1
Restorative Practice in School: a Psychological Perspective
Helen Cowie
University of Surrey
Abstract
Schools that put a restorative philosophy into practice typically use a range of methods. Whatever form these take, at their core is the concept of a caring, inclusive community. When conflicts, bullying and social exclusion arise – as inevitably they will – restorative practices have the potential to engage the perpetrators, their victims and the bystanders in a collective process of problem-solving whose aim is reparation of damage, restoration of the quality of relationships and the reintegration of participants in the conflict back into the school community.
What is restorative practice in school?
In the past, much research focussed on the individual aspects of conflict and aggression by exploring the individual characteristics of perpetrators and targets, so overlooking the powerful influence of the social context. While an understanding of the personal aspects of the perpetrator-target relationship is important, it only addresses part of the issue since it is experienced within a group of peers who adopt a range of participant roles, whether as active agents, targets, bystanders or defenders, and who experience a range of emotions. Salmivalli et al. (1996) first proposed a participant role approach to the study of traditional bullying. (See also Salmivalli, 2010 for a recent review of the participant role approach). They argued that perpetrators seldom act alone but are usually supported by their immediate group of assistants and reinforcers. The bullying escalates further as a result of the responses of the bystanders as outsiders, whether they react with indifference to the plight of the victim or implicitly condone what is happening. Only a small proportion of bystanders will act in the role of defenders who offer emotional support or protection to the victims. Salmivalli’s pioneering research shows how essential it is to take account of the social context in which bullying acts occur and the key role played by the whole group in shaping how children and young people respond to aggression and violent behaviour.
In schools which adopt a restorative approach, the work is not only done with the individualperpetrators and victims but with the whole school, through, for example, circle time, problem-solving, conflict resolution, peer mediation, circle of friends and conferencing. In other words, this is a challenge for all members of the school community if attitudes and perspectives are to be changed(Cameron and Thorsborne, 2001; Cowie and Jennifer, 2008; Hopkins, 2004; Morrison, 2003;Wachtel and McCold, 2001).From the restorative perspective, it is essential to involve all members of the school community in reflecting on the effects of aggressive or cruel behaviour on not only targets and perpetrators but also on the bystanders.
Zero-tolerance is often proposed as a tough deterrent but, despite its ‘face value’ appeal, there is no evidence to suggest that zero tolerance works. In fact, this approach can be counterproductive. Skiba and colleagues (2008), in their report to the American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (APA, 2008), concluded that zero tolerance policies actually fail to make school environments safer. In this study, zero tolerance policiespredicted higher rates of misbehaviour and suspension among students; schools with zero tolerance policies rated lower on school climate and had higher school drop-out rates. Additionally, these schools had lower rates of academic achievement. There were other serious outcomes. They observed that zero-tolerance policies were construed as racist in the local community since particular ethnic groups appeared to be targeted. Children with disabilities, especially those with emotional and behavioural disorders, were suspended at rates disproportionate to their representation in the population. Additionally, the task force found that zero tolerance policies increased referrals to the criminal justice system and created what they call ‘a school-to-prison pipeline’. Furthermore, these systems were more likely to be perceived as unjust by young people and their families.
Skiba et al.concluded that far more emphasis needs to be placed on non-punitive strategies to promote school safety, including restorative practices. Zero tolerance strategies, they conclude, should only be used in the most extreme and severe cases and even then applied with great thought for the needs and rights of all the individuals involved, including the perpetrators. They recommended restorative programmes since these actively promote a cooperative rather than a punitive process in which there is scope for reconciliation and some form of closure or resolution. Most importantly, they argue, restorative approaches in schools have the potential to create a safe and supportive learning environment that expresses positive values in the school community. Morrison (2007) confirms that not only does zero tolerance fail to work, it also promotes intolerance and discrimination, since such a policy works to discriminate against a minority of pupils with emotional and behavioural difficulties and fails to meet children’s rights as set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UN, 1989). From this perspective, in contrast to traditional punitive approaches to discipline, restorative practices place more emphasis on pupils themselves resolving conflicts and so in the long term build a stronger sense of community.
This does not mean, however, that schools should not adopt some sanctions against bullying and other forms of aggressive behaviour. In fact, Ttofi and Farrington (2011) report that ‘disciplinary methods’ are strongly associated with decreases in bullying and being victimized. But we need to be clear about what such disciplinary practices mean. In the particular context of bullying, Pepler et al. (2004) evaluated the effectiveness of sanctions. They acknowledged that some sanctions will always be part of a school’s policy to counteract bullying. However, they found that when schools promoted an emphasis on positive relationships and created an ethos of care and responsibility, the need for strict, punitive sanctions declined. When sanctions were applied, the perpetrators were more likely to perceive them as fair and meaningful. The reason for this was that the students had been included in the process of creating the school rules and had been made aware that negative behaviour, such as bullying, had consequences for all.
In a further analysis of reactive strategies used by schools in England, Thompson and Smith (2011) found a range of what they called ‘direct sanctions’, including verbal reprimand, meetings involving parents, temporary removal from class, withdrawal of privileges, school community service, internal exclusion, short-term exclusion, through to permanent exclusion. Almost all schools used verbal reprimands and meetings with parents, at least in some cases. However, in three-quarters of the schools surveyed, these direct sanctions were combined with other approaches, including restorative approaches.
Working with the relationship
The core principles of counsellingpsychologyprovide insights intohow restorative practicesmight work. Rogers (1955; 1965) proposed that people have the ability to find solutions to interpersonal difficulties through the support of a warm, person-centredrelationship in which the focus is onproblem-solving. The very process of problem-solving shifts the person away from introspecting negatively about the circumstances that are causing them distress or avoiding responsibility for their actions by blaming others.It is the quality of the relationship that is the catalyst for therapeutic change. The core conditions in this relationship are congruence, empathy and unconditional positive regard, with the counsellor having a non-judgmental attitude.
The person-centred approach is in harmony with the application of restorative justice principles in schools. Braithwaite (1989; 2003) proposed the need for ‘reintegrativeshaming’ - disapproval of the aggressive act but at the same time respect for the person. This is in marked contrast to stigmatization – a form of disrespectful shaming that leads to humiliation, hardening of attitudes and a distancing of perpetrator from the pain caused by their actions. Through a series of vignettes, Ttofi and Farrington (2008) confirmed this finding when they asked 182 10-12-year-olds about the emotions they would have felt, including anger, shame, remorse or guilt, if they observed a peer being bullied. The children who scored high on disintegrative shaming also scored high on items that measured maladaptive forms of shame management.
Using a qualitative narrative method, Jennifer and Cowie (2012), in a study of 10-11 year-olds’ moral and emotional attributions of bullying, found that the children typically characterised the bystanders as “worried and ashamed”. These children described a range of emotions, to include concern for the victim and fear of the consequences if they intervened, as well as conflicting emotions of moral disengagement (in terms of the personal gain of not becoming the bully’s next victim), empathy (in terms of moral responsibility towards the victim) and shame (in terms of their inability to act in defence of the victim). The children were also able to distinguish attributes of pride and indifference on the part of the bully, in contrast to shame and worry if they imagined finding themselves in the role of bully. Such findings offer some explanation of the observation that, although many bystanders experience shame at their inaction, their reluctance to intervene may be due to their understanding of the risks that may ensue if they offer protection to victims and the pressure that they are under to conform to group norms. Jennifer and Cowie (2012) emphasise the importance of taking account of the strong emotions aroused by witnessing or experiencing aggressive behaviour. They recommend that schools should provide more opportunities for children to reflect on how these feelings arise, to consider where emotions of shame and guilt are located and to explore different ways of resistingnegative behaviour that targets vulnerable peers.
The study by Jennifer and Cowie (2012) indicates the value of using narrative methods when trying to capture the complexity of children’s responses to difficult or distressing situations. Narrative therapyin a similar wayoffers interesting parallels with restorative practice through its focus onstory-telling as a fundamental means for people to communicate and make sense of experience (McLeod, 1997; White and Epston, 1990). Essentially the argument is that people find it helpful to tell their story in a context where what they have to say is accepted and valued by others. As McLeod (2000, p. 345) writes:
‘The basic experience of another person becoming a witness to one’s account of troubles is meaningful and worthwhile’.
By being given time and space to tell their story in a supportive place, the person is in the process given an opportunity to reflect on their story and to consider whether it could be understood or expressed in different ways. Narrative therapists also propose the concept of externalizing the story. From this perspective, the person has a relationship with their own story and is in conversation with the issues that feature in it. Thus, there is potential for editing and changing the ways in which the story unfolds and for exploring the layers of meaning that are embedded within it. The listeners too are in dialogue with the story. The experience of hearing different accounts of the same episode provides an opportunity to understand why the protagonists behaved as they did. This is a significant part of the restorative process, with potential for change, including forgiveness and acknowledgement of causing hurt. For example, when peer mediators are trained to engage in conflict resolution with peers in dispute, each person tells their side of the story and the mediator reflects back each account and, in the process, gives each an opportunity to reflect on their story and consider whether it could have happened in a different way.
Involving young people in improving their social context
Restorative approaches also aim to create a safer community. One way in which this can be achieved is by developing systems of peer support (Andrès, 2007; Cowie et al., 2002; Cowie et al., 2008; Cremin, 2007; Hutson and Cowie, 2005;Lane-Garon and Richardson, 2003; Smith and Watson, 2004). Andrès et al.(2005) report on a longitudinal study in two secondary schools in Spain, an experimental school which had developed a system of peer support to enhance the school’s ethos and a control school in the same catchment area. The study took place in a context of major difficulty with a large influx of families from different cultures and an on-going concern about rising levels of violence, both in the community and in the school itself. In each class of the experimental school the students democratically elected classmates to act in the role of peer helpers. The elected students were then given training that enabled them to intervene directly to resolve peer conflicts, with a particular brief to intervene in cases of bullying and the abuse of power.
Andrès et al.(2005) found that the peer support activity had a very positive impact on the social development and personal qualities of those who participated as peer helpers, with boys demonstrating greater gains than girls. The programme indicated how important it is to give young people a framework in which to develop pro-social behaviour, self-efficacy and emotional literacy. The greatest impact of the programme was on psychological or indirect bullying. Social exclusion decreased dramatically in the experimental school during this study and there was interview-based evidence that the whole ethos of the experimental school improved substantially. This restorativeprogramme has been running for over eight years and has beome an integral part of the school culture, so indicating that a whole community can change.
Conclusion and discussion points
There are many advantages for schools that developrestorative practices. There are fewer student suspensions and improved ratings on positive school climate. There is also a reduced likelihood of retribution or repeat offending, so preventing the escalation of violence. For example, trials of conferencing in Australian schools (Cameron and Thorsborne, 2001) indicated that the majority of participants were positive about the experience of taking part in a restorative conference, victims felt safer after the conference and perpetrators felt cared for during the conference and more able to make a fresh start after the conference.
From a psychological perspective, there is evidence that school climate is greatly improved by increasing young people’s understanding of rules and enhancing trust in how these rules are applied. This is likely to result in more positive relationships betweenpeers and adults, as well as more confidence in acting prosociallyto defend vulnerable peers. Studies of peer support indicate that this form of restorative practice gives children and young people deeper understanding about the reasons why perpetrators act in the way that they do. Experiential training, with its emphasis on the emotional aspects of relationships, enables young people to explore the nature of empathy for another person’s distress and to become more aware of the complex processes that underlie social interactions. By putting restorative principles into practice, young people develop greater insights into the factors that lead to conflict and violence.
Finally, the chapter proposes that it is crucial to work with peer relationships in order to address the problem of aggression and violent behavior at school. This should be part of a much wider concern for self-awareness and understanding of group processes. All members of the peer group have a part to play and in a restorative context they are more likely to take action against aggressive behavior rather than remaining as passive bystanders. In the process, they gain deeper insights into themselves.
References
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? American Psychologist, 63(9): 852-862.
Andrès, S., (2007) Peer support systems as instruments for increasing convivencia in schools: an evaluation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad Autonoma, Madrid.
Andrès, S., Gaynard, S. & Martin, E. (2005) Evaluation of social competence in the school context: the experience of a programme of peer support in secondary schools. In J. A. del Barrio and I. Fajando (Eds.) New Psychological and Social Contexts in Education. Santander: INFAD, Psioex, pp. 17-32. (2007)
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2003) Restorativejustice and a better future. In E. McLaughlin, R. Fergusson, G. Hughes and L. Westmarland (Eds.) Restorative Justice: Critical Issues. London: Sage, pp. 54-65.
Cameron, L. & Thorsborne, M. (2001) ‘Restorative justice and school discipline: mutually exclusive?’, in H. Strang and J. Braithwaite (eds.), Restorative Justice and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 180-194.
Cowie, H., & Jennifer, D. (2008).New Perspectives on Bullying. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Talamelli, L., Chauhan, P. & Smith, P. K. (2002) Knowledge, use of and attitudes towards peer support, Journal of Adolescence, 25: 453-67.
Cowie, H., Hutson, N., Oztug, O. & Myers, C. (2008) The impact of peer support schemes on pupils’ perceptions of bullying, aggression and safety at school, Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 13(1): 63-71.
Cremin, H. (2007) Peer Mediation.Open University Press.
Hopkins, B. (2004) Just Schools. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hutson, N.,Cowie, H. (2008).Setting up an e-mail peer support scheme, Pastoral Care in Education, 25(4), 12-16.
Jennifer, D. & Cowie, H. (2012) Listening to children’s voices: moral emotional attributions in relation to primary school bullying, Emotional and Behavioural Difficulties, 17(3): 229-241.
Lane-Garon, P. Richardson, T. (2003) Mediator mentors:improving school climate – nurturing student disposition, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21: 47-69.
McLeod, J. (1997) Narrative and Psychotherapy..London: Sage
McLeod, J. (2000) Narrative therapy.In C. Feltham & I. Horton (Eds.) Handbook of Counselling and Psychotherapy.London: Sage, pp. 343-347.
Morrison, B. (2003) Regulating safe school communities: being responsive and restorative, Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 6, 689-704.
Morrison, B. (2007) Restoring Safe School Communities: A Whole School Response toBullying, Violence and Alienation. Sydney: The Federation Press.