The Need for Restorative Justice Punishment Strategies in the Education System

Zoe Gleeson

As adapted from excerpts of author’s submission at La Trobe University, Melbourne

In Australia, education is the pillar most regarded in a child’s upbringing. A child learns the four pillars of education; to know, to do, to live together in a society, and to be. The sheer right to receive an education falls into concern when punishments handed down by teaching professionals are incongruent with standards or best practices which should be implemented. This disputation is further prompted when the current strategies for teachers to employ are ineffective.

Avoiding international iterations of legislation and focusing on domestic examples, the Education Act 1990 (NSW) outlines the Commonwealth’s responsibilities at a state level. Additionally, the teaching profession also complies with other obligations, such as a duty of care and a standard of care, as well as further policies designated by the NSW Department of Education. Notably, the Student Discipline in Government Schools Policy summarises each person’s role within a schooling sector and their responsibilities concerning codes of conduct. The use of suspension and expulsion as a punishment strategy is entailed within its own policy. It is here where the disparity lies as less strict forms of punishment are less effective. Discourse has occurred around whether being too tolerant versus being too harsh are more effective options, and where the line between both of those exists. This, in addition to the knowledge that the Department of Education has a duty of care to protect students from a risk of harm, is concerning. If the duty cannot be performed, parents can bring a civil liability claim against the Department.

In 2009, Tomoda et al. published an article in Neuroimage. They discovered that punitive punishment strategies forced upon children established a ‘chronic, developmental stressor associated with depression, aggression and addictive behaviours … [thus,] exposing children to harsh [penalties] may have detrimental effect on trajectories of brain development.’ If brain development is affected at such a young age, could this prompt a ‘slippery slope’ argument to irreversible damage?

The primary role of a teacher is to not to teach children what to think, but how to think and how to form their own ideas as they graduate out of childhood and into adulthood. How to navigate the world with adaptive processes instead of maladaptive behaviours and equipping them with coping mechanisms. There is a clear ineffectiveness of punitive punishment systems in schooling environments as shown in the above findings.

Conversely, teachers are at the receiving end of violence from students. One would assume that a retributive punishment system would be applicable in this situation, however, as schools are inherently social institutions, restorative justice or even rehabilitative strategies must be employed. In an article published in Curr Biol in 2015 by Riedl et al. it was found that sanction-based forms of punishment were indeed more effective in deterring ‘bad’ behaviour, as these types of systems are already familiar prima facie, ‘…at an early age’ where ‘children have a sense of restorative justice centred on the welfare of harmed individuals, with implications for the emergence of third party punishment.’ Children are already acclimated to the ‘punishment versus reward’ notion, gaining gold stars for good behaviour, and experiencing a ‘time out’ or detention for unwanted behaviour. The move to alternative punishment strategies is necessary as sanctions below these foundations could serve as a more effective option.

Significantly, the NSW Department of Education Suspension and Expulsion Policy states that expulsions are permitted in ‘cases of unacceptable behaviour where it will be in the best interests of the school community and/or the student involved, for the student to be removed from the school for a period of time or completely.’ This policy document also states that ‘…suspension is not intended as a punishment. It is only one strategy for managing inappropriate behaviour within a school’s student wellbeing and discipline policies.’ Again, this demonstrates an obvious inconsistency of attitudes surrounding these punishment systems. Naming suspensions as ‘non- retributive’ seems puerile, as being suspended affects more than just the child experiencing it. Not being able to attend school also affects the parent or guardian, as they must make other arrangements for the child to be at home or elsewhere. Missing a few days of school seems like a drop in the ocean. However, it teaches youths that they can have some time off at home or with their parents or guardians at work. Most would be left at home if old enough, and spend the time doing other things like playing video games rather than catching up on missed schoolwork, which is what the punishment is intended for. This system is simply not effective.

Whilst criminological in theory, studies have evidenced the efficacy of restorative justice models. Eliminating the grey area that exists between a child’s right to an education versus them being punished effectively, can be achieved through restorative justice models. According to Reimer, ‘For some, restorative justice is about creating an environment of and for student engagement that challenges traditional systems of discipline and facilitates learning. For others, restorative justice is simply another tool for solidifying compliance and meting out punishment, albeit in a kinder, gentler way’, to which children seem to respond more healthily. A punishment system modelled on restorative justice encourages the child to come to realise the cause and consequence(s) of their actions so they can take responsibility for their behaviour. This way accountability is the focus instead of deterrence; here accountability itself serves as the deterrent. Instead of being told what is going to happen, the child is led through a process where they can identify the behaviour that caused the issue, explore all of the consequences and even potential consequences if the behaviour continued, and then be guided into coming up with ideas of how to make the matter ‘better’. The whole aim is to restore the victim — whether it be a parent, teacher or another child — to a state before the behaviour had occurred.

Unfortunately, until a massive cultural shift in attitudes on both punishment systems and how to effectively deal with ‘problematic’ behaviour, no changes will be effectively implemented. Focus needs to shift from further educating teachers in less punitive behavioural strategies to adopting restorative models of justice, so the child can be punished in a manner that is rehabilitative and thus, more effective. Additional education and research must cover restorative justice strategies. The move to more effective routes of punishment will prompt serious reform and amendments to policies which are so desperately necessary.

What the Willow Means for the Rest of the World

Rachel Justic

Land is a finite resource, and as the global population grows, that finite resource is becoming increasingly exploited. The ability of states to uphold their international obligations and establish environmentally friendly frameworks is requisite to supporting future generations and must be actioned before it is too late.

International Environmental Obligations

The international community has developed significant international laws surrounding climate change and the promotion of climate targets. While the aims of these declarations suggest positive development within the international sphere, states are increasingly abandoning their obligations by virtue of state sovereignty.

The most substantive and prominent source of international climate law is the Paris Agreement adopted at the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference. The overarching goal of the agreement is for states to work cooperatively to reduce the increasing global temperature to only 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels. Further, last year the Sharm el-Sheikh Implementation Plan was agreed at the COP27 summit, encapsulating a commitment for wealthier states to fund the recovery of poorer states suffering the impacts of climate change. While these codifications recognise that accelerated action is required and can expose states for falling foul of their climate targets, the principle of state sovereignty ultimately means that no state can be forced to perform certain obligations, potentially causing an avoidance of accountability.

The broken windows theory was developed in response to high crime rates in New York in the 1960s, essentially hypothesising that where smallscale crime can occur, more petty crime occurs thereby creating sites of serious crime. This theory applies to international law; as more states choose not to fulfil their international obligations, even more states follow suit. The climate concern sphere is no exception given that Morocco and The Gambia are adhering to their climate pledges without modification. Although states can be held accountable somewhat by other states in ways such as trade tariffs or reduction in aid, state sovereignty allows for states to avoid their obligations without facing real consequences, rendering efforts to reduce global warming beyond reach.

Australia’s Environmental Commitments

Australia is a party to the Paris Agreement, yet meaningful change is emerging in a delayed manner. Australia has introduced the Climate Change Bill 2022, which offers a new target to reduce 43% of greenhouse gases. Before this, the Climate Action Tracker rated Australia’s overall approach to climate change as ‘insufficient’ but has since become ‘highly insufficient’. In order to meet 2030 goals in alignment with international obligations to the Paris Agreement, the Climate Action Tracker believes that Australia should ensure domestic reductions of at least 57% to meet this shorter-term goal. If Australia aims to practically achieve their 2050 commitments of net zero emissions, the current policy will significantly fall short of their goal.

Australia’s commitment to international public finance has been considered ‘critically insufficient’ in that its fossil-fuel-related activities are incredibly supported and contribute very little to aid climatechange-affected countries.

While Australia’s climate change action is greater than various other states, its efforts fall short of the targets established in the Paris Agreement, and by extension, their overarching international obligations. As a sovereign state which contributes negatively to the climate crisis, a shift in focus towards incentivising renewable energy as a substitute for environmentally unfriendly energy resources would advance compliance with our international obligations.

The Willow Project – America’s Climate Change Obligations

An onshore drilling project in Alaska has commenced, with the intended area expected to hold approximately 600 million barrels of oil. Approved by the Trump administration in 2020, the Biden administration has reduced the original 5 drilling pads to 3; however, this reduction will not displace the catastrophic effects on the environment both domestically and internationally. The project is predicted to generate enough oil to release 9.2 million metric tons of carbon pollution a year.

Climate change is already negatively impacting Alaska, with issues of shrinking glaciers, receding sea ice and thawing permafrost only to be exacerbated following the implementation of the project. Biden has made a goal to achieve a zero emissions economy by no later than 2050 but it appears difficult to achieve considering the new oil rig project. Executing the Paris Agreement signifies a positive ambition towards carbon emission reductions, however absent of international consequences, government action does not indicate that the United States will meet the targets of the agreement.

Youth-led Activism

While the status quo is a largely unenforceable international framework and intergenerational equity is becoming an afterthought, youth activists have urged change, seeking governments to redress the wrongs done to the environment they must live in.

Young people have been the most vocal about the drilling operation in Alaska, with a petition on Change. org attaining more than 4,459,195 signatures. Social media now plays a pivotal role in political activism for young people, creating a more accessible and less politically filtered space for activists and organisations to advocate for their causes.

In terms of what this means for the future of the environment on a global scale, action now may still allow for the environment to be preserved. It stands to reason that previous government action has compromised intergenerational equity for political and economic prosperity. While parts of the environment are damaged beyond repair, this does not mean there are grounds to abandon the cause.

While climate change cannot be stopped, it can be slowed to prevent its worst consequences. This can be achieved by attaining a global ‘net zero’ of carbon emissions by 2050. As young people are unable to activate governmental change, youth activism has served the most effective role in projecting the voices of young people.

Conclusion

While the global warming crisis becomes increasingly concerning, in the absence of more robust forms of international compliance, governments remain unwilling to comply. Climate agreement targets will inevitably not be met, but youth activism has the potential to intervene and encourage governments to better uphold their symbolic agreements. If intervention occurs soon, there will be time to ensure the environment can continue to support our growing population.