School Discipline and Surveillance: Developments in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand

  • Emmeline Taylor
  • Alison Kearney


This chapter seeks to trace the early approaches to school discipline and social control following colonial settlement in Australia and Aotearoa/New Zealand, highlighting the importance of sociocultural and historical contexts. Demonstrating a continuance of policy importation from abroad, the chapter turns attention to contemporary approaches to school discipline such as ‘zero tolerance’ and technological surveillance practices in these two countries. It is argued that education in ‘settler societies’ has been, and continues to be, a site of considerable contestation.


  1. American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. Retrieved from
  2. Anderson, J., & Boyle, C. (2015). Inclusive education in Australia: Rhetoric, reality and the road ahead. Support for Learning, 30(1), 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelbaum, R. P., & Chambliss, W. J. (1997). Sociology. A brief introduction. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  4. Attorney-General’s Department. (n.d.). Schools security programme. Retrieved from
  5. Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2017). Corporal punishment: Key issues. CFCA Resource Sheet. Retrieved from
  6. Ausubel, D. P. (1965). The fern and the tiki. An American view of New Zealand national character, social attitudes, and race relations. London: Angus and Robertson.Google Scholar
  7. Becroft, A. (2016). Foreward. In P. Towl & S. Hemphill (Eds.), Locked out: Understanding and tackling school exclusion in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. x–xiv). Wellington: New Zealand Council for Education Research.Google Scholar
  8. Benefield, J. (2004, November). Teachers—The new targets of schoolyard bullies? Paper presented at the New Zealand Association of Research in Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  9. Best, A. L. (2007). Representing youth: Methodological issues in critical youth studies. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Booth, T., & Ainscow, M. (2011). Index for inclusion: Developing learning and participation in schools (3rd ed.). Bristol: CSIE Publishing.Google Scholar
  11. Braithwaite, D. (2007). Tip-off sparked school nude drug tests. The Sydney Morning Herald. Available at:
  12. Canter, L., & Canter, M. (1990). Assertive discipline: A take-charge approach for today’s educator (27th ed.). Santa Monica: Lee Canter and Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Debski, S., Buckley, S., & Russell, M. (2009). Just who do we think children are? New Zealanders’ attitudes about children, childhood and parenting: An analysis of submissions on the bill to repeal section 59 of the Crimes Act 1961. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 34, 100–112.Google Scholar
  14. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. (2004). What works. The work program: Core issues 2. Reducing suspensions. Retrieved from
  15. Durkheim, E. (1922). Education and sociology. Glencoe: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Education Counts. (2008). State of education in New Zealand: 2008. Retrieved from
  17. Ericson, R. V., & Haggerty, K. D. (2006). The new politics of surveillance and visibility. In The new politics of surveillance and visibility (pp. 3–25). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  18. Freeman, M. (1992). Introduction: Rights, ideology and children. In M. D. A. Freeman & P. E. Veerman (Eds.), The ideologies of children’s rights (pp. 3–6). Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.Google Scholar
  19. Freeman, M. (2011). Why it remains important to take children’s rights seriously. In M. Freeman (Ed.), Children’s rights: Progress and perspectives. Essays from the International Journal of Children’s Rights (pp. 5–25). Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gard, M., & Lupton, D. (2017). Digital health goes to school: Implications of digitizing children’s bodies. In E. Taylor & T. Rooney (Eds.), Surveillance futures: Social and ethical implications of new technologies for children and young people (pp. 36–49). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Giddens, A. (1985). A contemporary critique of historical materialism; the nation-state and violence (Vol. 2). Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  22. Hemphill, S., & Hargreaves, J. (2009). The impact of school suspensions: A student wellbeing issue. ACHPER Healthy Lifestyles Journal, 56(3), 5–11.Google Scholar
  23. Hemphill, S. A., Herrenkohl, T. I., Plenty, S. M., Toumbourou, J. W., Catalano, R. F., & McMorris, B. J. (2012). Pathways from school suspension to adolescent nonviolent antisocial behavior in students in Victoria, Australia and Washington State, United States. Journal of Community Psychology, 40(3), 301–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hill, M. (n.d.). Assessment at primary level. An historical overview. Retrieved from
  25. Hill, M., Davis, J., Prout, A., & Tisdall, K. (2004). Moving the participation agenda forward. Children & Society, 18(2), 77–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hope, A. (2009). CCTV, school surveillance and social control. British Educational Research Journal, 35(6), 891–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Houston, C. (2012, December 23). Top schools plan drug testing. Sunday Age.Google Scholar
  28. Kounin, J. S., & Gump, P. V. (1961). The comparative influence of punitive and nonpunitive teachers upon children’s concepts of school misconduct. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52(1), 44–49. Scholar
  29. Lansdown, G. (2011). Every child’s right to be heard. A resource guide on the UN committee on the rights of the child general comment No 12. London: Save the Children.Google Scholar
  30. LaVigna, G., & Donnellan, A. (1986). Alternatives to punishment: Solving behaviour with non-aversive strategies. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
  31. Lewis, D. (2012, August 8). Concern over school’s decision to drug test students. ABC News.Google Scholar
  32. Lyon, D. (2002). Editorial. Surveillance studies: Understanding visibility, mobility and the phenetic fix. Surveillance & Society, 1(1), 1–7.Google Scholar
  33. Lyon, D. (2003). Surveillance as social sorting: Privacy, risk and digital discrimination. London: Routedge.Google Scholar
  34. Lyon, D. (2007). The search for surveillance theories. In D. Lyon (Ed.), Surveillance studies: An overview. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  35. Marshall, J., & Marshall, D. (1997). Discipline and punishment in New Zealand education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press.Google Scholar
  36. Martin, S. (2014). In a town like alice springs, GPS outclasses truants. The Australian. Retrieved from:
  37. Marx, G. T. (2015). Surveillance studies. In International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed., pp. 733–741). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meyer, L., & Evans, I. (2012). The school leader’s guide to restorative school discipline. Thousand Oaks: Corwin.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ministry of Education. (1996). Special education 2000. Update to schools. Wellington: Author.Google Scholar
  40. Morrow, V. (2011). Understanding children and childhood. Centre for children and young people background briefing series, No. 1 (2nd ed.). Lismore: Centre for Children and Young People, Southern Cross University.Google Scholar
  41. New South Wales Government. (2016). Education public schools. Supporting students. Available at
  42. New Zealand Education Act. (1964). Available from
  43. Nihlén Fahlquist, J. (2017). Ethical concerns of using GPS to track children. In E. Taylor & T. Rooney (Eds.), Surveillance futures: Social and ethical implications of new technologies for children and young people. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. Noguera, P. A. (1995). Preventing and producing violence: A critical analysis of responses to school violence. Harvard Educational Review, 65(2), 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Partington, G. (2001). Student suspensions: The influence on students and their parents. Australian Journal of Education, 45(3), 323–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Post Primary Teachers Association. (2009). Taumata Whanonga: PPTA and SPC position paper. Available at
  47. Qvortrup, J. (1994). Childhood matters: An introduction. In J. Qvortrup, M. Bardy, G. Sgritta, & H. Wintersberger (Eds.), Childhood matters: Social theory, practice and politics (pp. 1–24). Avebury: Aldershot.Google Scholar
  48. Rae, K. (1999). Stand downs, suspensions and exclusions: Potential impacts of the 1998 Education Amendment (2) Act. New Zealand Annual Review of Education, 8, 27–44.Google Scholar
  49. Roche, A. M., Pidd, K., Bywood, P., Duraisingam, V., Steenson, T., Freeman, T., and Nicholas, R. (2008). Drug testing in schools: Evidence, impacts and alternatives (ANCD Research Paper 16). Canberra: Australian National Council on Drugs.Google Scholar
  50. Rogers, B. (1994). Behaviour recovery: A whole-school programme for mainstream schools. Melbourne: ACER.Google Scholar
  51. Rule, J. (1973). Private lives and public surveillance. London: Allen Lane.Google Scholar
  52. Saldana, J. (2013). Power and conformity in today’s schools. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 3(1), 228–232.Google Scholar
  53. Slee, R. (1995). Changing theories and practices of discipline. London: The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
  54. Smith, A. (2006). The state of research on the effects of physical punishment. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Te Puna Whakaaro, 27, 114–127.Google Scholar
  55. Sweetman, T. (2012, August 12). Private problem thrown on state. The Sunday Mail.Google Scholar
  56. Taylor, E. (2010). I spy with my little eye: The use of CCTV in schools and the impact on privacy. The Sociological Review, 58(3), 381–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Taylor, E. (2013). Surveillance schools: Security, discipline and control in contemporary education. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  58. Taylor, E. (2017a). “This is not America” – Cultural mythscapes, media representation and the anatomy of the surveillance school in Australia. Journal of Sociology, 53(2), 413–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Taylor, E. (2017b). Teaching us to be ‘smart’? The use of RFID in schools and the habituation of young people to everyday surveillance. In E. Taylor & T. Rooney (Eds.), Surveillance futures: Social and ethical implications of new technologies for children and young people (pp. 67–78). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  60. Taylor, E. (2018). Student drug testing and the surveillance school economy: An analysis of media representation and policy transfer in Australian schools. Journal of Education Policy, 33(3), 383–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Te Ara. (2011). Story: Childhood. Retrieved from
  62. The Courier Mail. (2014). Teachers paid more than $10m in compo over five years due to violence in Queensland schools. Retrieved from
  63. The Press. (2009). Stabbing highlights worries. Retrieved from
  64. Tomazin, F. (2013, February 24). Curriculum reworked to tackle drugs. The Age (Victoria).Google Scholar
  65. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2011). Concluding observations: New Zealand. Retrieved from
  66. United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child. (2012). Concluding observations: Australia. A Retrieved from
  67. United Nations General Assembly. (1989, November 20). Convention on the Rights of the Child, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1577, p. 3. Available at:
  68. Wearmouth, J., McKinney, R., & Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative justice in schools: A New Zealand example. Educational Research, 49(1), 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. White, C., & Kearney, A. (2015). The use of stand-downs in New Zealand schools: What are the issues? Kairaranga, 16(1), 27–36.Google Scholar
  70. Williams, J. (2013). Editors Introduction. In J. Williams (Ed.), The united nations convention on the rights of the child in Wales (pp. 1–8). Cardiff: University of Wales Press.Google Scholar
  71. Williamson, B. (2017). Calculating children in the dataveillance school: Personal and learning analytics. In E. Taylor & T. Rooney (Eds.), Surveillance futures: Social and ethical implications of new technologies for children and young people (pp. 50–66). Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Emmeline Taylor
    • 1
  • Alison Kearney
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of SociologyCity, University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Massey UniversityPalmerston North CityNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations