Ann Arbor schools needs to move to a restorative justice model of discipline
It is long since past time that the Ann Arbor school board moves toward a restorative justice model for our schools' disciplinary system. Over the past year, the children of two sets of friends have gotten into trouble giving me a chance to watch our current system in practice. In one case, I heard teacher after teacher testify that the youth had been exceptional, and never caused harm, only to be astounded to hear a panel of principals and vice principals rule that the youth should be permanently expelled from Ann Arbor's school system.
JOE SUMMERS: "The current practices and principles guiding disciplinary procedures in our schools are still rooted in the principles of punitive justice."
Now, however, most authorities seem to exercise little authority in terms of making judgments as to when an incident requires drastic action or not. This seems driven in part by the awareness of our individual potential for discrimination and a fear that if you do not appear consistent, or someone harms others in the future, you could be sued. But in matters like this, where so much is at stake, what is needed are solutions that address the unique circumstances of each individual, not some kind of blanket application of punishment. The irony in all this is that while our criminal justice system is increasingly moving toward a restorative justice model, our school system, which is so responsible for the well being of our young people, seems stuck in this punitive model, with, I suspect, terrible consequences for many of our young people. When I saw how school officials wanted to permanently expel two youth who had neither harmed, nor even threatened to harm, anyone, I could only imagine how youth are treated who do harm others. Disciplinary actions can dramatically affect your chances of getting into a particular college. But worse than that, they can affect whether or not you ever complete high school.
In a time when there is a direct link between the failure to complete high school and the chances you will end up in prison, school systems need to look at how their disciplinary procedures may be contributing to youth dropping out of school.
In the class of 2008, 12.5% of students didn't graduate with their class. Of these, how many actually dropped out of school? Of those, how many left after they had been suspended or expelled? This is something we should know. It is hard to stay in a system in which you feel you can't be a success. It's hard to feel you can be a success in a system that has labeled you a problem and kicked you out. I'm sure school officials feel they simply don't have the resources to ensure the success of each youth in our school system. This should be another powerful incentive to move toward a restorative justice model. One of the great things about this model is the way it mobilizes the broader community to help figure out how they can help one who has harmed or threatened harm to others. This is particularly helpful in a time when we simply don't have the tax dollars to pay enough professionals to take care of our all those who need help. Jesus challenged his society to recognize that people who are lost are of more worth than prize material possessions. I would hope Ann Arbor's school board would seriously re-consider how it treats its young people, when they stupidly break important rules, and even when they threaten to harm or actually do harm others, for they are at least as much value as a lost sheep. The Rev. Joe Summers is vicar of the Episcopal Church of the Incarnation in Pittsfield Township.
Comments
Joseph H. Summers
Wed, May 26, 2010 : 11:22 a.m.
Though I was trying to raise general questions about our school systems' approach to discipline I can understand the desire to understand more about the specific incidents I cited. These two cases each involved bringing what are classified as "weapons" to school. In the one case the youth had put a knife in his backpack to keep a friend from playing with it at his house and then forgot that he put it there. This explanation was upheld by a lie detector test. Despite the fact that the state sanctions on the possession of weapons specify that exceptions to expulsion can be made when a youth unknowingly brings a weapon to school, or when they don't threaten others with harm, the disciplinary panel voted for permanent expulsion. There were at least twenty people present at the hearing so there are many witnesses to this. I do not blame the individuals on this panel or question their integrity. I suspect they are all well educated, hard working, dedicated people who were simply operating within the guidelines they have been given. Their judgment simply highlights the degree to which Ann Arbor's public school system is operating from within a paradigm of punitive justice that I believe we need to move beyond. I do not justify or excuse bad behavior. My point is that we need to discuss our goals and how can be best reach them. I support our schools commitment to the safety and security of our students. I do not want to go back to the days where violence was tolerated as a part of school life. Still the commitment to maintaining a safe and secure environment needs to be balanced against the commitment to working for the success of all our students. It seems to me a strange logic that punishes kids that are having trouble in school by cutting them off from getting educated. If we are committed to it, I think we can create more appropriate sanctions. I would hope that the same passion and concern expressed in the desire to defend our current system and its staff, might also be extended to towards those for whom our current system is not working. It's not about blaming, it's about working for success.
Steve Bean
Tue, May 25, 2010 : 9:35 a.m.
@ Bob, "That's a pretty substantial allegation implicating all administrators, and is not, in my opinion, a fair one." You've changed the writer's "most authorities" to "all administrators". He also used the qualifier, "in part". Is your opinion of unfairness based on what you think it was based on? Sorry I didn't get to talk with you yesterday. Thanks for your contribution to the conservancy's efforts.
Bill Sower
Mon, May 24, 2010 : 10:36 p.m.
As a facilitator of hundreds of restorative justice interventions and as the trainer for the restorative justice programs in many Michigan school districts (including Whitmore Lake, which was mentioned in Jen Eyer's post), I need to clarify a critical point. Restorative justice is not a way to be lenient toward offenders. On the contrary, it provides school and justice officials with practical and effective measures to hold offenders more authentically accountable than with school suspensions (which for too many students are rewards) or even incarceration (I worked at Maxey Boys Training School for 20 years, so I know a little bit about incarceration and real accountability.) Furthermore, restorative justice works in alignment with, not in opposition to, conventional sanctions. For instance, a school infraction may call for a five day suspension. In a school using restorative justice, the student may serve one or two days out of school, but if certain criteria are met, the student and his/her parents may be offered the opportunity of waiving the other three or four days if they agree to participate constructively in a restorative justice conference and to fulfill the terms of the contract that results from the conference. The conference is a safe process which allows those who were harmed to explain how they were affected, defines the obligations of the offender to make things right, and "restores" the harmony that was broken by the offense. It is the best way for an offending student to truly understand how his/her behavior affected others and to be part of the solution instead of the "problem". It is the best way for victims to have their needs for reparation met. Studies in Lansing area schools by the Central Michigan Restorative Justice Initiative http://www.centralmichiganrestorativejustice.com/ and throughout the world show very high rates of satisfaction from victims, offenders and family members. The process is recommended for schools by the American Psychological Association and by Michigan State Schools Superintendent, Michael Flanagan. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/Item_A_258108_7.pdf Suburban districts like South Lyon and urban districts like Hamtramck have dramatically reduced their reliance on suspensions using restorative justice. It is also critical to note that a restorative justice conference must be prepared and conducted by a trained facilitator. Many years ago, my daughter was assaulted by another student at Huron High School. The well-meaning assistant principal brought the two families together to attempt resolution, but the encounter was a disaster because the AP didn't know what he was doing in this regard. So training is absolutely necessary. Bill Sower The Christopher and Virginia Sower Center for Successful Schools www.thesowercenter.com
Lisa Starrfield
Mon, May 24, 2010 : 3:05 p.m.
I've been teaching for a decade and in that time I have only ever seen one child expelled from a public school and that was a charter school. The young lady had a disciplinary hearing and when asked why she wanted to be at our school, she said she didn't; they took her at her word.
Bob
Mon, May 24, 2010 : 11:08 a.m.
I've been a school administrator for 33 years and have had to deal with all kinds of discipline at the middle and high school levels. It is really frustrating to read an article like this with no examples to back it up. It would be easy to describe a general situation that leaves out names and schools to help make the point. Expulsions are generally given for weapons violations (now State law) and gross misconduct, violence, or some other extremely serious incident. Good administrators do everything they can to resolve issues and work with their students; expulsion is a last resort. The only "unfair" expulsions I have been a part of concerned middle school students who brought a pocket knife or a real-looking toy gun to school and allowed someone (who reported it) to see it. Those were frustrating because they had no intent to harm but they were aware of the law. It's easy to criticize suspensions and expulsions, but there are not a lot of acceptable options for many of our students. We need to make every effort to make sure every student knows the expectations and what the consequences are for negative behaviors. I can't speak for administrators in other districts, but I certainly take exception to "Now, however, most authorities seem to exercise little authority in terms of making judgments as to when an incident requires drastic action or not. This seems driven in part by the awareness of our individual potential for discrimination and a fear that if you do not appear consistent, or someone harms others in the future, you could be sued. But in matters like this, where so much is at stake, what is needed are solutions that address the unique circumstances of each individual, not some kind of blanket application of punishment." This author seems to have no idea how much thought and time can go into every discipline situation. That's a pretty substantial allegation implicating all administrators, and is not, in my opinion, a fair one. Admittedly, even one administrator who fits that description is too many, but let's not throw the whole bunch under the proverbial (school) bus. Again, more detail in the form of a general description of what actually happened would be helpful. This sounds like because one mechanic messed up my car ALL mechanics are bad.
Jay Thomas
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 8:29 p.m.
If you are going to pen a piece like this then at least give us the details of the students in question (you can leave their names out naturally). We don't know WHY the principals decided that the student should be expelled BECAUSE YOU WON'T TELL US. Reasons like that apparently are not important to you -- but they are to the rest of us!
AnneB
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 3:33 p.m.
Expulsion is usually reserved for offenses such as acts of violence, persistent disregard for school rules, selling drugs or carrying weapons. Restorative justice would not be appropriate for these offenses. These offenses represent serious threats to the vast majority of students who come to school to learn and to the teachers who come to teach. Restorative justice should be explored for students who commit more minor offenses and who do not repeatedly violate rules. Students who are expelled can be and often are readmitted if they are able to demonstrate that they have accepted responsibility and have made observable efforts to change. Rev. Summers and others should, and I'm sure, do play a vital role in helping expelled students understand the invaluable life lesson that expulsion can teach.
aareader
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.
"Teachers need to stop trying to socially engineer society and stick to their mission of providing educational services and maintaining the safety of the school environment." Actually Social Issues are everyone's responsibly and especially educators. Teachers need to bring everything they can to help students be successful in their studies and life. Generally educators - teachers, administrators, councilors, support staff and the students relatives etc. - do everything they can to keep a student in school. No one is happy with the outcome of a student not graduating. Plus on the very practical side every student that leaves costs the district a lot of money. Generally when a student is removed from a school setting it is when they become a "threat" to the rest of the student population.
Hans Masing
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 1:50 p.m.
"Anonymous due to bigotry" - you say, 'Let's say that a kid brings a loaded sawed-off shotgun to school in his/her backpack, but doesn't shoot anyone. Lets say that he/she also makes some death threats but doesn't carry them out. Well gee.... No harm done right? Guess there shouldn't be any real consequences for that huh?' Sure, of course. But what about a kid that brings a baseball bat to school? He/she can split skulls with the best of them. But there are no consequences for that. How about a piece of pipe? A stick? Or, what about a nerf gun? So, if your point is that if a child brings something that is immediately capable of causing harm to someone and serves *no* other purpose like your shotgun example, then yes - absolutely remove the child from the situation and determine a proper remedy. However, dual or multi-purpose items should be handled on a case-by-case basis. We teach our cub scouts how to use a pocket knife safely in the 4th grade. A pocket knife is infinitely handy - yet we have zero tolerance in our schools and bringing a pocket knife in your backpack will get you expelled. (No, the children referenced in this article did not have pocket knives with them, to my knowledge) We need to leaven how we judge and punish offenses by children accordingly.
Anonymous Due to Bigotry
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 1:15 p.m.
Let's say that a kid brings a loaded sawed-off shotgun to school in his/her backpack, but doesn't shoot anyone. Lets say that he/she also makes some death threats but doesn't carry them out. Well gee.... No harm done right? Guess there shouldn't be any real consequences for that huh? From what I've been able to tell talking to teachers, once you head down this path then students not only are not effectively disciplined but other students are actively endangered. One teacher had the nerve to tell me that a student who poses a danger to others shouldn't be expelled because we need school to be an inviting welcoming environment so that we won't have anyone who will drop out and join a street gang or whatever. Thats great. So lets endanger all other students so one kid won't drop out. That hardly strikes me as fair to everyone. While I think that expulsion should happen only to protect other students and not to just punish the offender, it does need to happen in some cases (such as bringing a firearm to school). One person's rights end when that person endanger other people. Teachers need to stop trying to socially engineer society and stick to their mission of providing educational services and maintaining the safety of the school environment. Unfortunately they're constantly trying to tackle larger social issues that aren't their responsibility, that they aren't qualified to handle, using unproven untested tactics (like teaching totally baseless "self-esteem") that could end up making things worse. And all of this comes at the cost of lower quality basic educational services, and decreased safety, for all students.
Me Next
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 10:43 a.m.
It's unreasonable to call for a judgment when details of offenses are withheld. The solution is return to Original Purpose of the place & Service taxes pay for. 1. Make available the opportunity to be exposed to learning Basic Skills (3 Rs) necessary for Independent Individual life, civil localities, strong State, & Sovereign nation. 2. Class discipline problem results in an essay, relating to the subject to be turned in - in a timely fashion. Record of "# of words" which increases with subsequent offenses. 3. "Community Free Space" (playground) offenses result in immediate time out to write an Essay of what "you could have done" addressing what "you" did do & why it violated the other's rights & that of disturbing "civil society". Same # of words required & increase as in #1. 4. "King of the mountain" that results in physical harm of another. I have an example: 3rd grade. I was a new kid & a larger child wanted to subordinate me. The Teacher just watched - no harm no foul - just developing Coping Skills & by example teaching others ways to avoid a fight. About 3 weeks in, the physical offenses caught me at the wrong time & it was on. I'd had enough. We fought, as the others watched (including the teacher). When we went to the ground, the teacher said "That's enough". She took us to a vacant part & allowed both of us to vent our problems uninterrupted. She said "I'm glad yaw got that out of your systems. Shake hands & let this be the end of it." It was. I found out she was a relative & eventually we became good friends. In High School, the couch would teach boxing & if a "play area" fight happened; he would say "So you boys want to join the Boxing Club. Good good, men need to know how to defend themselves & act civilized. This was an option instead of an Essay or Principal's Office. You can not mandate or grow a Civil Society. You guide in a manner that a Civil Society naturally develops. If the Rev & the children's parents want help, the facts must be made public - not the identities There was never additional cost. Each School employee took turns in recess (2 & a lunch) duty. That coach had 2 retired volunteers that when he sent boys (today girls seem more aggressive & cruel) to the Gym began the long preparation process. By the time the competition meet happened the character of the boys had matured & self-confidence had replaced "Reaction or unprovoked Action".
bs
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
Although the concept of Restorative Justice was discussed in some depth a few years ago within the local juvenile justice system, there were never any substantial steps taken, as far as I know, to implement a comprehensive model of that system. In fact, recently, with dwindling resources, the Family Court, Juvenile Division, is somewhat strapped to provide minimum supervision of adjudicated youth, there is little time, energy, or money to flesh out a comprehensive system of Restorative Justice. As mentioned below by Craig, our school districts have neither the mandate nor the resources to be judge, jury, and parent to children and youth that have committed acts considered criminal in our society, they have insufficient resources to provide a basic education. For 20 years I've stated that until we make a substantial shift in the consumerist life style in this country, until we no longer promote and accept two parents working overtime to maintain the big house/boat/car/tennis shoes/bling/trips/flat screen tv's/whatever, until we promote parenting as a priority over consuming..we'll not find the solution to the behavioral problems the schools face. Don't put this on the schools, they aren't at fault....
Marsha Traxler
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 8:47 a.m.
Thank you, Reverend Summers, for bringing the process of Restorative Justice to the attention of people involved with the Ann Arbor Public Schools. Communities who have employed this process whether they are criminal justice communities or native tribal communities have found the results to be far superior to those of the punitive system. The results are better in terms of outcomes for the offenders, outcomes for the victims and the financial burden to the community. The principles behind the Restorative Justice process are based on an understanding of how the world works from the viewpoint of the people who lived on this continent before the arrival of the Europeans. In recent years Native communities are returning to these ways of dealing with serious social problems with spectacular and heartwarming results. We know there is something terribly wrong with our current system of "justice" whether it is in the schools or larger community. It's time to consider other ways of approaching these problems, so why not explore a different way with a long record of success? Thank you, again, Reverend Summers, for opening a discussion that needs to happen.
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, May 23, 2010 : 7:15 a.m.
There is, understandably, no detail regarding the two kids you reference. I can say that in my experience with three kids who spanned 17 years in the Ann Arbor school system it takes a lot to find oneself facing permanent expulsion from the school system. The first responsibility "we the people" have is to the overall safety and well being of the student body at large. Sometimes that means removing people who endanger that. It's the "job" of the public schools to make a reasonable attempt to educate the students in their system. It should not be their job to "rehabilitate criminals" With all due respect Reverend, unless your willing to provide details regarding the nature of the offenses that may (or did?) result in permanent expulsion I find your whole commentary a bit disingenuous