Exploring the Use of Restorative Principles in Each School

A topic that emerged regarding the use of restorative approaches involved issues of practice. Practice was critically reflected on by the researcher to compare it with the restorative

principles framework. The expectation was not to specifically identify the principles but

119

rather to identify characteristics which could be associated with the restorative principles framework,

In Riverview School the link between the questioning process and an encounter was tentative at best; this was due in part to the issue of training as well as how knowledge was created and retained in the school. It was evident in Riverview School that there had been training for school staff in the use of restorative questions. The questioning process as identified in the literature is typically a scripted series of questions for staff to use when dealing with young people. This issue of scripted restorative practice questions was raised in the following exchange:

RV3 I was reflecting on the questions I have on my lanyard and how many times since I’ve been at Riverview School have I actually deliberately worked through all 5 questions37 in a setting with a pupil or a member of staff. I don’t think I ever have, and I don’t know whether that’s just me because I’m not doing it properly, or whether actually that… I mean do people do that?

RV4 None of us have those in the primary. RV1 Yeah, occasionally we’d use them. RV3 How… how regularly.

RV1 Not very often; well I don’t… I don’t come across children… I mean it’s usually when there’s been some sort of conflict isn’t it… that you would have to ask those sorts of questions.

In the first statement above there is reference to a structured questioning process – ‘five questions’ - which gives staff trained in restorative approaches a specific process to use. The lanyard referred to holds information on the script for staff to use when dealing with a

conflict situation. Nevertheless, what was just as important was the recognition that their own questioning process was not being adhered to. Indeed, the second statement went further and acknowledged that there was no restorative process in the primary phase of the school.

• 37_{What did you think when you realised what had happened?}

• What have your thoughts been since? • How has this affected you and others? • What has been the hardest thing for you?

• What do you think needs to happen to make things right? Questions taken from the school website.

120

The RP process was accurately described as being used when there was conflict. Yet, there was a perception that conflict did not appear to be happening very often in the school. However, it is important to acknowledge that not all conflict causes harm to relationships; thus, opportunities to use RP specifically to address harm may not be frequent in the school. A statement encapsulating the decision making in engaging young people with a restorative process was made by another member of staff:

RV4 I think sometimes like – you must find this at the primary phase, that the younger ones, that they fall out with each other all the time; if I did a proper RP conversation between every small little, ‘She was giving me a funny look’, you… so I think you do weigh up the

situations and what is… what does require proper RP conversation and what just requires a, ‘You need to stop; this is what you need to do’, which isn’t very RP but I think especially with the younger ones, well I noticed it, just from being at the primary phase…

Based on this statement by RV4 it appeared that the key principle of questioning process was not being adhered to in Riverview School. As RV4 continued a decision-making threshold became apparent based on situations when RP was suitable and when directive statements needed to be used. This triggered a member of staff to give a short vignette of a situation in Riverview School which happened on the day of the focus group:

RV5 We had a meeting this morning with a young man and then there was probably about three or four members of staff in the room; we’re all trying to get a conversation out of him because we want him back in school but he’s not willing to have that conversation; he’s not willing to be remorseful or work with us, so actually if you’re not going to do that, I’m going to send you back home again; you could say I wasn’t restorative because I sent him home but actually if you’re not going to work with us, then you are going to come home and we’re going to try again, so then all that will happen is, we’ll probably try it every day this week until we get somewhere but we’re resilient; we work with them; we’ll keep going.

This vignette shows that the member of staff had badged the meeting as restorative, as the focus is clearly on the encounter between those in conflict. There was no recognition of the questioning process or who was leading it. The number of staff in the room appeared to undermine several principles including the inclusiveness of the process, the articulation of harm, empowerment, and empathetic spaces. Furthermore, mutual agreement was

121

were seeking a particular outcome rather than a mutual agreement on how to move forward and achieve peace.

The desired outcome for staff was ‘we want him back in school’ without recognizing the experience of being back in school for the young person. In addition, the vignette by RV5 demonstrates how staff failed to recognise the paradox of wanting the young person in school but having the outcome of keeping them away from the school. Thus, it is arguable that the member of staff failed to recognise that the use of coercion was undermining the young person’s willingness to engage in the restorative intervention, rather than it being that the young people was unwilling to return to the school.

Restorative principles were never expressly stated as being undermined in response to the vignette; however, another member of staff sought to address this with the use of the term ‘improvisation’. Improvisation was preferred, implying a tacit level of skill dormant in the staff in the focus group. A member of staff highlighted the lack of adherence to principles without criticising colleagues:

RV3 And it’s… and that’s in no way a judgment in terms of whether we are or aren’t, it’s just an observation that actually we… we have… we are aware, even on a limited basis of training, we’re aware of what if you like good practice looks like but because we in lots of ways successfully improvise RP because it’s a way of being, it’s just uncovered for me that maybe there are places or ways that perhaps we could be more… would it be helpful for us to have times when we actually are… aren’t just improvising out of RP but are actually using more formal things.

This statement was arguably a contradiction at a process level. If staff do not know how to use restorative questions to address specific conflicts where harm has occurred to

relationships, then a lack of process cannot be the foundation for successful improvisation. If, on the other hand, good practice is built on explicit RP principles then ‘good practice’ might not be so heavily weighted towards process but rather to the outcomes achieved through adhering to a framework of principles to guide practice. Furthermore, this would presume training or learning from the literature (or other information sources) to develop this understanding. From this perspective, staff would be aware of good practice because RP would be role modelled with explicit adherence to the values of RP.

This issue of staff lacking restorative principles was emphasised by another contributor, who makes the comment:

122

RV6 I’d say I’d always worked restoratively but it gave it a label and a title, I’d say naturally, particularly with my work, you have to work restoratively, there’s no other way of working. This statement could be viewed as indicative of practice coming before the labelling and

conceptualisation of restorative approaches within education settings. Without a coherent framework of principles for the use of RP staff could attribute a range of behaviours which they deemed beneficial to RP without evidence to contradict their assumptions about the purpose of RP.

In Laguna High the language of restorative practice was being transferred from Riverview School. The knowledge exchange between the two schools focused on the social discipline window, and the issues of (lack of) quality of process in Riverview School for restorative practice appeared to be replicated in Laguna High.

There was no discussion in the Northside School focus group about the restorative principles, questions or language used in the process of restorative practice there.

The use of restorative approaches in Evergreen College was discussed in the context of a wider debate regarding school policy. This school used the terms ‘restorative justice’ and ‘restorative approaches’ interchangeably. Furthermore, there was evidence that not only were the labels used this way but so were their underlying processes. An example of this can be seen in the following quote from a member of staff:

EC7 But that is in our policy and it is something… so for instance if… if we have students that, you know, deliberately cause damage or litter, that sort of thing, then they will spend time working with the site staff and in the same way that I had a student – or two students actually – last… last year that were actually, they were rude to one of the cleaning staff so they then had to spend a number of hours shadowing and working with the cleaner, as well as apologising for their rudeness, and actually that was a very, incredibly good piece of restorative work. What became apparent from this quote was that the member of staff was discussing

reparation and not restoration. Reparation is a criminal justice aspect of restorative justice, often involving an apology and a form of community payback. What could not be determined was how the member of staff and their colleagues in the focus group could qualify what was meant by the phrase ‘a very, incredibly good piece of restorative work’. Clearly, in the example above, there was a repairing of the relationship between the young person and cleaning staff as a result of this encounter but this appears to have been non-voluntary as they

123

‘had to’. This example illustrates the omission of serval restorative principles - there was clearly no questioning process, voluntary encounter or mutual agreement. Yet other aspects were present, such as articulation of the harm, inclusiveness, and empathy. This suggests the presence of a hybrid model in Evergreen College. Nevertheless, the lack of an impartial facilitator and a structured dialogue made this instance described by the member of staff recognisable as a restorative approach. The fact that the by-product of the reparation may have been restoration was arguably serendipitous rather than the result of effective use of restorative approaches.

The lack of restorative principles and consequentially restorative approaches as an initiative in Evergreen College gave insight into a second issue of awareness in the school. An example of this is given below by a member of staff:

EC6 I’ve always approached the senior tutor role, and kind of even my pastoral role before, I kind of… I think obviously we kind of get involved more when there’s an extreme issue and kind of try and do the restorative approaches but the message, even when there’s a minor falling out, I often get involved and do a very small version of it just with the conversations I have I guess, but it’s not necessarily a formal meeting with strategies.

What was being described here were more serious levels of harm falling into the ‘extreme issues’ category. These types of issues might require a formal meeting but there was also a less formal ‘quick version’. Based on this example of difference in practice it was not clear how staff were deciding which issues were extreme and which issues were a ‘small version’. Furthermore, there was an additional issue of how much staff were changing their processes and skills when doing a short RA version. This issue of process adaptation appeared later in the conversation at Evergreen College when a member of staff suggested a specific

adaptation to the process:

EC5 If there was a reflective piece of paper, if there’s no time for someone to have a conversation, a reflective piece of paper where they could actually, you know, ‘Why am I here’.

EC1 It’s what happens in the supervision room isn’t it?

The first member of staff identified the possibility of using a reflective sheet for young people to complete which would help inform them of the restorative questions. This reflective sheet with RA questions would be an adaptation of the process not previously mentioned in the literature but useful for adhering to the inclusion principle by offering

124

young people a framework within which to write down their experience of conflict. In the second comment above a member of staff questioned whether this process already existed in the school supervision room. However, it was not clear if the school supervision room was a punitive space; if so, this would undermine the principles of both impartiality and

empowerment. So, what emerged here was that there was a potential problem as to the correct space in which young people are able to reflect, on harm and potential solutions when in a conflict or bullying dynamic with the school.