institutions

cannot be isolated (Sesko, 1999). However, some believe that defiance, chaos, threats,

cursing, and assaults have risen from rare to frequent in many schools since the

elimination of corporal punishment (Edwards, 1999; Fredricks, 2001). There was a time

when parents held schools in such high esteem that children knew if they were in trouble

at school they would be in even more trouble at home. Today, it is more common for a

student to use his or her cell phone on the walk to the office to call a parent to intercede.

Ideally, parents would teach their children how to behave at home, unfortunately, that

may not happen. If the nation desires orderly schools and higher test scores, it must allow

PREVIEW

5

5

educators a diverse toolbox of disciplinary methods in which corporal punishment

continues to be an option (Mason, 2005). If difficult behaviors are not addressed in a way

that produces the desired results early on, children may progress to more serious

behaviors (Edwards, 1999).

In 1998, a proposal was brought before the school board of a large urban school

district in West Tennessee to ban corporal punishment because of its implication of being

cruel and inhumane. The proposal was rejected in a 6 to 3 vote. Until recently, this large

urban school district’s principals administered corporal punishment by using wooden

paddles on the buttock and leather straps on open palms (Garlington, 1998). In 2004, the

issue of banning corporal punishment was revisited.

According to Bitensky (2004), national statistics for the 1999 – 2000 academic

year indicated that Black students were administered corporal punishment at a rate that

was more than twice their makeup in the population. Specifically, Blacks comprised 17%

of students, but received 39% of the corporal punishment. Whites comprised 62% of all

students, but received 53% of the corporal punishment. Along similar lines, a West

Tennessee School study published in 2004 confirmed that in the largest school district,

Black students and boys were overwhelmingly more likely to get paddled than their

White and female counterparts. A reported 97% of the 27,918 paddlings in 2003 were

given to the district’s Black children, while only 2% were given to White children

(Bitensky, 2004). There are 118,000 students in this particular school system.

The decision by the School Board in 2004 to review the district’s corporal

punishment policy generated a debate over the use of physical force to discipline

PREVIEW

6

6

students. One resolution that was studied by the board committee would ban the practice

altogether. Another proposal would keep the punishment, but clarify the policy to

specifically give parents the right to decide whether they would allow their children to be

physically punished. Many parents of Black students in the district support corporal

punishment. While the 118,000–student district policy called for using corporal

punishment only as a last resort, in November 2004, school board members voted 5 to 4

to end the practice (Gehring, 2004b).

Statement of the Problem

In 2005, the school system’s leadership announced that student disciplinary

referrals had declined. This result was attributed to the school district’s implementation

of the Blue Ribbon Behavior Initiative Plan (Memphis City Schools, 2005a, 2005b). The

Blue Ribbon Plan was created to promote academic achievement and positive student

behavior. The plan promotes a proactive rather than a reactive approach to soliciting

positive student behaviors (Memphis City Schools, 2006). Because many teachers believe

that little will be done to a student who misbehaves in their classroom, they simply do not

refer students to the principal. Equally disconcerting is the stark reality that new teachers

leave the profession at an alarming rate. In leaving, teachers report overwhelmingly that

lack of discipline and related support from administrators are compelling influencers.

There is slight hope that inadequately controlled school systems can successfully recruit

and retain high quality instructors. In the absence of those high quality teachers, the

problem will likely worsen at an accelerated pace (Fredricks, 2001).

PREVIEW

7

7

The key to strengthening appropriate behavior in our schools is a full-scale review

of a school district’s disciplinary plan. Anything short of that will produce nothing more

than new versions of the current conflicts between teachers, administrators, and parents

(Sesko, 1999). Corporal punishment remains an option for one school district in the dual

school system of this West Tennessee City. This study investigated current perceptions of

elementary school principals regarding corporal punishment.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whether principals’ assessments and

perceptions of corporal punishment differ substantially. School enrollment was also

examined to determine whether it affects elementary school principals’ perceptions of

corporal punishment. Specifically, do principals who work in larger schools have

different perceptions than principals who work in smaller schools? The overall goal of

the study was to investigate whether there is a significant difference in the number of

office referrals of schools that employ corporal punishment and those that do not.

Research Questions

This study was organized around three primary research questions:

1. Do the demographics of elementary school principals influence the frequency

of their use or non-use of corporal punishment?

2. Is there a significant difference between elementary school principals’

perceptions of corporal punishment based on size of school in which they

work?

PREVIEW

8

8

3. Is there a significant difference in the number of office referrals of schools that

employ corporal punishment and those that do not?

Significance of the Study

Check (2001) explained that discipline models and techniques to maintain order

in the classroom have been essential factors in the teaching profession since the

establishment of formal education. Check contended that teachers in present day are

confronted with problems far greater than in previous years. Novice teachers are entering

the profession at a more difficult time, and, according to Check, might find it difficult to

maintain order in the classroom. He also questioned whether experienced teachers can

subsist. Teaching has one of the highest dropout rates of all the professions with more

than half of all teachers quitting within the first five years of their teaching career

(Fredricks, 2001). Most cite students’ hostility and defiance as determining factors in

their decision to leave the profession.

The significance of this study resides in the unfortunate existence of declining

discipline in public schools. It is critically urgent that a credible system of maintaining

good order be devised, authorized, and implemented. Once corporal punishment was an

accepted form of discipline, but as more states and school systems ban its use,

educational policymakers and administrators must employ more accepted techniques and

models of discipline. This study will add to the body of literature regarding the

perceptions of principals relative to the impact of corporal punishment in elementary

schools.

PREVIEW

9

9

Definition of Key Terms

Corporal punishment. “A discipline method in which a supervising adult

deliberately inflicts pain upon a child with a device such as a paddle, ruler, or strap, in

response to a child’s unacceptable behavior and/or inappropriate language” (American

Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 1988).

Classroom management. The coordinated activities of a teacher including

participating in daily routines, special events, student discipline, and academic instruction

(Emmer, 2001).

Disruptive behavior. Student behavior that is counter-productive to the goals of

the teacher, school and class in terms of academic achievement (Ennis, 1996).

Safe and orderly schools. Schools where students and teachers feel safe and

where learning takes place in an atmosphere that is conducive for optimum teaching and

learning (Shanker, 1995).

Antisocial behavior. Recurrent violations of socially prescribed patterns of

behavior, usually involving aggression, vandalism, rule infractions, defiance of adult

authority, and violation of the social norms and mores of society (Mayer, 2001).

PREVIEW

10

10

CHAPTER 2

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

School discipline has been a constant concern of both educators and the public.

Increasing rates of youth violence and disruptive behavior in our nation’s schools present

a major challenge to teachers, administrators, students, and their parents (Winbinger,

Katsiyannis, & Archwamety, 2000). For teachers, discipline problems pose serious

threats to their ability to teach. It is a source of stress and fear. For administrators,

handling frequent discipline problems consume time and resources needed for the

continuation of quality instruction. For students and parents, concerns range from the loss

of opportunity for academic achievement to physical harm. In an effort to understand the

scope and nature of school disciplinary problems and to identify recommendations for

best practices, current literature relevant to the study was reviewed. The review is divided

into five major sections. The first section explores past practices concerning discipline

and parental support. The second section identifies the causes of disciplinary problems

and its impact on achievement. The third section provides a discussion of the arguments

in favor of and against corporal punishment. The fourth section addresses legal

implications, and the fifth section investigates current research-based best practices in

discipline.

PREVIEW

11

11

Past Practices in Discipline

Religious beliefs. Those who quote the bible to justify their use of physical

punishment on children may hold strong Anglo-Saxon Protestant values, according to

Richardson, Wilcox, and Dunne (1994). Historically, Anglo-Saxon literature depicts

children as victims who are often treated as property. Child abuse is an integral part of

the stories written by English novelist, Charles Dickens. The American practice of

corporal punishment is firmly rooted in the Anglo-Saxon colonial traditions. The right to

physically punish children in schools evolved from the position of “in loco parentis” or in

the place of the parent (Richardson et al., 1994). Several studies suggest that aspects of

fundamentalist and evangelical religions foster support for, and the use of corporal

punishment (i.e., Bartkowski & Wilcox, 2000; Danso, Hunsberger, & Pratt, 1997). A

large percentage of contemporary religious conservatives consider the Holy Bible to be

without error. They feel that it provides guidance to manage all human conduct, including

child rearing. Accordingly, parents are “devinely ordain” as authority figures and their

role should remain unchallenged (Bartkowski, 1995). Pastors in this tradition tend to

emphasize biblical passages lauding the child’s obedience to parental authority. Critics

charge that Conservative Protestants encourage, or at least tolerate the physical abuse of

children. Some Conservative Protestants even suggest that corporal punishment shapes

the nature of children (Capps, 1995). Many believe that all individuals are born

predisposed to willful conduct and rebellion against all forms of authority. They suggest

that these tendencies are dangerous and must be corrected immediately. In view of that,

children who grow up without proper discipline will not respect authority figures, and

PREVIEW

12

12

they will be unable or unwilling to submit themselves to the will of God. Therefore, they

will not enjoy the fruits of spiritual salvation (Bartkowski, 1995). “Shaping the will” of

children becomes an important priority to conservative religious parents. Many cite

religious scripture to support their claim that corporal punishment is the biblically

ordained consequence to overt challenges to parental authority.

A historical perspective from the 1700’s described the value of corporal

punishment as follows:

In order to form the minds of children, the first thing to be done is to conquer their

will. Therefore, let a child from a year old be taught to fear the rod and to cry

softly. In order to do this, let him have nothing he cries for, absolutely nothing,

great or small; else you undo your own work. At all events, from that age, make

him do as he is bid, if you whip him ten times running to effect it. Let none

persuade you it is cruelty to do this; it is cruelty not to do it. Break his will now,

and his soul will live and he will probably bless you to all eternity. (Susanna

Wesley, as cited in Donohue, 1996, p. 4)

According to Donohue (1996), this passage was stated by Susanna Wesley in the early

1700’s. By the time Susanna Wesley died in 1742, she and her husband, Samuel, rector

of the Anglican Church, had 19 children, 9 of whom died in infancy and of the 10 who

survived, 2 became Methodist “saints.” John Wesley, who also became an Anglican

priest, was the principal founder of the Methodist Church, and Charles Wesley was

considered one of the greatest English hymn writers. Donohue concluded that if Mrs.

Wesley did employ this fierce pedagogy with her own gifted sons, it apparently left no

rancorous memories. When he was 77, John Wesley said that throughout his whole life,

he had not “felt lowness of spirits for one quarter of an hour” (p. 4). Donohue stated that

parents in the United States today who follow Mrs. Wesley’s “recipe” for rearing children

would be liable to arrest for child abuse.

PREVIEW

13

13

Donohue (1996) asserted that some Evangelical parents still cite Proverbs 12:24

“The man who fails to use the rod hates his son,” as a biblical warrant for tough love. He

further stated that in the 19th

Century, American public school teachers employed

corporal punishment whenever they felt so disposed. Bergman (2004) added that children

at that time would not have considered complaining to their parents. He further stated that

children would not have thought about challenging a teacher’s actions because parents

communicated to them that the teacher was the boss, and they had to follow the boss’s

rules. At one time in history, parents held schools in such high esteem that children knew

if they were punished at school, they would be punished more severely when they arrived

at home (Mason, 2005).

Equally supportive of corporal punishment is a conviction based on moral

authority by Danso et al. (1997). They conducted two studies in 1997 to assess how

religious beliefs and endorsement of right-wing authoritarian attitudes linked to the kinds

of goals parents establish for their children and their approval of corporal punishment. A

seven-page questionnaire was mailed to 360 second-year undergraduate students in a

northern university. Two hundred-fifteen responses were received from 148 females and

67 males. Questionnaires with missing data reduced the number to 204. The age of the

participants ranged from 18 to 22 years with a mean age of 19.69. Of the 204 participants

in the first survey, Danso et al. found that those who considered themselves

fundamentalist Christians put greater emphasis on obedience, and had greater approval of

the use of corporal punishment in child rearing. In the second study, Danso et al.

replicated the first study but used parents instead of college students. Students from a

PREVIEW