School corporal punishment
|Part of a series on|
School corporal punishment, a form of corporal punishment, covers official punishments of school students for misbehaviour that involve striking the student a given number of times in a generally methodical and premeditated ceremony. The punishment is usually administered either across the buttocks or on the hands, with an implement specially kept for the purpose such as a rattan cane, wooden paddle, slipper, leather strap or a wooden yardstick. Less commonly, it could also include spanking or smacking the student in a deliberate manner on a specific part of the body with the open hand, especially at the elementary school level.
Advocates of school corporal punishment argue that it provides an immediate response to indiscipline and that the student is quickly back in the classroom learning, rather than being suspended from school. Opponents believe that other disciplinary methods are equally or more effective. Some regard it as tantamount to violence or abuse.
In the United States and the United Kingdom, and generally in the English-speaking world, the use by schools of corporal punishment has historically been covered by the common law doctrine of in loco parentis, whereby a school has the same rights over minors as their parents.
In most places nowadays where it is allowed, corporal punishment in public schools is governed by official regulations laid down by governments or local education authorities, defining such things as the implement to be used, the number of strokes that may be administered, which members of staff may carry it out, and whether parents must be informed or consulted. Depending on how narrowly the regulations are drawn and how rigorously enforced, this has the effect of making the punishment a structured ceremony that is legally defensible in a given jurisdiction and of inhibiting staff from lashing out on the spur of the moment.
The first country in the world to prohibit corporal punishment was Poland, in 1783.
Geographical scope 
Corporal punishment used to be prevalent in schools in many parts of the world, but in recent decades it has been outlawed in most of Europe and in Canada, Japan, South Africa, New Zealand and several other countries (see list of countries, below). It remains commonplace in a number of countries in Africa, south-east Asia and the Middle East (see list of countries, below). In the United States, the Supreme Court ruling in Ingraham v. Wright (1977) held that school corporal punishment does not violate the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause of the federal Constitution, because that clause applies only to the prison system. The Supreme Court of the United States has not yet judged the practice under other federal law or other Constitutional clauses. Paddling continues to be used to a significant extent in a number of Southern states, though there has been a sharp decline in its incidence over the past 20 years.
Much of the traditional culture that surrounds corporal punishment in school, at any rate in the English-speaking world, derives largely from British practice in the 19th and 20th centuries, particularly as regards the caning of teenage boys. There is a vast amount of literature on this, in both popular and serious culture. Britain itself outlawed the practice in 1987 for state schools and more recently for all schools.
Many schools in Singapore and Malaysia use caning (for boys) as a routine official punishment for misconduct, as also some African countries. In some Middle Eastern countries whipping is used. In South Korea, male and female secondary students alike are commonly spanked in school. (See list of countries, below.)
In most of continental Europe, school corporal punishment has been banned for several decades, much longer in certain countries. As a formal deliberate ceremony, it seems to have been more common in northern/Protestant countries of Germanic culture than in southern/Catholic countries of Latin culture. Caning was not completely abolished until 1967 in Denmark and 1983 in Germany. (See list of countries, below.)
From the 1917 revolution onwards, corporal punishment was outlawed in Russia and the Soviet Union, because it was deemed contrary to Soviet ideology. Soviet visitors to western schools would express shock at its use. Other communist regimes followed suit: for instance, corporal punishment remains outlawed in present-day North Korea and in mainland China. Meanwhile, communists in other countries such as Britain took the lead in campaigning against school corporal punishment, which they claimed was a symptom of the decadence of capitalist education systems.
Justification and criticism 
Principal of John C. Calhoun Elementary in Calhoun Hills, South Carolina, David Nixon, a supporter of corporal punishment in schools, says that as soon as the student has been punished he can go back to his class and continue learning, in contrast to out-of-school suspension, which removes him from the educational process and gives him a free "holiday".
Philip Berrigan, a Catholic priest, who taught at St. Augustine High School in New Orleans, was another supporter of corporal punishment. Berrigan said that corporal punishment saved much staff time that would otherwise have been devoted to supervising detention classes or in-school suspension, and managing the bureaucracy that goes with these punishments. Parents, too, often complain about the inconvenience occasioned by penalties such as detention or Saturday school.
One argument made against corporal punishments is that some research has shown it to be not as effective as positive means for managing student behaviour. These studies have linked corporal punishment to adverse physical, psychological and educational outcomes including, "increased aggressive and destructive behaviour, increased disruptive classroom behaviour, vandalism, poor school achievement, poor attention span, increased drop-out rate, school avoidance and school phobia, low self-esteem, anxiety, somatic complaints, depression, suicide and retaliation against teacher."
Medical, pediatric or psychological societies opposing school corporal punishment include: the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the Society for Adolescent Medicine, the American Psychological Association, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Canadian Paediatric Society and the Australian Psychological Society. School corporal punishment is also opposed by the (U.S.) National Association of Secondary School Principals.
The German psychologist Richard von Krafft-Ebing suggested that a tendency to sadism and masochism may develop out of the experience of children receiving corporal punishment at school. But this was disputed by Sigmund Freud, who found that, where there was a sexual interest in beating or being beaten, it developed in early childhood, and rarely related to actual experiences of punishment.
Country by country 
In the state of Victoria, corporal punishment was banned in government schools in 1985 (though not in non-government schools until 2006) and it is banned by law in all schools in New South Wales (1990/1995), the Australian Capital Territory (1997), and Tasmania (1999).
In Queensland (1989), South Australia (1991) and Western Australia (1999-2000) corporal punishment is banned in government schools under ministerial guidelines or local educational policy, but remains lawful in private schools.
School corporal punishment was banned in 1974.
Burma (Myanmar) 
Caning is commonly used by teachers as a punishment in schools. Cane is applied on the students' buttocks, calves or palms of the hands in front of the class. Tramline cane marks could be left. Sit-ups with ears pulled and arms crossed, kneeling, and standing on the bench in the classroom are other forms of corporal punishments used in schools. Common reasons for punishment include talking in class, not finishing homework, mistakes made with classwork, fighting and truancy.[dead link][dead link]
In Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (2004) the Supreme Court outlawed school corporal punishment. In public schools, the usual implement was a rubber/canvas strap applied to the hands, while private schools often used a paddle or cane administered to the student's posterior. In many parts of Canada, 'the strap' had not been used in public schools since the 1970s or even earlier: thus, it has been claimed that it had not been used in Quebec since the 1960s, and in Toronto it was banned in 1971. However, some schools in Alberta had been using the strap up until the ban in 2004.
School Corporal Punishment Bans in Canadian Provinces 
Every province except Alberta and Manitoba had banned corporal punishment in public schools before the above-mentioned 2004 ban, though British Columbia and Manitoba were the only provinces to ban it in both public and private schools. They are, in chronological order by year of provincial ban:
- British Columbia - 1973
- Nova Scotia - 1989
- New Brunswick - 1990
- Yukon - 1990
- Prince Edward Island - 1993
- Northwest Territories - 1995
- Nunavut - 1995
- Newfoundland and Labrador - 1997
- Quebec - 1997
- Saskatchewan - 2005
- Ontario - 2009
People's Republic of China 
Costa Rica 
All corporal punishment, both in school and in the home, has been banned since 2008.
Czech Republic 
Corporal punishment is outlawed under Article 31 of the Education Act.
A 1998 study found that random physical punishment (not proper formal corporal punishment) was being used extensively by teachers in Egypt to punish behavior they regarded as unacceptable. Around 80% of the boys and 60% of the girls were punished by teachers, using their hands, sticks, straps, shoes, punches and kicks as most common methods of administration. The most common reported injuries were bumps and contusions.
The systematic use of corporal punishment has been absent from French schools since the 19th century. There is no explicit legal ban on it, but in 2008 a teacher was fined for slapping a student.
School corporal punishment, historically widespread, was outlawed in different states via their administrative law at different times. It was not completely abolished everywhere until 1983. At the latest since 1993 a corporal punishment by a teacher is a criminal offence. In that year a sentence by the Federal Court of Justice of Germany (NStZ 1993,591) was published which overruled the previous powers enshrined in customary law and upheld by some regional appeal courts (Oberlandesgericht) even in the 1970s. They assumed a right of chastisement was a defense of justification against the accusation of Causing bodily harm, Section 223 Strafgesetzbuch.
Corporal punishment in Greek primary schools was banned in 1998, and in secondary schools in 2005.
Corporal punishment is still used in most of India. The Delhi High Court banned its use in Delhi schools in 2000. 17 out of 28 states claim to apply the ban, though enforcement is lax. A number of social and cultural organizations, including Shankaracharya, are campaigning against corporal punishment in India. In many states, it is still used in most schools.
Banned in 1928.
Although legally banned in 1947, corporal punishment was still found in some schools in the 1980s. In late 1987, about 60% of junior high school teachers felt it was necessary, with 7% believing it was necessary in all conditions, 59% believing it should be applied sometimes and 32% disapproving of it in all circumstances; while at elementary (primary) schools, 2% supported it unconditionally, 47% felt it was necessary and 49% disapproved.
Caning is a common form of discipline in many Malaysian schools. Legally it should be applied only to male students, but the idea of making the caning of girls lawful has recently been debated. This would be applied to the palm of the hand, whereas boys are typically caned across the seat of the trousers. By law in Malaysia, caning must not be done on the bare buttocks i.e. the pupil must not be instructed to drop his trousers before he is caned.
Banned in 1920.
New Zealand 
Corporal punishment in all schools and all early childhood education (ECE) providers was banned from 23 July 1990 by Section 139A of the Education Act 1989, inserted on that date by the Education Amendment Act 1990. Section 139A prohibits anyone employed by a school or ECE provider, or anyone supervising or controlling students on the school's behalf, from using force by way of correction or punishment towards any student at or in relation to the school or the student under their supervision or control. Teachers who administer corporal punishment can be found guilty of physical assault, resulting in termination and cancellation of teacher registration, and possibly criminal charges, with a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment.
As enacted, the law had a loophole: parents could still discipline their children on school grounds. In early 2007, a southern Auckland Christian school was found to be using this loophole to discipline students by corporal punishment, by making the student's parents administer the punishment. This loophole was closed in May 2007 by the Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007, which enacted a blanket ban on parents administering corporal punishment to their children.
Strongly restricted in 1889. Completely banned in 1936.
School corporal punishment in Pakistan is not very common in modern educational institutions although it is still used in schools across the rural parts of the country as a means of enforcing student discipline. The method has been criticised by some children's rights activists who claim that many cases of corporal punishment in schools have resulted in physical and mental abuse of schoolchildren. According to one report, corporal punishment is a key reason for school dropouts and subsequently, street children, in Pakistan; as many as 35,000 high school pupils in Pakistan are said to drop out of the education system each year because they have been punished or abused in school.
Corporal punishment is prohibited in private and public schools.
In 1783, Poland became the first country in the world to prohibit corporal punishment. Peter Newell assumes that perhaps the most influential writer on the subject was the English philosopher John Locke, whose Some Thoughts Concerning Education explicitly criticised the central role of corporal punishment in education. Locke's work was highly influential, and may have helped influence Polish legislators to ban corporal punishment from Poland's schools in 1783.
Corporal punishment is legal in Singapore schools (for male students only), and fully encouraged by the government in order to maintain strict discipline. Only a light rattan cane may be used. This must be administered in a formal ceremony by the school management after due deliberation, not by classroom teachers. Most secondary schools (whether independent, autonomous or government-controlled), and also some primary schools and one or two post-secondary institutions, use caning to deal with misconduct by boys. At the secondary and post-secondary level, the rattan strokes are always delivered to the student's buttocks, and never on the bare buttocks. The Ministry of Education has stipulated a maximum of six strokes per occasion. In some cases the punishment is carried out in front of the rest of the school instead of in private.
South Africa 
The use of corporal punishment in schools was prohibited by the South African Schools Act, 1996. According to section 10 of the act:
In the case of Christian Education South Africa v Minister of Education the Constitutional Court rejected a claim that the constitutional right to religious freedom entitles private Christian schools to impose corporal punishment.
South Korea 
Corporal punishment used to be lawful and widely used in South Korean schools. It usually took the form of disciplining the student with a stick that is too rigid and thick to be called a cane in the traditional sense. Other "tools" such as sawn-off billiard cues and hockey sticks are used as well. It is often applied to the student's clothed buttocks, but may also be given on the calves, the soles of the feet, or the front and back of the thighs. Boys and girls alike are frequently punished in this manner by teachers for any offence in school. Government recommendations are that the stick should not be thicker than 1.5 cm (0.59 in) in diameter and that the number of strokes should not exceed 10. These punishments are typically administered in a classroom or corridor with other students present, and the procedure is generally less formal and premeditated than in some other countries such as Singapore. It is common for several students to receive corporal punishment together.
Recently, the Seoul Metropolitan City, Gangwon Province, Gyonggi Province, North Jeolla Province councils have established ordinances to prohibit corporal punishment of students in elementary, middle, and high schools. This measure has brought mixed reactions.
Banned in 1985.
Corporal punishment at school has been prohibited in folkskolestadgan (the elementary school ordinance) since 1 January 1958. Its use by ordinary teachers in grammar schools had been outlawed in 1928.
Corporal punishment in schools is illegal under the Ministry of Education Regulation on Student Punishment (2005) and the National Committee on Child Protection Regulation on Working Procedures of Child Protection Officers Involved in Promoting Behaviour of Students (2005), pursuant to article 65 of the Child Protection Act.
In Ukraine, "physical or mental violence" against children is forbidden by the Constitution (Art.52.2) and the Law on Education (Art.51.1, since 1991) which states that students and other learners have the right “to the protection from any form of exploitation, physical and psychological violence, actions of pedagogical and other employees who violate the rights or humiliate their honour and dignity”. Standard instructions for teachers provided by the Ministry of Science and Education state that a teacher who has used corporal punishment to a pupil (even once), shall be dismissed.
United Kingdom 
In state-run schools, and also in private schools where at least part of the funding came from government, corporal punishment was outlawed by Parliament with effect from 1987. In other private schools it was banned in 1999 (England and Wales), 2000 (Scotland) and 2003 (Northern Ireland). In 1993, the European Court of Human Rights held in Costello-Roberts v. UK that giving a seven-year-old boy three 'whacks' with a gym shoe over his trousers was not a forbidden degrading treatment.
The implement used in many state and private schools in England and Wales was a flexible rattan cane, applied either to the student's hands or (especially in the case of teenage boys) to the seat of the trousers. Slippering was widely used as a less formal alternative. In a few English cities, a strap was used instead of the cane.
United States 
Individual US states have the power to ban corporal punishment in their schools. Currently, it is banned in public schools in 31 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. In two of these states, New Jersey and Iowa, it is illegal in private schools as well. The 19 states that have not banned it are mostly in the South. It is still used to a significant (though declining) degree in some public schools in Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas.
In 1867 New Jersey became the first U.S. state to abolish corporal punishment in schools. The second was Massachusetts 104 years later in 1971. The most recent state to outlaw school corporal punishment was New Mexico in 2011.
Private schools in most states are exempt from state bans and may choose to use the paddle. Here too, most of those which actually do so are to be found in Southern states. These are largely, but by no means exclusively, Christian evangelical or fundamentalist schools.
Most urban public school systems, even in states where it is permitted, have abolished corporal punishment. Statistics collected by the federal government show that the use of the paddle has been declining consistently, in all states where it is used, over at least the past 20 years. The anti-spanking campaign Center for Effective Discipline, extrapolating from federal statistics, estimates that the number of students spanked or paddled in 2006 in U.S. public schools was about 223,000.
Statistics show that black and Hispanic students are more likely to be paddled than white students, possibly because minority-race parents are more inclined to approve of it. However, a study in Kentucky found that minority students were disproportionately targeted by discipline policies generally, not only corporal punishment.
Federal statistics consistently show that around 80% of school paddlings in the U.S. are of boys. This is most commonly thought to be because boys, more often than girls, exhibit the kinds of misbehaviour for which corporal punishment is thought appropriate.
One study has alleged that students with disabilities are "subjected to corporal punishment at disproportionately high rates, approximately twice the rate of the general student population in some States".
Corporal punishment in American schools is administered to the seat of the student's trousers or skirt with a specially made wooden paddle. This often used to take place in the classroom or hallway, but nowadays the punishment is usually given privately in the principal's office.
Most public school districts lay down detailed rules as to how the punishment is to be administered. In many cases these are published in the school's student-parent handbook.
In 1983 a school administrator struggled with a student, trying to force her to bend over a chair to receive a paddling. During the struggle, the student fell against a desk, sustaining a serious injury to her back.
Increasingly, corporal punishment in US schools is, either explicitly or de facto, a matter of choice for the student. Thus, the rules of the Alexander City Schools provide, "No student is required to submit to corporal punishment." Many school handbooks provide that where a student refuses to submit to a paddling, he or she will receive some other punishment instead, such as suspension. Students are unlikely nowadays to be forcibly restrained while being paddled, as happened in the 1970 case which came to the Supreme Court in 1977 as Ingraham v. Wright, where the Court deemed the punishment constitutionally permissible, holding that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment does not apply to disciplinary corporal punishment in public schools and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not offended by the Florida scheme.
Many school districts also offer parents an opportunity to state whether or not they wish corporal punishment to be used on their sons and daughters. Typically, the parents fill out a form which is filed in the school office. In many districts this is an "opt-out" system. In others an "opt-in" system applies, whereby no student is so punished without explicit parental consent.
A bill to end the use of corporal punishment in schools was introduced into the United States House of Representatives in June 2010 during the 111th Congress. The bill, H.R. 5628, was referred to the United States House Committee on Education and Labor where it was not brought up for a vote. As of June 2011 a similar bill has not been re-introduced in the 112th Congress. A previous bill "to deny funds to educational programs that allow corporal punishment" was introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives in 1991 by Representative Major R. Owens. That bill, H.R. 1522, did not become law.
U.S. states banning school corporal punishment 
Thirty-one U.S. states and the District of Columbia have banned corporal punishment from use in state schools. Two states, New Jersey and Iowa, additionally ban the use of corporal punishment in private schools. The states, in chronological order of the year they banned, are:
- New Jersey - 1867
- Massachusetts - 1971
- Hawaii - 1973
- District of Columbia - 1977
- Maine - 1979
- New Hampshire - 1983
- New York - 1985
- Vermont - 1985
- California - 1986
- Nebraska - 1988
- Wisconsin - 1988
- Alaska - 1989
- Connecticut - 1989
- Iowa - 1989
- Michigan - 1989
- Minnesota - 1989
- North Dakota - 1989
- Oregon - 1989
- Virginia - 1989
- South Dakota - 1990
- Montana - 1991
- Utah - 1992 
- Maryland - 1993
- Nevada - 1993
- Washington - 1993
- Illinois - 1994
- West Virginia - 1994
- Rhode Island - 2002
- Delaware - 2003
- Pennsylvania - 2005
- Ohio - 2009 
- New Mexico - 2011
See also 
- See e.g. Student/Parent Information Guide and Code of Conduct 2008-2009, Alexander City Schools, Alabama, USA, p.44.
- "Toronto abolishes the strap". Globe and Mail (Toronto). 23 July 1971.
- "External links to present-day school handbooks", World Corporal Punishment Research.
- United Kingdom: Corporal punishment in schools at World Corporal Punishment Research.
- Quigly, Isabel (1984). The Heirs of Tom Brown: The English School Story. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-281404-4
- Chandos, John (1984). Boys Together: English Public Schools 1800-1864. London: Hutchinson, esp. chapter 11. ISBN 0-09-139240-3
- Gould, Mark (9 January 2007). "Sparing the rod". The Guardian (London).
- Brown, Colin (25 March 1998). "Last vestiges of caning swept away". The Independent (London).
- Teitelbaum, Salomon M. "Parental Authority in the Soviet Union", in American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. 4, No. 3/4 (December 1945), pp. 54-69.
- "Caning? It's not cricket, say the Russians at Rugby". Daily Mail (London). 22 November 1960.
- "North Korean Defectors Face Huge Challenges". Radio Free Asia. 21 March 2007.
- China State Report, GITEACPOC, February 2009.
- Linehan, Thomas P. (2007). Communism in Britain, 1920-39: From the cradle to the grave, Manchester University Press. pp. 32 ff. ISBN 0-7190-7140-2
- Adelson, Eric (4 May 2009). "The Principal And The Paddle". Newsweek (New York). "While suspensions take kids out of the classroom for days, paddling could be done in 15 minutes. "What are we here to do? Educate," Nixon says. "This way there's an immediate response, and the child is right back in the room learning.""
- One Kentucky study noted, "Out-of-school suspension and expulsion interrupt students' educational progress and remove students from school at a time when they may most need stability and guidance in their lives. Repeated out-of-school suspensions may make it impossible for students to keep up with the curriculum, complete class assignments, and advance from one grade to another." Richart, David et al. "Unintended Consequences: The Impact of 'Zero Tolerance' and Other Exclusionary Policies on Kentucky Students", report prepared by the National Institute on Children, Youth & Families at Spalding University in Louisville, KY; the Children's Law Center in Covington, KY; and the Youth Law Center in Washington, D.C.
- Chmelynski, Carol (5 December 1995). "Is paddling on its way back?". National School Boards Association.
- "Sometimes we sent a student to the principal's office for a paddling, and I have seen a marvelous clearing of the air with a simple whack on the butt. The offending student realized without resorting to guilt or subterfuge, the seriousness of his transgression." Berrigan, Father Philip, quoted in Johnson, Allen Jr (31 December 2002). "The Aggressive Pacifist". Gambit (New Orleans).
- U.S. Department of Education (August 2002). "A Closer Look at Drug and Violence Prevention Efforts in American Schools: Report on the Study on School Violence and Prevention". p. 51.
- Poole, S.R.; Ushkow, M.C.; Nader, P.R., et al. (July 1991). "The role of the pediatrician in abolishing corporal punishment in schools". Pediatrics 88 (1): 162–7. PMID 2057255.
- "U.S. Organizations Opposed to School Corporal Punishment". The Center for Effective Discipline.
- American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health (February 1984). "Corporal punishment in schools". Pediatrics 73 (2): 258. PMID 6599942.
- Stein, M.T.; Perrin, E.L. (April 1998). "Guidance for effective discipline. American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health". Pediatrics 101 (4 Pt 1): 723–8. PMID 9521967.
- American Academy of Pediatrics. Committee on School Health (August 2000). "Corporal punishment in schools". Pediatrics 106 (2 Pt 1): 343. doi:10.1542/peds.106.2.343. PMID 10920163.
- "Corporal punishment in schools. A position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine". J Adolesc Health 13 (3): 240–6. May 1992. PMID 1498122.
- Greydanus, D.E.; Pratt, H.D.; Spates, Richard C.; Blake-Dreher, A.E.; Greydanus-Gearhart, M.A.; Patel, D.R. (May 2003). "Corporal punishment in schools: position paper of the Society for Adolescent Medicine". J Adolesc Health 32 (5): 385–93. doi:10.1016/S1054-139X(03)00042-9. PMID 12729988.
- American Psychological Association (1975).Resolution on Corporal Punishment.
- "Advocacy". Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health. Retrieved 2008-08-06.
- Lynch, M. (September 2003). "Community pediatrics: role of physicians and organizations". Pediatrics 112 (3 Part 2): 732–4. doi:10.1542/peds.112.3.S1.732 (inactive 2010-03-19). PMID 12949335.
- "Memorandum on the Use of Corporal Punishment in Schools". Psychiatric Bulletin 2 (4): 62. 1978. doi:10.1192/pb.2.4.62.
- Hartwell, E.; et al (1 October 2005). "Quality Network for In-patient CAMHS Service Standards 2005/2006". Retrieved 2008-08-06.
- Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee, Canadian Paediatric Society (2004). "Effective discipline for children". Paediatrics & Child Health 9 (1): 37–41.
- "Legislative assembly questions #0293 - Australian Psychological Society: Punishment and Behaviour Change". Parliament of New South Wales. 20 October 1996. Archived from the original on 2008-05-03. Retrieved 2008-08-06.
- "Corporal punishment". National Association of Secondary School Principals. February 2009.
- von Krafft-Ebing, Richard. Psychopathia Sexualis, F.A. Davis Co., London & Philadelphia, 1892. Republished 1978 by Stein & Day, New York: ISBN 0-8128-6011-X
- Freud, Sigmund. "A child is being beaten", International Journal of Psychoanalysis 1919; 1:371.
- "Diálogo, premios y penitencias: cómo poner límites sin violencia". El Clarín (Buenos Aires). 17 December 2005. (Spanish)
- "En Argentina, del golpe a la convivencia". El Clarín (Buenos Aires). 10 February 1999. (Spanish)
- "Corporal punishment: Key issues - Resource Sheet". Child Family Community Australia. Retrieved 20 April 2013.
- Education Act 1990 (NSW), s47(h), s3 and s 35 (2A)
- Education Act 2004 (ACT), s7(4).
- Education Act 1994 (Tas), s82A.
- Criminal Code Act (Qld), s280.
- Australia State Report, GITEACPOC.
- School Education Regulations, s40, cf Criminal Code Act, s257.
- Criminal Code Act (NT), s11.
- Austria State Report, GITEACPOC.
- "Supreme Court takes strap out of teachers' hands". Edmonton Journal (Alberta). 1 February 2004.
- Moyers school supplies catalogue, 1971.
- FitzGerald, James (1994).Old Boys: The Powerful Legacy of Upper Canada College. Toronto: Macfarlane Walter & Ross. ISBN 0-921912-74-9
- Byfield, Ted (21 October 1996). "Do our new-found ideas on children maybe explain the fact we can't control them?". Alberta Report (Edmonton).
- "Spanking still legal in Canada". Montreal Gazette (Quebec). 23 February 2005.
- "Peace Wapiti scraps strap". Daily Herald-Tribune (Grande Prairie, Alberta). 19 November 2004.
- Paul Wiseman, "Chinese schools try to unlearn brutality", USA Today, Washington D.C., 9 May 2000.
- "New measures taken in schools to improve teacher-student relations", People's Daily, Beijing, 31 July 2005.
- Czech Republic State Report, GITEACPOC, June 2011.
- Youssef RM, Attia MS, Kamel MI (October 1998). "Children experiencing violence. II: Prevalence and determinants of corporal punishment in schools". Child Abuse Negl 22 (10): 975–85. doi:10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00084-2. PMID 9793720.
- "The punishments in French schools are impositions and confinements."-- Matthew Arnold (1861) cited in Robert McCole Wilson, A Study of Attitudes Towards Corporal Punishment as an Educational Procedure From the Earliest Times to the Present, Nijmegen University, 1999, 4.3.
- France State Report, GITEACPOC.
- "Teacher Fined, Praised for Slap", Time, New York, 14 August 2008.
- "It's 40 years since corporal punishment got a general boot", translated from Saarbrücker Zeitung, 19 June 1987.
- Greece State Report, GITEACPOC, November 2006.
- Nilanjana Bhowmick (2 May 2009). "Why India's Teachers Do Not Spare the Rod". Time (New York).
- "Department code on discipline urged", Irish Times, Dublin, 9 April 1999.
- Italy State Report, GITEACPOC.
- "Many Japanese Teachers Favor Corporal Punishment", Nichi Bei Times, San Francisco, 21 November 1987.
- School corporal punishment in Malaysia at World Corporal Punishment Research.
- Netherlands State Report, GITEACPOC.
- "Education Act 1989 - New Zealand Legislation". New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel Office. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
- "§202C: Assault with weapon - Crimes Act 1961 No 43 as of 18 April 2012 - New Zealand Legislation". Parliamentary Counsel Office (New Zealand). 18 April 2012. Retrieved 11 May 2012.
- "School in corporal punishment spotlight". Television New Zealand. 18 February 2007. Retrieved 2011-01-09.
- "PAKISTAN: Corporal punishment key reason for school dropouts". IRIN Asia. 18 May 2008.
- Philippines State Report, GITEACPOC.
- Newell, Peter (ed.). A Last Resort? Corporal Punishment in Schools, Penguin, London, 1972, p. 9. ISBN 0-14-080698-9
- Speech by Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Acting Minister for Education.
- Regulation No 88 under the Schools Regulation Act 1957.
- Singapore school handbooks on line at World Corporal Punishment Research.
- South African Schools Act, 1996, Chapter 2: Learners, Section 10: Prohibition of corporal punishment
- South Korea State Report, GITEACPOC.
- Video clips of schoolboy discipline at World Corporal Punishment Research.
- 진보교육감들 “학생 간접체벌 불허”, 《한겨레》, 2011.3.23
- 얼차려 형식의 벌을 '간접 체벌'이라 하여 신체의 접촉이 있는 체벌과 구분하기도 한다. 얼차려·간접체벌 허용, 문제학생 출석정지…교육부 VS 서울시교육청, 《쿠키뉴스》, 2011.1.17
- Spain State Report, GITEACPOC.
- "Changing concepts of Grammar School teacher authority in Sweden 1927-1965". Australian Association for Research in Education. 1997.
- "Taiwan corporal punishment banned", BBC News On Line, London, 29 December 2006.
- "Legality of corporal punishment in Thailand", End Corporal Punishment, February 2009.
- Ukraine. DETAILED COUNTRY REPORT. Last updated: February 2011.
- ECtHR judgment in case 13134/87
- Guide to LEAs' Corporal Punishment Regulations in England and Wales, Society of Teachers Opposed to Physical Punishment, Croydon, 1979.
- "Rise and fall of the belt", Sunday Standard, Glasgow, 28 February 1982.
- Ahmed, Kamal (27 April 2003). "He could talk his way out of things". The Observer (London).
- "A 'fifth of teachers back caning'". BBC News Online. 3 October 2008.
- Bloom, Adi (10 October 2008). "Survey whips up debate on caning", Times Educational Supplement (London).
- Lyman, Rick (30 September 2006)."In Many Public Schools, the Paddle Is No Relic". The New York Times.
- United States - Extracts from State legislation at World Corporal Punishment Research.
- Iowa statutes, 280.21.
- "Corporal Punishment and Paddling Statistics by State and Race", Center for Effective Discipline.
- School Philosophy & Distinctives, published by Briarwood Christian School.
- Corporal punishment regulations of individual schools or school districts (external links to present-day school handbooks) at World Corporal Punishment Research.
- Bates, Karen Grigsby (October 1998). "Spanking: A black mother's view". Salon.com.
- Horn, I.B.; Joseph, J.G.; Cheng, T.L. (2004). "Nonabusive Physical Punishment and Child Behavior among African-American Children: A Systematic Review". Journal of the National Medical Association, Vol. 96, No. 9. pp. 1162–1168. ISSN 00279684
- Richart, David; Brooks, Kim; Soler, Mark. "Unintended Consequences: The Impact of 'Zero Tolerance' and Other Exclusionary Policies on Kentucky Students", report prepared by the National Institute on Children, Youth & Families at Spalding University in Louisville, KY; the Children's Law Center in Covington, KY; and the Youth Law Center in Washington, D.C.
- Gregory, J.F. (1995). "Crime of punishment: Racial and gender disparities in the use of corporal punishment in U.S. public schools". Journal of Negro Education (Journal of Negro Education) 64 (4): 454–462. doi:10.2307/2967267. JSTOR 2967267. Retrieved 2008-10-30.
- McCarthy, Carolyn (2010). Prepared remarks of United States Representative Carolyn McCarthy at the 15 April 2010 meeting of the Healthy Families and Communities Subcommittee, Committee on Education and Labor, United States House of Representatives.
- Garcia v. Miera. United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, 28 April 1987.
- Alexander City Schools (2010). Student/Parent Information Guide and Code of Conduct, 2009-2010 School Year, p. 47.
- United States Reports (1977), Vol. 430, page 657.
- Vagins, Deborah J. (3 July 2010). "An Arcane, Destructive — and Still Legal — Practice." The Huffington Post.
- McCarthy, Carolyn (2010). Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy Introduces Legislation to End Corporal Punishment in Schools. 29 June 2010.
- H.R. 5628, 111th Congress, 2d Session.
- H.R. 1522, 102d Congress, 1st Session.
- (banned by administrative rule R277-608)"States Banning Corporal Punishment", Center for Effective Discipline.
- Chapman, Stephen (28 April 1994). "Singapore's Form Of Punishment Has Its Place In America". Chicago Tribune. "This year, Illinois has a new law that prohibits public schools from 'slapping, paddling or prolonged maintenance of students in painful positions' or anything else causing 'bodily harm.'"
- The Ohio ban was signed into law by then-Governor Ted Strickland on 17 July 2009, and enforcement of the ban began on 15 October 2009. "Ohio Bans School Corporal Punishment", Center for Effective Discipline, 23 July 2009.