Corporal Punishment in U.S. PublicSchools: A Continuing Challenge

for School Social WorkersDavid R. Dupper and Amy E. Montgomery Dingus

Although corporal punishment has been hanned in 29 states, more than a million cases ofcorporal punishment in U.S. schools continue to be reported annually, with states locatedin the southeastern and southwestern United States accounting for the vast majority of

instances of corporal punishment. This article provides an overview of corporal punishmentin U.S. public schools and includes a discussion of the influence of cultural and religiousattitudes on the use of corporal punishment as a means of disciplining students. It offersseveral strategies designed to reduce the frequency of corporal punishment in general as

well as strategies that specifically target those communities where strongly held religious andcultural beliefs reinforce the routine use of corporal punishment, and it calls on school social

workers to advocate for effective alternatives to corporal punishment and to work to bancorporal punishment in those 21 states where it remains legal.

KEY WORDS: advocacy; corporal punishment; physical punishment;school discipline; social justice; vulnerable populations

C orporal punishment is defined as "physicalpain inflicted on the body of a childas a penalty for disapproved behavior"

(NCACPS, 2002). Corporal punishment is in-tentional and includes a variety of methods, suchas hitting, spanking, punching, shaking, paddling,shoving,and use ofvarious objects,painful bodypostures, excessive exercise drills, and electricshock (Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003).Many schools provide different "instruments"to administer corporal punishment, includingpaddles, leather straps, and switches. Injuriesfrom corporal punishment may include (butare not limited to) welts, blood blisters, severebruising, skin discolorations, hematomas, bloodclots, and broken veins (Hyman, 1995). Cur-rently, every industrialized country in the worldprohibits corporal punishment, except in theoutback regions of Australia and the UnitedStates (NCACPS, 2006b). Despite the fact thatthis practice is currently banned in 29 states (seeAppendix A for list of states and dates), morethan a million cases of corporal punishment inU.S. schools continue to be reported annually.

with researchers estimating the actual numberto be between 2 and 3 million cases (Societyfor Adolescent Medicine, 2003). Approximately15,000 students request medical treatment eachyear foOowing instances of corporal punishment(Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003). Stud-ies have indicated that corporal punishmentis meted out more frequently among boys inrural areas of the United States and amonglow-income children (Society for AdolescentMedicine, 2003) and that African Americanstudents are hit at a rate more than twice theirproportion to the population (Global Initiativeto End all Corporal Punishment, 2001).

Although corporal punishment remainslegal in 21 states, it is important to note thatit is practiced most frequently in states locatedin the southeastern and southwestern UnitedStates (Kennedy, 1995; NCACPS, 2006a).Specifically, corporal punishment is the secondmost frequent form of discipline in Oklahoma,Georgia, Mississippi, Florida, Tennessee, Texas,and New Mexico (Kennedy, 1995), and fivestates (Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama,

CCC Code: 1532.8759/08 $3.00 62008 National Association of 5odal Workers 243

andTennessee) account for almost three-quartersof all the instances of corporal punishment in theUnited States (Center for Effective Discipline,2007). Because the use of corporal punishmentin schools is antithetical to the values of the socialwork profession (Costin, 1978), there is a needto reinvigorate efforts to ban this form of schooldiscipline. Although some strategies used in thepast to ban corporal punishment may still proveuseful, there appears to be a need to reformu-late strategies for banning this school practicein those remaining 21 states, with a particularfocus on cultural and religious factors in thosesoutheastern and southwestern states where itis used most frequently.

BRIEF HISTORY OF CORPORALPUNISHMENT IN U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLSIt was in the Victorian Era that the concept ofin loco parentis was first recognized and imple-mented within the school setting and when the"historical perspective on corporal punishmentand children began" (Parker-Jenkins, 1997, p.4). Parents in the Victorian era considered in-subordination and laziness as alienating oneselffrom God, and for this reason, teachers wereconsidered to be in the ideal role for leadingchildren away from ignorance and sin (Parker-Jenkins, 1997) .The 18th century marked the firstdocumented law regarding corporal punishmentin schools (Conte, 2000). Meaning "in positionor place of parent," in loco parentis is the legaldoctrine in which teachers and other schoolofficials assume the parental rights of a minor(Worley, 2003). The principle behind in locoparentis came from the English ideal of schoolshaving educational and moral responsibility forchildren and was "imported to protect teach-ers who felt the need to administer corporalpunishment to students" (Conte, 2000, p. 2).During this time parents expected teachers andadministrators to simultaneously attend to theeducational and moral welfare of their childrenand "physical chastisement was considered an ex-cellent instrument for the correction of children"(Scott, 1938, p. 94). Corporal punishment wasviewed as a necessary form of discipline for thefollowing three reasons: (1) to produce peoplewho would conform to accepted societal norms;

(2) to "beat out the obstinacy" that was viewedas a syndrome of'original sin," and (3) to ensurethat learning occurs (Parker-Jenkins, 1997, p. 4).The administration of corporal punishment isstrongly tied to and based on a literal interpreta-tion of the Bible, specifically Proverbs 23:13-14,which states the following: "Do not withholddiscipHne from a child; if you punish him withthe rod, he will not die. Punish him with therod and save his soul from death."

EVENTS THAT LED TO THE BANNINGOF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN U.S.PUBLIC SCHOOLSThe arrival of research on child developmentand Freudian psychiatry in the 1920s and 1930s"fundamentally changed the American approachto spanking" (Evans & Fargason, 1998, p. 361).These new movements explored the effect ofspanking and other forms of corporal punish-ment on child development, and it was duringthis time that parents began to recognize theimmeasurable impact of effective parenting onchildren (Evans & Fargason, 1998). The childdevelopment literature of the 1940s challengedthe widespread public support for corporalpunishment by suggesting that "many of thebehavior problems that had warranted corporalpunishment in the past were actually part of nor-mal developmental stages" (Evans & Fargason,1998,p. 363),and the pédiatrie literature duringthe 1940s acknowledged the "risks of corporalpunishment due to ideas which emerged fromthe child developmental research" (Evans &Fargason, 1998, p. 363).

In the 1960s, literature on the "child maltreat-ment syndrome"—the general term used todescribe all forms of child abuse and neglect—played a "substantial role in increasing pédiatrieand public awareness of the fine line betweenexcessive physical discipline and child abuse"(Evans & Fargason, 1998, p. 365). Abuse wasdefined as the "non-accidental piiysical injury as aresult of caretaker acts" (National Associationof Counsel for Children, 2006, p. 1) and beganto be considered a medical diagnostic categorythat required all doctors to report any suspectedcases of abuse (Evans & Fargason, 1998). Duringthis time, the pédiatrie literature began to define

244 Children & Schools VOLUME 30, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2008

corporal punishment as a "socially abnormal"form of discipline (Evans & Fargason, 1998, p.365).The legal concept in loco parentis was also'challenged during the 1960s as court systemsbegan to consider the legal rights of students(Worley, 2003).

By 1972 only two states—Massachusettsand New Jersey—had already legally bannedcorporal punishment as a disciplinary method(Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003). In 1972the American Civil Liberties Union sponsoreda conference on corporal punishment (Societyfor Adolescent Medicine, 2003).Two years later,the American Psychological Association passeda resolution banning corporal punishment, andthe National Education Association publisheda report denouncing corporal punishment andofficially recommended that it be abolished fromschool systems (Society for Adolescent Medicine,2003). In 1975 the case oí Ingraham v. Wrightbrought the issue of corporal punishment inschools to a legal and national level for the firsttime (Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003).In this landmark case, the U.S. Supreme Courtconsidered whether students' constitutionalrights were being violated and whether the actof "paddling" violated the Eighth Amendmentright to be free from "cruel and unusual pun-ishment" and whether paddling "violated theFourteenth Amendment right to due process"(Society for Adolescent Medicine, 2003, p. 386).The Supreme Court denied both questions.

More formalized efforts to abolish thepractice of corporal punishment emerged dur-ing the 1980s. In 1984 the NASW DelegateAssembly approved a policy opposing physi-cal punishment in schools. In 1987 a formalorganization called the National Coalition toAbolish Corporal Punishment in Schools wasdeveloped (Society for Adolescent Medicine,2003, p. 385).This organization gained supportfrom a variety of other influential organiza-tions, including the National Center on ChildAbuse Prevention, the American Academy ofPediatrics, the American Medical Association,and many other groups committed to banningphysical discipline in schools (see Table 1 for acomplete listing of organizations) (Society forAdolescent Medicine, 2003).

DIRECT AND INDIRECT EFFECTS OFCORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLSETTINGSSince 1974 there has been an ongoing debatesurrounding the effectiveness of using aversivedisciplinary procedures to change human be-havior (Hyman, 1995).Although some researchfindings indicate that the use of corporal pun-ishment in schools has been associated withincreased immediate compliance (Owen,2005),there is no data demonstrating that the use ofcorporal punishment is associated with enhancedsocial skills or self-control skills over time (So-ciety for Adolescent Medicine, 2003). This isevidenced by the fact that the same students arehit over and over again (Teicher, 2005).

The use of corporal punishment in schoolshas been shown to be associated with damagingphysical and psychological outcomes that canaffect some children for the remainder oftheirlives (Hyman, 1995). For example, the excessiveuse of corporal punishment has been shown tobe associated with conduct disorder in childrenand is comorbid with PTSD (Hyman, !995).Thehumiliation that accompanies the experience ofcorporal punishment in schools may reduce achild's ability to problem solve rationally; make achild more aggressive, defiant, and oppositional;and further inhibit a child's ability to solveproblems effectively (Hyman, 1995).Studies alsoindicate that preschool and school-age childrenwho experience psychological maltreatment,such a corporal punishment, perform at lowerlevels (when compared with other children) inthree domains: ability, academic achievement,and social competence (Hyman, 1995). Thesedeficits further subject children to feehngs ofinadequacy and resentment and may eventuallylead to anger, hostility, violence, and aggressionagainst school property, peers, and authorities(Hyman & Peroné, 1998).

The use of corporal punishment in schoolshas also been found to be associated with ahost of other negative outcomes (Arcus, 2002).Specifically, higher rates of child abuse fatalitiesoccur in states that allow corporal punishmentin the schools, and students are more likely todie from school shootings in states where cor-poral punishment is used. States reporting the

DuppER AND D I N G U S / Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challengeßjr School Social Workers 245

highest rates of corporal punishment in schoolswere also the states with the highest number ofyouths awaiting capital punishment in the statejudicial system (Arcus, 2002). It has also beenreported that schools with high rates of cor-poral punishment have higher rates of studentbehavior problems (Hyman, 1995). Findingssuggest that states with high rates of corporalpunishment also tend to have higher rates ofviolence, aggression, and homicide committedby children (Hyman, 1995). Negative motiva-tional techniques, such as corporal punishment,often increase student alienation, misbehavior,and desire to seek revenge (Hyman & Peroné,1998). Substantial research also indicates that"reward, praise, and interaction with childrenthat promotes the development of a positive self-concept," are the most compelling motivatorsfor learning in school (Hyman, 1995, p. 119).Administering corporal punishment legitimizesthe practice of violence by using violent meansto solve behavior problems (Owen, 2005).

EFFECT OF CULTURAL AND RELIGIOUSATTITUDES ON CORPORAL PUNISHMENTIN SCHOOLSAs stated earlier in this article, although cor-poral punishment remains legal in 21 states,only nine states (Oklahoma, Georgia, Florida,New Mexico, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Ala-bama, andTennessee), located in the southernand southwestern United States, routinely usecorporal punishment as a means of discipliningstudents. In aU of these states, conservative poli-tics and religion are very important aspects oftheir culture.Adherence to evangelical protestantreligious beliefs has been shown to significantlypredict rates of corporal punishment in schools(Owen & Wagner, 2006). These southern andsouthwestern states practice a traditional, conser-vative. Evangelical Protestant religion, in whichliteral interpretations ofthe Bible are very com-mon, and in which the Bible is often used tosupport and even demand that parents use cor-poral punishment on their children (NCACPS,2002) .The traditions of conservatism, order, andauthority make it more likely that force wiUoften be used to ensure appropriate behaviorin children (Flynn, 1994). Studies also suggest

that there is a "positive association between theexperience of being spanked and the acceptanceof this disciplinary method" (Deater-Deckard,Pettit, Lansford, Dodge, & Bates, 2003, p. 357).This intergenerational transmission of attitudessurrounding physical discipline is an importantfactor in that most children form supportiveattitudes about the parental use of physicaldiscipline that are consistent with their ownchild-rearing experiences, and it makes it morelikely that recipients of corporal punishmentwill adopt this discipline method later in life(Deater-Deckard et al., 2003).

In essence, disciphne practices in schoolsreflect the values and beliefs of their surround-ing communities, and openly challenging thesevalues and beliefs may come at a high cost.Thishigh cost is exemplified in the following quoteby Nadine Block, executive director of theCenter for Effective Discipline (personal com-munication, November 15,2006),"Superinten-dents have told me that they would willingly getcorporal punishment banned in their districts,but because it is favored so highly in their com-munities, it may mean losing their jobs."

THE SOCIAL WORK PROFESSION ANDCORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLSThe social work profession has taken a strongstance against the use of corporal punishment inschools. Costin (1978), a renowned social workscholar and educator, was one ofthe earliest andmost outspoken critics of corporal punishment.She stated that the use of corporal punishmentin schools is "antithetical to the values of thesocial work profession [and that] school socialworkers should refuse to condone this practiceand should inform themselves and their col-leagues ofthe legal and moral rights of students"(p. 61). In 1984 NASW approved a policy thatopposed physical punishment in schools. Thispolicy states that NASW remains "[stronglyopposed to corporal punishment as a method ofdiscipline] in homes, school, and all other institu-tions, both public and private, where children arecared for and educated... [and that] the use ofphysical force against people, especially children,[is a child-rearing practice that] is antitheticalto the best values of a democratic society and

246 Children & Schools VOLUME 30, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2008

of the social work profession" (NASW, 2006,p. 292). This policy statement notes that legalsafeguards protect adults from being physicallyassaulted for violating rules; however, these legalprotections are systematically denied for chil-dren (NASW, 2006). It calls on the social workprofession, with its tradition of championinghuman rights, to join the effort to promote thenonviolent discipline and care of children inthe United States and to favor legislation to bancorporal punishment and support programs thatuse "nonviolent disciplinary techniques, suchas positive reinforcement, time-out, and verbalproblem solving" (NASW, 2006, p. 292). How-ever, the sensitivity ofthe social work professiontoward all populations, religions, ethnicities, anddiverse cultural backgrounds poses a difficultethical dilemma in relation to the use of corporalpunishment in schools. Specifically, how can so-cial workers support actions and conditions thatfacilitate the healthy development of childrenand simultaneously respect cultural, religious,and ethnic preferences regarding child-rearingpractices that run contrary to the healthy de-velopment of children and youths?

STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE USE OFCORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN SCHOOLSSeveral strategies can be generally applied to allschools and school districts that use corporalpunishment as a method of discipline. Severaladditional strategies may be useful to reduce thefrequency of this practice in those southern andsouthwestern states where corporal punishmentcontinues to be widely used and where stronglyheld religious and cultural beliefs reinforce thispractice.

These general strategies are as follows:

• Educating the general public and schoolpersonnel about the negative effects ofcorporal punishment—This strategy hashistorically resulted in greater publicconcern about this method of disciplineand has led to the banning of corporalpunishment in more than half of the states.Social workers should continue to educateschool personnel and the general publicabout the negative effects of corporal

punishment by using empirical researchfindings (such as those highlighted inthis article). A useful resource can befound at http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/argumentsAgainst.phpSocial workers becoming famüiar with andadvocating for empirically based, effectivealternatives to corporal punishment inschools—These empirically based alterna-tives to corporal punishment include socialskills training, character education pro-grams, and Positive Behavioral Interven-tions and Supports, a proactive, data-drivenset of problem-solving strategies designedto minimize or prevent problematic stu-dent behaviors (Price, 2007). Social skillstraining is "perhaps the most promisingnew treatment model" for students whoare aggressive and disruptive (LeCroy,2002, p. 411). Character education pro-grams have been shown to be effective inenhancing prosocial behaviors in schoolsettings (see http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/reports/character_education/). School-wide Positive Behavior Support (SWPBS)is a "systems approach to establishing thesocial culture and behavioral supportsneeded for all children in a school toachieve both social and academic success.SWPBS is not a packaged curriculuni butis an approach that defines core elementsthat can be achieved through a variety ofstrategies" (Sugai & Horner, 2007, p. 2).

One ofthe central challenges in reduc-ing the use of corporal punishment inthose southern and southwestern stateswhere it continues to be used with greatfrequency is how to offer effective coun-terarguments to those Evangelical Protes-tant religious beliefs that are linked to theuse of corporal punishment as a disciplin-ary strategy in schools. It has been notedthat because scientific evidence is notlikely to influence or sway the opinionsof individuals whose views about corporalpunishment are linked to their religiousbeliefs (Grasmick, Davenport, Chanilin,& Bursick, 1992), arguments against theuse of corporal punishment should be

DUPPER AND DINGUS / Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge fir School Social Workers247

theological in nature (Bartkowski, 1996).The following strategy is based on thisunique challenge:• Acknowledging the strongly held bibli-

cal basis for corporal punishment andoffering religious-based counterargu-ments and religious foundations for theeffective guidance of children withoutthe use of corporal punishment—It isimportant to be sensitive to and re-spectful of strongly held religious beliefsbecause, when this occurs, the groupsholding these beliefs are more likely tobe receptive to the social worker's sug-gestions for change (Cole, 2006). Socialworkers should build relationshipswith clergy and other religious lead-ers in their communities (Cole, 2006).Religious leaders may be able to offercompelling counterarguments to thebiblical basis for corporal punishmentand to provide religious foundationsfor the effective guidance of children,without the use of corporal punish-ment. For example, some have arguedthat "spare the rod, spoil the child" isan unwise misinterpretation and misuseof scripture and that similar methodsof interpretation could also be used tojustify slavery, suppression of women,and polygamy (NCACPS, 2002). TheUnited Methodist Church's resolutionagainst corporal punishment states thatcorporal punishment "is humiliatingand degrading to children and some-times causes physical injury...it sendsa message that hitting smaller andweaker people is acceptable.. .there areeffective alternatives to corporal pun-ishment that teach children to be selfdisciplined rather than to submit outof fear" (See http://www.stophitting.com/religion/unitedmethodist.phpto view this resolution in its entiretyand for summaries of other religiouscounterarguments.)

A long-term goal is to engage in activitiesthat ultimately result in the banning of corporal

punishment in the 21 states where it is a legalform of discipline. Over the past several decades,several grassroots and legislative strategies havebeen used by child advocates and advocacy or-ganizations to ban corporal punishment at thestate level. These strategies have ranged fromeducating the public, to supporting nonviolentforms of discipline, to advocating for children'srights, to motivating others with similar goalsto join the national effort to ban corporal pun-ishment within U.S. public schools. In additionto the Center for Effective Discipline (www.stophitting.com), the NCACPS Web site con-tains numerous links, including those to currentStatistical data on corporal punishment by stateand race, corporal punishment policies in thelargest 100 U.S. school districts, legislative andgrassroots strategies to ban corporal punishmentin schools, and pointers on forming coalitionsto abolish corporal punishment in a school orstate.

CONCLUSIONSocial workers are called on to protect vulner-able populations, including children.The socialwork profession, along with 46 other organiza-tions (see Appendix B for complete list of theseorganizations),has developed a policy statementthat opposes the use of corporal punishment.Although adults are legally protected from be-ing physically harmed for violating rules, theselegal protections do not currently extend tochildren in school settings in 21 states. Banningcorporal punishment is a particular challenge inthose southern and southwestern states where itcontinues to be used with great frequency. It istime for social workers to renew their efforts inadvocating for effective alternatives to corporalpunishment and to work to ban this dehuman-izing school discipline practice in those 21 stateswhere it remains legal.We hope that this articleprovides some useful knowledge and tools forundertaking this important challenge. S

REFERENCESArcus, D. (2002). School shooting fatalities and school

corporal punishment: A look at the states. AigrcssivcBehavior, 28, 173-183.

Bartkowski,J. (1996). Beyond biblical literalism and iner-rancy: Conservative Protestants and the hermeneu-

248 Children & Schools VOLUME 30, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2008

tic interpretation of scripture. Sociology of Religion,57, 259-272.

Center for Effective Discipline. (2007). US. corporalpunishment and paddling statistics by state and race.Retrieved on December 15, 2007, from http://stophitting.coni/disatschool/statesBanning.php

Cole,A. H.,Jr. (2006).Working with families from reli-gious fundamentalist backgrounds. In C. Franklin,M. B. Harris, & P. Allen-Meares (Eds.), Vie schoolservices sourcehook: A guide for school-based professionals(pp. 717-728). NewVork: Oxford University Press.

Conte, A. E. (2000). In loco parentis: Alive and well.Education, Í2Í(1), 1-5.

Costin, L. B. (1978).The dark side of child rights:Corporal punishment in the school. Social Work inEducation, i(l), 53-63.

Deater-Deckard, K., Pettit, C , Lansford,J., Dodge, K., &Bates, J. (2003). The development of attitudes aboutphysical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal study.Jonrnal of Family Psychology, Î7, 351—360.

Evans, H. H., & Fargason, C.Â. (1998). Pédiatrie dis-course on corporal punishment: A historical review.Aggression and Violent Behapior, 3, 357—368.

Flynn, C. (1994). Regional differences in attitudes towardcorporal punishment.Joiirart/ of Marriage and FamilyVwrapy, 56, 314-324.

Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment.(2001). Global progress. Retrieved July 19,2006,from http://www.endcorporalpunishment.org/pages/progress/reports/usa.html

Grasmick, H. G., Davenport, E., Chamlin, M. B., &Bursick, R.J.,Jr. (1992). Protestant fundamental-ism and the retributive doctrine of punishment.Criminology, 30, 21—45.

Hyman, I.A. (1995). Corporal punishment, psychologi-cal maltreatment, violence, and punitiveness inAmerica: Research, advocacy, and public policy.Applied and Preventive Psychology, 4, ! 13-130.

Hyman, I.A., & Peroné, D. C. (1998).The other side ofschool violence: Educator policies and practicesthat may contribute to student misbehavior. JoiirHa/of School Psychology, 36, 7-27.

Kennedy, J. H. (1995).Teachers, student teachers, para-professionals, and young adults'judgments aboutthe acceptable use of corporal punishment in therural south. Education and Treatment of Children, 18,53-62.

LeCroy, C.W. (2002). Child therapy and social skills. InA. R. Roberts & G. J. Greene (Eds.), Sociai workers'desk reference (pp. 406-412). New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

National Association of Counsel for Children. (2006).Children and the law: Child maltreatment. RetrievedAugust 1,2006, from http://\vww.naccchildlaw.org/?page=ChildMal treatment

National Association of Social Workers. (2006). Physicalpunishment of children. In Social work speaks:National Association of Sociai Workers policy statements,2006-2009 (7th ed., pp. 290-295). Washington, DC:NASW Press.

National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishmentin Schools. (2002). Discipline at home (NCACPS).Retrieved November 13,2002, from http://www.stophitting.com/disathome/factsAndFiction.php

National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment inSchools. (2006a). Discipline at sclwol (NCACPS).Retrieved February 21,2006. from http://www.stophitting.org/disatschool/

National Coalition to Abolish Corporal Punishment inSchools. (2006b). Discipline at school (NCACPS):Facts about corporal punishment worldwide. Retrieved

July 19, 2006, from http://www.stophitting.com/disatschool/worldwide.php

Owen, S. S. (2005).The relationship between social capi-tal and corporal punishment in schools: A theoreti-cal inquiry Youth & Society, 37, 85-112.

Owen, S. S., & Wagner, K. (2006). Explaining schoolcorporal punishment: Evangelical Protestantism andsocial capital in a path model. Social Justice Research,Î9, 471-499.

Parker-Jenkins, M. (1997). Sparing the rod: Schools,discipline, and children's rights in multiculturalBritain. School of Education and Social Science, I,3-22.

Price,T. (2007). A step forward: Positive behavior sup-port and school social work practice. Sclwol SocialWork Section Connection (issue Two). (Available fromNASW, 750 First Street, NE, Suite 700, Washington,DC 20002-4241)

Scott, G. A. (1938). Tlie history of corporal punishment: Asurvey of flagellation in its historical, anthropological, andsociological aspects. London:T. Werner L.nurie.

Society for Adolescent Medicine. (2003). Corpoml pun-ishment in schools: Position paper of the Societyfor Adolescent Medicine._/i'"r(iii/ of Adolescent Health,32, 385-393.

Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (2007, September). Is sdtool-wide Positive Behavior Support an evidence-based prac-tice? Retrieved November 15,2006, from http://www.pbis.org/main.htm

Teicher, S.A. (2005, March 17). Fighting over corporalpunishment. Christian Science Monitor. RetrievedDecember 6, 2007, from http://www.cbsnews.com

Worley,V. (2003).The teacher's place in the moralequation: In loco parentis. Philosophy of EducationYearbook. Available from http://www.ed.uiuc.edu/EPS/PES-Yearbook/2003/worleypdf

David R. Dupper, PhD, is associate professor. College ofSocial Work, University ofTcnnessee, 208 Henson Hall, Kitcw-ville, TN; e-mail: dduppcr(^titk.edu. Amy E. MontgomeryDingus, CMSM^is a criminal jiistice-mailal health liaison.Mental Health Cooperative, Nasttvilte,TN. Please address allcorrespondence regarding this article to Dr. Dupper.

Original manuscript received May 16, 2007Final revision received January 4, 2008Accepted February 27, 2008

DUPPER AND DINGUS / Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: A Continuing Challenge for School Social Workers249

APPENDIX A: STATES THAT HAVE BANNED CORPORAL PUNISHMENTState Year Banned State Year BannedNew JerseyMassachusettsHawaiiMaineRhode IslandNew HampshireNew YorkVermontCaliforniaNebraskaWisconsinAlaskaConnecticutIowaMichigan

196719711973197519771983198519851986198819881989198919891989

MinnesotaNorth DakotaOregonVirginiaSouth DakotaMontanaIllinoisMarylandNevadaWashingtonWest VirginiaDelawarePennsylvaniaUtah

19891989198919891990199119931993199319931994200320052006

APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATIONS THAT HELPED TO DEVELOP A POLICY STATEMENTOPPOSING THE USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENTAmerican Academy of Child and Adolescent PsychiatryAmerican Academy of PediatricsAmerican Association of Counseling and DevelopmentAmerican Association for Protecting ChildrenAmerican of School AdministratorsAmerican Bar AssociationAmerican Civil Liberties UnionAmerican Humane AssociationAmerican Medical AssociationAmerican Orthopsychiatric AssociationAmerican Personnel and Guidance AssociationAmerican Public Health AssociationAmerican Psychological AssociationAmerican Psychiatric AssociationAmericans for Democratic ActionAmerican School Counselor AssociationAmerican School Counselor Association

Association for Childhood Education InternationalAssociation for Humanistic EducationAssociation of Junior LeaguesAssociation for State Departments of EducationChild Welfare League of AmericaCouncil for Exceptional ChildrenDefense for Children International-USAFriends Committee on Legislation

National Association of Elementary School PrincipalsNational Association of School PsychologistsNational Association of Social WorkersNational Committee for Citizens in EducationNational Committee to Prevent Child AbuseNational Council of Teachers of EnglishNational Education AssociationNational Foster Parents AssociationNational Indian Education AssociationNational Mental Health AssociationUnited Methodist Church Ceneral AssemblyNational Parent Teachers AssociationNational Women's Political CaucusSociety for Adolescent MedicineUnitarian Universalist Ceneral AssemblyNational Organization for Women

U.S. Department of Defense: Office of Dependents SchoolsOverseas

National Association of State Boards of EducationNational Association of Pédiatrie Nurse PractitionersNational Association of School NursesNational Association for the Education of Young ChildrenNational Association for the Advancement of Colored PeopleInternational Society for the Study of Dissociation

250 Children & Schools VOLUME 30, NUMBER 4 OCTOBER 2008