Corporal Punishment in Rural Schools: Student Problem Behaviours, Academic Outcomes and School Safety Efforts

108 Pages·2017·1.76 MB·English

by  Seunghee Han (auth.)

SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUCATION
Seunghee Han
Corporal
Punishment in Rural
Schools
Student Problem
Behaviours, Academic
Outcomes and School
Safety Efforts
123
SpringerBriefs in Education
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914
Seunghee Han
Corporal Punishment
in Rural Schools
Student Problem Behaviours,
Academic Outcomes and School
Safety Efforts
123
Seunghee Han
Columbia, MO
USA
ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic)
SpringerBriefs inEducation
ISBN978-981-10-2446-7 ISBN978-981-10-2448-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2448-1
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2016950373
©TheAuthor(s)2017
Thisworkissubjecttocopyright.AllrightsarereservedbythePublisher,whetherthewholeorpart
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilarmethodologynowknownorhereafterdeveloped.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
fromtherelevantprotectivelawsandregulationsandthereforefreeforgeneraluse.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
hereinorforanyerrorsoromissionsthatmayhavebeenmade.
Printedonacid-freepaper
ThisSpringerimprintispublishedbySpringerNature
TheregisteredcompanyisSpringerNatureSingaporePteLtd
Theregisteredcompanyaddressis:152BeachRoad,#22-06/08GatewayEast,Singapore189721,Singapore
To Seoung Joun, Hyelee and Sarah
For their support, encouragement, and love.
Contents
1 Introduction.... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 1
1.1 Definition of Corporal Punishment.... .... .... .... ..... .... 3
1.2 History of School Corporal Punishment in the United States. .... 4
1.3 Why Corporal Punishment Matters in Rural Schools .. ..... .... 5
1.4 Research Methods.... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 10
References.. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 12
2 Corporal Punishment Practice: Law, Trends, Perspective,
and Research... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 17
2.1 Current State Laws... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 17
2.2 Trends .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 21
2.3 Debates on Corporal Punishment Practices: Perspectives
from School Staff, Students and Parents.... .... .... ..... .... 23
2.4 A Review of Empirical Studies on Corporal Punishment.... .... 29
References.. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 32
3 Demographic Characteristics and Corporal Punishment
in Rural Schools .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 37
3.1 School Characteristics and Corporal Punishment in the U.S. . .... 37
3.2 School Characteristics and Corporal Punishment
in Rural Areas .. .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 42
3.3 Summary .. .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 50
References.. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 51
4 Corporal Punishment and School Safety Efforts
in Rural Schools .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 55
4.1 Discipline Practices in Rural Schools.. .... .... .... ..... .... 56
4.2 Discipline Practices in Rural Schools with Corporal
Punishment. .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 58
4.3 Crime Prevention Practices in Rural Schools .... .... ..... .... 60
4.4 Summary .. .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 66
References.. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 68
vii
viii Contents
5 Corporal Punishment and School Outcomes... .... .... ..... .... 71
5.1 Student Problem Behaviours in Rural Schools... .... ..... .... 73
5.2 Student Problem Behaviours and Corporal Punishment Use.. .... 76
5.3 Academic Achievement and Educational Outcomes
in Rural Schools. .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 79
5.4 Academic Achievement and Corporal Punishment Use ..... .... 81
5.5 Trends of School Outcomes and Corporal Punishment Policies ... 82
5.6 Summary .. .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 86
References.. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 88
6 Conclusion. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 93
6.1 School Factors and Corporal Punishment in Rural Schools .. .... 95
6.2 Policy Recommendations ... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 98
6.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies . ..... .... 102
References.. .... .... .... ..... .... .... .... .... .... ..... .... 103
Chapter 1
Introduction
Creating a safe school is a national agenda, and maintaining an orderly school has
been a high priority for school administrators (Noguera 1995). A recent national
report showed that in 2013, there were 37 victimizations per 1000 students at
school,andthe victimization rate was as high as 67 per1000students for students
aged 12–14. Actual number of victimization shows that a considerable number of
studentsencounterviolenceandcrimeatschool.Forexample,amongstudentsaged
12–18, there were more than 1,420,900 nonfatal victimizations and more than
966,000 violent victimizations in 2013 (Robers et al. 2015). Furthermore, violent
incidentsandcrime atschoolcause studentstoperceivethatschool isnotsafeand
fearschoolviolence(Bachmanetal.2011;Barrettetal.2012;Robersetal.2015).
Schools make every effort to promote school safety and to this end, schools
implement various crime prevention programs, classroom management programs,
anddisciplinepractices.Amongthoseefforts,disciplinepolicieshavegainedmuch
attention because of its prevalence, severity, unproven effectiveness, and gender
and racial disparities among students. During the 2009–2010 school year, public
schools implemented approximately 433,800 disciplinary actions (e.g.,
out-of-school suspension, transfer to specialized schools or expulsion) mostly for
physicalattacksorfights,useorpossessionofafirearmorexplosivedevices.Those
disciplinary actions are more common in secondary schools than in elementary
schools.About83 %ofhighschoolsand67 %ofmiddleschoolshaveatleastone
ofsuchdisciplinepractices,while18 %ofelementaryschoolshavesuchdiscipline
practices during the same year (Robers et al. 2015).
Prevalent discipline practices in public schools have become harsh and accel-
erated since the Gun-Free School Act (GFSA) in 1994. Zero tolerance, which was
appliedtothecriminaljusticesystem,hasbeennationallyadoptedinschoolsunder
the GFSA. The main point of zero tolerance policies under the GFSA is that a
school mandates expulsion of a student who possesses a firearm or a weapon in
school. Zero tolerance is supported based on the belief: it is effective in deterring
ruleviolationsusingharshpunishmentwithclearrules,anditisfairforanyonewho
violates therules byapplyingthesame punishmentwithout consideringcontextor
©TheAuthor(s)2017 1
S.Han,CorporalPunishmentinRuralSchools,SpringerBriefs
inEducation,DOI10.1007/978-981-10-2448-1_1
2 1 Introduction
situations.ThesepolicieshavecontinuouslyimplementedinschoolthroughtheNo
Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and school districts can choose alternative disci-
pline methods, such as suspension or transfer to specialized schools after consid-
ering each case (Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld 2011; U.S. Department of Education
2007). Despite the number of disciplinary actions, there is little evidence that zero
tolerancepoliciesareeffectiveindecreasingproblembehaviours,promotingschool
safety and even being a fair discipline practice. Many educators and researchers
have criticized harsh discipline practices including out-of-school suspension,
transfer to a specialized school or expulsion. A major criticism is that those dis-
ciplinepracticesdonotreducestudent’sproblembehavioursandnegativelyimpact
students’ educational outcomes by excluding them from the learning environment.
In addition, discipline practices were more frequently implemented toward male
students, ethnic minority students and special education students (American
Psychological Association 2008; Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld 2011; Human Rights
Watch 2008; Irwin et al. 2013; Morrison and D’Incau 1997; Osher et al. 2010;
Skiba 2000; Skiba and Rausch 2006).
While school safety and discipline policies have gained much attention from
educators, researchers and policy makers for the past years, one particular form of
discipline,corporalpunishment,hasbeenpaidlittleattention.Corporalpunishment
goesagainsttheequalprotectionasahumanrightunderthelawandisprohibitedin
most juvenile correction facilities in the U.S. (Human Rights Watch 2009; United
Nations 2007). Nevertheless, corporal punishment is legally allowed in public
schoolsasadisciplinepurposein19states.Accordingtothemostrecentdata,more
than 166,800 students were physically punished at school during the 2011–2012
school year (Office for Civil Rights 2015). In addition, disproportionate corporal
punishmentpracticetowardethnicminoritystudents,specialeducationstudentsand
male students is another critical issue in the U.S. public schools (Lamping 2011;
Northington2007).Thatis,thepercentageofthosestudentswhoreceivedcorporal
punishment is higher than the total percentage that made up their student popula-
tion.Forexample,in2006,Blackstudentswhowerephysicallypunishedconsisted
of 26 % out of the total corporal punishment incidents when Black students made
up 8.7 % of the total student enrollment. In the same year, special education stu-
dents were made up of 18.8 % out of total corporal punishment incidents when
special education students consisted of 13.7 % in public school enrollment.
Additionally, male students tend to receive corporal punishment three times more
than female students (Lamping 2011).
Many researchers have demonstrated the effects of corporal punishment on
students, yet the debate on whether corporal punishment is an effective discipline
and beneficial to students has been continued until today. Supporters of corporal
punishment assert that corporal punishment is easy to administer, able to imme-
diately control students’ problem behaviours, and effective because students tend
nottorecommitmisbehaviourtoavoid thephysicalpainorunpleasantexperience,
and necessary based on religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds (Dupper and
Dingus2008;HumanRightsWatch2008;Roy2001;Vockell1991;Websteretal.
1988; Wilson 2002). On the other hand, opponents of corporal punishment argue