Does your state encourage listening to troubled students or hitting them: School counselors vs corporal punishment in American schools

29 min readAug 16, 2021

Yvonne Vissing and Jennifer Vernick

Is there a relationship between school funding, school quality, and how schools manage emotionally distressed or misbehaving students? There is an increase in student trauma and socio-emotional challenges (ACLU 2020; Anderson 2020; Becker 2021; JED Foundation 2021). If schools do not receive adequate funding, does it make counseling less and corporal punishment more likely? We examine that relationship by analyzing state-level US data and whether there is a relationship between funding, quality, the support, and discipline strategies students receive.

School Funding Patterns

School funding is associated with school quality and student success (Jackson et al 2015; Greenwald et al 1995; Kim 2007; Nguyen-Hoang and Yinger 2014). The Learning Policy Institute reports the amount of funding teachers and students receive is directly related to school quality and student academic success (Baker 2018). Funding is associated with class sizes, teacher training, resources, and ability to student academic and personal needs. This is reiterated by the National Education Association (2018) and World Bank reports (Evans 2019). Federal, state, and local funding decisions impact what schools can accomplish. Adequate funding helps schools improve student outcomes, especially in higher poverty areas. Salaries, teacher/counselor-student ratios, and resources are central to school quality (Barrette 2018; Burnette 2019; Darling-Hammond 2001; Dynarski 2017).

Property taxes largely fund schools in the US. States have different tax bases and wealthy districts may spend 2–3 times more than poor districts per student. Poor district students may be food and housing insecure, lack healthcare, have more stress, and have lower family incomes. They need more than academic information to help them succeed (Darling-Hammond 2019). While poor schools may need greater funding to meet student needs, schools in the poorest districts often receive insufficient funding (Camera 2018; Darling-Hammond 2001; Mathewson 2020). The Education Trust report (Morgan and Amerikaner 2018) found over half of the poorest school districts don’t receive adequate funding to address student needs. School districts with the highest rates of poverty receive $1,000 less per student than schools with low poverty rates.

The Learning Policy Institute (Darling-Hammond 2019) found when commit to equitably fund schools, student learning improves. Equitability efforts undertaken in Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and North Carolina helped close the achievement gap between students, increasing the success of all students. The report encourages better teacher salaries, support for training, and assistance to help address under-resourced student needs. The Southern Education Foundation (2015) found adequate school funding is essential for the nation’s future; the way schools address student needs will determine whether the US will be a nation in decline.

The average salary for a public school teacher nationwide was $61,730 in 2019–20. Mississippi paid least at $45,574 and New York higher at $86,000 (Perino et al 2020). School counselors earned less than teachers, about $57,000 (US Bureau of Labor Statistics 2019). Business Insider (Perino et al 2020) reported that while teacher salaries have increased when adjusted for inflation it is below what teachers were paid in 1999. Unlike hourly wage earners, teachers devote evening/weekend personal time working and often pay for classroom supplies out of their own pockets. Counselors likewise perform multiple duties.

In short, while schools are the main institution that socializes students and sets them up for productive careers, schools, teachers, and counselors report not having the financial support or time support to do everything necessary to set all students up for success. This is particularly challenging in areas where local poverty is greatest and students are in the most need of resources to help them succeed.

Increased Student Challenges

Schools are the main social institution for children, providing educational content, career guidance, and socio-emotional support. Educational institutions serve as de-facto social service agencies by identifying students having difficulties and linking them with resources. School personnel are gatekeepers helping students having personal, cognitive, physical, or mental health challenges to obtain services. Staff norms, deliver positive and negative sanctions to control student behaviors and create school climates (Cuconato et al 2015).

Students report more depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, substance use, bullying, running away, victimization of violence, and sexual intimacy (Morin 2020). Young people’s mental health has been adversely impacted by the COVID pandemic. They require reliable, caring role models and supportive peers. Their search for identity, status, and recognition is universal (Harris 1998; 2006). Schools provide environments to address those needs. Teachers manage upset, sad, angry, preoccupied, introverted, confused, out-of-control students with mental health issues because there aren’t enough social workers, psychologists, or mental health counselors available in schools (Burton 2005).

Schools argue there is insufficient money for school mental health or that it isn’t the school’s responsibility to deal with student’s personal problems. Socioemotional learning has taken a backseat to STEM (US Department of Education 2019), teachers complain there isn’t enough time, room in the curriculum, resources, or support for staff training for civics and human rights education (Lee 2019; Schwartz 2019; Vissing 2021). Focusing on Common Core classes has not led to student success (Loveless 2012).

If students are troubled, there aren’t sufficient school-based counselors available or mental health resources to help them, and some schools resort to corporal punishment as a means to keep students “in line”, then is corporal punishment directly related to school funding? Overwhelmed teachers or school personnel who lack the intervention skills may resort to demeaning students or engaging in corporal punishment as a means of managing troublesome behaviors (Schwartz 2019). Nineteen states still legally allow school personnel to use corporal punishment to control student behavior (Chen 2020). This begs the question — Is there a relationship between a state’s investment in schools and the type of discipline students receive?

Managing Challenging Students

Childhood is fraught with many challenges that youth must learn to negotiate (Sreenivasan and Weinberger 2020). They experience social, psychological, biological, and developmental challenges, school pressures, peer and intimate relationships, family pressures, identity, self-esteem, and figuring out their place in the world. While this is hard for any youth, children in impoverished or dysfunctional homes experience more chronic and toxic stress than students from affluent, stable homes (Columbia University 2016; Francis et al 2018). Toxic and chronic stress are associated with over 50% of student absences (Johnston-Brooks, Lewis, Evans, & Whalen, 1998), depression (Hammack, Robinson, Crawford, & Li, 2004), inability to concentrate, remember information, and be attentive in class (Erickson, Drevets, & Schulkin, 2003; Lupien et al 2001), poor social skills, impaired judgment (Wommack & Delville, 2004), reduced motivation, determination, and effort (Johnson, 1981), impulsivity and difficulties deferring gratification (Jensen 2009). They may act out, express inappropriate behavior, lack social graces, and politeness have less empathy for others' misfortunes, and limited modes of expression emotion (Jensen 2009). Bullying and harassment are problems for schools (Peguero and Hong 2020). Many students carry weapons to school (Reinberg 2019); school shootings have increased (Everytown 2021). COVID-19 has exacerbated student mental distress (Jones 2020; Perez 2021).

Schools socialize students to adhere to certain norms and standards, and conform to peer pressures or risk social rejection. As Jensen (2009) points out, many students face overwhelming challenges that circumvent their ability to behave. Using the mnemonic EACH, Jensen identifies students may have Emotional and Social Challenges; Acute and Chronic Stressors; Cognitive Lags; Health and Safety Issues. Teaching students social skills and how to work through challenging situations and interactions may be time-consuming but ultimately more effective. This means teachers need more training on how to do that.

Students experience a wide array of stressors that they inevitably bring to school. They can get worse when teachers do not have the training or resources to understand and support them. Even in schools where there are counselors, student needs are skyrocketing, making it harder and harder to serve students in distress (Jones 2019). Sometimes police are put into schools to help manage students, but most students would prefer they weren’t there and had more counselors (Ludwig 2021).

Photo by Christina @ wocintechchat.com on Unsplash

Counseling Approach. Given the rise of school shootings, suicide attempts, and mental distress, the American School Counselor Association (ASCA) finds there has never been a more critical time to make sure students have access to mental health professionals (Bray 2019). Students need mental health supports, but school counselors often focus on college preparation, not therapy (Jacobson 2019). The ASCA recommends a ratio of 250 students per counselor; in 1986 it was 588 students (Barshay 2020). Counselor-student ratios vary with a low of 202 students per counselor in Vermont to 905 students for every counselor in Arizona (Bray 2019). Information from the American School Counselor Association (2019) has found that the actual average student-to-school-counselor ratio is 464 to 1. One in five students (8 million) don’t have access to a counselor and 3 million have no access to other school support staff (Barshay 2020). Janine Menard, chair of the Arizona School Counselors Association, reports a caseload of 1,100 students (Quinn 2019). Even with a “low” rate of 250 students per counselor, most distressed students will likely never access one.

Despite all students benefiting from access to counselors, counselors are not as available to students of color or students from low-income families. Schools serving the largest number of nonwhite students often have fewer counselors. Thirty-eight of fifty states don’t provide nonwhite students or students from low-income families with the same access to counseling as schools with white or more affluent students (American School Counselor Association 2019).

Trends indicate that students get more counseling when local budgets are flush. When the economy falters, counseling is one of the first things to go. With an economic downturn due to the coronavirus pandemic, it seems likely that school counselors could once again fall to budget cuts just as the need for their guidance becomes even more critical (Barshay 2020).

Corporal Punishment. In response to student disruptive behavior, some schools have resorted to punitive measures like suspensions or arrests. Without nonviolent conflict resolution training, when teachers are frustrated, annoyed, or irritated they may resort to stigmatizing, demeaning, blaming, or condemning students. They may have good intentions but their choice of how to respond to the student can result in negative consequences (Pankonin and Meyers 2017; Tommaso 2017). If the teacher is emotionally triggered by the dysregulated student’s behavior, responding in kind with dysregulated reactions, teachers may increase, rather than decrease, poor student behavior. This is known as secondary deviance, where if the teacher had responded differently to the primary act of deviance then the subsequent negative behavior may not have occurred (Lemert 1951; 1967; Sherman 1993).

It is beneficial to students to figure out the causes of their misbehavior and devise positive alternative strategies (Jensen 2009). But some teachers choose to humiliate students to exert control, perhaps because they feel desperate, because they think they have the right to, because they think the student deserves it, think it is a form of teasing, or as a way to over-compensate for their own lack of confidence (Curwin 2019). Historically it was not unusual for misbehaving students to be hit. Corporal punishment is defined in the Texas Education Code Title 2 § 37.0011. 2013, that permissible corporal punishment is “…the deliberate infliction of physical pain by hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline.” It allows school personnel to hit children with objects like paddles and use “any other physical force” to control children, as long as it is in the name of discipline (Gershoff &Font, 2018). Corporal punishment is legal in 19 states, with over 160,000 students hit annually. This practice remains legal because of a Supreme Court decision over 40 years ago in 1977 when the Supreme Court ruled in Ingraham v. Wright [1] that corporal punishment in public schools was constitutional. This resulted in states making their own rules about hitting students. The federal government has not included corporal punishment in initiatives about improving school discipline (Caron 2018; Gershoff and Font 2016). Some schools argue that parents support the spanking of children as a necessary tactic (Crandall 2002).

States allowing corporal punishment have higher rates of child poverty, higher child mortality, lower college graduation rates, and lower per-pupil education expenditures than states that have banned school corporal punishment (Gershoff et al., 2015). Students most likely to be hit, spanked, or otherwise assaulted by school officials tend to be male, black, disabled, exhibit behavioral challenges, and live in Southern and rural states (Caron 2018; Gershoff and Font 2016; Losen, Hewitt and Toldson 2014; Skiba, Michael, Nardo and Peterson 2006).

Why do schools continue to use corporal punishment as a strategy for dealing with student misbehavior? (Gershoff and Font 2016). Some explanations are cultural, others are ideological. Some adults believe if you spare the rod, you will spoil the child. Others justify the use of physical force not as assault or physical violence and think it won’t hurt a child. Others regard children to be cognitively, morally, and developmentally incapable of understanding how they should behave so physical force is necessary. Some parents prefer their child is hit rather than suspended. The decision to continue corporal punishment as a school disciplinary tactic has been strategic and well-considered as appropriate by administrators and local communities (Medway and Smircic 1992; Owen and Wagner 2006).

Despite their justification for its use, corporal punishment has been opposed for over forty years for reasons that include: a) use of objects to administer corporal punishment can lead to serious injury of the child; b) there is a power, size, and age differential that makes children vulnerable; c) research studies indicating corporal punishment is ineffective in teaching children how to behave properly; d) t is associated with a variety of negative short and long- term consequences; e) schools are one of the last public institutions where corporal punishment is legal; and f) that national pediatric, human rights and child welfare organizations have opposed its use ((Frank 2013; Gershoff and Font 2018; Zolotor et al 2008). Child wellbeing organizations that are opposed to spanking, hitting, and using corporal punishment against children include the American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health (1984), American Bar Association (1985), American Civil Liberties Union, and Human Rights Watch (2010), American Medical Association (2015), and the American Psychological Association (2008).

Corporal punishment is considered a violation of children’s human rights, as ordered in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Respecting the dignity of all children and doing what is in the best interest of the child should be fundamental in decisions regarding minors. The CRC focuses on establishing mental, physical, cognitive, and social well-being, and protecting children from abuse and harm. Schools are designated as an important social institution central to the promotion of children’s wellbeing where corporal punishment should be forbidden (Bitensky 2006; Block 2013; OHCHR 2020; Vissing 2021).

Instead of a punitive approach, contemporary scholars encourage the use of discipline through instruction children find positive ways of interacting. Increasingly, schools choose nonviolent interventions and causal factors for student misbehavior (Prothero 2020). But this modality requires sufficient funding (Hanna 2019).

Methodology

This mixed-methods study relied upon state-level secondary data to ascertain if there is a relationship between school funding, quality, and how student misbehaviors are managed. Data was collected as part of a larger study, the State of US Child Wellbeing by State, which analyzed a variety of child wellbeing variables by state published in official national reports (Vissing 2021). Reports selected for inclusion had to have data on the same variables for all 50 states and have a clearly stated methodology that was reviewed to meet sound research standards, including identifiable sample, variable operationalization, documented data collection, and analysis strategies.

Studies on ranking state-level school performance included “Best States for Education” by the World Population Review, “States with the Best & Worst School Systems” from WalletHub, and “2018 Kids Count Data Book” by Annie E. Casey Foundation. The American School Counselor Association's “Student-to-School-Counselor Ratio” report was used to obtain data relating to school counselors in schools. Data related to school spending came from a Governing.com study, which used data from the U.S Census Bureau’s Annual Survey of School System Finances. Data on corporal punishment came from a study done in the Social Policy Report.

The reports utilized different data coding strategies on identical variables. Some used a 1 to 50 ranking system where 1 could be seen as “the best” and 50 as “the worst”, but reports could also code 1 as “the worst” and 50 as “the best”. We coded the data so there would be consistent with the interpretation of the information. Sometimes reports used numerical designations, such as the income of teachers/counselors, student-teacher ratios, or amount of money the school appropriated per student. In these cases, data were recoded into quartiles or quintiles to cluster the data to make the high, mid, and low trends more observable. Extensive time and care were devoted to recoding the data so that it could become more comparable and meaningful.

Hypotheses. Hypothesis 1: There is a relationship between states ranked school quality and their legality of corporal punishment.

Hypothesis 2: There is a relationship between school quality and student-counselor ratio.

Hypothesis 3: There is a relationship between how much a state spends per student and if they allow for the use of corporal punishment.

Hypothesis 4: There is a relationship between state funding per student and the student-counselor ratio.

Hypothesis 5: There is a relationship between a state’s school counselor-to-student ratio and the legal use of corporal punishment.

Operationalization of the Variables. Variables selected included: state; school quality; state funding per student; student-counselor ratio; and whether corporal punishment is legal by schools in that state.

State: All 50 states were included.

Overall School Quality. Overall school quality rank was calculated by averaging different categories including overall education rank, state spending per student, safety, and average class size. Data from each of these indicators were divided into quintile rankings which were averaged together. This aggregated rank was constructed using variables from Annie Casey Foundation, the World Population Review, Wallethub, and the Educational Attainment in the United States Survey conducted by the US Census Bureau.

The first ranking used to calculate the overall education rank was the Overall Rank variable, obtained from a study conducted by WalletHub. The Quality variable includes Blue Ribbon schools per capita, if the public schools are included in the U.S News & World Reports “Top 700 Best US Schools”, high school graduation rate among low-income students, pupil-teacher ratio, the share of licensed teachers, dropout rate, and the results of several different test scores such as Math, reading, SAT, and ACT scores. The Safety variable looks at the number of school shootings, laws surrounding school resource officers, the bullying rate, disciplinary incidence rate, and the rate of youth incarcerations. It also included requirements surrounding school safety audits and school safety plans, as well as how safe the roads around schools are. For the Overall Rank variable, quality is given 80 points, while safety is given 20 points. This means that quality more heavily impacts the overall rank than safety does. The second-ranking that was used as the Education Rank, which came from the Casey Foundation and was measured four separate indicators. These are young children not in school, reading proficiency in fourth grade, math proficiency in eighth grade, and high school students who do not graduate on time. That data comes from the American Community Survey, which is conducted by the U.S Census Bureau, and the US Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics. Aggregate state spending per student was found using data on each state’s contribution to spending per student, instruction per student, and support per student. This data comes from the Census Bureau. Data on class size was obtained from the National Center for Education Statistic’s report the Digest of Education Statistics. Elementary and high school class sizes were averaged to find the aggregate, overall class size for each state. It is important to note that Florida, Hawaii, Maryland, and Rhode Island do not report data about class sizes, and were therefore left out of this analysis on that variable.

In order to average these different indicators, the scores were added together to create an average ranking score. This score was transformed into a quintile, as there are 50 states and each quintile consisted of ten (1–10=5th quintile, 11–20= 4th quintile; 21–30=3rd quintile; 31–40=2nd quintile, and 41–50=1st quintile). This division into quintiles helped provide a visual representation of where each state fell on the continuum from low to high. The 5th quintile refers to the state that scores least, while the 1st quintile refers to the state that invests the most per student.

Measurement of Spending. Aggregate state spending per student was found using data on each state’s contribution to spending per student, instruction per student, and support per student. This data comes from the Census Bureau. These categories' rankings were averaged together to find overall state spending per student. States were divided into 5 quintiles. States that spent between $4642 and $6663 were ranked as quintile 5, states that spent between $6664 and $8684 were ranked as quintile four, states that spent between $8685 and $10,705 were ranked as quintile 3, states that spent between $10,706 and $12,726 were ranked as quintile 2, and states that spent between $12,727 and $14747 were ranked as quintile 1. The 5th quintile refers to the state that spends the least per student while the 1st quintile refers to the state that invests the most per student.

Student-Counselor Ratio. The data relating to the student-to-school-counselor ratio was compiled by the American School Counselor Association and comes from the US Department of Education. Other reports were reviewed to determine consistency and the overall trends were similar. The US Department of Education data is the standard. The larger the student to counselor ratio, the more likely it is that there would be less contact between students and counselors; the lower the ratios, the smaller case-loads or ratios counselors would have, so there would be a greater chance for more accessible contact between students and counselors. The counselor-student ratios for states were sorted into quintiles in order to better see patterns in the data. States that had a ratio between 191–334 were ranked as quintile 1, states that had a ratio between 334–477 were ranked as quintile 2, states that had a ratio of 478–620 were ranked as quintile 3, states that had a ratio of 621–763 were ranked as quintile 4, and states that had a ratio of 764–905 were ranked as quintile 5, as shown in Table 1. The first and second quintiles were regarded to indicate a lower student-teacher ratio (or allowing opportunities for more contact between them) while quintiles of 3–5 were coded to indicate larger ratios, making it likely more challenging for students to have access to school counselors

Corporal Punishment. Data on corporal punishment comes from state-specific regulations from the Center for Effective Discipline and the U.S Department of Education. States that allow corporal punishment were coded as “yes” (1) while states that do not allow corporal punishment were coded as “no” (5). Other data sources were reviewed to ensure consistency in what 19 states allowed for the use of corporal punishment. The data used is consistent across multiple reports. It is important to note that the degree to which a state actually uses corporal punishment if it is legal may vary, with some states using it more than others. No distinction was made in our analysis for this because of concern of potential reporting error by informants.

Data Analysis

Data for the five variables of interest were put into a table that we can send you upon request, as Medium does not have the capacity to load large data tables. They include the 50 states, the aggregate school quality ranking, the mean amount of spending per student, the student-counselor ratio, and whether corporal punishment is allowed by schools in each state. The data reflects the quintile ranking of its position in 20% categories from high to low.

Hypothesis 1 examined the relationship between the quality of schools and the use of corporal punishment. States that were ranked high in quality and did not allow corporal punishment included Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, Vermont, and Virginia. States ranking low in quality and allowed the use of corporal punishment included Arizona, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Tennessee

Hypothesis 2 examined school quality and the student-counselor ratio average in each state. States that were rated to be of high quality with low student-counselor rates (meaning students had more access to counselors) included Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Virginia, and Wyoming. States that were ranked low in school quality and had high student-counselor rates (meaning more students per counselor) included Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, and Utah.

Hypothesis 3 examined the relationship between how much a state spent on student education and whether state laws allowed for the use of corporal punishment. States that were found to spend more per student on education and did not allow corporal punishment included Alaska, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont. States that did not spend much per student and allowed for the use of corporal punishment included Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.

Hypothesis 4 examined how much states paid per student and compared that expenditure to the student-counselor ratio. States that spent more per student and had low student-counselor ratios (or more access for students) included Arkansas, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Wyoming. States that did not spend as much per student and had high student-counselor ratios (or more students per counselor) included Arizona, California, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Utah.

Hypothesis 5 examined a state’s student-counselor ratio and their use of corporal punishment. States that had more student access to school counselors in states that did not allow corporal punishment included Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. States that had many students per counselor and allowed for the use of corporal punishment included Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Texas.

How do high and low states cluster? If states scored in three or more of the rankings above, this conveyed a trend in the relationship between school funding per student, use of school counselors, and whether they allowed the use of corporal punishment. We found that Connecticut, Massachusetts, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and Vermont clustered in the high-financial support per student, more availability of students to meet with counselors, and no use of corporal punishment. States that had lower financial support per student, less student access to school counselors, and allowed for the use of corporal punishment included Arizona, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, and Oklahoma.

Conclusion

This study provides useful information because it sheds light on how school funding impacts the quality of schools and how they may address student behavioral issues. Use of counseling and mental health services may be available in all states but when the ratios of students per counselor are very high, there may be less opportunity for students to access counselors or to receive the quality and quantity of mental health supports that they need. When resources are strained and supports are not available, it makes chances higher that school personnel could resort to the legally available option of using corporal punishment to gain student compliance.

It is clear that there are distinct geographic areas in the US of how school funding, quality, and the treatment of troubled students are managed. States clustering in the northeastern part of the US ranked higher according to all of the data sets, whereas states in the south scored lowest, along with clusters in the midwest and western part of the nation.

There are always options available to deal with dysregulated students. Adults who role model that violence is an acceptable solution to dealing with behavior that you don’t like is, as corporal punishment does, is concerning. Extremist behavior in young people is increasing worldwide (Vissing 2020); rape, assault, domestic violence, and child abuse remain high despite public health initiatives to curb such actions. Schools have an opportunity to show students how to deal with conflict and upsetting situations in a nonviolent, respectful, and pro-social way. We believe it is a school’s obligation to teach this, along with math, history the humanities, and the sciences.

Check out how to implement human rights education in your schools at Human Rights Educators USA — https://hreusa.org/

REFERENCES

American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on School Health. (1984). Corporal punishment in schools. Pediatrics 106(2), 343. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.106.2.343

American Bar Association. (1985). Corporal punishment in child care and education institutions. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/child_law/tools_to_use/attorneys/corporal_punishmentinchildcareeducationinstitutions.html.

American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights Watch. (2010) Corporal punishment in schools and its effect on academic success: Joint HRW/ACLU statement. https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/04/15/corporal-punishment-schools-and-its-effect-academic-success-joint-hrw/aclu-statement.

American Civil Liberties Union. (2020). Cops and No Counselors: Need for more school counselors to address student mental health needs. https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/field_document/030419-acluschooldisciplinereport.pdf

American Medical Association. Corporal punishment in schools (H-515.995) 1985 [reaffirmed 1995, 2005, 2015]. Retrieved from: https://www.ama-assn.org/ssl3/ecomm/PolicyFinderForm.pl?site=www.ama-assn.org&uri=/resources/html/PolicyFinder/policyfiles/HnE/H-515.995.HTM.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. doi: 10.1037/0003–066X.63.9.852

American School Counselor Association. (2019, February). School counselors matter. https://www.schoolcounselor.org/getmedia/b079d17d-6265-4166-a120-3b1f56077649/School-Counselors-Matter.pdf

Anderson, Greta. (2020, September 11). Mental health needs rise with pandemic. Inside Higher Ed. https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/09/11/students-great-need-mental-health-support-during-pandemic

Barrette, Kira. (2018, September 1). The evidence is clear: More money for schools means better student outcomes. NEA News. https://www.nea.org/advocating-for-change/new-from-nea/evidence-clear-more-money-schools-means-better-student-outcomes

Barshay, Jill. (2020, April 27). Lowest student to school counselor rate since 1986. The Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/lowest-student-to-school-counselor-ratio-since-1986/

Becker, Marty. (2021, February 24). Educators are key in proteting student mental health. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2021/02/24/educators-are-key-in-protecting-student-mental-health-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

Bitensky, S.H. (2006). Corporal punishment of children: A human rights violation. Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers

Block, N. (2013). Breaking the Paddle: Ending School Corporal Punishment. Columbus, OH: Center for Effective Discipline.

Bradley, R. H., & Corwyn, R. F. (2002). Socioeconomic status and child development. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 371–399.

Bray, Bethany. (2019, May 10). One school counselor per 455 students: Nationwide average improves. Counseling Today. https://ct.counseling.org/2019/05/one-school-counselor-per-455-students-nationwide-average-improves/

Burnette, Daarel. (2019, June 4). Student outcomes: Does more money really matter? Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/student-outcomes-does-more-money-really-matter/2019/06

Camera, Lauren. (2018, February 27). In most states poorest school districts get less funding. US News. https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/articles/2018-02-27/in-most-states-poorest-school-districts-get-less-funding

Caron, Christina. (2018, December 13). In 19 states it’s still legal to spank children in public school. New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/13/us/corporal-punishment-school-tennessee.html

Columbia University. (2016, May 10). Unequal stress: How poverty creates toxic stress for children. Columbia: Mailman School of Public Health. https://www.publichealth.columbia.edu/public-health-now/news/unequal-stress-how-poverty-toxic-children%E2%80%99s-brains

Crandall, Julie. (2008, August 20). Poll: Most approve of spanking kids. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90406&page=1.

Curwin, Richard. (2015, March 26). 12 ways to avoid student humiliation. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/blog/12-ways-avoid-student-humiliation-richard-curwin

Darling-Hammond, L. (2019, April 9). Investing for student success: Lessons from state school finance reforms. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/product/investing-student-success-school-finance-reforms-report

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2001). Inequality in teaching and schooling. In B.D. Smedley , A.Y. Stith & L. Colburn L (Eds.), The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert Nickens.Washington (DC): National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223640/

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2019, August 5). America’s school funding struggle. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/lindadarlinghammond/2019/08/05/americas-school-funding-struggle-how-were-robbing-our-future-by-under-investing-in-our-children/?sh=10e9e86e5eaf

Darling-Hammond, Linda. (2oo1). Inequality in teaching and schooling. In B.D. Smedley , A.Y. Stith & L. Colburn L (Eds.), The Right Thing to Do, The Smart Thing to Do: Enhancing Diversity in the Health Professions: Summary of the Symposium on Diversity in Health Professions in Honor of Herbert Nickens.Washington (DC): National Academies Press. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK223640/

Dynarski, Mark. (2017, March 2). It’s not nothing. Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/research/its-not-nothing-the-role-of-money-in-improving-education/

Erickson, K., Drevets, W., & Schulkin, J. (2003). Glucocorticoid regulation of diverse cognitive functions in normal and pathological emotional states. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 27, 233–246.

Everytown. (2021). Gunfire on school grounds in the United States [Infographic]. Everytownresearch.org. https://everytownresearch.org/maps/gunfire-on-school-grounds/

Francis, L., DePriest, K., Wilson, M., & Gross, D. (2018). Child Poverty, Toxic Stress, and Social Determinants of Health: Screening and Care Coordination. Online journal of issues in nursing, 23(3), 2. https://doi.org/10.3912/OJIN.Vol23No03Man02

Frank, D.W. (2013). Inhuman violence: Indiana’s nineteenth century view of physical punishment in public schools. National Lawyers Guild Review, 70, 41–64. https://www.nlg.org/resource/nlg-review/volume-70-no-1.

Gershoff, E. T., & Font, S. A. (2016). Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy. Social policy report, 30, 1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/

Gershoff, E.T. & Bitensky, S.H. The case against corporal punishment of children: Converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and complications for U.S. public policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13, 231–272. DIO: 10.1037/1076–8971.13.4.23.

Gershoff, E.T., Purtell K.M. & Holas I. (2015). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: legal precedents, current practices, and future policy. Springer.

Gershoff, E.T., Purtell, K.M. & Holas I. (2015). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: Legal precedents, current practices, and future policy. Springer.

Gregory, A., Bell, J., & Pollock, M. (2014). How educators can eradicate disparities in school discipline: A briefing paper on school-based interventions [PDF]. The Equity Project at Indiana University. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/17517/17517.pdf

Hammack, P. L., Robinson, W. L., Crawford, I., & Li, S. T. (2004). Poverty and depressed mood among urban African-American adolescents: A family stress perspective. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(3), 309–323.

Harris, J. R. (1998). The nurture assumption. New York: W. H. Norton.

Harris, J. R. (2006). No two alike. New York: W. H. Norton

Human Rights Watch. (2008). A Violent Education: Corporal Punishment in US Public Schools. http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/us0808_1.pdf.

Human Rights Watch. (2009, August 10). Impairing Education: Corporal Punishment of Students with Disabilities in US Public Schools. http://www.hrw.org/reports/2009/08/11/impairing-education-0.

Jacobson, Linda. (2019, June 6). With growing calls for mental health services states tackle school counselor caseloads. K-12 Dive. https://www.k12dive.com/news/with-growing-calls-for-more-mental-health-services-states-tackle-school-co/556169/

JED Foundation. (2021). Students with mental trouble are on the rise. https://www.jedfoundation.org/students-with-mental-troubles-on-rise/

Jensen, Eric. (2009). Teaching with Poverty in Mind. ASCD. http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109074/chapters/How-Poverty-Affects-Behavior-and-Academic-Performance.aspx

Johnson, D. S. (1981). Naturally acquired learned helplessness: The relationship of school failure to achievement behavior, attributions, and self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73(2), 174–180.

Johnston-Brooks, C. H., Lewis, M. A., Evans, G. W., & Whalen, C. K. (1998). Chronic stress and illness in children: The role of allostatic load. Psychosomatic Medicine, 60(5), 597–603.

Jones, Carolyn. (2019, November 20). Schools keep hiring counselors but students stress levels are growing. Ed Source. https://edsource.org/2019/schools-keep-hiring-counselors-but-students-stress-levels-are-only-growing/620281

Lana, Tommaso. (2017, September 11). Responding to disruptive students. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/responding-disruptive-students

Lee, Laura. (2019, November 26). Lacking training, teachers develop their own SEL solutions. Edutopia. https://www.edutopia.org/article/lacking-training-teachers-develop-their-own-sel-solutions

Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lemert, E. M. (1967). Human deviance, social problems, and social control. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Losen, D, Hewitt, D, & Toldson, I. (2014). Eliminating excessive and unfair exclusionary discipline in schools: Policy recommendations for reducing disparities [PDF]. The Equity Project at Indiana University. http://rtpcollaborative.indiana.edu/briefing-papers/

Ludwig, Mike. 2021. More than two-thirds of students want police out of schools. Truthout. https://truthout.org/articles/more-than-two-thirds-of-students-want-police-out-of-schools/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=de5d2d76-39ae-42a9-a518-cc2c76791d2a

Lupien, S. J., King, S., Meaney, M. J., & McEwen, B. S. (2001). Can poverty get under your skin? Basal cortisol levels and cognitive function in children from low and high socioeconomic status. Developmental Psychopathology, 13(3), 653–676.

Martin, Carmel. (2018, November 13). A quality approach to school funding. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education-k-12/reports/2018/11/13/460397/quality-approach-school-funding/#:~:text=These%20extreme%20spending%20inequities%20have,improved%20indicators%20of%20student%20achievement.

Mathewson, Tara Garcia. (2020, October 31). Even within the same district some wealthy schools get millions more than poor ones. Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/new-data-even-within-the-same-district-some-wealthy-schools-get-millions-more-than-poor-ones/

Medway, F.J. & Smircic, J.M. (1992). Willingness to use corporal punishment among school administrators in South Carolina. Psychological Reports, 71, 63–66. DOI: 10.2466/pr0.1992.71.1.65.

Morgan, Ivy & Amerikaner, Ary. (2018, February 27). Finding Gaps 2018: An analysis of school funding equity across the US and within each state. Ed Trust. https://edtrust.org/resource/funding-gaps-2018/

Morin, Amy. (2020, April 5). The truth about troubled teens. Very Well Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-happening-to-our-children-2606269

Owen, S.S. & Wagner, K. (2006). Explaining school corporal punishment: Evangelical Protestantism and social capital in a path model. Social Justice Research, 19, 471–499. DOI: 10.1007/s11211–006–0024–6.

Pankonin, Ashlie & Meyers, Rebekah. (2017). Teachers use of positive and negative feedback: Implications for student behavior. Applied Psychology Opus. https://wp.nyu.edu/steinhardt-appsych_opus/teachers-use-of-positive-and-negative-feedback-implications-for-student-behavior/

Quinn, Mattie. (2019, July). Many students are in crisis: So is America’s school counseling system. Governing.com. https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-school-counselor-crisis.html

Reinberg, Steven. (2019, December 2). 1 in 18 US teens carries a gun to school. WebMD. https://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20191202/1-in-18-us-teens-carries-a-gun-to-school-study#1

Schwartz, Sarah. (2019, July 18). Teachers support socio-emotional learning but say students in distress strain their skills. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/leadership/teachers-support-social-emotional-learning-but-say-students-in-distress-strain-their-skills/2019/07

Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of criminal sanction. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 30 445–473. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022427893030004006

Skiba, R.J., Michael, R.S., Nardo, A.C, & Peterson, R.L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 33, 317–342. DIO: 10.1023/A:1021320817372

Sreenivasan, Shoba & Weinberger, Linda. (2020, Mach 23). Growing up is hard to do. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/emotional-nourishment/202003/growing-is-hard-do

Suitts, Steve. (2013). A New Majority Update: Low Income Students in the South and Nation. Southern Education Foundation. https://www.southerneducation.org/publications/newmajorityresearchbulletin/ US Department of Education. (2019). Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, including Computer Science. https://www.ed.gov/stem

Vissing, Y. 2021/2. Relationship between Social Structure and Willingness to Embed Human Rights Education. In Discourses of Globalisation, Ideology, Education and Policy Reforms. Co-editors: Zajda, J. & Majhanovich, S . Book 26. The Globalisation, Comparative Education and Policy Research series, 36 volumes, Springer, the Netherlands.

Vissing, Y. Research Practices and Policy Addressing Young People’s Mental Health. Research Handbook of Mental Health Policy, Christopher Hudson, editor. Edward Elgar, Pub. 2021.

Vissing, Y. How Extremist Ideology is Built, Nurtured, and Transforms Societies. In Zajda and Vissing, (eds), Globalisation, Ideology and Human Rights. Springer 2021.

Vissing, Y. 2020. Children’s Human Rights as a Buffer to Extremism: A clinical sociology framework. In Clinical Sociology Research and Practice. Jan Marie Fritz, editor. Springer. 2020.

Vissing, Y. 2021. The State of US Child Wellbeing by State. Medium.

Wommack, J. C., & Delville, Y. (2004). Behavioral and neuroendocrine adaptations to repeated stress during puberty in male golden hamsters. Journal of Neuroendocrinology, 16(9), 767–775.

Zolotor, A. J., Theodore, A. D., Chang, J. J., Berkoff, M. C. & Runyan, D. K. (2008). Speak softly — and forget the stick: Corporal punishment and child physical abuse. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 35, 364–369. DOI: 10.1016/j.amepre.2008.06.031

[1] https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/430/651.html

Does your state encourage listening to troubled students or hitting them: School counselors vs corporal punishment in American schools

Written by Yvonne Vissing

No responses yet