Five Reasons Why Its Roll-Out Wasn’t Warranted in the First Place
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the
Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
Dear
Colleagues,
Introduction
Scrolling through last weekend’s Twitter
feed, my attention was drawn to one from the National Association of
Elementary School Principals (NAESP). It stated:
“Leaders in district after
district, sometimes with prodding from state legislators, are now rolling back
more lenient restorative discipline policies and relying again on suspensions
and other punitive measures.”
The post was linked to an article in
District Administration by
Matt Zalaznick, “Backlash Against Restorative Discipline is Growing as Behavior
Breaks Down.”
Zalaznick stated:
“The pre-pandemic shift from zero tolerance to
restorative discipline is buckling across K12, even years after the return to
in-person learning, as educators continue to grapple with a surge of
misbehavior in all grade levels.
The backlash is taking place even as data continues to
show that Black students and other groups of children continue to face
discipline that’s disproportionately more severe.”
In a section titled “A Restorative
Discipline Dilemma?” he then proceeded to report that Restorative Practices
have recently been removed in Prince William County (MD) and in the entire
state of Nevada. He also noted that a new law in Kentucky (signed March 23,
2023) “requires school boards to expel for at least 12 months any students who
threaten or pose a danger to classmates or staff,” while also suspending
students who have been removed from class for discipline three times in a
30-day period.
_ _ _ _ _
Over the years, I have written many Blogs
documenting—with data and evidence, science and analysis—the case against
Restorative Justice programs.
I have also discussed—again from a
documented science-to-practice perspective—where restorative practices—that
separately exist from packaged Programs—might effectively fit into a school’s
discipline system.
But here again, I do not globally discuss
generic and unspecified “restorative practices” as many of my colleagues.
Instead, I have talked about specific restorative strategies, and
which ones are beneficial, and which ones are “fluff.”
Critically, none of these practices
or strategies are new. Many of them are simply effective classroom management
approaches. Nonetheless, they have been “packaged and marketed” as something “new
and improved.” When used strategically, they worked in the past, and they will
work in the future—with or without the “restorative branding.”
_ _ _ _ _
And so. . . with this as an Introduction. .
. in this Blog, I want to summarize some of my previous discussions, and then discuss
the “Five Reasons” why the Restorative Discipline bandwagon needs to be put
back into the garage.
Clearly, per NAESP and Zalaznick, this is
already beginning to happen.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Restorative
Discipline is Not Supported by Objective, Well-Designed Research
Historically, and consistent with a movement
to use restorative justice as an alternative in the criminal justice system,
school-based restorative practices can be traced to Queensland, Australia
around 1994.
While there is no chronological benchmark
documenting its formal introduction into U.S. schools, enough schools were
exploring Restorative Discipline approaches (we are using this term to combine
both packaged Restorative Justice Programs and generic restorative practices)
that, in 2013, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded the nonprofit
research and development agency, WestEd, to study its use and efficacy.
So let’s conservatively
say that Restorative Discipline approaches have been in U.S. schools for the
better part of ten to fifteen years
From the beginning, Restorative Discipline
approaches were marketed to educators to solve two perennial school problems:
·
How to
motivate students to make appropriate prosocial choices, while holding them
accountable for their inappropriate behavior; and
·
How to
eliminate the gap whereby students of color and with disabilities are
disproportionately disciplined—especially for mild interpersonal, disruption,
or noncompliance “problems”—while their White peers are not.
But, as discussed in my last
Blog. . .
June 24, 2023—CLICK HERE TO
LINK
“New Paths to Address
Disproportionate Discipline with Black Students: New Directives, Research,
Solutions, and Another Example of Racial Hate”
. . . Restorative Discipline—along
with so many other “promising” approaches—has not significantly changed these two
problems.
Indeed:
· Few school-based Restorative
(Justice/Practice) programs have ever been objectively studied using sound
research methods; and
· The
most methodologically-sound research studies report that their Restorative
(Justice/Practice) programs have actually produced negative results relative to
student behavior and academic achievement, and significant backlash relative to
teacher/staff morale, administrative support, and sustained classroom
management success.
A critical point here
is that—while there are articles with testimonials regarding the “success” of
Restorative Discipline—there are few methodologically-sound research studies that,
when analyzed objectively, empirically demonstrate its effectiveness.
Indeed, the most comprehensive and
sound research-to-practice study of a Restorative Practice Program (the International
Institute for Restorative Practices’ “SaferSanerSchools” program) is still the one implemented
during the 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 school years in the Pittsburgh (PA) School
District.
Involving 22 randomly-selected schools matched
to 22 non-participating Comparison schools, the surface-level results
(that the Program Developers touted) were that, in the Restorative Practices
schools: (a) alternative school placements decreased; (b) students were less
likely to be suspended multiple times; (c) disparities in suspension rates
between African-American (vs. Caucasian), and low-income (vs. higher-income)
students, respectively, decreased; and (d) suspension rates for female students
declined.
But when you read the 132-page independent Rand
Corporation report that objectively analyzed this study, the deeper-level
results tell a different story:
·
While
suspension rates in the Restorative Practices schools declined by 36% during
the two-year study, suspension rates in the Comparison schools also declined
18% during the same time period.
·
The
overall suspension results were driven by lower rates in the Restorative
Practices elementary schools.
·
Fewer
suspensions were not found in the Restorative Practices Middle schools (Grades
6 to 8).
·
Fewer
suspensions were not found for male students or students with disabilities.
·
There
were no reductions in student arrests, or for incidents of violence or weapons
violations.
·
In
the Restorative Practices Middle schools, academic outcomes actually worsened
when compared with the Comparison schools.
·
Survey
results from staff in the Restorative Practices schools indicated that they did
not think the IIRP program was affecting student behavior. They did, however,
report that their relationships with students had improved because of program
involvement.
For more details and analysis, see my
previous Blogs:
January 26,
2019—CLICK HERE TO LINK
“New
Rand Corporation Study Finds Restorative Practices Produce Mixed and
Underwhelming Results: But Some Publications are “Spinning” the Outcomes and Twisting
these Results”
_ _ _ _
_
July 10, 2021—CLICK HERE TO LINK
“Reconsidering
or Rejecting SEL/Character Education, Meditation/ Mindfulness/Trauma-Informed,
and Restorative Justice Programs: Put on Your Hard Hat and Bring Your Lunch
Pail” (Part
II)
_ _ _ _ _
These
less-than-glamourous deeper results were compounded a few years later when two 2022
reports questioned the student discipline, suspension, and arrest data from the
Pittsburgh School District for the 2017-2018 school year (one year after the SaferSanerSchools
study concluded).
One of these
studies found discrepancies between the District’s and the County’s
data—suggesting that school districts were under-reporting student referrals to
police and arrests.
The other study
found—according to data reported to the U.S. Department of Education—that no
Pittsburgh District students were arrested at school during the 2017-2018
school year—an impossible-to-believe statistic.
These reports were
discussed in my February 5, 2022 Blog:
“Why Do
They Keep Trying to ‘Validate’ Restorative Practices with Lousy (or Worse)
Data? More
Proof that Schools Need to Avoid Restorative (Justice) Programs and Practices”
CLICK
HERE TO LINK
This February 2022
Blog reflected on the discipline data errors addressed in these two reports,
wondering about the validity of the Restorative Discipline study’s data the two
years before.
Indeed, what if the
Restorative Discipline results also were under-reported? That would suggest
even worse outcomes than were reported.
_ _ _ _ _
Finally, a more recent
Pittsburgh School District update was just published.
A June 26, 2023
story a few weeks ago by Julia Felton in the Western Pennsylvania on-line
newspaper, TRIBLive (“Activists call on Pittsburgh Public Schools to stop
issuing citations against students, cut back on suspensions”) reported the
following:
According to data provided by 412 Justice (an
advocacy organization), the rate of summary citations (these are real tickets
written by campus police for student offenses) was 12 times higher for Black
students than white students in the 2021-2022 academic year, a disparity that
has tripled since the 2017-2018 school year.
The organization cited statistics showing that Black
girls are more than 24 times more likely to get a summary citation at school
than white girls, and the rate of summary citations is almost 11 times higher
for Black boys compared to their white counterparts.
The rate of summary citations was nearly double for
students with disabilities compared to students without disabilities, according
to 412 Justice.
According to Pittsburgh Public Schools data, the
district (also) saw a 13.3% suspension rate in the 2022-2023 school year, up
from 12.1% the prior year. Black students saw a 19.3% suspension rate during
the last academic year, compared to a 6.7% suspension rate for white students.
Students missed more than 10,900 days of school due to
suspensions, with more than 8,000 of those days impacting Black students.
Students in kindergarten through second grade missed
230 days due to suspension in the last school year, according to PPS data,
while students in grades three through five missed more than 1,000 days.
The district reported that 2,624 students were
suspended in the 2022-2023 school year, up from 2,457 the prior year.
Clearly, one year
after the conclusion of the study, the Pittsburgh School District did not
maintain its Restorative Discipline program. Moreover, as reported by Zalaznick
in the Twitter-feed article at the beginning of this Blog, this has resulted in
a return to suspending more students, and continued disparities for students of
color and with disabilities.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Some Articles Disingenuously
Report Restorative Discipline Successes (or Are They Just Not Doing their
Homework?)
We have also
previously discussed how educators cannot trust the Restorative Discipline headlines
in some popularly published articles—much less the highlights, or even the
analyses.
We demonstrated this
by citing a number of specific examples in our January 26, 2019 Blog (cited/linked
above).
But educators also
cannot trust the headlines and technical reports sometimes published by highly-regarded
research and development centers that are supposed to be trustworthy.
In our February 5, 2022 Blog (cited/linked
above), we told the story of a July
2021 Research Brief from WestEd, a “non-profit” agency that receives
millions of dollars in contracts each year from the U.S. Department of
Education. Some of these funds support a number of National Technical
Assistance Centers—including the National Center for Systemic (Special
Education) Improvement and the Center to Improve Social and Emotional Learning
and School Safety—that WestEd, in essence, runs for the Federal
government.
The study, “Can Restorative Practices Bridge
Racial Disparities in Schools?” was promoted in numerous national press releases.
. . but, as we delineated in our February, 2022 Blog, the survey used in the
study was (a) neither about Restorative Practices, (b) nor was WestEd’s
culling or interpretation of the data methodologically sound.
In our independent critique of the study, we
quoted the Research Brief’s admission of its own limitations, and then we
identified three methodological flaws.
Quoting from our
previous Blog:
As
a first step in critiquing the WestEd research, let’s listen to what the authors
of the Brief said in the piece:
“Limitations. It is important to note that our
models are not designed to estimate “causal” effects. In other words, we cannot
glean from these models whether exposure to restorative practices causes fewer
suspensions or improved GPAs. Instead, we can only say that restorative
practices are associated with the aforementioned positive outcomes.
That is, student exposure to greater levels of
restorative practices tended to coincide with less discipline exposure, smaller
racial discipline disparities, and better academic achievement.
While we controlled for a range of student, parent,
and district factors, there were many factors that we did not control for
because they were not available in our data.
Thus, based on the data available to us, while it is
possible that student exposure to restorative practices does indeed abridge
discipline disparities and improve academic achievement, it is also possible
that unobserved student-, school-, or community-level characteristics drove
both student exposure to restorative practices and student outcomes. Additional
research is thus warranted to estimate the causal effect of these practices.
Another critical facet of this research is that we
were (intentionally) not identifying the impact of restorative programming
(i.e., teachers receiving professional development in restorative practices).
Instead, we were attempting to evaluate restorative practices (i.e., students
being exposed to teachers who actually, for example, help resolve conflicts or
inculcate conflict resolution skills).”
_ _ _ _ _
Given
this “confession” by the authors (with more to come below), there are three
primary reasons why this Brief should never have been published and why it
cannot be used to validate the utility of the Restorative practices
“investigated.”
Research
Rejection #1: “Restorative Practices”
data. This was NOT a study of Restorative practices; it was a study of what the
authors subjectively decided were Restorative practices, pulled from a large
statewide survey.
Research
Rejection #2: Student Achievement Data.
ALL of the data in this study involved student survey responses. Thus,
this was a study evaluating students’ perceptions.
No objective data was collected, and none of the
students’ perspectives or perceptions were validated using cumulative record,
teacher, administrator, or other data.
Research
Rejection #3: Student Suspension
Data. Similar to the achievement data, the authors did not analyze objective
student suspension data. . . they analyzed student survey reports of suspensions
that were never validated.
_ _
_ _ _
The “bottom line”
here is that unsuspecting (perhaps, overly-trusting) educators have fallen prey
to researchers, authors, and journalists who either are incompetent (which I
doubt), or are forwarding their own agenda.
The more serious
problem here is that—when unproven and unsound Restorative Discipline
approaches are implemented—they may replicate the Pittsburgh School District
results and actually do damage to students.
This additionally
translates into wasted administrative, teacher, and support staff time, effort,
funding, and personnel (also, personal) commitments.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Five Reasons Why Restorative Discipline’s Faulty
Roll-Out Has Persisted
There are five
reasons that explain the beginning and the continuation of Restorative
Discipline’s “group contagion bandwagon.”
They are:
· Simplicity
vs. Complexity
· Social
Psychology vs. Singular Voices
· Supernatural
vs. Scientific Thinking
· Self-Protection
vs. Self-Evaluation
· Social
Media vs. Social Justice
Simplicity vs. Complexity
While it is important to “keep things simple,” it is also important not
to over-simplify when dealing with human (system, staff, and student) behavior.
From a systems perspective, we have seen how some educators gravitate to
over-simplistic “solutions” to student misbehavior and disproportionality
because they cannot or do not want to acknowledge the complexity of students’
inappropriate behavior. Critically, their solutions simply have not changed the
disproportionality numbers.
For example, zero tolerance and “no-suspension” policies, respectively,
have not worked and have, in fact, been counterproductive.
While zero tolerance policies and procedures have not changed many
students’ inappropriate behavior, they have increased disproportionate
suspensions and alternative school placements. And yet, according to Zalaznick
above, some states are shelving restorative discipline (which is good), but
returning to zero tolerance approaches (which is ill-advised).
No-suspension policies (where students cannot be suspended, for example,
from kindergarten through Grade 3) have lowered school suspension numbers, but
not changed students’ inappropriate behavior or the disproportionality gaps.
Human behavior is complex. And there are many possible reasons (see
below) to explain students’ misbehavior. But psychologically, it is easier
(e.g., more comfortable or comforting) for some to over-simplify. It takes far more
work to analyze and address the complexities of student behavior and act in
more strategic, individualistic ways.
Suggesting Restorative Discipline has become another “easy” policy and
practice recommendation. But—as discussed above and in our past Blogs—the
desired outcomes have not resulted.
_ _ _ _ _
Social Psychology vs. Singular
Voices
The Restorative Practices bandwagon has been fed both by social
psychological group-think and social contagion processes.
The group-think “movement” has been fed by public testimonials,
pressure, and publicity, as well as vendors and naïve (and sometimes
well-meaning) practitioners with approaches that have never been validated through
methodologically-sound research.
Given all of this, the line of lemmings has gotten longer and longer—a
reflection of the effects of social contagion.
And both processes make it almost impossible for those “caught in the
whirlwind” to disengage and look objectively at the facts. Hence, anyone
presenting contrary data or results that suggest that Restorative Practices do
not work (or worse) are rejected and summarily dismissed.
It’s difficult to detach yourself from the whirlwind to potentially side
with a singular voice—even though it is the correct voice. It is unsettling,
feels risky, and produces fears of ostracism or loneliness—especially when you
are not “an expert” in the area.
Social contagion occurs when individuals “lose” (or give up) their
identities because of overt or covert group presence or pressure, and they
blindly conform to the group’s ideas, attitudes, or behavioral patterns.
While Zalznick is suggesting that, right now, there are more “singular
voices” questioning Restorative Discipline practices, the question is,
”Will these voices merge and become
loud enough to combat still-existing social psychological pressure so that a
systemic recalibration can occur?”
_ _ _ _ _
Supernatural vs. Scientific
Thinking
The beginning of the headline song in Disney’s Pinocchio reads,
When
you wish upon a star
Makes no difference who you are
Anything your heart desires
Will come to you
Unfortunately, I have consulted with too many school leaders who try to
address their significant disproportionate discipline problems though “magical
thinking” tied to Restorative Discipline (and similar) approaches.
Beyond their inattention or disregard to the body of research that has
never objectively validated the approach, they often believe that they can just
(a) talk with their staff about why Restorative Practices are important, or (b)
host a “spray and pray” in-service workshop, and—magically—all of their disproportionality
problems will disappear like Pinocchio’s nose after he decides to tell the
truth.
But beyond the absence of Restorative
Discipline validation as a whole, the fact is that many of its individual
“practices” are simply effective classroom management strategies branded by the
Restorative Discipline vendors.
Specifically, here are the “David Letterman
Top-Ten Restorative Practices across the web (no surprises here):
1.
Affective statements that express feelings and
impacts of actions
2.
Setting classroom agreements or norms that
establish shared expectations and values
3.
Community-building circles that create safe
spaces for dialogue and connection
4.
Small impromptu conferences that involve the parties affected by an
incident
5.
Problem-solving circles that involve a group of
stakeholders needing to resolve a conflict
6.
Peer-based conferences or mediation, peer
juries, or justice panels
7.
Victim-offender review, resolution, and/or
remediation conferences or mediations involving a face-to-face meeting between a
victim and an offender
8.
Victim assistance that supports the needs and
rights of victims and survivors of crime
9.
Community service, restitution, or reimbursement
that allows offenders to make amends for their actions
10. Family
group conferencing that empowers the family and community of the offender to
take responsibility and find solutions
There are no surprises here. We’ve been
using these strategies in schools for well over the forty years that I have
been a school psychologist. What is surprising is that these are “new”
strategies to some educators, the Restorative Discipline “gurus” have the chutzpah
to claim these as their own, and some educators (again) have fallen into this
branding and marketing ploy.
Critically, the biggest problem with the
assortment of individual restorative practices above is that there is no
empirical research identifying exactly which practices will successfully
change what social, emotional, or behavioral student problems in the
presence of specific school or classroom conditions.
_ _ _ _ _
Self-Protection vs. Self-Evaluation
Our last Blog:
June 24, 2023—CLICK HERE TO
LINK
“New Paths to Address
Disproportionate Discipline with Black Students: New Directives, Research,
Solutions, and Another Example of Racial Hate”
. . . re-visited the ongoing persistence
of disproportionate office discipline referrals and school suspensions for
students of color and with disabilities by reviewing two very new research
studies.
The first
experimental study, involving 1,339 virtually-recruited middle and high school
teachers who taught at 295 different schools across the United States, showed
that:
(1) at the
individual teacher level, Black boys are perceived as being more blameworthy
and referred to the principal more readily than White boys for identical
misbehavior, and
(2) at the
organization level, blaming climates among teachers in minority schools mean
each percentage-point higher Black or Latinx enrollment is significantly
associated with greater perceived blameworthiness for students of all
racial/ethnic backgrounds, compared to teachers viewing identical misbehavior
in White schools.
_ _ _ _ _
The second study, analyzing
data from four full school years and involving 227,922 student-year
observations in a large urban school district in California, found that
While Black students only accounted for 7% of all
students enrolled in the district and 12% of students in top office discipline referrers’
classrooms, they represented close to 22% of all referred students and 27% of
students referred by top referrers.
Years of experience seems to be a particularly salient
predictor of disproportionate office discipline referrals involving Black
student—one that holds across school levels. Together, the results suggest that
teachers who are White, early career, and serve middle schools are the ones who
engage more in extensive referring.
These studies
clearly implicate the presence and effects of explicit and implicit bias of
White (and other) teachers against Black students who demonstrate the same mild
to moderate interpersonal, disruptive, or noncompliance challenges that White
students demonstrate.
Despite this clear
bias, it is easier for district leaders and school administrators to ignore the
apparent.
They do this by
“intellectualizing” the issue, focusing on teaching staff Restorative
Discipline strategies that they will then use with students, instead of having
the staff discussions, training, and supervision that may make their
colleagues uncomfortable.
Critically, based
on research-to-practice, this training should focus on the presence and effects
of bias, as well as how to (a) build and sustain positive staff-student and
student-student relationships and classroom climate; (b) use positive, equitable,
and responsive classroom management systems; and (c) correct and change
inappropriate student behavior in a multi-tiered system of supports context.
By avoiding the
bias issue, school leaders reinforce everyone’s natural inclination to protect
our feelings of adequacy, integrity, and self-esteem, while discouraging the
self-evaluation that we all need to continue our personal and professional
growth.
Moreover, this
avoidance is parallel to what has occurred in some states where they have
sanitized Black history and “outlawed” discussions of race in our schools. . .
for fear that some students will feel uncomfortable or even guilty?
Parenthetically, why
is it that we can (or must) discuss the Holocaust, the Japanese internment
camps of World War II, and the mid-17th to 20th century
Boarding Schools filled with Native American children. . . and we cannot honestly
address the depth and breadth of Black history?
_ _ _ _ _
Social Media vs. Social Justice
This last reason—that
explains the beginning and continuation of Restorative Discipline’s “group
contagion bandwagon”—reflects the contrast between social media and social
justice.
For less than $100,
anyone can purchase a website, open a social media account, conduct a survey,
and post “research” that their approach to Restorative Discipline is “effective”
and even “favored” in the field.
And while I am somewhat
over-stating this reality to make a point, the popular press, social media, and
some publishers and vendors (as shown above and in past Blogs) have helped
drive the Restorative Discipline bandwagon.
To confuse the
issue even further, some Black advocacy groups also have promoted Restorative
Justice in the name of social justice (note the historical roots of restorative
practices in Australia within the criminal justice reform movement).
This is all very
confusing to many educators—especially those who (as above) do not recognize
the Restorative Discipline research gaps.
But we need to get
this right.
Disproportionate
school-based office discipline referrals, law enforcement arrests, corporal
punishments, alternative program placements, suspensions, and expulsions are
a true social justice challenge.
They follow in the
same historical footsteps as slavery, lynchings, false incarcerations, the Jim
Crow laws, segregation, Red Lining, the Tulsa Race Massacre, and many other
atrocities.
We need to be more
critical consumers of the research and practice, false or disingenuous social
media marketing, and political and profit-centered “wolves” hiding in “sheep’s
clothing.”
But we also need
to use our own social media posts to advocate for social justice by emphasizing
(as in this entire Blog section) that disproportionate discipline issues in our
schools require:
· Complex
analyses with strategic interventions—based on Science and not Magical
Thinking—that are directly connected to those analyses;
· A
cacophony of elevated Singular Voices that unite (a) to counter the “noise” of
those who recommend unproven strategies or interventions that waste our time
and set us back; and (b) to guide the implementation of the multi-faceted,
multi-tiered interventions needed for this complex situation; and
· Self-Evaluation,
self-awareness, and self-improvement, rather than avoidance, self-protection,
and defensiveness.
As noted, we need
to get this right.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
In the Final Analysis. . .
In the final
analysis, restorative practices typically are only needed or used when students
have already misbehaved or demonstrated antisocial behavior.
Moreover, the hypothetical
restorative belief is that—when students are held accountable for their
behavior, and are “confronted” with their offense, for example, by
participating in a restorative circle of their peers, apologizing, restoring a
damaged setting or relationship, and/or providing physical or monetary restitution—they
will consciously avoid future inappropriate behavior.
And this is the
point.
Scientifically,
restorative practices (a) occur after an inappropriate behavior has
occurred—even though all of us want to prevent the inappropriate
behavior in the first place; and (b) they occur because a student has made a
choice to demonstrate the inappropriate behavior.
And yet, there are
many other reasons why students demonstrate inappropriate behavior. . . reasons
that restorative practices will not change.
Indeed,
inappropriate student behavior also occurs due to one or more of the following root
causes:
· The
student is experiencing a significant biological, physiological, biochemical,
neurological, cognitive, or other organically-determined behavioral health
issues or concern
· The
student is experiencing a setting with a significant negative climate and/or
relationships (e.g., that is toxic, dangerous, threatening, or unpredictable)
· The
student does not have the interpersonal, social problem-solving, and/or conflict
prevention or resolution skills to demonstrate the appropriate behavior
· The
student does not have the emotional awareness, control, communication, or
coping skills to handle emotional situations that require appropriate behavior
or interactions
· The
student is not held consistently accountable for inappropriate behavior (e.g.,
by adults or peers) which reinforces and strengthens that behavior as, for
example, some teachers allow it or “look the other way”—letting the student
“get away with it,” while other teachers appropriately confront, stop, and
provide consequences for it
· The
student has a teacher who has not been taught or has poor classroom management
skills, or the student is in a common school area (e.g., a cafeteria,
playground, bus, bathroom) with insufficient or poor supervision, or unclear
expectations or incentives/consequences
· The
student’s inappropriate behavior is reinforced by a peer culture or group where
this reinforcement is stronger or more valued by the student over the
appropriate expectations or the adult consequences
· The
student’s inappropriate behavior occurs due to clinical anxiety, stress, or trauma;
a disability or mental health issue (e.g., conduct disorders); or a related
special or unique situation
Once again,
retroactive restorative practices will not enact or facilitate a change
in students’ inappropriate behavior when the root causes above are present.
Explicitly. . .
restorative practices do not change or prepare a student:
· With
a significant biological, physiological, biochemical, neurological, cognitive,
or other organically-determined behavioral health issues or concern
· In
settings with a significant negative climate and/or relationships
· Who
has not learned and mastered the interpersonal, social problem-solving, and/or
conflict prevention or resolution skills needed to demonstrate appropriate
behavior in specific situations
· Who
has not learned and mastered the emotional awareness, control, communication,
or coping skills required to handle emotional situations
· Who
is not held consistently accountable for inappropriate behavior by adults or
peers
· Who
has a teacher or others (depending on the school setting) who has not learned or
has poor behavior management skills
· Whose
inappropriate behavior occurs because peer attention and reinforcement is
stronger or more valued than adult reinforcement or consequences
· Whose
inappropriate behavior occurs due to a disability, mental health, or traumatic
(or similar) situation
Beyond this, when
students consciously choose to demonstrate inappropriate behavior, restorative
practice responses will not change (and are illogical and out-of-place for)
behaviors that are intense, extreme,
dangerous, physically harmful, abusive, destructive, or significantly
anti-social.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Summary
This Blog began
with a simple National Association of Elementary School Principal’s
Twitter post—linked to a recent District Administration article—that proclaimed:
“Leaders in district after
district, sometimes with prodding from state legislators, are now rolling back
more lenient restorative discipline policies and relying again on suspensions
and other punitive measures.”
We used this post and article to reinforce some
critical research and points from our past Blogs, and some new
perspectives (in this Blog) to emphasize that Restorative Discipline (a) has
largely been a media-fed bandwagon that (b) has never been validated through
methodologically-sound research, (c) included some effective classroom
management strategies in its branding efforts, and (d) has been maintained by a
“group contagion bandwagon” buoyed by educators’ psychological
inclination for:
· Simplicity
(vs. Complexity)
· Being
Part of a Group (vs. Standing on their Own)
· Supernatural
or Wishful Thinking (vs. Scientific or Data-Driven Thinking)
· Protecting
their Feelings of Adequacy and Self-Esteem (vs. Evaluating their Beliefs,
Biases, and Behaviors)
· Trusting
the Popular Press and Social Media (vs. Recognizing Explicit and Implicit
assaults on Social Justice)
In the end, we are hopeful that (a) a full
roll-back of Restorative Discipline programs occurs, (b) states and
districts do not accompany this roll-back with a return to zero
tolerance approaches, and (c) school leaders continue to use the
scientifically-proven classroom management strategies and interventions that
have been long-established (and do not need concurrent Restorative Discipline
frameworks for success).
Beyond discussing the five dynamics above in
detail, we also:
·
Discussed
Restorative Discipline in the context of schools’ disproportionate office
discipline referrals and suspensions of students of color and with
disabilities;
·
Revisited
the Pittsburgh School District study where a specific Restorative Practice
program produced negative results relative to student behavior and
academic achievement, teacher/staff morale, administrative support, and sustained
classroom management success’
·
Showed
how both the popular press and some professional organizations have irresponsibly
published works that ignore or misinterpret the Restorative Discipline data,
offering false support to its implementation;
·
Noted
that Restorative Discipline is not a preventative process as it occurs after a
student has misbehaved or demonstrated anti-social behavior, and assumes that
the student has chosen the inappropriate act; and
·
Detailed
a number of other reasons why students behave badly, emphasizing that
Restorative Discipline will not change their future behavior because it does
not scientifically connect to these root causes.
In the end, this is
not a rant to “take down” Restorative Discipline, and—other than wanting
educators to use effective practices that have the highest probability of
classroom management and student behavior success—this is not a personal agenda
for me.
As an student and
social justice advocate, however, there is a professional agenda here.
But it is a
professional agenda that all of us should embrace—regardless of race,
religion, ethnicity, political affiliation, or family history or background.
_ _ _ _ _
As always, I
appreciate those of you who read these Blogs—especially during your summer
break, and I hope they are useful to you.
If you want to read
more research-to-practice solutions for the disproportionate disciplinary
actions taken against students of color and with disabilities, go to our
three-part Blog Series that began on July 31, 2021.
[CLICK HERE for Part I:
The
Critical Common Sense Components Needed to Eliminate Disproportionate School
Discipline Referrals and Suspensions for Students of Color: This
is NOT About Critical Race Theory (But We Discuss It)]
_ _ _ _ _
Meanwhile, if I can
help you, your colleagues, your school, your district, or those in your
professional setting to address your students’ social, emotional, or behavioral
challenges, send me an email and let’s set up a time to talk. This first
consultation hour is on the house.
Best,
Howie
[CLICK HERE to read this Blog on the Project ACHIEVE Webpage]
