La Forma Política: Terminología

As discussed in Chapter 2 (paragraph 2.5) the researcher has incorporated principles, personality theories, process theories as well as structural theories in order to develop a model to be used in South African schools. Furthermore, risk factors were identified and included, from the relevant cases in this study. In paragraph 6.4.1, it was mentioned that in the school structure (1); intervention (3); takes place the instant (2); that the child is offending. The first stage of intervention needs to take place (4i) at an early stage; and should be handled and managed by the teacher and the intervention management team (4). Teachers and the intervention team should be well trained in the risk assessment process as it plays a vital role in the intervention process. They should also be responsible for managing intervention meetings. It would be best if learners go through a process of risk assessment at the start of their schooling and thereafter during regular intervals at school in order for intervention to take place even before behaviour takes place that can be labelled as deviant.

Should a learner evolve to a second transgression or where the first offence is a serious offence, it is important that the parent and management intervention team (5) are involved in the intervention process as part of the final stage (5i). The broader community could be involved as they could play a role in intervention by hosting programmes about relevant topics. This process should be used as intervention and not as a disciplinary process, as it is restorative.

The offender should still receive sanctions in order to right the wrong and as compensation so that both the victim and offender are satisfied with outcome (see paragraph 6.4.1). Sanctions like these should reinforce the bonds within the school and not break them down. These sanctions form part of the last and final stage (5i) in the restorative discipline process to be used in South African schools.

The moment that the learner transgresses for the second time or if in the case of the first offence, it is a serious offence, the school will open an inquiry (a process) into the matter. The matter will serve at a disciplinary inquiry and the learner will be confronted by the SGB (6) with the events leading up to the inquiry. This process will be more informal and explorative (inquisitorial) than to prove the learner (adversary) guilty in an adversarial application. The SGB will start the process by reading the charges against the offender to the SGB team as well as the offender and his representatives.

Offenders will be given the opportunity to state their case and the SGB will in consultation with the restorative officer get background information (mitigating factors) on the offender. The victim and the victim’s representatives must also be given the opportunity to explain the effect of the offence. At this stage it is important not to lose sight of the goal of restorative justice (to transform the way society views and responds to crime or wrong doing) and one of the following restorative models that could be used successfully in schools is the Victim Offender Conferencing Model (VOM).

As explained by Van Wormer (2009), VOM entails the bringing together of the parties in which one person has injured the other, to resolve the matter and to right the wrong, if possible. Both parties get the opportunity to tell the story in their own words and style. He describes it as a compensation agreement that is reached in a negotiating process between the offender and the victim. In schools though, it is important to also include the families (parents) of both the offender and victim. Therefore the Family Group Conferencing (FGC) model is also an important restorative model to be incorporated in the SGB hearing process. O'Connor and Peterson (2014) states that for restorative practices to be used in a school, family group conferencing must be able to take place and when family group conferencing is altered to be used in schools, the focus should be on the expectations that were identified for the school environment as well as the problems that were created through the violations of those expectations.

The following people should be brought together to discuss and consider fitting consequences for the actions and to correct behaviour: the offender, victim, parents of the offender and parents of the victim, teachers, administrators, psychologists/ counsellors and representatives of the student body. The purpose is not to punish, but to “repair harm” which occurred in the school as a result of the behaviour of the offender. Family group conferencing should be seen as a disciplinary diversion, as an alternative to suspension or expulsion (O'Connor & Peterson, 2014).

Once all parties were given the opportunity to discuss the offence the SGB will make a decision on whether they find the offender guilty or not guilty and sanctions will be imposed. One of the sanctions could be community reparation (service). Community reparation as a sanction could be valuable as the offender is given the opportunity to be involved with a whole indigenous community and its traditions or in this case a multicultural community (Gal, 2011).

Community service according to Wisconsin (2018), entails sanctioned labour (the emphasis is not on punishment or rehabilitation) performed by the offender, in order to benefit the community. In addition to community service as a sanction, if the offender is found guilty he is then sanctioned to the discipline office (7) for serious offences OR to the restorative support office (8) for less serious offences, for further action, instead of being suspended from school.

The Discipline Office has the responsibility to monitor and refer the offender learner to complete a programme with NICRO (7i) (South African National Institute for Crime Prevention and the Reintegration of Offenders) or with DSSA. The offender learner will attend these programmes after hours and not in school time. (7ii) (Drug Surveilance South Africa) in cases where serious offences like drug use or dealing, were committed. Programmes with NICRO and DSSA are run independently and parents have to take the responsibility to transport their children there and back.NICRO and DSSA could also offer these programmes within the communities for example in community halls, church halls or even at police stations in order to accommodate parents who are not able to drive their children elsewhere. However the school, parent and community (NICRO/DSSA) as well as the offender all work together in order to “restore” the behaviour of the offender.

In less serious cases, the offender reporting to the restorative support office will receive support (in conjunction with the parent) through following a specific programme related to the offence. The restorative support office also has the responsibility to the victim and his parent by supporting the victim through emotional counselling. Programmes offered by the restorative support office include substance abuse awareness (in cases of less serious substance abuse offences for example taking a sip of alcohol if under the influence of peer pressure); sexual self-worth awareness (cases of sexual nature like allowing another person to touch or exposing oneself nakedly or half-nakedly on social media); anger management issues- coping skills ; problems with stress – coping skills; academic “emotional support” (for example self-injury as a result of academic performance) and visits to Correctional Services (to learners involved in serious misconduct in order for them to experience what consequences there could be if behaviour is not “set right”- It could however have a

serious labelling effect and an alternative will have to be found in cases of learners that are younger than 18 years of age).

The researcher verified the suitability of the model (FINAL STAGE) against the six key questions as set out by Zehr (2003).

(6) SGB HEARING (questions 1,3,4,5 apply)

Question 1: Does the model address harms; needs and causes?

The SGB addresses harms, needs and causes during the hearing through allowing the offender, witnesses and the victim to testify and give their opinions regarding who was harmed and how, who or what caused it.

Question 3: are offenders encouraged to take responsibility?

The offender, if found guilty is given certain sanctions and by accepting to complete them properly, takes responsibility.

Question 4: are all relevant stakeholders involved?

Yes, the SGB, teachers/discipline officer/learner/parent/witnesses/victim and parent are all involved

Question 5: is there an opportunity for dialogue and participatory decision making? All parties are given opportunity and encouraged to participate.

(7) DISCIPLINE OFFICE (questions 1-6 apply)

Question 1: Does the model address harms; needs and causes?

The discipline office addresses harms, needs and causes whilst monitoring the offender during his time of completion his programme with NICRO/DSSA

Question 2: Is it adequately victim orientated?

Discipline office follows up with restorative support office (regarding wellbeing of victim)

Question 3: are offenders encouraged to take responsibility?

The offender has the responsibility to complete certain sanctions as well as a programme with NICRO/DSSA which is monitored

Question 4: are all relevant stakeholders involved?

Yes, the teachers, discipline officer and learner - in constant interaction. Parent is involved as parent and is in constant interaction with discipline office. Community is involved-NICRO/DSSA

All parties are participating and in constant interaction and communicating Question 6: Is the model respectful to all parties?

Yes. Offender, victim, all parents, all receive same treatment

(8) RESTORATIVE SUPPORT OFFICE (questions 1-6 apply) Question 1: Does the model address harms; needs and causes?

The restorative support office addresses harms, needs and causes whilst supporting the offender- completing a programme as well as supporting the victim through counselling

Question 2: Is it adequately victim orientated? Yes, victim receives counselling

Question 3: are offenders encouraged to take responsibility?

Yes, the offender has to complete a specific programme relating the offence Question 4: are all relevant stakeholders involved?

Yes, the offender, victim and parents are involved

Question 5: is there an opportunity for dialogue and participatory decision making? All parties are participating and in constant interaction and communicating

Question 6: Is the model respectful to all parties?

Yes. Offender, victim, all parents, all receive same treatment

After examining the restorative suitability according to the relevant questions the researcher found the model to be appropriate for use in South African schools.

6.5 A COMPARISON BETWEEN SCHOOL DISCIPLINE CURRENTLY AND THE