Examples Of Restorative Justice

Restorative Practice vs. Restorative Justice

Restorative justice used in the criminal justice system was the original inspiration for

restorative practices being developed for school settings (Mirsky, 2011). Restorative justice

centers not on punishment for a crime, but rather on offenders making amends and reparation to

their victims. Restorative justice practices also give the victim a voice to be heard by the

criminal (McCluskey et al., 2008). Examples of similar social justice practices involving

mediation and reconciliation between victim and offender are found in cultures around the world,

including the traditions of Canadian Mennonites, the Maori tribe of New Zealand, and various

Native American tribes (Morrison
& Vaandering, 2012). Thus, the concept and use of restorative

justice is not new. However, using these understandings to develop restorative discipline

practices in schools is.

Developed over the past thirty years, restorative practices encompass many of the

principles of restorative justice when responding to a behavioral issue, but also include practices

that are proactive in nature (Mirsky, 2011). A setting operating under restorative practices

moves from “a rule-based institution to a relationship-based institution; or from being an

institution whose purpose is social control to being an institution that nurtures social

engagement” (Morrison & Vaandering, p.
145, 2011). Braithwaite speaks of the importance of

everyone feeling valued and respected in a community of restorative practice. When behavioral

infractions occur, consequences must be paired with an opportunity for the offender to be

reintegrated into the social network (Macready, 2009). This concept of a restorative community

33THE CASE OF ALGONQUIN HIGH SCHOOL

is reminiscent of a tribal model (Nesbitt & Clarke, 2004) or analogous to a family (Macready,

2009; Nesbitt & Clarke, 2004).

The concept of “fair process” ensures that all who are affected by an action or decision

will be heard in a restorative setting. Everyone may contribute a view and will hear the reasons

for the final outcome, but consensus is not necessary to fair process (IIRP, n.d.; Macready,

2009). Rather, the opportunity to be heard is imperative.

Allowing for all people affected by a decision or behavior to have a voice also builds

empathy for group members. Hearing how another person was affected by a choice moves
that

person, in the phrasing of Martin Buber (1958), from an objectified “It” to a more humanized

“Thou” in the mind of others (Macready, 2009). For instance, imagine a situation in which a

student openly makes fun of a new pupil in front of the class. The offender, when faced with the

restorative practice of having to listen to how those words hurt the new student and affected her

perception of her new school and community, would begin to see the new student more as a

person with feelings and emotions and less as a disconnected object to ridicule.
Thus, sharing

affective statements is key to building community, understanding, and relationships in a

restorative setting.

Restorative Practices Defined

Simply put, the term restorative practices does not have one single definition (Reimer,

2011). Instead, restorative practices encompass a multitude of positive behavioral support

approaches in a school that foster communication, mutual respect, and understanding between all

people (Mirsky, 2011). Under this approach, engaging students socially in the school community

takes precedent over social control (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). When issues arise,

restorative practices bring educators and students together in the school setting for the purpose of

34THE CASE OF ALGONQUIN HIGH SCHOOL

goal-setting and mutual resolution; the resulting approach is solution-focused for the betterment

of all involved (Nesbitt & Clarke, 2004).

The notion of restorative practices is predicated on the theory that individuals are less

likely to change their behavior when authority figures do things to or for them (IIRP, n.d.).
The

first approach is punitive and the second permissive (see figure 1). The lack of success garnered

by punitive, exclusionary discipline practices imposed upon students over the past decades

supports that doing things to students who behave poorly does not positively affect social

behavior. Conversely, positive behavioral changes are more likely to occur in a context where

those in authority do things with students (Mirsky, 2011). This with is a cornerstone of a

restorative setting (IIRP, n.d.), which centers its actions and reactions on understanding and

respect between students, administrators, teachers, staff, and families. The resulting relationships

that are established, not fear of the institution and its punishments, are believed to be the force

that maintains the social order and harmony in a school that fully integrates restorative practices

(Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).

Figure 1 Social discipline window related to schools (Kane et al., 2007)

35THE CASE OF ALGONQUIN HIGH SCHOOL

Though precise strategies for implementing restorative practices have varied widely both

nationally and internationally as described by Gregory et al. (2014); Kane, Lloyd, McCluskey,

Riddell, Stead & Weedon (2007); Macready (2009); McCluskey et al. (2008); Morrison &

Vaandering (2012); and Reimer (2011), they commonly share a focus on building understanding,

resolving conflict, increasing mutual respect, accepting diversity, committing to fairness and

equity, and promoting personal responsibility and accountability for one’s actions (Macready,

2009). Some scholars have labeled restorative approaches generally as matriarchal for their

appreciation of care, nurture, tolerance, and diversity (Nesbitt & Clarke, 2004), contrasting with

patriarchal values that focus on control and dominance (Mansfield, in press) .

The SaferSanerSchools Model

36THE CASE OF ALGONQUIN HIGH SCHOOL

One structured, often-adopted, comprehensive model encompassing all of the above traits

is the SaferSanerSchools Whole-School Change program from the International Institute for

Restorative Practices (IIRP) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (Mirsky, 2011). This program, which

involves a two-year formal implementation process, holds 11 elements at its core (IIRP, n.d.).

These 11 elements can be further divided into those that are preventative and those that are

responsive in nature (Gregory et al., 2014). These elements are represented and defined

according to these two categories in tables 1 and 2 below.

(IIRP, n.d.)

The five core elements represented in table 2 are responsive in nature. They therefore are

implemented following a behavioral issue.

37THE CASE OF ALGONQUIN HIGH SCHOOL

(IIRP, n.d.)

Similar to a triangular public health model with three increasingly focused levels of

treatment, Morrison & Vaandering (2012) conceptualize the elements of a school-wide

restorative program such as the IIRP program as being tiered. The primary-level elements are

practiced universally. These level-one elements are modeled by everyone within a school at all

times, including non-instructional personnel. Tier-2, or secondary, elements are targeted to

specific groups and in specific settings. These elements are aimed at repairing harmed

relationships. A tier-3 conference is the most intensive response to a specific issue or pattern of

issues and the rarest of the elements experienced by students (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).

38THE CASE OF ALGONQUIN HIGH SCHOOL

This tertiary action occurs only as a responsive element. These three tiers are summarized in

figure 2 below.