Trish Grant: Suspended pupils lack basic rights

COMMENT

Any debate about boys' lack of educational achievement needs to include a discussion about a denial of human rights in our schools.

A glance at Ministry of Education figures shows there were 19,585 stand-downs last year and 4887 suspensions. Male students made up about 72 per cent of all suspensions and stand-downs. These students and their families do not have any effective avenue of appeal.

Tomorrow's Schools gives communities a say about how their schools are run, but it has also resulted in wide variations in the way schools deal with student misbehaviour and how they interpret Ministry of Education guidelines designed to return students to the classroom. Discipline decisions tend to be made in the heat of the moment and can be personal and subjective.

In some schools, behavioural codes are more draconian and demanding than those of broader society. For example, people are not banned or evicted from broader society for theft, yet a child can be excluded from school for stealing.

Parents may support schools taking a tough line, but the Office of the Children's Commissioner knows of students who have been removed from school for petty rule breaches, such as uniform irregularities or non-approved hairstyles. How do these breaches affect the learning of other students?

The "kiwi suspension", where students are ushered out the back door, is also widely used. The school advises parents to quietly move their child elsewhere to avoid the stigma of a formal exclusion. The school rids itself of a student without attracting potentially damaging community attention.

There is also evidence that special-needs students are over-represented in these statistics. Many schools try very hard, despite funding constraints and other difficulties, to accommodate students with special needs, but other schools operate rigid disciplinary processes. Schools need more support in dealing with children who are disruptive or require special attention, but denying them an education is not the answer.

The reality is that some excluded students remain out of school months afterwards, or do not enrol at another school. It is not uncommon for schools to ignore Ministry of Education directives to enrol an excluded student who is meant to be getting a fresh start. Some students simply drop out of education.

Ministry figures show 30 per cent of excluded students were "awaiting action, had elected to apply for an early leaving exemption or home schooling, had left New Zealand, turned 16 or chosen to leave school".

What happens if students drop out of school?

Exclusion often triggers an emotional and personal crisis for young people. They have to live with the embarrassment of having been excluded from school. In small communities, there may be condemnation and notoriety.

The Principal Youth Court judge has estimated that 80 per cent of young people who appear in court are attending school irregularly or not at all. Judge Andrew Becroft has commented that students who are well-connected with school are unlikely to reoffend, but children of school age who have been excluded from school are at risk of offending. They are likely to have time on their hands, no structure to their lives, and no money.

I am aware of situations where excluded students have become involved in crime and of at least one instance where an excluded student committed suicide.

How does this all relate to a denial of human rights? Students who are suspended or excluded have no avenue of appeal. This is in stark contrast to the adult world where people can appeal to a wide range of authorities if they feel wronged by employers, banks, health providers or in business.

There is no legal obligation on a board of trustees to reconsider its decision, even when a student complains of an unfair process. The Office of the Ombudsman only has the power to investigate complaints against a school where the school has not followed the proper process. Investigations can take up to a year and a half.

Of course parents could ask for a review by a High Court judge, but the cost of judicial proceedings for the student and the school is likely to run into five figures.

The solution that is urgently required is an independent forum where students and parents can appeal if they believe a school is illegally, unreasonably or unfairly excluding, expelling or refusing to enrol a student.

An Education Review Tribunal, which should have a legally qualified chairperson and two other members with an educational background, would be a speedy and informal way of resolving disputes.

It should have the power to direct schools, but its powers should be limited to situations where the student's right to education has been denied, terminated or disrupted.

We need to remember that most young people who are suspended or stood down are 13 to 15. Some are testing the rules rather than embarking on a career of crime. Other young people probably need intensive interventions for behavioural difficulties, addictions or the results of family violence. Some children may come from disadvantaged homes.

In all these situations, we are letting down these young people by denying them the basic human right of educational opportunity. We are also creating a pool of young people who are outside the education system and at risk of moving into the criminal justice system, with all the associated costs to the wider community.

* Trish Grant is the advocacy manager for the Office of the Children's Commissioner.