Breaking the Code: How to Create a More Restorative and Equitable Code of Conduct
2
Breaking the Code: How to Create a More Restorative and Equitable Code of Conduct Authors: Reggie Berry, Sarah Eblen
Table of Contents
Kansas City Public School District Code of Conduct Review and Research Pg. 2-13 The Backbone of A District: Reforming the Code of Conduct to Decrease Discipline Discrepancies and Ensure Equitable Interventions Restorative Code of Conduct Rubric Pg. 14 Moving Forward Restoratively: Recommendations Pg. 15-16
3 The Backbone of A District: Reforming the Code of Conduct to Decrease Discipline Discrepancies and Ensure Equitable Interventions Introduction: The Advancement Project, an American nonprofit organization that focuses on racial justice reform, explains that “the best Codes of Conduct offer and encourage teachers and administrators to use a mix of supportive, positive interventions and disciplinary consequences” (Schiff, 2013). With that in mind, the Restorative Justice Ambassadors (RJAs), a group of Southeast students grades 11-12 at Southeast High School, set out to offer feedback on the current Kansas City Public School (KCPS) District Code of Conduct. In addition to their first-hand experience as KCPS students, these students have also been trained in Restorative Theory and Mediation through the Center for Conflict Resolution. In the 2019-2020 school year, these select students studied the effect of punitive discipline in schools, communities, and criminal justice systems. They have interviewed students around the Kansas City metro, Kansas City community organizations, and court officials. Along with student insight, the following discussion includes leading behavioral Science theory, management theory, rhetoric theory, restorative justice theory, and nationwide discipline statistics to provide a holistic review and analysis of the Kansas City Public School District Code of Conduct. A rubric and recommendations are included at the end of the research. Sections: A. Punitive Language: The Restorative Justice Ambassadors reviewed pages 12-40 of the 2020-2021 KCPS Code of Conduct for punitive language; language “directed toward control and punishment; instead of engagement and healing”. The following section will discuss identified words and phrases, the described and potential impact, and what suggestions students have for revision. The attached video clip allows the reader to hear students first-hand. The first word senior Rayford Parks (who has attended KCPS schools for 6 years) identified as punitive was “comply.” This phrase can be found on both page 12 and page 22 of the KCPS Code of Conduct: “Refusal to comply with a staff request can result in disciplinary consequences being assigned (pg.12)” Steve Kelman, a Professor of Public Management at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, describes the potential issue with the word “compliance”. “If people are being forced to ‘comply’ with something, they will feel no sense of intrinsic motivation” (2017). Senior Ambassador Rashon Johnson agreed, emphasizing that words like “comply” in the KCPS Code of Conduct too closely mirrors that of prison systems. “It made me feel like we’re in a jail. It just brought more perspective to that thought. The way everything is worded; basically in the book it’s telling us we should come to school and not say anything, just sit down.”
4 Professor Kelman stresses the importance of teaching institutional values instead of compliance. Kelman explains that it is important to infuse people “with an internalized commitment to the behavior, and the underlying values it promotes, rather than putting them into compliance mode” (2017). Kelman notes that oftentimes “compliance mode” can foster resentment. Parks describes the negative cycle punitive language, like “compliance,” can create: “As a student, the language in this Code of Conduct affects my response by making me react with the same negativity I was approached with. And possibly, whatever the consequence was it will make me not want to do it and then it will escalate the situation even more.” Lera Boroditsky, Associate Professor of Cognitive Science at UCSD, further emphasizes how behavior is shaped by language. The language we speak, she explains, shapes everything we do: from how we process experiences to how we behave (2018). Reflecting on language like “defiant” (KCPS Code of Conduct, pg. 22) and “disruptive” ((KCPS Code of Conduct, pg. 27), Parks and senior Lyniah-Riley Nolan (who has attended KCPS schools for 9 years) describe the feeling of being viewed as a “threat” by administrators and teachers. Senior Lyniah Riley-Nolan explains,“I feel like a person saying you have an attitude or trying to say you bad when you’re not makes you even more upset. Like, that’s a whole trigger. And they use that ‘threat’ - they try to take that ‘threatening part’ and they try to run with it. They try to make it seem like everything you do is a ‘threat’.” Robert Rosenthal describes this cycle as the Pygmalion effect - “the phenomenon whereby one person’s expectation for another person’s behavior comes to serve as a self-fulfilling prophecy” (American Psychologist,Nov. 2003, p. 839). According to Rosenthal, when we expect certain behaviors of others, “we are likely to act in ways that make the expected behavior more likely to occur”. According to this theory, if school staff expects students to be “threatening”or “defiant,” it thereby increases the likelihood that students may display this type of behavior. Johnson adds, “It’s like they’re looking at us as, not animals, I won’t say animals, but…” Parks completes Rashon’s thought, “They’re not giving us an option - it’s like we have to.” Johnson and Parks reference feeling dehumanized by school staff - an occurrence so common for black youth that it was studied by the American Psychological Association. In a study, titled The Essence of Innocence: Consequences of Dehumanizing Black Children, researchers found that black youth were often considered “less innocent, older... and more threatening” than their other-race peers (Goff, Phillip Atiba, et al, 2014). Reducing punitive language is important across public schools, but is especially urgent for black youth, as highlighted below. In an experiment with 264 mostly white, female undergraduate students from large public U.S.
5 universities. The female students were asked to rate the innocence of people ranging from infants to 25-year-olds who were “black, white or an unidentified race”. The results highlight how racism, stereotypes, and unconscious bias can play a role in the Pygmalion effect. The 264 students rated 9 years olds as equally innocent, regardless of race, but considered black children “significantly less innocent than other children in every age group beginning at age 10” (Goff, Phillip Atiba, et al, 2014). The authors noted this significance with this summary: “Any context that provokes consideration of a child as an adult should be particularly susceptible to the effects of dehumanization...Children may be afforded fewer basic protections in contexts where they are dehumanized, making them vulnerable to harsh treatment usually reserved for adults” (Goff, Phillip Atiba, et al, 2014). Labels in the KCPS Code of Conduct such as “threatening” and “defiant” create a lens in which to view children - a lens that is already proven to be muddied by racial bias. To begin to correct the lens, Parks suggests more restorative language. For example, Parks suggests, “You could say, ‘Students will be given a chance to correct behavior and create an action plan’ instead of saying ‘Students must ‘comply’.” The Advancement Project notes that Code of Conduct language changes like this can “signal to administrators the priorities of the District, the intent of discipline, and the desired school culture” (Schiff, 2013). A standout punitive word identified by KCPS Restorative Justice staff that wasn’t identified by the RJAs was “charges” (KCPS Code of Conduct, pg. 36). Central Middle School Restorative Justice Coordinator Pamela Young was surprised students didn’t identify the word “charges” as punitive, criminal justice language. She noted, “I wonder if it’s so much of a norm to students, that they don’t know any differently.” VIDEO: COC Student Review: Punitive Language B. Subjective Language In an effort to improve the KCPS Code of Conduct, Johnson also suggests more clarity in language: “I mean it’s all depending on the situation. I mean, it could be a situation where a student is being defiant. But it could be a situation where it’s different points of views between a teacher and a student.” “Different points of view” infractions, as Johnson describes, are more widely referred to as subjective offenses. Subjective offenses are considered actions by students that are not easily identified but are dependent on the opinion of the teacher in the classroom. In 1968, the first nationwide study on school discipline in the United States was conducted. In the 52 years that have followed, multiple studies have suggested that subjective offenses are more harshly levied against students of color. The following section will discuss some subjective offenses in the KCPS Code of Conduct, the identified harm, and suggestions for reform. The attached clip allows you to
6 hear students first-hand. According to research by The Center for Civil Rights Remedies (CCRR), black students are more likely to receive office referrals, ISS, OSS, expulsions, arrests (and in some schools, even physical punishments) for subjective offenses (disrespect, misconduct, disruption) compared to their white counterparts (Loosen, Martinez, 2020). The same publication notes that in the 2012 -2013 school year, Missouri had the largest Black/White gap in discipline at the elementary level. In addition, Black students in Missouri lost 162 more days than White students in the 2015-2016 school year (Loosen, Martinez, p. 5, 2020). In the 52 years of studies, no data has arisen that suggests students of color are more prone to acts of aggression or violence, but rather, they are more likely to be suspended for subjective offenses. The KCPS Code of Conduct (page 22) describes the possession, exhibition and/or distribution of obscene material infraction as “possessing, exhibiting, or distributing material, which often offends a person’s common decency and morals.” Johnson describes the subjective nature and potential issue with this offense. “One of my friends, she had a [shirt]...One of her family members had passed away and it was just pictures and writing around it and whatever. But I guess it was like... throwing up “gang” signs or whatever signs. And the teacher told her she had to get out or she had to change her shirt. And she was just mad, because this person just passed away, ‘I’m not finna change my shirt because you don’t like it’. And I was just like, that was wrong. Even if it is offensive to you. What if it wasn’t gang related, it was just a sign they put up as a family. ‘Cause we have that, in Chicago, we have a Chi’Raq sign that’s just a sign of the city.” Riley-Nolan agreed and continued Johnson’s point: “I agree with Rashon because I feel like... if you don’t know what the shirt means, and you’re not trying to look deeper into it, then you don’t have any right to say anything about it.” Subjective offenses can put teachers in a position to rely on implicit bias and unconscious stereotypes. An individual person’s definition of “disruptive,” “decent,” and “defiant” may differ based on their own experiences and perception. Page 22 of the Code of Conduct describes two offenses that are widely considered subjective: Disruptive Behavior and Defiance of Authority. Junior Daviona Duren (who has attended KCPS schools for 9 years) that these terms can be used differently by different teachers and administrators. Duren explains that inconsistency can happen if a teacher is having a bad day and “just wants you out” or it can be deeper rooted. “Didn’t we get 19 new teachers last year? And some of them wasn’t really in the community for a long time, so they were looking at us like, ‘aw, she’s probably not going to do her work, because she comes from this type of school district and they’re not accredited,’” The ACLU of Missouri recommends reducing subjective offenses because of the discipline
7 discrepancies in race, gender, and exceptional education status subjective offenses create (2018). The 2015 CCRR study examined the intersection of race and gender (Blake, Butler, & Smith, 2015). For example, at 78 percentage points, the Grenada School District in Mississippi had the greatest disparity between Black and White males and Sumter Florida had the greatest disparity between Black and White females, with a gap of 39 percentage points. Dress code infractions, considered to be subjective because they use words such as “distracting,” statistically affect more female students, especially female students of color. Riley-Nolan describes “I feel like our dress code don’t make no type of sense.” The KCPS Dress Code appears on page 21 of the Code of Conduct: “Failure to Adhere to the Dress Code “DRES”: “Dress or appearance that is likely to cause disruption in the education process or create a health or safety concern.” Riley-Nolan continues, “The boys can get away with wearing one thing, but if we was to wear it, we wouldn’t get away with it. Like, say if the boys come in there with a wife-beater on, they’ll be cool, but if we come in with a tank top on, like a T-shirt- spaghetti strap, we’re automatically getting in trouble or sent to the office… It’s just sexist to me.” It is important to note that the CCCR (2015) study pinpoints that female students of color that don’t subscribe to “traditional gender norms” are a subgroup that is highly affected by subjective offenses. Johnson suggests, “I think [infactions] should be stated in the book... I think they should be stated in a more calming way instead of a more disciplinary way.” Johnson speaks to the need for clear, objective, and positively-framed expectations to combat teacher and administrator bias. COC Student Review: Subjective Offenses C. Does “The Why” Matter? Andrew Carton, a Professor of Management at the University of Pennsylvania, explains the importance of positive messaging in his joint 2014 research “A (Blurry) Vision of the Future: How Leader Rhetoric about Ultimate Goals Influences Performance.” Carton notes that one key responsibility of all leaders is “crafting and communicating two types of messages— visions and values—that help followers understand the ultimate purpose of their work” (Carton, Clark, Murphy). Therefore, the student Restorative Justice Ambassadors rated Code of Conduct explanations based on (1) values expressed and (2) post-school connections. Simply put, does the Code of Conduct expectation relay short-term purpose and inspire long-term motivation? The most robust conversation centered around the differences in the KCPS Code of Conduct’s tardy policy and another local district’s tardy policy. The two policies are below for review:
8
(1) KCPS: “A student is tardy if he or she is not present at the start of a class period. A student who is tardy to class after ten minutes without a proper authorization/pass is considered truant. Students who are frequently tardy to classes may be subject to disciplinary measures. A tardy may be verified or unverified. A verified tardy is only recorded with a formal written and timed excuse/admit slip from a school administrator, teacher, or district level employee. All other tardy excuses will be unverified. (Excessive tardy offenses could warrant additional consequences with approval by School leadership.)” (2) Comparison district: The Board recognizes the importance of regular student attendance to a successful learning experience. Research supports the fact that attendance is crucial to improving student achievement. At least one (1) study identified attendance as the single greatest indicator of student achievement. The Board further recognizes that: 1. Frequent absences of students from regular classroom learning experiences disrupt the continuity of the instructional process. 2. The benefits of the classroom instruction, once lost, cannot be entirely regained. 3. The entire process of education requires a regular continuity of instruction, classroom participation, learning experiences and study in order to meet the district’s student achievement goals. 4. Holding students and their parents/guardians responsible for attendance is part of the district’s larger mission to train students to be productive citizens and employees. 5. State law reflects the importance of regular attendance by establishing compulsory school attendance and charging this Board to enforce that law. 6. State law authorizes school boards to make all needful rules for organization and government in the district. Therefore, regular and punctual patterns of attendance will be expected of each student enrolled” Senior Rayford Parks quickly noted, referencing a lack of clear vision in the KCPS Policy, “The KCPS policy... is just talking about what they want for you at the moment. It doesn’t really set you up for the future.” Parks identified a sharp contrast in Code of Conduct (2). “It looks like the district takes time for their students and actually wants better for them.” Carton explains why explanations like Code of Conduct (2) may garner more buy-in: It creates a “a shared sense of the organization's ultimate goal.” The 2014 Rhetoric study confirms that value-specific rhetoric leads to a “shared cognition.” (Carton, Clark, Murphy, 2014). People are more likely to perceive expectations favorably if the value of the expectation is clearly stated. This ultimately, Carton notes, “will boost performance” and “enhance coordination.”
9 Senior Rashon Johnson summarizes the positive effect of Code of Conduct (2). “It shows they value their students more. They value the students' success. It stated that them coming to class, not being late, not being tardy all the time, it will lead to their success.” The Steele Wave Compliance Company capitalizes on this theory. Backed by research in behavior-change science, the Steele Wave Company partners with companies to reform workplace Code of Conducts. Steele Wave’s most commonly-suggested piece of advice, according to a 2016 blog post, is to “use language in the Code that is more positive in tone and less prohibitive” (Rogers). Johnson contributes the success of Code of Conduct (2), to positive tone words such as “success” and “achievement,” while noting the “KCPS [Code of Conduct] doesn’t really give any explanation as to why … or use positive words.” Steele Wave suggests reframing negative, prohibitive expectations to include more phrasing like, “we must ensure...”; “our company depends on…”; and “each of us must.” This small change in tone, the author argues, “makes a huge difference in how your Code will be interpreted” (Rogers). The RJAs theorized that students may be more likely to follow Code of Conduct expectations with less prohibitive language and more statements of purpose and values. Johnson summarizes, “If [The KCPS Code of Conduct] was more positive, gave more explanations. I think when people read it, they’d be like, ‘Oh okay... I can follow that’ instead of them being like ‘I’m not going to follow that because they just tell me to do this and do that.’” COC Student Review: Does the Why Matter? D. Discipline Hierarchy steps: The first three sections make the case for more positive, objective, and value-specific language. This final section will discuss Discipline Hierarchies in the KCPS Code of Conduct, the identified impact, and suggestions for reform. The attached clip allows you to hear students first-hand. Discipline Hierarchies are leveled responses to student behavior that escalate in response severity. For example, a level 1 response may result in a conference, while a level 3 response may result in a student suspension. The RJAs examined one of KCPS’s Discipline Hierarchy Scales as well as three other Code of Conduct Discipline Hierarchies. Immediately, when examining the KCPS “Class II Offense” hierarchy (KCPS Code of Conduct, pg. 24), Parks explained. “When I look at ours and look at the other ones, I feel like the stuff that they give is stuff that’s in [adult’s] favor. It’s what they want done, it’s not stuff that we want to do...” Rashon Johnson finishes Parks’ thought, “The options that they’re giving us. It won’t help us
10 better ourselves in school...”
What Parks and Johnson are describing is the “TO” box of the Social Discipline Window, displayed above. Ted Wachtel, President of International Institute for Restorative Practices, describes the “TO” discipline approach as “high control, low support.” Wachtel breaks down the model more: “ If we were neglectful toward the troubled youth in our agency’s programs, we would NOT do anything in response to their inappropriate behavior. If permissive, we would do everything FOR them and ask little in return. If punitive, we would respond by doing things TO them. But responding in a restorative manner, we do things WITH them and involve them directly in the process” (1999). The RJAs graded the KCPS Discipline Hierarchy as a “TO” Model. One of the KCPS Discipline Hierarchies is included below for review: Class II: Dangerous behavior, Gambling, Disruptive Behavior, Defiance of Authority, Use of Abusive, Obscene, Profane Language GRADES 7-12 First Offenses ● Parent/Guardian Contact ● In-School Suspension ● Student temporarily assigned to another class in the building (where appropriate) ● Detention Second Offense ● Parent/Guardian Conference ● In-School Suspension Third Offense ● Parent/Guardian Conference ● In-School Suspension with possible further action ● Detention
11 Johnson continued, “The KCPS is just straight to trouble. Like, they don’t give you time to try to work out the situation.” Parks remarked. “You don’t really learn your lesson.” The RJAs were able to compare the KCPS Discipline Hierarchy to two local districts and a Texas district with similar student enrollment. One of the local hierarchies is included for comparison: ANY OFFENSE FIRST OFFENSE: • In-School Conference with Student • Individual Student Behavior Support Plan/Student Safety Plan • Detention or Other Extended School Time Options • Parent/Guardian Conference • Revocation of Parking Privilege • Restriction of Attendance at School-Sponsored Activities • In-School Suspension • Short-Term Out of School Suspension • Restorative Justice SECOND OFFENSE: • Individual Student Behavior Support Plan/Student Safety Plan • Detention Or Other Extended School Time Options • Parent/Guardian Conference • Revocation of Parking Privilege • Restriction of Attendance at School-Sponsored Activities • In-School Suspension • Short-Term Out of School Suspension • Restorative Justice SUBSEQUENT OFFENSES (three or more): • Individual Student Behavior Support Plan/Student Safety Plan • Detention Or Other Extended School Time Options • Revocation of Parking Privilege • Restriction of Attendance at School-Sponsored Activities • Parent/Guardian Conference • In-School Suspension • Short-Term Out of School Suspension
Johnson reflected on this particular model, “They have individual support plans for each student. They don’t use the same plan for each student. You can see that they see each student is different… It looks like they’re trying to help the student instead of sending them away.” The model featured above uses several “WITH” approaches. One example, featured directly in the comparison model above, is Restorative Justice, or RJ. RJ is a growing practice in schools around the country. As a “WITH’ approach, Restorative strategies empower students to resolve conflicts on their own, with the help of Coordinators. Essentially, RJ brings all parties affected by an event together to share feelings, needs, create mutually-agreed-upon plans, and reintegrate students back into the classroom community.
12 Johnson explains the benefits of “WITH’ approaches. “I like how they give students options” “If you give a person an option… For instance, if me and a teacher got into an argument, and she gives me the option that we can talk out our problem, I can sit outside of class, have cool down time, or I can go talk to the Restorative Justice teacher... Giving me options will let me know that I’m not being forced to do anything. That’s not going to make me hostile because I’m cooling down. I see that I have options to go somewhere to chill out. It’s going to make me feel better because I’ll know I get to talk it out without having an attitude.” Often, teachers and administrators pick a “TO”, “NOT”, or “FOR” approach in an attempt to maintain control, as described by KCPS teacher Katie Zeeck. Zeeck started teaching in KCPS in 2016. “As a new teacher, I felt I had to lay down the law in order to maintain good class management with my students and not let them walk all over me. I had no other tools in my belt other than to do what had been done to me. I quickly realized this punitive, dismissive approach was creating an unwanted barrier between my students and me.” Discipline options are currently limited in several United States public schools. According to a 2010 Educational Researcher article, “Schools typically respond to disruptive students with external discipline, which consists of sanctions and punishment such as office referrals, corporal punishment, suspensions, and expulsions” (Osher, David, et al.). A joint 2009 School Crime and Safety study found the largest percentage of schools that reported taking a “serious disciplinary action” in 2007–08 did so in response to a physical attack or fight. The second highest reason reported was ‘insubordination’” ((Dinkes, Kemp, & Baum, 2009). KCPS History teacher Thomas Gratto breaks down this reliance on punitive approaches. Gratto has worked in the KCPS district since 2016. “Teachers may default to a “TO,” “NOT,” or “FOR” approach for several reasons. Typically, new teachers have not received training in dealing with conflict in a restorative manner, and default to their personal frame of reference - which is to respond punitively. Without support, when punitive measures fail, new and inexperienced teachers alike then adopt a “FOR” approach because it offers the path of least resistance.” Researchers found these types of responses presented a short-term fix to what often was a chronic, long-term problem ( (Osher, David, et al.). Parks reiterates the importance of training and options: “I feel like the way some teachers discipline students is because they don’t have options. So if they see these alternative options, they’ll be able to work something out with the student.” It is important to note that the KCPS Code of Conduct features two pages of “Behavior and Academic Support Models” (page 34 - 35), including “Conscious Discipline,” “Restorative Practices”, “Positive Behavior Interventions and Support” and “Mentoring.” However, these interventions are not listed in the discipline hierarchy breakdowns, which are often the documents used by administrators, posted in offices, and referred to during discipline hearing
13 conversations. Parks and Johnson made recommendations based on Discipline Hierarchies they studied. The recommendations include adding the following directly to the discipline hierarchy: chill out time, flexible scheduling, positive reinforcement for classroom behavior, conflict resolution, peer mediation, restorative circles, positive behavior interventions, and behavior coaching. COC Student Review: Discipline Hierarchies Conclusion: While school discipline reform is being examined nationwide, it is especially imperative in Kansas City, MO. According to the analysis by the Urban Education Research Center at the University of Missouri-Kansas City, black students in Kansas City were four times more likely to be suspended than white students during the 2016-2017 school year (Moxley, 2019). Despite this, reliance on external discipline in Kansas City Schools is not decreasing. The same data shows Kansas City schools (public and charter) issued more suspensions in 2018 than in 2015 (Moxley, 2019). “The [Code of Conduct] is like the backbone of the school,” Johnson explains. The analogy serves to remind us that in the same way posture relies on a strong backbone, a district’s mission and vision cannot be actualized with an outdated Code of Conduct. A district that aims to ensure “personalized, rigorous, culturally responsive teaching and learning” (KCPS Strategic Pillar A) will not be able to do so without also ensuring personalized, responsive, and anti-racist discipline. The backbone of KCPS, Johnson notes, can easily be strengthened through strategic reform. As stakeholders review the KCPS Code of Conduct, there are clear benefits to considering changes in punitive language, objective offenses, positive framing, and the construction of discipline hierarchies. The re-construction of the KCPS Code of Conduct is the first line of defense in guaranteeing KCPS students receive equitable and fair discipline. References: Boroditsky, Lera. "How Language Shapes the Way We Think." TED. May. 2018. Lecture. ACLU Missouri.Missouri's Pipeline of Injustice: From School to Prison. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.aclu-mo.org/en/missouris-pipeline-injustice-school-prison (2018, October 16).
Carton, Andrew M., Chad Murphy, and Jonathan R. Clark. "A (blurry) vision of the future: How leader rhetoric about ultimate goals influences performance." Academy of Management Journal 57.6 (2014): 1544-1570. Chen, M. Keith. "The effect of language on economic behavior: Evidence from savings rates, health behaviors, and retirement assets." American Economic Review 103.2 (2013): 690-731. Dinkes, R., Kemp, J., & Baum, K. (2009). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2008 (NCES 2009–022/NCJ
14 226343). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, and U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Dishion, T. J., & Dodge, K. A. (2005). Goff, Phillip Atiba, et al. "The essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing Black children." Journal of personality and social psychology 106.4 (2014): 526. Kelman, Steven. When 'compliance' should be a dirty word. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://fcw.com/blogs/lectern/2017/03/kelman-cost-of-compliance.aspx (2017, March 13) Losen, Daniel J., and Paul Martinez. "Lost Opportunities: How Disparate School Discipline Continues to Drive Differences in the Opportunity to Learn." na na (2020). Moxley, Ellie. Kansas City Schools Are Still Suspending Lots Of Students, Even As Discipline Policies Change. 21 June 2019, www.kcur.org/education/2019-06-21/kansas-city-schools-are-still-suspending-lots-of-students-even-as-disci pline-policies-change. Osher, David, et al. "How can we improve school discipline?." Educational researcher 39.1 (2010): 48-58. Rogers, J. A. (2016, May 11). 8 Tips For Your Code Of Conduct's Content, Tone And Organization. Retrieved October 22, 2020, from https://www.compliancewave.com/blog/8-tips-for-your-code-of-conducts-content-tone-and-organization Schiff, Mara. "Dignity, Disparity and Desistance: Effective Restorative Justice Strategies to Plug the" School-to-Prison Pipeline"." (2013). Wachtel, Ted. Restorative Justice in Everyday Life: beyond the Formal Ritual. Piper's Press, 1999.
15
Restorative Code of Conduct Rubric This rubric can be used to review full Code of Conducts or distinct sections Pillars
5 points
3 points
1 point
0 points
Restorative Language
Language is fully focused on student engagement and healing; language does not label students; language does not assume student compliance; language does not use “Criminal language”
Language is partially focused on student engagement in the consequence process - words like “with”; most language does not label students
Language is partially focused on student engagement in the consequence process
Language focuses on blame and control - words like “comply” and “threat”
Objective Violations Violation is clear, listing 3-5 examples; omits words and phrases that require staff interpretation; such as “defiance of authority”
Violations are mostly clear; only some require staff interpretation; does not include subjective violations “Defiance of Authority” and “Disruptive Behavior”
Violations still include “Defiance of Authority” and “Disruptive Behavior”; Other violations are mostly clear
Violations still include “Defiance of Authority” and “Disruptive Behavior” along with at least 3 other Subjective Violations
Vision and Purpose: “The Why”
Every expectation/violation contains an explicitly stated purpose: safety, inclusion, acknowledgment; Independence
75% of the expectations/violatio ns contain a clearly explicit purpose; safety, inclusion, acknowledgment; Independence
At least 50% of the expectations/violatio ns contain a clear purpose that students could identify; Purpose is implied but not explicitly stated
Few expectations/violatio ns contain a clear purpose
Discipline Hierarchies: Student Intervention and Choice
Discipline Hierarchies focus on Accountability vs. Punishment; includes multiple interventions; includes more “WITH” options than “TO” options
Discipline Hierarchies focus on Accountability vs. Punishment; but still include more “TO” options
Discipline Hierarchies include majority “TO” options
Discipline Hierarchies include ALL “TO” options
0 - 4: Code of Conduct leans punitive; gives few options for student engagement in the Consequence process. 4-9: While still majority punitive, Code of Conduct demonstrates commitment to student growth; gives some options for student engagement in the Consequence process 10- 15: Trending more Restorative, Code of Conduct has a behavior growth mindset; focuses on student engagement in the Consequence process and the district purpose 16 - 20: Strongly Restorative, Code of Conduct has a behavior growth mindset; uses majority student engagement strategies; protects students against subjective offenses; and invests students in the “why”
16
Recommendations Restorative Language (see pg. 2-4): 1. Edit for Criminal language; offenses, offender, compliance, threatening, defiance, gang, dangerous, charges 2. Aim to include more language that focuses on engagement and healing, that separate the act from the person: support, growth, amends, restitution, restore, person who caused harm, intervention Objective Offenses (see pg. 4-6): 1. Edit for subjective offenses that can lead to staff bias 2. Completely remove subjective offenses: defiance of authority and disruptive behavior 3. Clearly explain violations with 3-4 examples Vision and Purpose “The Why” (see pg. 6-8): 1. Edit for expectations/violations that do not include explicit purpose statements 2. Include more explicit purpose statements: safety, inclusion, acknowledgment; Independence Discipline Hierarchies (see pg. 8-10): 1. Edit Discipline Hierarchies for “TO” approaches 2. Add intervention strategies and “WITH” approaches to the Discipline Hierarchies 3. Provide teacher intervention first
17
The How To illustrate how these recommendations can be used (in conjunction with the research), let’s examine the Disruptive Behavior “Offense” in the current (KCPS Code of Conduct, 2020-2021, pg. 22):
Current: Disruptive Behavior in the Classroom, School, or During a School Activity [“DISS”] - CLASS II Intentional acts or conduct in the classroom, school building or upon school grounds that disrupts the education process (i.e. talking, making noises, getting out of seat without permission, etc.) Class II: GRADES 7-12 First Offenses Parent/Guardian Contact In-School Suspension Student temporarily assigned to another class in the building (where appropriate) Detention Second Offense ● Parent/Guardian Conference ● In-School Suspension Third Offense ● Parent/Guardian Conference ● In-School Suspension with possible further action ● Detention Suggestion For Change: Unproductive Classroom Behavior [“UN”] Active and full engagement in the classroom helps create a positive, productive learning environment and helps each student meet their individual goals. Behavior that does not contribute to a productive learning environment (even after redirects; student consistently talking over the presenter, sleeping, is in conflict with another student, or is deregulated) is inconsistent with the District Vision for Student Achievement. Students will receive intervention steps to assist in student re-entry and regulation. FIRST INTERVENTION: Cool-down space Teacher Student Conference Check-in/Check-out Parent/Guardian Check In SECOND INTERVENTION: Behavior Coaching - Support Staff Parent/Guardian Conference Conflict Resolution (peer mediation, conflict circles etc) *These options may include time away from class, but with the goal of growth and re-entry SUBSEQUENT INTERVENTIONS (three or more): Individual Student Behavior Support Plan/Student Safety Plan Detention Or Other Extended School Time Options ● ● ● ●