Story by Kyle Hentschel
Photo by Kyle McKee
Melissa was once a spirited first-grader in rural Ohio, who loved attending school and learning as her older siblings had. This outgoing child’s enthusiasm and vibrance were flattened after her teacher swatted her three times with a wooden paddle in front of the class. Melissa had circled her answers on a worksheet instead of underlining them as her teacher had requested. While the bruises from the paddle faded, the psychological trauma persisted throughout her childhood and beyond. After the incident, she began experiencing nightmares and became withdrawn, fearful of leaving the house.
Some might overlook the use of physical disciplinary actions in public schools, thinking back to “a different time,” when such practices were the norm. What many people don’t realize is that this method of discipline is still in use. There are 19 US states that still permit public schools to use corporal punishment or the deliberate infliction of physical pain on a student who has broken the rules or acted out. Such action is usually, but not limited to, spanking or paddling.
“Schools are the only institutions in America in which striking another person is legally sanctioned. It is not allowed in prisons, in the military, or in mental hospitals,” says Deborah Sendek, the Director of the Center for Effective Discipline (CED) in Columbus, Ohio. This idea of a legal system that ignores the safety of students concerns Sendek, who developed the non-profit aimed at educating the public about the effects of corporal punishment and alternative disciplinary methods.
While the United States has strict laws against abuse, there are no federal laws banning corporal punishment—only 31 state laws ban its use in schools.
When viewing corporal punishment restrictions on a map of the United States, it is easy to assume there is a definitive line between the North and the South; however, after further research, it becomes clear that opposition of a ban can vary between school districts within each state. For instance, in Louisiana, a state without a ban on corporal punishment, there are 56 school districts that allow it and 17 districts that prohibit its use.
Corporal punishment is occurring frequently in rural areas, where socioeconomic status and family-related issues penetrate the school system. Such areas also tend to rely heavily on tradition, believing that old-fashioned physical discipline teaches a child to respect authority and its subsequent rules. Larger cities, or more educated areas surrounding colleges or universities, tend to be void of this practice.
This split in values adds complexity and forces the CED, other organizations, and all opponents of corporal punishment to evaluate: Do we have the right to go into those smaller counties and advocate for our beliefs and policies?
The process of making a change in legislation becomes difficult with this apprehension and, often times, only results in an updated statement in the rulebook. “States like North Carolina have a state Board of Education that says it should be abolished, but that is only a position statement; it’s not official legislation,” Sendek points out.
Organizations that partner with the CED, such as the National Parent Teacher Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics, only go as far as position statements as well, “All major associations and organizations have position statements against corporal punishment. The problem is getting them to act on it. They focus on issues such as healthier school lunches because that would affect children in all 50 states. Corporal punishment is only legal in 19 states. Of those 19 states, about 12 or 13 have high instances of corporal punishment. Then, out of those 12-13, it is not every district that practices it,” Sendek says. When broken down in this way, a ban on corporal punishment becomes a lesser priority on an organization’s legislative agenda, which is a central factor contributing to its legality.
On the international stage, physical discipline has grown into a controversial topic that has evolved over the last few decades. The movement to end it began in 1979, when Sweden passed a law almost unanimously to become the first country to ban corporal punishment completely in homes and schools. Since then, more than 100 other countries have banned the use of corporal punishment in schools, and 35 countries have banned it completely.
“When you look at countries that have banned corporal punishment in educational settings, you tend to find smaller countries.  The size makes it a little easier,” Sendek explains. “If you look at countries like the United States, the culture, demographics, and values in the Pacific Northwest are significantly different than those in the South.” The United States bears an incredibly diverse moral set, resulting in strong divisions on pertinent issues and complicates the act of approaching certain cultural principles. However, Jeffrey Todahl, a professor at the University of Oregon, believes there are multiple aspects to consider. Todahl has experienced the physical mistreatment of children first hand through his work as the Director of the Center for Prevention of Neglect and Abuse.
“We have ambivalence about this issue,” Todahl says. “For much of recent history, corporal punishment has been accepted as a standard style of punishment. And it’s only much more recent that we have been beginning to think that it’s not good for child development, it’s not good for brain development, and it creates a toxic environment.”
In evaluating the use of corporal punishment in schools, it is essential to understand its roots in early behavioral psychology. Corporal punishment is based on operant conditioning, a concept studied by psychologist B.F. Skinner. Skinner’s “operant chamber” used rats to exemplify how behavior can be manipulated through consistent reinforcement or punishment techniques. Through these experiments, Skinner developed the basis of operant conditioning: behavior is changed as a result of its consequences. There are multiple subcategories of punishment and reinforcement. Spanking children in school falls under the category of positive punishment, or delivering an unpleasant stimulus in an attempt to end a certain behavior. The American Psychological Association states the most frequent outcome of positive punishment has consistently been “increased immediate compliance on the part of the child,” which often justifies its continuance by the punisher.
Todahl says, “It can look like, in the short term, that it’s effective because the child may change their behavior, which reinforces the decision to use that kind of strategy. But in the long-term, it sends a message that a way to resolve conflict or to deal with adverse situations in our lives is to use force.”
Cases of sustained physical injuries are rare; however, the psychological ramifications prove detrimental to a child’s ability to learn, interact with peers, and trust authority figures as displayed in Melissa’s story. Research conducted at the University of Texas at Austin verifies that students who are victims of physical disciplinary practices perform worse on academic assessments and are significantly more prone to violence, vandalism, and the display of aggressive, antisocial behavior to those around them.
“We can educate children very productively without ever taking such a risk,” Sendek says. “When children act out, hold them accountable, teach them that their behavior affects others, and continually remind them. Their understanding isn’t the same as our understanding. When you say ‘no’ to a two-year-old, they understand. But five minutes later, it’s a whole new situation.”
Even if the child is about to do something that may be dangerous, for example, touching a hot stove, the appropriate response is not to slap the child’s hand. The idea ‘I’m going to hurt you so you don’t hurt yourself’ is not an effective method of teaching. Instead, Sendek suggests getting to the child’s eye level and repeating, “No! The stove is hot!” Guiding the hand over the stove and letting the child feel the heat coming off the burner can paint a clearer image of why it isn’t safe. It is crucial to constantly remind the child throughout this entire learning stage in order to solidify the concept of a stove being unsafe.
“It’s about understanding the logical and natural consequences of behavior,” Sendek adds.
When a child is physically disciplined, there is a tendency to focus less on why unwanted behavior is not acceptable and more on resentment towards the teacher. Punished students often associate the punishment with the authority figure who administers it and maintain a negative view of the punisher. They quickly lose trust in their teachers and tend to avoid them, which hinders academic success.
“We are taught that teachers and administrative figures should be respected because those are the people who will guide us and teach us,” Sendek says, describing it as a violation of a student-teacher relationship. When these authority figures hit children, trust diminishes, and the relationship is strained. This obstructs a child’s capacity for retention and progression in the classroom, crippling the sole purpose of going to school: to learn.
Jeffrey Sprague, a professor of special education and clinical sciences at the University of Oregon, says, “School is compulsory education. Children are required to be in a space with an adult. If that adult engages in behavior that is basically abusive, then it’s a trap for the child.” Sprague, who directs the UO Institute on Violence and Destructive Behavior, says it becomes a matter of “learned helplessness,” in which a human’s natural fight or flight responses are both repressed. This state of helplessness often results in a child feeling depressed or anxious, unable to respond to unpleasant stimuli in a natural “fight-or-flight” manner.
It becomes the school’s responsibility to recognize the negative repercussions of corporal punishment and work for productive solutions. “You need to understand what the child’s motivation is behind the problem behavior. For instance, if I am acting out because the schoolwork is too difficult, then it would be incumbent on the school to adjust the instruction, so the child can feel more successful,” Sprague says.
The future of classroom discipline lies in the constructive alternatives to corporal punishment, many of which have proven successful in place of physical discipline.  The CED and other organizations have compiled resources for school administrators and teachers, presenting them with the tools necessary for non-violent discipline. Methods include suspensions, expulsions, detentions, interventions, or weekly conferences, and the utilization of school counselors, psychologists, and resource officers. In addition, it is imperative for schools to follow a consistent disciplinary code assuring that students and parents know and agree to what is not allowed in their school.
Sendek’s sights are set on replicating what many counties have already done, “Ideally, we become a much more humane society. The goal would be to end corporal punishment completely in all 50 states. I am not sure if that will happen in my professional career, or even in my lifetime. I would like to see a culture of not hitting kids, of stepping away.”
The idea is not to treat children as adults. It is about treating children with respect as humans. While the use of corporal punishment slowly declines every year, cases similar to Melissa’s continue to surface.
“In one way it’s complicated, in another way, it’s not complicated at all,” Todahl says. “It is some version of loving each other more fully, which can sound kind of silly, but I don’t think it’s silly at all.”