Nature and extent of disciplinary practices used by school teachers


  • Harmesh Singh Bains Department of Paediatrics, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar, Punjab, India
  • Manu Sharma Sareen Department of Paediatrics, Punjab Institute of Medical Sciences, Jalandhar, Punjab, India



Physical punishment, Schools, Teachers


Background: The aim of the study is to analyze the nature, extent and associated factors of disciplinary practices used by school teachers.

Methods: A cross-sectional analytic study. Subjects: 165 school teachers. Methods: Teachers completed a structured questionnaire, which included nature and extent of disciplinary methods used and their views on the issue. Statistical analysis was done through Chi square test.

Results: 70.9% Teachers felt that physical punishment is needed to discipline school children. 58.2% of teachers indulged in the same though of these 84.2% opinioned that it may be harmful. Methods used were: counselling followed by physical punishment 41.67 % , slapping (14.6%), angry shouting (11.5), shaking (9.4), swearing (6.2), and skin pinch (3.1). Common reasons for punishment included: telling a lie (31.3%), not good at studies (28.1%),disobeying (14.6%),tantrums (7.3%) and stealing (3.1%). Teachers disclosed that they learned it from personal experience (55.2%) and schools (29.2%).Stressful events were present in 47.3%. Physical punishment was significantly more in this category (Chi square 3.84,p 0.05). Almost 77% of teachers had received punishment during childhood. The modal age for getting last punishment was 14 years. Significantly greater number of teachers getting punishment during childhood opinioned in favor of punishing children(Chi square 5.769,p 0.016) and were also involved in this activity(Chi square 6.534,p o.o11).

Conclusions: Physical punishment of school children by teachers is common. Stress in the family and punishment during childhood were significant risk factors.


Wissow LS, Roter D. Toward effective discussion of discipline and corporal punishment during primary care visits: findings from studies of doctor-patient interaction. Pediat. 1994;94(4 Pt 2):587-93.

Dubanosk, RA, Inaba M, Gerkewicz K. Corporal punishment in schools: myths, problems and alternatives. Child Abuse Neglect 1983,7(3):271-8

Sediak AJ, Broadhurst DD. The third national incidence study of child abuse and neglect (NIS-3): final report. Washington, DC US Department of Health and Human Services, 1996.

MacIntyre D, Carr A. Evaluation of the effectiveness of the stay safe primary prevention programme for child sexual abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect. 1999;23(12):1307-25.

Kelly JA.Treating child abusive families; intervention based on skills training principles. New York Plenum Press,1983.

Reynolds AJ, Temple JA, Robertson DL, Mann EA. Long-term effects of an early childhood intervention on educational achievement and juvenile arrest: A 15-year follow-up of low-income children in public schools. JAMA. 2001;285(18):2339-46.

Report of the consultaion on child abuse and neglect prevention, Geneva. Geneva, WHO,199.

Runyan DK, Hunter WM, Socolar RR, Amaya-Jackson L, English D et al. Children who prosper in unfavorable environments: the relationship to social capital. Pediat. 1998;101(1):12-8.

Hyman IA. Using research to change public policy: reflections on 20 years of effort to eliminate corporal punishment in schools. Pediatrics. 1996;98(4):818-21.

Grossman DC, Rauh MJ, Rivara FP. Prevalence of corporal punishment among students in Washington state schools. Arch Pediat Adolescent Med. 1995;149(5):529-32.

Anderson S, Payne MA. Corporal punishment in elementary education: Views of Barbadian schoolchildren. Child Abuse Neglect. 1994;18(4):377-86.

Monyooe LA. Perspective reports of corporal punishment by pupils in Lesotho schools. Psychol Rep. 1993;73(2):515-8.

Mumthas NS, Munavvir J, Abdul Gafoor K. Student and Teacher Perception of Disciplinary Practices: Types, Reasons, Consequences and Alternatives. Online Submission. 2014;2(4):301-8.






Original Research Articles