crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools, The

Anecdotal evidence has long suggested that boys in general and African American males in particular are disproportionately represented among students who receive corporal punishment (CP) in school. Until 1994, no national data disaggregated by race and gender were available to determine if African American boys are indeed subjected to physical discipline at excessive rates. This study provides the first analysis of such race/gender-disaggregated data; it also lamentably confirms the popular belief. The incidence of African American males receiving CP was found to be extremely high, as was the likelihood ratio comparing Black male students' CP rates to those for other race/gender cohorts, especially White females. Limitations of the data set and implications of the findings are discussed.

INTRODUCTION

The song of American education has long been sung to the tune of the hickory stick. Hyman (1990a) cites a schoolmaster in Boston in 1850 as claiming it took 65 beatings a day to keep the pedagogical process of a program serving 400 students running smoothly. In 1876, the school board of Newark, New Jersey, recorded 9,408 administrations of physical discipline, including actual floggings, for a system of 10,000 pupils.

In the present epoch, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1977 ruling in Ingraham v. Wright deemed that the hitting of pupils by school personnel was not a violation of children's Constitutional guarantees to due process or to protection from cruel and unusual punishment (Hyman,1990b). In the waning years of the 20th century, however, both the rationale for and the incidence of corporal punishment (CP) appear to have declined. By 1995, some 26 states had banned the practice altogether ("Student Spankings OK'd," 1995). Nonetheless, corporal punishment-i.e., the hitting of a child by an adult-survives in much of America's public educational system, and a large number of American adults, especially teachers, continue to support the use of physical discipline in the country's elementary and secondary schools (Brown & Payne, 1988; Elam, 1989).

Given this reality, many questions arise: What kinds of physical discipline are being used in our schools? Who receives such punitive measures? Who administers it? Are all children equally likely to get hit? What are the demographics of corporal punishment? These are the questions the present study seeks to answer.

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

There is one very obvious element regarding the use of corporal punishment in elementary and secondary programs that makes it unique and thus worthy of special consideration, and it is that the recipients of this form of punishment are still, by definition, children. Despite the distressing nature of the practice of corporal punishment, and given the current popular rhetoric of concern for children's well-being emanating from both the right and the left, the literature regarding it is surprisingly scant. Moreover, the information that is available seems at times to fly in the face of popular conceptions.

For example, contrary to popular belief, many incidents of physical discipline that take place in either the classroom or the principal's office do not necessarily involve mere mild spankings. Hyman (1990b) provides a chilling litany of violent measures taken by adults against children in America's schools: twisting children's arms; banging their heads on desks; ramming them up against lockers or walls; and punching, slapping, kicking, and shaking them into submission. Instruments that reportedly have been used to inflict CP include wooden paddles, rubber hoses, leather straps and belts, switches, sticks, rods, ropes, straight pins, plastic baseball bats, and arrows (Hyman, 1990b).

Who exactly is the most likely adult to use CP? The literature is not altogether clear, though Rose (1984) found that female principals are more likely to report using physical discipline than are their male peers. Rose further points out that those male principals who reported using corporal punishment nevertheless reported using it more frequently. No information was found in the literature delineating the typical race or ethnicity of the adults most often using CP.

As for the demographics of recipients of CP, other conventional wisdom-in this instance, the belief that the typical child in line for this type of punishment is quite young-also seems to be inaccurate. In point of fact, the most common recipient is a student between the ages of 11 and 14 (Gerak, Nacik, & Hyman, 1987). Still other demographics of the typical corporally punished child are of concern, especially as these attributes relate to gender and race. For instance, it has been held that in schools boys as a group are subject to harsher penalties than are girls, even when the evoking infractions are the same (Sadker, Sadker, & Thomas, 1981). This seems to be especially true when the punishment involves physical discipline (Czumbil, Hopkins, Wilson, & Hyman, 1993; Gerak et al., 1987; Hyman, Clarke, & Erdlen, 1987; Slate, Perez, Waldrop, & Justen, 1991). Indeed, anecdotal evidence suggests that some districts that allow physical chastisement have explicitly forbidden its use with girls (Rose, 1984). In these instances, Title IX and similar gender-equalizing laws and regulations aside, being hit in school is a "boys-only" penalty. Sadker and Sadker (1994) note that boys get tougher punishment in our nation's schools, yet they add, in an unexplained turnabout from their previous stance, that "in most cases . . they [boys] deserve it" (p. 201).

The Sadkers are hardly alone in blaming children for being punished. According to Hyman (1990b), that the recipients of CP are "just getting what they deserve" is one of the more common justifications for the use of physical discipline in our nation's public educational programs.

Concern has also been expressed that African American children receive harsher penalties and more frequent corporal punishment, both in school and at home, than do Caucasian children (Hyman, 1989,1990a; Rose, 1984). If African American children as well as boys as a whole are more at risk for CP than are their White and/or female peers, it would not be surprising that Black males in particular are prone to being struck by school personnel. Indeed, Hyman (1990b) presents late-1970s data from several states including Delaware, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia suggesting that this is the case. Likewise, Shaw and Braden (1990), in their review of 6,244 discipline files from 16 K-12 schools in Florida found that Black children were referred for school discipline for less severe rule violations than were White children, and that African American boys were nearly four times more likely to receive actual CP than were White girls. This finding accords with similar small-scale studies (see Richardson & Evans, 1992; and Slate, Perez, Waldrop, & Justen, 1991, for excellent reviews of such research).

STATEMENT OF PURPOSE

The above-cited literature, though somewhat informative, is limited by the fact that the findings reported are not national in character. Until recently, no nationwide database tracking corporal punishment disaggregated by race and gender was available. However, in 1994 the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Education released a summary of data drawn from its 1992 biennial census of the nation's public schools. The 1992 census marked the first time OCR had collected reports from school systems enumerating, among a number of variables, the incidence of CP during the previous academic year by race and gender combined. Such data made it possible at last to compare the likelihood that a specific race/gender cohort of students might receive CP to a greater or lesser extent than students of other cohorts. The present study reports the results of secondary analyses of the 1992 OCR data primarily as they relate to the incidence of corporal punishment by race and gender cohorts, and secondarily as they relate in similar fashion to the incidence of suspension, the other major form of discipline used in the educational system. The principal objective of this analysis lay in determining whether or not there is indeed parity among the four major cohorts considered (African American males, African American females, White American males, and White American females) in terms of physical and nonphysical discipline as well as comparing one form of discipline to the other.

METHOD

Data Source

Data for this study were derived from the summary report of the OCR's 1992 biennial census (OCR, 1994). In line with its Congressionally mandated duty to monitor civil rights issues in U.S. schools nationwide, OCR in 1992 surveyed 4,692 public school districts and 43,034 public schools across the country. The sampling was not totally random. In order to maximize the amount of usable information obtained while keeping costs down, the OCR deliberately biased its sampling toward the nation's larger school districts. Thus, while the 4,692 districts surveyed represent only 31% of the 15,025 districts nationwide, the 25 million children accounted for in the survey amount to approximately 59% of the 42.5 million children estimated to be enrolled in the public schools at that time (Snyder & Hoffman, 1994).

A complicating factor regarding the data on CP lies in the fact that, as of 1992, 20 states nationwide had banned the use of corporal punishment altogether (Czumbil et al., 1993). These states (henceforth called "non-CP states") are: Alaska, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The remaining 30 states as well as the District of Columbiafor our purposes, the "CP-permitting states"-still allowed physical punishment as of 1992. These 30 states served roughly 60% of all students in the American public school population at the time (Snyder & Hoffman, 1994). Although the predominance of CPpermitting states are in the South and Southwest, no particular pattern emerges based upon state size regarding the banning or allowing of CP.

A racial breakdown of the prevalence of CP by state can be derived by reference to the 1994 Digest of Educational Statistics, which offers a state-by-state estimate of the percent of African American students in each state's school systems in 1992 (Snyder & Hoffman, 1994). Based upon this breakdown, the 20 non-CP states are shown to have had an aggregate African American student population of slightly over 2 million, representing about 12% of the total student population of 17 million for these 20 states. The 30 CPpermitting states had an aggregate Black population totaling 5 million, or 19.6% of their overall student population of 25.6 million. Thus, notwithstanding the very sizable presence of African American students in the nation's large northern and midwestern urban centers, the predominance of states allowing CP were those that had disproportionately high numbers of Black students. Specifically, the proportion of African American students in the CP-permitting states was 62% greater than it was in the non-CP states.1

Instrument

The 1992 OCR Elementary and Secondary School Civil Rights Compliance Report Form consisted of a detailed questionnaire that was sent to individual schools nationwide. The survey collected then-current data (broken down by race/ethnicity and gender) on the overall numbers of students as well as on the numbers of pupils who were in Special Education programs, considered as needing services related to limited English proficiency (LEP), actually receiving LEP services, assigned to classes based upon ability grouping, in programs for the gifted and talented, or enrolled in Advanced Placement programs. The survey also amassed data on the numbers of pupils who during the previous academic year had graduated from high school, had been suspended, or had received corporal punishment.

Procedures

Because the OCR data were disaggregated along both race and gender lines, race/ gender cohort comparisons of CP recipients were computed. From these comparisons, "likelihood ratios," or estimates of how much more or less likely members of one subgroup were to be subjected to physical discipline than were members of other specific subgroups, were determined. Similar analyses were performed with the OCR data on school suspensions.

RESULTS

As the data in Table I reveal, over a quarter-million (286,539) incidents of physical discipline were recorded in 1992, with males accounting for almost all-233,695 or 81.6%of these. African Americans accounted for 127,103 cases of CP (44.4%), while African American boys in particular accounted for 97,420 such incidents (34.0%). The likelihood ratios of males versus females; African versus White Americans; and of African American males versus African American females, White American males, and White American females, respectively, are presented in Table II.

As Table II shows, radical disparities were found between and among the subgroups in terms of their members' respective probabilities of receiving CP in 1992. Boys as a group were over four times more likely than girls to be hit by public school teachers and administrators, and a Black child was over three times more likely to get hit than a White child. These facts notwithstanding, the true magnitude of group differences in CP did not become readily apparent until the data were further disaggregated by both race and gender. When that was done, African American males-with their differential representation in the overall population controlled for-were found to have the dubious distinction of being by far the most frequent recipients of CP. Although this disparity relative to White males and Black females is great enough-that is, a Black boy was roughly three times more likely to be hit in school by an adult than either a White boy or a Black girlthe disparity ratio between Black boys and White girls was an enormous 16 to 1!

Analysis of the data on suspensions reveals that compared to African American females, White American males, and White American females, respectively, African American boys were 2.00, 2.14, and 6.29 times more likely to be suspended. Thus, while the differential between the relative rates for the two forms of punishment are not major regarding African American boys compared to African American girls and White American boys, a major disparity exists between physical discipline and suspension regarding Black boys and White girls in particular (a ratio of 16:1 for CP and 6.29:1 for suspension). Put simply-and allowing for the fact that Black boys are indeed suspended at a much higher rate than White girls-when the punishment meted out is physical as opposed to nonphysical, the gap expands more than twofold.

DISCUSSION

One might maintain that African American boys are hit more often in school than are other children because they-African American boys-simply misbehave more. However, the disparity between the respective rates for African American boys and White girls regarding corporal punishment on the one hand and suspensions on the other should give researchers pause. While one might posit that the nature of infractions committed by Black boys is especially evocative of physical force, a more sinister speculation is as follows: There may simply be a greater willingness on the part of school personnel to hit children who are Black and male than to hit other children, especially those who are White and female.

On first glance, the absolute incidence of physical discipline may seem low. Indeed, it could be argued that a rate of one Black boy being hit out of every 16 CP recipients during an academic year, though appreciable, is not staggering. Yet, there are reasons to believe that the OCR census may greatly underestimate the overall portrait of real-life CP in the nation's educational system. An obvious concern with any survey, of course, is that of response bias. In the case of the data obtained from the OCR survey in particular, it should be remembered that the issue of physical discipline is extremely sensitive politically. CP is administered for the most part behind closed doors, usually in an administrator's office. Thus, to avoid drawing attention to the issue or to themselves for their involvement in it, school personnel might not always be forthcoming about the actual rate of CP meted out, especially if the rate at a given site is high. It is also possible that a certain amount of physical discipline takes place even in states and districts where CP is outlawed. Clearly, any administrators guilty of violating state or local ordinances and policies against CP would be especially unwilling to admit this on a government form. Likewise, in cases of some of the more extreme uses of force enumerated earlier, reporting personnel might also be less than forthcoming.

Other factors suggest that the OCR findings underestimate the true scope of CP in U.S. schools. For example, even in the 30 states in which state legislatures still permitted CP as of the time of the 1992 OCR survey, there were individual districts, especially large ones, that prohibited it. As Hyman (1990b) points out, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania per se countenances CP; however, the two districts that are by far the state's largest, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, have for some time barred its use. Thus, the number of students in the CP-permitting states who were legally eligible for CP may be substantially smaller than the working figure of 15.1 million used in this study.

Lastly, the issue of the OCR sampling procedures must be addressed. According to some (e.g., Hyman, 1990b), physical discipline has long been practiced most extensively in rural communities. With the tremendous undersampling by OCR of rural areas, a very substantial number of de facto CP cases quite likely were not captured in the 1992 OCR census.

Clearly, much more detailed research into the variables involved in physical discipline must be conducted. Primary among the questions to be addressed in future research might be these:

(1) How would including rural areas in a proportionate rate in the OCR database affect the absolute rates of CP and the relative rates for different demographic cohorts?

(2) What exactly are the children's evoking behaviors associated with CP?

(3) When the frequency, nature, and severity of these antecedent behaviors are held constant, are children of different race/gender groupings equally as likely to receive physical discipline?

(4) Who determines if physical discipline is the appropriate corrective action in specific cases?

(5) Does a gender-by-race interaction effect exist with regard to the race and gender of the adults administering CP and the race and gender of the children receiving it?

(6) What role do parental attitudes play in the prevalence of CP in schools? Are parents more willing to see their sons as opposed to their daughters hit by teachers and administrators? Are African American parents more supportive of their children being hit by teachers and administrators? If parental attitudes are indeed differential in terms of the race and gender of their children, to what degree can these attitudes be seen as factors that contribute to the disparities noted in this study?

(7) Do some schools and districts still maintain blatantly discriminatory policies with regard to CP (e.g., "boys-only")?

(8) What are the long-term effects of CP?

CONCLUSION

In terms of society's response to legal infractions by adults, the "get-tough-on-crime" approach seems to be prevailing in America today. Recourse to ever harsher penaltiesfrom the revival of chain gangs, to the extension of the grounds for capital punishment, to the enforcing of minimum sentencing guidelines, and to the recent passage of "three strikes-and-you're-out" legislation-has been increasing ("Crime and Punishment," 1996; Edwards,1995). In line with this trend, the U.S. prison population has virtually exploded, tripling over the past 15 years to the point where today more than a million Americans are behind bars ("Crime and Punishment," 1996).

These severe actions and proposals do not enjoy universal support, of course. Critics charge that excessive incarceration is exorbitantly expensive and does not get to the root causes of crime, especially violent crime ("America's New Enemy," 1994). Indeed, the rate of growth in the prison population over the last 10 years is 10 times greater than the rate of growth of violent crime, suggesting that the phenomenal increase in the prison is due primarily to the incarceration of nonviolent offenders ("The Case for Emptier Prisons," 1995). Opponents to the hard-line stance also note the disproportionate impact it has had on the African American community (Sneider, 1996). For example, whereas African Americans represent only about 13% of the overall American population, nearly half of the prison population is Black ("The Case for Emptier Prisons," 1995). The application of the death penalty has been particularly attacked for exhibiting racial bias ("Congressional Report," 1995; Gest, 1994; Haywood, 1995).

In a similar vein, analysts concerned with gender issues have highlighted the serious disparities in the treatment of men and women by the criminal justice system. As Farrell (1993) has documented, the most extreme measure-capital punishment-is, for all intents and purposes, an "all-male" penalty; and upon conviction for even a noncapital offense, a man most often receives a far longer prison term than does a woman convicted of the same crime.

Clearly, it would be disingenuous to compare imprisonment and the death penalty with corporal punishment in schools. Moreover, the severity of these adult punishments outweighs that of CP by several orders of magnitude. By the same token, however, the finding that, as children, African American males are the most frequently hit in schools and, as adults, the most incarcerated deserves closer scrutiny. To the degree that the high rate of incarceration of Black men reflects any truly higher degree of criminal behavior on their part, one must question the long-term effect on this group of their receiving so much physical disciplining as children. To date, no empirical evidence has been collected to indicate that use of physical discipline has any residual effect in reducing problem behaviors on the part of children (Slate et al., 1991). Is it possible, for example, that corporal punishment over the long run is counterproductive, and that rather than curtailing criminality among African American males and others it may function to actually foster antisocial behavior?

The race/gender disparities in the application of CP uncovered in the present study suggest that the topic of corporal punishment in the educational system should be viewed as urgent. By any criterion, the 1,600% differential in corporal punishment between two groups in particular, African American boys and White girls, is daunting. Even allowing for the likelihood that the ratio found here is a highly conservative estimate of the reallife gap, the relationship between the rate of CP for African American boys compared to White girls is literally exponential-that is, the rate of 1 out of 16 is itself 16 times greater than the rate of 1 out of 256. When we consider that the behavior inherent in corporal punishment-the hitting of a child by an adult-would constitute a prosecutable act in virtually any out-of-school context, the seriousness of this race/gender disparity becomes even more disturbing. To the degree that the premise of the Sadkers and others who believe that children who are so disciplined bring it upon themselves, it would appear that Black boys must really "deserve it." However, as the present study's comparisons between the rates for CP and suspension indicate, this premise merits scrutiny.

Whether or not corporal punishment-i.e., the hitting of children by an adult-is an appropriate response by schools to children's misbehavior is obviously open to debate. However, the fact remains that CP remains legal in many districts around the country. At the very minimum, then, it is imperative that CP, when it is administered, be administered in a manner free of racism and sexism. To ignore the possibility that the arbitrary and capricious govern who gets hit and why is to truly fail at fairness.

1 It should be noted that the incidence figures in the following analyses are based upon the respective racial populations of the CP-permitting states only.

REFERENCES

America's new enemy. (1994, October). The Progressive, p. 8.

Brown, W., & Payne, T. (1988). Discipline-Better or worse? Academic Therapy, 23, 437-442.

The case for emptier prisons. (1995, December 9). The Economist, p. 25.

Congressional report finds Blacks targeted more than Whites for death penalty. (1994, April 4). Jet, p. 40.

Crime and punishment. (1996, January 27). The Economist, p. 25.

Czumbil, M., Hopkins, K., Wilson, D., & Hyman, I. (1993, April). An analysis of recent corporal punishment cases reported in national newspapers. Paper presented at the annual convention of the National Association of School Psychologists, Washington, DC.

Edwards, M. (1995, May 26). Mandatory sentencing: Do tough sentencing laws reduce crime? Congressional Quarterly Researcher, p. 467.

Elam, S. (1989). The second Gallup/Phi Delta Kappa poll of teachers' attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 785-798.

Farrell, W. (1993). The myth of male power: Why men are the disposable sex. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Gerak, J., Nacik, E., & Hyman, I. (1987). An analysis of corporal punishment as reported in newspapers from 1984 to 1987. (National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in Schools Report No. CPRO03-125). Philadelphia: Temple University, School Psychology Program.

Gest, T. (1994, July 25). Crime's bias problem. U.S. News and World Report, p. 31.

Haywood, L. (1995, March 13). Is the death penalty fair to Blacks? Jet, pp. 18-21.

Hyman, I. A. (1990a). Corporal punishment of at-risk children: The politics of punitiveness (National Center for the Study of Corporal Punishment and Alternatives in Schools Report No. PTRO24-045). Philadelphia: Temple University, School Psychology Program.

Hyman, I. A. (1990b). Reading, writing, and the hickory stick: The appalling story of physical and psychological abuse in American schools. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books

Hyman, I. A., Clarke, J., & Erdlen, R. J. (1987). Analysis of physical abuse in American schools. Aggressive Behavior, 13, 1-7.

Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). Office for Civil Rights (OCR), U.S. Department of Education. (1994). 1992 elementary and secondary school civil rights compliance report: Final file user's guide. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Richardson, R. C., & Evans, E. T. (1992, June). African American males: Endangered species and the most paddled. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Louisiana Association of Multicultural Education, Baton Rouge, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 351 408)

Rose, T. L. (1984). Current uses of corporal punishment in American public schools. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 427-441.

Russell, W. (1989). The OCR data on corporal punishment: What does it really mean? Paper presented at the Third National Conference on Abolishing Corporal Punishment in the Schools, Chicago, IL.

Sadker, M., & Sadker, D. (1994). Failing at fairness: How America's schools cheat girls. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons.

Sadker, D., Sadker, M., & Thomas, D. (1981). Sex equity and special education. The Pointer, 26, 33-38.

Shaw, S. R., & Braden, J. P. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration of corporal punishment. School Psychology Review, 19, 378-383.

Slate, J., Perez, E., Waldrop, P., & Justen, J. (1991). Corporal punishment: Used in a discriminatory manner? The Clearing House, 64, 362-364.

Sneider, D. (1996, March 1). Prosecutors' bias?: Some say it's as plain as black and white. Christian Science Monitor, p. 3.

Snyder, T., & Hoffman, C. (1994). Digest of education statistics, 1994, (National Center for Educational Statistics Publication No. 94-115). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Student spankings OK'd. (1995, July 27). Long Island Newsday, p. A-8.

Copyright Howard University Fall 1995
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved