1
Restorative Practice in School: a Psychological Perspective
Helen Cowie
University of Surrey
What is restorative practice in school?
At its core lies the concept of a caring, inclusive community. When conflicts arise
– as inevitably they will – restorative practices engage the perpetrators, their
victims and significant others in the school community in a collective process of
problem-solving whose aim is reparation of damage, restoration of the quality of
relationships and facilitating the reintegration of participants in the conflict back
into the school community. In schools the work is not only done with perpetrators
and victims but with the whole school, through, for example, circle time, problemsolving, conflict resolution, peer mediation. In other words, this is for all members
of the school community (Cameron and Thorsborne, 2001; Cowie and Jennifer,
2008; Hopkins, 2004; Morrison, 2003; Wachtel and McCold, 2001). In contrast to
traditional punitive approaches to discipline, restorative practices place more
emphasis on pupils themselves resolving conflicts and so in the long term build a
stronger sense of community.
Zero-tolerance of school violence and bullying is often proposed as a tough
deterrent. However, research indicates that this approach can be
counterproductive. Skiba and colleagues (2008), in their report to the American
Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (APA, 2008), concluded
that zero tolerance policies actually fail to make school environments safer. In this
study, zero tolerance policies predicted higher rates of misbehaviour and
suspension among students; schools with zero tolerance policies rated lower on
school climate and had higher school drop-out rates. Additionally, these schools
had lower rates of academic achievement. There were other serious outcomes.
They observed that zero-tolerance policies were construed as racist in the local
community since particular ethnic groups appeared to be targeted. Children with
disabilities, especially those with emotional and behavioural disorders, were
suspended at rates disproportionate to their representation in the population.
Additionally, the task force found that zero tolerance policies increased referrals to
2
the criminal justice system and created what they call ‘a school-to-prison pipeline’.
Furthermore, these systems were more likely to be perceived as unjust by young
people and their families.
Skiba et al. concluded that far more emphasis needs to be placed on non-punitive
strategies to promote school safety, including restorative practices. Zero tolerance
strategies, they conclude, should only be used in the most extreme and severe
cases of bullying and even then applied with great thought for the needs and
rights of all the individuals involved, including the perpetrators. They
recommended restorative programmes since these actively promote a cooperative
rather than a punitive process in which there is scope for reconciliation and some
form of closure or resolution. Most importantly, they argue, restorative approaches
in schools have the potential to create a safe and supportive learning environment
that expresses positive values in the school community.
In the particular context of bullying, Smith et al (2008) evaluated the effectiveness
of sanctions. They acknowledged that some sanctions will always be part of a
school’s policy to counteract bullying. However, they found that when schools
promoted an emphasis on positive relationships and created an ethos of care and
responsibility, the need for strict, punitive sanctions declined. When sanctions
were applied, the perpetrators were more likely to perceive them as fair and
meaningful. The reason for this was that the students had been included in the
process of creating the school rules and had been made aware that negative
behaviour, such as bullying, had consequences.
Working with the relationship
The core principles of counselling psychology provide insights into how restorative
practices work. Rogers (1955; 1965) proposed that people have the ability to find
solutions to interpersonal difficulties through the support of a warm, person-centred
relationship in which the focus is on problem-solving. The very process of problemsolving shifts the person away from introspecting negatively about the circumstances
that are causing them distress or avoiding responsibility for their actions by blaming
others. It is the quality of the relationship that is the catalyst for therapeutic change.
The core conditions in this relationship are congruence, empathy and unconditional
positive regard, with the counsellor having a non-judgemental attitude. The person-
3
centred approach is in harmony with the application of restorative justice principles in
schools. For example, Braithwaite (1989; 2003) proposes the need for ‘reintegrative
shaming’ which means disapproval of the aggressive act but at the same time
respect for the person. This is in marked contrast to stigmatization – a form of
disrespectful shaming that leads to humiliation, hardening of attitudes and a
distancing of perpetrator from the pain caused by their actions.
Narrative therapy offers interesting parallels with restorative practice through its
focus on story-telling as a fundamental means for people to communicate and make
sense of experience (McLeod, 1997; White and Epston, 1990). Essentially the
argument is that people find it helpful to tell their story in a context where what they
have to say is accepted and valued by others. As McLeod (2000, p. 345) writes:
‘The basic experience of another person becoming a witness to one’s account of
troubles is meaningful and worthwhile’.
By being given time and space to tell their story in a supportive place, the person is
in the process given an opportunity to reflect on their story and to consider whether it
could be understood or expressed in different ways. Narrative therapists also
propose the concept of externalizing the story. From this perspective, the person
has a relationship with their own story and is in conversation with the issues that
feature in it. Thus, there is potential for editing and changing the ways in which the
story unfolds and for exploring the layers of meaning that are embedded within it.
The listeners too are in dialogue with the story. The experience of hearing different
accounts of the same episode provides an opportunity to understand why the
protagonists behaved as they did. This is a significant part of the restorative
process, with potential for change, including forgiveness and acknowledgement of
causing hurt. For example, when peer mediators are trained to engage in conflict
resolution with peers in dispute, each person tells their side of the story and the
mediator reflects back each account and, in the process, gives each an opportunity
to reflect on their story and consider whether it could have happened in a different
way.
4
Involving young people in improving their social context
But restorative approaches go beyond behavioural change for the individual and aim
also to achieve a safer community. One way on which this can be achieved is by
developing systems of peer support (Andrès, 2007; Cowie et al., 2002; Cowie et al.,
2008; Cowie and Hutson, 2005; Cremin, 2007; Lane-Garon and Richardson, 2003;
Smith and Watson, 2004). Andrès et al. (2005) report on a longitudinal study in two
secondary schools in Spain, an experimental school which had developed a system
of peer support to enhance the school’s ethos and a control school in the same
catchment area. The study took place in a context of major difficulty with a large
influx of families from different cultures and an on-going concern about rising levels
of violence, both in the community and in the school itself. In each class of the
experimental school the students democratically elected classmates to act in the role
of peer helpers. The elected students were then given training that enabled them to
intervene directly to resolve peer conflicts, with a particular brief to intervene in cases
of bullying and the abuse of power.
Andrès et al. (2005) found that the peer support activity had a very positive impact
on the social development and personal qualities of those who participated as peer
helpers, with boys demonstrating greater gains than girls. The programme indicated
how important it is to give young people a framework in which to develop pro-social
behaviour, self-efficacy and emotional literacy. The greatest impact of the
programme was on psychological or indirect bullying. Social exclusion decreased
dramatically in the experimental school during this study and there was interviewbased evidence that the whole ethos of the experimental school improved
substantially. This restorative programme has been running for over eight years and
has beome an integral part of the school culture, so indicating that a whole
community can change.
Conclusion and discussion points
Advantages of restorative practices from a psychological perspective are:

School climate is improved by increasing young people’s understanding of
rules and trust in how these rules are applied;
5

There are fewer student suspensions and improved ratings on positive school
climate

There is a reduced likelihood of retribution or repeat offending, so preventing
the escalation of violence

There is a growth in positive relationships with peers and adults, with greater
potential for enhancing pro-social behaviour and building up self-esteem

Young people learn greater understanding of the reasons why perpetrators
act the way they do

Young people can be helped to feel better about themselves by placing
emphasis on the emotional aspects of their experience.

Young people develop greater empathy for peers in distress by engaging in
some form of restorative practice

Schools become safer learning environments

Educators can learn how to remedy bullied children’s relationship difficulties
by understanding more about their origins and by building up self-esteem.
References
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) Are zero
tolerance policies effective in the schools? American Psychologist, 63(9): 852862.
Andrès, S., (2007) Peer support systems as instruments for increasing convivencia
in schools: an evaluation. Unpublished PhD thesis, Universidad Autonoma,
Madrid.
Andrès, S., Gaynard, S. & Martin, E. (2005) Evaluation of social competence in the
school context: the experience of a programme of peer support in secondary
schools. In J. A. del Barrio and I. Fajando (Eds.) New Psychological and Social
Contexts in Education. Santander: INFAD, Psioex, pp. 17-32. (2007)
Braithwaite, J. (1989) Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2003) Restorative justice and a better future. In E. McLaughlin, R.
Fergusson, G. Hughes and L. Westmarland (Eds.) Restorative Justice: Critical
Issues. London: Sage, pp. 54-65.
6
Cameron, L. & Thorsborne, M. (2001) ‘Restorative justice and school discipline:
mutually exclusive?’, in H. Strang and J. Braithwaite (eds.), Restorative Justice
and Civil Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 180-194.
Cowie, H., & Hutson, N. (2005). Peer support: a strategy to help bystanders
challenge school bullying, Pastoral Care in Education, 23:40-44.
Cowie, H., & Jennifer, D. (2008). New Perspectives on Bullying. Maidenhead: Open
University Press.
Cowie, H., Naylor, P., Talamelli, L., Chauhan, P. & Smith, P. K. (2002) Knowledge,
use of and attitudes towards peer support, Journal of Adolescence, 25: 453-67.
Cowie, H., Hutson, N., Oztug, O. & Myers, C. (2008) The impact of peer support
schemes on pupils’ perceptions of bullying, aggression and safety at school,
Emotional and Behavioral Difficulties, 13(1): 63-71.
Cremin, H. (2007) Peer Mediation. Open University Press.
Hopkins, B. (2004) Just Schools. London: Jessica Kingsley.
Hutson, N., & Cowie, H. (2008). Setting up an e-mail peer support scheme, Pastoral
Care in Education, 25(4), 12-16.
Lane-Garon, P. & Richardson, T. (2003) Mediator mentors: improving school
climate – nurturing student disposition, Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 21: 47-69.
McLeod, J. (1997) Narrative and Psychotherapy.. London: Sage
McLeod, J. (2000) Narrative therapy. In C. Feltham & I. Horton (Eds.) Handbook of
Counselling and Psychotherapy. London: Sage, pp. 343-347.
Morrison, B. (2003) Regulating safe school communities: being responsive and
restorative, Journal of Educational Administration, 41, 6, 689-704.
Rogers, C. R. (1955) Client Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1965) Client Centered Therapy: its Current Practice, Implications and
Theory. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Skiba, R., Reynolds, C. R., Graham, S., Sheras, P., Conoley, J. C., & GarciaVazquez, E. (2008). Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?
American Psychologist, 63, 852-862.
Smith, P. K., Pepler, D., & Rigby, K. (Eds.). (2004). Bullying in Schools: How
Successful Can Schools Be? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, P. K. & Watson, D., (2004) Evaluation of the ChildLine in Partnership with
Schools (CHIPS) programme. Research Report RR570, DCSF Publications.
7
Wachtel, T. & McCold, T. (2001) Restorative justice in everyday life: beyond the
formal ritual. In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (eds.) Restorative Justice and Civil
Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp 114-129.
White, M. & Epston, D. (1990) Narrative Means to Therapeutic Ends. New York:
Norton.