Dear Sir, Hope you receive this e-mail in a very good health and high professional spirit.

As per our e-mail communication these are drafts of couple articles. According to new rules here in Pakistan, teachers who are interested to supervise foreign student(s) doctoral dissertation/ thesis are required to publish five articles in any Journal/ Bulletin abroad. Therefore, I need your cooperation. The data collected for my doctoral dissertation is about: i) Job satisfaction of Islamic school teachers ii) Perception of Islamic school teachers about customer focus iii) Demographic data It would be appropriate if you give me just direction of the work. In my humble suggestion we can write articles on: i) Job satisfaction of teachers in Islamic schools ii) A comparison of job satisfaction with public schools iii) Perception of Islamic school teachers about customer focus iv) A comparison with catholic schools v) An analysis article using demographic data I know you have always a busy schedule. Before leaving the USA, I talked to June Klien and she mentioned that she would help in this regard and article will be with having two names of authors, Dr Roger DeMont and Muhammad Akhtar. Unfortunately, I was unable to contact to her. Can I request to mail her e-mail address. I would highly appreciate your cooperation in this regard. Sincerely
Muhammad S. Akhtar Assistant Professor, Institute of Education and Research University of the Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan

CUSTOMER FOCUS AND ITS IMPACT ON ORGANIZATIONAL LIFE

Customer focus is a key issue for any organization, business as well as educational, that is interested in increasing the value of customer loyalty and creating a better performance. Therefore, increasing the value of customer loyalty and customer satisfaction should be measured and managed. Linda (1998) defined customer focus as an organizations understanding of customers attitudes, knowledge, and actions that served to align products and services with the customers definition of quality.

The concept of customer focus has becomes more important in organizational life during the last two decades. Research has been conducted on customer focus in successful organizations, including business as well as education. These studies indicated that organizations that are increasingly customer focused and driven by customer demands are able to meet customer expectations, excel in customer service, provide quality product, and retain their customer loyalty (Albrecht & Zemke, 1985; Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Glasser, 1999; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1988; Linda, 1998; Martin, 1987; Seymour, 1993; Schmoker & Wilson, 1993; Wiersena, 1996). The origins of customer focus can be seen in the literature of early 1950s. However, its importance has been realized more in the last two decades and has become a primary component of what is now called Total Quality Management (TQM) (Berry, 1991; Crosby, 1979; Deming, 1986; Ishikawa, 1985; Juran, 1988; Linda, 1998). The TQM is a strategic integrated management system for achieving customer satisfaction. Berry (1991) emphasized that the real focus of TQM is always the customer, whoever or whatever the organization perceives them to be. The enhanced definition of quality management is meeting customer needs and reasonable expectations. It was the assumption of the TQM practitioners that most customers are reasonable people with different expectations for different companies or systems. He (1991) further assumed that quality, not price, is a greater catalyst of switching from doing business with one firm over another. Originally, the TQM approach was developed by business and industrial organizations, but in the last decade this approach has been adopted by many educational institutions, and is usually called Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) (Albrecht & Zemke, 1985; Chaffee & Sherr, 1992; Cornesky et al., 1991; Juran, 1988; Marchese, 1993; Martin, 1987; Seymour, 1993; Sherr & Lozier, 1991; Wiersena, 1996). The major contributors to the TQM philosophy are W. Edward Deming, Philips Crosby, Armand Feigenbaum, and Joseph M. Juran. Other individuals (e.g., Louis Schultz of process Management International, Tom Varion of Organizational Dynamics, William E. Conway of Conway Quality Incorporated, and Sara Smith of Development Dimensions International) have also contributed to the field. Several key components of TQM are supported by all its advocates. These components, which represent the essential differences between quality proponents and traditionalists of industry who favor management by results, include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Poor management most often causes failures in an organization. Workers are more critical to the success of an organization than are managers. The work of an organization must be studied and analyzed constantly. Success is not a result of happenstance. Process within an organization must be standardized, and everyone must follow those standardized procedures. Everyone within an organization must have an opportunity to contribute to process improvement. The work of the organization must be committed to pleasing the customer; and there are customers both internal and external to the organization. Process improvement is more important than individual accountability. There must be a constancy of purpose throughout the organization in accord with clear and widely understood vision.

8.

The change to quality management must be supported and owned by everyone in the organization, but particularly by those at the top. Managers must see an emphasis on quality implies gaining by giving...or improvement by empowerment.

In a quality program, the focal point is customer satisfaction that results from providing excellent service and quality products. Worldwide recognized American management expert, Deming (1986), considered customer focus to be an important component in the life of any organizations. Therefore, he emphasized that key to success in customer satisfaction required the following elements: 1. 2. 3. 4. Importance of listening to the customer. Service product features important to the customer include accuracy, speed, dependability, and care. The producer must provide customer training, work to set customer expectations, and be aware of competitor expectation setting. Service support to the customer is important.

Customer satisfaction through excellent service and quality products has become a critical aspect in the life of organizations. It became widely accepted in Japan. Following success in Japan, customer service and TQM started being adopted by organizations in developed countries, such as the United States, France, Canada, United Kingdom, Malaysia, Korea, and Germany. Many researchers have conducted studies and designed systems using this philosophy. In this regard, Wiersema (1996) mentioned that in customer focused systems managers priorities to run any organization are: analyzing the system, recognizing flaws, challenging the assumptions, remaining conscious of the need for initiating change.

In 1987, the International Organization of Standardization (ISO) adopted the ISO 9000 standards for business quality. The internationally accepted ISO 9000 is a set of documents that list the minimum standards for business operation. To be certified, a company usually has a third party review of their business conducted, using ISO standards. Since realizing the importance, management experts have been developing similar standards for quality education. ISO has different levels and types of certification. ISO standards include 20 elements that address issues of policies, procedure, and data related to customers, management, human resources, operations, and control. Related to customer focus, the ISO standards are: Identify customer requirements. Adopt procedures to set customer expectations. Use customer defined quality standards. Maintain customer records. Collect data on customer complaints. Design a process to follow-up on customer complaints.

Train customer contact staff.

In the ISO standards, quality is considered an important component and as is one of the most important factors of customer focus. Crosby (1984) developed the Zero Defect Theory which suggested any error in service and production was unacceptable. He contended that quality improvement was based on doing it right the first time (DIRFT) (Crosby, 1984). Excerpts from his original theory written in 1961 are as follows: People are carefully conditioned throughout their private life to accept the fact that people are not perfect and will therefore, make mistakes It becomes fashionable to say, People are humans and human make mistakes The question must arise, then, as to whether people have a built-in-defect ratio Can we assume that a person who errs in 5 percent of their industrial activities will be shortchanged on 5 percent of the checks they cash each year? If these assumptions are wrong, then errors must be a function of the importance that a person places on specific thingsIn some things people are willing to accept imperfection; in others the amount of defects must be zero. Mistakes are caused by two factors; lack of knowledge and lack of attention The person who commits himself or herself to watch each detail and carefully avoid error take the giant step toward setting a goal of Zero defect in all things (pp. 82-83).

The literature revealed that the concept of customer focus is considered to be important to all aspects of business. Martin (1987) suggested that quality customer services could be achieved by balancing two primary components of quality customer services: 1. 2. the procedural dimension, which consists of system and procedures that have been established to provide for delivery of product and/or service; and the personal dimension, which consists of service influenced by the attitude, values, and behaviors of employees with customers.

Albrecht (1988) examined customers complaints about service in business. He discovered that complaints could be classified into a few basic categories, described as the seven sins of service: 1. 2. Apathy: Brush-off: Do I look like I give a care? This attitude is often evident top customers in both body languages, tone of voice, and attitude. Employees who try to get rid of a customer by making some sort of excuses for not helping. This type of behavior allows the employee to not be held accountable for his/her actions. Employees who are unfriendly, impatient, or inconsiderate, and exude an air of youre a nuisance; please go away.

3. 4.

Coldness:

Condescension: This employee treats the customer in patronizing ways, as though the employee is high and mighty and somehow the only one who can determine what the customer really needs. Robotism: A mechanized-type employee who says what s/he is supposed to say or has a smile, but it is obvious that there is no meaning behind it.

5.

6.

Rulebook:

The rule book attitude prevents employees from using any kind of common sense of from making an exception to satisfy a customer. This attitude eliminates all traces of human thought and judgement. This attitude keeps the customer going from one person or department to another and yet another to get a problem solved. (pp. 14-17).

7.

Run-around:

Albrechts (1988) study of customer focus pointed out that most major weakness/sins that negatively affect relationships between customers and providers. These sins occur fairly often in a service organization. Albrechts plan to improve customer service included the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Understand the needs and expectations of the customer and send out positive messages about service priorities. Develop a clear service strategy. Educate the employees and establish high standards. Organize the structure to support service. Implement the new plan. Reinforce the new orientation and maintain it through measurement and rewards (Albrecht, 1988, p. 18).

The Director of Customer service Quality Assurance for British Airways provided his assessment of customer service: If you are a service person, and you get it wrong at your point in the customers chain of experience, you are very likely erasing from the customers mind all the memories of the good treatment he or she may have had up until you. But if you get it right, you have a chance to undo all the wrong that may happened before the customer got to you. (Albrecht & Zemke, 1985, p. 32) Customer focus being a focal point of business organizations provided better services and quality products. In light of business experience, the concept of customer focus should be implemented into education considering students and parents customers of education. Many other countries like United States and Japan have already taken initiative to implemented this concept in education side. It is highly recommended that policy makers, administrators, teachers and all other staff, should give importance to the concept of customer focus to achieve quality education.

References and Bibliography Albrecht, K. (1988). At America's service. Homewood, IL: Dow Jones-Irwin. Albrecht, K., & Zemke, R. (1985). Service America. Homewood, IL: Dow JonesIrwin. Berry, T. H. (1991). Managing the quality transformation. New York: McGraw Hills Inc.

Crosby, P. B. (1979). Quality is free. New York: McGraw Hill Book Co. Crosby, P. B. (1984). Quality without tears: The art of hassle-free management. Markham, Ontario: Penguin Books Canada Unlimited. Deming W. E., et al. (1992). The new economics: For education, government, and industry. In Instituting Dr. Deming's methods for management of productivity and quality. Notebook used in Deming quality enhancement seminars. Los Angeles: Quality enhancement seminar. Deming W. E. (1989, July). Foundation for management of quality in the Western world: A paper delivered at the Institute of Management Sciences. Deming W. E. (1986). Out of crisis. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Glasser, W. (1990). The quality school. New York: Harper Collins Publishers. Glasser, W. (1993). The quality school teacher. New York: Harper and Row. Juran, J. M. (1988). Juran on planning for quality. Cambridge, Ma: Productivity Press. Linda, V. P. (1998). Faculty and staff perception of customer focus. Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Michigan. Martin, W. B. (1987). Managing quality customer service: The art of treating customers as guest. CA: Crisp Publication, Inc. Schmoker, M. J., & Wilson, R. B. (1993). Total quality education. Indiana: A publication of the Phi Delta Kappa, Educational Foundation Bloomington. Schoenfeld, Ed. (1992, August 29). Mount Edgecumbe: For Many, Road to Success Leads to State-Run Boarding School. Juneau Empire. P. 15. Seymour, D. T. (1991). TQM on campus: What the pioneers are finding. American Association of Higher Education Bulletin, 44(3), 10-13. Sherr, L. A., & Lozier, G. G. (1991). Course design, teaching method and student epistemology. Higher Education, 18(3), 3-11. Wiersena, F. (1996). Customer intimacy. Santa Monica, CA: Knowledge exchange.

DILEMA OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND 21st CENTURY Dr. Mahr Muhammad Saeed Akhtar
Spare the rod and spoil the child has been a philosophy of child rearing strongly held by both professionals and laymen. Kennedy (1995) reported that both parents and teachers use corporal punishment for the purpose of discipline. It has been reflected from many studies that corporal punishment has been still being used at home as well as educational institutions. A heavy majority of 83% parents were reported spanking their children (Cryan, 1987), and 75% of teachers were in favor to using corporal punishment in classroom if needed (Brown & Payne, 1988). Corporal punishment is an intentional infliction of physical pain subsequent to misconduct for the purpose of deferring future misconduct. It involves pinching, paddling (with or without an instrument), strapping, slapping, pushing, wrestling holds, ear pulling, cracking fingers with ruler, arm twisting and shaking. Despite large scale condemnation, it has been practiced in schools of many countries legally, such as United States, Pakistan, Singapore, United Kingdom, India, Bangladesh, Australia, and many others (Kennedy, 1995; Essex, 1989; Rose, 1989; Cryan, 1987;

Freeman, 1966). Countries like Japan, Canada, France, Israel, Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Poland, Luxembourg, Holland, Austria, Finland, Belgium, Philippine, Portugal and all the communist Block have abolished such punishment long ago (Awender and Plantus, 1983). Every morning we receive news from the entire world over through both electronic as well as print media, about the discipline problem in educational institutions; students are not following the procedures determined by the education/ school authorities. The purpose of this article is to once again bring out this issue in front of the professionals and invite them to start 21st century with a possible solution.

HISTORY OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT:

The history of corporal punishment began hundreds, or even thousands of years ago, in the times of barbarians and the Greeks and Romans (Neal, 1720). One of the earliest recorded statements related to the practice of corporal punishment, according to Fall (1941) is found in the Bible. The words of Solomon were, "Foolishness is bound up in the heart of a child but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him" (Fall, 1941). Fall also reported the use of corporal punishment by a teacher Ezekial Cheever (1614-1708) in school, using a rod on a student because the student was not getting the lesson competently.

In United States corporal punishment was used when American education began (Rose, 1989; Alexander, K. and Alexander, M.D., 1985; Manning, 1979; Bolmeier, 1976; Williams, 1973; Freeman, 1966). Essex (1989) summarized the other writers and reported in this regard: The use of corporal punishment in this country as a use of means of disciplining school children dates back to the colonial period. It has survived the transformation of primary and secondary education

from the colonials' reliance on optional private arrangements to our present system of compulsory education and dependence on public schools (Essex, 1989). PURPOSES OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: With the broad definition that has been offered, there has been a long list of the purposes to be gained from the use of corporal punishment which surface from the literature on the subject are to: a) Compel students to behave in a responsible way. b) Force students to learn by memory religious prayers or course work materials etc. c) Maintain discipline within the classroom. d) Stop violation of rules in school. e) Terminate an unpleasant behavior. f) Decrease certain behavior by removing a pleasant or reinforcing stimulus. g) Increase the probability of a response. h) Use as a technique to ameliorate negative behavior. i) Remind the student what not to do. (Fox, 1993; Demo, 1988; Scott, 1951; Fall, 1941) THE ORIGIN OF SCHOOL CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: The schools apparently adapted the use of corporal punishment under the influence of religious and political practices. Throughout history for the fulfillment of religious commandments and teaching or mandating of political doctrine IN LOCO PARENTIS employed to authorize the use of corporal punishment especially with the statutory provisions of compulsory school attendance for maintaining discipline (Bolmeir, 1976; Hyman, McDonwell and Raines, 1973).

DILEMMA OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: For over a century and a half American courts have been important centers regarding making determinations relative to corporal punishment. A variety of court decisions can be found in literature and law books. Most of these were decided in favor of both teachers and schools, and on less frequent occasions they were found in favor of students and parents. Through the study of these cases and decisions it was found that an impasse existed in the following cases: a) Whether corporal punishment can be given or not by law, b) Under what circumstances corporal punishment can be given, c) To what extent it becomes positive, d) To what extent it becomes negative, e) What type of corporal punishment teachers can give? e) How much corporal punishment can teacher give legally (how many strokes of the rods or paddles or slaps), g) Whether equal punishment is given to a habitual and to a mild mannered student on a single mistake. Constitutional theory has not become clear as to whether public schools were authorized for corporal punishment or other such treatment. Counsel Murphy (quoted in Kerrigan, 1971) observed that standards regulating the administration of corporal punishment were arbitrary, vague and overboard. Lunenburg and Ornstein (1996) further pointed out the situation of lack of clarity as "although the Supreme Court has held that the Federal Constitution does not prohibit corporal punishment in schools. Its use may

conflict with state constitutions, state statues, or local school policies... some states authorize it; others forbid it. Still others are silent on the matter, but implication allows it". Harris and Field (1977) summarized the overall situation: Consideration of these cases was hampered by the fact that no nuclear national decision on this issue existed in case laws. Until 1975 the legal frame work of the issue consisted of a list of questions that had gone unanswered through the hodge- podge of conflicting state law and lower court decisions dating back over 100 years (Harris and Field, 1977). Being a sensitive issue, corporal punishment has gotten the full attention of the scholars, teachers, diplomats, parents, administrators, researchers and the government officials. Much research has been conducted in the field of corporal punishment over the past four-or-five decades of this century. The writer reviewed the research and identified the main points in favor and against the use of corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment in schools is a major pedagogical, legal, and emotional issue. Questions about the usefulness and constitutionality of this approach have become the focus of discussion and litigation at local, state and national level (McNamara, 1981; Hess, 1985). In recent years, the use of corporal punishment in schools has been a widespread concern. Being a sensitive issue it got much attention, and a lot of research was conducted in various parts of the world. Corporal punishment was advocated and condemned. It has been the cause of numerous controversies based on ethics, morality, legality, and efficacy of its use, as a means of disciplining school children. (Hess, 1985; Maurer, 1982; Elrod, 1983; Raichle, 1977-78; Owens and Straus, 1975)

Despite being a highly controversial issue, corporal punishment is practiced in most states of the United States and many other countries such as United Kingdom, Singapore, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Canada, Australia, India, Bangladesh, Germany. The studies reveal that there are many persons both in favor of and against corporal punishment. The Deskbook Encyclopedia of American school law (1989) indicates that: most states in America have allowed the use of reasonable physical force to correct unacceptable behavior and to maintain the order necessary to conduct an educational program, however, some states prohibited corporal punishment, where state law permitted. Richardson and Evans (1994) noted that corporal punishment, was legal in schools in twenty-three states and illegal in twenty-seven states, but even with these legal restrictions the actual position about the practice was not clear. Some other states banned corporal punishment after 1994; for example Michigan State banned it in 1996. PROPONENTS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT: Proponents of corporal punishment have promoted the concept that corporal punishment is useful when given carefully. Moreover they have indicated that it has: a) Provided rapid reduction or elimination of misbehavior, b) Facilitated learning, c) Taught respect for rule and authority, d) Deterred similar misbehavior, e) Helped in building character. (Dubanoski, Inaba and Gerkewicz, 1983; Reinholz, 1979) In the United States, many have accepted that decisions of the Supreme Court as a disciplinary procedure and not a violation of ones constitutional rights support corporal

punishment. Furthermore, many others have promoted the concept that the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment did not apply to corporal punishment in public schools (Richards and Evans, 1994; Lunenburg and Ornstein, 1996). In 1845, the Massachusetts Teachers Federation offered support for teachers who enforced the "wholesome restraints of the rod when necessary". The Federation, in its opening meeting, supported schoolroom corporal punishment for the overall purpose of school reform (Student Rights Litigation Packet, 1972). Proponents have argued that corporal punishment has an immediate and measurable impact. They have contended that the practice had generated short-term change in behavior and deterred criminal activity (Reinholz, 1977; Hess, 1985). It was revealed from the study of Rose (1989) that use of corporal punishment, (spanking with paddle and spanking with hands) gave very positive results in stopping student from fighting and misbehaving. Further, she found that principals also considered corporal punishment useful. They observed that it helped them to decrease and occasionally abolish the fighting problems in their schools. Similarly, it helped with a wide range of disobedience. Many other researches have revealed that corporal punishment has been effective in decreasing harassment, race, sexual, and emotional problems (Agnew, 1983; Welsh, 1978; Essex, 1989). In the United States common law did not protect students against all corporal punishment, the administration of which was governed in many jurisdictions by state statues or school board regulations except in few states (Remmlein and Ware, 1970). United States courts have allowed the use of corporal punishment. Many parents have also supported the use of corporal punishment but have suggested that it be administered

carefully. In the court case of State V. Pendrgrass a useful citation was given which stated: corporal punishment must be administered without malice, be reasonable in light of the age, sex, size, and physical strength of the child; be proportional to the gravity of the offence, and be performed to enforce reasonable rules, not producing degradation and psychological reaction (Kerrigan, 1971).
Essex (1989) enlarged upon rules to govern administration and identified the items to be considered in administering corporal punishment which might reduce the risk of lawsuits or criminal charges. He suggested such items as under:

1.

When the corporal punishment is administered for offenses that, clearly does not warrant physical force.

2.

When students are not informed in advance that certain infraction would result in corporal punishment.

3. 4. 5.

When age, sex, size and physical conditions of the child are totally ignored. Failure in use of a reasonable instrument. Without providing minimal due process for the child prior to administering corporal punishment.

6.

When they fail to have a witness present during the administration of corporal punishment.

7. 8. 9.

When corporal punishment is administered with malice or anger. When it is used with excessive force or excessive poor judgement is used. When they insist that corporal punishment is the only option and administer punishment over a students or parents objection.

10. When state of local policy is not followed.

In summary, the proponents of corporal punishment appear to support the use of corporal punishment when it was deemed necessary, but that it be administered carefully. OPPONENTS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT:
Opponents of the use of corporal punishment considered the practice an out dated form of discipline. Americans of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries used the approach literally to " beat the devil" out of children. This medieval basis of corporal punishment had been contrasted with other approaches to discipline governed by sweet reasonableness and "the love of its scholars" (Hyman, McDowell and Raines, 1977).

Over the period of time, some studies have been conducted in the psychological area related to corporal punishment. Owens, Straus and others (1979) argued that face to face application of physical force generated a profound, negative impact on the attitude of young people. Some studies (quoted in Hess, 1985) produced the impact of this practice on the psychology and behavior of children. It revealed the connection between physical punishment and the disruption of the learning process. Some of these efforts focused on the incidence of truancy, tardiness, and dropping out of school in selected districts where corporal punishment was practiced (Hess, 1985). The group End Violence Against Next Generation (EVANG) opposed corporal punishment by noting the negative impact on the younger generation (Essex, 1989). Hess (1985) reported that studies of Bongiovanni and Reinholz, focusing practical impact of the use of corporal punishment, suggested opposition by considering that it did not really effect student behavior. Much of their research work indicated that no durable changes in student behavior resulted from physical discipline. Also opposing corporal punishment Straus and Donnelly (1993) commented that it was just authoritarianism and created negative attitude among children.

A professional group of researchers, on the evidence of their research work, considered that corporal punishment was harmful, and it was associated with an increase and probability of violence and other crimes (Kandel, 1991; Straus, 1991), depression (Straus, 1993), and alienation and lowered achievement (Straus and Gimpel, 1992), likely seems to interfere with the development of independence and to humiliate, and antagonize and infantile children (Iroquoian, 1950, 1959; Kohlberg, 1969; Piaget, 1965). Scharfenberg in (1996) opposed corporal punishment and stated that it was clearly pointed out by the findings of researches that corporal punishment did more harms than good. He also suggested that students, who were hit, experienced lower self-esteem and fear of the one who struck them. He stated that good teachers never wanted their students to fear them.
Studies conducted in the early years of the second half of this century, indicated the following undesirable effects of corporal punishment:

(a)

Children may avoid or withdraw from the punishing situation whenever possible (Azrin, Hake, Holz and Hutchinson, 1965; Bongiovanni and Hyman, 1978).

(b) (c)

Children may imitate adults' act of punishment (Bandura, 1965). Children may continue the behavior for what they were punished, which then may be imitated by other students when the teacher is not present (Bandura, 1965).

(d)

Children may be at greater risk for subsequent adjudication and delinquency (Agnew, 1983).

(e)

Children's self-concept and subsequent social interaction may be damaged (Bryan and Freed, 1982).

(f)

Children's behavior improvement may not generalize to different settings (Birnbrauer, 1968; Bongiovanni, 1979; Johnston, 1972: Risley, 1968).

(g)

Children's aggressive reaction may increase, increasing both operant aggression (i.e., attacks against the source of the punishment)(Delgado, 1963) and elicited aggression (i.e., attacks directed toward other people or property in the environment). (Azrin, Hake, and Hutchinson, 1965; Azrin, Hutchinson, and Sallery, 1964).

Silverman (1958) pointed out that corporal punishment had deleterious effects on children. He suggested that it disrupted the learning process by repressing the natural tendency of children to explore. Nash (1963) considered the use of corporal punishment very seriously. He indicated that it might inhibit the development of self-criticism and self-direction in the child. He stated that corporal punishment drove students to concentrate their energies on conflict with the teacher instead of encouraging them to adjust to their classroom situation. The famous psychologist Piaget (1965), Iroquoian (1950 & 1959), and Kohlberg (1969) considered strongly that corporal punishment impeded the process of moral development, identity formation and independent attainment. Estes and Skinner (1963) thought that corporal punishment in the public schools was producing harmful results, and was ineffective and useless in controlling behavior. The National Education Association (1972) concluded, after the completion of the study project on corporal punishment that the practicing of corporal punishment was ineffective and did not give the required results for the purpose

of behavior problems control. According to Kerrigan (1971) the use of corporal punishment was brutality and it undermined human dignity. He stated that students were placed at the mercy of teachers who had the power to beat them without explanation or justification and should therefore always be considered unreasonably. Richardson and Evans (1995) reported that there were numerous national organizations that opposed the use of corporal punishment. The list included: The Council of Exceptional Children, The American Medical Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Association for Counseling and Development, The National Association of the Advancement of Colored People, The National Congress of Parents and Teachers, and The American Humanist Association. Fall, as early as 1941, was very optimistic and stated that: I am safe in saying that it (corporal punishment) never occurs in the junior and senior high schools and very infrequently in the elementary schools. We hold to the general theory that the school should be able to solve its discipline problems without the use of corporal punishment (Fall, 1941). In summary, corporal punishment is educationally unsound and fundamentally wrong and time has come to discard the despotism of the hickory stick and to stop the beating as majority of the people considers corporal punishment harmful. There are opponents and proponents of corporal punishment. At the same time this is a fact that in almost every school there is a discipline problem. The teachers are devoting a big share of their time to manage teaching class. School administrators (Assistant Principals and Principals) spend a lot of their time to keep students on the right track. It is a challenge for the professionals for the 21st century.

McFadden (1987), in this regard, reported useful alternatives by The National Education Association, Canada: 1) Quiet places (corners, small rooms, and retreats) where a disruptive student can regain his/her composure. 2) Student teacher agreement on immediate alternatives. 3) Teaming of adults to talk privately with disruptive students until stability returns. 4) Provision of alternative experiences (independent projects, work-study) for students who are bored, turned off, or otherwise unreceptive to a particular area or experience. 5) Class discussion/ participation on the need for, and consequences of, good and bad behavior. 6) Privileges to bestow or to withdraw. All above are short-range solutions. Intermediate range solutions include: 1) Student involvement in the decision making process of the school, and in curriculum revision and experience. 2) Alternative program for students. 3) Work-study programs for students. 4) Alternative education, including early college education. Finally long range solutions include: 1) Staff helps from local mental health and human relations agencies for counseling.

2)

Relocation of some education experiences, with class in business, industry, and social agencies.

3) Intensive training and retraining of teachers in constructive discipline procedures. These methods look sound and might be helpful to improve the school environment. To avoid corporal punishment, it is necessary to regard education as a top priority. We should work for education like we worked for nuclear technology. We have the ability to land on the surface of the moon and do many more technological wonders. Therefore, I would suggest the following: 1) To conduct extensive research into the study of human nature, attitude, behavior, aptitude, priorities of the society in terms of education and living style, as they are very much interlinked. 2) To provide positive incentives so that we can manage behavioral problems in the classroom. For this purpose, the following will be helpful: a) The classroom should be rich with a variety of attractive curriculum related materials. There should be plenty of fresh, value based, literature available for students. Teachers should keep the student busy. All students should have access to a computer under appropriate supervision. Working as a Principal, I rarely received complaints about students due to discipline problem from the classrooms where teachers kept the student busy, and involved the students in classroom affairs.

b) Providing positive activities, like sports, debating competitions, writing clubs, science club can reduce the problems, and festival organizations under close supervision. c) Teacher training institutions should increase courses on human psychology, and teachers should be given extensive training in dealing with children in a humanitarian way. Furthermore, administration and teacher training programs should be more research oriented in regards to classroom management and human psychology. I look forward to professionals accepting the challenge for this very important issue in the 21st century.

REFERENCES Agnew, R. (1983). Physical punishment and delinquency: A research note. Youth and society, 15, 225-236. Alexander, K. & Alexander, M. D. (1985). American public law (2nd Ed.). New York, West Publishing Co. Awender, M. A. & Plantus, M. (1983, Spring). Discipline and pupil control ideologies. Education Canada, 36-39. Azrin, N. H., Hake, D. G., Holz, W. C., & Hutchinson, R. R. (1965). Motivational aspect of escape from punishment. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 8, 31-44. Azrin, N. H., & Holz, W. C. (1966). In W. A. Honig (ed.). Operant Behavior: Areas of Research and Application. New York: Appellation-Century-Crafts. Azrin, N. H., Hutchinson, R. R., & Sallery, R. D. (1964). Pain aggression toward inanimate objects. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 7, 223-228.

Bandura, A. (1965). Behavior modification through modelingprocedure. In Krasner L., & Ullman, L. P. (eds.) Research in Behavior Modification. New York: Holt, Rinehart. Winston. Barnhart, L. (1963). American College Dictionary. New York: Random House. Birnbrauer, J. S. (1968). Generalization of punishment effects: A case study. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 200-211. Black, H. C. (1973). Black's Law Dictionary (4th ed.). Miarea Polis, MN: West Publishing Co. Bongiovanni, A. F., & Hyman, I. A. (1978). Leviton is wrong on the use of corporal punishment. Psychology in Schools, 15, 290- 291. Bongiovanni, A. F. (1979). An analysis of research on punishment and its relations to the use of corporal punishment in schools. In Hyman, I. A., & Wise, J. H. (1979). Corporal punishment in American education. Philadelphia: Temple university press. Bolmeier, E. C. (1976). Legality of student disciplinary practices, Charlottesville, VA: Michie. Bryan, J. W., & Freed, F. W. (1982). Corporal punishment: Normative Data and sociological and psychological correlates in a community college population. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 11, 77-78. Center for Law and Education. (1972). Student Rights Litigation Packet (rev. ed.). Massachusetts: Harvard University. Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1983). Applied Behavior Analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Cooper, J. O., Heron, T. E., & Heward, W. L. (1987). Applied Behavior Analysis. Columbus, OH: Merrill. Cryan, J. R. (1987). The banning of corporal punishment in childcare: School and other educative settings in the United States. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 63, 146-153. Delgado, J. (1963). Cerebral hetero stimulation in a monkey colony. Science, 141, 161-163. Demo, M. H. (1981). Applying educational psychology in the classroom. (3rd ed.). New York: Longman. Deskbook Encyclopedia of American School Law. (1989). Corporal punishment, Sec. 111, p. 135. Dubanoski, R. A., Inaba, M., & Gerkewicz, K. (1983). Corporal punishment in schools: Myths, problems, and alternatives. Child Abuse and Neglect, 7, 271-278. Elord, W. (1983). Discipline and corporal punishment in Indiana Public Schools. Contemporary Education, 54, 141-44. Essex, N. L. (1989). Ten costly mistakes and how to avoid them. Principal, 68(5), 42-44. Estes and Skinner. (1963). In center for law and education. (1972). Student rights litigation packet (Rev. Ed.). Massachusetts: Harvard University. Fall, H. A. (1841). Corporal punishment. New York: Bureau of publications, Teacher college, Columbia University. Fearen, W. (1981, Nov. Dec.). Corporal punishment: Two new splinters on the handle of the hickory stick. PSBA Bulletin, p.34.

Fox, J. (1993). The wrong whipping boy. Phi Delta Kappan, (75), 1, 118-119. Freeman, C. B. (1966). The children's petition of 1669 and its sequel. British Journal of Educational Studies, 14, 216-223. Hess, F. (1985). Corporal punishment in American schools: A review of the issues. Spectrum, 3(4), 19-29. Hyman, I. A., McDowell, E., & Raines, B. (1977). Corporal punishment and alternatives in the schools: An overview of theoretical and practical issues. In National Institute of Education, Proceedings: Conference on corporal punishment in schools: A national debate, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Hyman, I. A., & Wise, J. H. (1979). Corporal punishment in American education: Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ingrahm V. Wright, 430 U.S. 651 (1977). Iroquoian, E. (1950). Childhood and Society, New York: Norton. Iroquoian, E. (1959). Identity and the life circle. In Psychological Issues (Monograph No. 1). New York: International Universities Press. Johnston, J. M. (1972). Punishment of human behavior. American psychologist, 27, 1033-1054. Kandel, E. (1991). Physical punishment and the development of aggressive and violent behavior: A review. Durham, University of Hampshire, Family researches laboratory. Kennedy, J. H. (1995, February). Judgement about corporal punishment. Education and Treatment of Children, 16(1), 53-64.

Kerrigan, M. V. (1971). Corporal punishment in the public schools. Harvard civil rights-civil liberties law review, (6), 56-67. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive development approach to socialization. In Goslin, D. (ed.). Handbook of Socialization Theory and Research. Chicago: Rand McNally. Lunenburg, F. C., & Ornstein, A. C. (1996). Educational administration: Concepts and practices, Washington: Wadsworth Publishing Company. Manning, J. (1979). Discipline in the good days. In Essex, N. L. (1989). Ten costly mistakes and how to avoid them. Principal, 68(5), 42-44. Maure, A. (1974). Corporal Punishment. American Psychologist, 29, 614-624. Maurer, A. (1982). Religious values and child abuse. Child and youth service, 4, 57-63. McFadden, M. (1987, Fall/ Autumn). Corporal punishment: Legalizes child abuse. Education Canada, 4-7. McNamara, B.E. (1981, July). An alternative to corporal punishment. NYSSBA Journal, P. 16. Mercurio, J. A. (1972). Caning: An educational ritual. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, 10, 49-53. Nash (1963). Corporal Punishment in an age of violence. In Center for Law and Education. (1972). Student rights litigation packet (Rev. Ed.). Massachusetts: Harvard University.

National Education Association. (1972). Report of the task force on corporal punishment, National Education Association, 1201 Sixteenth Street, NW. Washington DC. 20036. Neal, D. (1720). The history of New England. In Fall, H. A. (1841). Corporal punishment. New York: Bureau of publications, Teacher college, Columbia university. Owen, D. J., & Straus, M. A. (1975). The social structure of violence in childhood and approval of violence as an adult. Aggressive behavior, 1, 193-211. Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free press. Raichle, D. R. (1977-78). School discipline and corporal punishment: An American retrospect. Interchange, 8, 71-83. Reinholz, L. K. (1979). A practical defense of corporal punishment in the schools. In Hyman, I. A., & Wise, J. H. (1979). Corporal punishment in American education. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Remmlein, M., & Ware, M. (1970). School law. In Kerrigan, M. V. (1971). Corporal punishment in the public schools. Harvard civil rights-Civil liberties law review, (6).
Richardson, R., & Evan, E. (1994). Your role in eliminating corporal punishment in schools. The national council to abolish Corporal Punishment conference. Raleigh, NC.

Risley, T. R. (1968). The effect and side effect of punishing the autistic behavior of a deviant child. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 21-24. Rose, T. L. (1989). Corporal punishment with mildly handicapped students: Five year later. Rare: Remedial and Special Education, 10 (1), 43-53.

Scharfenberg, D. (1996, January). Corporal punishment. Teacher Magazine, p. 9. Scott, G. R. (1951). The history of corporal punishment. New York: Anglo books. Silverman. (1958). Discipline: Its psychology and educational aspects. Mental hygiene, 42, p. 277. Simpson, R. J., & Dee, P. O. (1977). Unusual but not cruel: Policy guidelines on corporal punishment. School Law Journal, 7(2), 83-84. Skinner, B. F. (1979). Corporal punishment. In Hyman, I. A., & Wise, J. H. (eds.). Corporal punishment in American public education, Philadelphia: A Temple University Press. Straus, M. (1991). Discipline and deviance: physical punishment of children and violence and other crime in adulthood. Social Problem, 38, 133-154. Straus, M. (1993). Corporal punishment of children and depression & suicide in adulthood. In Accord, J. (ed.). Coercion and Punishment in Long Term Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press. Straus, M. A., & Donnelly, D. A. (1993). Corporal punishment of adolescents by American parents. Youth and Society, 24(4), 42 & 49. Straus, M., & Gimpel, H. (1992). Corporal punishment by parents and economic data: A theoretical model and some preliminary empirical data. Durham: University of New Hampshire, Family researches laboratory. Welsh, R. (1978). Delinquency, corporal punishment, and the school. Crime and Delinquency, 24, 336-354.

Williams, G. J. (1973). Social sanctions for violence against children: Historical perspective. Journal of clinical psychology, 5 (3), 2-11.