Restorative justice – looking for tips on good experiences with it -

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't think it really works. Usually the underlying problem is a lack of impulse control, rigidity, trauma, or other special needs type thing that needs an IEP. But the school doesn't want to pay for the IEP or the parents won't agree to it, so they cheap out and put the victim through the RJ song and dance instead.

Children with IEPs are more likely to be victims of bullying/aggressive behavior. RJ is even worse for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice seems like it offers many rewards – but is that only in theory?

I seek instances were restorative justice was particularly helpful; and what was it that made it so –

There are many factors that vary, for instance do parents/guardians need to be there in order to make it work? If parents and guardians are not present, is it really restorative justice - or just students in an office being told to say sorry.

Does someone have an experience where the bullying ("You're stupid and ugly”)/hitting/pushing/kicking actually diminished after a restorative justice circle?

Why would parents need to be there? IMO having parents involved is one of the LEAST restorative ways to handle problems between kids. Because it becomes all about the parents being appeased or getting defensive, and nothing about the kids.

[Anonymous]

RJ is pushed at charters because charters are judged harshly by the PCSB if their disciplinary statistics are "disproportionate" with respect to any particular population subgroup. I agree with the PP who said that RJ is more appropriate for ECE but that older kids need consequences and victims need to be protected. I don't mind RJ being used in upper grades, but it certainly shouldn't be the only thing.

[Anonymous]

I don't know why consequences and restorative justice are mutually exclusive. The problem with consequences it that adults usually impose them completely wrong. They are most effective if they are swift and clear, and they don't need to be severe to be effective. All kids need rules (of all ages) and consequences.

Restorative justice is about what you do next after the consequences to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice seems like it offers many rewards – but is that only in theory?

I seek instances were restorative justice was particularly helpful; and what was it that made it so –

There are many factors that vary, for instance do parents/guardians need to be there in order to make it work? If parents and guardians are not present, is it really restorative justice - or just students in an office being told to say sorry.

Does someone have an experience where the bullying ("You're stupid and ugly”)/hitting/pushing/kicking actually diminished after a restorative justice circle?

Why would parents need to be there? IMO having parents involved is one of the LEAST restorative ways to handle problems between kids. Because it becomes all about the parents being appeased or getting defensive, and nothing about the kids.

In my case, I would want to be there to comfort my child, bear witness to her struggle, and to stand up for her, and to see that the school handles it properly. And to show the school and the other parents that this is a big deal to me and that I will not tolerate my child being bullied or assaulted in the name of "equity". The process can be re-traumatizing for the victim, and she's already been through enough. I went one round and it was a colossal waste of time, so I was prepared to refuse participation and keep my child out of it if the school pushed it any further.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and if the parents of the victimized kid are unhappy with it, the school shames them for not cooperating and blathers vaguely about "equity". Don't forget that part.

If you're at a charter there's really no recourse BTW.

Yes! Equity means letting kids do whatever they want.

(The charter part your post is silly. There's no recourse anywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:RJ is pushed at charters because charters are judged harshly by the PCSB if their disciplinary statistics are "disproportionate" with respect to any particular population subgroup. I agree with the PP who said that RJ is more appropriate for ECE but that older kids need consequences and victims need to be protected. I don't mind RJ being used in upper grades, but it certainly shouldn't be the only thing.

I don't think it works in ECE at all. They aren't mature enough to process it. They'll say "sorry" because they know they have to, and then go right back to smacking each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Oh, and if the parents of the victimized kid are unhappy with it, the school shames them for not cooperating and blathers vaguely about "equity". Don't forget that part.

If you're at a charter there's really no recourse BTW.

Yes! Equity means letting kids do whatever they want.

(The charter part your post is silly. There's no recourse anywhere.

In DCPS you could at least *try* the instructional superintendent and the Ombudsperson and it's possible you could get some traction. There's no equivalent thing in charters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why consequences and restorative justice are mutually exclusive. The problem with consequences it that adults usually impose them completely wrong. They are most effective if they are swift and clear, and they don't need to be severe to be effective. All kids need rules (of all ages) and consequences.

Restorative justice is about what you do next after the consequences to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

I don't really understand how it's "restorative" or "justice" to put the victim through a re-traumatizing experience. Getting hit and then having to talk about it in front of others, publicly beg your bully not to hit you, probably get upset and cry and feel embarrassed, only to get hit again anyway, is awful. I have no idea how anyone could "make sure" it doesn't happen again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't know why consequences and restorative justice are mutually exclusive. The problem with consequences it that adults usually impose them completely wrong. They are most effective if they are swift and clear, and they don't need to be severe to be effective. All kids need rules (of all ages) and consequences.

Restorative justice is about what you do next after the consequences to try to make sure it doesn't happen again.

But there are no consequences

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice seems like it offers many rewards – but is that only in theory?

I seek instances were restorative justice was particularly helpful; and what was it that made it so –

There are many factors that vary, for instance do parents/guardians need to be there in order to make it work? If parents and guardians are not present, is it really restorative justice - or just students in an office being told to say sorry.

Does someone have an experience where the bullying ("You're stupid and ugly”)/hitting/pushing/kicking actually diminished after a restorative justice circle?

Why would parents need to be there? IMO having parents involved is one of the LEAST restorative ways to handle problems between kids. Because it becomes all about the parents being appeased or getting defensive, and nothing about the kids.

In my case, I would want to be there to comfort my child, bear witness to her struggle, and to stand up for her, and to see that the school handles it properly. And to show the school and the other parents that this is a big deal to me and that I will not tolerate my child being bullied or assaulted in the name of "equity". The process can be re-traumatizing for the victim, and she's already been through enough. I went one round and it was a colossal waste of time, so I was prepared to refuse participation and keep my child out of it if the school pushed it any further.

Ok ... sounds like you should probably just decline letting her do it, because none of what you wrote is "restorative." No judgment, I would probably decline it too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice seems like it offers many rewards – but is that only in theory?

I seek instances were restorative justice was particularly helpful; and what was it that made it so –

There are many factors that vary, for instance do parents/guardians need to be there in order to make it work? If parents and guardians are not present, is it really restorative justice - or just students in an office being told to say sorry.

Does someone have an experience where the bullying ("You're stupid and ugly”)/hitting/pushing/kicking actually diminished after a restorative justice circle?

Why would parents need to be there? IMO having parents involved is one of the LEAST restorative ways to handle problems between kids. Because it becomes all about the parents being appeased or getting defensive, and nothing about the kids.

In my case, I would want to be there to comfort my child, bear witness to her struggle, and to stand up for her, and to see that the school handles it properly. And to show the school and the other parents that this is a big deal to me and that I will not tolerate my child being bullied or assaulted in the name of "equity". The process can be re-traumatizing for the victim, and she's already been through enough. I went one round and it was a colossal waste of time, so I was prepared to refuse participation and keep my child out of it if the school pushed it any further.

Ok ... sounds like you should probably just decline letting her do it, because none of what you wrote is "restorative." No judgment, I would probably decline it too.

It's too late, she already did it and that's why I see this fad the way I do. We weren't asked to repeat it because the other kid switched schools. But yes, you're right, it wasn't restorative at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice seems like it offers many rewards – but is that only in theory?

I seek instances were restorative justice was particularly helpful; and what was it that made it so –

There are many factors that vary, for instance do parents/guardians need to be there in order to make it work? If parents and guardians are not present, is it really restorative justice - or just students in an office being told to say sorry.

Does someone have an experience where the bullying ("You're stupid and ugly”)/hitting/pushing/kicking actually diminished after a restorative justice circle?

Why would parents need to be there? IMO having parents involved is one of the LEAST restorative ways to handle problems between kids. Because it becomes all about the parents being appeased or getting defensive, and nothing about the kids.

In my case, I would want to be there to comfort my child, bear witness to her struggle, and to stand up for her, and to see that the school handles it properly. And to show the school and the other parents that this is a big deal to me and that I will not tolerate my child being bullied or assaulted in the name of "equity". The process can be re-traumatizing for the victim, and she's already been through enough. I went one round and it was a colossal waste of time, so I was prepared to refuse participation and keep my child out of it if the school pushed it any further.

Ok ... sounds like you should probably just decline letting her do it, because none of what you wrote is "restorative." No judgment, I would probably decline it too.

One of the problems is that often the RJ session is conducted during the school day and without the knowledge of the parents. No opportunity to decline. It’s not part of the approach. The victim ends up isolated and pressured by the school to go along.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice seems like it offers many rewards – but is that only in theory?

I seek instances were restorative justice was particularly helpful; and what was it that made it so –

There are many factors that vary, for instance do parents/guardians need to be there in order to make it work? If parents and guardians are not present, is it really restorative justice - or just students in an office being told to say sorry.

Does someone have an experience where the bullying ("You're stupid and ugly”)/hitting/pushing/kicking actually diminished after a restorative justice circle?

Why would parents need to be there? IMO having parents involved is one of the LEAST restorative ways to handle problems between kids. Because it becomes all about the parents being appeased or getting defensive, and nothing about the kids.

In my case, I would want to be there to comfort my child, bear witness to her struggle, and to stand up for her, and to see that the school handles it properly. And to show the school and the other parents that this is a big deal to me and that I will not tolerate my child being bullied or assaulted in the name of "equity". The process can be re-traumatizing for the victim, and she's already been through enough. I went one round and it was a colossal waste of time, so I was prepared to refuse participation and keep my child out of it if the school pushed it any further.

Ok ... sounds like you should probably just decline letting her do it, because none of what you wrote is "restorative." No judgment, I would probably decline it too.

One of the problems is that often the RJ session is conducted during the school day and without the knowledge of the parents. No opportunity to decline. It’s not part of the approach. The victim ends up isolated and pressured by the school to go along.

They don't want the parents to know, because they know it's bad for the victim and it won't work anyway, but they feel like they have to go through it for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most people's liking of restorative justice lasts until the second time their kid gets hit. Then that's the end of it.

x1000