This is a question I would like to point out regarding discipline in schools. I would also like to expand the discussion to include the rest of society and human interaction.

Is corporal punishment outlawed because there is a fear that teachers and administrators would abuse their power? Or is there a deeper reason: that such punishment would somehow psychologically harm and scar the child's life and thus lower his/her self-esteem?

Tell me what you think



"Upward and Onward"

I think it's outlawed because the schools are afraid they'd get sued if they disciplined the students that way. And it's true, they would. Personally if my kid were that out of control I'm not sure I would be bothered if the teacher gave him a quick smack on the butt.

I know that corporal punishment in schools is a touchy subject, because I believe few parents would trust school officials to punish their children unless they gave their consent.

So I ask another question: How would parents punish their children and how should the government punish criminals? Are these two topics somehow related?

In the dark ages when I attended school, corporal punishment by teachers / administrators was the norm, especially in parochial schools. Right or wrong, that's the way it was. I don't believe anyone was especially traumatized by the level of discipline used in the schools. It was much worse to go home, knowing that the school had called to report behaviors, and then face first one, then the second parent. That discipline was often traumatic, and many psychotherapists have made a reasonably good living from hearing about it.
There is no punishment in prison. There is restriction of privileges, and restriction of limited movement. That's all. Not enough, IMO, to make an impact.

First of all, I don't know about other states, but corporal punishment is not illegal in Texas. I know of some school districts that can implement corporal punishment ONLY with written parental permission.

To answer your original question, psamtik071, corporal punishment is thought by some psychologists to create more long term harm than good. Some argue that teaching kids that it's okay to use violence (corporal punishment) in certain situation is confusing to children, and as they grow older, they are not always able to judge for themselves when they can or cannot use violence themselves. Disclaimer to idiots reading this: I am not stating my opinion, I'm simply stating current thinking.

On the law suit front, districts are targetted by all sorts of frivolities, "abuse" of corporal punishment being one of them. So schools do whatever they can to stay out of law suits, and if that means that they can't use the best form of punishment there is, then so be it. Schools have enough financial woes without adding to them by taking risks on whether Johnnie Boy's parents decide they don't like how school discipline works. It's just easy fodder for law suits. And let's face it, EVERYONE is afraid of being sued these days.

Now what makes you say that there is a low self esteem problem?

Well, I know under common law that "reasonable force" may be used to maintain discipline in the miltary, in the family, and yes, in school. So I think force is technically legal as long as you don't go too far, but of course there's the risk that some jury will come up with an odd defnition of "reasonable force," so I imagine force is broadly discouraged in schools. You know any more on the topic, Lionelhutz?

I think the facts speak for themselves: School violence went up at about the same time the paddle was abolished. That’s NOT just a coincidence. When I was in school, paddling was an everyday thing and parents considered it a suitable discipline; we never even thought about bringing guns to school and shooting each other.

It’s impossible to properly raise children without a paddle. Today’s parents need to realize that.

I had a professor that half-jokingly said that the constitution doesn't apply in public schools. But anyway, corporal punishment more of a state law issue and I don't know the law in more than a very few states. Add to that the fact that I have no interest in that area of the law and I'll have to confess to ignorance on the issue.

I had a gym teacher in elementary school that would paddle everyone on their birthday. In retrospect it seems a little odd.

I would like to point out that current thinking suggests that "reasonable" force hurts a child's self-esteem, and not only confuses them to violence (which I believe is caused more by TV than anything else), curbing their ability to become resposible citizens.

Oh, and Prozac and Ritalin doesn't?

In the '80s and and early '90s, pop psychology pointed to low self-esteem as the problem with the new generation, and therefore corporal punishment went out the window as a treatment for young troublemakers. This trend of thinking continues to today, where children are made to believe that "you can do anything" and "you are better than everyone else". That is all well and good when reasonably applied. But to say that to a child who has problems only perpetuates such problems.

Besides, low self-esteem is not the problem, and neither is high self-esteem. In a October 14, 2002 article in TIME, the author explained that "self-esteem can be just as high among D students, drunk drivers and former Presidents from Arkansas as it is among Nobel laureates, nuns, and New York City fire fighters...Racists, street thugs and school bullies all polled high on the self-esteem charts." I agree with the author when he says that "maintaining a robust self-image while being able to absorb difficult criticism is surely worth the effort."

If all people could do this, maybe we may see some more responsibility in the hearts and minds of adults and children.



"Upward and Onward"

"It’s impossible to properly raise children without a paddle. Today’s parents need to realize that."

Quite frankly, I'd disagree. I, and my two siblings were both raised without any sort of physical punishment ever placed on us. We were not spanked, or ever hit, or punished in any physical form. My parents, one whom is a High-school principal (dean), and the other an elementary school teacher have managed to raise us completely absent of that, and now have 3 well-adjusted, high-achieving, intelligent, and caring children.

It's perfectly possible, and IMNSHO a better option.

The most effective discipline varies from individual to individual. Calling one particular type of discipline "the most effective" and blanketing it over everyone isn't going to always work. However, most kids absolutely dread corporal punishment. And that is why it is a very effective means of discipline.

I believe kids need discipline, they need to be guided and to know what is right and what is wrong, what is allowed and what is not.
I also believe that this comes from the example of adults as well as from what is told to kids.
To resort to violence to be obeyed is admitting one's failure to get respect by other means. And it is also teaching that violence is an acceptable way of resolving issues. Which it never is.
Violence as a method of education has long been the norm. It is quite difficult to change this, but if we want to make our societies less violent it seems necessary to strt by the begining : education.

Atrapol2,

Can you explain how "education" is going to be an effective means of discipline for my 2 year old daughter?

And can you also explain how education works as a means of discipline for, say, a 13 year old?

I remember the old days when you would get smacked on the arse for chewing gum in class. Our teachers had paddles made that had holes in them, this way they could get more speed up to hit the target. Once someone got smacked with one of these they never wanted it again. The teacher would leave it hung where everyone could see it (constant reminder). Teachers only used these when necessary, teachers(for the most part) do have good judgement.

The biggest problem with the school system today is that there is NO discipline. These kids wear what ever they want, walk around like they own the world, cuss, spit, smoke etc.... When I was in you couldn't wear a hat in class, what ever happened to dressing accordingly. I'm not saying we need to go back to suit and tie, I'm just saying these kids need to learn respect. Not only learn respect for others but also for themselfs.

Originally posted by mad dog
I'm not saying we need to go back to suit and tie, I'm just saying these kids need to learn respect. Not only learn respect for others but also for themselfs.

I agree that a formal dress code can be a good thing in school and that kids have to learn respect.
The question is : do you respect people because they beat you ? What kind of respect is that ? Is there no other way of getting respect ?

Why is it acceptable to beat kids ? Would you acept to work in a company where the boss smashes your face if he considers you do a bad job ? Nobody would. So why act differently with kids ?

If adults show kids that the only way of being respected is to be the strongest and the most violent, no wonder we live in violent societies.

Originally posted by Karankawa
Atrapol2,

Can you explain how "education" is going to be an effective means of discipline for my 2 year old daughter?

And can you also explain how education works as a means of discipline for, say, a 13 year old?

Maybe I have not made myself clear here. I am not sure the word "education" means exactly the same in French and in English.

What I mean by "education" is the whole attitude of adults towards kids, from their very small chlidhood until the adult age.

I meant that if we want to live in a peaceful society, we should first set the example and avoid teaching kids that violence is a good way of getting respect.

I am also father of a 2 years old little girl, by the way. I would never hit her !
Which does not mean I let her do everything. I am in favour of setting clear limits to kids.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The question is : do you respect people because they beat you ? What kind of respect is that ? Is there no other way of getting respect ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're not talking about beating kids up. We're talking about incentives. What do little children want, and what don't they want? Do you actually think that talking to a 2-7 year old child will change his attitude? Besides, no one is asserting dominance when he punishes a child with physical force. What does a child know about respect anyway? Besides, smashing up anyone's face is unacceptable and extreme, and adults should be sophisticated enough to understand what respect is without having to be physically punished (besides, we have other incentives for adults). Anyway, everything must be done in moderation. I am not asking for beatings, I am asking for parents to not wimp out on their children.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If adults show kids that the only way of being respected is to be the strongest and the most violent, no wonder we live in violent societies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No. Not true. This society is violent precisely because children are essentially left to go do whatever they want. Do you actually believe that the Columbine shooters were beaten when they were kids? No, I bet they were drugged up on Prozac for most of their lives. That's the punishment for children today: drugs. So let me rephrase your question, astrapol:

Do you respect people because they drug you up ? What kind of respect is that ? How can you even learn to respect like that ?



"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by psamtik071
Do you actually think that talking to a 2-7 year old child will change his attitude?

Yes, of course I do ! Anyone with experience of kids will say so. If you do not believe that, how can you raise kids ?
Even smaller kids do, even newborn can dramatically change their attitude if talked to.


What does a child know about respect anyway?

Precisely what adults tell him and show him.

Anyway, everything must be done in moderation. I am not asking for beatings, I am asking for parents to not wimp out on their children.

On that point I agree with you. But I think there are many ways of showing one's authority without resorting to physical punishment.


Do you respect people because they drug you up ? What kind of respect is that ? How can you even learn to respect like that ?

Of course not. it is sad that it seems to you that the only alternative to violence is drugs !

Astrapol2 I never once said beat the kid, I said there is nothing wrong with a good wack on the arse(big difference). You spank the kid in front of the other students, this not only embarrasses him/her it also gives them a little reminder that "Damn that hurts alittle". Next time they decide to do something stupid mayne they'll think twice. I know alot of kids today think the punishment in school is a joke(which it is).

I sorry to have to wake you up from your dream, astrapol, but from my point of view when I was a child, just talking to a child without any stand-up proof right then and there is just a waste of breath. Of course a child could eventually learn through the example of good habits his parents and responsible adults practice, BUT a child is not born knowing what is right and what is wrong, and the physical develops a lot sooner than the emotional. You assume that all 2-7 yr old children could reason affectively with adults and would be able to grasp the abstract concepts of right and wrong (I say abstract, because right and wrong are things you cannot touch). In the early stages of life, one has to immediately establish what is good for him and bad for him, and mere talk will not effectively acheive that.

Punishment goes through different stages. You won't punish a 30-yr old murderer by saying "what you did was a bad thing" and a 2-yr old kid by cutting off his telephone privileges. If you see a kid breaking windows with a bat, would you actually go up with a law book and discuss how such-and-such rule prohibits breaking windows? The kid would most likely break your head as well. And not because he was physically punished, but because that was what he saw on TV.

And one more thing: that drug reference I made in my previous post was half-sarcastic. The truth is that some parents actually go take their child to a psychologist, who (I don't know how) diagnoses him with ADD or ADHD and prescribes the kid depressant drugs to "mellow" him out when he is restless.

What crap is that, I ask?



"Upward and Onward"

Even smaller kids do, even newborn can dramatically change their attitude if talked to.

Your newborn is obviously wayyyyy up on mine in the ability to have a conversation! My daughter says no, and says it a lot, and trying to explain why doesn't usually work. We haven't had to use corporal punishment yet, but we use "time-outs" and alone time in her room OFTEN. I question how much time you actually spend with your two year old if you believe you can convince her through conversation that what she is doing (whatever it is) is a no-no. The fact is, kids don't reason like adults. They don't understand why they can't do a lot of things, for example, like stay up late, or watch TV whenever they want, or eat candy instead of real food. When they don't get their way, they throw tantrums. Are you telling me that you try to reason with your daughter while she throws tantrums? OHHHH, let me guess, your daughter never throws tantrums!!!

Originally posted by Age
"It’s impossible to properly raise children without a paddle. Today’s parents need to realize that."

Quite frankly, I'd disagree. I, and my two siblings were both raised without any sort of physical punishment ever placed on us. We were not spanked, or ever hit, or punished in any physical form. My parents, one whom is a High-school principal (dean), and the other an elementary school teacher have managed to raise us completely absent of that, and now have 3 well-adjusted, high-achieving, intelligent, and caring children.

It's perfectly possible, and IMNSHO a better option.

I’m afraid you’re wrong. Children who are never spanked or paddled will grow up believing there are no consequences to their actions. It’s no surprise that parents who “don’t believe in spanking” often raise juvenile delinquents. If you choose not to spank your children, there is a 90% chance they will end up in juvenile hall before the age of 18.

I don't know where you're getting your statistics from, but I'm sorry to inform you that you're incorrect.

I was raised without being spanked, and I have quite a good grasp of the possible consequences that can result from my actions.

You're making broad generalized assumptions, and not caring to look at PROOF that you're wrong.

Age, if you were not posting here, I would start believing all americans still raise their kids like in a Dicken's novel !

To all the other : I never prentended that small kids are able to understand everything and that, only by conversation, you can teach them what to do. I am only saying that there are many other ways than violence to tach them how to behave. Sure, sometimes it is necessary to punish kids. But to me, a parent/teacher who has to hit his kid to be obeyed just proves he's too weak to get respect otherwise.

Unfortunately for that theory astrapol2 (but lucky for me)... I live in Canada.

:D

Mmh…
Have you seen Michael Moore's movie, Bowling for Columbine?
Maybe the difference of violence between the USA and your country could be explained by the way kids are raised ?

Uh, no. Americans don't go around smacking children up at every opportunity. I was spanked maybe twice in my entire life and I bet most people would say the same. Despite what you may see on TV, life in America just isn't that violent.

Probably the difference between the US and Canada is the ease with which guns can be obtained, not the way in which Americans are raised.

Lionel, I guess you're right. Anyway, an interesting fact I learned in this movie is that there are as many guns (per habitant) in Canada. So the crime rate must have other explanations too (but I agree guns should be much more restricted).

Besides, guns are not the problem here, and were certainly not a problem with the Columbine shooters. The problem was wrong thinking.

Gun control did not stop the Washington sniper.



"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by psamtik071
Besides, guns are not the problem here, and were certainly not a problem with the Columbine shooters. The problem was wrong thinking.


Except that if they just had their fists or even knives instead of guns many people would still be alive.
Honestly, do you think it is acceptable that teenagers have access to guns so easily ?

To many of these kids are sorely lacking a proper amount of what I like to call "The Sacrement of Touch". Touch is everything: a pat on the back, a hug, an admonishment, at times even a slap on the butt, holding the child's hand, all of these things count. I believe many parents begin with the right intentions, but get distracted from their children, and the kids lose the regular administration of touch. Kids raised the "right" way are typically not the ones out there getting into major trouble. When the parents aren't doing their job - the one they signed up for when the child was born - the kids are left alone and eventually get in trouble. Parents have to be involved in their kid's lives. The adults are providing the directions, the route into adulthood. If the parents are doing their jobs properly, the child can be raised in an arsenal and not stray.

In response to astrapol, I'd like to say that if a kid wants to get a gun, he will most likely get one, like pot in America. Just because it's illegal does not mean it's inaccessible. As I said before, it's the thinking that causes a kid to kill, not the gun. Remove that and gun control is irrelavant. Of course, you cannot control a kid's thoughts, but you can change his attitude and make him consider the consequences of his actions.

Years ago, when just about anyone could go out and buy a gun, school shootings was a subject that did not exist. Yes, I do believe that teenagers' access to guns must be completely barred, but that simply will not happen.



"Upward and Onward"

I quite agree with ES347. Parent involvment is the best thing a kid can get.

To answer psamtik : I can't help believing there is a real problem with guns being so common in the USA.
In most European countries, guns sales are very restricted. Of course the criminals have their own way of getting some. Of course there are always crimes with other weapons. But the occasional criminal, or the suicidal guy, or the kid whoi gets mad at one occasion won't have immediate access to a gun.
And the average burglar knows he has few chances of being shot, so he does usually not carry a weapon.
The less guns there are in a country, the lower the violence level is.
Consequence : the crime rate in Europe is much lower than in the USA.
I do not say guns are the only factor, of course, but it is a major one.

Originally posted by astrapol2
Lionel, I guess you're right. Anyway, an interesting fact I learned in this movie is that there are as many guns (per habitant) in Canada. So the crime rate must have other explanations too (but I agree guns should be much more restricted).

For the record I'm not necessarily sayin g that guns need to be much more restricted. I'm just saying that they're easy to get here.

As far as your point about the crime rate, I'm not sure that guns are the obvious answer. People will readily surrender their money when confronted on the street with a knife too. And an oft quoted statistic I've seen indicates that the home invasion rate in the UK went through the roof when tough restrictions on guns were put in place.

Personally, I don't own a gun and probably never will, but I know people that do and I trust all of them to be responsible with them and I have no problem with them possessing guns.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by astrapol2
The less guns in a country, the lower the violence level is
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is untrue. Look at Saudi Arabia, a country where people tote AK-47s left and right with relatively little gun violence.

As Lionel said earlier, it's responsibility that's the issue.



"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by astrapol2
I quite agree with ES347. Parent involvment is the best thing a kid can get.

To answer psamtik : I can't help believing there is a real problem with guns being so common in the USA.
In most European countries, guns sales are very restricted. Of course the criminals have their own way of getting some. Of course there are always crimes with other weapons. But the occasional criminal, or the suicidal guy, or the kid whoi gets mad at one occasion won't have immediate access to a gun.
And the average burglar knows he has few chances of being shot, so he does usually not carry a weapon.
The less guns there are in a country, the lower the violence level is.
Consequence : the crime rate in Europe is much lower than in the USA.
I do not say guns are the only factor, of course, but it is a major one.

Yech, please don't suggest the U.S. become more like your semi-socialist European nations. Why do you stop with guns? Why not knives? Shouldn't you guys restrict sales of knives too? Wouldn't that help stop crime? The problem with crime has little to do with guns, it has to do with people....blaming the problem on the device used is treating a symptom at the expense of the general population, not providing a criminal-specific solution.

So back to the topic of this thread: as children grow into adulthood, are they at risk of suffering psychologically due to low self-esteem, or is high self-esteem the problem? This question was not thoroughly answered, I'm afraid. Corporal punishment and gun control constituted only a small part of this discussion. Although I presented some evidence showcasing my viewpoint, I am interested in your opinions.



"Upward and Onward"

As usual, the key is in moderation. With an exceedingly poor self-image, the individual may become a joiner, led by others who through peer pressure add credence to the low self worth. They may also become resentful & predatory toward those weaker & younger and act out through sexual abuse. Equally troublesome is the individual with self esteem pouring out of their ears. If it manifests into a narcissistic personality disorder, then you've got the makings for criminal activity. Prisons are full of those with personality disorders of asocial, antisocial and narcissistic types.

Good point.


"Upward and Onward"

Originally posted by Age
I don't know where you're getting your statistics from, but I'm sorry to inform you that you're incorrect.

I was raised without being spanked, and I have quite a good grasp of the possible consequences that can result from my actions.

You're making broad generalized assumptions, and not caring to look at PROOF that you're wrong.

You were just lucky (or your parents were). If you were to visit a juvenile hall and interview every child there, you’d find that over half of them had parents who refused to spank them. Either way, you can’t argue with the fact that school violence went up when they did away with the paddle.

As far as violence in America goes, our criminal justice system is the problem. All a murderer has to do in this country is plead insanity and he’ll walk away with nothing more than an order for a psychiatric evaluation. We also tend to give a LOT of easy breaks to rich and famous people. In other words, Americans commit crimes because they can!

Originally posted by Mopoloton
If you were to visit a juvenile hall and interview every child there, you’d find that over half of them had parents who refused to spank them. Either way, you can’t argue with the fact that school violence went up when they did away with the paddle.


On the contrary, most juvenile delinquents seem to have been victimes of violence from their parents or their entourage in their early years.

For all those really interested on that topic, I recommend the reading of Alice Miller's book , "for your own good". Through the study of traditional education books of the 19th century and the cases of drug addicts or criminals, the author clearly shows how damaging a violent and too restrictive education can be for kids.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0374522693/qid=1059391514/sr=2-3/ref=sr_2_3/002-6653430-1200046#product-details

First I'm going to go back to what Karankawa said about tantrums. I was told by my parents that I had one real tantrum. They ignored me when I did it, so I went on for about five minutes. Apperantly I gave up and was told I never did it again. In that case, I see no time out, no corporal punishment, no punishment other than being ignored. One thing a child hates is being ignored, dogs do it to, if there is no possible way to get somebody's attention, they do something wrong, at least that way somebody will look at them. I guess that situation also taught me about self-worth, how if I really wanted something, I had to do it myself, because nobody was going to help me. What would happen if everybody as a child was ignored on their first tantrum?

Anyway, onto the other violence issue. If somebody is beaten, who do they end up hating? Themselves for doing something wrong, or the person who beat them? When I was a bit younger, my parents spanked me, they stopped a long time ago. Why? I hated them, I would do more things wrong just to tick them off, screw the concequences, that was a small bit of pain, no more. When they stopped, I got grounded and ignored as a punishment, it worked quite a bit better.

Overall, corporal punishment shows that if the respected, wise adult can use violence, so can the child(they strive to imitate those they respect). Well, it appears that the age of corporal punishment created a lot of war mongers, also on the side of those with a brain, peace makers. Extremeties of those who followed, and those who made their own rules. Now that is just a huge generalization of those generations(but in the age of imperialism(as in big big imperialism, not today's) everybody was beaten and wipped if they did wrong, and they were a bunch of war mongers and violent people).

Restricting education is very, I will say dangerous, to the advancement of the species. Now some wont see it as dangerous, because it creates a bunch of clones of those in charge, and athoratives like it that way. By telling kids who they are, creates them that way, by letting them become who they actually are creates dissidents and people who can be very argumentative and dissagreeable. Well, isn't that better?

That is pretty much the thesis of he book I mentioned. The systematic use of violence (not necessarily physical : scaring the children or constantly humiliating them can also be counted as a form of mental violence) can be very harmful to the formation of a free personality.
Of course, that does not mean the occasionnal slapping will turn kids into brainwashed zombis - or we would live in hell. And that does not mean either that kids should have no limits and never be punished.

Ignorance is a form of neglect.



"Upward and Onward"

You keep referring to spanking as a form of abuse. This is not so. Spanking inflicts no physical or emotional damage to a child, it simply let’s the child know there are consequences to doing something wrong. Beating a child and spanking a child are two COMPLETELY different things.

As far as Blib’s solution goes, you can’t ignore children when they start breaking things. This doesn’t only happen during a tantrum; some children just find it fun to see things break.

Exactly.


"Upward and Onward"

I think that "abuse" can take many forms. Of course spanking or slapping a kid are usually quite harmless and not a traumatic experience.
I would say there is a harmful parental attitude when the kid is being manipulated, humiliated or willingly "broken" so that he becomes totally under the control of his parents (or teacher or whoever). It can involve physical violence or only constant depreciation of the kid. This takes us back to the subject of this thread : self esteem.

But you see, I find that the self-esteem that a rebellious child exhibits borders on narcissism, and must be channeled through the correct form of punishment. That is how come I believe that the old pop psychology of the 80's and 90's don't apply, and perhaps never did.

We are not asking for a child to be broken emotionally and physically for the manipulation of those in authority, but as they grow and learn how to become responible citizens, they must be brought "down to earth" sometimes.



"Upward and Onward"

Of course.
But what a rebellious child exhibits is less self esteem than need for attention. If the only attention a kid gets is when he his punished after misbehaving, he can turn into a deliquent precisely because he does not know any other mean of recognition.
I still think some punishment is sometimes necessary, but it seems more important to me to be positive with kids and encourage them whenever the need it. And, of course, make them feel they are loved (strange thing but in that thread about raising kids the word love has still never been mentioned !)

Exactly. Encourage the good, discourage the bad.

When I was in Jr. High and Elementary school I had very low self esteem.

When I was a kid, my parents spanked me when I acted badly enough.

Neither of these things has hurt me in the least, nor did it harm me when it was happening.