Student Section: Trauma Wears a Hall Pass: Corporal Punishment in our Schools

Written by: Kristina Schoenthaler
Section Editor: Kiara Tookes-Williams
Peer Reviewers: Molly Becker, Olivia Jackson, Jasmine Merlette, Zaine Roberts
Advisor: Antonella Bariani

When working with children in the welfare system, I often ask a simple but powerful question: “If you had a magic wand that could fix all your problems overnight, what would you wish for?” The answers vary - some wish for stability, some for a loved one to return, and some just want the newest video game console. But one response, from a soft-spoken girl no older than ten, who had endured more adversity than most will ever face, has stayed with me to this day: “For the teacher to stop hitting my friends.”

Her words reflect a form of a more normalized trauma, one that is legally sanctioned and culturally embedded in some communities: corporal punishment. As of 2024, corporal punishment remains legal in 17 states and is actively practiced in at least 14 (National Education Association [NEA], 2023). Mississippi, where I currently reside, reports some of the highest corporal punishment rates in the nation, and national data repeatedly showcases that Black students in these states are disproportionately affected, receiving corporal punishment at nearly four times the rate of White students (U.S. Department of Education, 2018; NEA, 2023). These are not just statistics - they reflect patterns of fear, humiliation, and mistrust that can shape how children come to view school as a place of punishment rather than protection.

In recent years, national conversations about school-based trauma have focused on shootings, lockdowns, and acute crises. These events are tragic and rightfully warrant urgent attention, but they also raise a deeper question: What kinds of harm trigger public attention, and what kinds do we quietly allow to persist? Corporal punishment rarely makes headlines, yet for many students, it is a sanctioned part of their daily educational experience. While it may be framed as discipline, its psychological effects often mirror more recognized traumas.

DEFINING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Corporal punishment in schools refers to the deliberate infliction of physical pain typically by paddling or spanking a child - as a form of discipline. While this practice has been banned in most high-income countries and prohibited in federal institutions like juvenile justice centers, it remains legal in 17 U.S. states and actively practiced in at least 14, with the highest rates concentrated in the South (NEA, 2023; American Psychological Association [APA], 2008).

In states like Mississippi and Alabama, corporal punishment is not only permitted - it is deeply normalized by both teachers and parents. In Mississippi, for instance, over 20,000 students were subjected to corporal punishment in a single year (Gershoff & Font, 2016). Teachers, administrators, and parents may view physical discipline as an extension of classroom management or as an reflection of how they themselves were disciplined. In these communities, corporal punishment is often framed as a disciplinary tradition rather than a potential trauma exposure; but just because a practice is legal - and even seen by some as traditional - doesn’t mean it isn’t traumatizing.

These disparities are not accidental - they reflect broader inequities in how school discipline is administered. According to the American School Counselor Association (ASCA, 2019), corporal punishment contributes to a climate of mistrust and undermines a trauma-sensitive learning environment. It has been associated with a host of negative outcomes, including increased aggression, erosion of teacher-student relationships, depressive symptoms, and poorer academic performance (Afifi et al., 2017; ASCA, 2019).

If we understand trauma not just by the severity but by its impact on a child’s emotional safety and regulation, then corporal punishment deserves closer scrutiny. Many students experience physical discipline not as correction, but as fear, shame, or powerlessness. By broadening our definition of trauma to include practices that are legal and culturally familiar, we open the door to more compassionate, developmentally appropriate approaches - ones that prioritize long-term resilience over short-term compliance.

WITNESSING CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

Trauma is not always confined to the child who is directly harmed. In schools where corporal punishment is practiced, other students often witness the physical discipline of their peers, whether it be on the playground, in classrooms, or even in hallways. For these children, the lesson witnessed is clear: pain and embarrassment is a possibility, and adult safety is conditional.

Those who are not physically disciplined themselves may internalize distress after witnessing a peer being punished. Students may become hypervigilant, reluctant to speak up, or afraid to seek support in fear of being punished themselves. Prior studies found that children who observe others being corporally punished report increases in stress and anxiety symptoms, further suggesting that witnessed punishment functions as a form of secondary trauma (Weitz, 2000; Knapp, 1998). This phenomenon aligns with what is known as environmental trauma - the emotional and physiological effects of exposure to another’s suffering, particularly in settings where violence is normalized (Weitz, 2000).

Children in these environments may not only fear becoming the next target, but also internalize beliefs about deserving harm, especially when they see certain students consistently singled out. National data has consistently shown that Black students and students with disabilities are disproportionately targeted and are more likely to be subjected to corporal punishment, even when controlling for behavior ( of Education, 2018; U.S. Department Gershoff & Font, 2016). Similarly, boys in general are disciplined more frequently than girls, reflecting broader gender norms about aggression and control ( Straus & Donnelly, 2001).

DEVELOPMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS

The effects of corporal punishment extend well beyond the moment a child is physically struck. While often justified as a means of discipline or character-building, decades of research tell a different story - one of lasting emotional, relational, and cognitive consequences.

One of the most consistent findings in the literature is that children exposed to physical discipline often exhibit heightened physiological stress responses, including elevated anxiety, hypervigilance, and difficulties in self-soothing (Weitz, 2000; Afifi et al., 2012). In environments where pain is used to enforce compliance, children may learn to suppress emotions or remain in a chronic fight-or-flight. According to polyvagal theory, persistent activation of a child’s sympathetic nervous system interferes with their capacity for social engagement, learning, and executive functioning ( Porges, 2011).

These physiological and emotional effects often evolve into distrust of authority figures, especially when the adults tasked with protecting and teaching students are also the ones inflicting or allowing corporal punishment, leading to a decline in attachment building in school relationships (ASCA, 2019; Trauma-Informed Discipline Response, 2021).

In regard to academic consequences, students surrounded by corporal punishment are more likely to experience academic disengagement, reduced motivation, and higher dropout risk (Gershoff & Font, 2016; Straus & Donnelly, 2001). Chronic stress models emphasize that toxic stress - especially when unbuffered by stable, supportive relationships - can impair working memory, attention, and cognitive development (Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University, 2021; Gershoff & Font, 2016).

Over time, repeated exposure to corporal punishment can result in trauma symptoms consistent with posttraumatic stress disorder, such as intrusive thoughts, hyperarousal, emotional numbing, or truancy (Weitz, 2000). In some cases, this trajectory aligns with what has been described as Developmental Trauma Disorder - a proposed pattern of dysregulation, mistrust, and difficulty navigating relationships that stems from prolonged exposure to interpersonal trauma in caregiving environments (van der Kolk, 2005).

CALL FOR ACTION

For corporal punishment to be addressed meaningfully, it must first be recognized not as an outdated disciplinary method, but a form of chronic stress exposure for children. Reframing corporal punishment through the lens of trauma is a necessary first step in shifting school culture from compliance-based to compassion-centered.

In recent years, many school districts have taken steps to eliminate corporal punishment and replace it with trauma-informed frameworks. These approaches emphasize emotional regulation, relationships, and collaborative problem-solving. For example, Arkansas - once among the highest users of corporal punishment - passed legislation in 2017 allowing districts to opt out. As a result, several school boards implemented restorative justice models focused on connection, dialogue, and accountability over punishment (Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, 2019).

Similarly, trauma-informed discipline models emphasize understanding student behavior as a form of communication, often shaped by life experiences, development, and relational stressors. These approaches prioritize staff training in de-escalation, relationship-building, and co-regulation techniques, creating environments where safety is proactive rather than reactive (ASCA, 2019; Trauma-Informed Discipline Response, 2021).

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) also offer an evidence-based alternative. PBIS frameworks provide consistent expectations and structured support while emphasizing positive reinforcement and social-emotional learning. Many schools that have adopted PBIS report improved student-teacher relationships, decreased behavioral incidents, and stronger school climates (Bradshaw et al., 2009; Office of Special Education Programs, 2015).

Importantly, these alternatives are not about lowering standards or removing accountability - they’re about meeting students’ needs in ways that build resilience rather than reinforce fear. Policy change begins when systems name harm for what it is and commit to repairing it.

CONCLUSION

The wish from a young girl in the child welfare system has stayed with me - not because it was dramatic, but because it named something that is often overlooked. Children know when something feels wrong; they may not always have the words for trauma, but they recognize it in their bodies, their relationships, and the spaces they’re asked to return to each day.

As clinicians, educators, and advocates, we have a responsibility not only to listen to what children say, but to pay attention to the systems they live within. When a disciplinary practice causes fear, silence, or shame, it deserves closer examination especially when that practice is still legal and routine in many schools. Corporal punishment is not just outdated - it is a preventable form of harm, and we cannot afford to look away.

 

 

Kristina Schoenthaler is a second-year PhD student in clinical psychology at Mississippi State University. She works under the supervision of Dr. Arazais Oliveros in the Regulation & Resilience Lab. Her research and clinical interests include infant/preschool mental health, school-based services, pediatrics, and underserved or child welfareinvolved populations, all rooted in resilience and emotion regulation development. She aims to bridge research and creativity by developing accessible tools for children and visual media for caregivers with low literacy, making assessment, communication, and support more inclusive and effective.

Citation: Schoenthaler, K. (2025). Trauma wears a hall pass: Corporal punishment in our schools. Trauma Psychology News, 20(2), 34-38. https://traumapsychnews.com