Social Justice
Applying Social Justice Principles Through School-Based Restorative Justice B y N at h a n vo n d e r E m b s e , Da n i e l v o n d e r E m b s e , M e g h a n vo n d e r E m b s e , & I a n L e V i n e
S
ocial justice has recently received attention within the school psychology community in such publications as Communiqué, School Psychology Review, Trainer’s Forum, and Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation (Briggs, Sarr, & Shriberg, 2008; Li et al., in press; McCabe & Rubinson, 2008; Shriberg et al., 2008; Shriberg & Fenning, 2009). Yet, social justice is a nebulous term, as opined by Connelly (2009), who cautioned against searching for what is wrong and instead striving for the highest standards and recognizing needs of every unique child. Shriberg and colleagues (2008) have sought to define social justice through a school psychologist lens while giving practitioners goals and applications for advancing social justice. As part of an ongoing effort from the NASP Social Justice Interest Group (Sarr, Nelson, & von der Embse, 2007), this article offers practitioners an example of applying social justice principles through school-based restorative justice. First, restorative justice is defined. Second, two examples of application of restorative justice ideas and strategies are provided. Finally, the connection between restorative justice and the related constructs of prevention and social justice is made. What is Restorative Justice?
Within the school context, school-based restorative justice broadly defined is an approach to discipline that engages all parties who have been affected by a transgression. It is a conflict resolution tool that brings students, families, schools, and community members together to resolve conflict, promote healing, and restore communities (Zehr, 2002). Restorative justice is a powerful tool that directly addresses misbehavior, imposes accountability through an engagement with all afflicted parties, and empowers both victim and offender to define the incident and understand the harm caused. Restorative justice moves school discipline away from “offend, suspend, and reoffend” by engaging in a dialogue that helps people to understand why the incident occurred, how to resolve the conflict, and teaches alNASP members can join an ternatives to violence and aggression (Zehr, 2002). online discussion about this article in the Communities For the majority of practicing school psychologists, area of our website: it is believed that social justice is either a foreign topic www.nasponline.org/communities or just emerging as a topic of discussion on the professional radar screen (Briggs, 2009). As such, it is also believed that restorative justice as an everyday practice is also low on the priority list for most in the field. Planning for, implementing, and evaluating a philosophical construct in the schools always presents a challenge for school psychologists. NASP Past President Gene Cash addresses these issues and argues for the utilization of “all the tools that have been developed over these many years and that will be developed in the future, both in psychology and education, that make us uniquely equipped to make a difference in the lives of children” (Cash, 2009, p. 2). As a primer, The Little Book of Restorative Discipline for Schools, by Amstutz and Mullet (2005), provides an outline and summary of the philosophical underpinnings, the psychological defense, and the practical uses of restorative justice. Social justice has been defined as seeking to overcome institutionalized or systemic inequity or unfairness (Shriberg et al., 2008). Restorative justice represents one way to operationalize this idea of creating safe, equitable, and peaceful schools through institutional change in discipline practices. Amstutz and Mullet (2005) lay out specific models and applications of restorative justice for use in schools, yet emphasize that the philosophical framework is a critical element for implementation. School-Based Restorative Justice: Two Examples
Restorative justice in the Lansing School District (LSD) first took root 5 years ago as Nathaniel von der Embse, NCSP, is a school psychologist and doctoral student at Michigan State University; Daniel von der Embse, NCSP, is a school psychologist with the Putnam County Educational Service Center (OH); Meghan von der Embse, NCSP, is a school psychologist with Shiawassee Regional Educational Service District (MI); and Ian LeVine, NCSP, is a school psychologist with the Lansing School District (MI) and adjunct professor of school psychology at Michigan State University.
18 | Communiqué | November 2009, Volume 38, Number 3
part of a United Way grant. From its humble beginnings starting in one elementary school, the program has rapidly expanded to include 19 high school, middle school, and elementary school buildings. Administrators of the Lansing Restorative Justice program recently presented program data and testimonials to the Michigan Board of Education; they were subsequently deemed a model program by the state of Michigan. The LSD restorative justice program is currently operated by one full-time employee with several part-time employees/volunteers. The stated goal of the program is to eventually transfer all roles and responsibilities to teachers without the assistance of restorative justice volunteers to run the mediations. The primary tool utilized in the LSD restorative justice program is mediation. Mediation typically involves a mediator, offender, and any victims affected by the incident and focuses on three questions. The mediator (school psychologist, counselor, or teacher) will guide the discussion by allowing all parties to explain what happened to gain a common understanding of the incident. Then, the mediator will discuss who was affected and how these parties were harmed by the actions. Finally, participants ask how do we heal the harm by suggesting reparations that may include apologies, community service, or compensation. Often, mediation takes approximately 45 minutes with the mediator leading all parties through the previously noted steps. The mediator is responsible for facilitating the reparations within the constraints of the school disciplinary code (ensuring safe, responsible practice). Therefore, healing the harm satisfies the mediation participants as well as school requirements. The mediator uses skills all school psychologists have: problem solving, understanding conflict, and a commitment to advocacy and fair disciplinary practice. One of the biggest challenges facing the LSD program was integration of restorative justice into the culture of a school. By demonstrating effective resolution of conflicts, restorative justice moderators helped the teachers and administrators understand the value of the program. After the 5-year implementation, administrators from the LSD report that the restorative justice program has given them a tool to reduce school suspensions. As a result, use of the restorative justice process has been included in the participating schools’ Code of Conduct. This inclusion was a clear message to teachers and staff that restorative justice was expected to be used as an everyday method for reducing conflict. Outcome data from the past school year, provided by the director of the LSD program, have demonstrated an involvement with over 1,500 students, with 507 out of 522 cases resolved, 11 expulsions averted, and more than 1,600 suspension days saved. Long-term follow up surveys indicate nearly 90% of the participants reported learning new skills that allowed them to solve or avoid conflicts after their restorative justice intervention. The promising results from the LSD program may serve as an impetus for a school psychologist to implement restorative justice in his or her schools. In the local schools of Putnam County, Ohio, practitioners have also experienced the benefits and the barriers of applying restorative justice principles. The schools were introduced to restorative justice through Bluffton University and the addition of several related programs such as the Olweus Bullying Prevention Program, The Incredible Years, peer mediation training, and truancy mediation (Olweus, 1994; Webster-Stratton & Reid, 2004). In addition, the Putnam County Juvenile Court has committed to applying restorative justice principles as a pilot program by including a mediation coordinator from Bluffton University in the juvenile justice process. In both the court and school settings, the role of the school psychologist has been that of consultant—building relationships, sharing resources, and working toward gaining acceptance. Through committee participation and consultation with stakeholders, school psychologists are active in seeking solutions, breaking down barriers, and looking to the future for stabilizing and renewing efforts related to restorative justice. While the use of restorative justice techniques provides a viable alternative to suspension, addresses the disproportionality of current disciplinary practices, and emphasizes the potential for reintegration and encouraging responsibility, high school settings within Putnam County have been thus far reluctant to embrace a broad philosophical change in discipline. To date, traditional discipline methods that emphasize expedience and control still abound. The elementary schools in Putnam County (including principals, staff, and parent groups) currently are more involved in the use of bullying prevention, peer mediation, and truancy mediation. Six of nine public elementary schools and all three parochial schools in the county use the Olweus model for bullying prevention along with five middle schools that are trained in the use of peer mediation. Success in implementation has been largely due to active involvement in the change process of support personnel such as prevention coordinators and school psychologists. Thus, barriers of perception related to job roles need to be overcome with evidence of effectiveness, attitudes of fairness, and influential support by school psychologists. Restorative Justice Within a Primary Prevention Framework
Researchers have argued that social justice principles can been applied within a prevention framework (Mulé et al., 2009) or as a reactive intervention. Others have demonstrated that zero tolerance and suspension are not effective practices. These critics of zero tolerance call for more preventive measures, including restorative justice practices (Evenson, Justinger, Pelisheck, & Schulz, 2009). Restorative justice works within this prevention framework by addressing offenses before they result in school suspensions. As researchers have noted, there is an overrepresentation of minorities in © 2 0 0 9 , Nat io nal A sso c iat io n o f Sc ho o l P syc ho lo g ist s
number of school suspensions (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Skiba & Knesting, 2001; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002). This overrepresentation is due to a systematic differentiation of school disciplinary consequences for minorities resulting in increased suspensions and missed school days. Restorative justice can also be applied reactively within schools where preexisting disproportionality in disciplinary practice has been documented. Restorative justice has been demonstrated as a “fairer” method of school discipline and an effective alternative to traditional school suspension due to the reduction in suspensions and missed school days (Ashworth et al., 2008; Okimoto, Wenzel, & Feather, 2009; Varnham, 2005; Wearmouth, McKinney, & Glynn, 2007). Restorative justice practices offer concrete procedures, such as group mediation, for addressing specific problems between offender and victims before the offender is suspended. School psychologists can play integral roles in implementing restorative justice principles within a prevention framework as evidenced by the previous examples.
References Amstutz, L., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
facts and effects of a school based intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 35(7), 1171–1190.
Ashworth, J., Van Bockern, S., Ailts, J., Donelly, J., Erickson, K., & Woltermann, J. (2008). An alternative to school detention. Reclaiming Children & Youth, 17(3), 22–26.
Sarr, B. J., Nelson, A., & von der Embse, N. (2007). School psychologists join to advocate for social change in schools. Communiqué, 36(4), 34. Retrieved August 19, 2009, from http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/ mocq364socialjusticeig.aspx
Briggs, A. (2009). Social justice in school psychology: Moving forward. Communiqué, 37(8), 8–9. Briggs, A., Sarr, B. J., & Shriberg, D. (2008). Social justice action strategies for school psychologists: Three perspectives. Communiqué, 37(4), 10–11. Cash, G. (2009). The future of school psychology: I dreamed a dream. Communiqué, 37(8), 2. Connelly, J. B. (2009). Rethinking social justice. Communiqué, 37(8), 5.
Conclusion
So where do school psychologists fit within the planning, implementation, and evaluation of effective uses of restorative justice in the schools? School psychologists are in a unique position to be advocates for the fair and equitable treatment of children. Understanding social justice principles and their applications through restorative justice is one way to help reduce potential injustices. The recent attention to social justice in the special edition of School Psychology Review and subsequent discussion in Communiqué are excellent starting points for a further study of applying social justice principles. Despite the difficulty involved with systemic change, school psychologists can start small by advocating for implementation of school-wide positive behavior support models, serving on bullying prevention teams, getting involved with peer and institutional mediation, supporting Safe and Healthy schools initiatives, and modeling restorative practices in school relationships. Who is better suited or positioned to be an advocate of social justice and restorative practices and to understand the psychoeducational implications of what we do with children in our schools? For more information about restorative justice, there are several excellent references including The Little Book of Restorative Discipline for Schools (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005), The Little Book of Restorative Justice (Zehr, 2002), and www.centralmichgian restorativejustice.com. Please contact Dan von der Embse at Putnam County Educational Service Center (419) 523-5951 or Nancy Schertzing at
[email protected] for additional information about their respective restorative justice programs. n
Evenson, A., Justinger, B., Pelisheck, E., & Schulz, S. (2009). Zero tolerance policies and the public schools: When suspension is no longer effective. Communiqué, 37(5), 1, 6–7. Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary discipline. Urban Education, 42, 536–559. Li, C., Kruger, L. J., Mulé, C., Lippus, K., Santora, K., & Cicalia, G. (in press). Including social justice in the training of school psycohlogists. Trainer’s Forum. McCabe, P. C., & Rubinson, F. (2008). Committing to social justice: The behavioral intention of school psychology and education trainees to advocate for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered youth. School Psychology Review, 37, 469–486. Mulé, C., Lippus, K., Santora, K., Cicalia, G., Smith, B., Cataldo, J., et al. (2009). Advancing social justice through primary prevention. Communiqué, 37(8), 6–8. Okimoto, T., Wenzel, M., & Feather, N. (2009). Beyond retribution: Conceptualizing restorative justice and exploring its determinants. Social Justice Research, 22, 156–180. Olweus, D. (1994). Bullying at school: Basic
Shriberg, D., Bonner, M., Sarr, B. J., Walker, A., Hyland, M., & Chester, C. (2008). Social justice through a school psychology lens: Definition and applications. School Psychology Review, 37, 453–468. Shriberg, D., & Fenning, P. (2009). School consultants as agents of social justice: Implications for practice: Introduction to the special topic issue. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 19, 1–7. Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New Directions for Youth Development, 92, 17–43. Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317. Varnham, S. (2005). Seeing things differently: Restorative justice and school discipline. Education & the Law, 17, 87–104. Wearmouth, J., McKinney, R., & Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative justice: Two examples from New Zealand schools. British Journal of Special Education, 34, 196–203. Webster-Stratton, C., & Reid, M. J. (2004). Strengthening social and emotional competence in young children: The foundation for early school readiness and success. Infants & Young Children: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Special Care Practices, 17, 96–113. Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
)LQG WKH 5LJKW %DODQFH LQ &RJQLWLYH $VVHVVPHQW ZLWK .%,7
. 2 ).( "! , / , ) .) ! ,0" ( ) ) ( $( !"0 ! ) ).,),)% ! "!/( $,( ) ).,),%&
. ! ( !, ! ), "! , "! $ -% ) #(, "( ! ) ! "( .) 0 , /( ,2 " #"#. , "!) ! . ! !. $! )* #! )%& - ) )2 ," ! ),( )2 ," )"( ! ) "( .) ! )(! ! "( , #("( ) "( ," !, 2 ( ) (! 0" ('. ( .(,( / ., "!& , 3 2() " 1#( ! #("/ ! "! , / ,2 ,), ! ()& ! & ! ! & . ! / "# , - ," / 2". / ! ( )))) !, " !, ! ! "., -3 !.,)&
& " " " " " " %" % " " " ## '' $
© 2 0 0 9 , N at io n a l A s s o ci atio n o f S cho o l P s ycho l o gis ts
November 2009, Volume 38, Number 3 | Communiqué | 19
