Table of contents Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION Background of the study The Statement of the Research Problem The Purpose of the study Research questions/Hypotheses The Significance of the study Definition of Key Terms Delimitation of the Study Chapter 2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2

Table of contents
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background of the study
The Statement of the Research Problem
The Purpose of the study
Research questions/Hypotheses
The Significance of the study
Definition of Key Terms
Delimitation of the Study
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
2.1 Introduction
2.2;2.3;2.4;2.5;2.6 Sub-headings (linked to research questions)
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
3.2 The Research instrument/s
3.3 Pilot testing
3.4 The Population
3.5 The Sample
3.6 The Sampling Techniques/ Procedures
3.7 Data Collection Procedures
3.8 Data Analysis Techniques
3.9 Ethical Considerations
3.10 Limitations of the Study
Chapter 4
DATA PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Research Question 1
4.2 Research Question 2
4.3 Research Question 3
4.4 Discussion
Chapter 5
SUMMARY CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary and Conclusions
5.2 Recommendations
REFERENCES (Harvard style) …………………………………
Format:
The work must be typed in Times New Roman 12 point, left and right justified
On A4-size paper, 1.5 spacing.

Each page must have a left-hand margin and at least thirty-two (32) millimetres.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Each chapter starts on a new page with the chapter heading centered and in upper case letter.

Each sub-heading shall be in bold but not in capitals.

CHAPTER 1
ABSTRACT
In the last decade, corporal punishment in South African schools was banned. This is in keeping with international trends of recognizing of the rights of the child and the South African Constitution. Despite the legal ban, newspapers and limited research reveal that corporal punishment practices are still occurring in schools. Government has made efforts to curb the continuing use of corporal punishment. This research explores teachers’ attitudes towards the ban of corporal punishment as well as the alternate discipline strategies teachers are using to discipline their learners. The research methods adopted were quantitative questionnaires and qualitative written responses. Results of this study suggest that teachers still view corporal punishment as having a place in education. Teachers are concerned amongst others about their personal safety and feel the administering of corporal punishment will ensure their safety. Teachers’ do report that they have found alternatives that do work, however, they still feel that the training that is provided is not able to meet their needs in the classroom situation.
Introduction
As the school administrators and classroom teachers use corporal punishment in recommended and non-recommended ways respectively to deal with deviance, some deviant pupils find themselves pulling out of school due to non-conformity or non-tolerance to the controlling measure applied on them, ‘corporal punishment.’ Some pupils aggravate or learn methods of continuing with the deviant behavior. There are some people who were deviant during their school going days and have kept on with such tendencies such that the deviant behavior has matured in them despite being exposed to corporal punishment at school. They continue to display deviance even as they are now adults. Some pupils, worldwide have even failed to complete their primary and basic education due to factors linked to the use of corporal punishments especially on institutions where the administrators and teachers believe in corporal
punishment as the principal strategy to control pupils’ behaviour. In such situations, which result in drop-outs, one wonders whether corporal punishment yields the intended effective results. When corporal punishment is administered, is it the bad behaviour being fixed or one’s personal life? Does pain on the flesh rehabilitate one’s behaviour? Should we nail one’s future chances of success in education just because they have shown deviant behaviour, for example on a case where dropouts result from perpetual, very frequent and severe corporal punishment? In this case is it the bad behaviour being fixed or one’s personal life? Again the question arises as to whether the physical punishment remains corporal punishment or has escalated to physical abuse. The prevalence and recurrence of deviant behaviour in schools, and it’s devastating effects to education together. Why does corporal punishment persist in schools when law has specifically prohibited it? An answer is offered by first examining the history of corporal punishment in South Africa and recent educational policy interventions. Secondly, local definitions and unanimity amongst educators, parents and learners regarding corporal punishment. In the third section, the role of parents is considered. The fourth section describes the methodology and results of a survey conducted in 16 Durban secondary schools. The final section focuses specifically on the practices of discipline and punishment at home as reported by learners. These findings suggest that parents continue to use corporal punishment in the home and believe that it should be used at school. It is argued that domestic modes of discipline play a significant role in sustaining the practice of corporal punishment in schools.
Straus (1994), Hyman (1990) and Cohen (1984) provide several definitions of “corporal punishment”. In general, these definitions seek to point out that corporal punishment is the use of physical force against an individual. According to Straus (1994:4) corporal punishment against a child “is the use of physical force with the intention of causing a child to experience pain but not injury for the purposes of correction or control of the child’s behaviour”. Straus (1994:5) further states that “the most frequent forms of corporal punishment are spanking, slapping, grabbing or shoving a child roughly (with more force than is needed to move the child), and hitting with certain objects such as a hair brush, belt, or paddle”. Cohen (1984) endorses this definition by identifying specific forms of corporal punishment such as paddling, floggings and beatings. Hyman (1990) provides a definition that reflects practices in school situations. He states that “corporal punishment in the schools is the infliction of pain or confinement as a penalty for an offense committed by a student” (Hyman, 1990:10).
There is ambivalence in the research on corporal punishment. Not all researchers are of the opinion that corporal punishment is a harmful and destructive act that causes emotional, physical and psychological damage to a child. Researchers such as Straus (1994, 1996, 2003), Hyman (1990) and Gershoff (2002) explore the harmful and less desirable effects of corporal punishment such as somatic complaints, increased anxiety, changes in personality and depression. They view corporal punishment as the maltreatment and psychological abuse of the child. However, researchers such as Baumrind (1996) view the use of corporal punishment as a valid means of discipline. Baumrind (1996) claims that current research methods are not able to determine accurately the negative effects of corporal punishment. Furthermore, Baumrind (1996) states that although there is a strong correlation between corporal punishment and psychological consequences, it is difficult to determine the exact causal relationship and the effects that may result. The research done by researchers such as Straus (1994) and Hyman (1990) remains primarily correlational and as a result the effects of corporal punishment are viewed on a continuum ranging from “not harmful” to “abusive”.
There is a belief among some researchers, that acts of corporal punishment are not intended to cause harm and should therefore not be classified as abuse. Straus and Yodanis (1996) see spanking as part of a continuum leading to abuse. Hyman (1990) who views the use of corporal punishment as psychological maltreatment also supports this view. He further argues that “the symptoms of psychological maltreatment are identical to those that occur from physical abuse” (Hyman, 1990:19).
From the foregoing it will be clear that there is disagreement about the harmful effects of corporal punishment. Acts of corporal punishment are viewed on a continuum ranging from mild to severe. For purposes of this research all acts of corporal punishment are viewed as harmful and as having negative effects on children.
1.1 Background of the study
According to my experience, learners are not supposed to be punished in anyway nowadays in schools because corporal punishment is abolished. And this makes it hard for educators to discipline and control learners. Learners no longer writes homework, they don’t listen and they don’t have respect. Discipline is essential for effective teaching and learning. In olden days’ discipline was maintained by using corporal punishment but now our education system seems to favour learners more than teachers. In the legislation it is mentioned that after 1994, when South Africa adopted new democratic constitution guarantees several rights for citizens, the path of most other democracies by passing legislation to outlaw corporal punishment. According to South African School Act (1996) it states that no person is allowed to administer corporal punishment at a school to a learner.
In the last decade, corporal punishment in South African schools was banned. This is in keeping with international trends of recognizing of the rights of the child and the South African Constitution. Despite the legal ban, newspapers and limited research reveal that corporal punishment practices are still occurring in schools. Government has made efforts to curb the continuing use of corporal punishment. This research explores teachers’ attitudes towards the ban of corporal punishment as well as the alternate discipline strategies teachers are using to discipline their learners. The research methods adopted were quantitative questionnaires and qualitative written responses. Results of this study suggest that teachers still view corporal punishment as having a place in education. Teachers are concerned amongst others about their personal safety and feel the administering of corporal punishment will ensure their safety. Teachers’ do report that they have found alternatives that do work, however, they still feel that the training that is provided is not able to meet their needs in the classroom situation.
What steps are being taken to deal with abolishment of corporal punishment?
Disciplines in the South African schools focusing on Free State.

There are methods that schools are allowed to discipline learners since the corporal punishment is abolished. The word discipline and corporal punishment differs. The South Africa several laws that protect learners from abuse and corporal punishment. In the Constitution there is a section that states that everyone has the right to freedom and security, including the rights to be free from all forms of violence. Section (28) protect them from maltreatment, neglect and abuse. The main focus must be on maintaining a safe and dignified schooling environment for learners. positive and negative way.

Is corporal punishment related to or have any influence on child abuse in any way?
The relationship between corporal punishment and abuse is widely misunderstood by people today. Information often leads people to agree with only one view of the topics when being compared. Corporal punishment and abuse may be related to each other in some ways but they most certainly have their differences. The reason that corporal punishment is often compared to child abuse is because of the infliction of punishment to a child. However, these punishments vary in a wide variety and may also be misleading.

Learners who receive corporal punishment are more hardworking
• A lack of consequences or punishment can increase violent behaviour by students
• Banning of corporal punishment has resulted in reduced levels of discipline
• Different methods of discipline are not as effective as corporal punishment
• Since the ban on corporal punishment, learners are behaving poorly and are ill-disciplined
• ‘Physical punishment only became degrading when it passed a certain degree of severity’ (Christian Education). Those in favour of corporal punishment contend that if it is
administered justly, it is essential to discipline (they promote the idea of ‘reasonable chastisement’)
• Corporal punishment is a significant part of a cultural or religious belief.

The well-known Christian proverb ‘Spare the rod, and spoil the child’ suggests that without corporal punishment children will become ill-disciplined and spoilt. It suggests that beating a child is an important part of the development of a child, and ensures that a child will become diligent and free from sin.
arguments against corporal punishment
There is increasing evidence that corporal punishment has harmful effects.

The study found that there were no redeeming effects of corporal punishment. These findings were published in the Journal of Family Psychology, by E Gershoff and A Grogan-Kaylor. Arguments against the use of corporal punishment include:
• It is an ineffective deterrence mechanism: Evidence suggests that rather than acting as a deterrent, corporal punishment breeds aggression and hostility. It makes learners unhappy, which in turn contributes to absenteeism and learners dropping out of school.

• Corporal punishment perpetuates the acceptance of violent behavior in society.

• It doesn’t encourage learners to behave appropriately.

• It has the potential to weaken the relationship between the learner and the educator, which is crucial for the development of the learner.
Examples of when corporal punishment was not used for discipline:
A learner was hit with a broken hosepipe until he or she agreed to have sexual intercourse with an educator. A learner was threatened with a knife for refusing to go home with an educator. A group of learners who were allegedly giggling in class were beaten and expelled. A learner was unable to wear his damaged shoes; the mother had written a note to the school explaining the situation, but the educator was not satisfied and punished the learner by hitting him until he fell. In Gauteng, a learner was verbally abused and harassed by an educator for wearing a string in accordance with the child’s religion. There is indeed much room for new creative methods to deal with the problem of juvenile justice. The court used community service as an example that would meet the punitive element of sentencing while allowing for the education and rehabilitation of the offender.

Kader Asmal, former Minister of Basic Education, said ‘extensive research shows that corporal punishment does not achieve the desired end – a culture of learning and discipline in the classroom’. This section aims to highlight alternative methods of discipline that can and must be used in place of corporal punishment.
Raising Voices, an NGO that works at preventing violence against women and children, defines positive discipline as: a different way of guiding children. It is about guiding children’s behavior by paying attention to their emotional and psychological needs. It aims to help children take responsibility for making good decisions, and understand why those decisions were in their best interests. Positive discipline helps children learn self-discipline without fear. It involves giving children clear guidelines for what behavior is acceptable, and then supporting them as they learn to abide by these guidelines.

As a British colony, South Africa adopted colonial educational practices including corporal punishment. This was further perpetuated by the introduction of the Apartheid system of government and the adoption of Christian National Education. In this context children were seen as passive citizens who would not question authority at home or in the school setting. Although corporal punishment was legal throughout South Africa, its administration was separated along racial lines. Corporal punishment of black males and females was permitted, as well as white males, but not white females (Morrel, 2000). Corporal punishment was seen, as a means of ensuring the control of children and this was a mirror of how government was able to control social, economic and political conditions through acts of violence (Vally, 1998).
In South Africa in the 1970’s, student’s organizations began to demand the end of corporal punishment (Department of Education, 2000). Corporal punishment was viewed as abuse in the classroom and by the 1980’s “Education Without Fear” was a slogan developed by learners, educators and parents to campaign against the hitting of children (Department of Education, 2002 and Morrel, 2000). The use of corporal punishment persisted until the change of government in 1994.
The resulting effect between non-reward and conditioned emotional response is different. Non-reward generally results in the extinction of the responses (Azrin 1959,1960; Estes, 1944 in Bandura and Walters, 1963) and aversive stimuli (physical and verbal punishment) suppress rather than eliminate unapproved of responses and can sometimes result in generalised inhibition. That is, the incorrectness of the behaviour is not learnt. According to Bandura and Walters (1963:15) “emotional responses established through aversive conditioning may motivate socially undesirable behaviour patters that are highly resistant to extinction”.
Miller’s conflict paradigm (in Bandura and Walters, 1963:16) states that “inhibitory (fear or anxiety) responses and the responses with which they compete, generalize to stimulus situations similar to those in which they were originally learned”. This model has been applied to Social Leaning theory and accounts for aggression responses being directed to someone other than the aggressor when there is similarity between the observation of aggression and strength of the original fear response. This is known as displaced aggression. Aggressive responses can be displaced onto a scapegoat when the agent of frustration is feared. Displaced aggression is relevant as children who are subjected to corporal punishment may act aggressively not on the person with whom they are angry, but rather onto another target.
Within the context of the school and classroom, teachers are “social variables” that influence and model behaviour for learners. Teachers model both good and bad behaviours. Social Learning theory tells us that children will often imitate adult behaviour. An act such as corporal punishment in the classroom could be imitated elsewhere. Once children have observed behaviour such as corporal punishment, they do not associate it strictly with the classroom. On the play ground children might see an incident or experience a situation similar to the classroom and generalise the behaviour. Furthermore, if punishment of a physical nature is used, children will learn ways of stopping the sequence of events or avoiding the punishment. This
1.2 The statement of the research problem
The is a problem in Free State schools. Despite the fact that corporal punishment is banned there is no particular way that it has been given to discipline learners in our schools. This problem has negatively affected educators in our schools because it is really hard to deal with discipline at our schools as corporal punishment has been abolished. A possible cause of this problem is that some of the teachers were abusing learners when there was still punishment. Perhaps a study which investigates the real reason why corporal punishment was abolished by our government could help resolve the situation. This study was designed to determine whether the learners’ performance at school will decrease or increase due to the fact of abolishment of corporal punishment. Change fatigue seems to have been plaguing the teaching profession in the recent past as a succession of changes continued to have a bearing on teachers personal well-being, including their work ethic and job satisfaction. The challenges of the new curriculum, the abolishment of corporal punishment and most problems associated with the lack of discipline at schools. Reported incidents of continuation of applying corporal punishment by teachers indicate school discipline and punishment have been a bone of contention in the education profession for a long time now, yet it would seem there is no end to this issue. Debate founded on religious, social and cultural values suggests that it is essential to punish children, physically, because it helps to bring about the values of society, good conduct and discipline in them (Masitsa, 2008, p. 155). Abolition of corporal punishment is tantamount to loosening the teachers’ grip on the learners. The inference here is that, if used judiciously, this type punishment could be an effective way of preventing and curbing misconduct (Ezekiel, 2003, p.1). It can be argued, on the other hand, that corporal punishment does not result in long-term behavioural change; it rather teaches the child to avoid the punishable behaviour when the person who does the caning is at hand. It is suggested that violent punishment only temporarily stops the learner’s behaviour to prevent further beating, only to bottle up resentment and rage which resurfaces at a later stage (Andero & Stewart, 2004, p.94, Dlamini, 2005, p.1). From the time students became aware that corporal punishment had been outlawed, a state of unruliness prevailed in a large number of South African schools. Many learners seem to take advantage of teachers since they know that punishment will not be meted out on them physically (Makapela, 2006, p. 1). With this in mind, this article purports to shed light on and provide insight into the problems experienced by schools around three regions in the Area Offices of the on-compliance with the rules laid down in the South African School ACT(1996).

1.3 The Purpose of the study
The purpose of this study is to examine issues and challenges of corporal punishment in schools since it has been abolished. It is the punishment intended to cause physical pain on a person. It is often practiced on minors in schools and homes. The abolishment of corporal punishment remains a serious issue within South African Schools. It was reported that a number of teachers in South Africa schools were fired by the government for committing serious offences using corporal punishment. This judgement was based on the provision in the South African constitution which states that “everyone has the right not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way” (Section 12) and was bolstered further by the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child to which South Africa is a signatory. Under the convention South Africa agreed that “school discipline should be administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity and in conformity with the spirit of the Convention…” (Article 28, Section 7). Following the Constitutional Court judgement the South African Schools Act was promulgated in 1996 which stated, amongst others, that “no person shall administer corporal punishment, or subject a student to psychological or physical abuse at any educational institution” In view of the recognition of the rights of the child and the outlawing of corporal punishment described above, teachers in South African schools have been obliged to find alternative methods to enforce discipline in the classroom. It is the contention of this research report that most teachers have found this a rather daunting and even a dis-empowering experience. To establish the accuracy of this contention this research report attempts to establish (a) teachers’ perceptions of the abolition of corporal punishment;
(b) the alternative methods they have developed to maintain discipline in the classroom; and
(c) their perceptions of the efficacy of these alternatives to corporal punishment.
In the second chapter 2 review the literature on corporal punishment looking at the definitions that have developed as well as research on the effects of the use of corporal punishment, in order to provide a context for my research. Furthermore, the limited research on teachers’ attitudes on corporal punishment is reviewed. Social Learning theory is used to provided a methodological perspective of how corporal punishment could have influence over the child. In the first chapter the international movement to ban corporal punishment is reviewed but more specific attention is paid to the move in South Africa towards the banning of corporal punishment.
This is followed, in the second chapter, by an exposition of the research methods I adopted to gather teachers’ perceptions of the abolition of corporal punishment and the alternate discipline methods they have adopted. The research methods that were used were quantitative questionnaires and qualitative written responses. In the second part of this chapter I present the findings of the research and in the third chapter I discuss these findings in depth. In the conclusion I discuss teachers’ perceptions about the continued use of corporal punishment as a valid means of classroom management; the adequacy of the training they receive at college or university to prepare them for the reality of the classroom environment; and the alternatives to corporal punishment they view as useful.
1.4 Research questions/ hypothesis
Research Question 1
How can learners be punished without using corporal punishment? Can we have other forms of punishment to use.

Research Question 2
Does corporal punishment affect the development of children at school?
Research Question 3
How do educators view the usefulness of alternative disciplinary measures?
1.5 The significance of key terms
Abuse – Any form of harm or ill-treatment deliberately inflicted on a child. It includes:
• Assaulting a child or inflicting any other form of deliberate injury on a child
• Sexually abusing a child or allowing a child to be sexually abused
• Bullying by another child
• Exposing or subjecting a child to behavior that may harm the child psychologically or emotionally.

Assault – Unlawfully and intentionally: Applying force to a learner and Creating the belief that force is going to be applied to the learner.

Injury- Physical harm or damage to person or property.

Code of Conduct- A statement that sets rules that must be followed by members of the school community.

Punishment- the infliction or imposition of a penalty as retribution for an offence.

Corporal punishment- physical punishment, such as caning or flogging.

Disruptive behaviour (Learner misconduct)
Discipline- the practice of training people to obey rules or code of behaviour.

Abolition – formally put an end to something.

Positive discipline- A form of discipline that is not punitive, but rather promotes punishment that facilitates constructive learning. The findings of the study were found to have both theoretical and practical implications for the future of discipline in schools. Theoretically, the study was expected to contribute to adoption of modern techniques of molding students. Hyman
(1995) asserts that these methods are supposed to be devoid of violence of all kinds due to the many disadvantages associated with violence. They are also supposed to correct misbehavior by instilling lifelong values among the learners. The findings of the study led to the conclusion that although some secondary schools still use corporal punishment.

1.6 Delimitations of the study
I decided not to ask many teachers to fill in the questionnaire because I know is either is going to come back without writing anything.

Chapter 2
Review of related literature
Introduction
2.1 Does it affect the learner’s development at school
According to (Webster, 2006:936) punishment is the act of causing pain, suffering or loss that serves as retribution and where unpleasant consequences follow socially unacceptable behavior. Punishment at schools includes expulsion, suspension and physical pain. In view of this, classroom teachers are more likely to show their disapproval by means of facial gestures, reprimands, giving detention, assigning unpleasant activities, ordering time out and sometimes using physical punishment
Moreover, this type of punishment can also be seen as a disciplinary measure that uses physical force with the intention of causing pain to the recipient but not bodily harm. With this in mind corporal punishment may at times be seen as cruel sending the wrong signal to students. Consequently, its application indicates to learners that it is appropriate for teachers to strike learners. Corporal punishment thus creates an atmosphere conducive to violence (Arcus, 2004, p. 148). Disruptive behavior is simply behavior which is not acceptable and is attributable to disciplinary problems in class, in other words it affects the basic rights of the learners to feel safe and be treated with respect (Marais ; Meier, 2010, p. 1). For purposes of this study, conduct, misconduct, behavior, minor wrong doing have been used interchangeably with disruptive behavior. In order to minimize learner misconduct, discipline which relates to issues of school management, ways of getting things done at schools or education orderliness will have to be strictly implemented. It is further argued that discipline may also be perceived as the development of the individual and the promotion of empowerment. Discipline thus is important for the safety of all learners (Masitsa, 2008, p. 243).
The introduction of the Schools Act 84 of 1996 did not help the discipline process much as corporal punishment was done away with. Abolition is the act of doing away with totally. In essence it is to annul or destroy completely. It is the act of making a practice non-existent, wholly ineffective or inactive (Webster, 2006. P. 3). Corporal punishment is rather controversial with some psychologists arguing in its favor and others calling for its abolition. In the modern world, however, corporal punishment remains a common way of disciplining children. Many studies have been undertaken on the effectiveness of corporal punishment and it seems that the majority of researchers accept the results of corporal punishment as unpredictable.
In South African schools, some changes have occurred. In 1998, Morrel (2001) conducted research in Durban schools to establish the prevalence of corporal punishment. His findings showed that corporal punishment is still widely used in township schools and is experienced more frequently by African males. However, changes that were noted are that “it is now used less frequently, with greater restraint and via more consultative processes” (Morrel, 2001:296).
Roos (2003), Morrel (2000) and Vally (1998) explore the reasons why it has been difficult for some teachers to make the shift to alternate discipline methods and to discontinue the use of corporal punishment. According to Roos (2003: 482) “educators, parents and learners seem to be uncertain exactly what is permitted or prohibited by the new laws”. Morrel (2000) believes that schools should not be solely responsible for discipline because home discipline also plays a role. Furthermore, certain parents feel that they themselves received corporal punishment and therefore schools should continue with this style of discipline (Morrel, 2001).
2.2 Corporal Punishment in the South African Context
In South Africa, corporal punishment has been outlawed. Section 10 of the Schools Act of 1996 has made the administration of corporal punishment a criminal offence in South African schools. Corporal punishment has been used as a quick-fix solution which raises fear and pain and should therefore be replaced by instilling self-discipline. Many South African educators have difficulty finding an alternative to this traditional method of punishment and it is argued that corporal punishment persists because parents use it at home and support its use at school (Msomi, 2004, p.44, Morrel, 2003, p. 292). Corporal punishment belongs to the traditional school room where it was the only form of punishment. According to the new South African Schools Act (RSA, 1996), an environment conducive to a healthy study atmosphere may be administered while expulsion and suspension should be exercised with great caution. Learners may be expelled only if they are guilty of serious misconduct after a fair hearing, and suspension should only be seen as a correctional measure not lasting more than five days.
The present situation in South African schools demonstrates that a lack of discipline and self-discipline among high school learners has led to a continuation of unsuccessful learning and teaching. As it is unethical to physically punish learners according to the Schools Act, no 10, the permissive style of discipline might be best suited to the circumstances in South Africa. Some form of discipline is essential if meaningful learning is to take place. Guidance and leadership therefore is necessary if learners are to put workable rules and consequences into proper perspective
2.3 Positive Discipline
The term discipline is derived from Latin „disciplinarian? which means instruction. Savage (1999) defines discipline as the development of self-control, orderliness and efficiency. Etesi (2010) asserts that discipline implies not only compliance and conformity but also it is a process of growing toward self-control, developing character, and learning orderly and productive ways of living. Flower (2008) distinguishes two types of discipline: virtuous and continent behavior. Virtuous behavior is when one uses reason to determine the best course of action that opposes ones desire. That is to do what one knows is right and do it gladly. Continent behavior on the other hand is when one does what one knows is best but does it opposing ones motivation. He further asserts that moving from continence behavior to virtuous behavior requires training and self-discipline.
2.4
Corporal punishment is ‘any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. Most involves hitting (‘smacking’, ‘slapping’, ‘spanking’) children, with the hand or with an implement – whip, stick, belt, shoe, wooden spoon, etc. But it can also involve, for example, kicking, shaking or throwing children, scratching, pinching, burning, scalding or forced ingestion’ (UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, 2006: 4). If enshrined in law, the CRC not only prohibits the use of corporal punishment in any setting, but requires that States Parties ‘take all appropriate measures to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity’ (Article 28).

The use of corporal punishment persists in many contexts, even if legally prohibited. Proponents argue that ‘mild’ or ‘moderate’ forms of physical punishment.

Conversely, many studies point to the opposite, finding a series of detrimental effects such as poor academic performance and low class participation, children avoiding school or dropping out for fear of getting beaten, declining self-worth or self-esteem and fear of teachers and school (Dubanoski, Inaba and Gerkewicz, 1983; Youssef,Attia and Kamel, 1998; Dunne, Humphreys and Leach, 2006: 92; Morrow and Singh, 2014: 11).

Qualitative studies have found that teachers, parents and often children themselves suggest that corporal punishment in schools improves academic performance and corrects bad behaviour (Anderson and Payne, 1994; Parkes and Heslop, 2011; Rojas, 2011: 16-18; Nguyen andTran, 2013; Marcus, 2014b: 11; Morrow and Singh, 2014: 14). However, research with children has also highlighted that many children do not feel that it helps them learn or behave; instead it leaves them scared, confused and sad and may lead to them becoming violent due to the normalisation of violence (Burnett, 1998; Clacherty, Donald and Clacherty, 2004; 2005a; 2005b; Beazley et al., 2006: 183; Rojas, 2011: 11; Morrow and Singh, 2014: 13).

Much of the existing research has focused on the impact of corporal punishment administered by parents and other caregivers on children (Donnelly and Straus, 2005; Ember and Ember, 2005; Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner, 2006; Durrant and Smith, 2011; Twum-Danso, 2013). Research on corporal punishment both in the home and in schools is also dominated by studies from high-income countries, principally the United States, that emanate from the field of psychology (Gershoff, 2002; Paolucci andViolato, 2004). Where studies from the Global South exist, comparing across contexts is difficult, due to the use of different definitions and measures of both corporal punishment and its potential effects (Ripoll-Núñez and Rohner, 2006: 231). Existing quantitative research is also based largely on cross-sectional data and thus cannot rule out the possibility of reverse causation (Gershoff, 2002: 540;Alyahri and Goodman 2008: 772). For example, a study of urban primary school children in Jamaica found that children reporting corporal punishment from teachers performed significantly worse on maths, spelling and reading tests, yet without being able to determine the direction of the association (Baker-Henningham et al., 2009).A child may be beaten because of lower marks in exams or a child may perform less well in tests because of being beaten.A structural determinants approach seeks to understand the drivers of children’s vulnerability and why some children do less well than others by exploring the contexts in which children are growing-up and the economic, political, social, environmental, and cultural conditions that shape their trajectories (Viner et al. 2012: 1641).We use a structural determinants framework to explore the intersections between wider economic and social inequalities, such as poverty and gender and children’s everyday experiences of violence,
). In the case of school, the relationship between poverty and violence is not necessarily linear (Parkes, 2015: 199) yet in resource-poor settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries where education systems have undergone rapid expansion and classroom overcrowding is common, it is suggested that teachers may feel disempowered and resort to physical punishment (Office of the SRSG onViolence against Children, 2013: 36;Tao, 2015). Schools in poorer areas in particular may be less resourced, be more overcrowded and have teachers with less training (Singh and Sarkar, 2012). Studies from SouthAfrica have demonstrated how the historical, economic and social legacies of apartheid have been institutionalized within the education system, which reflects, reinforces and reproduces these inequalities through harsh disciplinary systems and the normalization of violence within schools (Baker, 1998; Burnett, 1998; Morrell, 2001).

Structural factors both shape the norms and practices which govern schooling (Baker, 1998) as well as the experiences of different groups of children within school. Cross-sectional studies have found that boys, children from ethnic minorities, or groups disadvantaged on account of their ethnicity and children with disabilities are more likely to experience corporal punishment than their peers (Dunne, Humphreys and Leach, 2006: 78;Alyahri and Goodman 2008: 770; Covell and Becker, 2011: 14).While there is limited data on children’s experiences of corporal punishment by socioeconomic status (Marcus, 2014b: 67) qualitative interviews with children and families reveal how poor children may be at greater risk of being punished for not having school equipment or a uniform or for being absent to undertake paid or unpaid work to support their families (Morrow and Singh, 2014: 13).
2.5 The effects of corporal punishment
Corporal punishment and its effects are of particular relevance to childcare professionals such as teachers, psychologist, social workers and doctors. The effects that result from the use of corporal punishment are harmful to children and can be lasting and damaging reaching well into adulthood (Bitensky, 1998). In this section the emotional, social and behavioural consequences of the use of corporal punishment will be reviewed.
Children on whom corporal punishment is administered are often left with physical evidence of the abuse. According to Unicef ‘s Asian Report, 2001 children’s eardrums have burst as a result of being boxed. Minor injuries such as bruising and swelling are common; more severe injuries such as “large cuts, sprains, broken fingers” as well as teeth being knocked out, broken wrists and collar bones and internal injuries requiring surgery do occur (Human Rights Watch Kenya, 1999). Even the deaths of children as a consequence of corporal punishment have been reported in countries such as Kenya (Human Rights Watch, 1999).
Those who endorse corporal punishment hold the view that the aim of corporal punishment is to elicit compliance from a child. The aim of compliance is in fact often reached but the ability of the child to understand the incorrectness of their behaviour is often not learnt. This means that the child has learnt to stop the behaviour but not the reason why the behaviour should be stopped. They are unable to make the link between their behaviour and the punishment. As such, corporal punishment does not promote lessons about right and wrong but rather emphasises fear and violence (Tharps, 2003).

2.5 Punishment is the act of causing pain, suffering or loss that serves as retribution and where unpleasant consequences follow socially unacceptable behaviour (Webster, 2006:936). Punishment at schools includes expulsion, suspension and physical pain. In view of this, classroom teachers are more likely to show their disapproval by means of facial gestures, reprimands, giving detention, assigning unpleasant activities, ordering time out and sometimes using physical punishment (Baron, 2006, p. 24). Moreover, this type of punishment can also be seen as a disciplinary measure that uses physical force with the intention of causing pain to the recipient but not bodily harm. With this in mind corporal punishment may at times be seen as cruel sending the wrong signal to students. Consequently, its application indicates to learners that it is appropriate for teachers to strike learners. Corporal punishment thus creates an atmosphere conducive to violence (Arcus, 2004, p. 148). Disruptive behaviour is simply behaviour which is not acceptable and is attributable to disciplinary problems in class, in other words it affects the basic rights of the learners to feel safe and be treated with respect (Marais ; Meier, 2010, p. 1). For purposes of this study, conduct, misconduct, behavior have been used interchangeably with disruptive behaviour. In order to minimize learner misconduct, discipline which relates to issues of school management, ways of getting things done at schools or education orderliness will have to be strictly implemented. It is further argued that discipline may also be perceived as the development of the individual and the promotion of self-actualization and empowerment. Discipline thus is important for the safety of all learners (Masitsa, 2008, p. 243). The introduction of the Schools Act 84 of 1996 did not help the discipline process much as corporal punishment was done away with. Abolition is the act of doing away with totally. In essence it is to annul or destroy completely. It is the act of making a practice non-existent, wholly ineffective or inactive (Webster, 2006. P. 3). Corporal punishment is rather controversial with some psychologists arguing in its favour and others calling for its abolition. In the modern world, however, corporal punishment remains a common way of disciplining children. Many studies have been undertaken on the effectiveness of corporal punishment and it seems that the majority of researchers accept the results of corporal punishment as unpredictable. Even if it discourages misbehaviour, it does not foster appropriate behaviour. It is also argued that corporal punishment negatively affects relationships and often creates resentment and hostility, which have been associated with school dropout and vandalism (Mwamawenda, 2008, p. 289).
Despite the ban on corporal punishment in most countries, there are still reported acts of corporal punishment being used by teachers. Although, corporal punishment is banned by law, the practical banning of corporal punishment in classrooms, with the introduction of alternatives, has not been easy for some teachers. There is limited research as to what teacher’s attitudes are towards the banning of corporal punishment. This section attempts to explore the limited research on teacher’s attitudes towards the banning of corporal punishment.
In Australia, corporal punishment is banned. However most teachers still support the use of corporal punishment and this view has not changed much since corporal punishment was first banned in schools. Research conducted in Australia found that most teachers view the use of corporal punishment as necessary and many would like to use the cane as a last resort (www.education.qld.gov.au/corporate/professional_exchange/edhistory/edhistopics/corporal/ union.html). In an American poll conducted by ABC news titled “Support for Spanking” it was found that “sixty-five percent of Americans approve of spanking”, although only “26 percent say that grade-school teachers should be allowed to spank kids at school” (www.search.abcnews.go.com/query.html). According to Flynn (1994) southern residents of the USA, have favourable attitudes towards corporal punishment and 81.1% support its use. This is reflective of southern educators being the strongest proponents of corporal punishment in schools (Boser, 2001).
Corporal punishment in Pakistan2 has existed in schools for nearly 143 years (Iqbal, 2003). Recently, efforts have been made to ban corporal punishment. Teacher’s opinions supporting this ban are growing. Some teachers, however, still feel that those who use corporal punishment should not be punished, as corporal punishment is seen as part of doing the job. Teachers who support the ban, feel that corporal punishment is a lazy means of control (Iqbal, 2003). In Trinidad, where corporal punishment has been banned for nearly three years, teachers and parents are requesting its reinstatement.

In South African, a study by Rice (1987) before the ban on corporal punishment, found that male teachers tend to favour corporal punishment, as do younger teachers under the age of 25 years. She also found that experience did not have an impact on the use of corporal punishment. That is, teachers teaching for less than 5 years and those with more experienceare almost equally likely to use corporal punishment. More recently, and post the ban on corporal punishment in South Africa, Cohen (1996) conducted a study on teachers’ and pupils’ attitudes towards corporal punishment. According to Cohen (1996:47) “teachers are ambivalent towards corporal punishment, their views are still not totally in line with the literature, nor with the aims of the new education policy”. Furthermore, the majority of the teachers in the study felt that corporal punishment was necessary in order to maintain discipline.
The studies of teachers’ attitudes towards corporal punishment in South Africa are very limited but numerous newspapers have documented teachers’ desires to return to corporal punishment. In 1999 the then education minister of KwaZulu Natal. From this research as well as newspaper articles, it is evident that corporal punishment is still viewed by some as having a place in education. Many teachers feel that without corporal punishment classrooms are out of control. Furthermore, they feel that they are not equipped with alternatives to effectively deal with classroom management, nor do they feel supported by relevant education departments.

LAW AND POLICY
Various international legal instruments have recognised the rights of the child, the right to education, and the right not to be treated in a cruel or degrading way. South Africa has ratified many of these, and is legally bound to ensure that these rights are protected and enforced. In 1995, South Africa ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). By so doing, our government is obliged to take measures to ensure that our laws reflect the standards and ideals set out in the CRC. Article 19(1) requires state parties to: take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual violence, while in the care of parent(s), legal g
uardian(s), or any other person who has the care of the child.

The CRC places an obligation on state parties to take steps ‘to ensure that school discipline is administered in a manner consistent with a child’s human dignity’ (Art 28(2). Furthermore, Article 37(a) of UN CRC requires countries that have signed it to ensure that ‘no child shall be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. South Africa is also a signatory to the African Convention on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACRW). The ACRW places similar obligations on state parties as mentioned above in Article 19(1) of the CRC. The ACRW further commits member states to ‘take all appropriate measures to ensure that a child who is subjected to school or parental discipline shall be treated with humanity and with respect for the inherent dignity of the child…’.

‘Appropriate measures’, in the context of corporal punishment, would include ‘legislative measures’ to protect learners from ‘physical or mental abuse’. It would also include public education programmes for the promotion of positive discipline.

The constitution
Our Constitution has various rights intended to protect learners from being subjected to corporal punishment. • Section 12(1) gives everyone the right to freedom and security of the person, which includes the rights: · To be free from all forms of violence · Not to be tortured in any way · Not to be treated or punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way • Section 28(1)(d) states that every child has the right to be protected from maltreatment, neglect, abuse or degradation • Section 10 gives everyone inherent human dignity and the right to have their dignity protected.
National laws
The ban on corporal punishment in the 1995 S v Williams judgment, the Constitutional Court said that prohibiting corporal punishment was an important part of moving away from our violent history. As a result, the Court held that juvenile whipping is no longer allowed in South Africa as a form of punishment. Section 10 of the Schools Act prohibits corporal punishment in schools, and states that: (1) No person may administer corporal punishment at a school to a learner
(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence, and liable on conviction to a sentence which could be imposed for assault.

In the Christian Education case, the Constitutional Court had to balance the rights listed above against the religious rights of the parents. In this case, the parents argued that ‘corporal correction’ was an important part of their Christian faith, and that a blanket prohibition on corporal punishment in schools was a violation of their rights to practise their religion freely. The Court looked at all the constitutional and international obligations placed on our government, and affirmed that there is a duty to ‘take all appropriate measures to protect the child from violence, injury or abuse’. In addressing the parents’ arguments and the balancing of rights, the Court said that ‘the parents are not being obliged to make an absolute and strenuous choice between obeying a law of the land or following their conscience. They can do both simultaneously.’ The Court said that the prohibition on corporal punishment is not preventing schools from maintaining their specific Christian ethos. This case indicates that the Constitution is respectful and accommodating of people’s values and beliefs, but when actions stemming from these beliefs do not coincide with the protection of our children from cruel and degrading treatment, those actions won’t be allowed.

CHAPTER 3
3.1 Methodology
A brief questionnaire administered to a random sample of teacher from 5 different schools, namely, 3 primaries and 2 secondary schools, located in Thaba Nchu area. The sample consists of (65) teachers (25 males and 40 females).

4.1 Introduction
The research was contextualised by the post-positivist paradigm based on the following assumptions (Creswell, 2008, p. 7): Firstly, all knowledge is conjectural; therefore absolute truth cannot be established. Secondly, research is a process of making claims, thereafter refining them or abandoning them to accommodate other claims that deserve more attention. Finally, post- positivism is not a form of relativism and can therefore retain the idea of objective truth. This is essential for competent enquiry (Creswell, 2008, p.7). The following conceptual-theoretical framework was constructed in the context of these assumptions. The framework is the product of the researchers’ constructive-hermeneutic understanding of views expressed in the relevant literature. Conducting research in this manner requires the researcher to be mindful that knowledge is conjectural; hence absolute truth can never be established. This means that evidence found in research is always imperfect and fallible, thus research is a process of making claims which deserves more credit (Philips ; Barbules 2002, p. 123). The design and method followed for the empirical investigation are described in a separate section below.
Research Design
The investigation was of a quantitative nature and, as a data collecting technique; it was underpinned by a post positivistic research theory whose assumptions represent the traditional form of research. These hold true more for quantitative research than the qualitative approach (Creswell, 2009, p. 6). Empirical observation and measurement were utilised to determine the effects of the abolition of corporal punishment on learner behaviour. In order to discover such effects, the null hypothesis tested was that “there is no significant relationship between the abolition of corporal punishment and increase in misdemeanours”. Thus it became clear that using the quantitative method in analyzing data would be the most appropriate for the study.
3.2 The research instrument
Questionnaire
The questionnaire and measuring instrument
The self-completion questionnaire for the quantitative analysis consisted of biographical items and specific measuring instruments. Biographical data included gender, race, age and teaching qualification. Teachers were asked different questions to measure the state of discipline, knowledge of other methods of discipline, the difference between discipline and punishment and the intention to quit the profession. Participants were asked few questions on their current experience regarding corporal punishment at school.
It was surmised that the best way of gathering information directly from respondents would be by means of a scheduled structured questionnaire. This method is based on a set of questions with fixed wording and indicators of how to answer each question. In this study, a structured (closed-ended) questionnaire using the four (4)-point Likert scale was used since it is characterised by choices between alternative responses that are given (Strongly agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly disagree). A self-constructed questionnaire with twelve items was used.

3.3 Pilot testing
After the questionnaires were developed, they were piloted in one school in the division that was not involved in the actual study. Piloting is an important aspect in research as it helps to identify misunderstandings, ambiguities and inadequate items (Wiersma, 1995). The research instruments were pre-tested and vague questions were identified for improvement while ambiguities were removed from the questions. It enabled the researcher to familiarize himself with the administration of the instruments.

3.4 Population and sampling
The target population included primary and secondary schools in one district of the Free State province. The findings of the study are therefore valid for the schools in the district only. Simple random sampling was used to sample ten schools(n=10). In total 100 questionnaires were distributed to 100 educators at different schools. The respond rate was 85%.

Population
Population
Schools in one district of FS Number of schools Educators Learners
130 3,653 108,616
3.5
Sample
Number of schools selected Educators Learners
5 65 0
3.6 The sampling procedures
I went to the principals to request permission for their staffs’ participation. The principals agreed to distribute the questionnaire among staff. A formal letter requesting permission (See Appendix B) for their staff’s participation in the study was addressed to each principal. Furthermore, a formal letter addressed to teachers (See Appendix C) was attached to each questionnaire. This letter explained to teachers the aims of the study and requested their honest participation.
Principals were given instructions to hand out questionnaires and collect them on the same day. In reality, not all questionnaires were collected on the same day and some were received later.

3.7 Data collection
The data for the study was collected by means of questionnaires asking teacher how they deal with discipline in the schools. The available literature was carefully reviewed before the questionnaires were drawn up in order to identify the subject area for questions to be used in questionnaires. The term research design refers to the planning and structure of an investigation that is to be used to obtain evidence and provide answers to research questions. Design indicates how the research is set up, what happens to the subjects and what methods of data collection will be used. The purpose of the research design is to provide the most valid and accurate answers possible to investigate the research topic.

3.8 Data analysis
The quantitative method was applied in analyzing data. The raw data were organized and analysed. With the assistance of statistical consultants, computer-aided statistical analysis was employed in the form of calculations of frequencies, percentages and means.

3.9 Ethical considerations
Ethical guidelines were followed, which included guaranteeing confidentiality and anonymity of the participants. Permission to carry out this investigation was granted by the Provincial Department of Education and further consent was given by the principals to conduct research at their schools.

3.10 limitations of the study
The following were the limitations of the study:
Inadequate resources and limited time on the part of the researcher made the research to limit itself to only one division instead of the whole district. If the whole district would have been used for the study it would have been more inclusive.
The study relied on the willingness of the subjects to co-operate and provide
impartial information regarding the study which is outside the control of the
researcher. The study would have been more fruitful if parents could be reached for responses
but since it might be hard to reach them, the study therefore was limited to
only teachers. Our measure of corporal punishment has some limitations. First, indicators of the severity of the corporal punishment were not collected. Children were only asked how frequently they were punished by teachers during the span of a week (never, once or twice, and most/all of the time) and their answers were coded as 1 when children reported experiencing corporal punishment and 0 when children reported never experiencing corporal punishment. Depending on the severity of the punishment, the effects may vary. For instance, corporal punishment that results in serious physical injuries may drive children to drop out of school, while less severe punishment may not.We cannot account for such differential effects.

Relatedly, our measure of corporal punishment, described above, may reflect reporting biases which may be caused, for example, by the intensity of the punishment (the more severe the punishment potentially the more likely it is to be reported) or by perceived consequences of reporting (for example, if children think that reporting corporal punishment may result in greater and more severe disciplinary practices, they may refrain from doing so).

Other forms of humiliating punishment often accompany corporal punishment. For example, verbal abuse, being forced to kneel or stay in other uncomfortable positions or undertaking physical labour (Clacherty and Clacherty, 2004; 2005a; 2005b). Children often describe finding humiliating punishment, especially if carried out in front of peers, as bad or worse as corporal punishment (Clacherty and Clacherty 2005a: 21; Rojas, 2011: 16-17). We touch on some other forms of humiliating treatment when we examine the reasons why children dislike school, but maintain a focus on corporal punishment. However, it is important to note that we are capturing only one aspect of violence in schools, which does not mean that other children are not at risk from other forms of violence and maltreatment. For example, older adolescents often report higher levels of humiliating treatment rather than physical punishment.
Questionnaire
Section 1: Biographical information
Please mark the appropriate box with an X:
Please indicate whether you are:
Female Male Please indicate your age:
Please indicate your level of qualification:
Teaching diploma Teaching diploma plus further studies Teaching degree Teaching degree plus post graduate studies Other (please specify): __________________________________________
In what year was your teaching qualification obtained:
How many years teaching experience do you have? ____________
How many years have you taught at your current school? ________
How many classes do you teach? ______________
What is the average number of learners in your class? __________
Please indicate Grade(s) you are currently teaching:
Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6 Grade 7 Here are selections of controversial statements on classroom discipline. Show your agreement and disagreement by circling the appropriate number:
Strongly agree
Agree
Undecided
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Statement Strongly agree Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly disagree
1. Giving extra homework as a punishment only results in the learners hating the subject 1 2 3 4 5
2. Sending learners out of the class removes the problem but does not solve it 1 2 3 4 5
3.Organised teachers have less discipline problems 1 2 3 4 5
4. Corporal punishment is necessary in order to maintain discipline at school 1 2 3 4 5
5. Learners tend to disregard teachers threat of punishment. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Corporal punishment prepares learners to become victims of abuse 1 2 3 4 5
7.Detention is an effective way of preventing pupils from misbehaving 1 2 3 4 5
8. A good teacher is one who does not use corporal punishment to discipline student 1 2 3 4 5
9. Keeping learners in during break is not an effective form of punishment 1 2 3 4 5
10. The learner’s fear of corporal punishment helps to create an environment of learning. 1 2 3 4 5
11. Teachers should discipline learners in a calm manner. 1 2 3 4 5
12. Corporal punishment increases aggression in learners 1 2 3 4 5
13. Approaching the school counsellor/ other is an effective way of solving behavior problems 1 2 3 4 5
14. Corporal punishment can be justified from a religious point of view 1 2 3 4 5
15. It is morally correct that a person who has done wrong be punished for it 1 2 3 4 5
16. If the teacher gives learners interesting and challenging work, there will be less discipline problems in class 1 2 3 4 5
lefttop
Figure : Teacher and learner responses with regard to corporal punishment and its effect on misconduct
The analysis indicates that the majority (73%) of the respondents are not prepared to write class tests on a regular basis, while 60% agreed that students have less respect for educators. A large percentage of respondents 70% asserted that students stole more property since physical punishment was outlawed and only 43% believed that they damaged school property. The majority of participants 61% accepted that students fought among themselves since the abolition of physical punishment. A large number of respondents 62% maintained that learners do not obey the prefects and only 37% indicated that students smoke in toilets. The majority 68% noted that more alcoholic drinks were consumed at schools since the banning of corporal punishment, however, only 33% accepted that learners play truant or stay away from schools on a regular basis. A large number of participants 63% believed that students do drugs more often since the abolition of physical punishment, while 48% thought that students commit sexual offences regularly. A large portion of the respondents 71% suggested that female learners fall pregnant more regularly since the abolition of corporal punishment.

Table 3 below presents the responses to the questionnaire relating to misconduct and misbehaviour. The respondents were requested to respond to twelve statements in connection with misconduct. They were asked to rate each item on a scale of 1 to 4 (1 =Strongly Agree, 2=Agree, 3=Disagree, 4=Strongly Disagree) Table 3: Candidate responses to questionnaire on misdemeanours
Statements Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly
Disagree Total
1 2 3 4
Since the banning of physical punishment: Learners are not prepared to write tests on a regular basis. 12
12% 7
7% 28
48% 5
33% 52
100
Learners have less respect for teachers 63
63% 2
2% 0 0 65
100
Students steal more property 43 17 2 1 63
100
Learners damage school property frequently 30 20 10 1 61
100
Learners fight among themselves regularly 50 8 4 0 62
100
Learners smoke in toilets regularly 45 12 4 1 62
100
Learners (females) fall pregnant often 41 16 2 2 61
100
Independent variable Frequency mean Deviation
Gender Male 18 3
Female 35 14
Age 20-30 21 0
31-40 15 -6
41-50 13 -8
51-60 4 -17
Not answered 12 -9
Level of qualification Teaching diploma 28 7
Teaching diploma and further studies 9 -12
Teaching degree 14 -7
Teaching degree and further studies 2 -19
Other qualification Year teaching qualification was obtained Pre 1996 37 16
Post 1996 16 5
Not answered 21 Length of teaching experience 1-2 years 10 -11
3-5 years 27 6
6-9 years 6 15
10-15 years 11 -10
Length of time taught at current school 0-3 years 14 -7
4-10 years 32 11
10+ 7 -7
Number of classes taught at school 1-2 17 -4
3-5 34 13
Grades taught at school Foundation phase 1-3 13 -8
Intermediate 4-6 23 2
Senior 7-9 9 -12
10-12 8 13
Mean- 21
Median- 32
Mode – 40
lefttop
Chapter 4
4.1 Research Question 1
There are many ways of disciplining learners without using corporal punishment. First of all, teachers should lead by example for instance if a child is not allowed to use dirty language or to swear, neither should the teacher. The bill of right on the South African Constitution make many reference to the way children or people should be treated.

4.2 Research Question 2
Straus (2001:53) says, “Verbal disciplinary methods that include explanation and reasoning provide the child with more cognitive stimulus.” Pupils who are anxious about being physically punished are prohibited from exploring their physical and social worlds from which they learn and as a result they are less likely to extend their cognitive skills. In other words, pupils’ cognitive development is deterred or impaired by fear when corporal punishment is used. Neuter(2011) contends that teacher-pupils relations are very important for the child’s cognitive development. The social perspective on development also suggests that children’s cognitive development emerges out of social interaction. This interaction includes teacher-pupil relationships which may be weakened by use of corporal punishment as it may lower the pupils ‘motivation to learn. This study focuses on the effectiveness or the degree to which corporal punishment as a remedy is able to control pupils’ behavior. However, the research by Smith et al. (2004), a longitudinal study of Australian children showed that behavioral problems were strongly linked with higher levels of parental hostility, with children being four times more likely to have conduct problems and twice as likely to have hyperactivity problems when experiencing hostile parenting. Evidence from the research also suggests that warmth and affection in parent-child relationships is linked with more positive outcomes for children. Berk (2009) also concurs with the above statement when he says that parental warmth has been shown to increase children’s self-esteem and reduce the risk of psychological and behavioral problems. High self-esteem is another ingredient for cognitive development and motivation. Usually, pupils who do well in academic work are not those with behavioral problems.

The link between hostile parenting such as the use of corporal punishment and behavioural problems in children is one of major concerns to the school. This is the background information vital in order for teachers to understand their pupils’ behavior at school. This reinforces the idea of investigating the type of punishment that the child gets at home in order to establish its impact on the effectiveness of corporal punishment at school. Teacher-pupil relationships can greatly affect the effectiveness of corporal punishment in controlling deviance and achieve discipline. Also, if hostile parenting can impair cognitive development the same applies to corporal punishment, regarded as a hostile technique of discipline maintenance and so is not immune to causing psychological and behavioural problems at school as well. In light of the above point it also follows that techniques such as sending the deviant pupil back home to bring parents, timeouts, manual work punishment or child detention equally short-changes the cognitive development of deviant pupils. This is so because these techniques exclude the deviant pupils from classes for considerable learning time.
4.3 Research Question 3
Discussion
The teachers who participated in the study indicate that although corporal punishment is no longer practiced, there are teachers who feel that it should be reinstated. They feel the return of corporal punishment would be effective particularly as a last resort once other methods have been attempted. Although some teachers wish for the return of corporal punishment, the majority of the sample have not administered corporal punishment (at least in the last 5 years) or sent a child to a head master for corporal punishment. Teachers who do not administer corporal punishment appear to be using other methods of classroom management, but they are still experiencing levels of frustration. A small percentage of teachers still use corporal punishment.
The teachers in this sample felt that corporal punishment is a method that is over quickly and would not be time consuming or costly to administer. Beliefs in the use of corporal punishment being time efficient were reflected by opinions such as “corporal punishment is done quickly, i.e. is the only way to maintain behavior”. Teachers in this sample supporting this view are correct in believing that corporal punishment controls behavior, because it has been used historically to elicit compliance in children. This compliance however does not necessarily lead to corrective behavior. Through the administration of corporal punishment, teachers are not modeling appropriate behavior nor are they teaching lessons of right and wrong. Thus learners are not internalizing the implications and consequences of their incorrect behavior. In addition, corporal punishment leads to poor relationships between the individuals involved, leaves the child with feelings of anger and resentment, encourages revenge and the use of violence in other situations. Many teachers in the sample believed that corporal punishment does not encourage aggression in learners. This is in contrast to opinions in the literature, which held that corporal punishment can result in learners interpreting actions as hostile and then acting in similar ways in other situation. Furthermore the use of violence by teachers models the use of violence as a control of those weaker than ourselves. Teachers in the sample feel helpless and are not able to cope with classroom management because they do not feel they have the adequate resources and training. These responses support the perception that some teachers felt that corporal punishment assisted in classroom management “I was caned, never felt bitter and got educated in a quite, ordered and respectful environment. I teach in a rowdy, disrespectful and unproductive environment”. The teachers who are opposed to corporal punishment agree with current educational practices. However, the fact that not all teachers subscribe to this philosophy illustrates the complexity of trying to implement this as a universal policy. Teachers in general are trying to adhere to the law, however there are incidents of corporal punishment still occurring and it is apparent that some teachers are struggling to maintain and draw on appropriate resources.
Although shifts have been made at a policy level on corporal punishment, there are still teachers who feel that they are better able to do their jobs with corporal punishment in place. Nearly half the teachers reported that corporal punishment enables them to be better teachers and they felt that corporal punishment created an environment of learning. However, the majority of the teacher’s felt that fear and learning did not mix well. Although teachers felt that corporal punishment enables the teachers to perform better in the classroom they do not agree that fear encourages learning. There is a contradiction between teachers’ feeling that while it assists them in doing their job, corporal punishment but does not support learning. This could be as a result of teachers not making an association between corporal punishment and the fear it makes. The use of corporal punishment in schools can be a traumatic experience for children. Furthermore it can affect children’s concentration, motivation, anxiety and lead to poor learning.
More than half the teachers felt that there are adequate structures to deal with discipline in their schools. However, in spite of this, it appears that difficulties do arise in the classroom situation. Teachers felt that the training provided at colleges or universities was not adequate. They experience difficulty applying what is recommended at talks or in manuals in the classroom environment. Overall, teachers in the sample felt they are not adequately supported in their professional role. Teachers felt that training should be provided by people who have had experience inside the classroom and support such as networking amongst teachers would be of benefit. Teachers feel that the training provided is not adequate. Teachers entering training colleges bring with them beliefs about caning from their own schooling experience. When they are not provided with suitable alternatives they will resort to their own experience, which is often the use of corporal punishment. Teachers also expressed concern for their personal safety. They feel they have no way of protecting themselves, when learners become aggressive. Teachers feel that they would like to use violence such as corporal punishment to defend themselves. This practice is then extended to the schools. For many years’ corporal punishment was a means of controlling children but also a means of how government controlled society. These ideas are still prevalent in many people’s minds, as they are learnt behaviors that they have internalized. The majority of the teachers in the schools disagreed with the abolition of corporal punishment. However, a substantial portion of the sample felt that corporal punishment was not necessary to being a good teacher and that it does not enhance the teacher learner relationship. Despite this, many teachers are using alternate strategies. It appears that alternate strategies being used involves dealing with learners directly, contacting parents and providing some form of written or physical punishment.

Appendix B
Dear Principal,
I am currently completing my honors degree in Educational Management. In order to complete this degree, I am conducting research on how to deal with discipline in schools since corporal punishment is abolished. The aim of the study is to explore teacher’s attitudes towards discipline in the classroom. Specific areas of focus are teacher’s views on the abolition of corporal punishment and the methods of discipline they have adopted to replace corporal punishment.
The co-operation of your staff will assist me in reaching my aims. Furthermore, the information gained will help make recommendations towards what support needed with regards to classroom discipline. In completing this questionnaire, the confidentiality of your staff and the school is assured, as the respondents remain anonymous.
Your cooperation will be highly appreciated!
Yours sincerely
NG SEBOLAI
Appendix C
Dear Teacher,
I am currently completing my honors degree in Educational Management. In order to complete this degree, I am conducting research on how to deal with discipline in schools since corporal is abolished. The aim of the study is to explore teacher’s attitudes towards discipline in the classroom. Specific areas of focus are teacher’s views on the abolition of corporal punishment and the methods of discipline they have adopted to replace corporal punishment.
The following questionnaire asks for your opinion on a number of issues relating to corporal punishment and your personal discipline style. This questionnaire is hoped to inform researchers of teacher’s needs regarding the maintenance of discipline in the classroom.
The questionnaire is anonymous- your name must not be given. Please answer the questions frankly and honestly and do not discuss the questionnaire with anyone whilst completing it.
Your opinion will be highly appreciated.

NG SEBOLAI
Chapter 5
5.1 Summary conclusion and recommendations
Summary
The focus of this study was to explore teacher’s attitudes towards corporal punishment as well as its abolition. Furthermore the study attempted to explore the methods of discipline teachers are using, their effectiveness as well as teachers needs for further training. The results of this study do have implications for teachers and learners in classrooms.
Although the majority of teachers do not administer corporal punishment, it seems that the concept of and use of corporal punishment is still prevalent and viewed as a viable option for teachers. Teachers feel that the use of corporal punishment could be useful particularly once other methods of discipline have failed. The training provided at universities or colleges does not meet teacher’s needs. Perhaps teaching practices and the teaching of classroom management would need to be re-examined in order to provide teachers with adequate support. Nevertheless, teachers have been able to use a variety of alternatives to maintain order although they feel that these are not always suitable.
An area of concern for teachers was their personal safety. Teacher’s fear being harmed by learners. Perhaps what needs to be explored is methods to ensure teacher safety. They need to feel supported in this area and protected.
Perhaps in the South African context with its diverse population dynamics, schools should be viewed as having their own unique dynamics. This is relevant as some areas are characterized as more violent and in some homes corporal punishment is still enforced. Teachers also come from varying backgrounds and bring with them their own beliefs and values. Teachers should be assisted with classroom management according to their own unique situations, with alternatives that are more suitable.
The findings of this study cannot be generalized due to the limited sample however it does provide an indication of teacher’s feelings towards the ban of corporal punishment as well as the alternatives they have adopted. The sample size was limited due to the voluntary nature of the study as well as time constraints. A larger sample representing a larger geographical area, different South African communities and population dynamics would better represent teachers’ opinions. Teachers or principals carried out the administration of the questionnaire at their own convenience. The completion of the questionnaires was not compulsory and confounding variables such as motivation, time of day, sharing of responses and time of year may have had an impact.

It is evident that there is ambivalence among teachers and an equal ambivalence in the literature, about the effects of corporal punishment. Within the literature there are those that support and those that oppose the use of corporal punishment. Researchers opposed to corporal punishment view the harmful effects of corporal punishment as not only lasting in childhood but often well into adulthood. The effect of corporal punishment can range from bruising and swelling to signs and symptoms of depression. Furthermore the use of violence in one context is often repeated later in other contexts.
South Africa has decided to follow in the lead of other countries in banning corporal punishment. Furthermore, the South African constitution is based on a culture of human rights and ensures the protection of the child. Despite this, there are still reported cases of its use. Some educators continue to believe that corporal punishment has meritorious benefits. Limited research and newspaper articles continue to show that some educators and parents believe corporal punishment has a definite place in education.
Conclusion
Research has been done into the use of corporal punishment in schools. However within the South African context limited research such as that of Morell (2000 and 2001), Vally (1998) and Roos (2003) amongst others attempt to provide explanations of why the shift away from corporal punishment has been difficult for teachers. This research seeks to determine whether teachers have found sustainable alternatives, and if they have altered their perceptions of corporal punishment as a recognized means of disciplining children. The following areas are the focus of this study: • Teachers beliefs on the necessity of corporal punishment to maintain discipline in schools • Teachers attitudes towards corporal punishment and its abolition • Alternative discipline strategies teachers are using • What strategies teachers see as effective
However, before I report on the research conducted it is necessary to look at the attempts to explain the effects of corporal punishment on the individual. The next section is consequently devoted to an exposition of the generally adopted theoretical framework to explain the effects of corporal punishment.
South Africa’s education system is entrench democratic practices. Specifically, with respect to disciplineandpunishmenttherearesignsthatstudentsarereadytorelinquishtheirendorsementofcorporal punishment and move to more consensual models.

If it is to be ended altogether, disciplinary practices at home cannot be ignored. They appear particularly in black, working class contexts, still to be highly authoritarian and depend heavily on physical punishment. Although this study cannot claim definitively to demonstrate that domestic patterns of discipline promote the continued use of corporal punishment at schools, there does appear to be a strong connection between home and school modes of discipline. Given that parents have been given a formal role in school governance, it is imperative that more research be done on parents, parenting and discipline. Furthermore, it is important that the Department of Education begins to work with the real constraints of school-parent partnerships (and SGBs). Apart from channeling and heeding parental views, critical attention should be given to investigating the limits of partnership. Either parents have to be resource in order fully and procedurally to participate, or their sphere of involvement should be tailored to take account of capacity. It is tempting, as some have suggested, to use the heavy hand of the state to force non-violent disciplinary measures into the home. A return to judicial authoritarianism, however, would be contradictory and, likely, counter-productive. Laws cannot and will not ‘end ‘violence. The social structures and discourses that maintain violence need to be addressed. More strenuous and stricter application of the law may help but these measures should be complemented by programmes that examine abroad range of issues related to corporal punishment, for example, the way decisions are made, the meaning and exercise of authority and the rights of others. Only in this way will the gulf between human rights policy and current disciplinary practices be bridged.

5.2 Recommendations
In the light of the findings and empirical evidence, it is suggested that teachers consider alternate ways of bringing about discipline. Providing alternative techniques to teachers can contribute to better understanding of the learners. The use of such techniques brought about positive results as shown by the research results of Lessing and Dreyer (2007, p.128). The state should furthermore take responsibility to communicate the regulations for the use of corporal punishment should it be decided to reintroduce it. Non–governmental institutions should also give some advice in this regard. When teachers and school heads carry out redirection, discipline or punishment they must include an explanation of why a particular behaviour is unacceptable and what behaviour is acceptable. This is because many in most cases, a child’s misbehaviour is a mistake in judgement.

References
Mabeba, M.Z. & Prinsloo, E. (2003). Perceptions of discipline and encouraging discipline problems in secondary education. South African Journal of Education, 20(1);34-41
Acta Academica 40(3) 234-270 Morrel, R. (2003). Corporal Punishment in South African Schools: A neglected explanation for its persistence. South African Journal of Education 21(4): 292 -299
Msomi, S. (2004). KZN School continues use of cane. www.corpun.com Accessed 05.05.2005 Mwamwenda, T. (2008). Educational Psychology: An African Perspective. Umtata: Butterworths. Oosthuizen, I.J. (2007). Report on learner discipline in the Southern Region of North West. Potchefstroom: Faculty of Educational Sciences. Philips, D.C. & Barbules, N.C. (2002). Positivism and Educational Research.
Lanham:Rowman &Littlefields Publishers. Rogers, B. (2004) The Language of Discipline: A practical approach to classroom management (6th Ed) Plymouth: Northcode House. 163p Republic of South Africa (1996). Schools ACT, no. 84 of 1996. Pretoria: Government Printer. Rossouw, J.P. (2007). The effect of learner discipline on educator security- An informal qualitative inquiry. Oosthuizen et al (eds) 2007: 212-227. Temple. (2006). Corporal punishment. www.temple.edu-corporal. Accessed July, 2006. Webster’s (2006). Third New International Dictionary. Vol 11, New York: G and C Merriam Co. Wilson, E. (2009). School based research: A guide for education students. London: Sage. Zabel, R.H ; Zabel, M.K. (2006) Classroom Management in context (6th Ed.) Boston: Houghton Mifflin 395p
Ajaja, P.O. (2012). School Dropout Pattern among Senior Secondary Schools in Delta State, Nigeria. International Education Studies, 5
(2): 145-154
Azzam, A.M. (2007). Why students drop out? Educational Leadership, 64(7): 9193.

Balogun, O.A. (2009). A Philosophical Defence of Punishment in Traditional AfricanLegal Culture: The Yoruba Example. Journal of Pan
African Studies, 3 (3): 43-54.

Baumrid, D., Larzelere, R.E and Cowan, P.A. (2002). Ordinary physical punishment: Is it harmful? Psychological Bulletin, 128(4): 580-
589.

Beckett, G.( 2005). The Swedish myth: The corporal punishment ban and child death statistics. British Journal of Social Work, 35: 125-
138.

Beltran, M. (2002). Parenting tips: The importance of consistency. From ;http//www.essortment.com/family/parentingtipsiszdp.htm;
(Retrieved on 6 January 2014)
Benatar, D. (2004). Corporal Punishment Philosophical Study. From ;http//www.corpun.com/benatar.html; (Retrieved on 12 December
2013)
Berk, L.E. (2009). Child Development (8thed.).United States of America: Pearson Education.

Bourke, J.P. (1981). Bourke’s criminal law. Sydney: Butterworth’s.

Dzurgba, A. (2006). Principles of Ethics. Ibadan: Agape Publications.

Gawlik, J., Henning, T and Warner, K. (2006).Physical punishment of children. Hobart: Tasmania Law Reform Institute.

Gershoff, E.T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviours and experiences: A meta-analytic and
theoretical view. Psychological Bulletin,128 (4): 590-595.

Kerr, D.C., Lopez, N.L., Olson, S.L and Sameroff, A.J. (2004). Parental discipline and externalising behaviour problems in early
childhood: The roles of moral regulation and child gender. Journal of Abnormal Chid Psychology, 32(4): 383-390.

Kochanska, G., Coy, K.C and Murray, K.T. (2001). The development of self regulation in the first four years of life. Child Development,
72(4): 1091-1111.

Linke, P. (2002). Physical punishment: What does the research say? Every Child, 8(3): 28-29.

Martin. T and Stein, H.D. (2012). Paediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Journal Watchdog, 3:23-26
Mushoriwa, T.D and Shumba, A. (2002). Self-Perceived and Measured Study Strategies Among College Students. South African Review
of Educational Journal, 2(1): 46-49.

Nauert, R. (2011). Physical Punishment May Impair Child’s Cognitive Functions. Psych Central. From <http://psychocentral.com/news
/2011/07/27/ (Retrieved on 12 December 2013)
Shumba, A and Moorad, F. (2001). A Note on the Laws Against Child Abuse in Botswana.

PULA. Botswana Journal of African Studies, 14 (2): 175-181.

Shumba, A. (2003). Pupil Physical Abuse by Secondary School Teachers in Zimbabwe: A Child-Rearing Practice or Cultural Dilemma?
Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 8(4) :143-159.

Smith, A.B., Gollop, M.M., Taylor, N.J and Marshall, K.A. (2004).The discipline and guidance of children: A summary of research.

Dunedin, NZ: Children’s Issues Centre.

Stearns, E and Glennie, E.J. (2006). When and Why Dropouts Leave High School. Youth and Society, 38(1): 29-57
Straus, M.A. (2001). New evidence for the benefits of never smacking. Society, 83(6): 52-60.

Talwar, V., Carison, S.M and Lee, K. (2011). Effects of a punitive environment on children executive function: A natural experiment.

From ;http: //www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/07/110726111109.html; (Retrieved on 4 January 2013)
United Nations General Assembly. (1989). November.Adoption of a Convention on the Rights of the Child. New York: Eangledon Press
United Nations. (2008). Pakistan: Corporal punishment key reason for school dropouts. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian
Affairs. From; http://www.iri nnews.org/Report.org/Report.aspx? Report=78275; ( Retrieved on January 26, 2012).

Wissow, L.S. (2002). Child discipline in the first three years of life in Halfon Child Rearing in America; Challenges Facing Parents with
African Child Policy Forum (ACPF) (2014) The African Report on Violence against Children, Addis Ababa: African Child Policy Forum.
Alyahri, A. and R. Goodman (2008) ‘Harsh Corporal Punishment of Yemeni Children: Occurrence, Type and Associations’, Child Abuse and Neglect 32(8): 766-773 doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.01.001
Anderson, S. and M. Payne (1994) ‘Corporal Punishment in Elementary Education; Views of Barbadian Schoolchildren’, Child Abuse and Neglect 18(4): 377-386 doi:10.1016/0145-2134(94)90040-X
Baker, Jean (1998) ‘Are We Missing the Forest for the Trees? Considering the Social Context of School Violence’, Journal of School Psychology 36 (1): 29-44 doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(97)00048-4.
Baker-Henningham, H., Meeks-Gardner, J., Chang, S. and S. Walker (2009) ‘Experiences of violence and deficits in academic achievement among urban primary school children in Jamaica’, Child Abuse and Neglect 33(5): 296-306 doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.05.011.

Bartholdson, O. (2001) Corporal Punishment of Children and Change of Attitudes: A Cross Cultural Study, Stockholm: Save the Children Sweden.
Baumrind, D., R.E. Larzelere and P .A. Cowan (2002) ‘Ordinary Physical Punishment: Is It Harmful? Comment on Gershoff (2002)’ Psychological Bulletin 128(4): 580–589 doi: 10.1037//0033-2909.128.4.580.

Beazley, H., S. Bessell, J. Ennew and R. Waterson (2006) What Children Say? Results of Comparative Research on the Physical and Emotional Punishment of Children in South East Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok: Save the Children Sweden.

Bhatla, N., P . Achyut, N. Khan and S. Walia (2014) Are Schools Safe and Gender Equal Spaces? Findings from a baseline study of school related gender-based violence in five countries in Asia, International Center for Research on Women and Plan International.
Burnett, C. (1998) ‘School Violence in an Impoverished South African community’, Child Abuse and Neglect 22(8): 789-795 doi: 10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00058-1.

Bandura, A. and Walters, R.H. (1963). Social Learning and Personality Development. Rinehart and Winston, Inc: United States of America.
Bangkok Post. 13 September 2000
Baumrind, D. (1996). A Blanket Injunction against Disciplinary use of Spanking is not warranted by the data. Pediatrics, Vol. 98. Issue 4.
Bitensky, S. (1998). Spare the Rod, Embrace our Humanity: Toward a New Legal Regime Prohibiting Corporal Punishment of Children. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 32. Issue 2.
Boser, U. (2001). The Unsparing Rod. Schools are still Fighting the Right to Paddle. U.S. News and World Report. Washington. pp43
Brezina, T. (1999). Teenage Violence towards Parents as an Adaptation to Family. Youth and Society, Vol. 30. pp 416-444
Cape Argus. 18 September 2002.
Cohen, C.P. (1984). Freedom from Corporal Punishment: One of the Human Rights of Children. New York Law School Human Rights Annual, Vol, ll, Part 1.
Cohen, S. 1996. Teachers and Pupils Attitudes and Practices Regarding the Abolition of Coporal Punishment in schools in the Gauteng Area. Unpublished Masters Research.
Conventions on the Rights of the Child, Article 28. Section 7.
Daily News, 12 September 2002
Department of Education. (2002). Alternatives to Corporal Punishment: The Learning Experience. Pretoria.
41
Durrant, J.E. (1996). The Swedish Ban on Corporal Punishment: Its History and Effects. Family Violence Against Children: A challenge for society. Walter de Gruyter ; Co., Berlin New York. pp.19-25
Flynn, C.P. (1994). Reginal Differences in Attitudes toward Corporal Punishment. Journal of Marriage and the family, Vol. 56, pp 314-324
Gershoff, E.T. (2002). Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviours and Experiences: A Meta- Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 124, Issue 4, pp 539-579
Greydanus,D.E., Pratt,H.D., Spates,C.R., Blake-Dreher,A.E, Greydanus-Gearhart,M.A., Patel, D.R. (2003). Corporal Punishment in Schools: Position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, Volume. 32. pp 385-393.
Harvard Mental Health Letter (2002), Vol. 19 Issue 5, pp1-3
Human Rights Watch. (1999) Spare the Child: Corporal Punishment in Kenyan Schools. Vol. 11, No. 6 (A).
Hyman, I.A. (1990). Reading, Writing, and the Hickory Stick: the Appalling Story of Physical and Psychological Abuse in American Schools. Lexington books: United States of America.
Iqbal,N. (2003). Rights-Pakistan: call to spare the rod in schools grows louder. Global Information Network. New York, pp1.
MacMillan, H.L., Boyle, M.H., Wong, M.Y.Y., Duku, E.K., Flemming, J.E. Walsh, C.A. (1999). Slapping and spanking in childhood and its association with lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders in a general population sample. Canadian Medical Association Journal. Vol. 161, Issue 7.
Morrel, R. (2000). Corporal Punishment. Education Monitor. Vol. 11, No. 1.
42
Morrel, R. (2001). Corporal Punishment in South African Schools: A Neglected Explanation for its Persistence. South African Journal of Education Vol. 21, Issue 4, pp292-299.
Rice, J.E. 1987. The Attitudes of Teachers towards Corporal Punishment. Unpublished Masters Research.
Richards, P. (2003). Education-Trinidad: Support for Corporal Punishment Grows. Global Information Network. New York.pg1
Roos, R. (2003). Legal Requirements for School Rules and Disciplinary Sanctions. Koers Vol. 68, Issue 4, pp 481-498
Roussow, J.P. (2003). Learner discipline in South African Public Schools- a Qualitative Study. Koers Vol. 68, Issue 4, pp413-435.
Rosnow, R.L. and Rosenthal, R. (1996). Beginning behavioural Research: A Conceptual Primer (second edition). Prentice-Hall, Inc: New Jersey.
South African Constitution Section 12
South African Schools Act (1996) Section 3(4)(g) and (h).
Straus, M.A. (1994). Beating the Devil out of them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. New York: Lexington Books.
Straus, M.A., Kantor, G.K. and Kaufman, G. (1994). Corporal Punishment of Adolescents by parents: A Risk Factor in the Epidemiology of Depression, Suicide, Alcohol Abuse, Child Abuse, and Wife Beating. Adolescence, Vol. 29, Issue 115.
Straus, M.A. (1996). Spanking and the Making of a Violent Society. Pedeatrics, Vol 98, Issue 4.
43
Straus, M.A. and Yodanis, C.L. (1996). Corporal Punishment in Adolescence and Physical Assaults on Spouses in Later Life: What Accounts for the Link? Journal of Marriage and Familiy. Vol. 58, Issue 4.
Straus, M.A. (2001). New Evidence for the Benefits of Never Spanking. Society. Vol. 38, Issue 6.
Straus, M.A. (2003). The Primordial Violence: Corporal Punishment by Parents, Cognitive Development, and crime. Walnut Creek CA: AltaMira press.
Tafa, E.M. (2002). Corporal Punishment: The Brutal Face of Botswana’s Authoritarian Schools. Education Review, Vol. 54, No 1.
Tharps, L.L. (2003). The Truth about Spanking. Essence, Vol. 34. Issue 1. This Day. 4 June 2004
The Teacher. March 1999.
The Nation, Bangkok, 14 September 2000.
UNICEF: Asian Report (2001). Corporal Punishment in Schools in South Asia. Katmandu, Nepal.