WHY RESTORATIVE PRACTICES?

The fundamental premise of restorative practices is that people are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make positive changes when those in authority do things WITH them, rather than TO them or FOR them.

- Ted Wachtel, The International Institute for Restorative Practices

WHAT ARE RESTORATIVE PRACTICES?

Restorative Practices is a framework that centers around positive relationships for community building and restoring relationships when harm has occurred. Inspired by the philosophy of Restorative Justice, Restorative Practices includes repairing harm done to relationships over assigning blame and dispensing punishment (Eber, 2014). Unlike Restorative Justice, Restorative Practices is not merely a disciplinary approach to wrongdoing, but it is compatible with education in that it supports a prevention and intervention approach. Source: Restorative Practices: Fostering Healthy Relationships & Promoting Positive Discipline in Schools​. 2014​

Students are provided with an opportunity to actively engage in taking responsibility in learning. These practices constitute a paradigm shift away from a solely punitive disciplinary structure to acknowledging harm done to relationships and how to make things right. The core values of Restorative Practices are creating, sustaining, and restoring relationships for a positive school climate and culture.

FAIR PROCESS

A crucial part of Restorative Practices to be successful in the culture shift is the concept of fair process. It allows students, parents, teachers, and administrators to all be treated in a respectful manner and gives value to all voices. Fair process has three key components to ensure that all parties involved perceive the process as fair:

Engagement - every voice is heard in the decision making process.

Explanation - after a decision is made, a reasoning for that decision is made clear to all parties.

Expectation Clarity - all parties involved understand the implications of decisions made, the specific expectations, and consequences if expectations are not met.

Fair process creates a foundation of equity between all parties during any part of the Restorative Practices processes including community building circles, conferences, etc.

IMPLEMENTATION: Scope & Sequence

Restorative Practices, when broadly and consistently implemented, will promote and strengthen positive school culture and enhance pro-social relationships within the school community.

INTEGRATING RESTORATIVE PRACTICES INTO A MULTI-TIERED SYSTEM OF SUPPORTS

The continuum of restorative practices can be integrated into a multi-tiered framework that focuses both on intervention and prevention.


Tier 1 - Build Community and Relationships School and classroom-wide systems for all students & staff (100% of students)

RP Tools: Affective statements, Affective questions, and circles with staff and students to:

  • Establish positive relationships & get to know others

  • Set community guidelines

  • Understand behavioral expectations

  • Discuss successes and challenges

  • Practice social-emotional skills

  • Discuss curricular topics

Tier 2 - Maintain Relationships Specialized group systems for students with “at-risk” behavior(15% of students)

RPTools: Small impromptu conversations and circles to address a targeted group need such as:

  • Incidents between students and staff that require immediate impromptu conference

  • Community circles to address a targeted group need (e.g. misbehavior, attendance, conflicts, etc.)

  • Re-entry circles for new or returning students

Tier 3 - Repair Harm & Restore Relationships Specialized individualized systems for students with “high-risk” behavior (5% of students)

RP Tools: Formal restorative conferences and restorative circles to:

  • Address serious issues such as bullying, teacher student problems, destruction of property, threats, stealing, etc.

  • Reintegrate a student after suspension, expulsion, or incarceration

  • Support the inclusion of students with disabilities

COMPASS OF SHAME

Tomkins identified nine distinct affects to explain the expression of emotion in all humans. Most of the affects are defined by pairs of words that represent the least and the most intense expression of a particular affect. The six negative affects include anger-rage, fear-terror, distressanguish, disgust, dissmell (a word Tomkins coined to describe “turning up one’s nose” in a rejecting way) and kins, 1987). So an individual does not have to do something wrong to feel shame. The individual just has to experience something that interrupts interest-excitement or enjoyment-joy (Nathanson, 1997a). This understanding of shame provides a critical explanation for why victims of crime often feel a strong sense of shame, even though it was the offender who committed the “shameful” act (Angel, 2005).


Nathanson (1992) has developed the Compass of Shame to illustrate the various ways that human beings react when they feel shame. Nathanson says that the attack other response to shame is responsible for the proliferation of violence in modern life. Usually people who have adequate self-esteem readily move beyond their feelings of shame. Nonetheless we all react to shame, in varying degrees, in the ways described by the Compass. Restorative practices, by their very nature, provide an opportunity for us to express our shame, along with other emotions, and in doing so reduce their intensity. In restorative conferences, for example, people routinely move from negative affects through the neutral affect to positive affects (Nathanson, 1998).


SCHOOL DISCIPLINE RESOURCES

  • FIX SCHOOL DISCIPLINE - This toolkit provides educators with information on alternatives to traditional school discipline including Restorative Practices, PBIS, Social and Emotional Learning, and others. These tools can help change school culture and improve school climate.

  • INTEGRATING PBIS AND SCHOOL DISCIPLINE - This newsletter focuses on the positive impact of integrating PBIS with Restorative Practices.

  • THE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE CONSENSUS REPORT - This report by the Council of State Governments Justice Center aims to provide a comprehensive look into school discipline. It offers recommendations to educators on different philosophies and approaches available in order to change the traditional system that supports students and teachers through a positive school climate.

BULLYING & RESTORATIVE PRACTICE

  • BULLYING PREVENTION - Bullying is defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as “any unwanted aggressive behavior(s) by another youth or group of youths who are not siblings or current dating partners that involves an observed or perceived power imbalance and is repeated multiple times or is highly likely to be repeated.”6 According to the CDC, bullying is associated with distress and can cause “physical, psychological, social or educational harm.” While commonly believed to be a problem between two individuals, research on bullying suggests that it is a group phenomenon. Bystanders typically play a role in encouraging or discouraging bullying through their response to bullying incidents.

HISTORY & RESEARCH BEHIND RESTORATIVE PRACTICES:

Restorative practices has its roots in restorative justice, a way of looking at criminal justice that emphasizes repairing the harm done to people and relationships rather than only punishing offenders (Zehr, 1990).

In the modern context, restorative justice originated in the 1970s as mediation or reconciliation between victims and offenders. In 1974 Mark Yantzi, a probation officer, arranged for two teenagers to meet directly with their victims following a vandalism spree and agree to restitution. The positive response by the victims led to the first victim-offender reconciliation program, in Kitchener, Ontario, Canada, with the support of the Mennonite Central Committee and collaboration with the local probation department (McCold, 1999; Peachey, 1989). The concept subsequently acquired various names, such as victim-offender mediation and victim-offender dialogue, as it spread through North America and to Europe through the 1980s and 1990s (Umbreit & Greenwood, 2000).

Restorative justice echoes ancient and indigenous practices employed in cultures all over the world, from Native American and First Nation Canadian to African, Asian, Celtic, Hebrew, Arab and many others (Eagle, 2001; Goldstein, 2006; Haarala, 2004; Mbambo & Skelton, 2003; Mirsky, 2004; Roujanavong, 2005; Wong, 2005).

Eventually modern restorative justice broadened to include communities of care as well, with victims’ and offenders’ families and friends participating in collaborative processes called conferences and circles. Conferencing addresses power imbalances between the victim and offender by including additional supporters (McCold, 1999).

The family group conference (FGC) started in New Zealand in 1989 as a response to native Maori people’s concerns with the number of their children being removed from their homes by the courts. It was originally envisioned as a family empowerment process, not as restorative justice (Doolan, 2003). In North America it was renamed family group decision making (FGDM) (Burford & Pennell, 2000). In 1991 the FGC was adapted by an Australian police officer, Terry O’Connell, as a community policing strategy to divert young people from court. The IIRP now calls that adaptation, which has spread around the world, a restorative conference. It has been called other names, such as a community accountability conference (Braithwaite, 1994) and victim-offender conference (Amstutz & Zehr, 1998). In 1994, Marg Thorsborne, an Australian educator, was the first to use a restorative conference in a school (O’Connell, 1998).

The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) grew out of the Community Service Foundation and Buxmont Academy, which since 1977 have provided programs for delinquent and at-risk youth in southeastern Pennsylvania, USA. Initially founded in 1994 under the auspices of Buxmont Academy, the Real Justice program, now an IIRP program, has trained professionals around the world in restorative conferencing. In 1999 the newly created IIRP broadened its training to informal and proactive restorative practices, in addition to formal restorative conferencing (Wachtel, 1999). Since then the IIRP, an accredited graduate school, has developed a comprehensive framework for practice and theory that expands the restorative paradigm far beyond its origins in criminal justice (McCold & Wachtel, 2001, 2003). Use of restorative practices is now spreading worldwide, in education, criminal justice, social work, counseling, youth services, workplace and faith community applications (Wachtel, 2013).