Activities and Outputs

Publications

Publications resulting From our team’s collaborative work include:

Thompson, W. C., & Tillson, J. (2020). Pedagogies of Punishment: An introduction. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 3–9.

Abstract: This document presents an introductory overview to the Pedagogies of Punishment project and many of the publications listed below. As such, it is essential reading for those who wish to understand the aims and scope of the scholarly work conducted by members of our team.

Interview: Listen to John Tillson and Winston C. Thompson discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Hand, M. (2020). On the necessity of school punishment. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 10–22.

Abstract: The question of the necessity of school punishment was raised, but not satisfactorily answered, in an exchange some time ago between John Wilson and James Marshall. Wilson argued that social interaction in schools must be governed by rules and that rules only exist if violations of them are normally punished. Marshall objected that there are some rules whose existence plainly does not depend on punishment of violations. Here, Hand revisits and tries to resolve the disagreement between Wilson and Marshall. Hand contends that, while it is not true of rules per se that they must be backed by punishment, there is an important subset of rules that do require this backing, and that subset includes at least some of the rules governing social interaction in schools.

Coverdale, H. B. (2020). What makes a response to schoolroom wrongs permissible? Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 23–39.

Abstract: Howard’s moral fortification theory of criminal punishment lends itself to justifying correction for children in schools that is supportive. There are good reasons to include other students in the learning opportunity occasioned by doing right in response to wrong, which need not exploit the wrongdoing student as a mere means. Care ethics can facilitate restorative and problem-solving approaches to correction. However, there are overriding reasons against doing so when this stigmatises the wrongdoing student, since this inhibits their learning. Responses that avoidably stigmatise students impermissibly undermine both the developmental ethos of education, and students’ recognition and respect for each other as equals.

Interview: Listen to Helen Brown Coverdale discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Tillson, J., & Oxley, L. (2020). Children’s moral rights and UK school exclusions. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 40–58.

Abstract: This article argues that uses of exclusion by schools in the United Kingdom (UK) often violate children’s moral rights. It contends that while exclusion is not inherently incompatible with children’s moral rights, current practice must be reformed to align with them. It concludes that as a non-punitive preventive measure, there may be certain circumstances in schools where it is necessary to exclude a child in order to safeguard the weighty interests of others in the school community. However, reform is needed to ensure that exclusion is a measure of last resort, unjust discrimination is eliminated, appropriate and timely alternative provision is available, cultures of listening are developed, and blanket policies are removed. The argument is framed in terms of children’s weighty interests as identified in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The moral bearing of these interests on UK schools is defended, and an overview of exclusion practices commonly used in UK schools is provided. Finally, the extent to which the use of exclusion in UK schools might violate the moral rights of the child is considered by evaluating empirically informed arguments for and against such policies couched in terms of interests identified in the Convention.

Interview: Listen to John Tillson and Laura Oxley discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Lamboy, L., Taylor, A., & Thompson, W. (2020). Paternalistic aims and (mis)attributions of agency: What the over-punishment of Black girls in US classrooms teaches us about just school discipline. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 59–77.

Abstract: In this article, the authors explore the interrelated phenomena of teachers’ paternalistic aims and their misattributions of the agency of their students within particular schooling contexts of systemic racial injustice in the United States. The authors argue that, because teachers in these contexts assess agency in patterned, predictable ways that stem from – and reify – preexisting unjust patterns of oppression, teachers are unreliable evaluators of the conditions necessary for just punishment. To build this argument, the authors explore a complex case in which authorities regularly fail to meet these conditions: the punishment of Black girls in low-income, urban, predominantly non-White primary and secondary schools in the United States. Through their analysis, the authors offer a new concept, excess agency misattribution, which raises serious questions about subjective justifications for punishment in contexts of entrenched injustice. By delineating how the perceptions of teachers influence both the putative justifying aims and targeted recipients of punishment, the authors demonstrate how the existing terrain of school punishment practices ought to affect normative reasoning about the fairness of punishment in these contexts.

Interview: Listen to Lily Lamboy and Ashley Taylor discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Thompson, W. C., Beneke, A. J., & Mitchell, G. S. (2020). Legitimate concerns: On complications of identity in school punishment. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 78–97.

Abstract: In the present unjust context of US schools, many educators face uncertainty about the legitimacy of their issuing punishments, especially when their identity meaningfully differs from that of their students. In this article, the authors address these doubts by acknowledging distinctive elements of schools to provide helpful distinctions and analyses of the legitimacy of punishments within them. Specifically, the authors interrogate the role that identity categories such as race and gender play in establishing legitimate punishment within schools, with a particular focus on the case of Black girls attending US schools. The authors offer a taxonomy of legitimate responses to undesired student behavior, arguing that a particular person in their role within a school might lack legitimacy to punish based upon their identity even while other, related yet more nuanced, behavioral responses remain. In this work, the authors aim to equip educators with tools to better navigate the options available to them and better understand the significance of their actions in response to student behavior.

Interview: Listen to Winston C. Thompson and Abigail J. Beneke discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Warnick, B. R., & Scribner, C. F. (2020). Discipline, punishment, and the moral community of schools. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 98–116.

Abstract: This article surveys changes to school punishment in the United States over the past century – particularly, the rise of exclusionary methods and the school-to-prison pipeline – to argue that prevailing disciplinary techniques are out of step with the developmental ethos of education and the principles of democratic oversight. To remedy these shortcomings, it offers a defense of schools as moral communities and outlines disciplinary responses grounded in the recognition and respect of the restorative justice model.

Interview: Listen to Bryan Warnick discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Curren, R. (2020). Punishment and motivation in a just school community. Theory and Research in Education, 18(1), 117–133.

Abstract: This article addresses the ethical and motivational dimensions of punishment in schools, focusing on the idea of a just school community. Lawrence Kohlberg’s account of a just school community is examined and systematically revised to reflect advances in psychology and a more adequate conceptualization of justice. A eudaimonic conception of justice is articulated with respect to five distinct dimensions of a just school community. This is informed by Self-determination Theory (SDT) and an account of the basis of educational authority over minor children. The resulting account of a eudaimonically just school community clarifies the limited value of punishments as motivators and the importance of needs-support to enlisting students’ cooperation. It resists the growing reliance on criminal justice responses to student misconduct and holds that discipline and punishment in schools should be diagnostic, educative, restorative, and community building.

Interview: Listen to Randall Curren discuss this work on The Emotional Curriculum podcast (Spotify, GooglePlay, Apple Podcasts)

Blokhuis, J.C., et. al. (2021). Education Law, 6e. New York; Routledge.

Abstract: Education Law, Sixth Edition provides a comprehensive survey of the legal problems and issues confronting school leaders, teachers, and policymakers today. Court cases accompanied by explanation and analysis can help aspiring educators understand the subtlety and richness of the law. Accordingly, each of the 12 thematic chapters begins with an overview, concludes with a summary, and balances an explanation of the important principles of education law with actual court decisions to illuminate those issues most relevant for educational policy and practice. Of particular note in this edition are the significantly revised sections on 4th Amendment Rights and Due Process rights of students, as both are salient in analyses of punishment within schools.

Scribner, C.F. & Warnick, B. R. (2021). Spare the Rod: Punishment and the MOral Community of Schools. Chicago; University of Chicago Press.

Abstract: In Spare the Rod, historian Campbell F. Scribner and philosopher Bryan R. Warnick investigate the history and philosophy of America’s punishment and discipline practices in schools. To delve into this controversial subject, they first ask questions of meaning. How have concepts of discipline and punishment in schools changed over time? What purposes are they supposed to serve? And what can they tell us about our assumptions about education? They then explore the justifications. Are public school educators ever justified in punishing or disciplining students? Are discipline and punishment necessary for students’ moral education, or do they fundamentally have no place in education at all? If some form of punishment is justified in schools, what ethical guidelines should be followed?

Oxley, L. and Holden, G. W. (2021). Three positive approaches to school discipline: Are they compatible with social justice principles?, Educational and Child Psychology, 38(2), 71-81.

Abstract: Maintaining order is a fundamental task for teachers in the classroom. Historically, some form of punishment has been the common response to undesirable behaviour. However, over the past two and a half decades, a different approach to classroom management, sometimes labelled 'positive discipline', is being increasingly adopted by schools. This approach focuses on positive reinforcement rather than punishment, proaction rather than reaction, and collaboration rather than top-down decision-making. As such, there is resonance with social justice principles. Method: Three prominent positive approaches to classroom behavioural management are identified: Restorative Practices (RP); Positive Behavioural Intervention and Support (PBIS); and Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS). The three approaches are described, compared, and evaluated. The extent to which they reflect an orientation toward social justice is then considered. Findings: Inherent in all three models is a more theoretically-informed approach to behaviour management in schools. The models share a number of similarities, such as a collaborative problem-solving approach and reducing or eliminating traditional punishments. Several differences between the three approaches are also identified. Limitations: There are differing amounts of evidence for each approach and this is also gathered from different contexts. For example, PBIS is more widely used in the United States than in the United Kingdom. This makes it difficult to conduct a direct comparison between the three models. Conclusions: Although there are differences between the models, all three have evidence about their effectiveness and adopt an orientation to behaviour management that is considerably more socially just than the traditional, punishment-oriented approach.

Blokhuis, J.C. & Curren, R. (2021). The Judicialization of American Education, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Abstract: Judicialization is the term most commonly used to describe the supervening authority of the courts in virtually every sphere of public life in liberal democratic states. The judicialization of American education is associated with the judicial review of administrative decisions by public school officials in lawsuits filed in the federal courts by or on behalf of students alleging due process and other Constitutional rights violations. So defined, the judicialization of American education has been facilitated by a number of legal and social developments in the Civil Rights Era, including the ascription of limited Constitutional rights to minors in public schools, the expansion of government agency liability, and the ensuing proliferation of lawsuits under Section 1983. Judicialization has been criticized for subjecting routine administrative decisions to complex and costly procedural regimentation, for distorting social relations by subjecting them to legal oversight, and for flooding the courts with frivolous lawsuits. The causes and outcomes of the judicialization of American education present a complex and mixed picture, however. The U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity’s Legal Services Program has played a central role in judicialization by providing legal resources to confront racial injustice in the punishment of students and in school funding.

Tillson, J. (2021). Wrongful Influence in Educational Contexts, Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

When and why are coercion, indoctrination, manipulation, deception, and bullshit morally wrongful modes of influence in the context of educating children? Answering this question requires identifying what valid claims different parties have against one another regarding how children are influenced. Most prominently among these, it requires discerning what claims children have regarding whether and how they and their peers are influenced, and against whom they have these claims. The claims they have are grounded in the weighty interests they each equally have in their wellbeing, prospective autonomy, and being regarded with equal concern and respect. Plausibly children have valid claims regarding the content and means of influence they themselves are subjected to. For instance, considerations of concern and respect for children confer duties on others enable them to know important information and develop important skills. Children also plausibly have valid claims to be free from certain means of influence, including indoctrination. This is because indoctrinatory practices threaten to diminish both their capacity to reason soundly, thereby constituting a wrongful harm, and their opportunities to form judgements and choices in response to relevant evidence and reasons, thereby constituting a wrong of disrespect.

Nikolaidis, A.C. & Thompson, W. C. (2021). Breaking School Rules: The Permissibility of Student Noncompliance in an Unjust Educational System, Harvard Educational Review, 91(2), 204-226.

Abstract: Rule violations are expected in schools, and assessments of the severity of those violations and the appropriate disciplinary responses are a significant aspect of educators’ responsibilities. While most educators and policy makers reject rule violation as a permissible behavior in schools, is such a categorical rejection always a suitable response, and are there circumstances that might merit an alternative response? In this article, A. C. Nikolaidis and Winston C. Thompson argue that under unjust circumstances, noncompliance with school rules may be permissible and even desirable. Building on a contractual framework placing systemic injustice at the center of inquiry, they show that under unjust conditions schools forfeit their ability to hold students accountable for role-dependent violations.

Thompson, W. C. & Tillson, J. (2023). Pedagogies of Punishment: The Ethics of Discipline in Education. London: Bloomsbury Academic Press.

Written by interdisciplinary authors from the fields of educational policy, early childhood education, history, political philosophy, law, and moral philosophy, this volume addresses the use of disciplinary action across varied educational contexts. Much of the punishment of children occurs in non-criminal contexts, in educational and social settings, and schools are institutions where young people are subject to disciplinary practices and justifications that are quite unlike those found elsewhere. In addition to this, the discipline they receive is often discriminatory, being disproportionately focused on students of colour and other minoritized identities, and unjust in other ways. This timely text is a comprehensive examination of punishment in schools, prompting discussions on racial equity, social justice in education and the school to prison pipeline. Each chapter offers empirically informed, theoretical investigations into punishment in educational settings, including how punishment is understood, whether it is permissible to discipline students, and whether such punishment can be considered educational.