REL Midwest Ask A REL Response

Discipline

October 2020

Anyon, Y., Gregory, A., Stone, S., Farrar, J., Jenson, J. M., McQueen, J., et al. (2016). Restorative interventions and school discipline sanctions in a large urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1663–1697. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1124998

From the ERIC abstract: “A large urban district (N = 90,546 students, n = 180 schools) implemented restorative interventions as a response to school discipline incidents. Findings from multilevel modeling of student discipline records (n = 9,921) revealed that youth from groups that tend to be overrepresented in suspensions and expulsions (e.g., Black, Latino, and Native American youth; boys; and students in special education) had similar, if not greater, rates of participation in restorative interventions than their peers. First-semester participants in restorative interventions had lower odds of receiving office discipline referrals (OR 0.21, p < 0.001) and suspensions (OR 0.07, p < 0.001) in the second semester. However, the suspension gap between Black and White students persisted. Implications for reform in school discipline practices are noted.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2019). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: An updated research review. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED595733

From the ERIC abstract: “This report presents information garnered from a comprehensive review of the literature on restorative justice in U.S. schools. The purpose of the review is to capture key issues, describe models of restorative justice, and summarize results from studies conducted in the field. The authors first conducted and published a literature review on this topic in early 2016, covering research reports and other relevant literature that had been published or made publicly available between 1999 and mid-2014 (Fronius, Persson, Guckenburg, Hurley, & Petrosino, 2016). This report expands on that earlier review, updating it to include publications available through July 2018.”

Fronius, T., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: A research review. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED596786

From the abstract: “This report provides a comprehensive review of the literature on restorative justice in U.S. schools. The review captures key issues, describes models of restorative justice, and summarizes results from studies conducted in the field. The review was conducted on research reports and other relevant literature published, or made publicly available, between 1999 and mid-2014 and was guided by the following questions: (1) What are the origins and theory underlying U.S. schools’ interest in restorative justice?; (2) How does the literature describe restorative justice programs or approaches in U.S. schools?; (3) What issues have been identified as important to consider for implementing restorative justice in the schools?; and (4) What does the empirical research say about the impact of restorative justice in the schools? In the literature reviewed for this report, restorative justice is generally portrayed as a promising approach to address school climate, culture, and safety. Although the community of support for its implementation has grown exponentially over the past several years, more research is needed. Several rigorous trials underway will perhaps provide the evidence necessary to make stronger claims about the impact of restorative justice, and the field will benefit greatly as those results become available over the next several years.”

Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., Persson, H., Fronius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2015). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: Summary findings from interviews with experts. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED568378

From the ERIC abstract: “This report is part of a larger body of work by the WestEd Justice and Prevention Research Center focusing on restorative justice (RJ) as an alternative to traditional responses to student misbehavior in schools across the United States. This work seeks to document the current breadth of evidence on the subject, provide a more comprehensive picture of how RJ practices are implemented in schools, and lay the groundwork for future research, implementation, and policy…This report presents a summary of 43 interviews conducted with experts in RJ between January and October 2014…They present the main findings from the interviews under the following topic areas: (1) Current work related to restorative justice in schools; (2) Defining restorative justice in schools; (3) Key practices of restorative justice in schools; (4) Successes and challenges of implementing restorative justice in schools; and (5) Suggestions for future research on restorative justice in schools. For each topic area we have included some relevant quotes from the interviews.”

Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., Persson, H., Fronius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: Practitioners’ perspectives. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from https://www.wested.org/resources/restorative-justice-practitioners-perspectives/

From the abstract: “This research report, developed by researchers at the WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center, focuses on how practitioners are integrating restorative justice (RJ) practices into their schools as an alternative to traditional responses to student misbehavior. The report covers how and when RJ is used in schools, and the successes and challenges schools face. The study findings are based on data from both a survey of and interviews with practitioners who are implementing RJ in schools.

Key Findings

• Most respondents agreed that student discussion circles are the most frequently used component of an RJ program
• Respondents indicated that one of the biggest successes of implementing an RJ approach is a large and rapid decrease in student suspensions and expulsions
• Some of the most common challenges of RJ implementation include resistance from some administrators, staff, students, and parents; insufficient funding; and extensive training requirements.”

Hurley, N., Guckenburg, S., Persson, H., Fronius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2015). What further research is needed on restorative justice in schools? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559727

From the ERIC abstract: “Restorative justice is a non-punitive approach to resolving conflict that focuses on restoring relationships. This report summarizes recommendations about future research and evaluation needs that would advance the understanding of restorative justice in K-12 schools in the United States. The recommendations were generated from interviews with over 40 nationally recognized leaders in restorative justice, supplemented by a large focus group discussion, and cover: (1) Implementation readiness; (2) Whole-school versus stand-alone models; (3) Implementation and effectiveness; (4) Impacts on racial and ethnic minorities and students with disabilities; (5) Leadership/training; and (6) Data and measurement. Also included in the report is a starter set of research questions that can be considered by foundations, the federal government, and the research community to begin building a strong body of empirical evidence about restorative justice in schools. An appendix contains the names of the individuals who were interviewed for this report.”

Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539–564. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1063731

From the ERIC abstract: “Schools today are more frequently using punitive discipline practices to control student behavior, despite the greater effectiveness of community-building techniques on compliance that are based on restorative justice principles found in the criminal justice system. Prior research testing the racial threat hypothesis has found that the racial composition of schools is associated with the use of more punitive and less reparative approaches to discipline, just as it has been associated with criminal justice harshness. However, no research to date has assessed the possibility that school-level racial composition may affect the likelihood that specific restorative justice techniques, which are the most commonly used alternative, will be implemented. This study is the first to test the racial threat perspective in relation to use of the restorative practices student conferences, peer mediation, restitution, and community service. Using a national random sample in logistic regression analyses, we find that schools with proportionally more Black students are less likely to use such techniques when responding to student behavior. This finding has several troubling implications for minority students in particular and for education as a whole.”

Note: REL Midwest was unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this resource. Although REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible, it was determined that this resource may be of interest to you. It may be found through university or public library systems.

Rich, L., Mader, N., & Pacheco-Applegate, A. (2017). Restorative justice programming and student behavioral and disciplinary outcomes. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago. Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED586337

From the ERIC abstract: “This report examines the effect of a primary component of restorative justice (RJ) programming in one community-based organization (CBO) on students’ behavioral and disciplinary outcomes in four Chicago high schools from 2014 to 2016. It looks at the effect of students’ use of RJ programs offered in the CBO’s ‘Peace Room’ (PR) on rates of disciplinary infractions, in-school suspensions (ISS) and out-of-school suspensions (OSS). Data on student utilization of the PR compiled by the CBO staff were linked with data on student disciplinary infractions and suspensions obtained from Chicago Public Schools. Propensity score matching was used to compare outcomes of students who had one or more infractions and utilized the PR to similar students who attended the same four high schools prior to the implementation of the PR. Results found that the percentage of PR participants who had one or more misconducts and received OSS was 30 percentage points lower than the percentage for students in the comparison group. Specifically, 43 percent of the former received OSS versus 73 percent of the latter. Students who had one or more incidents of misconduct and utilized the PR experienced about 4 fewer days of OSS than students in the comparison group.”

Sandwick, T., Hahn, J. W., & Hassoun Ayoub, L. (2019). Fostering community, sharing power: Lessons for building restorative justice school cultures. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(145). Retrieved from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1235090

From the ERIC abstract: “Increasingly, education policymakers are touting restorative justice as a way to interrupt the ‘school-to-prison pipeline,’ which disproportionately impacts students by race, sexuality, and disability. A small but growing research literature suggests that restorative justice decreases suspension and behavioral incidents, while improving school climate--particularly when embraced as a schoolwide ethos, rather than a targeted disciplinary strategy. Restorative justice represents a marked departure from long-standing punitive approaches to discipline, however, and school communities are eager for support in navigating this culture shift. To this end, this article presents findings from case studies of five diverse NYC schools using restorative justice approaches. Drawing on qualitative data from interviews and focus groups with educators, students, parents, and school safety.”