Mara Schiff, Ph.D. Florida Atlantic University and president, peaceworks consulting, Inc.

1. Effective Restorative Justice Strategies for Enhancing Supportive School Discipline Mara Schiff, Ph.D. Florida Atlantic University and president, peaceworks consulting, Inc.

2. GOALs OF This PRESENTATION • Examine the current state of school discipline • Explain and clarify the elements and goals of restorative justice in schools • Examine the research supporting restorative justice in schools • Consider current restorative justice policy at the school district, state and federal level • Propose the expanded use of restorative justice for minimizing the disparate impacts of exclusionary school discipline

3. INTENDED PURPOSES OF ZERO TOLERANCE IN SCHOOLS • To keep drugs and weapons out of schools • To emulate retributive justice interventions such as mandatory minimums and structured sentencing • To provide consistent consequences in proportion to harm caused

5. WHAT THE DATA SAY: • There is no evidence that ZT results in safer schools or increased academic achievement (APA, 2008) • ZT punishments put students at greater risk for: decreased connectivity to school, increased participation in risky or illegal behavior, poor academic achievement and dropout (Boccanfuso and Kuhlfield, 2011 Cassalla, 2003).

6. WHAT THE DATA SAY: • School suspension/expulsion increases chances: • that students will be held back a grade, not graduate, and become involved in the justice system (Fabeloet al, 2011). • of subsequent suspension, expulsion and dropping out (Osher, 2010; Balfanz and Boccanfuso, 2007; Skiba and Rausch, 2006). • Higher suspension rates  lower academic achievement and standardized test scores, even when controlling for factors such as race and socioeconomic status (Davis et al, 1994; Mendez, et al., 2003; Skiba 2006).

7. WHAT THE DATA SAY: Black students: • Are more likely to be suspended and expelled for minor infractions (Advancement Project, 2005; Losen and Skiba, 2010). • Represented only 17% of public school enrollment in 2000 but accounted for 34% of suspensions; special education students represented 8.6% of public school students, but 32% of youth in juvenile detention nationwide (Advancement Project, 2005; NAACP, 2005). • With learning disabilities are three times more likely to be suspended than similarly situated white students and four times more likely to end up in correctional facilities (Poe-Yamagata and Jones, 2000).

8. EXAMPLES FROM THE STATES • Florida: Students of color (mostly Black students) in Florida represent just 22 percent of the Florida school population, but 46 percent of both school suspensions and referrals to juvenile justice (Advancement Project, 2005). • Philadelphia: Black and Latino students are far more likely to be suspended, transferred to alternative schools and arrested than White students; • Colorado: Black students were over twice as likely as White students to be referred to law enforcement and Latino students were 50 percent more likely than White students to be referred to law enforcement; • OHIO: Black students were nearly five-and a-half times more likely to be suspended out-of-school than White students in 2007.

9. DISPARITY Tragically, there is consistent and increasing evidence that Black students are subject to harsher sanctions for comparable or lesser infractions than White students, or are punished for disruptive behavior that is ignored for White students. (Fabelo et. al, 2011; Losen and Gillespie, 2012; Advancement Project, 2010).

10. SO… and can it help?

11. THE POSSIBILITY OF RESORATIVE JUSTICE Restorative Justice has been proven to reduce suspensions, expulsions and disciplinary referrals and is modeled after approaches used in juvenile justice and now increasingly applied in schools for dealing with youth misbehavior, rule violations and for improving school climate. (Karp and Breslin, 2001; Lewis, 2009; Kane et al. 2007).

12. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE:

13. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PRINCIPLES Repairing Harm Including Stakeholders Shifting Government/ Community Roles Accountability Safety Reintegration

14. DEFINING RESTORATIVE JUSTICE A restorative response includes two primary components: 1) a non-adversarial and dialogue-based decisionmaking process that allows affected parties (known as “stakeholders”) to discuss the harm done to victims, while considering needs of all participants and, 2) an agreement for going forward based on the input of all stakeholders about what is necessary to repair the harm directly to the persons and community (Bazemore and Schiff, 2010).

15. 3 QUESTIONS IN TRADITIONAL SYSTEM • What law was broken? • Who’s fault is it? (who did it and who do we blame?) • What do they deserve? (What should the punishment be? How should we punish them?)

16. In this context…. Rather, we punishthe individual offender to “teach him a lesson.” Responding to “breaking the law” is notteaching socially conscious behavior, nor showering the violator with love and compassion, nor questioning the societal conditions that breed crime and misbehavior, indignity and disrespect to others.

17. 3 QUESTIONS IN RESTORATIVE SYSTEM • Who has been hurt and what harm was done? • What are their needs? • Who’s obligation is this? (What repair is needed and who is responsible?)

18. In this context…. • This is done through dialogue, listening, building relationships and ensuring accountability. The response to harm is to include victims, communities and offenders in identifying what happened, who was harmed and what must be done to repair the harm.

19. GOALS OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS • Create a restorative and inclusive school climate rather than a punitive one; • Decrease suspensions, expulsions and disciplinary referrals by holding youth accountable for their actions through repairing harm and making amends; • Include persons who have harmed, been harmed and their surrounding community in restorative responses to school misconduct; • Reengageyouth at risk of academic failure and juvenile justice system entry through dialogue-driven, restorative responses to school misbehavior.

20. RESTORATIVE STRATEGIES IN SCHOOLS • focus on relationships first and rules second; • give voice to the person harmed and the person who caused the harm; • engage in collaborative problem-solving; • enhance personal responsibility; • empower change and growth; and • include strategic plans for restoration/reparation (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005).

21. Benefits to Person(s) Harmed • Has a VOICE and a CHOICE in the process • Process is less intimidating, less formal • Root causes of conflict uncovered • Can express needs for reparation • Experiences increased satisfaction • Positive resolution and reparations facilitate healing • A way to feel some power, safety, or reassurance

22. Benefits to Person Who Commits Harm • Understands affects of his actions on others • Develops empathy • Repairs harm (meets needs of victim) • Takes responsibility • Becomes part of solution • Learns from experience • Changes future behavior

23. Benefits to School Community • Students learn conflict resolution skills • Focus is on inclusion, not exclusion and isolation • Negative incidents decrease • School climate improves • Empowerment increases • Personal responsibility increases • Deals with underlying problems/issues • Acknowledges harm to community • Establishes norms, values, culture and accountability

24. Benefits to Broader Community • Community involvement increases • Relationship to school strengthens • Community members feel their children are safe • Students know community cares • Community experiences less conflict

25. For School Administrators, Teachers, Staff • Involves others in problem solving to eliminate second-guessing (too harsh/too lenient) • All parties agree to participate in decisionmaking process and information is shared

26. RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS • At this time, restorative practices in schools are known to exist in: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New York, New Mexico, Oregon, Texas, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin –> APPROXIMATELY 40 PERCENT OF U.S. STATES • Restorative Practices include: • restorative mediation • conferences • circles • school accountability boards • daily informal restorative meetings • classroom circles • restorative dialogue • restorative youth courts • peer mediation

27. RESEARCH Outcomes

28. RESEARCH Outcomes

29. RESEARCH Outcomes

30. SELECT QUALITATIVE DATA FROM PALM BEACH COUNTY TEACHERS AND ADMINISTRATORS • “Since [the RJ program] has been on our campus, our suspension rate has dropped by 40% and our in-school suspension rate has decreased by approximately 50%.” PBL Assistant Principal • “…students like being ‘heard’…many of our students… don’t even know certain actions are wrong. This opens the door to teach students acceptable and appropriate behaviors, behaviors that will be expected of them in mainstream society.” PBL Teacher • “[The program] allows students an opportunity to be accountable of rather actions in a non-threatening way with a productive positive outcome being the end result.” PBL Reading Teacher

31. SELECT QUALITATIVE DATA FROM STUDENTS • “… I realize that I was doing things that I shouldn't have been doing and making big mistakes…I learned …in this process is that I have a bad attitude and I could do better for myself.” PBL Student • “…I have gained self confidence and have found myself helping others. I realize that they are capable of being accountable for their actions. I have also learned how to be a better person by not judging others. Santa Fe Student • “… I realize that I have come a long way from where I was then. I have become a bigger person and have learned to think about my actions before I do them… If I talk about a problem… I can keep myself from doing something I may regret later. I used to believe that I didn't have much control over how I react to events, but now I realize that it’s up to me how I react and I can’t blame my anger for all my problems.” PBL Student

32. ORGANIZATIONAL IMPEDIMENTS Restorative program implementation varies significantly from classroom to classroom and school to school. Key Issues: • Training • Subject matter • Methods and materials • Policy priority • Varying economic, political or social conditions • Other mandatory program implementation (PBIS, SEL, RTI)

33. CHANGING SCHOOL POLICY

34. CHICAGO PUBLIC SCHOOLS (CPS) POLICY • Chicago Public Schools (CPS) is the 3rd largest school district in US • Since 2006-2007, the CPS Student Code of Conduct reflects “a comprehensive approach to student discipline and include[s] components of restorative justice, alternatives to out of school suspension, and additional measures…” • The CPS code of conduct encourages the use of age appropriate discipline and balanced and restorative justice strategies, including student, teacher and parent conferences, detention, in-school suspension and referral to school peer jury in lieu of suspension. 

35. DENVER AND OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICY • As of August 2008, Denver Public Schools discipline policy includes restorative interventions. • Restorative justice is the official policy of The Oakland Unified School District The RJ program lowers suspension and expulsion rates and fosters positive school climates with the goal of eliminating racially disproportionate discipline practices and the resulting push-out of students into the prison pipeline.

36. ADDITIONAL SCHOOL POLICIES • In 2009, the San Francisco Unified School District unanimously voted to replace some student suspensions with more “restorative repercussions.”  Instead of simply suspending students who violate school rules, restorative interventions will be used. • The Safe and Healthy Learners Unit at the Minnesota Department of Education has used restorative measures for over a decade. Since 2008, Minneapolis Public Schools has offered restorative justice services for students recommended for expulsion.

37. ADDITIONAL SCHOOL POLICIES • In May 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District – the second largest school district in the U.S.-- elected to ban suspensions for “willful defiance,” and to establish new school discipline policy whereby restorative justice will be used to support “disruptive” students (Perez, 2013). • Goal was explicitly to reduce disparity for students of color.

38. OHER RECENT SCHOOL DISTRICT POLICIES • In 2012 the School District of Palm Beach County (the twelfth largest District in the nation): • included restorative justice in its menu of disciplinary options available to all county public schools • created eight new positions to help implement restorative practices at about 16 schools • However, RJ is no longer a priority in the District. • Also as of May 2013, the Fresno, California School Board adopted a resolution to create and implement a school discipline framework of restorative practices (Mumma, 2013).

39. ADDITIONAL SCHOOL POLICIES • NEW YORK – largest U.S. school district. • NYC Schools Chancellor says “the city cannot force a school to become restorative; it's a cultural shift that needs to come from a committed group comprising representation from teachers, students, parents, and the principal.” • Restorative approaches are included in the Citywide Standards of Intervention and Discipline Measures, Student Code and Bill of Student Rights and Responsibilities as of 2012 (http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/rdonlyres/F7DA5E8D-C065-44FF-A16F-55F491C0B9E7/0/DiscCode20122013FINAL.pdf).

40. RECENT STATE POLICIES • In 2009, Florida amended Section 3. Section 1006.13 of its school discipline policy policy “to encourage schools to use alternatives to expulsion or referral to law enforcement agencies by addressing disruptive behavior through restitution, civil citation, teen court, neighborhood restorative justice, or similar programs…” • In 2011, Colorado’s HB 11-1032 required proportionate disciplinary interventions to reduce the number of school expulsions and referrals to law enforcement including plans for appropriate use of prevention, intervention, restorative justice, peer mediation, counseling, or other approaches to minimize student exposure to criminal justice system by August 2013.

41. PENDING (dead) FEDERAL LEGISLATION • Restorative Justice in Schools Act (H.B. 415; Cohen, D-Tenn) would allow school districts to use ESEA funding to train teachers and counselors in restorative justice and conflict resolution and help save countless hours lost to school discipline each school year. • Successful, Safe, And Healthy Students Act (S. 919; Harkin, D-IA) includes funding and technical assistance for implementing positive, preventive approaches to school discipline like restorative justice and school wide positive behavior supports.

42. A Restorative Justice Story http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pYuA3o6WuU

43. CONCLUSION • Zero tolerance and other exclusionary discipline policies in schools do not work. • Restorative justice is an effective, evidence-based nonpunitivedisciplinary response based on repairing harm, including stakeholders and accountability. • RJ helps educators, juvenile justice professionals and community members collectively and collaboratively reengage youth in school, keep them off the street and out of the juvenile justice system. • Restorative justice strategies work best when developed and used in collaboration with community input.

44. CONTACT INFORMATION Mara Schiff, Ph.D Florida Atlantic University mschiff@fau.edu President, PeaceWorks Consulting, Inc. 954-599-5529 mschiff717@bellsouth.net https://www.facebook.com/JusticePeaceworks National Association for Community and Restorative Justice www.nacrj.org