The ACLU has filed a shocking report on SCP. Students with disabilities are more likely to receive corporal punishment.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/10/students-with-disabilitie_n_256085.html


"Corporal punishment, legal in 20 states, typically takes the form of "paddling," during which an administrator or teacher hits a child repeatedly on the buttocks with a long wooden board. ACLU and Human Rights Watch interviews found that students with disabilities also suffered many other forms of corporal punishment, including beatings, spanking, slapping, pinching, being dragged across the room, and being thrown to the floor.

The report found that some students were physically abused for conduct related to their disabilities, including students with Tourette syndrome being punished for exhibiting involuntary tics and students with autism being punished for repetitive behaviors such as rocking. In some cases, corporal punishment against students with disabilities led to a worsening of their conditions. For instance, some parents reported that students with autism became violent toward themselves or others following corporal punishment."


This is obviously a wide spread and on going problem. Every few years a report like this comes out and just reconfirms the fact that teachers and administrators can not be trusted with this kind of power. Abuse will always occur.

Here is a link to the 70 page report.

http://www.aclu.org/intlhumanrights/childrensrights/40643pub20090811.html

As somebody who has read this entire report today, I have to say there are immense problems with it.

"Corporal punishment, legal in 20 states, typically takes the form of "paddling," during which an administrator or teacher hits a child repeatedly on the buttocks with a long wooden board. ACLU and Human Rights Watch interviews found that students with disabilities also suffered many other forms of corporal punishment, including beatings, spanking, slapping, pinching, being dragged across the room, and being thrown to the floor.

For a start - the report is extremely confused in its use of the term 'corporal punishment'. While I understand that this is a term that is subject to some disagreement as to precisely how it should be defined, very very few people who supports its use would define 'pinching', 'being dragged across the room' or 'being thrown to the floor' as being corporal punishment. Nor would most normal people. The ACLU and HRW are taking a common approach of the extreme opponents of corporal punishment in seeking to define corporal punishment in a way that includes acts of absolute unambiguous abuse that virtually nobody would ever support.

More importantly and significantly, the definition suggested here includes many practices that are already illegal even in most, if not all, jurisdictions which allow certain forms of corporal punishment to be legal. A lot of these actions are already illegal - it's fairly pointless to suggest changing the law will suddenly make people who are already acting outside of the law suddenly start acting within it.

Also significantly, this report isn't even consistent when it comes to defining corporal punishment. At one moment they are using a broad brush approach that treats any action that results in the infliction of pain as corporal punishment, but when it comes to making recommendations, it defines corporal punishment in a much more reasoned and structured way: "Define corporal punishment as any punishment in which physical force, however light, is used with intent to discipline." - note that. With intent to discipline. A lot of the actions described in this report, including most of the clearly unacceptable acts of abuse, are not clearly connected to any intent to discipline. They want to define corporal punishment in different ways in different sections of the report.

The report found that some students were physically abused for conduct related to their disabilities, including students with Tourette syndrome being punished for exhibiting involuntary tics and students with autism being punished for repetitive behaviors such as rocking. In some cases, corporal punishment against students with disabilities led to a worsening of their conditions. For instance, some parents reported that students with autism became violent toward themselves or others following corporal punishment."

Sorry, but 'some parents report' is not a valid psychological measure and shouldn't be used as evidence of anything substantial in a formal report. 'Some parents report' that their child is an absolute angel when they have ODD. 'Some parents report' that their child is not a bully, when their child routinely attacks other children for no reason. We don't use what 'some parents report' as proof of anything, if we want to produce a study that has any real evidentiary value.

That's the last sentence - it's the only one I disagree with. It is completely unacceptable that some students were punished for exhibiting involuntary tics, and in most cases it would be inappropriate to punish a child with autism for exhibiting repetitive behaviours (although that depends on the level of autism, and other factors - it's not absolutely clear cut).

This is obviously a wide spread and on going problem. Every few years a report like this comes out and just reconfirms the fact that teachers and administrators can not be trusted with this kind of power. Abuse will always occur.

(1) Much of what is alleged in this report is already illegal. Why would you assume that making more things illegal would change the way these abusers are acting? They've already shown they have no compunction in breaking the law. Changing the law will not affect their behaviour at all. It will only affect the behaviour of teachers who already act acceptably.

(2) Why should teachers who don't abuse students be forced to change their approach to teaching, because of the teachers who do abuse students? All that does is allow the abusive teachers to have more effect on more children than they otherwise would.

(3) Why would anybody want to stretch law enforcement and other resources that could be targeted at the teachers who are already abusing students more broadly? The fact these abuses are occurring is pretty clear evidence that there aren't enough resources being directed at the problem. Changing the law to criminalise more practices would simply make that problem worse.

Now - just to analyse some of the problems with this report.

Let's start with how the report starts - their two 'opening examples' so to speak.

Landon K., a six-year-old boy with autism, was in first grade at his Mississippi elementary school when his assistant principal, "a big, 300-lb man, picked up an inch thick paddle and paddled him [on the buttocks]." His grandmother, Jacquelyn K., reported, "my child just lost it ... he was screaming and hollering ... it just devastated him." Jacquelyn knew that paddling was harmful for children with autism: "I had already signed a form saying they couldn't paddle. I sent that form in every year ... When a child with autism has something like that happen, they don't forget it. It's always fresh in their minds."

I'll assume this is being reported accurately (bear in mind, there's no proof of that at all). I don't believe this child should have been physically punished - not if the Grandmother (who I assume is the legal guardian from this) had denied permission for that. But there's a real problem with this statement: "Jacquelyn knew that paddling was harmful for children with autism."

That's an assertion either by Jacquelyn, uncritically accepted by the reports authors, or by the authors themselves. It's an assertion they don't provide any evidence for. It's an assertion which is debatable to say the least. Certainly corporal punishment is counterindicated in the case of severely autistic children, but there's quite a lot of debate about its potential value with children with less serious degrees of autism. The report is full of assertions like this one, for which no evidence is provided.

Jonathan C., a 15-year-old boy with autism, was repeatedly subjected to corporal punishment at his Florida school. On October 2, 2008, for example, he was picked up by a male staff member and thrown "into the tile floor, face-first," after screaming in the cafeteria and running away from a staff member. Staff members dragged him to a meeting room, where the male staff member "put him in a chokehold. Other staff members [came] running. Three or four of them tackle[d] him, and he [was] thrown to the floor again." The staff members used their strength and body weight to pin Jonathan, face-down, to the floor.

That's not corporal punishment. It's restraint - which is often legal in itself even when corporal punishment is banned. On the face of it, it looks like they used more force than was necessary, which is a major problem, but this is not corporal punishment. The report is full of incidents that are not corporal punishment - and which the reports own recommendations wouldn't treat as corporal punishment.

Students with disabilities-who are entitled to appropriate, inclusive educational programs that give them the opportunity to thrive-are subjected to violent discipline at disproportionately high rates. Students with disabilities make up 19 percent of those who receive corporal punishment, yet just 14 percent of the nationwide student population.

The difference between 14% and 19% isn't large enough, especially over a single year, to say that there is a disproportionate effect. Especially seeing there's serious reasons to doubt both the figures. Secondly even if there is a disproportionate effect, that's not automatically a bad thing - when dealing with children with special needs, it would actually be troubling if we saw figures that suggested they were being treated identically to other children - because identical treatment is not enough to deal with disability.

Many children whose stories are documented in this report sustained serious injuries from paddling. Deena S.'s middle school son, who has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), was badly bruised from paddling:

Another problem with the report - the report often identifies children as 'disabled' when they are not. ADHD is not normally defined a disability nor included in disability statistics. If they are including ADHD kids in their study, they are immediately raising the number of disabled children by at least three percentage points, more likely five (suddenly their '14%' of students are disabled is already up to 17%). Also - there's quite a bit of thinking that corporal punishment is useful with many ADHD boys.

Students with autism are particularly likely to be punished for behaviors common to their condition, stemming from difficulties with appropriate social behavior. For instance, Landon, the six-year-old with autism in Mississippi, was punished because he had a melt-down when his routine was changed. Educators may not have access to sufficient training on the nature of their students' disabilities or on best practices for responding to behavior connected to those disabilities.

So - is Landon going to have melt-downs for the rest of his life whenever his routine is changed? Do we want him to? It's a horrible situation for Landon to be in, and as I said above, I don't think he should have been physically punished - but the fact is, teachers have a duty to a child with autism to try and teach them to modify the behaviours that cause them problems. This part of the report seems to me to be suggesting that a child should not be held responsible for problem behaviours that stem from a disability. That's not helpful to the child at all. There are some cases where a disability means a child cannot do something - but in a lot of cases, the disability simply makes it harder for them to do what they need to do. They deserve our sympathy. They don't deserve being allowed to use the fact it's hard as an excuse not to do it. In the end, if we don't require them to do what is hard, they are the ones who suffer. One of the reason for mainstreaming disabled kids is so we don't give up on them being able to achieve the things that are hard for them, just because they are hard.

The ACLU and Human Rights Watch documented cases of corporal punishment including hitting children with a belt, a ruler, a set of rulers taped together, or a toy hammer; pinching, slapping, or striking very young children in particular; grabbing children around the arm, the neck, or elsewhere with enough force to bruise; throwing children to the floor; slamming a child into a wall; dragging children across floors; and bruising or otherwise injuring children in the course of restraint

Hitting children with a belt - yes, that's corporal punishment.

A ruler - yes.

A set of rules taped together - yes, probably.

A toy hammer - um, what?

Pinching - definitely not.

Slapping - sure.

Grabbing children around the arm - restraint not punishment.

Slamming a child into a wall - not punishment.

Dragging children across floors - closer to restraint than punishment, although hard to see it as reasonable.

bruising or otherwise injuring children in the course of restraint - restraint by definition. Restraint should involve minimum force, sometimes depending on a situation, even the minimum reasonable force may lead to injury.

Charles B., the father of an 11-year-old Texas boy with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and dyslexia, described a paddling his son received in early 2009:

Neither ADHD nor dyslexia should be described as disabilities in any reasonable study of this nature. And neither present any particular reason why a child should not be punished for misbehaviour.

It's midnight here, so I'll leave this here.

I prefer to look at the reality of the situation Dr.D. Here is the reality, the ACLU didn't go to all the trouble of doing this report without good reason. Clearly abuses have occurred.

What happens next? Well, if we go by what the ACLU has done in the past, we can expect a law suit to be filed if these problems are not resolved to their satisfaction. In other words there will be a lawsuit.

The ACLU has very deep pockets and will never quit. So, although it may take several years we are looking at the beginning of the end of SCP in US public schools. It is long over due in my opinion.

A quote from Dr.D. in his response.

"So - is Landon going to have melt-downs for the rest of his life whenever his routine is changed? Do we want him to? It's a horrible situation for Landon to be in, and as I said above, I don't think he should have been physically punished - but the fact is, teachers have a duty to a child with autism to try and teach them to modify the behaviours that cause them problems. This part of the report seems to me to be suggesting that a child should not be held responsible for problem behaviours that stem from a disability. That's not helpful to the child at all. There are some cases where a disability means a child cannot do something - but in a lot of cases, the disability simply makes it harder for them to do what they need to do. They deserve our sympathy. They don't deserve being allowed to use the fact it's hard as an excuse not to do it. In the end, if we don't require them to do what is hard, they are the ones who suffer. One of the reason for mainstreaming disabled kids is so we don't give up on them being able to achieve the things that are hard for them, just because they are hard. "




We can only hope that someone using your logic testifies as an expert witness for the defense. I would love to cross examine you in front of a judge and jury.

Bob an interesting post.

The ACLU does have deep pockets, but it also need s the evidence to mount court cases. Some of the cases are disgraceful as presented , but lets not forget that each of these parents has a perfect right to mount legal action for abuse where abuse has been suffered by any child, and I would say where that is the case then that is the course to take.- and as for money , well as you say ACLU has the funds to facilitate this.

However, the Courts of Justice thankfully require a higher burden of proof than the court of public opinion, based on medical fact, physical evidence and the breaking of statute law.

Where these cases can be proved ,and I hope that ACLU and HRW will back the claimants if the facts are as stated, but as Doctor Dominum noted , not all are corporal punishment issues, abuse certainly, but regulated punishment only certain cases. In many cases the teachers concerned if they have acted as alleged would be struck off teaching registers, and that does happen in the States, provided the evidence is forthcoming and stands scrutiny. But that is a big step from where this report is now . One thing that worries me , is that Human rights watch is normally punctilious about medical evidence, this does not seem to always be the case here

The American courts are far more sympathetic to plaintiff cases than the Courts in the UK are , and if the evidence is there and documented, doubtless the ACLU will win...but whether any of these cases alone or in combination is sufficient to represent an action to reverse current Supreme Court decisions, is I think doubtful. In any case as presently presented they do not seem to represent a challenge to these.

So I guess what you are saying is that you hope the ACLU will win politically, this is a different question. Certainly in the Deep South there is the not insignificant effect of the 'Christian right' and notions of 'traditional parenting'. If you have carefully read my information posting on Drew High School you will see a school in almost perfect ACLU hinterland, with what you would assume was an ACLU sympathetic board , who operate one of what I'm sure you would call the most draconian corporal punishment policies in the state, ( up to seven swats for minor offences) in a very small school 99% free school meals to boot....and not a whimper from the community, just one half hearted complaint from a student. The school scores 1/10 on one public statistical rating system, but gets three stars out of five from the community!

Given subsidiarity in the United States, many of these issues will be dealt with in State legislatures not by the Federal government , in any case I think personally, that the current Presidency is not going to extend itself in this direction , given its fights on other flanks, but I may be wrong.

Abusers need to be prosecuted and jailed. Teachers are put in a position of trust and must respect that as a paramount duty. All children must be protected, those unable to speak for themselves more than others, ... But teachers cannot and must not be tried by hearsay , innuendo and public opinion. Held to account yes! Given their day in court if the evidence stacks up Yes! Allowed to mount a defence .Yes! Pilloried no! Lynch mob justice No! (We've seen enough of that in the Deep South's history.).

As a first step..... like the song about the Oxford Town .' neath the Mississippi moon..someone had better investigate soon'....and lets see how many cases get into Court.....

If you noticed the report just came out today. I guess we will have to wait and see what happens. The wheels of justice turn slow.

"As a first step..... like the song about the Oxford Town .' neath the Mississippi moon..someone had better investigate soon'....and lets see how many cases get into Court....."

Dr D, you gain an advantage by using facts and careful reasoning when responding to news items and posts. This makes those with firm contrary views very uncomfortable and could identify you as a child abuser, supporter of that other sports team, anti-global free trader or worse

I prefer to look at the reality of the situation Dr.D. Here is the reality, the ACLU didn't go to all the trouble of doing this report without good reason. Clearly abuses have occurred.

First of all, I agree - abuses have occurred. But I have to say I find it very naive to believe that just because a political organisation writes a report that that indicates that a problem is real. A great many reports are written by political bodies about non-existent problems. A great many reports are written by political bodies that create non-existent problems. The ACLU is a fine organisation with a noble history. But it's an organisation whose very existence depends on there being civil liberties violations to fight for. The ACLU brings in somewhere on the order of $80,000,000 a year in funding, mostly from public donations. It needs to enrage people for that type of funding to continue.

But, yes - I think it's obvious that children are sometimes being abused by teachers in American schools, and some people attempt to justify some of that abuse by claiming it's corporal punishment. Whether it is, or it isn't. In many cases outlined in this report, it quite clearly isn't.

A couple of points to ponder here.

First of all, does banning corporal punishment stop teachers abusing children?

The answer is, that, no, it does not.

Corporal punishment has been banned in all British schools for eleven years now. It has been banned in most British schools for over twenty years.

About a month ago now, a teacher named Paul Harvey at the All Saints RC School in Mansfield, Nottinghamshire, allegedly assaulted a 14-year-old boy named Jack Waterhouse. As a result of this alleged attack the boy wound up in hospital with serious head injuries. Mr Harvey has been charged with attempted murder.

Did a ban on corporal punishment stop this assault? No. It didn't. And if corporal punishment was permitted, Mr Harvey would still be facing charges of attempted murder. The vast majority of cases of abuse of children (and the majority in the ACLU report) have nothing to do with legal or normative corporal punishment.

Banning corporal punishment makes sense if your aim is to stop normative corporal punishment, and I understand some people believe that that should happen. Fine. But it doesn't make any sense if your aim is to stop illegal assaults. Because those who will break laws preventing the serious assault of children will have no compunction in breaking an addition law that bans corporal punishment.

Second of all, even allowing for the fact that abuses occur, this needs to be balanced against any good that comes out of the use of corporal punishment. I've just been looking at our Form VI class photos from last year accompanied with information on where those boys are now. I can see at least a dozen boys in those photos who are now in places where they want to be, post school, where I very much doubt that they would be if we hadn't got their behavioural issues under control. And these cases are ones where the cane was useful. In some of these cases, I am talking about boys who this ACLU/HRW report would claim were 'disabled'. Boys with ADHD.

These boys have rights too. We can't forget that. And we can't sacrifice their right to get the education they need for the sake of other children. But that is what banning corporal punishment to protect the 'abused' child does - it places that child's rights over and above the rights of all other children.

Boys at my school are not being abused. Why should the education we offer to them - an education that does a lot of them a lot of good - be forced to change to prevent a problem we're not experiencing?

What happens next? Well, if we go by what the ACLU has done in the past, we can expect a law suit to be filed if these problems are not resolved to their satisfaction. In other words there will be a lawsuit.

Yes, well, human rights lawsuits over corporal punishment in schools have been tried before in the US, so you may well be right.

The ACLU has very deep pockets and will never quit. So, although it may take several years we are looking at the beginning of the end of SCP in US public schools. It is long over due in my opinion.

Yes, because Judges and lawyers are so much better qualified to judge the best way to educate children than people like teachers, educational psychologists, and those who've spent their entire careers working for the benefit of children. Law school is so much better than all that.

The law may well change. That won't make it right. Or good. Or in the interests of children.

Boonville MS is not to be confused with Booneville AK. Here is another recent court ruling. This is more about teacher professionalism but does involve paddling so it is not off topic. IMO the umbrella term autistic covers so many that special needs children seem to be paddled out of proportion. There are so many levels of autism it would be unfair to exempt so many from paddlings IMO.

Special Education Teacher Let Go

I meant Booneville not Boonville. A quick Google gives you information about the case that may be helpful on understanding the disposition of the case. It really didn't have much to do with CP or Free Speech but her being a jerk in the eyes of one insider. This is the kind of story that the anti-CP zealots don't want the late Paul Harvey, newscaster, say the rest of the story.

Your article failed to mention how prior to that, Ms. Lamb had sent a rather snooty email to the Principal in response to his email telling her she did not follow proper procedure in moving school assets out of her room or how she verbally assaulted Ms Ginger Murphy within earshot of students causing a fellow teacher to cry inconsolably and be unable to teach. Or how after Ms Lamb got her non contract renewing notice, she went into Ms Murphys classroom yet again and verbally assaulted her in front of students, thrusting the notice into the teachers face stating she was the reason she was getting fired.

This is not Ms Lambs first time suing a school district, and I doubt it will be her last time. Her major downfall in this case was admitting on the stand that she had no problem with the punishment, just the fact she was not consulted beforehand. The first amendment will only take you so far, if you act like a jerk, be prepared for the consequences. Ms. Lamb clearly cannot deal with those consequences.

Hi American Way

Where special needs are concerned , surely it makes sense to have children assesed and statemented by professionals as routine good pratice. This should determine whether any special issues over discipline arise and if so how they should be dealt with. Outside of statemented intervention, it is difficult to see how a school or District can determine between students on a diagnosis which does not always meet a reasonable standard of proof.

Having said that , where parents or teachers have a serious concern about these issues. they should ensure they are fully taken into account.

To an outsider what happened in this incident can hardly be called professional or appropriate on either side.

"Where Lil' Devils Begin."

http://www.booneville.k12.ms.us/AES/anderson_elementary_school.htm

Most contracts are very clear about renewals and most decisions are made behind closed doors to respect confidentiality. There probably was enough dirty laundry to air on both sides. They have a lot of professional people on staff that would know when or when not a student benefits from corporal punishment. They seem to rely on positive reinforcement before other consequences. My experience in the northeast is that schools work closer with parents when it comes to the children with special needs and develop plans together. I would hope the sane is true there.

My experience of the court system is they respect precedents over plaintiffs and the defendants are better established in the community so know more about the judge than the plaintiffs. There is no opt out form in the handbook (bad thing IMO) but by anecdotal accounts principals abide by parents wishes BEFORE an incident occurs or before the signing of the handbook for the ensuing year. As parents before I signed the handbook I would be sure to define in loco parentis from our POV.
Understandably, choices are not an option for elementary age children.

The law is on the school side and a principal can toss this letter in the trash can and even tell the parent so but it is not the paper I would want to see printed in the local paper after our child was paddled.

Corporal Punishment Exemption Letter

Date:

Dear ______________: (Send copies to teacher, school principal, district superintendent, and state superintendent of schools.)

Please be advised that my child __________________________, who is a student at ____________________ School, should not be subjected to corporal punishment (hitting, paddling, spanking, switching, swatting, shaking, forced exercise, etc.) under any circumstances. Our family does not believe that school children should be disciplined physically. We believe that it sends children the message that hitting people is a way to solve problems and this is simply not true. Studies show that corporal punishment poses physical and psychological risks to all children.

We know that our child will make mistakes. When that happens, we hope you will help him learn what is appropriate behavior by talking to him about what he has done wrong, and offering him some positive alternatives to his behavior. If you are having problems with our child, please contact us and we will make every effort to come to school to help you. If this is an ongoing problem we will work together to come up with a nonviolent solution. Under no circumstances should you ever hit, slap, spank, or otherwise punish my child physically.

If you have any questions regarding this matter, feel free to contact me, or my attorney _____________.

Sincerely,

Your name Address Phone number

That is an excellent letter AW. Too bad there is no way to make sure every parent in the southern US sees a copy of it. The attorney's name is a nice touch.

Dr Doctor Dominum I just re-read the aclu/HRW report and have to say think you majorly misrepresented what they had to say. Sorry to bump such a old thread but just can't let this stand with out a challenge. Honestly if I was your teacher would give you a failing a grade because this just sloppy.

Dr D wrote

"For a start - the report is extremely confused in its use of the term 'corporal punishment'. While I understand that this is a term that is subject to some disagreement as to precisely how it should be defined, very very few people who supports its use would define 'pinching', 'being dragged across the room' or 'being thrown to the floor' as being corporal punishment. Nor would most normal people."

First we agree that everybody define that term a little bit differently but to say the majority of people would disagree with the aclu human right watch report is just your opinion. This is what the UN Committee on the right of the child defined it as, "any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light". But maybe you are right so even if you are am gonna argue it this way with you. Imagine you as a young lad(or even now) being dragged by your head master across the floor. Are you telling me you would not feel like punishment to you? I am pretty sure with me it it would feel like one. I just want to quote this from the aclu/hrw report that helps prove my point.

HRW "Under human rights law, the minimum use of force for the shortest necessary period of time may be used where there is a need to protect a child or others. Yet the instances of physical force documented by the ACLU and Human Rights Watch were used to punish, not protect, the child, and go far beyond permissible levels of force."


Dr D wrote

"So - is Landon going to have melt-downs for the rest of his life whenever his routine is changed? Do we want him to? It's a horrible situation for Landon to be in, and as I said above, I don't think he should have been physically punished - but the fact is, teachers have a duty to a child with autism to try and teach them to modify the behaviours that cause them problems. This part of the report seems to me to be suggesting that a child should not be held responsible for problem behaviours that stem from a disability."

They NEVER suggested or hinted that kids should not be subject to discipline for there actions, in fact they go on and talk about alternatives for schools to use that have been proven to help all children to learn. Here is a quote for you

HRW "Though children are protected from corporal punishment in most US juvenile detention centers and mental health facilities, they are still vulnerable in US public schools. Yet there are positive, nonviolent approaches to school discipline that have been proven to lead to safe environments in which children can learn. Positive behavioral supports (PBS) teach children why what they did was wrong and give them tools to improve their behavior. School districts across the US have implemented PBS, and have seen substantial declines in disciplinary referrals and improvements in school-wide safety."

Dr D wrote

"More importantly and significantly, the definition suggested here includes many practices that are already illegal even in most, if not all, jurisdictions which allow certain forms of corporal punishment to be legal. A lot of these actions are already illegal - it's fairly pointless to suggest changing the law will suddenly make people who are already acting outside of the law suddenly start acting within it. "

Given that many schools are defending these abuses as cp or restraint I think it is a good idea to make a federal law that protects children. But my main complaint with your statement is that the HRW/ACLU report does a lot more then just suggest making news laws, it also recommends stuff like Increase funding to states and school districts to train all staff, and increase funding to protection and advocacy programs, mandate that school districts report all instances of restraint, as well as other helpful suggestions.

Dr D wrote

"Sorry, but 'some parents report' is not a valid psychological measure and shouldn't be used as evidence of anything substantial in a formal report. 'Some parents report' that their child is an absolute angel when they have ODD. 'Some parents report' that their child is not a bully, when their child routinely attacks other children for no reason. We don't use what 'some parents report' as proof of anything, if we want to produce a study that has any real evidentiary value. "

As some one who throws out a lot anecdotal evidence yourself you sure do condemn them pretty hard. When many peer reviewed studies have shown that cp increases aggression and anxiety I am guessing most of these claims are very true. Picturing myself in the same situation as these kids I would probably not want to come back to school after getting beat like all these kids in these horrible stories.

Dr D wrote


"The difference between 14% and 19% isn't large enough, especially over a single year, to say that there is a disproportionate effect. Especially seeing there's serious reasons to doubt both the figures. Secondly even if there is a disproportionate effect, that's not automatically a bad thing - when dealing with children with special needs, it would actually be troubling if we saw figures that suggested they were being treated identically to other children - because identical treatment is not enough to deal with disability."

I personally think the number are a lot lower because a lot of those kids are the ones who are opted out either by parent or the discipline plan they have set up with the school. Although the no paddle list is often ignored it does increase chances that your kid will not get hit in school. (Not in aclu report just a guess on my part.) Anyways they make these fine point that I just have to point out.

HRW "First, the data record the number of students hit each year, not the number of incidents. In other words, the data show that 41,972 individual students with disabilities were beaten in the relevant school year, but do not show on how many occasions corporal punishment occurred. Because many students likely were beaten more than once in the school yeara reasonable assumption given the evidence collected from our interviewees the overall number of beatings administered each year is undoubtedly higher.

The data also very likely undercount the number of students paddled each year because some school districts fail to report all incidents to the federal government. A parent and advocate for students with disabilities in Mississippi told us "most schools don't know they have to report paddling. One superintendent of a major Mississippi school district told us the reported numbers were low: "[W]e probably do it twice as much as reported.... [T]here is no documentation you have to send to the central office to say that you did it."92"

It also goes on to say " According to our interviewees, students with disabilities are routinely and repeatedly subjected to physical force in schools. Yet parentswho have particularly strong interests in knowing what happens to their childrenreport that they were unable to get information on the forms of punishment used against their children. If parents themselves are unable to gather information, any more general data or systematic reporting is surely lacking,"

Dr D wrote

"A toy hammer - um, what?"


HRW "a Georgia grandmother and primary caretaker of a girl with autism, learned that her five-year-old granddaughter had been hit with a toy hammer, which the teacher allegedly used to "tap [kindergarteners] on the forehead" but which did far more damage to her granddaughter: "Jessie has a tactile sensory disorder. The school was aware she had this problem ... I said to her, what feels like a tap to you feels like something entirely different to this girl."

Dr D wrote

"Pinching - definitely not."

HRW "One mother, Cynthia C., reports that her son, who has significant congenital brain abnormalities and developmental delays, came home from school with "pinch marks on him ... It kept going on, it started in kindergarten. The marks were on his arms, usually on the top by the bicep, sometimes by the wrist ... They would stay on his body, it was bruising."47 Cynthia reports that when she asked her son's teacher about these marks, the teacher "would say that he had been screaming and kicking, so he needed to be punished In a separate incident when he was six, Cynthia's son was bruised in school; her son is non­verbal and unable to tell her what happened: "I'm sure they hit him. There was a handprint, a handprint on his back during the 2006-2007 school year. On the middle of his back ... It was clearly an adult handprint, not a child's handprint."

Dr D wrote

"Dragging children across floors - closer to restraint than punishment, although hard to see it as reasonable. "

HRW "Sharon H., the mother of a girl with autism in Georgia, described her daughter's experience: "One time, she was just sitting, rocking side-by-side in the gym. That's what autistic kids do. She was five at the time. The fourth-grade teacher grabbed her and dragged her across the floor."

Also

HRW "Brian, Karen W.'s son with autism, was dragged from under his desk by an aide when he was 10 years old:

He was under the desk, crying ... He finally bolted up from under his desk and grabbed the man [the aide]'s hand. He [my son] wasn't a threat to him. But in their mind, they saw that as physical aggression toward a staff. [Another staff member] helped [the aide] drag out Brian ... he came home with bruises. Bruises to the back of his neck from being held down. This is the day when we started saying, "you've got to make accommodations, you cannot do this to him."55

This will probably be my last post on this site for a while so had to make it a bang, however will try and come around once and while to see if I have any thing worth responding too. Been fun arguing with you all

Hi mommabear 2

A very interesting reply to Dr. D.

I just want to reinforce one point - the definition of corporal punishment.You are right there. What you cannot do is define the problem away. It is a logical impossibility to say that only regulated corporal punishment ( lets for arguments sake say striking a kid three times with a paddle ) is the only 'legitimate' form of corporal punishment. Therefore all other punishment, from tweaking an ear to dragging a kid across the floor , is , per se, not corporal punishment but something else, say assault. No what you have are two examples, the paddling is 'considered' legitimate corporal punishment , the dragging across a room is not. But both are corporal punishment.

To say otherwise would be to argue , for example that if in a school which used detention , and allowed one hour after school detention to be imposed,were a two hour detention to be 'illicitly' imposed , it was not a detention at all, but something else . Maybe it is was not a legitimate detention , but it would be a detention nonetheless.

The point is this a regime that allows corporal punishment , by its nature can lead to excess. If all corporal punishment is banned, then the chances of 'going too far' are eliminated, and any crossing of the line is an offence. The line is clear and clean . Physical chastisement of a child of any sort is grounds for dismissal, and or referral to the prosecuting authorities. Wherever there is corporal punishment there is risk that unsuitable teachers will hold positions and indeed in a minority of cases seek them out. These predatory teachers are the greatest danger to kids.

Otherwise you get into he said /she said......and especially with difficult or special needs kids the situation is fraught from both sides.

The simple fact is regardless of whether corporal punishment works for some kids, wherever it is used you find abuse and its use on unsuitable or vulnerable children . That's why abolition is the logical position.Because guarantees of its 'appropriate use' are just words.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-B_D8nGs6Q

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO857j0qCQo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GJUddHbpRg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2h4yXXmlPA

You judge ..........which would you call corporal punishment ? No right answers , but you see the problem .

Hello mommabear2,

Thank you for the trouble you've taken. I've read your reply and I've read over the report again, and I think you make at least one good point - there is one section of my reply where, on rereading, I think I was a bit unfair in some of my criticisms of the report, but there are some other places where I think it may be more a matter than I did not make the points I was trying to make clearly enough, so I will address that here.

First we agree that everybody define that term a little bit differently but to say the majority of people would disagree with the aclu human right watch report is just your opinion.

Yes, of course it is, 'just my opinion'. Virtually everything I say is just my opinion - the same is true of almost everyone. But I do believe the definitions of corporal punishment I use are ones that are in quite common use, and the ones used in this report are far less common, but more significantly and importantly, I believe the definitions I use are more useful and helpful than those used in the ACLU report.

The reason I say that is simple - a fair amount of the actions described in the ACLU report are actions that most advocates of school corporal punishment would be in full agreement with those who oppose school corporal punishment are totally unreasonable and should be unlawful if they are, in fact, not unlawful already. Lumping together actions that 99% of those involved in the discussion would disagree with, with actions that a significant number of people involved in the issues might support muddies the issue. I doubt you'd find anybody on this forum who would advocate hitting a child with a hammer, for example, or slamming a child into a wall, as another example, even among the staunchest supporters of corporal punishment.

In a lot of cases, these actions are already unlawful - so they've got very little to do with lawful corporal punishment either.

By the same token, even many people opposed to corporal punishment, accept there may be a need to restrain a child in certain cases, so grouping restraint with corporal punishment, likewise muddies the issue considerably.

One of my problems with the report is that this problem - of grouping (to use the currently accepted terms in psychology) non-normative activities alongside normative corporal punishment - is a reason why many of the studies into corporal punishment of the 1960s and 1970s are now considered unreliable by many psychologists - the problems caused have been identified within that discipline for at least two decades now, and modern studies are expressly designed to avoid that problem. For the ACLU to have released a report in 2009 that makes the same mistake, in my view, borders on negligence. I'm not saying they should not have addressed these issues - but they should not have conflated them together if they intended this report to have any value. If disabled children are being unreasonably punished, that's extremely serious, but it's also serious if they are being physically abused in ways that have nothing to do with punishment. The two things should not be conflated together in a report.

You asked me a specific question, I'll get to a little later.

They NEVER suggested or hinted that kids should not be subject to discipline for there actions, in fact they go on and talk about alternatives for schools to use that have been proven to help all children to learn. Here is a quote for you

This one I will definitely grant you. I was unfair in what I said. I went too far when I said the report "suggest(s) that a child should not be held responsible for problem behaviours that stem from a disability." As you point out, they do suggest alternatives. I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that the alternatives they suggest have been proven to help all children learn, but it is unfair to say they are suggesting nothing should be done.

Given that many schools are defending these abuses as cp or restraint I think it is a good idea to make a federal law that protects children. But my main complaint with your statement is that the HRW/ACLU report does a lot more then just suggest making news laws, it also recommends stuff like Increase funding to states and school districts to train all staff, and increase funding to protection and advocacy programs, mandate that school districts report all instances of restraint, as well as other helpful suggestions.

And I'm not opposed to any of those things - but as I said, I was pointing out what I saw as problems with the report. I didn't claim it didn't have some good points as well.

As some one who throws out a lot anecdotal evidence yourself you sure do condemn them pretty hard.

I use anecdotal evidence in this forum, largely because my extensive experience here tells me that if I cite studies, they are just likely to be ignored. Time and time again, for example, I have cited the studies that guide my thinking on gender differences when it comes to corporal punishment, and I see no sign that those who disagree with me on that point, have ever bothered once to check out the studies I've cited. In a forum made up of experts, I'd use more studies - and I assume the ACLU report was meant to be directed towards experts.

When many peer reviewed studies have shown that cp increases aggression and anxiety I am guessing most of these claims are very true. Picturing myself in the same situation as these kids I would probably not want to come back to school after getting beat like all these kids in these horrible stories.

Nor would I - but I had no problem going back to school where normative corporal punishment was used, and I've had tens of thousands of students have no problem going back to school where normative corporal punishment was used. That's why I think grouping these awful situations together with situations of normative corporal punishment is misleading.

You asked me a question earlier that I've decided to answer here because it makes the point I want to make better.

magine you as a young lad(or even now) being dragged by your head master across the floor. Are you telling me you would not feel like punishment to you? I am pretty sure with me it it would feel like one.

Yes, I am telling you that it would not feel like punishment to me. It would have felt like abuse - because it would have been abuse.

I attended a number of different schools as a child - two state primary schools, followed by two independent schools. Corporal punishment was available in all four schools, although I only experienced it in one.

In two of the schools (the first and the last I attended) something like you describe here - being dragged by the Headmaster across the floor - never would have happened. In the first of those schools, as best I can remember, corporal punishment was very rare (although I was very young at the time), in the last, it was commonplace. But in both those schools, the only forms of corporal punishment endorsed were those that were considered normal practice at the time, and everything else was unacceptable. That made those environments ones in which corporal punishment was humane and reasonable in a way it was not in the middle two schools I attended, where unorthodox and unusal practices were fairly common alongside the more traditional methods. And I could tell the difference even then. It was not difficult to know what was generally considered acceptable and reasonable and what wasn't.

There is a thread somewhere around here, which has a survey people were asked to fill in describing the corporal punishment they experienced at school. I filled it in myself, as best I could recall - it doesn't have every incident I experienced, because honestly, I could not hope to remember them all (and I do think corporal punishment was used more than it needed to be when I was young, which is, again, another issue). But I included everything I could at the time remember - and what I did not include were accounts of the casual non-punitive violence I did experience at two schools, because I did not and do not consider those things to be corporal punishment, but something else entirely. To the best of what I can recall, most, if not all, of the other people who filled out that survey also didn't include incidents that were not normative corporal punishment, which suggests to me one of two conclusions (1) that they also do not consider such things to be corporal punishment, backing up the type of definitions I am talking about as commonplace or (2) that such things are extremely rare. I'm inclined to think the first definition more likely, as I'm afraid, there's plenty of schools where such things weren't rare. As I say, two of the four I attended were ones where they were common.

In your reply, I also think you may have got the impression I was somehow in denial about the idea that things like "hitting with a hammer" happened, given you have quoted the incidents in response to my expressions of incredulity. My incredulity was that there might be people out there who considered these incidents to be corporal punishment rather than abuse, not with the idea they might have happened.

I'd like to add my plea that you not disappear to that of Another Lurker. It's rare for me to find somebody on this forum who disagrees with me over the actual issue of corporal punishment (as opposed to a side issue that, while important, is, in my view, allowed to dominate and intrude into far too many discussions) and is prepared to base their arguments against me on logically thought out and argued positions, rather than resorting to personal attacks that often have no basis in reality.

The term "Corporal punishment" has always been very confusing for me. I know in many countries Corporal is a rank in military, and punishment means unessential consequence for wrong doing. I guess what I have a hard time understanding is how the term got to be used to describe disciplining children. The term CP sounds like it should describe military discipline. Know I should look up the word and will do it but just have to be honest about what it means to me.

Dr D wrote

"Thank you for the trouble you've taken. I've read your reply and I've read over the report again, and I think you make at least one good point - there is one section of my reply where, on rereading, I think I was a bit unfair in some of my criticisms of the report, but there are some other places where I think it may be more a matter than I did not make the points I was trying to make clearly enough, so I will address that here."

Any time because I love debating you. You are a smart man who really does know his stuff. I honestly enjoy debating you because you probably make me think the most out of all members I have debated on this website so far. I have to fully admit that some of points you have gave put some seeds in my head.

Dr D wrote

"I'm not sure it's reasonable to say that the alternatives they suggest have been proven to help all children learn, but it is unfair to say they are suggesting nothing should be done. "

What I mean by help all children is both special needs and none special needs kids, I know that some kids will find a way to cause trouble no matter what you do. So sorry for not being more clear.

Dr D wrote

"The reason I say that is simple - a fair amount of the actions described in the ACLU report are actions that most advocates of school corporal punishment would be in full agreement with those who oppose school corporal punishment are totally unreasonable and should be unlawful if they are, in fact, not unlawful already. Lumping together actions that 99% of those involved in the discussion would disagree with, with actions that a significant number of people involved in the issues might support muddies the issue. I doubt you'd find anybody on this forum who would advocate hitting a child with a hammer, for example, or slamming a child into a wall, as another example, even among the staunchest supporters of corporal punishment."

Before even responding to this point want to make my own critism of this ACLU/HRW report. I think they should have called it Abuse of Students with Disabilities in US Public Schools and make the point about getting rid of scp for disabled students along with regulations for restraint of al students. We 100 agree that even the most staunchest of scp supporters would disagree with most of the stories told in the Human Right Watch ACLU report. I defend them bringing those things up for because even if it does not meet the technical definition Corporal punishment these educators are using these abusive methods in a attempt to punish children.

I think on this one issue people will have to use their best judgment on because this is clearly no right answers like Prof N correctly pointed out.

Dr D wrote

"One of my problems with the report is that this problem - of grouping (to use the currently accepted terms in psychology) non-normative activities alongside normative corporal punishment - is a reason why many of the studies into corporal punishment of the 1960s and 1970s are now considered unreliable by many psychologists - the problems caused have been identified within that discipline for at least two decades now, and modern studies are expressly designed to avoid that problem. For the ACLU to have released a report in 2009 that makes the same mistake, in my view, borders on negligence. I'm not saying they should not have addressed these issues - but they should not have conflated them together if they intended this report to have any value. If disabled children are being unreasonably punished, that's extremely serious, but it's also serious if they are being physically abused in ways that have nothing to do with punishment. The two things should not be conflated together in a report."

Not sure how to respond to that negatively or positively. Wish I had any kind of response but just don't.

Dr D wrote

"And I'm not opposed to any of those things - but as I said, I was pointing out what I saw as problems with the report. I didn't claim it didn't have some good points as well."

First I think we both agree that some special education (and none) kids are gonna get abused no matter what kind of policies you put in place. The second thing we agree on getting rid of scp for special needs children is not enough on it's own to stop most abuse, the problem is with your criticism is that the other measure like increased funding for better training most likely help stop most abuse. When you know better you do better. Below is link talking about what they are recommending.

http://www.hrw.org/node/84946/section/3

Dr D wrote

"In your reply, I also think you may have got the impression I was somehow in denial about the idea that things like "hitting with a hammer" happened, given you have quoted the incidents in response to my expressions of incredulity. My incredulity was that there might be people out there who considered these incidents to be corporal punishment rather than abuse, not with the idea they might have happened."

The only thing I was trying to do was give people a better understanding about what the report said. On a personal note thanks for your kind words Doctor Dominum. It honestly make me feel good that I get a lot of. And as I have said before my response to you make think like nobody else on this site.(and many smart people on this site)

Just want to make one more point. I think the aclu/hrw report would have been better if they told you what happen to the people who did these horrible things to children. It still does not change anything even if these teachers were punished for their misdeeds because the school system still needs a lot help, but at least it would give the united states a much better picture about the problem.

published before I was done fine tuning my post. that is supposed to read "It honestly make me feel good that I get a lot of people respect on this site.

I believe that this means "punishment to the body", from the Latin "corpus", body. Rather like "manual labo(u)r" comes fom "manus", hand, nothing to do with men vs. women!