INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
"An Examination of the Factors Influencing Teachers' Choice of  
Corporal Punishment as a Disciplinary Measure on students in Kenyan  
Public Secondary Schools in Masaba North, Kisii County"  
Dr. Naftal Michira Nyang’ara*  
School of Education, Laikipia University, P.O. Box 1100-20300, Nyahururu- Kenya Department of  
Psychology, Laikipia University, Kenya  
*Corresponding author  
DOI: https://doi.org/10.51244/IJRSI.2025.1210000314  
Received: 07 November 2025; Accepted: 15 November 2025; Published: 21 November 2025  
ABSTRACT  
Corporal punishment was officially banned in Kenyan schools in 2001 through a government circular and the  
Children's Act. This notwithstanding, in order to enforce and maintain order in schools, teachers have chosen  
corporal punishment to realize this. Despite the official ban, reports from studies and information from both print  
and electronic media have revealed that the practice continues in many Kenyan schools. However, there is little  
information on the factors that influence teachers’ choice of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure on  
students. This study therefore was an examination of the factors influencing teachers' choice of corporal  
punishment as a disciplinary measure on students in Kenyan Public Secondary Schools in Masaba North, Kisii  
County, Kenya. To achieve this objective the study adopted a descriptive survey research design. The study  
adopted a descriptive survey design. Stratified random sampling was used to sample schools where teacher and  
student respondents were drawn from. Simple random sampling technique was used to select a sample size of  
200 participants from a target population of 400 participants. Data was collected using Teacher Corporal  
Punishment Questionnaire (TCPQI). Data was collected using a self-administered questionnaire. The study  
utilized both qualitative and quantitative methods in data collection. These included structured questionnaire,  
interview schedule and document analysis. Data was analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively in the light of  
the research questions. Data obtained was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS Version  
22.0). Qualitative data was analyzed thematically. The study revealed that; 45.5%) of the participants had not  
obtained any alternative training methods while a simple majority (54.5%) had undergone training in alternative  
discipline methods hence a source of information on teachers’ choice about corporal punishment. Majority  
(66.7%) of the participants felt that they were unsupported on matters of discipline therefore corporal  
punishment was the way to go, whilst (43.3%) indicated that they had all the support from management on  
matters regarding student behavior, (60%) of the participants disagreed with the statement that ineffective  
policies was an important consideration , whilst (40%) agreed with the statement that ineffective policies was an  
important consideration on the use of corporal punishment, majority (60%) of the participants agreed that high  
indiscipline cases was a determinant to teachers’ choices to use corporal punishment, whilst 33% of the  
participants did not believe so. A simple majority of (53%) reported that lack of consultation on the ban of  
corporal punishment was not a factor that determined their choice of corporal punishment whilst (46.6%)  
reported that it was a factor that informed their choice on corporal punishment. The study makes the following  
recommendations; Strengthenment of Institutional Support Systems: Since the findings of the study revealed that  
66.7% of teachers felt unsupported, this means therefore that schools and the Ministry of Education should  
establish robust, easily accessible support systems which includes; clear disciplinary policies, mentorship  
programs, and on-site behavioral specialists who includes school counselors to help teachers manage challenging  
student behaviors effectively. Mandatory and Comprehensive Training: While 54.5% received some training, the  
high prevalence of corporal punishment suggests the training may be inadequate or not universally applied. The  
government should implement mandatory, high-quality, and ongoing professional development in positive  
discipline methods, conflict resolution, and behavior management. Monitor and Enforce the Ban: The continued  
Page 3628  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
practice despite the 2001 ban suggests a lack of enforcement. Clearer mechanisms for monitoring compliance,  
reporting incidents anonymously, and implementing fair disciplinary action against repeat offenders are  
necessary to uphold the law. Promotion of a Whole-School Culture Change: Disciplinary reform needs to be a  
school-wide initiative, involving administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Fostering a positive school  
climate focused on mutual respect and non-violent conflict resolution is crucial.  
Keywords: Teachers' Choice of Corporal Punishment, a disciplinary measure on students  
BACKGROUND INFORMATION  
Corporal punishment has its recorded origin in classical civilizations which includes; Greek, Roman and  
Egyptian. According to Holden, G. W. (2002) the use of corporal punishment in medieval Europe was  
influenced by the medieval church which saw flagellation as a common means of self discipline. In most schools  
globally, corporal punishment which involves striking the student a given number of times in a generally  
methodical and premeditated ceremony, is the most common form of disciplinary action. According to Straus, M.  
A., & Stewart, J. H. (2000), by the time American children reach the age of four, 94% of them have been  
spanked in school by a teacher. In some cases, corporal punishment is highly dependent on a child’s age, M. A.,  
& Stewart, J. H. (2000). Parents are most likely to report daily use of corporal punishment when a child is 12-18  
months Nikoforakis, N. (2008). More than half of American parents still use corporal punishment at age of 12  
years (Straus & Stewart, 2000). However, according to Jepkoech, C. (2012) corporal punishment, while  
potentially effective in stopping immediate behavioral transgressions, may have a range of unintended negative  
effects on children. Corporal punishment is however, a common practice in many schools in Kenya as revealed  
in Benbenishty, R. (2005).  
Although corporal punishment was abolished in many states in America, teachers still use it to manage student  
discipline in schools (Thomson; 2002, Smith, 2008). This shows that corporal punishment ban has not been fully  
implemented in schools in America. This is because teachers feel that corporal punishment is effective in  
managing student discipline in schools and its ban results in increase in indiscipline (Hornsby, 2003). Despite the  
fact that corporal punishment was abolished in Australia, teachers still use it as a last resort to manage student  
discipline (Brister, 1999).  
According to Wissow (2002), discipline is the guidance of children’s moral, emotional and physical  
development, enabling children to take responsibility for themselves when they are older. It involves teaching  
children the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, and it makes them aware of the values  
and actions that are acceptable in their family and society. Positive discipline includes; praising the child for  
doing something good or for stopping doing something inappropriate; discipline can also be negative and this  
includes; smacking a child for doing something wrong. Positive discipline involves helping children to  
understand why certain behaviour is unacceptable and other behaviour is acceptable. Negative discipline focuses  
on doing what you are told in order to avoid something unpleasant (Wissow, 2000). The common school  
offences are stealing, dishonest, sex offences, disobedience, truancy, assault and insult, drug offences, suicide,  
strike or mass demonstrations (Jepkoech C, 2012).  
Disciplinary actions have been applied by school administrators and teachers as an integral tool in the  
enforcement and maintenance of discipline in public secondary schools in Kenya. Discipline of students has  
been a major concern for school management (Ritter & Hancock, 2007). Benbenishty (2005) postulated that  
indiscipline in schools is ranked as a major problem among learners. Biglan (2003) states that the school  
management employs a number of strategies in maintenance of school discipline.  
Despite abolition of corporal punishment in the year 2001, the economic, social and political systems in Kenya  
still have a strong element of authoritarian leadership and some teachers, parents, education officials and learners  
have deep-seated beliefs in the merits of corporal punishment Jepkoech C, (2012). This makes corporal  
punishment to be one of the most common form of punishment in Kenyan schools. It involves teachers striking  
students with a "cane": children are beaten on other parts of the body: on the back, the arms, legs, the soles of the  
feet, and sometimes even the face and head. Boys are hit on the backside, while girls are hit on the palm of the  
Page 3629  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
hand. According to Jepkoech C (2012), the major factor in the global spread of corporal punishment was  
colonialism. From their inception, formal schools in western capitalist societies have been designed to discipline  
bodies as well as to regulate minds. Depending on the nature of the misbehavior of the child and the harshness of  
the teacher and school, a student might receive anywhere from two to twenty or more cane strokes at one time.  
Corporal punishment has been considered as a form of torture. According to the United Nations Convention  
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, (U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984),  
entered into force June 26, 1987, torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or  
mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person  
information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of  
having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of  
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence  
of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity.  
Many opponents of corporal punishment argue that instructors may also discipline a child by assigning  
nonabusive physical tasks. They state that teachers can ask students to perform light chores, to water or weed a  
school garden, or to fix what they have broken: "Learners who build chairs are not apt to break them. Learners  
who wash walls are not apt to make them dirty on purpose. If learners are reinforced for keeping their schoolyard  
neat and clean, they are less likely to throw trash on it," according to the Namibian Ministry of Education and  
Culture (Jeff Otieno & Sekoh-Ochieng, 1998) advocates state that these punishments should be administered in a  
thoughtfully and not in an excessive or exploitative manner. According to Jepkoech C. (2012), for most Kenyan  
children, violence is a regular part of the school experience. Teachers use caning, slapping, and whipping to  
maintain classroom discipline and to punish children for poor academic performance.  
A report by Human Rights Watch conducted in selected schools in Rift Valley Province, Kenya, in 2003 shows  
that in all the 20 primary schools and 20 secondary schools sampled, there was use of corporal punishment. The  
Kenyan government has made efforts to curb the use of corporal punishment in schools by making it illegal. This  
was first done through legal notice No.56 (2001), Childrens Act (2001) Article 91 and Republic of Kenya (2010)  
Constitution: Bill of Rights that out laws all forms of corporal punishment in the Kenya, it is however claimed  
that the use of corporal punishment has escalated violence in schools. This consequently justified a study about  
the factors influencing teachers' choice of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure on students in Kenyan  
Public Secondary Schools.  
Statement of the Problem  
Different disciplinary actions have been used as an integral tool in the maintenance of students’ discipline and  
order while students are in school. Justification for any disciplinary action should be based on its judiciousness  
and the function it is deemed to play. Some modes of disciplinary actions may be inappropriate and constitute  
unsound educational practices. In some instances different punishments are prescribed to different students for  
the same mistake. This being the case, it still remains the role of the teacher to maintain discipline and order in a  
school to guarantee learning and educational success of learners. In doing this majority of the teachers use  
corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure on Kenyan students. This is done despite the official ban of  
corporal punishment in Kenyan schools by the Kenya government in the year 2001. Reports from both electronic  
and print media have indicated that this practice is common in many public schools. There is very little  
documented information on the factors influencing teachers’ choice of corporal punishment on students.  
This study therefore was an examination of the factors influencing teachers' choice of corporal punishment as a  
disciplinary measure on students in Kenyan Public Secondary Schools in Masaba North, Kisii County, Kenya.  
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK  
This study was guided by the unified theory of punishment as postulated by Thomas Brooks. In his  
understanding of punishment, Brooks coherently presented his thesis in three sections: The first explores in  
Page 3630  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
detail the philosophical underpinnings of ‘general theories’ of punishment which includes; retributivism;  
deterrence; rehabilitation; and, restorative justice.  
Brooks’ preferred model is a unified theory of punishment, which blends each of the previous six theories into a  
single, cohesive theoretical approach, which Brooks claims, rests upon the idea that different penal goals are  
compatible. This pluralist approach has its roots in late nineteenth-century British Idealism that popularised the  
works of Kant and Hegel. It is indeed compelling due to the complimentary use of each theory in combating  
negative aspects of the other, not to mention its flexibility ad infinitum in application. This may be the most ideal  
for a school setup, where punishment should aim to have an all-round effect on the learner. The consideration of  
how crime is punished is dealt with conceptually and operationally through a clear and consistent marrying of  
theory and practice, with extremely useful hypothetical scenarios that challenge a researcher to engage with their  
own moral views as well as those of society’s legal jurisprudence. Brooks reaches a comprehensive conclusion  
that collates theory and practice in a manner suitable to school administrators and discipline enforcers.  
Brooks’s theory however, overconcentrates on punishment in form of imprisonment and does not consider non-  
penal responses to crime, such as community sanctions or probation, as forms of punishment. It fails to address  
crimes committed in schools and other institutions that do not necessarily call upon response from the state or  
judicial agencies. He however introduces the significance of tying punishment to existing theories. He argues  
that it is important to understand punishment as a practice informed by theory. This can be of great benefit to  
teachers and administrators in schools and more particularly Kenyan public secondary schools in Masaba North,  
Kisii County, Kenya  
3.0 Research Design  
The instruments of data collection were questionnaires, observation guide, interview schedule, focus group  
discussion guide, and document analysis guide. The content validity of the questionnaire, document analysis and  
interview schedule was addressed by research experts and their comments and suggestions were incorporated in  
the instruments. To enhance reliability, piloting was done in 10 schools. Test-retest method was used to estimate  
the reliability of the instruments. Quantitative data on level of use of Corporall Punishment and level of student  
discipline collected by use of questionnaires and document analysis was analyzed using frequency counts,  
percentages and means.  
To achieve this objective, the study adopted ex-post facto research design. Simple random sampling technique  
was used to select a sample size of 200 participants from a target population of 400. Data was collected using  
Teachers’ Corporal Punishment Testing Questionnaire (TCPTQI) using a self administered questionnaire. Data  
was analyzed using descriptive statistics.  
Masaba North of Kisii County, Kenya was chosen because it was considered as rich of information sought in this  
study. Data from central Bureau of Statics has indicated that Masaba North Sub-county of Kisii County is  
located in one of the most populated locations within Kisii County, this sub-county had a high number of  
primary schools to meet the needs of the rising population. The study, whose main concern was an examination  
of the factors influencing teachers' choice of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure on students in  
Kenyan public secondary schools in Masaba North, Kisii County, Kenya".  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
This study was an examination of the factors influencing teachers' choice of corporal punishment as a  
disciplinary measure on students in Kenyan public secondary schools in Masaba North, Kisii County, Kenya".  
The study sought to find out from participants that factors that influenced their choice of corporal punishment as  
a disciplinary measure despite the official ban through legal notice No.56 (2001), Childrens Act (2001) Article  
91 and Republic of Kenya (2010) Constitution: Bill of Rights that out laws all forms of corporal punishment in  
Kenya. The results are presented in table 1.  
Table 1: Factors influencing teachers' choice of corporal punishment  
Page 3631  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
Item Statement  
SD  
%
D
A
SA  
%
Total  
%
%
%
32  
1
I have no training in alternative discipline methods including 30  
guidance and counseling  
15.5  
22.5  
100  
2
3
I feel unsupported in managing student behavior  
40  
26.7  
26.7  
20  
20  
13.3  
20  
100  
100  
I have a feeling that the current disciplinary policies are 33.3  
ineffective  
4
5
6
I belief that corporal punishment is a necessary and 13  
sometimes ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases  
20  
26.7  
33.3  
20  
33.3  
13.3  
46.7  
100  
100  
100  
I was not consulted on the ban of corporal punishment  
40  
13.3  
20  
I have a strong desire towards the reinstatement of corporal 13.3  
punishment  
The data obtained indicated that (45.5%) of the participants had not obtained any alternative training methods  
which was a factor that informed on the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure while a simple  
majority of (54.5%) had undergone training in alternative discipline methods including guidance and counseling  
and consequently utilizing the available methods which included guidance and counseling as the available  
disciplinary measure. During a focused group discussion students reported that indeed there was corporal  
punishment in school and they further reported that they sought counseling services from school counselors.  
Busienei (2012) corporal punishment is more effective than alternative methods.  
On the factor of participants being unsupported in managing student behavior (66.7%) of the participants revealed  
that they were supported and therefore use of corporal punishment was not a factor to concern them to choose  
corporal punishment as the only available option on matters discipline in school, whilst (43.3%) indicated that  
they had all the support from management on matters regarding student behaviour and therefore this was not an  
important consideration of utilizing corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure.  
The findings revealed that majority (60%) of the participants disagreed with the statement that ineffective policies  
were important considerations to choosing the utilization of corporal punishment, whilst (40%) agreed with the  
statement that ineffective policies were important considerations on the choice of corporal punishment as a  
disciplinary measure in the absence of alternative disciplinary measures. Teachers are the implementers of  
policies at the school level (Ouma et al, 2013)  
With regard to the factor whether teachers believed that corporal punishment was necessary and sometimes  
ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases that informed teachers choice of disciplinary measure, the findings  
revealed that majority (60%) of the participants agreed that corporal punishment was necessary and sometimes  
was an ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases and consequently an important factor on teachers’ choice of  
use of corporal punishment, while 33% of the participants did not believe that high indiscipline cases was a  
determinant to teachers’ choices to use corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure at school. According to  
Omboto (2013) teachers had a negative attitude towards ban of corporal punishment in schools.  
The findings revealed that lack of consultation on the ban of corporal punishment by government was a critical  
factor that informed teachers’ choice of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure by a simple majority of  
(53%), while (46.6%) of the participants revealed that lack of consultation on the ban of corporal punishment  
was a critical factor on teachers’ choice to use corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure on students to  
correct undesirable learning behaviors.  
Page 3632  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
The strong desire towards the reinstatement of corporal punishment by majority of the participants (66.7%) was  
a very clear determinant to teachers’ choice of utilizing corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure on  
students in Kenyan public secondary schools in Masaba North, Kisii county, Kenya, while 33.3% of the teachers  
disagreed with the statement and therefore the choice of using corporal punishment was not informed by a strong  
desire to the reinstatement of corporal punishment.  
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS  
This study was an examination of the factors influencing teachers' choice to use corporal punishment as a  
disciplinary measure on students in Kenyan public secondary schools in Masaba North, Kisii County, Kenya".  
The study sought to find out from participants factors that influenced their choice of corporal punishment as a  
disciplinary measure despite the official ban through legal notice No.56 (2001), Childrens Act (2001) Article 91  
and Republic of Kenya (2010) Constitution: Bill of Rights that out laws all forms of corporal punishment in  
Kenya.  
Based on the findings of the study, a conclusion was made that despite the ban on the use of corporal punishment  
in Kenyan schools in 2001, the practice is still rampant in many schools with full knowledge and support of  
school management. The study findings revealed that all the six factors were critical considerations to teachers’  
choice to use corporal punishment as a disciplinary in school.  
The findings revealed that majority (60%) of the participants disagreed with the statement that ineffective  
policies was an important consideration to choosing the utilization of corporal punishment, whilst (40%) agreed  
with the statement that ineffective policies was an important consideration of informing the choice of corporal  
punishment as a disciplinary measure in the absence of alternative disciplinary measures.  
With regard to the aspect of whether teachers believed that corporal punishment was a necessary and sometimes  
ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases that informed teachers choice of disciplinary measure, the findings  
revealed that majority (60%) of the participants agreed that corporal punishment was necessary and sometimes  
ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases and consequently an important factor on teachers’ choice of use of  
corporal punishment, while 33% of the participants did not believe that high indiscipline cases was a determinant  
to teachers’ choices to use corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure at school.  
With regard to the factor whether teachers believed that corporal punishment is a necessary and sometimes  
ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases that informed teachers choice of disciplinary measure, the findings  
revealed that that majority (60%) of the participants agreed that corporal punishment was necessary and  
sometimes ultimate solution for high-indiscipline cases and consequently an important factor on teachers’ choice  
of use of corporal punishment, while (33%) of the participants did not believe that high indiscipline cases was a  
determinant to teachers’ choices to use corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure at school. The study made  
the following recommendations; the Ministry of Education should establish robust, easily accessible support  
systems which includes; clear disciplinary policies, mentorship programs, and on-site behavioral specialists who  
includes school counselors to help teachers manage challenging student behaviors effectively. Mandatory and  
Comprehensive Training: While 54.5% received some training, the high prevalence of corporal punishment  
suggests the training may be inadequate or not universally applied. The government should implement  
mandatory, high-quality, and ongoing professional development in positive discipline methods, conflict  
resolution, and behavior management. Monitor and Enforce the Ban: The continued practice despite the 2001  
ban suggests a lack of enforcement. Clearer mechanisms for monitoring compliance, reporting incidents  
anonymously, and implementing fair disciplinary action against repeat offenders are necessary to uphold the law.  
Promotion of a Whole-School Culture Change: Disciplinary reform needs to be a school-wide initiative,  
involving administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Fostering a positive school climate focused on mutual  
respect and non-violent conflict resolution is crucial.  
Page 3633  
www.rsisinternational.org  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF RESEARCH AND SCIENTIFIC INNOVATION (IJRSI)  
ISSN No. 2321-2705 | DOI: 10.51244/IJRSI |Volume XII Issue X October 2025  
REFERENCES  
1. Benbenishty, R. (2005). School violence in Context: Culture, Neighborhood, Family, school, and a.  
Gender. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.  
2. Biglan, A. (2003). Translating what we know about the context of anti-social behavior into a a. lower  
prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 479–492.  
3. Brister C (1999). Corporal Punishment in Australian Schools. Available: url: http:// www  
.nt/gov.au  
4. Brooks, D. Christopher (2012). Space and Consequences: The Impact of Different Formal a.  
Learning Spaces on Instructor and Student Behavior. Journal of Learning Spaces,  
5. Busienei A (2012). Alternative Methods to Corporal Punishment and their Efficacy. J. of a. Emerging  
Trends in Educational Res. and Policy Studies, 3 (2), 155-161.  
6. Holden, G. W. (2002). “Perspectives on the effects of corporal punishment. Psychological a. Bulletin,  
, 590 595.  
7. Hornsby G (2003). Teachers and Counseling. Routledge: Falmer Human Rights Watch (2005). Spare  
the Child. Available: http://www.hrw.org  
8. Jepkoech, C. (2012). The Effect of Training and Development on Staff Performance: A Case Study of  
ostal Corporation of Kenya. (Unpublished master's thesis). School of Business, Kabarak University,  
Kenya.  
9. characteristics” Clinical Child & Family Psychology Review. New York.  
10. Nikoforakis, N. (2008). Punishment and counter punishment in public good games:can we really a.  
govern ourselves. Journal of Public Economics. , 91–112.  
11. Omboto JC (2013). Preparedness of Teachers to Maintain Discipline in the Absence of Corporal a.  
Punishment in Bondo District, Kenya (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Maseno University, Kenya. 12.  
Ouma MA, Simatwa EMW, Serem TDK (2013).  
12. Management of Pupil Discipline in Kenya: A a. Case Study of Kisumu Municipality. Available  
online@http://www. Interesjournals.org. 13. Republic of Kenya (2013). The Basic Education Act.  
Chapter 212. Nairobi: Government Printer.  
13. Ritter, J., & Hancock, D. R. (2007). Exploring the relationship between certification sources, a.  
experience levels, and classroom management orientations of classroom Teachers. New York:  
The Oxford Press.  
14. Smith EM (2010). The Role of School Discipline in Combating Violence in Schools in the East a.  
London Region (Unpublished Master’s thesis). Uni. Fort Hare.  
15. Straus, M. A., & Stewart, J. H. (2000). “Corporal punishment by American parents: National a. data  
on prevalencechronicity, severity, and duration, in relation to child and family 17. Thompson C  
(2002). School crisis of Discipline. The Citizen, p.6. April 24 U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), U.N.  
Convention Against Torture (CAT):  
16. Wissow, L. S. (2002). “Child discipline in the first three years of life” . New York: Cambridge a.  
University Press,.  
Page 3634  
www.rsisinternational.org