SCHOOL-BASED DIVERSION

In 2016, Governor Snyder signed a law that required Michigan school districts to consider using restorative practices as an alternative to zero-tolerance policies like suspension or expulsion.

As a result of the 2016 legislation, the past several years have seen an influx of interest in RJ from school districts, teachers, and parents. Some school districts throughout Michigan now have a mechanism for using RJ as a means of responding to conflict. In practice, Michigan schools deploy RJ programming by outsourcing the work to local organizations, such as county dispute resolution centers, or training teachers directly to be RJ facilitators. Both models are fraught with challenges, such as staff retention, funding, overburdening teachers, and the lack of school-wide strategies to transform cultures of control and discipline towards one of relationships and restoration

Challenges

In my conversations with school officials and RJ practitioners who operate programs in local districts, both models present unique challenges. One of the primary complaints with school-based RJ alternatives is the misguided and reductionistic use of the practice. Based on anecdotal reports from school staff, many districts employ RJ as an exact replacement for punitive measures. In this iteration, rather than using RJ as a preventative practice, RJ is only employed after harm has occurred.

Furthermore, many schools fail to adopt RJ principles as a guiding philosophy and instead opt to use the process in isolation from the expansive culture within which the processes and practices are derived. As a result, staff and students develop an aversive relationship with RJ due to its use as divorced from the fundamental values of relationship, community, and trust-building.

Another challenge plaguing school districts is the inadequate training and ongoing support of teachers and staff. Standard introductory RJ training typically takes place over two to three days. Once completed, participants are “qualified” RJ facilitators However, practitioners reported a lack of ongoing support for facilitators who are tasked with holding space for complicated issues. Moreover, staff and teachers who facilitate RJ work do so adjunctively, forcing them to balance their primary teaching responsibilities with those of an RJ facilitator. These precarious positions have an adverse impact on the quality and outcome of the RJ process within school systems.

The other model in operation is the outsourcing of facilitation services. This model has the benefit of alleviating staff and teachers of the work, though it is not without limitations. For example, “on-call” facilitators, who are only on-site "as-needed" are unable to transform the overarching culture of a school. A preferable model would be for school districts to employ staff whose position is exclusively dedicated to the operation and cultivation of RJ practices and values within their assigned schools