[W]e do need to address the fact that some schools and local authorities are latching onto RJ as an off-the-shelf strategy, simply because the school down the road is doing it, or because there is money available from another sector (police, probation, etc.). This can result in poorly conceived, superficial programmes that are unlikely to be successful, or to be transformative in the ways that we know RJ can be.
Other services can become frustrated that schools are such impenetrable places, and that they have been unable to impact on cultures of schooling which remain punitive, hierarchical and lacking in strategies to promote wellbeing and peaceful communities. It is these underlying conditions that I am interested in researching as an educationalist. What is it that makes schools so resistant to restorative approaches? How can we support change from the inside to ensure that these approaches are embraced in the ways that they need to be?
What is my role as an academic working in these areas? Do I avoid sharing the results of my research with teachers and others for fear of being misrepresented? Do I only give the good news so that we strengthen the case of an approach that is vulnerable to rejection in the current socio-political climate? Or do I trust policy makers and practitioners to engage with me in genuine debate and problem-solving?
I hope that this give more background as to why I did voice concerns about the need for RJ to be properly imbedded. The reverse is often the case, resulting in some reduced / damaging practice at times.
The media may like soundbites, but most human beings fall into a similar trap from time to time: we seek silver bullets -- single interventions that will solve our problems.The difficulty is that problems are usually complex which means that they will have no single-faceted solution.
Schools are an interesting arena of work and study, because they have their own cultures. Those are complex and not easily changed. They can change, but generally that is because there has been a courageous champion of innovation.
One of my favorite quotes (see my Facebook profile) comes from Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince:
It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favour; and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in anything new until they have had the actual experience of it.
A school principal or headmaster who introduces restorative discipline as part of an overall effort to change the culture of the school will face resistance from many sources. They will need tools to instill new values, and restorative discipline can be one of those tools. But others will be needed as well.
A school official who has taken Machiavelli's advice to lay low, may half-heartedly introduce restorative discipline as an experiment but it will have much less effect than if that is done by a politically-astute champion of change.
What does this mean to those who promote restorative interventions? We should begin by acknowledging that we often begin with simple declarative sentences. We speak of its benefits. That is because we are trying to overcome the inertia (and attention span) of leaders wedded to the old order.
But we need to understand not only the potential, but also the limits of restorative justice. We need to become aware of the conditions in which it is effective. We must develop a nuanced conception of its role in schools, workplaces, families, communities, and the justice system.
In my 25+ years working with restorative justice, I have found that some of the most important contributions to my understanding have come from researchers who challenge the rhetoric and claims that we make. After all, if we really want a new order, we had better understand the nature of the old order as well as the limits and potential of the tools we are using.
That is why www.restorativejustice.org calls itself a "non-partisan" website. Not only do we avoid taking sides in the conflicts within the movement, but we seek to collect and make available all the information we can find on this topic.
We seek to adopt a posture of receptivity to those who criticise and those who warn. They make us better.
The book of Proverbs tell us that "Wounds from a friend can be trusted, but an enemy multiplies kisses." Dr. Cremin, and other researchers of restorative justice, are friends.
By the way, in one of her messages she attached a notice of what sounds like a fascinating series of seminars beginning in October 2009 on the topic:
If you are anywhere near Cambridge, you should check it out.