Restorative Practices in Schools
Andreopoulos (2002) argued that accountability is essential for peace building, it is a “ foundational step towards intergroup tolerance and respect for diversity” (p. 242). In the past three decades, restorative justice has developed into a movement that combines accountability for harm and emphasis on reconciliation rather than punishment (Umbreit, Coates, & Vos, 2007; Varnham, 2005).
Restorative justice programs for schools highlight accountability in a system of nonpu- nitive reconciliation and community building. These programs help students think in terms of the rights of all and advocate on behalf of community members whose rights have been infringed. Lane (2005/2006) reminds us that these programs can have profound influence on children at the time in their lives when identity formation is key and their notion of belonging to and being responsible to a community is forming. The challenge is to connect students as citizens within their school communities with a sense of caring and accountability for others; this challenge has not been well met by more traditional punitive discipline measures that tend to shame and alienate students (Macready, 2009). As Alice Ierley and David Claassen-Wilson state (2003),
A growing number of school communities across the United States have begun to explore the use of restorative justice processes as a means of addressing the limitations of these punitive discipline measures. In states like Colorado and Minnesota, educators are implementing a variety of restorative discipline alternatives to traditional measures such as detention, suspension, expulsion, and police charges. In schools using restorative justice practices, an offending student is given the opportunity to participate in a restorative discipline process as a means of repairing the harm done to those affected by the wrongdoing.
These processes are voluntary for the parties and may be offered in lieu of punitive discipline measures, as a reentry process following traditional discipline, or in combination with reduced sanctions. (p. 200)There are three basic restorative pro- cesses—victim offender mediation, group conferencing, and circles. Victim offender mediation is led by an adult (usually a teacher or administrator) and involves the student who was harmed and the student who did the harm; they are brought together to have the student who did the harm take responsibility and make amends and/or restitution. The mediation is never about whether the harm occurred—the accountability portion is critical. In a group conference, the mediation format is expanded to include family and friends of the students on both sides of the conflict so the “community” can consider how they can help to repair the harm. Circles are a form of dialogue process used for addressing larger conflict issues affecting the school.
How do these components of restorative justice work separately and in concert to develop reconciliation after a harmful conflict? In 2010, South Philadelphia High School had a series of racial conflicts between African American students and Asian American students that ended in Asian American students leaving school with the support of their families. The Asian American community protest was fueled by reports that previous incidents of fighting and harassment between the student groups had not been effectively addressed by the School District of Philadelphia. As one part of the healing process, the school had circle dialogue processes about racial tensions in the community; the circles involved students, family, and community members from all the sides. In these circles, trained facilitators used dialogue process to have participants share their personal experiences with the racial tensions in the community and discuss how these tensions were affecting the school and community.
The goal of circle processes is to increase awareness and understanding of experiences and perceptions; but problem solving or action strategies are not part of this process. Victim-offender mediation could be used between a student who had harassed another and the student targeted. Victimoffender mediation assumes accountability for the harm and is acknowledged from the beginning, so the focus of the mediation is to allow the target to confront the harasser, to encourage the harasser to take responsibility for the harm, and to guide both to consider forms and practices of restitution to repair the harm. Conferencing would involve the family and friends of the harasser and the target as well as the students, with the focus on how the specific incident of harassment affected not only the target but all of the gathered members. In conferencing, as in victim-offender mediation,the process focuses on a particular incident of harm and how that should be understood and repaired.
Restorative justice programs are increasingly common in the United Kingdom, Australia, and New Zealand. There is a strong emphasis in New Zealand to teach citizenship in formal education and develop school cultures based on the restoration of relationships rather than punishment. These programs draw heavily from the traditional Maori customs, one of the sources of original inspiration for the concept of contemporary restorative justice efforts (Wearmouth, McKinney, & Glynn, 2007).
In June 2003, Rigby and Thomas (2004; cited in Wearmouth et al., 2007) conducted a study of 50 primary and secondary schools throughout Australia to assess the quality and impact of restorative practices programs. They report a wide variety of implementation practices, noting the difficulty of full school implementation; and most schools used mediation but not full school conferencing processes. A national evaluation of restorative justice practices in 32 schools in nine pilot areas across England and Wales has provided encouraging evidence (Bitel, 2004).
The research involved surveys from more than 5,000 pupils and 1,150 staff, as well as more than 600 individual interviews with key stakeholders. Data on school performance indicators were gathered at the beginning of the evaluation in 2002 and at the end in 2004. Before the restorative justice programs, the schools had high levels of victimization and behavioral problems. Youth Offending Teams were then given the responsibility of implementing restorative justice practices in the schools. After the programs, 95% of all conflicts had been resolved through mediation and conferencing, and there were significant reductions in the levels of bullying and victimization.In Scotland, restorative practices were implemented in 2004 to provide support for students with behavior problems (Kane et al., 2008). The Scottish educational model of restorative practices is a whole-school initiative; restorative practices are for all staff and pupils. The initial pilot study included 18 schools with comprehensive data collection, including surveys, interviews, observations, and behavioral incident records. Results indicated that commitment to restorative practices was critical in delivering positive outcomes of reduction of playground incidents, discipline referrals, expulsion, and use of external behavior support (McCluskey, 2010).
This discussion of exemplary CRE programs touches on important programs and practices that are proven to help schools create constructive conflict communities and safe learning environments. As the review subliminally suggests, these programs should always begin with SEL that builds basic conflict and social competencies like empathy and impulse control. Once students have developed these competencies, hopefully in elementary grades, mediation and negotiation programs teach them to apply skills in actual conflicts, a practice that not only hones their conflict competence but also helps manage conflicts in the school. For issues of intolerance and discrimination, issues that invoke human rights and questions of community values and cohesion, bullying prevention and restorative justice practices are schoolwide programs that assume a systemic and engaged responsibility for conflict management and student safety. All of these exemplary program areas can be used together in a sophisticated, integrated approach to CRE in a school and/or district.