64 Research-Supported Argument 2 – “Teaching the Next Generation”
Sarah Nicole Bashaw
Teaching the Next Generation
Parents and teachers are responsible for leading the next generation of humanity. Raising children involves punishment and redirection of behavior, which sometimes includes the widely debated topic of corporal punishment. Most states have outlawed the use of corporal punishment in schools, yet several still permit this practice. Louisiana house bill 324 was recently rejected in court (Hilburn). This bill proposed a ban on corporal punishment in Louisiana public schools. Evidence condemning the use of physical punishment methods was presented, including research supported by reputable organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics as well as the American Psychological Association (Larzelere 7). It is important to consider how physical punishment impacts children across their lifetime. My family lives in a state that allows corporal punishment, and my own children could be subjected to it. Corporal punishment should not be considered acceptable in the school setting.
Parents are the first to determine how to redirect their children, and many consider corporal punishment necessary. It is important to recognize that corporal punishment has the potential to have a negative impact. In an article that opposes corporal punishment, Elizabeth Gershoff states that if parents hope that corporal punishment can provide positive responses in behavior, one must also consider a possibility of negative or neutral outcomes (Gershoff 628). Gershoff supports this by citing studies of children who are subject to corporal punishment, in which 71% showed statistically significant negative outcomes (Gershoff 629). Gershoff explains how corporal punishment can negatively impact children:
Spanking has been significantly correlated with the following child outcomes, almost all in a detrimental direction: lower long-term compliance; more aggression; more behavior problems, … more mental health problems; lower cognitive performance; lower parent–child relationship quality; and higher risk for physical injury or abuse. (Gershoff 629)
This study suggests that corporal punishment is likely a poor choice for redirecting behavior. An essential goal for a parent is to minimize bad behavior and facilitate good behavior. Note that corporal punishment is innately aggressive: a caregiver enacts aggressive punishment to redirect unwanted behavior. Using physical hitting to change a child’s conduct has the potential to show them that aggression is an acceptable way to achieve desired change. Corporal punishment may impact children socially and emotionally. They may question their safety and their trust between the child and authority figure can be damaged, thus creating issues in the child’s attachments. Additionally, we can consider other studies that show hitting has proven detrimental, such as in cases of bullying and domestic abuse (Gershoff 628). The relationship of a teacher and student could be damaged and impact the child’s view of school and learning if corporal punishment is allowed in schools.
While studies on corporal punishment are difficult to perform due to ethical consideration, available information can be used to deduce that it poses a threat to child development. This issue is an urgent and time sensitive matter. Corporal punishment is still accepted in many states by parents and schools. In a book about corporal punishment in schools, Gershoff mentions that 19 states utilize corporal punishment in their teaching, and over 100,000 children are subjected to it each year (Gershoff 46). Gershoff cites a study of young adults who experienced corporal punishment in which “a majority of students who experienced school corporal punishment said it was painful, was linked with lower GPA and school belonging, more depressive symptoms, and favorable attitudes about corporal punishment” (Gershoff 70). These studies also reveal that black, disabled, and male students are at significantly higher risk to receive corporal punishment in school (Gershoff 70). This unsettling information begs the question of what benefit corporal punishment is providing. It is not achieving the results that are desired. We do know that children who are exposed to it have negative outcomes. If students who experienced corporal punishment were shown to achieve higher GPA, positive attitudes, and other good outcomes, debate would cease. Statistics show what is happening with students in a longitudinal fashion. The current studies available suggest risks to both mental health and academic performance of students who receive corporal punishment in school. Bill 324 in Louisiana needs to be retried with more discussion of this evidence; so should similar bills being proposed in the other states that permit corporal punishment in schools.
Corporal punishment has the potential to impact a child’s health as well. Depending on the frequency and severity, one could consider corporal punishment a traumatic experience. Some may paddle until there are marks or bruises on the child’s body, and some may not. What matters most is the function of a child’s brain when they are being spanked. Dr. Nancy Henderson published a PowerPoint for the Greenville Health System of South Carolina. This presentation examined findings that children who are subject to corporal punishment are at increased risk of child abuse, aggression and juvenile justice system involvement, impaired mental health, drug and alcohol abuse, and increased risk for future domestic abuse (Henderson 27). Henderson identifies corporal punishment as an Adverse Childhood Experience [ACE]. The studies she mentions show that children who are subject to maltreatment have disrupted neurodevelopment, which causes social, emotional, and cognitive impairment (Henderson 46). This impairment is followed by the adoption of health-risk behaviors such as smoking, lack of physical activity, alcoholism, drug use, and missed work. The possible physical and mental health impacts are severe obesity, diabetes, depression, suicide attempts, STDs, heart disease, cancer, stroke, COPD, and broken bones (Henderson 47). Henderson indicates that all forms of hitting for punishment contribute to ACEs. ACEs are characterized by abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction. In 2010 it was reported that 69% of adults in the US believe that hard spanking is necessary (Henderson 34). This is less than the 94% of adults reported in 1960 but is still well over half of the population (Henderson 34). Children who are spanked are 2.8 times more likely to hit or kick than those who are not (Henderson 35). America is experiencing a health crisis, both physical and psychological. With solid research such as the impacts of ACEs available, we must question the benefit-to-risk ratio of corporal punishment. Corporal punishment is not worth the increased risk of grave health impacts to our population. Teachers should not have the authority to impart negative health impacts on a child. The removal of the practice of corporal punishment in school would prevent teachers from bearing the responsibility of those potentially harmful decisions.
Specific instances of corporal punishment impacts are available to the public. These are easy to find and have scientific merit due to the method of these studies. They account for the consistent findings that are replicated in multiple cultures. A study of Japanese children performed by Sakurako Okuzono displays such impacts. A longitudinal study of 29,182 Japanese children at 3.5 years old and again at 5.5 years old was performed in order to determine how the frequency of spanking impacts behavior outcomes of children over time (Okuzono 63). Okuzono reports that “spanking of any self-reported frequency was associated with an increased risk for later behavioral problems in children” (Okuzono 62). The frequency of spanking studied was “never”, “sometimes”, and “always.” Children who were spanked “sometimes” and “always” displayed similar results, while children who were “always” spanked displayed a larger number of behavioral problems (Okuzono 62). Both had a significantly higher number of behavioral problems such as disobedience, social impediments, poor focus, and inability to express emotions when compared to children who were “never” spanked (Okuzono 68). Okuzono’s study was adjusted for socioeconomic status, child temperament, and parenting behaviors. It is likely that toddlers are unable to understand the intent behind spanking due to their lack of cognition at a young age. It is believed that they experience spanking as traumatic, regardless of frequency (Okuzono 68). This is further supported by examining child attachment, which is characterized by a sense of safety and security with the adults on whom they rely. Mistreatment during this stage impacts a child’s sense of security, which could lead to behavioral issues. Children that experience spanking may associate it with frustration or anger, and potentially lead to aggressive, impulsive, and disobedient behaviors (Okuzono 68). This reinforces the notion that children who are subject to corporal punishment are in worse positions over time. These results demonstrate that regardless of the frequency, corporal punishment is not a good choice for caregivers.
We must also look at those who are in favor of corporal punishment and examine their reasoning. Robert Larzelere is one of the leading proponents in favor of conditional spanking. He refutes data given by Gershoff and regards her research as insufficient on the grounds that 55% of her studies were not longitudinal, this means that the 55% of studies in question were only done at one point in time rather than repeated studies on the same participants later (Larzelere 1). It is understandable that Gershoff’s cross-sectional studies could be questioned as to whether the children had the negative behaviors before or after the spanking, but we can assume two things. Firstly, it is unlikely that it is the child’s first time being spanked. Secondly, regardless of which came first, the child is likely to have negative health outcomes. Now examine the other 45% of Gershoff’s studies that are not cross-sectional, which show a strong relationship between physical punishment and subsequent negative outcomes (Gershoff 629-630). All but one of Gershoff’s studies link physical punishment with negative outcomes in children. While neutrality of physical punishment exists in one of the studies examined by Gershoff when compared with other forms of punishment, spanking does not show any benefit (Gershoff 632).
Furthermore, the only evidence that Larzelere provides to support corporal punishment are two studies, one of which he conducted himself. The first study displays negative impact at a minimal level on participants, and the other shows a low benefit or low risk on participants depending on the adjustments made. Even at low levels, it is questionable why one would support something that is maladaptive to children rather than rule it out. Larzelere criticizes the American Academy of Pediatrics and the American Psychological Association for siding with Gershoff in opposition of all spanking and instead supports his own studies and experience with spanking (Larzelere 7). Larzelere fails to acknowledge the 45% of studies that are not cross-sectional. He also provides no evidence as to why spanking should be accepted other than for an immediate cessation of unwanted behavior, neglecting to discuss the potential impacts on the child through their lifetime. Evidence in favor of corporal punishment is insufficient to support the continuation of the practice, especially regarding its use in education. Supporters have shown no factual evidence to claim it is beneficial for students, while opponents provide evidence of hindered performance and social functioning.
As previously stated, Louisiana is among the 19 states that allow corporal punishment in schools. With the risks that have been outlined, this poses a threat to children in Louisiana. Bill 324 was denied in a vote 48-49, which needed 53 votes to pass (Hilburn). This bill would have banned the use of corporal punishment in Louisiana schools. Opposition of the bill included former teachers who claimed the decision should be kept local (Hilburn). This included the notion that bill 324 could set a precedent that could lead to the removal of parental rights to use corporal punishment (Hilburn). Stephanie Hilferty was the main proponent of the bill (Hilburn). Hilferty described corporal punishment as child abuse, which was an unpopular and emotional approach to legislators (Hilburn). The information available is not being fully utilized in the states that still allow this practice in schools. Evidence of negative outcomes was brought up during proceedings, but the focus of child abuse in reference to spanking was rejected and bill 324 failed (Hilburn). This ruling is concerning, considering the lack of acknowledgment of negative the impact on children regardless of Hilferty’s radical approach. While the focus should be on facts, the evidence that was presented shouldn’t be overlooked. Teachers and caregivers are responsible for the wellness of children in their care. While some caregivers are unaware of the research available, those who have been presented the data have a duty to protect children they are responsible for. That makes the communication of this information imperative.
There is a substantial amount of research that displays negative outcomes in children who are subjected to corporal punishment, and it is our responsibility to do something about it. There is a link between spanking and aggressive behavior. Corporal punishment may potentially link to many other issues, such as bullying, juvenile violence, future family dysfunction, and countless unknown outcomes that could have a lasting impact for generations. Even with the limited ways that we can ethically study and learn about corporal punishment, the current evidence is enough to do away with the practice. There are resources available to help caregivers learn effective forms of discipline that do not involve corporal punishment. It provides children with no academic benefit. The bottom line is that children should not be subjected to any form of corporal punishment in their educational environment.
Works Cited
Gershoff, Elizabeth T., et al. “The Strength of the Causal Evidence Against Physical Punishment of Children and Its Implications for Parents, Psychologists, and Policymakers.” American Psychologist, vol. 73, no. 5, July 2018, pp. 626-638.
Gershoff, Elizabeth T., et al. Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Legal Precedents, Current Practices, and Future Policy. Springer, 2015.
Henderson, Nancy. “The Impact of Corporal Punishment. What’s Behind the Science.” Hcs.ghs.org. 2017, pp, 1-59, http://hsc.ghs.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Henderson-Punishment-3.pdf. Accessed 09, Sept. 2021.
Hilburn, Greg. “Louisiana House Rejects Bill to Ban Spanking in Public Schools.” Lafayette Daily Advertiser, 5 May 2021. https://theadvertiser.com/story/news/2021/05/05/louisiana-house-rejects-bill-corporal-punishment-public-schools/4952560001/. Accessed 29 Sept. 2021.
Larzelere, Robert and Fuller, Jason. “Scientific Evidence Supports Customary and Backup (Conditional) Spanking by Parents: Update of Larzelere and Baumrind (2010) and Fuller (2009).” SSRN Electronic Journal, 25 Oct 2019. pp. 1-12.
Okuzono, Sakurako, et al. “Spanking and Subsequent Behavioral Problems in Toddlers: A Propensity Score-matched, Prospective Study in Japan.” Child Abuse & Neglect, vol. 69, 2017, pp. 62-71.
