San Diego Union-Tribune (Sunday)
SCHOOLS FACE PRESSURE TO TAKE HARDER LINE ON YOUTH DISCIPLINE
Behavioral issues on the rise since return to in-person learning
As kids’ behavior reaches crisis points after the stress and isolation of pandemic shutdowns, many schools are facing pressure from critics to rethink their approaches to discipline — including policies intended to reduce suspensions and expulsions.
Approaches such as “restorative justice” were adopted widely in recent decades as educators updated exclusionary policies that cut off students’ access to learning and disproportionately affected students of color.
But more students have been acting out, and some school systems have faced questions from teachers, parents and lawmakers about whether a gentle approach can effectively address problems that disrupt classrooms.
The latest example came this past week in Newport News, Va., where teachers complained at a school board meeting that the school system where a 6year-old shot his teacher had become too lenient with students.
Students who assaulted staff were routinely allowed to stay in the classroom, they said, because of a misguided focus on keeping them in school.
The local school board said it would take “the necessary steps to restore public confidence” in the school system.
Both anecdotally and according to federal data, instances of misbehavior have been on the rise since students returned to classrooms from the COVID-19 pandemic.
A National Center for Education Statistics survey of school leaders last summer found 56 percent of respondents said the pandemic led to increased classroom disruptions from student misbehavior and 48 percent said it led to more acts of disrespect toward teachers and staff.
New scrutiny of approaches to discipline could halt momentum for policy reform, said Rachel Perera, a fellow at the Brookings Institution who studies education.
“There’s a lot of pressure on schools right now,” she said. “Schools also say they don’t have the resources to address more behavioral problems, and I worry that that will translate to schools falling back on old practices that are not effective in terms of supporting students in the way they need.”
Policy reversals are already under way. In Gwinnett County, Ga., the school board approved the use of a “restorative practices” program in August that was meant to focus on conflict resolution, repairing harm and rebuilding relationships in the classroom.
But the district paused the program in December, with plans to restart it in the 2023-2024 school year, after concerns were raised over incidents in school, including a video of a student assaulting a teacher at a high school.
In Clark County, Nev., district leaders announced in March that they would take a harder line on fighting and physical altercations, saying they would be grounds for expulsion. Some in the community had blamed a “restorative justice” approach for an increase in violence.
As of 2020, 21 states and the District of Columbia had passed legislation supporting the use of restorative practices in schools, according to research from the Georgetown Law Center on Poverty and Inequality.
Using restorative justice does not mean a school cannot remove a disruptive student from the classroom, said Thalia Gonzalez, a professor at the UC College of the Law San Francisco. But unlike other forms of discipline, restorative practices aim to address the root cause of student’s behavior and reintegrate them into classroom.
“That’s the problem with punitive discipline such as suspension and expulsion,” Gonzalez said. “You get removed and then you just come back. There’s nothing done to reintegrate into the community and rebuild the climate, the connectedness, the sense of safety, all the things that we know are so important to young people learning.”
Traditional discipline has widened inequities. Black children often are suspended or expelled at rates far higher than White children. Research has found that these discipline disparities can have lifelong consequences for children, such as worsened educational outcomes and higher rates of incarceration.