The Cart Before the Horse: The Challenge and Promise of Restorative Justice Consultation in Schools

ABSTRACT

Restorative justice (RJ) in schools is an increasingly popular approach to responding to discipline issues including bullying and aggressive behaviors. However, RJ research in schools is dramatically lagging behind its practice. Specifically, there is a large void within the school consultation literature that examines the use of RJ and the role of the consulting school psychologist. To help address this gap, this article reviews contextual and definitional issues of RJ, introduces the special issue articles within the RJ literature, and provides recommendations for future research, training, and practice in RJ. Notably, this is the first special issue that brings together RJ scholarship and research in schools under a consultation framework.

Restorative justice (RJ) in schools is increasingly gaining popularity in the media and general public. A recent search for popular news articles on “restorative justice in schools” displayed close to 17,400 results (Google search, 2016). As expected, the scholarly literature is smaller, with merely 157 articles, chapters, and dissertations (PsychInfo search using “restorative” and “school”). RJ’s popularity rests upon its promise as an effective alternative to exclusionary discipline systems such as zero tolerance policies (i.e., suspension and expulsion; McCluskey, Lloyd, Kane, et al., 2008). Indeed, RJ implementation has produced significant reductions in suspensions ranging from 40% to 90% (within the same year of implementation in some cases) while demonstrating positive gains in important school performance, learning, and climate variables (High Hopes Campaign, 2012; Lewis, 2009; Sumner, Silverman, & Frampton, 2010; Wong, Cheng, Ngan, & Ma, 2011). A greater number of schools are seeking to implement RJ. For example, it was recently reported that a half dozen schools across the Puget Sound in Seattle, Washington, are implementing RJ compared to only one school in the previous year (Rowe, 2016). Interest is also growing in disciplines such as school psychology and special education, specifically in the potential integration of RJ in multitiered systems of support (MTSS; Noltemeyer & Fenning, 2013; Song & Marth, 2013).

Despite the recent popularity of RJ, RJ research and practice is still uncommon within the scholarly literature in school psychology, special education, and school consultation. In addition, although there has been increased interest in social justice and school psychology—for example, a special issue in School Psychology Review (Power, 2008) and an edited book (Shriberg, Song, Miranda, & Radliff, 2013)—research on social justice topics in the schools is still lagging. This special issue seeks to fill this gap by bringing together RJ scholarship and research across these three fields for the first time. We discuss contextual and definitional issues of RJ, the special issue articles within the RJ literature, and recommendations for future research, training, and practice. We highlight challenges between research and practice throughout each section.

What is restorative justice?

Cultural zeitgeist of restorative justice

It is important to understand the context and climate of RJ “on the ground” in terms of common beliefs, perspectives, and challenges, as there are various complicating factors within this approach that will be beneficial to researchers, consultants, and/or practitioners. While RJ has its roots deeply in global history (e.g., indigenous cultural practices and religious practices; Johnstone, 2011; Zehr, 2002, 2015), in American school practice there is disagreement about ways of implementing RJ. We highlight three primary disagreements: (a) the importance placed on a manual, (b) the degree of RJ implementation in a school, and (c) the degree to which RJ explicitly addresses racial equity issues.

First, there are divergent views on the importance of the level of specificity in RJ training. Some say that RJ is a way of being in the world, and therefore, there is no one way to practice it that can be captured adequately in a manual. From this perspective, RJ is best learned through experience and practice with a mentor who has undergone a similar apprenticeship model of training through experience. Certainly, this perspective highlights that RJ is an art rather than a science. The obvious critique of this approach is that the training of RJ practitioners is slow with vague standards for trainers and may not meet the current evidence-based demands that exist in schools. From a research perspective, an intervention that is not manualized is not an intervention that can be rigorously evaluated (Foreman, 2015). Others suggest that the core of RJ is a circle, which can be trained using a specified manual (Pranis, 2005). Figure 1 illustrates a prototypical circle by depicting who might be present and the primary task of dialoguing for shared understanding.

Figure 1. Prototypical restorative justice circle. This figure illustrates who is present and the primary task of dialoguing. The initiator (also referred to as victim) is the individual, in this case a student, who has asked for a circle to occur. The respondent (also referred to as the offender) is the individual, in this case a student, who has primary responsibility for harming the initiator.

Another disagreement among practitioners is the extent of RJ implementation (e.g., number of components) in a school. For example, is it enough to use RJ for discipline referrals only? While some practitioners are likely to say that it is enough, most would say that it is just a good start and prefer to strive toward a comprehensive RJ approach in schools (e.g., Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; McClusky, Lloyd, Stead, et al., 2008). Adding further to the complexity of this issue is that schoolwide approaches to RJ are very similar (if not identical in many cases) to other whole-school approaches to intervention such as those found in schoolwide bullying programs and trauma-informed schools; the primary difference is the use of the restorative circle. In these instances, RJ is conceptualized as a philosophy (rather than a program with specified intervention components), and the schoolwide bullying program, for example, is deemed to be consistent with the RJ philosophy and, therefore, an “RJ intervention” at the school level. From a research perspective, it is challenging to have such disagreement in the operationalization of RJ in schools because evidence needs to demonstrate the effectiveness of each RJ definition (or intervention).

Finally, one of the strengths of the RJ framework is that it addresses racial inequity (e.g., disproportionate exclusionary discipline across race) and focuses on systemic racism. Some practitioners, therefore, suggest that RJ should always address racial equity explicitly and directly, while others believe that RJ does so naturally (i.e., indirectly) and place less emphasis on issues of race in schools. Obviously, the current political climate in the United States has polarized discussions of race and inclusion in schools and communities (Southern Poverty Law Center, 2016).

These disagreements are common within school intervention practice and research and are not unique to RJ. However, it is important to appreciate that many RJ practitioners are very passionate about what they do and their particular way of doing RJ. Moreover, proprietary concerns are also common, as some RJ practitioners are making their living in this area. As an illustration of the complexity within RJ practice, one of us (Song) participated in an overnight retreat to begin an all-state RJ collaborative. By the end of this retreat, not even a common definition of RJ was agreed upon. Surely, it behooves the school administrator, school consultant, and researcher to be aware of such potential issues within the current RJ climate.

Is restorative justice definable?

A definition of RJ is elusive. As alluded to earlier, RJ has been described as a program with identifiable practices, a philosophy, and a whole-school approach. Defining RJ is further complicated by the numerous components within programs and practices (between three and fourteen have been proposed) and philosophies (up to seven principles or values). Some prefer not to use the term restorative justice in schools, opting instead for terms such as restorative practices (or other synonyms for practices such as restorative approaches, strategies, discipline, or interventions). The claim is that the term restorative justice refers to the practice first developed in the justice system in response to offenses and, therefore, is too narrow for schools and does not focus on more proactive strategies like prevention (e.g., McClusky, Lloyd, Stead, et al., 2008). While we agree with the focus on prevention in schools and the usefulness of these associated restorative terms, it seems that this issue is due to varying definitions of RJ and arbitrary limitations imposed on them. We prefer to use the term restorative justice because (a) it was initially described and popularized as a philosophical perspective about the potential of humanity in community derived from indigenous communities across the globe (Johnstone, 2011; Zehr, 2002, 2015), and (b) the term justice highlights that punitive approaches tend to be unjust for culturally diverse children and youth in communities and schools. Moreover, we contend that the “glue” that holds all of these varied intervention strategies together is the philosophical principles of RJ that are, then, operationalized in diverse practices in schools across the entire intervention continuum.

We define RJ within an ecological framework encompassing the principles that schools and communities use to guide the development of their policies, programs, and practices. This framework focuses on relationships and their harms, empowerment of all persons, and collaboration, which is consistent with other seminal RJ work (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Pranis, 2005; Zehr, 2002). It is also different from other work, however, in that our definition makes the ecology (macro-, meso-, microsystems) and collaboration (a form of consultation or problem solving) explicit, which is consistent with the school consultation literature (Gutkin, 2011; Gutkin & Curtis, 2009). Using this RJ framework, a researcher or consultant may more readily view school policies and culture, home–school partnerships, peer groups and recess, multitiered intervention supports—and their interaction—from a restorative justice lens. Moreover, an ecological perspective can easily integrate all the diversity within RJ (e.g., specific strategies). Figure 2 depicts the RJ ecological framework. As an illustration, the RJ framework described here may consider how school recess might be more restorative for children by examining school policy, the training of recess monitors, and the use of organized activities on the playground through the RJ principles.

Figure 2. Restorative justice ecological framework. This figure illustrates the three guiding principles of RJ as a framework with which to view the ecology of the school and community (only a few ecologies are depicted for clarity).

Zehr, often considered the grandfather of the RJ philosophy in America, detailed three critical questions that help convey the principled differences between an RJ approach and a punitive approach (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Ortega, Lyubansky, Nettles, & Espelage, 2016). These questions can be extremely helpful for someone new to RJ. These questions are listed here:

1. Who was harmed? What is the extent of the harm? (By contrast, a punitive approach asks what laws/rules were broken.)

2. What are the needs that gave rise to the event? (By contrast, a punitive approach asks who did it.)

3. How do we make this right? How do we ensure that harm is repaired, relationships are restored, and future harm is prevented? (By contrast, a punitive approach asks what punishments the perpetrator deserves.)

Organization of special issue

Despite the popularity of RJ in school practice, it has been under-studied, especially in schools. This is concerning because practice appears to be far ahead of the research on effectiveness and successful implementation and sustainability, when in fact, research should be facilitating data-based decision making using RJ. Most school-RJ publications are not peer reviewed; rather, they consist of single-school evaluations (or summaries of them) in the form of white papers or reports that can be found on the Internet (e.g., Sumner, Silverman, & Frampton, 2010). Most peer-reviewed publications are conceptual, exploratory, or single-school evaluations with the fewest of them qualifying as original research studies (e.g., McClusky, Lloyd, Kane, et al., 2008; Ortega, Lyubansky, Nettles, & Espelage, 2016). Another limitation of the research literature is that no studies have demonstrated a reduction in the disproportionality gap in exclusionary discipline between majority and minority students. The article by Gregory, Clawson, Davis, and Gerewitz (2016) in this issue, however, addresses these gaps by reporting on original research examining RJ’s influence on teacher–student relationships and providing data that show a reduction in the disproportionality gap for the first time with implications for consultation.

The lack of research examining consultation and RJ in schools is also problematic given that consultation and collaboration are critical to the effective and durable implementation of any intervention (Foreman, 2015; Gutkin & Curtis, 2009). The current view of consultation by many RJ practitioners, unfortunately, is that an RJ facilitator who is an “outside expert” is hired by the school to manage and implement restorative circles. While helpful and a good start, the consultation literature has shown for quite some time that “in-house” consultants are critical for any lasting effects in schools (Doll, Nastasi, Cornell, & Song, in press; Gutkin & Curtis, 2009). It is clear that the RJ literature is in dire need of the wisdom of school consultation literature, as there is a dearth of research on the topic. Therefore, the works of Mayworm, Sharkey, Hunnicut, and Schiedel (2016) and Ingraham et al. (2016) are critical for bridging this gap. First is a much-needed review of the RJ consultation literature, an evaluation of how varying consultation models fit with RJ, and a proposed model for RJ consultation to guide research and practice. Next is a description of a qualitative case study implementing RJ through multicultural consultation and participatory methods in a culturally and linguistically diverse elementary school. Ingraham and colleagues’ (2016) work highlights the process of consultation at the school level plus some promising outcomes of RJ in elementary school.

Finally, given the dearth of RJ research in schools, it is not surprising that there do not appear to be any randomized control trials (RCTs) of RJ conducted in America. Fortunately, however, there is a five-year cluster-randomized controlled trial that is being conducted at this time in Maine across 14 middle schools. Although the outcomes of this study are not yet available, the methodology and results should be useful to other researchers who aspire to conduct high-quality research in RJ. Thus, the special issue concludes with an article that describes this research methodology by Acosta et al. (2016), who are conducting the aforementioned RCT.

Future directions for research, training, and practice

There are obvious significant gaps in the “science” of RJ that lags behind its practice in schools. Our call to the field is that there needs to be more systematic programs of research in RJ that are using rigorous and innovative methodologies, including mixed-methods approaches (i.e., the blending of quantitative and qualitative methods; Creswell & Clark, 2010). Rather than attempt to list all future directions, here is our list of those future directions that are more salient for advancing RJ school practice and research.

1. Does RJ work and how do we do RJ well in schools? Evidence-based intervention research traditionally moves forward in stages establishing efficacy, effectiveness, and dissemination. For the RJ-in-schools literature, the “cart is before the horse.” However, perhaps this situation is not as dire as it seems. More recent models of intervention development research have proposed the examination of both outcomes and implementation simultaneously in dynamic fashion, which results in stronger interventions that are feasible and sustainable in school settings (Foreman, 2015; we highly recommend Foreman’s important work in this area). RJ research should consider this strategy for developing interventions and in particular, examining the role of consultation. This special issue is an important first step in this critical direction.

2. What are the critical RJ strategies for schools? Theoretical definitions aside, we need to know which components of RJ produce the intended outcomes. Without this knowledge, high-quality implementation is unlikely in school. The core components of RJ in schools are unknown from a research standpoint. However, it seems that there is consensus that the circle is one of them, although there are many types of circles to be examined. Is it enough to have circles for referrals only, or is it necessary to have a whole-school approach?

3. What are the mechanisms of change in RJ? What makes the core components (or circles) work? Having used two different approaches to RJ in consultation work (Song), worked with various practitioners, and reviewed the literature, I have observed that the microprocesses that are trained in RJ circles appear to be the same as counseling helping skills (or effective communication skills), which has a large research base. It follows, then, that the mechanisms for change might be something similar to group counseling mechanisms such as empathic listening and mutual understanding of one another’s perspectives. Of course, if RJ is fundamentally about addressing racism, then other mechanisms may apply.

4. RJ brings with it a strong philosophical perspective of humanity within community and their humane interaction (e.g., the three principles of relationships, empowerment, and collaboration in Figure 2). The empirical question is whether consistency with the principles matters for beneficial outcomes. If it does matter, and we think it does, then how important is it that RJ is delivered in a manner that maintains its integrity? For example, can RJ be delivered via a consultation model that may be inconsistent with its principles? Mayworm and colleagues (2016) discuss this issue and suggest that consultee-centered consultation may be more suitable than behavioral consultation. However, these hypotheses need to be examined empirically. A related issue is the integration of RJ into MTSS models that operate inherently from a top-down, hierarchical perspective of discipline in contrast to an empowering and collaborative model like RJ and whether this might inhibit or dilute the power of RJ.

5. The ability of RJ to promote racial equity and ameliorate systemic racism in schools needs to be examined more closely. One of the primary reasons that RJ is appealing is its potential for change in this domain (e.g., Anyon et al., 2014). Does RJ need to incorporate practices that are explicit about race issues for it to be effective at promoting racial equity? Are there other benefits to being explicit about race that we have not thought about? What is compromised, if anything, when RJ is nonexplicit and indirect about race issues in schools? These questions are critical to answer given recent research demonstrating that schools with higher proportions of Black students are less likely to use RJ strategies and more likely to rely on punitive approaches (Payne & Welch, 2015).

6. How effective is RJ for school bullying? RJ practitioners and available research suggest that RJ is effective at reducing school bullying. Particular aspects of RJ lend itself well to address bullying, such as its voluntary nature, which allows for mutual understanding. However, it seems to us that RJ may not fully respect the complexity of school bullying and its harmful effects on all those involved (Swearer, Song, Cary, Eagle, Mickelson, 2008). For example, it is possible that facing a bully even when voluntary may be traumatic for the victim, and in fact, this “intervention” is strongly discouraged since it puts the targeted student at risk for revictimization (Kowalski, Limber, & Agatston, 2008). The question to address is the following: When is RJ not appropriate for dealing with bullying situations?

7. Training in RJ for school psychologists, special educators, teachers, and administrators is needed, especially as RJ interventions are refined further dynamically in practice. Rather than being trained in the intervention alone, it is imperative that training address effective implementation practices as well (Foreman, 2015). Consultation training is critical in this regard to provide the necessary professional development.

8. RJ practitioners who intend to collaborate with school personnel to train them in RJ practices should consider learning effective consultation practices. One-time-only or even multiple-time professional development workshops are not sufficient without ongoing support. Practitioners may also wish to collaborate with “in-house” personnel who are well trained in consultation, data-based decision making, and evaluation.

Conclusion

Restorative justice in schools is increasingly popular because of its promise to address the school-to-prison pipeline identified some 20 years ago (Wald & Losen, 2003). Research is far behind the practice in schools, and there is a clear need to address this gap in the literature. This special issue brings together RJ scholarship and research in schools and consultation for the first time. The result is a leap forward in bridging the gap between research and practice.

Hate, it has caused a lot of problems in the world, but has not solved one yet. Maya Angelou

Acknowledgments

The authors acknowledge the collaboration of the Racial Disproportionality in Discipline Committee of the Race and Social Justice Community Roundtable, Seattle Office of Civil Rights; the Equity and Racial Advisory Committee to the Superintendent, Seattle Public Schools; the work of the Realistic Restorative Justice in Schools Research Team (Seattle University and University of Nevada, Las Vegas); and the collegial support of the National Network of Restorative School Researchers (NNRSR). To join the NNRSR, contact the first author.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Samuel Y. Song

Samuel Y. Song, PhD is an associate professor of School Psychology within the Department of Educational Psychology and Higher Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He co-directs the National Network of Restorative School Researchers (NNRSR) and is coeditor/author of the books School Psychology and Social Justice: Conceptual Foundations and Tools for Practice (Routledge) and School Psychology in a Global Society: Roles and Functions (NASP, 2017). His current areas of research are the development of realistic interventions in schools in the areas of restorative justice and bullying.

Susan M. Swearer

Susan M. Swearer, PhD is the Willa Cather Professor of Educational Psychology at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln. She co-directs the Bullying Research Network, is chair of the research advisory board for www.bornthisway.foundation, and is coauthor/coeditor of the books: Bullying Prevention and Intervention: Realistic Strategies for Schools, Handbook of Bullying in Schools, and Bullying in North American Schools. Dr. Swearer has authored over 100 chapters and articles on bullying, depression, and anxiety.

Note: The authors report that, to the best of their knowledge, neither they nor their affiliated institutions have financial or personal relationships or affiliations that could influence or bias the opinions, decisions, or work presented in this article.