Thinking About Discipline: Educators' Conceptions of Student Behavior and the Implementation of Restorative Justice Practices

• In Event: Promising Scholarship in Education: Dissertation Fellows and Their Research

Abstract

Reducing the use of suspension and other exclusionary punishments is becoming an increasing focus of education reformers, and education researchers across the nation. Restorative justice practices (RJP) are one promising alternative for addressing school discipline and improving school climate (Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2004; Stinchcomb, Bazemore, & Riestenberg, 2006; IIRP Graduate School, 2009; U.S. Department of Education, 2014). However, implementing RJP in a high-quality, sustainable way has proven to be a persistent challenge (Youth Justice Board for England and Wales, 2004; Stinchcomb et al., 2006).

Like any policy, the implementation of RJP is highly dependent on front line educators to interpret the reform (Cohen, 1990, p. 199; Lipsky, 1980; Spillane, 2004; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002). Some restorative justice practitioners fear that many teachers hold “punitive mindsets,” and interpret restorative justice practices in those terms—i.e. as just another form of punishment. However, some cognitive scientists have argued convincingly that seemingly coherent misconceptions may sometimes reflect relatively simple differences in the organization of smaller pieces of knowledge (Philip, 2011; Sherin, 2006). Thus, an empirical investigation of teachers’ constellations of ideas about discipline and restorative justice is needed in order to asses (and facilitate) the task facing school leaders seeking to implement RJP.

In order to investigate these research questions, I conducted a set of semi-structured interviews with educators and restorative justice professionals working in three urban public high schools, each implementing restorative justice practices to some degree. Participants represented a wide range of teaching experience, subject-matter expertise, and role in the school. In the interviews, I asked educators to reflect on real and hypothetical instances of student misbehavior, and describe restorative and zero-tolerance style responses to student misbehavior. Interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ permission and transcribed. The final sample includes interviews with 80 educators.

Preliminary findings suggest that: First, educators’ ideas about the causes of student behavior and the appropriate school response to them are often inconsistent. For example, a teacher might identify academic frustration or embarrassment as a reason that a student acts out, but nonetheless indicate that the most effective disciplinary response is a re-emphasis of the rules, rather than increased academic support. Second, many educators hold strong opinions, often taken for granted, about a number of issues relating to student behavior and school discipline, including what behaviors are seriously problematic, why students break rules and the appropriate role of adults in interacting with young people. For example, some teachers consider the use of profanity a serious transgression, while others do not. Some educators see misbehavior as a normal part of adolescent life, while others see it as evidence of something problematic. Some educators see the teacher-student relationship as relatively mutual while others see it as more hierarchical. It appears that these assumptions may dictate educators’ interpretations of and responses to student behavior, more than their intellectual understandings of why students misbehave. These findings suggest that approaches to discipline do not fall on single punitive-to-restorative continuum, but rather reflect a more complex set of loosely related assumptions and ideas.

Author

• Eleanor Anderson, Northwestern University