In this thoughtful Middle School Journal article, Katherine Evans (Eastern Mennonite University) and Jessica Lester (Washington State University) say that “zero tolerance” discipline policies have failed to make schools safer. They point to a growing body of research suggesting that restorative justice, implemented in some schools in Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, South Africa, Canada, and the U.S., is a better approach. Its purpose is to “hold offenders accountable, repair harm to the victims, and provide support and assistance to offenders to encourage their reintegration into the community.” Restorative justice can be seen as “a response to misbehavior and as a way to facilitate healthy school climates.” Evans and Lester list its seven principles:
• Principle #1: Meeting needs – An underlying assumption of restorative justice is that humans have three basic requirements: autonomy, order, and relatedness. “When these needs are not met, students may go to great extremes to meet their needs,” say Evans and Lester. The result is misbehavior, conflict, and sometimes violence.
• Principle #2: Providing accountability and support – “While zero tolerance policies promote accountability, they often do so without compassion,” say Evans and Lester. Restorative justice “promotes accountability within a supportive and compassionate learning community.” If it’s clear that a child’s actions were wrong and resulted in harm, the perpetrator must accept responsibility.
• Principle #3: Making things right – A bad deed is defined “not as an offense against the institution (i.e., the school) but as an offense against the members of the institution (i.e., the students’ school community).” Restorative justice is different from restitution, which can be seen as another form of punishment. Rather, restorative justice should serve the needs of the victim, “restoring the relationship between the victim and the offender,” say Evans and Lester. “Further, the effectiveness of a restitution plan is contingent on the offender developing and being responsible for the plan, rather than having that plan imposed on them by an authority figure. In this way, the restitution becomes not only a way of repairing harm but also an opportunity to learn.”
• Principle #4: Viewing conflict as a learning opportunity – Externally imposed sanctions deprive students of the chance to problem-solve, learn, and grow, say Evans and Lester, and “teach students that only those in power are able to make decisions and solve problems… Restorative models of school discipline open conversations between victims and offenders, allowing them a space to share perspectives, listen to one another, and work collaboratively to design solutions that bring about healing and restoration.”
• Principle #5: Building healthy learning communities – Restorative justice “defines school violence as a breakdown of social relationships and implements specific processes to rebuild those relationships,” say Evans and Lester. “Strengthening school community and enhancing student-student, student-teacher, teacher-teacher, and school-community relationships is viewed as the most effective way to prevent misbehavior and school-based violence.”
• Principle #6: Restoring relationships – Conflict and violence are a violation of relationships more than a violation of rules, say the authors. Restorative justice “seeks an understanding of what has occurred, the needs of those affected – including students, teachers, parents, and anyone else involved in the conflict – and ways to address the harm that was done.” Restorative justice “works with students and teachers rather than doing things to them or forthem.”
• Principle #7: Addressing power imbalances – Restorative justice goes beyond students’ behavior and looks at the harm that can be done by institutional practices – for example, long out-of-school suspensions.
Evans and Lester say that, despite research pointing to the efficacy of restorative justice, schools have been slow to adopt it. Why? It requires a lot of time and resources, its proponents haven’t provided enough conceptual clarity, and the philosophy clashes with existing punitive models of school discipline.
Ideally, restorative justice is has three tiers. The first is schoolwide instruction in social and emotional skills to build school community. The second involves repairing relationships when conflict happens, mostly in small-group conferences or peer mediation. The third tier deals with situations where harm has been done; it involves mediation and victim-offender conferences.
Evans and Lester suggest the following steps for gradually introducing restorative justice in a school:
- Combine top-down leadership with bottom-up energy. “This approach helps to gradually develop a critical mass within a school,” they say.
- Start where you are. There may already be elements of restorative justice within the school and staff members who support the idea.
- Start with voluntary participation. Staff buy-in is important, and the restorative process shouldn’t begin until offenders have admitted guilt and begun to take responsibility for their actions.
- Shift the paradigm from punishment and control. To implement restorative justice, schools need to move from managing students’ behavior to collaboration, mutual respect, accountability, and growth.
“Restorative Justice in Education: What We Know So Far” by Katherine Evans and Jessica Lester in Middle School Journal, May 2013 (Vol. 44, #5, p. 57-63), no e-link available; the authors can be reached at kathy.evans@emu.edu and jessica.lester@tricity.wsu.edu.
Stephen Anderson
No comments:
Post a Comment