Teachers, Discipline and the Corporal Punishment Ban in Delhi, India
Open Access
- Author:
- Tiwari, Ashwini K
- Graduate Program:
- Educational Leadership
- Degree:
- Doctor of Philosophy
- Document Type:
- Dissertation
- Date of Defense:
- June 24, 2014
- Committee Members:
- Roger C Shouse, Dissertation Advisor/Co-Advisor
Roger C Shouse, Committee Chair/Co-Chair
Jacqueline A Stefkovich, Committee Member
Davin Jules Carr Chellman, Committee Member
Madhu Suri Prakash, Committee Member - Keywords:
- Corporal punishment
Physical punishment
Discipline
Teachers
Media
Delhi
India
Educational reform
Right to Education Act - Abstract:
- Corporal punishment has been a common disciplinary method in Indian schools. In recent years, however, this practice has become controversial. In 2000, the Supreme Court of India said that corporal punishment should be outlawed from the schools (Bhowmick, 2009). Ten years later, in 2010, the government of India banned the use of corporal punishment in schools through Right to Education Act (RTE). However, even with the judicial and legislative ban, the practice still continues (The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights, 2011). According to a report by Ministry of Women and Child Development (2007), every year more than 225,000 students receive corporal punishment in Delhi. Drawing on interviews with 31 teachers and 6 principals across 7 school districts in Delhi, this preliminary study examines teachers’ perceptions of corporal punishment, the extent to which they accept this ban, the effect of the ban on disciplinary practices, and the reasons why corporal punishment still persists. The findings from the study shed light on the socio-cultural beliefs that support the use of corporal punishment on students. The residual religious beliefs and traditions such as caste system have influenced teachers’ use of corporal punishment. Additionally, a lack of resources has also resulted in teachers’ continued use of corporal punishment, despite the ban. For example, a significant number of participants mentioned large class sizes as a reason for continued use of corporal punishment. Several participants have indicated their uncertainty with the ban primarily because of the socio-economic reasons and because the law is not clear. Thus it could be concluded that policy makers need to define and clarify the implications of the ban to ensure its effectiveness.