An essay for uni - I don't believe it should be but am taking a position!
In this paper I am aligning myself to the position that
Restorative Practice (RP) culture specifically should be made a legal
requirement in New Zealand schools.
Firstly, I outline RP in schools and in more detail RP culture and why
it is so important for the success of our students. Secondly, I supplement my argument by
examining NZ’s past education initiatives with our Māori students that have not
been successful because they were not legal requirements. Thirdly, I propose that RP culture must be
monitored by the Government if it is to be made legal and give some practical
examples. Fourthly, I acknowledge the
issue of authenticity and logically question it in relation to implementing a legal
requirement. Finally, I conclude why RP is
a legal necessity in NZ schools through the adoption of the Ministry of
Education’s PB4L RP model, at the very least, but also address my conditions.
Firstly, RP in schools, which are by their nature complex and
dynamic (Cavanagh, 2007), is a perplexing concept as there seems to be no
consensus of what it actually means (Gavrielides,
2008). Some schools see themselves as RP because
they use restorative conferencing as a behaviour management tool (Drewery,
2007; Hopkins, 2007; Vaandering, 2010) by trying to use reintegrative shaming
not stigmatised shaming to restore the relationship between two or more people
(Braithwaite, 2002). However, others came
to realise that they can only truly be a RP school when there is a change in
the whole school culture. It is more
than how they deal with wrong doing and conflict but also how they consciously
work towards creating a culture of peace and non-violence (Cavanagh, 2007)
through positive and respectful relationships (Drewery,
2013).
RP
as a whole school culture has its roots in indigenous approaches where the
responsibility is collective not individual and it is understood that the
fabric of the family, community and society needs to be addressed (Drewery,
2013; Maxwell & Morris, 2006; Vaandering, 2010). It is
bound in the respect, concern, dignity and mana of relationships and not just
about restoring them to what they were like before but aiming for the ideal of
equality (Drewery, 2013; Llewellyn, 2012).
If we want to have peaceable classrooms, schools (Cavanagh,
2007; Crawford & Bodine, 2001) and
ultimately a Peaceable society (Drewery, 2004) then our schools have to embed RP
culture into their very essence of being. To do so the whole school community
has to collectively embrace restorative principles (Buckley & Maxwell,
2007; Drewery, 2015).
The
NZ Government itself does recognise the key role of RP culture in schools to
ensure that all students
have the right to become confident, connected, actively involved, lifelong learners (MoE, 2007)
as it recently expanded its Positive
Behaviour for Learning (PB4L) initiative.
The pilot project PB4L RP is defined as “a relational approach to school life
grounded in beliefs about equality, dignity, mana and the potential of all
people” and has to be
at the heart of PB4L school culture (MoE, 2015). The goal is to alter the environment, systems and practices as well as to improve
staff-student relationships so students can increase their engagement and
learning while simultaneously making positive behaviour choices. Yet, by making it a non-statutory requirement
the question is: are schools going to actually do it properly or just give a
tokenistic tick?
We may have already seen some changes in RP culture signposted
by a number of NZ Principals who said that they no longer give suspensions as
they are less necessary and/or discipline situations are handled with
restorative solutions (MoE 2009). But regrettably,
my examination of the history of education in NZ has taught me that
if something is not made a legal obligation then it doesn’t necessary happen
even when it is morally right. This is
true with NZ’s indigenous young people in schools. The MoE have had numerous plans underpinned
by the philosophy that “Māori
success is NZ success” (MoE, 2008, p.4).
One recent example is “Ka Hikitia” (2008) which outlines ways to allow Māori to succeed as Māori. Another one is “Tātaiako: Cultural Competencies for
Teachers of Māori
Learners” (MoE, 2011) which was introduced to improve teachers’ relationships
and engagement with Māori
learners and with their whānau and iwi. Both provide a
framework and guidance for people who work with young Māori to help them reach
their full potential while keeping their Māori identity.
However, these are just
frameworks and not legal obligations. Although
there is some evidence that the quality of teaching for Māori students has
improved since 2006, current research information and national and
international achievement data continue to show that there is sustained Māori
underachievement in education (ERO, 2010).
It is also hard for our Māori students to be successful in school when they are being stood down, suspended and excluded more than any other ethnic
group (Education Counts, July 2014).
The Government can encourage our schools to
learn how to remove “the burden of having to learn under unnatural
cultural conditions” for our Māori students (Brown, 2007, p.61) and
train our teachers to become culturally responsive (Gay, 2002) but they cannot make them. ERO can report on the success of our Māori
students and advise schools to improve their approach for Māori by using Ka Hikitia and other
projects and the MoE can ask schools to break down results by ethnicity and
comment on them. Even the Treaty
of Waitangi, where its principles, in theory, protect Māori learners’ rights to
achieve true citizenship by reflecting partnership, protection and participation in school (Berryman
& Bateman, 2008) is often either disregarded completely or paid lipservice
to in many schools as it
is not part of domestic law (NZ History).
This confirms that if we want to
ensure that RP is implemented in schools the Government cannot only “encourage”
them to do so they have to make it a legal requirement and closely monitor
it. They have to ensure that Social Justice is intertwined with
the whole school culture and that caring (Vaandering, 2010) is embedded into all of our schools. This will guarantee that all our students,
including our Māori students, are educated in respectful,
inclusive communities where they are valued (Shields, Bishop & Mazawi,
2005). Not only should ERO report on RP but also schools should be
legally required to make public, in a sensitive way, the results of their Wellbeing
Surveys which explores the extent to which a school is creating a safe and caring climate (NZCER). They also
need to be transparent about how they are going to change their school culture
to reflect RP values to improve these results as well as their specific
actions. For example, implementing the
MoE’s developmental programmes such as Friends, Check and Connect, and Kaupapa
Māori and how all of this fits in with a change in school culture to reflect RP
values.
Individual school culture can be defined simply as “what
we value around here” (MoE, 2008, p.18) but in reality it is very
difficult to pin down the specifics as it is constantly being “constructed
and shaped through interactions with others and through reflections on life and
the world in general” (Finnan as cited in Hinde, 2004, p.2). To be able to make any changes in a school’s
culture there has to be a deep understanding of its unique context by examining
its subcultures, historical and generational effects, physical environment,
socio-economic conditions, belief systems and practices (Drewery, 2007; Drewery,
2013; Hinde, 2004; Robinson, 2007).
Once the school has a deep
understanding of its past and present it has to create an authentic shared
vision as a picture of the desired future with the fundamental values and
beliefs being articulated early on in the process (Harris, James, Gunraj, Clarke & Harris, 2006; Kise, 2012; Nemerowicz
& Rosi, 1997). Gay (2010)
recommends that Principals ideally start with changing the attitudes and
beliefs of their staff, before striving to get teachers to modify their
practice with a simultaneous cultural understanding and respect for
difference (Robinson, 2007). An authentic Principal who leads with
conviction (Shamir & Eilam, 2005) is key in ensuring that everyone in the school
also has a sense of ownership
and empowerment (Davies, Davies, & Ellison; O’Donnell, 2007) to create a “climate of trust and understanding” (Maxfield & Flumerfelt, 2009,
p.46) and therefore an authentic school culture.
Although I believe that RP culture
should be a legal requirement I acknowledge the issue of authenticity which
I subscribe to as fundamental in our education system as I value self-awareness
and open, transparent, trusting and genuine relationships (Fry
& Kriger 2009). Therefore,
I have to logically question whether RP culture can be forced upon a school community
as a legal requirement. Yes, people
can rewrite their identity, as the person is not the problem, the problem is
the problem (Williams & Winslade, 2008) but unfortunately, staff may say
that they are on board with the legal changes while actually believing that RP
at best is only a “slap on the wrist with a wet
bus ticket” (Drewery, March 16. 2015) as they don’t want to lose their jobs. How is this authentic and how will making
something that the staff do not truly have confidence in help improve the lives
of our students? Another concern is that
I think authentic leadership, which is professionally effective, ethically sound, and consciously reflective (Begley,
2003), is imperative so shouldn’t Principals be able to adopt
methods that they advocate to serve the needs of their students
in their specific contexts (Bottery, 2007; Drewery, 2007; Drewery,
2013; Hinde, 2004; Robinson, 2007)? What happens if
this is not RP? Consequently, if RP is
made a legal requirement we cannot expect all of our leaders and teachers to be
authentic at least in the beginning. However,
as I have faith in RP culture I believe that with the right approach nearly
everyone can change. The Government must
be committed to provide continual training and support using the whole
restorative practice continuum (Morrison, Blood & Thorsborne, 2005) to motivate
reluctant staff (Day, 2015). In this
case the behaviour and words change first, and then hopefully the attitudes and
beliefs (Drewery, 2004) in the quest for authenticity. Finally, it is the Government’s
responsibility to re-evaluate its professional standards of teachers by utilising
positive accountability (Kise, 2012) if staff do not want to change their
identity (Williams & Winslade, 2008) after robust support.
Conclusion
Even
though I acknowledge the issues with authenticity I still support the argument that
the NZ Government should make all schools legally adopt RP culture as schools
are developmental institutions (Hopkins, 2007) which are an ideal place to grow
our young people. We know that fostering positive, respectful
relationships can have a “profound impact on [students] overall behaviour,
learning, and achievement outcomes” (White, 1989 as cited in MoE, 2015) which is
a win-win solution for all. Students
improve their life chances and schools improve their position in the context of
high stakes testing when their results are published in league tables (Stevenson,
2007). It allows Principals to be able contend with the “tensions in their roles of mediating
Government policies” while being committed to “principles of equity and social
justice” (Day, 2005, p.576-7).
I suggest
that schools adopt the PB4L RP model, at the very least, as it offers
best-practice tools and techniques to build and maintain contextualised, positive,
respectful relationships across the whole school community (MoE, 2015). However, the MoE cannot just leave schools to
add another decoration to their already full Christmas trees which glitter from a distance, but
lack in depth and coherence (Bryk, Sebring, Kerbow, Rollow & Easton as
cited in Fullan, 2001, p.35). It has to
fully support schools with space and time for excellent Professional Learning which is
a vital lever to accelerate change, at every level of education (Harris, Day & Hadfield, 2003). RP has to be central in all Government
funded teacher and leader professional learning programmes where teachers are taught
or reminded about how to
be respectful and use respectful language with all members of the school
community as well how to conduct the spectrum of RP conferencing (MoE, 2015). Correspondingly
it needs to be fully funded and although currently the Government has provided
$10,000 to each school which participates in PB4L this is not enough as culture
change may take up to five years to occur (MoE, 2015; Morrison et al., 2005).
However, in isolation the creation of peaceable schools (Crawford & Bodine, 2001) through RP
culture will not lead to Peaceable Communities (Drewery, 2004) or ultimately a
Civil Society (Morrison et al., 2005). The
Government has to guarantee that Social Justice concerns are addressed nationally
and the ‘politics of caring’ is deeply
entrenched across all communities (Shields et al., 2005) through an
authentic RP cultural shift.
References
Begley, P.T. (2003).
Authentic Leadership and Collaborative Process: Foundations of School Community. Leading & Managing, 9(2), 100-105.
Berryman, M. & Bateman, S. (2008). Effective bicultural leadership: A way to
restore harmony at school
and avoid suspension. SET: Research Information for Teachers (Set 1), 25-29.
Bottery, M.
(2007). Reports from the Front Line: English Headteachers'
Work in an Era of Practice
Centralization. Management Administration
Leadership 35(1),
89-110. Retrieved from University of
Waikato Library.
Braithwaite,
J. (2002). Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation. New
York : Oxford University Press
Brown, M.R.
(2007). Educating all students:
Creating culturally responsive teachers, classrooms,
and school. Intervention in
School and Clinic, 43(1),
57-62. doi: 10.1177/10534512070430010801
Buckley, S., & Maxwell, G. M.
(2007). Respectful schools:
Restorative practices in education: A
summary report. Office of the Children's Commissioner and the Institute of Policy Studies,
School of Government, Victoria University, Wellington.
Cavanagh, T.
(2008). Creating schools of peace and nonviolence in a time of war and violence. Journal
of school violence, 8(1),
64-80. doi:10.1080/15388220802067912
Crawford, D. K., & Bodine, R. J. (2001).
Conflict resolution education: Preparing youth for the future. Juvenile Justice Bulletin, VIII(1), 21-29.
Davies,
B., Davies, J.D. & Ellison, L. (2005). Success and Sustainability:
Developing the strategically- focused
school. UK: NCSL.
Day, S. (2005).
Sustaining success in challenging contexts: leadership in English
schools. Journal of Educational Administration, 43(6), 573- 583.
Day, N. K.
(2015). A synthesis of action research on coaching. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 18(1), 88-105.
doi:10.1080/13603124.2013.863386
Drewery, W. (2004).
Conferencing in schools: Punishment, restorative justice, and the productive importance of the process of
conversation. Journal of
Community & Applied Social
Psychology, 14(5),
332-344. DOI: 10.1002/casp.800
Drewery,
W. (2007). Restorative Practices in schools: Far-reaching implications. In G. Maxwell & J. H. Liu, (Eds). Restorative
justice and practices in New Zealand: Towards a
restorative society, (pp. 199-213). Wellington: Institute of Policy Studies.
Drewery,
W. (2013). Restorative approaches in New Zealand schools: A developmental approach. In Sellman, E., Cremin, H. &
McCluskey, G. (Eds.) Restorative Approaches
to Conflict in Schools: Inter-disciplinary perspectives on managing relationships in the classroom, (pp.
40-50). London, UK: Routledge
Drewery, W. (2015, March, 16). The history and
development of restorative justice practice in
Aotearoa NZ -> Wellbeing for Young
people - ERO report Feb 2015 -> Re: Wellbeing for Young people - ERO report Feb
2015
[Moodle on line discussion]
Educations Counts.
Retrieved from: https://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/schooling/oecd-review-on- evaluation-and-assessment-frameworks-for-improving-school-outcomes/chapter-5- teacher-appraisal
ERO
(2010). Retrieved from: http://www.ero.govt.nz/National-Reports/Promoting-Success- for-Maori-Students-Schools-Progress-June-2010/Conclusion
Fry, L. and Kriger, M. (2009). Towards a theory of
being-centered leadership: Multiple levels
of being as context for effective leadership Human Relations 2009; 62; 1667 originally published online Sep
23. DOI: 10.1177/0018726709346380
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading
in a culture of change. San Francisco,
USA: Jossey-Bass.
Gavrielides, T. (2008).
Restorative justice—the perplexing concept: Conceptual fault-lines and power battles within the
restorative justice movement. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(2),
165-183.
Gay,
G. (2002). Preparing for Culturally Responsive Teaching. Journal
of Teacher
Education, 53(2), 106-116. doi: 10.1177/0022487102053002003
Gay, G. (2010). Acting on
beliefs in teacher education for cultural diversity. Journal of Teacher Education,
61(1-2), 143-152. doi: 10.1177/0022487109347320.
Harris,
A., Day, C. & Hadfield, M. (2003). Teachers' perspectives on effective
school leadership. Teachers and Teaching, 9(1), 67- 77. DOI:
10.1080/1354060032000049913
Harris,
A., James, S., Gunraj, R., Clarke, P. & Harris, B. (2006). Improving schools in exceptionally challenging circumstances. Tales from the frontline. London & New York:
Continuum.
Hinde (2004).
School Culture and Change: An Examination of the Effects of School
Culture on the Process of
Change. Retrieved from: www.usca.edu/essays/vol122004/hinde.pdf
Hopkins, B. (2007) ‘Restorative Approaches in UK
Schools’ International Journal of Restorative
Justice, 2(3).
Ka
Hikitia (2008). Managing for Success. Mäori Education Policy, 2008-12. NZ: Ministry of Education.
Kise, J. A. G. (2012). Give teams a running start:
Take steps to build shared vision, trust, and collaboration
skills. Journal of Staff Development, 33(3), 38.
Kise,
J. (2014). TWO SIDES of the COIN. Journal
of Staff Development, 35(6), 24
Lambert, L. (2003). Leadership Capacity for Lasting
School Improvement. Virginia, USA: ASCD.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., &
McNulty, B. A. (2005). School
leadership that works: From research to
results. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 1703 North Beauregard
Street, Alexandria, VA 22311-1714.
Maxfield,
C.R. and Flumerfelt, S. (2009). The Empowering Principal: Leadership
Behaviors Needed by Effective
Principals as Identified by Emerging Leaders and Principals. International Journal of Teacher Leadership
2(2), 39-51. Retrieved from
University of Waikato.
Maxwell,
G., & Morris, A. (2006). Youth justice in New Zealand: Restorative justice
in practice? Journal of Social Issues, 62(2), 239-258.
MoE
(2008). Kiwi Leadership for Principals.
Principals as Educational Leaders.
NZ: Ministry of Education.
MoE (2008). Managing for Success. Mäori Education Policy,
2008-12. NZ: Ministry of Education.
MoE (2009). Good
practice guidelines for principals and boards of trustees for managing behaviour that may or may not lead to
stand-downs, suspensions, exclusions
and expulsions. Part 2: Wellington:
Ministry of Education.
MoE
(2011) Tataiako Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/~/media/MinEdu/Files/TheMinistry/KaHikitia/KaHikitia AcceleratingSuccessEnglish.pdf
Morrison, B., Blood, P.,
& Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practising restorative justice in school communities: The challenge of culture change.
Public Organisation Review A Global
Journal, 5, 335-357. ISSN: 1566-7170.
National College of School Leadership, (2008). What we are learning
about: leadership of Every Child
Matters. Retrieved from www.ncsl.org.uk/de/ecm-premium-project- summary.pdf
Nemerowicz,
G., & Rosi, E. (1997). Planning and implementing an Education for
Leadership and social
responsibility. Education for leadership and social responsibility, (pp. 71- 87).
London & Washington, DC: The Falmer Press. Retrieved from Social Justice course readings.
NZ
History. The Treaty in brief. Retreieved from http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/the-treaty-in-brief
O’Donnell, S. (2007). Strategic planning: The lean, mean and
smart way. Unpublished paper, Catholic Education Office at Hobart,
Australia. Retrieved from: http://www.educationalleaders.govt.nz/Managing-your-school/Managing- organisational-demands/Managing-key-resources/Strategic-Planning-The-Lean- Mean-and-Smart-Way
Robinson,
V. (2007). School Leadership and Student Outcomes: Identifying what works and why [Handout]. Australia: William
Walker Oration: ACEL Monograph Series.
Shields, C.M., Bishop, R., & Mazawi, A.E.
(2005). De-pathologizing practices.
Pathologizing practices: The impact of
deficit thinking on education,
119-144.
New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Retrieved from course
readings.
Stevenson,
H.P. (2007). A case study in leading
schools for social justice: When morals and markets
collide. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(6), 769-781. doi: 10.1108/09578230710829937
Vaandering,
D. (2010). The significance of critical theory for restorative justice in
education. Review of Education,
Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 32:2, 145-176, http://dx.doi.org/:10.1080/10714411003799165
Williams,
M., & Winslade, J. (2008). Using “Undercover teams” to re-story bullying relationships. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 27(1), 1-15. doi:10.1521/jsyt.2008.27.1.1
No comments:
Post a Comment