Running head: RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT

Rationalising punishment:

A cyberethnography of Filipino teachers’ resistance to Positive Discipline

Jose Eos Trinidad,

The University of Chicago/ Ateneo de Manila University

Accepted at Improving Schools

2022
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 2

Abstract

How and why do teachers resist policies that are supposedly for school improvement? In the Philippines,

public school teachers voiced their opposition when a bill in Congress promoted positive rather than

punitive discipline. Through a cyberethnography of teachers' social media interactions, the study

illustrates how three factors influenced teachers’ resistance to this policy: comparisons were made on

past vs. present students, teachers vs. lawmakers, Eastern vs. Western discipline; fear was sown through

the bill’s negative effects for students and teachers; and blame was placed on parental and social

permissiveness, which then justified the need for stricter discipline. The paper suggests that these three

themes form the basis of teachers’ rationalising punishment, which I argue is an operative schema in

their resistance to positive discipline. Rather than discredit their reasoning, I explore the mechanisms

and implications of having this schema, particularly in light of efforts to engage teachers’ resistance to

policies that supposedly improve schools.

Keywords:

positive discipline, punitive discipline, punishment, Philippine education, cyberethnography

The author can be contacted by email at jtrinidad@uchicago.edu

RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 3

Rationalising Punishment: A Cyberethnography of Filipino Teachers’ Resistance to Positive

Discipline

Introduction

Classroom management and student discipline are among the most important concerns for

teachers in primary and secondary schools. Without discipline, classes are overtaken by noisy and

misbehaving students such that the teacher cannot focus on the task of teaching (Ulla, 2016). Often,

there is a continuum between how teachers or parents practice discipline: On the one hand, punitive

discipline happens when authorities use physical violence, shaming, or threats to correct a child’s

behaviour (Kelley et al., 1990). On the other hand, positive discipline is an approach that is “non-violent

and respectful of the child as a learner, […] solution-focused, and based on child development

principles” (Durrant, 2011, pp. 2–3). The Philippines provides an interesting case because it ranks high

in the use of punitive discipline with as much as 76 percent of children receiving some form of physical

punishment (Runyan et al., 2010; Sarmiento & Rudolf, 2017). Although efforts were made to improve

this situation in schools, these efforts have received strong pushback from teachers. This present study

documents how and why teachers have resisted positive discipline, and has practical implications for

understanding teachers’ perceptions, enacting school policies, and equipping teachers through training

and professional development.

More than a study about Philippine education and positive discipline, this research investigates

the dynamics of resistance to school improvement. It is an investigation into how teachers transact,

explain, and rationalise their preference in using a particular discipline strategy. From a practical

perspective, knowing teachers’ schema and reasons for a discipline preference will help principals,

lawmakers and education administrators engage with teachers’ ideas for the proper discipline of

children. By being more mindful of their schema or their representation/model of what is happening,

other stakeholders may more fruitfully see how to address teachers’ concerns. Aside from this practical

contribution, it also suggests a novel method for understanding teachers’ concerns not through surveys

or direct messages but through more subtle social media interactions.

RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 4

But what can a case on discipline tell us? Discipline is an important part of students’ growth

and experience. As means, discipline helps facilitate better teaching and learning while as an end, it is

often seen as intimately connected to character development and respect. More than these, discipline is

also a source of power in the school, and teachers’ use of it can have important consequences for

children’s experiences and developmental trajectories. It is thus no wonder that a policy that tries to

mandate how teachers use discipline would receive strong reactions from them—and such a case serves

as an important touchstone for understanding the logics of resistance to policies supposedly aimed at

school improvement.

In the following pages, I explore the process of rationalising punishment, presenting how some

Filipino public-school teachers justify their resistance to positive discipline, and emphasise punitive,

stricter forms of discipline. This rationalisation process is seen in the triple dynamics of comparisons,

fear, and blame. To show this, I first provide the context of school discipline, the positive discipline

bill, and the President’s vetoing of the bill. Second, I talk about the method and justification for using

cyberethnography. Third, I outline three themes operative in teachers’ resistance to positive discipline.

Lastly, I discuss these themes in relation to what is commonly known, and suggest a schema of how

people rationalise resistance to school improvement. It highlights how fear, blame, and comparisons

legitimise and make urgent the need for stricter measures of controlling student behaviour. Although

concentrating on a Philippine example, this research sheds light onto the larger issue of how teachers

make sense of policies, form resistance to efforts at “improving” schools, and what can be done to

engage their ideas.

Positive Discipline and Teachers’ Discontent

Students’ disruptive and antisocial behaviours often obstruct classroom instruction, inhibit

other students’ learning, and contribute to teachers’ burnout (Supaporn, 2000). Schools and teachers

often address these through discipline and classroom management strategies that span from broad

prevention to targeted interventions (Osher et al., 2010). Discipline can also span from punitive to

positive disciplinary practices (González, 2012). Punitive discipline practices—shaming, corporal

punishment, suspension, and expulsion—can label students as problematic, negatively affect them in
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 5

the long term, and have untoward effects on the classroom environment (Banzon-Librojo et al., 2017;

Perry & Morris, 2014). Positive discipline—also known as restorative or non-violent discipline—aims

to address the root of the behaviour problem, create solutions with students, restore good relationships

between the offending and offended parties, and emphasise non-violent ways of disciplining (Durrant,

2011; McCluskey et al., 2008). In many cases, the use of positive discipline strategies is part of a larger

school improvement project of better social and emotional climates for students (Seligman, 2019). But

as with any new initiative, these can be met with resistance from teachers (Trinidad, 2018).

While positive discipline is based on developmentally-appropriate, researched, and safe

interventions, there is a certain mistrust with its effectiveness. Admittedly, Filipinos’ concept of

discipline is still strongly influenced by punitive and/or physical measures like spanking, hitting,

shaming or threatening, and different explanations try to justify these behaviours (Alampay, 2014;

Runyan et al., 2010). Filipino parents think about the need to exercise control and show authority in

order for their children to have good character formation (Sanapo & Nakamura, 2011). Teachers

rationalise how positive discipline is different from how they were disciplined and complain that they

do not feel supported when carrying it out (Feuerborn & Tyre, 2016; Lohrmann et al., 2008). Thus,

incidences of punitive discipline and physical punishment continue to be present, with as much as 85

percent of Filipino children being yelled at, 76 percent being spanked at the buttocks, 58 percent being

pinched, and 12 percent being beat up (Runyan et al., 2010). In the education sector, a survey of 2,550

Filipino students revealed that the most common forms of punishment included verbal abuse (70%),

physical maltreatment (60.7%), and emotional, non-verbal abuse (45.8%) (see Serquina-Ramiro,

Madrid, and Amarillo, 1998 as referred in Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights Resource

Center, 2008).

Research on why Filipino parents prefer punitive discipline points to cultural beliefs like

children having no sense of right and wrong, parents needing to use fear to exercise their authority, or

their disciplining children the way they were disciplined by their own parents (Psychosocial Support

and Children’s Rights Resource Center, 2008). However, there has been less work on understanding

how Filipino teachers justify their resistance to positive discipline. A possible explanation is when

teachers fear that students’ lack of self-discipline turns into a pretext for future criminal activity (Burns
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 6

& Crawford, 1999). Another explanation stems from the penal populist discourse of being tough on

crime and antisocial behaviours, and having graver punishments for disobedience (Ancho & Park, 2013;

Curato, 2016). A third potential explanation is regarding misinformation and lack of training such that

positive discipline is equated to no discipline and that teachers have limited strategies for disciplining

students. To establish how teachers made sense of, and why they rejected, positive discipline, the

present research looks into events between 2018 and 2019 that highlighted the resistance.

In September 2018, the Philippines’ House Committee on Welfare of Children submitted House

Bill 8239 that sought to promote positive discipline and protect children from corporal and humiliating

punishment (Elemia, 2018). In October, the Philippine Senate passed their own version of the bill, and

the version in the House of Representatives was passed a month later on November 12 (Cepeda, 2018).

When the joint bill was submitted to the Malacañang Palace for signing, President Rodrigo Duterte

vetoed it on February 2019, mentioning that “this bill places such responsible disciplining of children

in the same category as humiliating and degrading forms of punishment, and condemns them all in one

broad stroke” (Ranada, 2019). A newspaper headline even focused on the President’s remark that

“Corporal punishment produces law-abiding citizens” (Geducos, 2019).

As the news on the promotion of positive discipline was gaining traction, there have been a

number of groups that have voiced their opposition. When the bill was just approved in the House, a

group called Teachers’ Dignity Coalition said that the bill was unnecessary because of the Department

of Education’s already strict implementation of the Child Protection Policy, and the anti-child abuse

law, which was still enforced for both parents and teachers (Hernando-Malipot, 2018). Inasmuch as the

teacher groups do not support physical, verbal and psychological punishment, they enjoined on the

legislators to be more mindful of the contexts and factors that are present in school situations. As these

official channels and statements were taking centre stage in the news, a different form of resistance was

brewing in the background with some public-school teachers “speaking” among themselves about the

insensitivity and foolishness of the proposed bill—even if this bill only reiterates the 1987 prohibition

of corporal punishment and the 2012 education policy on child protection.

Dissimilar, however, to how teachers before talked with their co-teachers in school, the

teachers’ collective engagement was no longer limited to people they knew, or even were in the same
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 7

school with. With the rise of social media in general and Facebook groups in particular, teachers get to

share their sentiments online about these perceived control measures from lawmakers and bureaucrats

who are divorced from the school’s daily goings-on. The present study tries to situate, organise, and

understand the themes and dynamics of teachers’ resistance to more fully analyse how such dynamics

stall school progress and improvement.

Methods: Some Notes on Cyberethnography

In order to understand the sentiments of teachers on this policy that would have had a direct

impact on them and their teaching, the research opted to do a cyberethnography—a reconceptualization

of the traditional ethnography to the virtual sphere. As more activities are happening in cyberspace and

social media, cyberethnography uses observations of human actions and interactions in blogs, web sites,

chat rooms, and social media (Keeley-Browne, 2011). Also known as online or virtual ethnography,

this qualitative methodology investigates the “textual” interactions of people belonging to an online

group, dissimilar from the traditional ethnography that looks into people’s interpersonal interactions in

site (Robinson & Schulz, 2011). Although relatively new, this research process has been documented

and used in various research that are more confined to online interactions (Fielding et al., 2008; Hine,

2008; Rybas & Gajjala, 2007).

In this cyberethnography, I as researcher became part of and observed the posts and interactions

in a Facebook group of Filipino teachers, the majority of whom are from the government-funded public

school system. The group includes more than 100,000 members and they post anything from news

articles on school governance to resources helpful for their teaching. There are a couple of reasons for

this deliberate choice of using cyberethnography in understanding teachers’ responses to and

perceptions of positive discipline. First, it provides a site where people interact “naturally” in present-

day society. Second, a cyberethnography of a nationwide group of teachers provides insights that are

not limited by geographical regions or differences. Third, the method provides a space where

participants do not have to filter their ideas and suggestions. In interviews, some participants may

provide more socially acceptable answers but this “space” with a lot more anonymity provides teachers

an avenue to write honestly what they think about positive discipline.

RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 8

However, there are also a couple of issues and limitations with this unique form of ethnography.

The first set of issues revolve around the ethics of using data from participants’ online posts and

comments. On the one hand, these posts and comments are assumed to be public given the public nature

of Facebook and the group. On the other hand, there are issues of people giving their informed consent,

their privacy being protected, and them not being harmed in the conduct of the research. In order to

resolve the ethical issues, the present research does not name the Facebook group nor are people’s

names or verbatim quotes used. Similar to Battles’ (2010) sensitive study of people’s discussions about

human papilloma virus, I paraphrase the posts and comments since this ensures protection of privacy

and reduction of risks in the person’s disclosure.

A second set of issues are methodological since the answers might become biased with

participants who have more time for social media, with answers that gain greater traction, or with posts

that have more vocal supporters in the forums (Mathy et al., 2003). To clarify, the current study is

qualitative and exploratory in orientation and no attempt is made at generalising from the statements

and posts. I do not argue that most public school teachers have the same sentiments as those depicted

in this study. The current goal, however, is to understand the various emerging sentiments that relate

with positive discipline or people’s resistance to it. Moreover, these perceptions and sentiments emerge

from a particular cultural context and need to be engaged critically rather than simply accepted or

dismissed wholesale.

For this research, cyberethnography was done by looking at interactions between March 2018

and March 2019—the period where a significant number of posts were made about positive discipline

or the bill being passed in congress. Selected posts included those that asked teachers about their

thoughts on the positive discipline bill, talked about student’s behaviours or behavioural problems, or

discussed teachers’ ways of disciplining students. Aside from these, I also took note of people’s

comments and replies to each other. In order to get a more accurate picture of the interactions, all posts,

comments, and replies regarding discipline and student behaviour between March 2018 and March 2019

have been used. For analysis in this research, I noted the posts, comments, and replies in transcripts and

coded them for emergent themes relating to the general sentiments, reasons, resistance, and suggestions

for positive discipline, corporal punishment, or policy decisions. I used inductive reasoning to identify
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 9

themes from the members’ statements and I verified these themes through negative-case analysis, where

I consciously looked for evidence that deviated from the themes (Emigh, 1997). Three general recurrent

themes emerged from the data, and subthemes nuance these broad directions.

Findings
The analysis of social media posts and interactions on positive discipline yielded three core

themes explored in this section. First, there were salient comparisons that were made between how

children of the past and the present acted, how lawmakers and teachers understand the situation, and

how Eastern and Western concepts of discipline are incompatible with each other. The second theme

relates to how teachers talk about fear for their students who may end up as criminals, or for themselves

who may be out of jobs if the bill passes. The third theme is about blaming society’s or parents’

permissiveness and the need to have more punitive measures of discipline that the bill does not espouse.

Us and Them: Comparisons for Resistance

In most of teachers’ interactions, someone would usually ask other teachers about how they do

positive discipline or what they think of positive discipline. During the months before the bill’s passing

in late 2018 (from March to August of that year), there were healthy exchanges between teachers, with

some who were for positive discipline and some who were against it. Those who were for positive

discipline wrote about their own ways of disciplining students like asking them to pick up trash or

telling them what they did wrong. However, those against positive discipline usually talked about the

negative effects of being “easy” on the students: students will lose respect for the teachers, they will

test the teachers’ patience, and they will always get away with impunity.

With the passage of weeks and the passing of the positive discipline bill, there had been a

growing rhetoric against this type of discipline, and online discussions were dominated by those who

strongly opposed the bill. A post comparing how teachers and students get “punished” differently

garnered more than a thousand comments and 5,500 like reactions. It talked about how teachers would

have their jobs on the line when they said a bad word or hit a child, but students will just have their
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 10

parents called when they did similar or more serious infractions. This theme of making comparisons

became more pronounced as other people commented on the post.

Although most of the comments were people just agreeing to the post, there were also those

who mentioned that times have indeed changed as students of the 1990s and 1980s still feared their

teachers but now students no longer have any fear, respect, or sensitivity. The teachers lamented how

difficult it is nowadays to get students to follow instructions, be silent in their classes, or even just have

respect for authority. Their usual starting point of comparison was with an idealised sense of how they

behaved properly “during their time.” As these posts piled up, more and more people made comparisons

between present and past students in their comments. There were those who commented that the youth’s

behaviour was going from bad to worse, and that the youth no longer cared about their studies. One

teacher even posted that this lack of discipline came from—or was an effect of—the Department of

Education’s Child Protection Policy and its push for positive discipline. Such, however, may be a hasty

generalization since many things have changed through the years.

More than differences between students then and now, another set of comparisons made was in

terms of the difference between how teachers and lawmakers experience the classroom. Forceful

resistance to the bill was led by teacher voices that explained how lawmakers did not have first-hand

experience of how hard it was to work in a classroom of 50 students and to discipline “these kids” who

are getting out of control. On the one hand, there were teachers who talked about the need for lawmakers

to conduct field studies to see the reality on the ground. They spoke about the need for protection not

just for students but also for teachers who can be abused in this system. Similarly, some argued that

there were other more significant education issues that can be focused on (like salaries and benefits)

and how this bill is already covered by the Child Protection Policy. On the other hand, there were also

some teachers who had an informal witch-hunt for the authors of the bill, throwing ad hominem remarks

on Philippine representatives who were the bill’s principal authors. Teachers commented how these

representatives should try teaching for one week in the school system and see if they still advocate for

positive discipline.

Aside from comparisons between previous and present generation, and between the experiences

of teachers and lawmakers, another prominent comparison is between “Asian” and “Western” forms of
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 11

discipline. For many of the teachers who commented in these social media posts, they reasoned that

Western discipline practices are not compatible with Filipinos. Some teachers have pointed out that

lawmakers are copying Western discipline techniques of being lenient, and this preference—they

argue—is making Filipinos lose their cultural identity. Additionally, quite a number noted that these

forms of discipline have led to a permissive individualistic society in the “West.” One person even

sarcastically asked where positive discipline has led the morality of American students. Another teacher

talked about how students will be bullying and disrespecting their teachers similar to American students.

Since few of these teachers have gone to the United States, these assumptions were likely from popular

cultural depictions and news articles of students’ lack of respect, which provided teachers with a reason

to resist the positive discipline concept that was supposedly from the West.

Fear for Students and Teachers: Justifications for Resistance

More than comparisons, some teachers also used fear as a trope in their resistance to positive

discipline. When using fear, they talked about the possible negative effects of the bill on both students

and teachers. In terms of students, teachers created a narrative where students who have no discipline

will end up as criminals and good-for-nothings in society. On the other side, teachers also talked about

their fears of losing their jobs if the bill turns into law.

In relation to the comparisons made between students now and students from before, there had

also been a characterisation of these present students as having discipline problems that can lead to

criminal activities. A couple of teachers talked about their fears for their students who may turn out as

rapists, murderers, and drug addicts if the positive discipline bill pushes through and if they were not

tough on these students’ behaviours. Some of the more exaggerated claims spoke about teachers’ fears

of students killing each other when they are not taught proper (i.e., punitive) discipline. Most teachers

would actually talk about groups of students who are disrespectful and annoying but very few talked

about what exactly they did to “discipline” their students. Intriguingly, most teachers seem to equate

positive discipline with no discipline at all. There were a couple of posts that talked about how teachers

can no longer do any form of discipline on their students and how they cannot even reprimand them.

Although a rather slippery slope in terms of reasoning, it has been effective in creating a sense of “panic”
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 12

as they remarked that the law will lead to increased criminality because of students’ lack of control and

discipline.

Yet teachers did not just fear for their students; they also created narratives of fear for

themselves and their professional tenure. Notably, teachers talked about how the bill will be

disadvantageous for them since a single act “interpreted” as a violation of positive discipline might lead

to their dismissal from the teaching profession. They would talk about their experiences of students

testing their patience and how their form of discipline may be easily misinterpreted as shaming or

punishing a student. They also commented how there were times when teachers were wrongly accused

by students, and teachers were automatically assumed guilty of the accusation. One person even

commented that parents could easily extort money from teachers because of this bill.

Although some of the narratives of fear for teachers may be exaggerated, they provided a sense

of how teachers perceived themselves being disenfranchised and how they (and their jobs) were put at

risk because of this bill. Not a few teachers mentioned that they will leave the public schools and search

for jobs in other countries when the bill gets approved. The interaction between their fears for students

and their fears for themselves provided a strong impetus for resisting this bill. This fear—whether

legitimate or exaggerated, whether for students or for themselves—was another concept used to justify

the resistance to a bill, they argue, that does not benefit any stakeholder.

Blame and Punish: Resistance through Stricter Measures

Though the bill was initially called the “Positive Discipline Bill,” it changed to the “Anti-Palo

Bill” (palo is a Filipino word for striking or spanking, usually with a hand, broom, or stick), supposedly

to deter people from supporting spanking or other demeaning forms of discipline. However, when the

terminology changed to hitting or spanking (palo), there were actually more people who were

emboldened and advocated for punitive discipline—inclusive of corporal punishment, psychological

aggression, and other penalties. Teachers’ reaction to the bill centred on who to blame and how to

correct this through what they thought were justified means of stricter discipline or punishment.

When teachers talked about the situation of youth today, they referred to children having no

self-discipline and no respect for others (bastos). For teachers, the usual culprit for this lack of discipline
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 13

and respect was the permissiveness of parents, who allow their children to act this way. A frequently

cited story is when parents defended their children’s bad behaviour, and blamed the teacher for not

teaching right behaviour or for misinterpreting the children’s actions. Teachers retorted that it was

actually the parents who no longer disciplined their children, either because of the lack of time or

because of the culture of permissiveness. Because of this blame on parents’ permissiveness and lack of

attention, some suggested that the bill should be about effective parenting rather than policing teachers’

work.

In addition to blaming the parents, some teachers also placed the blame on the Child Protection

Policy since it made children “get away” with all sorts of misbehaviours. They reasoned that children

have discipline problems because of the permissiveness of the general population wherein students were

not “punished” for their actions. When President Duterte vetoed the Positive Discipline Bill, one teacher

posted that what the President should do next was to abolish the Child Protection Policy and more than

200 comments affirmed this call. Some teachers even defended the use of corporal punishment: One

teacher spoke about how she would rather have her child be spanked than grow up disrespectful; another

commented about the need for students to be afraid of their teachers in order to have respect; a third

mentioned how not all students were helped with positive motivation.

Interestingly, another justification for using punitive discipline was a religious one. A number

of teachers actually posted “Kawikaan 13” or “Proverbs 13” referring to the biblical passage on

Proverbs chapter 13 verse 24: “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them

are diligent to discipline them.” Others also referred to Proverbs chapter 23 verse 13: “Do not withhold

discipline from a child; if you punish him with the rod, he will not die.” In both cases, teachers use the

biblical passage as validation for why teachers should be tougher on children and how the Lord approves

of using some form of corporal punishment.

Discussion: Dynamics of Justifying Punishment

In this account of a positive discipline bill and teachers’ resistance to it, certain patterns are

discernible and these patterns could apply to other issues, such as resistance to bureaucratic control or

the call for more punitive—rather than positive or restorative—discipline. On one level, what the
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 14

teachers did in their online posts was to challenge the efficacy of a discipline method and more

importantly, challenge the “unjust” control from bureaucrats oblivious to teachers’ experiences. It is, in

fact, a classic case of teachers banding together to resist policies challenging their classroom autonomy

(Crawford-Garrett & Riley, 2016; Trinidad, 2018). On another level, the teachers’ posts and

comments—although possibly not representative of most teachers—provide a different perspective

when it comes to discipline and the need to be strict. It highlights how discipline is an important aspect

of education and how it needs to be more carefully engaged and thought out.

Resistance often happens when bureaucratic control from above does not find support from the

people who will implement from below, and it also transpires frequently when changes have to be

instituted (Evans, 1996; Piderit, 2000). For schools, resistance comes in the form of teachers ignoring,

misinterpreting, or misusing policies or reforms intended to be beneficial for students or the education

system (Terhart, 2013). Similar to Hirschman’s thesis in Exit, Voice, Loyalty (1970), teachers can show

resistance by voicing their concerns through strikes and rallies, or by leaving the school or school

system altogether (Ceti̇ n, 2013). However, with the advent of social media, there seems to be newer

forms of resistance no longer limited to vocal dissent, personal disobedience, or group strikes. As this

research has shown, social media sites are fast becoming potent places for “voicing” resistance to

policies. For example, Filipino public-school teachers have used their Facebook group as a locus for

airing concerns with the bill on positive discipline. Although the posts are not protests per se, they do

provide teachers the chance to hear and share sentiments with each other, and these posts created a

shared schema for teachers to make sense of—and find ways for—discipline in the Philippines. More

than voicing resistance, the posts were a means of introducing their perspective.

But what are the dynamics behind this perspective on discipline? I argue that the resistance to

the positive discipline bill is related to a schema of people’s rationalising punishment, that is, their

trying to justify their preference for stricter discipline and tougher consequences for deviant behaviour.

Subsumed into this schema are strategies that make teachers’ reasons more plausible and tenable: fear

of the negative effects if the bill were passed; blame and the need to change societal permissiveness;

and comparisons that legitimise the perspective of those “on the ground.”
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 15

First, teachers used fear as a justification for opposing the bill. Some of the teachers’ fears are

legitimate, especially those that pertain to their job security and their being unprepared to do positive

discipline (Feuerborn & Tyre, 2016), while some of the fears may be considered exaggerated or

imagined like their fear for students who will become future criminals, rapists, and drug addicts. It is

likely that these hyperbolic fears come from the media’s portrayal of the drug situation and criminality

in Philippine society (Khruakham & Lee, 2014). It can be argued that among teachers, they have created

a moral panic if the bill pushes through and if they are unable to use stricter forms of discipline with

their students. Moral panic happens when a “condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to

become defined as a threat to societal values and interests” (Cohen, 2002, p. 1). In this specific case,

positive discipline is posited as threatening society’s well-being because it will lead to permissive

behaviour and even criminal activity.

Second, because of fear created by a bill supposedly ushering more problematic behaviours

among students, teachers wanted concrete actions that will curb the students’ behavioural situation. In

order to address this, teachers ask to mete out disiplina, or in the context of the Philippines, discipline

that curtails disobedience to authority (Alampay, 2014). Usual forms of discipline for Filipino families

may include corporal punishment like spanking and slapping, and other consequences like shaming,

comparing with others, and threatening with punishment or withdrawal of privileges (Alampay, 2014;

Lansford et al., 2005; Runyan et al., 2010). From the posts of teachers, they associate discipline with

these strict measures that assert their authority as teacher, and they believe that their inability to exercise

this has led to students lacking respect in a permissive society.

Lastly, in order to further legitimise the necessity of stricter forms of discipline, the teachers’

posts did not only capitalise on fear and blame; they also made salient comparisons that rationalised the

use of stricter forms of discipline. Present public-school students were compared to students from

before, who were “more disciplined, respectful, and fearful of authority.” Lawmakers were compared

to teachers, who “knew better” the situation inside the classroom and understood what type of discipline

worked best for students. Western forms of discipline were compared to Eastern forms, which were

argued to be more compatible to the Philippines’ situation. These three comparisons made it seem as if
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 16

there was a need—and more importantly, an urgency—to shift back to stricter, more punitive, and less

lax forms of discipline.

Conclusion and Implications

The present study suggests the schema of people’s rationalising punishment, which teachers

use implicitly in their resistance to positive discipline and support of stricter discipline, in their desire

to curb deviant behaviour and student’s supposed lack of discipline. Their rationalising of punishment

uses legitimate and exaggerated fears, societal blame, and salient comparisons as base and basis for the

justification of punitive measures of addressing misbehaviour. The fears may be seen as fear for oneself,

for another person, and for society at large, just as teachers’ rationalisations included their fear of losing

their jobs, students becoming criminals, and society being disorderly and insecure. Blame is also

operative since it happens not only for individual students but in a wider societal milieu. But more than

using fear and blame, they also use salient comparisons that tip the scales over to the more practical,

efficient, and convenient means of control. Thus, the schema provides an integrative concept of how

different factors can justify resisting positive discipline and advocating for stricter, more consequential

forms of discipline.

It can be said that teachers’ personal experiences are marked by some form of instability,

danger, fear, and insecurity—some legitimate while others exaggerated—and this is why strong actions

are supposedly needed to assail such fears and insecurities (Loader, 2009). One may be quick to point

out that punishment is never justified but one also has to be cognizant of the perspective of some

teachers whose experiences are marked by a fear of students’ uncontrolled behaviour, a desire for

security that punishment seemingly provides, and a need to compare in order to be heard.

Knowledge of the schema challenges academics, administrators, and bureaucrats to find ways

of engaging teachers in this task of “disciplining students.” One may easily fall into the trap of

discrediting teachers’ schema and process of rationalising punishment by pointing out the “evidence-

based research” about the problems with punitive discipline and the merits of positive discipline. In the

same vein, resistance to school improvement may be seen as an irrational move on the part of grounded

actors. However, if meaningful changes will ever come about, the need is not to preach evidence but to
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 17

engage schemas, offer new narratives, and create communities of practice. This may happen in three

practical ways: First, teachers can be involved in conversations about policies that impact what they do

in classrooms, which include disciplining students. Second, when policies are created coming from

these conversations, teachers must also be informed and trained since many of the resistance comes

from incomplete information. Third, it is not merely about discrete policies but also about social systems

that should include conducive learning environments that support these policies. To create policies that

emphasise positive discipline but not change other factors in the school will be a lost cause. Thus, this

research highlights the need to respect teachers’ lived experiences rather than forcing on them ideas

that may initially have no resonance to their situations on the ground. Resistance to school improvement

policies signals a dysfunction in the system, and the goal is not simply to succeed with a reform effort

but to engage people’s ideas and systems of support, training, and development.
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 18

REFERENCES

Alampay, L. P. (2014). Parenting in the Philippines. In H. Selin (Ed.), Parenting Across Cultures:

Childrearing, Motherhood and Fatherhood in Non-Western Cultures (pp. 105–121). Springer

Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7503-9_9

Ancho, I. V., & Park, S. (2013). School Violence in the Philippines: A Study on Programs and

Policies. Advanced Science and Technology Letters, 36, 27–31.

https://doi.org/10.14257/astl.2013.36.07

Banzon-Librojo, L. A., Garabiles, M. R., & Alampay, L. P. (2017). Relations between harsh

discipline from teachers, perceived teacher support, and bullying victimization among high

school students. Journal of Adolescence, 57, 18–22.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2017.03.001

Battles, H. T. (2010). Exploring Ethical and Methodological Issues in Internet-Based Research with

Adolescents. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 9(1), 27–39.

https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691000900104

Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredientsfor a

moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change, 32(2), 147–168.

https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008338323953

Cepeda, M. (2018, November 12). House approves bill banning corporal punishment vs children.

Rappler. http://www.rappler.com//nation/216523-house-3rd-reading-bill-banning-corporal-

punishment-against-children

Ceti̇ n, S. (2013). Impact of teachers’ perceptions of organizational support, management openness and

personality traits on voice. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(18), 1709–1721.

Cohen, S. (2002). Folk Devils and Moral Panics: The Creation of the Mods and Rockers. Routledge.

Crawford-Garrett, K., & Riley, K. (2016). Inquiry, Policy, and Teacher Communities: Counter

Mandates and Teacher Resistance in an Urban School District. Workplace: A Journal for

Academic Labor, 34–49.

RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 19

Curato, N. (2016). Politics of Anxiety, Politics of Hope: Penal Populism and Duterte’s Rise to Power.

Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 35(3), 91–109.

https://doi.org/10.1177/186810341603500305

Durrant, J. E. (2011). Positive discipline: What is it and how to do it (2nd edition). Save the Children.

Elemia, C. (2018, October 8). Senate passes bill banning corporal punishment vs children. Rappler.

http://www.rappler.com//nation/213817-senate-passes-bill-banning-corporal-punishment-vs-

children

Emigh, R. J. (1997). The Power of Negative Thinking: The Use of Negative Case Methodology in the

Development of Sociological Theory. Theory and Society, 26(5), 649–684.

Evans, R. (1996). The Human Side of School Change: Reform, Resistance, and the Real-Life

Problems of Innovation. The Jossey-Bass Education Series. Jossey-Bass.

Feuerborn, L. L., & Tyre, A. D. (2016). How Do Staff Perceive Schoolwide Positive Behavior

Supports? Implications for Teams in Planning and Implementing Schools. Preventing School

Failure, 60(1), 53–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/1045988X.2014.974489

Fielding, N. G., Lee, R. M., & Blank, G. (Eds.). (2008). The SAGE Handbook of Online Research

Methods. SAGE.

Geducos, A. C. (2019, February 28). Duterte: Corporal punishment produces law-abiding citizens.

Manila Bulletin News. https://news.mb.com.ph/2019/02/28/duterte-corporal-punishment-

produces-law-abiding-citizens

González, T. (2012). Keeping Kids in Schools: Restorative Justice, Punitive Discipline, and the

School to Prison Pipeline. Journal of Law & Education, 41, 281–335.

Hernando-Malipot, M. (2018, November 15). Teachers’ group says Positive Discipline Bill

unnecessary. Manila Bulletin News. https://news.mb.com.ph/2018/11/15/teachers-group-

says-positive-discipline-bill-unnecessary

Hine, C. (2008). Virtual ethnography: Modes, varieties, affordances. In N. G. Fielding, R. M. Lee, &

G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Online Research Methods. SAGE.

Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, Voice, and Loyalty: Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations,

and States. Harvard University Press.

RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 20

Keeley-Browne, E. (2011). Cyber-Ethnography: The Emerging Research Approach for 21st Century

Research Investigation. In G. Kurubacak & T. V. Yuzer (Eds.), Handbook of Research on

Transformative Online Education and Liberation: Models for Social Equality (pp. 330–238).

International Science Reference. https://www.igi-global.com/chapter/cyber-ethnography-

emerging-research-approach/48878

Kelley, M. L., Grace, N., & Elliott, S. N. (1990). Acceptability of positive and punitive discipline

methods: Comparisons among abusive, potentially abusive, and nonabusive parents. Child

Abuse & Neglect, 14(2), 219–226. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(90)90032-O

Khruakham, S., & Lee, J. (2014). Terrorism and other Determinants of Fear of Crime in the

Philippines. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 16(1), 1–15.

https://doi.org/10.1350/ijps.2014.16.1.323

Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmérus, K., Bacchini, D.,

Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A. S., Zelli, A., Tapanya, S., Chaudhary, N., Deater‐Deckard, K.,

Manke, B., & Quinn, N. (2005). Physical Discipline and Children’s Adjustment: Cultural

Normativeness as a Moderator. Child Development, 76(6), 1234–1246.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00847.x

Loader, I. (2009). Ice cream and incarceration: On appetites for security and punishment. Punishment

& Society, 11(2), 241–257. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474508101494

Lohrmann, S., Forman, S., Martin, S., & Palmieri, M. (2008). Understanding School Personnel’s

Resistance to Adopting Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support at a Universal Level of

Intervention. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(4), 256–269.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1098300708318963

Mathy, R. M., Kerr, D. L., & Haydin, B. M. (2003). Methodological rigor and ethical considerations

in Internet-mediated research. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 40(1–2),

77–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.40.1-2.77

McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2008). Can restorative

practices in schools make a difference? Educational Review, 60(4), 405–417.

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910802393456
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 21

Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How Can We Improve School

Discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48–58.

https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X09357618

Perry, B. L., & Morris, E. W. (2014). Suspending Progress: Collateral Consequences of Exclusionary

Punishment in Public Schools. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1067–1087.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414556308

Piderit, S. K. (2000). Rethinking Resistance and Recognizing Ambivalence: A Multidimensional

View of Attitudes toward an Organizational Change. The Academy of Management Review,

25(4), 783–794. https://doi.org/10.2307/259206

Psychosocial Support and Children’s Rights Resource Center. (2008). A Time for Change: Ending All

Forms of Corporal Punishment of Children. Corporal Punishment in the Philippines. Save

the Children Sweden.

Ranada, P. (2019, February 28). Duterte vetoes bill banning corporal punishment for children.

Rappler. http://www.rappler.com//nation/224597-duterte-vetoes-bill-banning-corporal-

punishment-children

Robinson, L., & Schulz, J. (2011). New Fieldsites, New Methods: New Ethnographic Opportunities.

In S. N. Hesse-Biber (Ed.), The Handbook of Emergent Technologies in Social Research (pp.

180–198). Oxford University Press.

Runyan, D. K., Shankar, V., Hassan, F., Hunter, W. M., Jain, D., Paula, C. S., Bangdiwala, S. I.,

Ramiro, L. S., Munoz, S. R., Vizcarra, B., & Bordin, I. A. (2010). International Variations in

Harsh Child Discipline. Pediatrics, 126(3), 701–711. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-2374

Rybas, N., & Gajjala, R. (2007). Developing Cyberethnographic Research Methods for

Understanding Digitally Mediated Identities. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 8(3), 1–15.

Sanapo, M. S., & Nakamura, Y. (2011). Gender and physical punishment: The filipino children’s

experience. Child Abuse Review, 20(1), 39–56. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.1148

Sarmiento, C. R. D. B., & Rudolf, R. (2017). The impact of childhood maltreatment on young adults’

mental health: Evidence from the Philippines. Asian Social Work and Policy Review, 11(1),

76–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/aswp.12115
RATIONALISING PUNISHMENT 22

Seligman, M. E. P. (2019). Positive Psychology: A Personal History. Annual Review of Clinical

Psychology, 15(1), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095653

Serquina-Ramiro, L., Madrid, B. J., & Amarillo, Ma. L. E. (1998). Domestic Violence in Urban

Filipino Families. Ewha Womans University Press.

Supaporn, S. (2000). High School Students’ Perspectives About Misbehavior. The Physical Educator,

57(3). https://js.sagamorepub.com/pe/article/view/2566

Terhart, E. (2013). Teacher resistance against school reform: Reflecting an inconvenient truth. School

Leadership & Management, 33(5), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2013.793494

Trinidad, J. E. (2018). Teacher Response Process to Bureaucratic Control: Individual and Group

Dynamics Influencing Teacher Responses. Leadership and Policy in Schools, online first, 1–

11. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2018.1475573

Ulla, M. B. (2016). Pre-service Teacher Training Programs in the Philippines: The Student-teachers

Practicum Teaching Experience. EFL Journal, 1(3), 238–250.

https://doi.org/10.21462/eflj.v1i3.23