02.04.07
Twenty questions about “restorative justice”
Here in Madison, Wisconsin, we’ve got school board elections coming up this spring and an overhaul of the discipline code in the works. A buzzphrase we’re hearing more and more of these days is “restorative justice”:
From the district’s “Department of General Administration: Division Information - Office of the Superintendent” (p. 232)
One of the major challenges for the 2006-07 school year is implementing a change in the philosophy and approach to creating positive student behavior. We are moving from a punitive system of student behavior management to a district wide positive approach to changing student behavior through education, dialogue and restorative justice principles.
A recent response by the current school board president (Johnny Winston, Jr.) to questions on school safety posed to school board candidates by Isthmus:
First, our board is currently analyzing and updating our student code of conduct to change from a punitive approach to a preventative and restorative justice methodology. Students will learn from their mistakes by involving their parents, taking ownership of their wrongdoing, getting professional help (e.g. a serious fight would result in anger management counseling) and then making restitution to the victim and school.
From the minutes from the school board’s Board of Education - Common Council Liaison Committee meeting of November 15, 2006:
In the middle of a major change to the way the district is approaching behavior. Approach to changing behavior was punishment. Now changing to teaching good behavior. Moving toward restorative justice model so child can get back in good graces in the community. No value in suspension for anyone. Have to narrow suspensions down to cases of safety for student and the school. Behavior system will look the same at all schools.
The current year’s SIP (School Improvement Plan) for one of our middle schools includes an item for restorative justice training for “all staff” with a timeline of December 2006 (albeit with the note “Progress - on hold/district funding?”) and the SIP for another of our middle schools includes the item “refresher staff development opportunity [to] review Restorative Justice model of interventions”
The superintendent, school board president and other school board candidates are already talking as if this were a done deal. But what is “restorative justice,” and what will it mean to have student misconduct addressed with a “restorative justice” approach? A layperson’s online search leads to academic papers in the criminal and juvenile justice area from fields ranging from sociology, social work, philosophy and theology, but not much specific research or data on whether or how “restorative justice” has been found to work as an approach to addressing misconduct in schools. The decision to move away from a discipline-based approach to a “restorative justice” approach will have an immediate, on-the-ground, daily impact on the school climate and educational experience encountered by the students and teachers in our schools, and parents of children in the public schools here may very well have the following questions:
1. What does “restorative justice” look like as experienced by the non-offender student community and teachers?
2. How many schools with comparable school settings (i.e. urban schools with comparable size and demographics) have implemented “restorative justice”?
3. What evidence from comparable school settings supports the conclusion that school-based “restorative justice” is an effective way to prevent or reduce the number and severity of incidents of misconduct?
4. What evidence from comparable school settings supports the conclusion that “restorative justice” reduces recidivism by repeat offenders?
5. What evidence from comparable school settings supports the conclusion that school-based “restorative justice” can overcome the psychological and socialization issues of offenders whose behavior demonstrates poor impulse control and a lack of understanding of abstract consequences, or who do not share the community’s values of respect, empathy and personal responsibility?
6. Based on the experience of schools where the implementation of “restorative justice” has failed to meet desired results, what steps will our school district take to avoid similar failures?
7. Compared to a discipline-based approach, what is the effectiveness of the “restorative justice” approach in communicating to the school community that there are clear consequences for misconduct which are fairly and consistently administered?
8. What is the feedback from teachers and students (from other schools with comparable school settings) who have experienced the transition from a disciplinary to “restorative justice” approach?
9. What would be the steps taken to implement the transition to “restorative justice” in our school district, and how will this be experienced by students and teachers?
10. What disciplinary measures and school safety plans would be in effect during the transition period?
11. Under a “restorative justice” approach, what specific steps would be taken with a student who engages in insubordinate, disruptive and disrespectful behavior (for example, talking over or talking back to the teacher in class)?
12. Under a “restorative justice” approach, what specific steps would be taken with a student who engages in threatening, intimidating or bullying behavior?
13. Under a “restorative justice” approach, what specific steps would be taken with a student who commits an assault or other physical violence?
14. When there is a conflict between student safety and the desire to respond to a particular instance of misconduct in a “non-punitive” way, which choice does the “restorative justice” approach require?
15. How much classroom instruction time will be diverted to administering “restorative justice” interventions to misconduct?
16. How will teachers, staff and administrators without training in social work, psychology or counseling be trained to acquire a satisfactory level of competence in administering “restorative justice”?
17. How will the effectiveness of the implementation of “restorative justice” be monitored, and what steps will be taken to modify or discontinue it if it is unsuccessful?
18. What will be the short-term “restorative justice” training and implementation costs for our school district?
19. What will be the structural costs for our school district of permanent psychologist/social worker/counseling staff to administer “restorative justice” on a continuing basis?
20. What will be the long-term costs and consequences if an unsuccessful implementation of “restorative justice” results in a deterioration in school safety and security?
Bulldog said,
February 8, 2007 at 11:05 am
As a practicing criminologist for over 30 years I can tell you that the idea of “restorative justice” has never worked either in terms of preventing “actor” from reoffending or in terms of future prevention.
I agree that the idea of “suspension” no longer holds the deterrent value that it used to. In addition, most police do not like children be left unsupervised at home because it causes problems in the neighborhood.
The answer is a combination of In School Suspension and Disciplinary Alternative Education Placements with a high punishment factor. Unfortunately most school boards and state boards of education and teacher’s organization are far more interested in “feel good” operations than actually helping the students stay in class and learn.
Jane Nicholson said,
April 1, 2007 at 2:26 pm
For the past five years, I have worked with the Chicago Public Schools to train and implement peer juries in high schools. The newest initiative at CPS mandates the RJ approach throughout the system and pilot schools will be designated at middle school and elementary school levels. Restorative justice changes school climate in a number of ways, not least of which is the profound learning experience that is the foundation of the method . Restorative justice as a method depends equally on both words in its name–justice is achieved and so is restoration of community. The main tenet is that of repairing the harm done by involving all of the stakeholders in the situationcommunity. I am one of 250 persons in the country trained for ten days in BARJ (balanced and restorative justice) which includes a number of restorative practices. Peer juries are just one of several practices that are used in schools to improve school climate and foster a safe, caring school community–depending on all of its members to be involved. Peer mediation, talking circles, and conferencing are practices that fit into the school scene in a variety of ways. RJ is a flexible method that should be implemented to the satisfaction of the entire school community. RJ is enriching, effective, time-saving, and money-saving as well. Suspensions and expulsions can be greatly reduced in number and disciplinarians and school administrators can reduce the time spent in these scenarios. I am the survivor of a homicide victim–my husband was murdered in 1991, in a school violence incident. I am a Wisconsin native and resident and I care deeply about the school climate throughout Wisconsin. I hope that the Madison school district will find its way to implementing RJ for the health of its districts and that other WI communities will join in.
madisonparent said,
April 2, 2007 at 7:22 am
Jane, thank you for your comment. The RJ program that you are working with sounds much like what I’ve read about other RJ programs. My concern is that those descriptions don’t contain much evidence to answer the questions such as those I’ve asked above.