Sustaining Restorative Practices...With Punitive Discipline Routines

• In Event: Moscone Center West Roundtable Session 14
  In Roundtable Session: Birds of a Feather? Examining the Connections Between Restorative and Punitive Practices

Abstract

Objectives
This paper uses the lens of organizational routines to investigate the ways that restorative justice practices (RJP) are implemented, and the corresponding implications for the sustainability of RJP as well as the undoing of punitive discipline.

Theoretical Frameworks
I draw on the construct of a routine cluster to denote interdependent routines operating towards a common goal (Feldman & Pentland, 2003; Kremser & Schreyögg, 2016). I add to this the construct of a routine class to indicate multiple routines with the same inputs and outputs but different internal structures (Author, 2017). I conceive of interdependent routines as sources of self-activating support, or institutionalization, for both existing and new practices (Author, 2019; Colyvas & Jonsson, 2011; Jepperson, 1991).

Methods and Data
Data come from fieldwork conducted at Rustin HS and Heritage HS, during the 2014-2015 school year. These schools were similar in size, demographics, and achievement. Rustin was implementing RJP via a partnership with a local non-profit, including an on-site restorative justice specialist, and many hours of training for all staff. At Heritage, a few teachers attended training by the district, supported by a restorative dean, and a short-term coach. Data include interviews and fieldnotes from shadowing teachers, administrators, and security staff at both schools.

Findings
The majority of RJP at both schools took the form of restorative responses to harm. Although, especially at Rustin, teachers were encouraged to use restorative techniques proactively, these practices appeared less often and less systematically than those occurring after an infraction had occurred. At both Rustin and Heritage, restorative responses to harm were integrated into the school’s existing discipline routine cluster. In this context, restorative responses to harm were implemented within
the Punishment slot, or routine class (see Figure 1).

This integration took three forms. Some practices, such as peer conference and peace circles, were added to the menu of options a dean could refer students to. Some were combined with punitive practices, as with re-entry circles for students returning to school after a suspension. Finally, some punitive practices were modified to be more restorative, such as at Rustin where in-school suspension was adjusted to a more restorative form. Each implementation strategy offered support for RJP. All involved receiving student referrals via traditional Getting in Trouble routines. In the cases of added options, restorative consequences operated alongside traditional punishments. When practices were combined, it meant an exclusionary
punishment created the context for the restorative practice. Only modified practices served to undermine existing discipline practices by transforming them, and thus replacing the original, more punitive version.

Significance
This paper demonstrates that reform efforts can be intimately connected with existing routines, and
indeed serve as sources of mutual support. This dynamic highlights an important implementation tension: Pursuing the institutionalization of new practices by connecting to existing organizational supports, while pursuing the de-institutionalization of old practices by disassembling existing structures. The strategies attempted by staff at Rustin and Heritage offer models—with their associated tradeoffs—that are portable to a wide range of settings.

Author

• Eleanor Anderson, University of Pittsburgh