SENCO Network Meeting Term 2 2013

1. Restorative Practice
Putting a relational culture at the
centre of the educational experience
and responding to harm
A taster
Mike Stone

2. • “There is growing evidence that bullying in
schools (Internationally) is on the rise , specially
with the emergence of cyber-bullying and that
bullying does have a negative impact on students
educational achievement” PIRLS (Published 2013)
• Students bullied at school (International
Comparison) 2012
• NZ toward the very bottom of the OECD
countries.

3. • “Various international comparisons over the past
15 years have found that New Zealand
• students—both primary and secondary—find
interactions with peers more intimidating and
• less safe than students in many other countries.
New Zealand’s comparatively high youth
• suicide rate reinforces the importance of
attending to this finding.”
• BES Leadership MOE Document.

4. Margaret Thorsborne and Associates,
2010
Authoritarian
 Insists authority is not questionedInsists authority is not questioned
 Demands obedience/complianceDemands obedience/compliance
 Relates through the ROLE - cannot afford toRelates through the ROLE - cannot afford to
be seen as abe seen as a realreal personperson
 No requirement to explain (do as you’re told)No requirement to explain (do as you’re told)
 Use of punishment, threats, rewardsUse of punishment, threats, rewards
Purpose is toPurpose is to traintrain the child, and serves thethe child, and serves the
need for order, discipline and predictability,need for order, discipline and predictability,
is rule driven and ADULT centredis rule driven and ADULT centred
Discontent, withdrawn, mistrustful, defiant, desensitised

5.  School response driven by individual student
behaviour - more disruption, more removals
 Strict adherence to rules regardless of
context
 The need for strong unequivocal action as a
deterrent
 Removing troublemakers will improve school
climate
 Zero tolerance for some behaviours
 Higher rates of suspension
Margaret Thorsborne and Associates,
2010

6. Punishment as a Quick Fix
 For students who are well connected, solidFor students who are well connected, solid
peer group, rational control…peer group, rational control…
 But not for our troubled kids.But not for our troubled kids.

7. Donald Nathanson, 1992. Shame and Pride: Affect, Sex, and the birth of the Self.
The Compass of Shame

8.  What happened?What happened?
 What rule was broken?What rule was broken?
 Who’s to blame?Who’s to blame?
 What punishment is deserved?What punishment is deserved?
Margaret Thorsborne and Associates,
2010

9.  Need to put the relationship before the role, to be
authentic and interested in them
 Use stories about real life to make a point – kids learn
teachers, not subjects
 Must teach them how to think – knowledge is a click
away
 Need recognition and positive affirmations
 Gen Y toughness hides insecurity – need leadership,
boundaries, mentoring and close connection with
adults
Michael McQueen,
“NextGen”, 2007
Margaret Thorsborne and Associates,
2010

10. • Greater willingness to understand the context
of student behaviour and work with parents
to find solutions
• Greater reliance on preventative measures
designed for forestalling or avoiding the loss
of instructional time
• Beliefs around long term risk to individuals
and communities v’s the quick fix
• Lower rates of suspensions
Margaret Thorsborne and Associates,
2010

11. Margaret Thorsborne and Associates,
2010
Thinking about discipline…
What outcomes do we seek for:What outcomes do we seek for:
 the school community/class as a whole?the school community/class as a whole?
 the wrongdoer?the wrongdoer?
 the wrongdoer’s parents?the wrongdoer’s parents?
 the victim?the victim?
 the victim’s parents?the victim’s parents?
 staff involved in the incident?staff involved in the incident?
What strategy will deliver the outcomes weWhat strategy will deliver the outcomes we
seek?seek?
Punitive or restorativePunitive or restorative

12. Restorative Response
• What harm has been done?What harm has been done?
• EEg Who has been hurt?g Who has been hurt?
What are their needs?What are their needs?
• Whose obligations are these?Whose obligations are these?
• What needs to be done to restore theWhat needs to be done to restore the
relationships?relationships?

13. Fundamental concepts of Restorative
Practice
 Misconduct is a violation of people andMisconduct is a violation of people and
relationshipsrelationships
 Violations create obligations and liabilitiesViolations create obligations and liabilities
 Restorative practices seek to heal and putRestorative practices seek to heal and put
things rightthings right
 The people in the problem are the people inThe people in the problem are the people in
the problem-solvingthe problem-solving
Adapted from Zehr and Mika, 1997

14. Wachtel,T(1999)RestorativeJusticeinEverydayLife:BeyondtheFormalRitual,
ReshapingAustralianInstitutionsConference,TheAustralianNationalUniversity,Canberra

15. A personal ‘continuum of action’
INFORMAL
FORMAL
Affective statements
Affective questions
Restorative discussion
Small impromptu conference
Circle or classroom conference
Formal community conference
Restorative enquiry

16. Using the Restorative Chat
• Commit the questions to memory or have a
card handy.
• The script is skeleton
• Our job is to flesh this to make it meaningful
and relevant to a situation.
• Rattling off questions will have limited effect.

17. To the wrongdoer (s)
“ What happened?”
• Crucial question because it invites everyone to
tell their story.
• Creates a context where negative emotions
are shared and people can empathize with
each other.
• Helps form a place to begin to deal with the
present and then to repair harm (future)

18. What were you thinking of at the
time?
• This question works;
• Firstly to establish the wrongdoers intent at the
time(s) that hurtful actions occurred.
• Secondly, it gives the facilitator and the rest of the
group an understanding of where this person is at
about their own values and their understanding of the
feelings and needs of others.
• (If a student is reluctant to share it maybe useful
to ask a support person or parent what they
might have been thinking.)

19. What have you thought about since?
• This question reveals;
– How the wrongdoing assesses or appraises their
own behaviour after they have had time to reflect
– Whether the behaviour of the wrongdoer was
“normal” or whether they were having a bad
moment.

20. Who do you think has been affected
by what you did? In what way?
• This questions tells us ;
– The wrongdoer’s level of understanding about the
impact their actions have been.
– It can be an opportunity for the victim to have
their hurt/pain acknowledged.
– It can explore empathy.

21. To the victim(s)
• What did you think when it happened?
• This is an opportunity to share their version of
events.

22. What have you thought about since?
• This is a chance for the victim to share
concerns about how the incident has stayed
with them in the time since the incident
• This is an empathy building experience for
wrongdoers as they are given insight into how
it has been for the victim.

23. How has this affected you?
• This is the clincher question and an
opportunity for the victim to share the impact.
• Sometimes victims will rely on “head talk” due
to fear of being seen as weak. (Hounding is
not recommended).
• A follow-up questions maybe “ Since this
happened how have things been for you?”

24. “ What has been the worst of it for
you?
• This question aims to uncover the deeper hurt
that the incident has caused the victim and
may provide a different response to the
previous.
• This question can be an important one to ask
the parent in front of their children.

25. What’s needed to make things right?
• This question is asked of the victims before it
is asked of the wrongdoer. Asking the
wrongdoer first may revictimise the victim if
their response is inappropriate or “lacking” or
trivializes eg “I said sorry.”
• Asking the victim first gives the wrongdoer a
cue for a more appropriate response later.

26. (Wrongdoer) “ What’s needed to make
things right?”
• This is an opportunity for the wrongdoer to
take the lead from the victim in putting forth
ideas about restoring the harm done/
reparation.
• They get an opportunity to say what else
needs to happen over and above the victim’s
ideas, thus showing good will.

27. Apologies
• Often a victim will choose an apology as an appropriate outcome.
• Most of us know implicitly what a sincere apology needs to look,
feel and sound like. We have had it modeled to us and may have
had some real life experience at apology making ourselves!
• We can’t assume that a wrongdoer understands how to make an
apology or follow through on a sincere one.
• It is sometimes the case that a wrongdoers facial expression or body
language doesn’t look apologetic. This maybe nerves or a lack of
understanding.
• If an apology seems insincere, some useful questions are;
– “ What exactly are you apologizing for?
– Would you like to make this apology here in this circle or private?
– You have agreed an apology is needed for what you did. Is there any
way I can help you to do this?

28. O’Connell, T.,Wachtel, T & Wachtel, B. (1999) Conferencing Handbook: The New REAL JUSTICE Training Manual
The Piper’s Press, Pipersville, Pennsylvania.
Community Conference
Introductions
Preamble
Offender’s Story
Victim’s Story
Supporters’ Stories
Return to Offenders
Agreement Phase
Closing
Reintegration
PASTPRESENTFUTURE The Conference sequence and dynamic
embodies the fundamental values,
principles and processes of Restorative
Practices.
I believe that understanding the
Conference and its dynamics…
…can help teachers gain insights into
the ‘day-to-day’ practice of RP.

29. • “Where you put your attention
is where you get results.”
• Tony Robbins

30. • "If you treat an individual as he is, he will
remain how he is.
• But if you treat him as if he were what he
ought to be and could be, he will become
what he ought to be and could be. "
• Johann Goethe