INTRODUCTION

The Convention on the Rights of the Child recognizes Children’s right to education as well as Children’s right to be heard in administrative proceedings affecting them. Disciplinary measures in school are to be ‘administered in a manner consistent with the child’s human dignity’ which includes giving children a voice in school. In Canadian law, afair administrative proceeding is one in which, ‘those whose interests were aff ected had a meaningful opportunity to present their case fully and fairly’. Children facing discipline in school should have the opportunity to be heard before school officials decide how to respond to an incident of alleged misconduct. Unfortunately, the discipline procedures set out in Ontario’s Education Act that may result in the exclusion of a child from school do not systematically reflect these principles. Children in school cannot on their own challenge suspensions and expulsions, meaning those who manage their own education for whatever reason have no guarantee of being meaningfully heard when faced with exclusionary disciplinary measures.

In addition to being contrary to principles of fairness, the failure to systematically include Children’s voices in school discipline procedures off ends Children’s subjective sense of justice. Tom Tyler, an American psychologist, argues, ‘voice, neutrality, respect, and trust’ are core principles of procedural justice. These principles apply equally in the school context. Fairness in school is about educators showing they care by respecting children and communicating with them. It is also about consistently and transparently applying rules and explaining decisions. Echoing Tyler’s procedural justice principles, children in Ontario and elsewhere ‘are concerned with fairness’ when it comes to school discipline and in school life generally. Children who face discipline in school want information about their rights, the ability to meaningfully participate in the decisions affecting them, and want decision-makers to take into account their individual circumstances when determining the extent of disciplinary measures.