GENERAL NOTICE

In January 2025, this online platform will be integrated into Boomportaal (www.boomportaal.nl), after which this platform will be discontinued. From that moment on, this URL will automatically redirect to Boomportaal.

DOI: 10.5553/TIJRJ.000160

The International Journal of Restorative JusticeAccess_open

Editorial

Restorative practice in schools: reflections from an East Asian perspective

Authors
DOI
Show PDF Show fullscreen
Author's information Statistics Citation
This article has been viewed 16 times.
This article been downloaded 13 times.
Suggested citation
Hongwei Zhang, 'Restorative practice in schools: reflections from an East Asian perspective', (2023) The International Journal of Restorative Justice 179-190

Dit artikel wordt geciteerd in

    • 1 Introduction

      Focusing on mediation and agreement rather than on punishment, restorative justice has been at the centre of an animated debate in criminology and criminal justice worldwide (Braithwaite, 1999; Latimer, Dowden & Muise, 2005; Lodi, Perrella, Lepri, Scarpa & Patrizi, 2022; Walgrave, Aertsen, Parmentier, Vanfraechem & Zinsstag, 2013). Defining the meaning of restorative justice is difficult because of much ambiguity and cross-source variation (Daly, 2002; Latimer et al., 2005; Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021). However, the most cited definition of restorative justice might be from Howard Zehr, one of the premier scholars, according to whom restorative justice is

      a process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible. (Zehr, 2002: 37)

      Indeed, it clearly encompasses the fundamental elements of restorative justice: the key stakeholders, the wrongdoers, victims and community are interconnected to address the harms caused and reintegrate the wrongdoers into the community through a collaborative process (Zhao & Zhang, 2008).
      The same is true of restorative practices, which have been discussed in various jurisdictions around the world, with the debate focusing on dispute resolution, remedies for harm and the restoration of relationships. The approach of restorative practices, proactive or reactive, conceptualises instances of misbehaviour as disputes between parties, and its goal is to repair relationships among wrongdoers, victims and communities, fostering mutual understanding through dialogue and expressions of respect, remorse and forgiveness (Gomez, Rucinski & Higgins-D’Alessandro, 2021). As such, the importance of restorative justice and restorative practice has extended beyond traditional crime-related behaviour that may lead to criminal justice reactions such as punishments of various kinds (Evanovich, Martinez, Kern & Haynes, 2020; Pavelka, 2013). In those contexts, restorative justice and restorative practice serve not only as responses to disputes, but also as preventive measures intended to build relationships and communities (Lodi et al., 2022).
      Schools are expected to create harmonious learning environments, and numerous global studies have suggested that misbehaviour, disputes and violence often have durable detrimental effects on students (Woods & Stewart, 2018; Zhang & Jiang, 2022). As a result, restorative practices are being used to replace traditional punishment practices with a community-oriented approach in which all stakeholders pursue a solution together. In the 1990s, Australia became the first country to incorporate restorative practices into its school system (Marsh, 2017). Nowadays, restorative practices in their many forms have expanded into widespread practices in jurisdictions in the United States and elsewhere, notably in Australia, New Zealand, England, Scotland, South Africa and Canada (Anfara, Evans & Lester, 2013). For example, a 2016 survey conducted in the United States found that more than half of state and District of Columbia schools were in the process of implementing restorative practices (González, Sattler & Buth, 2019). These Western jurisdictions do not stand alone in terms of the development of restorative practices in schools, which in recent years have also grown in popularity in Confucianism-influenced East Asian jurisdictions such as Japan, South Korea, mainland China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. However, their efficacy and effectiveness remain open to question.
      What follows is an interesting story of a school dispute that unfolded in the city in which I currently live. I believe that similar events could transpire anywhere.

    • 2 A story and beyond

      Two Primary-1 Chinese boys of approximately six years of age had an intense oral argument at school that quickly escalated into a scuffle. Neither quit easily, and teachers and school administrators soon became alarmed. Their first response was to isolate the boys and prevent them from continuing to quarrel. Teachers and administrators then focused on punitive measures and also told the parents to come to the school, which is a common course of action familiar to many of us. The boys who quarrelled were criticised indiscriminately and punished. However, the mother of one of the boys found this discipline inappropriate and unacceptable. She insisted that the other boy was the only wrongdoer and kept asking the school administrators to punish him, which suggestion the administrators repeatedly rejected. Thereafter, the dispute became increasingly difficult and uncontrollable, and the mother prohibited her son from attending school. The mother went to the school every day to attempt to achieve her desired result. Dropping out of school is one of the factors most strongly associated with juvenile delinquency. Therefore, the school administration sent a strongly worded letter to warn the mother about her duty to comply with the Chinese compulsory education law by sending the boy to school. However, the mother was irritated by the letter and refused, insisting that both the discipline proceedings and their result were unfair. The dispute appeared to be unsolvable and seemed likely to persist until the boys, their parents, the teachers and the school administrators could meet to discuss solutions.
      All the controversial issues were gradually reduced to three questions: first, who should bear responsibility for the dispute? Second, what effective methods could the boys, the teachers, and the administrators adopt to meaningfully settle the dispute? Third, what roles must parents assume to equip students with communication and behaviour management skills?
      It was much easier to formulate answers to these questions than to implement them in practise. The goal of school disciplines is not to intensify the confrontation between parents and school, but to effectively alleviate conflicts and fully recognise the different legal responsibilities for child welfare in educational settings, thus requiring close understanding and cooperation between parents and schools to a large extent. In December 2020, the Chinese Ministry of Education released its Disciplinary rules for primary and secondary education (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’). In this important legal document, ‘discipline’ refers to

      the educational action of schools and teachers, based on educational purposes, to educate and discipline students violating rules and regulations, in order to encourage students to learn their lessons and correct their mistakes. (Art. 2)

      The Rules also request that school administrators and teachers implement the discipline appropriately in accordance with the law, if necessary (Arts. 3-7), inform the parents in an appropriate manner (Art. 8), communicate promptly with students, and provide counselling for students in need (Art. 13). In addition, schools and teachers should strengthen collaboration with students’ families, actively communicate with parents, and enable parents to understand, cooperate and support the implementation of the disciplines (Art. 16).
      A well-known feature of traditional Chinese society is its conciliatory approach to dispute resolution (Wong, 2000), since social harmony, hierarchy and duty-based morality are generally considered cornerstones of Confucian philosophy (Weatherley, 2002). Among them, the ultimate goal of the relationships is harmony. Throughout history, although punitive discipline was always considered the fastest and most efficacious way to regulate and control misbehaviour and disputes at school, the alternative non-punitive and relationship-centred approaches developed from Confucianism are believed to be more influential and powerful in the context of seeking peace (Zhao & Zhang, 2008). Motivated by this, the school administrator eventually organised a sit-and-talk meeting with the two boys, their parents and the teachers. The goal was for the participants to share their experiences of the events, discuss the harm that resulted from the dispute and the reasons behind it, and arrive at an agreement about how the relationship could be repaired. A peaceful attempt was made to strengthen the fundamental bonds that bind individuals in classrooms, schools and communities. The participants fully expressed their feelings and needs. They asked questions and spoke to each other. The roles and responsibilities of the parents in restorative practices at school were also discussed seriously.
      In the end, the boys apologised to each other; the teachers agreed to foster a positive school culture of kindness, self-esteem, empathy, respect, responsibility and fairness; and the parents pledged to work with the school to develop the boys’ social skills of relationship-building and problem-solving. Additionally, the parents promised to improve their parenting styles.
      This sit-and-talk practice played an important role in shaping human relations at the grassroots level and created an inclusive, positive and communicative school setting through dialogue and the cultivation of a restorative approach. It might refer to ‘Circle’, which is an important term in restorative practices at schools although such practices in schools do not perfectly conform to the image of a restorative circle. For instance, the objectivity and impartiality of the school administrator as a facilitator could be questioned. However, the constructive sit-and-talk meetings provide a basic restorative practice framework, core principles and a set of operational procedures for restorative circles in the school context and the community.
      This narrative enables the identification of certain core concepts of restorative practices such as effective communication, problem-solving skills for students, accountability for wrongdoers and the school community. Therefore, a nonviolent peace-making approach could be a better way to solve student misbehaviour and disputes.

    • 3 Punitive discipline as the traditional approach to students’ misbehaviour and disputes

      An exceptionally large number of children attend schools around the world. For example, in China, in 2021 there were 207,200 compulsory education schools teaching students from primary school to junior high school.1x Like most jurisdictions, compulsory education in mainland China is currently divided into two phases – six years of primary school (level 1 to level 6) and three years of junior high school (level 7 to level 9). According to Chinese Compulsory Education Law, for children who have reached the age of 6, their parents or other legal guardians should send them to school to accept and complete compulsory education; for children in areas where the conditions are not met, the start can be postponed until the age of 7 (Art. 11). Therefore, under normal circumstances, all children aged 6 to 15 have to go to school. Approximately 158 million students were enrolled in these schools (Chinese Ministry of Education, 2022). Schools must use all necessary and effective means to maintain a safe and orderly learning environment. However, this task is not easy because the student body is exceptionally large, meaning that an even larger number of student misbehaviour and disputes occur daily. Due to changes in the social environment, student problems are more diverse and more serious. For example, according to a United Nations report, almost one-third of students (32 per cent) are bullied by their peers at least once per month (UNESCO, 2019). In a study in China, the Olweus bully/victim questionnaire was administered to 3,635 students from five middle schools and revealed that the prevalence of bullying victimisation among middle school students was 28.34 per cent, and the incidences of verbal, relational and physical bullying were 22.59 per cent, 12.05 per cent, and 7.54 per cent, respectively (Zhao, Zhang & Zhang, 2021). Misbehaviour and disputes between students are looming concerns that highlight the need to implement effective prevention strategies globally.
      In comparison to the adult world, most misbehaviour and disputes at school are minor ones such as misunderstandings, fighting, bullying, use of space and assets and loss of or damage to school assets. However, some would argue that bullying is never a minor misbehaviour. In Korea, at the end of 2011, a sad case made the headlines of Korean newspapers. A 13-year-old was bullied at school. He was beaten and robbed by boys in his class, ‘was burned with lighters, and had electrical wire tied around his neck as a leash’; he committed suicide by jumping out of his home’s seventh-floor window (Hancocks, 2012). Sadly, this is not a one-off example and has been repeated in other East Asian jurisdictions. Like their Korean neighbours, governments across East Asia announced rounds of measures to counter bullying as well as misbehaviour and disputes including suspensions of students found to be involved in school bullying.
      Students who violate certain school rules and regulations face disciplinary measures, including suspension or expulsion, under the policy of ‘zero tolerance’, which has become shorthand for all punitive policies and practices (Curran, 2019). It should be noted that Chinese compulsory education law clearly prohibits schools from expelling students even if they break the school rules or regulations: ‘for those students violating the school rules, the school shall educate them and shall not expulse them’ (Art. 27). In other words, expulsion is never a legal option for a school to discipline a student within Chinese primary and junior high schools. For those students violating rules and regulations seriously, a school might impose no more than a week’s suspension and require the parents to educate their children at home (Art. 10).
      Virtually all schools use conventional punitive discipline systems to respond to such student misbehaviour and disputes (Karp & Breslin, 2001). While physical or corporal punishment is banned in most jurisdictions, the use of corporal punishment as a discipline method in schools is not unusual. The recent statistics from the World Health Organization show that one in two children aged 6 to 17 years live in countries where corporal punishment at school is not fully prohibited (World Health Organization, 2021). In Japan, Okano and Tsuchiya (1999) found that 67 per cent of students had witnessed taibatsu, corporal punishment, at school.
      The school rules and regulations might not be conducive to the safe and welcoming school environments that all parents expect for their children because these rules and regulations tend to exacerbate discipline problems and highlight race, gender, and socioeconomic disparities (Lodi et al., 2022). Punitive discipline sometimes contributes to the misbehaviour and violence that zero-tolerance policies are designed to curb (Marsh, 2017). In particular, the impact of attaching negative labels to troubled students is a cause for concern. The actual effectiveness of zero-tolerance punishment systems is limited. In brief, the current approach to misbehaviour and disputes may be ineffective. Therefore, alternative approaches to managing school discipline that is designed to promote the well-being of the entire school community is needed (Evanovich et al., 2020; Katic, Alba & Johnson, 2020; Lodi et al., 2022).

    • 4 Restorative practices as an alternative in school

      The exposition now turns to restorative practices and their manifestations in schools. The restorative practices approach has recently gained acceptance as a holistic alternative to zero-tolerance discipline policies, reflecting a shift in emphasis from exclusionary discipline (e.g. suspensions and expulsions) to reparation and reconciliation in the school context and the community (Gomez et al., 2021). These alternatives in turn promote a positive school culture that is conducive to safety, respect and responsibility. This shift reflects the growing body of research that shows that zero-tolerance policies lead to disproportionate numbers of minority students being suspended, expelled and turned over to law enforcement (Curran, 2019).
      Restorative practices models provide schools with opportunities to build healthy relationships by addressing discipline standards, creating a sense of community, and providing forums for the peaceful resolution of disputes. A systematic review conducted by Katic et al. (2020) indicated a high degree of variability regarding the implementation and evaluation of restorative justice practices in schools. Though there is no standardised method for restorative justice implementation, several general types of restorative practices are employed in schools. These include restorative conversations, family group conferences, restorative conferences, circles of peace, victim/offender mediation and community-building circles (Katic et al., 2020; Lodi et al., 2022). As a result, restorative practices could take on a variety of formats and means of implementation in a school setting ranging from restorative circles to integrity boards (Woods & Stewart, 2018). Though there are different types of restorative practices, they generally place particular emphasis on their capacity to reduce misbehaviour and disputes, and the principles employed in each model remain similar.
      Each type of restorative practice entails conversations with all affected parties and the development of a protocol that outlines the tasks the student responsible for the harm must complete. In such programmes, the core principles of restorative practices that guide restorative justice in schools include but are not limited to meeting needs, providing accountability and support, making things right, viewing dispute as a learning opportunity, building healthy learning communities, restoring relationships and addressing power imbalances (Anfara et al., 2013). All the programmes bring the students responsible for causing the harm and the affected students together in the presence of trained facilitators.

    • 5 Do restorative practices work in schools?

      When properly implemented, restorative practices shift the focus of discipline from punishment to learning and from the individual to the community. As Morrison and colleagues observed, the practise of restorative justice in schools has ‘the capacity to build social and human capital through challenging students in the context of social and emotional learning’ (Morrison, Blood & Thorsborne, 2005: 335). In recent years, a small but growing number of researchers have examined the effectiveness of restorative practices in schools (Anfara et al., 2013; Lodi et al., 2022; Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021). Many have argued that the restorative practices approach has recently gained acceptance and plays a positive role in schools. In the process of expressing and listening to each other, the students improve their interpersonal relationships and social-emotional behaviour competencies (Evanovich et al., 2020), find greater community and parent engagement (Woods & Stewart, 2018) and witness reductions in office discipline referrals (Katic et al., 2020). Consequently, teacher–student relationships and shame management have improved (Gomez et al., 2021).
      However, these positive outcomes are not global (Joseph-McCatty & Hnilica, 2023). There are no universal set of restorative practices in the school context, and restorative practices overall are interpreted in different ways to respond to the needs of individual school communities (González et al., 2019). Furthermore, due to some unexpected results and consequences, the critiques of restorative justice philosophy and restorative practices in schools have recently increased.
      While evidence of the potential effectiveness of restorative practices for addressing harmful behaviour is mounting, early research has shown that their use is insufficient to precipitate the positive changes the makers of school rules and practices desire (Morrison et al., 2005). Even to its advocates, restorative justice seems like a promising but marginal development in criminal justice that is still ‘in search of fundamentals’ (London, 2003). Moreover, more research and discussions are necessary to enable educators to understand restorative practices and how they could be effectively implemented in schools and communities (Anfara et al., 2013). Many teachers who stated a commitment to restorative justice admitted that this commitment is dependent on student compliance (Woods & Stewart, 2018). Several recent studies have indicated limited school climate improvements and sometimes negative academic outcomes (Augustine et al., 2018; Joseph-McCatty & Hnilica, 2023). For example, Pittsburgh Public Schools is the second-largest school district in Pennsylvania, U.S., and serves approximately 25,000 students in kindergarten through 12th grade in 54 schools. In July 2014, the district submitted a proposal to the National Institute of Justice to implement restorative practices, namely Pursuing Equitable and Restorative Communities (PERC). Pittsburgh Public Schools then asked RAND, a research organisation, to evaluate PERC. During this two-year study, despite fewer suspensions, academic outcomes did not improve in PERC schools; at the middle grade level (grades 6–8), academic outcomes worsened in the treatment schools (Augustine et al., 2018).
      Unfortunately, this problem was further complicated by the fact that even effective restorative practices do not provide quick fixes. In addition, students may be unwilling to participate, the harm caused by dispute may be irreparable, the parties’ processing abilities may be insufficient and the process may lack a deterrent effect.
      Additionally, several more issues may be encountered in the application of restorative practices in Asian schools. Even though there are similarities between traditional Asian and modern Western concepts of restorative justice and restorative practices, the persistent obstacles to the application of restorative practices in Asian education settings exist. These obstacles include hierarchy, traditional concentration of power and authority among professionals (i.e. teachers and administrators), and legal responsibilities for child welfare.
      Confucianism is rooted in the philosophy and practice of moral inequality, which measures duty-based morality according to everyone’s position within social hierarchies (Weatherley, 2002), and individuals have limited independence (Ziliotti, 2022). Confucius (551-479 BCE), known as China’s greatest teacher, taught more than 3,000 students during his life. Through his teaching, Confucius emphasised showing respect to one’s higher-ups, discipline and understanding everyone’s position in society. As Mikhail Lyubansky argues,

      while it is important that there is a shared reality about what happens in a circle and agreement to participate accordingly, because restorative justice is a community process that seeks to give everyone an equal voice, top-down rule-making is generally not congruent with restorative values. (2018: 170)

      Not surprisingly, top-down rulemaking is still largely practised in East Asian culture today. Though changing practices are being incorporated into schools, the students are taught to be respectful, humble and disciplined, which is the core content and basic structure of East Asian etiquette culture. While recognising Confucius as the most important restorative thinker, John Braithwaite stressed the importance of equal voice and individuation from all parties for restorative practices. He suggests

      we need strong, independent individuals as well as strong families and communities. Individuation is vital as a practice of socialisation if individuals are to be strong enough to resist tyranny as they move from one site of domination to another in a complex world. (1999: 12)

      Moreover, in contrast to established human rights doctrines that view humans as morally equal (Weatherley, 2002), the rights of the disputing students, the parents, the teachers and administrators in Asian contexts are sometimes viewed differently. In addition to students, administrators and parents are expected culturally to make quick decisions to solve the misbehaviour and disputes. Therefore, many more questions arise, including the following: How can teachers and schools create a restorative culture and climate in which students and school communities can thrive? Who should be involved in the school community of mutual engagement? What can parents do? Is the process fair to the student harmed by misbehaviour and the misbehaving students along with affected family and community members?

    • 6 Conclusion and suggestions

      In the thirty-year history of the global restorative movement in schools, restorative practices have been welcomed and recognised for their potential to improve school discipline by focusing on repairing harm through an inclusive process that involves all stakeholders. As previously mentioned, restorative practices in schools inevitably focus on strengthening relationships and connections between students, teachers and parents in a nonviolent school community. Considering the ‘best interests of the child’ principle that is being implemented worldwide, it is possible to formulate several suggestions for teachers, administrators, students and parents.
      First, it is necessary to connect the concept, core values and ideology of restorative practices with Confucianism as starting points, and establish multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) frameworks. One of the key requirements for the successful implementation and sustainability of a restorative philosophy is acknowledgement of the need for organisational and cultural change (Morrison et al., 2005). Owing to the political and cultural influence of Confucianism in East Asia (Ziliotti, 2022), all students, teachers, administrators, parents and the wider school community must understand what restorative action entails and how they could achieve it. At the level of school improvement, it is important to incorporate unique restorative practices into school rules and regulations, which should also be tailored to maximise the likelihood of addressing misbehaviour and resolving disputes. Students should be treated as independent individuals with dignity and the rights of students should be prioritised.
      Second, training procedures and treatment fidelity are important considerations for the successful implementation of restorative practices in schools (Katic et al., 2020). It is necessary to provide regular training opportunities and improve the quality of existing courses for school administrators and teachers, and increase the time allocated to teachers. Teachers must understand their students’ family support services and focus on building and sustaining positive relationships (Williams, 2019). Additionally, they should communicate effectively with parents about the successes and challenges of specific implementation of restorative practices, their implications for their children, and how parents could reinforce restorative principles at home. Students should also be taught methods for avoiding and resolving disputes.
      Third, parent involvement/engagement is critical to the effectiveness of restorative justice in school. Parents have the primary responsibility for their children’s heathy, safety and welfare. The United Nations’ Convention on the rights of the child of 1989 clearly stipulated that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child (Art. 18). Parenting education courses or information about parent–child relationships should be provided to improve the parenting styles and quality of family life. With the most effective and respectful policies in place, parents should cooperate with schools to prevent misbehaviour and disputes by attending teacher–parent conferences, volunteering in the classroom or serving on the various restorative programmes.
      Finally, there is a special need to upgrade the level and quality of restorative practices in Asian schools to attract more public attention. Despite a growing body of research produced in the West, as Zakszeski and Rutherford (2021) have aptly noted, the existing research has still sustained a ‘practice-to-research’ gap and lacks key elements that limit its usefulness in guiding practice, namely, discrete approaches to restorative justice that are inconsistently defined and described, failure to support and measure the implementation of restorative practices, and limited rigour in quantitative assessment. Therefore, more rigorous evidence-based research is needed to investigate their effectiveness and understand the mechanisms by which they may affect student achievement (Gomez et al., 2021).
      School is about teaching and learning, making it an effective place for the application of restorative justice (Woods & Stewart, 2018). Despite sustained criticism of some aspects of practice, there are good reasons to believe that restorative practices in Asian schools are compatible with both restorative justice values and Confucianism. As restorative practices become more expeditious, efficient and popular as an informal dispute resolution option, a correlative increase in the number and types of restorative practices will occur in Asian contexts and beyond.

    • References
    • Anfara, V.A., Evans, K.R. & Lester, J.N. (2013). Restorative justice in education: what we know so far. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 57-63. doi: 10.1080­/00940771.2013.11461873.

    • Augustine, C.H., Engberg, J., Grimm, G.E., Lee, E., Wang, E.L., Christianson, K. & Joseph, A.A. (2018). Can restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions. An Evaluation of the Impact of Restorative Practices in a Mid-sized urban School District. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.

    • Braithwaite, J. (1999). Restorative justice: assessing optimistic and pessimistic accounts. Crime and Justice, 25, 1-127. doi:10.1086/449287.

    • Chinese Ministry of Education (2022). 2021 Statistical bulletin on national education development. Beijing: Chinese Ministry of Education.

    • Curran, F.C. (2019). The law, policy, and portrayal of zero-tolerance school discipline: examining prevalence and characteristics across levels of governance and school districts. Educational Policy, 33(2), 319-349. doi: 10.1177/0895904817691840.

    • Daly, K. (2002). Restorative justice: the real story. Punishment & Society, 4(1), 55-79. doi: 10.1177/14624740222228464

    • Evanovich, L.L., Martinez, S., Kern, L. & Haynes, R.D. (2020). Proactive circles: a practical guide to the implementation of a restorative practice. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 64(1), 28-36. doi: 10.1080­/1045988X.2019.1639128.

    • Gomez, J.A., Rucinski, C.L. & Higgins-D’Alessandro, A. (2021). Promising pathways from school restorative practices to educational equity. Journal of Moral Education, 50(4), 452-470. doi: 10.1080/03057240.2020.1793742.

    • González, T., Sattler, H. & Buth, A.J. (2019). New directions in whole-school restorative justice implementation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(3), 207-220. doi: 10.1002/crq.21236.

    • Hancocks, P. (2012). South Korea teenagers bullied to death. Retrieved from https://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/25/world/asia/south-korea-school-bully/index.html (last accessed 29 April 2023).

    • Joseph-McCatty, A.A. & Hnilica, R.J. (2023). Restorative practices: the application of restorative circles in a case study school. Teaching and Teacher Education, 121, 103935. doi: 10.1016/j.tate.2022.103935.

    • Karp, D.R. & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth & Society, 33(2), 249-272. doi: 10.1177/0044118X01033002006.

    • Katic, B., Alba, L.A. & Johnson, A. H. (2020). A systematic evaluation of restorative justice practices: school violence prevention and response. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 579-593. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2020.1783670.

    • Latimer, J., Dowden, C. & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: a meta-analysis. Prison Journal, 85, 127-144. doi: 10.1177­/0032885505276969.

    • Lodi, E., Perrella, L., Lepri, G.L., Scarpa, M.L. & Patrizi, P. (2022). Use of restorative justice and restorative practices at school: a systematic literature review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(1), 1-34. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19010096.

    • London, R. (2003). The restoration of trust: bringing restorative justice from the margins to the mainstream. Criminal Justice Studies, 16(3), 175-195.

    • Lyubansky, M. (2018). Book review on restorative justice in urban schools: disrupting the school-to-prison pipeline. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 1(1), 168-171.

    • Marsh, V.L. (2017). Restorative practice: history, successes, challenges & recommendations. Research brief. University of Rochester Center for Urban Education Success. Retrieved from www.rochester.edu/warner/cues/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Restorative-Practices-Brief-1_marsh_final.pdf (last accessed 3 February 2023).

    • Morrison, B., Blood, P. & Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing restorative justice in school communities: the challenge of culture change. Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5, 335-357. doi: 10.1007/s11115-005-5095-6.

    • Okano, K. & Tsuchiya, M. (1999). Education in contemporary Japan: inequality and diversity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    • Pavelka, S. (2013). Practices and policies for implementing restorative practice within schools. The Prevention Researcher, 20(1), 15-18.

    • UNESCO (2019). Behind the numbers: ending school violence and bullying. Retrieved from https://en.unesco.org/news/school-violence-and-bullying-major-global-issue-new-unesco-publication-finds (last accessed 11 February 2023).

    • Walgrave, L., Aertsen, I., Parmentier, S., Vanfraechem, I. & Zinsstag, E. (2013). Why restorative justice matters for criminology. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 1(2), 159-167. doi: 10.5235/20504721.1.2.159.

    • Weatherley, R. (2002). Harmony, hierarchy and duty based morality: the Confucian antipathy towards rights. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 12(2), 245-267. doi: 10.1075/japc.12.2.04wea.

    • Williams, A. (2019). Family support services delivered using a restorative approach: a framework for relationship and strengths-based whole-family practice. Child & Family Social Work, 24(4), 555-564. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12636.

    • Wong, B.K. (2000). Traditional Chinese philosophy and dispute resolution. Hong Kong Law Journal, 30, 304-319.

    • Woods, C.A. & Stewart, M.L. (2018). Restorative justice: a framework for examining issues of discipline in schools serving diverse populations. The International Journal of Restorative Justice, 1(1), 81-95. doi: 10.5553/IJRJ/258908912018001001005.

    • World Health Organization. (2021). Corporal punishment and health. Retrieved from www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/corporal-punishment-and-health (last accessed 29 April 2023).

    • Zakszeski, B. & Rutherford, L. (2021). Mind the gap: a systematic review of research on restorative practices in schools. School Psychology Review, 50(2-3), 371-387. doi: 10.1080/2372966X.2020.1852056.

    • Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse: Good Books.

    • Zhang, H. & Jiang, Y. (2022). A systematic review of research on school bullying/violence in mainland China: prevalence and correlates. Journal of School Violence, 21(1), 48-59. doi: 10.1080/15388220.2021.1985326.

    • Zhao, R. & Zhang, H. (2008). Exploring restorative justice in Korean juvenile justice settings: An observation from outsiders. Hanyang Law Review, 25(1), 217-227.

    • Zhao, Z., Zhang, D. & Zhang, L. (2021). Relationship among bullying victimization, psychological traits and suicide ideation of middle school students in Bijie. Chinese Journal of School Health, 42(1), 83-86. doi: 10.16835/j.cnki.1000-9817.2021.01.020.

    • Ziliotti, E. (2022). Questions for hierarchical Confucianism. The Review of Politics, 84(3), 329-349. doi: 10.1017/S0034670522000304.

    Noten

    • 1 Like most jurisdictions, compulsory education in mainland China is currently divided into two phases – six years of primary school (level 1 to level 6) and three years of junior high school (level 7 to level 9). According to Chinese Compulsory Education Law, for children who have reached the age of 6, their parents or other legal guardians should send them to school to accept and complete compulsory education; for children in areas where the conditions are not met, the start can be postponed until the age of 7 (Art. 11). Therefore, under normal circumstances, all children aged 6 to 15 have to go to school.


Print this article
Button_em_en