R ESTORAT IVE SCHO O L DISC I P L I NE
Continued from page 9
own thinking, choices, and emotions. As a
result, the pedagogical and social-emotional
developmental value of restorative interac-
tion and communication is not developed.
Second, restorative justice and/or disci-
pline can still be coercive and “feel like
punishment.” This happens when too much
emphasis is placed on what a student did,
and what he/she needs to do to “make
things right.” Reparative actions such as
after-school study halls, school community
service, or making restitution/amends can
become implicitly predetermined sanc-
tions set forth by the school and/or facilita-
tors. There is also an inherent risk of sub-
jecting students to the biases of individuals
in power.
The interaction and discussion with the
student about why they did what they did
is more important than the outcome called
“the reparative contract.”
Challenge #2: Training
Though this is changing, the majority of
trainings conducted for schools by restor-
ative justice programs still provide only ru-
dimentary restorative justice conference fa-
cilitation skills and scripts designed to resolve
criminal violations. Again, the central focus is
on impact and repair.
Basic training does not equip educators
with the nuanced interaction and commu-
nication skills (e.g. language, listening skills,
and trauma-responsive communication) to
engage with challenging behavior that (a)
Page 10 Winter 2019
happens in the moment, (b) is consistently
happening, and (c) is not serious enough
to warrant a “formal discipline” response.
While the very basic “4 Step” restorative
justice process is important to learn and
understand, restorative interaction is more
flexible. It’s designed to address the unique
and often subtle social-emotional develop-
mental needs of students that emerge on a
day-to-day basis and in-the-moment con-
flicts or disruptions.
Challenge #3: Inconsistency
and Disorganization
Among many reasons why schools strug-
gle to implement restorative practices in a
consistent and meaningful way is that they
don’t take a systematic “whole-school” ap-
proach. Most schools attempt to add vari-
ous restorative practices to their existing
discipline methods. This results in a super-
ficial and inconsistent implementation of
restorative practices. Restorative communi-
cation is not embedded in the day-to-day
conversations about conflict.
There are several limitations with this
patchwork approach.
• The burden is left to individual teach-
ers to “do restorative justice” in their
classrooms.
• The school’s application of the restor-
ative response to misconduct is incon-
sistent, reactive vs. proactive, formu-
laic/static, and superficial.
CSEE Connections