A Passion for Education – Restorative Practice.

Posted on by Opher

In 1974 I walked out of my research for my Master’s degree following a disagreement with my supervisor. We had a child and another on the way and I found myself unemployed. To fill in time while I considered what to do with my life I applied for a teaching course and ended up in a career that spanned thirty-six years – taking me from probationary teacher to Headteacher.

There were many ups and downs and, when I left, I set about writing my experiences down. It’s my insight into education; my education bible!

Chapter 25 – Restorative Practice

Restorative Practice is not only the way forward for schools but also the way forward for society.

It is fair, just and provides long lasting results. It avoids victims and resentment which usually results in grudges and further retributions or alienation.

As Head of the Pastoral system in the school I introduced Restorative Practice before it was invented. I’m sure lots of reasonably minded pastoral managers did likewise. We did it because it made sense and it works.

One has to bear in mind when making a statement like this that nothing is one hundred percent successful. Sometimes we are human and don’t carry the processes out well. Sometimes there are issues and personality clashes that make resolution impossible. Often there simply is not the time or will to get it to work. I am mindful of the individual who posted their report regarding my good self on Rate-your-teacher. He accused me of acting like the CIA when it came to dealing with playing field fights. He went on to abuse me for being short and having a long grey beard and accused me of being a weed smoking hippie. Obviously he felt aggrieved and was not one of my greatest successes. You can’t win them all.

However this is one where you can win most. Of that I am sure. All it takes is some time and a mediator with the skills and empathy to resolve issues. The chief skill is being able to listen.

The process is easy.

I used to bring all the involved parties in, isolate them, and get them to write down what had happened from their perspective. I also gathered all the witness statements and personally read them.

When I had an idea of what had gone on I brought all the parties together in one room and talked things through. I got each of them to explain what they had done and why. I got everyone else to comment on this. My job was to tease out exactly what had happened and get all parties to see and accept what their part was and what they had done wrong.

In my experience nothing is ever what it seems at first sight. Hardly ever is there a clear-cut black and white situation. All incidents have multiple causes, misunderstandings and degrees of guilt. Rarely is there a completely innocent party. This particularly applies to staff. Often a teacher has had a bad day and found themselves wound up and furious. They expect you to instantly take their side and believe their side of things without question. This has to be resisted. Often I have found the teacher has a degree of guilt. They may well have misunderstood, misheard, or inadvertently contributed to an escalation. The Pastoral leader has to stand up to the teacher concerned and be scrupulously fair. Teachers have a tough job and need support but each incident has to be dealt with objectively. If they are in the wrong to any degree that has to be teased out and accepted. The important thing is to rebuild relationships and find a way forward that all are happy with.

Once consensus has been achieved on what all parties have done and what was done wrong we move on to how to put it right.

This process involves accepting guilt and agreeing how to put things right. This normally involves apologies, handshakes and punishments.

When it comes to punishments I always asked the students what it was they felt they deserved. Invariably they would come out with a harsher punishment than that I would have given.

At the end the underlying issues have been resolved, a way forward established and suitable sanctions applied. The students leave without a sense of injustice, having been listened to and taken seriously and there is no ongoing resentment.

It is a system I applied successfully throughout my time in education. It worked.

The main objection has always been that it is time consuming. In the short term it is. In the long term it isn’t.

There is a danger that resentment and alienation result in recurrence after recurrence. Nothing is resolved.

Restorative Practice resolves issues. It could do the same for crime. Instead of using a hugely costly and lengthy process involving courts, judges and prisons, most cases could be resolved in a similar way. Fines, community service and even prison sentencing could replace the detentions.

It works and it is cost effective.

Of course it will never happen while the barristers and lawyers have such a vested interest in maintaining such a lucrative system that buys them their estates.

One thing is quite clear and that is that schools should always avoid any system that is inflexible and automatically aligns punishments to crimes. These can only be used as indicators.

Staff like the reassurance of having a clear, black and white system. There is no such thing.

In practice all crimes are nuanced by context and severity. Each incident is different. They have to be treated differently and punished accordingly.

Restorative Justice – the future – in schools and society.

Posted on by Opher

When I was in charge of Behaviour and then Headteacher I brought in Restorative Practice into school. It worked brilliantly, reduced serious incidents and prevented bad feeling.

All too often, due to time restraints, incidents were dealt with quickly. Punishments were meted out leaving simmering resentment and underlying grievances unaddressed. That led to disaffection and further incidents – either bullying continued, violence ensued and displacement aggression occurred.

Behaviour was rarely simple and an incident might be the end result of a chain of events and misunderstandings which might not be obvious to the person dealing with the incident or the protagonists.

The first part of the process was to bring the people together, protagonists or perpetrator and victim, and establish exactly what occurred, who was to blame for which bits and what should have been done at the time.

The adjudicator refrains from taking sides but facilitates the extrication of facts from the incident, points out mistakes made and what should have occurred so that people can see better what they have done, how it made other people feel and the results of their behaviour.

This usually involved unravelling a series of incidents, attitudes and misunderstandings going back through time. Often the beginning was unclear to all. But by talking it through everyone could see what had happened better and what they personally had done wrong. More importantly it helps them see the effects of their actions on others and appreciate the impact of what they’d done. It was often very emotional. There was a lot of pent up anger.

Strangely people think that those involved do not own up to what they have done wrong but that is not my experience. They usually try to justify it though.

This process of unravelling takes time but we usually arrive at a point where all parties have had a chance to talk and explain, all parties have accepted what they have done wrong and understand the other person’s point of view.

Then I usually summarised their ‘crimes’ and discussed what would be a suitable punishment for the things they have done wrong. All sides usually had some areas where they were guilty. Punishments ranged from saying sorry and shaking hands with a promise not to do it again, through detentions, litter picking or exclusions.

When asked what their own punishment should be most students came out with harsher punishments than I would have given.

By the time they left the matters had been resolved, there were no lingering resentments, all parties had been listened to, they understood each other, there was a defusing of tension and very rarely any later repercussions.

It was time consuming but not that much. It reduced the number of instances and made for a more harmonious community.

A similar process has been adopted by courts. Instead of putting people through the costly court system bringing them together with their victims to understand the impact of what they have done on others is often more effective and has more long-lasting results.

Of course, not all victims or perpetrators are receptive to this approach and not all crimes are appropriate. But a lot are.

Human behaviour is learn. It has reasons. People are not evil. Some may have psychological, personality or biochemical reasons for abhorrent criminal behaviour but most do not. By confronting people with the outcomes of their behaviour we can change it. Every behaviour has a reason and a consequence.

I am a big supporter of Restorative Justice – I think it works.

Restorative Practice

Posted on by Opher

Restorative Practice

 

Restorative practices is a social science that integrates developments from a variety of disciplines and fields — including education, psychology, social work, criminology, sociology, organizational development and leadership — in order to build healthy communities, increase social capital, decrease crime and antisocial behaviour, repair harm and restore relationships.

The thing about it is that it works.

After years of work in Pastoral care in schools I found that a lot of our practice simply failed. A child did something wrong. We punished them. They continued doing things wrong. It became a game.

Often the punishment would cause resentment and result in displacement behaviour. A bully would wait his opportunity to get back at the victim for telling on him and getting him into trouble.

Then I moved over to using restorative practice.

When there was a problem I would call in all concerned. Hear their stories. Ask them to explain. I would call in evidence if necessary. I would then apportion blame and see if we could reach agreement. Rarely was any incident black and white. There was usually fault on both sides. I got them to appreciate how their actions had impacted on others and how that had made each other feel. We would agree what all parties had done wrong and what they should have done to avoid the incident. I would then ask them what punishment they thought was appropriate for what they had done. They would usually volunteer a punishment. We ended with all parties reconciled, no built-up resentment and a way forward. The number of further repeat incidents diminished greatly. The aggression in the school diminished. The school became happier.

Some observations:

The students were usually very honest about what they had done and explained why they had done it.

They were open to accepting blame for their actions.

The fact of being listened to was appreciated.

The fact of apportioning blame to all sides was appreciated.

It reduced tension.

They would often come up with harsher penalties for their crimes than I would have given. I usually reduced the punishment rather than increasing it.

There was usually a genuine resolve of the situation with all parties leaving amicably on good terms.

Many situations were resolved without the need for further punishment through a mutual apology and understanding.

A way forward was always provided.

There were lessons to be learnt and taken on board and they usually were.

Students appreciated being treated as adults and not shouted at. They responded in a mature way.

Even the most violent situations or awkward of students responded to the process.

Confronting students with the people they had wronged, enabling them to see the effects of their actions, made them more aware of the wrongs they had caused and the effects. It stopped them reoffending.

It was not unusual to have even the toughest lads in tears out of remorse.

It reduced anger and resentment.

Behaviour greatly improved.

It was more time-consuming in the short-term but reduced incidents and thus saved time over-all.

 

I believe that restorative practice (or restorative justice) can work just as well in courts as it does in schools. Bring offenders together with victims to talk it through and appreciate each others perspectives is beneficial to all.

It is more effective than punishment and satisfies both victims and offenders.

It would cut down on recidivism and would be a lot cheaper.

Restorative Justice

Posted on by Opher

Revenge is not the best way to deal with offence for either victims or perpetrators.

Perhaps our penal system focusses too much on revenge and not enough on rehabilitation and nothing at all on victims?

In terms of  addressing the emotions of the victims, raising empathy in perpetrators and saving society from the expense of reoffending, I would suggest Restorative Justice is the way to go.

  1. Bring the victim and offender together.
  2. Take through the crime
  3. Make the offender see the emotional impact of the crime on the victim
  4. Enable the victim to understand the motives of the perpetrator
  5. Agree suitable punishment and compensation

It is a process that I used very effectively in school. It works.

The offenders usually agree a punishment that was in excess of what I would have applied.

The victims feel that the matter has been addressed and allows an emotional purging and satisfying conclusion.

There is no animosity leading to displacement behaviour.

I think it would work just as well with most crimes and adults.

It requires experts and time.

In the long run it is cheaper.

It generates understanding and remorse, and stops all concerned feeling aggrieved.

Prisons – Do they work? What’s wrong with them?

Posted on by Opher

green- cover

Prisons

In my view prisons and incarceration are probably the most archaic and ineffective of the legal processes.

Here is what I think is wrong:

  1. They don’t work – far too many are locked up (they do not deter) and far too many reoffend (they do not deter) and far too many learn worse tricks inside (they encourage worse crime)
  2. They are too expensive
  3. The philosophy behind them is muddy

The muddy philosophy

  1. They are a deterrent for criminals
  2. They should be a punishment
  3. They keep criminals off the street
  4. They should be places where criminals are made to face their crimes and the effect on victims and atone
  5. They should equip prisoners with skills and qualifications in order to take a responsible place in society

It falls between stools. There is no doubt that some, a tiny minority, criminals need locking away where they can do no more harm. But are prisons places of punishment or places for re-educating?

The rest need releasing back into society so that they can find a place and no longer offend.

Opher’s solution

  1. I would use restorative practice along with social reparations in most cases of crime
  2. I would lock away criminals who are a major threat
  3. I would have two types of prison – one that would be geared to punishment and one that would be geared to restoring criminals and transforming them into useful citizens.

I want a system that makes the punishment fit the crime, doesn’t make worse offenders out of minor offenders, works as a deterrent and reduces crime.

Black and white knee-jerk punishments do not work. They are emotional responses. We need to apply advanced psychology.

Here are a few of my books. They are available on Amazon in both paperback and on kindle.

Anecdotes – paperback just £6.95  Kindle – just £1.99 or free on Kindle Unlimited

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Anecdotes-Weird-Science-Writing-Ramblings/dp/1519675631/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459501044&sr=1-7&keywords=opher+goodwin

More Anecdotes – paperback just £7.29  Kindle – just £2.12 or free on Kindle Unlimited

http://www.amazon.co.uk/More-Anecdotes-Essays-Beliefs-flotsam/dp/1530770262/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1459501044&sr=1-1&keywords=opher+goodwin

My other books are also available. There is some unique to suit most tastes if you like something thought provoking and alternative.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Opher-Goodwin/e/B00MSHUX6Y/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1459501044&sr=1-2-ent

The Legal system – Restorative Practice.

Posted on by Opher

P1080898

Restorative Practice

At school, as a Head of Year, Deputy Head and Headteacher, I used Restorative Practice to solve incidents. It is a philosophy which is efficient and highly effective.

You bring together the parties concerned and establish what has happened. This is often achieved through questioning but may require witness statements or further investigation. Once the facts have been established the people involved are confronted with their actions, the consequences on others and guided through what they should have done. Then suitable punishments are ascribed. I always asked both parties what they thought the punishment should be.

This is what I found:

  1. It was relatively easy to establish what had taken place
  2. Once confronted with evidence the guilty party invariably admitted their guilt
  3. Rarely was it one sided – there were mistakes made by all parties to one degree or another
  4. The punishments selected by the victims were usually lighter than I would have imposed
  5. The punishments selected by the guilty party were usually harsher than I would have imposed.
  6. By the end I had established what had gone wrong, who was to blame (and to what degree), and what should be done to make amends.
  7. Both parties left feeling that justice had been done
  8. Both parties were usually guilty to an extent
  9. The punishments fitted the crime
  10. Both parties accepted the verdict and felt the punishments were appropriate
  11. There was modelling of what should have happened.
  12. It was speedy.
  13. Both parties apologised and made up and could appreciate the impact, physically, emotionally and psychologically, on the other.
  14. The participants left the room without feeling aggrieved, feeling they had been listened to and justice had been done. Their punishments were an atonement.

I believe the Legal System could adopt a similar process for most, even serious, crimes. For perpetrators to see the effect they were having on real victims and for victims to see and understand real reasons that perpetrators had for committing crimes and for punishments to be applied fairly – it is a win win for me.