THE FROST HOUSE
The Frost House Program is an alternative education program located behind the main campus at Mount Anthony Union High School. Over the past year we have collaborated with faculty members who are dedicated to providing a pathway to graduation for students whom a traditional education has not been entirely successful. Frost House encompasses restorative practices alongside social and emotional learning (SEL) values in order to foment a holistic learning environment for the students who have chosen to be a part of this community.
|
Created by Frost House Faculty
Using Restorative Practices to Mitigate the School-to-Prison Pipeline: A Literature Review
DIGNITY, DISPARITY AND DESISTANCE: EFFECTIVE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE STRATEGIES TO PLUG THE “SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE
In her article for the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University, Mara Schiff, Ph.D. expands upon the criminalization of students through zero-tolerance policies, specifically their disproportionate impact on Black students. She further necessitates the role of administrators and educators to not only practice restorative justice, but to incorporate a sense of dignity amongst students as they address harm. In recent years, zero tolerance policies tend to promote exclusionary practices as well as form the foundations of the school-to-prison pipeline. Rather than deal with discipline internally, youth are typically referred to juvenile justice agencies, ultimately resulting in diversion, probation, or criminal detention. Conversely, restorative practices would take place internally in order to strengthen community ties as well as directly address harm caused. Youth are held accountable by those directly impacted rather than by an outside agency, thereby providing the youth with the autonomy to both acknowledge and subsequently repair the harm they have caused. Furthermore, the inclusion of dignity allows students to be actively involved in new restorative policies, rather than be left powerless through a series of pre-established policies. These pre-established policies tend to dehumanize youth, specifically minority youth, as well as remove the context of their infraction, thereby making it impossible to address the true root of the conflict.
Zero tolerance policies are further necessitated at a state level by programs such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which require that schools meet achievement benchmarks in order to receive state academic funding. This in turn, causes educators and administrators to exclude “problematic” and underperforming students from mainstream education, often through suspension, expulsion, or various other forms of isolation, in order to seemingly inflate their test scores. Rather than employ affective behavioral management strategies in order to benefit struggling students, schools opt for their removal, effectively prioritizing funding over student success. These punitive measures often foment greater academic challenges for affected students, thereby increasing their likelihood of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. These impacts are most prominent amongst Black youth; While black students made up only 17% of public schools in 2002, they accounted for 34% of all suspensions (Advancement Project, 2005), And special education programs, which account for 8.6% of public school students, make up 32% of juvenile detention facilities nationally (NAACP, 2005). The criminalization of students has led to increased security measures such as metal detectors and School Resource Officers (SROs), both of which increase the connection between schools and juvenile justice facilities, rather than address the root causes of academic misconducts.
Schiff then goes on to explain the principles of restorative justice as it would be used in a school setting. She notes that the core principles are as follows: 1) focus on relationships first and rules second; 2) give voice to the person harmed and the person who caused the harm; 3) engage in collaborative problem-solving; 4) enhance personal responsibility; 5) empower change and growth; and 6) include strategic plans for restoration/reparation (citation). The difference between restorative and punitive practices is emphasized as students are not passively receiving a punishment but rather asked to hold themselves accountable in order to make amends to those impacted. Youth are provided with a sense of dignity as they are ultimately responsible for their end of the restorative process. Most importantly, however, the impacted students are allowed a voice and a sense of autonomy, allowing them to be an active participant.
A restorative process will typically include “1) a non-adversarial and dialogue-based decision making process that allows affected parties (known as “stakeholders”) to discuss the harm done to victims, while considering needs of all participants and, 2) an agreement for going forward based on the input of all stakeholders about what is necessary to repair the harm directly to the persons and community” (citation). The process is then further determines by “1) the extent to which the response repairs the harm directly to victim, community, offenders and their families; 2) the extent to which each stakeholder is involved in the discussion of the incident and is given input into the plan for repair; and 3) the extent to which community and government roles (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system) are transformed to allow communities a greater voice and increased responsibility for responding to conflict, while other enforcement systems (e.g., schools) assume a more facilitative role” (citation). In more recent years, School Accountability Boards (SABs) have been utilized to create a sense of inclusion as harm is repaired. SABs consist of a group of students, faculty, staff, and other academic administrators.
As restorative practices become more widespread within educational settings, policy makers have begun to introduce legislation that would create funding in order to broaden the use of restorative justice in school systems. Specific policies include: Restorative Justice in Schools Act (H.B. 415; Cohen, D-Tenn) would allow school districts to use Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funding to train teachers and counselors in restorative justice and conflict resolution and Successful, Safe, And Healthy Students Act (S. 919; Harkin, D-IA) which provides funding and assistance to implement preventative approaches to discipline as well as a positive behavioral support system.
The separation of children between schools and the juvenile justice system is a false dichotomy; while systematically students are criminalized rather than provided with assistance, these systems truthfully serve the same cohorts. Yet, the punitive nature of juvenile justice as it currently exists does not allow for a harmonious relationship between the two systems, and therefore misbehavior is criminalized rather than addressed. Schiff suggests a collaboration between schools and juvenile justice professionals through a restorative lense, which would also include a comprehensive retraining of SROs, and potentially replacing them with restorative justice practitioners in order to mitigate the funneling of students into juvenile justice facilities.
DIGNITY, DISPARITY AND DESISTANCE: EFFECTIVE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE STRATEGIES TO PLUG THE “SCHOOL-TO-PRISON PIPELINE
In her article for the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Florida Atlantic University, Mara Schiff, Ph.D. expands upon the criminalization of students through zero-tolerance policies, specifically their disproportionate impact on Black students. She further necessitates the role of administrators and educators to not only practice restorative justice, but to incorporate a sense of dignity amongst students as they address harm. In recent years, zero tolerance policies tend to promote exclusionary practices as well as form the foundations of the school-to-prison pipeline. Rather than deal with discipline internally, youth are typically referred to juvenile justice agencies, ultimately resulting in diversion, probation, or criminal detention. Conversely, restorative practices would take place internally in order to strengthen community ties as well as directly address harm caused. Youth are held accountable by those directly impacted rather than by an outside agency, thereby providing the youth with the autonomy to both acknowledge and subsequently repair the harm they have caused. Furthermore, the inclusion of dignity allows students to be actively involved in new restorative policies, rather than be left powerless through a series of pre-established policies. These pre-established policies tend to dehumanize youth, specifically minority youth, as well as remove the context of their infraction, thereby making it impossible to address the true root of the conflict.
Zero tolerance policies are further necessitated at a state level by programs such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB), which require that schools meet achievement benchmarks in order to receive state academic funding. This in turn, causes educators and administrators to exclude “problematic” and underperforming students from mainstream education, often through suspension, expulsion, or various other forms of isolation, in order to seemingly inflate their test scores. Rather than employ affective behavioral management strategies in order to benefit struggling students, schools opt for their removal, effectively prioritizing funding over student success. These punitive measures often foment greater academic challenges for affected students, thereby increasing their likelihood of coming into contact with the criminal justice system. These impacts are most prominent amongst Black youth; While black students made up only 17% of public schools in 2002, they accounted for 34% of all suspensions (Advancement Project, 2005), And special education programs, which account for 8.6% of public school students, make up 32% of juvenile detention facilities nationally (NAACP, 2005). The criminalization of students has led to increased security measures such as metal detectors and School Resource Officers (SROs), both of which increase the connection between schools and juvenile justice facilities, rather than address the root causes of academic misconducts.
Schiff then goes on to explain the principles of restorative justice as it would be used in a school setting. She notes that the core principles are as follows: 1) focus on relationships first and rules second; 2) give voice to the person harmed and the person who caused the harm; 3) engage in collaborative problem-solving; 4) enhance personal responsibility; 5) empower change and growth; and 6) include strategic plans for restoration/reparation (citation). The difference between restorative and punitive practices is emphasized as students are not passively receiving a punishment but rather asked to hold themselves accountable in order to make amends to those impacted. Youth are provided with a sense of dignity as they are ultimately responsible for their end of the restorative process. Most importantly, however, the impacted students are allowed a voice and a sense of autonomy, allowing them to be an active participant.
A restorative process will typically include “1) a non-adversarial and dialogue-based decision making process that allows affected parties (known as “stakeholders”) to discuss the harm done to victims, while considering needs of all participants and, 2) an agreement for going forward based on the input of all stakeholders about what is necessary to repair the harm directly to the persons and community” (citation). The process is then further determines by “1) the extent to which the response repairs the harm directly to victim, community, offenders and their families; 2) the extent to which each stakeholder is involved in the discussion of the incident and is given input into the plan for repair; and 3) the extent to which community and government roles (e.g., the criminal justice system, education system) are transformed to allow communities a greater voice and increased responsibility for responding to conflict, while other enforcement systems (e.g., schools) assume a more facilitative role” (citation). In more recent years, School Accountability Boards (SABs) have been utilized to create a sense of inclusion as harm is repaired. SABs consist of a group of students, faculty, staff, and other academic administrators.
As restorative practices become more widespread within educational settings, policy makers have begun to introduce legislation that would create funding in order to broaden the use of restorative justice in school systems. Specific policies include: Restorative Justice in Schools Act (H.B. 415; Cohen, D-Tenn) would allow school districts to use Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funding to train teachers and counselors in restorative justice and conflict resolution and Successful, Safe, And Healthy Students Act (S. 919; Harkin, D-IA) which provides funding and assistance to implement preventative approaches to discipline as well as a positive behavioral support system.
The separation of children between schools and the juvenile justice system is a false dichotomy; while systematically students are criminalized rather than provided with assistance, these systems truthfully serve the same cohorts. Yet, the punitive nature of juvenile justice as it currently exists does not allow for a harmonious relationship between the two systems, and therefore misbehavior is criminalized rather than addressed. Schiff suggests a collaboration between schools and juvenile justice professionals through a restorative lense, which would also include a comprehensive retraining of SROs, and potentially replacing them with restorative justice practitioners in order to mitigate the funneling of students into juvenile justice facilities.