Dr Hillary Cremin, a former teacher from Cambridge University is getting attention for saying Restorative Justice in schools doesn’t work. I don’t really see a great deal of why or how she knows this. I think there might be more evidence that status quo wasn’t working. Just my perspective . . .
To read the article – click here.
Kay Pranis, author of Peacemaking Circles taught me to listen to everyone. I like trying to pull kids who are critical of Circle into the Circle further. I tell them, they can make it better by voicing their perspectives.
Thank you Ms. Cremin. But may I please have the talking piece.
Bullies do not “escape” punishment when Restorative Justice is used in schools. It is far more difficult to face your peers, and explain yourself than it is to stay home from school for a day or three. Letting your peers be part of your plan to make it right – means more eyes are on you for follow through. There is more accountabily when more people are involved in conflict resolution.
When I hear critics say Restorative Justice is “soft-touch” I know they haven’t attended a session. Because I tell you what, hearing someone tell their story of loss and reaction to crime. That is no soft-touch, your heart aches, your stomach gets butterflies, your throat gets a lump you can’t escape what is going on right there in front of you. Offenders hear that right along side community members, parents, peers and guess what, now we all know. And we are all invested in you making it right.
I have had teachers share many stories – the Principal, in good intention – creates a “punishment”. Students look to that and see a reward. “Why did he get to help you with the sign out front?” was asked of a Principal in a Circle. That punishment didn’t take hold and we were Circling for a better solution. In School-based Restorative Justice (when done correctly and completely), parents are part of developing a solution. Formal/current models just have parents scrambling to figure out how to get off work, or manage an “offender” at home.
Restorative Justice in schools allows students that have misbehaved an opportunity to demonstrate they are better than that past mistake. They are given guidance and a path to repair the wrong. Having a former “bully” become engaged in pro-social activity, helps shift him from his label of bully. Where in the formal punishment/current school model do we allow transformation/change/healing? In the detention room, at home during suspension/expulsion?
I appreciate Dr. Cremin’s point that schools need to encourage students to adopt strong values and and anti-bullying culture. I think that is one of the primary reasons School-based Restorative Justice is so effective – used as both a culture shaping and conflict resolution tool. You have to do both for school-based restorative justice to be effective. As I highlighted in past posts, Restorative Justice in Schools – is a primary, secondary and tertiary response.
Returning to the article, which mentions “milder” forms of bullying are being handled by Peer Mediation or Circle of Friends. Well – there is no such thing as Peer Mediation in Restorative Justice. That would be something else. Circle of Friends could be a classroom management or climate technique. In Restorative Justice – there is no “milder” form of bullying. Harm is in the eye of the beholder. To rank a behavior as mild or severe seems like the retributive model. In Restorative Jusitce – harm is harm, wrong-doing is wrong-doing and what you need to do to make it right (by returning to right relationships). Youth in a school community develop their climate and culture, are empowered to do so to keep everyone physcially and emotionally safe. We know name calling can harm deeper than a punch in the face.
I need to highlight that I am not sure who is hailing the technique as a cure-all. As quoted. I suspect that Restorative Justice in schools is getting some worthy attention because of specific outcomes that can be identified. Schools are seeing reduced suspension, expulsion, student misconduct being reduced. I am not sure that other violence prevention programs could produce these results therefore being large enough to paint a target on. I think Ms. Cremin targeted Restorative Justice in schools and said it didn’t work without fully investigating and understanding what it is.
Further investiation, questions that could come up . . .
Take a look at a school mission statement and compare that to the discipline model, are they congruent? A school will prepare for physcial safety with fire and tornado drills, what do they do to prepare for emotionally safety?
The article mentions policies that advocate a no-blame approach can put pupils at-risk. Victims of bullying can become even more distressed because they feel nothing is being done to end their torment. School-based Restorative Justice doesn’t promote this kind of approach. Why are these statements even in this article? Restorative Justice engages the community, students victims or bystanders are part of the process. They are not left feeling nothing is being done, they are being utilized as a resource to respond to the wrong-doing.
One final beef, and I’ve had my say. Why does the article show toddlers when the discussion is about Restorative Justice in Schools?
okay – just one more . . . I hope someone looks at Youth Court and warns that the outcomes aren’t positive.
1 Comment
July 8, 2009 at 11:33 pm
Absolutely agree!!! Bullies do not “escape” punishment and Restorative Justice is far from “soft” on offenders. I have personally witnessed elementary aged playground bullies drop their heads and try to hold back the tears when confronted in a circle by playground victims. Going to the principals office or other traditional punishment would have been far easier. In Restorative Justice the victims, community, and offender all get a voice in repairing (and stopping) the unwanted behavior. Restorative Justice works in school if done properly and thoughtfully…and some Dr. from a university can come visit my classroom anytime to see it in real action.