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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

My son was bullied relentlessly by another kid for months - my son has mild ASD and cannot articulate or even know what he needs to make him feel safe. The onus is on him? That's bs.

OK...so your child should have an advocate participate with them in the process. Again, this doesn't make the process bad or wrong, just time and resource heavy. I mean...what's the alternative? Suspension of the bully, or moving them to a different class? Do they learn anything from that, or just find a new target?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

My son was bullied relentlessly by another kid for months - my son has mild ASD and cannot articulate or even know what he needs to make him feel safe. The onus is on him? That's bs.

OK...so your child should have an advocate participate with them in the process. Again, this doesn't make the process bad or wrong, just time and resource heavy. I mean...what's the alternative? Suspension of the bully, or moving them to a different class? Do they learn anything from that, or just find a new target?

My concern is my son. I want him safe - so yes, move the bully somewhere else. Someone else can be concerned about him, his parents or the school or whatever. (My understanding is the best teacher for a bully is time - that they will learn to do better as they mature, which is a years-long process. Too slow for my son.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

My son was bullied relentlessly by another kid for months - my son has mild ASD and cannot articulate or even know what he needs to make him feel safe. The onus is on him? That's bs.

OK...so your child should have an advocate participate with them in the process. Again, this doesn't make the process bad or wrong, just time and resource heavy. I mean...what's the alternative? Suspension of the bully, or moving them to a different class? Do they learn anything from that, or just find a new target?

Didn’t someone just say that as part of “restorative” “Justice” that the bully could be moved to a different class? This whole thing sounds like hoop-jumping BS. And please tell me who the “advocate” would be for a communication delayed ASD kid. I’m super curious to know.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

My son was bullied relentlessly by another kid for months - my son has mild ASD and cannot articulate or even know what he needs to make him feel safe. The onus is on him? That's bs.

OK...so your child should have an advocate participate with them in the process. Again, this doesn't make the process bad or wrong, just time and resource heavy. I mean...what's the alternative? Suspension of the bully, or moving them to a different class? Do they learn anything from that, or just find a new target?

The alternative is to give consistent consequences for bad behavior, and removing kids who refuse to behave.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe a key tenet of restorative justice is the consent of all parties (including the victim and the perpetrator) to participate. Coercive participation doesn’t work.

It can be effective at resolving some kinds of conflict. Although in Maori cultures (from which it derives) it is often accompanied by a period of shunning.

Interesting. I would guess they're ditching the shunning part, which is probably a key part of what makes it effective.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe a key tenet of restorative justice is the consent of all parties (including the victim and the perpetrator) to participate. Coercive participation doesn’t work.

It can be effective at resolving some kinds of conflict. Although in Maori cultures (from which it derives) it is often accompanied by a period of shunning.

Interesting. I would guess they're ditching the shunning part, which is probably a key part of what makes it effective.

Nevermind that we are not Maori and it makes zero sense to import cultural practices like this into FCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I could be wrong but I believe a key tenet of restorative justice is the consent of all parties (including the victim and the perpetrator) to participate. Coercive participation doesn’t work.

It can be effective at resolving some kinds of conflict. Although in Maori cultures (from which it derives) it is often accompanied by a period of shunning.

Interesting. I would guess they're ditching the shunning part, which is probably a key part of what makes it effective.

Yeah, and when you’re in a close community you don’t deliberately want to hurt the other members of your community. Of course, it happens sometimes because we’re all human. But the kids don’t see themselves as part of a community. They don’t care if they hurt another kid. In fact the bullies usually like picking on other kids. Their minds/actions haven’t developed like adults have, so any type of alternative discipline and talking out your feelings stuff is doomed to fail.

[Anonymous]

This is just an extension of ongoing DEI virtue signaling with approaches that are not backed by evidence. It's also disturbing that it's just asserted that there are disparities in discipline. I would be willing to bet that the data do not support this. If anything students from certain groups are probably more likely to get handled with kid gloves than given consequences that might actually improve their behavior and/or the school environment. It's f'd up that families are expected to just stand by and tolerate an increasingly unsafe environment for their kids in the name of social justice.

[Anonymous]

Occasional reminder that Restorative Justice was never supposed to mean "no punishments". It was supposed to mean "making amends, and earning your way back into the community, is part of the consequences".

The charlatans who changed the meaning of it are morally bankrupt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just an extension of ongoing DEI virtue signaling with approaches that are not backed by evidence. It's also disturbing that it's just asserted that there are disparities in discipline. I would be willing to bet that the data do not support this. If anything students from certain groups are probably more likely to get handled with kid gloves than given consequences that might actually improve their behavior and/or the school environment. It's f'd up that families are expected to just stand by and tolerate an increasingly unsafe environment for their kids in the name of social justice.

You're really trying to rebut their "no evidence" with your own "no evidence"?

You aren't willing to bet unless you actually bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

My son was bullied relentlessly by another kid for months - my son has mild ASD and cannot articulate or even know what he needs to make him feel safe. The onus is on him? That's bs.

OK...so your child should have an advocate participate with them in the process. Again, this doesn't make the process bad or wrong, just time and resource heavy. I mean...what's the alternative? Suspension of the bully, or moving them to a different class? Do they learn anything from that, or just find a new target?

The alternative is to give consistent consequences for bad behavior, and removing kids who refuse to behave.

That's racist now

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just an extension of ongoing DEI virtue signaling with approaches that are not backed by evidence. It's also disturbing that it's just asserted that there are disparities in discipline. I would be willing to bet that the data do not support this. If anything students from certain groups are probably more likely to get handled with kid gloves than given consequences that might actually improve their behavior and/or the school environment. It's f'd up that families are expected to just stand by and tolerate an increasingly unsafe environment for their kids in the name of social justice.

You're really trying to rebut their "no evidence" with your own "no evidence"?

You aren't willing to bet unless you actually bet.

DP. FCPS publishes discipline statistics for schools and demographics - and they've changed. Suspensions for white children have increased and suspensions for Black children have significantly dropped. Has the behavior of the all children changed dramatically? That is unreported.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

My son was bullied relentlessly by another kid for months - my son has mild ASD and cannot articulate or even know what he needs to make him feel safe. The onus is on him? That's bs.

OK...so your child should have an advocate participate with them in the process. Again, this doesn't make the process bad or wrong, just time and resource heavy. I mean...what's the alternative? Suspension of the bully, or moving them to a different class? Do they learn anything from that, or just find a new target?

What's wrong with moving the bully to a self-contained classroom with professionally patient and personally caring staff, andsupervised interactiona with other students?
I'm happy to pay taxes for that.

But people don't want to pay the real price to fix broken families or care for sick individuals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just an extension of ongoing DEI virtue signaling with approaches that are not backed by evidence. It's also disturbing that it's just asserted that there are disparities in discipline. I would be willing to bet that the data do not support this. If anything students from certain groups are probably more likely to get handled with kid gloves than given consequences that might actually improve their behavior and/or the school environment. It's f'd up that families are expected to just stand by and tolerate an increasingly unsafe environment for their kids in the name of social justice.

You're really trying to rebut their "no evidence" with your own "no evidence"?

You aren't willing to bet unless you actually bet.

DP. FCPS publishes discipline statistics for schools and demographics - and they've changed. Suspensions for white children have increased and suspensions for Black children have significantly dropped. Has the behavior of the all children changed dramatically? That is unreported.

What about Asian?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are some actual examples of "restorative justice"?

Is it just race based discipline?

No, it is not race based, but of course FCPS brings race into everything even when it is not there.

An example of restorative justice would be if your son has been bullied all quarter by a kid, with the admin well aware of the bullying, so instead of the bully getting escalating punishments culminating ina suspension or explusion, the counselor would gather the bully with the vistim, and have them talk about how the bullying makes the victim feel, followed by the victim publicly forgiving and affirming the bully.

It is a bully/perpetrator centered model, which outs the responsibility on the victim to make things right and gives all the power to the person doing wrong.

This is a bad take. The onus is on the victim for articulating how the bully's actions made them feel, yes, and then they get to say what would make them feel like justice was restored (hence the name) - is it that the bully no longer has physical access to them (is moved classes or removed from the bus)? Is it that the bully acknowledges their feelings and apologizes? The perpetrator then has to 'do the work' to make things right. It's about linking consequences to actions...because really, does in-school suspension actually make a bully less likely to bully?

Now, that said, done well, this is an inordinately time-consuming process for both teachers/administrators and students. I don't personally believe it's a good use of time. But fundamentally, I can see where it would be viewed as a more appropriate and effective way to address inter-student issues. Backing out even further, I'm shocked by how much of my 2nd grader's classroom time is spent on social-emotional learning. They only do science OR social studies - alternating units - but have near-daily lessons on emotional regulation, fairness, etc. This is especially wtf-worthy when you look at the number of ESOL kids in my child's school - are they really grasping (and benefitting from) lessons on "staying in the green zone"?! I know the pandemic exposed and exacerbated massive gaps in early childhood access to learning and classroom settings but the course-correction feels excessive. Teachers are being forced to spend instructional time on this stuff instead of being able to identify those children who need additional supports - probably because the special needs staff simply doesn't exist in the numbers and expertise necessary.

Anyway, long winded comment to say that I understand and sympathize with the overall concern that FCPS is WAY too heavy on non-academic initiatives and the burden is disproportionately hitting teachers...but I don't think that makes restorative justice necessarily the wrong approach.

How much do you propose paying my 8 year old child to take time out of their day to play amateur therapist to a troubled peer, at personal physical and social risk to themself? Why is parentifying our children our solution to adults not being able to raise other kids effectively?