|
IntroductionIn 2017 IIRP Europe(now defunct) and SynRJ were pleased and excited to be approached to join the RESTORE PROJECT, an Erasmus+ funded programme that aimed to “develop safer and more positive school climate through restorative practices”. There were six partner organisations from 6 countries; Ligand (Coordinator) (Belgium) International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) Europe (UK – No longer operating) Le Souffle (Belgium) Mairie de Lille (France) CRESM – (Italy) ASOCIATIA DE DEZVOLTARE INTERCOMUNITARA ZONA METROPOLITANA – CLUJ (Romania) Eigen Kracht Centrale (Netherlands) The aim of this project was to create an implementation plan for Restorative Practice (RP) training that could be used by any organisation, anywhere in Europe. An idea that quickly proved to be both complex and difficult. The Partners in the RESTORE PROJECT brought with them very different levels of RP knowledge and experience. In order to achieve a level of consistency the group provided training for everyone following a structured model approach, using a combination of training materials developed by the IIRP Europe and SynRJ. For research purposes this ensured consistency of material and training, as the different Partners introduced the concepts in their own countries. The ‘RESTORE’ Partners produced a number of ‘tools’ aimed at helping organisations along their restorative journey, starting with the initial contact, through to aspects of ‘restorative leadership’. However, there are two aspects of the implementation process that we would like to focus upon, the first, born out of circumstances and necessity – ‘Student Workbooks’, and the second, ‘Professional Learning Groups’. These ‘tools’ enabled us to continually support the schools that we were working with. This article reflects our journey as one partner working in the UK to develop training that could be used inclusively in any country. The trainingThe courses and workshops that we delivered helped the organisations and individuals address negative behaviour, though our emphasis was on the concept of Restorative Practice (RP) as an opportunity to create an organisational climate which promotes positive relationships and is therefore proactive e.g. the use of Circles, reducing the chances of the negative behaviour occurring in the first place. Our structured model focusses on providing a practical range of skills that can be used by everybody (including pupils) throughout the day and can be applied to the frequent small but nagging issues to the less frequent serious incidents.  Post Training: will the organisation ‘fly’ with RP or will it ‘sink without trace’? |
 |  |
2. Having identified area of practice that are considered not to be ‘fully restorative’, consider the specific area of practice in greater detail using the key restorative elements;
The PLG then looks at what is working well, what needs to be changed, and also suggests as to how the practice can be changed where needed. Important aspects of this include being clear who is responsible, what is the timescale and what resources are required.
3. Re-assess changed practice using the same methodology.
This process can be used to consider ‘practice’ in any area of the organisation and this reinforces the belief that RP is not just something we use with young people or the client group.
- Relational Styles Template (based on McCold, & Wachtel, 2003)
- Fair Process (Kim Chan, & Mauborgne,2003)
- Relational Questions (O’Connell, 2015)
- Free Expression of all Emotions (Nathanson, 1992)
- Braithwaite’s Hypothesis (Braithwaite, 1989)
The PLG then looks at what is working well, what needs to be changed, and also suggests as to how the practice can be changed where needed. Important aspects of this include being clear who is responsible, what is the timescale and what resources are required.
3. Re-assess changed practice using the same methodology.
This process can be used to consider ‘practice’ in any area of the organisation and this reinforces the belief that RP is not just something we use with young people or the client group.
The impact of training and how can we do better?
As this project came to a close in 2020, we were invited work with a new Erasmus + project called Schools&Solutions. As the name suggests, the practical application of RP was one of the main goals of this project.
When the Schools&Solutions Project was still in its early stages, the school that we were to work with welcomed the opportunity to examine the problems that they faced, and to consider the ways in which they currently respond. Some of the staff had previously received RP training and in the first instance, it was interesting to see how much of their current practice reflected this input. Initially the schools identified the various problems that occurred within their schools and at the interface with the local community. The next step was to look at how they currently responded and judge how ‘restorative’ that response was. After this had been assessed the project then helped the schools work out if the processes could be made ‘more restorative’. A further interesting aspect of this project was that where appropriate, the schools were encouraged to look beyond the school gates and look at how the wider community may be involved in helping to address and resolve incidents/problems.
We were able to take into this project lessons learnt from the RESTORE project. Partners initially assumed that once the key components of the implementation plan had been formulated and agreed, the work with their respective schools would be straightforward. With hindsight, it was probably the case that each individual partner was considering their own circumstances and assuming that everyone else was working within the same parameters.
So, one of the first tasks was to identify the main problems and issues experienced by each school and have them think about how they currently address these issues. It was interesting to see that many problems were common across all schools – the most common being ‘bullying’ -though methods used to address incidents was very varied.
The second phase was about creating a model that could have widespread application, one that could be applied to all organisations, most if not all of their identified behaviours, and would result in a high level of consistency, both in terms of application and outcome.
Learning from, and building upon prior experiences, is extremely important. In this respect there are two ‘stand out’ points to consider. The first is to consider the differences between ‘Restorative Justice’ (RJ) and ‘Restorative Practice’(RP). This was covered extensively in the training provided as part of phase 2. In essence the former enables the organisation to address issues once they have occurred, and the latter also covers this, but goes further, by assisting the organisation in creating a culture / ethos in which the incidents are less likely to occur in the first place.
By pursuing the RP route, it is expected that non-incident specific issues identified in the first phase, such as ‘not continuing in education’, may also be reduced. When creating the model for this project great emphasis has been placed on developing relationships, both within the school and between the school and the community in which they operate. A significant portion of training time has been devoted to the various use of ‘CIRCLES’ as this aspect is considered to be a highly effective way of developing and building relationships between the various parties.
The second ‘stand out’ factor is around pupil engagement and involvement. There are various models around how this might be achieved from awareness raising training for all pupils, to more intense training for smaller groups of pupils who will have a specific role in terms of applying the processes when addressing issues with other pupils. All approaches have merit and the favoured route is to provide RP training for all pupils, the content of which closely resembles the one-day training provided to all staff. As the staff who have experienced the one-day training are not qualified to train, they will require additional support and direction. This can best be provided by the use of Teachers Guides and Student Workbooks, which the staff can work through with the pupils.
Using the structure of student workbooks ensures that all materials are covered and is more likely to achieve a higher level of consistency and understanding for all concerned.
Experiences from other countries:
Implementing a new idea or new approach can be exciting, exhilarating and challenging. Organisations generally report that take up is usually very positive but also that it is important to maintain the momentum, particularly when challenging issues arise, which they inevitably will. Sometimes implementation is at a single school level, for others it is at a municipality (area /regional) level. Either way, what is required is support. Finding dedicated times and opportunities to discuss issues and celebrate successes is vital. Creating an internal group of staff who are responsible for driving the implementation process is useful (RPG’s*).
* ‘Restorative Planning Group’ (RPG), which is a very practical and RP focused version of the ‘Professional Learning Group’ (PLG), as mentioned earlier.
Experience shows that RP implementation, like all new projects or programmes, does inevitably raise issues and problems however, the cultural and systemic differences between countries brings an added dimension. If RP is thought of as a ‘different way of thinking’, and if the Key Elements are adhered to, it is surprising just how often the underpinning theory provides the solution to the emerging issues.
When the Schools&Solutions Project was still in its early stages, the school that we were to work with welcomed the opportunity to examine the problems that they faced, and to consider the ways in which they currently respond. Some of the staff had previously received RP training and in the first instance, it was interesting to see how much of their current practice reflected this input. Initially the schools identified the various problems that occurred within their schools and at the interface with the local community. The next step was to look at how they currently responded and judge how ‘restorative’ that response was. After this had been assessed the project then helped the schools work out if the processes could be made ‘more restorative’. A further interesting aspect of this project was that where appropriate, the schools were encouraged to look beyond the school gates and look at how the wider community may be involved in helping to address and resolve incidents/problems.
We were able to take into this project lessons learnt from the RESTORE project. Partners initially assumed that once the key components of the implementation plan had been formulated and agreed, the work with their respective schools would be straightforward. With hindsight, it was probably the case that each individual partner was considering their own circumstances and assuming that everyone else was working within the same parameters.
So, one of the first tasks was to identify the main problems and issues experienced by each school and have them think about how they currently address these issues. It was interesting to see that many problems were common across all schools – the most common being ‘bullying’ -though methods used to address incidents was very varied.
The second phase was about creating a model that could have widespread application, one that could be applied to all organisations, most if not all of their identified behaviours, and would result in a high level of consistency, both in terms of application and outcome.
Learning from, and building upon prior experiences, is extremely important. In this respect there are two ‘stand out’ points to consider. The first is to consider the differences between ‘Restorative Justice’ (RJ) and ‘Restorative Practice’(RP). This was covered extensively in the training provided as part of phase 2. In essence the former enables the organisation to address issues once they have occurred, and the latter also covers this, but goes further, by assisting the organisation in creating a culture / ethos in which the incidents are less likely to occur in the first place.
By pursuing the RP route, it is expected that non-incident specific issues identified in the first phase, such as ‘not continuing in education’, may also be reduced. When creating the model for this project great emphasis has been placed on developing relationships, both within the school and between the school and the community in which they operate. A significant portion of training time has been devoted to the various use of ‘CIRCLES’ as this aspect is considered to be a highly effective way of developing and building relationships between the various parties.
The second ‘stand out’ factor is around pupil engagement and involvement. There are various models around how this might be achieved from awareness raising training for all pupils, to more intense training for smaller groups of pupils who will have a specific role in terms of applying the processes when addressing issues with other pupils. All approaches have merit and the favoured route is to provide RP training for all pupils, the content of which closely resembles the one-day training provided to all staff. As the staff who have experienced the one-day training are not qualified to train, they will require additional support and direction. This can best be provided by the use of Teachers Guides and Student Workbooks, which the staff can work through with the pupils.
Using the structure of student workbooks ensures that all materials are covered and is more likely to achieve a higher level of consistency and understanding for all concerned.
Experiences from other countries:
Implementing a new idea or new approach can be exciting, exhilarating and challenging. Organisations generally report that take up is usually very positive but also that it is important to maintain the momentum, particularly when challenging issues arise, which they inevitably will. Sometimes implementation is at a single school level, for others it is at a municipality (area /regional) level. Either way, what is required is support. Finding dedicated times and opportunities to discuss issues and celebrate successes is vital. Creating an internal group of staff who are responsible for driving the implementation process is useful (RPG’s*).
* ‘Restorative Planning Group’ (RPG), which is a very practical and RP focused version of the ‘Professional Learning Group’ (PLG), as mentioned earlier.
Experience shows that RP implementation, like all new projects or programmes, does inevitably raise issues and problems however, the cultural and systemic differences between countries brings an added dimension. If RP is thought of as a ‘different way of thinking’, and if the Key Elements are adhered to, it is surprising just how often the underpinning theory provides the solution to the emerging issues.
References
Braithwaite, J., (1989). Crime, Shame and Reintegration, Cambridge University Press.
Kim, W. Chan, & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge economy. Harvard Business Review,81(1), pp.127-136. Available from: https://hbr.org/2003/01/fair-process-managing-in-the-knowledge-economy
McCold, P. and Wachtel, T. (2003). In pursuit of paradigm: a theory of restorative justice. Restorative Practices E-Forum, available from: http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf
Nathanson, D.L. (1992). Shame and pride: affect, sex, and the birth of the self. New York, Norton.
O’Connell, T. (2015). Why the Real Justice Script? International Institute for Restorative Practices 18th World Conference, June 10-12 2015, Budapest, Hungary. Available from https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/budapest2015-slides-oconnell.pdf
Authors:
John Boulton and Les Davey
Co-directors of SynRJ
 | John Boulton was the principal of a residential special school for EBSD (Emotional, Behavioural and Social Difficulties) pupils, in Oxfordshire, England. |
 | Les Davey was a founder member of Thames Valley Police, Restorative Justice Consultancy, he was responsible for the development and roll out of their RJ training from 1996 until 2000 |
0 Comments
