Riesgos químicos

Literature reviewed in Chapter 2 explored a number of areas including aspects related to the Law, effects of stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions and expulsions (SSEE) on students, governance in New Zealand schools and alternative approaches to SSEE. Issues relating to capability and the need for good process were apparent throughout the literature and highlighted the paucity of research that specifically addresses functioning of boards in general and discipline committees in particular. Developing

capability for all boards is an issue for the MoE and the Education Review Office but it appears to be a greater need for boards of low decile schools.

There were two objectives to the study. They were:

1. To gain a broader insight and understanding of the processes used by boards of trustees when making decisions in order to inform a more robust governance system for schools that better responds to the development needs of school board members and educational needs of students.

2. To explore the ways i.e. skills, knowledge and experience used, in which decisions are made by principals and boards of trustees to stand-down, suspend, exclude and expel students in low/high decile schooling contexts in New Zealand.

These objectives were synthesised into the following overarching research question which was “What factors influence the ways in which boards of trustees in schools make decisions about suspending, excluding and expelling students?” The three sub questions related to this were;

1. What factors are the enablers or barriers that influence the decision making process of discipline committees?

2. How does the current support offered to boards of trustees empower them to make qualified decisions about continuing suspensions or excluding students or are there gaps in the support offered? And;

3. What impact, if any, does the socio-economic area of a school have on the degree of knowledge and capability applied by its trustees when deciding to suspend or exclude/expel students?

The findings in this study showed that board of trustee members are strongly driven by values and for the majority of participants in this study, committed to keeping children in school. For all participants in this study, finding solutions to address discipline situations that have the best perceived outcome for the students was a priority. The process outlined by the MoE was considered by all to be an enabler in that it provided a clear and concise pathway for discipline committees to follow and ensured that principles of natural justice were able to be met. Depending on the background and

perceived capability of some trustees, there were times when a trustee utilised their own personal judgement.

Maintaining a degree of objectivity and the ability to separate themselves personally from the impact of their decision on the student appeared to be the most significant barrier influencing the decision to continue a suspension, exclude or suspend a student. Appropriate knowledge about suitable conditions to apply to a student’s return to maximise a successful reintegration were also deemed barriers where there was a lack of confidence that this knowledge was present.

Trustees in this study looked initially to the principal then the board chair for support and guidance when participating in a discipline committee hearing. At times the families in collaboration with the trustees were able to establish conditions that would help redirect a student’s behaviour and this provision of mutual support was recognised as empowering for both. At times external agencies were used to support boards where specialist expertise was needed to implement specific conditions.

When there was failure by a student to keep to conditions, this highlighted the gaps for trustees as they saw the impacts on classroom teachers as they were tasked with managing the deteriorating behaviour. Operating in isolation from other boards of trustees was considered detrimental to good decision making as there was no opportunity to evaluate their decision against decisions made by other boards in similar situations. Training sessions that allowed trustees to prepare for participation in a discipline committee and the opportunity to go through different scenarios or case studies to up-skill themselves prior to being involved in a discipline committee meeting were identified as a way to bridge gaps in readiness and capability.

The majority of Trustees, irrespective of socio-economic area, considered that the expectation of their role in governance of a school in relation to discipline was about right. Community and parent representatives are the best people to make discipline decisions possibly because of their distance from the classroom and their perspective as parents with children in that school. What did differ however was the relationship between the confidence a board had to make a decision and the depth of professional people available on the board to evaluate and critique the components of the decision.

High decile board members expressed confidence that they could make sound decisions and were assured in their ability to access whatever help they needed in contrast to low decile board members who either struggled with the responsibility or hoped they wouldn’t ever be called on to make a decision.