Schools in the United States have been using punitive policies to discipline their students, such as, zero-tolerance policies, suspension, and expulsion. These harsh punishments have led to exclusionary policies that disproportionately affect marginalized students, by reproducing harmful power structures, perpetuating the school-to-prison pipeline, and negatively impacting academic performance. Within the last 20 years, restorative justice practices have begun to be implemented in schools in various metropolitan areas to combat the impacts of harsh discipline on school communities, while still maintaining safety and accountability among students. Previous research on restorative justice has indicated an increase in school community, increased emphasis on social and emotional learning, and increased academic performance, resulting in positive changes within the school setting among both students and faculty. Although restorative practices have maintained these ideas, there have been a handful of critics who emphasis the limitations, including the notion that these practices are upheld by discriminatory and unequitable structures in our society. These limitations come from a place of desired improvement to restorative justice rather than a desire to dismantle it. In order to implement restorative justice in schools, there are necessary methods, such as proper training and adequate infrastructure, that will improve the effectiveness of those disciplinary practices.

In this thesis, I argue that restorative justice practices in schools are beneficial to combating the school-to-prison pipeline and improving academic success, through an emphasis on community building and social and emotional learning.

In what ways does restorative justice implementation in schools, as an alternative to punitive justice, impact students and school community?

Community Building:

• Restorative justice believes that when an offense occurs within the school grounds, the offender is breaking a social contract, that has already been established, between themselves and the school community, thus mending the relationship and reducing the harm done to the community rather than the individual (Gonzalez, et al, 2019, Payne & Welch, 2015).

• Community building not only encourages accountability on the part of the offender, but it also helps to reintegrate offenders back into those communities.

• On average, “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 or for them” (Payne & Welch, 2015:226).

• “Teachers who implemented RJ frequently had better relationships with their students, [and] the students felt respected by their teachers, and teachers generally issued fewer referrals” (Fronius, et al., 2016:17).

Increase in Academic and Social Outcomes:

• At surface level, restorative justice has begun to dismantle the racial disparities that are present in schools in terms of discipline. It is important to note however, that restorative justice does not eliminate all of the racial disparities present in schools.

• At Denver Public Schools, suspension rates have dropped 4.95 percent in the first six years that they have implemented restorative policies. Also, for African American students, suspension rates dropped 7.19 percent, Latino students dropped 5.44 percent, and white students dropped 3.6 percent (Gonzalez, 2015).

• In Denver Public Schools, graduation rates increased from 46.4 percent in 2009 to 51.8 percent in 2010, along with four percentage point increase in reading, seven percent increase in math, six percent increase in writing, and nine percent increase in science (Schiff, 2013, Gonzalez. 2015).

Emphasis on Empathy and SEL:

• Social and emotional learning is the implementation of fostering emotional responses in students in a safe and controlled environment, into the curriculum. This curriculum aligns hand in hand with restorative justice, and both maintain having an ethos of shared goals that facilitate mutual understandings, and restoring harm through remorse, compassion, apology, and forgiveness.

• Minnesota’s public schools, during their pilot year, found that, “two thirds of staff perceived the RJ programs as improving the social-emotional development of students” (Fronius, 2016:22).

• The use of restorative justice practices furthers that budding understanding of empathy, and gives students the opportunity to work on their social and emotional skills in a productive way.

While we see significant change in academic performance, community building, and social and emotional skills while using a stand-alone method of restorative justice, we will not be able to see the full effectiveness without a whole-school approach (Hurley, Guckenburg, Persson, Fronius & Petrosino, 2015).

Training:

• It is essential for restorative justice to be used by every teacher in the school, and that for all teachers to be using it independently of punitive policies.

• All trainings done for teachers need to taught by an expert in the field, whether that be somebody who has researched the topic through case studies or somebody who has practiced it in their own schools. The theoretical basis of restorative justice is important, (and would be included in the experts training) but it is not sustainable for schools to implement restorative policies based on solely theory.

• The type of training that teachers should receive should include how to intervene during an offense, how to hold a productive and inclusive conference with students, what implicit bias is, how to find it within yourself and how to change it, and how to turn this new knowledge into policy.

• The implementation of restorative justice in schools is a long-term commitment that needs to be constantly addressed and discussed. Continual teacher meetings where they discuss their successes and concerns using restorative justice in their classroom, “is what helps transform knowledge gained from… training into applied skills in the actual classroom”. (Mayworm, Sharkey, Hunnicutt & Schiedel, 2016:18).

• Punitive policies separate the students from the administration and assert power over the offenders, therefore instead of building a community it actually tears it down, which is harmful to the relationship between students and their schools.

• Restorative justice policies implemented in schools increase a sense of community between students and staff, improve social and emotional learning in students, increase the academic performance of students, and decrease expulsions and suspensions.

• Even with active discussions about- and implementation of- restorative justice, schools with higher diversity in race and socioeconomic status are oftentimes the schools that are not using restorative justice, indicating that the staff at these schools do not believe it would be effective or are simply unaware of this new form of discipline (Song & Swearer, 2016). That is why, it is important to continually be discussing and advocating for restorative practices, because ultimately the schools that are not using them are the ones that need them the most.

• Restorative justice training should be modeled the same way that restorative justice practices are modeled with students. The main goal that restorative justice intends to reach is a large culture shift among the school and larger community, that provides for a safe, nondiscriminatory school environment when it comes to the discipline of students (Schiff, 2018). This process starts with the staff, so their training should be collaborative and non-hierarchical, allowing for active listening, respect, and inclusion from both sides.

• Ultimately, restorative justice practices as an alternative approach to punitive justice practices is far more effective in creating a positive school environment that benefits both the students and the school itself, and they are necessary in combating the school-to-prison pipeline.

• Fronius, Trevor., et. al. 2016. “Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Research Review.” 1-45.

• Gavrielides, Theo. 2014. "Bringing Race Relations into the Restorative Justice Debate: An Alternative and Personalized Vision of "the Other"." Journal of Black Studies 45(3):216- 246.

• Gonzalez, Thalia., Sattler, Heather., Buth, Annalise J. 2019. "New Direction in Whole-School Restorative Justice Implementation." Conflict Resolution Quarterly 36(3):207-220.

• Gonzalez, Thalia. 2015. "Socializing Schools: Addressing Racial Disparities in Discipline through Restorative Justice." Closing the School Discipline Gap 151-165.

• Hurley, Nancy., Guckenburg, Sarah. Persson, Hannah., Fronius, Trevor., Petrosino, Anthony. "Further Research is Needed on Restorative Justice in Schools?" WestEd 1-12.

• Mayworm, Ashley M., Sharkey, Jill D., Hunnicutt, Kayleigh L., Schiedel, Chris K. 2016. “Teacher Consultation to Enhance Implementation of School-Based Restorative Justice.” Journal of Educational and

Psychological Consultation 26(4):385-412.

• Mcclusky, Gillean., Lloyd, Gwynedd., Stead, J., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Weedon, E. 2008. "I was dead restorative today': From Restorative Justice to Restorative Approaches in School." Cambridge Journal of Education

(3)8:199-216.

• Payne, Allison Ann., Welch, Kelly. 2018. "The Effect of School Conditions on the Use of Restorative Justice in Schools." Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice 16(2):224-240.

• Schiff, Mara. 2018. "Can Restorative Justice Disrupt the 'School-to-Prison Pipeline?'" Contemporary Justice Review 21(2): 121-139.

• Schiff, Mara. 2013. "Institutionalizing Restorative Justice: Paradoxes of Power, Restoration and Rights." Pp. 153-170 in Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy. New York: Ashgate Publishing.

• Song, Samuel Y., Swearer, Susan M. 2016. “The Cart Before the Horse: The Challenge and Promise of Restorative Justice Consultation in Schools.” Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation 26(4):313-324.