Restorative Justice Programs in Primary School: Articulating Clear Norms and Behavioral Standards - Literature review Example

Literature Review This literature review examines restorative justice (RJ) and several related concepts. First, this review discusses the relationship between conflict resolution (CR) and RJ. Second, it defines and discusses RJ and its role in schools. Third, this review explores school violence types and the use of RJ to address school violence. Restorative Justice as Conflict Resolution Conflict resolution has a bearing upon restorative justice. Studying conflict resolution offers a perspective on how people feel victimized. There are different ways to approach conflict resolution, and various theories underpin the different methods. Cloke & Goldsmith (2000) state that one way to approach conflict resolution is through the telling of stories. Stories express deep desires while presenting masks to the outside world, integrate our experiences, and help us make sense out of the conflicts we face in our daily lives. Other views of conflict resolution studies focus upon what is known as the drama triangle. In a drama triangle there typically is a victim, a villain, and a hero (Harper, 2004). The drama triangle becomes problematic when individuals in the drama triangle see themselves differently than how others in the drama triangle might see them. For instance, A might feel that she is a victim, but B might see A as being the villain. C might see himself as being a hero, but A might see C as being the victim. Etc. (Harper, 2004). How restorative justice and conflict resolution intersect is that RJ enables the parties to talk with one another, which helps each side understand the others’ positions. With basic conflict resolution, there might only be two parties. In advanced conflict resolution, there might be multiple parties (Deutsch, 2000). Therefore, RJ interrupts the drama triangle by assisting parties in recognizing the others’ perceptions of their role in the conflict, whether they perceive themselves as victim, hero or villain. According to Harper (2004), when there is a conflict, every party involved in the conflict feels attacked and victimized and absolves oneself of responsibility, instead of tackling the situation head-on. An individual may begin the conflict as a victim, but, as he or she becomes mistrustful, controlling and fearful, that person may become the villain. Alternatively, the individual may begin the conflict as a victim, but would end up a hero, after rising to the occasion and defending his or her interests. Harper (2004) recommends that the all of the parties in the drama triangle – and there might be 100 parties involved in the triangle - need to relinquish their roles and work with the other parties to resolve the issue. The author advocates standing up for oneself without falling into the trap of rigid positioning. The heart of conflict, according to Cheldelin et al., is unmet needs. Therefore, if individuals could learn to more directly and respectfully articulate their needs, conflicts would be simpler to resolve (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2000). That said, most of us react emotionally to conflict. For instance, Henik (2008) demonstrates how anger plays a part in whistle-blowers’ decisions. What is problematic about emotions, and their role in conflict, is that emotions may make it more difficult to express needs. This is because emotions might frustrate the person, which, in turn, would prohibit rational grievance airing (Cloke & Goldsmith, 2000). By probing to find out what the other person needs, conflict may be mitigated or resolved (Gopin, 2004). Restorative justice may be cathartic for the community and the victim, which means that it helps the victim move on and possibly deal with his or her emotions (Deutsch, 2000). This is important in conflict management, as Gopin (2004) notes that emotions are the very heart of conflict and peacemaking, and that emotions are also at the heart of healing. At the heart of a conflict is the feeling that there is some type of injustice. There are different types of justice that corrects this fundamental sense of injustice, including distributive justice, procedural justice, and reparative justice (Deutsch, 2000). Restorative justice may be useful in the situations where one person feels that something just isnt fair, in that restorative justice is a way for the victim and the offender to dialogue with one another. This, in turn, would help each party understand the point of view of the other, which might help each party understand that a situation is fair after all and this might help the victim understand the fairness of the situation that he or she previously thought was not fair. The project outlined in this proposal will focus on elementary school children in the third, fourth, and fifth grade, and so this aspect of restorative justice is particularly relevant. In distributive justice, benefits are divided up according to equity, equality or need (Deutsch, 2000). According to Deutsch (2000), equity occurs when people receive benefits according to how much they put in; equality occurs when, people receive benefits equally; need occurs when the people who are in need of benefits the most receive benefits more than others who are not so much in need. Deutsch (2000), also mentions procedural justice. In procedural justice, there is an emphasis on fair procedures and fair treatment, which has been shown to be more important than fair outcomes (Deutsch, 2000). Deutsch (2000) further states that reparative justice is a type of conflict management that acknowledges the pain that the victim in the drama triangle feels. In reparative justice, justice is restored by a combination of a full confession, sincere apology, contrition, restitution, compensation, self-abasement or self-reform (Cohen, 2004). The strength of this type of justice is that moral codes are restored, and retribution also serves as a kind of catharsis for the victim and the community (Deutsch, 2000). Alternatively, the aggressor or villain may learn something from this type of justice so that he or she voluntarily is less likely to re-offend (Wenzel, 2008). Finally, restitution, which is a kind of retribution, may help a victim recover from losses or damages (Deutsch, 2000). As we will see in the following section, restorative justice is a kind of reparative justice. Again, restorative justice practice is particularly of interest for the young children who will be the focus of this project, as young children tend to be more emotional than older children, adolescents and adults (Deutsch, 2000). Apology is also a part of restorative justice, as will be noted below. Cohen (2004) states that apology can be effective in conflict resolution, if it sincerely seeks forgiveness. Cohen (2004) talks about the concept of the perceived injurious experience, which is transformed into a grievance that is attributed to a fault of society, group or individual. The aggrieved party – the victim in the drama triangle – feels that he or she is wronged, and demands a remedy. The apology is appropriate at the earliest stage of the conflict, which is where the grievance has been brought to the attention of the offending party. The apology may also be appropriate in the intermediate stage, which is where the grievance has somehow gone public and claims for redress have previously been denied. The apology may also be appropriate at a later stage, as a part of the overall phalanx of remedies that would be mandated by an arbiter or court. Apologies may also be a kind of moral restitution, which means to promote reconciliation between groups that are in conflict, and may even be used between nations (Cohen, 2004). Apologies are also used in restorative justice, as the goals of restorative justice is to help the victim find some kind of closure and forgiveness from the offender (Liebman, 2007). With young children, an apology may be something that is particularly crucial, for this might help them move on. Whether or not this is so is to be one of the focuses of this study. Mediation and arbitration are other forms of conflict resolution, and they, too, have commonalities with restorative justice. Cheldelin (2003) states that mediation means intervention of a third party, with no or limited authoritative decision-making power, in the conflict. The third party is simply present to help the two parties reach an acceptable settlement of their issues. In the Western model, mediation is confidential and voluntary, and the goals of mediation are to help the parties repair their relationships, communicate clearly, understand each others needs, and to generate creative solutions to the issues. Transformational mediation is another type of mediation, and this mediation has the goal of empowering both parties and helping each party recognize the value of their relationship. Problem solving is not the goal of transformational mediation so much as helping one another understand each other. As will be shown in the final section of this literature review, mediation is a popular process of restorative justice, as the victim and the offender sit down to talk, with a neutral third party as a mediator of the process, although restorative justice does not always involve mediation. The goal of mediation is to help each side understand the other better, while also assisting each side in critically examining their own roles in the process, as well. With young children, this type of process might be particularly beneficial, especially if the neutral third party is a respected adult, as it will give the child a sense that there is somebody in the room that will listen to their story. School Violence And Restorative Justice Violence in schools has occurred throughout recorded history (Midlarsky & Klain, 2005). In 1985, Surgeon General of the United States C. Everett Koop declared school violence to be a public health issue; school violence has since become a significant problem in the school system (Chisholm & Ward, 2005). There is not an identifiable single cause for school violence, however, as it may be the result of many interconnected events and circumstances, as with any type of violence (Shafii & Shafii, 2001). Individual characteristics of the child which might predict if the child might perpetrate school violence are school attachment, educational commitment, school performance, peer relationships, impulsiveness and social competency skills (Chisholm & Ward, 2005). Many young people may react with violence when they are suffering from high levels of anxiety, fear, frustration and stress, especially when experiencing the “four angry Is”: Injustice, which means feeling victimized; injury, which means feeling disrespected and insulted; invasion, which means having personal space violated; and intention, which means being determined to do something about the above (Chisholm & Ward, 2005, p. 63). Karcher (2004) views school violence by looking at how connected the student feels to friends, school and family, and shows how feeling disconnected from these sources of support might lead to violence. With young children, there might be a heightened sense of injustice, injury and invasion, so handling conflict in a non-violent way is crucial. Restorative justice, with its emphasis on making the victim whole, in that the focus is on ensuring that the victim gets what he or she needs, be it an apology, restitution, etc., would be the kind of justice that would be beneficial for this particular community. Chisholm & Ward (2005) offer ways to prevent school violence from occurring. They argue that there should be prevention programs that address such feelings as alienation, invisibility, helplessness and depression. They also note other prevention programs that recommend intervention at the primary, secondary and tertiary levels. A primary preventative intervention would focus on the industries that are producing and marketing products for our children that contribute to a violent society. They did not explain the secondary and tertiary preventative interventions (p. 68). Restorative justice would help in addressing the issues that the children face that might promote violent behavior. As Kane et al. (2008) note, restorative justice pilot projects that have been used in schools focus on recognizing the rights of the participants, developing empathy for others, and valuing the views of all the parties in an open discussion. Therefore, restorative justice might help students feel less alienated, depressed, invisible and helpless, because the restorative justice process is geared towards making them feel valuable and validated. Great! Flores (2005) focuses upon the developmental aspects of school violence, looking at predictors and development of violent behavior. For instance, an ecological model views children as a part of complex relationships and affected by the surrounding environment, including the home, school, and neighborhood. Children may be affected by their microsystem, which means the child’s immediate envioronment; or mesosystem, which is a subsystem that consists of two microsystems interacting; exosystem, which is a social setting hat doesn’t contain children, yet affects their lives – such as a parent’s workplace that causes stressors for the parent, therefore also causes stressors for the child. Children may also be affected by their macrosystem, which is the values, laws, customs and resources of the culture surrounding the child; and chronosystem, which means that a child grows up and his systems change. Restorative justice can address issues of conflict that a child might have by helping the child to open up about how they are feeling, which might enable the adult to understand what type of system is influencing the child to behave in the way that he or she is behaving (Flores, 2005). The goal of restorative justice is to understand both the offender and the victim (McNeill, 2009). This might give the teacher or the mediator a way to help that child negotiate his or her circumstances. Since this study focuses on young children, this is another aspect that will be very important to understanding the reason why restorative justice will be beneficial for fourth, fifth and sixth graders. DeFour (2005) examines how ethnicity affects the likelihood of school violence. The author notes that black and minority youths are more likely to be both the victim of a violent crime and the perpetrator of a violent crime than white youths. Moreover, boys of color are more exposed to nonsexual aggression than are girls. DeFour (2005) explains that a significant cause of this type of school violence is cultural ignorance and insensitivity, (Arnow, 2001) and the fact that school demographics may change regardless of whether or not students or faculty are prepared to interact with other cultures. Disrespecting anothers culture may culminate in violence, as the person who feels culturally disrespected lashes out. This fits into the paradigm of research regarding restorative justice because, as Payne and Welch (2013) note, schools with a high percentage of black students are less likely to use restorative justice practices and more likely to use traditional disciplinary practices that have been shown to increase juvenile delinquency and incarceration. This project focuses on children of color, so this is another relevant aspect of the study. Daly (2008) looks at the issue of gender with regards to peer violence, and found that many girls deny that their actions are wrong; often in conflict, both girls believe they are victims of the other, not perpetrators. Payne & Welch (2013) look at how race influences restorative justice. They found that schools with a predominantly black population were less likely to use restorative discipline than schools who do not have a predominantly black population. They state that this is a problem, as studies have shown that restorative justice practices are best applied to an educational domain, as opposed to a criminal domain, because the relationships in schools are closer, the school community members see one another daily, and minor encounters may turn dangerous if they are not handled appropriately. Moreover, because the solutions are individualized, this is also advantageous, as the solution is tailored towards the individual. That said, schools must understand that restorative justice is a philosophy, not just another disciplinary method. It must be implemented school-wide, not just in one classroom or one level of administration. That said, Payne & Welch (2013) found that schools with a high proportion of African-American students will use harsh disciplinary practices and specific exclusionary policies. They found that schools with a high percentage of Black students are less likely to use student conferences, peer mediation, restitution, community service and other restorative justice principles in response to student misbehavior, compared with schools with a high percentage of white students. Since the focus of the study at hand will be on children of color, the information contained in this literature review will be informative for understanding the participants of the study, and how they will benefit from restorative justice. Bullying is another form of school violence. Bullying is marked by six factors which define harmful abuse, according to Fried & Fried (1996): intent to harm, intensity and duration, power of the abuser, vulnerability of the victim, lack of support, and consequences. Naito & Gielen (2005) explore bullying in Japanese schools. Bullying may have devastating effects, including suicide of the victim Fried & Fried (1996). Naito & Gielen (2005) examine the case of a 13-year-old boy in Japan who was the subject of a mock funeral designed to show that he was a failure of a human being. The “funeral” for this boy consisted of burning incense, displaying his photograph and flowers, and a condolence card that was signed by other students and four of his teachers. The victim of this episode of bullying eventually hanged himself, and the authors state that the bullying of the boy at least contributed to his suicide. The authors refer to this type of bullying as Ijime – bullying in which physical violence is not involved, but the psychological violence is just as devastating, if not more. They also studied the determinants of bullying by looking at why students bully. They found that the students who bully are oriented towards rule breaking and deviant acts. The bully may see some forms of bullying as being ambiguous and harmless, thinking that they are only joking or teasing, ignoring the serious implications of their actions. Bullying is also accepted because other students around the student being bullied thinks that the situation is fun, which encourages bystanders and audience discounting the feelings of the victim. In addition, the authors find that classes with frequent bullying are made up of bullies, bullied students, an audience and bystanders. Naito & Gielen (2005) also state that bullying happens more often in classes where there is a perception of a poor moral atmosphere. The victims of bullying are more often than other students to conform to power structures, school values and norms. The bullies are more likely than other students to want independence from power and have a generally negative attitude towards school values. Bullying is an especially crucial area of school violence to address because, as Krauss (2005) notes, school violence is on the wane, but bullying is continually on the rise. And bullying is also crucial to address, as bullying might lead to more violence, such as school shootings (Fast, 2008). Morrison (2002) looks at bullying and restorative justice, and how restorative justice may help schools overcome the problems of bullying. Morrison (2002) examines the restorative justice program run by a primary school in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT). The program, called “The Responsible Citizen Program,” is grounded in community building and conflict resolution. The program based itself on several core beliefs: Bullying and being bullied can change, addressing bullying should not involve denigrating the whole person, the harm done to the self by bullying should be acknowledged and mitigated, reparation for the harm done by bullying is essential, and both the bully and the victim are valued members of the school community. In this program, all of the 5th year students participated in the program. After the restorative justice program was implemented, and there was an evaluation after six months, it was clear that the program had a positive effect on the bullying in the school. One student indicated that program helped the students shift how they interacted with one another, and that they felt more respect for one another. Another goal was to help students with their maladaptive shame, and the program provided the students with strategies for managing this, as well. Lupton-Smith (2004) looks at peer mediation, which is related to restorative justice, as being another way to address school violence. In peer mediation, as with regular mediation, described above, there is a neutral third party who resolves disputes between two opposing parties. The students are the ones who mediate the conflicts, because it is empowering for them, more empowering than always allowing an adult to mediate conflicts. Moreover, peer mediation gives the students the ability to know the procedures, skills and attitudes that are necessary to constructively resolve conflict. Lupton-Smith states that peer mediation may take a variety of different approaches. One such approach might be what is known as the “cadre approach” (p. 282). In the cadre approach, the students involved take an elective course that teaches mediation procedures and practices. Another approach is the “total school approach,” (p. 285) which means that all students are taught the principles and practices of conflict resolution, and all students have the opportunity to serve as mediators. This approach is strong, according to Lupton-Smith (2004), because it gives every student the tools that they need to defuse conflicts. Arnow (2001) also states that conflict resolution is something that can be taught, along with tolerance, and he advocates this approach, particularly in light of the fact that many schools are multicultural. In particular, he advocates multicultural education, in which students can learn about diversity, become aware of their cultural roots, understand how different people think and behave, become sensitive to other cultures, understand their rights and responsibilities as citizens in a society that is culturally diverse, and become “adequately prepared to live fruitful lives in an increasingly global society with shifting and permeable borders” (p. 296). Arnow also advocates for conflict resolution programs in which children can learn strategies for dealing with conflicts. Cross-cultural counseling, in which counselors take the students world view, while showing respect for culture, is another possibility to address school violence (Arnow, 2001). Restorative Justice: Practices and Research Restorative justice (RJ) is one way that schools can begin to address school violence. Wenzel et al. (2008) describe RJ as a way for restoration of the victim by bring the stakeholders together. RJ then creates a resolution on how to deal with the offense and how the offense has affected the victim. RJ practices may involve a victim and perpetrator discussing the offense in a face-to-face meeting (Liebman, 2007). This meeting might take the form of a mediation, in which the victim and the offender meet in a safe environment. Family conferences, in which the families, peers and supporters of both the victim and the perpetrator are also involved in the victim-perpetrator meeting, are also considered restorative. Another RJ practice is circle-sentencing that involves other members of the community in a meeting, as well (Arrigo, 2004). Wenzel et al. (2008) further state that the focus is on healing, as opposed to punishment. The offender may apologize, and the victim may accept the apology and move on. The authors further state that victims have more satisfaction in the court process because they feel included. According to Umbreit (2001), the victims participating in RJ also feel a sense of justice, because they have had their emotional and material losses restored, and have a chance to talk with both the offender and the support personnel. Harris (2004) states that restorative justice and community justice should be merged. This would mean that restorative justice principles might be enhanced by community justice principles, such as social learning and social capital. The Vienna Declaration on Crime and Justice (2000) states that restorative justice systems should repair the harm suffered by the victim, while making (I’m leaving this word here but I suggest that it is removed here and elsewhere – “making” somebody understand something would not necessarily be considered restorative. I could make an offender understand they were wrong by beating them, which is clearly not restorative. I suggest using terms like “facilitating,” “assisting,” “helping,” etc.) the offender understand that their behavior is not acceptable to the victim, and take responsibility for his or her actions. The victim also should be able to express his or her needs, and the community should contribute to the process. Daly (2002) states that the results of restorative justice are equivocal, and, although the practice is worth maintaining, it is not a panacea and often does not result in repair and goodwill. Excellent. Mika & Zehr (2003) understand that restorative justice is a sound philosophy, because practitioners of restorative justice believe that conflict does not necessarily arise from the immorality of others, or in their diseased minds or poor decisions. Conflict is often, rather, social and relational in nature, and is often reflective of a broader social conflict. Moreover, restorative justice gives communities a chance to “own” the conflict resolution, in that the community is the one who designs the restorative justice program, and they are the ones who are able to find justice. This gives the community a sense of empowerment. Rieger (2003) specifically looks at teen, youth and peer courts as a type of restorative justice situation. The author notes that these types of courts started in the 1980s as an alternative for minor juvenile offenders. Juvenile courts, law enforcement agencies, private and non-profit organizations and schools are places where these types of courts can currently be found. In some of these courts, the prosecutors are teenagers themselves and so are the defenders, and these prosecutors and defenders determine mitigation and aggravation before a teen judge. Sometimes teen juries are used as well. The students who qualify for the role of prosecutor or defender are required to take courses to prep them for this, and also have to pass a “bar exam” before they are admitted to the practice (Rieger, 2003). This makes the juveniles who are the subject of the proceedings feel contrite. Moreover, the counseling that these youthful offenders may receive often mimic the principles of restorative justice – some of the ways that the offenders are counseled is that they must issue letters of apology to the victims, may have to complete community service, may have to make restitution, or may have to serve on a youth jury or participate in the youth court process. However, while these youth courts do have some vestiges of restorative justice, they also diverge from restorative justice in that the victim does not participate in the process and the focus of the process is not on making the victim feel that justice has been done. How restorative justice practices might help with school violence is that they are able to bring the perpetrator of the violence and the victim together, say of bullying, and this opens up a dialogue and might help them understand one another. Moreover, as Braithwaite (2002) notes, when there is a restorative justice situation, the offender cannot deny that there is a victim and cannot deny that there is an injury. The victim and the injury are there for the offender to see. Moreover, the victim is able to engage in a respectful dialogue with the perpetrator, and this means that the victim might have a hard time condemning the offender. The offender also has a difficult time denying responsibility. Johnstone (2002) states that restorative justice is effective because it enables the community, such as the school community, to see conflicts as opportunities. It is a chance to question what a conflict is and what the ideal response should be to the conflict. Additionally, it gives all involved a chance for empowerment and recognition. Johnstone (2002) also stressed the importance of the community in restorative justice. There should be not only community involvement, but also a broader shift in our social institutions. Strickland (2004) concurs with this, stating that communities are important because handling conflict should be a social act, and conflicts are the property of communities and community-based processes, so communities are the best way to address these issues. In evaluating the effectiveness of restorative justice programs in schools, the Youth Justice Board of England and Wales (2004) states that restorative justice can be used in a school context, because there are parallels between a school setting and the criminal justice system. For instance, in both school and the criminal justice system, there is a set of disciplinary codes that must be followed. In both the criminal justice system and the schools, the concepts used are the same – peer mediation, circle time and restorative conferencing. Other restorative justice concepts used by the schools include listening and communication skills, anger management, and the teaching of responsibility (Youth Justice Board of England and Wales, 2004). The authors also found that school staff where the programs are implemented find that the schools are improved because of the program, and that 92% of the RJ conferences resulted in successful agreement being made between the parties. Moreover, in specifically examining how restorative justice practices had helped with bullying in the schools, this study found that restorative justice has helped the bullies understand the full effects of their actions and take responsibility for them, while increasing the confidence of the bullying victims. Gonzalez (2012) states that restorative justice is preferable to the current disciplinary methods, including zero tolerance and punitive discipline measures. These measures not only do not make schools safer, but they consistently deprive the students of their educational opportunities. (This is an excellent citation to add to the zero tolerance policy discussion in the beginning. Consider including it there, as well, or relocating it completely.) Moreover, these measures make it more likely that the student will re-offend and eventually have contact with the juvenile justice system. In contrast, Gonzalez (2012) found that, in schools that have restorative justice programs, suspensions substantially decreased in the year that the restorative justice program was implemented, falling from 50 per year to just six per year in one school. The Barnet Youth Offending Services (2012) found that restorative approaches may work in primary schools. Through examining pilot programs, they find that restorative justice programs reduced bullying and improved the way students and staff viewed how victimization is handled. The staff was also more confident that they could deal with challenging situations. The students increased responsibility for their actions and behavior. Karp & Breslin (2001) find that school programs that are focused on anti-drug and alcohol are also effective if they use principles of restorative justice, such as articulating clear norms and behavioral standards, while providing competency development in areas such as self-control, stress management, responsible decision-making, social problem solving and communication skills. This literature applies to the participants of the study, as the participants are in primary school, therefore the information gleaned from this literature review will be beneficial in understanding the study. (or project?) Read More