This article was downloaded by: [Towson University]On: 19 October 2014, At: 18:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

The Educational ForumPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/utef20

Who Should Discipline?Mary Scanlon ReynoldsPublished online: 30 Jan 2008.

To cite this article: Mary Scanlon Reynolds (1956) Who Should Discipline?, The EducationalForum, 20:4, 457-465, DOI: 10.1080/00131725609338233

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00131725609338233

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

W h o Should Discipline?

I HE R m E m emergence of discipline

T a s the admitted chief problem of the schools by spokesmen of the National Education Association just brings into focus what every honest teacher has al- ways admitted. Teaching facts and skills through approved techniques is no prob- lem for a well trained teacher but bring- ing about the proper atmosphere in her classroom that will permit the carrying out of her plans is actually the whole problem of teaching. This is no new problem except in the light of new find- ings in the field of psychology, for to- day both parents and teachers think more in terms of the results of discipline than in penalty of the child.

Discipline in school has followed along the pattern of the discipline in practice in the home and both the home and the school look in horror at the his- tory of disciplining the child. Ham- inurabi, ancient king of Babylonia in the year 2050 B.C., has left us possibly the oldest recorded law on child dis- cipline. H e ordered that a child’s fingers were to be cut off if he dared strike his father. By the time of Cicero there was developing protest against stern school disciplines for he wrote, “Most com- monly the authoritie of them that teach, hinders them that would learn.”

I t would require too much space to trace the long history of discipline from

MARY SCANLON REYNOLDS

457 ’

the time of Cicero to the present but since there are teachers who adhere to and parents who approve of stern dis- ciplines in the school and home a closer look at the early schools of our country will help to clarify some of these early disciplines.

The early colonial schoolmasters were selected on the basis of their seeing pupil education from the viewpoint of the re- ligious leaders of the community. These leaders accepted the concept of original sin and firmly believed that when one of the pupils misbehaved it was not the child, really, but an evil spirit producing the misbehavior. They accepted the re- sponsibility for driving out this evil spirit by all sorts of coercion, repression, and counter plotting to get the best of the evil spirit. They were alert for signs of these spirits and usually found them, punishing children for the slightest pro- vocation. They withheld approval for commendable acts for compliments lead children to conceit, they believed. They prided themselves on their good dis- cipline.

In the nineteenth century much of the religious element was disappearing for a substitution of the element of order. Human impulses were bad and severe punishments were good for children. All children were alike and there was a cer- tain set punishment for certain misdeeds no matter what the cause.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

45 8 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [May

Then John Dewey appeared on the scene advocating methods that would foster freedom and self determination with less stern regimentation. From the time of Dewey’s appearance in the school arena, controversy has raged between his followers and the stern authori- tarians. H e was only saying what many teachers had been feeling for a long time and so these teachers eagerly put into practice the freedom they thought he advocated. Chaos and confusion resulted from unbridled liberty which many edu- cators interpreted his philosophy to mean.

Now the movement has moderated and teachers read John Dewey’s writings with new insight. Today, the teacher knows that every aspect of the child comes to school and is affected by what he experiences there. A child grows only as he develops self-control and self- direction. H e has to learn these skills just as he does his reading and other skills. The pupil grows in the skills of self-control and self-direction slowly, making many mistakes and experiencing many lapses. During this time some ex- ternal control is necessary, depending on the child’s stage in the development of these skills. When the child lapses the teacher is patient and seeks the cause in either the home or school situation.

The child is much more important in the scheme of national planning and large organized groups are visiting schools checking on the educational sys- tem. The past war has taught our politi- cal leaders about the results of “brain washing” children. These leaders today, as never before, realize that the kind

of citizens our country needs won’t just suddenly materialize but evolve from the American experience. If children don’t experience democracy as they are growing to maturity they will never know it when they reach maturity and thus democratic disciplines are urged today that would have been considered outlaw practices a generation ago.

This writer, a follower of Dewey’s philosophy, had the opportunity of mak- ing a comparative study of the stern authoritarian and the democratic dis- ciplines suggested by Dewey.

I1 The twenty boys and ten girls in this

study were enrolled September 3, 1954, in the writer’s section of the Fourth Grade at the John B. McFerran School in Louisville, Kentucky.

The children and teacher both entered school the first day with the expectation that they were to occupy a room in the new addition that had been started in March of the previous school term. Disappointment was expressed by parents, teachers, and children at the plight facing them. The portable class- rooms used by the two fourth grades the previous year had been removed and there remained but one place where classes could meet. Down the center of the small auditorium three movable screens were placed to divide the two sections of the classes and here the pupils and the two teachers began the year in noise and chaos.

The teachers spent much time before and after school arranging class periods so that both would not plan discussion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

19561 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 459 or drill lessons at the same time. Most of the time the noise of the other class was annoying but sometimes they amused each other. How gaily the classes laughed when one teacher started testing in spelling as the other class be- gan oral drill on the same word list!

The teachers did as best they could in alternating oral work and seat work but they both faced at the same time one problem over which they bad no power. This problem was their competition with the building noises of the air-ham- mer, the portable airdrill, the portable motor, the cement mixers, the heavy trucks, and the loud voices of the plumbers, carpenters, brick-layers, pipe- fitters, structural steel workers just out- side the windows. Only by yelling was it possible to communicate, so the teachers yelled at the pupils, the pupils yelled at the teachers, and at each other. Both teachers and pupils went home exasperated each afternoon. Parents came to see what was making their chil- dren so irritable and nervous and then the teachers and parents had yelling conferences! Sometimes it was ludicrous when the motors halted suddenly while the yelling continued from force of habit.

At first the class went over to an adjacent park to get away from the noise but the children soon began to complain of having to sit on the grass.

During this period in the gymnasium the teacher followed stern authoritarian methods of discipline, allowing the chil- dren no freedom of choice or movement. They were warned against whispering (yelling) at each other. They were

threatened with dire punishments if they didn’t keep their hands to themselves. They early found that they could get their friends’ attention more quickly by striking at them than by whispering. Most of the work was busy seat work and the amount assigned was greater in order to keep the class employed and as quiet as possible. Little activity or variation of the lessons took place.

The teacher spent almost as much time criticising and talking negatively to the class as she did teaching. The chil- dren were quarrelsome and belligerent.

Late in November the class moved into the new addition, but the teacher continued the dictatorial policy for two weeks because she wanted to see how such a policy would affect the children in a normally quiet classroom. The chil- dren carried over their belligerence and continued to quarrel and to make every effort to get each other into trouble with the teacher. The teacher kept a behavior chart one week during the time spent in the gymnasium and the second week of the residence in the new addition and still later at the close of the study. About the only difference between the first two charts as representative of the dictatorial discipline was there were fewer numbers of marks on the chart, the unwholesome attitudes unchanging. One of the chil- dren said very seriously one day of this second week, “I only got twenty-one checks this week against me.” The teach- er’s remarks and reprimanding were tab- ulated by row-appointees and then totals were added to the chart each day.

The following Monday the teacher faced the class and said, “Boys and Girls,

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

460 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM [May

I believe some of you are as unhappy with each other and the class as I am. It seems odd that children eight and nine pears of age would need to be ruled by the teacher every minute of the day and would have to be told how and when to act. You are not toddlers and she is tired of being a nursemaid. She is sure you are tired of being treated as toddlers. How many of you are com- pletely happy with your class this year?”

A few put up their hands but soon lowered them. The teacher wrote on the blackboard, “The Kind of Class I Like’’ and asked them to make suggestions. Possibly because they had begun the year by yelling in order to get any satisfaction they had no hesitation in speaking what they felt. They wanted the teacher to write what they wanted after they fin- ished the discussion alone. At the end of the discussion they directed her to write in proper-noun form: Cheerful, Clean, Orderly, Safe, Reasonable Quiet, and Interesting. At the suggestion of one boy each of the six rows took a topic from this list and listed ways the class could bring about this condition. After a short period during which each child was suddenly very busy, the reading of the lists began. A s they were read the items were discussed and then voted on for rules for the rest of the year.

I11 After the selection of the rules for

setting up the kind of class they wanted was completed, the teacher wrote on the boan-d “How Can W e Change to That Kind of Class?” and told the children to think about it. The children were

catching on and were full of ideas, good sound ideas, the teacher thought. They listed jobs that would be necessary and the qualities a person needed to fill the different jobs. This entire process took less time than the time required for the reading groups. The children wanted to vote on the jobs immediately, but the teacher asked them if they thought it very sensible to nominate and vote on twenty different jobs and they agreed it was not. They should think about it and see if they couldn’t reach a plan them- selves she told them.

They set up the organization the next morning. One girl said, “Let’s vote for a president and then let the president name the persons for the jobs.” They all liked this idea at once. A discussion fol- lowed about the problems of being a president. They finally decided they would change piesidents each month and thus the job-holders, too, the boys and girls alternating in the office of president. T o make the nominations, two boys and two girls would be called on. After the pi-esident was elected one of these who had nominated the person elected would be the secretary. The new president would make a speech telling what he in- tended doinq and would then appoint students for the different jobs. The secre- tary would post the list of jobs and the job-holders on the bulletin board so all could check on who was responsible if some duty was overlooked. This list was filed at the end of the month so the ap- pointees on the list mould not again hold the same job he held once.

The difference in the atmosphere of the classroom was so noticeable that the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

19561 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 461

children continued to comment on the difference for several weeks. The class- room routine tasks were not now the concern of the teacher. She could walk through the halls behind or before the class with none of her former worry about group misbehavior. There hadn’t been a single fight since the new pro- gram began, and negative personality acts were no longer the daily rule.

One of the phases of this new demo- cratic organization was the treatment of discipline as their own problem and not the teacher’s. It was of interest to note the type of punishment meted out by the children. Though there were variations, the punishment they considered most effective and cruel was some type of iso- lation. The culprit was made to eat in the lunch room apart from the class or to play or remain apart from class activ- ities.

They set up a council to take care of all behavior acts. Each of the six rows elected one child to represent its row in the student council and the president was the head of this group. When some be- havior problem was bothering the class, the president would tell the teacher to set a meeting for the last period of the day. At this time, the president with the six members met in a semicircle at the front of the class and openly discussed the problem. When they had completed their discussion the president asked if anyone in the class would like to say something on this problem. If there was no further discussion, the council talked about penalties appropriate to the mis- behavior. Suggested penalties were writ- ten on the board and the class voted on

them. When the penalty was finally se- lected the class promised by a show of hands to abide by their decision.

IV Four months after the class was reor-

ganized the class ran out of problems to discuss and no further meetings were held. There were still behavior problems but they were of a nature that were not immediately solvable. The children had discussed some problems that demanded a psychiatrist and had decided to let the teacher and the school system’s psychol- ogist suggest the handling of serious maladjustment problems. There were two such cases in the class but they were children who were withdrawn and overly quiet and their behavior which worried the teacher was not recognized as worry-provoking by the class. The one case the class achieved such good results in was considered by the class to be “The worst we ever saw.”

T o understand the effectiveness of the group-directed punishment against Ned it is necessary to get a picture of him.

Ned was so weak in his skills that he could do no work without continuous help no matter how simple the lesson seemed to be. During his work period he spent his time directing pranks against the children’s comfort and concentration. Unless the teacher was within reaching distance her presence held no restraining influence for Ned.

His health was excellent and his rec- ord showed be had perfect vision, weight, teeth. H e had never missed a dzy since he first began school attend- ance. H e was extremely handsome but

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

462 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM I: May

disliked by every child in the class and school who knew him.

Ned gave the children good reason for disliking him. With the smaller chil- dren he was daily involved in instances of pushing, tripping, kicking, and strik- ing with any object he happened to have in his hands at the impulse to strike. H e started quarrels with those his own size but made no acts of violence toward them. In fact, at the slightest suggestion that violence might be directed toward him he ran to the teacher in tears to tattle. Periodically, he exerted himself to being agreeable, laughing uproari- ously, imitating popular television en- tertainers, telling jokes, and asking rid- dles. If the child-audience didn’t give close and approving attention to his ef- forts he changed suddenly to the ag- gressive behavior. He tattled on his classmates for the smallest and usually accidental infractions, he ignored direc- tions given by the student monitors, and then denied that he had done so. H e pushed the smaller children out of as- sembly lines and ignored warnings for silence during fire-drills. On the play- ground he tried to play all the positions in a team game and refused to share turns with any equipment. The children were wary and on their guard from the time he approached until he left.

Both the teacher and the principal had recognized that he was a big problem and had requested a testing by the Test- ing Bureau. In the meantime, while waiting for this, the teacher had com- pleted a case history of Ned. The Visiting Teacher had made a home study case of Ned, and the mother had been to the

school for several conferences. Actually it was not the work of any of these that really solved the problem of Ned but that of the class organization, so no ef- fort to show anything except what the children did will be made.

Two days after the class organized and set up the council, the president asked for a period to handle a problem. The problem was Ned. At first in view of his behavior toward them, they were outspoken in their suggestions for pun- ishment of Ned.

“Mr. President,” said a child who had been kicked earlier in the day by Ned. “I move that when Ned kicks one of us that you make him stand up and let us all kick him.”

“Does anybody second the motion?” asked the president. Several hands went up but the president called on a girl whose hand was not up.

“Mr. President, I think if we did that we’d just be doing what we’re trying to stop him from doing.’’ More of the class agreed with this girl and the boy who had made the motion raised his hand and on permission asked to withdraw his motion.

Ned sat watching the proceedings with interest. Among the suggested punish- ments were some that were not in line with the principal’s policy and the chil- dren who had been at McFerran before this year would soon mention the fact that the principal did not want children sitting or standing outside classroom doors, staying in her office, receiving “whippings every day,” or being re- stricted to classrooms during play period.

Finally Myra made the suggestion

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

19561 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 463

they all found acceptable. She said the punishment that hurt her most was for her mother not to pay any attention to her, to ignore anything she said, and to act like she wasn’t even in her mother’s presence. Myra suggested that the class apply this punishment to Ned until he changed his ways. Her motion was sec- onded and passed unanimously and the council worked out the details as the class and Ned looked on.

The children were to act as if he were absent and would not change their atti- tude until he admitted he was sorry for the way he had been treating them and promised to change for the better. H e was to be seated in a corner by himself, to get no help from any classmates, to eat by himself, to move about the build- ing by himself, to take part in no class games, to be excluded from class trips and projects, and to take part in none of the class talent shows.

“Huh, what a dopey way to punish anybody. That’s not bothering me any,” he said when the president repeated his sentence so the class would understand the part to be played. Thus Ned began his isolation in defiance.

During play period he stood aside and showed no interest in the game going on. In the cafeteria he ate alone and in the halls he walked alone. H e had a special time when he went to the rest room, alone. During these first few days he smiled almost constantly, laughed louder than usual, or else seemed indifferent to the children’s ignoring him. H e made efforts to stay with the teacher and to talk with her but she quickly let him know that her place was with the class

during school hours but offered to talk with him after school. H e said he didn’t want to stay after school that he wanted to go home when the others did. By the end of the first week he wasn’t laughing so loudly or smiling so often. There were now few times when he even came in contact with the children so he was unable to push or kick. The children played their part and actually seemed not to know he was present.

By the end of the second week Ned had dropped his air of indifference. H e made repeated efforts to engage in con- versation with the children and one day brought two attractive puzzles and tried to give them to two of the boys, who, however, just ignored him. He was the picture of unhappiness but made no move to declare his intentions to behave differently toward them. The teacher conscious of the negative climate of her classroom tried to lay the groundwork for Ned’s talking to the class.

“Ned, don’t you think you could be fair and kind to the other children? If they gave you the chance?” the teacher asked him on the tenth day of his iso- lation.

“I might, but then again, I might not. I can’t say.”

‘Why do you want to hurt the chil- dren? Why do you come up and hit them when they don’t even know you’re around?’’

“I just do it cause I want to. I don’t know why.”

“Do you always do just what you want

“Just about.” “Do you realize that if the children

to?”

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

464 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM c May

did to you what they wanted to when you hurt them, you wouldn’t remain in a very happy position? Ned, nobody does all he wants to do. What would you do if a bigger boy jumped on you and hurt you whenever he might want to?”

“Aw, I’d hide. He’d never get a chance to hit me the second time.”

“Ned, these children don’t have to hide from you.’’

On the fifteenth day of his isolation, Ned said he had something he wanted to ask the teacher. She had been in- creasingly aware of a change going on in Ned. This third week saw a Ned who made no effort to act happy or to try to approach the children but just saw every- thing the children did. The teacher went into the hall but when he got out there he said he really wanted to talk to the president, privately. The two boys were alone just a few moments when the presi- dent returned and asked the teacher if they could have a council meeting the final period of the day. The children were expectant and the teacher could scarcely wait for the period to arrive.

As soon as the president called the meeting to order he told the class that Ned was ready to do whatever the class wanted if they would just let him out of isolation. They discussed this in front of the entire class and Ned as well. The president then called on Ned to tell just what he was ready to do but he was so upset emotionally he couldn’t talk. The council members began asking him ques- tions to which he nodded his head in answer. They asked him four questions: Are you willing to treat us as we treat vou? Would sitting by your choice of

seat companions help? Are you sorry you were so rough and inconsiderate to us? Would it help if we gave you silent re- minders if it seemed like you were for- getting?

The class voted him unanimously out of isolation and the entire group seemed as happy as if the penalty had been on it and had been lifted. The teacher was glad that this method was so effective in curing Ned but equally glad it was over.

From the day his isolation sentence was removed his whole attitude changed. The class recognized that he might need help but he rarely did. He no longer acted violently against his classmates and almost over night he learned to play with them. From the end of his isolation the teacher had no more trouble with his behavior but as a result of his testing which came a little later she could attack the problem of his retardation with co-operation on Ned’s part.

The teacher selected certain questions to answer that she believed might help her in evaluating the discipline program. The children and the teacher answered in the affirmative these questions: Did the discipline program promote a sense of belonging? Did all the pupils have a share in planning and making rules for guiding the class behavior? Were the goals set up by the pupils ones that were possible for children to achieve? Did the program have real purpose for the chil- dren? Did the children understand what was expected of them in the way of behavior? Did the program involve re- sponsibilities by the individuals to them- selves, their class, and their school?

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4

19561 THE EDUCATIONAL FORUM 465

Were they kept informed of the pro- gram’s progress? Did they have oppor- tunities to evaluate themselves and the group! Did the program build confi- dence in the children? Did the program make sense to the children? Was the improvement of the children’s behavior obvious outside the group?

The teacher kept careful account of all comments from other personnel in the school, from the homes, and from others in the community and was able

to report that the people not involved in the study who were in contact with the group were agreed that the behavior was much improved.

Based on the findings of this study, the writer feels that dictatorial discipline is negative and that behavior brought about by the peer group tends to be democratic and positive. The writer feels also that as a child moves from dictato- rial to democratic discipline there is an increase in desirable behavior.

With technology playing this important role in our national life, our institutions where science, engineering and management are taught have a correspondingly important part to play and midst as a consepzrence be closely meshed with both the immediate and long-term needs of our society. In a period of mun-power scarcity they must accept additional educational responsibilities t o azcgment our scientific manpower resources-a responsibility which requires enhancing quality while increasing numbers. In a period of cold war they have a uniquely specialized role in the technology of survival-the survival of our- selves and of the free world. They have a responsibility to further our basic science and to achieve those subtle environmental conditions where the creative mind fEourishes best. In a period when society vests a growhg responsibility in the scientist and engineer, they have the re- sponsibility of educating these professional men so that they can both ad- vance their specialties and at the same time play an important role as perceptive, broad-gauged citizens contributing t o the common ac- count. T o do this these imtitutions must achieve new working coali- Lions of the sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities.-PREsrDENT JAMES R. KILLIAN, JR., Massachmetts Institzlte of Technology

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Tow

son

Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

8:25

19

Oct

ober

201

4