Ingraham v. Wright (1977)

1. Ingraham v. Wright (1977) • Corporal Punishment in the Schools • Rita Nogin

2. Dead Poet’s Society • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYYy-6mG-iA

3. Case Background • 1971 -- James Ingraham (8th grader) was paddled by the principal for being too slow in responding to a teacher’s orders • resulted in hematoma and rest for 11 days • James Ingraham and Roosevelt Andrews were paddled on 3 separate occasions • Andrews lost the full use of his arm; 16 other students testified in support of their claims • Parents sued due to cruel and unusual punishment and loss of liberty • students have a right to be heard before physical punishment is administered

4. Case Background • Parents lost case in trial and appeals courts • Supreme Court ruled in favor of the school district: • U.S. Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment does not apply to the corporal punishment of students in a public school • Due process clause (14th Amend.) does not require notice and a hearing prior to imposition of punishment in public schools

5. Case Results • 5 - 4 decision • Public school students could be paddled without first receiving a hearing • Justice Powell: “the risk of error that may result in violation of a school child’s substantive rights can only be regarded as minimal.” • “Imposing additional safeguards as a constitutional requirement might reduce that risk marginally, but would also entail a significant intrusion into an area of primary educational responsibility”

6. So Basically... • Hitting students to maintain school discipline is not cruel and unusual punishment and the violation of students’ rights is minimal • Due process does not require an opportunity to be heard prior to the punishment

7. Cruel and Unusual Punishment • 8th Amendment • criminal punishment which is considered unacceptable due to suffering/humiliation that it inflicts on the condemned person • Cannot be arbitrary, degrading to human dignity; has to be totally rejected throughout society

8. Due Process Clause • 14th Amendment • Prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without proper steps being taken to ensure fairness • Basis for Brown v. Board of Education (racial segregation) and Reed v. Reed (sex discrimination)

9. Related Cases • Ingraham is one of a series of cases where the Supreme Court struggles to find proper balance between the rights of individuals and the needs of schools to keep maintain order

10. Related Cases • Tinker v. Des Moines School District (1969) • group of students wore black armbands to protest Vietnam War • 1st Amendment applied to public schools unless there were valid reasons for specific regulation of speech • It would be unconstitutional to restrict free speech just because people were uncomfortable with the message

11. Related Cases • Goss v. Lopez (1975) • 9 students were suspended for 10 days for vandalism • School principals did not hold hearings for the affected students before suspension • SC ruled in favor of Lopez (the students) • Due Process Clause: Ohio had to recognize students’ rights to education as a property interest and cannot be taken away without proper procedures

12. Related Cases • Baker v. Owen (1975) • Baker was a frail child and his mother did not want him to be physically disciplined, despite North Carolina’s statute permitting it • Mrs. Baker filed a complaint in federal court that her right to care for her child was abridged by the school ignoring her request (14th amendment) • Corporal punishment without a hearing -- violated right to due process • use of physical discipline was a violation of the 8th amendment (cruel and unusual punishment) • Court ruled in favor of the school district -- found the school’s interest greater than Mrs. Bakers

13. Related Cases • Baker v. Owen, continued • student must be informed of the behaviors that could result in corporal punishment • corporal punishment should not be used as a first choice • second professional should be present during administration of punishment • must provide the child’s parents a written reason for the punishment

14. Related Cases • Vernonia School District v. Acton (1995) • Student refused to consent to random drug testing --> was not allowed to play on his football team • Issue: 4th Amendment (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) • SC ruled in favor of the school district: • Students are under State supervision during the day are subject to greater control than free adults • Government concern over safety of minors overrides the minimal intrusion in student-athletes’ privacy

15. Psychological Data • Punishment at full intensity does stop undesirable behavior • Students may imitate punishing behavior outside of the classroom -- supports theory that corporal punishment teaches aggressive behavior • Use of corporal punishment can lead to escape and avoidance responses --withdrawal, tardiness, absenteeism • Overall: can be psychologically harmful to children and alternatives to maintaining discipline are preferable

16. Implications for School Psychologists • NASP policy: “corporal punishment negatively affects the social, psychological, and educational development of students and contributes to the cycle of child abuse and pro-violence attitudes of youth”(NASP Delegate Assembly, 1998).

17. Implications, cont. • School psychologists can work to abolish corporal punishment by promoting alternatives through training and consultation • Sensitizing school staff to the potential legal sanctions for the use of corporal punishment • can be costly (legal defense fees) and time-consuming

18. Alternatives • Rules and resolutions • Recognition and rewards • Parent reinforcement • Peer mediators • Students as policy makers • In-school isolation (ISS) • Service work • Tokens and trips

19. In Conclusion... • No constitutional basis for abolishing corporal punishment • Courts recognize potential impact of professional opinion • School psychologists should promote alternatives to corporal punishment as a form of discipline • Need to be aware of the psychological ramifications of corporal punishment on students

20. Works Cited • Benjet, C., & Kazdin, A.E. (2003). Spanking children: Evidence and issues. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 12 (3), 99-103. • Bersoff, D.N., & Prasse, D. (1978). Applied psychology and judicial decision making: Corporal punishment as a case in point. Professional Psychology (August), 400-411. • Dupper, D.R., & Montgomery Dingus, A.E. (2008). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: A continuing challenge for school social workers. Children and Schools, 30 (4), 243-250. • GOSS v. LOPEZ. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 18 November 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1974/1974_73_898>. • Hicks-Pass, S. (2009). Corporal punishment in America today: Spare the rod, spoil the child? A systematic review of the literature. Best Practice in Mental Health 5 (2), 71-88. • Hyman, I. (1978). A social science review of evidence cited in litigation on corporal punishment in the school. Journal of Clinical and Child Psychology (Fall), 195-199. • Hyman, I., Stefkovich, J.A., & Taich, S. (2002). Paddling and pro-paddling polemics: Refuting nineteenth century pedagogy. Journal of Law and Education 31(1), 74-84. • Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). • McCarthy, M.M. (2005). Corporal punishment in public schools: Is the United States out of step? Educational Horizons (Summer), 235-240. • Mercure, C.M. (1994). Elementary schools’ answer to corporal punishment. Education Digest 60 (4), 25-29. • Roberts, T. D. (1978). Right to treatment for the civilly committed: A new eight amendment basis. The University of Chicago Law Review 45 (3), 731-752. • TINKER v. DES MOINES IND. COMM. SCHOOL DIST.. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 26 November 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1968/1968_21>. • VERNONIA SCHOOL DISTRICT v. ACTON. The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. 25 November 2011. <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1994/1994_94_590>.