Abstract

Many schools are attempting to reduce their reliance on suspension and exclusionary discipline to manage student behavior. One promising alternative involves restorative justice (RJ). However, many programs and interventions are being described as “restorative,” without clarity regarding key components of a RJ approach, and few studies have measured program fidelity. This paper presents a measure of fidelity in implementing RJ conferences, which was used to rate RJ 105 conferences conducted in response to truancy, chronic disruption, and incidents with and without victims. These were implemented in the context of a larger effort that also included a whole-school intervention. Conferences showed very high fidelity in the behavior of conference facilitators, high fidelity in the interaction among conference participants, in contributions of participants to the action plan, and in consensus about the action plan. Student behavior was more varied, as was the extent to which the group offered forgiveness. Emphasizing consequences was associated both with more student remorse and with more student disengagement during conferences, both of which were associated with forgiving the student, but in opposite directions. This highlights a tension in RJ between holding misbehavior accountable while also showing students respect and helping them to repair harms they have caused.

摘要

许多学校正试图减少对停学和排他性纪律的依赖来管理学生的行为。一种有希望的替代方案涉及恢复性司法 (RJ)。然而，许多计划和干预措施被描述为“恢复性”，没有明确 RJ 方法的关键组成部分，并且很少有研究衡量计划的保真度。本文介绍了在实施 RJ 会议时的保真度衡量标准，用于对 RJ 105 会议进行评分，这些会议是针对逃学、长期中断以及有和没有受害者的事件进行的。这些是在包括全校干预在内的更大努力的背景下实施的。会议在会议主持人的行为中表现出非常高的保真度，在会议参与者之间的互动中表现出高保真度，参与者对行动计划的贡献，以及对行动计划的共识。学生的行为更加多样化，该团体提供宽恕的程度也是如此。强调后果与更多的学生悔恨和更多的学生在会议期间脱离接触有关，这两者都与原谅学生有关，但方向相反。这突出了 RJ 在追究不当行为责任、同时也向学生表示尊重和帮助他们修复他们造成的伤害之间的紧张关系。这两者都与原谅学生有关，但方向相反。这突出了 RJ 在追究不当行为责任、同时也向学生表示尊重和帮助他们修复他们造成的伤害之间的紧张关系。这两者都与原谅学生有关，但方向相反。这突出了 RJ 在追究不当行为责任、同时也向学生表示尊重和帮助他们修复他们造成的伤害之间的紧张关系。