Os nós do NÓS: o desenrolar do programa de Justiça Restaurativa na Educação em Belo Horizonte

Abstract

In light of the expansion of Restorative Justice as a public policy within the Brazilian educational context, and with the aim of deepening the sociological understanding of restorative practices in schools, this research analyzed the development and implementation of Restorative Justice in the Municipal Education Network of Belo Horizonte. Although Restorative Justice has been implemented in Brazilian schools for nearly two decades, it still lacks robust institutional data and consensus in the literature regarding its impacts. The extensive review of national literature, which preceded the case study, revealed that the operationalization of Restorative Justice in education faces challenges that can be broadly classified into two categories: operational and theoretical-critical. The case study in Belo Horizonte included document analysis, approximately fifteen hours of observation of institutional meetings, and thirteen semi-structured interviews with various professionals involved in the policy. The analysis drew primarily on the works of Sennett (2004, 2009, 2013), Freire (1987, 1996, 2023), Ball, Maguire, and Braun (2016), as well as key authors in the field of Restorative Justice, such as Boyes-Watson and Pranis (2011, 2015), Evans and Vaandering (2018), Pranis (2010), and Zehr (2020a, 2020b). The NÓS Program emerged as an initiative that mobilizes various public authorities, the justice system, and the education sector. In addition, it includes specialists, referred to as tutors, associated with the program to conduct training courses for facilitators. The investigation's results indicate that the implementation of Restorative Justice remains incipient, largely due to operational obstacles related to the lack of coordination between schools and responsible agencies. Significant theoretical-critical challenges also emerged, although explored by few, such as the understanding of the school community and tensions in the hierarchy of school relationships. Furthermore, the need for greater clarity regarding the definition and objectives of restorative practices was identified, as well as mechanisms to ensure their continuity and evaluation. In the three schools whose managers were interviewed, three distinct scenarios were identified: one with a more structured adoption; another where the program was interpreted as a project that concluded with its action plan; and the last, where Restorative Justice was seen as a tool available to the school but not yet utilized. Thus, although there is interest among the managing entities of NÓS to maintain the program, the consolidation of Restorative Justice as a public policy still requires addressing several issues, such as refining the focus on the educational sector, strengthening relationships with schools—preferably beyond the management teams—clarifying the roles of the involved entities, the program's Steering Committee, tutors, and the Restorative Practices Chambers within schools; ensuring the provision of more comprehensive training on the topic and related subjects to provide more qualified support for the execution of practices; promoting more consistent criteria for defining the profile of facilitators; and conducting periodic evaluations from which improvements to the process can be derived.