First Presenter's Institution

School District 49 (Colorado)

Second Presenter's Institution

School District 49 (Colorado)

Third Presenter's Institution

NA

Fourth Presenter's Institution

NA

Fifth Presenter's Institution

NA

Location

Session 1 (Verelst)

Strand #1

Social & Emotional Skills

Strand #2

Safety & Violence Prevention

Relevance

The presentation relates to Heart because it focuses on the practical application of the tools and techniques that support restorative practices, which empowers the student's voice and builds self-efficacy before students are in crisis. This installment moves from illustrating restorative practices as an organizing concept to providing tools for application in a school environment. The proposal also relates to Hands; safety and violence prevention, because it focuses on developing the practical skills to build community and resolve conflicts with students who have been put at risk.

Brief Program Description

Restorative practices are proactive approaches to creating a fair process and providing students with a voice in their classrooms, schools, and school district. This presentation focuses on the practical skills that are used to facilitate restorative practices. The presenters will pose scenarios and facilitate discussions to increase the attendees' ability to use restorative tools and techniques.

Summary

When school districts adopt restorative justice without the proactive elements of restorative practices it could reinforce negative characterizations. Restorative justice is an important component of conduct and discipline. However, adopting restorative practices incorporates restorative justice into a family of proactive interventions. Mitigation is working with students under non-stressful or routine circumstances to promote dialogue and build relationships. Restorative discipline ensures that accountability in policy is aligned to create a fair process. Then, restorative justice can address students who have experienced bad situations using a restorative approach for reintegration into the instructional environment. The goal of this three-phase approach is to cultivate students who value the reasons behind the rules over simply complying to avoid punishment; allowing them to understand that experiencing “bad situations” do not make them “bad people”. The practical application of the three-phase approach addresses the expected outcome of discipline. If the goal is to hold students highly accountable and respect and caring are low, then the institution is doing things “TO” students. If the goal is to “NOT” hold students accountable and respect and caring are low, then the institution is neglecting students. If the goal is to care “FOR” students and accountability is low, then the institution is creating dependency and entitlement. All of the above goals lead to a fixed mindset, which creates many obstacles to becoming resilient. If the goal is to work “WITH” students by holding them highly accountable (expectations) while ensuring that caring and respect are also high (support), then the social-emotional environment fosters the culture necessary to help students avoid discipline situations. The presenters will discuss how district culture could be shaped using a framework that gives the student a voice and fosters a transparent environment of accountability, caring, and respect.

Evidence

Restorative practices (RP) have national and international data to support its effectiveness. The Rand Institute is currently studying the implementation in school districts in Maine and Pennsylvania. Here is an excerpt from a study that highlights evidence about RP:

G. McCluskey et al in Educational Review (excerpt)

Restorative practice originally developed as restorative justice, an approach to crime that focussed on repairing harm and giving a voice to ‘‘victims’’ (Bazemore and Umbreit 2001; Barton 2000; Marshall 1998; Fattah and Peters 1998; Barnett 1977). RP in education differs from restorative justice in that the latter involves professionals working exclusively with young people who offend. In RP in education, the whole school community, all school staff, pupils and sometimes parents, can be involved (Hopkins 2004). Restorative Justice in the school setting views misconduct not as school-rule-breaking, and therefore as a violation of the institution, but as a violation against people and relationships in the school and wider community. (Cameron and Thorsborne 2001, 183) In many countries, it has developed through the use of restorative conferencing; a structured approach to restoring relationships when there has been harm, that involves offenders, victims, and key others in a process designed to resolve difficulties and repair relationships (Morrison 2007). The largest independent evaluation of restorative justice in schools in the UK to date, commissioned by the Youth Justice Board of England and Wales, reported on a pilot initiative in which youth offending teams worked with 26 schools in England and Wales (Bitel 2005). The aims of the initiative were to reduce offending, bullying and victimization and to improve attendance, largely through restorative conferencing. Mirroring findings elsewhere (Blood 2005; Chmelynski 2005; Drewery 2004), there was found to be little impact on some outcome measures such as exclusion and no significant improvement in pupil attitudes except in the small number of schools where a whole school approach had been adopted. However, the researchers concluded that restorative justice in schools, while ‘‘not a panacea… [could] if implemented correctly…improve the school environment, enhance learning and encourage young people to become more responsible and empathetic’’ (Bitel 2005, 13).

This excerpt highlights the depth and scope of support for the continually expanding body of evidence, which supports restorative practices. The process of identifying harm caused by a student, addressing the harmed party, and figuring out how to make things right is a factor in building empathy and decreasing recidivism, which creates the environment necessary to reintegrate students back into their school's community.

Format

Individual Presentation

Biographical Sketch

Biography - Dr. Louis Fletcher

Louis Fletcher is the Director of Culture and Services of Falcon School District 49 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. The Director of Culture and Services is responsible for developing and implementing district-wide education, outreach and training initiatives to promote and sustain a culture of inclusion, equity, and respect. Dr. Fletcher leads School District 49's restorative practices initiative, which has the goal of shaping an environment of accountability, caring, and respect for students, teachers, staff, and administrators.

Biography - Dr. Kim Boyd

Kim Boyd is the Director of Community Care for School District 49 in Colorado Springs, Colorado. She is a school psychologist who spent over 15 years working with children with Autism and Traumatic Brain Injury. Dr. Boyd supervised many interns and has acted as the Department Chair. She holds a Board Certification in Behavior Analysis (BCBA). Dr. Boyd now leads School District 49's Community of Care initiative, which has the goal of fostering community engagement to achieve better educational outcomes.

Keyword Descriptors

Restorative Practices, Social-Emotional, Circles, PBIS, Classroom Management

Presentation Year

March 2019

Start Date

3-4-2019 10:30 AM

End Date

3-4-2019 11:45 AM

Files over 10MB may be slow to open. For best results, right-click and select "Save as..."

Share

COinS
 
Mar 4th, 10:30 AM Mar 4th, 11:45 AM

Tools and Techniques to Foster Restorative Outcomes

Session 1 (Verelst)

Restorative practices are proactive approaches to creating a fair process and providing students with a voice in their classrooms, schools, and school district. This presentation focuses on the practical skills that are used to facilitate restorative practices. The presenters will pose scenarios and facilitate discussions to increase the attendees' ability to use restorative tools and techniques.