Disciplinary Dissent: The Troubled Implementation of a Restorative Justice Program at E.C. Johnson High School

Abstract

As many schools and school districts across the nation consider replacing traditional behavioral management strategies with restorative practices, this case asks the readers to consider the challenges a school leader may face when attempting to implement school-wide procedural change. In this case, a school leader faced with race-based discipline disparities attempts to challenge this nationwide trend by bringing in a local organization to conduct restorative justice facilitation and reduce the school’s out-of-school suspension numbers. This proves to be challenging due to the systems that existed prior to this change and her difficulties in getting buy-in from her staff. This case may be used in leadership preparation courses as an example of the complexity and considerations involved when implementing restorative justice as an alternative discipline strategy.

Keywords

urban education school discipline K-12 school leadership

Introduction

For decades, school districts in the United States have formed partnerships with police departments to receive aid in safety and discipline. School resource officers (SROs) were conceptualized and installed in schools to provide support because of this partnership. However, studies have shown that police and police-related programs in schools have served to exacerbate racialized disciplinary disparity, an issue schools have struggled with constantly (Javdani, 2019; Nance, 2015; Turner & Beneke, 2020; Payne & Welch, 2018). This fact, when combined with national conversations on the nature of the relationship between policing and communities of color in the wake of continued displays of police violence against black communities and bodies, has led to discussions of the removal of police from schools.

School districts have been searching for alternative discipline strategies for a while, but the recent push for racial justice in the United States has increased the urgency in some districts. Restorative justice has typically been offered as a solution to this and many schools and school districts have adopted restorative practices to some degree (Gonzalez, 2012; Skiba et al., 2014). However, some districts choose to implement restorative justice while also maintaining SROs and police presence. Winn (2018) argues that true implementation of restorative justice cannot occur within a punitive framework. The reality is many school leaders exist in districts where they are required to use both methods. This case attempts to engage with the nuances of trying to implement restorative justice when also continuing to use police partnerships and methods like suspensions and expulsions.

Case Narrative

The hallways were filled with quiet tension as Rebecca Douglas walked back to her office. She felt uneasiness following the final faculty meeting of the summer, where she unveiled a new discipline management strategy for EC Johnson High School. Her plan was to implement a restorative justice program that would operate in tandem with the SROs to try and reduce the number of suspensions and expulsions that occur annually. This decision however was met with dissent and debate among the staff. Many staff members expressed concerns regarding the amount of time it would take to conduct restorative justice circles and the disruptiveness of pulling students from class to take part of the process. Others felt it was unnecessary and wanted to push for a more “zero-tolerance” system. Principal Douglas was compelled to make a change when she did an end-of-year disciplinary infraction self-audit and found that her African American and Latinx students were three times more likely to be given a behavioral infraction when compared to their white peers. She found this trend troubling, particularly because reflected a national issue of disproportionality in student discipline. As she sunk into her office chair after the stressful faculty meeting, her mind wandered to all the emails and meetings she had with parents who felt their students were treated unjustly. She could not help but wonder if this new strategy was the correct way to move forward.

EC Johnson High School

Johnson High School is a large high school located within an urban metropolitan area. The school is one of three high schools that receive most of the students from the surrounding area. The school enrolls 1,400 students from across the city, even though the school’s maximum capacity is 2,200 students. The current school demographics are 42% African American, 39% white, 18% Latinx, and 2% other. Out of the current enrollment, 85% of the students are on free and reduced lunch, with most of that total being African American and Latinx students.

In the last 10 years, enrollment has been dropping in schools across the district due to a statewide school choice policy that has resulted in families opting to send their students to the surrounding school districts. In addition, the school’s reputation has become increasingly negative due to media attention after fights, the lack of renovations to the school building itself and disparaging ads from a nearby charter school all of which have served to exacerbate the declining enrollment rates.

One of the schools that used to feed into Johnson High, Worthy Middle, was closed down 3 years ago and as a result Johnson High now functions as a 7th through 12th grade school, with an entire section of the building being designated for the middle school age students. The school also has a separate “academy” that incorporates technology and computer science into all aspects of leaning. Once students transition from the 8th grade, they can test into the academy where they will remain through the 12th grade. Academy classes are conducted in a secluded section of the building where students take higher-level core classes (English and language arts [ELA], Math, Science, and Social Studies) as well as special elective courses. Even with the academy’s presence, the school as a whole has had difficulties with statewide achievement assessments, coming in the bottom percentile for several years in a row.

Johnson High School’s administrative and faculty structure is designed to meet the needs of the three different student populations. The building principal is responsible for the school programs, and operations. The principal has three assistant principals who oversee curriculum, instruction, attendance, and some behavior across the middle school, the high school, and the academy. The teachers all answer to their respective assistant principal, though bigger issues and school-wide initiatives are handled by the principal. Most of the discipline is handled by the district-provided SROs. The school has two social workers and three school psychologists who handle social-emotional caseloads. Most of the teaching staff is white, but there were black assistant principals, social workers, and secretaries.

Main Characters of the Case

Rebecca Douglas is the principal of Johnson High school and is entering her fifth year at the school. The position at Johnson High is her first since completing her principal preparation program at the local university. She is well known in the school district for her “social justice” agenda and is constantly challenging her mostly white teaching staffs’ perception of their students. In her first 3 years, Johnson High had the second highest referral rate in the district as well as the highest out-of-school suspension rate in the district (most of the suspensions were the results of fights). Johnson is also known for its high rate of on campus arrests. Principal Douglas identifies as a white woman.

Titus Henry is one of the restorative justice facilitators from the restorative network, an organization that employs and trains local community members to provide low-cost restorative justice services to students. Titus is a former city bus driver who is familiar with the families of many of the students in building and can connect with them based on this. Titus identifies as a black man.

Jamila Sands is another of the facilitators from the restorative network. She is a Master’s student in public policy at the local university and she grew up in the community around the school. Jamila identifies as a black woman.

Audrey Danvers, the third facilitator from the restorative network, is an undergraduate psychology student at the local university. She grew up in the mostly white rural town a several couple of miles away from Johnson High. She moved to the city to attend college. Audrey identifies as a white woman.

Mrs. Bell is an SRO who used to work in the cafeteria at Johnson High School. She used to see student get in trouble all the time and decided to undergo the training to become an SRO which in her eyes gave her the opportunity to mentor black girls and prevent incidents. Unlike many of her peers, she chooses to incorporate restorative practices into her interactions with the students. Mrs. Bell identifies as a black woman.

Coach Simms is an SRO who used coach at the school. He decided to become a resource officer to keep “his knuckleheads,” the student athletes in line. He prefers talking to the students when incidents arise and has begun to lean on restorative practices. Coach Simms identifies as a Latinx man.

Mrs. Wasserman is a veteran teacher at Johnson High School. She has worked at the school for 15 years, and often talks about how the old days of teaching were better. She has a zero-tolerance policy and is known throughout the school for her strict policies and quickness in writing referrals. She sees herself as the ultimate authority and is not interested in having conversations with students. She identifies as a white woman.

Armani Rhodes is a seventh-grade student who attends Johnson High. Armani is currently being bullied by two ninth grade girls. Armani identifies as a black girl.

The Community Surrounding Johnson High

The story of the community EC Johnson High school is situated in is like that of many metropolitan cities across the United States. This racially and ethnically diverse city (52% white, 23% African American, 23% Latinx, 2% Asian) has exhibited disparities in policing. Since 2016 the mayor has pushed for a “tough on crime approach” including a reinstatement of stop and frisk policies, which sparked protest around the city. In 2019, the Bureau of Justice Statistics released a report on the city’s crime statistics. The report revealed the following: (a) black residents were six times more likely to be stopped than white or Latinx residents in both traffic and street stops; (b) black and Latinx residents were more likely to have multiple contacts with police; (c) police were twice as likely to threaten or use excessive force with black and Latinx residents than with white residents; (d) black and Latinx residents received sentences twice as severe or greater than white residents for misdemeanor crimes. This has lead to a general mistrust in the community when it comes to police activity.

Discipline at Johnson High

Due to a district policy that was intended to help teachers focus solely on instruction, discipline is primarily handled by SROs. The district believed that having more personnel in the buildings could allow for a division of labor that could benefit teachers. SROs are uniformed individuals who enforce suspensions and expulsions, oversee detentions, and remove disruptive students from classes and other areas in the school. Teachers can write referrals to the school assistant principals and then the cases are handed over to the SROs. The SROs answer to a city police officer who has an office in the school building. That officer is supposed to watch the surveillance camera on campus and handles any major incidents involving violence, drugs, sexual assault, or any other similar instances. At Johnson High, there were 12 SROs who handled disciplinary issues.

The most prominent issue at Johnson was fighting between students. Due to the zero-tolerance policy, any students who fought were immediately suspended from the school. Students who were particularly belligerent during fights were put into handcuffs and threatened with an actual arrest. At first, zero tolerance seemed reasonable but eventually the policy spiraled out of control. Students were being suspended for things like being in the hallway a minute after the bell rung and for talking back to the SROs. In one incident, two students were play fighting in the courtyard outside of the school. An SRO approached them and with no questions asked, grabbed one of the students, hard by the arm. The student started yelling and pulling away because of how this SRO touched them. The SRO then threatened a suspension. The student got angry and attempted to explain that they were play fighting with a friend, but the SRO would not listen and yelled at the student more. This caused the student to pull away and start to walk off. The SRO called for the school officer to put that student in handcuffs. Ultimately, the student was suspended. These instances of harsh punishments for speaking back were almost exclusively carried out against black students.

The New Discipline Plan

Principal Douglas attended a “continued education” professional development (PD) session hosted by her university at the end of the spring semester of her fourth year at Johnson. The topic of this PD was “alternatives to zero-tolerance behavior management strategies.” She became interested in the restorative justice process and its purported ability to reduce the number of behavioral infractions, and consequences for black and Latinx students (Mansfield et al., 2018). Restorative justice is an alternative discipline strategy where students are given the opportunity to participate in facilitated discussions to reflect on their actions and their relation to the school community as opposed to immediate suspension. Following this PD, she contacted her district to try and see what options were available for implementing restorative justice at Johnson High School. Fortunately, the district had been cultivating a partnership with a nonprofit organization that provides restorative justice services.

The restorative network is an agency that operates in the same city as Johnson High School. For years, this organization has provided restorative justice services for different entities across the city. In recent years, the organization has made a partnership with the district to lead PD and place full-time restorative justice facilitators in various schools. To get access to these services, schools must pay for the number of hours they would like a facilitator at their school. The organization would then station a team of facilitators at the school site to meet the hours requirements. These facilitators would work with the administrative team and take on cases to conduct restorative justice circles. Upon successful completion of the restorative justice process students would either receive reduced punishments or have consequences completely removed. Once a school decided to partner with the restorative network, the SROs from that school would be required to go through restorative justice training to help with the transition. Principal Douglas requested to have the program in her school. She met with the restorative network, learned about the services they offered and created space in her budget to accommodate the organization.

During the final faculty meeting of the summer, the one right before the opening of a new school year Principal Douglas decided to invite the restorative network leadership team and unveil the new discipline plan to her staff. The school would now have two facilitators who would be in the school space for 25 hours a week. The facilitators’ office would be in the “serenity room” a space that housed the SROs office, the on-site police office, the surveillance office, and the Middle School assistant principal’s office. Students who were sent to the serenity room would now be processed by the SROs and then be given the opportunity to talk to the RJ facilitators before a final decision was made by the assistant principal. In this new system, the SROs no longer have the final say, but they are given the opportunity to decide which students can enter the RJ process for a chance to reduce or remove consequences. Students who are suspended can be required to go through the RJ process for re-entry to school. The staff was taken through a multihour restorative justice “bootcamp” and then given the space and opportunity to discuss how they felt about the new process, which led to debate. Principal Douglas heard the concerns but maintained the position that this system was going into place at the beginning of the new school year and that the teachers should keep an open mind. There was also dissent among the SROs. Some saw this new initiative as adding too much work to their plate, while others saw it as an opportunity to help students.

The Process

The restorative network’s curriculum around the restorative justice process came from two texts in the “Little Books of Justice & Peacebuilding” series by Lorraine Stutuzman Amstutz and Judy Mullet. The main text used was The Little Book of Restorative Discipline for schools (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005), which discussed the ethics behind restorative practices, creating climates of care, and rehabilitating “offenders” while repairing the harm done to victims. This book also gave directions on how to facilitate restorative justice circles. From this, the restorative network composed a multistep process for restorative justice in schools. The first step was the intake. When the school officials, teachers, or students themselves had an issue they could bring it to the restorative justice facilitator. The facilitator would then find the two or more parties involved in the incident and gather information from each party separately. The facilitator would then ask each separate party if they were willing to participate in a restorative justice circle (after explaining the process). Once the parties agree the facilitator would bring them together for the circle.

At the beginning of the circle the facilitator explains what restorative justice is and lays out the ground rules of respect and the use of a “talking piece.” The talking piece is a small handheld item that the facilitator would pass from participant to participant to guide the flow of conversation. The facilitator then guides the participants through a series of questions (a) what happened? (b) how are your affected by what happened?, and (c) how can we heal the harm? The restorative network believed that these questions were necessary for getting at the heart of the issue efficiently. The participants would take turns holding the talking piece and sharing their thoughts. The final step of the process is the agreement, which serves as a written contract between the parties. The participants are asked to come up with their own terms for the agreement which is supposed to address what happened and prevent it from happening in the future. The restorative network requires facilitators to track each part of the process through organizational forms and submit those forms to administration. The restorative network also advised its facilitators to avoid conducting circle whiles the student was in more important classes, since the process could take a long time.

The First Day With the Facilitators

Titus Henry, Jamila Sands, and Audrey Danvers were the three facilitators selected by the restorative network to work at Johnson High School. The three facilitators split 20 hours between them with Titus working 4 hours on Monday and Wednesday, Jamila working for hours on Tuesday and Thursday and Audrey working 4 hours on Friday mostly doing paperwork. At the beginning of the school year, Principal Douglas sat and met with the three facilitators and discussed their schedules and her overall plans for the school year. She introduced the facilitators to the police officer, SROs, administrators, and other faculty. With all the pieces of the plan together, Principal Douglas was looking forward to the opening of the school year.

On day 1, the facilitators were being given a tour of the school by Principal Douglas. As they were coming down staircase that led to the main office and the serenity center, they saw a police officer yelling at two black girls. The officer was a white male who did not work in the building, and he was bright red as he screamed at the girls. “You need to get out of this hallway, right now!” The two girls stood there almost shrinking away but one of them responded “Why are you yelling at us?” The officer yelled at them again “I’ve seen you two walking these halls for ten minutes, you better get to class, or I promise you I will make this a bad day.” One of the girls replied, “Can you stop sweating us, we are just trying to get to class.” The officer chirped at them again “If I see you two again, I am taking you straight to the district in cuffs, that will teach you a lesson.” After this, he let the girls leave. When Principal Douglas approached the officer to ask what led to that exchange he said: “Those girls look like troublemakers, so I just had to make sure they know who is in control around here.” This exchange occurred in the hallway right outside of the serenity center. Jamila who was visibly shaken by the experience asked Principal Douglas: “Who was that and why did he have a gun?” Principal Douglas explained that at “high volume incident” moments of the year, the police officer stationed in the school can invite other city officers to the building for support. The problem was, unlike the teachers and the SROs, the city police officers had very little training in restorative justice. Given the history of police interaction with the community surrounding Johnson high, police presence introduced an element of tension in the school at the beginning of the year.

September: The Big Incident

By September things were calming down and the school no longer needed the presence of the additional police officers. The Restorative Justice facilitators were completing cases at a steady rate and students were becoming more comfortable with them. However, on a Thursday in October during the lunch period a series of fights broke out. Different fights erupted both in the lunchroom and in pockets across the campus. These fights were the result of social media feud that had been going on for weeks. There was also a threat made against the school on one student’s social media page. The SROs mobilized across campus to try and contain the fights. The school stationed police officer requested that Principal Douglas put the school on lockdown as he was calling in backup from the police department. Within 15 minutes police cars lined the front of the building 16 armed officers were combing the school searching for threats. There was pandemonium and the SROs were grabbing students and placing them in the serenity center. One of the administrators asked Ms. Jamila to stay with the students and make sure no one was leaving the serenity center. As they sat there several of the students expressed concerns about the amount of police in the building. Students were communicating through social media and found out that some of their peers were being arrested. “Man, they always overact and do this!” one student exclaimed. “Do what?” Jamila asked. Another student explained: “Whenever we go on a lockdown for threats, which are usually hoaxes, the police come arrest people for different stuff.” Even though the officers were there to address the threat made against the school, four students were arrested for things unrelated to the threat itself.

October: Student Perceptions

After the “big incident” there were fewer large-scale incidents at the school. Principal Douglas garnered criticism from parents and the media for not knowing how to control her school. Some of the teachers thought that the new behavior initiative was too lax, and that students were more prone to act out as a result. Nevertheless, the school year went on. Over time, Principal Douglas noticed that the number of cases was going down, even though referrals were remaining high. At first, she did not think too much of this, but one day a referral came across her desk. A seventh-grade girl named Armani was being bullied by two ninth-grade girls after school. Principal Douglas decided to try and do her own intake with the student before sending her to the RJ room. She called Armani down to have a conversation. “Good morning Armani how are you today?” she asked. “I’m not too good Miss,” Armani replied. “Tell me about your situation,” the principal replied. Armani went into detail about the two girls who were picking on her after school for about a week now. After hearing her story, Principal Douglas asked her if she would like to do a restorative justice circle with the two girls. “Miss, I wouldn’t mind sitting down with them, but can we do it over here, I don’t want to go to that office,” Armani replied. This piqued Principal Douglas’s interest. “Why not Armani, is it the facilitators,” “Naw, Mr. Henry, Ms. Jamila, and Ms. Audrey are real cool, its them other people in the office I have a problem with.” “What other people?” “The police and some of the SROs, they locked up one of my friends, wrote me up and are always yelling at us, some of us don’t want to go to that office because of it.”

After that conversation Principal Douglas called Mr. Henry (the facilitator on duty that day), to see if he had perceived the same things Armani did. “Yeah, the students have pretty much stopped coming to the office, we have to go to the classrooms and talk to them in the hallways most days, they are wary of the office.” This was an interesting dilemma for Principal Douglas. The serenity center originally existed as a space where students could talk to different adults to solve issues. She thought that with RJ present, students would be more willing to go there, but she did not anticipate the presence of police in the school serving as a deterrent. The proximity of the restorative space, to spaces that were synonymous with punishment was affecting students’ willingness to engage in restorative practices in that same space.

November: Promising Signs With RJ

As the year progressed, students were getting into trouble less and less and regaining their comfort with the serenity center. It helped that Principal Douglas asked for the school police officer to refrain from calling for backup frequently. The RJ facilitators were building great relationships with students, and as a result, they were able to prevent many incidents. Some students were constantly in the RJ, not because they were referred, but because they wanted to hang around the RJ facilitators. Some students would come to the facilitators for advice and would even share personal thoughts and feelings with the facilitators. One day, Ms. Audrey told Principal Douglas: “A student approached me to talk about suicide, I wanted to let you know because they said they didn’t feel comfortable talking to the counselor.” When Principal Douglas pressed for more information, Audrey replied, “The kids feel like they don’t know the counselors, that they are too impersonal.” While it was great that the RJ facilitators were building community and relationships with the students, it was troubling to hear that the students did not feel comfortable with certain staff members.

RJ Facilitators were not the only ones who were making deep connections with students. Some teachers and SROs were leveraging RJ and implementing some of the practices into their own interactions with the students. Two SROs were standouts in this regard, Mrs. Bell and Coach Simms. Both officers asked for additional RJ training, would sit in on circles, and created genuine connections with students. Every day during the transition periods between classes, you could find Mrs. Bell and Coach Simms in the hallway, receiving hugs, high-fives, and daps from students, or trading jokes. Sometimes students would seek out Mrs. Bell and Coach Simms for advice and to stay out of trouble when incidents arose. These two officers were also great at convincing students to go to RJ.

December: Teacher Feedback/Mid-Year Check-in

While two of the SROs using and buying into the RJ process was a great development, this phenomenon was not celebrated by everyone. One day, during a faculty meeting some concerns came up. A group of teachers expressed that they felt the RJ process was disruptive. It often took too long for students to come back to class, and when students returned, they had to be given make-up work. Some teachers felt that students were taking advantage of the process and going to the RJ room on purpose to avoid being in class. One long-time teacher, Mrs. Wasserman, expressed her dismay for being asked to participate in a circle with a student. She was a white senior teacher, who had taught at Johnson for 15 years. She was known for being harsh on students, and one student who felt disrespected by her asked if they could do a circle. “I am not explaining myself to a child” she remarked. “Under no circumstance will I do one of these little circles with a kid, what do I need to understand them for, I am the adult, I run the classroom, if they don’t like it they could change classes.” The meeting ended without a conclusive answer.

After the meeting, Principal Douglas overheard a group of teachers talking about the SROs. “They’ve got Mrs. Bell and Coach Simms wrapped around their fingers, anything happens these kids go running to them, even during class” one remarked. Another chimed in “Yeah I wish they would just do their jobs and send them back to class, you are security not their freaking therapists.” Mrs. Wasserman added “Yes, if it were up to me student would be suspended immediately for being out of class, but of course Principal Douglas would say that’s too punitive, ugh.” Principal Douglas stood there in the hallway absorbing what she heard. It had been about a couple of months of implementing her new behavioral system, and even though the numbers were improving there still was not buy-in among her staff. There also was the issue of students not wanting to work with the counselors for personal issues. Another small issue was the fact that black and Latinx students were still overrepresented in referrals for restorative justice. While they were not getting suspended, which was an improvement, teachers were still disproportionately singling out these students for minor behaviors, not giving students the chance to talk about minor issues, which was antithetical to restorative justice, and putting the students out of class. As she walked back to her office, she questioned her decision to overhaul the behavior system and wondered what she would do moving forward. How would she address the concerns of the teachers while maintaining all of the progress the students made during the year? As she sat back in her office, she looked out at the fresh snow coming down, and thought about the coming winter break. She saw the break as a chance to reflect, recalibrate, and restructure things going into the second half of the year. “I know I chose the right path” she assured herself as she stared out the window, as the words of her teachers, the students, and staff members echoed in her head.

Teaching Notes

Principal Douglas was aware enough of the dynamics of race and behavior practices in school spaces and tried to counter trend of disproportional behavioral practices. She turned to restorative justice as a solution but chose to incorporate it as a part of the overall behavioral structure instead of eliminating one system over the other. The spatial position of the restorative justice office created some incongruence with the older more punitive system. While the facilitators were good and some teachers and personnel adapted to the changes, there were some issues with buy-in from the whole staff. Some of these issues could be attributed to the timeline of implementation, given that the teachers were only told of this change a couple of weeks before the new school year. The new process was encouraging but there were several issues with implementation and cohesion among the staff.

Difficulty of Implementation

This study exemplifies some of the difficulties with implementing new policies within educational systems. School leaders are tasked with navigating a complex system that requires answering to several stakeholders both internally and externally (Horsford et al., 2018). Moreover, once a school leader has decided to address difficult issues such as racial justice and equity, there are to be difficulties, given the endemic colonial nature of the U.S. educational system (Khalifa et al., 2019). One educational issue with a substantial record of evidence around racial bias and disparity is discipline (Gregory et al., 2017). Oftentimes, students of color are at higher risk of being subjected to disciplinary sanctions and are more harshly punished (Gregory et al., 2010; Losen, 2011). Much of the responsibility of curtailing the disproportionality in discipline policy is that of the school leader, given their role in influencing school culture and enforcing policies (Honig, 2004). To challenge the trend, school leaders must be prepared to critically interrogate their own school’s practices within a broader context of systemic racism (DeMatthews et al., 2017). Restorative justice has been posited to aid in the disruption of race-based discipline bias (Payne & Welch, 2015; Winn, 2018).

The implementation issues experienced at Johnson High School are representative of a large body of literature that speaks to the difficulties of discipline policy reform. Even in a case where the framework and infrastructure for implementation was aided by the existence of an external organization, there were still several stumbling blocks. Zimmerman (2006), outlines some of the challenges school leaders may face when working with their faculty in implementing change. The author suggests that teachers may resist change due to a failure to recognize the need for change, a previous history of unsuccessful reforms and perceived threats to power relationships. With restorative justice specifically implementation issues are centered around school-wide buy-in, the efficacy of the restorative justice process, and the need to effectively train faculty members (Vaandering, 2014; Wearmouth et al., 2007). Oftentimes, school leaders choose restorative justice as an option to reduce racial discipline disproportionality, thus proper implementation of restorative justice also requires a staff-wide acknowledging and challenging of white supremacy and racial bias (Irby, 2018; Lustick, 2017), which can be difficult.

Teachers’ Role in Restorative Justice

To examine the faculty perspective on restorative justice, Rainbolt et al. (2019), conducted a study in a high school. The authors found that generally teachers were favorable to the process but did offer some critiques and concerns. Some teachers believed that students were taking advantage of the program and only paying lip service to avoid punishment, while other believed the process was giving students unrealistic expectations for how situations were handled in the real world. Most other concerns fell neatly within the following emergent themes: onboarding, perseverance, overcoming discomfort, and training (Rainbolt et al., 2019, p. 173). There have been studies that show positive restorative justice outcomes are associated with comprehensive PD (Kane et al., 2008; Wong et al., 2011), which further emphasizes the importance of training. For this Mayworm et al. (2016), offers a solution; incorporating teacher consultation to enhance restorative justice PD in schools. Here, the authors propose a model where some teachers and in-school experts, either restorative justice facilitators or school psychologist, collaborate to deliver PD on restorative justice in a way that is responsive to teacher needs and concerns.

Police in Schools

The scholarship that addresses police presence in schools has a long history and contentious history. Weiler and Cray (2011) discuss the origins of the SRO program in the United States, citing an increased concern for student safety following prominent school shootings in the 1990s as the main reason for the creation of the program. While these officers are primarily tasked with protecting students from outside threats and screening for drugs and weapons (Weiler & Cray, 2011), there are instances where they are called on to support in discipline (Curran et al., 2019). In fact, a report by the National Center for Educational Statistic indicated that SROs were involved in discipline management in 43% of the primary schools across the sample and in 63% of the secondary schools across the sample (Musu-Gillette et al., 2018). Several studies highlight the positive impact SROs have on school climate and students’ overall perception of safety (Barnes, 2016; Curran et al., 2019; Theriot, 2016), but many of these studies fail to directly address and examine how race and bias may influence the work of SROs.

Counts et al. (2018) speaks to this context using Civil Rights Data Collect (CRDC) data. In this study, the authors found that schools with SROs had five times as many arrests for disorderly conduct than schools without and that students of color and students with disabilities were more likely to be arrested in school, with black students being disproportionately represented in nationwide school arrests. Pentek and Eisenberg (2018) explicitly examined the relationship between SRO presence and race through a quantitative study in Minnesota. The authors’ data painted a nuanced image of race and discipline where black, Native American, and Latinx students all reported higher instances of receiving behavioral sanctions compared to white and Asian students when SROs were present, but black students scored highly on thoughts of feeling safer due to SRO presence in the school. This speaks to the complicated nature of bringing SROs into schools, where degrees of safety must be balanced with degrees of racial bias. Researchers have suggested either increasing the amount of racial bias training officers receive or changing policies to more clearly define the role of officers as well as outline the limitations to their power, as a means to mitigate racially disproportionate disciplinary practices (Counts et al., 2018; Pentek & Eisenberg, 2018).

The Role of Educational Leaders in Restorative Justice

Contemporary educational leadership research has provided frameworks for understanding the instances of responsiveness, care, community context, and trust present throughout the case. Principal Douglas’ desire to reform her school’s discipline policies due to the racial present in the discipline data is a step toward culturally responsive school leadership. Khalifa et al. (2016) conducted a synthesis of literature that outlined culturally responsive behaviors of school leaders which include: critical self-awareness, culturally responsive curriculum and teacher preparation, culturally responsive and inclusive school environments, and engaging students and parents in community context. Principal Douglas’ actions show some signs of critical self-awareness and culturally responsive and inclusive school environments since she was able to look at discipline data, recognize a racial gap, reflect on what that context meant and implement a policy to address this issue for the benefit of her students. However, literature of cultural responsiveness also calls for a school-wide critical interrogation of identity issues and suggests a school leaders’ actions must go beyond individual policies to address this context (Khalifa et al., 2016; Lustick, 2017). Principal Douglas’ expedient adoption of the policy was not enough to convince her staff of the need for this change, as evidenced by the pushback throughout the year, and shows a lack of critically engaging with issues of race and discipline on a school-wide level.

The interactions the facilitators and some of the SROs had with students are couched within a broader context of care in schools. Louis et al. (2016) discussed the ethics of care in schools and general practices that promoted schools as a caring environment. Included in these orientations is endorsing a culture of supportive structures and social relationships that involves students, teachers, staff, parents, and community organizations. L. Bass (2012) and L. R. Bass (2019) expounded on the ethics of care through an examination of the unique behaviors of black women as school leaders and later black men as school leaders. From these studies, Bass proposed several steps toward promoting institutional care. The steps that are relevant to this study are commit to employing caring teachers, faculty and staff, commit to continuous purposeful PD, facilitate relationship development and implement culturally relevant discipline policies and procedures (L. Bass, 2012). The relationships built between the students, the facilitators, and Ms. Bell and Coach Simms are indicative of the ethics of care. In some instances, there was a leveraging of community knowledge and context to further support relationships. However, a shortcoming of care is seen in the students’ responses to the other officers and counseling staff, as well as in the teachers’ comments. Again, this suggests that Principal Douglas’ actions were a step toward positive change but lacked a true school-wide investment in the change process. The literature suggests that restorative justice, cultural responsiveness, and care must be fully embedded within every component of the school, and partial commitment to these ideas creates institutional incoherence and does a disservice to the students.

Questions and Activities

Students should read the case narrative and the teaching notes to gain a sense of the story E.C. Johnson High School as well as the broader research literature that supports the case and then return to this section to discuss the questions and participate in the activities.

Discussion Questions

Principal Douglas cites the racial disproportionality in discipline data as the main impetus for her incorporation of restorative justice practices in the school. What would have been a better process for connecting these ideas for her staff to improve buy-in?

Take a closer look at the literature related to restorative justice, care, and cultural responsiveness (L. R. Bass, 2019; Khalifa et al., 2016; Vaandering, 2014). What are some of the things that were missing in Principal Douglas’ implementation of restorative justice?

One of the realities of modern schooling is the presence of police in the form of the SRO program, what are some ways that districts could better implement this program in schools, given the context and history around police and students of color?

The case provides an example of an organization that came into the school to offer services. What were some ways the members of the organization could be more meaningfully integrated within the school environment? How should there have been spaces cultivated for collaboration between facilitators and teachers?

What would have been a better way to address the interaction between the officer and the two black students on day 1? Consider the students perspective within the context of school-wide care.

Students in the case expressed some hesitation in speaking with school counseling staff, and other important school faculty. What could be done from an administrative standpoint to help mediate this tension?

Both the literature and the case discuss some instances of dissent in the teaching staff around disciplinary policies. What are some ways the school leader could have better navigated staff dissent both attending to teachers’ concerns and the best interest of the students?

Put yourself in Principal Douglas’ shoes. If you were presented with data that suggested that there was a racial disparity in disciplinary practices, what actions would you take to address these issues?

As a school leader, what sorts of PD would you introduce to your staff to reinforce an environment of care?

Activities

Consider the ways your school might display some racial or other patterns regarding disciplinary practices. Identify your school’s strengths and weaknesses around this topic. Next, create a plan of action that identifies concrete steps and stakeholders to include a plan to address identified weaknesses and further strengthen areas where your school is doing well.

In small groups, develop a PD session that incorporates either the ethics of care, cultural responsiveness, and restorative justice and attends to the needs of teacher while also addressing racial disparities in student discipline. Use relevant literature and other sources of information to develop your PD session. Construct a step-by-step plan of your PD session including a realistic breakdown of the time (or amount of sessions) needed to adequately cover the topic. In your plan include opportunities to leverage teachers knowledge as a part of the session.

In small groups, reimagine the way SRO programs could be restructured at a district level. Write the policies and procedures that should take place and pay explicit attention race and discipline. Also think of the ways to leverage and incorporate community partnerships and knowledge. This plan should include trainings, training frequency, and other relevant details. Create a realistic district-wide implementation plan.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Alounso A. Gilzene

Author Biography

Alounso A. Gilzene is a doctoral candidate at Michigan State University. His research interests include the history of urban education, education nonprofits, school leader sense-making in response to policy/finance contexts, and black neighborhood schools. Alounso seeks to participate in community-engaged scholarship and support critical, race-conscious reform efforts through research.

References

Amstutz

L. S.

Mullet

J. H.

(2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools: Teaching responsibility; creating caring climates. Good Books.

Barnes

L. M.

(2016). Keeping the peace and controlling crime: What school resource officers want school personnel to know. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 89(6), 197–201.

Bass

(2012). When care trumps justice: The operationalization of black feminist caring in educational leadership. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 25(1), 73–87.

Bass

L. R.

(2019). Black male leaders care too: An introduction to black masculine caring in educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 56(3), 353–395.

Counts

Randall

K. N.

Ryan

J. B.

Katsiyannis

(2018). School resource officers in public schools: A national review. Education and Treatment of Children, 41(4), 405–430.

Curran

F. C.

Fisher

B. W.

Viano

Kupchik

(2019). Why and when do school resource officers engage in school discipline? The role of context in shaping disciplinary involvement. American Journal of Education, 126(1), 33–63.

DeMatthews

D. E.

Carey

R. L.

Olivarez

Moussavi Saeedi

(2017). Guilty as charged? Principals’ perspectives on disciplinary practices and the racial discipline gap. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(4), 519–555.

Gonzalez

(2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41, 281.

Gregory

Skiba

R. J.

Mediratta

(2017). Eliminating disparities in school discipline: A framework for intervention. Review of Research in Education, 41(1), 253–278.

10.

Gregory

Skiba

R. J.

Noguera

P. A.

(2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap: Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59–68.

11.

Honig

M. I.

(2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 26(1), 65–87.

12.

Horsford

S. D.

Scott

J. T.

Anderson

G. L.

(2018). The politics of education policy in an era of inequality: Possibilities for democratic schooling. Routledge.

13.

Irby

D. J.

(2018). Mo’data, mo’problems: Making sense of racial discipline disparities in a large diversifying suburban high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(5), 693–722.

14.

Javdani

(2019). Policing education: An empirical review of the challenges and impact of the work of school police officers. American Journal of Community Psychology, 63(3–4), 253–269.

15.

Kane

Lloyd

McCluskey

Riddell

Stead

Weedon

(2008). An evaluation of restorative practices in three scottish local authorities. Scottish Executive Education Department.

16.

Khalifa

M. A.

Gooden

M. A.

Davis

J. E.

(2016). Culturally responsive school leadership: A synthesis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 1272–1311.

17.

Khalifa

M. A.

Khalil

Marsh

T. E.

Halloran

(2019). Toward an indigenous, decolonizing school leadership: A literature review. Educational Administration Quarterly, 55(4), 571–614.

18.

Losen

D. J.

(2011). Discipline policies, successful schools, and racial justice. National Education Policy Center.

19.

Louis

K. S.

Murphy

Smylie

(2016). Caring leadership in schools: Findings from exploratory analyses. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 310–348.

20.

Lustick

(2017). Making discipline relevant: Toward a theory of culturally responsive positive schoolwide discipline. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(5), 681–695.

21.

Mansfield

K. C.

Fowler

Rainbolt

(2018). The potential of restorative practices to ameliorate discipline gaps: The story of one high school’s leadership team. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 303–323.

22.

Mayworm

A. M.

Sharkey

J. D.

Hunnicutt

K. L.

Schiedel

K. C.

(2016). Teacher consultation to enhance implementation of school-based restorative justice. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 385–412.

23.

Musu-Gillette

Zhang

Wang

Zhang

Kemp

Diliberti

Oudekerk

B. A.

(2018). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2017 (NCES 2018-036/NCJ 251413). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.

24.

Nance

J. P.

(2015). Students, police, and the school-to-prison pipeline. Washington University Law Review Archive, 93, 919.

25.

Payne

A. A.

Welch

(2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539–564.

26.

Payne

A. A.

Welch

(2018). The effect of school conditions on the use of restorative justice in schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 16(2), 224–240.

27.

Pentek

Eisenberg

M. E.

(2018). School resource officers, safety, and discipline: Perceptions and experiences across racial/ethnic groups in Minnesota secondary schools. Children and Youth Services Review, 88, 141–148.

28.

Rainbolt

Fowler

E. S.

Mansfield

K. C.

(2019). High school teachers’ perceptions of restorative discipline practices. NASSP Bulletin, 103(2), 158–182.

29.

Skiba

R. J.

Chung

C. G.

Trachok

Baker

T. L.

Sheya

Hughes

R. L.

(2014). Parsing disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational Research Journal, 51(4), 640–670.

30.

Theriot

M. T.

(2016). The impact of school resource officer interaction on students’ feelings about school and school police. Crime & Delinquency, 62(4), 446–469.

31.

Turner

E. O.

Beneke

A. J.

(2020). “Softening” school resource officers: The extension of police presence in schools in an era of Black Lives Matter, school shootings, and rising inequality. Race Ethnicity and Education, 23(2), 221–240.

32.

Vaandering

(2014). Implementing restorative justice practice in schools: What pedagogy reveals. Journal of Peace Education, 11(1), 64–80.

33.

Wearmouth

Mckinney

Glynn

(2007). Restorative justice in schools: A New Zealand example. Educational Research, 49(1), 37–49.

34.

Weiler

S. C.

Cray

(2011). Police at school: A brief history and current status of school resource officers. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 84(4), 160–163.

35.

Winn

M. T.

(2018). Justice on both sides: Transforming education through restorative justice. Harvard Education Press.

36.

Wong

D. S.

Cheng

C. H.

Ngan

R. M.

S. K.

(2011). Program effectiveness of a restorative whole-school approach for tackling school bullying in Hong Kong. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 55(6), 846–862.

37.

Zimmerman

(2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it. NASSP Bulletin, 90(3), 238–249.