National Commission for Restorative Justice in U.S. Schools: A Proposal

What does it say about a society when the term “school-to-prison pipeline” is a part of the zeitgeist? When, of 49 million students, 8 million are suspended, and 130,000 students are expelled (U.S. Department of Education), all in one year? When punishment at school is more common than support and students are being arrested in their kindergarten classrooms? That is the reality of the United States’ school system today.

This trend toward the punitive only worsens for children of color vulnerable to abuse or mistreatment at home. This is because the multi-tiered levels of racism (both conscious and unconscious) are compounded upon one another in the education system. As Fania Davis writes: “racism in the United States is three-dimensional: structural, institutional, and individual” (The Little Book of Race and Restorative Justice, p.32). The school system is a microcosm of such. The structure put in place prioritizes some students while leaving others behind. Educational institutions operate within the parameters of these structures and establish codes of conduct and disciplinary policies within them. These policies push out and victimize even more students and are then disproportionately enforced on students through the influence of individual bias (whether conscious or not), making the disparity that much more significant.

Although Black youth comprise only 17% of the nation’s public school students, they account for 32% of the students suspended (Raffaele Mendez & Knoff, 2003). “Black girls are 16 percent of girls in schools, but 42 percent of girls receiving corporal punishment, 42 percent of girls expelled with or without educational services, 45 percent of girls with at least one out-of-school suspension, 31 percent of girls referred to law enforcement, and 34 percent of girls arrested on campus” (Anderson & Morris, 2016).

There has been and continues to be a tremendous amount of harm experienced by students and community members due to the actions taken by schools and classroom culture. With the establishment of a National Commission and Conversation on Interracial Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation, we, as a nation, can start to shift this reality and heal the generations of harm we have caused.

Identifying the Cycle of Harm

Before any restoration or reconciliation can be made at the systemic, institutional, or interpersonal level, the full spectrum of harm needs to be identified. In the school systems (as with the prison system), the harm is cyclical and compounding–those who have been harmed act out, receive punishment (and therefore more harm) and thus act out more and receive harsher sentences. Some of the most prominent vehicles of these cycles of harm are zero-tolerance policies, exclusionary punishment, dress codes and the hypersexualization of Black girls, student resource officers, and the fact that most educational materials are White-centric.

Zero-Tolerance Policies and Exclusionary Punishment

Zero-tolerance policies in the United States have been largely attributed to the increasing number of student suspensions and expulsions. These policies were initially crafted as “immediate, harsh, and legally mandated punishments” meant to deter drug traffickers (Wallace et al., 2008). It’s no surprise, then, that the introduction of these policies in schools led students on a mainline to prisons. It’s also no surprise that suspension has been correlated to repeated suspensions and, eventually, dropout for millions of students (Raffaele Mendez, 2003). Additionally, these harsh punishments enforced because of zero-tolerance policies are applied more frequently and more aggressively to the most vulnerable students–often Black female students. Take, for example, six-year-old Kaia Rolle was arrested. Mug shots were taken when she kicked a staff member during a tantrum in 2019 (Darby, 2019) or kindergartener Salecia Johnson. The latter was arrested for “biting the doorknob of the office and jumping on the paper shredder” in the principal’s office of her Georgia classroom (Campbell, 2012).

Zero-tolerance policies opt for punishment rather than healing, and are often applied out of fear rather than compassion. And because implicit bias and racial stereotypes often vilify people of color (including children), the choice to punish rather than support is almost always the path chosen. Not only do zero-tolerance policies fail to help a child heal from the initial pain that caused them to act out, but their exclusionary tendency only adds to the harm. Humans are social creatures; we are through our relationships–such as the concept of ubuntu. When we remove students (or any person) from their school community, we cut them off from those relationships and, therefore, prevent proper healing and accountability for their actions.

Dress Codes and the Hypersexualization of Black Girls

Dress codes in school are often called out for their sexualization of female students and criminalizing or dehumanizing students of color, referring to afros, cornrows, or natural black hair as “dirty” or “unkept” works to teach Black children that their Blackness is inappropriate and unclean. Telling girls that they cannot show their shoulders or lower thighs because it “distracts” their male classmates works to sexualize them, often before puberty. Additionally, oversexualizing students ignores the fact that many students are, in fact, victims of sexualization from the rest of the world as well.

According to Morris (2018), 40 percent of the sex trafficking victims in the United States are Black (p. 102), and in areas with some of the highest rates of trafficking, most girls are between the ages of 13 and 15 (p. 103). Because they are not provided the support systems they need to thrive, Black girls experiencing pushout from their schools are often highly susceptible to being groomed by potential traffickers or abusers. Because their abuse falls under the guise of a relationship–of which they are given poor representations–with their trafficker, these girls usually don’t realize they are entering an abusive situation until it’s far too late. Dr. Monique Morris met with many women and girls who had been sex workers as children:

In my conversation with other young women who were involved in sex work, many did not identify as ‘sexually exploited’ or ‘sex-trafficked girls,’ nor did they believe themselves to be ‘prostitutes.’ Like Diamond, they might say instead that they have an older ‘boyfriend’ (rather than a pimp) or ‘bust dates’ to indicate casual participation in the sex trade without fully committing to the idea that they were or are selling sex. These girls are vulnerable–very vulnerable–because they are often clawing their way out of some intense situations, without the support of advocates or trained professionals who know how to respond to the needs of sexually exploited children. The men in their lives know that. (p. 118)

Schools should be safe places, and that will never be possible if school policies criminalize and sexualize students based on their clothing, hairstyles, and bodies. Instead, schools should identify when a student is presenting sexually advanced behavior for their development and take measures to ensure that student’s safety.

Student Resource Officers

Implementation of student resource officers (SROs) and heightened surveillance in schools are substantial mistakes on the part of administrators. While these measures are put in place to decrease violence in school and protect students, they are actually one of the biggest reinforcers of the school-to-prison pipeline, bringing law enforcement–a system wrought with violence and implicit bias–into the schools. These measures also introduce personnel who are not trained in restorative or trauma-informed practices nor held to the same standards as school staff.

White-Centric Classroom Materials

When we fail to acknowledge the vast array of perspectives and experiences in a classroom, we fail our students. Without seeing people like them reflected in their books, word problems, and history lessons, students are less likely to engage with the material or express interest and are often “permitted to fail” by their teachers, who resent their seeming lack of respect (Morris, 2018). As Chayla Haynes writes, “Faculty can make some students feel insignificant through their selection of educational material and teaching style” (2017). This colonization of the classroom additionally contributes to the perpetuation of the erasure of BIPOC (Black Indigenous People of Color) experiences and trauma.

Who Are the Responsible Parties

Identifying the parties responsible is a crucial step in the process of restorative justice. Without knowing who is responsible for making amends, facing accountability, and providing recompense, the victim’s needs cannot be met. In the issue of the school-to-prison pipeline, it’s not as simple as a single act of violence. The violence and trauma are caused on the individual level, the institutional level, and the systemic level. Therefore, the needs of those harmed are wide-ranging and vast. Those who must be held accountable, while also extensive, must start at the interpersonal level before we can see actual systemic change and healing.

To understand how to hold these offenders accountable, let’s first define what exactly “accountability” is. “Accountability is not just a feeling. It is a way of behaving” (Sered, p. 112) and requires five key elements: (1) acknowledging the responsibility of one’s actions; (2) acknowledging the impact of one’s actions on others; (3) expressing genuine remorse; (4) taking actions to repair the harm to the degree possible, and guided when feasible by the people harmed, or ‘doing sorry’; and (5) no longer committing similar harm” (Sered, p. 96).

No matter at the individual level, systemic level, or institutional level, these five elements apply. If an educational institution does not express genuine remorse or acknowledge the impact of their policies or actions on others, they have not accepted accountability, nor can they indeed “do sorry,” as Sered says.

Implementing a National Commission

Restorative justice is constructed upon three simple elements or pillars: harms and related needs (of those victimized, first of all, but also of the communities and those who cause harm); obligations that have resulted from (and given rise to) this harm (offender’s but also the community’s); and engagement of those who have legitimate interest or stake in the offense and the resolution (those harmed, those causing harm, and community members) (Zehr, 2015, pp. 33–36). For the National Commission and Conversation on Interracial Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation to be considered “restorative,” it must consider all three of these pillars, which act as signposts toward restorative justice.

It would also be helpful for the Commission to pull from the successes and failures of previous similar efforts, such as the Maine-Wabanaki Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). “Though originating from grassroots community organizing, the MWTRC also involved collaboration with government actors…led ceremonies and supported communities and people wishing to testify…provided education…[and] recommended a host of systemic reform” (Davis, p.79). By working within both top-down and bottom-up processes, the Maine-Wabanaki TRC was able to meet the needs of the Indigenous communities (the victims), provide longevity and systemic reform, and educate the non-Indigenous community as a whole.

I recommend a similar top-down and bottom-up approach with this Commission. A successful implementation would likely come in four phases: (1) truth-telling and conversation; (2) trauma-informed and culturally competent teacher training; (3) curriculum consultations and code of conduct reviews; (4) alternative sentencing circles.

Truth-Telling and Conversation

“Healing interpersonal harm requires a commitment to transforming the context in which the injury occurs: the socio-historical conditions and institutions that are structured precisely to perpetuate harm” (Davis, p.35).

As we see in the Main-Wabanaki TRC, the ability to speak the truth about what has happened to you without being ignored or dismissed can be immensely transformative for victims and survivors of harm. The first step in any restorative action is re-centering the incident’s (or, in this case, the institution’s) narrative from the oppressor’s perspective to the victim’s. We cannot know how deep the harm is without giving space to the voices of the harmed. Restorative justice is, and must always be, centered on the needs of the victims.

As Morris (2018) writes, “We have yet to center [Black girls’] voices in our public discussion on victimization. The assumption that Black women and girls should be able to ‘handle it all’ dominates our consciousness. But in doing so, we mistake the resiliency of our sisters for the absence of harm, and we miss girls like Heaven, who then blame themselves when their actions fall short of this unrealistic and contrived ideal” (p. 183).

An influential National Commission would establish regular, ongoing truth-telling sessions. Those who have been harmed by the education system in the United States can come together and share their story with school administrators and Department of Education officials. These would ideally be region-wide and held at least twice per year, though preferably more at first. The goal of these truth-telling sessions is to identify what the needs of students and community members (the victims) are. Plans of action would then be determined as a group based on what is learned. Schools should also hold Truth-telling sessions at the individual level to identify how each school can work together with their students and community at large to create safer spaces and provide healing for revealed harms.

Trauma-Informed and Culturally-Competent Teacher Trainings

Teachers who have not been trained in trauma-informed and culturally competent teaching are not ready to step into the classroom. Without these basic frameworks, an educator is more likely to cause harm to or trigger students. Maura McInerney and Amy McKlindon of the Education Law Center said it well when they wrote:

All schools and educators work with children who have experienced trauma, but you may not know who these students are. Schools have an essential role to play in providing stability and a safe space for children and connecting them to caring adults. In addition to serving as a link to supportive services, schools can adapt curricula and behavioral interventions to better meet the educational needs of students who have experienced trauma. (2014)

When we rely on exclusionary punishments, supported by zero-tolerance policies, educators often fail to identify when a child’s actions are based on trauma and, therefore, punish a student for a triggering event that their material or White-centric classroom material may likely have caused. Providing well-rounded teacher training for all educators is an essential step in ensuring students safe spaces that connect them to supportive services and understand when to admit responsibility for the catalyzing of “poor” behavior.

Curriculum Consultations and Code of Conduct Reviews

Because so many of the institutional and systemic harms are implemented by White-centric, non-trauma-informed curricula and codes of conduct, conducting reviews would be crucial in identifying areas of harm. Morris approached a similar tactic, specifically with regard to how these systems influence Black girls specifically. “We need a radical shift,” she writes, “in how we examine educational and punitive laws, politics, institutions, and systems…so that we know how best to understand and remedy their impact on our girls” (p. 182). To do this, Morris provides three central questions to ask when examining a school or punitive system’s policies: (1) What assumptions are being made about the conditions of Black girls?; (2) How might Black girls be uniquely impacted by the school and other disciplinary policies?; (3) How are organizations, systems, and policies creating an environment that is conducive or not conducive to the healthy development of Black girls? (p. 182).

We might adapt these questions for reviewing and consulting on the curriculum for how it influences all vulnerable students by asking: (1) What assumptions are being made about the conditions and life experiences of students in this classroom?; (2) How might BIPC, LGBTQIA+, and other vulnerable students by uniquely impacted by our school’s disciplinary policies?; (3) How are organizations, systems, and policies creating an environment that is conducive or not conducive to the healthy development of all students?

Schools might decide to use information learned during truth-telling sessions to help identify specific areas of their school policies that have caused particular harm and might require further or more detailed examination and revision. Any changes to policy, code of conduct, or school traditions and culture, must be consented to by the school community as a whole and should not be the sole decision of school officials, as this would leave out the victims from the acts meant to be supportive and healing.

Alternative Sentencing Though Circles

After reviewing and pinpointing areas of harm and exclusionary punishment, schools may be left feeling as though there are no consequences for misbehavior, disrespect, violence, bullying, or other harmful actions. This is where alternative sentencing through circles comes in. Sentencing circles, to be clear, are not an “easy way out” for perpetrators. In fact, the circle process is much more capable of holding students accountable than simply banishing that student from their community until they have “learned their lesson.” Danielle Sered explains that “while mercy must have a central place in justice, on its own, it is not an adequate substitute for punishment. Mercy alone often fails to acknowledge the suffering of those harmed or to take seriously the responsibility of those who caused the pain” (p.94). Though Sered focuses her work on the criminal justice system, so much of the harms and misdeeds connect directly to the educational system (hence, the school-to-prison pipeline).

Sered calls for alternative sentencing for those who are not yet fully developed. They are often acting out of emotion and impulse and are very likely to demonstrate major emotional growth and shifts in the coming years. “Adolescents are still growing up, and their capacities for consequential thinking and impulse control, in particular, are still in development until they are twenty-four years old” (Sered, p. 167). Circles are a powerful way to equip our young people with the skills they need to work together with the community to heal together. They hold students more accountable than suspensions and expulsions because the offender must face the victim and see the true human impact of their actions (one of the pillars of restorative justice).

Circles allow the victim and offender to understand and develop an action plan that will cause healing and longevity, and they get to the root of the offense. As we say in restorative justice: harmed people harm people. Therefore, it’s likely that the circle process would unveil further harms on the part of the offender that might need to be addressed through new circles with other groups and communities. The healing capacities of these circles are genuinely immense.

Restorative Justice in Schools: a Brighter Future

Restorative justice in schools is not a new idea and has been implemented nationally in other countries. Australia was one of the first documented cases of such efforts in 1994. Because the response was so positive, the practice of restorative in school was adopted by most schools in the country soon after (Davis, 2019). Small efforts have been galvanized across the United States. However, there is still much pushback on the part of school administrators and officials regarding significant change. Still, though, the benefits are undeniable:

According to a 2015 implementation study of whole-school restorative justice in Oakland that compared schools with restorative justice to schools without, from 2011 to 2014, graduation rates in restorative schools increased by 60 percent compared to a 7 percent increase in non-restorative schools; reading scores increased 128 percent versus 17 percent, and the dropout rate decreased 56 percent versus 17 percent. Harm was repaired in 76 percent of conflicting circles, with students learning to talk instead of fight through differences at home and at school, and more than 88 percent of teachers said that restorative practices were very or somewhat helpful in managing difficult student behaviors (Davis, p. 49).

The establishment of a National Commission and Conversation on Interracial Truth, Justice, and Reconciliation could amplify these outcomes and spread them to our most vulnerable communities nationally. It would also interrupt the cycles of harm and reach deep to their roots instead of compounding trauma and exhaling those who need help the most. While there are hesitations on the part of the schools, it’s clear that, as they see their school opening up and healing, everyone will understand: that restorative justice is the future of modern schooling.

References

Anderson, M. D., & Morris, M. (2016, March 15). The Criminalization of Black Girls in Schools. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/03/the-criminalization-of-black-girls-in-schools/473718/.

Davis, F. (2019). The little book of race and restorative justice: black lives, healing, and Us social transformation. Good Books.

Haynes, C. (2017). Dismantling the White Supremacy Embedded in our Classrooms: White Faculty in Pursuit of More Equitable Educational Outcomes for Racially Minoritized Students. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education.

McInerney, M. E., & McKlindon, A. (2014, December). Unlocking the Door to Learning: Trauma-Informed Classrooms & Transformational Schools http://affcny.org/wp-content/uploads/Trauma-Informed-in-Schools-Classrooms-FINAL-December2014-2.pdf.

Sered, D. (2019). Until We Reckon: violence, mass incarceration, and a road to repair. New Press.

US Department of Education (ED). (2016, July 18). School Climate and Discipline: Know the Data. Laws and Guidance. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/data.html.

Wallace, J. M., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2008). Racial, Ethnic, and Gender Differences in School Discipline among U.S. High School Students: 1991–2005. The Negro educational review. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2678799/.

Zehr, H., MacRae, A., Pranis, K., & Amstutz, L. A. (2015). Big book of restorative justice: three classic justice & peacebuilding books. Good Books.