RESTORATIVE JUSTICE: A True or False Quiz for Parents
RESTORATIVE JUSTICE TRUE-or-FALSE QUIZ for PARENTS
By Robin Steenman
The topic of Restorative Justice ideology in schools is not one that is as well discussed as some others, such as CRT, SEL, or gender ideology. Many parents have never heard of the concept, yet most sense that something is amiss in the world of school discipline. Every week, the news features some new horrifying footage of a student or teacher being brutally assaulted in schools, and the severity of the punishment (if there is one) never seems to match the severity of the crime.
For obvious reasons, this topic is of critical importance, as it quickly becomes an issue of physical safety and in some cases, life or death.
In January of our “2022-2023 School Year for Parents,” this chapter focused on the this critical issue in order to inform parents on what is occurring in schools and to equip them with the knowledge to demand common sense change. As part of this initiative, we hosted RJ 101, RJ 102, read “Why Meadow Died” by Andrew Pollack and Max Eden, created an 8 minute video “The Truth About Restorative Justice,” and built an online parent toolkit in our resource library.
Well, how did we do?
Are you fully informed on this ideology? We invite you to take the end-of-course “True-False Quiz for Parents” and test your knowledge!
- The concept of Restorative Justice was developed by teachers and education professionals specifically for the school environment.
FALSE. Restorative Justice actually began in the federal prison system as a way to bring closure to felons and their victims. At the end of a sentence, the felon would be given a chance to meet with their victim to offer apology and show remorse for their actions.
- Restorative Justice disrupts the school-to-prison pipeline and sets students up for success by not giving them a criminal record.
FALSE. Restorative Justice arguably cements a new avenue to prison by creating consequence-free environments in which bad actors are emboldened to continue these actions. Without early intervention and discipline, these students are permitted to graduate under the guise of “this is how the world works and I can continue these actions.” Well, perhaps that’s true in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Memphis, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and others, where RJ (i.e. no consequences) are supported by Soros-funded District Attorneys.
- Restorative Justice is not racially based.
FALSE. The original RJ program was built on a foundation of racial justice in Broward County schools. The joint DOE-DOJ letter published in Jan 2014 under the Obama administration was almost entirely about race in schools, threatening schools with civil rights investigations for disciplining minority students.
- Restorative Justice lowers the number of school expulsions and arrests.
TRUE, but… not how you think it does. Restorative Justice incentivizes schools to either 1) not report disciplinary actions, or 2) to not discipline at all. The advertised statistics are usually skewed to make the school look good and to hide the true disciplinary numbers.
- Schools utilizing Restorative Justice can be counted on to put student safety first.
FALSE. It is more likely that schools are putting their reporting of disciplinary statistics first and social justice second. Considering the rampant parent reports of un-disciplined bullies in WCS, student safety does not appear to be at the top of the priority list. This is true of school districts across the country. A most recent example here:
- School districts implement Restorative Justice out of an abundance of concern for student well being.
FALSE. One of the original RJ programs, Broward County Schools’ PROMISE Program, was initiated from the ideology of social justice. The Obama administration pushed this program into all schools across the nation via a joint Department of Education-Department of Justice “Dear Colleague” letter in January 2014. This letter threatened schools with civil rights investigations on the basis of racial discrimination if their disciplinary statistics featured too many minority students. The purse strings then followed, tying federal dollars to restorative justice programs and benchmark reporting.
- Teachers generally support Restorative Justice.
FALSE. Restorative Justice practices appear to be the top reason teachers are leaving their profession. Watch this former teacher’s account in this excerpt from RJ102. Teachers are routinely profaned and assaulted in the classroom. RJ programs discourage them from sending unruly students to the principal’s office. If they want to initiate action to remove the student from their classroom, it is often a 6 month paperwork nightmare. By many accounts, when a teacher sends a student to the principal’s office, the principal’s office simply sends them back in short order.
Restorative Justice also pits school administrations against its teachers, pressuring them to make the numbers look good and second-guessing them for disciplinary actions taken. This FOIA request from Williamson County Schools appears to show school administrators second-guessing a teacher for disciplining a minority student, requesting her discipline referral numbers based on race and alleging bias. No benefit of the doubt is given to the teacher or inquiry made as to the situation that caused the referral(s).
- Per the Multi-Tiered System of Support guidance, teachers convene a “restorative circle” in their classrooms in response to disciplinary infractions.
NOT LIKELY. Teachers have a limited amount of time to accomplish the curriculum allocated for the day. If a student profanes or attacks another student, it is unlikely that the teacher will drop everything to convene a sit-down so that students can talk through their feelings. What is more likely to occur is the teacher just permits the behavior to continue, as there is not an option to send the student out of the classroom.
- Restorative Justice enhances the school learning environment.
FALSE. Bullies go unpunished, thus creating a culture of fear for their victims and sometimes their teachers. All three groups, the victim, the teacher, and sadly, the bully, have learned all too well that there are no consequences for disciplinary infractions. We have also received accounts of teachers simply evacuating their classrooms while the problem student remains inside to destroy property at will. How does this environment of fear and constant interruption promote learning?
- Yeah, but the “really bad” infractions (physical assault, sexual assault, death threats) are still punished.
FALSE. Reference Metro-Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) MTSS and even Williamson County Schools’ Board Policy 6.300 on Disciplinary Action here to see that even the most serious Tier 4 infraction (including death threats, physical assault, sexual assault) can be dealt with via “Restorative Conference.” Parent reports to this chapter indicate experiences where all three of these issues have gone unpunished by WCS.
- Williamson County Schools are open about these policies and the true nature of what is happening in your child’s school.
HISTORICALLY FALSE. Read this sheriff’s deputy report in which he details the reluctance of Scales Elementary principal and vice principal to criminally prosecute a peeping tom hiding in the ceiling above the girls’ restroom stalls. Or how about the fact that this man was permitted to teach 1st grade students at Fairview Elementary, despite a known record of sexual harassment complaints, before he was indicted on 27 counts of indecency, including 7 counts of child rape in December 2021. Read this anonymous letter from a parent to the principal and vice principal of Jordan Elementary School, alleging unpunished sexual violence against students. You can watch these issues covered in this RJ102 excerpt here.
- School administrators work in partnership with teachers, and teachers in partnership with parents to effectively discipline students.
FALSE. Not that long ago, teachers would discipline students “in loco parentis,” or “in place of the parent.” Parents expected discipline in schools, and if their student should be the recipient, oftentimes that discipline would pale in comparison to what was waiting for Johnny or Janie when they got home. In short, the parents worked in partnership with the teachers.
Further, principals had the backs of teachers. If a student was truly disruptive, the teacher could remove them from their classroom by sending them to the principal’s office. Students from our generation regarded this to be an escalation in discipline indeed: “Did you know so-and-so got sent to the principal’s office??” The principal could administer corporal punishment, detention, or expulsion, ensuring the classroom disruption is discontinued. This is no longer how it works.
Upon learning that their child was disciplined in school, parents are more likely to give the teacher an earful than their misbehaving child. Instead of partnering with the teacher, the parents are hostile to the teacher. Further, the principal no longer supports the teacher, either. Oftentimes, a student sent to the principal’s office is sent right back. Or the mountain of paperwork that goes with this action is enough to make the teacher think twice. Expulsions don’t happen in order to keep those numbers low. Unruly students stay in the classroom. Bad behavior has no consequences. Learning is disrupted and/or the teacher’s personal safety is at risk. No wonder teachers are leaving in droves.
Final Score: 10 FALSE, 1 TRUE, AND 1 “NOT LIKELY”
How did you score?
Please visit our RJ Toolkit in our Resource Library to study up on this crucial topic!