History Matters: Challenging an A-Historical Approach to Restorative Justice in Teacher Education

• In Event: Transforming Justice Through Teaching and Learning for the Public Good

Abstract

A humanizing and community-based practice, Restorative Justice (RJ) is an approach that emphasizes repairing harm through cooperative processes, rather than top-down, punitive responses (Mika & Zehr, 2017). Initially used within the justice system to reduce incarceration, RJ gained momentum in public schools as evidence mounted of racially disproportionate school discipline where Black, Latinx and Native American students are being referred to the office, suspended, and expelled up to 3 times the rate of White and Asian American students; (Civil Rights Data Collection, 2014). In June 2016, the California Teacher Performance Expectations (TPEs) stipulated that teacher education programs develop teacher candidates’ ability to use RJ in the classroom (California Commission on Credentialing, 2016). Despite its spread into teaching and teacher training policy, though, many teachers, administrators, and teacher educators have had little exposure to RJ. As it expands into more schools, how can RJ maintain its integrity if those being asked to train others and/or implement an RJ paradigm themselves know little about its history, context, practice, and purpose? In this paper, we will review the history of RJ and articulate its transition into education, examine its institutionalization within California TPEs, and expose contradictions that emerge from a de-contextualized approach. Then, we will share findings from 105 qualitative questionnaires with teacher candidates enrolled in a public teacher education program in California to expose how these contradictions are mirrored in their understanding of restorative justice, revealing the need for historical framing and training resources as RJ is built into teacher education.

Findings
Data analysis suggests that, on average, candidates felt they had a moderate grasp of what RJ is (2.15 on a 1-4 scale), but only 30 percent of respondents of this question had a solid understanding and positive perception of the utility of RJ. While some teacher candidates offered definitions that embodied some of the key historical tenets of RJ, more than half of the respondents seemed to misunderstand the epistemological and pedagogical underpinnings of RJ. Additionally, while some teacher candidates expressed personal understanding of the approach and utility of RJ, the majority were leaving their credential program with an underdeveloped, misconstrued, or even deficit perception of RJ. With this incomplete exposure and understanding of RJ, many teacher candidates were likely entering the profession under-equipped to address conflict or harm in the classroom in productive and humanizing ways.

Implications
To effectively use RJ to disrupt racialized patterns of over-discipline in California schools, educational stakeholders must be equipped to analyze and question systemic processes and biases that contribute to conflict and harm (Ammanna, 2016). To change the culture of schooling towards humanizing and community-centered norms, the state must provide teacher education programs resources related to what RJ is, where it came from, why it is imperative, and how it should be used. Additionally, teacher education programs must invest in RJ training for teacher educators, and RJ should be thoroughly integrated into the approach of these programs (Winn, 2016).

Authors

• Rita Kohli, University of California - Riverside

• Elizabeth Montaño, University of California - Davis

• Damany Fisher, Mt. San Antonio College