Colombian Adolescents’ Evaluations of Retributive and Restorative Approaches to Address Harms in Schools

• In Event: Poster Session 14
  In Poster Session: PS 14 Topic - Education, Schooling

Abstract

Schools have traditionally relied on retributive approaches to discipline students. Retributive strategies such as suspensions tend to involve concerns with placing blame and seeking punishment for the offender (Okimoto et al., 2012). These punitive practices, however, can disrupt children’s academic trajectories, and contribute to systemic injustices against historically disadvantaged children (e.g., Black and Latinx youth; Hinze-Pifer, & Sartain, 2018). In contrast, restorative approaches, such as apologies and compensation, are an alternative strategy to discipline students that concentrate on addressing victims’, offenders’ and the community’s needs, and preventing reoffending (Zehr, 2002). Although the incorporation of restorative practices in schools has been linked to positive behavioral outcomes and greater school connectedness, research examining these approaches in schools tends to privilege the perspective of teachers and administrators and thus, less is known about students’ perceptions (Gonzales et al., 2018; Velez et al., 2020). Adolescents’ understandings and expectations of their environments, as well as the goals that guide their preferred responses to harm, will arguably play a crucial role in the successful implementation of restorative practices.

This study examined how Colombian adolescents evaluate and understand different disciplinary approaches to address intergroup harms, and how their overall levels of trust in others and in school authorities are associated with their reasoning. The sample was comprised of 77 adolescents in two urban high schools in Bogota, Colombia (M age = 16.49 years, 38 boys). In semi-structured interviews, adolescents responded to two vignettes in which a rival group in their school engaged in a transgression against their own group (e.g., property damage). Adolescents rated three teacher-sanctioned approaches to address the offense (apology, compensation and suspension), in terms of (a) their evaluation of each strategy, and (b) the likelihood of each strategy being implemented in their school. Adolescents also completed a questionnaire assessing institutional and interpersonal trust (α = 0.79).

Preliminary analyses revealed meaningful differences in how adolescents evaluated compensation, apologies, and suspension as strategies to address intergroup offenses. Overall, adolescents preferred compensation, followed by apologies, and evaluated suspensions less positively than the two restorative approaches. In contrast, overall, adolescents reported all three strategies were equally likely to occur in their school. With respect to individual differences, adolescents who believed apologies and suspension were more likely to occur in their school also tended to rate these disciplinary practices more favorably. Additionally, adolescents’ trust levels were positively correlated with their expectations that authority figures would address harms in their school, regardless of the approach implemented. Youths’ explanations for their endorsement of different disciplinary practices reflected varied concerns. Compensation was described as fair and beneficial for the victims and apologies as helpful in restoring relationships and preventing reoffending. In turn, suspensions were judged to teach perpetrators a lesson, but adolescents also often described them as unfair and ineffective. In addition to expanding knowledge on the use of restorative practices in varied school contexts, this research can inform programs targeted at implementing these approaches in ways that fit youths’ needs and use their perspectives as a starting point.

Authors

• Laura Pareja Conto, Concordia University
  Presenting Author

• Angelica Restrepo, Concordia University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Holly E Recchia, Concordia University
  Non-Presenting Author

• Gabriel Velez, Marquette University
  Non-Presenting Author

• CECILIA WAINRYB, University of Utah
  Non-Presenting Author