Restorative Practice and Social Justice

The literature on Social Justice across contexts is extensive.  This small review explores the role of educational leaders to promote a socially just school community. The first section explores what, who and how social justice is defined. While in the second section, the main themes of inclusive and restorative practices have emerged me as fundamental to socially just education. I will show how inclusive and restorative practices are ingrained within the values of equity, empathy, compassion and are strongly linked to social justice.  These themes are at the social heart of being an educational leader, leading in a socially just way in the New Zealand educational context.

To begin with, this section attempts to define social justice by connecting with literature that explores what, who and how social justice is defined, with particular emphasis on how socially just leadership looks, while attempting to set the scene for social justice within New Zealand.

Social justice is a philosophy defined by individual perceptions (built up by values and beliefs), time and context and as such, social justice as a term, has been shown to be extremely hard to define. Even the acclaimed Hayek (as cited in Friesen, 2007) spent decades exploring the term without arriving at a satisfying clarity. In a recent study on social justice from a New Zealand perspective by Friesen (2007) and the Maxim Institute the term social justice was found to be conceptualised in a surprisingly broad range of ways across the research participants. While this study concluded that “social justice remains an ambiguous concept”, they were able to suggest that there is far greater variety in the understanding of social justice than there is agreement. Yet, they also helpfully reduce the “typology of social justice” that emerged from their small collaborative research project, to the basic principles of equality, tolerance, compassion, fairness and participation.

The literature is littered with concept and values based labels that are linked to social justice as a means to position this ambiguous notion within practices that promote leading in socially just ways. These include labels such as equality, equity, care and empathy, values, fairness, and human rights. Beyer (2012) uses labels such as moral, value-added, ethical and cultural leadership. Fullan, Cuttress and Kiltcher (2005, p. 54), and Stevenson, (2007) suggest the term ‘moral purpose’, while Branson (2010) uses the terms authenticity, moral integrity and ethics as labels inferring social justice. Moral purpose is a term now in wide use to implore New Zealand educational leaders to pay particular attention to the most disadvantaged. While there is such a broad group of established labels, it is still dependent on an experienced leader accurately making sense of their ‘self’, along with a clear understanding of ‘others’ within their own context, to implement sound educational practices that ensure socially just classrooms.  Beyer (2012, p. 2) explains that such labels may be helpful in providing educational leaders with “a guide or roadmap to wise and ethical decision-making in a complex and ever changing world”.

Moral purpose is highly promoted as a concept based label that contributes to building a school culture of trust, respect, and openness (New Zealand Ministry of Education, 2008) Within New Zealand, Maori refer to this as Manaakitanga; leading with moral purpose, which should be at the very heart of leadership for social justice. The Ministry (2008) claims that when there is an effective school culture, the customs and values of that school foster success for all, and ensure educational practices are inclusive. Such a school works hard to establish a sense of belonging for students and their families to feel secure within both their own culture and that of the school. the Ministry (2008) explain this as a quality of leading with integrity while ensuring that decision-making is ethical and consistent. Stevenson (2007) concludes that a crucial quality of the principals in his study was “their strong sense of moral purpose”. He established that these principals were able to coherently communicate their dedication to enacting socially just practices through the many and varied applications of policies and institutional frameworks that “support their own social justice objectives”.  

The work of Pierre Bordieu (as cited in Blackburn & Clark, 2007, p. 114) reveals many cultural advantages through the construct of ‘capital’ – social, economic and cultural, that groups of people possess, that afford them certain privileges within their specific social contexts. He goes as far as claiming that schools are institutions that perpetuate exclusionary practices. Blackburn & Clark (2007) contend that Bourdieu’s forms of ‘capital’ can be used to identify and examine qualities that contribute to positioning students as successful or struggling, in order to do something for the good of each group. Shields (2002) concurs with this perspective of focusing on all students, by arguing that “we cannot have a socially just school without striving for academic excellence for all students” (p. 39) whether they are successful or struggling. It is not only the most disadvantaged that require equity.   

Furthermore, Shields (2002) exerts that school leadership should be grounded in ways that unite social justice and academic excellence and goes on to qualify that an education that is just not only attends to equity of access and survival, but to equality of output and outcome as well, without dependence on ‘sameness’. Furthermore, Shields puts forward a view that socially just leaders integrate optimism, empathy and democracy to provide an educational climate of success for all students. Theoharis’ (2007) theory of social justice leadership provides foundations for leadership that go beyond what has been seen as ‘good leadership’ and is replaced with leadership for social justice.

The main themes that have emerged from the literature for me are the concepts of inclusiveness and restorative practices. The work of educational leaders should cultivate an environment for learning that is “humanly fulfilling and socially responsible” (Starratt, 2004). These two practices are closely linked. To be restorative is to be inclusive; however one does not need to act restoratively to be inclusive. Both of these concepts are also entwined within the values of equity, empathy compassion and are robust, humanly fulfilling and socially responsible practices that leaders can implement directly. Inclusive and restorative practices are at the social heart of being an educational leader, leading in a socially just way in New Zealand. Leaders who demonstrate the substance of social justice explicitly reveal moral integrity to “instinctively and consistently do what is right for the good of others” (Branson, 2010, p. 65), build and enhance relationships and promote empathy and understanding for others.

Inclusion emerged in New Zealand out of the Special Education Policy 2000 (Ministry of Education, 1996) and whilst its’ implementation has not been without perplexity, it has become a widely acknowledged leadership practice that is socially just in its essence. The connection between social justice and inclusive practices has been made here despite there being little direct links between the two across the literature (Theoharis, 2007). One who does make this link is, Sapon-Shevin (cited in Theoharis, 2008), who puts forward a strong argument that inclusion is not about a child’s disability but claims that inclusion is social justice at work, that all children are catered for in a wide variety of ways, not just academically, but socially and emotionally too. Deliberate acts are engaged in by leaders, that aim to grow a strong sense of belonging for children and their families that extend beyond their classroom or class teacher.  Leadership actions undertaken deliberately in order to create a sense of belonging are how Sapon-Shevin, (2003) clearly links social justice to inclusion. She is a proponent of inclusionary practices as a model for social justice. Considering inclusion as purely a special education model, where those with disabilities are the ones who need to be included, is not social justice. She urges that we go beyond this notion to view inclusion as a way to ensure that all children are full and active participants in their schools and communities in order to provide the potential for greater societal change in the future.

image from: www.caritas.org.nz

As a bicultural nation, one guiding document for schools is Ka Hikitia (Ministry of Education, 2008), a strategy to guide action to make a significant difference for Māori students in education in New Zealand.  It is within the principle of Partnership that the constructs of shared decision making and appropriate ways of engaging, interacting, communicating and working together toward shared goals enables the philosophy of social justice to thrive. Restorative Practice as a responsive pedagogy is essentially about working in partnership with others to develop positive relationships that restore social harmony (Margrain & Macfarlane, 2011). Schools have widely acknowledged that restorative practices are a process for restoring relationships when harm has been caused, as well as for growing the social capital of students and teachers alike. As a process, it is closely aligned with inclusive practices and is therefore finely in tune with socially just actions deliberately taken by school leaders to empower the voice of others.

Attitude determines the culture of a school, the classroom morale, even the school spirit. This starts with the adults, yet is led and modelled by school leaders. Including all students is an attitude that is directly driven by the attitude of educational leaders. Macfarlane (as cited in New Zealand Ministry of Education, (2008) calls this “Pumanawatanga: the beating heart of the school”. Pumanawatanga determines our interrelationships, our expectations, pedagogical practices and our preferred behavioural modification practices. With a grounding in strongly inclusive practices routinely considered, planned for and implemented within a school, Pumanawatanga pumps life into the essence of a school community.

Inclusive and restorative practices link closely to observations made by Branson (2010) about the need for leadership to maintain a clear focus on the nuances of relationships within an organisation. Each person depends on or is affected by others within the organisation or within specific interactions. Therefore it is essential for leaders to be cognisant of the influence of decisions on others for an inclusive or restorative paradigm to flourish. He describes this as ethical leadership, and explains that “ethical decision making is about doing what you know you ought to do for the good of all rather than just doing what you would like to do” and goes further by articulating an expectation that leading change should always be a just process that is right for all and that change should “promote good rather than harm”, with the focus remaining firmly on outcomes that are in the best interests of others.  

The restorative philosophy fundamentally believes that wrong-doing affects relationships (Margrain & Macfarlane, 2011). We are reminded by Wachtel (2012) that restorative practices are socially contrived responses to social exchanges. These exchanges aim to build social capital and achieve social discipline through learning environments that are based on both situated and constructionist principles. “Restorative practice is based around social relationships with an aim to create opportunities where the voice of others is heard and we are asked to reflect and discuss issues to make decisions that are inclusive and socially informed” (Wachtel, 2012). It is a deeply socially just process that supports the social and emotional development of all involved because it addresses the concerns of everyone, not just those who caused harm (Blood, Thorsborne, & Morrison, 2005) This kind of process develops people who are ultimately competent inter-relationally, who are able to take responsibility for all of their interactions with others. Margrain & Macfarlane (2011) assert that working restoratively includes acknowledgment of harm, relationship-based accountabilities and practices that seek to restore harmony. Restorative practices promote a ‘culture of care’ for the social heart of whole school communities. They ensure social justice for everyone from teachers, students, whole classes, administration personnel as well as family wider members, helping everyone to meet the needs of all learners, including all marginalised students.

Gunter (2001) offers insight into complications that may hinder leaders enacting socially just practices. She discusses the difficulties leader’s face in being able to exercise professional judgments under the external pressures of political discourse. Gunter (2001) also suggests that a leaders ability to exercise ‘agency’ to create alternative ways of working, thinking and discerning can at times be lost under the weight of political theory. This certainly rings true in the current climate of marketisation of education in New Zealand which Codd  (2005) refers to as education being “promoted by policies based on user pays and commercial enterprise”, while According to Nusche & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, (2012) “New Zealand has (although I would now argue had) one of the most decentralized school systems in the world” (p.13). As such, principals, Boards and other school leaders in New Zealand persistently work to exercise professional judgement under a climate of growing burden, where government policy directives appear to largely prescribe or impose practices.  School leaders need to maintain a focus on social justice and be adept at discerning the essence of what is right and just, creatively crafting policy into practice that actually meets the needs of those they are designed to impact.

Conclusion:

Although altogether indistinct, the notion of social justice will continue to stimulate significant dialogue about the ramifications for educational leaders worldwide. Nevertheless, discourse will continue to inform and impact understanding and knowledge about social justice, and it will largely remain ambiguous, with definitions of this aspirational philosophy continuing to remain time, perception and contextually bound. In this review I have tried to integrate understandings of the concept of social justice in conjunction with proposed actions for educational leaders. A socially just leader acknowledges the boundaries set up by external contexts in which they work and still manages to work within these limits. They work to provide the best possible personal experience for all students, maintain a focus on hearing everyone, enact the values that embody social justice and promote inclusive and restorative processes that promoting positive relationships across the school and community will ensure that the educational profession’s operational moral integrity will prevail. For as Shields ( 2002) so succinctly writes...

“If we take seriously the need for education to be just, optimistic, empathetic, and democratic, then [...] all will learn how to express their opinions and respectfully listen to the ideas of others; all will feel a sense of connectedness, of belonging to the school community, of being cared for by others and of caring for those around them. And all children will leave school empowered to make responsible choice for themselves, their families and their societies” (p. 39).

References:

Beyer, B. (2012). Blending Constructs and Concepts: Development of Emerging Theories of Organizational Leadership and Their Relationship to Leadership Practices for Social Justice. International Journal of Educational Leadership Preparation, Connexions Module: M44971, 1–12.

Blackburn, M. V., & Clark, C. T. (Eds.). (2007). Literacy research for political action and social change. New York: Peter Lang.

Blood, P., Thorsborne, M., & Morrison, B. (2005). Practicing Restorative Justice in School Communities: The Challenge of Culture Change. Public Organization Review, 5, 335–357.

Branson, C. M. (2010). Leading educational change wisely. Rotterdam; Boston: Sense.

Codd, J. (2005). Politics and policy making in education. In P. Adams, K. Vossler, & C. Scrivens (Eds.), Teachers’ work in Aotearoa New Zealand (pp. 28–38). Southbank, Australia: Thomson Dunmore Press.

Friesen, M. (2007) Perceptions of social justice in New Zealand. In R. Porter (Ed.), Pursuing

Social Justice in New Zealand: 14 New Zealanders share their stories of communities helping people in ways government cannot: 143-158. Auckland: Maxim Institute. (Chapters in Books)

Fullan, M., Cuttress, C., & Kilcher, A. (2005). 8 Forces for leaders of change. Journal of Staff Development, 26(4), 54–59.

Gunter, H. (2001). Leaders and leadership in education. London : Thousand Oaks, Calif: P. Chapman ; SAGE Publications.

Margrain, V., & Macfarlane, A. H. (Eds.). (2011). Responsive Pedagogy: Engaging restoratively with challenging behaviour. Wellington, N.Z.: NZCER Press.

Ministry of Education. (2008). Ka Hikitia: managing for success/ maori education strategy. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Education.

Ministry of Education. (1996). Special education 2000. Wellington, N.Z.: Learning Media.

New Zealand Ministry of Education. (2008). Kiwi leadership for principals principals as educational leaders. Wellington, N.Z.: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.leadspace.govt.nz/img/KLP%2017_7_08.pdf

Nusche, D., & Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. (2012). OECD reviews of evaluation and assessment in education. New Zealand 2011. Paris: OECD.

Shields, C., M. (2002). Focusing a Crowded Leadership Afenda: Social Justice and Academic Excellence. New Zealand Journal of Educational Leadership, 17(1 issue), 33–45.

Starratt, R. J. (2004). Ethical leadership (1st ed.). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

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

Theoharis, G. (2007). Social Justice Educational Leaders and Resistance: Toward a Theory of Social Justice Leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221–258. doi:10.1177/0013161X06293717

Theoharis, G. (2008). Woven in Deeply: Identity and Leadership of Urban Social Justice Principals. Education and Urban Society, 41(1), 3–25. doi:10.1177/0013124508321372

Wachtel, T. (2012). Defining Restorative. International Institute for Restorative Practices Graduate School (IIRP).

 https://www.facebook.com/Upworthy/posts/10101936806700783