Will corporal punishment on special needs students be banned by Oklahoma lawmakers?

OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Institute for Child Advocacy (OICA) has been working on the issue of preventing the use of corporal punishment on special needs children in our state’s schools.

When last surveyed a few years ago, about 10 percent, or roughly 60, Oklahoma public schools still admit to using corporal punishment, even on those students with the most severe of disabilities.

Oklahoma law allows “hitting, slapping, paddling, or any other means of inflicting physical pain” as the definition of corporal punishment by school employees and waivers are often provided to parents to sign prior to each school year to allow the school to use this as a means of discipline.

The language as presented two weeks ago and adopted by the Oklahoma Senate through their amendments has narrowed the scope of the students who would fall under the exemptions for corporal punishment.

Originally, the language would have included more children, but the language has been narrowed beyond the original Individualized Education Plan (IEP) and the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) program definitions. The newer version will remove the broader Section 504 Plan students who would have qualified before, a much broader and easer to attain classification.

Some have asked why this should be narrowed, and the simple answer is to get enough legislative votes to see the bill pass and help as many students as possible. Many lawmakers are still opposed to the bill and feel that parents should be able to delegate this form of punishment to government employees.

Research shows that children with disabilities are more than 50 percent more likely to receive corporal punishment than their nondisabled peers in many southern states. Above that, many schools do not have established standards for implementation of corporal punishment, i.e., how many swats may be given, the strength used to administer the punishment, and the type of instrument used to deliver the paddling. Sometimes, the parents or another witness are not present when this is administered.

Under the current legislation being presented, nothing will prevent the parent or guardian from coming to the school and doing this themselves; it simply prevents a school employee from doing so. Therefore, the argument of “parents’ rights” is not taken from those who still feel this is justifiable discipline, even for those with the most severe of cognitive disabilities.

I know with some the scriptural debate will occur regarding this bill, but I wish to provide context to the conversation regarding “the rod and the staff” when it comes to theology. Shepherds used these instruments to guide sheep, not to strike them. This is a lazy misconception used by some to somehow justify inflicting physical pain. Further, Ephesians 6:4 NLT says “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord.”

OICA certainly supports appropriate discipline, but this certainly should not be the deliberate infliction of physical pain or any other physical force on these children, some of whom might not be able to comprehend why they are being hurt.

Alternatives include setting limits, such as setting limits with positive outcomes for good behavior; consequences, such as losing privileged time at recess to spend with someone who shares why the behavior was inappropriate; or timeouts to reflect on the unsuitable conduct. All of these are proven to be more effective.

Thank you to those of you who are already supporting this measure, and please reach out to state representatives about your thoughts regarding this legislation. You can read the current version and a fact sheet explaining in detail why this bill is needed at https://www. oica.org under the “Advocacy” tab.