Probability of Corporal Punishment Lack of Resources and Vulnerable Students

This article was downloaded by: [Mittuniversitetet]
On: 11 April 2015, At: 06:48

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Journal of Educational Research

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/vjer20
Probability of Corporal Punishment: Lack of Resources

and Vulnerable Students
Seunghee Han
University of MissouriColumbia
Published online: 17 Oct 2011.
To cite this article: Seunghee Han (2011) Probability of Corporal Punishment: Lack of Resources and Vulnerable Students, The
Journal of Educational Research, 104:6, 420-430, DOI: 10.1080/00220671.2010.500313
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.500313
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
The Journal of Educational Research, 104:420430, 2011

C Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
Copyright
ISSN: 0022-0671 print / 1940-0675 online
DOI:10.1080/00220671.2010.500313
Probability of Corporal Punishment:

Lack of Resources and Vulnerable
Students
SEUNGHEE HAN
Downloaded by [Mittuniversitetet] at 06:48 11 April 2015
University of MissouriColumbia
ABSTRACT. The author examined corporal punishment

practices in the United States based on data from 362 public
school principals where corporal punishment is available. Results from multiple regression analyses show that schools with
multiple student violence prevention programs and teacher
training programs had fewer possibilities of use corporal punishment, whereas schools that served a greater percentage of
ethnic minority students and special education students had
a 2.1 times greater and a 1.8 times greater likelihood of use
corporal punishment, after controlling for students problem
behavior and school characteristics. Policy implications for an
equal implementation of corporal punishment practice were
offered.
Keywords: corporal punishment, discipline, School Survey
on Crime and Safety (SSOCS), student problem behavior
iscipline is one of the major responsibilities of

school principals. Schools utilize various disciplinary practices, such as detention, in- and
out-of-school suspensions, and prevention or intervention
programs, to reduce or prevent students problem behaviors.
Schools have administeredand debatedcorporal punishment, one of the disciplinary practices, for a long time
(Hinchey, 2004; McCarthy, 2005; Middleton, 2008; Moelis,
1988; Reitman, 1988). Some supporters of corporal punishment claim that school administrators and teachers use corporal punishment when they have urgent needs to promptly
control students risky problem behaviors, and these proponents believe it is effective (Roy, 2001; Webster, Wood, &
Elcher, 1988; Wilson, 2002). Furthermore, the supporters
believe that using corporal punishment has some advantages for school practitioners: There is no cost involved, it
is easy to administer, and there is no organization or training needed (Human Rights Watch, 2008; Wilson, 2002).
Supporters assert, too, that cultural or religious beliefs address physical punishment as necessary or even beneficial
to the students (see Dupper & Dingus, 2008; Human Rights
Watch, 2008). Despite such claims, there is an abundance of
literature illustrating the negative effects of using corporal
punishment in schools. More important, corporal punish-
ment is not effective in modifying problem behavior; some

students repeatedly misbehave after receiving corporal punishment, and they are chronically subjected to corporal punishment (Shaw & Braden, 1990). In addition, some teachers
and principals have admitted that corporal punishment is
not very effective (Billings & Enger, 1995; Little & AkinLittle, 2008). Moreover, schools tend to use corporal punishment for relatively minor or nonviolent behaviors rather
than safety-intimidating behaviors (Hyman, 1988). Further
negative student outcomes of corporal punishment include
lower school performance and delinquent behaviors, such
as school vandalism (Bryan & Freed, 1982; Hyman, 1988;
Straus, Sugarman, & Giles-Sims, 1997); school shootings
(Arcus, 2002); anxiety and aggression (Biehler & Snowman,
1997; Cryan, 1995); emotional and behavioral adjustment
problems (Aucoin, Frick, & Bodin, 2006); serious injuries,
development of negative emotions such as depression and
anger, lack of involvement in school work, increased dropout rates, and the possibility of involvement in domestic
violence (Human Rights Watch, 2008); and continued impaired mental health in future adult life (Gershoff, 2002).
As an indirect effect (not limited to the recipient of corporal punishment), school climate is also negatively affected
by this disciplinary practice; students who observed it felt
afraid due to a hostile environment (Human Rights Watch,
2008).
At the time of study, 21 states permitted corporal punishment in public schools and approximately 223,190 corporal
punishment incidents were reported during the 20062007
school year (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
Although serious corporal punishment incidents are uncommon, as mentioned previously, corporal punishment produces multiple negative effects on students in terms of not
only school experience but also later adult life; thus, corporal punishment practices as disciplinary methods should be
Address correspondence to Seunghee Han, Department of Educational
Leadership and Policy Analysis, University of MissouriColumbia,
202 Hill Hall, Columbia, MO 65211, USA. (E-mail:
shc3c@mail.missouri.edu)
421
carefully evaluated and their use should be reconsidered as a

beneficial policy.
Most researchers have examined the frequency of using
corporal punishment according to school characteristics,
including the percentage of minority students (Gregory,
1995; McFadden & Marsh, 1992; Shaw & Braden, 1990;
U.S. Department of Education, 2008), percentage of special
education students (U.S. Department of Education, 2008),
school location (Nickerson & Spears, 2007), and poverty
(Nickerson & Spears, 2007). Those researchers provided
important empirical evidence about frequent and unequal
corporal punishment levied against students, yet researchers
know little about the school contexts that are associated with
such use. Researchers have emphasized positive disciplinary
practices as effective approaches and especially as alternatives to corporal punishment; however, very few researchers
have examined the associations between implementing
positive disciplinary practices and the use of corporal
punishment.
The primary goal of this study was to estimate the effects
of school contexts including violence prevention programs
for students and teacher training programs (e.g., classroom
management, discipline, violence prevention) on the use of
corporal punishment. In assessing the effects, school background variables as well as the total number of students
problem behaviors were included as control variables. Specific research questions in the study were the following:
Many researchers, including well-known delinquency

theorists, claim weaknesses and negative effects of disciplinary practices based on rational choice theory (de Haan
& Vos, 2003; Herrnstein, 1990; Hirschi, 1969; Lahno, 2007;
Shoemaker, 2000). In response to these claims, multiple
alternative disciplinary practices have been added to school
discipline policies. Positive intervention programs have
been emphasized as alternatives to punitive disciplinary
practices (Arcus, 2002; Human Rights Watch, 2008). The
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support (PBS) model,
which was established from a comprehensive approach that
emphasizes responding to and teaching students about their
misbehavior, is an example of the most common programs
available in school districts in 46 states (Human Rights
Watch, 2008).
Despite the importance of positive discipline approaches,
schools can choose to take this approach. There may be
several reasons not to choose positive disciplinary practices: a
lack of funds to provide such programs or services to students
(Human Rights Watch, 2008), limited disciplinary practices
available (e.g., lack of school staff to administer after-school
detention or in-school suspension, no transportation service
after school; Human Rights Watch, 2008), or principals
beliefs supporting punitive disciplinary actions rather than
preventive approaches (Roy, 2001; Webster et al., 1988;
Wilson, 2002).
Research Question 1: Which schools used corporal punishment as disciplinary methods, and how did those schools
differ from schools that did not use corporal punishment?
Research Question 2: How were principals perceptions of
school disorder and use of corporal punishment associated
with each other, after controlling for the actual number
of students problem behaviors?
Research Question 3: To what extent did having intervention
programs for students and teachers predict the probability
of using corporal punishment, after controlling for school
characteristics?
School Practitioners Perceptions and Practices of Corporal

Punishment
Corporal Punishment in Discipline Theories

Schools utilize disciplinary practices based on two perspectives: rational choice theory and positivist theory (Lawrence,
2007). The former asserts that criminal offenses occur because an individual makes a decision to do so, whereas the
latter claims that criminal behaviors are caused by multiple factors, including individual, social, political, and economic factors (Lawrence, 2007). Depending on the approach schools take, disciplinary methods may be utilized
differently: School administrators supporting rational choice
theory utilize punitive disciplinary methods (e.g., corporal
punishment, out-of-school suspension, expulsion), whereas
school administrators with positivist approaches use various
prevention and intervention programs focusing on problem
solving, mentoring, and counseling.
Although school practitioners attitudes about corporal

punishment are fairly contradictory, researchers have provided limited findings on school administrators and teachers perceptions about use of corporal punishment. School
practitioners attitudes and perceptions about this form of
discipline are important because not only recipients of corporal punishment, but students who observe the action could
learn that violence is an acceptable way to attain social goals
(Northington, 2007). As a logical socialization institution
(Moelis, 1988), schools should consider carefully whether
staff demonstrate or promote misconceptions of social value
through school disciplinary practices.
Little and Akin-Little (2008) conducted a survey of 149
teachers in the Midwest, South, and Southwest to examine their classroom management practices. The survey results showed that the majority of teachers revoked privileges
from students and sent notes to parents in response to students disruptive or inappropriate behaviors (63% and 62%,
respectively). Revoking privileges and sending students to
principals office were reported as the most effective classroom management methods. Corporal punishment was not
identified as one of the frequently used or effective disciplinary practices; about 10% of teachers reported using corporal punishment for chronic offenders, and they ranked
its effectiveness the lowest of eight different disciplinary
methods. Another survey of 159 high school principals in
422
Missouri (Billings & Enger, 1995) demonstrated that only

28% of respondents reported utilizing corporal punishment
and perceived it as not the most effective disciplinary practice. Rather, they perceived that out-of-school suspension
was the most effective considering the severity of students
problem behaviors. Whereas some researchers found that
school administrators and teachers infrequently use corporal punishment and found it to be ineffective, others found
evidence of school practitioners support and preference for
using that type of discipline. Based on survey results from
247 rural elementary school principals in South Dakota,
Webster et al. (1988) examined principals attitudes toward
corporal punishment. More than 52% of respondents supported permitting corporal punishment in schools, and 47%
of respondents believed a school principal should be an administrator of corporal punishment. In addition, the majority of respondents (94%) agreed that corporal punishment
should be reported to parents, and half of the respondents
perceived that their communities supported using corporal
punishment in school. In addition, Kenny (2004), using data
from 200 teachers in Miami-Dade County, found that the
majority of teachers (70%) agreed or strongly agreed with
permitting the use of corporal punishment for students in
schools.
School practitioners perceptions and actual practices of
corporal punishment vary across states, and the perceived
effectiveness also differs by teachers and principals. However, prior studies provided the information with limited
school contexts; it is important to understand use of corporal punishment in relation to school characteristics and
alternative disciplinary practices, while accounting for the
level of students problem behaviors.
Frequency and Trends of Corporal Punishment Practices

Various reports have documented the number of students
who have been physically punished in schools. Unequal corporal punishment practices across states and students characteristics have also been documented. According to a recent report analyzing nationally representative data from the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 13.3% of
public schools were permitted to use corporal punishment.
Among those schools, 69.3% administered corporal punishment at least once during the 20052006 school year (Wallace, Neiman, Foster, & Guan, 2009). Another recent report
of the U.S. Department of Education (2008), based on data
from 62,484 schools in 5,929 public school districts, showed
that 223,190 students were physically punished by schools
at least once during the 20062007 school year. The total
number of incidents is actually greater than that because
many students are repeatedly subjected to corporal punishment (Human Rights Watch, 2008; Shaw & Braden, 1990),
and schools may not record incidents of corporal punishment officially when students are punished in the classroom
rather than in the main office (Human Rights Watch, 2008).
In addition to a large number of corporal punishment

incidents, variation in the use of corporal punishment was
also reported. National data from public schools showed
that among the 21 states that permit corporal punishment,
Alabama and Arkansas used corporal punishment most frequently for the 20062007 school year (33,716 cases, or
4.5% of the total student population, and 22,314 cases, or
4.7%, respectively). No cases were reported in Wyoming,
and Colorado and Arizona reported only eight and 16 corporal punishment incidents, respectively, for the same school
year (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).
Many researchers have demonstrated that disadvantaged
students are more likely to become the subject of corporal
punishment in schools. Based on survey data from 43,034
public schools in 4,692 school districts in 1992, Gregory
(1995) provided empirical evidence of unequal corporal punishment against Black students. A total of 127,103 Black
students44.4% of the total number of physically punished
studentsreceived corporal punishment by school personnel, and Black students were 3 times more likely than White
students to be physically punished. In the past 10 years,
these disproportional trends have continued. According to
a recent report (U.S. Department of Education, 2008), a
total 79,613 Black students were physically punished during the 20062007 school year. This number constituted
35.67% of the total number of students receiving corporal
punishment, although Black students comprised just 17.13%
of the student population (U.S. Department of Education,
2008).
Gender is another issue in unequal corporal punishment
practices; national samples showed that a greater number of
male students were subjected to corporal punishment than
were female students (174,671 vs. 48,510, or 78.26% vs.
21.74%, respectively) for the 20062007 school year (U.S.
Department of Education, 2008). Based on school disciplinary records, researchers also found such unequal corporal punishment practices. Using data from 6,244 discipline files in 16 schools in a central Florida school district,
Shaw and Braden (1990) found significant and positive associations among gender (male), race (Black), and being a
subject of corporal punishment. Similarly, McFadden and
Marsh (1992), examining data from 4,391 discipline files
in nine schools in a south Florida school district, found
that Black students were more often physically disciplined
(54.1%) compared with White students (33.1%) and that
the majority of students (81.5%) who received corporal punishment were boys.
Special education students are another group frequently
subjected to corporal punishment in schools. A total of
41,972 special education students were reported as being
physically punished in schools for the 20062007 school
year across the country, and such incidents vary across states.
Texas and Mississippi were reported as the states with the
largest numbers of corporal punishment incidents related to
special education students (10,222 and 5,831, respectively;
Human Rights Watch, 2008).
School characteristics, such as school size, location, school

level, poverty, and ethnic minority student population, have
been examined as factors associated with using corporal punishment (Gregory, 1995; McClure & May, 2008; Nickerson & Spears, 2007; Owen, 2005). From national samples
of 2,270 U.S. public schools, Nickerson and Spears (2007)
found that school personnel in rural areas and those having
a greater percentage of poor students were more likely to use
corporal punishment. Another study showed a significant
difference in social capital (measured as levels of connections among individuals based on trust, social networks, and
shared norms) between states permitting and states prohibiting corporal punishment. Owen (2005) found that states
permitting school corporal punishment had a lower level of
social capital, and such low levels of social capital were significantly related to the unequal use of corporal punishment
against Black students.
Rationale for the Study
This study answers a need for additional information in
several ways. First, this study helps researchers better understand the associations between using corporal punishment
and intervention programs for students and teachers, controlling for school characteristics. Prior studies on corporal punishment focused mainly on either its effectiveness
in modifying students problem behaviors or its negative
impact. Very few studies have examined the associations
between school context and use of corporal punishment.
Although intervention programs for students and teachers have been widely supported as alternatives to corporal punishment by researchers and educators, no empirical
evidence has been provided as to how these disciplinary
practices are associated with use of corporal punishment.
Second, researchers know little about which factors are related to schools that choose corporal punishment as a disciplinary action when there exists a similar proportion of
vulnerable students, similar school background, funds for
school safety, and even a similar level of problem behaviors. It is important to know which schools favor the use
of corporal punishment, and while conducting this study, I
compared schools that used corporal punishment and those
that did not among schools that were legally permitted to
use it. Furthermore, this study provides the estimated probability of use of corporal punishment according to school
characteristics. By doing so, it is possible to estimate the
likelihood of being physically punished according to school
contexts.
The information this study provides to policymakers and
school administrators is a description of the relationship between corporal punishment and school disorder as perceived
by principals, and an exploration of school factors associated with the probability of choosing corporal punishment,
after controlling for the actual number of students problem behaviors. New findings regarding the use of corporal
punishment may help policymakers and school administra-
423
tors seeking to reform corporal punishment as a disciplinary

practice.
Method
The purpose of this study was to examine contexts of
schools that have and have not used corporal punishment
and estimate the probability of corporal punishment use
based on a national sample comprising 362 schools that were
permitted to use corporal punishment. Data and statistical
strategies used in the study are addressed subsequently.
Data
The School Survey on Crime and Safety (SSOCS)
20052006, one of the most comprehensive national data
sets about school safety and discipline practice, was used
in the study. The SSOCS data set contains rich information about school security, safety, and discipline policies and practices as reported by public school principals.
The SSOCS data set has been administered by the NCES
in the U.S. Department of Education in the 19992000,
20032004, 20052006, and 20072008 school years. This
study analyzed the SSOCS 20052006 data set, which is
the most recent and was available to the public as of
2009.
The sampling frame obtained from the NCES Common
Core of Data (CCD) Public School Universe file was applied
to the SSOCS data collection. By using a stratified sampling
method considering school levels, school size, location, minority status, and geographic region, samples of 2,724 public
schools were finally collected (Nolle, Guerino, & Dinkes,
2007). For the purpose of this study, I selected for analyses
the 362 samples in which principals responded that corporal
punishment was permitted.
Measures
This study included 13 variables, and I measured each
variable in the following way.
Corporal punishment. Principals were asked, During the
200506 school year, did your school allow for the use of the
following disciplinary actions? If yes, were the actions used
this school year? Availability and actual use of corporal
punishment were indicated with a response of yes or no. In
the study, this was recoded as a dummy variable (yes = 1
and no = 0).
School disorder. Principals were asked, To the best of
your knowledge, how often did the following types of problems occur at your school? Eight items were given: student
racial/ethnic tensions, student bullying, student sexual harassment of other students, student verbal abuse of teachers,
classroom disorder, student acts of disrespect for teachers,
424
gang activities, and cult or extremist group activities. All

items were measured according to a 5-point scale with responses including 1 (happens daily), 2 (happens at least once a
week), 3 (happens at least once a month), 4 (happens on occasion), and 5 (never happens). Each of the items was reversecoded and the mean of all items was obtained. Because this
variable measured the frequency of students problem behaviors as the mean, zero value (never happens) was excluded
from the measurement.
Prevention programs for students. Principals were asked,
During the 200506 school year, did your school have any
formal programs intended to prevent or reduce violence that
included the following components for students? and responded to the given programs with yes or no. In the study,
four items were included: (a) behavioral or behavior modification intervention for students; (b) counseling, social work,
psychological, or therapeutic activity for students; (c) individual attention, mentoring, tutoring, or coaching of students by students or adults; and (d) student involvement in
resolving student conduct problems. Respondents answered
each item with a 1 (yes) or 2 (no). After recoding (1 =
yes and 0 = no), I summed the responses for use in the
analyses.
Teacher training programs. Principals were asked, During
the 200506 school year, did your school or school district
provide any of the following trainings for classroom teachers
or aides? In the study, three items were included: (a) classroom management for teachers; (b) school-wide discipline
policies and practices related to violence, alcohol, or drug
use; and (c) positive behavioral intervention strategies. The
response for each item was either 1 (yes) or 2 (no), and was
then recoded (1 = yes and 0 = no). The sum was used in
the analysis.
Disciplinary actions. Principals provided the number of
disciplinary actions (e.g., in- and out-of-school suspensions
and expulsion) against students who committed problem
behaviors (e.g., firearm-related behavior, other weaponsrelated behavior, drug- and alcohol-related behavior, physical attacks or fights, insubordination) during the 20052006
school year. The total number of disciplinary actions was
used in the analyses.
Student problem behavior. Principals provided the number
of students problem behaviors for each of 11 categories:
rape; sexual battery; robbery; physical attack or fight; threat
of physical attack; theft; possession of a firearm; possession
of a knife; distribution, possession, or use of illegal drugs;
distribution, possession, or use of alcohol; and vandalism.
This number refers to total number of incidents (rather than
number of involved students) before, during, or after normal school hours, regardless of school disciplinary actions.
The total number of students problem behaviors in the 11

categories was used in the analyses.
Lack of funds for school safety. Principals were asked, To
what extent did the following factors limit your schools
efforts to reduce or prevent crime?; and they responded to
the item Inadequate funds according to a 3-point Likerttype scale ranging from 1 (limit in major way) to 3 (does not
limit). This variable was reverse-coded and the mean was
used in the analyses.
Ethnic minority status. Based on the CCD data set, the
percentage of ethnic minority students was used as a categorical variable, including 1 (less than 5%), 2 (6%20%), 3
(21%50%), and 4 (greater than 51%).
Special education status. Principals reported the percentage of special education students at their school. Special
education status was defined according to the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (2004).
Underachievers. Principals were asked to estimate the percentage of present students who were below the 15th percentile on standardized tests, and I used that percentage for
the underachiever variable.
School size. Principals were asked to provide total enrollment as of October 1, 2005, and I used it as a categorical
variable, as 1 (less than 300), 2 (300499), 3 (500999), and
4 (greater than 1,000).
School level. The SSOCS data provided school-level information based on CCD as elementary, middle, high
schools, and combined schools. In the study, a dummy variable indicating elementary schools was used, with a reference
group as secondary (middle and high) schools.
Location. The SSOCS data contain school location information (urban, urban fringe, town, and rural) based on
CCD. In the study, a dummy variable was created as city
(urban and urban fringe) for 1 and rural (town and rural)
for 0.
I used these 13 variables to examine the associations between use of corporal punishment and school characteristics. To do so, the number of students problem behaviors
was controlled in regression analyses. Thus, the findings can
show how school characteristics solely predict use of corporal
punishment regardless of the number of students problem
behaviors. Because the number of students problem behaviors is associated with school size and location (city) as well,
I used those variables as control variables. In addition, I included school funding status instead of poverty because my
focus is on the schools capacity to administer intervention
425
programs for students and teachers. To focus on the main

goal of the study addressed above, I did not consider potential
interaction effects by school size and location.
Statistical Strategies
Descriptive statistics was performed to examine the frequency of using corporal punishment be school characteristics. To address the relationship between using corporal punishment and principals perceptions of school disorder, multiple regression analysis was conducted while controlling for
the number of student problem behaviors and school characteristics. The multiple regression model was the following:
SDi = 0 + 1 CPi + 2 NPi + 3 PMi + 4 SSi
+ 5 SLi + 6 LOi + i ,
(1)
where SD is the level of school disorder perceived by

school principals, CP is a dummy variable indicating use
of corporal punishment, NP is the number of students
problem behaviors, PM is the percentage of ethnic minority
students, SS is school size, SL is a dummy variable indicating
elementary (school level), and LO is a dummy variable
indicating city (school location).
Finally, to estimate probabilities of using corporal punishment after controlling for the number of students problem
behaviors and the number of disciplinary actions, logistic
regression analysis was performed. The form of the logistic
model was the following:
formed using base 10 logarithm. For the sample size, at least

20 cases for each independent variable were suggested as an
ideal ratio (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In this study, I used
11 independent variables in the multiple regression model
and eight independent variables in the logistic regression
model. Given that the total number of study participants
was 362, the sample size for the regression analyses was appropriate.
As with other large data sets, weights needed to be applied for analyzing the SSOCS data. The SSOCS adopted
two steps to determine sampling weight. The ratio of the
number of schools in the sampling frame to the number of
sampled schools was determined as an initial weight within
each stratum (e.g., school level, location, school size). In addition, a statistical algorithm was used to determine weighting classes, which reduces the potential bias resulting from
nonresponding schools. Finally, two dimensions(a) school
level and size and (b) school level and locationwere used
for poststratification. Employing poststratification is effective, especially when the characteristics are similar between
the nonparticipating population and participating population within each poststratum. Using sample weights is important to estimate population, to reduce bias due to differences of responding and nonresponding schools as well
as reduce sampling error by adjusting the data to population characteristics (see Ruddy et al., 2009). For this study,
weights that were provided by the SSOCS were applied in
the analyses.
Results
1
f (CP) =
1 + e CP
CPi = 0 + 1 LFi + 2 NSi + 3 TTi + 4 TDi
(2)
+ 5 PUi + 6 PMi + 7 PSi + 8 SSi + 9 SLi

+10i LO + i ,
(3)
where CP is a dummy variable indicating use of corporal

punishment, LF is limit funds for school safety, NS is the
number of student prevention programs, TT is the number of
teacher training programs, TD is the number of disciplinary
actions, PU is the percentage of underachievers, PM is the
percentage of ethnic minority students, PS is the percentage
of special education students, SS is school size, SL is a dummy
variable indicating elementary (school level), and LO is a
dummy variable indicating city (school location).
Before the multiple regression analyses, assumptions of
regression were examined; the multicollinearity assumption
was checked with the tolerance of the eight variables (range
= 0.700.93) and the eigenvalue among variables (range
= 0.027.17). In addition, four variables (i.e., number of
students problem behaviors, number of disciplinary actions,
percentage of underachievers, and percentage of special education students) had positively skewed distributions that
violate normality. For this reason, those variables were trans-
Using Corporal Punishment by School Characteristics

Table 1 presents descriptive statistics indicating the use
of corporal punishment by school characteristics. During
the 20052006 school year, more than 70% of schools in
towns and rural areas used corporal punishment (79.71%
and 72.83%, respectively); more than 70% of schools serving more than 300 and fewer than 499 students and schools
having more than 500 and fewer than 999 students utilized
corporal punishment (73.12% and 73.05%, respectively).
More than 60% of schools at all levels used corporal punishment, and more than 70% of schools having ethnic minorities as more than 21% of the student population used corporal punishment. Notably, a majority (80.22%) of schools
where more than 51% of the students were from ethnic minorities used corporal punishment against students for the
20052006 school year.
Relationships Between Use of Corporal Punishment and School
Disorder
Table 2 presents multiple regression results and indicates
relationships between use of corporal punishment and
school disorder as perceived by principals, after controlling
for the number of students problem behaviors. Principals
426
TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics About Use of Corporal Punishment

No corporal
punishment
Variable
Location
City
Urban fringe
Town
Rural
Total
School size
< 300
300499
500999
1,000+
Total
School level
Elementary
Middle
High
Combined
Total
Minority student
5%
620%
2150%
> 51%
Total
14
36
14
47
111
36.84
43.90
20.29
27.17
24
46
55
126
251
63.16
56.10
79.71
72.83
38
82
69
173
362
100
100
100
100
19
25
38
29
111
28.36
26.88
26.95
47.54
48
68
103
32
251
71.64
73.12
73.05
52.46
67
93
141
61
362
100
100
100
100
24
40
41
6
111
29.27
30.77
38.32
13.95
58
90
66
37
251
70.73
69.23
61.68
86.05
82
130
107
43
362
100
100
100
100
24
27
33
18
102
44.44
37.50
29.73
19.78
30
45
78
73
226
55.56
62.50
70.27
80.22
54
72
111
91
328
100
100
100
100
TABLE 2. Multiple Regression Analysis of Relationship

between Use of Corporal Punishment and Principals
Perceptions of School Disorder (N = 251)
Use of corporal
punishment
Number of students
problem behaviors
Underachievers (%)
Minority students (%)
Special education
students (%)
School size
School level
(elementary = 1,
secondary = 0)
Location (city = 1,
rural = 0)
Note. R2 = .29.
p < .05. p < .001.
Total
in schools that used corporal punishment were less likely

to perceive their school as disordered (p < .001), and
this association remained after controlling for the actual
Variable
Use of corporal
punishment
SE B
.12
.01
.11
.000
.32
.01
.40
.000
.05
.01
.53
.01
.01
.02
.04
.03
.24
.000
.014
.000
.03
.04
.01
.01
.06
.04
.000
.000
.10
.01
.10
.000
number of students problem behaviors and six school

characteristics. That is, even when comparing schools with
the same number of students problem behaviors, principals
who used corporal punishment perceived their school as
more orderly than principals who did not use corporal
punishment.
After controlling for the number of students problem behaviors, principals in schools with a greater percentage of
ethnic minority students (p = .014), a greater percentage of
special education students (p < .001), and a larger number
of students (p < .001) were more likely to perceive their
school as disordered due to frequent problem behaviors. In
addition, principals at the secondary schools (p < .001) and
in city areas (p < .001) tended to perceive their school as
disordered due to frequent students problem behaviors. The
effect sizes of the associations were calculated according to
Friedmans (1968, p. 246) formula. Following the formula
d = [2 (r)] / [(1r2).5], the effect sizes for the association
were .22 for using corporal punishment, .87 for number of
students problem behavior, .08 for percentage of underachievers, .06 for percentage of ethnic minority students, .48
for percentage of special education students, .12 for school
size, .08 for school level (elementary school), and .19 for
school location (city).
Principals in schools with a greater percentage of underachievers were less likely to perceive the school disorder
427
TABLE 3. Logistic Regression Analysis of Probabilities of Using Corporal Punishment
Variable
Lack of funds (n = 362)
Student prevention programs (n = 362)
Teacher training (n = 362)
Disciplinary actions (n = 334)
Student problem behaviors (n = 336)
Underachievers (%; n = 347)
Minority students (%; n = 328)
Special education students (%; n = 361)
School size (n = 362)
School level (elementary = 1, secondary = 0; n = 319)
Location (city = 1, rural = 0; n = 362)
Overall model evaluation
Likelihood ratio test
Score test
Wald test
Goodness of fit test
Hosmer and Lemeshow
SE B
Walds 2
df
0.039
0.070
0.070
0.971
1.031
0.516
0.724
0.603
0.127
0.224
0.509
.063
.033
.020
.111
.112
.079
.030
.133
.035
.063
.067
0.382
4.650
12.645
76.077
84.685
42.908
577.428
20.480
13.221
12.722
58.026
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
.5367
.0311
.0004
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0001
.0003
.0004
.0001
834.45
808.78
709.30
11 < .0001
11 < .0001
11 < .0001
354.86
<
<
<
<
<
<
Odds ratio
95% CI
1.040
0.932
0.933
2.640
0.357
0.597
2.063
1.828
0.880
1.251
0.601
0.919, 1.176
0.875, 0.994
0.897, 0.969
2.123, 3.284
0.286, 0.444
0.511, 0.696
1.945, 2.188
1.408, 2.374
0.822, 0.943
1.106, 1.414
0.528, 0.685
< .0001
Note. Cox and Snell R2 = .11; Nagelkerke R2 = .16; Kendalls Tau-a = .16.
p < .05. p < .001.
to have been caused by frequent students problem behaviors; that is, principals in high-performing schools tended to
perceive their schools as disordered when the level of students problem behaviors was the same with low-performing
schools.
Estimated Probabilities of Using Corporal Punishment
Table 3 shows the results of logistic regression indicating
the likelihood of using corporal punishment in the school
contexts. Because the actual number of students problem
behaviors and school size were included in the logistic regression model, when considering the associations among
variables I assumed that occurrences of students problem
behaviors and number of enrolled students were the same
across sampled schools.
Lack of funding for school safety was positively associated
with use of corporal punishment, yet the association was not
statistically significant (p = .537). Although most principals expressed the perception that they lack funds for school
safety, those principals in schools having multiple prevention programs for students (p = .031) and teacher training
programs (p < .001) tended not to use corporal punishment.
Principals in schools with multiple student violence prevention programs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.0932, 95% confidence
interval [CI; 0.875, 0.994]) and teacher training programs
(OR = 0.933, 95% CI [0.897, 0.969]) were less likely to
use corporal punishment than principals who have few such
programs.
Another indicator to estimate probability of corporal punishment is frequent disciplinary actions (e.g., expulsion,
in- and out-of-school suspensions, detention). Principals in

schools with frequent disciplinary actions had a 2.6 times
greater likelihood of using corporal punishment compared
with their counterparts in schools with fewer such disciplinary actions. This association was consistent after controlling for the number of students problem behaviors, and
thus, regardless of how often such behavior occurred, principals in schools that frequently took any type of (official)
disciplinary action against students problem behaviors were
more likely to use corporal punishment as well.
Principals in schools that served a greater percentage
of ethnic minority students and special education students
tended to have a greater likelihood of using corporal punishment (OR = 2.063, 95% CI [1.945, 2.189]; OR = 1.828, 95%
CI [1.408, 2.374], respectively). Principals in schools with
more ethnic minority students had a 2.06 times greater likelihood of using corporal punishment, and those in schools
with more special education students had 1.82 times greater
likelihood of using corporal punishment, even when they
had the same number of problem behaviors and disciplinary
actions.
Principals in low-performing schools (i.e., schools having a larger percentage of underachievers in standardized
tests) were less likely to use corporal punishment (OR =
0.597, 95% CI [0.511, 0.696]). That is, principals in highperforming schools tended to use corporal punishment.
Finally, principals in elementary schools had a 1.25
times greater likelihood of using corporal punishment than
their counterparts in secondary schools. Principals in larger
schools and city schools were less likely to utilize corporal
punishment (OR = 0.880, 95% CI [0.822, 0.943]; OR =
428
TABLE 4. Observed and the Predicted Frequencies for Using Corporal Punishment
Predicted
Observed
No corporal punishment
Use of corporal punishment
% correct
No corporal punishment
Use of corporal punishment
Overall
0
0
83
167
0.0
100.0
66.8
Note. The cut value was .500.
0.601, 95% CI [0.528, 0.685], respectively) than their counterparts in smaller schools and rural schools.
As Tables 3 and 4 show, overall, this logistic model was effective to examine the probabilities of corporal punishment.
All tests conducted for the model evaluation appeared significant at the p < .0001 level.
Discussion
Based on national data from the SSOCS data set, I investigated the use of corporal punishment by school characteristics, associations between use of corporal punishment and
principals perceived school disorder, and relationships between using corporal punishment and school characteristics,
while holding the number of students problem behaviors
constant.
One of the major findings was that the level of school
disorder perceived by principals was higher if they served
more disadvantaged students (e.g., percentages of ethnic minority students and special education students), even when
the actual number of student problem behaviors was constant. That is, regardless of the actual occurrence of students
problem behaviors, principals believed that their schools
were orderly when they had more advantaged students. This
is important because principals perceptions influence their
decision making. If principals perceive their school as disordered, they may reinforce discipline and adopt harsher
disciplinary practices according to their perception of an acceptable level of order rather than an objective measure (i.e.,
actual number of problem behaviors). Therefore, this finding
implies that students attending schools with more disadvantaged students (e.g., ethnic minorities and those in special
education) have a greater likelihood of being disciplined (including corporal punishment) than those in schools having
few such studentsregardless of the actual level of students
problem behaviors.
Second, after controlling for the actual number of
students problem behaviors, I found that schools that
frequently took any type of disciplinary actions against
students were 2.6 times more likely to administer corporal
punishment than were schools that took fewer disciplinary
actions. Because this study controlled for actual incidents

of students problem behaviors, all sampled schools were
assumed to have the same number of such incidents. Under
this controlled condition, schools with more frequent
disciplinary actions tended to physically discipline students
more than did schools with few such actions. Perhaps
schools that implemented a greater number of disciplinary
actions have no other available corrective methods, such as
counseling, behavior intervention programs, and violence
prevention programs.
Third, results of the logistic regression analysis demonstrated a significant negative relationship between having
violence prevention programs and use of corporal punishment. Schools that offered multiple student prevention programs and teacher training programs had less probability of
using corporal punishment than schools with few such programs. Teachers may use corporal punishment because they
have few alternatives. For example, after-school detention or
in-school suspension can substitute for corporal punishment
if there are sufficient school staff to administer and/or monitor the students. A lack of school staff does not allow such
disciplinary alternatives, and thus school staff use corporal
punishment even though they are aware of its ineffectiveness
(Human Rights Watch, 2008).
Finally, principals in schools that serve a larger portion
of ethnic minority students and special education students
tended to physically discipline students about twice as often
as those in schools with a smaller proportion of such students, provided the number of students problem behaviors
and the number of other disciplinary actions were constant
among those schools. Future researchers should focus on
whether principals prefer corporal punishment as a disciplinary method against students in specific school context.
Given that limited empirical evidence indicated the effectiveness of corporal punishment, principals should consider
their justification for it, especially in schools that serve a
greater percentage of disadvantaged students (e.g., ethnic
minority students and special education students).
This study offers several policy implications based on the
findings. First, principals in schools with a larger percentage
of disadvantaged students (e.g., ethnic minority students and
special education students) perceived that their schools were
more disordered due to frequent problem behaviors than

their counterparts in schools with few such disadvantaged
students, even when those schools had the same number
of students problem behaviors. Principals should manage
their schools learning environment based on knowledge
of actual problem behaviors rather than relying on their
perceptions. Principals accurate perceptions should promote
fair disciplinary decisions regardless of the characteristics of
the students they serve.
Second, school districts should provide sufficient resources
to implement various intervention programs for students and
teachers. The findings indicated that schools having multiple prevention programs for students and teacher training programs tended not to use corporal punishment, compared with schools with few such programs. School personnel should not use corporal punishment against students just
because there seem to be no alternatives. With resources
to implement various discipline-related programs, principals
would be able to utilize the most appropriate disciplinary
action for an individual student rather than relying solely
on corporal punishment.
Third, principals in schools that serve more disadvantaged
students (e.g., those in ethnic minorities and special education) more frequently administered corporal punishment
against students. That is, students attending such schools are
2 times more likely to be physically punished by school staff
than their counterparts in schools with few such disadvantaged students. Principals should utilize corporal punishment
in a fair manner regardless of their school characteristics. In
addition, school districts are also aware of frequent corporal
punishment in schools with more disadvantaged students.
School districts should make an effort to eliminate unequal
physical disciplinary practices and require schools to have
an adequate process to administer corporal punishment as
well.
Finally, school districts should provide schools with various prevention programs for students and teacher training programs. According to the findings, students attending
schools with various such programs had a smaller probability of being physically punished than their counterparts
in schools with few such programs. School administrators
should be able to choose the most appropriate disciplinary
method for students and should not use corporal punishment
for reasons of availability or convenience.
This study had several limitations. First, researchers
demonstrated poverty as a significant predictor of using corporal punishment; this study did not include a poverty variable, but did include school funding status. As mentioned
previously, this study focused on school intervention programs supported by a school or school district; thus, school
funding status should remain a primary variable of interest
rather than students free or reduced-price lunch eligibility.
Furthermore, the data of poverty (students lunch status)
were not available to the public. Second, various school
programs and practices (e.g., violence prevention programs,
teacher training programs, corporal punishment practices)
429
were assessed as dichotomous variables. To improve the limited measures of the variables, frequency and quality of those
practices should be examined in future studies. Finally, results from cross-sectional data should be approached with
caution; the associations in the findings do not determine
cause and effect.
REFERENCES
Arcus, D. (2002). School shooting fatalities and school corporal
punishment: A look at the states. Aggressive Behavior, 28, 173
183.
Aucoin, K. J., Frick, P. J., & Bodin, S. D. (2006). Corporal punishment
and child adjustment. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27,
527541.
Biehler, R. F., & Snowman, J. (1997). Psychology applied to teaching (8th
ed.). Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Billings, W. H., & Enger, J. M. (1995). Perceptions of Missouri school principals
regarding the effectiveness of in-school suspension as a disciplinary procedure.
Retrieved from ERIC database. (ED392169)
Bryan, J. W., & Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative data
and sociological and psychological correlates in a community college
population. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 7787.
Cryan, J. R. (1995). The banning of corporal punishment. Dimensions of
Early Childhood, 63, 3637.
de Haan, W., & Vos, J. (2003). A crying shame: The over-rationalized conception of man in the rational choice perspective. Theoretical Criminology,
7, 2954.
Dupper, D. R., & Dingus, A. E. M. (2008). Corporal punishment in U.S.
public schools: A continuing challenges for school social workers. Children & Schools, 30, 243250.
Friedman, H. (1968). Magnitude of experimental effect and a table for its
rapid estimation. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 245251.
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parent and associated
child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review.
Psychological Bulletin, 128, 539579.
Gregory, J. F. (1995). The crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools. Journal of
Negro Education, 64(1), 454462.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1990). Rational choice theory: Necessary but not sufficient. American Psychologist, 45, 356367.
Hinchey, P. H. (2004). Corporal punishment: Legalities, realities, and implications. The Clearing House, 77, 96100.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Human Rights Watch. (2008). A violent education: Corporal punishment of children in U.S. public schools. Retrieved from http://www.
hrw.org/en/reports/2008/08/19/violent-education
Hyman, I. A. (1988). Eliminating corporal punishment in schools: Moving
from advocacy research to policy implementation. Childrens Legal Rights
Journal, 9(33), 1420.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Pub. L. No. 108446, 118 Stat.
2647 (2004).
Kenny, M. C. (2004). Teachers attitudes toward and knowledge of child maltreatment. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 1311
1319.
Lahno, B. (2007). Rational choice and rule-following behavior. Rationality
and Society, 19, 425450.
Lawrence, R. (2007). School crime and juvenile justice (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Psychologys contributions to classroom management. Psychology in Schools, 45, 227234.
McCarthy, M. M. (2005). Corporal punishment in public schools:
Is the United States out of step? Educational Horizons, 83, 235
240.
McClure, T. E., & May, D. C. (2008). Dealing with misbehavior at schools
in Kentucky: Theoretical and contextual predictors of use of corporal
punishment. Youth & Society, 39, 406429.
McFadden, A., & Marsh, G. II. (1992). A study of race and gender bias in
the punishment of school children. Education & Treatment of Children,
15, 140146.
430
Middleton, J. (2008). The experience of corporal punishment in schools,
18901940. History of Education, 37, 253275.
Moelis, C. S. (1988). Banning corporal punishment: A crucial step toward
preventing child abuse. Child Legal Rights, 9, 25.
Nickerson, A. B., & Spears, W. H. (2007). Influences on authoritarian
and educational/therapeutic approaches to school violence prevention.
Journal of School Violence, 6(4), 331.
Nolle, K. L., Guerino, P., & Dinkes, R. (2007). Crime, violence, discipline,
and safety in U.S. public schools: Findings from the School Survey on Crime
and Safety, 200506 (NCES 2007361). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Educational Science, National Center
for Education Statistics.
Northington, C. (2007). The corporal punishment of minorities in the
public schools. Multicultural Perspectives, 9(3), 5759.
Owen, S. S. (2005). The relationship between social capital and corporal
punishment in schools: A theoretical inquiry. Youth & Society, 37(1),
85112.
Reitman, A. (1988). Corporal punishment in schoolsthe ultimate violence. Child Legal Rights, 9, 613.
Roy, L. (2001). Corporal punishment in American public schools and the
rights of the child. Journal of Law and Education, 30, 554563.
Ruddy, S. A., Neiman, S., Bauer, L., Swaim, N. L., Thomas, T. L.,
& Parmer, R. J. (2009). 200506 School Survey on Crime and Safety
(SSOCS) survey documentation for data users (NCES 2010320). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Instituted of Education
Statistics, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from
http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010320.pdf
Shaw, S., & Braden, J. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration
of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review, 19, 378383.
Shoemaker, J. D. (2000). Theories of delinquency. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.

Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatric
and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761767.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed.). Needham Height, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
U.S. Department of Education. (2008). Civil rights data collection
2006. Washington, DC: Office for Civil Rights. Retrieved from
http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Projections 2006.aspx
Wallace, E. C., Neiman, S., Foster, K. M., & Guan, X. (2009). 200506
school survey on crime and safety (SSOCS) public-use data file codebook
(NCES 2009312). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics.
Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009312.pdf
Webster, L., Wood, R. W., & Elcher, C. (1988). Attitudes of rural administrator toward corporal punishment. Journal of Rural and Small Schools,
3(1), 1922.
Wilson, J. (2002). Corporal punishment revisited. Cambridge Journal of
Education, 32, 409416.
AUTHOR NOTE
Seunghee Han an Adjunct Assistant Professor at the University of MissouriColumbia, Department of Educational
Leadership and Policy Analysis. Her research focuses on student behavior, school violence, school discipline policies,
and international comparative education.

Probability of Corporal Punishment Lack of Resources and Vulnerable Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Probability of Corporal Punishment Lack of Resources and Vulnerable Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [Mittuniversitetet]

On: 11 April 2015, At: 06:48

The Journal of Educational Research