Opponent Testimony of Father Alan Sprenger

January 21, 2004 Opponent Testimony of Father Alan Sprenger

H. B. No. 265

Members of the Committee: I am Father Alan Sprenger, representing the Ohio Association of Child Caring Agencies (OACCA) and the Syntaxis Youth Homes concerning the potential negative impact of H. B. 265.

Why are we promoting corporal punishment in schools where our children could be injured when we should be protecting them from violence and injury?

I first got involved in this issue when a kindergarten girl was paddled for not following directions – she had underlined words instead of circling them. She didn’t want to go to school after that. Then a high school girl was paddled for using a phone to call her orthodontist about a broken brace. Her spine was damaged.

This whole nation was shocked with the shootings at Columbine and other schools and demanded that all schools be kept free of violence – even of threats of violence.

Society is now demanding that schools be violence free inside the school, on school grounds, and over set areas. There are strict prohibitions against bringing weapons to school, in buses, or on school grounds. Schools are developing and enforcing policies that prohibit bullying on their grounds, hazing in sports, fraternities, victory celebrations, etc.

I started teaching high school English fifty-two years ago. And I didn’t get the easiest or smartest students either. I quickly learned that the well- prepared teacher, who treated his class with respect, received their respect and cooperation in turn. We never even thought of striking a student or using any violence or corporal punishment for any reason. Thirty years ago I joined the current director in founding the Syntaxis Youth Homes – six group homes for teenage wards of children’s services and the juvenile court. Over two thousand troubled youth have been served by Syntaxis since then.

Before their entry most had not progressed past the first half of the 9th grade. Their case records revealed long histories of violence at home and in school. If corporal punishment actually worked, they would have all been saints by then.

We provided them with tutors from the public schools who worked with each according to their abilities and interests. Some actually went back to school and graduated. A large number responded positively to the tutors and succeeded in receiving their GED certificate. All were treated with respect and responded accordingly.

On November 14th, 2003, Dan Rather brought the eyes of the world on Columbus for a National Live Town Hall broadcast on Domestic Violence. He asked the citizens of Ohio, starting in Columbus, to break the cycle of violence in their homes. Whether at home or in school, violence grows in a cycle, and begets violence. The one who is so punished learns he can be violent to those smaller than him.

Today, contrary to the nation-wide movement to stop violence everywhere, in considering H. B. 265 this Legislature is being asked to approve and encourage child abuse in our schools by protecting school personnel from the legal consequences of their actions.

It strives to sweeten this perception by saying that if the child’s injuries are bad enough the school employee could only be charged with the more serious crime of “child endangering.”

Now that is the same as saying that a brutal husband or parent should not be charged with domestic violence or child abuse as long as the “bruises don’t show” on the terrified spouse or child. How often we hear the excuse: “I didn’t mean to hit her that hard.” We would be hearing the same words from the angry teacher?

More than half the States prohibit corporal punishment in schools. All Ohio Catholic dioceses prohibit it in all their schools. Colleges of education do not teach future school personnel how to administer corporal punishment safely, in fact they do not teach it at all.

Although a local school board and the school administration may have prohibited corporal punishment, this bill protects the potential abuser from civil liability and possibly even any corrective action by local authorities, such as his own principal, superintendent, or school board, even if the damage is serious.

By granting broad immunity to school personnel for injuries they inflict on children, H. B. 265 encourages and promotes corporal punishment and as a result increases the danger of physical and emotional injury and abuse to children.

It deprives parents of the right to keep their children free of danger and injury – even if unintentional – from the very people to whom they entrust their children.

For H. B. 265 to openly approve, and possibly encourage school personnel to administer corporal punishment of any kind, is to negate all the other efforts society is making to reduce and eliminate violence not only in school, but on the streets and in our students’ homes. Existing law adequately protects both students and personnel alike. Ohio lawmakers have acted to protect children from harm -- in their homes, in their neighborhoods, and in their schools. This bill would reverse that action and is in direct conflict with ORC section 2919.22 as follows:

§ 2919.22. Endangering children. (A) No person, who is the parent, guardian, custodian, person having custody or control, or person in loco parentis of a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twenty- one years of age, shall create a substantial risk to the health or safety of the child, by violating a duty of care, protection, or support. It is not a violation of a duty of care, protection, or support under this division when the parent, guardian, custodian, or person having custody or control of a child treats the physical or mental illness or defect of the child by spiritual means through prayer alone, in accordance with the tenets of a recognized religious body. (B) No person shall do any of the following to a child under eighteen years of age or a mentally or physically handicapped child under twenty-one years of age: (1) Abuse the child; (2) Torture or cruelly abuse the child; (3) Administer corporal punishment or other physical disciplinary measure, or physically restrain the child in a cruel manner or for a prolonged period, which punishment, discipline, or restraint is excessive under the circumstances and creates a substantial risk of serious physical harm to the child; (4) Repeatedly administer unwarranted disciplinary measures to the child, when there is a substantial risk that such conduct, if continued, will seriously impair or retard the child's mental health or development; (5) Entice, coerce, permit, encourage, compel, hire, employ, use, or allow the child to act, model, or in any other way participate in, or be photographed for, the production, presentation, dissemination, or advertisement of any material or performance that the offender knows or reasonably should know is obscene, is sexually oriented matter, or is nudity-oriented matter.

We urge you to defeat H B 265 so that Ohio parents can trust that their children are safe when they are at school. Exempting those who parents must trust the most, their children's teachers, from liability for hurting those children will not help any parent of school age children sleep better at night.

Father Sprenger PHONE: 882-9245

Penny Wyman at OACCA: PHONE: 461-0014