Sanborn's Restorative Justice Model: Year in Review
This year, under the supervision of Assistant Principal Ann Hadwen, our school started a restorative justice model as a way to help empower students to play a leadership role in their school. The program is called the Justice committee. The idea came out of a school culture survey that our school conducted three years ago as a way to promote a more positive school culture and climate.
The following information was compiled by Mrs. Hadwen to help our community understand how this pilot year went with the Justice Committee.
A Brief Summary
Although successful, this
year was not without its challenges. As a student run organization it’s the
students who are responsible for educating their classmates about the JC and
promoting its existence. We fell short in this area and need to make JC
exposure a priority for the 15-16 school year. A second more challenging issue
this year was finding a consistent space for hearings and meetings. Not having
a space designated to the JC impacted the group’s ability to hear cases as
quickly as we would
The following information was compiled by Mrs. Hadwen to help our community understand how this pilot year went with the Justice Committee.
The 2014-15 school year marked the first full year of
Justice Committee (JC) implementation at SRHS. The committee heard a total of
six cases, which involved students from all four grades. Total membership was
increased to 22 students with the addition of seven freshmen. At the end of
this year we will be saying goodbye to four seniors who have been JC members
from the start of our program two years ago.
2015-16 Goals
Develop a JC visibility plan.
Recruit and train new members in the first 6
weeks of school.
Schedule-out the entire year to allow all
interested staff to fully participate in the JC.
Elect
JC officers.Did you know?
·
JC members sign a confidentiality agreement each
year, which prevents them from discussing any aspect of a hearing.
·
Hearings are voluntary. Students are offered the
opportunity to have a case heard by the JC, or to work with an administrator to
receive a disciplinary consequence. This
year several students and some faculty members declined to use the JC as a
means to resolve an issue, instead opting for a resolution decided by
administration.
·
The JC doesn’t seek to punish. The purpose of
the JC is to work with a student (responsible party) to design an outcome,
which will restore the harm done to the community.
·
At the conclusion of a hearing the responsible party will be assigned a due
date by which they must have completed their assigned outcome. If the outcome is not completed, the case is
referred back to an administrator who will assign a consequence.
·
In order to resolve conflicts as quickly as
possible the JC makes every attempt to assemble a peer jury within 48 hours of
receiving a referral. Staff members have been flexible in allowing students to be
excused from FLT (and sometimes academic) time to attend a JC hearing.
·
The JC hears complicated cases. Administrators
generally work with students to address low level infractions. The more
complicated cases are the ones that end up with the JC.
Challenges
have liked. Lastly,
the schedule impacted the ability of some staff members to participate in
hearings. By using FLT time students weren’t pulled out of academic classes but
our member teachers were otherwise committed to their FLT classes and had
limited involvement in JC activities.
Comments
Post a Comment