Commonly recognized as the liminal category between infancy and adulthood, adolescence has proved a puzzle for individuals and systems to understand. By nature of youth not fitting entirely into the “adult” category, developmental psychologists argue that adolescents require close guidance and instruction to guarantee they successfully complete their journey into maturity. Whether this guidance falls entirely on parents, or in part on schools, is a topic for debate. Regardless, because schools have fully taken on the responsibility to academically educate youth, they are often expected to provide similar instruction in morals. To understand the involvement of schools with moral instruction of youth, I refer to Homeroom Security by Aaron Kupchik, and “From the Bench to the Paddle” by Richard Arum. The following essay will discuss the differences between the types school disciplines researched in each respective reading, and whether or not corporal punishment may be a more effective means of moral instruction than high security systems.
While Kupchik’s evaluation of punishments focuses on the varying types of disciplinary measures, Pitt and Thompson’s article focuses purely on school-directed corporal punishments in both pro-school, and pro-student court climates. Thus, “Judging School Discipline” is mainly concerned in identifying school responses to court rulings. Arum finds that schools in states with pro-student climates were less likely to utilize corporal punishment as a form of discipline (Arum 143). Interestingly enough, the same study showed that youth attending school in pro-school state climates were more likely to perceive their treatment as “fair” due to the regularity and uniformity of punishments Arum 150).
Comparing Arum’s school discipline to Kopchik, one obvious difference is the enforcer of the rule of law in schools. For Arum, the enforcer is the teacher, with the aid of a paddle or some other threatening implement of punishment. In Kupchik’s research, teachers are rarely the discipline-enforcing authority. In Kupchik’s schools, moral instruction falls on security guards, and school police officers, and conduct is patrolled by digital security cameras. Kupchik argues that the intense surveillance and unexplained punishments from external authorities form an environment in which “rules are enforced for their own sake, with no corresponding attempt to solve underlying problems” (Kupchik 11). The failure of the high security school is its lack of emphasis on conveying the reasoning behind surveillance and punishment to youth. This failure leads to a population of youth who are less likely to perform successfully in society with respect to moral rules or norms, simply because they received incomplete moral instruction in school.
Arum approaches school discipline in a less youth centered way, and fails to explain whether or not corporal punishment actually “solves underlying problems.” However, Arum’s analysis reveal a simpler form of discipline, in which actors are limited, often to only a teacher, who serves as both the patrol and the authority, and a student. It is possible that due to the lack of complicated nuances directing the corporal punishment in Arum's article, corporal punishment may be more effective in conveying certain rules to students, making it the more apt form of moral instruction when compared to contemporary, high security systems.
Despite the differences in these two systems of discipline, one thing is clear. Youth understanding is not often a factor in designing systems of punishment. Because discipline functions as moral instruction in schools, it is critical that it is designed in such a way that youth benefit from it. Discipline used for the sake of restraining a “dangerous class” without reforming the source of bad behavior fails the students, and in turn, fails to improve the school environment.
Kupchik, Aaron. Homeroom Security: School Discipline in an Age of Fear. New York, NY: New York UP, 2010. Print.
Pitt, Richard, and Jennifer Thompson. "From the Bench to the Paddle." Judging School Discipline: The Crisis of Moral Authority. By Richard Arum. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2003. N. pag. Print.
Alynia makes an interesting contrast between Arum's study and that of Kupchik. The enforcer of rules and executioner of punishment could definitely make a difference in how students perceive their schools' disciplinary procedures.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a striking similarity that I see in the disciplinary actions from both studies is that they seek to punish rather than address the underlying causes of student misbehavior. In the Arum study, the use of the paddle by a teacher does no more to explain to a child what they have done wrong, or attempt to address the cause of their behavior, than the use of handcuffs by police officers in Kupchik's study.
Although the use of law enforcement complicates the disciplinary system, I do not think that the paddle method is more effective than police. Both methods convey the message that students are powerless in the face of authority. Who that authority is matters less, although the police are also found outside of school, which may result in a student's distrust of law enforcement as a whole, whereas their mistrust of teachers may only go so far as their education.
I really liked how you did a comparison between Kupchik and Arum; it was interesting to see how you compared those two and concluded that Arum's study in corporal punishment is a more effective disciplining method for students. I think you were right that surveillance is proof that schools have begun to rely too much on external forces, and fail to be as safe as corporal punishment is in conveying what rules are.
ReplyDeleteThere definitely seems to be a breakdown of moral responsibility schools originally carried with the introduction of surveillance and police officers on campus. Teachers are able to hand students off to officers without having to “deal” with them. We see police officers filling in roles as counselors, mentors, and coaches, often unprofessionally. Another aspect is the disproportionate turnout that is created. Students are subject to criminalization and hostile environments of fear and distrust, factors that corporal punishment could not bring about. Kupchik shows in several cases in which a small problem readily escalates into a criminal offense, while creating an environment full of distrust (“Does the school not trust me so much so that they installed cameras everywhere?”) and fear (“Did they install cameras because school really IS dangerous?”). We must question if disciplining students is worth all this cost.
The banishing of corporal punishment, in a sense, marked the distrust administrators had with teachers and the power they yielded. If we look back to our past readings, we saw how teachers were carefully instructed to use it as last resort, advised to exercise much more precaution than what we see with surveillance (which seems to set off with a mind of its own). Without this power, teachers do not feel like they are being supported when disciplining a student. This encourages teachers to rely more on external services.
So these are my two cents on the connection you established between corporal punishment and surveillance!
Alynia's essay is very insightful and helpful for comparing and contrasting the two ways in which a student's behavior can be monitored and influenced. While I agree with the author that using corporal punishment is beneficial in some cases, security surveillance seems very suitable for the technologically driven modern world.
ReplyDeleteIt can be argued that the presence of police officers and surveillance cameras in schools prepares the students for the real world. Moreover, it can be predicted that the students will get into less trouble as adults, as they will be used to being watched and monitored.
On the other hand, the security surveillance method lacks the human factor. Students would learn to behave because they do not want to get in trouble with authorities, not because they understand that what they have done is wrong. Perhaps, the partial use of both methods, though often times overlapping, should be considered.
I think this essay did an effective job of comparing the two readings. We must consider Arum’s point regarding teachers directly punishing the students and also Kupchik’s argument regarding extensive surveillance and punishment; the latter involves the ‘external authorities’ that actually worsen student conduct and morality in the long term. Kupchik mentions flat out in the beginning of the book that there is ‘too much discipline’. Such harsh punishments and surveillance temporarily deal with misconduct, but do not contribute to the investigation of the causes or prevent the likelihood of future cases. Similarly in Arum, the use of harsh punishment fails to reinstate a sense of wrongdoing or cause of misbehavior within the student.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, advanced technology and corporal punishment can be partially useful in responding to youth misconduct. However the goal should be to curtail future instances and to have youth understand what is right and wrong rather than attempting to establish force and fear. I agree with Alynia that punishment as a form of discipline must be applied only to benefit and reform youth in the long term. I believe that insisting only on severe punishment as an immediate consequence is a rather myopic approach to school discipline.
I enjoyed how the author highlighted some of the prominent problems in the Arum study and Kupchik’s schools. The main problem I see in both studies is the lack of effective communication to youth/students. The adults discipline youth, which isn’t a bad thing because it helps correct “improper” behaviors, but it’s a problem when adults fail to explain why the youth are being disciplined. To youth, the may not feel the punishment is really justified, whereas adults think it’s perfectly reasonable. This disconnect in understanding causes more stress on youth, who aren’t being told why they are punished, yet are being punished anyways. It almost creates a self-fulfilling prophecy; the youth are seen as uncontrollable and irrational by an adult centered perspective, and these behaviors stem from the lack of real explanation for punishments.
ReplyDeleteThe author did a good job analyzing the readings. One point that caught my attention was towards the end where the essay talks about reforming punishments so that youth learn from their punishments rather than just restrained. I agree with this. It goes back to many of the earlier cases we have read that talk about how much to punish youth. Although it is a liminal category, I think punishments for youth and adults are much different. First of all, youth do not necessarily know al the consequences of their actions while adults do or should know better. I think these make the goals of punishment very different rather than unclear. While hopes due to a youth’s age that they will be able to be reformed, there isn’t as much of an emphasis, I feel, on reform because of the development stage that youth are undergoing.
ReplyDeleteI think that Alynia Phillips does a good job at bringing together both topics on corporal punishment and security surveillance regarding school discipline on youth. I like how Alynia brings up the notion that moral discipline should be something that youth should benefit from. I also think that the author did a good job at exposing and comparing Kupchik’s argument that revolves around security surveillance. Furthermore trying to look for a solution of whether corporal punishment or security surveillance is the best moral discipline for youth I think brings about interesting limits on the best way to educate/discipline youth while imposing on them good morals. If it were me I think I would also include the many studies we read on youth behavior influenced by media and games and it's influence on how that may affects them in a school environment when they are being monitored on bad behavior and trying to fight back a controlling authority imposed on them, which through their eyes may come be felt as invasive. But overall I think the author did a good job in the essay.
ReplyDeleteThis essay provided a particularly interesting comparison between articles that encompass different methods that schools use to discipline students. This discipline mainly applies to adolescents because they make up a “dangerous class” simply due to their liminal status in society and the difficulty often involved with understanding their motives. The comparison between both types of disciplinary actions made it clear how each have their own pros and cons. For example, security systems in schools do prove to be quite useful because they instill good character, possibly through the use of intimidation due to constantly being watched. However, I feel like using these systems only provides a sense of discipline outside of schools. Students will realize that they are not constantly supervised in the outside world; it is unlikely that security cameras will be able to catch every possible crime. Therefore, I think that having constant supervision is unrealistic, since it is true that disciplinary action is taken outside of school, but it is not necessarily constant and it occurs to an extent. I do agree that Arum provides a less youth-centered approach in his attempt to explain the reasons that problems occur in the first place; however, it is impossible for either method to explain this phenomenon because discipline can only go so far. Communication with students and observation may prove to be helpful in discovering why these problems occur, but I doubt it is an issue that can be completely solved, especially with the current methods that are being taken.
ReplyDeleteThis essay does a good job of bringing up some of the points from the book and also questioning whether schools are disciplining youths to give try to instill a better sense of morality or just to control them. It seems like in high security schools, the administration has such little control of the students, that they prioritize control of this potentially dangerous class over moral development. These high security schools employ guards and use surveillance, it is almost like the kids are already in prison rather than a learning environment. Maybe this ties in to the Arum reading where speaks about teachers not wanting to get involved in punishment at all when there is a pro student court climate. The teachers have basically given up on dealing with the punishment aspect, thus relinquishing their power in moral development. Now everything is left up to the guards, and security cameras, the problem is, that those are only tools to punish youth, they don't actually teach them anything.
ReplyDeleteI really like how this essay presents similarities and differences between corporal punishment and high security systems in schools. Both are disciplinary measures meant to prevent youth misbehavior and also deal with it in a swift "easy-clean" way. We saw in Kupchik how school administrators of various sorts, (SROs, vice principals, etc.) would not take the time to listen to what students had to say or even exhibited much concern as to what causes the incident of school policy violation Rather, they want to handle the conduct in a swift, easy matter, through referrals and detentions. This system of discipline assumes that high security is "best practice" for teaching students a lesson. Schools are running on efficiency rather than on care. Similarly, corporal punishment is relatively easy to implement and gets the message across immediately. What differs in these two types of disciplinary measures is the respective messages that are getting across to students. As Alynia mentioned, corporal punishment is perceived as more fair than high security "get tough" policies. Perhaps it is the relational element and a relational message of a teacher directly disciplining a student, as their own parents might. On the other hand, when school officers act as a third party intermediary for a situation, or if a student is sent away to go deal with someone else through a referral, the message conveyed to students is quite different. Students feel criminalized, like they must to submit to authority even if they are innocent; regardless, their voice does not count. In sum, I agree with this paper's argument.
ReplyDelete