-
Crystena Parker-Shandal, Restorative justice in the classroom: liberating students’ voices through relational pedagogy, London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2022, 292pp., ISBN: 978-3-031-16589-4 (hbk), 978-3-031-16590-0 (ebk).
Restorative justice in education is both a broad field and a narrow one. Since the early 2000s, psychologists and legal advocates have advised against uniform, punitive practices and toward educative practices (e.g. Lustick, 2017; Skiba & Peterson, 2000). Among such approaches, restorative practices were particularly heralded as a way to address racially disparate disciplinary outcomes as well as overall high suspension rates (Gregory, Clawson, Davis & Gerewitz, 2016). Yet, for such a relationship-oriented, student-oriented solution, research has paid surprisingly little attention at the actual interpersonal, classroom level. This is where Dr. Crystena Parker-Shandal’s guide to restorative justice in the classroom can fill some of the persistent gaps in our understanding of how relationships can reverse discrimination in our classrooms and schools.
Parker-Shandal’s observations are at times puzzling to parse between recommendations and cautionary tales; however, it can be argued that this is the truest thing about classroom life one could say: at any moment, a teacher’s choices can liberate, restrain, or do both, depending on the student. The best we can do, then, is to not herald any general approach but remain committed to its purpose and the micropolitics of how it plays out. This book represents a rich multitude of classroom dynamics that might serve as a springboard for in-service and preservice educators to prepare for and grapple with what it means to, as Parker-Shandal puts it, practice restorative teaching with an equity lens (177). Each chapter closes with key takeaways and questions for reflection, which make it easily adaptable for a professional or informal educator book club.
The first two chapters of this book ground us in the theory and language of restorative practices in education, with specific focus on education in diverse contexts. Parker-Shandal talks about using circles – the most common and fundamental structure of restorative practices – for ‘inclusion’, ‘resistance’ (to oppression), ‘transforming justice in diverse classrooms’ and keeping these efforts ‘sustainable’ through training and on-going mentorship. As a restorative scholar focused on school leadership, I found this grounding extremely useful for clarifying what the author recommends as ideal conditions and strategies for implementation.
This grounding helps go beyond the kinds of buzzwords we always hear for how to make a reform ‘work’. Rather than name the importance of funding and training, for example, Parker-Shandal specifies that terms like ‘whole school’ should be qualified, as they can mean different things in different contexts, and that training must be ‘experiential’:People need practice in how to be in relationship with each other, communicate with a talking piece, listen attentively, and wait for their turn to speak … Connections are established by physically sitting with people, making eye contact, and having nothing in front of them. (82)
Even seemingly clear-cut terms like ‘whole-school’, she notes, can mean different levels of consistency, fidelity, and training (84). It may seem trivial and obvious to name such details. However, the author notes that without such specifications, there is too much variation in how committed schools that call themselves ‘restorative’ really are to these practices and to using them for social justice.
The specific type of training Parker-Shandal advocates for establishes the roots of restorative practices in ideas of ‘peacemaking’ and ‘peacekeeping’, terms that carry a more justice-oriented valence than ‘circle’. Parker-Shandal notes that, while she may leave the word ‘justice’ out of some sentences, she is ‘consistently referring to restorative justice in education’ (25). The purpose of circles is either to create peace, keep peace, or both, and to use ‘circles’ without ‘peace’ is to potentially allow participants to forget the ultimate goal of restorative justice. This linguistic choice is key and one which I hope to promote in my own work. They remind me not to conflate restorative practices with conflict resolution or sitting in a circle. This is also an important message for practitioners, as in my experience, personnel sometimes tend towards the phrase ‘restorative practices’ if they associate the word ‘justice’ with ‘criminal justice’. ‘Peacemaking’ bypasses this concern without losing or diluting the liberatory element of restorative justice.
Restorative justice utilises these practices for equity and inclusion; general terms like ‘circles’ might be too easily co-opted into describing more controlled, sterilised conflict resolution practices. The goal of ‘peacemaking’ also supports the primary role of community building in restorative practice implementation, which is key given how frequently school leaders are incentivised to use restorative practices as a reactive disciplinary tool rather than a preventative one.Laying the groundwork and preparing teachers, administrators, and all school support staff involves building a restorative community – a community in which shared agreements are in place for relationships to take center stage when harm has occurred (87)
Despite her emphasis on experiential staff preparation, Parker-Shandal leaves rightfully vague exactly what teachers’ role and responsibilities are in a restorative circle. In this chapter on training, she names teachers as both facilitators and participants. Yet she notes that, in her observations, schools passed back and forth over the line from sustainable implementation to what she called the ‘train and hope’ model, in which teachers are trained in restorative practices and then left to implement them without on-going support. This ambiguity reflects the complexity of sustainable, justice-oriented restorative implementation. However, because Parker-Shandal has the goal to teach restorative practices specifically for power-building, peacemaking and creating what she calls ‘restorative schools’, I am left curious how we might define this term. Perhaps we should not – but then what is the purpose of these three chapters on best practices and subsequent chapters analysing classroom observations? How do we know restorative justice when we see it?
Parker-Shandal observed eight elementary school classrooms. The fourth chapter describes these schools which served as the contexts for her to compare how restorative practices were implemented. Perhaps a bit more detail on Parker-Shandal’s own perspective would have helped me organise the nuanced data presented in each of the subsequent chapters. In an exemplary positionality statement I hope to share with my qualitative methods students, she describes herself as a ‘participant researcher’, meaning she was in circles and classrooms but transparent about her role as an observer and scholar. However, given that her interpretations draw heavily on observational data, and that she does not have the opportunity to confirm her impressions with everyone she is observing, I wonder how her own style and attitudes shaped what she was looking for and her interpretations. Understanding her perspective and lens might have helped me better absorb the data chapters as I read.
For example, in Chapter 5, entitled ‘The pedagogical value of conflict: dialogue and dissonance in the restorative classroom’, there is an excerpt of dialogue from a circle in Ms Spence’s classroom. I struggled to put my finger on the author’s appraisal of this excerpt, though I know it must be important because she included it in full:Overall, in this circle, while three of the male students spoke consistently, they often spoke over each other and laughed at each other. In many ways, the dialogue that emerged glorified violent behavior and rejected peaceful approaches to make amends. This circle was also the first opportunity for these students – all victims of bullying – to share their collective experiences. Their attempts to gain power reflected their experiences with a punitive system that apparently did not offer them much protection. (146)
The paragraph is a mix between direct observations (the conversation, the laughter) and deeper analyses (glorification of violent behaviour, rejection of peaceful approaches). The deeper analyses lack connection to direct evidence – where exactly does Parker-Shandal see glorification of violent behaviour or rejection of peaceful approaches to make amends? I finished this paragraph wondering what I should take away from the dialogue, as well as from the author’s assessment of it.
Another missing element of analysis I found distracting was Parker-Shandal’s interpretation of behaviour without qualifying her interpretations. For example, she makes the observation, ‘students in class respectfully listen’ (151) without describing what the students were doing or why she interpreted their behaviour as respectful, even though respect can look different across contexts and cultures. Her interpretation of another circle in Ms Harding’s class left me confused as to why she had cited it and what I was to take from it.
Given her extensive experience teaching, training and researching restorative practices, Parker-Shandal’s instincts are undoubtedly trustworthy. That said, I wish I had the benefit of understanding why she picked up on levels of respect or engagement when she did. Parker-Shandal’s interpretations of teacher behaviour, without qualifying or providing context, at times left me concerned about what her own bias and teaching approach might be layering onto the data in front of her. For example, she labels as ‘groupthink’ an instance in which only a few students use gender-neutral language to talk about homophobia. It is crucial to use gender-neutral language, and for teachers to model this for students, and I wish this could have been the takeaway of this paragraph, with clear connections to evidence rather than the perils of a groupthink mentality overall.
As I am committed to protecting free speech and fighting hate speech in educational spaces, I appreciated and plan to cite the many, many terms Parker-Shandal introduced for sanctioning conversations on controversial issues. The chapter on conflict, for example, demonstrated how brainstorming class values can allow students to take calculated risks in what they shared. The chapter on relational connections distinguished between physical violence and ‘subtle or systemic manifestations of violence’ (173); ‘comfortable’ versus ‘uncomfortable’ ‘isms’ (177); and a space that allows for different views while not allowing for bigotry. I wholeheartedly hope more classrooms and universities, especially in the United States, will adopt not only restorative practices in general but this application of them, as a way to promote discussion among those holding different views so they can agree on a working definition for ‘bigoted’ language that will not be tolerated.
While heartbreaking, the stories of teachers backing down from restorative implementation due to burnout or overwhelming personal situations were crucial to capture and include. Restorative practices are powerful, and like any powerful tool, they must be wielded with skill or risk damaging the things they are meant to shape. I know this book – and the level of deep coaching and mentorship it promotes – will empower and sustain teachers in facilitating circles that make and maintain peace in schools. I hope Parker-Shandal’s accounts will be enough to convince school and district leaders of the persistent case she makes for sustainable, whole-school, equity-oriented restorative training. References Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A. & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353. doi: 10.1080/10474412.2014.929950
Lustick, H. (2017). ‘Restorative Justice’ or restoring order? Restorative school discipline practices in urban public schools. Urban Education, 56(8), 1269-1296. doi: 10.1177/0042085917741725.
Skiba, R.J. & Peterson, R. (2000). School discipline at a crossroads: from zero tolerance to early response. Exceptional Children, 66(3), 335-346. doi: 10.1177/001440290006600305.
DOI: 10.5553/TIJRJ.000165
The International Journal of Restorative Justice |
|
Book Review | Crystena Parker-Shandal, Restorative justice in the classroom: liberating students’ voices through relational pedagogy |
Authors | Hilary Lustick |
DOI | 10.5553/TIJRJ.000165 |
Show PDF Show fullscreen Author's information Statistics Citation |
This article has been viewed 11 times. |
This article been downloaded 11 times. |
Suggested citation
Hilary Lustick, 'Crystena Parker-Shandal, Restorative justice in the classroom: liberating students’ voices through relational pedagogy', (2023) The International Journal of Restorative Justice 328-332
Hilary Lustick, 'Crystena Parker-Shandal, Restorative justice in the classroom: liberating students’ voices through relational pedagogy', (2023) The International Journal of Restorative Justice 328-332