Part II: Schools in Context

The Elitist and the Popular Ideal: Prefects and Monitors in English and American Secondary Schools
Ultimate Deterrents: Punishment and Control in English and American Schools
The Academic Preparation of Teachers
Metropolitanism and Education
Teachers and School Success in Amsterdam, London, Paris, and New York
Toward a Strategy of Urban-Educational Study
International Study of Business/ Industry Involvement with Education

Source:  M. A. Eckstein, "Ultimate Deterrents:
Punishment and Control in English and American
Schools," Comparative Education Review
10.3 (October, 1966), pp. 433-439. Reprinted by
permission of the University of Chicago Press.

ULTIMATE DETERRENTS: PUNISHMENT AND CONTROL IN ENGLISH AND AMERICAN SCHOOLS

There may still be those who think of the English secondary school as described in Tom Brown's Schooldays, where punishment was summarily dispensed in violent ways. The cane-wielding Ichabod Crane of the Legend of Sleepy Hollow tends to be regarded, however, as an eccentric remnant of former days, no longer characteristic of American schooling. Yet in both countries, corporal punishment remains one of the penalties of various seriousness visited upon pupils who break school rules.

An examination of disciplinary policy in English and American schools provides indices of general thinking on educational matters in these two countries, bound by common antecedents and close contemporary ties, yet differing in basic elements of their social assumptions and practices. The ingenuity of teachers on both sides of the Atlantic in devising punishments for their more recalcitrant pupils is by no means limited to beating them or excluding them from school. However, these are two common results of grave infractions. As serious deterrents, they are more likely to be given careful attention in law or local school regulations, and less likely to be used capriciously. When examined in context as part of a disciplinary policy and as measures to implement a particular regime in school, they suggest definitions of authority and responsibility, of tradition and change, indicative of the respective national patterns of schooling of which they are part.

Administrative and Legal Sanctions for School Punishments in the United Kingdom and the United States

The decentralized nature of both English and American school systems creates obstacles to defining national policy in any educational matter. The necessary information must be sought in local or regional regulations, in the statements of representative individuals or groups and in the actual conventional practices within the schools. However, both countries define and distribute authority and responsibility in ways revealed through their respective administrative patterns as well as pronouncements.

In England, the forms of punishment to be used in schools, or for that matter in the home, are not laid down by Parliament or the Ministry of Education. However, teachers in England are considered in loco parentis. They thus assume some of the rights and duties of parents and are obliged to take reasonable steps to carry out their professional duties. The principle has been laid down in legal precedent and also endorsed by Parliament. ¹ Considerable discretion is thus left to teachers, whose practices are determined by convention and general usage rather than by formal policy statements of any kind. On the other hand, most local education authorities do have some regulations dealing with corporal punishment, ² and the Ministry of Education has one requirement, namely, that all cases of corporal punishment be recorded in a special book. ³ Local regulations vary, being broadly concerned with preventing abuses. and regulating the use of this disciplinary device. However, the teacher, in general, operates within a large, permissive framework with rather few limitations set by the various levels of the administrative hierarchy.

In the United States, as in England, the teacher is empowered to punish pupils if necessary and appropriate in the circumstances as a normal part of his responsibilities, and is also considered as being in loco parentis in this matter. The courts have frequently upheld the right to administer corporal punishment, to suspend or expel pupils, or to give other kinds of punishments, after carefully examining both the letter and the spirit of the specific act. However, even parental powers are not unlimited in this matter, and it has been suggested that in actual fact, "school personnel cannot go so far under the law as can parents." ⁴

As to the regulations provided by various levels of the administrative hierarchy, the Federal Government has no direct control or authority in education, so that the responsibility for setting educational policy and ensuring development towards it devolves upon State Boards of Education. In most cases much of this responsibility is in turn delegated to local Boards of Education. It is generally at the local level that rules of student behavior and the consequences of infractions are defined, and the regulations which govern teachers' practices in punishment are made. The only limitation upon local practices is that they be consistent with State policy and the broader provisions of the Constitution. ⁵

The school and the teacher in the United States therefore operate within a setting in which the immediate community is likely to provide a more or less detailed policy on punishments within the general framework of State and common law on the subject. In England, on the other hand, fewer detailed specifications appear to exist, the immediate community is little involved, and the precedents are provided by common law, common expectations and traditional usage.

English School Policy

The idea of corporal punishment, or of using "the cane," is a familiar one to the English. Teachers, pupils and parents alike generally associate the cane with the headmaster's study or the schoolroom as a natural consequence of certain infractions of rules. However, there has been increasing debate and controversy on its efficacy or desirability in recent decades, even at the national, Parliamentary level. For the first time, information has been systematically gathered on school punishments on a national basis. ⁶

Teachers and principals in England may normally administer corporal punishment if they see fit, subject to local regulations and the sole Ministerial requirement mentioned above. The rules laid down by local authorities mostly cover the powers of head teachers and their assistants, types of instruments of correction, conditions under which these may be used, and safeguards such as penalties for disregard of the regulations. ⁷

A significant feature which emerges from the consideration of the English regulations is a concern for "authorization," i.e., professional competence of the teacher. His qualifications and his professional role provide sanction enough for him to use corporal punishment (or other punishments if necessary). The comment of the moderately conservative London Times Educational Supplement sums up a fairly typical attitude. In discussion of a proposed children's charter at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, a motion by the Soviet delegate which would have denied the teacher the right to spank was defeated. The paper's comment was as follows:

The teacher has rights, too, and these must include the right to spank. He (or she) may never elect to avail himself of it. But it is a right he should have. Possessing the right, let him grapple in solitude on a wet Sunday with the rights and wrongs of corporal punishment. The decision should be left in his hands. ⁸

While no local education committee completely prohibits the use of the cane, partial prohibitions do exist in most areas. The predominant concerns are to avoid cruelty and excess, to ban male teachers from punishing girls in coeducational schools and to forbid unauthorized teachers from inflicting corporal punishment. However, though the majority of such committees seem to be satisfied with existing regulations, ⁹ it depends on individual head teachers and staff whether caning is used at all, and if so, how much.

Gradual, voluntary abandonment of use of the cane appears to be the major tendency in recent years. ¹⁰ Local education authorities have made efforts to steer schools away from corporal punishment by reports of successful changes in policy and suggestions about more desirable regimes. ¹¹ However, there is resistance to any diminution of the school's punitive powers and in some quarters a call for even greater firmness may be heard. ¹²

In the matter of expulsion or suspension, English policy is again defined, for the most part, by local authority and the school itself. it is the legal responsibility of Local Educational Authorities to provide an education suitable to their age, ability and aptitude for all children of school age. Suspension from school is "normally within the jurisdiction of the head and is usually the limit of his power, but there are some schools where the head is authorized to expel." ¹³ In the case of expulsion, procedures laid down by the school and local authorities include the right of appeal to the Minister of Education. ¹⁴

An exchange of letters in the Times Educational Supplement raises certain major issues involved. ¹⁵ A fourteen-year old girl was expelled from a grammar school for "uncooperative and troublesome behaviour." The action was defended on various grounds, including the interests of other pupils and the school at large. It was argued that expulsion is a last resort used only with the agreement of the school staff in view of the likely effect upon the whole school community. The action was, however, criticized since it raised the difficulty for the child of obtaining entrance to another grammar school. The head teacher concerned had suggested that the pupil attend the local secondary modern school, but this would in all likelihood rule out the possibility of the pupil taking the General Certificate of Education and preparing for University entrance. Editorial discussion of the case emphasized the "necessity of retaining the power to expel, in extreme circumstances, for the sake of preserving a school environment which good parents desire for their children and should receive from the national system." ¹⁶ However, expulsion implies a rough hierarchy of schools in a universal, compulsory educational system. It may be regarded in effect as a form of demotion within the system. The editor therefore suggested, in the interest of fairness, that non-grammar schools also be included within the hierarchical system, and that, for example, an educational authority with several secondary schools in its area could assign one as a final resting place until fifteen years of age for the pupil who was "unamenable to the discipline of the others."

Discussion of this case illustrates the paradox inevitably involved when the principle of universal attendance is accepted, while the final deterrent of expulsion is retained. In England, the tripartite organization of secondary education permits this measure to be used as a device for demotion from the grammar school, the more selective and higher status secondary institution. However, the anomaly persists in other types of schools.

In summary, it is generally accepted in England that the schools may have to punish pupils on occasions, that local regulations and common law are enough to prevent abuse but that schools and teachers are generally the proper authorities to decide upon rules and the consequences of infraction. Decisions about usage and about change in practice are to be left in the hands of head teachers and staff though change in disciplinary policy may be of considerable public interest and concern. Nevertheless, there is considerable resistance to encroachments upon the teacher's powers and right to self-determination. The general English approach is that if change is to come, it should not be through the diminution of either the school's authority or the professional autonomy of teachers. ¹⁷

American School Policy

Corporal punishment does not appear at first glance to be an important or common part of American school discipline. As one English observer writes of schools in the Middle West:

Formal classroom discipline, in the traditional sense, is not a common feature in the contemporary American school scene, and punishment, other than bad marks or expressed disapprobation, is almost unknown. ¹⁸

As a measure of the disuse of physical punishment in some communities, a problem was raised in Stamford, Connecticut, in 1959 when the Board of Education decided to endorse corporal punishment in extreme cases. No one appeared to know what instruments of correction should be used or where to obtain them. ¹⁹

Teachers in the United States are normally permitted to chastise pupils physically if circumstances warrant and if the intention and the act are neither malicious nor unreasonable. ²⁰ However, the variety of State pronouncements on corporal punishments gives some indication of the regulations to which teachers are subject. These range from a complete ban in one case (New Jersey) to specific authorization for teachers to use reasonable force (in five States). However, most States do not explicitly refer to the teacher's statutory authority. ²¹

Local regulations are no less varied than those of the States, but are rather more specific and detailed in defining policy, the reasons for it, and approved practices and procedures. Of eleven major cities, five expressly forbid corporal punishment in their public schools. ²² In the six major cities which do sanction it, regulations demonstrate great concern for the mental is well as the physical health of pupils. Tney not only emphasize the legal and moral rights of schools to punish according to specific procedures, but also include safeguards of various kinds against the abuse of such rights. ²³

While most principals in the United States have the right to administer corporal punishment, only 45.5 per cent of classroom teachers have such power. ²⁴ As in England, however, urban educational authorities circumscribe and regulate the schools in this matter more than do rural areas. ²⁵

Though it is apparent that the policy on corporal punishment varies considerably in the United States, it is also evident that there are changes in opinion and pressures towards changes of current policy. In New York, for example, where discretion as to the use of corporal punishment is left to local boards of education, a bill which would have prevented local authorities from outlawing physical punishment was passed by the State Legislature in three successive years, only to be vetoed each time by the Govenor. ²⁶ The Superintendent of Schools in Washington, D. C., where corporal punishment was banned, recently called for the restoration of such powers to the schools. ²⁷ General concern over discipline problems in the schools has in recent years resulted in much support for the idea of a generally "tougher" regime in the schools ²⁸ and the call for restitution of the power to use corporal punishment where it has been banned. Characteristically, the pressure emanates from a variety of sources, both professional and lay, and is exerted in the press and in state and local governmental bodies.

In the case of suspension or expulsion, policy is similarly defined for the most part at the local school board level. While state statutes often set forth conditions for expulsion, in most cases pupils may be expelled by official action of the local school board. ²⁹ Since expulsion immediately raises questions as to the pupil's statutory right to attend school it must be ensured not only that the decision to expel is not made maliciously, but that it is the only remaining measure which can be taken to ensure the general well-being of the school. In disputed cases, therefore, the courts, if appealed to, will weigh the respective rights and powers of the school system and of the parent and pupil, assuming the pupil's obligation to submit to the reasonable rules and actions of the school system. ³⁰

The courts have often been required to rule on a school board's powers to expel pupils. They have in the past upheld expulsion of pupils who refused to salute the flag or to submit a certificate of vaccination. They have generally supported bans on membership in secret societies and antifraternity rules of various kinds. ³¹

Local policy on suspension from high school is frequently specified in detail to pupils. General offenses, such as disorderliness and insubordination, as well as specific anti-social or criminal acts (stealing or carrying dangerous weapons, narcotics or alcohol) may be listed in handbooks distributed to students. ³² Improper dress is a common cause for suspension from school. ³³

In rare instances, expulsion may be invoked as a punishment for poor school work, as distinct from other forms of misconduct. The adoption of such a policy by a school board in California was considered unique by one professional journal. ³⁴ Expulsion, in California and elsewhere in the United States, is more commonly associated with disobedience, defiance, habitual profanity, immorality or any other moral or physical habits or disabilities as might be inimical to the welfare of other pupils.

In summary, American school policy on discipline varies widely and is subject to change. The serious measures which have been studied here are used as last resorts, generally for serious misbehavior rather than for school work. Such criteria as moderation, reasonableness and positive intent are invoked in cases of disputed acts of punishment, but local regulations, state and common law are the sources of authority to punish. Specific regulations, generally greater in number and detail in urban than in rural areas, both sanction and delimit the powers of schools and teachers.

Just as the authority to control pupils is located in the pattern of local regulations and conventions, so too do changes in policy take place in local and regional school governments, depending upon public discussion and resolution of the issues. It may well be that in the absence of commonly accepted sanctions and policies on a broad national basis, the tendency is encouraged to define the details of a discipline policy with increasing specificity lest any person question a particular act. ³⁵ The actual powers of teachers and school in any particular location depend upon the interplay between a variety of forces in the community, in which teachers are included but not necessarily prominent. ³⁶

Comparative Discussion and Conclusions

Though school discipline may have changed since Tom Brown's Schooldays and The Legend of Sleepy Hollow, sanctions for the use of quite severe punishments, such as physical chastisement and expulsion, are strong in both England and the United States today. However, this review of regulations, laws, conventions and opinions suggests important and even basic differences between the two countries.

In England, sanctions for punishment are provided by the professional status of teachers, the traditional independence of the school as an institution, and their authority in decisions about the proper ways of educating the young. In the control and punishment of pupils, English schools and their staff are a stern and independent force.

The contrast with the United States is quite evident. American teachers and schools do have the right and the responsibility to set standards of behavior, to define and inflict punishments where appropriate. However, this authority is not located primarily in the independent and stern institution of the school. It is rather dispersed among the political and other lay authorities of the immediate and surrounding communities. The teacher's status is subject, not superior or independent, not "professional" in the English manner. Punishment must be not only justified but also defended. Comparatively speaking, great attention is given in the United States to defining a particular policy and to setting up specific limitations and safeguards to disarm the public. This effort serves to circumscribe the school's freedom of action.

The underlying assumption in England is that the institution has the right and the responsibility to maintain a disciplinary regime, that professional competence is generally a reliable enough guard against abuses, and that changes come best from within the institution. The American assumption, however, is that the public through its formal and informal agencies of government must act as a perpetual watchdog over its institutions, inspecting and initiating changes wherever necessary. The result is that, whereas in England traditional sanctions support an authoritarian disciplinary regime in schools, relatively independent of other powers, in the United States the various forces encourage the school to be an institution with limited authority, ever-reminded of its dependence and responsibility to serve the community around it, and rather hesitant to insist upon the use of overt punitive measures to maintain a specific type of disciplinary regime.

A number of variables account for specific differences in policy and practice within each country as well as between them. The example of corporal punishment shows that in both countries there is a difference between rural and urban areas, punitive power being more circumscribed in the towns. In both countries too, there are variations from a more to a less punitive approach, though in the United States these are at the discretion of local school government, while in England they are at the discretion of individual schools. Furthermore, the range of statutory provisions is generally greater in the United States.

Finally in both countries there are conflicting pressures for change and for maintaining or reasserting the status quo. Here again, however, the direction of major forces, the sources from which they emanate and the ways in which they operate differ between England and the United States. In the United States, the currently dominant call is for more and stricter discipline. It is heard in many public circles, in the press, in government, and also in the school hierarchy. In England, however, whereas a similar range of differing voices may be heard, the direction of change is predominantly towards lessening the degree of punitiveness, the autonomy and authoritarianism of the schools. In addition, the channels through which pressures for change are exerted are professional and internal (the "suggestions" of the Ministry, the influence of local authorities, professional training), though public debate and influence are important forces. ³⁷

The use of expulsion as a disciplinary device in both countries is recognized as an admission of failure to cope with the malefactor and reflects a concern for the general good of the school community. Since this measure contradicts the principle of universal education, the concern for the constitutional rights of the individual must be weighed against the problems raised by his presence in school. However, the situation in England is a special one in that expulsion from a (selective) grammar school does not necessitate exclusion from public education, but rather demotion within the secondary education system. The disciplinary device in such a situation has overtones for the academic standing of students and is a potentially powerful instrument in this area. The same feature is not generally apparent in American schools, where policy on punishment is limited to conduct generally and where the comprehensive high school is the usual form of secondary education. ³⁸

In reviewing the current situation in both countries together, there appear to be several significant aspects involved. Where a trend towards urbanization is occurring, the concomitant educational developments, such as growth in the size of schools and of the educational enterprise, bureaucratization and specialization, lead to a greater specification and codification of disciplinary policy. Rules are considered and recorded, and cases of infraction are noted. In a sense, then, disciplinary procedures become more circumscribed and somewhat more inflexible. Secondly, and apparently at the same time, the growth of knowledge, research and "enlightenment," encourages efforts to install a less overtly punitive approach by the school, and a diminution of the independent authority of teachers. Finally, the need to cope with a wider range of pupil ability, interest and aspiration as a result of encouraging longer school attendance, leads to growing concern not only by teachers but also by the public, about youthful indiscipline as a social phenomenon and a social threat, with consequences such as demands for greater strictness as well as greater flexibility. Thus the changing environmental circumstances and the educational adaptations to them produce a variety of conflicting pressures to change the school's ideas and practices in discipline. These pressures are characteristic of the prevailing scene in England and the United States. ³⁹

Study of these aspects of disciplinary policy in schools of England and the United States demonstrates differences between many of their respective educational and social assumptions. The role and responsibilities of schools differ between the two countries; so too, do the relationships of teachers and schools to other forces around them, administrative and social. Specific disciplinary purposes and practices differ from one country to the other. Whereas in the United States, local rules and regulations add to the evidences of a characteristic and ebullient pluralism, the case of England reveals a greater uniformity and a more affirmative and independent posture on the part of those entrusted with the task of educating the young.

It may be tempting to conclude that the major lesson to be drawn from this comparative essay has to do mainly with the differences in practice, approach and style between the two countries studied. The fact remains, however, that within each country there are wide variations and contradictory tendencies, that these overlap between the two countries, and that any emphasis upon differences must be severely qualified. The contemporary trends and debates demonstrate responsiveness to changing ideas and conditions in both instances, thus underlining comnonalities as well as differences. Certainly, the responses and adaptations to changing circumstances take place in a specific cultural context and are greatly determined by it. Yet, in the long run, it may be the similarities of contemporary conditions and concepts which will prevail over the respective precedents, patterns and outlooks of such closely related countries as England and the United States. ⁴⁰

---

NOTES

1. G. Barrell, Teachers and the Law (London: Methuen, 1958), p. 155 et seq.; Childrens and Young Persons Act, 1933, S.1 (7). [BACK]

2. National Foundation for Education Research in England and Wales, A Survey of Rewards and Punishments in Schools (London: Newnes Educational Publishing Co., 1952), Chapter 4. [BACK]

3. Ministry of Education, Administrative Memorandum No. 301, Oct. 11, 1948. The status and responsibilities of the national authority in education have increased rapidly in the last twenty-five years. However, it does not provide, maintain or control schools directly, nor does it employ teachers. The Ministry does not specify curricula, methods of teaching or specific policy on educational matters. It is responsible, however, for developing a national policy which it pursues by inspecting and assessing schools, setting minimum standards, providing a clearing house of information and expert advice not through directives but by means of suggestions, e.g., Primary Education: Suggestions for the Consideration of Teachers and Others Concerned with the Work of Primary Schools (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1959). [BACK]

4. E.Edmund Reutter, Jr., Schools and the Law (New York: Oceana Publications, 1960), p. 67. [BACK]

5. Two important trends are evident in the U.S. with reference to responsibility and power at different administrative levels: a. the growth of the Federal Government's involvement in education; b. the consolidation of school districts. This suggests a general unifying and uniforming trend with an accompanying decrease in the degrees of independence and variety at the local level. See, Hollis P. Allen, The Federal Government and Education (New York: McGraw Hill, 1950); Dawson Hales, Federal Control of Public Education: A Critical Appraisal (New York: Bureau of Publications, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1954), Chapter IV. [BACK]

6. Discussion in the House of Commons led to a national research project on the general subject of punishments and rewards in schools and the particular matter of corporal punishment. See Hansard, Extracts from the Official Report of the Proceedings of the House of Commons, 24 April, 1947. [BACK]

7. Ninety-nine of the 136 local education authorities canvassed in the study which resulted from Parliamentary discussion were found to have such regulations. National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, op. cit., pp. 72-3. [BACK]

8. Times Educational Supplement, April 17, 1959, p. 637. [BACK]

9. National Foundation for Educational Research in England and Wales, op. cit., pp. 69-70. [BACK]

10. Ibid., Chapter V. [BACK]

11. London County Council, Punishment in the Schools (London, 1952); Education Department, West Riding County Council, Behaviour and Delinquency in Secondary Schools (Wakefield, Yorks., 1961). [BACK]

12. See, for example, the motion demanding restoration to teachers of "unfettered disciplinary control" at the annual Conservative Party Conference, 1961; also, Times Educational Supplement, Oct. 3, 1958, p. 1454, and Oct. 13, 1961, p. 478. [BACK]

13. G. R. Barrell, op. cit., p. 103. [BACK]

14. "It is incidental to the authority of a headmaster to expel from the school over which he presides any scholar or student whose conduct is such that he could not any longer be permitted to remain without damage to the school. This is, however, not to be exercised arbitrarily. It may be questioned and, although no doubt a large discretion must be allowed, it must not be exercised wantonly or capriciously." Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in Fitzgerald v. Northcote (1865), 4F and F656. Quoted by Barrell, op. cit., p. 164. [BACK]

15. Times Educational Supplement, Aug. 3, 1962, p. 140; Aug. 10, 1962, p. 161. [BACK]

16. Times Educational Supplement, Aug. 17, 1962, p. 179. [BACK]

17. This is consistent with the traditional English approach towards educational change where legislation has generally been permissive rather than mandatory and where the growth of central authority has been balanced by attempts to retain self-determination at the local level. [BACK]

18. John N. Wales, Schools of Democracy (East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University Press, 1962), p. 20. Corporal punishment. he found, was not a common practice in Michigan schools. though it is found occasionally, particularly in private or parochial schools. [BACK]

19. Times Educational Supplement, December 11, 1959, p. 723. [BACK]

20. Laws on cruelty to children and legal sanctions for moderate, reasonable punishment by parents or teachers are the usual legal yardsticks for such acts. N.E.A. Research Division, "The Legal Status of the Public School Pupil," Research Bulletin 26 (Washington, D. C.: The Association), February 1948. [BACK]

21. Three States do refer explicitly to the teacher's powers in loco parentis. In most cases, however, the decision on policy and on how far it should be defined in regulations devolves upon local boards of education. N.E.A. Research Division, Research Memo 1959-11 (Washington, D. C.: The Association, 1959). [BACK]

22. Washington, D. C., Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New York. See, Rules for the Public Schools of the District of Columbia, July, 1953, p. 35; Rules-Board of Education of the City of Chicago, May 9, 1956, Sec. 6-22; Rules of the Board of School Commissioners, Baltimore, Md., Sept. 22, 1955, Article V, Section 6b. New York City couples the ban with an embargo on "punishment of any kind tending to cause excessive fear or physical or mental distress." New York, N. Y., By-Laws of the Board of Education, April, 1958, Section 90:15, p. 77. Philadelphia recognizes that while State Law may permit corporal punishment, local policy forbids it since it "tends to vitiate the fine human relationship between teacher and class" and "it involves unjustifiable risks on the part of the teacher." Board of Education, Philadelphia, Pa., Administrative Bulletin No. 22, December 1957, p. 52. [BACK]

23. In several cities, for example, corporal punishment may specifically only be used as the last resort; in others, parents must be informed before such action, or there must be witnesses, or a written report. Some rules specify the instrument of correction, or the target. See, for example: Administrators' Handbook, Dade County, Fla., July 1, 1957, pp. 3202-05; Rules and Regulations, Board of Education, Minneapolis, Minn., 1953, p. 29; Regulations of the Department of Instruction, St. Louis Public Schools, 1951, p. 76; Rules and Regulations, Board of Education, Houston, Texas, Section 4a: 15. [BACK]

24. Teachers' power to administer corporal punishment: Principals 74.3%; elementary school teachers 44.7%; junior high school teachers 30.3%; senior high school teachers 22.1%. National Education Association, Research Bulletin 34.2, April 1956, pp. 63, 87. [BACK]

25. Teachers permitted: Urban 31.6%, Rural 66.1%; Principals permitted: Urban 68.5%, Rural 83.0%. National Education Association, ibid., pp. 63-4. [BACK]

26. The so-called Corso Bill was supported by a number of teachers' groups such as the New York High School Teachers' Association and the Bronx Teachers' Association. and opposed by New York administrators and other teachers' groups. See, World Telegram and Sun, March 18, 1959, April 9, 1959, New York Herald Tribune,, "The Corporal Punishment Debate," February 15, 1959. [BACK]

27. The local Board of Education refused to give such authorization. However, the House of Representatives District of Columbia Committee supported a bill to repeal the law; this was passed by the House (277-53) and sent to the Senate for approval. See, Christian Science Monitor, February 21, 1963; New York Times, May 14, 1963. [BACK]

28. "We have found ample evidence showing a direct connection between the namby-pamby attitude of the educational hierarchy and the collapse of discipline in our schools," was the conclusion of a Brooklyn grand jury investigating crime in the public schools. They recommended that teachers be authorized to use "reasonable force" in disciplining troublemakers. Judge Samuel Leibowitz, in accepting their report and approving their stand, said: "We who deal with the problem of crime in our schools know through bitter experience that unless we return our teachers to a position of authority held in former years, we may as well throw up our hands." World Telegram and Sun, January 22, 1959. Reflecting a similar call for increased power for teachers, the American Federation of Teachers passed a resolution favoring the use of physical force in maintaining classroom discipline: World Telegram and Sun, August 21, 1959. [BACK]

29. E. Edmund Reutter, op. cit., p. 68. [BACK]

30. N.E.A. Research Division, "The Legal Status of the Public School Pupil," Research Bulletin 26:3-38, February, 1948, pp. 26-30. [BACK]

31. N.E.A. Research Division, op. cit.; M. K. Remmlein, The Law of Local Public School Administration (New York: McGraw Hill, 1953), Chapter 7; Robert Hamilton and Paul R. Mort, The Law and Public Education 2nd ed. (Brooklyn: Foundation Press, 1950), pp. 513-20. [BACK]

32. Glenn F. Nolan, "Handbook for Discipline," Bulletin of NASSP, 43, 249 (October 1959), pp. 15-16. [BACK]

33. E.g., New York Times, December 1, 1961; November 14, 1962. [BACK]

34. "Student Behavior Policy," The Clearing House, 33, 6 (February 1959), pp. 348-52. [BACK]

35. See, for example, the opinions expressed in Glenn F. Nolan, op. cit. The author strongly approves of the San Bernadino discipline handbook which is a useful guide, he says, and has a "soothing effect on irate parents. It quiets recalcitrant students. It has a steadying effect on the administrator." In other words, the printed codification of policy gives the school a needed tool for disarming conflicting authorities. [BACK]

36. Thus, the national constitutional principle of "balance of power," which the United States attempts to achieve by dispersion of authority between legislative, executive and judicial branches, is paralleled in educational matters by the attempt to ensure that no interested party has independent authority in disciplinary policy. [BACK]

37. Gradual erosion of the relative independence from public pressures of English schools and teachers may well be encouraged by features which appear to accompany growth of school populations, urbanization, increase in school purposes and functions: formalization of rules, increase in disciplinary incidents, growth of bureaucratic machinery. [BACK]

38. Of course, in those rare cases in the United States where selective high schools exist, a similar significance is apparent. In a sense, special schools for incorrigible discipline problems do provide a comparable device, for example, in the 600 Schools of New York City. Transfer to such a school, though it may be given a psychological rationale, is a result of a serious and continuous disciplinary problem, and is conceived of as a demotion within the public education system. See recommendations of New York Teachers' Guild in 1956 with regard to enlarging such provisions: American Federation of Teachers (AFL-CIO), Discipline: What For and How? (Chicago: American Federation of Teachers, 1957), pp. 26-27. [BACK]

39. Two recent items confirm the general findings of this essay: the reports and comments upon yet another statement on "punishment in Schools," this time by the Educational Institute of Scotland, in Times Educational Supplement, October 15, 1965; and the article by Richard M. Grummere Jr., "Discipline in the Dark: on Beating School Children," The Nation, December 6, 1965. [BACK]

40. This article is based on one section of the author's Ph.D. dissertation, "A Comparative Study of Discipline in English and American Secondary Schools; Rewards and Punishments As Socializing Agents," New York, 1964. Teachers College, Columbia University. [BACK]