Why restorative practices?
Restorative practices create just, kind, caring communities
Restorative schools have the power to create societies full of people equipped to create strong, vibrant communities—skills infinitely more desirable than merely obeying the law. Peaceful societies can potentially eliminate decades-long conflict, revolutionize diverse cultures, and mobilize for world peace. The power of restorative practices to impact culture is immense. Society’s community fabric is much more than rules and conformity—and training children to properly integrate into this society requires more than simple discipline practices. Restorative practices support community building, adult and peer connections, and social-emotional growth; these practices also guide students to recognize the consequences of their actions and deal with conflict in robust, life-giving ways.
Restorative practices can reduce discipline disparities
Throughout US, racial/ethnic, socioeconomic, and gender disparities in school discipline persist. Restorative practices have the potential to address the “school-to- prison pipeline,” and close the "discipline gap," two terms used to highlight problems with school discipline in schools. Disparities in discipline outcomes have driven the launch of restorative practices in public schools throughout the US, and many schools are now realizing success with restorative practices in their communities and with their students and staff.
Why are restorative practices needed in schools?
Melissa Mouton, March 30, 2016
The Discipline Gap
The “discipline gap” is the term used to describe the large disparities that exist in disciplinary action on students that flow along the lines of race, gender, disability status, and other demographics. Many educators are familiar with statistics related to inequitable discipline in schools, but just in case, here are some examples that demonstrate the problem. First, many discipline practices disproportionately affect students of color. Most notably, zero-tolerance expulsions and suspensions are disproportionately handed out to black and Latino students, than to white students. For example, black pupils are two to five times more likely to be suspended than their white classmates. Latino students—especially boys—are also more likely to be suspended or expelled than their white peers. Further, these students also tend to receive harsher punishments than their peers, and are more often suspended for subjectively defined offenses like “disrespect” or “loitering.”
Of greatest concern is the issue posed by researchers (Skiba and colleagues) that there is “no evidence that racial disparities in school punishment could be explained by higher rates of African American misbehavior.” In other words, the higher rates of suspension among students of color cannot fully be explained by higher rates of misbehavior, suggesting that there is bias at work causing the harsher penalties. As an example of this bias, it has been shown that white students are more often suspended for relatively objective offenses (i.e. smoking, vandalism), while students of color are more often suspended for more subjective offenses (i.e. disruption), which require a judgment call when deciding on disciplinary action. These findings suggest that conscious or unconscious racial bias plays a role in the discipline gap.
Inequities based on gender also exist, with harsher penalties being given to boys more than girls (for similar offenses). Students with disabilities incur harsher penalties as well, as shown in the table from a recent study on suspensions in schools. This data reveals that disability, race, and gender can accumulate and add upon each other. In summary, there are clear inequities in how school discipline policies are applied across demographics.
Finally, the sheer number of suspensions due to disciplinary problems in public schools is alarming. More than 3.45 million students are removed from school annually, with 1.55 million of these receiving multiple suspensions—this is equivalent to roughly 19,000 children suspended per day. It is evident that there are far too many suspensions and expulsions in schools today. Moreover, the discipline gap illuminates vast inequity in school discipline based on demographics, and these inequalities have created what is commonly known as the “school-to-prison pipeline.”
The School-To-Prison Pipeline
The long-term effects of the discipline gap have produced the “school-to-prison” pipeline, which the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines as “the policies and practices that push our nation's schoolchildren, especially our most at-risk children, out of classrooms and into the juvenile and criminal justice systems. Here is how the pipeline works. Most directly, students who are expelled and suspended are no longer in an educational environment, and are therefore not receiving the education needed to equip them for their future. In addition to being removed from an educative environment, these students are often sent home during the day, where they are likely to be unsupervised and exposed to the very environment that might have contributed to the antisocial behaviors in the first place—ironically defeating the purpose of “learning a lesson” from suspension., This creates a double-edged sword, with both a lack of positive educative experiences and an increase in negative influences—the very situations that at-risk students should avoid.
Fueling this issue is the contributing problem of the surge of police officers stationed in schools to enforce these strict policies. Since these officers are often inadequately trained to deal with minors in the educational setting, they often flare less-serious offenses into serious conflict, and increase arrest rates. This tendency for minor school offenses to result in involvement with law enforcement is the basis of the school-to-prison pipeline. When one views this pipeline with an understanding of the discipline gap (see above), it becomes clear how this pipeline will affect students of color, makes, and students with disabilities more harshly. With the introduction of harsh, zero-tolerance school policies that created inequitable discipline outcomes, the prison pipeline also began funneling these at-risk students into the criminal justice system. Many have argued that schools have contributed to racial inequities in the prison system—which has been famously written about in Michelle Alexander’s book, The New Jim Crow.
Many people have assumed that the pipeline is due to a correlation between incarceration rates and a poor educational environment: unqualified teachers, poor school leaders, lack of funding, and other school problems put students at a disadvantage academically, which poorly equipped them for life and led to poor choices that eventually landed them in prison. However, the pipeline does not merely correlate with poor educational outcomes; it is actively created as a result of inequitable school policies that create a discipline gap that ultimately steers vulnerable students toward incarceration and prison. This problem—that schools are contributing to the incarceration of people groups along demographic lines—is why school discipline policies matter, and why it’s important for schools to critically assess their processes for improvement.
How the School-To-Prison Pipeline Came to Be
The school-to-prison pipeline has developed over time as a result of trends towards non-tolerance in addressing misbehavior at school. Intolerant policies today are rooted in events that occurred during the 1980s, when then-President George W. Bush led a national campaign against illicit drugs, commonly known as the “War on Drugs.” Bush also pushed the “broken windows” philosophy, which encourages cracking down on lesser crimes in order to prevent bigger ones. During this era, “zero-tolerance” policies became common, and were embraced as inherently fair and a sensible way to approach crime.
The subsequent introduction of zero-tolerance policies into schools was catalyzed by the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, which required all schools to expel a student for no less than one year if they bring a weapon or explosive on school property. Similarly, Congress passed the Drug-Free Schools and Community Act (1990), which required school to enact drug prevention policies in order to receive federal funding. Schools became even harsher after April 20, 1999, when the Columbine High School massacre forever changed the face of American schools. Overall, the shift towards zero-tolerance policies in schools was as a result of federal politics, federal law, and several high-profile events. And though initially intended to address serious offenses (like bringing weapons to school), school districts began to employ zero-tolerance policies to address nonviolent offenses, such as drug and alcohol violations, verbal disrespect to teachers, and truancy.
Almost immediately after they were enacted, problems with zero tolerance policies began to emerge, due to their inflexible and harsh nature. Most directly, these policies created the discipline gap described above, by inequitably affecting students from at-risk demographics. The increased police presence within schools increased arrest rates and ignited the formation of the school-to-prison pipeline.
The pipeline is based on bias, which can develop in multiple ways in schools. Three well-respected social scientists—Edward Royce, Antonia Darder, and CR Monroe—have all suggested that issues of inequality in discipline are inherently tied to power-laden structures.,, Darder states “authoritarian discipline policies… reinscribe racialized and class-based relations of power.” Monroe suggests much the same, stating “because white and middle-class individuals occupy most positions of power in educational settings, decisions concerning behavioral expectations and infractions are set forth by a culturally-specific bloc.” Given that schools reflect the values, norms, and beliefs of the dominant culture, it comes as little surprise that students are often disciplined based on teachers’ assumptions, values, and beliefs., As a result, teacher bias is likely to be a source of discipline disparities. Monroe suggests a connection between teachers’ perceptions and subsequent treatment, whether conscious or not, of black male students. Teachers regularly interpret black male students’ behaviors as inappropriate when such behaviors are considered culturally appropriate. Other researchers offer a similar explanation, suggesting that teachers perceive students of color as more likely to be violent than academically successful, and therefore those students tend to receive more surveillance and discipline.
Effects of the School-To-Prison Pipeline
In addition to increased incarceration rates, researchers have identified other negative effects of the school-to-prison pipeline. Researchers have correlated students’ experience with school discipline with several long-term outcomes, including lower academic achievement, grade retention, delinquency, dropping out, and drug use. Students who are suspended are less likely to graduate, which is concerning given that 82% of people in prison do not have a high school diploma. Losen and colleagues have described other long-lasting effects:
The school-to-prison pipeline is the negative impact high suspension rates have on graduation rates, the learning environment, and rates of juvenile crime and delinquency in the larger community. The damage wrought by this pipeline does not end with prison; it goes on to cause voter disenfranchisement, degradation of health and culture, and shorter life expectancy. The large disparities in suspension rates likely have a disparate impact on both the academic achievement and life outcomes of millions of historically disadvantaged children, inflicting on them a legacy of despair rather than opportunity.
Finally, and shockingly, studies have shown that harsh discipline structures have not improved student safety or increased student achievement. In fact, schools with the highest suspension rates have lower academic quality and poorer school culture than schools with lower suspension rates. This suggests that zero-tolerance policies actually do more harm than they help. One author has beautifully characterized the school-to-pipeline as a reflection of America’s “prioritization of incarceration over education,” and the result of decades of racism in our nation’s schools. This strategy has not only failed to make our schools safer, but has contributed to the inequitable incarceration of at-risk people groups along demographic lines. The failure of this approach to improve outcomes is one of the most important reasons to implement restorative practices into schools.
Rationale for Implementing Restorative Approaches in Schools
Neuroscience research, social research, and restorative practices overlap to agree that social interactions with positive experiences that support the formation of personal relationships and engagement in open and truthful discussions can reduce bias and prejudice, increase the brain’s development and capacity to learn, and increase students’ ability to peacefully resolve conflict., The pillars of restorative practices (RP) overlap with recommended practices for reducing bias, reducing student behavioral issues, and increasing healthy neurological growth and social/emotional development. Accordingly, restorative practice (RP) has the potential to reduce issues of discipline, increase students’ feelings of belonging within the community, and reduce the discipline gap. RP can effect positive change by serving the social, emotional, and neurological needs of students.
Emerging research has identified restorative practices as a promising framework for increasing student belonging, improving school climate, and supporting the social and emotional needs of students as well as preventing and responding to issues of student discipline. These studies may show the potential for restorative practices to definitively reduce the discipline gap, by supporting the social, emotional, and academic needs of all students. One study suggests that failure to provide students with social and emotional skills is a significant factor contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline. Often, students who are the most frequently punished are those with the greatest social and emotional needs: “Often, it is the needs of students and the inability of schools to meet those needs that causes them to be disciplined.” Students who build their ability to manage emotions, increase self-regulation, establish positive relationships, and increase self-awareness are less likely to engage in disruptive behaviors and more likely to be academically successful.,
To reduce the discipline gap and close the school-to-prison pipeline, schools should replace zero-tolerance policies with practices designed to improve school climate and increase student belonging. Restorative practices promote preventative measures, including conflict resolution, emotional regulation strategies, and bullying prevention as methods for reducing disciplinary incidents. Restorative practices increase empathy and perspective taking, which may reduce teacher bias and discrimination, decreasing the odds of racial discipline disparities. Finally, restorative practices helps to increase students’ sense of community membership and school belonging while giving students the social and emotional support and structures necessary to prevent students from acting out. The potential for RP and RJ to reduce discipline disparities is certainly something that schools should consider.
Restorative Practices Create Just, Vibrant Societies
In addition to correcting disparities in school discipline, there is a more universal reason for using restorative practices in schools. Teaching children to become responsible for their own actions and become caring, responsible adults is no trivial task. Discipline is often used to help children learn how to become socialized into their culture, and to learn the social skills necessary to participate in adult life successfully. But all too often, adults believe that training children to obey the rules is sufficient. Following rules is, indeed, virtuous; however, if obeying the law is the extent of the cultural training a child receives, it falls far short of optimal.
Society’s community fabric is much more than rules and conformity—and training children to properly integrate into this society requires more than simple discipline practices. Disciplining youth restoratively allows them to recognize the consequences of their actions and deal with conflict in robust, life-giving ways. Restorative schools have the power to create societies full of people equipped to create strong, vibrant communities—skills infinitely more desirable than merely obeying the law. Peaceful societies can potentially eliminate decades-long conflict, revolutionize diverse cultures, and mobilize for world peace. The power of restorative schools to impact culture is immense, and all schools should consider what role these practices might have in their setting.
References:
Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline policies. (2000, June 1). Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-discipline/opportunities-suspended-the-devastating-consequences-of-zero-tolerance-and-school-discipline-policies/crp-opportunities-suspended-zero-tolerance-2000.pdf
Monroe, C. R. (2005). Why are" bad boys" always Black?: Causes of disproportionality in school discipline and recommendations for change. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 79(1), 45-50.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-342.
Losen, D., Hodson, C., Keith, M.A., et al. (2015, February) Are We Closing the School Discipline Gap? [Executive Summary]. Retrieved from http://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/federal-reports/are-we-closing-the-school-discipline-gap/losen-are-we-closing-discipline-gap-2015-summary.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014). Civil rights data collection data snapshot: School discipline. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-discipline-snapshot.pdf
American Academy of Pediatrics. (2013, February 25). Out-of-school suspension and expulsion. Pediatrics, 131, e1000-e1007. Doi:10.1542/peds.2012-3932
Ward, S.F. (2014, August 1). Schools Start to Rethink Zero Tolerance Policies. ABA Journal.
Ward, S.F. and Losen, D.J. (2014, August 4). How do we fix the school-to-prison pipeline? ABA Journal Podcast. Retreived from http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/podcast_monthly_episode_53
Darder, A. (2007) "Al Amanecer/At Dawn" Multicultural Education Journal (Spring).
Skiba R.J., Reynolds, C.R., Graham, S., Shera, P., Conoley, J.C., and Garcia-Vasquez, E. (2006). Are zero-tolerance policies effective in schools? Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-882, §14601 (1994).
Drug-Free Schools and Community Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1011i; 34 C.F.R. § 86.1 (1990).
Royce, E. (2009). Poverty and Power: A Structural Perspective on American Inequality. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Weinstein, C. S., Tomlinson-Clarke, S., & Curran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of culturally responsive classroom management. Journal of Teacher Education, 55(1), 25-38.
Darder, A. (2014). Racism and the Charter School Movement: Unveiling the Myths. Truthout.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317-342.
Christle, C. A., Jolivette, K., & Nelson, C. M. (2005). Breaking the school to prison pipeline: Identifying school risk and protective factors for youth delinquency. Exceptionality, 13(2), 69-88.
Johnson, D., & Johnson, R. (2000). The Three Cs of Reducing Prejudice. Reducing prejudice and discrimination, 239.
Cozolino, L. (2013). The Social Neuroscience of Education: Optimizing Attachment and Learning in the Classroom (The Norton Series on the Social Neuroscience of Education). WW Norton & Company.
Osher, D., Coggshall, J., Colombi, G., Woodruff, D., Francois, S., & Osher, T. (2012). Building school and teacher capacity to eliminate the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children, 35(4), 284-295.
Noguera, P.A. (2003). The Trouble with Black Boys: The Role and Influence of Environmental and Cultural Factors on the Academic Performance of African American Males. Urban Education, 38(4), 431-59.
Skiba, R. J., & Knesting, K. (2001). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice. New directions for youth development, 2001(92), 17-43.