When it comes to managing discipline
in our schools, punitive consequences have been the primary instrument in the toolbox of educators for decades (Swain, & Noblit, 2011). As Abraham Maslow once said, “I suppose it is tempting, if
the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail”
(1966). As we know, there is no single tool that
can fix every problem. However, because of our over-reliance on punitive measures, especially suspensions, we have
ended up causing more harm than good for those that we have committed to serve.
At
its core, suspensions remove students
from the classroom and ultimately from their opportunities to learn. Students
who are routinely suspended end up
missing out on crucial instruction time which often leads them struggling to
get through the remainder of their course. Research has indicated that there is
a direct correlation between students who are chronically suspended and high
school dropout rates (Barr & Gibson, 2013). When these students begin to
fall behind, they become more likely to act out in the classroom, which then
creates a vicious cycle within the discipline system.
To further compound the issue, national data has revealed that our current
punitive practices have created a discipline disproportionality among various
groups of students. Minorities as well as
students in special education programs are suspended two to three times
more often than their white counterparts
(Skiba et al., 2011). Also, these same
students are three times more likely to be introduced into the school-to-prison pipeline (Wilson, 2014).
It is
easy for us to forget that schools also serve as a protective factor for our
students. For many of them, it may be the
only protective factor they have. Today's
students have experienced a variety of adverse childhood experiences, and in many cases, the
home may not be the safest place for them
to be. Also, more and more schools are
becoming the primary source of nutrition for our students. When they miss
school, they miss out on meals.
 |
| http://www.digitiser2000.com/uploads/4/0/6/6/40667199/8946695_orig.jpg |
When students return from
a suspension, the relationships that may have been
harmed by their initial behavior
have not been repaired by their consequence. This,
in turn, creates tension not only for the student but for the teachers
as well as the student’s peers. Due to the lack of a proper reintegration back
into the classroom, the student may lose
the sense of belonging they once had and may find themselves struggling to
succeed and once again acting out as a result (Barr & Gibson, 2013).
With all the adverse effects of
punitive discipline, we need to find a way to create equitable opportunities
for our students to succeed so that our already disadvantaged children don’t
become even more disadvantaged. One method that has been studied and shown to
be successful is transitioning away from punitive practices in favor of
restorative ones (González, 2012). Restorative
Practices focus on the idea that school is a community and when harm has been
done to that community it has a significant impact on its members. To repair
the harm that has been done, a variety of practices are recommended including
formal conferencing, community service (which directly benefits those harmed),
and other alternatives to suspension.
The Restorative Practices philosophy
focuses on the idea of “building social capital and achieving social discipline
through participatory learning and decision-making” (Wachtel, 2012). It
stresses the importance of building and maintaining relationships while at the same time holding students accountable for their actions and repairing the
harm that they have caused not only to individuals but also their community.
The fundamental philosophy of Restorative Practices is that,
Human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive,
and more likely to make positive changes in their behavior when those in
positions of authority do things with them, rather than to them
or for them. This hypothesis maintains that the punitive and authoritarian
to mode
and the permissive and paternalistic for mode are not as effective as the restorative, participatory, engaging with
mode. (Wachtel, 2012).
Restorative Practices can be broken
down in to two main components; the proactive social emotional learning aspects
and then the reactive Restorative Justice element. The proactive elements
include using circles to build and maintain community, using affective
statements (statements that express how you feel), and using
affective/restorative questioning.
The Restorative Justice element
helps to open dialogue between those that have been harmed and those that have
done the harm by giving everyone a voice and letting them reflect on the
incident. Formal conferencing works with all parties involved through a
method of mediation. This process helps to peel the onion and highlighting
underlying issues while at the same time facilitates a conversation on what needs
to be done to make things right so that everyone’s needs get met, relationships
can began to repair, and the students can be reintegrated back into their
community.
References
Barr, R. D., & Gibson, E.L. (2013). Building a
culture of hope: Enriching schools with optimism and opportunity.
Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press.
González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools:
Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the school to prison pipeline.
Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281-335.
Maslow, A. H. (1966). The psychology of science; A reconnaissance. New York: Harper &
Row.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C., Rausch, M. K., May,
S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is
not neutral: A national investigation of african
american and latino disproportionality in school discipline. School
Psychology Review, 40(1), 85-107.
Swain, A. E., & Noblit, G. W.
(2011). Education in a punitive society: An introduction. The Urban
Review, 43(4), 465-475.
Wachtel, T. (2012). Defining restorative. International
Institute for Restorative Practices: IIRP Graduate School.
Wilson, H. (2014). Turning
off the school-to-prison pipeline. Reclaiming Children and Youth,
23(1), 49-53
Alden M Clark
Counselor/Admin Intern
Covington and Pacific Middle Schools/Evergreen Public
Schools
alden.clark@evergreenps.org
