Dr. Reid replacing school discipline with “restorative justice” ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What "Restorative Justice" SHOULD mean:
The victim gets to choose the punishment of the bully. Nothing less should be acceptable.

They are very much a part of the decision process. Moreso than without RJ.

[Anonymous]

Yuck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes.

Completely insane.

Our poor teachers and administrators!

It’s all the rage in Prince William County schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice is an awful idea that empowers the bullies and trouble makers, weakens the teachers and administrators, and puts the burden for bad behavior on the kids who behave.

Restorative justice Does. Not. Work.

It can. It just doesn’t work well in schools and the training for it is terrible.

Teachers absolutely hate it. The lack of consequences for bad behavior is fueling major burnout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MAGA Trolls are going crazy in the FCPS forum. I'm done here.

As a teacher, I can attest that teachers are the ones who detest Restorative Justice the most. Hardly a bunch of MAGA trolls.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea because it works.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx
The offenders who participated in the restorative justice program had lower recidivism rates than the matched group of probationers. With each year during the follow-up the differences in recidivism rates for the two groups widened. At the first year, the restorative justice offenders had a recidivism rate of 15% compared to 38% for the probation group. At the second year the respective rates were 28% and 54% and by the third year the rates were 35% and 66%.

https://thedcline.org/2018/07/27/restorative-justice-program-for-juveniles-aims-to-foster-empathy-heal-trauma/
In the 60 juvenile cases that have gone through this program since its inception in 2016, 48 have had successful outcomes, according to Gajwani. Success is measured by the rate of rearrests. Nationally, the rate of recidivism for youth who opt for restorative justice as opposed to a traditional court proceeding is at 40 percent.

You're citing juvenile court cases. Taking restorative justice from that concept to schools is like using a blowtorch for weeding. Wrong tool, wrong setting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/
"A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges."

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596786.pdf
"The earlier discussion about RJ theory suggests that a well-implemented program could
reduce punitive disciplinary actions and problem behavior over time (Tyler, 2006). All the
empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful
behavior (e.g., violence) after implementing some type of RJ program. "

"But, across the studies, school attendance tended to improve after
RJ implementation. Baker (2009), for example, reports that students who participated in
an RJ program12 experienced a 50-percent reduction in absenteeism during the first year of
implementation and a decrease in tardiness of about 64 percent. "

"70 percent of staff reported
that RJ improved overall school climate during the first year of implementation."

It’s voluntary and it works. What’s the problem?

How is it voluntary? If a bully beats your child into a bloody pulp, does the victim have the right to "opt out" so that the perp is actually punished? Or does the bully just get away with fluffy talk and hand-holding circles no matter what the victim wants?

It’s voluntary. If the victim doesn’t opt-in - or if the victim’s parents don’t opt-in - or of the “perp” doesn’t acknowledge fault - then they don’t use the RJ program.

And the bully is punished?

Yes, of course. Disciplinary actions don’t go away.

Sure, if by "disciplinary actions" you mean fluff like handholding sessions about how it's really society's fault or how the victim should not have provoked the poor bully. The whole point of RJ is to NOT punish students anymore because equity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice is an awful idea that empowers the bullies and trouble makers, weakens the teachers and administrators, and puts the burden for bad behavior on the kids who behave.

Restorative justice Does. Not. Work.

It can. It just doesn’t work well in schools and the training for it is terrible.

Teachers absolutely hate it. The lack of consequences for bad behavior is fueling major burnout.

You have to be a troll. All we’re doing is consequences. There is so much documentation and procedural work. RJ is not replacing consequences. It’s in ADDITION to consequences.
—exhausted FCPS administrator

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea because it works.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx
The offenders who participated in the restorative justice program had lower recidivism rates than the matched group of probationers. With each year during the follow-up the differences in recidivism rates for the two groups widened. At the first year, the restorative justice offenders had a recidivism rate of 15% compared to 38% for the probation group. At the second year the respective rates were 28% and 54% and by the third year the rates were 35% and 66%.

https://thedcline.org/2018/07/27/restorative-justice-program-for-juveniles-aims-to-foster-empathy-heal-trauma/
In the 60 juvenile cases that have gone through this program since its inception in 2016, 48 have had successful outcomes, according to Gajwani. Success is measured by the rate of rearrests. Nationally, the rate of recidivism for youth who opt for restorative justice as opposed to a traditional court proceeding is at 40 percent.

You're citing juvenile court cases. Taking restorative justice from that concept to schools is like using a blowtorch for weeding. Wrong tool, wrong setting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/
"A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges."

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596786.pdf
"The earlier discussion about RJ theory suggests that a well-implemented program could
reduce punitive disciplinary actions and problem behavior over time (Tyler, 2006). All the
empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful
behavior (e.g., violence) after implementing some type of RJ program. "

"But, across the studies, school attendance tended to improve after
RJ implementation. Baker (2009), for example, reports that students who participated in
an RJ program12 experienced a 50-percent reduction in absenteeism during the first year of
implementation and a decrease in tardiness of about 64 percent. "

"70 percent of staff reported
that RJ improved overall school climate during the first year of implementation."

It’s voluntary and it works. What’s the problem?

How is it voluntary? If a bully beats your child into a bloody pulp, does the victim have the right to "opt out" so that the perp is actually punished? Or does the bully just get away with fluffy talk and hand-holding circles no matter what the victim wants?

It’s voluntary. If the victim doesn’t opt-in - or if the victim’s parents don’t opt-in - or of the “perp” doesn’t acknowledge fault - then they don’t use the RJ program.

And the bully is punished?

No, the bully escapes punishment, and goes right back to class, with the victim.

That is the “restorative” part.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA Trolls are going crazy in the FCPS forum. I'm done here.

As a teacher, I can attest that teachers are the ones who detest Restorative Justice the most. Hardly a bunch of MAGA trolls.

The teachers I have spoken with all hate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea because it works.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx
The offenders who participated in the restorative justice program had lower recidivism rates than the matched group of probationers. With each year during the follow-up the differences in recidivism rates for the two groups widened. At the first year, the restorative justice offenders had a recidivism rate of 15% compared to 38% for the probation group. At the second year the respective rates were 28% and 54% and by the third year the rates were 35% and 66%.

https://thedcline.org/2018/07/27/restorative-justice-program-for-juveniles-aims-to-foster-empathy-heal-trauma/
In the 60 juvenile cases that have gone through this program since its inception in 2016, 48 have had successful outcomes, according to Gajwani. Success is measured by the rate of rearrests. Nationally, the rate of recidivism for youth who opt for restorative justice as opposed to a traditional court proceeding is at 40 percent.

You're citing juvenile court cases. Taking restorative justice from that concept to schools is like using a blowtorch for weeding. Wrong tool, wrong setting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/
"A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges."

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596786.pdf
"The earlier discussion about RJ theory suggests that a well-implemented program could
reduce punitive disciplinary actions and problem behavior over time (Tyler, 2006). All the
empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful
behavior (e.g., violence) after implementing some type of RJ program. "

"But, across the studies, school attendance tended to improve after
RJ implementation. Baker (2009), for example, reports that students who participated in
an RJ program12 experienced a 50-percent reduction in absenteeism during the first year of
implementation and a decrease in tardiness of about 64 percent. "

"70 percent of staff reported
that RJ improved overall school climate during the first year of implementation."

It’s voluntary and it works. What’s the problem?

How is it voluntary? If a bully beats your child into a bloody pulp, does the victim have the right to "opt out" so that the perp is actually punished? Or does the bully just get away with fluffy talk and hand-holding circles no matter what the victim wants?

It’s voluntary. If the victim doesn’t opt-in - or if the victim’s parents don’t opt-in - or of the “perp” doesn’t acknowledge fault - then they don’t use the RJ program.

And the bully is punished?

No, the bully escapes punishment, and goes right back to class, with the victim.

That is the “restorative” part.

Yup. The "restorative" part is generally understood as the recovery time for the bully to relax his arm muscles before he can go back to punching his victim. Ideally, during that recovery time the victim should also be reflecting on what she did wrong to provoke the poor bully and how her own behavior has been contributing to larger systemic inequities. An apology from the victim to the bully is usually also expected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea because it works.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx
The offenders who participated in the restorative justice program had lower recidivism rates than the matched group of probationers. With each year during the follow-up the differences in recidivism rates for the two groups widened. At the first year, the restorative justice offenders had a recidivism rate of 15% compared to 38% for the probation group. At the second year the respective rates were 28% and 54% and by the third year the rates were 35% and 66%.

https://thedcline.org/2018/07/27/restorative-justice-program-for-juveniles-aims-to-foster-empathy-heal-trauma/
In the 60 juvenile cases that have gone through this program since its inception in 2016, 48 have had successful outcomes, according to Gajwani. Success is measured by the rate of rearrests. Nationally, the rate of recidivism for youth who opt for restorative justice as opposed to a traditional court proceeding is at 40 percent.

You're citing juvenile court cases. Taking restorative justice from that concept to schools is like using a blowtorch for weeding. Wrong tool, wrong setting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/
"A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges."

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596786.pdf
"The earlier discussion about RJ theory suggests that a well-implemented program could
reduce punitive disciplinary actions and problem behavior over time (Tyler, 2006). All the
empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful
behavior (e.g., violence) after implementing some type of RJ program. "

"But, across the studies, school attendance tended to improve after
RJ implementation. Baker (2009), for example, reports that students who participated in
an RJ program12 experienced a 50-percent reduction in absenteeism during the first year of
implementation and a decrease in tardiness of about 64 percent. "

"70 percent of staff reported
that RJ improved overall school climate during the first year of implementation."

It’s voluntary and it works. What’s the problem?

How is it voluntary? If a bully beats your child into a bloody pulp, does the victim have the right to "opt out" so that the perp is actually punished? Or does the bully just get away with fluffy talk and hand-holding circles no matter what the victim wants?

It’s voluntary. If the victim doesn’t opt-in - or if the victim’s parents don’t opt-in - or of the “perp” doesn’t acknowledge fault - then they don’t use the RJ program.

And the bully is punished?

No, the bully escapes punishment, and goes right back to class, with the victim.

That is the “restorative” part.

Stop pushing lies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MAGA Trolls are going crazy in the FCPS forum. I'm done here.

As a teacher, I can attest that teachers are the ones who detest Restorative Justice the most. Hardly a bunch of MAGA trolls.

The teachers I have spoken with all hate it.

Which schools?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Restorative justice is an awful idea that empowers the bullies and trouble makers, weakens the teachers and administrators, and puts the burden for bad behavior on the kids who behave.

Restorative justice Does. Not. Work.

It can. It just doesn’t work well in schools and the training for it is terrible.

Teachers absolutely hate it. The lack of consequences for bad behavior is fueling major burnout.

You have to be a troll. All we’re doing is consequences. There is so much documentation and procedural work. RJ is not replacing consequences. It’s in ADDITION to consequences.
—exhausted FCPS administrator

+1

Republican liars trying to trash FCPS/school board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea because it works.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx
The offenders who participated in the restorative justice program had lower recidivism rates than the matched group of probationers. With each year during the follow-up the differences in recidivism rates for the two groups widened. At the first year, the restorative justice offenders had a recidivism rate of 15% compared to 38% for the probation group. At the second year the respective rates were 28% and 54% and by the third year the rates were 35% and 66%.

https://thedcline.org/2018/07/27/restorative-justice-program-for-juveniles-aims-to-foster-empathy-heal-trauma/
In the 60 juvenile cases that have gone through this program since its inception in 2016, 48 have had successful outcomes, according to Gajwani. Success is measured by the rate of rearrests. Nationally, the rate of recidivism for youth who opt for restorative justice as opposed to a traditional court proceeding is at 40 percent.

You're citing juvenile court cases. Taking restorative justice from that concept to schools is like using a blowtorch for weeding. Wrong tool, wrong setting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/
"A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges."

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596786.pdf
"The earlier discussion about RJ theory suggests that a well-implemented program could
reduce punitive disciplinary actions and problem behavior over time (Tyler, 2006). All the
empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful
behavior (e.g., violence) after implementing some type of RJ program. "

"But, across the studies, school attendance tended to improve after
RJ implementation. Baker (2009), for example, reports that students who participated in
an RJ program12 experienced a 50-percent reduction in absenteeism during the first year of
implementation and a decrease in tardiness of about 64 percent. "

"70 percent of staff reported
that RJ improved overall school climate during the first year of implementation."

It’s voluntary and it works. What’s the problem?

How is it voluntary? If a bully beats your child into a bloody pulp, does the victim have the right to "opt out" so that the perp is actually punished? Or does the bully just get away with fluffy talk and hand-holding circles no matter what the victim wants?

It’s voluntary. If the victim doesn’t opt-in - or if the victim’s parents don’t opt-in - or of the “perp” doesn’t acknowledge fault - then they don’t use the RJ program.

And the bully is punished?

Yes, of course. Disciplinary actions don’t go away.

Sure, if by "disciplinary actions" you mean fluff like handholding sessions about how it's really society's fault or how the victim should not have provoked the poor bully. The whole point of RJ is to NOT punish students anymore because equity.

Bullcrap

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's a good idea because it works.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/jstc-rcdvs/index-en.aspx
The offenders who participated in the restorative justice program had lower recidivism rates than the matched group of probationers. With each year during the follow-up the differences in recidivism rates for the two groups widened. At the first year, the restorative justice offenders had a recidivism rate of 15% compared to 38% for the probation group. At the second year the respective rates were 28% and 54% and by the third year the rates were 35% and 66%.

https://thedcline.org/2018/07/27/restorative-justice-program-for-juveniles-aims-to-foster-empathy-heal-trauma/
In the 60 juvenile cases that have gone through this program since its inception in 2016, 48 have had successful outcomes, according to Gajwani. Success is measured by the rate of rearrests. Nationally, the rate of recidivism for youth who opt for restorative justice as opposed to a traditional court proceeding is at 40 percent.

You're citing juvenile court cases. Taking restorative justice from that concept to schools is like using a blowtorch for weeding. Wrong tool, wrong setting.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/07/15/restorative-justice-montgomery-county-schools/
"A recent report by Sean Darling-Hammond, assistant professor of health and education at UCLA, indicates that restorative practices improve middle school students’ academic achievement, while reducing suspension rates and disparities, misbehavior, substance abuse and student mental health challenges."

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED596786.pdf
"The earlier discussion about RJ theory suggests that a well-implemented program could
reduce punitive disciplinary actions and problem behavior over time (Tyler, 2006). All the
empirical studies we reviewed report a decrease in exclusionary discipline and harmful
behavior (e.g., violence) after implementing some type of RJ program. "

"But, across the studies, school attendance tended to improve after
RJ implementation. Baker (2009), for example, reports that students who participated in
an RJ program12 experienced a 50-percent reduction in absenteeism during the first year of
implementation and a decrease in tardiness of about 64 percent. "

"70 percent of staff reported
that RJ improved overall school climate during the first year of implementation."

It’s voluntary and it works. What’s the problem?

How is it voluntary? If a bully beats your child into a bloody pulp, does the victim have the right to "opt out" so that the perp is actually punished? Or does the bully just get away with fluffy talk and hand-holding circles no matter what the victim wants?

It’s voluntary. If the victim doesn’t opt-in - or if the victim’s parents don’t opt-in - or of the “perp” doesn’t acknowledge fault - then they don’t use the RJ program.

And the bully is punished?

No, the bully escapes punishment, and goes right back to class, with the victim.

That is the “restorative” part.

Yup. The "restorative" part is generally understood as the recovery time for the bully to relax his arm muscles before he can go back to punching his victim. Ideally, during that recovery time the victim should also be reflecting on what she did wrong to provoke the poor bully and how her own behavior has been contributing to larger systemic inequities. An apology from the victim to the bully is usually also expected.

+1. They make the victim feel like it was their fault for the bullying. Ex. ‘You make noises sometimes which irritate.’ Therefore, the pattern of bullying is because of you.