1

Running head: HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Developments in Canadian School Discipline:
The History of Corporal Punishment



Shelina Hassanali
University of Calgary
EDPS 635
August 11
th
, 2013













2
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Developments in Canadian School Discipline:
The History of Corporal Punishment

The field of educational psychology is, by definition, interested in various aspects related
to how children learn and develop, primarily in the school setting. While it is quite apparent that
much of this learning is derived from direct curricular instruction, the school also provides a
setting in which there are certain behavioural expectations. Acceptable student behaviour, which
may vary across school boards, individual schools, and even among individual teachers, is often
taught by the use of various disciplinary strategies. Educational paradigms have evolved over the
years, and opinions related to how students should be disciplined have also changed and
developed. As educators and policy makers continue the quest towards school discipline models
which are effective yet do not infringe upon the rights of children, it is important to consider the
history of school discipline in order to learn from what worked and steer clear of what didnt.
This paper then, will discuss historical developments in Canadian school discipline, with a focus
on corporal punishment. We will start with a definition of corporal punishment, and follow with
an exploration of the various factors which have made an impact, including federal and
provincial legislation; changing policies, roles, and responsibilities of school boards,
administrators, and teachers; influences from the field of psychology in general and also school
psychology specifically; and finally, the current status and trends of disciplinary policies in
Canadian schools.
Definitions of Corporal Punishment
Prior to any discussion on the historical development of corporal punishment in Canadian
schools, we must first define the concept itself. Probably the most accepted definition was
3
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
proposed by the Committee on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 2006), which is the monitoring
body of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). The committee
states that corporal punishment is any punishment in which physical force is used and intended
to cause some degree of pain or discomfort, however light. The broad nature of this definition
appears to be intentional, so as to protect children against any type of physical force used upon
them. Examples of corporal punishment include, but are not limited to: hitting (slapping,
smacking, spanking) with a hand, hitting with an object such as a belt, stick, whip, etc., kicking,
shaking, throwing, burning, use of forced ingestion (i.e. washing mouths out with soap or forcing
children to ingest spices), and forcing children into uncomfortable positions (Council of Europe,
2007). Other definitions in the literature are quite similar, stating that corporal punishment is the
use of physical pain to change, correct, or punish the childs behaviour (Gershoff & Bitensky,
2007; Greydanus et al, 2003). The Council of Europe (2007), which is one of the oldest human
rights organizations in Europe, points out that while the UNCRC states that corporal punishment
is invariably degrading, it fails to include other forms of non-physical punishment which are also
degrading and impactful to mental health, such as punishment which belittles, humiliates,
threatens or scares children. It may be the case, however, that these types of punishment were
purposefully left out due to the high level of interpretation and subjectivity which these acts can
carry as compared to physical punishments. Nonetheless, due to the ongoing short and long-term
impacts of both types, it is important to consider both in any discussion on corporal punishment.
Early Thoughts on Corporal Punishment of Children
Some of the earliest opinions regarding the use of corporal punishment with children can
be found in both religious texts and from different eras. For example, in the book of Proverbs, it
is stated that He that spareth the rod hateth his son, but he that loveth him chasteneth him
4
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
betimes (Proverbs 13:24). Support for teachers use of physical force with children was also
supported by contemporaries of Socrates, many of whom stated that tears were a masters
instrument of instruction (Wrock, 1975 as cited in Axelrod, 2010). The Romans also agreed with
this ideology, holding children culpable for their behaviour at the age of seven, and credited with
creating the earliest tools used for corporal punishment, including the scutia (leather strap), the
ferula (rod), and the virga (resembling the birch), all of which were used in Canadian schools
in the 19
th
and 20
th
centuries (Monroe, 1926 as cited in Axelrod, 2010). The use of corporal
punishment in schools was also discussed by early enlightenment thinkers. For example, John
Locke and John Jacques Rousseau advised teachers that the use of force and brutality was not
normally required in teaching and subsequent learning, however Locke stated that, in the case of
willful disobedience, the rod may be necessary (Locke, 1693 as cited in Axelrod, 2010). It seems
that these initial ideas converged to form a basis for Canadian legislation on the matter, and it is
to this which we now turn our attention.
The Development of Legislation Regarding Corporal Punishment
In mid-1800s North America, questions started to be raised regarding the role of
corporal punishment. In a work titled The Evil Tendencies of Corporal Punishment as a Means
of Moral Discipline in Families and Schools, the American author questioned both the
effectiveness and the morality of corporal punishment in schools and recommended that the rod
only be used as a last resort when all other options to correct behaviour have failed (Cobb, 1847).
It seems that questions such as these had little impact on the ongoing use of corporal punishment
in schools. In the United States, New Jersey was the first state to abolish it in 1867, twenty years
after initial questions started to be raised. In Canada almost twenty years later, the opposite was
5
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
occurring, with the reasonable correction defense for teachers appearing in Canadas first
criminal code in 1892 (Barnett, 2008).
Federal Legislation- Criminal Code of Canada: Section 43
Section 43 of the criminal code expressly gives teachers a defense in the event that they
used reasonable force to discipline a child. This section is discussed in detail in a document of
the Library of Parliament (Barnett, 2008). While this defense appeared in the criminal code in
1892, the content of this federal code has remained relatively unchanged since that time (Barnett,
2008). The section states that, Every school teacheris justified in using force by way of
correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not
exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances (Criminal Code, as cited in Barnett, 2008). It
is quite apparent that this text is somewhat problematic in that the definition of reasonable
force can vary greatly. Of particular interest to the field of psychology is that the code states that
the child must have the capacity to understand and benefit from such correction, which is again
up for interpretation and debate, given the wide range of cognitive capacities, contributing
mental health concerns, and individual situations of each child. Of course, the code protects
children too, stating that teachers could be found criminally liable if the punishment resulted in
the permanent injury of a student, was too severe for the offence, or was inflicted with malice
thereby rendering such punishment to be not in good faith (Axelrod, 2010).
It has been suggested that the growth of elementary and secondary enrollments in the
post-war period led to a reassessment of classroom pedagogy (Axelrod, 2010), and that the rise
of youth activism in the 60s and 70s (Barber et al, 2012) fueled an interest in and recognition of
the rights of children and youth. The 1968 Hall-Dennis Report out of Ontario condemned
6
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
corporal punishment and suggested a move away from authoritarian discipline in schools, toward
a more child-centred approach (Hall & Dennis, 1968). In 1984, the Law Reform Commission of
Canada recommended a repeal of section 43, and since then, there have been several attempts to
abolish corporal punishment by way of private members bills (Barnett, 2008). Even with
Canadas ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which clearly states that
appropriate measures must be taken to protect children from physical violence while in the care
of any person, section 43 remained. In a national survey conducted in 2003, it was indicated that
69% of Canadians favoured repealing section 43 for teachers. Despite the opinion of the
majority, no changes were made (Toronto Public Health, 2003).
In 2004, a case was brought forward by the Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth,
and the Law which argued that section 43 is unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of Canada
decided that the section does not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, stating that it does
not infringe on the security of the person, the childs right to equality, nor does it constitute cruel
and unusual punishment (Barnett, 2008). The case did, however, result in several limits to the
use of corporal punishment in Canadian schools, including changes to the acceptable age for
such punishment (between ages 2-12), the banning of use of any object to exert physical force on
a child, and the indication that children must not be punished in anger (Barnett, 2008; Lee,
2004). While corporal punishment was not being used in practice in most Canadian schools by
this time, the ruling ensured that all objects such as canes, belts, straps, etc. were removed from
schools across the country. Section 43 does, however, still protect teachers who use reasonable
force to defend themselves or to remove a child from a situation in which the child poses a threat
to themselves or others (Axelrod, 2010).
Provincial Legislation & Developments
7
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
In Canada, educational legislation lies at the provincial level; that is, each province is
responsible for its own education system. This has led to inconsistency between provinces in
regards to the points in time when they abolished corporal punishment from provincial education
acts (Barnett, 2008). One fact which appears to be consistent across most, although not all
provinces, is the fact that they expressly removed the use of corporal punishment from provincial
education acts many years, and in some instances, decades before federal legislation did the
same. According to the Repeal 43 committee, a voluntary organization of lawyers, pediatricians,
social workers and other professionals who are against section 43, the following 8 provinces and
3 territories amended their education acts to ban corporal punishment: British Columbia (1973),
Nova Scotia (1989), New Brunswick (1990), Yukon (1990), Prince Edward Island (1993), North
West Territories (1995), Newfoundland (1997), Quebec (1997), Saskatchewan (2005), and
Ontario (2009), which leaves only Manitoba and Alberta as the remaining provinces who have
not made it clear that corporal punishment is banned in all public schools (Repeal 43, 2013).
While student suspension and expulsion are discussed in detail in the Government of Albertas
Education Act (2013), there is no mention of a policy against corporal punishment.
The Role of Governing Bodies & School Boards
It is important to note that there are some instances in which, despite the lag time for
provincial boards to ban corporal punishment in their education acts, some local school boards
have done so within their own policies. For example, although Alberta did not make a statement
in its provincial education act, Edmontons public and Catholic boards had banned corporal
punishment in schools in 1990 (Edmonton Journal, 2004). Also, while Ontario did not make
changes to provincial legislation until 2009, the Toronto Board of Education made a formal
statement in its Education Act in 1971 (Axelrod, 2010).
8
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
The Alberta Teachers Association (ATA) has not historically nor currently appeared to
have its own stance on the use of corporal punishment per se; however, it does state that
teachers are permitted to take reasonable steps as may be required to maintain control of
pupils and that a teacher may legally administer punishment if it is justified and not excessive
or malicious and if it is in accordance with school board policy and school rules (ATA, 2013).
A current example of board policy can be found at the Calgary Board of Education (CBE), which
explicitly states that school staff must not use physical attacks or corporal punishment to
discipline students, but that staff is permitted to use reasonable force to restrain a student from
carrying out a violent act which may harm themselves or others (CBE, 2013). It seems to be the
case that while the pace of change has been impeccably slow, historical developments across the
majority of federal, provincial, and local school board legislation and policies have trended
overwhelmingly away from the use of corporal punishment in schools.
Contributions of the Field of Psychology
In post-war Canada, while a multitude of changes were occurring in educational
pedagogy; federal, provincial, and local legislation and policies; as well as in public opinion on
the matter, various regulating bodies in the field of psychology also made their position on
school corporal punishment known.
APA, CPA, and NASP
The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution on corporal
punishment which expressed that it was opposed to corporal punishment in all establishments
which worked with children, including schools, daycares, juvenile facilities, and all other
establishments in which children are educated or cared for (APA, 1975). In their statement, the
9
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
APA listed many reasons for their position, including arguments that the use of corporal
punishments in schools reduces students self-esteem; that children may imitate violent
behaviour which is modelled to them; that it may result in increased rage and hostility; and that
behaviour and socialization training can be achieved without the use of force and violence (APA,
1975).
In 2004, close to the time when Canadas Supreme Court made changes to section 43 of
the criminal code, the Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) also released a statement on
physical punishment of children and youth. The CPA stated that physical punishment does not
effectively manage behaviour, and that it has the potential to result in damaging outcomes for
children. The organization suggests that the use of force and physical punishment with children
may interfere with psychological adjustment, socialization, moral internalization, non-
violence and positive adult-child relationships and that it is a violation of the childs right to
physical integrity and dignity (CPA, 2004). Further, they suggested ways in which physical
punishment of children could be reduced, including public awareness campaigns, education
strategies related to child development, and finally, amendments to the criminal code which
would protect children from physical punishment and force in the same way that it protects
adults (CPA, 2004).
Shortly after the CPA, the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) also
released a position statement on the matter, opposing the use of corporal punishment in schools,
and expressing that effective discipline should involve instruction rather than punishment. An
important contribution to the ongoing changes, the organization stated that,
Corporal punishment does not instruct a child in correct behavior. Without the
replacement behavior being taught, there will be nothing to take the place of
10
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
inappropriate behavior. Moreover, the use of corporal punishment in schools
communicates that hitting is the correct way to solve problems and violence is acceptable
in our society. Corporal punishment does not produce long-lasting changes in behavior
(NASP, 2006).

While the APA (1975) was the first psychological organization to oppose the use of corporal
punishment in schools and discuss potential negative outcomes, the CPA (2004) took this one
step further by providing suggestions to the problem, and two years later, NASP (2006) provided
a clear and succinct reason why corporal punishment is unsuccessful at teaching appropriate
behaviours. It seems then, that while the latter two organizations made their opinions public
relatively late, the three major governing bodies in the field of psychology have all contributed to
the move away from corporal punishment in schools.
Psychological Research on the Impact of Corporal Punishment
While governing boards in psychology have provided professional, credible positions on
corporal punishment, these positions are undoubtedly based on research conducted over the
years. Psychology and the field of healthcare in general have produced many studies highlighting
the impacts of using physical punishment with children, such as serious physical and mental
health concerns, poor self-control and social skills, heightened anxiety, poor peer relationships,
heightened symptoms of depression, and overall poor psychosocial outcomes (Greydanus et al,
2003; Gershoff & Bitensky, 2007). The frequency of exposure to corporal punishment has been
shown to predict 10-16 year olds self-reported psychological distress (Turner & Finkelhor,
1996) and has been shown to increase cortisol levels in children as young as one year old
(Bugental, Martorell, & Barraza, 2003). In Gershoffs (2002) meta-analysis, corporal punishment
was associated with negative mental health outcomes in 8 of the cases studied.
11
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
A recent study on the impact of corporal punishment on childrens cognitive function
gleaned some troubling results. The study, which examined grade one students in two West
African schools, considered the differences in students at one school which disciplined students
by means of verbal reprimands or time-outs, and at another school which used beatings as the
main form of discipline. Results were two-fold, and indicated that a) the students in the second
school did significantly poorly on tests of executive functioning, and b) that while the students in
the second school ceased the inappropriate behaviour immediately, they failed internalize the
behavioural expectations and/or rules which were attempted to be taught by the punishment
(Talwar, Carlson & Lee, 2011).
While much of the research on the psychological impact of corporal punishment is
relatively recent, some older studies have also shown that schools which used corporal
punishment commonly showed a higher delinquency level among all age groups and tended to
cause the opposite effect (Kahn et al, 1978).
Current Trends in School Discipline
As corporal punishment in schools was being debated in the past, some suggestions for
strategies and policies which could replace it were being debated. It was suggested that teachers
required more support, and that readily available psychiatric treatment facilities should be made
available for certain children, as well as special education classrooms for disruptive students
(Kahn, 1978). These suggestions were carried out in different ways across various school boards;
however, with the trend towards inclusive education, teachers required a different approach to
disciplining these students. Hyman (1996) suggested that Recent reviews still suggest
compelling evidence that reward, positive reinforcement, and positive motivational techniques,
12
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
combined with punishment techniques other than corporal punishment, are superior in shaping
appropriate behavior and extinguishing misbehaviour. These suggestions are still used in
education today, with an overwhelming amount of school-wide policies and practices of
individual teachers using positive reinforcement techniques. Recent legislation has also reflected
this shift in thinking, an example of which is found in the Progressive Discipline bill (Bill 212)
of the Ontario Ministry of Education. Coming into force in 2008, the ministry describes
progressive discipline as a whole-school approach that utilizes a continuum of interventions,
supports and consequences to address inappropriate student behaviour and to build upon
strategies that promote positive behaviours (Roher, 2008). This piece of legislation also asserts
that when inappropriate behaviour occurs, school staff shall approach it from a supportive and
corrective framework rather than a punitive one. School-based discipline has also shifted towards
a more student skill building framework, including a focus on proactive social and emotional
skill development in areas of conflict resolution, anger management, critical thinking, problem
solving, and communication skills (Barber et al, 2012).
Conclusion
Disciplinary policies and practices in Canadian schools have evolved over the years and
have quite an interesting developmental history. While the use of physical force to correct or
punish a childs behaviour may seem to be completely out of the question in todays society, this
was the norm in the majority of schools in countries around the world, including Canada. Over
centuries, decades, and even in recent years, corporal punishment has been a topic of discussion
which has impacted federal and provincial legislation as well as policy and procedural
development of individual schools and school boards. Regulatory bodies in the field of
psychology such as the APA, CASP, and NASP have all contributed to the decline and eventual
13
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
abolishment of corporal punishment in Canadian schools, as has research which has shown the
detrimental psychosocial effects of such measures. In recent years, we have seen a shift towards
a more positive, child-centered, preventative model of student discipline as opposed to a purely
punitive model. With continued research in the fields of educational and developmental
psychology, it can be anticipated that this trend will continue to evolve as professionals in the
field strive towards the creation of effective school discipline models which optimize the
learning and development of students.












14
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
References
Aberta Teachers Association. (2013). Teachers Rights, Responsibilities, and Legal Liabilities.
Retrieved from
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/Other%20Publications/Teachers%20%20Rights%20Resp
onsibilities%20and%20Legal%20Liabilities/Pages/Chapter%203.aspx
American Psychological Association. (1975). Council Policy Manual: Corporal Punishment.
Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/about/policy/corporal-punishment.aspx
Axelrod, P. (2010). No longer a last resort: the end of corporal punishment in the schools of
Toronto. The Canadian Historical Review, 91(2), 261-285.
Barber, M., Carnegie, C., Jonkman, J., Reilly, L. & Winter, A. (2012). History Research Paper:
Changing Punishment The Evolution of Discipline in Canadian Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.theodorechristou.ca/tmc/Select_Subjects_in_the_History_of_Ontario_Education_file
s/Changing%20Punishment-
%20The%20Evolution%20of%20Discipline%20in%20Canadian%20Schools.pdf
Barnett, L. (2008). The Spanking Law: Section 43 of the Criminal Code. Library of Parliament.
Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/prb0510-e.htm
Bugental, D. B., Martorell, G. A., & Barraza, V. (2003). The hormonal costs of subtle
forms of infant maltreatment. Hormones and Behavior, 43, 237244.
Calgary Board of Education. (2013). Administrative Regulation 6001 Student Discipline.
Retrieved from http://www.cbe.ab.ca/policies/policies/AR6001.pdf
15
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Canadian Psychological Associtation. (2004). Board of the Canadian Psychological Association
Policy Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth. Retrieved from
http://www.cpa.ca/documents/policy3.pdf
Cobb, L. (1847). The Evil Tendencies of Corporal Punishment as a Means of Moral
Discipline in Families and Schools: Examined and Discussed (New York: Newman)
Council of Europe. (2007). Abolishing Corporal Punishment of Children: Questions and
Answers. Retrieved from http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/children/pdf/QuestionAnswer_en.pdf
Edmonton Journal. (2004). Supreme Court Takes Strap Out of Teachers Hands. Retrieved from
http://www.corpun.com/cas00402.htm
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors
and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
539579.
Gershoff, E.T. & Bitensky, S.H. (2007). The case against corporal punishment of children:
converging evidence from social science research and international human rights law and
implications for U.S. public policy. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 13(4), 231-272.
Greydanus, D.E., Pratt, H.D., Spates, C.R., Blake-Dreher, A.E., Greydanus-Gearhart, M.A., &
Patel, D.R. (2003). Corporal punishment in schools: position paper of the society for adolescent
medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 32, 385-393.
16
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Government of Alberta. (2013). Education Act. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=e00p3.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779769346
Hall, E.M. & Dennis, L.A. (1968). Living and Learning: The Report of the Provincial Committee
on Aims and Objectives of Education in the Schools of Ontario. Retrieved from
http://www.connexions.org/CxLibrary/Docs/CX5636-HallDennis.htm
Hyman, I.A. (1996). using research to change public policy: reflections on 20 years of effort to
eliminate corporal punishment in schools. Pediatrics, 98(4), 818-821.
Kahn, J.H., Wolkind, S., Lynch, M., Bentovim, A., & Westbury, D. (1978). Memorandum on the
use of corporal punishment in schools. Retrieved from
http://pb.rcpsych.org/content/2/4/62.full.pdf
Lee, C. (2004). Physical punishment of children: A psychological perspective. Canadian Clinical
Psychologist, 14(2), 3-4. Retrieved from
http://www.cpa.ca/cpasite/userfiles/Documents/sections/clinical/NewsletterSpring04.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2006). Position Statement: Corporal Punishment.
Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/positionpapers/CorporalPunishment.pdf
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. Committee on the Rights of
the Child. Retrieved from http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/crc/
Roher, E.M. (2008). Progressive Discipline: Totally Rethinking Safe Schools. Retrieved from
http://www.cpco.on.ca/LawLibrary/BordenLadnerGervais/safeschools.pdf
17
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT
Talwar, V., Carlson, S.M., & Lee, K. (2011). Effects of a punitive environment on childrens
executive functioning: a natural experiment. Social Development, 20(4), 805-824. DOI:
10.1111/j.1467-9507.2011.00617.x
Toronto Public Health. (2003). National Survey of Canadians Attitudes on Section 43 of the
Criminal Code. Retrieved from http://www.toronto.ca/health/pdf/ssl_survey.pdf
Repeal 43. (2013). http://www.repeal43.org/
Turner, H. A., & Finkelhor, D. (1996). Corporal punishment as a stressor among youth.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 58, 155166.









http://www.apa.org/about/policy/corporal-punishment.aspx

18
HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT