Abstract
This was a comparative study of biblical and secular modes of discipline within secondary
schools in Bomet County, it was important to distinguish between problems with discipline in
schools and the various ways in which schools respond to those problems. The study objectives;
to find out the forms of disciplinary measures used within Christians and Secular secondary
schools in Bomet County; to establish the efforts in place to use positive discipline to curb
infraction in Christians and Secular secondary schools within Bomet County; to investigate
students’ and teachers preferences in regard to correction of infraction within Christians and
Secular secondary schools in Bomet County; to establish Christians and secular methods of
discipline within Christians and Secular secondary schools in Bomet County
Introduction
With a wide spread debate on the best methods of discipline needed to be used in learning
institutions, this study was carried out to find out the effectiveness of various modes of
disciplines. Choosing to compare biblical and secular modes of discipline would, inter alia,
ensure from the start that a study would not be biased.
Convention on the Rights of the Child indicates that States take on the obligation to implement
the rights enshrined in the Convention. Article 28 (2) of the Convention states that school
discipline methods should take into account child’s human dignity and in conformity with other
convections of Human rights. The Committee on the Rights of the Child, which monitors
implementation of the Convention, has consistently interpreted this article as requiring
prohibition of corporal punishment in schools. The monitoring bodies of other treaties have also
emphasized that international and regional human rights law requires prohibition of school
corporal punishment (Council of Europe, 2007).
Schools have practiced physical punishment even after being banned by the government. The
public schools and religious schools have had divergent views on physical punishment to
children, religious schools have argue that physical punishments is biblically supported. Some
cites verses such as, Proverbs 20:30 “Blows that hurt cleanse away evil, as do stripes the inner
debts of the heart” (NIV). From the above Bible quotation the church and other religious schools
derive their support of the corporal punishment in schools while most government schools have
argued that corporal punishment is against children rights and dignity (Ozkilinc & Sabanci,
2010).
Public concern about excessive school disciplinary exclusion and the related racial disparities has
grown recently. Most suspensions are a matter of the routine enforcement of minor school rules,
such as violating dress codes, truancy, excessive tardiness, cell phone use, loitering, or disruption
(Danaoglu, 2009). There is no argument that serious misbehavior should be addressed, but as this
body of new research suggests, harsh discipline policies increase the number of young people
who are disengaged from school, which has damaging academic consequences and long-term
economic and societal costs. Policymakers have been reluctant to change this harsh approach to
school discipline, in part because the social costs have been hidden and in part because effective
alternatives have taken time to develop (Ozkilinc & Sabanci, 2010).
According to Bear (2005) physical punishment against children has received support for
thousands of year’s interpretation of legal and religious doctrines in most Christian schools
corporal punishment is still in enforcement with the belief that the bible supports it. In the United
States, corporal punishments have been a conventional method in disciplining children and youth
since colonial times. Only during the past 30 years has a growing outcry emerged condemning
such practices with school children.
Many fundamentalists and religious Christian schools believe that hitting children is sanctioned
or mandated by the Bible. They cite these verses in the Old Testament’s Proverbs as authority
for their belief: 3:11-12 “My son don’t despise the chastening of the lord or detest His
correction; for whom the Lord loves He corrects, just as a father the son in whom he delights”
(NIV) , 13:24, 19:18 “ Chasten your son while there is hope, and do not set your heart on his
destruction” (NIV), 22:15 ” Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child; the rod of correction
will drive it far from him” (NIV), and 23:13-14. The latter claims that if you beat a child with a
rod, he will not die, but instead will have his soul saved (Ozkilinc & Sabanci, 2010).
According to (Eloff, Oosthuizen & Van Staden, 2010) no recorded words of Jesus recommend
corporal punishment of children or subjugating them. No New Testament verses say that
children should be struck with the hand or with implements. In Hebrews 12, St. Paul speaks of
fathers “chastening” and “correcting” their sons as an analogy for the trials Christians encounter
in their spiritual growth, but the verses do not indicate that chastening should be physical. Paul
says that children should honor and obey their parents, but also says fathers should not anger or
discourage children (Ephesians 6:2-4, Colossians 3:20).
Student discipline and its relationship to school climate and classroom instructional capacity has
always been a central concern of educators. Traditionally, with respect to school discipline,
American educators have had two distinct aims: to help create and maintain a safe, orderly, and
positive learning environment, which often requires the use of discipline to correct misbehavior;
and; to teach or develop self-discipline (Eloff, Oosthuizen & Van Staden, 2010). Both aims are
equally important and should always be included in the development and evaluation of school
discipline practices. Whereas the first is generally viewed as an immediate aim (to stop
misbehavior and bring about compliance), the second is viewed as long term (to develop
autonomy and responsible citizenship). Both aims are reciprocally related in that each promotes
the other. Both also serve a preventive function. That is, by correcting misbehavior and
developing self-discipline, schools help prevent the future occurrence of behavior problems
(Bear, 2008; pp. 1403–1420).
Larzelere (2000) and Whelchel (2000) states that due to limitations of physical punishment,
when correcting misbehavior, effective educators work hard to avoid using punishment. Instead,
they focus on strategies for developing self-discipline and for preventing misbehavior. When
correcting misbehavior, they are much more likely to use mild forms of punishment, such as
physical proximity, taking away privileges, verbal reprimands, and ‘‘the evil eye’’ than harsh
forms of punishment such as suspension. When punishment is used, it is used fairly, judiciously,
in the context of a caring and supportive relationship, and typically in combination with
replacement techniques that teach or strengthen desired behaviors (Manzon, 2011). The latter
would include techniques that emphasize social and emotional competencies and positive
teacher–student relations, such as joint social problem-solving and induction, where the focus is
on the impact of one’s behavior on others.
A peaceful school environment nurtures security in the hearts of the children and receptivity to
learning in their minds. A peaceful environment also maximizes the effectiveness of the teacher
for the good of all children. In the ideal sense, all disciplinary actions within the school must be
communicated in a loving way to cultivate self-discipline and control among the students (Eloff,
Oosthuizen & Van Staden, 2010).
Understanding the negative effects of corporal punishments in schools can help in
communicating with teachers about the need for prohibition and in putting in place appropriate
measures to ensure implementation of prohibition. But no factor should be used as an excuse for
retaining corporal punishment, even as a “last resort” and none should change the obligation to
prohibit all corporal punishment.
Research questions:
These were some of the research questions.
i. What forms of disciplinary measures were used within Christians and Secular secondary
schools in Bomet County?
ii. What was the effectiveness of Christians and secular modes of discipline within
secondary schools in Bomet County?
Literature review
Theoretical Framework
The study adopted the Skinner's Theory of Operant Conditioning as seen Through Positive
Behavior Support (Skinner, 1979). In order to explain his theory of operant conditioning, Skinner
defined two main terms: reinforcement and punishment. Reinforcement is simply defined as "the
effect of a reinforce (Lefrancois, 2006). A reinforcer is an event that follows a response and that
changes the probability of a response's occurring again. Additionally, reinforcers are defined by
observable and measureable behaviors. Reinforcement can then be broken down into positive
and negative reinforcement. Positive reinforcement occurs when the consequences of the
behavior, when added to a situation after a response, increase the probability of the response's
occurring again in similar conditions. In recent years, many schools have been moving towards
employing more positive means of dealing with problem behavior through the use of positive
behavior support, after it has been shown that punishment, which had commonly been used as
the most widely used technique of dealing with problem behaviors, may actually do more harm
than good.
Bohanon,Fenning, Carney, Minnis-Kim, Anderson, Moroz, Hicks, Kasper, Culos, Sailor and
Pigott, (2006) tell us that positive behavior support employs a wide variety of strategies in an
attempt to improve the quality of life of students while at the same time reducing the incidence
of problem behaviors through more positive means of reinforcement. PBS applies more positive,
preventative, collaborative techniques rather than the harsh, reactive, disciplinary practices that
have been employed in the past. It focuses on antecendent and consequent factors that contribute
to both appropriate and problematic behavior as well as arranging environments to maximize
prosocial behavior. Behavioral expectations for various school settings are defined and explicitly
taught to students. As Skinner described in his theory of operant conditioning, punishment and
reinforcement can be used in a variety of settings including at home and even at school. Skinner
relates a classroom to a giant Skinner box. He said that teachers could profit from knowing that
reinforcement is effective in helping to elicit changes in behavior (Lefrancois, 2006). He said
that there are five categories of reinforcers: consumables such as food or candy, manipulatables
such as toys or trinkets, visual and auditory stimuli such as a bell signal that means “good work”,
social stimuli such as praise, and tokens such as disks that can be exchanged for other
reinforcers. All of these things increase the probability that a response will occur again.
Conceptual framework
Using the principles of Skinner’s Theory, outlined above, the researcher came up with a
conceptual framework, to try and establish the relationship(s) among various variables.
Methodology
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework (Source – Gershoff, 2002).
The study adopted a comparative research design; the population target was 20 principals’, 288
teachers and 568 students in all public secondary schools. Random sampling was used in
selecting the respondents for the study; data analysis procedure used was quantitative analysis
methods. Quantitative data derived from the demographic section of the questionnaires from
closed questions was analyzed using descriptive statistics that included the use of percentages
and frequencies. The study established that there was high prevalence use of corporal
punishment in religious schools than public schools. The study also established that most of the
schools do not have guidance and counseling departments in schools.
The study was carried out in public secondary schools and Christian secondary schools in Bomet
County. Random sampling was used in selecting the respondents that were used in the study,
according to Borg and Gall (1989), a sample size of any study should be based on what a
researcher considers being statistical and practicable. Random sampling was used in selecting
schools. This was to allow all members of the population to have an equal chance of being
selected. For descriptive studies, 10% and above of the accessible population is enough for the
entire study Mugenda and Mugenda (1999). It is ideal sample because it is large enough to serve
as an adequate representation of the population about which the researcher wishes to generalize
Application of Biblical
views on punishments
Using Corporal
Punishment or it’s
alternatives
Teachers and students
perception on
punishments
Changing government
policies
Methods of punishment in
schools
Levels of discipline in
schools
Student’s self-esteem
Student’s emotional
security
and small enough to be selected economically in terms of subject availability and expenses in
both time and money.
Data Analysis and Interpretation
Forms of disciplinary measures used in secondary schools
CorporalAlternativeBoth methods
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
35%
41%
24%
Disciplinary methods used in schools
Figure 2: Disciplinary methods used in secondary schools
The above figure shows the types of disciplinary methods used in schools, the majority of the
schools at 41% used alternative methods of disciplinary methods such as counseling, parent
involvement, 35% of the schools use corporal punishment and a minority at 24% uses both
methods. Corporal punishment and a combination of both corporal and alternative methods was
very common among the schools Christian schools while in public schools alternative methods
was very common as shown on the table below.
Table 1: Disciplinary Methods
Disciplinary method Public school Christian school
Yes % No %
Corporal punishment 1 34% 2 66%
Alternative methods 2 66% 1 34%
Both methods 1 50% 1 50%
Total 4 4
The above table shows that a majority of public schools at 66% favored alternative disciplinary
methods while a majority of Christian schools favored corporal punishment. This could be
attributed to the church stance in biblical interpretation. This concurs with the findings of
(Greven, 1991) that the church and other religious schools derive their support of the corporal
punishment in schools from the biblical interpretation while most government schools have
argued that corporal punishment is against children rights and dignity.
YesNo
46%
47%
48%
49%
50%
51%
52%
53%
52%
48%
Corporal punishment violate human dignity
Figure 3: Corporal Punishment violates human dignity.
The above figure shows that a majority of the respondents at 52% agrees that corporal
punishment violates human dignity while a significant minority at 48% disagrees. The perhaps
has negatively contributed in the government inability to eliminate this vice in schools. This
confirms the argument by (Larzelere, 2000; Marion & Marian, 2007) that corporal punishment
violates the fundamental principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child where human
dignity is upheld. Awareness of such convections needs to be created for both the teachers and
parents to understand children rights.
Data Analysis and Interpretation.
The study found that majority of public schools at 66% favored alternative disciplinary methods
while a majority of Christian at 66% schools favored corporal punishment. This could be
attributed to the church stance in biblical interpretation. This concurs with the findings of
(Greven, 1991) that the church and other religious schools derive their support of the corporal
punishment in schools from the biblical interpretation while most government schools have
argued that corporal punishment is against children rights and dignity.
Several studies indicate that religious belief is a better predictor of corporal punishment than
socioeconomic status (Karanja, 2005; Kohn, 2005; Joane, 2005). Features of the larger society,
however, may shape religious beliefs or parenting practices. For example, rates of corporal
punishment and of religious belief are high in the African-American community.
Corporal punishment as per the study, serves as negative model to the students, this concurs with
the findings by (Kohn, 2005) who stated that punishment serves as a negative model for
aggressive behavior for both the punished student and others. It actively demonstrates that the
use of force is a method to reduce conflict. While possibly effective in the short run, in the long
term it does not teach alternative problem-solving methods. Corporal punishment has been
associated with school vandalism and juvenile delinquency.
The study found that most of the schools do not carry out an educational awareness programme
to teacher the teachers and students on the effects of corporal punishment, this was in agreement
with the findings by (Karanja, 2005) who argues that awareness of the problems associated with
corporal punishment is low, and children, parents, or teachers who complain about corporal
punishment still run a serious risk of facing ridicule or retaliation. This causes most to remain
silent except in the face of particularly appalling abuses (Karanja, 2005).
The study established that even after causing seriously injuries to children in schools most of the
teachers are not will to leave the vise, this was also confirmed by the findings of Karanja (2005)
and Kemigisho (1996) argue although some teachers inflict severe forms of corporal punishment
on students out of deliberate cruelty, probably the great majority of teachers genuinely intend to
“educate” children by caning or whipping them. To the extent that children are seriously injured,
many Kenyans are willing to write such incidents off as tragic exceptions in a generally
acceptable system, the result of the occasional sadistic teacher or of unfortunate but unavoidable
accidents. Some teachers dismissed abuses by noting that serious injuries usually occurred only
if a student disobediently thrust out an arm to ward off the cane, and thus ended up with a broken
wrist or similar injury.
Discussions
The study found that corporal punishment serves as negative model to the students, this concurs
with the findings by (Kohn, 2005) who stated that punishment serves as a negative model for
aggressive behavior for both the punished student and others. It actively demonstrates that the
use of force is a method to reduce conflict. While possibly effective in the short run, in the long
term it does not teach alternative problem-solving methods. Corporal punishment has been
associated with school vandalism and juvenile delinquency.
The study found that most of the schools do not carry out an educational awareness programme
to teacher the teachers and students on the effects of corporal punishment, this was in agreement
with the findings by (Karanja, 2005) who argues that awareness of the problems associated with
corporal punishment is low, and children, parents, or teachers who complain about corporal
punishment still run a serious risk of facing ridicule or retaliation. This causes most to remain
silent except in the face of particularly appalling abuses (Karanja, 2005).
The study established that even after causing seriously injuries to children in schools most of the
teachers are not will to leave the vise, this was also confirmed by the findings of Karanja (2005)
and Kemigisho (1996) argue although some teachers inflict severe forms of corporal punishment
on students out of deliberate cruelty, probably the great majority of teachers genuinely intend to
“educate” children by caning or whipping them. To the extent that children are seriously injured,
many Kenyans are willing to write such incidents off as tragic exceptions in a generally
acceptable system, the result of the occasional sadistic teacher or of unfortunate but unavoidable
accidents. Some teachers dismissed abuses by noting that serious injuries usually occurred only
if a student disobediently thrust out an arm to ward off the cane, and thus ended up with a broken
wrist or similar injury.
The study established that corporal punishment results in worse behavior among the children
rather than being corrective, this was confirmed by (Larzelere, 2000) who argues that corporal
punishment is a destructive form of discipline that is ineffective in producing educational
environments in which students can thrive. Rather than relying on harsh and threatening
disciplinary tactics, schools and teachers should be encouraged to develop positive behavior
supports (PBS), which have proven effective in reducing the need for harsh discipline while
supporting a safe and productive learning environment (Bear, 2005).
According to (Larzelere, 2000) while teachers and parents may feel it is necessary for a child to
experience pain in order to learn, a significant amount of research has shown to the contrary-that
the use of corporal punishment may hinder learning, encourage or lead children to drop out of
school, and generally undermine the purposes of education as articulated in article 29 of the
convention, this was confirmed by the study that all participants.
The study found that use of positive rewards such as reinforcement and motivation reduces
misbehavior among the children, this was confirmed by (Human Rights Watch, 1999) who argue
that the use of positive reinforcement techniques reduces the frequency and extent of
misbehavior. Human Rights Watch (2002) states that teachers can reward students in a variety of
simple ways.
Conclusion
The prevalence of corporal punishment of children in schools remains high and more prevalent
in religious governed schools in Bomet County. In spite of many education and other national
groups calling for corporal punishment in schools to be banned, most of the schools remain to
use corporal punishment among the students. This work is consistent with other research
concluding that punished children become more rebellious and are more likely to demonstrate
vindictive behavior (Coyl, Roggman, Newlan, 2002) seeking retribution against school officials
and others in society. Punishment is based on aversive techniques and produces very limited
results.
The use of corporal punishment is associated with increased mental health problems in children
including increased psychological distress, which may lead to anxiety, depression, alcohol and
drug use, and general psychological maladjustment in those to whom it is applied. Also, in
addition to personal distress, it may lead to vicarious learning of maladaptive methods of
problem resolution by those students who witness it.
Teachers reported that there were a lot of negative changes in students discipline with outlawing
of corporal punishment among schools in Bomet County. They also reported that they face
challenges in dealing with students’ discipline in schools with the outlawing of corporal
punishment. With lack of clear assessment records on the general effects of presence or absence
corporal punishment, this study provides a necessary information to fill the existing gap of
information. That is, banning of corporal punishment is not entirely the best way of ensuring
discipline and the academic success of learners.
Recommendations
i. The study found that most of the schools do not have guidance and counseling
departments in schools and therefore to cater for indiscipline correction among the
student’s schools must establish the department. The will help in ensuring that corrective
measures are used in schools rather than punitive.
ii. The study recommends that schools should establish the culture of involving the parents
in student indiscipline cases. The study also established that most of the schools do not
involve the parents in correcting student’s indiscipline cases, which enhances monitoring
of students behavior at school and at home.
iii. The study also recommends that the government officials should be in contact with the
schools in order obtain the information on corporal punishment in schools and prosecute
the concerned violators.
iv. The study found out that more experienced teachers should be employed by the learning
institutions to assist in guidance and counseling.
v. The study recommends that banning of corporal punishment should be lifted and
managed properly to avoid abuse.
vi. The researcher recommends a continuous involvement of all the school administrations in
assessing the effectiveness of all the corrective tools used in their institutions. This will
help them choose the best one/mix and may even customize them for a specific group of
students.
Recommendations for further studies.
The study recommends further studies in the following areas.
i. The effectiveness of alternative methods to Corporal Punishment in managing
students Discipline.
ii. Teaching of Life Skills as an alternative to corporal punishment in secondary schools
in Kenya.
iii. Students’ perception on the use of Guidance and Counseling as an alternative to
corporal punishment.
iv. The effectiveness of modes of discipline in students’ academic performance.
References
Bear , G.(2005). Developing Self-discipline and preventing and correcting misbehavior. Boston:
Ally & Bacon Intervention Central.
Bear, G. (2008). Classroom discipline: Best practices in school psychology V (pp.1403-1420).
Boyaci, A., (2009), ‘Comparative investigation of elementary school students’ opinions towards
corporal punishment from aspects of several variables’, World Applied Sciences Journal
6(7), 933–938
Coyl,D.D.,Roggman,L.A. and Newlan, L.A. (2002) ‘Stress, maternal depression and negative
mother-infant interactions in relation to infant attachment’, Infant Mental Health Journal.
Danaoglu, G., (2009), ‘Student misbehaviours and investigating tackling strategies of primary
teachers and branch teachers in fifth classes of primary education’, MA thesis, Faculty of
Education, Cukurova University
De Wet, C., (2010), ‘School principals’ experience and observation of educator-targeted
bullying’, Tydskrif vir Christelike Wetenskap 46(1), 187–209.
Eloff, C.H., Oosthuizen, I.J. & Van Staden, J.G., (2010), ‘An educator approach towards learner
discipline as a pre-requisite in dealing with learner misconduct’, Tydskrif vir Christelike
Wetenskap 46(1), 125–144
Human Rights Watch (2002). Journal on Quarterly Human Right Report,Vol 4 No. 4. Editorial
Human Rights Watch Report (1999). Spare the child; Corporal Punishment in Kenyan Schools,
Vol. II No. 6 (A) New York:
Kemigisho R. M. (1996 May). Is Caning a good way of Disciplining Children. Child-link
(pg.262, 673-674).
Larzelere, R.E. (2000) ‘Child Outcomes of Parental Use of Non-abusive or Customary Physical
Punishment’, Pediatrics.
Manzon, M., (2011), Comparative education: The construction of a field, Comparative
Education Research Centre, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong.
Ozben, S. (2010), ‘Teachers’ strategies to cope with student misbehaviour’, Procedia