What makes a response to schoolroom wrongs permissible?

Coverdale, Helen Brown

doi:10.1177/1477878520912997

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, an appreciation of the wide range of measures that might in principle count as punitive should mitigate the worries of Martin about the idea that punishment might play an ineliminable role in schools. This leaves open a wide range of questions about the circumstances in which punitive responses to classroom wrongs ‐ and other wrongdoing in the school community ‐ might be justifiable (Brown Coverdale, 2020).…”

Section: Non‐standard Subjects Of Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐paradigmatic punishments

Coverdale

Wringe

2022

Philosophy Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This review article argues for a better acknowledgement by penal philosophers of the diversity of subjects, agents, and practices of punishment. Much current penal philosophy has an unhelpful hyper-focus on the criminal punishment of culpable adults, by states, often through imprisonment. This paradigmatic case is important, but other subjects, agents, and practices of punishment are not statistically insignificant side-issues, and a comprehensive account of punishment should address them. Our understanding of punishment as a whole can be enhanced by considering non-paradigmatic punishment, with implications for whether and when punishment is justified, how we should understand appropriate authority, and how we should understand and engage with abolitionist arguments. We explore non-paradigmatic penal practices (community punishments, suspended prison sentence, restorative justice, and alternative jurisprudence), non-paradigmatic punishing agents (International judicial bodies, schools, and religious communities; with practices such as boycotts, shaming and shunning) and non-paradigmatic subjects of punishment (collective agents, corporations and children).

show abstract

Section: Non‐standard Subjects Of Punishmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non‐paradigmatic punishments

Coverdale

Wringe

2022

Philosophy Compass

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This translates into teachers creating a pedagogical environment that helps educating fundamental social values and norms, both during lecturing and beyond (Husu & Tirri, 2007). Importantly, teachers also follow such educational principles in the face of student misbehavior (Coverdale, 2020;Goodman, 2020;Hand, 2020;Liu, 2017). For example, it has been suggested that teachers respond in such situations "for a myriad of reasons, including but not limited to moral education of students, maintaining safety, and creating an environment conducive to learning" (Thompson et al, 2020, p. 79).…”

Section: Teachers' and Students' Punishment Goalsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on the Treatment of Student Misbehavior

Twardawski

Hilbig

2022

Soc Just Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of student misbehavior is both a major challenge for teachers and a potential source of students’ perceptions of injustice in school. By implication, it is vital to understand teachers’ treatment of student misbehavior vis-à-vis students’ perceptions. One key dimension of punishment behavior reflects the underlying motives and goals of the punishment. In the present research, we investigated the perspectives of both teachers and students concerning the purposes of punishment. Specifically, we were interested in the extent to which teachers and students show preferences for either retribution (i.e., evening out the harm caused), special prevention (i.e., preventing recidivism of the offender), or general prevention (i.e., preventing imitation of others) as punishment goals. Therefore, teachers (N = 260) and school students around the age of 10 (N = 238) were provided with a scenario depicting a specific student misbehavior. Participants were asked to indicate their endorsement of the three goals as well as to evaluate different punishment practices that were perceived (in pretests) to primarily achieve one specific goal but not the other two. Results show that teachers largely prefer general prevention, whereas students rather prefer special prevention and retribution. This discrepancy was particularly large in participants’ evaluation of specific punishment practices, whereas differences between teachers’ and students’ direct endorsement of punishment goals were relatively small. Overall, the present research may contribute to the development of classroom intervention strategies that reduce conflicts in student–teacher-interactions.

show abstract

“…Thus, for example, they do not engage with non‐ideal questions of morality in the classroom, such as which forms of punishment, if any, teachers should use in response to a student who is doing wrong (cf. Coverdale, 2020). Brighouse and Gina (2014, p. 109) have argued that this lack of attention to non‐ideal theory can result in “inadequate guidance in the nonideal circumstances that we actually face.” 3 Therefore this article also highlights central practical implications that the various conceptions of educational justice have under non‐ideal circumstances.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educational justice

Culp

2020

Philosophy Compass

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Philosophical conceptions of educational justice are centered at the intersection of political philosophy and philosophy of education. They justify moral-political rights to education and sometimes also determine who is responsible for their realization through which kinds of pedagogical practices or systemic educational reform. This article concentrates on contemporary conceptions of educational justice in primary and secondary education and highlights central practical implications that the various conceptions of educational justice have under non-ideal circumstances. Section 2 explains the conceptions of fair and luck-egalitarian equal educational opportunity, Section 3 the conception of educational priority for the least-advantaged students, and Section 4 the conception of democratically adequate education. Finally, Section 5 presents a philosophical conception of global justice in school education. Section 6 concludes. 1 | INTRODUCTION Western ethics has a long tradition of philosophical reflection on education and justice. In The Republic Plato (1991, 111/433a-b) specifies the educational practices that would ensure that the three classes of a just city develop and exercise their role-specific virtues. For example, Plato requires that the future philosopher kings and queens are raised outside their families so that they develop a commitment to the common good. In that way the future philosopher kings and queens should learn to exercise their role-specific virtue of wisdom and contribute to the justice of their city. For "justice," according to Plato (1991, 111/433a), "is the minding of one's own business [as ruler, as guardian and as money-maker,] and not being a busybody." Likewise, modern philosophers like Rousseau (1979/1972), Wollstonecraft (2014/1787) and Kant (1960/1803) have also considered in great depths which pedagogy would have to complement the political institutions of a morally acceptable social order. In the late 20th century, by contrast, questions of education often times represented only a relatively minor aspect of a larger

show abstract

What makes a response to schoolroom wrongs permissible?

Cited by 4 publications

References 28 publications

Non‐paradigmatic punishments

Non‐paradigmatic punishments

Comparing Teachers’ and Students’ Perspectives on the Treatment of Student Misbehavior

Educational justice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About