User:Leanneborn/sandbox

Addressing the Discipline Gap

Many school behavior management efforts criminalize small infractions, and maintain a focus on retribution rather than restoration. This, combined with institutional and individual bias, results in a significant overrepresentation of students of color in suspension and expulsion rates. Advocates of social justice in schools purport that exclusionary discipline practices such as suspension and expulsion actively remove students from their school communities and exacerbate feelings of isolation and resentment.

Zero tolerance policies, popularized in the 1990s, have been shown to be ineffective on multiple measures, leaving school leaders looking for alternative strategies to promote safe and orderly learning environments. School leaders focused on social justice are additionally compelled to find strategies that disrupt persisting inequities. This is where restorative justice practices, culturally and linguistically responsive practices (CLRP) and Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) come into play as approaches aiming to address both institutional inequities and the need for safe learning environments.

CLR-PBIS

Key Features of PBIS "o   Clearly defining behavioral expectations valued by the school community.""o   Proactively teaching what those expected behaviors look like in various school settings at least once a year.""o   Frequently rewarding students who comply with behavioral expectations.""o   Administering a clearly defined continuum of consequences for behavioral violations.""o   Continuously collecting and analyzing data to assess students’ responsiveness to the behavioral support provided."PBIS comes with a variety of acronyms. Some schools cut out the “intervention” part, going with the proactive-only PBS system. PBIS is more akin to the three-tiered Response to Intervention system. Others add in the necessity of schoolwide  (SW) implementation, dubbing the program SWPBIS. Whatever variation is used (here, PBIS), the primary practices included in the system are listed above. PBIS has shown promise in reducing exclusionary discipline practices overall, but has not shown, on its own, to be effective at reducing the racial disparities in student discipline, and in some cases has even been shown to exacerbate the discrepancies by further reducing discipline referrals for White students, but not for students of color. These criticisms have led to a call for examination of PBIS, and the integration of CLRP with PBIS in order to address systemic inequities in school discipline.

CLRP has its roots in the work of Gloria Ladson-Billings (1995) surrounding culturally relevant pedagogy. Reflecting on this initial thinking, Ladson-Billings more recently stated:"By focusing on student learning and academic achievement versus classroom and behavior management, cultural competence versus cultural assimilation or eradication, and sociopolitical consciousness rather than school-based tasks that have no beyond-school application, I was able to see students take both responsibility for and deep interest in their education. This is the secret behind culturally relevant pedagogy: the ability to link principles of learning with deep understanding of (and appreciation for) culture. (p 76-77)"Other scholars have echoed and built upon this work, giving linguistic relevance footing in the literature, proposing specific practices that may help teachers improve pedagogical relevance, and considering how to best integrate PBIS and CLRP.

Restorative Justice

Three Key Principles of Restorative Justice: Repairing Harm, Involving Stakeholders, Transforming Community Relationships

Thalia González describes restorative justice in schools as “an approach to discipline that engages all parties in a balanced practice that brings together all people impacted by an issue or behavior.” Heather Alexander details the roots of these practices, stating, “The principles of restorative justice are consistent with many indigenous traditions, including Canadian First Nations people and the Maori in New Zealand.” She also links restorative justice to “entangled roots in native, religious, and legal communities.” Alexander and González have studied how the underpinnings of various cultural, religious, and judicial practices have made their way into the philosophy and practice of restorative justice. Multiple scholars advocate for restorative practices as an alternative to exclusionary approaches to discipline, both in schools and in the criminal justice system.

Many different practices (including, but not limited to: circles, mediation, conferencing, and youth courts) are labeled as restorative justice. Trevor Fronius, et. al describe restorative justice as “a broad term that encompasses a growing social movement to institutionalize peaceful and non-punitive approaches for addressing harm, responding to violations of legal and human rights, and problem solving.” This definition speaks to restorative justice as more of a collection of practices rooted in a common philosophy than a specific “program.” Fronius, et. al go on to say that “the emphasis on the harm done rather than the act is a widely recognized principle across the RJ literature.” and they speak to Dorothy Vaandering’s work surrounding “how to use shame as a path toward reintegration rather than stigmatization." [h1]