PUNITIVE AND PREVENTIVE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

However, the onus still rests with schools to implement the policy in their schools.

Netshitahame et al. (2002:313) found that most principals in rural areas in South Africa did not have a clear understanding of what was meant by the terms “mission statement and policies”, nor the importance thereof.

The existence of policy documents, when making use of a CCTV system, is also very important as the latter could possibly infringe on the constitutional rights of a learner. A high school in Oak Bluffs, Massachusetts, was advised by its attorneys to disconnect its cameras until it had a written policy in place that laid down when and where the cameras or future cameras may be used (Luening, 2004). Schools in the United States have a policy which indicates the entire do’s and don’ts when using a CCTV system (“Data Protection CCTV code of practice”, 2008) for exactly this reason. Sithole (2007) pointed out that it should be incumbent upon all schools to develop and implement their own individual safety and security policies suited to their needs. Writing up new policies is one of the sure ways of creating a safe learning environment for all.

2.7 PUNITIVE AND PREVENTIVE DISCIPLINARY MEASURES IN OTHER COUNTRIES

There can be no doubt that schools have a duty to use all effective means needed to maintain a safe and disciplined environment. However, great controversy has developed since the 1980’s over the measures used by educators to achieve this aim (Skiba and Edl, 2004:2).

Punitive measures such as corporal punishment, and exclusionary methods such as suspension and expulsion, came under the spotlight as research has raised questions

41

about the effectiveness and equity of these methods as punitive measures. Corporal punishment has been abolished in all countries in Europe (apart from the United Kingdom), along with other countries outside of Europe, which include Israel and Japan. In Australia, corporal punishment has also become unlawful in most states since 1989, and teachers are using other disciplinary methods to ensure appropriate learner behaviour (Stewart, 2004:326). However, in some jurisdictions, corporal punishment is still permissible. In the United States of America, there are still 30 states where corporal punishment is allowed (Brister, 1996:2).

Slee (as cited in Stewart,2004:319) argues that the removal of corporal punishment in Australian public schools has very little to do with discipline as an educational concept.

Replacing corporal punishment with more pervasive and mostly preventive actions such as reprimands, detention, loss of privileges, and punitive measures such as suspension and expulsion, is givi ng principals more authority to manage discipline within their schools (Stewart, 2004:328). However, even though principals at government schools are given the authority to suspend learners after a fair hearing, they do not have the authority to expel learners. Such action can only be granted by the education authority and it has to be established by legislative provision. The same procedure is also followed by the Department of Education in South Africa.

Independent schools establish their own procedures, depending on the provisions of a contract between the school and the parents.

On the other hand, teachers in Victoria, a state in Australia, felt that when corporal punishment has been abolished from schools it has now been replaced by expulsion and suspe nsion (Brister, 1996:8). Furthermore, Brister argues that policies on expulsion and suspension are behaviourist in conception and practice, and are supposed to reflect consistency between pedagogical, curriculum and school governance objectives.

Neverthe less, authorities still had to find new strategies to deal effectively with undisciplined and disruptive learners. Stewart (2004:331) suggests that learners need to be taught the principles contained in the United Nations Convention on the

42

Rights of the Child, since there is no Bill of Rights in Australia that gives recognition to rights or responsibilities that are contained in the articles of the Convention or similar documents. Teaching learners that rights are not absolute and that there is a sound balance between rights and responsibilities seems to have a positive effect (Stewart, 2004:331). Many schools in Australia have included in their behaviour development plan for the school, other programmes such as combating bullying, to assist with the maintenance of discipline and to make learners more aware of their rights and responsibilities.

However, Skiba et al. (2006:2) concluded that since the early 1990s, the national discourse of school discipline has been dominated by the philosophy of zero tolerance, which is intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of the behaviour, circumstances or situational context. Zero tolerance policies therefore assume that by removing learners who disrupt classes with their unacceptable behaviour, schools can create a conducive and safe learning environment for the other learners. This has raised concerns about equity in education and taking away learners’ right to an education. Furthermore, when the effectiveness of suspension and expulsion as a disciplinary measurement was examined by the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, (Skiba et al., 2006: 5), it was found that school suspension, in general appears to predict higher future rates of misbehaviour and suspension among those learners who are suspended. In the long term, suspension and expulsion are moderately associated with a higher likelihood of school dropout and failure to graduate on time. It also seems that, according to the findings of this research, despite the removal of a huge number of troublemakers in schools in the United States of America, zero tolerance policies have still not guaranteed a safe school environment.

It has been suggested by the authors of the above-mentioned study that other alternatives should be found without refusing many learners an education (Skiba et al., 2006:12). It is also interesting to learn that zero tolerance policies and the law regarding the management of discipline in schools are not the same all over the globe.

The reason for this is that there is not one general zero tolerance policy that is suitable

43

for all schools, therefore each school district has to make its own amendments to its policies governing discipline. Some states, for instance Canada, follow a zero tolerance policy governing the use of foul language and the writing of graffiti. Also, the Ontario Education Act mandates blanket suspension of K-12 students for swearing or threatening another learner.

This legislation allows schools to “dispose of” perpetrators who cause disciplinary problems or those who refuse to obey the rules of the schools, through temporary suspension or expulsions (Shariff, 2004:226). Theories on the disadvantages and effects of punishment are discussed in the next chapter.