Recently, I wrote an article entitled, “Restorative Justice Gone Wrong: One Mother’s Horror Story” for Project Forever Free.   In that article I shared my son’s story of persistent subjection to physical bullying together with his school’s restorative justice (RJ) response in which the best intentions had the most horrible consequences. Together, my review of the literature, my experience as an Assistant Superintendent and as a mother led me to the conclusion that Restorative Justice (RJ) was a poor fit for my school at the time, but the practices were promising, if implemented correctly.  I have yet to see a wholly successful restorative justice program in a large educational system, but the responses to my article suggest that they exist.  I concluded my original article with hope. It is why I will continue to fight for a free and appropriate education for all children. I stated in my article:

I still believe that restorative justice is a much needed practice but I can’t support the way it is being used as a consequence. If and when it’s implemented well, I’m on board.

 

In reviewing the comments from my recent article, the idea of RJ is acceptable to some and deplorable to others.  Schools have changed. There is no denying that students, teachers and administrators face, on a daily basis, something very different than when I was in school.  However, early on in my career I suspended students way too often. Kids fought, I suspended. If they were caught smoking pot, I suspended. If they cussed out the teacher, I suspended.  In fact, the first two districts in which I worked had Zero-Tolerance Polices and this readiness to suspend was encouraged. It wasn’t until I went through cultural competency training that I began to see that discipline should be reflective of the individual and their circumstance rather than fully and inflexibly pre-defined.  While doing research on the subject, I found the following:

Many incidents that result in disciplinary action in school happen because of an adolescent's or a child's poor judgment-not due to an intention to do harm. Zero tolerance policies may exacerbate the normal challenges of adolescence and possibly punish a teenager more severely than warranted. Zero tolerance policies ignore the concept of intent even though this is a central theme in American concepts and systems of justice.  (Cecil R. Reynolds, quoted at APA 2006)

For reasons such as these, in January 2014, President Obama directed the Office of Civil Rights to send guidance to school and district leaders to seek out alternatives to suspension and other penalties that take students out of the classroom. Empirical evidence showed that the Zero Tolerance Policies which began in the 1980’s resulted in Black and Hispanic students being suspended much more often than other students and that frequent suspensions were correlated with higher dropout rates and lower academic achievement. It was around this time that schools and districts found RJ desirable.  However, RJ was used as the consequence for challenging behaviour instead of as a set of practices implemented throughout the school.  This meant that if a student assaulted a fellow student, schools/districts implemented RJ circles as a way to mend the relationship and eliminate the need for suspension or other forms of consequence.  In addition, schools were reducing out of school suspension numbers yet alienating teachers as problematic students were being returned to class following intense behaviors due to implementing RJ circles. These circles, one practice in RJ, were run by individuals with limited training or were educators who had no background in counseling or facilitation of RJ practices.  Two mistakes are highlighted here. First, schools/districts rushed into the implementation phase before fully training proper personnel to implement the practices of RJ. Second, circles were being used as the consequence for problematic behaviors instead of repairing relationships with peers and the school community. Finally, a main tenement of RJ is recognizing the harm one inflicted to others.  RJ is not a social emotional curriculum and thus in the absence of proper teaching around social and emotional learning (SEL), it often resulted in aggressors not fully understanding their wrongdoing. The idea was excellent but, in many districts that attempted RJ, the practice was quickly abandoned due to intense teacher push back.

So, why do I still carry hope for these practices?  One comment to my article asked why I didn’t have the boys who attacked my baby arrested.  To be honest, 20 years in education have shown me that arresting an 11-year-old bully rarely helps any of the kids.  Except, maybe for the few days the child is not around there is temporary relief for the children of their focus, but arrests are not life-long sentences.  My training has shown me time and again that children don’t wake up one day and want to be “bad”. Something more complex is going on and I believe that with the right interventions a new path could be taken.  

So how might schools interested in RJ approach implementation?  America’s Promise outlines six steps to implement RJ.

1. Address staff skepticism

2. Build Trust

3. [Secure] District and State buy-in

4. Invest in professional learning opportunities

5. Engage students as leaders

6. Build capacity by sharing best practices

In my professional opinion, each of these steps must be planned for and implemented if there is hope for a successful RJ roll out. However, I think there is a huge missing component here.  I would suggest any school/district that wishes to engage in RJ start with a root cause analysis. If your faculty and staff don’t see suspension as a problem, then RJ will never work. An educational system must get to the WHY before engaging in the WHAT.  Why are our students engaging in violent behaviors? Why are our current practices of suspension not working? Why do we want kids gone from our class? I have found that when we begin with a root cause analysis, we often times end up with a focus on social emotional learning.

In concert with a root cause analysis, schools/districts must look at social emotional curriculum.  In my current district, we use Responsive Classroom.  This curriculum helps students to learn needed social and emotional competencies—cooperation, assertiveness, responsibility, empathy, and self-control—and academic competencies—academic mindset, perseverance, learning strategies, and academic behaviors.  The approach is based on the belief that integrating academic and social-emotional skills creates an environment where students can do their best learning. I have found that this approach works well with RJ and can be introduced gradually into a teacher’s practice; “gradual” is the key word here.  

Finally, if you want a successful RJ system, it can’t be in place of consequences.  A successful RJ system would require implementing a robust SEL curriculum in elementary school to teach appropriate behaviors and to practice socialization and regulation of emotions.  With this in place, RJ practices could mediate and repair relationships where needed. You can’t put an aggressor in a circle if they can’t identify their behaviors nor how to operate within societal norms.  Those competencies must be taught. Therefore, consequences still have their place in a RJ model. In my son’s case, he was brutally bullied for months. Was the RJ circle a natural consequence for his attackers?  I think not. I could see it being part of a re-entry plan from suspension to set a positive path moving forward; but my son’s circle was done in isolation, with no communication to his larger community and without identifying and implementing a strategy for repairing the harm.   

I still have hope.  Unfortunately, hope is not always good enough and you have to have a plan that is reflective of your student population.  As humans, we are unique individuals. We have our own history that bring us to the present moment. Our students are no different.  Though the practices of RJ would fit beautifully into a social emotional curriculum, I still believe they could never stand alone in isolation as a consequence to behavioral infractions.

References

American Psychological Association  (2006) 'Zero Tolerance Policies Are Not as Effective as Thought in Reducing Violence and Promoting Learning in School, Says APA Task Force' Available at: https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2006/08/zero-tolerance [accessed 4/11/2019]

Dr. Julia Carlson is the assistant superintendent of the Fall River Public Schools in Fall River, MA. In addition, she is the Rhode Island Education Ambassador for the XQ+RI initiative to rethink the High School experience. Dr. Carlson has been a Collaborative Teaching Fellow and currently supervises the Principal Practicum course for aspiring administrators at Boston College. She holds a B.S. from The University of Texas, M.Ed. from The University of Hawaii and an Ed.D. in Educational Leadership from Boston College.