I think I’d rate corporal punishment as Hot Topic #5 among the Elite Eight, following poverty, literacy, classroom (in)equity, and racial discrimination. For all my readers in the North, I should mention that corporal punishment is not only legal but also encouraged in many Mississippi school districts. Growing up in a public high school in rural New York, where a teacher can be sued for striking a student (and a parent, also, can come under fire for striking their own child), I assumed that this was the American cultural norm; don’t touch your students, because someone somewhere will have a problem with it. Wrong. In Mississippi, corporal punishment is practiced throughout the entirety of public education, all the way up to senior year. We five of the Elite Eight who hail from the North were shocked when we learned this. I was the only one who expressed approval of the practice, whereas two or three others held that “are you cave men?” look on their face for probably a few days. In this disagreement, I have found something to satisfy Ben’s insatiable appetite for blog assignments.
Before continuing in a more thorough argument, I should preface this with some of my favorite parental advice, which may or may not apply to the classroom:
Objection 2. Furthermore, verbal communication should reinforce positive behavior. Children/students will react to praise in things that they do well and continue doing them.
Objection 3. Taking the previous two objection into consideration, they are effective but not nearly as effective as corporal punishment. Verbal communication is meaningless if not backed by power. Pain is a powerful deterrent for unacceptable behavior, and children/students react much more strongly to the threat of pain than anything verbal.
On the contrary: the laws of our society prescribe multifarious kinds and degrees of punishments for offenses and violations of laws, and yet all of this variety is contained within a systematic framework that aims to manage and modify the behavior of its citizens.
I answer that consistency is the most important aspect of a discipline scheme. Different environments have different stipulations for behavior and different resources for controlling or modifying that behavior. When a scheme, especially if reinforced by a cultural norm, calls for corporal punishment in a regular and systematized way, then there should be no aversion to the effective practice within that scheme. The scheme including corporal punishment is most effective when the children/students are verbally forewarned that corporal punishment is an option for the practitioner of the scheme. The supreme effectiveness of corporal punishment is not found in its use, but in that it often does not need to be used regularly on any child/student, because they are both verbally and experientially aware of the risk they take when violating the rules that warrant corporal punishment.
Furthermore, corporal punishment is rendered ineffective in inconsistent schemes. Emotional reactions of the practitioner cannot play into the practice of corporal punishment; it must remain a plain option like any other option that is part of the scheme, and be practiced in a way similar to all the other options.
The effectiveness of punitive or “positive” verbal communication is likewise dependent upon the consistency with which they are practiced, and require a detachment from the practitioner’s emotions.
And finally, the number of “successful” people coming from multifarious disciplinary schemes is evidence to show that no one method is most effective.
This is sufficient to reply to all three objections.
Objection 1. A survey of a group of people who never received corporal punishment would show that they turned out okay, and the alternative methods were successful in disciplining them and producing a successful citizen.
Objection 2. Furthermore, a survey of a group of people who received corporal punishment would show long-lasting negative side-effects, and many instances of abuse in the home and elsewhere.
Objection 3. Furthermore, corporal punishment has not been shown to be corrective in children/students, but only leads to a temporary fear of pain that dissolves when a child/student enters a new environment with a different disciplinary scheme.
On the contrary: “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him” (Pr. 22:15).
I answer that corporal punishment is as effective as its alternatives under the conditions of a consistently enforced scheme (ref. Article I). Its effectiveness alone makes it acceptable. But the objections to its acceptability are often severe and very emotional, not looking toward results but toward some fundamental opinion about human nature.
The descriptions of the detrimental effects of corporal punishment, especially in abusive situations, often do not come from settings under the condition of a consistently enforced disciplinary scheme. Many people have negative emotional reactions when they reflect on corporal punishment because they have only seen it practiced in environments with negative emotional actions, lacking any real disciplinary scheme. But when it is practiced apart from emotion, those who underwent corporal punishment as children/students are often proponents of the practice, and they do not associate either positive or negative emotions with it.
Many people disagree with its uses because it is similar to those used on animals. They say “raising” children/students is different from “training” animals. They point not toward the effectiveness of modifying human behavior, but toward a philosophical disagreement with the notion of modifying human behavior. This, however, is utterly beyond the scope of this Article, and is also rejected because of the legal and practical necessity placed on parents and teachers, in whatever way and under whatever scheme, to manage and modify the behavior of their children/students.
Reply to Objection 1. Again, there is no single most effective method for disciplining a child/student (ref. Article I). The variety of options alone does not make corporal punishment unacceptable.
Reply to Objection 2. That survey is valuable, but it does not describe under what scheme the corporal punishment was practiced, and cannot therefore rule out the acceptability of its practice.
Reply to Objection 3. “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Pr. 29:15). Temporary fear of pain would be produced in an inconsistent environment, where the punishment was in a way random and lacks a scheme. But if corporal punishment is presented consistently in a cause-and-effect relationship, there is no need to have fear of pain before violating a rule, until the intention to violate the rule comes. And afterward, the cause-and-effect thinking, projecting consequences from initial actions, goes beyond the realm of corporal punishment to produce further discipline in the child/student outside of the older disciplinary scheme.
I guess this is only funny if you’ve slaved through many hours of reading Thomas Aquinas. Comments, questions?
Before continuing in a more thorough argument, I should preface this with some of my favorite parental advice, which may or may not apply to the classroom:
Do not withhold discipline from a child;And now I will continue in the mode of Thomas Aquinas and the medieval university, because I’m in a humorous mood right now. I do seriously support corporal punishment, but I don’t seriously present this argument (and you will notice that I have provided no statistical evidence anywhere).
if you strike him with a rod, he will not die. Pr. 23:13 ESV
Question: Should corporal punishment be used in Mississippi public schools?
Article I.
Whether any one method is most effective for disciplining children/students.
Objection 1. Verbal communication is paramount. Not only does it communicate the desired behavior, but it trains children/students to listen and think critically about what is being communicated to them.Objection 2. Furthermore, verbal communication should reinforce positive behavior. Children/students will react to praise in things that they do well and continue doing them.
Objection 3. Taking the previous two objection into consideration, they are effective but not nearly as effective as corporal punishment. Verbal communication is meaningless if not backed by power. Pain is a powerful deterrent for unacceptable behavior, and children/students react much more strongly to the threat of pain than anything verbal.
On the contrary: the laws of our society prescribe multifarious kinds and degrees of punishments for offenses and violations of laws, and yet all of this variety is contained within a systematic framework that aims to manage and modify the behavior of its citizens.
I answer that consistency is the most important aspect of a discipline scheme. Different environments have different stipulations for behavior and different resources for controlling or modifying that behavior. When a scheme, especially if reinforced by a cultural norm, calls for corporal punishment in a regular and systematized way, then there should be no aversion to the effective practice within that scheme. The scheme including corporal punishment is most effective when the children/students are verbally forewarned that corporal punishment is an option for the practitioner of the scheme. The supreme effectiveness of corporal punishment is not found in its use, but in that it often does not need to be used regularly on any child/student, because they are both verbally and experientially aware of the risk they take when violating the rules that warrant corporal punishment.
Furthermore, corporal punishment is rendered ineffective in inconsistent schemes. Emotional reactions of the practitioner cannot play into the practice of corporal punishment; it must remain a plain option like any other option that is part of the scheme, and be practiced in a way similar to all the other options.
The effectiveness of punitive or “positive” verbal communication is likewise dependent upon the consistency with which they are practiced, and require a detachment from the practitioner’s emotions.
And finally, the number of “successful” people coming from multifarious disciplinary schemes is evidence to show that no one method is most effective.
This is sufficient to reply to all three objections.
Article II.
Whether corporal punishment is acceptable when alternatives are available.
Whether corporal punishment is acceptable when alternatives are available.
Objection 1. A survey of a group of people who never received corporal punishment would show that they turned out okay, and the alternative methods were successful in disciplining them and producing a successful citizen.
Objection 2. Furthermore, a survey of a group of people who received corporal punishment would show long-lasting negative side-effects, and many instances of abuse in the home and elsewhere.
Objection 3. Furthermore, corporal punishment has not been shown to be corrective in children/students, but only leads to a temporary fear of pain that dissolves when a child/student enters a new environment with a different disciplinary scheme.
On the contrary: “Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him” (Pr. 22:15).
I answer that corporal punishment is as effective as its alternatives under the conditions of a consistently enforced scheme (ref. Article I). Its effectiveness alone makes it acceptable. But the objections to its acceptability are often severe and very emotional, not looking toward results but toward some fundamental opinion about human nature.
The descriptions of the detrimental effects of corporal punishment, especially in abusive situations, often do not come from settings under the condition of a consistently enforced disciplinary scheme. Many people have negative emotional reactions when they reflect on corporal punishment because they have only seen it practiced in environments with negative emotional actions, lacking any real disciplinary scheme. But when it is practiced apart from emotion, those who underwent corporal punishment as children/students are often proponents of the practice, and they do not associate either positive or negative emotions with it.
Many people disagree with its uses because it is similar to those used on animals. They say “raising” children/students is different from “training” animals. They point not toward the effectiveness of modifying human behavior, but toward a philosophical disagreement with the notion of modifying human behavior. This, however, is utterly beyond the scope of this Article, and is also rejected because of the legal and practical necessity placed on parents and teachers, in whatever way and under whatever scheme, to manage and modify the behavior of their children/students.
Reply to Objection 1. Again, there is no single most effective method for disciplining a child/student (ref. Article I). The variety of options alone does not make corporal punishment unacceptable.
Reply to Objection 2. That survey is valuable, but it does not describe under what scheme the corporal punishment was practiced, and cannot therefore rule out the acceptability of its practice.
Reply to Objection 3. “The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother” (Pr. 29:15). Temporary fear of pain would be produced in an inconsistent environment, where the punishment was in a way random and lacks a scheme. But if corporal punishment is presented consistently in a cause-and-effect relationship, there is no need to have fear of pain before violating a rule, until the intention to violate the rule comes. And afterward, the cause-and-effect thinking, projecting consequences from initial actions, goes beyond the realm of corporal punishment to produce further discipline in the child/student outside of the older disciplinary scheme.
I guess this is only funny if you’ve slaved through many hours of reading Thomas Aquinas. Comments, questions?
3 comments:
Funny, indeed. Those hours of Aquinas have been good for something in the life of your writing, I see!
I, also, think corporal punishment is a-okay. In the schools, it would certainly be questioned up north, but I know how well it can work in homes, at least! I've seen it work!
I should forward this to the Head Staff here at Greystone. What a pipe dream. The curse of the privately funded institution, unfortunately - reliance on the opinions of parents, who often are the very worst educators of their children.
In other news, it's nice to see some Aquinas again. I missed him.
I'm a 2004 graduate of St. John's and class of 2005 (e.g., finished in 2007) MTC. I stayed and taught in Mississippi a third year. I'm going to Santa Fe now to do the EC program.
When I arrived I was similarly surprised to learn that Mississippi schools use corporal punishment, but I didn't have firm opinions about it one way or the other. I thought the moral outrage of some of my MTC colleagues was out of proportion with reality, and that most traditionalist defenders were irrational in their defense. Then I taught for a year in a school that used the paddle extensively, and two years in a school district that doesn't use it at all. Now I'm firmly against the practice.
My first observation is that, in my own experience of seeing high school students routinely paddled in the office, it is marginally or not effective. It is certainly not more effective than several alternatives. And where violence confers no tangible benefit, I consider it prudent to eschew violence, however mild.
The firmer, more philosophical objection I've come to have is from observing how many of my students have little conception of the rule of law, or how little distinction many of them make between respect and fear. I am concerned that corporal punishment associates authority and violence -- that it contributes to a culture of parents abusing children, of husbands abusing wives, of police abusing citizens -- and that it thus relegates abstract social good to the realm of concrete fears and pain.
Post a Comment