Abstract

Punitive discipline and corporal punishment have long been widespread practices in schools to address the behavior of students. Over the last two decades, a growing body of evidence has shown that such approaches are not effective in correcting stress behavior and are detrimental to students’ well-being. In fact, evidence-based data suggests that punitive discipline and corporal punishment have a short- and long-term negative impact on students’ mental, physical, and emotional well-being.

In this literature review, we will address the flaws of such approaches by providing evidence-based data on the negative impact of such approaches. We will also address the underlying pathophysiology of stress behavior. Finally, we will offer alternative evidence-based approaches to punitive discipline, and corporal punishment that are effective in alleviating students’ stress behavior.  

Introduction

Background and USA educational system epidemiology: 

The United States of America (USA) is one of the most populous and diverse countries in the world, with a rich, diverse ethnic and racial population (1). Of the 334 million citizens, 21.7% are under the age of 18, and most of them are of school age (2). According to the U.S. Bureau of Census, there are approximately 4.3% of children with disabilities, a percentage that has increased over the last decade (3). Furthermore, it is estimated that 15% of students between the age of 3-21 years, approximately 7.3 million, received special education and/or related services under the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) (4). Mirroring the increase in children with disability over the last decade, children with disability in school receiving IDEA services have increased by up to 15% over the previous decade (4). The combination of an increase in diversity of the U.S. population, the increase in the diagnosis of children with disabilities, and the associated increase in children with disabilities in schools reflect the significant challenges the U.S. school system faces in ensuring education and support for children of different backgrounds and needs.

Research has shown that a simple “one model fits all” approach to school students’ education does not work. Similarly, a single simple approach to guide and improve students’ behavior at school is inadequate and unfair to the diverse school population, specifically in cases of students with different needs. However, despite this obvious fact, significant challenges still need to be addressed in implementing approaches and policies to help this student population. These limitations are multifactorial and can be attributed to many factors, including diverse student populations with different racial, ethical, and religious backgrounds. An increase in the population of students with disabilities, limited school resources, and a lack of evidence-based data on the best approaches to guide this school population further complicate the issue.

In this literature review, we will discuss the classic models for behavioral support available for this student population while discussing the advantages and limitations of each. We will focus on understanding the short- and long-term impact of punitive discipline and coercive behavioral approaches on students. We will focus on evidence-based practices that demonstrate the benefit of alternative approaches to punitive punishment, including educational neuroscience, neurodiversity-affirming, and relationship-driven approaches. Finally, we will provide a summary of recommendations for the best available approaches based on available evidence while highlighting areas of research shortage and potential future research directions. 

Classroom environment and role: 

Classrooms serve multiple functions and play an integral role in shaping children’s personalities, goals, skills, and future decisions. The impact of education extends beyond education to include a profound impact on shaping the human aspect of students (5). Classrooms represent and reflect a small society in which interactions simulate those encountered in later life with an added layer of complexity reflected in the need for a more organized structure conducive to achieving an essential role of classrooms: education (6). In order to achieve the complex roles of a classroom, there needs to be order and organization similar to those in society. School teachers are often tasked with this role and serve as managers of the class as well as educators (7, 8).

Disruptive behavior or misbehavior is a significant challenge affecting the classroom environment and has shown a gradual increase over the past two decades (9-11). Disruptive behavior is defined as behaviors and actions that disrupt and interfere with learning and distort individual relationships, as well as the dynamics of the class, affecting not only the student who provokes them but also the other students and the teachers in the classroom setting (12, 13). Disruptive behaviors often result in suboptimal school performance, less than ideal teaching environment, decreased effectiveness of teaching, and emotional strain on both students and teachers (14-20).

Punitive discipline and corporal punishment approaches: 

Some of the earliest and most implemented approaches to managing behavior in classrooms include punitive discipline, exclusionary approaches, and corporal punishment. Punitive discipline is defined as “a process that implements surveillance, restrictive, physical, and/or exclusionary tactics to correct or deter student misbehavior” (21, 22). Punitive discipline frequently operates with the goal of removing a student from the classroom via expulsion, suspension, detention, and occasionally law enforcement arrests (23). Punitive discipline is common in the United States, with over one-third of students in the public school system experiencing one out-of-school punishment episode throughout their school years (24).

Corporal punishment, physical punishment, is defined as “the use of physical force with the intention of causing pain to a child to result in behavioral correction” (25). Corporal punishment has gained legal validity secondary to the Supreme Court ruling in Ingraham v. Wright in 1977, stating that corporal punishment is constitutional (26). As of 2016, there were 19 states that allowed corporal punishment, with more than 160,000 students subjected to corporal punishment during the 2011-2012 school year (26).

While punitive and corporal punishment is not specific to a particular group or population, a growing body of evidence suggests that these approaches are directed toward a specific group of students who are marginalized. In fact, data indicates that those who are disabled, Black, Latin, Native/Indigenous, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LQBTQ+) are much more likely to receive punitive and corporal punishment, which often starts as early as preschool and accompanies students across all school educational grades (27-31).

Definition of Behavior:

As noted above, punitive and corporal punishment are two of the more common and older forms of punishment and behavior correction that are available in the school system in the United States. Also, as stated, this type of corrective reform has inherited bias toward specific vulnerable school populations (27-31). Also, as will be discussed subsequently, this approach is ineffective and has a significant negative burden on the recipient and society. However, prior to the discussion of such adverse effects, it is essential to analyze and understand the definition of behavior that results in such actions further. One potential cause of punitive and corporal punishment is the definition of the behavior that requires such punishment. Associating negative terms such as misbehavior, “bad behavior,” negative behavior, and disruptive behavior with the students’ actions often serves as a justification for such punitive approaches. 

Misbehavior is frequently defined as an action that can be avoided and is either physical or emotional, with the added layer of disruption to the school setting (32). The definition often emphasizes the idea that it is voluntary and avoidable. Misbehavior is often thought of as a voluntary act to disrupt the classroom setting; hence, it often results in and justifies strong negative responses such as punitive punishment. However, recent evidence and literature suggest that true misbehavior is exceedingly rare, and most of the time, the child is expressing a reaction to a stressful event and/or stressor, whether academic, emotional, or physical. Stress behavior differs significantly from misbehavior. First, stress behavior is subconscious and not intentional (33). This difference is significant as it suggests that the child is not intentionally acting out. Also, punitive punishment is not likely to be successful as an effective response to stress action requires understanding stress triggers and removing them. There are multiple stressors that can cause stress behavior in school and are not limited to biological but also include emotional, social, and cognitive. Understanding distinct types of stressors and signs of stress, such as distraction, impulsivity, mood swings, and trouble listening and following commands, is essential to correctly detect the stress behavior and subsequently correct it. 

This discussion and understanding of the divergence between misbehavior and stress behavior is of great essence for subsequent discussion of approaches to corrective and guidance approaches to such behaviors. Also, this understanding is essential in understanding the low likelihood of punitive discipline and corporal punishment rate of success and their long-term adverse effect on children and society, including resulting in a discipline trauma cycle, which leads to increased stress behavior. 

Evidence on Long-term effects of punitive discipline and corporal punishment:

Over the last two decades, there has been growing scientific evidence that punitive discipline and corporal punishment have detrimental effects on students, society, parents, and educational institutions. This negative effect has been shown to be profound and long-term. Adverse outcomes of these practices affect the student at multiple levels, including emotional, physical, social, and intellectual. 

First, while it is simple to assume that by punishing students for their behavior, teachers will prevent such action and improve the student outcome, such a straightforward relationship is flawed as it simplifies the students’ emotions and reactions to such punitive and corporal approaches. In fact, evidence suggests that the opposite outcome is achieved. Corporal punishment has a negative impact on students’ performance and results in more delinquent behavior and short- and long-term suboptimal academic outcomes (34). Holt et al. assessed the impact of exclusionary punishment, such as suspension, on students’ academic achievement and noted that such approaches result in increased student absences and decreased academic achievement (35). This was noted to specifically affect students at risk, such as black students, who were more likely to experience such adverse outcomes (35). Lastly, the authors noted that such an approach does not improve the education experience or enhance classroom interactions as desired (35). Such outcomes are not limited to small case series, as larger studies have documented similar adverse outcomes. Cribb Fabersunne et al., in a 2023 published study in JAMA, assessed the effect of exclusionary school discipline on the school performance of more than 16,000 middle and high school students in California (36). The study evaluated the outcome quantitatively by assessing the grade point average of such students (GPA) and noted a 0.88-point decrease in GPA in the first year after such punishment (36). Another interesting secondary result of the study was the fact that such punishments were noted to be more likely directed toward Black and Latino kids, with 10 and 3 more likelihood (36). These results are not only limited to the United States, but similar results have been noted across all five continents as noted in a recent meta-analysis with studies from Asia, Africa, North America, South America, and Europe demonstrating that corporal punishment was associated with a significant reduction in school performance (37).  

The adverse outcome of punitive, exclusionary, and corporal punishment is not only limited to school performance but also has a profound impact on the social and emotional well-being of children. Children experiencing aggressive punishments are likely to express similar behaviors as a method of externalizing behavior, which is defined as outwardly directed aggressive behavior toward others (37, 38). This is defined as any outward aggression, hostile behavior, or hyperactivity (38). It has been documented for some time that corporal punishment is associated with negative externalized behavior (39). By experiencing punishment, many school children are led to believe that such aggressive behavior is natural and acceptable, and therefore, aggressiveness becomes a natural response to such children (37). 

Also, children experiencing such punishments are likely to demonstrate internalized behavior and increased suicide ideation (37). This is defined as suppressing and/or directing behaviors toward self (39). Such behavior is associated with multiple negative short- and long-term outcomes. 

Punitive punishment has been shown to have a negative impact on the overall emotional well-being of school children (40). This results in decreased self-esteem in children experiencing such punishment, which can be detected as early as the first grade of school (41). The impact of such approaches can have a lifelong profound negative effect. Students who have experienced exclusionary punishments have reported a higher likelihood of traumatic experiences later in life (42). Such approaches also increase the sense of rejection and lower self-esteem (43). The negative emotions associated with these approaches and the internalizing of emotions eventually lead to a repetitive emotional traumatic cycle (42).

In addition to emotional and academic negative outcomes, punitive and corporal punishments have long been linked with adverse health outcomes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis performed by Durate et al., it was shown that punitive discipline deploying surveillance, restrictive, physical, and exclusionary methods was directed more toward disproportionately imposed upon Black, Latinx, Native/Indigenous, LGBTQIA, and disabled students (22). These approaches resulted in multiple adverse health outcomes in the affected student population. These health issues included depressive symptoms, depression, drug use disorder in adulthood, borderline personality disorder, antisocial behavior, death by suicide, injuries, trichomoniasis, pregnancy in adolescence, tobacco use, and smoking (22). The study recommended the need to move away from punitive punishment, given its profound negative impact on the health of students (22). 

Another significantly crucial adverse impact of punitive punishment is its impact on the school-to-prison pipeline. Mallett documented that punitive punishment disproportionally affects students of low economic status, those of color, maltreatment victims, students with special education disabilities, and lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (29). Mallet furthermore showed that such an approach results in an increase in entry into the school-to-prison pipeline in such students. These two findings of disproportionate risk group of students subjected to such punishment and the school-to-prison pipeline have been documented and replicated in multiple studies, suggesting robust evidence linking the two and effects that are long-term, frequently lifelong (44,45). 

Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS):

Over the last two decades, with the growing evidence that punitive and corporal punishment does not correct stress behavior (as addressed above), there has been a conscious effort to replace such punishments with alternative approaches. One of these approaches that has seen an increase in adoption in multiple schools is Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support (PBIS). 

PBIS is a school-wide approach that aims to prevent disruptive behavior. PBIS aims to alter the school’s organizational context to guide decisions related to students academic and social behavior in the classroom. PBIS taps into behavioral, social, and organizational theories and principles to form a plan that is applied across a school to prevent “behavioral” problems (46). 

PBIS has been shown to result in improved student school performance and a positive culture and classroom atmosphere (47). Additional clinical trials have demonstrated improvement in classroom-based support, organizational health, and discipline data (48, 49). In addition, a large-scale study assessing 12,344 elementary school students showed that PBIS had a significant favorable effect on children’s behavior problems, concentration problems, social-emotional functioning, and prosocial behavior (46). Furthermore, this study showed that PBIS was effective in decreasing discipline referrals of students by 33% (46).

While there is no denying that PBIS has multiple advantages, as stated above, there remain numerous problems with PBIS. First, PBIS is based primarily on applied behavioral analysis, which serves as its backbone, while it builds on it, drawing from multiple theories to deliver an approach that is consistent and deliverable across various settings and cultures (50). A problem of such an approach is its complexity, as it requires multiple steps to develop the process prior to initiation. For example, prior to implementation, a goal and problem must be identified. Subsequently, information regarding the problem needs to be gathered. This is followed by developing a strategy to address the problem, followed by a plan that requires frequent monitoring. This complex process, while thorough, results in a challenge to apply consistently across multiple schools and even in the same school, given the complexity and multiple layers (50). This is especially true, and the pragmatic “real world” application of PBIS has been limited by a lack of consistent application across different students and institutions (50). 

In summary, while PBIS has good components, it has multiple limitations, including suboptimal measurements of quality-of-life improvements, which often fails to address a student’s subjective emotions, non-efficient and occasionally ineffective methods to take into consideration individual factors contributing to stress behavior and variability between individuals and need for further research to assess the effect of the intervention on individuals. PBIS is often focused on extrinsic motivators, limiting its impact on long-term, meaningful behavior change. The combination of these limitations has resulted in multiple concerns. First, PBIS has been criticized as a “top to bottom approach,” which is reflected by the school administration defining the cultural and behavioral expectations and practices in schools (51). This is problematic as the student population at risk (described above) for stress behavior constitutes at least one-third of the student body (51), which is not reflected by school administration (51). This sets expectations for students that frequently do not coincide with students’ culture, needs, or beliefs (51). Second, PBIS is a reactive system that aims to address stress behavior after it happens rather than address students’ concerns and triggers to prevent stress behavior (51). This has often been cited as a potential limitation of PBIS, which often results in the marginalization of students with mental health problems (51). Third, PBIS student data collection has been criticized as a collection of a result of behavior, such as timeout or suspension, rather than actual behaviors, which is not the intended data to be collected. These limitations make PBIS an outdated model that fails to address the student triggers of stress behavior and fails to aid the student in eliminating them.

Shifting Paradigm: To a Student-Centered Individualized Approach 

Stress behavior is an autonomic response for many students and is not intentional. On the surface, this can appear as an aggressive, intentional, or disruptive behavior, but in reality, it is a much more complex process that requires understanding for proper addressing. 

Understanding stress behavior requires understanding the brain’s reaction to stress and anxiety. Recent advances in functional brain imaging (which allows MRI to image brain activity and connectivity) have allowed us to map reactions to stressful stimuli. As the brain receives such stimuli, it activates the limbic system, which in turn processes the information. In cases of anxious stimuli, there is over-activation of the amygdala (a part of the limbic system), which results in limiting the ability of the amygdala to process subsequent stimuli, which limits a student’s ability to learn or respond to instructions (52). Stress behavior is often thought of as misbehavior, which in turn results in punitive punishment. Therefore, in order to address a student’s stress behavior, it is essential to address these stimuli. Multiple approaches, in combination or separately, can be applied to reach those results.

Educational neuroscience serves as a promising tool to help students overcome stress behavior. Educational neuroscience is a dynamic field that studies the ever-evolving and complex relationship between the brain and education offering fluid ways to enhance the education of students over a lifelong course of education (53). 

Educational neuroscience emphasizes research with the aim to continuously explore the relationship between physiological, mental, and behavioral aspects of learning (53). This transdisciplinary approach is problem-centered, synergistic, real-world/pragmatic driven, innovative, non-ridged, evolving, growing, flexible, and individualized. Hachem et al. assessed the impact of educational neuroscience on 1,400 students and 75 teachers and noted the strong impact of neuroscience on teacher-student relationships and on students’ own understanding of neuroscience concepts (54). Educational neuroscience also improves the quality of learning and promotes equity among learners (55). Educational neuroscience has been shown to increase teachers’ awareness about the effects of their methods on the student brain and its development (56). Furthermore, research has shown that teachers aware of educational neuroscience are more likely to meet diverse learners’ needs (57). Educational science also increases students’ motivation and engagement (58). 

Another strength of neuroscience approaches is the ability of such approaches to be individualized, flexible, and extensive reach. One such approach is extending modifications beyond behavior to involve social, emotional, and self-regulation. These beyond-behavior neuroscience interventions can be applied early in childhood, including in preschool, and have shown tremendous promise. In a randomized trial utilizing social-emotional/self-regulation training for preschoolers with behavior concerns, such interventions were noted to be effective in improving academic achievement, emotion knowledge, emotion regulation, and executive functioning (59). 

Along the same lines of behavioral neuroscience, a physiological model that also focuses on addressing the child’s problem causing the behavior rather than addressing the behavior is Collaborative Problem Solving (CPS). CPS is a psychosocial model and an evidence-based model to replace punitive and corporal punishments. As the name suggests, it is a collaborative problem-solving approach, rather than unilateral, involving the student, family, teacher, and school. Also, it is a proactive approach, rather than reactive, to allow the student to problem solve with the aid of a large supporting group. CPS targets identifying lagging skills and unsolved problems that contribute to the behavior. After identification, it prioritizes the most urgent problems, develops a framework to solve the problem collaboratively (between child and parent and/or teacher), and finally implements the solution agreed upon. Research has shown that CPS is an effective approach. CPS has been shown to improve student behavior, parent-child interactions, and children’s skill enhancement (60). 

Another approach to help students with stress behavior is the Low Arousal approach. The Low Arousal approach was introduced in the 1990s as an approach to stress behavior that targets avoiding confrontation (61). The Low Arousal approach utilizes the relationship between stress behavior and arousal (61). This relationship is critical to understanding the stress behavior of students. By understanding stressors and coping mechanisms, interventions can be developed to address emotional regulations and educate teachers to avoid triggers of stress and conflict. The Low Arousal approach has been studied in patients with autism spectrum disorders, attention deficiency, and hyperactivity disorders and has shown promise and effectiveness. This has led to the adoption of this approach in multiple European countries (62). The Low arousal approach has been shown to reduce staff injury in schools and increase the confidence of staff in interaction with autism spectrum students (62, 63).

Another research-based approach is the Neurosequential Model of Therapeutics (NMT) (NMT). NMT is not a specific treatment itself; rather, NMT is a multidimensional approach that has been drawn upon to develop the Neurosequential Model in Education (NME) (64). The NME is based on an understanding of the neurodevelopment of the brain, which derives an understanding of a child’s behavior. The goal of this model is to teach the student, parents, and teachers these concepts and how to utilize understanding in the teaching and learning process. This builds on understanding the strengths of a child, creating an educational approach based on these strengths, and building on those strengths to develop approaches to address stress behavior. 

Another promising approach that has demonstrated great promise is trauma-informed education. Trauma-informed education (TIE) is a student-centered approach that individualizes education and learning to support trauma-affected students (65). Kim et al. analyzed and compared TIE to PBIS and concluded that PBIS is a system-based approach that fails to identify individuals’ needs and address them according to each human unique strengths and abilities (65). Rather, PBIS upholds and/or creates harm to traumatized students. Kim et al. concluded that schools should consider adopting TIE as an individual approach to aid students with stress behavior to overcome their traumas and thrive in the educational institutions (65). 

Conclusion

As the United States schools and classrooms continue to evolve and reflect the rich diversity of our culture, challenges emerge in education and classroom settings. Historical approaches such as punitive and corporal punishments have long been shown to be ineffective and detrimental to the child’s short- and long-term education and personal, emotional, and physical well-being. In addition, studies have shown that these approaches are inherently discriminatory and target children at risk. It is essential to understand that these approaches are ineffective and harmful. Furthermore, it is important to understand that the classification of misbehavior is scientifically inaccurate and presumptuous as it assumes that the child is intentionally performing such behavior. 

Science has shown that a child’s behavior is not intentional or harmful; instead, it is a coping neurological mechanism to stressful stimuli. This distinction is important as it correlates brain response to stimuli with the child’s stressful behavior. This relationship allows for a better approach to addressing the stress behavior of children. Multiple models have been discussed above relating to evidence-based approaches that emphasize connecting the science of stress behavior with a multitiered, multi-setting, evidence-based approach targeting the stressors while enriching the child with a skill set that draws on their unique strengths and allowing them to problem-solve and work through those stressful stimuli. These approaches do not only enhance the child and classroom education; they also allow for the development of lifelong skills that improve the child’s reactions and interactions while preserving the child’s well-being. 

References:

1. U.S. population by year, race, age, ethnicity, and more. U.S. Facts U.S. population by year, race, age, ethnicity, & more | USAFacts. Published May 18, 2023. Retrieved 2/23/2024. 

2. United States Census Bureau. U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved 2/23/2024. 

3. United States Census Bureau. Childhood Disability in the United States: 2019 (census.gov) Published March 25, 2021. Retrieved 2/23/2024.

4. Annual Report and Information Staff. National Center for Educational Statistics. COE – Students With Disabilities (ed.gov). Published May 2023. Retrieved 2/23/2024. 

5. Ayeni AJ, Adelabu MA. Improving learning infrastructure and environment for sustainable quality assurance practice in secondary schools in Ondo State, South-West, Nigeria. Int J Res Stud Educ. 2011;1(1):61–8.

6. Salarvand S, Niknejad R, Gyasi RM. Handling students’ misbehaviors in crowded classrooms: the nursing faculty members’ experiences. BMC Med Educ. 2023;23(1):709.

7. Graham LJ. Student compliance will not mean ‘all teachers can teach’: a critical analysis of the rationale for ‘no excuses’ discipline. International Journal of Inclusive Education. 2017;41:1–15.

8. Cho V, Mansfield KC, Claughton J. The past and future technology in classroom management and school discipline: a systematic review. Teach Teacher Educ. 2020;90(1):103037.

9. Ghasemi FZ, Arbabisarjou A, Arbabisarjou T. Investigating educational misbehavior in students of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences: a case study. Drug Invention Today. 2019;12(11):2812–7.

10. Närhi V, Kiiski T, Savolainen H. Reducing disruptive behaviours and improving classroom behavioural climate with class‐wide positive behaviour support in middle schools. British Educational Research Journal. 2017;43(6):1186–205

11. Farmer TW, Reinke WM, Brooks DS. Managing classrooms and challenging behavior: Theoretical considerations and critical issues. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications Sage CA; 201

12. Granero-Gallegos A, Gómez-López M, Baena-Extremera A, et al. Interaction Effects of Disruptive Behaviour and Motivation Profiles with Teacher Competence and School Satisfaction in Secondary School Physical Education. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;17(1):114

13. Cothran DJ, Kulinna PH. Students’ reports of misbehavior in physical education. Res. Q. Exerc. Sport. 2007;78:216–224.

14. Emmer ET, Stough LM. Classroom Management: a critical part of Educational psychology, with implications for teacher education. Educational Psychol. 2001;36(2):103–12.

15. Brouwers A, Tomic W. Teacher burnout, perceived self-efficacy in classroom management, and student disruptive behaviour in secondary education. Curriculum and Teaching. 1999;14(2):7–26

16. McClowry SG, Snow DL, Tamis-LeMonda CS, et al. Testing the efficacy of INSIGHTS on student disruptive behavior, classroom management, and student competence in inner city primary grades. School mental health. 2010;2(1):23–35.

17. Granero-Gallegos A, Baena-Extremera A. Validation of the short-form Spanish version of the Physical Education Classroom Instrument measuring secondary pupils’ disruptive behaviours. Cuad. Psicol. Deporte. 2016;16:89–98.

18. Barnes TN, Smith SW, Miller MD. School-based cognitive-behavioral interventions in the treatment of aggression in the United States: A meta-analysis. Aggress. Violent Behav. 2014;19:311–321.

19. Baños R, Ortiz-Camacho MM, Baena-Extremera A, et al. Satisfaction, motivation and academic performance in students of secondary and high school: Background, design, methodology and proposal of analysis for a research paper. Espiral. 2017;10:40–50.

20. Veas A, Castejón JL, Miñano P, et al. Early adolescents’ attitudes and academic achievement: The mediating role of academic self-concept. Rev. Psicodidact. 2019;24:71–77.

21. Punitive vs. restorative approach to school discipline. (2021). https://www.restorativeresources.org/uploads/5/6/1/4/56143033/punitive_vs_restorative_school_discipline.pdf

22. Duarte CD, Moses C, Brown M, et al. Punitive school discipline as a mechanism of structural marginalization with implications for health inequity: A systematic review of quantitative studies in the health and social sciences literature. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2023;1519(1):129-152.

23. Marcucci O. Implicit bias in the era of social desirability: Understanding antiblackness in rehabilitative and punitive school discipline. Urban Review, 2002;52(1), 47–74.

24. Rosenbaum JE. Educational and criminal justice outcomes 12 years after school suspension. Youth Soc. 2020 May;52(4):515-547

25. Straus MA. Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families and Its Effects on Children. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers; 2001

26. Gershoff ET, Font SA. Corporal Punishment in U.S. Public Schools: Prevalence, Disparities in Use, and Status in State and Federal Policy. Soc Policy Rep. 2016;30:1.

27. Duarte CDP, Salas-Hernández L, Griffin JS. Policy Determinants of Inequitable Exposure to the Criminal Legal System and Their Health Consequences Among Young People. Am J Public Health. 2020 Jan;110(S1):S43-S49.

28. Muñiz JO. Exclusionary discipline policies, school-police partnerships, surveillance technologies and disproportionality: A review of the school to prison pipeline literature. The Urban Review, 2021;53,735–760.

29. Mallett CA. The school-to-prison pipeline: A critical review of the punitive paradigm shift. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 2016;33(1), 15–24.

30. Nowicki JM, Doughty S, Lowe AM, et al. (2018). K12 education: Discipline disparities for Black students, boys, and students with disabilities. United States Government Accountability Office.

31. Bookser BA, Ruiz M, Olu-Odumosu A, et al. Context matters for preschool discipline: Effects of distance learning and pandemic fears. Sch Psychol. 2021;36(5):325-334. 

32. Reed DF, Kirkpatrick C. Disruptive Students in the Classroom: A Review of the Literature. Richmond, VA, USA: Metropolitan Educational Research Consortium; 1998.

33. Whiting SB, Wass SV, Green S, et al. Stress and Learning in Pupils: Neuroscience Evidence and its Relevance for Teachers. Mind Brain Educ. 2021;15(2):177-188.

34. Maiti A. Effect of corporal punishment on young children’s educational outcomes. Educational economics. 2021;29:411 – 423.

35. Holt S, Vinopal K, Choi H, et al. Strictly speaking: Examining teacher use of punishment and student outcomes. SSRN Electronic Journal. 2022. 

36. Cribb Fabersunne C, Lee SY, McBride D, et al. Exclusionary School Discipline and School Achievement for Middle and High School Students, by Race and Ethnicity. JAMA Netw Open. 2023 Oct 2;6(10):e2338989. 

37. Visser LN, van der Put CE, Assink M. The Association between School Corporal Punishment and Child Developmental Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Children (Basel). 2022;9(3):383

38. Eisenberg N, Cumberland A, Spinrad TL, et al. The relations of regulation and emotionality to children’s externalizing and internalizing problem behavior. Child Dev. 2001;72:1112–1134.

39. Ferguson C. Spanking, corporal punishment and negative long-term outcomes: a meta-analytic review of longitudinal studies. Clinical Psychology Review. 2013;33(1), 196-208 

40. Jones R, Kreppner J, Marsh F, et al. Punitive behaviour management policies and practices in secondary schools: A systematic review of children and young people’s perceptions and experiences, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties. 2023;28(2-3):182-197.

41. Doumen S, Buyse E, Colpin H, et al. Teacher-child conflict and aggressive behaviour in first grade: The intervening role of children’s self-esteem. Infant. Child Dev. 2011;20:449–465.

42. McInerney M, McKlindon A. 2014. Unlocking the Door to Learning: Trauma-Informed Classrooms & Transformational Schools. Education Law Center. Accessed March 27, 2024. 

43. Howard, J. “Rethinking Traditional Behaviour Management to Better Support Complex Trauma- Surviving Students.” International Journal on School Disaffection 2016;12(2): 25–44.

44. Rocque M, Snellings Q. The new disciplinology: Research, theory, and remaining puzzles on the school-to-prison pipeline Journal of Criminal Justice, 2018;59: 3-11

45. Hemez P, Brent JJ, Mowen TJ. Exploring the School-to-Prison Pipeline: How School Suspensions Influence Incarceration During Young Adulthood. Youth Violence Juv Justice. 2020;18(3):235-255

46. Bradshaw CP, Waasdorp TE, Leaf PJ. Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics. 2012;130(5):e1136-e1145. 

47. Horner RH, Sugai G, Smolkowski K, et al. A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in elementary schools. J Posit Behav Interv. 2009;11(3):133–144.

48. Bradshaw CP, Koth CW, Bevans KB, Ialongo N, Leaf P.J. The impact of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. Sch Psychol Q. 2008;23(4):462–473. 

49. Bradshaw CP, Koth CW, Thornton LA, et al. Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prev Sci. 2009;10(2):100–115.

50. Hieneman M. Positive Behavior Support for Individuals with Behavior Challenges. Behav Anal Pract. 2015;8(1):101-108. 

51. Wilson AN. A Critique of Sociocultural Values in PBIS. Behav Anal Pract. 2015;8(1):92-94. 

52. Godoy LD, Rossignoli MT, Delfino-Pereira P, Garcia-Cairasco N, de Lima Umeoka EH. A Comprehensive Overview on Stress Neurobiology: Basic Concepts and Clinical Implications. Front Behav Neurosci. 2018;12:127

53. Goldberg H. Growing Brains, Nurturing Minds-Neuroscience as an Educational Tool to Support Students’ Development as Life-Long Learners. Brain Sci. 2022;12(12):1622

54. Hachem M, Daignault K, Wilcox G. Impact of Educational Neuroscience Teacher Professional Development: Perceptions of School Personnel. Educational Psychology. 2022;7. 

55. Coch D. Reflections on neuroscience in teacher education. Peabody J. Educ. 2018;93, 309–319.

56. Dubinsky JM, Roehrig G, Varma, S. Infusing neuroscience into teacher professional development. Educ. Res. 2013;42, 317–329.

57. Walker Z, Hale JB, Annabel Chen,S. H. et al. Brain literacy empowers educators to meet diverse learner needs. Learn. Res. Pract. 2019;5, 174–188.

58. Dubinsky JM, Guzey, SS, Schwartz, MS, et al. Contributions of Neuroscience Knowledge to Teachers and Their Practice. The Neuroscientist: a review journal bringing neurobiology, neurology and psychiatry, 2019;25(5), 394–407.

59. Graziano PA, Hart K. Beyond behavior modification: Benefits of social-emotional/self-regulation training for preschoolers with behavior problems. J Sch Psychol. 2016;58:91-111

60. Greene R, Winkler J. Collaborative & Proactive Solutions (CPS): A Review of Research Findings in Families, Schools, and Treatment Facilities. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev. 2019;22(4):549-561.

61. McDonnell A, Reeves S, Johnson A, et al. Managing challenging behaviour in an adult with learning disabilities: the use of low arousal approach. Behav. Cogn. Psychother. 1988;26:163–171. 

62. McDonnell AA, Page A, Bews-Pugh S, et al. Families’ experiences of the Low Arousal Approach: a qualitative study. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1328825.

63. McDonnell A., Sturmey P., Oliver C., et al. The effects of staff training on staff confidence and challenging behavior in Services for People with autism Spectrum disorders. Res. Autism Spectr. Disord. 2008;2:311–319. 

64. Perry, B. D., & Dobson, C. L. (2013). The neurosequential model of therapeutics. In J. D. Ford & C. A. Courtois (Eds.), Treating complex traumatic stress disorders in children and adolescents: Scientific foundations and therapeutic models (pp. 249–260).

65. Kim RM, Venet AS. Unsnarling PBIS and Trauma-Informed Education. Urban Education. 2023;1-29.