Restorative justice use in school

I have seen many headlines that highlight so-called "restorative justice" or "restorative practices" that induce me to express my frustration - "that is certainly not restorative practice!"

A recent example was an article that describes a situation where a 10-year-old boy with special educational needs was "forced by staff to listen to classmates listing the reasons they didn't like him. He then had to write these on a hand-drawn poster that was then stuck on his classroom wall".

According to the article, parents had been told by the head teacher that this was "restorative justice".

Misinterpretation

This made me consider the reasons behind this misinterpretation of restorative justice and the need for clear definitions and communication about what is and isn't "restorative".

Restorative justice - the reactive subset of restorative practices used to deal with harm or conflict after it has occurred - are not just "interventions" or "tools in the toolbox" to be picked off the shelf and followed as a procedure when harm or conflict occurs.

Approaches that are restorative will be underpinned by a key set of underlying principles and concepts.

Over the past 30 years, the restorative movement has developed a robust set of core principles that form the basis of quality standards both nationally and internationally, and provide a reference point for high-quality training programmes and practice.

In the UK, the Restorative Justice Council (RJC) has developed a set of ethical principles that underpin restorative processes and a set of handbooks and evidence-based guidance to support practitioners, service providers and trainers to deliver restorative practices to a high-quality standard.

The RJC provides a register of accredited practitioners, trainers and service providers who have achieved accreditation, and also agreed to adhere to its code of practice containing six core principles (see box).

Looking at the example of the 10-year-old boy "forced to identify his faults", it is quite clear that none of the core principles were followed. It was certainly not voluntary and the actions of the adults are "discriminatory", not "fair", appear to be very "biased" and have created more harm rather than repairing it.

It is important to identify that the media portrayal of the "incident" is also not "restorative" and if real learning is to take place, then a punitive response towards the behaviour mentor or head teacher will achieve nothing.

Dorothy Vaandering, associate professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Western Ontario, questions the motives for using restorative practices as a punitive response to conflict in schools.

She states: "When utilised to this end, restorative practice seems to be less geared toward transformative interactions and more about enforcing traditional structures of power and hierarchy within schools and reinforcing student conformity."

RJC code of practice core principles

This Restorative Justice Council's code of practice is underpinned by six core principles:

1. Restoration - the primary aim of restorative practice is to address and repair harm
2. Voluntarism - participation in restorative processes is voluntary and based on informed choice
3. Neutrality - restorative processes are fair and unbiased towards participants
4. Safety - processes and practice aim to ensure the safety of all participants and create a safe space for the expression of feelings and views about harm caused
5. Accessibility - restorative processes are non-discriminatory and available to all those affected by conflict and harm
6. Respect - restorative processes are respectful to the dignity of all participants and those affected by the harm caused.

Definitions

This brings us back to definitions of restorative justice and restorative practice and the intention of those who define their actions as "restorative".

In its broadest sense, the definition used by Mark Vander Vennen, director of restorative practice at Shalem Mental Health Network, helps to clarify those broader aims of what it means to "act" or "be" restorative.

He suggests: "Restorative practice is a way of thinking and being focused on creating safe spaces for real conversations that deepen relationships and build stronger more connected communities."

In this particular school incident, looking at the "new" harm created by the response of the school to the child's relationship difficulties, then the most restorative approach would be for a meeting to take place - attended on a voluntary basis by school staff and parents and facilitated by a neutral restoratively trained facilitator - to gain a shared understanding of what has happened.

The outcomes of this process would hopefully lead to further opportunities to address the relational issues for the child and his peers in a safe, fair and re-integrative way that builds and strengthens relationships across the school community, and provides an environment conducive to positive and emotionally healthy learning for all.

• Nicola Preston is senior lecturer in special educational needs and inclusion, University of Northampton, and Adjunct Faculty, International Institute for Restorative Practices Graduate School, USA