One of the ways historians identify practices that future generations will judge harshly is by listening carefully to the way those practices are defended in the present. Again and again, the same three arguments tend to emerge.
The practice is described as normal, natural and necessary.
You can see those exact arguments throughout history in everything from the oppression of women, to child labour and slavery. In the centuries leading into abolition, defenders of slavery repeatedly argued that it was normal because societies had always operated with a servant or slave class. They argued it was natural because some human beings were supposedly “born” for subservient roles. And they argued it was necessary because economies would collapse without it.
History hasn’t been particularly kind to those arguments.
I wonder whether future generations will view many current school behaviour practices through a very similar lens.
Punishment and coercion are defended as normal because schools have “always” used them. Except formal schooling itself occupies only a tiny sliver of human history and much of what we now consider traditional schooling is remarkably recent. Human beings raised children, taught values and built communities for thousands of years before detentions, suspensions and behaviour charts showed up.
We also hear these approaches defended as natural. Schools refer to “natural consequences” while parachuting in consequences entirely manufactured by adults. If a student runs too quickly on asphalt and scrapes their knee, that’s a natural consequence. If we decide they now owe three lunchtimes picking up rubbish that’s not natural at all. That’s an applied consequence imposed by authority.
And then comes the third defence: that punishment-heavy systems are necessary because, without them, schools will supposedly descend into chaos and violent anarchy. Critics of restorative practice often speak as though dignity, accountability and strong relationships are somehow incompatible with order, safety or high expectations.
I reckon history will judge that argument poorly too.
The schools courageously building restorative cultures right now are not absent of accountability. They simply refuse to outsource accountability to fear, shame and coercion. Instead, they’re betting on something more sophisticated and humane: that young people grow best when responsibility is taught relationally and when mistakes are treated as opportunities for repair rather than opportunities for exclusion.
I also reckon future generations will look back remarkably kindly on schools that chose dignity, connection and restoration over panicked exclusion, even while they’re insisting that their coercion is normal, natural and necessary.
Keep fighting that good fight,
P.S. Interested in the ongoing impact of AI on our students, and how a restorative approach might be of benefit? Join me for The AI-Ready Student Workshop on 23 June. It’ll be 90 minutes dedicated to making sure your students are ready for an AI future.
Find out more and register here.
Want to subscribe to Adam’s Home Truths? Simply subscribe here.