RUNNING HEAD: RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 1

Restorative Practices Improve Student Outcomes: A Proposal

Chris Kasnot

Arizona State University

12/04/20

SED 322-83632
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 2

Introduction

An interesting challenge that teachers are facing today is the punishment focused

administrative response to discipline with trouble students and the lingering issues that follow.

Let’s face it, punishment is easy and doesn’t require much thought or effort. You break the rules,

you get kicked out of class; you keep breaking them, you get suspended. Full stop. At first glance

it just feels right, especially considering how our current punitive criminal justice system works:

“you do the crime you get the time”. But is a punishment model of discipline actually an

effective method of deterrence or even promoting corrective action in students? To use the

previous example, the U.S. incarceration and reoffending rates should cause even the casual

reader to pause and reconsider. That is not to say that there should not be consequences for

negative behaviors, but we shouldn’t be designing consequences to make students suffer, face

exclusion, and fall behind socially and academically.

In this proposal, it will become clear that punishment based discipline fails in several

major ways. First, punishment does not promote, teach, or model appropriate behavior. When a

student falls behind academically, we don’t “take away”, we provide additional resources,

differentiation, and/or academic plans. Why is behavior treated differently? Students that are

falling behind behaviorally need to have proper social conduct modeled and scaffolded forward

so they can better relate to others, behave to expectation in the classroom, and eventually

transition to adulthood and the workplace. Secondly, punishment through punishment based

discipline systems accelerates aggression, truancy, and other negative outcomes (Rosenbaum,

2018). I will be exploring this point in-depth in the Review of Literature section, however it

should be noted here that we see this modeled already in our justice system. Minor crimes lead to

incarceration, which lead to major crimes. In schools we see the same transitions, minor
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 3

infractions in behavior are punished, which in turn lead to major infractions that get students

suspended or even eventually expelled. When students do not have support systems in place to

explore, model, and have appropriate behavior reinforced and are instead simply punished and

cast out, is it really a wonder why they have such difficulty? Thirdly, punishment based

discipline subverts the socio-emotional connections that teachers painstakingly build with their

students and turns the students against them (Smith, Fischer, & Frey, 2015) No one likes facing

negative consequences and the punished tend to not look kindly upon their punisher. Teachers

work tirelessly to build up trust and create bonds with their students and can often be one of the

only positive adult voices in their lives. Being a disciplinarian is a one way ticket to losing

everything that has been built up. Finally, regardless of how self-explanatory it sounds, it must

be noted that when students are out of the classroom they are falling behind academically. When

students are behind academically, in addition to their behavioral challenges, they are being set up

to fail. There is no worse feeling than coming in to class or a meeting and everyone else knows

what is going on except for you. Imagine facing all of this from the student’s perspective, “I’m

behind in school, everyone’s smarter than me, my teacher hates me, I keep getting in trouble

over and over. I don’t know what to do. Maybe I am a bad kid.” The eyes glaze over and that

student feels lost, alone, and angry, then starts to act out more, further perpetuating the cycle

(Yang, 2019).

Environment Analysis

Internal Strengths

First of note, many of the systems that would allow for a transition away from

punishment based discipline are already in place and only require a change of policy and

training. Many schools already have dedicated teacher training sessions and all that would be
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 4

required is shifting the topic. Additionally, the teaching profession in and of itself is staffed by

generally empathic people. I have yet to meet a teacher that wants to suspend or expel students,

as they understand what kind of negative experiences will follow. Teachers also understand that

traditional punishment models only escalate power struggles and accelerate the cycle of conflict

and would welcome a new approach that keeps students in class with better behavior. One final

strength is the ability to perform a back out strategy to reinstitute the current methodology. We

may be able to increase buy in from any skeptical administrators or teachers by putting a timeline

towards reassessment on the new discipline strategy. This way, there is a fall back plan which

provides a mental safety net for those that are not completely bought in on the onset.

Internal Weaknesses

Let’s face it, punishment is easy. It is much easier to suspend a student for misbehavior

than it is to start modeling proper behavior, implement activities that teach socio-emotional

competency, challenge self-centered thinking, and provide opportunities for students to practice

and apply behavioral skills. Zero tolerance policies have little operating room and provide clear

instructions on what to do and when, whereas behavioral discipline is as individual as each

student we’ll have and will require a customized approach nearly every time. This can be a

difficult proposition, especially for teachers and administrators that have been working under

zero tolerance policies for a long time, as any learned behavior can become ingrained the longer

it goes on. This is especially challenging as an entire change of discipline model requires the buy

in of nearly every member of staff. You can’t have one teacher promoting dialogues and

mediation and another teacher kicking students out of class for talking back. This will create

confusion amongst students and does not promote a stable and safe environment for learning.

Also of note, the time requirements needed can be considered a challenge. Changing the
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 5

paradigm of an entire school’s discipline model takes time. Most conservative program estimates

note that a system change can take at least three to five years, which is a long time to operate

without promised results (Denver School-Based Restorative Practices Partnership, 2017).

Finally, with the addition of more School Resource Officers in recent years, teachers and

administration utilize the police presence as a quick and easy way to intimidate and oppress their

students into compliance (Reilly, 2020). A new system focused on school based, not law

enforcement based, discipline can be considered a foreign concept to those embedded in the

culture. (Yang, 2019).

External Opportunities

There have been massive strides in the past decade to research alternative methodology in

regards to discipline. Enough time has passed that there are now definitive conclusions in

research that point to punishment focused discipline as ineffective and hurting student outcomes.

No longer will this methodology be considered experimental or fringe, we now have the

evidence that these programs work and are more effective for students and teachers.

Additionally, there are now research-based plans constructed by behavioral experts that allow for

easy implementation of alternative discipline programs. Those that wish to adopt these programs

do not have to experiment or practice with trial and error, as these programs have clearly defined

instructions that allow for all members of the process to understand their roles. One other

opportunity of note is the Arizona State Juvenile Diversion program, which allows juveniles the

ability to accept guilt, complete a diversion program, and not have their first or second

misdemeanor or first drug offense filed in court (Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, 2020).

This helps keep students out of the justice system for their first few mistakes and starts to slow

the school to prison pipeline. By handing these issues outside of the law and in community or
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 6

school programs, we can slow and even stop the acceleration model of negative outcomes

outlined in the Introduction.

External Challenges

Much as with the issues detailed in Internal Weaknesses, parents and the community are

used to a punishment focused discipline system; they grew up in it, their kids went/are going

through it, and it worked out fine for them. One of the issues is that discipline affects relatively

few individuals within a student body, so people are more likely to ignore them as statistical

outliers. “Why waste time and money trying to help bad kids?” Getting the public to care about

the negative outcomes of only a few students enough to support a shift away from punishment

focused discipline can and will be a challenge. Additionally, this will require resources from the

district/community to implement. Restorative justice coordination is a full time job and training

sessions by professionals cost money and time; things that districts are not keen to lose.

Stakeholder Analysis

Teachers

Teacher buy in is one side of the coin for the most critical aspects of successful change.

We are asking a lot of the teachers by asking them to completely change the way they view

discipline, model behavior, and manage their classrooms. Most of all, teachers stand to lose time

above all else. Standard punishment models require little effort on the teacher’s part, some

paperwork and a call home, whereas teaching and modeling restorative practices requires a

significantly larger investment in time and effort. However, research notes that these restorative

discipline models lower reoffending behaviors, teaches social-emotional learning which

RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 7

improves classroom management/environment, and increases grades and graduation rates; all

things that individual teachers stand to gain.

Students

The other side of the coin is students. Students are being asked to engage in social-

emotional learning and conflict resolution lessons to better understand their own decision making

process and empathize with others. This is something that few students that would face

punishment under old discipline systems understand or have experience exploring. Traditionally,

students would misbehave and receive punishment, never truly understanding what they did or

why they were punished; especially in regards to subjective things like insubordination,

disrespect, defiance, and disruption. For these students there is little to lose by engaging with this

model as they’ll finally have answers to why they got in trouble and how they can change their

behavior. Having a voice in the process, often for the first time, will promote students to want to

be a driving force in discipline process.

Administration

This model asks that administrators move from disciplinarians to facilitators. School

administration needs to believe in the new strategy and implement it with confidence that it will

work. Leadership buy in is vital and teachers and students will turn away from the new discipline

model and revert to the old ways the moment leadership buckles. This new system moves all but

the most serious disciplinary offenses away from administration, and ushers in several new

responsibilities, such as communicating with parents and the community about restorative

practices and ensuring that the new practices become the norm among the staff.

Parents
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 8

Building the most effective restorative culture requires the inclusion of parents as well.

While schools see students for a significant portion of their days, it is the parents that take up the

mantle when their children are home. For parents of students with behavioral issues under

traditional punishment models, their kids, once suspended, face a significantly increased chance

of facing law enforcement and becoming incarcerated, especially if they are a person of color

(Noguera, 2003). Parents have everything to gain, and little to lose outside of time, by engaging

with restorative practices. For some parents, the cycle of misbehavior continues through their

children because they themselves have never engaged in social-emotional learning or modeled

appropriate behavior to their kids. By inviting parents to participate, we can build a sense of

community and hold one another accountable during and after the transition practice.

School District

Ultimately this project can go nowhere without proper funding and buy in from the

district level. On one hand, school districts have a responsibility to their students to provide a

safe environment to learn and opportunities to achieve success; on the other, they have to balance

funding needs of schools. By building relationships with district members and providing

evidence of program successes and milestones, we can obtain the funding to secure better student

outcomes.

Law Enforcement

Traditionally, the police presence on school campus is stated to help enforce

punishments, but according to students is an attempt to intimidate students into compliance

(Reilly, 2020). By reducing their role on campus to only the most extreme circumstances and
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 9

having the school be the main arbiter of discipline, we can reduce the amount of students that

enter the legal system early and are funneled into the school to prison pipeline.

Review of Literature

Rosenbaum, J. (2018)

The Rosenbaum (2018) study Educational and Criminal Justice Outcomes 12 Years After

School Suspension, examines the outcomes at five and twelve years after a K-12 suspension

occurred. The study accounts for sixty “pre-suspension variables including students’ self-

reported delinquency and risk behaviors, parents’ reports of socioeconomic status, and

administrators’ reports of school disciplinary policies” (para. 1). The resource starts with a

literature review of its own, where they note that 35% of students are suspended at least once in

their school careers and that this number has risen drastically since the 1994 Gun-Free Schools

Act which is credited as the starting point of zero tolerance policies. This act required schools

that receive federal funding to implement zero tolerance policies for students bringing weapons

to school with mandatory suspensions. Rosenbaum credits this act as opening the door for state

and local officials to implement more zero tolerance policies as the precedence had been set.

While school suspensions’ original intent was to obtain better behavior and maintain school

norms by removing problem students, Rosenbaum notes otherwise:

“Youth are more likely to be arrested both during the month of suspension and within a

year of suspension. Within a year of suspension, suspended youth are also more likely to

engage in antisocial behavior and use marijuana and tobacco. […] Youth suspended for at

least 10 days were less likely to graduate high school and more likely to be arrested and

incarcerated by the end of the study (ages 26-31). […] Youth suspended in ninth grade
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 10

were less likely to graduate high school, graduate on time, and enroll in postsecondary

education, and more suspensions predicted worse outcomes.” (para. 4)

Rosenbaum (2018) then shifts to their experiment where they perform an analysis of

student outcomes after a student’s first suspension in 1996. This study found that five years after

a student was suspended, they were 8% less likely to earn a high school diploma, 94% less likely

to earn a BA, and 280% more likely to have been expelled over similar youth that had not been

suspended. Additionally, the suspended youth was 40% more likely to have been arrested, 94%

more likely to have been arrested, and 380% likely to have a court conviction before the age of

18. In 2008, 12 years after their initial suspension in 1996, students were 6% less likely to

graduate high school, 24% less likely to have a BA, 30% more likely to have been arrested (51%

more likely to have been arrested twice or more), 23% more likely to have been incarcerated, and

49% more likely to have been on probation. Rosenbaum concludes:

“Suspended youth had lower educational attainment and worse criminal justice outcomes

than nonsuspended youth […] Suspended youth are substantially more likely to become

involved with the criminal justice system, consistent with claims that suspension

facilitates the school-to-prison pipeline. […] Evidence-based positive discipline

approaches may avoid this negative cycle.” (Rosenbaum, 2018, para. 44, 48, 55).

Cathcart, A. M., Palmon, S., & Peterson, R. L., (2015)

The Cathcart, Palmon, and Peterson resource is a strategy brief sponsored by the

University of Nebraska’s Student Engagement Project which aims to assist educators in

improving schools or individual student planning. This brief is specific to their mission to

improve student behavior and academics by reducing exclusionary discipline and dropout. This
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 11

brief is a literature review itself and starts by defining punishment, its historical usage in school

settings, the effectiveness of punishment to change behavior, and the consequences of

punishment.

“Punishment […] can be viewed as retribution for misbehavior, as a behavioral

intervention strategy, or as a part of a restorative plan. Punishment can be used

effectively, particularly for behaviors that are dangerous or need speedy remediation.

However, punishment can have several negative side effects associated with its use

including ethical issues, emotional responses by the student, escape and avoidance,

misuse and over use by the adult, and undesirable modeling by the adult. There are better

options for changing behaviors that are more effective and less harmful to the child.”

(2015, p. 7).

The main concern is that punishment may be a quick and effective way to stop a problem

behavior as it is occurring and potentially act as a deterrent to others, but since it does not model

the expected behavior, students that receive punishment often reoffend. Furthermore, as the

reoffending student progresses to harsher consequences, punishment loses all impact as a

restorative practice and instead becomes an exclusionary and/or retributive practices. Under

these practices students are either removed in a vengeful context where their punishment is

levied in misguided attempt to exact recompense to the school/admin/teacher, or the trouble

student is simply removed in order to maintain the status quo with the other students.

“The majority of suspensions occur because of minor offenses that do not threaten school

safety such as disrespect and tardiness. Suspensions and expulsions may be reinforcing

bad behavior as they allow the student who may not want to be in school anyway to

escape from school for a period of time. These consequences are correlated with
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 12

numerous negative outcomes for students including dropping out of school, low academic

achievement, and ongoing behavior problems.” (2015, p. 4)

The brief concludes by offering alternatives to punishment such as modeling appropriate

behavior, establishing a positive school environments, provide warning signals to students to

respond to instead of continuing negative behavior, employing cognitive behavioral instruction

to help students develop constructive problem solving skills, and teaching students social skills

and conflict resolution strategies. (Cathcart, Palmon, & Peterson, 2015).

Novak, A., (2019)

The purpose of this study is to examine the school-to-prison pipeline by examining the

relationship between low school commitment and deviant peer association mediates the

relationship between a school suspension by age twelve and justice system involvement by

eighteen. This article is a full research study on the direct correlation between exclusionary

punishment systems and the justice system while studying the effects of peer influence and

decreasing attitudes towards school commitments. The author describes her peer reviewed

methodology and procedures, sample sizes, locations, control groups, etc.

Novak’s research results note a disturbing trend that the earlier the suspension occurs in a

student’s life, the more likely justice system involvement occurs. She attributes this to several

key influences. First, “youth who are suspended by the age of 12 are more likely to associate

with deviant peers, indirectly increasing their odds of later justice system involvement.” (2019,

para. 29). Secondly, students experiencing a suspension at a younger age are at an increased

chance of being affected by the labeling effect. This is a trifold issue in which the labeling effect

can compromise a student’s concept of self to the point where they begin to act as they have been
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 13

labeled; it can lead to diminished access to positive social influences, friends, and institutions; it

can also lead to institutional stigmatization where teachers and administrators see the label

before the student. As such, according to the results of the study, all these negative outcomes

double the chances of later justice system contact after a suspension by the age of twelve, which

is more than double Rosenbaum’s model. (Novak, 2019).

“Findings from this study suggest policy makers and practitioners should consider

alternative, nondeterrence-based disciplinary strategies when addressing misbehaviors in

schools. Rather than continuing to rely on exclusionary methods, policy makers and

administrators should consider implementing practices and programs with demonstrated

success in reducing school suspension rates and improving youth behaviors. […]

Restorative justice strategies have the potential to improve school commitment and

reduce school usage of out-of-school suspension, addressing both the direct and indirect

effects identified in this study.” (Novak, 2019, para. 31).

Anyon et al., (2014)

This research study starts with systematic review in which the authors examine a

multitude of research studies to build an understanding of student outcomes in relation to

exclusionary school discipline procedures and restorative approaches. This study first

acknowledges the school-to-prison pipeline and notes the negative trajectory that exclusionary

practices promote:

“Young people who are disciplined in school are at greater risk than other students to

experience a host of academic and psychosocial problems across the lifespan. Youth who

have been suspended or expelled are more likely than other youth to be held back a grade
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 14

level, leave school, or become involved in the juvenile justice system” (Anyon et al.,

2014, para. 1).

Anyon et al. also note that inequalities in academic achievement and incarceration can be tied to

disparities in school discipline processes and the only way to achieve educational equity is to

develop non-exclusionary strategies when responding to student misbehavior. They continue by

detailing the cycle of escalation in which a student is rarely suspended on their first infraction,

instead an office referral is driven by a minor infraction, such as defiance or disrespect.

“Teachers typically initiate discipline referrals in response to disruptive externalizing behaviors

or challenges to their authority” (2014, para. 5). At this point, the only punishments that are

dictated by a government policy are severe infractions such as bringing weapons to school. As

such, all discipline for minor infractions is subjective and based on the whims of administrators

whose behavioral expectations are shaped by their own perception and culture, and “are rarely

applied consistently, even for the same behavior” (2014, para. 6).

This review continues by noting that all current evidence points to exclusionary discipline

increasing adverse student outcomes but “proactive and preventive behavioral interventions

reduce discipline incidents and protect students from suspension and expulsion” (Anyon et al.,

2014, para. 7). As noted earlier, only few of the most egregious behaviors require a legal

obligation to suspend/expel and all research is pointing to eliminating subjective exclusionary

practices to keep students in school and use best practices to correct behavior. This article details

the restorative justice system put into place in Denver, CO and the successes they have had.

“Rather than relying on exclusionary sanctions, the 2008 policy requires schools to

implement restorative and therapeutic interventions as resolutions to student misconduct

and to only refer students to law enforcement when legally mandated to do so. […] Since
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 15

the introduction of these policy changes, the district has lowered suspension and

expulsion rates by nearly 40%.” (2014, para. 8)

The article then begins its research topic where they want to explore these numbers in more

detail; specifically the effectiveness of implementing restorative practices in preventing later

suspensions, expulsions, and involvement with law enforcement. After studying nearly 88,000

office referrals and 10,705 exclusionary punishments, the authors found that “students had lower

odds of out-of-school suspension if they participated in a restorative approach to resolving their

discipline problems” (2014, para. 23). The study also notes that student’s risk of suspension,

expulsion, and law enforcement contact increased only alongside the severity of their offense.

This is a point of optimism in that subjectivity in Denver’s school exclusion practices has been

diminished under restorative practices; consistent discipline is being applied to all office

referrals, in accordance with escalating offenses and adherence to the new district policy.

“This study suggests that district policy reforms targeting administrative decision-making

in the application of disciplinary consequences and interventions can reduce the use of

exclusionary sanctions in schools. In particular, our findings provide new evidence in

support of district policies that mandate graduated discipline systems and the use of

alternatives to suspension. […] These findings point to the potential of using restorative

approaches to reform school discipline policies and practices.” (2014, para. 29)

Proposal

As we have seen in the literature, there is a direct correlation between exclusionary

discipline practices in schools and negative student outcomes. Suspensions and expulsions

increase a student’s chances of running afoul of the legal system and decrease their educational
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 16

and emotional development. I specifically chose an overwhelming amount of peer reviewed

literature that specifically detailed this because we need to be absolutely clear that the following

statement is considered fact: exclusionary practices harm students. Exclusionary discipline

policies do not correct and model appropriate behavior. We cannot expect students to learn by

being removed from classrooms and schools and, in fact, students fall even further behind

socially and academically after they have been suspended which then just ramps up the cycle of

escalation where they will face expulsion (3x as likely) and/or law enforcement (4x as likely).

With the lessons from the literature review, we must consider changing the current disciplinary

system to a more equitable restorative justice system.

The Denver Public School system has made its restorative practice plan available for free

for anyone to review and implement. This proposal is only detailing the need and the

requirements for startup, and a full copy of the entire plan is located in the references section

under Denver School-Based Restorative Practices Partnership (DSBRPP). This proposal is to

follow the outline the DSBRPP plan which has already proven to be successful, as detailed in the

Anyon et al. research article. In essence, we must remove exclusionary practices for all but the

most serious behavioral offenses, remove the subjectivity of discipline practices, and implement

restorative practices to model and teach positive behavior in order to get to the root of student

misbehavior and correct it.

“A restorative culture seeks to address the missing piece of teaching social-emotional and

conflict-resolution skills by turning behaviors into learning opportunities. Accepting

responsibility for behaviors and making right what has been wronged is the goal of the

learning opportunity. Using this model in the school community still allows each
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 17

educator to have his/her own expectations and forms of accountability.” (DSBRPP, 2017,

p.2)

This proposal is for setting up year one of a multi-year process that will take several years to

fully implement. The program has been built out in stages that allow schools to focus on one area

and then incorporate other practices as the culture starts shifting. “The first year of

implementation is arguably the most critical. The first year sets the tone for the culture shift by

proving to educators and students that restorative practices work and that this approach is

ultimately best for the school community.” (2017, p.5). This shift will first require several key

things in order to be successful: strong administrative commitment, explicit efforts to generate

staff buy-in to conflict resolution approaches, continuous professional development

opportunities, and the allocation of school funds for a full-time Restorative Practice Coordinator.

Administrative Commitment

School leadership must be clear in their need and desire to implement this system and

communicate to staff that “restorative practice is the way we do things”. Administration needs to

believe that inequities like the school-to-prison pipeline exist and are caused by exclusion based

punishment practices, and be unafraid to speak to those facts to people that may challenge the

system change. Administration needs to understand that students’ time in the classroom is critical

to their educational success and that subjective exclusionary practices are a violation of the

purpose of a school. Administration must believe that teaching social-emotional learning and

conflict resolution skills will reduce behavioral issues and improve school performance across

the board. (DSBRPP, 2017)

Staff Buy-In
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 18

The staff need to actively support and engage in restorative practices. These practices

require teachers to be vulnerable and take accountability for student behavior as they are now a

large part of the process in comparison to prior exclusionary models. Teachers must understand

how their actions and biases can affect and even escalate student behavior, as seen with the

Academic Impact Model. Educators must believe that teaching social-emotional learning and

conflict resolution skills are just as important as any other part of classroom and behavior

management and we cannot expect students to understand those concepts if we do not teach it to

them. (DSBRPP, 2017)

Professional Development

As part of standard professional development and continuing education practices,

restorative practices need to be ongoing. This includes role playing restorative dialogues,

frequent observations, coaching sessions, etc. Professional development needs to be responsive

in nature; consider what strategies are successful/unsuccessful and which students are still being

referred to the administration and why. (DSBRPP, 2017)

Restorative Practices (RP) Coordinator

Perhaps the most critical piece of the puzzle is a single person to coordinate all these

efforts. Rather than pile on restorative practices to the ever increasing workload of a current

administrator or teacher, this significant and complex change requires a full time position. This

will be someone with knowledge of the overall implementation plan, the timeline, restorative

procedures and practices, and the ability to build relationships with, and between, students, staff,

parents, and the community. They will be responsible for implementing training, coaching, and
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 19

assistance to support this restorative practice change along with designing and implementing

interventions for students and teachers. (DSBRPP, 2017)

Proposal (cont.)

In the months leading up to the first day of school, the RP Coordinator needs to work

with members of the school community to establish the system of implementation, revise school

materials to reflect the change, and begin staff training sessions. Administration needs to

understand the purpose of the change and speak to it, informing parents and the community of

the need and desire for change. Administration also must work with the RP Coordinator to

develop a new unbiased referral system that still covers legal obligations, but keeps students

within the school whenever possible. The Student Resource Officer (SRO) must be made aware

of the changes and their need to be part of the restorative practices. If the SRO or the police

department are not willing to accept change, school districts have the ability to decline SRO

involvement on campuses (which would also open up funding for reinvestment into the school).

The RP Coordinator needs to develop a feedback system for students, teachers, and families to

share their experiences, both positive and negative. Administration also needs to implement a

data collection process that collects and allows for yearly analysis of student outcomes compared

to prior years. (DSBRPP, 2017)

Summary:

Exclusionary practices have failed our students. Arbitrary suspensions and expulsions

have caused harm to students and ruined lives; all in the name of punishment and a misguided

sense of retribution for perceived slights. These facts are not cherry-picked from the few articles

detailed in the literature review, but collected from systematic reviews of hundreds of peer
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 20

reviewed research studies going back decades. This issue is systemic and will never change

unless we acknowledge the issue and find a solution that works. Implementing restorative

practices into a school setting has been proven to positively affect student outcomes, both

behaviorally and academically. We teach students English, History, Math, Science, Art, Music,

content every day for thirteen years because we do not expect children to understand the

academic content in these areas unless we teach it to them. Why is behavior treated differently?

“You should know better”, is not a valid response to negative behavior if no one ever took the

time to help them to understand. We don’t say, “You should know better”, when a student starts

a sentence with a preposition or says that Gettysburg is where the Getty Museum is located, so

why is it seen as valid when discussing a student being “rude” or “talking back”? Behavior is

learned and it is our duty as members of the educational system to teach it.
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 21

Resources:

Anyon, Y., Jenson, J. M., Altschul, I., Farrar, J., McQueen, J., Greer, E., Downing, B., &

Simmons, J. (2014). The persistent effect of race and the promise of alternatives to suspension in

school discipline outcomes, Children and Youth Services Review 44, 379-386.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.06.025.

Cathcart, A. M., Palmon, S., & Peterson, R. L. (2015). Punishment. Strategy brief. Lincoln, NE:

University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Retrieved from: https://k12engagement.unl.edu/strategy-

briefs/Punishment%202-6-15.pdf

Denver School-Based Restorative Practices Partnership, (2017). School-Wide Restorative

Practices: Step by Step. Retrieved from: https://neaedjustice.org/wp-

content/uploads/2017/09/Implementation-Guide-2017-FINAL.pdf

Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, (2020). Diversion Programs. Retrieved from:

https://www.maricopacountyattorney.org/303/Diversion-Programs

Noguera, P. A., (2003). Schools, Prisons, and Social Implications of Punishment: Rethinking

Disciplinary Practices. Theory Into Practice 42(4).

Novak, A. (2019). The School-To-Prison Pipeline: An Examination of the Association Between

Suspension and Justice System Involvement. CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, 46(8),

1165 –1180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819846917

Reilly, K., (2020). 'Police Do Not Belong in Our Schools.' Students Are Demanding an End to

Campus Cops After the Death of George Floyd. Retrieved from:

https://time.com/5848959/school-contracts-police/
RESTORATIVE PRACTICES 22

Rosenbaum, J. (2018). Educational and criminal outcomes 12 years after suspension. Youth &

Society 52(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X17752208

Smith, D., Fischer, D. B., & Frey, N. E., (2015). Better Than Carrots or Sticks. Ebook retrieved

from: http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/116005/chapters/Punitive-or-Restorative@-The-

Choice-Is-Yours.aspx

Yang, K. (2009). Focus on Policy: Discipline or Punish? Some Suggestions for School Policy

and Teacher Practice. Language Arts, 87(1), 49-61. Retrieved from:

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41484230