Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Ernesto Lodi	+ 3293 word(s)	3293	2021-12-23 10:50:17	\|
2	The format is correct	Lindsay Dong	Meta information modification	3293	2022-01-24 04:06:39	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/ijerph19010096

The use of restorative justice (RJ) and restorative practices (RP) in schools has grown rapidly. RP can improve the school climate, discipline, positive conflict management through actions that aim at preventing suspensions, exclusions, conflicts, and misbehaviours (e.g., bullying). RJ practices promote positive relationships between peers and between students and teachers, as well as to prosocial behaviours through the development of social and emotional skills.

school restorative justice restorative practices

1. Introduction

The perspectives of the current international debate, also in the wake of the recent Recommendation CM/Rec (2018) 8, aim at encouraging not only the development and use of restorative justice in criminal matters, but also the development of innovative restorative approaches to be placed outside the justice systems, highlighting how justice and restorative practices do not only concern behaviours of criminal relevance. Indeed, restorative justice and practices may also have a role in the various conflicts arising in different communities (such as schools) not only as a response to conflict, but also as a preventive approach aiming at building relationships and communities. Therefore, it is possible that after harm suffered, there is a need to rebuild the sense of trust and heal conflicts to heal people’s wounds and fractures in the social fabric. The aim is to prevent harmful behaviours towards the expected prospect of a better future: a future of safety, trust, responsibility, and well-being of all the parties involved. In this sense, restorative justice can be presented as a justice for people and relationships, when a crime has been committed, a harm produced, a pain suffered, to prevent harmful behaviour ^[1].

Current zero-tolerance policies represent systems that use punitive and exclusionary practices (e.g., suspensions) to control and manage student behaviour. These policies very often aggravate disciplinary problems and exacerbate racial, gender, and socioeconomic status disparities, underlining the need for alternative approaches to the management of school discipline, as well as approaches that aim at promoting well-being in the whole school community.

Restorative justice could represent one of these alternatives. Its practices are oriented not only at the alternative management of incorrect and violent behaviours, for example, bullying, but mainly at the promotion of prosocial behaviours through the development of social and emotional skills (e.g., empathy, awareness, and responsibility), with the broader goal of building safe school communities that promote well-being.

In recent years, the use of restorative justice and restorative practices in schools has grown rapidly. This encourages a better understanding of how theory and research address this question to further improve practices and ensure their application is based on scientific knowledge.

2. Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices

Restorative justice is preliminarily a paradigm, not identifiable in a specific program ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] or in a specific field of application ^[6]. Its possible declinations correspond to different programs, which share some key dimensions: (a) a proactive and promotional vision; (b) the offense is not identified with the behaviour, of which it is only a legal definition; (c) the person who carried out the action is a person rather than a judicial role (investigated, accused, convicted); (d) whoever has suffered the consequences is, even before being an offended party or victim, a harmed person.

This does not mean ignoring the legal significance of the crimes and the people involved (perpetrators and victims), but considering them as persons rather than perpetrators and victims, behaviours that produce harm rather than crimes, consequences rather than victimization, judgment, conviction, punishment ^[1].

Restorative justice proposes a radically different reading from that of criminal justice. For the latter, crime is a violation of the law and the State, while for restorative justice, crime is a violation of persons and obligations, of harm caused and suffered, of social crises, and this means recognizing people and their actions for what they are. For criminal justice, a violation creates guilt and requires paying with suffering, there must be a punishment. For criminal justice, the focus is on the perpetrator who must pay their debt to justice and to the State who, in this way, completely replaces the victim, giving the latter the role of initiator of the criminal action. For the restorative justice, a violation creates new obligations, through which justice and relational balance can be restored. Restorative justice acts by questioning the assumptions of the judicial system without denying them, emphasizing harm reparation as a means of restoring justice and relational balance rather than punishing incorrect behaviour. Therefore, restorative justice involves those who have suffered the harm, those who are responsible for it, and members of the community in a commitment to make “right” what is wrong, restore justice that is respectful of everyone, of people, and of coexistence ^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]. Restorative justice focuses on the need of all the involved parties ^[9]. Victims need to have access to nonjudicial information relating to what has happened: why and what follows the fact that happened (information that often only the perpetrator of the crime possesses); to tell the personal truth on what happened through a space to be heard and tell one’s story; to make sure that those who have acted against them know the consequences they have produced; to regain control over one’s life; to have a compensation. The needs of those who have committed the crime can be to take responsibility for the consequences of their action on the victim and support to progress towards change in view of reintegration into the community. The needs of the community, which must protect its members and itself, are to restore trust in bonds, take care of the person who has suffered, of the person responsible, of all the parties who have an interest in rebalancing and supporting positive relationships. The broadest form of restorative justice is the one that takes place in the encounter and interaction of the three areas of needs.

The paradigm shift represented by restorative justice is evident: crime generates harm and determines needs; justice should work to repair the harm and address these needs. Different conceptions of restorative justice can coexist, but they all share the basic assumptions: encounter, reparation, transformation. These three elements are in agreement with the values of restorative processes and with the needs they are addressing, but each one of them includes aspects that are not necessarily considered by the others: centrality of the encounter and use of restorative processes even in the absence of a crime; centrality of reparation even outside of a restorative process, as in those cases where the victim does not intend to participate; focus on social justice by addressing structural and individual injustices as possible preconditions for crime.

Within the paradigm of restorative justice, different programs can be devised depending on the vision assumed, the protagonists who take part in it, and the social, economic, and cultural context, as well as the ability to accept alternative conflict management formulas. These programs can be family group conferences; restorative conferences; circles of peace; victim/offender mediation; community-building circles. The possible programs of restorative justice must be, in any case, designed with the awareness that the three protagonists with those three areas of needs must be able to meet and interact within the area of shared principles, even where the specific program does not include all parts.

Such a broad and inclusive vision makes it possible to highlight the fundamental dimensions of the approach since, transversally, they can go beyond the criminal question: restorative justice and restorative practices do not only affect behaviour of criminal relevance, but also conflicts, offenses, and transgressions that can take place in the community and in everyday contexts, and not only as a response to the conflict, but in a preventive approach to care for relationships. In this perspective, restorative justice represents an approach aimed at promoting lifestyles and ability to perform peaceful conflict management oriented towards a social sense of justice in relationships and in communities, trust, inclusion, cohesion, equity, peace, and social support in accordance with the internationally shared values of restorative justice: justice and accountability, solidarity and responsibility, respect for human dignity, search for truth through dialogue (the experience of history for each of the parties involved) ^[12]. Therefore, the relationships between people represent the main resource for building social bonds, interactions, and opportunities to prevent discomfort and deviance, generate connections of well-being.

3. Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School

Traditionally, school systems use prescriptive and punitive methods to manage, respond, and deal with bad behaviours that students display. These methods, known as zero-tolerance policies, involve actions of exclusion (e.g., suspensions and expulsions) that lead to the removal and isolation of students that commit illegal behaviour from both the school context and the community and that are put in place to enforce order within the schools themselves ^[13].

The American Psychological Association (APA) Zero Tolerance Task Force ^[14], analysing zero-tolerance policies, highlighted the negative consequences of these practices: intensification of the inequality of treatment with respect to Black students and urban school students with low socioeconomic status, higher likelihood of recurrence of deviant behaviour, dropout, higher likelihood of crime ^[14]^[15]^[16]^[17]^[18]. To address these consequences, it is critical that schools promote and experiment with alternative disciplinary methods, like restorative approaches and practices, to substitute zero-tolerance policies and punitive practices. However, it is essential to think of an approach that is promoted throughout the school, that should be focused not only on repairing harm in the event of conflicts and harmful/violent behaviours (e.g., bullying), but also on building and cultivating relationships, promoting both relational/emotional and peaceful conflict management skills, nonviolent communication, a sense of security, respect, well-being. In this sense, the interventions carried out in the context of restorative justice programs are framed in its promotional perspective, which is a proactive vision that, while acting on the conflict triggered by a harmful behaviour or other illicit actions (e.g., crime), looks at future development of people and their relationships, at their ability to prevent and deal with conflict as the best solution for coexistence. When this approach is applied to contexts such as schools, the aim of promotional prevention is perhaps more immediately visible: some behaviours cause harm, which creates needs, which require restorative responses; restorative responses meet needs, which repair harm; repairing the harm may or may not lead to the prevention of crime and/or harmful behaviour ^[19]. Indeed, many programs developed in schools “can provide an opportunity for the community to provide an appropriate educational response to minor offences and other conflicts without formally criminalizing the behaviour or the individual” ^[20].

In the international context, in recent years, more schools have launched and tested initiatives and projects aimed at promoting the restorative approach and restorative practices: (a) in terms of cultural and disciplinary policy of the entire school, supporting students, teachers, non-teaching staff with specific training; (b) as an approach capable of promoting and developing social and emotional skills (e.g., empathy, self-esteem, nonviolent communication, peaceful conflict management); (c) as practices specifically activated, with the involvement of external facilitators, to manage and respond to episodes of bullying, conflicts, inappropriate and/or offensive and/or violent behaviour. Figure 1 is an example of this. Therefore, involvement of the school community in the resolution of conflicts that may arise within the same is based on the idea that members of the community need and want to repair the harm suffered and/or acted upon and that they have the skills and opportunities to do it, promoting the development of creative resolution strategies, nonviolent communication, and non-judgmental listening. The starting point is that the promotion of the restorative approach to the whole school, through the activation of practices such as peer mediation, circle time, restorative conferencing, family group conferencing, community-building circles, can represent an approach aimed not only at repairing harm in case of conflicts and/or incorrect behaviour, but which allows building and strengthening relationships, as well as promoting and developing relational and personal skills such as empathy, assertiveness, self-efficacy.

Figure 1. Restorative and relational process skills ^[21].

4. Restorative Justice and Restorative Practices at School

Some schools have promoted the implementation of restorative justice as a whole school-oriented approach in order to change the school and the disciplinary policy that had characterized the schools up to that time, such as traditional approaches and zero-tolerance policies. In this sense, several reflections on punitive and exclusionary school disciplinary policies have emerged, defining them as a matter of health justice and underlining the importance of implementing alternative disciplinary practices, such as restorative justice practices. Traditional approaches and/or zero-tolerance policies very often exaggerate the inequalities of treatment of students of different races, gender, socioeconomic status and increase the likelihood of recurrence of deviant behaviours and criminal behaviours, as well as school dropout. These modalities involve actions of exclusion that lead to stigmatization even more, distancing, and isolation of young people from the school context and from people in general, increasing fragility and vulnerability even more.

Very often, some schools have activated restorative justice practices, including via involvement of external experts, to respond to cases of serious conflict and violence, as well as in cases of bullying, as restorative practices promote active involvement in the processes of solving a bully/victim problem ^[22]. Sometimes, conflicts are an integral part of community life, such as school, and can represent valid opportunities for growth, but very often the inability to manage and face them or manage them and deal with them with punitive practices leads to an opposite effect. However, it is fundamental to promote alternative and nonviolent methods that can favour the possibility for people to confront each other with respect to different opinions, beliefs, and values as well as have greater awareness of the situation and work together to find solutions. Restorative processes can be a nonviolent response: they help to prevent and reduce conflicts and resolve them peacefully ^[23]. The potential of interventions and/or restorative programs was highlighted with respect to a greater ability to manage and respond to behavioural problems. Therefore, schools that implement the restorative approach and practices achieve improvements in school discipline, reduction in injuries, disciplinary postponements, and school offenses. Consequently, there are greater positive behaviours and lower suspension rates and disciplinary sanctions, less need for punitive measures. Indeed, interventions and restorative justice projects at the whole school lead to the promotion of alternative and multilevel methods of managing behavioural problems ^[24].

Restorative practices not only represent alternative practices to managing and responding to incorrect and violent behaviours (e.g., bullying and school crimes), but also significant spaces and opportunities to tell one’s opinions and emotions, lower the level of disciplinary disparity between students of different races, cultures, and gender, proactively participate in decision-making processes. In addition, some studies showed better academic performance, resulting in lower levels of absenteeism. In this sense, in line with the academic scientific literature, in schools that have implemented restorative justice and restorative practices, there is a slight increase in the average grade, an increase in graduation rates, and a more than double decrease in dropout rates ^[25]. Therefore, the implementation of the restorative approach and restorative practices is expressed not only as a response to conflict, but in a preventive key to welcome and care for people, relationships, communities.

Furthermore, the restorative approach allows promoting prosocial behaviours through the development of social and emotional skills (e.g., responsibility), listening skills, and peaceful conflict resolution, positive interpersonal relationships, and trust, greater collaboration between school, police, justice system, families. This approach, by changing the entire school environment, could be one of the most effective and efficient ways to build safe, equitable, and inclusive school communities that promote empowerment, well-being, and better quality of life of all members. In addition, the restorative approach can contribute to a significant reduction in school exclusion and inequalities of gender, race, and socioeconomic status ^[26]. In this perspective, a more general focus can be found in the use of the restorative approach for the management and promotion of interpersonal relationships: positive relationships in the school context (with parents, teachers, peers) are associated with positive outcomes in many spheres of children’s and adolescents’ individual and educational development, affecting school engagement, achievement, and well-being ^[27]. Scientific research on youth well-being adopts perspectives that aim at improving the quality of life of people, with a specific focus on those protective factors at an individual and contextual level (for example, positive school adaptation) that can promote well-being and/or favour factors and behaviours harmful to health ^[28]^[29]. It is also a social level issue “since understanding adolescents’ needs related to mental health is a basilar issue to let young people not only to fulfil their potential but also to contribute to the development of our communities” ^[28] (p. 125). For this reason, the effects of restorative justice and restorative practices on the management and containment of health risk behaviours should also be emphasized. Therefore, it was found that the use of the restorative approach at school reduces the likelihood of students engaging in harmful behaviours for health such as the use of substances, such as alcohol and drugs, smoking, and dangerous sexual relations.

The possibility of activating training courses for RJ and its practices represents an important opportunity to obtain long-term benefits as it allows sensitizing the entire school to the restorative approach, supporting the openness to change of the school policy, transferring knowledge and skills, making students and teachers independent in the activation and management of restorative practices. In fact, in 26 schools, within the implementation projects of restorative justice and restorative practices at school, awareness-raising training courses were provided for students, teachers, school staff and specific in-depth courses for some staff members for timely conflict management. In 20 of these 26 studies, the involvement of external RJ professionals, such as facilitators, psychologists, social workers, emerged both for the intervention in cases of bullying, conflicts of medium/serious gravity, other harmful behaviours, and to support teachers and/or students in the activation and management of restorative practices. Sometimes, RP were provided directly by the researchers as experts in restorative practices (n = 8).

Training students in restorative practices allows them to develop skills to manage and deal with conflicts independently, making them active members of school life and decision-making processes on issues that affect them and makes it possible to promote and develop openness to change in school policies, thus facilitating the application of the restorative approach to the whole school. Conversely, schools that did not provide specific training encountered many difficulties in implementing the restorative approach within the school due to a lack of knowledge of the approach and practices. This underlines the importance of adequate training and support to help teachers, principals, students to gain confidence and become capable in using RJ and its practices and implement the restorative approach as a school policy.

In addition, complexity has emerged in implementation of the restorative approach and restorative practices at school. First, not all schools are ready and willing to change disciplinary and school policies, and not all schools believe this is possible. In addition, the complexity of implementing restorative justice may be underestimated: it is essential to carry out a careful assessment of the needs and contextual characteristics of the school/community in advance to assess the effective possibility of implementing restorative justice and practices. Although it is essential to establish qualitative models and evaluation systems with respect to the application of these practices, it is not always possible (if ever possible) to apply a standard and unambiguous model. Difficulties have emerged in implementing restorative justice as an alternative disciplinary strategy if one chooses to integrate it into the school without taking action to eliminate one system over the other. Furthermore, it is essential to customize the programs and procedures through a context analysis that identifies the strengths and possible areas to be exploited, starting with small changes up to extending the intervention to the whole school through an action plan shared by the whole school community.

References

Patrizi, P. La giustizia riparativa. In Psicologia e Diritto per il Benessere di Persone e Comunità; Carocci: Roma, Italy, 2019.
Zehr, H. Justice paradigm shift? Values and visions in the reform process. Mediat. Q. 1995, 12, 207–216.
Wright, M. Restoring Respect for Justice; Waterside Press: Winchester, UK, 1999.
Wright, M. The Paradigm of Restorative Justice. VOMA Connect. Res. Pract. Suppl. 2002, II. Available online: http://voma.org/docs/connect11insert.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
McCold, P.; Wachtel, T. In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice. In Proceedings of the XIII World Congress of Criminology, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 10–15 August 2003; International Institute for Restorative Practices: Bethlehem, PA, USA. Available online: http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf (accessed on 7 June 2021).
Johnstone, G.; Van Ness, D.W. Handbook of Restorative Justice; Willan Publishing: Cullompton, UK, 2007.
Bazemore, G. Community Justice and a Vision of Collective Efficacy: The Case of Restorative Conferencing. Crim. Justice 2000, 3, 225–297.
Zehr, H. A Restorative Lens, in Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice; Herald Press: Waterloo, ON, Canada, 1990; pp. 177–214.
Zehr, H. The Little Book of Restorative Justice, 1st ed.; Good Books: Intercourse, PA, USA, 2002.
Wright, M. In che modo la giustizia riparativa è riparativa? Rass. Penit. E Criminol. 2002, 3, 153–178.
Wright, M. Towards a Restorative Society: A Problem-Solving Response to Harm; Cambridge University Press: London, UK, 2010.
EFRJ (European Forum for Restorative Justice). Expanding the restorative imagination. Restorative justice between realities and visions in Europe and beyond. In Proceedings of the 10th International EFRJ Conference, Tirana, Albania, 14–16 June 2018.
Welch, K.; Payne, A.A. Exclusionary School Punishment: The Effect of Racial Threat on Expulsion and Suspension. Youth Violence Juv. Justice 2012, 10, 155–171.
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. Am. Psychol. 2008, 63, 852–862.
American Academy of Pediatrics Council on School Health. Out-of school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics 2013, 131, e1000–e1007.
Noltemeyer, A.; Mcloughlin, C.S. Patterns of exclusionary discipline by school typology, ethnicity, and their interaction. Penn GSE Perspect. Urban Educ. 2010, 7, 27–40.
Welch, K.; Payne, A.A. Racial Threat and Punitive School Discipline. Soc. Probl. 2010, 57, 25–48.
Noltemeyer, A.L.; Ward, R.M.; Mcloughlin, C.S. Relationship between school suspension and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Sch. Psychol. Rev. 2015, 44, 224–240.
McCold, P. A Barebones Causal Theory of Restorative Justice. In Proceedings of the IIRP’s 6th International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other Restorative Practices, Penrith, New South Wales, Australia, 3–5 March 2005; International Institute for Restorative Practices: Bethlehem, PA, USA. Available online: www.realjustice.org (accessed on 7 June 2021).
UNODC (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime). Handbook on Restorative Justice Programs; United Nations: New York, NY, USA, 2008.
Hopkins, B. Restorative justice in schools. Support Learn. 2002, 17, 144–149.
Rigby, K. How teachers address cases of bullying in schools: A comparison of five reactive approaches. Educ. Psychol. Pract. 2014, 30, 409–419.
Stewart Kline, D.M. Can Restorative Practices Help to Reduce Disparities in School Discipline Data? A Review of the Literature. Multicult. Perspect. 2016, 18, 97–102.
Mayworm, A.M.; Sharkey, J.D.; Hunnicutt, K.L.; Schiedel, K.C. Teacher Consultation to Enhance Implementation of School-Based Restorative Justice. J. Educ. Psychol. Consult. 2016, 26, 385–412.
Darling-Hammond, S.; Fronius, T.A.; Sutherland, H.; Guckenburg, S.; Petrosino, A.; Hurley, N. Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in US K-12 Schools: A Review of Quantitative Research. Contemp. Sch. Psychol. 2020, 24, 295–308.
Oxley, L.; Holden, G.W. Three positive approaches to school discipline: Are they compatible with social justice principles? Educ. Child Psychol. 2021, 38, 71–81.
Boerchi, D.; Magnano, P.; Lodi, E. The High-school Competencies Scale (H-Comp Scale): A first validation study. Eur. J. Investig. Health. Psychol. Educ. 2021, 11, 41.
Lodi, E.; Boerchi, D.; Magnano, P.; Patrizi, P. High-School Satisfaction Scale (H-Sat Scale): Evaluation of Contextual Satisfaction in Relation to High-School Students’ Life Satisfaction. Behav. Sci. 2019, 9, 125.
Magnano, P.; Boerchi, D.; Lodi, E.; Patrizi, P. The Effect of Non-Intellective Competencies and Academic Performance on School Satisfaction. Educ. Sci. 2020, 10, 222.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Psychology

Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Ernesto Lodi

View Times: 646

Update Date: 24 Jan 2022

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm