School discipline policies aimed at removing misbehaving students from the classroom have contributed to profound racial inequities in school suspension and expulsion rates. Black students face discipline at rates that are vastly disproportionate to their population. Implementing restorative justice practices can help curb racial disparities in school punishment and keep more students on track to graduate. This article explores the roots of discriminatory discipline policies and explains how restorative justice can promote more equitable school climates while upholding accountability.
An effective school management system software is critical for schools and educational institutions to organize operations, enhance communication, and make data-driven decisions. This comprehensive software solution consolidates all aspects of managing a school into an integrated cloud-based platform accessible via web and mobile apps.
The Problem: Racial Gaps in Exclusionary School Discipline
When we look at national school discipline data by race and ethnicity, staggering discrepancies quickly come into focus:
- Black students face suspension and expulsion at rates two to three times higher than white students for comparable offenses (1).
- While black students represented only 15% of the total student population during the 2015-2016 school year, they accounted for 39% of all suspensions (2).
These disparities start early. Even black preschoolers are 3.6 times more likely to receive an out-of-school suspension compared to their white peers (3).
Removing students from the classroom for disciplinary reasons is tied to a range of negative consequences, including lower academic achievement, higher dropout rates, decreased engagement, and a greater likelihood of entering the juvenile justice system (4). Racial gaps in suspension and expulsion result in countless lost instructional days for black, Indigenous, and other students of color.
The Causes: Zero-Tolerance Policies and Racial Bias
Racial inequities in school discipline stem from longstanding biases as well as more recent trends like zero-tolerance policies that mandate predetermined punishments for student misconduct.
The Rise of Zero-Tolerance Policies
In the 1990s, concerns over drugs and weapons in schools prompted the adoption of zero-tolerance discipline policies across the United States. These no-discretion procedures impose automatic suspensions, expulsions, and police referrals for a variety of rule violations (5).
While intended to increase school safety, zero-tolerance policies have exacerbated racial discipline gaps and pushed more youth out of school and into the justice system (6). Even subjective offenses like “defiance” and “disrespect” can trigger exclusionary discipline under zero-tolerance rules. Such overly harsh punishments for minor misbehavior have been dubbed the “school-to-prison pipeline” (7).
Implicit Racial Bias
Explicit racism within school disciplinary practices has declined since the civil rights era, but subtler forms of bias persist. Implicit biases refer to unconscious attitudes, perceptions, and stereotypes that shape understandings, decisions, and behaviors (8). These automatic filters in thinking can influence split-second choices made by teachers and administrators during disciplinary incidents.
When faculty expectations, definitions of disruption, or threat assessments unconsciously differ by racial groups, discipline rates are likely to be unequal as well. For example, the same behaviors may be viewed as more threatening coming from black students compared to their non-black peers (9).
Together, zero-tolerance policies and implicit bias sustain racial inequity in exclusionary school discipline practices.
The Solution: Restorative Justice
In recent years, restorative justice has emerged as an effective alternative disciplinary framework focused on repairing social connections damaged by misbehavior rather than simply meting out punishment. The practices provide ways to hold youth accountable while addressing root causes of misconduct through open communication and community-building.
What is Restorative Justice?
Restorative justice traces its origins to the practices of indigenous communities centered on collaborative conflict resolution. In the school context, restorative justice represents a set of principles and peacemaking circles that aim to build healthy relationships and meaningful accountability after harm has occurred (10).
Key practices include:
- Restorative conferences – Facilitated dialogue between offenders, victims, and other stakeholders to discuss how everyone has been affected by the offense and how best to repair the harm (11)
- Peer mediation – Victim-offender mediation conducted by trained student mediators
- Peacemaking circles – Community-building dialogues that allow all parties impacted by an incident to share feelings, perspectives, and solutions
Unlike zero-tolerance policies focused exclusively on punishing offenders, restorative programs enable voluntary participation, authentic dialogue, personal accountability, reparation of harm, reintegration of offenders, and caring climates (12).
Why Restorative Justice Reduces Racial Disparities
Research overwhelmingly shows that implementing restorative practices significantly narrows racial discipline gaps within schools.
A Johns Hopkins University study on the impact of restorative practices in Pittsburgh Public Schools found (13):
- Suspension rates declined and graduation rates increased across racial groups after introducing restorative justice
- The racial discipline gap narrowed by half from 56% to 28%
- Disproportionality was nearly eliminated for black girls after implementation
These dramatic improvements in equity result because restorative programs rely on fair processes built on open communication in lieu of predetermined punishments. Consensus-based plans help resolve incidents in ways perceived as legitimate by all involved.
Most importantly, restorative circles provide space for school community members to discuss how misconduct has impacted them. Storytelling enables greater understanding across racial lines. As one student said, “People opened up more about how they felt about the problem at hand and how we can try to solve it.”
Restorative Justice Practices to Reduce Discipline Disparities
School leaders seeking policy alternatives to exclusionary discipline should consider adopting site-wide restorative justice practices. voz here are key examples of programs showing success:
1. School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
SWPBIS is a data-driven framework to promote positive behaviors for all students. The tiered model combines:
- Clear behavior expectations
- Rewards for meeting expectations
- Universal interventions
- Targeted supports as needed
SWPBIS helps reduce overall disciplinary incidents and redirects teacher time towards effective classroom management. Studies show SWPBIS schools experience improved climate alongside decreased racial disparities in discipline rates (14).
2. Implicit Bias and Structural Racism Training
Ongoing professional development exposing how unconscious biases operate is essential for restorative justice success. Quality training explores historical and institutional racism, racial anxiety, microaggressions, and social dominance theory. Deep reflective work enables teachers to recognize prejudices that fuel discrimination.
3. Restorative Circles and Conferencing
Community-building dialogues following any behavioral incident provide spaces for students and teachers to speak openly about perceived disrespect, negative stereotyping, and microaggressions they have experienced. The non-blaming approach builds empathy and connections vital to equitable schooling.
Implementing Restorative Justice: Key Steps for School Leaders
Transitioning disciplinary models requires building staff capacities and updating policies. School administrators can facilitate this paradigm shift by taking the following actions:
1. Establish Leadership Buy-In
Gaining commitment from district and school-based leaders is essential early on. Provide research on racial inequities within current discipline data to help leaders recognize the urgent need for alternatives centered in social justice.
2. Form an Implementation Team
A strong multi-disciplinary team should guide the roll-out of restorative practices. Include teachers, counselors, support staff, parents, and student representatives. Charge the team with assessing needs, developing an action plan, and monitoring progress.
3. Conduct School-Wide Training
Deep and sustained professional development will enable staff to embed restorative mindsets and skills into daily interactions. Training should build knowledge on topics like implicit bias, microaggressions, cultural responsiveness, trauma-informed practices, de-escalation techniques, and specific protocols for facilitating restorative conferences or circles.
4. Update District Policies
Revising the district’s code of conduct to incorporate restorative justice language and protocols is essential for success. Codify the use of non-exclusionary consequences, peer mediation, and required restorative processes before considering suspensions or expulsions.
5. Implement with Fidelity
Once adequate capacity exists, introduce restorative responses for all behavioral incidents. Collect and review disciplinary data frequently, checking for reductions in suspensions, expulsions and racial disparities. Refine supports as needed.
Frequently Asked Questions
Here are answers to some common questions about implementing restorative justice practices:
Does restorative justice let students off the hook for misbehaving?
No – the difference is that restorative processes hold youth directly accountable to people they have harmed rather than simply receiving detached punishments from administrators. Offenders must listen to how their actions affected others and take steps to repair the damage, which builds empathy.
Don’t suspensions or expulsions keep disruption out of the classroom?
Research shows that suspended or expelled students often become further disengaged from school, causing them to fall behind academically and become more likely to reoffend. Punitive policies are reactive, whereas restorative justice is preventative – strengthening relationships and heading off future incidents through open communication and skill building.
Is restorative justice more time consuming than simply suspending students?
Initially, yes. However, time spent building community pays long-term dividends by heading off future incidents and reducing overall disciplinary referrals. Redirect time previously used documenting and enforcing punishments into prevention.
How can restorative practices succeed if some teachers resist changing beliefs or practices?
Deep, ongoing implicit bias and structural racism training provides spaces for resistant staff to explore beliefs, develop insight on racial harm caused by exclusionary discipline, and build skills for facilitating restorative dialogues. However, some turnover may occur. Centering equity may mean having courageous conversations with teachers unwilling to reflect on their practices.
How can we afford added costs of restorative justice training and staffing?
Schools can tap Title I funding for schoolwide initiatives advancing educational equity, including professional development. Schools should also quantify reductions in lost instructional time from decreased suspensions. Local non-profit partners or university collaborations can offset some training costs as well.
Conclusion
Racially disproportionate school discipline policies like zero-tolerance have pushed countless students of color off track for graduation. Student misbehavior must be met with measured, unbiased responses focused on building accountability, empathy and community.
Implementing restorative justice practices has great potential to reduce racial gaps in suspensions and expulsions while creating more equitable, inclusive school climates for all. The collective harm of racially unjust school discipline demands urgent action. Our students deserve alternatives grounded in healing and justice.
