Corporal Punishment in Rural Schools

Student Problem Behaviours Academic

Outcomes and School Safety Efforts 1st
Edition Seunghee Han (Auth.)
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/corporal-punishment-in-rural-schools-student-problem
-behaviours-academic-outcomes-and-school-safety-efforts-1st-edition-seunghee-han-
auth/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Corporal Punishment in U S Public Schools Legal

Precedents Current Practices and Future Policy 1st
Edition Elizabeth T. Gershoff

https://textbookfull.com/product/corporal-punishment-in-u-s-
public-schools-legal-precedents-current-practices-and-future-
policy-1st-edition-elizabeth-t-gershoff/

Culture Re Boot Reinvigorating School Culture to

Improve Student Outcomes Leslie S. Kaplan

https://textbookfull.com/product/culture-re-boot-reinvigorating-
school-culture-to-improve-student-outcomes-leslie-s-kaplan/

Student Speech Policy Readability in Public Schools:

Interpretation, Application, and Elevation of Student
Handbook Language 1st Edition Erica Salkin

https://textbookfull.com/product/student-speech-policy-
readability-in-public-schools-interpretation-application-and-
elevation-of-student-handbook-language-1st-edition-erica-salkin/

Global Citizenship Education in Australian Schools

Leadership Teacher and Student Perspectives 1st Edition
Andrew Peterson

https://textbookfull.com/product/global-citizenship-education-in-
australian-schools-leadership-teacher-and-student-
perspectives-1st-edition-andrew-peterson/
School Counseling Classroom Guidance: Prevention,
Accountability, and Outcomes Jolie Daigle

https://textbookfull.com/product/school-counseling-classroom-
guidance-prevention-accountability-and-outcomes-jolie-daigle/

Chinese Elementary Education System Reform in Rural

Pastoral Ethnic and Private Schools Six Case Studies
1st Edition Ling Li

https://textbookfull.com/product/chinese-elementary-education-
system-reform-in-rural-pastoral-ethnic-and-private-schools-six-
case-studies-1st-edition-ling-li/

Socioeconomic Inequality and Student Outcomes Cross

National Trends Policies and Practices Louis Volante

https://textbookfull.com/product/socioeconomic-inequality-and-
student-outcomes-cross-national-trends-policies-and-practices-
louis-volante/

School social work : national perspectives on practice

in schools 1st Edition Leticia Villarreal Sosa

https://textbookfull.com/product/school-social-work-national-
perspectives-on-practice-in-schools-1st-edition-leticia-
villarreal-sosa/

Visible Learning Guide to Student Achievement Schools

Edition John Hattie

https://textbookfull.com/product/visible-learning-guide-to-
student-achievement-schools-edition-john-hattie/
SPRINGER BRIEFS IN EDUC ATION

Seunghee Han

Corporal
Punishment in Rural
Schools
Student Problem
Behaviours, Academic
Outcomes and School
Safety Efforts
123
SpringerBriefs in Education
More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/8914
Seunghee Han

Corporal Punishment
in Rural Schools
Student Problem Behaviours,
Academic Outcomes and School
Safety Efforts

123
Seunghee Han
Columbia, MO
USA

ISSN 2211-1921 ISSN 2211-193X (electronic)

SpringerBriefs in Education
ISBN 978-981-10-2446-7 ISBN 978-981-10-2448-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2448-1
Library of Congress Control Number: 2016950373

© The Author(s) 2017

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part
of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations,
recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission
or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or
dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt
from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this
book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the
authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained
herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.

Printed on acid-free paper

This Springer imprint is published by Springer Nature

The registered company is Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd
The registered company address is: 152 Beach Road, #22-06/08 Gateway East, Singapore 189721, Singapore
To Seoung Joun, Hyelee and Sarah

For their support, encouragement, and love.

Contents

1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Definition of Corporal Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 History of School Corporal Punishment in the United States . . . . . 4
1.3 Why Corporal Punishment Matters in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.4 Research Methods. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2 Corporal Punishment Practice: Law, Trends, Perspective,
and Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 17
2.1 Current State Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 17
2.2 Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 21
2.3 Debates on Corporal Punishment Practices: Perspectives
from School Staff, Students and Parents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 23
2.4 A Review of Empirical Studies on Corporal Punishment . . . . .... 29
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 32
3 Demographic Characteristics and Corporal Punishment
in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 37
3.1 School Characteristics and Corporal Punishment in the U.S. . .... 37
3.2 School Characteristics and Corporal Punishment
in Rural Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 42
3.3 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 50
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... 51
4 Corporal Punishment and School Safety Efforts
in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 55
4.1 Discipline Practices in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......... 56
4.2 Discipline Practices in Rural Schools with Corporal
Punishment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.3 Crime Prevention Practices in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

vii
viii Contents

5 Corporal Punishment and School Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

5.1 Student Problem Behaviours in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
5.2 Student Problem Behaviours and Corporal Punishment Use . . . . . . 76
5.3 Academic Achievement and Educational Outcomes
in Rural Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5.4 Academic Achievement and Corporal Punishment Use . . . . . . . . . 81
5.5 Trends of School Outcomes and Corporal Punishment Policies . . . 82
5.6 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
6 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6.1 School Factors and Corporal Punishment in Rural Schools . . . . . . 95
6.2 Policy Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
6.3 Limitations and Recommendations for Future Studies . . . . . . . . . . 102
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Chapter 1
Introduction

Creating a safe school is a national agenda, and maintaining an orderly school has
been a high priority for school administrators (Noguera 1995). A recent national
report showed that in 2013, there were 37 victimizations per 1000 students at
school, and the victimization rate was as high as 67 per 1000 students for students
aged 12–14. Actual number of victimization shows that a considerable number of
students encounter violence and crime at school. For example, among students aged
12–18, there were more than 1,420,900 nonfatal victimizations and more than
966,000 violent victimizations in 2013 (Robers et al. 2015). Furthermore, violent
incidents and crime at school cause students to perceive that school is not safe and
fear school violence (Bachman et al. 2011; Barrett et al. 2012; Robers et al. 2015).
Schools make every effort to promote school safety and to this end, schools
implement various crime prevention programs, classroom management programs,
and discipline practices. Among those efforts, discipline policies have gained much
attention because of its prevalence, severity, unproven effectiveness, and gender
and racial disparities among students. During the 2009–2010 school year, public
schools implemented approximately 433,800 disciplinary actions (e.g.,
out-of-school suspension, transfer to specialized schools or expulsion) mostly for
physical attacks or fights, use or possession of a firearm or explosive devices. Those
disciplinary actions are more common in secondary schools than in elementary
schools. About 83 % of high schools and 67 % of middle schools have at least one
of such discipline practices, while 18 % of elementary schools have such discipline
practices during the same year (Robers et al. 2015).
Prevalent discipline practices in public schools have become harsh and accel-
erated since the Gun-Free School Act (GFSA) in 1994. Zero tolerance, which was
applied to the criminal justice system, has been nationally adopted in schools under
the GFSA. The main point of zero tolerance policies under the GFSA is that a
school mandates expulsion of a student who possesses a firearm or a weapon in
school. Zero tolerance is supported based on the belief: it is effective in deterring
rule violations using harsh punishment with clear rules, and it is fair for anyone who
violates the rules by applying the same punishment without considering context or
© The Author(s) 2017 1
S. Han, Corporal Punishment in Rural Schools, SpringerBriefs
in Education, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2448-1_1
2 1 Introduction

situations. These policies have continuously implemented in school through the No

Child Left Behind Act of 2001, and school districts can choose alternative disci-
pline methods, such as suspension or transfer to specialized schools after consid-
ering each case (Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld 2011; U.S. Department of Education
2007). Despite the number of disciplinary actions, there is little evidence that zero
tolerance policies are effective in decreasing problem behaviours, promoting school
safety and even being a fair discipline practice. Many educators and researchers
have criticized harsh discipline practices including out-of-school suspension,
transfer to a specialized school or expulsion. A major criticism is that those dis-
cipline practices do not reduce student’s problem behaviours and negatively impact
students’ educational outcomes by excluding them from the learning environment.
In addition, discipline practices were more frequently implemented toward male
students, ethnic minority students and special education students (American
Psychological Association 2008; Boccanfuso and Kuhfeld 2011; Human Rights
Watch 2008; Irwin et al. 2013; Morrison and D’Incau 1997; Osher et al. 2010;
Skiba 2000; Skiba and Rausch 2006).
While school safety and discipline policies have gained much attention from
educators, researchers and policy makers for the past years, one particular form of
discipline, corporal punishment, has been paid little attention. Corporal punishment
goes against the equal protection as a human right under the law and is prohibited in
most juvenile correction facilities in the U.S. (Human Rights Watch 2009; United
Nations 2007). Nevertheless, corporal punishment is legally allowed in public
schools as a discipline purpose in 19 states. According to the most recent data, more
than 166,800 students were physically punished at school during the 2011–2012
school year (Office for Civil Rights 2015). In addition, disproportionate corporal
punishment practice toward ethnic minority students, special education students and
male students is another critical issue in the U.S. public schools (Lamping 2011;
Northington 2007). That is, the percentage of those students who received corporal
punishment is higher than the total percentage that made up their student popula-
tion. For example, in 2006, Black students who were physically punished consisted
of 26 % out of the total corporal punishment incidents when Black students made
up 8.7 % of the total student enrollment. In the same year, special education stu-
dents were made up of 18.8 % out of total corporal punishment incidents when
special education students consisted of 13.7 % in public school enrollment.
Additionally, male students tend to receive corporal punishment three times more
than female students (Lamping 2011).
Many researchers have demonstrated the effects of corporal punishment on
students, yet the debate on whether corporal punishment is an effective discipline
and beneficial to students has been continued until today. Supporters of corporal
punishment assert that corporal punishment is easy to administer, able to imme-
diately control students’ problem behaviours, and effective because students tend
not to recommit misbehaviour to avoid the physical pain or unpleasant experience,
and necessary based on religious beliefs and cultural backgrounds (Dupper and
Dingus 2008; Human Rights Watch 2008; Roy 2001; Vockell 1991; Webster et al.
1988; Wilson 2002). On the other hand, opponents of corporal punishment argue
1 Introduction 3

that corporal punishment causes repeated misbehaviours, develop anxiety and

emotional problems and negatively impact academic achievement (Aucoin et al.
2006; Little and Akin-Little 2008; Shaw and Braden 1990; Straus et al. 1997).
With little evidence of effectiveness, corporal punishment is more frequently
implemented in rural schools (Center for Effective Discipline 2007; Grossman et al.
1995). Considering the very limited research on school corporal punishment in rural
areas, this book provides information about the frequency and trends of corporal
punishment policies in rural schools. In addition, this book presents various views
on corporal punishment from multiple stakeholders, current legal perspectives on
corporal punishment, comparison of school safety efforts, and school outcomes
between rural schools with/without corporal punishment policies. The data analyses
presented in this book are based on nationally representative data sets from School
Safety on Crime Survey (SSOCS) 1999–2000, 2003–2004, and 2005–2006 and
2007–2008, policy documents from states with corporal punishment and reviews of
research papers, reports and mass media articles. This book provides useful
information and insight for school leaders, teachers, policymakers, legislators and
researchers in regard to corporal punishment policies in rural schools.
This book will help readers gain a better understanding of corporal punishment
practices in rural schools. In addition, drawing attention to the corporal punishment
issue in rural schools is an equally important purpose of this book.

1.1 Definition of Corporal Punishment

The definition of corporal punishment can be addressed from multiple perspectives,

and each definition addresses the recipient, administration, purposes and different
forms of corporal punishment.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child defines corporal punishment as
“any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree
of pain or discomfort” (United Nations 2007). As shown, corporal punishment
refers to any action that causes to children not only physical harm but uncom-
fortable or unpleasant emotional status.
Researchers define corporal punishment as “the use of physical force with the
intention of causing a child to experience pain but not injury, for the purpose of
correction or control of the child’s behaviour” (Straus 1994, p. 4), “intentional
application of physical pain as a method of changing behaviour” (Greydanus et al.
1992), and “physical punishment wherein school personnel actually strike the
student with a part of the body” (Bogacki et al. 2005). That is, corporal punishment
is an intentional physical and/or psychological harm toward children to control
and/or modify children’s problem behaviours. State laws provide the definitions of
corporal punishment in more detail with its purposes and administers. For example,
in Florida Statutes, corporal punishment is defined as “the moderate use of physical
force or physical contact by a teacher or principal to maintain discipline or to
enforce school rules (s. 1006.07(1), Florida Statutes)” (Florida Association of
4 1 Introduction

School Psychology 2007). In Mississippi, corporal punishment is defined as “the

reasonable use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher, assistant teacher,
principal or assistant principal, as may be necessary to maintain discipline, to
enforce a school rule, for self-protection or for the protection of other students from
disruptive students (MS Code § 37-11-57, 2013). In Texas, corporal punishment is
defined as “deliberate infliction of physical pain by hitting, paddling, spanking,
slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of discipline” and exclude
“physical pain caused by reasonable athletic training, competition or physical
education; or confinement, restraint, seclusion, and time-out” (Texas Education
Code Chapter 37. 0011, 2011).
Unlike other forms of discipline (e.g., suspension or detention), corporal pun-
ishment has been administered in various ways. The forms of corporal punishment
include spanking, paddling, slapping, punching, shaking, choking, kicking or hit-
ting using a hand, foot or objects (e.g., a paddle, strap, stick, or ruler), putting body
in painful postures, use of extreme physical exercise drills, use of electric shock,
denying use of bathroom, pulling hair, washing mouths with soap, and swallowing
hot spices to ingest (Bogacki et al. 2005; Greydanus et al. 1992; Simons et al. 2013;
United Nations 2007).
Purposes of corporal punishment from different perspectives include correcting
and/or controlling students’ behaviours, maintaining discipline, enforcing school
rules, and protecting other students, which are understood as other types of disci-
pline methods. Yet, there are little consensus with regards to what kinds of physical
pain are appropriate and what “moderate” level of physical pain is considered as
discipline. Some of the forms listed above are viewed abuse rather than discipline
(Human Rights Watch 2009). In addition, some schools use physical activity (e.g.,
exercise) as punishment, which is clearly inappropriate and against goals of
physical education, and many states (e.g., California, Massachusetts, and Hawaii)
prohibited punishment using physical education (National Association for Sport
and Physical Education 2009). While it is challenging to distinguish between dis-
cipline and abuse (Gershoff 2002), an important point is that corporal punishment
should contain instruction and guidance for students as a disciplinary purpose and
should help students internalize school rules.

1.2 History of School Corporal Punishment in the United

States

Corporal punishment has been implemented since the colonial era in the U.S., and the
first legal document regarding school corporal punishment is found in the eighteenth
century. Under in loco parentis legal principle, teachers and school staff members
take responsibility for a minor in position of parent (Conte 2000; Dupper and Dingus
2008; see Middleton 2008; Ryan 1994 for historical inquiry). In 1977, in Ingraham v.
Wright, U.S. Supreme Court held that when public school teachers and/or adminis-
trators implement corporal punishment as a disciplinary purpose, it does not apply to
1.2 History of School Corporal Punishment in the United States 5

the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment, and there is also
no need of notice and hearing before administering corporal punishment under the
Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (Altier 1978). Although this
Supreme Court decision confirmed limited protection of students from physical
punishment in schools, the court allowed individual state to establish their own
regulation on this issue. Beginning in New Jersey, many states have established laws
banning corporal punishment in schools. At the time of the study, 31 states banned
corporal punishment, and it remains a legal discipline practice in 19 states. Those
states that permitted corporal punishment in school include Alabama, Arizona,
Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas
and Wyoming (U.S. Department of Education 2015). Recently, Ohio and New
Mexico established in prohibiting corporal punishment policies in 2009 and in 2011,
respectively (U.S. Department of Education 2015).
Efforts for banning corporal punishment in schools have been also active at the
national level. Carolyn McCarthy, U.S. Representative, introduced the bill “Ending
Corporal Punishment in Schools Act of 2011.” The Act reinforced eliminating
corporal punishment in schools by promoting a positive learning environment. In
addition, the Act suggested that schools that use corporal punishment receive
limited funds and schools that adopt a more positive behaviour approach are
allowed grant funds (McCarthy 2011). Currently, there are no federal laws or
regulations prohibiting school corporal punishment in schools. Only the data col-
lection of corporal punishment in public school districts is administered under the
1980 Department of Education Organization Act (Gershoff et al. 2015).

1.3 Why Corporal Punishment Matters in Rural Schools

Corporal punishment is more frequently administered in rural schools than nonrural

schools (Center for Effective Discipline 2007; Grossman et al. 1995). Before dis-
cussing corporal punishment in rural schools, it is worthy to know how a rural area
is defined.
Many researchers commonly adopted the definition of ‘rural’ that the Census
bureau described in 1994 (Semke and Sheridan 2012). According to the Census
Bureau, Urbanized Areas (UAs) was defined as areas having more than 50,000
people, and urban places outside of UAs were defined as areas having at least 2500
people. Rural was not specifically described, and nonurban was considered rural.
Specifically, rural was considered as “territory, population, and housing units that
the Census bureau does not classify as urban” and areas that are outside of a UA
(Census Bureau 1994). Another frequently used definition of rural is from Common
Core Data (CCD) by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
According to the CCD, locales are classified by four types (urban, suburban, town
and rural), and town and rural are differently designated by the distance from urban
(Howley et al. 2014).
6 1 Introduction

Rural schools can be defined more specifically with a geographic definition.

Adopting a definition of rural schools from the U.S. census criteria (1988), Bajema
et al. (2002) defined rural schools as “located in a county with a population of
40,000 or less; located in a county outside a metropolitan area; and had a high
school enrollment of less than 500 students.” The researchers also described rural
areas with extensive agricultural history with less than 5000 populations (Bajema
et al. 2002). In addition, each state categorizes school districts by type. For
example, in Texas, student enrollment, growth in student enrollment, proximity to
urban areas and economic status are used to categorize school districts. A rural
school district is defined as “less than 300 enrollments,” “an enrollment between
300 and the median district enrollment for the state,” or “less than 20 % of
enrollment growth rate for the past five years” (Phillips 2012). Another report
defines rural schools and districts as those located in rural fringe, rural distant or
rural remote based on NCES locale codes (Strange et al. 2012).
Taken together, rural area is defined as a nonurban area that is also determined
by population, number of student enrollment, growth of enrollment, economic
status and having agricultural history.
In the U.S., more than 9.6 million (9,628,501) students attended schools in rural
school districts, which made up about 20 % of total student population in public
schools in the 2008–2009 school year. In the same year, more than 11.9 million
students attended rural schools that are not classified as rural school districts. Taken
altogether, more than approximately 23 % American students attended either rural
schools or schools in rural school districts. Interestingly, rural school districts
increased over 22 % between 1999 to 2000 and 2008 to 2009, and such growths
appear mostly in the southeast or southwest (e.g., Alabama, Arizona, Florida,
Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas) and
California (Strange et al. 2012).
Regarding the 19 states where corporal punishment policies are available, there
is a higher percentage of rural schools than the average percentage of U.S. Fig. 1.1,
based on data from Strange et al. (2012). It is shown that the 19 states with corporal
punishment policies have large enrollments in rural schools and rural school dis-
tricts. Here, I present data of rural students, rural schools, and rural school districts
separately. The percentage of rural students is smaller than the percentage of rural
schools, because fewer students attend rural schools in general, and some rural
schools are not designated in rural districts (Aud et al. 2013; Strange et al. 2012).
In Fig. 1.1, the 19 states with corporal punishment policies consist of 43.3 % of
rural schools on average. Five states (North Carolina, Mississippi, Oklahoma,
Arkansas and Wyoming) have more than 50 % of schools in rural areas, and 12
states out of 19 states have more than 40 % of schools in rural areas. The per-
centage of rural schools in the 19 states varies and ranges from 18.2 % (Florida) to
56.1 % (Wyoming).
Figure 1.2 shows the percentage of students who attended rural schools in the
2008–2009 school year. On average, these19 states with corporal punishment
policies serve about 30.4 % of rural students, which is higher than the national
1.3 Why Corporal Punishment Matters in Rural Schools 7

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Georgia

North Carolina
Missouri

Alabama
Colorado

Wyoming
Arizona

Indiana
Florida

Idaho
Tennessee

Kansas

Mississippi
Oklahoma
Arkansas
South Carolina
Texas

Louisiana

Kentucky
Percenatge of rural schools

Fig. 1.1 Percentage of rural schools in 19 states. Note Data were drawn from Strange et al. (2012)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Arizona

Idaho

South Carolina
Kansas

Mississippi
Tennessee
Colorado

Indiana
Missouri

Oklahoma
Florida

Georgia

Alabama

North Carolina
Arkansas
Wyoming
Texas
Louisiana

Kentucky

Percentage of rural students

Fig. 1.2 Percentage of rural students in 19 states. Note Data were drawn from Strange et al.
(2012)

average. North Carolina and Mississippi serve more than 45 % of rural students,
and nine states (e.g., South Carolina, Alabama, and Tennessee) serve more than
30 % of rural students. The percentage of rural students varies across states, ranging
from 14.0 % in Colorado to 54.7 % in Mississippi.
8 1 Introduction

Table 1.1 presents various educational data in these 19 states where corporal
punishment is permitted in public schools. Demographic characteristics, academic
outcomes, and financial indicators were included.
As shown in Table 1.1, there are a considerable number of rural students in the
19 states. More than 4,984,000 rural students were reported for the 19 states during
the 2008–2009 school year. Three states out of the nineteen states serve the largest
number of rural students: Texas serves more than 834,000 rural students; North
Carolina serves more than 685,000 rural students; Georgia has more than 574,000
rural students. On average, more than 262,000 rural students are served in the 19
states.
On average, rural minority students make up 28.4 % in the 19 states, and the
percentage of rural minority students varies, ranging from 5.9 % in Missouri to
55 % in Arizona. Seven states out of the 19 states (i.e., North Carolina, South
Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Texas, Louisiana and Arizona) serve more than
40 % of rural minority students.
There are 3.9 % of Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in 18 states (i.e.,
data for Oklahoma was unavailable), and it ranges from 0.6 % (Kentucky and
Missouri) to 9.4 % (Texas). Kentucky, Missouri and Louisiana serve less than 1 %
of LEP students, whereas Arizona and Texas serve more than 9 % of LEP students.
In 15 states where data of special education students are available, an average of
13.5 % of special education students are served in rural area. The percentage of
rural special education students raged from 10 % in Texas to 17.6 % in Kentucky,
and four states (Florida, Indiana, Wyoming and Kentucky) serve more than 15 % of
rural special education students.
In 19 states, 47.3 % of rural students were eligible for federally sponsored meals.
It ranges from 27.4 % in Colorado to 69.3 % in Louisiana. Eight states (Georgia,
Alabama, Kentucky, South Carolina, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Mississippi and
Louisiana) serve more than 50 % of rural students in poverty.
In 18 states (i.e., data for South Carolina was unavailable), on average, high school
graduation rate is 73.1 %, and it ranges from 60 % in Louisiana to 86.9 % in
Tennessee. Four states (Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas and Tennessee) have highschool
graduation rates as over 80 %. Seven states (Louisiana, Georgia, Mississippi,
Colorado, Arizona, Alabama and Florida) have high school graduation rates of less
than 70 %.
The average rural instructional expenditure per pupil for the 19 states is $5227,
and it ranges from $4169 in Idaho to $9333 in Wyoming. The average rural salary
expenditure per instructional FTE for the 19 states is $52,012, and it ranges from
$43,716 in Missouri to $66,812 in Wyoming.
In summary, there are variances of rural education conditions in the 19 states
where corporal punishment policies are permitted in schools. The portion of rural
schools and rural students differ across states, and the percentages of disadvantaged
students, such as ethnic minority students, LEP students, special education students
and students in poverty differ across states as well.
As explained above, there are many students who attend rural schools and/or
schools in rural school districts in the 19 states where corporal punishment policies
Table 1.1 The condition of rural education in 19 states with corporal punishment policies
State Number of Minority Limited English Special Rural High school Rural instructional Rural salary expenditure
rural students proficient students education student graduation expenditure per pupil per instructional FTE ($)
students (%) (%) students (%) poverty (%) (%) ($)
Alabama 295,906 28.1 2.0 N/A 52.3 67.5 5207 48,791
Arizona 172.828 55.3 9.1 12.0 48.7 66.8 4249 53,732
Arkansas 168,427 17.2 2.7 11.4 58.0 76.3 4915 45,642
Colorado 113.555 30.0 5.7 N/A 27.4 66.5 4820 49322
Florida 38,4442 42.1 6.6 15.3 49.7 68.8 4962 49193
Georgia 574,765 36.9 2.8 11.4 51.6 62.1 6058 57,315
Idaho 73,297 20.1 7.0 10.2 44.1 76.8 4169 48,927
Indiana 275,368 7.8 2.3 16.5 30.9 79.1 4808 55,946
Kansas 131.920 11.9 2.8 14.5 34.5 83.5 6112 49,059
Kentucky 157,637 6.5 0.6 17.6 57.1 72.8 5114 54,718
Louisiana 141,486 45.4 0.8 12.8 69.3 60.0 5546 63090
Mississippi 268,862 40.6 1.2 N/A 62.9 63.1 4578 46,313
1.3 Why Corporal Punishment Matters in Rural Schools

Missouri 241,979 5.9 0.6 13.8 44.0 81.1 4996 43,716

North 685,409 40.5 6.4 12.8 31.5 75.1 5010 53,572
Carolina
Oklahoma 201,964 37.6 N/A N/A 57.3 80.1 4483 44,363
South 285,442 40.5 3.6 14.6 57.1 N/A 5238 60,376
Carolina
Tennessee 375,453 11.6 1.5 12.4 46.8 86.9 4518 45,983
Texas 834,140 43.9 9.4 10.0 42.6 74.6 5192 51,351
Wyoming 19,583 18.1 4.4 17.3 32.3 75.3 9333 66,812
Note Rural schools include all public elementary and secondary schools in rural areas that were designated by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES).
Special education students refer to students who are qualified for special education services, under an Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Student poverty refers to the
percentage of students who are eligible for free and/or reduced priced lunches. Data were drawn from Strange et al. (2012)
9
10 1 Introduction

are permitted, and corporal punishment and rural school areas are closely associated
with one another. Yet there are a very limited number of empirical studies on
corporal punishment in rural schools. Most research on corporal punishment has
been conducted in context of the home rather than in the school. For example, a
meta-analysis study showed that 78 empirical studies about corporal punishment
and affective, cognitive and behavioural outcomes have been conducted between
1961 and 2000, but only 3 studies out of the 78 studies are focused on corporal
punishment administered by teachers (Paolucci and Violato 2004). In addition,
some of the studies on this topic are rather outdated, and none of studies show
trends of corporal punishment practices at the school level (Bogacki et al. 2005;
Dupper and Dingus 2008; Grossman et al. 1995). Most importantly, none of the
studies have examined corporal punishment and school safety initiatives including
alternative discipline methods, school security practices, crime prevention pro-
grams, and community involvement to promote school safety in rural schools.
Together, the findings of the book will provide broad insights to educators and
policymakers to reform discipline practices along with overall school safety policies
in rural areas. In addition, hopefully this book contributes to making an active
progress in empirical research on school corporal punishment policies.

1.4 Research Methods

The main data used in this study are from the SSOCS. The SSOCS is a nationally
representative data set collected by the U.S. Department of Education and NCES.
The SSOCS was first collected in 1999 when school safety issue became a national
agenda regarding school shootings. As a cross-sectional school-level survey, the
SSOCS contains comprehensive information about school security, crime preven-
tion practices, discipline practices, student problem behaviours and school back-
ground information for public schools. Each SSOCS data set was administered
about 3500 public schools in elementary, middle, and high schools. To date,
SSOCS 1999–2000, 2003–2004, 2005–2006 and 2007–2008 have been released to
the public. To examine corporal punishment in rural schools, I selected rural
schools from SSOCS data sets. Samples from 620 schools in 1999–2000, 649
schools in 2003–2004, 700 schools in 2005–2006 and 677 schools in 2007–2008
were drawn for analyses in this study. According to research questions, the samples
were selected based on whether or not schools have corporal punishment policies
and whether the schools actually used corporal punishment during the school year
or not. The SSOCS is unique in that it provides information about corporal pun-
ishment practices, school safety efforts, student problem behaviours and school
backgrounds. None of the other current national data sets contain comprehensive
school-level information with corporal punishment practices. Additionally, the
SSOCS is the only data that contain periodic data sets that we can use to examine
the trends of corporal punishment practices within the school context for the past
10 years. Selected survey questions and data analysis methods are presented in each
1.4 Research Methods 11

of the relevant chapters. In addition to the SSOCS data sets, multiple data sources,
such as the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 2011–2012, data from NCES and
the U.S. Census Bureau, were also used.
Document analyses were conducted when using state policy documents, aca-
demic journals, newspapers and magazines. I collected state policy documents on
corporal punishment laws from the websites of state departments of education as
well as via email communication with state officials. State policy documents allow
us to examine guidelines on corporal punishment practices in schools and policy
procedures. For state laws, several states (e.g., Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Texas) were selected, because those states have frequent corporal punishment
incidents, serve many rural students, serve many rural minority students or have
significant decrease on corporal punishment incidents over the past years.
Empirical studies from academic journals, newspapers, and magazines were
used to investigate school factors associated with corporal punishment and per-
ception of stakeholders on corporal punishments. Although corporal punishment
has been examined in many different academic disciplines, this book focuses on
corporal punishment by school personnel rather than parents or guardians. Thus,
empirical studies were selected from school-based research. However, there are
only a few empirical studies about school factors and corporal punishment in rural
areas thus the associated factors with corporal punishment were presented here,
regardless of the school location. Newspapers and magazines were useful sources in
examining corporal punishment issues in everyday life and in understanding vari-
ous stakeholders’ perspectives on corporal punishment. That information was also
collected through other online sources.
After analyzing national data from the SSOCS, state policy documents and other
relevant research papers and reports, I answer the following five research questions:
First, to what extent do rural schools use corporal punishment? Second, what are
the characteristics of rural schools that use corporal punishment? Third, how do
school discipline practices and crime prevention practices differ between rural
schools with corporal punishment policies and rural schools with no such policies?
Fourth, how do principals of rural schools perceive their student problem beha-
viours, and how do these perceptions differ between rural schools with corporal
punishment policies and rural schools with no such policies? And finally, how do
school outcomes (e.g., students’ achievements, aspirations and perceived academic
importance) differ between rural schools with corporal punishment policies and
rural schools with no such policies?
Answering these research questions with the results of the SSOCS data analyses,
each chapter will present relevant previous studies, state policies, articles from
magazines and the news, and national reports published by U.S. Department of
Education. Following this chapter presenting the definition and history of corporal
punishment, importance of corporal punishment in rural area and research methods,
Chap. 2 answers the first research question (frequency of corporal punishment) and
presents current state laws on corporal punishment, debates on corporal punishment
among multiple stakeholders and findings of empirical studies on corporal
punishment.
12 1 Introduction

In Chap. 3, the second research question (characteristics of rural schools where

corporal punishment is available) is answered focusing on ethnic minority students,
LEP students, special education students, and underachievers.
In Chap. 4, the third research question (school discipline practices and crime
prevention practices in rural schools with/without corporal punishment policies) is
addressed. Multiple types of discipline methods and crime prevention programs
were compared between rural schools with corporal punishment and rural schools
without corporal punishment. A total of 14 types of discipline methods (e.g.,
expulsion, suspension and detention), 22 types of crime prevention practices (e.g.,
access control, metal detector, drug test, dress code and crisis system), eight types
of community involvement for promoting school safety, six types of crime pre-
vention programs for teachers, and eight types of crime prevention programs for
students were examined.
In Chap. 5, the fourth and fifth research questions are answered. Principals’
perception of students’ problem behaviours and school outcomes (e.g., academic
achievement, attendance, school value, and aspiration) are compared between rural
schools with/without corporal punishment policies.
Finally, Chap. 6 includes summaries of the findings from each chapter, policy
implications based on the findings, and limitations and recommendations for future
studies.

References

Altier, M. W. (1978). Corporal punishment in schools: Due process, cruel and unusual
punishment, Ingraham v. Wright. Akron Law Review, 11(2), 359–372.
American Psychological Association. (2008). Are zero tolerance polices effective in the schools?
Retrieved from https://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance.pdf
Aucoin, K. J., Frick, P. J., & Bodin, S. D. (2006). Corporal punishment and child adjustment.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 527–541.
Aud, S., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Kristapovich, P., Rathbun, A., Wang, X., & Zhang, J. (2013). The
condition of education 2013 (NCES 2013-037). U.S. Department of Education, National
Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2013/
2013037.pdf
Bachman, R., Randolph, A., & Brown, B. L. (2011). Predicting perceptions of fear at school and
going to and from school for African American and White students: The effects of school
security measures. Youth and Society, 43(2), 705–726.
Bajema, D. H., Miller, W. W., & Williams, D. L. (2002). Aspirations of rural youth. Journal of
Agricultural Education, 43(3), 61–71.
Barrett, K. L., Jennings, W. G., & Lynch, M. J. (2012). The relation between youth fear and
avoidance of crime in school and academic experience. Journal of School Violence, 11(1), 1–
20.
Boccanfuso, C., & Kuhfeld, M. (2011). Multiple responses, promising results: Evidence-based,
nonpunitive alternatives to zero tolerance. Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/assets/docs/
alternatives-to-zero-tolerance.pdf
Bogacki, D. F., Armstrong, A. D. J., & Weiss, K. J. (2005). Reducing school violence: The
corporal punishment scale and its relationship to authoritarianism and pupil-control ideology.
The Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 33, 367–386.
References 13

Center for Effective Discipline. (2004). U.S.: Statistics on Corporal Punishment by State and
Race.
Center for Effective Discipline. (2007). The things we know about corporal punishment. Retrieved
from http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=tenthings
Clark, J. (2004). Against the corporal punishment of children. Cambridge Journal of Education,
34(3), 363–371.
Conte, A. E. (2000). In loco parentis: Alive and well. Education, 121(1), 1–5.
Dupper, D. R., & Dingus, A. E. M. (2008). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools: A
continuing challenge for school social workers. Children & Schools, 30, 243–250.
Florida Association of School Psychology. (2007). Position paper on corporal punishment in the
schools. Retrieved from http://www.fasp.org/PDF_Files/FASP_Publications/PP_Corporal_
Punishment.pdf
Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment, physical abuse, and the burden of proof: Reply to
Baumrind, Larzelere, and Cowan (2002), Holde (2002), and Parke (2002). Psychological
Bulletin, 128(4), 602–611.
Gershoff, E. T., Purtell, K. M., & Holas, I. (2015). Corporal punishment in U.S. public schools:
Legal precedents, current practices, and future policy. Springer Briefs in Psychology
Series, Advances in Child and Family Policy and Practice Subseries. New York: Springer
Publishing Company.
Greydanus, D. E., Pratt, H. D., Greydanus, S. E., Hofmann, A. D., & Tsegaye-Spates, C. R.
(1992). Corporal punishment in schools. A position paper of the Society for Adolescent
Medicine. Journal of Adolescent Health, 13, 240–246.
Grossman, D. C., Rauh, M. J., & Rivara, F. P. (1995). Prevalence of corporal punishment among
students in Washington state schools. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 149,
529–532.
Hendrickson, K. A. (2012). Student resistance to schooling: Disconnections with education in rural
Appalachia. The High School Journal, 95(4), 37–49.
Howley, C., Johnson, J., Passa, A., & Uekawa, K. (2014). College enrollment and persistence in
rural Pennsylvania schools. (REL 2015–053). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Mid-Atlantic. Retrieved from http://ies.
ed.gov/ncee/edlabs
Human Rights Watch. (2008). A violent education: Corporal punishment of children in U.S. public
schools. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/files/pdfs/humanrights/aviolenteducation_
execsumm.pdf
Human Rights Watch. (2009). Impairing education: Corporal punishment of students with
disabilities in US public schools. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/
reports/us0809webwcover_0.pdf
Irwin, K., Davidson, J., & Hall-Sanchez, A. (2013). The race to punish in American schools: Class
and race predictors of punitive school-crime control. Critical Criminology, 21(1), 47–71.
Kena, G., Aud, S., Johnson, F., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., et al. (2014). The Condition of
Education 2014 (NCES 2014-083). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for
Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.
pdf
Lamping, M. (2011). Legislative update on corporal punishment in U.S. schools. Children’s Legal
Rights Journal, 31(4), 89–90.
Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Psychology’s contributions to classroom management.
Psychology in Schools, 45, 227–234.
McCarthy, C. (2011). Ending corporal punishment in schools act of 2011, H.R.3027.IH, 112th
Cong. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr3027ih/pdf/BILLS-
112hr3027ih.pdf
Middleton, J. (2008). The experience of corporal punishment in schools, 1980–1940. History of
Education, 37(2), 253–275.
14 1 Introduction

Morrison, G. M., & D’Incau, B. (1997). The web of zero-tolerance: Characteristics of students
who are recommended for expulsion from school. Education and Treatment of Children, 20(3),
316–335.
National Association for Sport and Physical Education. (2009). Physical activity used as
punishment and/or behavior management (Position statement). Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.shapeamerica.org/advocacy/positionstatements/pa/upload/Physical-Activity-
Used-as-Punishment-Position-Statement.pdf
Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to
school violence. Harvard Education Review, 65(2), 189–212.
Northington, C. (2007). The corporal punishment of minorities in the public schools. Multicultural
Perspectives, 9(3), 57–59.
Office for Civil Rights. (2015). Civil rights data collection. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school
discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48–58.
Paolucci, E. O., & Violato, C. (2004). A meta-analysis of the published research on the affective,
cognitive, and behavioral effects of corporal punishment. Journal of Psychology, 138(3),
197–221.
Phillips, S. (2012). The demographics of corporal punishment in Texas (Unpublished doctoral
dissertation). University of North Texas, Denton.
Robers, S., Zhang, A., Morgan, R. E., & Musu-Gillette, L. (2015). Indicators of school crime and
safety: 2014 (NCES 2015-072/NCJ 248036). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S.
Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S.
Department of Justice. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2015/2015072.
pdf
Roy, L. (2001). Corporal punishment in American public schools and the rights of the child.
Journal of Law and Education, 30, 554–563.
Ryan, F. J. (1994). From rod to reason: Historical perspectives on corporal punishment in the
public school, 1642–1994. Educational Horizons, 72, 70–77.
Semke, C. A., & Sheridan, S. M. (2012). Family-school connections in rural educational settings:
A systematic review of the empirical literature. School Community Journal, 22(1), 21–47.
Shaw, S., & Braden, J. (1990). Race and gender bias in the administration of corporal punishment.
School Psychology Review, 19, 378–383.
Simons, L. G., Simons, R. L., & Su, X. (2013). Consequences of corporal punishment among
African Americans: The importance of context and outcome. Journal of Youth Adolescence,
42, 1273–1285.
Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice.
Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED469537.pdf
Skiba, R., & Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of equity
and effectiveness. In C. M. Evertson & C. S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook of classroom
management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063–1089). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Strange, M., Johnson, J., Showalter, D., & Klein, R. (2012). Why rural matters 2011–12: The
condition of rural education in the 50 States. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/
ED528634.pdf
Straus, M. A. (1994). Beating the devil out of them: Physical punishment in American families.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Straus, M. A., Sugarman, D. B., & Giles-Sims, J. (1997). Spanking by parents and subsequent
antisocial behavior of children. Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, 151, 761–767.
United States Census Bureau. (2014). Geographic areas reference manual. Retrieved from http://
www.census.gov/geo/reference/pdfs/GARM/GARMcont.pdf
United Nations. (2007). UN Committee on the rights of the child, General Comment No. 8, para.
11. Retrieved from http://www.unicef.org/protection/files/CRCGC8_EN.pdf
References 15

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Reports on the implementation of the Gun-Free Schools
Act in the states and outlying areas. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/about/reports/annual/
gfsa/gfsa03-04rpt.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Civil rights data collection. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.
ed.gov/
Vockell, E. L. (1991). Corporal punishment: The pros and cons. The Clearing House, 64(4),
278–283.
Webster, L., Wood, R. W., & Elcher, C. (1988). Attitudes of rural administrator toward corporal
punishment. Journal of Rural and Small Schools, 3(1), 19–22.
Wilson, J. (2002). Corporal punishment revisited. Cambridge Journal of Education, 32(3),
409–416.
Chapter 2
Corporal Punishment Practice: Law,
Trends, Perspective, and Research

In this chapter, selected state laws regarding corporal punishment practices will be
addressed. Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas were chosen because those
states were either having frequent corporal punishment incidents, a larger portion of
rural students, or rural ethnic minority students in its student population or showing
considerable decrease on corporal punishment incidents over the years. State laws
were found from the documents of U.S. Department of Education, research papers,
and various reports on this issue. Trends of corporal punishment in schools were
presented based on national reports and documents from the National Center for
Education Statistics, reports, and data from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR).
Perceptions of corporal punishment from multiple stakeholders, such as superin-
tendent, school principals, teachers, psychologist, and social workers, school law
specialist lawyers, students, and parents, were explored based on empirical research
papers, dissertation and news articles. Perceptions of those stakeholders from across
the states (e.g., Alabama, Florida, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, and Texas) will
be presented. Finally, a literature review of empirical studies on corporal punishment
will be presented. There are very limited empirical studies on school corporal
punishment policies, and many of them were examined in the international context
rather than within the U.S. In this section, most research papers that were published
since 2000 were presented, and research papers that were conducted both in the U.S.
and other countries were examined. Research papers on school corporal punishment
policies were addressed here considering analysis units, such as state, district, and
school levels.

2.1 Current State Laws

Florida Florida is a state that has continuously reformed discipline policies and
reduced the number of corporal punishment incidents in schools for the past years.
According to the Florida Department of Education (2009), 84,495 students were
© The Author(s) 2017 17
S. Han, Corporal Punishment in Rural Schools, SpringerBriefs
in Education, DOI 10.1007/978-981-10-2448-1_2
18 2 Corporal Punishment Practice: Law, Trends …

physically punished in school during the 1987–1988, whereas 4869 students

received corporal punishment during the 2007–2008 school year. While all school
districts, except for one, used corporal punishment in 1987–1988, only 30 school
districts remained with corporal punishment policies in the 2007–2008 school year
(Florida Department of Education 2009). More recent data shows that the per-
centage of students who were physically punished varies across school districts. In
the 2010–2011 school year, out of 78 school districts, 28 school districts allow
corporal punishment, and the percentage of corporal punishment recipients ranged
from 9.9 % to zero across school districts. Seven school districts administered
corporal punishment to more than 4 % of students, and eight school districts
physically punished to less than 1 % of students. In addition, K through 5th graders
are more frequent corporal punishment recipients than 6th through 12th graders
(Gagnon et al. 2014).
According to Florida statues, schools are not required to get consent from par-
ents before administering corporal punishment, yet many Florida school districts
send a form requesting parental permission. It is common for schools to use a
wooden or fiberglass board for corporal punishment, but there are no specific
regulations on the kinds of instruments used (O’Conner 2015).
K-12 Florida Compilation of School Discipline Laws and Regulations include
procedures of corporal punishment practices (U.S. Department of Education
2015a). According to Code 1003.32:
Corporal punishment of a public school student may only be administered by a teacher or
school principal within guidelines of the school principal and according to district school
board policy. Another adult must be present and must be informed in the student’s presence
of the reason for the punishment. Upon request, the teacher or school principal must
provide the parent with a written explanation of the reason for the punishment and the name
of the other adult who was present (U.S. Department of Education 2015a).

In addition, Code 1003.32 addresses that a district school board needs to have
policy review to authorize the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary purpose
every 3 years. Teachers and other instructional personnel are authorized to manage
student behaviours and maintain safety in classrooms and the school to ensure
learning opportunities for all students in an orderly environment. Specific procedure
of corporal punishment for a teacher was indicated. For example, teachers must
have the approval from the principal before using corporal punishment, and a
principal identifies the types of offenses for punishment and indicates authorized
school personnel to administer the punishment. As mentioned clearly above, a
teacher or principal implements corporal punishment while a witness is present.
After the corporal punishment, a teacher or principal must provide parents with an
explanation of why the student received corporal punishment in a written form with
the name of the witness (U.S. Department of Education 2015a). Despite the
importance of a witness, in reality, witnesses often do not know the reason for being
requested to be present in the event, and why the student is being physically
punished (Gagnon et al. 2014).
2.1 Current State Laws 19

Louisiana Among 19 states with corporal punishment policies, Louisiana serves

nearly half of ethnic minority students in rural enrollment and a relatively lower rate
of corporal punishment incidents. Code 17:223 addresses corporal punishment
policies in school:

Each parish and city school board shall have discretion in the use of corporal punishment.
In those cases in which a parish or city school board decides to use corporal punishment,
each parish or city school board shall adopt such rules and regulations as it deems necessary
to implement and control any form of corporal punishment in the schools in its district (U.S.
Department of Education 2015b).

According to Louisiana Department of Education, there are 17 school districts

where corporal punishment is banned and 54 parish school districts where corporal
punishment is allowed. During the 2009–2010 school year, 80 % out of the 54
districts actually implemented corporal punishment, and 11,520 corporal punish-
ment incidents were reported. Over the past years, around 1 % of students were
physically punished in Louisiana public schools. During the 2011–2012, 2012–
2013, and 2013–2014 school years, the number of corporal punishment in 42
school districts were observed as 4525 (1.4 %), 3761 (1.1 %) and 3852 (1.2 %),
respectively, when student populations ranged from 315,000 to 320,000 (Timoll
2015). Louisiana had a movement to ban corporal punishment in public school. In
2008, the Louisiana Board of Elementary and Secondary Education voted to sug-
gest banning corporal punishment in public schools, yet some school districts still
continued to use corporal punishment as a form of discipline. In 2010, the
Developmental Disabilities Council prepared an agenda to legislators to prohibit
corporal punishment in the Louisiana public school system, and as a result, 14 of
Louisiana’s agencies that serve one third of student’s population banned corporal
punishment (Broussard 2014). Despite the continued efforts to ban corporal pun-
ishment, legal conflicts are still remained and excessive corporal punishment
toward students has been issued in 21 Louisiana state courts (Broussard 2014).
Mississippi Mississippi has the largest number of school corporal punishment
incidents among the 19 states. According to the Mississippi Department of
Education, the number of corporal punishment incidents slightly decreased from
39,169 in 2004–2005 to 38,967 in 2012–2013. In the 2007–2008 school year,
58,343 incidents were recorded, which is the highest from 2004–2005 to 2012–
2013. As of 2010–2011, 66 % of students attended schools where corporal pun-
ishment is available (Williams-Damond 2014).
Mississippi Code Section 37-11-57 addresses legal guidelines for school per-
sonnel about discipline practices including corporal punishment (U.S. Department
of Education 2015c). Corporal punishment was defined as:
The reasonable use of physical force or physical contact by a teacher, assistant teacher,
principal or assistant principal, as may be necessary to maintain discipline, to enforce a
school rule, for self-protection or for the protection of other students from disruptive
students.
20 2 Corporal Punishment Practice: Law, Trends …

In addition, legal actions and responsibilities in regard with corporal punishment

were addressed and it clearly indicates that corporal punishment is distinguished
from negligence or child abuse:
Corporal punishment administered in a reasonable manner, or any reasonable action to
maintain control and discipline of students taken by a teacher, assistant teacher, principal or
assistant principal acting within the scope of his employment or function and in accordance
with any state or federal laws or rules or regulations of the State Board of Education or the
local school board, does not constitute negligence or child abuse. No teacher, assistant
teacher, principal or assistant principal so acting shall be held liable in a suit for civil
damages alleged to have been suffered by a student as a result of the administration of
corporal punishment, or the taking of action to maintain control and discipline of a student,
unless the court determines that the teacher, assistant teacher, principal or assistant principal
acted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting a wanton and willful
disregard of human rights or safety (U.S. Department of Education 2015c).

School district policies address more specific regulations about how to imple-
ment corporal punishment. For example, corporal punishment should be used after
other disciplinary methods failed to improve students’ behaviours; it should be
implemented in a reasonable, not malicious manner; it may be implemented by the
principal while a witness (e.g., teachers or administrative staff) is present; its use in
front of other students should be avoided; and other disciplinary methods (e.g.,
conference with parents or loss of students’ privileges) can be implemented when
the student refuses to receive corporal punishment (Wilson 2003). In addition,
Mississippi state law also indicates a specific manner of corporal punishment
practice that is administered by parents at school.
In the event that a parent is requested to appear at the school to administer corporal
punishment to a child in his or her legal custody that parent must administer such corporal
punishment at the school facility under the supervision of the principal or assistant principal
of the school (U.S. Department of Education 2015c).

Although corporal punishment practices have potential legal conflicts among

stakeholders, Mississippi, where the most frequent corporal punishment incidents
occurred, has only four state court decisions on this issue. It might imply that
Mississippi state laws protect school personnel by clearly indicating the scope and
manner of corporal punishment practices (Williams-Damond 2014).
Texas Texas is a state that serves the largest number of rural students and the
second largest number of rural ethnic minority students among 19 states. In addi-
tion, Texas has the second largest number of school corporal punishment recipients
and the largest number of corporal punishment incidents against special education
students (The Civil Rights Data Collection 2011–2012, n.d.).
In the 2010–2011 school year, about 82 % of school districts in Texas imple-
mented corporal punishment as a discipline purpose and approximately 60 % of
students in Texas attended schools where corporal punishment was practiced. Most
Texas school districts have corporal punishment policies based on the school board
policies that were provided by the Texas Association of School Boards (TASB)
(Phillips 2012). There are some factors associated with corporal punishment
2.1 Current State Laws 21

recipients: location, size of district and race. Rural students are more likely to be
physically punished than those in urban students. For the 2011–2012 school year,
0.89 % of urban students received corporal punishment, whereas 3.90 % of rural
students received corporal punishment. In addition, on average, districts with less
than a 2000 student population are more likely to permit corporal punishment,
whereas districts with closer to a 15,000 student population are less likely to permit
corporal punishment at school. More African American students tended to receive
corporal punishment than White students, and more White students tended to
receive corporal punishment than Hispanic students (Prejean 2015).
Individual school district also sets their own discipline rules. For example,
corporal punishment is applied to only secondary schools and not elementary
school; the corporal punishment administrator needs be the same sex as the
recipient; corporal punishment can be substituted for other discipline methods
including Saturday school, in-school suspension or detention; and corporal pun-
ishment can be applied to specific types of misbehaviours, such as absence,
smoking, insubordination, horseplay, being out of class without permission, or
teasing (Farrell 2015).
Below are the laws and regulations regarding corporal punishment in Texas (U.
S. Department of Education 2015d). Under Texas Education Code Sect. 37.0011,
corporal punishment is defined as “the deliberate infliction of physical pain by
hitting, paddling, spanking, slapping, or any other physical force used as a means of
discipline,” and excludes “physical pain caused by reasonable physical activities
associated with athletic training, competition, or physical education,” and “the use
of restraint as authorized under Sect. 37.0021.” In addition, detailed guidelines
were addressed to adequately implement corporal punishment:
… a district educator may use corporal punishment to discipline a student unless the
student’s parent or guardian or other person having lawful control over the student has
previously provided a written, signed statement prohibiting the use of corporal punishment
as a method of student discipline.To prohibit the use of corporal punishment as a method of
student discipline, each school year a student’s parent or guardian or other person having
lawful control over the student must provide a separate written, signed statement to the
board of trustees of the school district in the manner established by the board.

The student’s parent or guardian or other person having lawful control over the student may
revoke the statement provided to the board of trustees under Subsection (c) at any time
during the school year by submitting a written, signed revocation to the board in the manner
established by the board (U.S. Department of Education 2015d).

2.2 Trends

As of 2016, 19 states permit schools to administer corporal punishment. According

to data from the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), a total of 218,466 students were
physically punished in school during the 2009–2010 school year. This number is
counted as 0.5 % of students out of the total public school student population, or
22 2 Corporal Punishment Practice: Law, Trends …

five students per 1000 students (Gershoff et al. 2015). Corporal punishment inci-
dents continuously decreased over the past year. The OCR data showed that
342,038 students received corporal punishment at least once in school during the
2000–2001; 272,028 students received corporal punishment in 2004–2005; and
223,190 students were physically punished in the 2006–2007 school year (Human
Rights Watch 2008). Although the number of corporal punishment recipients has
deceased, there are still a considerable number of students who are physically
punished in school. Furthermore, the number of such incidents is assumed greater
because the same students tend to repeatedly receive corporal punishment.
While state laws permit corporal punishment in schools, school districts have the
right to choose whether or not to adopt corporal punishment policies as a discipline
method. Even if schools have corporal punishment policies, school personnel have
the choice not to use it. Nationally representative data sets showed a decrease in the
number of public schools that adopted corporal punishment policies over the past
years. During the 1991–1992 school year, about 30 % of the U.S. public schools
used corporal punishment, whereas about 8 % of public schools used corporal
punishment during the 2009–2010 school year (National Center for Education
Statistics 2010). During the 2009–2010 school year, about 11.6 % of public schools
had corporal punishment and only 8.1 % of schools administered corporal pun-
ishment. In the 2007–2008 school year, corporal punishment was allowed in 12 %
of public schools, and it was actually used in 9 % of public schools. During the
2005–2006 school year, 15 % of public schools allowed corporal punishment, and
11 % of public schools used it. During the 2003–2004 school year, 17 % of public
schools allowed corporal punishment, and 12 % of public schools used it (National
Center for Education Statistics 2015). This trend is presented in Fig. 2.1.
The frequency and decrease of corporal punishment incidents differ by state,
which means that some states use corporal punishment more often than others. For
example, Mississippi, Texas, Alabama and Arkansas use corporal punishment more
often than other states, whereas Idaho, Kansas, and Wyoming use less corporal
punishment in school (National Center for Education Statistics 2015).

18
16
14
12
10
8
6 Having CP policies
4 CP used
2
0
2009-2010
2003-2004

2005-2006

2007-2008

Fig. 2.1 Percentage of public schools with corporal punishment and the its usage
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
Universale provata con monumenti [106], parlando degli scavi nello
stesso terreno, praticati nel 1689, e com’egli dice, alle radici del
monte Vesuvio, in lontananza di un miglio in circa del mare, recando,
a maggiore autorità una nota di Francesco Pinchetti, ch’ei chiama
architetto celebre in Napoli per la sua professione e molto più per il
museo sceltissimo ed antichità erudite da sè raccolte, fa chiaro che il
Pinchetti e altri con lui reputassero come le lapidi romane e le
osservazioni sue istituite sulla natura dei varj suoli scavati, fossero
fatte nel loco dove era la villa di Pompeo. Esso monsignor Bianchini
nondimeno non restò di soggiungere un proprio dubbio che, cioè, le
iscrizioni vedute dal Pinchetti, e da lui non ancora, potessero
spettare invece alla città di Pompei, e non ad una villa del magno
Pompeo e de’ di lui figliuoli; perciocchè la villa di quella famiglia e di
quel massimo capitano, da Loffredo si giudica non essere stata sotto
al Vesuvio, ma piuttosto verso Pozzuolo, non molto discosta dal lago
Averno.
La storia quindi degli scavi non parte che dal 1748, quando alcuni
agricoltori, avendo fatto delle fosse per piantagione d’alberi, si
imbatterono nelle mura di un edifizio e in una statua di bronzo.
Siffatta notizia portata a cognizione di Carlo III, regnante allora,
principe d’alti concepimenti, comunque despota per eccellenza [107],
— desti già la sua attenzione e l’interesse della scoperta da poco
tempo fatta di Ercolano, — come aveva fatto per gli scavi di questa
città, fece pur acquisto di tutto il terreno su cui quegli agricoltori
avevano lavorato e casualmente scoperta Pompei e posto mano ad
intraprendere escavazioni, gli venne dato di ottenerne i vagheggiati
risultamenti.
La sorte eguale con Pompei avuta dalla città di Ercolano nella
sciagura e il destino quasi identico e contemporaneo delle
escavazioni, reclamano che una breve parola io dica qui
dell’occasione fornita di una tale resurrezione intorno ad Ercolano.
La storia di questa città sorella e quella de’ suoi scavi completa
quella di Pompei: è quasi impossibile il tenerle onninamente divise:
l’una all’altra soccorre indubbiamente.
Neppur d’Ercolano sapevasi la precisa ubicazione. Emanuele di
Lorena, principe di Elbeuf, venuto, a capo dell’esercito imperiale
contro Filippo V, in Napoli nell’anno 1713, innamoratone del cielo e
del clima, e già sposo alla figliuola del principe di Salsa, prese ad
erigersi a Portici una villa; un contadino, levato dalla escavazione
d’un pozzo alcuni marmi, avendoglieli offerti, fu il primo indizio che lo
guidasse sulle traccie della sepolta città ed estesi subito gli scavi,
non corse guari che rinvenisse iscrizioni romane ed osche, un
tempio con ventiquattro colonne, ed altrettante statue in giro, una
statua d’Ercole ed una di Cleopatra. Eureka! fu gridato da lui e dai
dotti; Ercolano è risorta.
I primi capolavori di bronzo e di marmo ritornati alla luce, proprietà di
chi li aveva trovati, andarono ad arricchire musei stranieri; non così
per altro che i moltissimi rinvenuti di poi non valessero a costituire
tutta una preziosissima raccolta in Napoli di pitture, di vetri, di
medaglie, di utensili, di busti e principalmente delle due sole statue
equestri in marmo che l’antichità ci abbia trasmesso: quelle dei
Balbo, padre e figlio. E a mille si trovarono i papiri più greci che latini;
in questi come nelle arti più ricca Ercolano che non Pompei; onde ne
nacque l’idea della creazione d’un’academia la quale illustrasse i
monumenti dell’antico che si sarebbero rinvenuti negli scavi e che si
intitolò Ercolanese.
Il re Carlo III, fin dalla prima scoperta, ad impedire che le antiche
preziosità che si sarebbero diseppellite passassero all’estero, con
grave nocumento del paese, s’affrettava a ricomprare dal principe di
Elbeuf quella proprietà, e spingendo con sollecitudine i lavori di
escavazione, era egli che aveva ottenuta la certezza che fosse
quell’antica città d’Ercolano.
Ma quegli scavi tornavano difficili, anzi pericolosi. Su quella città non
era stato un lieve sepolcro di ceneri e di scorie soltanto, come in
Pompei, che il Vesuvio aveva posto, ma uno greve e di lava e di
lapilli infuocati; onde quel sepolcrale coperchio, dello spessore in più
luoghi perfino di venti metri, aveva cotanto persuaso di sua solidità,
da far credere che fosse tutta una vera roccia vulcanica e non lasciar
sospettare che mai si celasse al di sotto, che le sorvenute
generazioni vi avevano confidenti fabbricato su tutta una città ed un
villaggio, Portici e Resina e sulle sontuose ville di romani guerrieri,
eretto inconsapevolmente palagi eleganti di artisti di canto e d’altri
facoltosi. Intraprese le escavazioni, era stato mestieri, non come in
Pompei, far uso della marra, per liberare i sottoposti edificj, ma della
mina, nè si potè agire che colle maggiori cautele, perocchè a chi
scenda e penetri dentro gli scavi ercolanesi rechi sorpresa e
spavento l’udirvi sovra del capo il rumoreggiar de’ carri e degli
omnibus che animano la graziosa Portici ed anzi paresse necessità
di nuovamente interrare più luoghi frugati ad impedire il disastro di
rovine, privando le moli sovrastanti de’ loro antichi e naturali
sostegni. Laonde l’intera scoperta d’Ercolano e il ricupero di tutte le
preziosità che nasconde non sarà mai possibile sin quando non
vengano abbattute le belle case e villeggiature di Portici, nè io sarò
mai per dire che metta proprio conto di pur ciò desiderare.
Non a torto quindi il medesimo monarca s’era sollecitato a recare in
sua proprietà anche il terreno sotto cui tutto creder faceva
ascondersi Pompei, acciò non fosse frodato il paese di quanto vi si
sarebbe potuto trovare ed a commettere l’esecuzione su più
conveniente scala delle ricerche e degli scavi, resi essi più agevoli
dalla men dura materia che li copriva, perocchè quivi non si trattasse
che di rimuovere gli strati di ceneri commiste alle pomici, oltre quella
superficie che vi si era sopra distesa e che già avea servito alla
coltivazione.
A riguardo di queste due nobili città rivenute al giorno, potevasi dire
suggellato il vaticinio dal Venosino espresso nell’Epistola sesta del
libro I a Numicio:

Quidquid sub terra est in apricum proferet ætas [108].

Se non che parve che una vera, regolare e non interrotta

prosecuzione di tali scavi pompejani non avesse incominciato che
nel 1799 e così vennero di poi alacremente condotti, che siasi
oggimai presso alla scoperta di una metà della città, essendo tornate
alla luce e mura e porte, e archi e vie molte, e templi e basiliche, e
fori e terme, anfiteatro e teatri, case e tombe, in una parola tutta la
parte più interessante, tale dovendo ritenersi appunto e per essere
quella che si distendeva lungo la marina e che doveva però essere
indubbiamente la meglio ricerca per la sua animazione prodotta dal
porto e da’ publici ufficj che si adivano e per la frescura che
procacciava il mare e perchè in fatti vi si rinvennero i più cospicui
edifici tanto publici che privati.
Se le escavazioni progredivano con certa regolarità, non vi si
portavano nondimeno per lo addietro tutte quelle cautele, le quali
valessero a tutelarle e difenderle dalla cupidigia di molti, dalla
smania di tutti di posseder qualcosa di quanto si veniva scoprendo.
Coi lavoratori stipendiati mescevansi troppo spesso estranei che
s’appropriavano quel che potevano ascondersi e portar via:
lucernette ed idoletti, gingilli e monete, cose preziose e volgari
vennero così in copia asportati ed erano occasioni a tanto
disperdimento l’accesso publico e il commercio che in Napoli e ne’
paesi prossimi a Pompei se ne faceva apertamente. Non v’ebbe di
tal guisa publico o privato museo d’antichità in tutta Europa che non
possedesse alcuna reliquia antica di questa città.
Ma per buona ventura fu posto freno e impedimento a ciò. Il
commendatore Fiorelli — il cui nome ho già più volte citato e lodato,
nè sarà l’ultima questa che l’avrò a ricordare, poichè esso si
connetta necessariamente ad ogni discorso che di Pompei si faccia
— giunto alla direzione e sovr’intendenza degli scavi, ottenne dal
Governo che venisse limitato l’ingresso libero in Pompei ne’ soli
giorni di festa; che pur in questi fosse il publico sorvegliato da’
guardiani da lui istituiti; che a’ forestieri e visitatori degli altri giorni,
imponendosi una tassa di lire due si convertisse il prodotto a
vantaggio degli scavi, e severi ordini si bandirono che vietarono
l’appropriarsi del benchè minimo oggetto, fosse pure una lampadetta
di terra cotta, o qualche piccolo vaso lagrimatorio; disposto avendo
che tutto, nulla eccettuato, s’avesse a trasportare nel Museo
Nazionale di Napoli a cui egli è tuttora preposto. Così l’egoismo
privato più non detrae agli studj del publico.
In Pompei stessa venne un antico edificio acconciato a scuola
d’antichità, comunque non vi sia ora più d’uno studioso che vi dimori.
Colà nondimeno vi si accolgono oggetti di ogni maniera trovati e
tutte le publicazioni che trattano di Pompei, o vi hanno qualche
attinenza. Il Giornale degli Scavi ne publica mano mano l’elenco, in
un con dottissime dichiarazioni di iscrizioni, di edificj o d’altre cose
che si vengono ritrovando. Augusto Vecchi, il bravo patriοta e
soldato delle italiane battaglie, più mesi soggiornando, solitario nella
risorta città, pensò e scrisse il suo libro che denominò Pompei e
intitolò a’ Mani de’ Pompejani, e in cui colla potenza della sua
fantasia ravvivò le morte generazioni e le morte cose, riconducendo i
lettori all’epoca del novissimo giorno pur da me storicamente
descritto e tenendo conto il più fedele che possibile fosse del vero
nell’opera sua di romanziero.
Il lavoro di ciascun giorno per parte degli operaj adoperati dalla
Amministrazione, sebbene proceda lento, conduce nonostante
sempre alla scoperta di interessanti cose e la fortuna corona spesso
il desiderio di chi fa gli onori agli illustri personaggi che traggono a
visitare Pompei, nelle felici invenzioni di oggetti preziosi che poi
figurano nelle bacheche del napoletano Museo. Io pure assistetti
all’opera della marra e dello sterramento di una casa pompejana,
coll’agitazione prodotta dal desiderio e dal timore insieme che i morti
abitatori di essa emergessero da quelle ceneri, e formai voto che il
Governo stanziasse maggiori fondi a tai lavori: ma chi può attendersi
che in Italia si volga ancora il pensiero e le cure alle arti, quando
l’imperizia o peggio de’ governanti ha già tanto pesato sui
contribuenti?
Noi abbiamo dunque dimenticato troppo presto che fu sempre

D’ogni bell’arte Italia antica madre

e che se potemmo dare mentita nel passato a chi Italia aveva detto
nome geografico e nulla più, non era stato che per ciò solo che mai
non avevamo perduto lo scettro dell’Arti Belle.
Discorso dell’origine, del progresso e dello stato attuale delle
escavazioni, quantunque il perimetro della città non sia peranco
interamente sterrato; pure dai fatti esperimenti fu dato misurarne
l’estensione che si computa a circa quattro miglia, compresi i
sobborghi, ed è concesso di fornirne la topografia.
Pompei venne costruita su di una collina digradante al mare che in
passato la circondava da due lati e ne costituiva quasi una penisola.
Se si riguarda alla pietra su cui si fonda e che è di natura vulcanica,
anzi direbbesi antichissima lava, si avrebbe argomento a credere
che il terribile incendio del Vesuvio del 79 fosse stato ne’ tempi
caliginosi della storia preceduto da altri non minori cataclismi, pei
quali la lava o fosse fin qui fluita da quel formidabile serbatojo, o
avesse trovato altri aditi divisi dal cratere per uscire ad allagare la
circostante pianura; seppure questa collina stessa non fosse una
bocca vulcanica pari ad altre che si veggono attorno al Vesuvio.
Strabone portò l’egual congettura, constatando prima la sterilità della
vetta cinericcia del Vesuvio, poi le sue profonde caverne e le diverse
spaccature, e reputò doversi per avventura attribuire al suo fuoco e
alle sue ceneri la miracolosa fertilità, per la quale va la Campania
distinta.
Ma più specialmente catastrofi non di molto dissimili toccate a’ paesi
circostanti, sia per tremuoti come in quello memorabile da me riferito
del 63 di Cristo, sia per eruzioni ed anche a Pompei, lo attesterebbe
il nome stesso della città, se è vero quel che afferma la Dissertatio
Isagogica di C. Rosini, che essa venisse chiamata dapprima
Pompìa, e che ciò significhi fuoco spento [109]. Nella Via delle Tombe
inoltre vennero trovati in qualche luogo negli scavi, esistenti sotto le
costruzioni di romana origine, avanzi di altre precedenti opere
muratorie d’epoca assai remota e oggetti d’origine etrusca. Dalla
parte opposta a Napoli, da cui dista forse una quindicina di
chilometri, ho già detto che il seno che vi formava il mare ed entro
cui aveva la propria foce il Sarno, avesse costituito naturalmente un
porto capace di molte navi, anzi, secondo alcuni, perfino di una
intera flotta e che giovava ai bisogni non della sola Pompei, ma di
Acerra e di Nola, onde per i legni che scendevano o risalivano di
continuo codeste sponde, avesse ragione Strabone di designarlo
come un importante porto e di far della città un vero emporio, molto
più che, navigabile allora il Sarno, avesse preferenza sui porti di
Stabia e d’Ercolano, per il vantaggio che offriva del trasporto delle
merci che giungevano nell’interno del territorio.
Più in là del porto e verso Stabia — ed or direbbesi verso la via che
scorge a Castellamare, città che sorge appunto sulle rovine di
Stabia, fatte prima da Silla e compiute poi dal Vesuvio — erano le
Saline di Ercole, di cui si veggono oggi pur le vestigia nel luogo detto
Bottaro e la palude a cui fa cenno L. G. Moderato Columella, non
che il verso seguente che ne fa gradevole menzione:

Quæ dulcis Pompeja palus vicina salinis,

Herculeis.... [110]

e più presso la città le cave delle pomici e delle moli olearie,

ricordate quelle da Vitruvio, da Catone queste.
Ora il mare s’è ritratto di oltre un miglio e fu proprio, come nel
precedente capitolo ho detto, nell’occasione del cataclisma che ho
descritto: nè senza del resto così formidabili avvenimenti, può
constatarsi questo ritrarsi del mare anche altrove. Ravenna, che fu
principale stazione navale de’ Romani al tempo di Augusto; e Pisa,
che pur nel medio evo fu città marinara e insigne tanto da misurarsi
col naviglio amalfitano e genovese, distano oggi di molte miglia dal
mare. Venezia ha già veduto abbassarsi il proprio estuario: chi sa
che un giorno non appaja una favola la sua fondazione sulle palafitte
di Rialto e dove furono le lagune non iscorra più la bruna e
misteriosa gondola, ma venga in quella vece tratto dal pigro bove
l’aratro?
Il Sarno, ho pur detto, che, dappoichè non aveva più a bagnare la
viva Pompei, ammencite le sue acque, si fosse ridotto alla
condizione di umile ruscello; la sua vasta imboccatura è segnata ora
dal luogo che si denomina la valle e la sua antica importanza che
aveva già prestato orgogliosamente il suo nome a’ popoli Sarrasti,
come ne lasciavan ricordo que’ versi di Virgilio, che parlando di
Ebalo, dice com’ei comandasse

Sarrastes populos, et quæ rigat æquora Sarnus [111]

or appena si rileva da chi, rimembrando i passi de’ latini prosatori e

poeti che ne ripeterono i vanti, ne richiede contezza; sì che di lui ad
egual ragione dir si potria quello che il Sebeto, da cui Napoli si
designa, ebbe ad esser chiamato da Metastasio:

Quanto ricco d’onor, povero d’onde.

Porta d’Ercolano a Pompei. Vol. I. Cap. VII. Le Mura, ecc.
 CAPITOLO VII.
Le Mura. — Le Porte. — Le Vie.

Le Mura, loro misura e costruzione — Fortificazioni —

Torri — Terrapieno e casematte — Le Porte — Le Regioni
e le Isole — Le Vie — I Marciapiedi — Il Lastrico e la
manutenzione delle Vie — La Via Consolare e le vie
principali — Vie minori — Fontane publiche — Tabernacoli
sulle Vie — Amuleti contro la jettatura — Iscrizioni scritte o
graffite sulle muraglie — Provvedimenti edili contro le
immondezze — Botteghe — Archi — Carrozze — Cura
delle vie.

Poichè abbiamo, nella narrazione de’ suoi eventi, dimostrato quanta

importanza si avesse Pompei e come fosse fatta emporio
commerciale per ragion del suo capace porto e del suo fiume e
convegno d’ogni industria prodotta dalle vicine città della Campania;
era ben naturale che si avesse ben anco tutti que’ presidj che ne
tutelassero la sicurezza interna; molto più che essa avesse preso
parte a tutte le lotte ed a tutti i commovimenti guerreschi, da
determinarvi lo stabilimento d’una colonia militare che davvicino la
vigilasse e tenesse in soggezione.
Ella era dunque recinta di solide mura, atta a respingere assalti
esterni e fra le prime opere d’escavazione, quella fu appunto di
sterrare le mura onde conoscere la circonferenza dell’intera città e la
sua configurazione. Così evitavansi eziandio inutili scandagli
all’infuori di essa ed inutili spese. Fu lavoro codesto compiuto
dall’anno 1812 al 1814.
Giravano prima codeste mura tutt’all’intorno, misurando oltre due
miglia e producendo una figura di elissi, l’asse maggiore della quale,
che percorre dalla porta Ercolanea all’Anfiteatro, misura ottocento
passi geometrici, mentre l’asse minore che è dalla porta Nolana al
quartiere de’ soldati, o Foro Nundinario ne misura soltanto
quattrocento; ma negli ultimi tempi di sua esistenza, e precisamente
ne’ giorni di Augusto, le mura dalla parte della marina, demolite,
vennero sostituite da edifici.
Di eccellente, se non sempre di uniforme costruzione, poichè
formata di due muri eretti con macigni vesuviani ed ottimo cemento,
venivano, giusta il sistema più in uso a que’ tempi di fortificazione, a
tratti a tratti munite di torri quadrate, onde dovessero valere di salda
difesa. Non era con tutto ciò, siccome dissi, uniforme in tutta la cinta
la costruzione: il muro di essa che riguardava la città può reputarsi
dell’altezza di trentaquattro palmi, mentre di venticinque fosse quello
che sorgeva verso l’esterna campagna. Nello spazio che tra l’un
muro e l’altro intercedeva di forse venti e più piedi e che latinamente
denominavasi agger, eravi adattato un gran terrapieno capace di
molti soldati, i quali per le grandi gradinate praticate a certi intervalli
potevan giungere sul ciglio delle mura per offenderne all’uopo gli
assalitori.
Le torri, che dal lato di settentrione erano meno frequenti, perchè
riuscendo alla collina meno facile tornavano la sorpresa e l’attacco
nemico, costuivansi di tre piani, come del resto può essere
osservato in altre città dove sieno superstiti congeneri costruzioni
tanto dell’epoca romana che del medio evo: ne sussistono tuttavia le
gradinate di comunicazione, e se ne usciva poi in tempo d’assedio
alle impensate sortite per certe anguste e dissimulate porte,
appellate posternæ, le quali si aprivano al piede di esse.
Sulle pietre di certa parte delle mura, dove la costruzione non è
curata così come in altre parti, si riscontrano ancora caratteri oschi
ed etruschi, indizj pur essi meritevoli di studio per la lingua usata in
Pompei, almeno nel parlar volgare, e potrebbero essere altresì
marche per norma della loro collocazione; quantunque la profondità
colla quale sono incise possa dar luogo a ritenere esserne stato ben
differente lo scopo. Ad ogni modo la natura di siffatti caratteri può
valere all’induzione circa l’epoca della costruzione, che doveva però
essere necessariamente d’assai anteriore alla guerra sostenuta
contro Lucio Cornelio Silla, a respingere i violenti assalti del quale
queste opere validissime di difesa avevano non poco giovato i
Pompejani; se pure non vogliansi attribuire all’epoca remotissima
degli Etruschi e degli Osci; taluni essendo che punto non esitino a
qualificare recisamente d’origine pelasgica queste mura.
Fra l’un muro e l’altro e lungo tutto il terrapieno summentovato eranvi
fabbricate ordinatamente, l’una all’altra di fronte, camere ed androni,
siccome nelle fortezze odierne si veggono casematte, assai in uso
del resto a que’ tempi in simil genere di fortificazione [112], a ricovero
de’ soldati e ad uso di caserme; avvedimenti codesti, i quali
congiuntamente alla rilevante altezza delle mura, accusano
l’importanza non solo della piazza, ma permettono altresì di
sospettare che di ben maggiori avvenimenti guerreschi di quelli dalla
storia memorati potesse Pompei essere stata teatro.
Ma colle mura non finivano i baluardi di difesa di questa città, le quali
non ne proteggevano che quelle sole parti che si presentavano più
esposte, e non erano, cioè, tutelate o dalla profondità della valle,
come verso il lato d’Ercolano, o dalla elevatezza della collina.
Perocchè da un’altra parte avesse eziandio il mare e da un’altra
ancora il Sarno copioso di acque; sì che per quei tempi presentar
potesse Pompei veramente l’aspetto e l’importanza d’una piazza
fortificata dei nostri giorni, e fornir tutte le ragioni altresì d’avervi i
Romani dedotta una colonia militare.
Della maniera di fortificazione usata in Pompei, secondo ho più
sopra alla meglio intrattenuto il lettore, Vitruvio, nella sua famosa
opera che tratta della architettura de’ suoi tempi, ne parla nel capo V
del Libro I, e dà i tecnici particolari, a’ quali chi della materia si
diletta, può con utilità rivolgersi, poichè ad altro ora mi chiama
l’argomento [113].
Per più porte si entrava in Pompei: otto ne han distinte gli scavi che
si vennero fin qui operando, due delle quali veggonsi tuttavia
egregiamente conservate colla loro antica selciatura, e sono la Porta
Ercolano, tutta di materiale laterizio con intonaco senza ornamenti, a
meno che la sua vetustà non li abbia fatti rovinare, e la Porta
Nolana, che menava a Nola, denominata tal Porta anche Isiaca,
perchè presso vi fosse il tempio consacrato ad Iside e ne sussistono
intatte le forti muraglie fatte di grossi massi vulcanici e con vôlta
superiore.
Le altre sei porte appena si distinguono: esse hanno stipiti in grandi
massi riquadrati, e si aprivano: l’una tra l’Anfiteatro ed il Foro
Nundinario o quartiere de’ soldati, e si chiamava Porta Stabiana,
perchè conducente alla città di Stabia; l’altra fra l’anfiteatro e la Porta
Nolana, che per la vicinanza del fiume doveva per avventura
chiamarsi Porta del Sarno; la terza era detta Nocera, la quarta di
Capua, e così chiamavansi perchè mettevan capo alle vie per cui
s’andava a quelle città; la quinta, che sorgeva fra la porta di Nola e
quella d’Ercolano, era detta del Vesuvio, perchè in più diretta
corrispondenza con questo monte; la sesta appellavasi della Marina.
La scoperta di quest’ultima porta venne fatta nel 1863, mercè le
sapienti ed esatte ricerche del commendatore Fiorelli. Innanzi a tale
scoperta, era generale opinione che questa parte della città che
discendeva al mare, come anche vi faceva cenno la sensibile
pendenza del suolo, fosse sempre stata priva del muro di cinta e
specialmente dalla porta d’Ercolano fino a quella di Stabia; ora la
interessante scoperta del Fiorelli ha somministrato le più irrecusabili
prove come Pompei fosse tutta quanta fortificata, e forse nelle
ulteriori investigazioni e scavi verrà dato di conoscere ben anco se il
muro che congiungeva le due suddette porte sia stato distrutto dalle
funeste conseguenze della guerra.
Questa porta della Marina era posta sotto la protezione di Minerva, e
la statua in terra cotta di questa dea, che vedesi ancora entro una
nicchia a destra di chi entra, l’attesta.
Nella Porta d’Ercolano sono praticate tre arcate, quella di mezzo per
i carri e le due laterali per i pedoni: essendo la principale arteria,
come vedrem più avanti, era questo un ottimo accorgimento alla
miglior sicurezza della vita ed a scanso di disordini d’ogni sorta.
È poi degnissima di osservazione il vedersi in questa Porta alle
relative spalliere correrne tutto il lungo certe incavature destinate a
ricevere la grossa imposta di legno, o saracinesca, che dal piano
superiore si calava per chiudere; perocchè generalmente si
reputasse fin qui che simil genere di fortificazione fosse il trovato de’
bassi tempi e medievali, ed ora invece colla scoperta di questa Porta
di Pompei si abbia la irrefragabile prova che i vecchi castelli feudali
non avessero fatto colle loro saracinesche che applicare quanto già
gli antichi avevano praticato [114].
Finalmente è dato distinguere pur adesso il Vallo col gran fossato
nella profondità di venti a trenta piedi con altro muro opposto, il
quale serve di parapetto e controscarpa, novella testimonianza di più
antica militare importanza, e nel quale i Pompejani degli ultimi tempi
avevano publica e bella passeggiata.
Ora mi resta a compiere l’osservazione, per così dire, generale sulla
struttura della città, di far menzione della sua interna divisione per
quartieri o regioni, della sua suddivisione in isole o comprensorii di
case isolate. Una carta iconografica degli Scavi del 1868 unita alla
Nuova Serie del Giornale degli Scavi e che può dirsi una Pianta di
Pompei, dimostra questa città divisa in nove regioni, delle quali non
apparirebbe scavata interamente che la settima, buona parte della
sesta, un’isola della prima, una della nona e cinque della ottava ed
una, cioè l’anfiteatro, della seconda. La regione settima vedesi
ripartita in quattordici isole, della seconda delle quali è fornita una
pianta, e la sesta ne ha sterrate undici. Tutte le isole poi avevano
una propria denominazione, desunta forse dal principale suo
proprietario, siccome è manifesto dalla epigrafe, che ho già riportata
e che per la prima volta venne edita dal Mazois [115], che ne apprese
denominarsi Insula Arriana Polliana, quella ove trovavansi ad
affittare le botteghe, colle pergole ed i cenacoli equestri di Gneo
Alifio Nigidio Maggiore. Argomentando da questa nomenclatura, il
chiarissimo archeologo De Petra crede potersi denominare l’insula
prima della regio prima Popidiana Augustiana, perchè il proprietario
principale della casa che in essa si trova, finora appellata del
Citarista, risulta dalle graffite epigrafi publicate dal Zangemeister [116]
essere stato Lucio Popidio Secondo, coll’aggiuntogli nome di
Augustiano, forse per un sacerdozio di Augusto da lui esercitato [117].
Con siffatto criterio non sarà forse impossibile negli ulteriori
disterramenti giungere a discoprire la più parte delle denominazioni,
delle insulæ di tutte le regiones.
Entrati nella città, ho già detto in addietro la profonda e solenne
impressione di dolore che subito vi produce. Queste vie deserte e
mute, fiancheggiate da edifizj scoperti di tetto e smantellati, diroccati
la massima parte interamente del loro piano superiore; questo lungo
ordine di case da un lato e dall’altro succedentisi, numerizzate e
recanti qui e qua affissi in caratteri rossi e neri di spettacoli, di
pigioni, di raccomandazioni, di voti, di annunzj industriali, o iscrizioni
bizzarre; questi emblemi sovrastanti alle tabernæ o botteghe e
queste pitture che talvolta ne decorano la fronte; questi solchi che
vedete profondamente impressi nella pur solida pietra vesuviana
onde tutte le strade pompejane sono lastricate lasciati dal
trascorrere de’ frequenti veicoli, vi fanno credere e persuadere che
l’immane cadavere sia caldo tuttavia, che il suo cuore abbia dato
appena il suo palpito supremo, che questa città soltanto jeri fosse
piena di vita e di azione. Un sentimento adunque di sublime pietà
s’indonna di voi dinanzi a tanta rovina, come precisamente se la
catastrofe fosse l’opera appena della precorsa notte.
Chiama poi specialmente la nostra osservazione il vedere come tutte
le vie sieno da ambe le parti costeggiate da un rialzo o marciapiede.
Non essendo ampie, questo sistema, adottato del resto anche
altrove in tutte le vie consolari e militari, rendeva più facile la
circolazione a piedi: perocchè l’un margine valesse a chi andava,
l’altro a chi veniva: entrambi poi ad evitare l’urto delle ruote dei carri
e delle bighe o d’altri plaustri e quello dei cavalli che tenevano il
mezzo. Il qual mezzo della via, per laterali rialzi, costituiva quasi un
letto di torrente, e giovava appunto al trascorrimento delle acque
piovane, le quali in tempi d’acquazzoni o di lunghe piogge, atteso
anche il declivio della città che degradava, come più volte dissi, al
mare e che però precipitavansi dalla parte più alta, convertendosi in
torrente, avrebbero altrimenti rese impraticabili le vie e innondate
ben anco le abitazioni.
A tale effetto si riscontrano di tratto in tratto in questo mezzo delle
vie come degli spiragli quadrati protetti da inferiate, per i quali le
dette acque piovane mettevansi, rivelando altresì come di sotto vi
fossero opportuni condotti che poi sfogavansi nel Sarno; tal che
l’edilizia d’allora nulla avrebbe di certo ad imparare dalla moderna,
alla quale si può francamente affermare essere stata in cotali opere
maestra.
L’abate Domenico Romanelli, nel suo Viaggio a Pompei, osservò
eziandio in tutto il corso principale della città nel rialto di queste
viottole, com’egli chiama i marciapiedi, alcuni forami che servivano
senza fallo per attaccarvi i bestiami, se taluno avesse dovuto
trattenersi, ovvero entrare nelle botteghe o nelle case; a un dipresso
come in Firenze e altrove vedonsi per lo stesso scopo infissi ancora
nelle muraglie de’ più cospicui palazzi de’ grossi anelli in ferro od in
bronzo artisticamente lavorati, ond’esservi accomandati, cioè, i
palafreni de’ cavalieri visitatori.
L’inglese che visita Pompei se ne parte adunque con una disillusione
di più per l’amor proprio del suo paese e massime de la sua Londra.
Egli che sin a quel giorno ha per avventura attribuito ad esso il vanto
dei provvidi marciapiedi delle sue vie, s’accorge invece esserne
stato preceduto da quasi diciotto secoli da Pompei, tanto piccola in
comparazione della sua popolosa capitale. Oh shocking!
Per transitare poi dall’un marciapiede all’altro, senza l’incomodo
della scossa che si riceve dallo scendere l’uno e dalla fatica dello
ascendere l’altro, fatica pure sensibile in un clima meridionale, a’
capi delle vie trovansi collocati uno o più grossi macigni a superficie
piana nel mezzo, i quali essendo all’altezza de’ marciapiedi,
servivano come di transito o ponte. Quei macigni sono poi collocati
in modo che i carri e le bighe possano fra gli spazj laterali trovar
passaggio alle ruote loro. Di tal guisa, anche in tempo di pioggia era
lecito attraversar la via senza entrare nel grosso letto delle acque
che tra i due rialzi scorrevano come gore o torrenti.
Ho già ricordato come il lastricato di queste vie si costituisse di larghi
massi di pietra del Vesuvio, i quali sebbene appajono irregolari, cioè
tagliati ad esagoni, ottagoni e trapezj e quasi disordinatamente
posati, pure per virtù di un tenacissimo cemento che vi sembra
pietrificato, si uniscono abbastanza bene per guisa, che anche
adesso, dopo i molti anni da che sono scoperti, vi sia ben
conservato. La base su cui posano è formata di altro strato di
acciottolato e di arena, com’era uso generale degli antichi che
siffatto metodo chiamavano sternere; onde dal participio di questo
verbo, stratum, ne derivò alle vie la denominazione di stratæ, e la
nostra parola italiana strada. Tito Livio fa menzione di codesto
sistema di viabilità in quel passo: Censores vias sternendas silice in
urbe, et extra urbem glarea substernendas, marginandasque [118].
In parecchie delle vie vedesi per certi tratti codesto selciato assai
sconnesso e negletto, ma tale nondimeno da lasciar credere che
possa essere ciò stato l’effetto o del tremuoto o dell’ultimo
cataclisma. Nondimeno vi si ravvisa a prima giunta la trascuratezza
di sua antica manutenzione, e in verità me ne feci argomento di
sorpresa da che a più dati avessi raccolto prove di sommo encomio
per l’antica edilizia pompejana; ma un articolo dell’egregio F.
Salvatore Dino me ne diè plausibilissima ragione, avendo
rammentato come la manutenzione delle vie (munire vias)
incombesse, per la legge Giulia Municipale che fu il fondamento
delle costituzioni comunali italiche, ai proprietarj delle case per quel
tratto che stava a queste davanti. Non essendo quindi a cura del
Municipio la conservazione delle strade, la negligenza e l’impotenza
dei detti proprietarj produceva quegli sconci spesso dannosi al
traffico ed al passaggio cittadino. Dove da un lato erano publici
edifici, la spesa della manutenzione dividevasi tra il proprietario da
un lato e il comune dall’altro e da siffatto obbligo che era tra i tanti
munera publica et privata, non poteasi alcuno esentuare e gli edili a
cui apparteneva questa parte dell’amministrazione comunale
avevano tali facoltà, che nel caso in cui quell’obbligo non si
compisse, potessero indirettamente costringere i cittadini alla sua
esecuzione. Così nella citata legge Giulia era prescritto che se alcun
proprietario non attendeva alla conservazione della rispettiva parte di
strada, l’edile la desse in appalto, annunziandola dieci giorni prima e
naturalmente le spese che occorrevano venivano fornite in
proporzione da’ proprietarj caduti in contravvenzione [119]. Altrettanto
dicasi dei margini. Della giustizia delle quali osservazioni se ne può
avere una prova nel riscontro delle vie peggiormente tenute avanti le
case meno belle.
Due strade principali intersecavano Pompei: l’una verso settentrione
che immettevasi nella via Popiliana e conduceva a Nola: l’altra si
distaccava dalla Domiziana in Napoli — non Domizia come la più
parte scrive, perocchè questa, testimonio Cicerone, fosse nelle
Gallie [120] — passava per Ercolano ed Oplonte ed attraversando la
città riusciva per la porta Isiaca lungo il Sarno e metteva capo a
Nocera.
 Via Consolare. Vol. I. Cap. VII. Le Mura, ecc.

Grandi e piccole sono le vie sinora scoperte: la Consolare è tra le

prime. Era questa la via che ora accennai staccarsi dalla Domiziana
e percorrendo la suindicata località formava una diramazione della
famosa via Appia, detta la regina delle vie [121], la quale assunse il
nome da Appio censore e partendo dalla Porta Capena di Roma, o
piuttosto dal Settizonio, e giù giù, comunicava colla Domiziana,
giusta la memoria lasciataci da Strabone: Tertia via a Regio per
Brutios et Lucanos et Samnium in Campaniam ducens, atque in
Appiam viam [122]. Di questa, fuori della città, come la Latina e la
Valeria, non se ne hanno più che pochi ed appena discernibili
avanzi. La più parte tuttavia di questi appartiene alla seconda.
Più anguste erano le vie di Pompei dal lato occidentale e più
irregolari: presso al Foro ed a’ teatri appajono più larghe e diritte,
come infatti lo esigeva la maggiore affluenza di gente che per quelle
traeva.
Come tali vie interne della città si chiamassero in antico non oserei
qui affermare: l’indagine sarebbe troppo ardua: la denominazione
che si hanno di presente ebbero dalle particolarità che vi si
ritrovarono. La Via dell’Abbondanza, a cagion d’esempio, chiamata
dapprima Via de’ Mercanti, per la continuità delle botteghe che
vedevansi dall’uno e dall’altro lato succedersi, mutò di poi nome a
causa della figura scolpita sulla prima fontana che vi si incontra.
Questa via doveva essere chiusa da porta dal lato del Foro, perchè
tuttavia si osservano nel pavimento i buchi occupati dagli arpioni e i
piombi che li suggellavano. La Via del Lupanare, dove erano la
fabbrica del sapone e le case di Sirico, di cui a suo luogo m’avverrà
di dire, ricevette la denominazione dal luogo destinato a’ piaceri
sensuali, che in essa vi è, e il cui uso è anche di troppo attestato da
pitture e iscrizioni graffite le più indecenti. La Via d’Augusto le è
contigua; quella della Fortuna ha il tempio dedicato a questa volubile
Diva; quella del Mercurio, quella delle Terme, ove appunto sono i
bagni publici, e quella delle Tombe o de’ Sepolcri, sono le principali
fin qui scoperte. Delle minori, o vicoli, nominerò alcune. Il viottolo de’
Dodici Dei, — Dii Majorum Gentium — dove sull’angolo vedesi una
pittura rappresentante le dodici grandi divinità, che Ennio nominò in
questi due versi:

Iuno, Vesta, Ceres, Diana, Minerva, Venus, Mars,

Mercurius, Jovi, Neptunus, Volcanus, Apollo.

Al disotto sono dipinti due serpenti, come in guardia d’un altare

sacro agli Dei Lari, epperò dagli antichi appellato Lararium: il viottolo
del Calcidico, quello del Balcone pensile, dall’unico balcone che
ancor si vede sorretto da molti sostegni per conservarlo, e quello fra
la Via Stabiana e il Vicolo Tortuoso.
In ogni via eranvi poi fontane publiche, a cui l’acqua proveniva dalle
più alte sorgenti del Sarno; così distribuivasi essa eziandio per le
case più agiate, nelle quali veggonsi ancora condotti di piombo
ramificati ascosamente dentro le pareti. Alle fontane pubbliche
ricorreva ognuno ad attinger acqua con idrie, anfore e sitellæ, ed
esse veggonsi pur adesso a vergogna delle nostre città, le quali
risentono troppo spesso del difetto di ciò che dovrebbe entrare non