Ed White Middle School Restorative Discipline Evaluation · Ed White Middle School Restorative...

North East Independent School District

Ed White Middle School Restorative Discipl ine

Evaluation: Implementation and Impact,

2014/2015 Sixth, Seventh & Eighth Grades

Marilyn Armour, PhD Principle Investigator

The University of Texas at Austin

2

Acknowledgements

The Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue (IRJRD) wishes to acknowledge the following people who helped make the Year 3 evaluation project possible. Ed White Middle School and the North East Independent School District for their support and ongoing commitment to the Year 3 implementation of Restorative Discipline, their generosity in allowing other interested schools to learn from their experiences, and their assistance in gathering data for this study. IRJRD thanks the teachers and administrators at Ed White for their time and sharing of experiences through individual interviews, focus groups, and email updates, and Valerie Gaimon, Stephanie Frogge, Jelena Todic and Sarah Moulton for entering participant survey responses. We also give a special thanks to Valerie Gaimon for conducting biweekly teacher interviews, entering data, transcription of interviews and focus groups, data analysis and support writing this report. IRJRD is grateful to the school district for their financial support of the Restorative Discipline program, including this evaluation.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary 7

Background 13

Literature Review 15

Third-‐Year Implementation of Restorative Discipline at Ed White Middle School 22

Methodology 23

Findings

Outcomes from School Records 28

Outcomes from Monthly Review of RD Program Implementation 40

Outcomes from School Climate Surveys (SCS) 50

Outcomes from Teacher Interviews and Focus Groups 61

Discussion 82

Conclusion 89

References 91

Appendices 95

4

List of Figures

Figure A. Comparison of ISS for the RD pilot group over three years of RD implementation 33

Figure B. Discipline referrals by race compared to school demographics, 2014-‐2015 33

Figure C. Comparison by quarter of 6th grade office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 35

Figure D. Comparison by quarter of 7th grade office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 35

Figure E. Comparison by quarter of 8th grade office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 35

Figure F. Comparison by quarter of RD pilot group office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 35

Figure G. Comparison by quarter of second RD group office referrals 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 37

Figure H. Truancy frequencies by grade level for March and April 38

Figure I. 2014-‐2015 total student offense frequencies by month and grade level 43

Figure J. Offense referral sources, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 45

Figure K. SCS mean scores for staff from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 51

Figure L. SCS mean scores for 6th grade students from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 52

Figure M. SCS mean scores for second RD group students from 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 53

Figure N. SCS mean scores for RD pilot group students from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 55

Figure O. SCS mean scores for 6th grade parents from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 56

Figure P. SCS mean scores for 7th grade parents from 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 57

Figure Q. SCS mean scores for second RD group parents from 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 59

Figure R. SCS mean scores for RD pilot group students from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 60

5

List of Tables

Table 1. Student mobility by month, 2014-‐2015 14

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of teachers and staff for 6th, 7th and 8th grades* 24

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of students 25

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of parents/caregivers 25

Table 5. Comparison of 6th grade suspension rates for conduct violations: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015 28

Table 6. Comparison of 6th grade suspension rates for all student discipline: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015 29





Table 11. Comparison of RD pilot group for conduct violations: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015 32

Table 12. Comparison of RD pilot group suspension rates for student discipline: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015 32

Table 13. Distribution of All Incidents by Race/Ethnicity: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 33

Table 14. 6th grade comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 37

Table 15. 7th grade comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 37

Table 16. RD pilot group comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 37

Table 17. Whole school comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 38

Table 18. Reading and math scores on STARR, 2013 to 2015 39

Table 19. Percent change in STARR pass rate in reading by ethnicity, economic disadvantage and special education, 2013 to 2015 39

Table 20. 6th grade student offense categories and frequencies: First semester 40

Table 21. 6th grade student offense categories and frequencies: Second semester 40





Table 26. 2014-‐2015 total offense frequencies by month and grade level 43

Table 27. 6th grade bullying frequencies: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 44

Table 28. 7th grade bullying frequencies: 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 44

6

Table 29. RD pilot group bullying frequencies: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 44

Table 30. Offense referral sources, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 45

Table 31. 6th grade monthly frequencies of individual student incidents: Restorative conferences and circles, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 46

Table 32. 7th grade monthly frequencies of individual student incidents: Restorative conferences and circles, 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 46

Table 33. 8th grade monthly frequencies of individual student incidents: Restorative conferences and circles, 2014-‐2015 47

Table 34. Frequency of Circle-‐It Forms by month: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 48

Table 35. Comparison of staff SCS scores 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 50

Table 36. Staff SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015 51

Table 37. Comparison of 6th grade student SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 52

Table 38. 6th grade student SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015 53

Table 39. Comparison of second RD group student SCS scores 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 53


Table 41. Comparison of RD pilot group student SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 54


Table 43. Comparison of 6th grade parent SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 56

Table 44. 6th grade parent SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015 57

Table 45. Comparison of 7th grade parent SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 57

Table 46. 7th grade parent SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015 58

Table 47. 8th grade parent SCS score means, 2014-‐2015 58

Table 48. 8th grade parent SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015 58 Table 49. Comparison of second RD group parent SCS scores 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015 59

Table 50. Comparison of RD pilot group parent SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015 60

7

Executive Summary

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the third and final year of a three-‐year plan to implement Restorative Discipline (RD) at Ed White Middle School in the North East Independent School District (San Antonio). Starting in 2012-‐2013, the school instituted a restorative justice intervention called Restorative Discipline to address bullying, high levels of suspensions, and the disproportionate assignment of discipline consequences and placements among minority students. Restorative Discipline is a relational approach to fostering school climate and addressing student behavior that prioritizes belonging over exclusion, social engagement over control, and meaningful accountability over punishment (Armour, 2014). Using a whole school approach, the comprehensive three-‐year plan introduces RD sequentially starting in the 6th grade in the 2012-‐2013 school year, followed by the 7th grade in the 2013-‐2014 school year, and finally including the 8th grade in the 2014-‐2015 school year. The third-‐year implementation was completed this school year.

Evaluation questions are:

(1) What are the changes in student risk behaviors such as suspension, truancy and bullying?

(2) What are the changes in the school climate? (3) What are the experiences of teachers who implement Restorative Discipline for

learning in their classrooms and school leaders who use Restorative Discipline for student misconduct?

Methodology

The sample for this evaluation consisted of all students, teachers, school leadership, and parents/caregivers of students at the school. Information was collected for three purposes: (1) to assess change in students’ behaviors, such as offense frequencies and student performance on standardized tests using school records and test scores; (2) to assess changes in school climate using climate surveys three times during the school year for students, teachers and administrators and parents/caregivers; (3) to assess Restorative Discipline implementation month by month using school records, biweekly teacher interviews, and transcripts from focus groups.

In compliance with The University of Texas at Austin Institutional Review Board and The Department of Research and Information Technologies for the North East Independent School District, participation in the study was voluntary. Specific steps were taken to ensure that participant identities were protected. Survey data was analyzed primarily using descriptive statistics. Data from Restorative Discipline forms, interviews and focus groups were initially organized into groups and then developed into contextual themes. The findings are grounded with direct quotes from participants.

Findings

In Year 3, RD reached the full student body inclusive of 6th, 7th and 8th grades. The third and final year of the pilot at Ed White turned out to be rocky. The school did not continue the gains it made in Year 2. This can be attributed, in part, to the increased numbers of

8

students and teachers coupled with a reduction in resources and inattention to address some of the concerns noted in the Year 2 report, e.g. need for an onsite RD Coordinator, additional teacher and administrator training in Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices. The results in this evaluation compare sixth grade over three years, seventh grade over two years, eighth grade with its cohort from the preceding year, the RD pilot group that had three consecutive years of RD and the RD group that had two consecutive years of RD in the sixth and seventh grades.

• In 2014-‐2015, in-‐school suspension (ISS) for conduct violations increased 37% for sixth grade; decreased 36% for seventh grade; and decreased 24% for eighth grade compared to 2013-‐2014. There were increases in overnight suspensions but the numbers were small. Overnight suspensions were used as a tactic to increase parent participation in conferences related to their child’s suspension.

• Compared to baseline (2011-‐2012) there has been a decrease of 66% in ISS for the sixth grade over three years. Seventh grade has also experienced a drop in ISS rate of 66% compared to baseline over two years (2012-‐2013).

• The RD Pilot cohort had a 12% increase in ISS and a 120% increase in off school suspension compared to 2013-‐2014. However, off school suspension was still 33% lower than at baseline.

• Using the demographic figures reported by NEISD, there was no disparity for Hispanic students in 2014-‐2015 in the proportion of discipline referrals to student percentage by race/ethnicity. The percentage of referrals for Hispanic students given their demographic percentage in the school, however, increased compared to the prior year. In 2013-‐2014, 56% of the students were Hispanic and this group received 40% of the discipline referrals. In 2014-‐2015, 55% of the students were Hispanic and they received 44% of the discipline referrals. African American and White students comprised 26% and 10% of the student body and received 45% and 8% of the referrals respectively.

• Office referrals dropped for sixth grade but rose slightly for seventh and eighth

grades compared to 2013-‐2014. Office referrals also increased for the RD pilot group and the cohort that had RD in both sixth and seventh grades. The most dramatic rise in referrals occurred in the 8th grade during the 4th nine weeks of the school year, with a 74% increase compared to the previous year.

• Ed White changed its truancy reporting system in 2014-‐2015. The figures, therefore, are not comparable to previous years. Although the figures, based on the new reporting system, appear low, truancy is the most commonly reported monthly offense. The seventh and eighth grades had markedly higher rates of truancy compared with the sixth grade.

• While it is difficult to compare campus summary STAAR test scores from the previous year, STARR test scores decreased in 2014-‐2015. There was an

9

improvement in the passage rate of 6% for White students, and a drop of 7% and 5% for African American and Hispanic students respectively. The passage rate of 32% for special education students in 2014 fell to 16% in 2015. Despite these drops, Ed White again received the distinction of being in the Top 25% for Student Progress in the school district. It is important to note that any overall score comparisons between 2013-‐2014 and 2014-‐2015 are problematic because math was not tested.

• The student mobility rate of 68% in 2013-‐2014 climbed to 80% in 2014-‐2015. The large volume of exits and entrances complicates the implementation of RD particularly in the classroom (see page 13 for explanation of computation).

• The frequency of offenses peaked in April for all grades. The eighth grade had the biggest jump and the largest number of offenses with 386 offenses reported, compared with 247 for the seventh grade and 154 for the sixth grade. Truancy is the most common offense category for all grades, as well.

• Teachers are the source of offense referrals. Referrals from the sixth grade dropped 57.6% compared to the prior year while referrals from the seventh and eighth grades increased 28% and 23% respectively. Reading teachers made the most referrals across all grade levels followed by Math and English.

• The eighth grade had 65 administrator-‐facilitated circles, followed by the sixth grade, which had 37. This number is a 60% increase for the 6th grade. Otherwise, teacher and administrator-‐facilitated restorative circles and conferences decreased in 2014-‐2015. Teacher-‐facilitated conferences were 5, 0 and 2 for the sixth, seventh and eighth grades, respectively.

• Student generated circles using the Circle-‐It form also decreased from 350 in Year 1 to 213 in Year 2 and fell to 77 in Year 3. The forms rarely included monitoring agreements or action plans.

• School Climate Survey (SCS) scores for staff declined at the end of Year 2 and through Year 3 compared to Year 1. Only the sixth grade student cohort showed steady improvement from Year 1-‐Year 3. Scores for the seventh grade cohort that had had RD in the sixth grade decreased. SCS scores for the RD pilot group over three years show an improvement in school climate over the three years of RD implementation, but a worsening of school climate over time in Year 3. Similar to the positive results from sixth grade students, sixth grade parents/caregivers show a positive trend in their scores. The seventh grade parents/caregivers did not change much over the 2014-‐2015 year. SCS scores for eighth grade parents/caregivers changed dramatically throughout Year 3 suggesting that the climate became increasingly negative. Except for the eighth grade, there were many comments about decreases in respectful communication.

• Teachers are committed to RD and value the shift in norms toward developing authentic relationships with students. They are not comfortable with the circle

10

process and instead focus on building one-‐on-‐one relationships or doing restorative chats with students. They need modeling and skill building in circle processes so they can feel more competent particularly in addressing student misconduct.

• Teachers are confused about limit-‐setting, accountability and the role of consequences in responding to student behavior. They are also confused about sharing power with students. Teachers need opportunities to dialogue with each other and the administrators about their concerns and training in generating meaningful accountability agreements.

• Students show more responsibility and caring. Besides better regulation of their emotions, they are able to apologize to peers and adults and are more accountable to each other. The level of negative conflict has decreased considerably making for substantial improvement in school climate.

• There is a lack of cohesion among the adults and a lack of trust between teachers and administrators. A core area of contention is an adversarial power struggle over who is responsible for managing challenging students. Administration expects teachers to handle these students in the classroom because teachers have the primary relationship and teachers do not feel skilled enough or have enough support or time to take on this responsibility. They also feel that keeping challenging students in the classroom impedes the learning of other students. Because there are no structures in place to address these issues between adults in the school, it fosters isolation and standoffs.

• There are pronounced differences between grade levels in response to RD. Morale is highest among the sixth grade teachers who intentionally approached concerns in 2014-‐2015 as a team. Seventh grade teachers are working individually to get on board but feel the need for more feedback about students when they are disciplined outside the classroom. The eighth grade teachers are resistant to RD feeling that they already know what to do and that others need to show them why they should change. They were exceedingly frustrated with the eighth grade student cohort.

• There are limited support structures for RD. Besides a lack of modeling and training, there is no shared vision, prioritization of time in the classroom for RD, no clear procedures, no ongoing professional development, no opportunity to collectively share experiences with RD, or teacher accountability for using it with students or in the classroom.

• Teachers are gratified by the realness of their relationships with students. They are developing keen relationship skills and are better able to share their vulnerability and respond more empathically. Many teachers are able to let students hold them accountable, to apologize as appropriate and encourage students as they become more assertive or assume leadership roles.

Recommendations

11

The following recommendations are based on the first three years of implementation of RD at Ed White, with implications for next steps in the implementation plan. Many, if not most of these recommendations were made in Year 1 and Year 2 evaluations.

• Designate/hire an RD coordinator for the school who has no other role in the school, preferably working full-‐time on-‐campus. The person preferably should reflect the cultural makeup of the student body.

• Create a school-‐wide RD vision for Ed White as a relational school with participation

of the RD coordinator, teachers, administrators, parents and students. Clarify values and outline a strategic plan consistent with the vision. The strategic plan should focus on four areas: systems (e.g. disciplinary system, behavioral system), learning and growth (e.g. professional development), resourcing (e.g. yearly cost for professional development, staffing coverage) and policy (e.g. vision, mission, referral process).

• Offer teachers and administrators ongoing RD support, mentoring and training

during the school year, including opportunities for reflection and feedback. Provide a firm staffing coverage plan to ensure teachers can facilitate and participate in circles.

• Offer RD training to students, parents, community members and all staff members.

• Facilitate more opportunities for teachers to build positive relationships with each

other and with administrators both informally and through embedding circle processes in meetings and using them with regularity.

• Create opportunities for student leadership in RD implementation.

• Offer Tier 2 and Tier 3 trainings to members of the Leadership Response Team and

teachers. As well teach additional RD skills, such as creation and implementation of meaningful accountability agreements and involvement of parents through Family Group Conferences.

• Set up stronger structures of support such as Circles of Support and Accountability for students needing more intensive interventions.

• Develop procedures and plans with faculty representatives for ensuring fidelity

including consistent and effective use of RD. Create accountability and support structures for teachers and administrators to regularly check in on RD implementation.

• Use RD circles in faculty meetings.

12

• Plan time for the increased use of RD circles and conferences in peak stress times such as October and during STARR testing.

• Reinstitute the check in, check up and check out circles. Support the creation of RD

programs such as regular circles to address issues such as bullying, gossiping and safety of possessions.

• Develop procedures and mechanisms for information sharing about student

involvement in RD processes outside the classroom as well as reintegrating students if they have been removed from the classroom.

• Offer targeted support to teachers struggling with RD.

13

Background

In the Spring of 2012, the administration at Ed White Middle School decided to implement Restorative Discipline (RD) as a proactive approach to discipline management. The Institute for Restorative Justice and Restorative Dialogue (IRJRD) in the School of Social Work at the University of Texas at Austin collaboratively designed a plan for implementing RD into the whole school sequentially over a 3-‐year period. The first year implementation included just the 6th grade, the second year added the 7th grade, and the third year included all three grade levels. This report focuses on the third year of the implementation, which was the first year of the whole school utilizing RD. The initial goals of the project were to decrease: bullying, discipline referrals and DAEP assignments, and to improve: the school climate and relationships between teachers, administrators and students.

Ed White is an urban school in San Antonio, Texas. It is part of the North East Independent School District. Out of 875 students enrolled in the 2014-‐2015 school year, 669 (76%) completed climate surveys, for which demographic information is available; 182 students were 6th graders, 196 were 7th graders and 291 were 8th graders. The student body was made up of 26% African Americans, 55% Hispanics, 10% Whites, 2% Asians, 0% American Indians or Pacific Islanders and 2% multi-‐racial. About 80% of the students were economically disadvantaged, 11% were English Language Learners and the mobility rate of the school was 80%. Historically the school has consistently performed below state average on STARR exam stores, yet in 2014-‐2015 Ed White met all STARR achievement standards and earned one star of distinction for the Top 25% Student Progress.

For the 2014-‐2015 school year of 50 teachers, 48 responded to the climate survey, for which demographics are available: 9 in the 6th grade, 15 in the 7th grade, 9 in the 8th grade and 15 Special Education and Elective teachers who taught mixed grade levels. Teachers were 40% White, 15% African American, 17% Hispanic, 2% Asian, and 14% multi-‐racial and predominantly female (65%). Roughly equal were the proportion of staff new to teaching (40% with 0-‐5 years experience), and the proportion of experienced staff (39% with 11+ years experience). Teachers at Ed White are paid more than state average.

Ed White continued to experience high mobility in the student population during the 2014-‐2015 school year. Table 1 shows that about 80% of the total student population left or entered the school during the year. Some of the entries and exits include students who left and re-‐entered as a result of switching between schools during the year or coming in and out of alternative school. The high level of mobility suggests that there was a constant amount of change and transition in the school. Compared to other middle schools in the district, Ed White continued to have the highest mobility rate. The district measures mobility as the sum of student entries and exits divided by the total number of students. Percentage change for the mobility rate recorded in the table below is calculated cumulatively.

14

Table 1. Student mobility by month, 2014-‐2015

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan # %

Change # %

Change # %

Change # %

Change # %

Change Entrances 124

19%

39

27%

30

34%

26

40%

77

60%

Exits 24 33 19 25 85 Cumulative Total Change

148 220 269 320 482

Feb Mar Apr May Total Change in Student Body

# % Change

# % Change

# % Change

# % Change

Entrances 31

67%

31

75%

19

79%

0

80%

377 Exits 23 36 15 7 267 Cumulative Total Change

536 603 637 642

644

In the 2013-‐2014 school year Ed White had a 68% mobility rate. The rate increased this year with 644 students entering and exiting the school. This mobility adds an extra element of challenge in implementing restorative discipline and building positive climates in the classrooms, as the class make-‐up changes so frequently that teachers, students and administrators need to continuously build new relationships.

The 2013-‐2014 evaluation of the 6th and 7th grade implementations found the following:

• Large decreases of in-‐school, out of school and partial day suspensions; • Decreases in truancy; • Large gains in student performance on the STARR tests. Ed White received a special

commendation from the Texas Education Agency in its Accountability Rating, including stars of distinction for student achievement in English, math and social studies, and for ranking in the top 25% of Texas schools for improved student progress.

• Frequency of student offenses doubled in the second semester; • Teachers, administrators and students demonstrated more use of RD and a growing

understanding and comfort with using conferences and circles; • The school added scheduled community building circles for 6th and 7th grade

students, which included weekly check-‐in, check-‐up and check-‐out circles. • The school struggled with creating meaningful accountability plans. • Students and parents reported that students have a voice in determining

consequences for their own and others’ misconduct, yet also reported concerns about bullying and safety of students’ possessions.

• Positive classroom and school climate change and student academic improvement led to local media attention about these positive results of implementing restorative discipline at Ed While Middle School in San Antonio Texas. The publicity of the encouraging results from the first year of implementation led to requests for

15

meeting with the principal and assistant principal and IRJRD and for information by other school districts, regional service centers associated with the Texas Education Administration (TEA) and the education commissioner. Administrators were kept busy as well outside the usual school responsibilities making presentations, conducting book studies on RD, and planning for the addition of a magnet school in 2015-‐2016.

After the initial success of Years 1 and 2, IRJRD’s role became much more limited in Year 3. IRJRD arranged for a restorative discipline trainer for new Ed White teachers and 8th grade teachers during the summer and at the beginning of the school year and continued data collection through climate surveys and twice monthly interviews with 5 teachers from each grade level. However, IRJRD’s consulting role was reduced to two on-‐campus visits per semester by Associate Director of IRJRD due to budget decisions compared with the previous two years when IRJRD had a more active on-‐campus presence and consulting role 2 days a week.

Another development during the school year was the interest of state level officials at TEA in using Ed White’s experiences as both an exemplar and laboratory for other schools to learn from, with the purpose of expanding restorative discipline in schools across the state. At the end of the 2014-‐2015 school year, the assistant principal who was the restorative discipline leader at Ed White resigned and dedicated himself to promoting RD full-‐time. He contracted with IRJRD to lead the 2-‐day trainings for school administrators for the 2015-‐2016 school year.

Literature Review

Since the Year 1 report (Armour, 2013), there has been much growth in RD internationally, in other states through the country, and in Texas. This growth furthers understanding and knowledge about the specific qualities and factors that make for a successful and sustainable implementation of RD at the school level. These qualities and factors provide a solid base against which to measure Ed White’s results in its third year of implementation.

Contributory Factors to a Successful and Sustainable Implementation

Although strong research indicates that students who are successful in education have more access to social goods (Drewery, 2014), the objective of keeping children in school alone does not ensure their successful learning. Rather, children learn best when they feel a sense of belonging, are respected and safe to participate in their education (Bergren, 2014). These critical factors are the core constituents of RD and particularly relevant to community building in the classroom. In keeping with the RD philosophy, effective school discipline creates a shift from a climate of suspension, punishment and policing to one in which healthy relationships and academic success are promoted through interventions such as restorative practices that “resolve and educate, rather than deport or [negatively] discipline” (Gregory, Bell & Pollock, 2014, p. 2).

School climate has been described as the way things are done, or shared beliefs and values that hold a community together (Bergren, 2014). RD offers a relational philosophy and tools that enable schools to improve their climates in order to more fully become

16

“institutions that honor who we are as human beings” (Kelly & Thorsborne, 2014). This objective is particularly difficult, especially with high-‐risk students, high teacher and student mobility, and high-‐stakes testing creating competition for resources. Against that backdrop, schools are asked to privilege “relationship learning” throughout the entire school community (Macready, 2009, p. 215) which includes an emphasis on (1) respect for “the other”, (2) dialogue and fairness of process, (3) support and safe structures, and (4) a relational rather than individual perspective (Macready, 2009). One school district in Ontario, Canada advised that “if you put the relationship ahead of the curricula, the entire curriculum will positively balance within a healthy climate” (Thomas & Ruddy, 2015). Studies have found that school climate not only affects student achievement, but that student achievement affects school climate in an interdependent relationship (Bergren, 2014).

RD requires time and adequate resources for implementation to be successful. The changing of school climate typically takes 3-‐5 years of “considerable individual and collective time, effort and resources” (Jain, Bassey, Brown & Kalra, 2014). Indeed, the editors of Rethinking Schools caution that “simply announcing a commitment to ‘restorative justice’ doesn’t make it so,” because creating meaningful alternatives to ingrained punitive discipline practices demands time, trust and support to be successful (2014). They emphasize that restorative justice “requires robust funding” and that a commitment must be built over time, because authentic relationships cannot be mandated. It also needs to be integrated into the curriculum and a larger pedagogy of teaching (Rethinking Schools, 2014). Teachers, in particular, need sufficient support and resources, including serious and ongoing professional development (Gregory, Bell & Pollack, 2014) in order to become more supportive of students. The editors further caution that restorative justice is not just a behavior intervention but an instrument for social development (Drewery, 2014, p. 1) that requires a “fundamental paradigm shift” for the entire school community to fully embrace (Payne & Welch, 2013, p. 542). Without full integration and acceptance of RD as the dominant and guiding framework, there is an omnipresent danger that the simplistic notion of restorative justice as just a behavior intervention might become a legitimization of adult authoritarian power, creating a “benevolent dictatorship” within a school. In this venue, kinder, more caring rules dominate, instead of relationships built with meaningful input from teachers, administrators, parents, students and other community members (Vaandering, 2014, p. 69). Restorative justice, therefore, entails “a commitment to humanization” (Vaandering, 2014, p. 77) which, in application, means an obligation to critically examine and reform those social norms and institutional bureaucracies that block a full commitment to nurturing students, which is the real heart of our education system (Vaandering, 2014).

A major contributor to a successful and sustainable implementation is the prominence of the students’ voice. Indeed, a recent study of a high school in San Francisco found that RD works best when “students take leadership and are given a strong voice” (Gardner, 2014). Coupled with this emphasis is the practicing of the democratic process so that teachers and school administrators move from rule-‐making authority figures to viewing students as community members, so that together a school climate is created that incorporates views of all its members (Varnham, 2005).

17

A successful implementation further requires room for learning and modification based on increased understanding of what RD actually means. Australia, for example, has a 20-‐year history with RD. Based on this lengthy experience, a noted researcher suggests that “we should expect to see gaps in theory and practice because most people do not fully understand the idea [of restorative justice]” and because “effective participation requires a degree of moral maturity and empathic concern that many people, especially young people, may not possess” (Daly, 2003, p. 220). Further, Daly states that there are real “organizational constraints” to what can be achieved, as well as social conditioning about roles, justice, fairness, and how things work in society that is likely to take “a very long time” to change (2003, p. 235). Along these lines, a real complication is what to do with the adults and children who do not choose to participate in restorative justice. Some schools have responded to this dilemma by using a continuum of practices from punitive to restorative (Mullet, 2014).

Another reality and part of the learning process has to do with navigating the tension that predictably occurs as a result of ways that RD challenges the status quo. For example, on site restorative justice coordinators have indicated that their biggest challenges were due to “differences between cultural values of the communities” and “the values needed to embed restorative justice approaches successfully,” a tension between collectivist and individual mindsets (Davidson, 2014, p. 68).

In dialogic theory, this tension is necessary for learning and allows for conflict transformation and human growth beyond firm positions, which occurs through a deep development of empathy (Davidson, 2014). RD practices use dialogue for community building and also to address both conflict and harm caused by wrongdoing. Through dialogue participants are asked to (1) suspend certainty of opinion; (2) listen deeply to themselves and others; (3) deeply respect themselves and others; (4) and speak authentically for themselves (Umbreit & Armour, 2010, p. 83). The intended outcome of dialogues in which different perspectives come together is the growth of values such as transparency, trust and acceptance of one’s self and the “other.” Dialogues create “a moment of collective vulnerability” (Kelly & Thorsborne, 2014, p. 98). Thus the objective is to transform social relationships into ones of mutual respect, autonomy and inclusion, which in turn is likely to result in behavioral change because people feel more connected with each other. Research suggests that the more respect and time for community-‐building we offer students who struggle to follow social rules and norms, the more the barriers to both their achievement and a desire to exclude them will decrease (Drewery, 2014).

A successful and sustainable implementation requires far more that just putting specific practices into operation. It also requires attention to intangible elements that are likely responsible for qualitative differences in the depth and far reaching impact that a school can have on students and other members of its community. Those elements include but are not limited to: the priority and value given to relationship building and maintenance; the respect for time and process; the support for and nurturing of teachers’ attitudes and skills; the conceptualization and acceptance of RD as far more than a behavioral intervention; the ongoing need to develop critical consciousness about the continual presence and disruptive influence of the culturally dominant system; the honoring of students’ voices; and the

18

recognition that the energy inherent in tension can be harnessed for growth and increasing empathic understanding and response.

The Trajectory for RD implementation in the United States

RD has expanded rapidly over the past few years. Concerns over the unprecedented use of suspensions and expulsions, coupled with the exposure of large racial and ethnic disparities in punishment, have sent schools scurrying for possible solutions. Dramatic drops in suspensions by schools using RD have subsequently influenced school boards and other policy and rule making entities to pass resolutions supporting and even requiring schools to implement RD.

In 2012, for example, the Massachusetts legislature passed Chapter 222, a school discipline reform law requiring districts to revise their Codes of Conduct by July 2014 to issue suspensions and expulsions only as a last resort. The law “requires alternatives to exclusion, such as restorative justice practices, and it requires services for any students excluded from school,” said Tom Mela, Senior Project Director with Massachusetts Advocates for Children and members of the Chapter 222 Coalition (Schott Foundation for Public Education, 2013).

More recently, the Board of Education for the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) adopted the Board Resolution-‐2013 School Discipline Policy and School Climate Bill of Rights (LAUSD Policy Bulletin, 2014). This resolution mandates schools to develop and implement Restorative Justice practices by 2020 as an alternative to traditional school discipline.

In 2013, The Board of Education of the Oakland Unified School District passed Resolution # 0910-‐0120 launching a District-‐wide three-‐year restorative justice initiative to include professional development of administrators and school site staff, redesign District discipline structures and practices, and promote alternatives to suspension at every school (Resolution of the Board of Education OUSD, 2013).

California has been particularly noteworthy in passing similar resolutions in other parts of the state. Besides activity by Fresno Unified School District, San Francisco Unified School District, and Berkeley Unified School District, the California Democratic Party adopted Resolution 14-‐07.06 in support of the implementation of restorative justice policies for all California school districts (CADEM, 2014). Although restorative practices are not specifically mentioned in the legislation, California led the nation in passing Assembly Bill 420, which limits the use of “willful defiance” as a reason to expel students. “Willful defiance” has been responsible for almost half of the suspensions in the state and has been used disproportionately throughout the country to disciple African American and, in some districts, Latino students. The passage of this significant legislation is the direct result of positive results from California school districts that have reduced or eliminated expulsions and suspensions while concomitantly implementing restorative practices.

Besides resolutions, districts across the country have made numerous revisions to their codes of conduct to include restorative practices. Dayton, Ohio for example, introduced restorative justice to a number of schools in 2012. It expanded to eight schools for the

19

2014-‐2015 year and plans for it to be adopted district-‐wide by 2017, pending funding. Dayton Public Schools also added restorative practices in 2014 to its Student Code of Conduct (Dayton Public Schools, 2014).

After Massachusetts passed its school discipline reform law, Boston took the lead to become, ahead of schedule, the first district in the state to align its Code of Conduct with the new legislation (Schott Foundation for Public Education, 2013). Other districts have followed including Fall River, Mass., which based its code on the one adopted by the Boston Public School District (Gagne, 2014).

Schools in Syracuse, New York have moved to Restorative Discipline with their new Code of Conduct with assistance from Engaging Schools, a non-‐profit that assists educators in middle and high schools. Larry Dieringer, executive director of Engaging Schools, says, “The Syracuse Code of Conduct, Character and Support goes far beyond establishing a set of policies, procedures, rules and consequences. It lays the foundation for establishing a restorative and supportive culture in Syracuse” (Engaging Schools, 2014). This movement likely was propelled, in part, because the district was under investigation by the New York State attorney general’s office for inequitable disciplinary practices.

Chicago Public Schools have been using restorative practices for many years. However, in 2015, it changed its Code of Conduct. As part of its statement of purpose, the code states, “Chicago Public Schools is committed to an instructive, corrective and restorative approach to behavior” (Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual, 2015). The Bridgeport, Conn. school district also changed its Code of Conduct in 2013-‐2014 to include restorative practices.

Although not a part of changes in codes of conduct, the National Education Agency, in 2014, partnered with the Advancement Project, the Opportunity to Learn Campaign and the American Federation of Teachers to release a restorative practices toolkit as part of encouraging schools to adopt restorative measures (Flannery, 2014).

Some states and districts have received large grants or allocated significant funds to implement these changes. Pittsburgh Public Schools received a three-‐year, 3 million dollar federal grant to research and put restorative practices into 22 schools. The goal of the grant is to get at “the root causes of conflict, improving school climate and ultimately reducing the number of suspensions” (Chute, 2014, October 22). About 1 in 5 students were suspended in Pittsburgh in 2013. The National Institutes of Health gave the state of Maine a sizable grant to implement a randomized control study of restorative justice in 16 schools (Wachtel, 2013). Besides these notable grants, New York appropriated 2.4 million of the 2016 City Budget for implementation of restorative justice practices in schools as part of the New York City Council’s commitment to progressive school discipline reform (Doza, 2015, June 26).

Collectively, these resolutions, codes of conduct, and allocation of monies demonstrate the rapid growth and interest in implementing restorative justice in schools throughout the country. There is also some beginning but compelling evidence that RD can impact the disproportionate use of punitive discipline for African American students. Oakland Unified School District has implemented restorative practices in over 24 percent of its schools.

20

Over 30 percent of its 37,000 students are African American. A recent study found a decrease of 40 percent for African American students suspended for disruption/willful defiance. Moreover, in comparing restorative and non-‐restorative schools, the study showed that the Black/white discipline gap was less for students in restorative schools (OUSD, 2014, p. vi). Similarly, in Denver, which began using a restorative approach in 2006, district-‐wide disparities in discipline among Black, white and Latino students narrowed after six years. Suspension rates for African American students dropped the most from 17.6 % to 10.4%. The gap between Black and white students narrowed from 11.7% to 8.1% (Rowe, 2015). Although these figures suggest that there is still a ways to go, the trending demonstrates that RD likely has a positive influence on racial disproportionality.

These developments foretell the potential within RD to alter the face of punitive discipline in the country’s educational system. Although beneficial for students, less is known about RD’s impact on teachers who are the main purveyors of RD practices and the persons with whom students have their most significant relationships. Although little is known about the implementation process for school personnel, there are emerging concerns that, without attention, may impede, even dismantle, the movement that is occurring nationally. A study in Denver, for example, focused on challenges that a school faces in creating a caring school climate. The research found that teachers’ limitations in self-‐reflecting created the biggest barriers to successful RD implementation. Findings revealed that many teachers were focused on how others (such as students, parents or administrators) needed to change their thinking or behavior instead of focusing on what they could change themselves, that many teachers did not fully acknowledge their own powerful role, and many still held onto deeply-‐rooted habits of punishment and cultural stereotypes. The negative stereotypes were blinding some teachers to their responsibility to hold all students to high academic standards regardless of ethnicity, culture, language ability or behavior. In short, teachers needed support to more deeply reflect on their role and what they were bringing into the implementation process (Cavanaugh, Vigil & Garcia, 2014).

It is important, therefore, to recognize that the fast-‐paced trajectory in many areas is also accompanied by teacher and administrator resistance to change, fear of failure, competing agendas, changing roles and leaders within the school, and battles over resources (Bassey, Brown & Kalra, 2014). Moreover, because it is not a scripted program and there is no one-‐size-‐fits-‐all model, RD can create anxiety in educators. Specifically, some find it too touchy-‐feely, and most worry that it takes too much time (Mullet, 2014). Others worry they are crossing the line from teacher to social worker, and are concerned about mandatory reporting requirements for victimization or bullying if they become confidants of their students (Gregory, Bell & Pollock, 2014). There is a tendency for districts implementing RD to neglect these issues, and to forget that they are part of a whole school implementation process. With support through trainings and follow-‐up, district prioritization, strong school leadership, and an on-‐site RD coordinator working directly with teachers and students and parents, educators, who are the conveyers of the system for students, will be best able to navigate the paradigm shift away from punitive and into restorative school climates (Hopkins, 2003).

21

RD Implementation And School Climate Change In Texas

The growth in the country away from punitive measures is also occurring in Texas. There have been two substantial developments in the state in 2015: the passage of HB 2398 decriminalizing school truancies and the decision by the Texas Education Agency to take RD to scale across the state. For background, Texas has had the distinction of criminalizing truancy to the extent that the state had been prosecuting more than twice the number of truancy cases than all other states combined (Fowler, Mergler, Johnson & Craven, 2015). The state’s zealous enforcement of the law is likely propelled by the fact that schools can lose funding or may fail to meet federally mandated requirements for academic performance if a sufficient number students do not participate in and pass mandated standardized tests.

The Texas truancy law, which has allowed schools to file misdemeanor charges against students, has burdened them with long term serious consequences that have often accompanied them into adulthood. Specifically, until June of 2015, students as young as twelve could be brought to truancy court for only three unexcused absences. Criminal charges could be filed against students and sometimes their parents if students had more than ten absences in a six-‐month period (Saenz, 2015). Unpaid fines resulting from these charges could put students in adult jail once they turned seventeen, could put their parents in jail, and could result in criminal records that were often not able to be expunged (Fowler, Mergler, Johnson & Craven, 2015). These laws disproportionately affected African-‐American, Hispanic and low-‐income children and families. In the 2013-‐14 school year, the Texas Education Agency (TEA) reported that about 20% of truancy cases state-‐wide involved African-‐American students, and 64% involved Hispanic students, with African-‐American students making up only 13% of the student body across the state, and Hispanics only 52% (Saenz, 2015). Further, four out of five children sent to truancy court were from low-‐income families, yet fines were the most common sanction. Due process protections were not in place, so many children were unrepresented by attorneys in court and pled to charges they did not understand. In some jurisdictions, judges even ordered truant students to withdraw from school and complete a GED instead, creating over 6,000 court-‐ordered dropouts (Fowler, Mergler, Johnson & Craven, 2015).

Acknowledging that that truancy is less often willful disobedience and more often due to underlying issues related to family or personal needs or school climate, the Texas legislature passed HB 2398 in June, 2015 which effectively decriminalized school truancy policies forcing school leaders to be proactive rather than punitive in their approach to truancy (Saenz, 2015).

In 2014, Michael Williams, Commissioner of the Texas Education Agency (TEA), allocated over $500,000 to educate schools and districts throughout Texas about the use of RD to address truancy, discipline disproportionality and civil rights concerns, and generally improve school climates. To prioritize RD statewide, TEA partnered with IRJRD to provide two-‐day administrator trainings and five-‐day RD coordinator trainings at 10 of the 20 Educational Service Centers (ESC) spread across the state. Each ESC provides resources and training for up to 40 districts. The 10 ESCs were selected on the basis of which had the highest discipline disproportionality. Administrator trainings can educate up to 100

22

administrators, and RD Coordinator trainings are capped at 25 participants each. As part of this training initiative, IRJRD is studying the implementation of RD in Texas schools subsequent to the administrators who participated in the two-‐day training. Like other parts of the country, various school districts in Texas have begun using RD on their campuses. Among the states, however, the TEA initiative is unique in the country.

Summary

There have been many important developments in Texas and the country since introducing RD to Ed White Middle School. Besides alarming statistics about punitive sanctions being used throughout Texas, e.g. Fabelo et al., there was critical information from the Civil Rights Data Collection that exposed mass racial disproportionality in school disciplinary practices. Alongside these calls to action were national indicators that RD might be a promising approach to consider. Indeed, the crisis spawned by gross inequities and an out of control application of disciplinary policies has resulted in an unusual opportunity to heal harms by introducing a relational base for building a positive school climate and for addressing student misconduct. As RD grows, we are creating a national laboratory about the promises and pitfalls of implementation. We know better for example, what it means to prioritize relationships or to guard against the simplistic use of RD as solely a behavioral intervention. We understand the need to attend to the intangibles including the centrality of students’ voices and the propensity to neglect teacher training and the teacher’s learning process in moving away from the use of punitive consequences. It is increasingly clear that the advancement of RD requires support in the form of resolutions and school policies from states, school boards, and upper level administration in order to move away from punitive measures and embrace new ideas that are still forming. It also requires a 3-‐5 year timetable for success. Increasingly, it will become evident that districts must also provide the necessary resources to ensure a successful and sustainable RD implementation. As we look broadly and beyond individual campuses, what has emerged over the past three years are both small and large communities at the local, state and national levels that collectively are forming in support of a refreshing and nourishing approach that requires all stakeholders to fully commit to and embrace a different educational experience for all students.

Third Year Implementation of Restorative Discipline at Ed White Middle School

In Year 3 Ed White expanded the RD program to include 8th grade students. The assistant principals assigned to the 6th and 7th grade levels in 2012-‐2013 moved up with their students into the 7th and 8th grade levels in 2014-‐2015. The assistant principal for the 8th grade in 2012-‐2013 rotated back to become the assistant principal in 2014-‐2015 for the entering grade cohort. That individual had observed the implementation over the first two years but now became a formal part of the school’s Leadership Response Team (LRT), which consisted of the Principal, three assistant principals and the core administrative RD facilitator available to address peer conflict. The school chose to limit outside consulting this year to monthly campus visits and telephone consultation with IRJRD on an as needed basis, though actually the school only asked for campus visits twice per semester. Consultation was done with Stephanie Frogge, the assistant director of IRJRD. A graduate student who is a fellow at IRJRD assisted with evaluation efforts. The assistant principal for

23

the 8th grade continued to administer the RD program and direct the LRT. IRJRD continued to coordinate teacher training, provide limited consultation, and evaluate the Year 3 implementation.

In August 2014, 8th grade teachers and some teachers new to Ed White received a 2-‐day training in RD. The training was done by Kris Miner, founder and then-‐director of St. Croix Valley Restorative Justice Programs in Wisconsin. Kris Miner had been trained by Nancy Riestenberg who was the teacher trainer in Years 1 and 2 of the RD initiative at Ed White. Teachers who could not attend the initial training received a make-‐up training early in the academic year also provided by Kris Miner.

At the beginning of Year 3 all teachers were expected to develop respect agreements with students in all of their classes. These agreements grew out of conducting a circle with students in each class to reach an agreed upon set of values and norms for behavior that would guide the class throughout the year. Teachers were encouraged to revisit and revise agreements throughout the year as needed and when class make-‐up changed due to high mobility. In place of the weekly check in, check up and check out circles for all 6th and 7th graders in Year 2, the school initiated proactive circles for all core classrooms, including reading, math, science, social studies and writing. Proactive circles did not have assigned topics. Proactive circles were scheduled by the academic leads, with core teachers given a calendar and asked to choose a date for a circle every nine weeks. Based on this schedule students were to be in a proactive circle for 45 minutes every second week. The intent of the less frequent but lengthier circles was deeper discussions to prevent or reduce the frequency and intensity of student conflicts and school-‐related difficulties.

Similar to Years 1 and 2, IRJRD collected the following information for this evaluation: (1) data on school climate; (2) implementation data on the use of restorative circles and conferences, attitudes towards punishment and restorative practices, leadership support, and changes in classroom disruption, problem solving, relational skills and social discipline; and (3) impact data on offenses, disciplinary actions, school performance, positive indicators of successful learning environments, and effective conflict resolution among students. The intent of the Year 3 evaluation is to structure and support RD’s sustainability at Ed White.

Methodology

The purpose of this study was to evaluate Year 3 of the Restorative Discipline program for the whole school (6th, 7th and 8th grades) at Ed White Middle School. The evaluation consisted of two parts: the impact of the program on students’ behaviors and examination of change processes for the school. The evaluation was guided by three broad questions:

1. What is the impact of the program on 6th, 7th and 8th grade student risk behaviors (e.g. suspension, absenteeism, bullying, academic achievement)?

2. What is the impact of the program on the school climate? 3. What is the experience of the 6th, 7th and 8th grade teachers who implement the

program in their classroom and school administrators who use the program for student misconduct?

24

Description of Participants

Participants represented three groups: (1) 6th, 7th and 8th grade teachers and administrative staff, (2) 6th, 7th and 8th grade students, and (3) parents/caregivers of 6th, 7th and 8th grade students. Demographics were collected through the Climate Survey that was administered three times during the academic year. The time period with the highest number of participants was used as the basis for the demographic profile.

The majority of teachers and staff were White (40%) and female (65%). A majority of students in each grade level identified as Hispanic: 6th grade (45%), 7th grade (45%), 8th grade (41%), as did their parent/caregivers. The second largest ethnic identification for students and their parents/caregivers was African American, followed by White as third most common. Tables 2-‐4 provide detailed demographic information by role.

Table 2. Descriptive Statistics of teachers and staff for 6th, 7th and 8th grades*

Teachers/Staff N=52** Frequency Percentage 6th Grade Teacher 9 17% 7th Grade Teacher 15 29% 8th Grade Teacher 9 17% Mixed Grade 15 29% School Leader/Staff 1 2% Unknown*** 4 8% Female 34 65% Male 17 33% Unknown 1 2% African American 8 15% Hispanic 9 17% American Indian/Native Alaskan

0 0%

Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

0 0%

White 21 40% Asian 1 2% Multi-‐racial 7 14% Unknown 6 12% *Frequencies and percentages are based on the Climate Survey period with the greatest number of respondents. **Includes teachers in core subjects and teachers working with multiple grade levels. ***Unknown represents missing demographic information.

25

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of students*

Students 6th grade N=182

7th grade N=196

8th grade N=291***

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Female 87 48% 90 46% 154 55% Male 90 50% 98 50% 123 44% Unknown** 5 2% 8 4% 14 1% African American 49 27% 53 27% 92 31% Hispanic 79 45% 88 45% 118 41% American Indian/Native Alaskan

2 >1% 1 >1% 2 >1%


1 >1% 1 >1% 0 0%

White 36 20% 24 12% 42 14% Asian 7 4% 9 5% 9 3% Multi-‐racial 8 4% 8 4% 14 5% Unknown 0 0% 12 6% 14 5% *Frequencies and percentages are based on the Climate Survey period with the greatest number of respondents. **Unknown represents missing demographic information. ***8th grade numbers are high because fewer students completed survey in 6th and 7th grades.

Table 4. Descriptive statistics of parents/caregivers*

Parents/caregivers 6th grade N=127

7th grade N=123

8th grade N=167

Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Female 84 66% 86 70% 117 70% Male 43 34% 36 29% 49 29% Unknown** 0 0% 1 >1% 1 >1% African American 25 20% 27 22% 48 29% Hispanic 62 49% 53 43% 79 47% American Indian/Native Alaskan

1 >1% 1 >1% 0 0%


0 0% 0 0% 0 0%

White 22 17% 15 12% 16 10% Asian 6 5% 10 8% 5 3% Multi-‐racial 10 8% 15 12% 16 10% Unknown 1 >1% 2 2% 2 1% *Frequencies and percentages are based on the Climate Survey period with the greatest number of respondents. **Unknown represents missing demographic information.

Data Collection

Data were obtained between August 2014 and June 2015 from a variety of sources.

1. School records were used to collect data on student truancy, student and teacher/staff absenteeism, disciplinary incidents and referrals, school academic

26

performance, and circle/conference frequencies done by the assistant principals, core administrative RD facilitator and teachers.

2. A School Climate Survey (SCS) was used to collect data on teacher/staff, student and parent/caregiver attitudes about the school environment. The survey was administered in September 2014, December 2014 and May 2015. The parent/caregiver survey was translated and available in both English and Spanish. The SCS was developed by SACRO (Safeguarding Communities Reducing Offending) in Edinburgh, Scotland (http://www.sacro.org.uk). No information is available on psychometrics. Copies of the SCS for teachers, parents/caregivers and students can be found in Appendix A. All negative items were reverse-‐coded for data analysis. The staff climate survey distributed in December was printed with an incorrect Likert-‐type scale and so only demographics were recorded, not answers to questions.

Climate survey for parent/caregiver. This 10 item 6-‐point Likert-‐style scale measures quality of communication, input into decision making, dignity and worth of the student, and safety and inclusivity from the perspective of the parent or caregiver.

Climate survey for teacher/staff. This 17 item 4-‐point Likert-‐style scale measures attitudes and beliefs about interpersonal harm and conflict, communication, input into decision making, dignity and worth of the individual and inclusivity from the perspective of school personnel. It also includes two open-‐ended questions about the RD program and its impact on the school.

Climate survey for student. This 12 item 14-‐point Likert-‐style scale measures attitudes about the student’s direct experience at the school specific to how the school manages interpersonal harm and conflict, communication, input into decision making dignity and worth of the individual and inclusivity.

Circle-‐It Incident records. Forms developed by Ed White for recording information on behavioral incidents were used to collect data on the frequency and outcomes of restorative conferences (3 persons) and restorative circles (4+ persons) conducted by teachers and the LRT.

Teacher interviews. Interviews were conducted with five teachers from each grade level twice a month to collect data on teachers’ experiences and needs in using restorative practices in their classrooms. The interviews were done primarily via Skype, lasted approximately 15 minutes and were digitally recorded and transcribed for analysis. A Fellow at IRJRD conducted the interviews. As teachers described their challenges, she could provide suggestions to improve their use of restorative practices. Interviews also gave IRJRD feedback throughout the year about teacher attitudes and the implementation process. A copy of the Weekly Teacher Interview Guide can be found in Appendix D.

Focus Groups. Focus groups were conducted by IRJRD with teachers and the LRT in December and May to collect data on the experiences of teachers and staff in using restorative practices. The focus groups lasted 40-‐50 minutes and were digitally recorded and transcribed. In December, 30 teachers were interviewed in 7 focus groups and 3

27

members of the LRT were interviewed in 1 focus group. In May, 28 teachers were interviewed in 7 focus group and 3 members of the LRT were interviewed in 1 focus group. There were no individual interviews conducted with the principal or assistant principals.

Protection of human subjects. This study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at The University of Texas at Austin. Written informed consent was obtained for this study from teachers and staff. Parents were sent a cover letter in English and Spanish with the SCS inviting them to participate in the study. Participants were assured when being recruited and in letters and consent forms that they were not asked for their names and no identifier code was assigned on the SCS. Participants were told as well that they need not answer any questions that they were not comfortable answering. A separate informed consent statement was used for the teachers who participated in the twice-‐monthly interviews, and teachers and staff who participated in the focus groups. The individual and focus group participants were told during recruitment and prior to the beginning of the interviews that they could control the extent, timing and circumstances of what they shared in the interviews.

The Department of Research and Information Technologies for the North East Independent School District reviewed the proposal and approved the IRB at the University of Texas at Austin and approved the research as well. They also approved the administering of the SCS to the students under the same condition of anonymity given to the teachers/staff and parents/caregivers.

Data Analysis

School records on behavior sanctions for 2014-‐2015 were compared to 2012-‐2013 and 2013-‐2014 and the percentage change was calculated. Records on behavior sanctions included breakdowns by race/ethnicity and by referral source. Records on student offense categories and frequencies including bullying were reviewed by month. Student truancy records were compared by month and the percentage change was calculated. Student scores on The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness STARR were recorded for 2014-‐2015 and compared with 2013-‐2014 and 2012-‐2013. Responses on SCS were summed and compared for teachers/staff, parents/caregivers and students over three time points. The percentage change was calculated for each group and compared with 2012-‐2013 and 2013-‐2014. There was also an analysis of survey items on the SCS to determine progress and areas of improvement needed. School records were used to calculate the monthly frequency of restorative conferences and circles used for behavioral interventions by Assistant Principals (“APs”) and teachers. Comments on the outcomes and agreed-‐upon plans to address harms were analyzed for content and recurring themes. Twenty-‐five percent of the Circle-‐It incident forms for restorative conferences and circles were reviewed each month and analyzed for content and outcome. Circle-‐It conferences and circles were conducted by the core RD administrative facilitator. The twice-‐monthly teacher interviews and focus groups were coded and analyzed for content and recurring themes by month and across the academic year. Results were confirmed by reviewing them against the associated quotes from transcripts and the findings in this report are similarly grounded by direct participant quotes.

28

Limitations

Prior to 2012-‐2013 Ed White did not collect data on some of the risk variables for comparative purposes such as bullying. Thus it was not possible to compare findings in 2012-‐2013 with prior years. However, findings in 2014-‐2015 were compared to findings in 2012-‐2013 and 2013-‐2014. Because use of the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR) test did not begin until 2012, scores can only be compared between 2012-‐2013 and 2013-‐2014, with 2012-‐2013 as the baseline data. The statewide standardized STARR tests also changed during the 2014-‐2015 school year. Most notably math content tested changed this year, STARR progress reporting changed and was not done in math, and the modifications for special education students also changed. Some standards were not reported because testing is set to change again in 2015 with new standards starting in the summer of 2015. Climate survey participation is voluntary and actually increased during the school year. Consequently assessment of change in an individual’s scores across time periods was not done.

In many instances school records from 2012-‐2013 are the baseline against which to measure change. Because of limited comparison data between years, comparisons were made where possible between calendar months over the academic year.

Findings

Findings are organized into four groups: (1) results from school records; (2) monthly review of RD program implementation; (3) results from SCS; and (4) themes from teacher interviews and focus groups.

Outcomes from School Records

School records were reviewed for changes in Ed White’s response to student misconduct, student truancy, and student academic performance.

Suspension Rates. The following information is organized by grade level. Because RD was implemented sequentially by grade level over three years, comparisons vary by grade level. Activity at the 6th grade level, therefore, is compared over three years, at the 7th grade level over two years, and at the 8th grade level by one year. The pilot RD group cohort is compared to itself over three years. The classification Partial Day ISS is used for both ISS and RD conferences and circles for 6th grade beginning in 2012, 7th grade beginning in 2013, and 8th grade beginning in 2014. Table 5 compares the use of suspension for conduct violations for 6th grade cohorts over four years including baseline (2011-‐2012, 2012-‐2013, 2013-‐2014 and 2014-‐2015).

29

Table 5. Comparison of 6th grade suspension rates for conduct violations: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015

Suspension Options 6th Grade Baseline

2011-‐2012

Percent Change 2012-‐2013



Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 75 167* +123%* 89 47% 48 46% Partial day suspension

12 11 .8% 2 82% 2 0%

In school suspension

468 329 30% 115 65% 158 +37%

Off campus suspension

66 11 84% 16 +45% 11 31%

*Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 6th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles.

Compared to baseline, there is a decrease of in school suspensions by 66%. Moreover, partial day ISS (the category used for restorative justice circles and conferences) has nearly halved in the last year. However, there is a 37% increase in the number of students receiving in school suspension. Table 6 breaks these numbers down further.

Table 6. Comparison of 6th grade suspension rates for all student discipline: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015


2011-‐2012




Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 75 167* +123%* 89 47% 48 46% In school suspension 1 day

286 199 30% 79 60% 114 +44%

In school suspension 2 day

118 86 27% 9 90% 22 +144%


74 56 24% 27 52% 22 19%

Partial day suspension

12 11 1% 2 82% 2 >1%

Suspension for 1 day

41 9 78% 5 56% 4 20%


21 1 95% 5 +400% 0 **


7 1 86% 6 +500% 0 **

Overnight suspensions

41 14 66% 12 14% 11 8%

Placement in AEP 18 12 33% 7 42% 12 +71% Total 675 544 19% 234 57% 235 >1% *Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 6th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles. **Not possible to calculate % change.

30

Table 6 shows that the increase in suspension rates occurred for 1 and 2 day suspensions. There was also a 71% increase in AEP. Table 7 compares the use of suspension for 7th grade cohorts over three years including baseline (2012-‐2013, 2013-‐2014 and 2014-‐2015). These students had had RD for two years, starting in their 6th grade year.



2012-‐2013 Percent Change 2013-‐2014


Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 58 87* +50% 73 16% Partial day suspension

13 6 54% 15 +150%


295 157 47% 101 36%


36 20 44% 15 75%

*Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 7th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles. There was an increase in partial day suspension though the number of students was small (n=15). The in school suspension rate decreased by 36% relative to the previous year’s cohort and 66% relative to baseline. Table 8 breaks these numbers down further.



2012-‐2013 Percent Change 2013-‐2014


Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 58 87* +50% 73 16% In school suspension 1 day 136 110 19% 62 44% In school suspension 2 day 74 27 64% 24 11% In school suspension 3 day 85 20 76% 15 75% Partial day suspension 13 6 54% 6 >1% Suspension for 1 day 24 10 58% 4 60% Suspension for 2 day 5 6 +20% 4 33% Suspension for 3 day 7 4 43% 7 +75% Overnight suspensions** 21 3 86% 15 +400% Placement in AEP 8 21 +163% 13 38% Total 423 273 35% 223 18% *Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 7th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles. **Overnight suspensions shows an increase because it is used to require a parent conference at school related to a suspension. There is a large increase in overnight suspensions relative to the previous school year, though the actual number of students impacted is quite small (n=15). Compared with the baseline of students with no RD, there has been a decrease in total suspension rates of 47%. Table 9 compares the use of suspensions for the 8th grade cohort over two years

31

including baseline (2013-‐2014 and 2014-‐2015). These students had had RD for three years, starting in their 6th grade year.



2013-‐2014 Percent Change 2014-‐2015

Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 78 59 24% Partial day suspension

20 12 40%


232 176 24%

Off campus suspension**

4 44 +100%

*Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 8th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles. **Off campus suspension shows an increase because it is used to require a parent conference at school related to a suspension. There was decrease in in school suspension rates. As noted, the off campus increase is likely due to its use as part of an outreach strategy to increase parental involvement. Table 10 breaks these numbers down further.



2013-‐2014 Percent Change 2014-‐2015

Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 78 59 24% In school suspension 1 day 137 134 2% In school suspension 2 day 62 38 39% In school suspension 3 day 33 14 58% Partial day suspension 20 12 40% Suspension for 1 day 10 4 60% Suspension for 2 day 10 5 50% Suspension for 3 day 6 4 33% Overnight suspensions** 4 44 +100 Placement in AEP 21 13 62% Total 381 327 14% *Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 8th grade since 2014-‐2015 for conferences and circles. **Overnight suspensions shows an increase because it is used to require a parent conference at school related to a suspension. Table 10 shows decreases for all categories except overnight suspensions. The largest decreases were in 1-‐day suspension (60%) and In School Suspension for 3 days (58%). Tables 11 and 12 compare the pilot RD group when they were in 6th, 7th and 8th grades.

32

Table 11. Comparison of RD pilot group for conduct violations: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015

Suspension Options RD pilot group Baseline

2011-‐2012 Percent Change 2012-‐2013



Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 75 167 +123% 87 48% 59 32% Partial day suspension

12 11 >1% 6 45% 12 +100%


468 329 30% 157 52% 176 +12%


66 11 84% 20 +82% 44 +120%

*Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 6th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles.

The RD pilot group showed a decrease in Partial day ISS of 32% this year, and a return of partial day suspension frequency to the baseline number of 2012 (n=12). There were also increases in ISS of 12%. Off campus suspension increased compared to the previous year, yet was 33% lower than the baseline.

Table 12. Comparison of RD pilot group suspension rates for all student discipline: 2011-‐2012 to 2014-‐2015

Suspension Options RD Pilot Group Baseline

2011-‐2012 2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Frequency % Change Partial day ISS 75 167* +123% 87 48% 59 32% In school suspension 1 day

286 199 30% 110 45% 134 +22%


118 86 27% 27 69% 38 +41%


74 56 24% 20 64% 14 30%

Partial day suspension

12 11 1% 6 45% 12 + 50%


41 9 78% 10 +11% 4 20%


21 1 95% 6 +500% 5 17%


7 1 86% 4 +400% 4 >1%

Overnight suspensions**

41 14 66% 3 79% 44 +1367%

Placement in AEP

18 12 33% 21 75% 13 38%

Total 675 544 19% 273 50% 327 +20% *Partial day ISS shows an increase because it is used as the RD classification for 7th grade since 2012-‐2013 for conferences and circles.

33

**Overnight suspensions shows an increase because it is used to require a parent conference at school related to a suspension.

Figure A. Comparison of ISS for the RD pilot group over three years of RD implementation

The pilot group showed a decrease in Partial Day ISS (32%) (the category used for restorative justice circles and conferences) and Placement in AEP (38%), and an increase of 1-‐day (+22%) and 2-‐day (+41%) ISS. Although Overnight Suspension increased, it was used this year, as noted, to require parent conferences following a suspension so it is incomparable to the previous year. Table 13 shows the distribution of discipline incidents by race/ethnicity for all three years of the pilot group.

Table 13. Distribution of All Incidents by Race/Ethnicity: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Race/Ethnicity 2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015 Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage Asian 15 >1% 10 >1% 4 >1% African American 1731 51% 1492 46% 985 45% Hispanic 1373 40% 1286 40% 963 44% American Indian/ Alaska Native

0 0% 13 >1% 0 0%

Hawaiian/Pacific Islander

31 1% 19 1% 0 0%

White 158 5% 291 9% 165 8% Multi-‐racial 104 3% 127 4% 57 3% Total 3431 100% 3238 100% 2174 100%

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

RD Pilot 6th RD Pilot 7th RD Pilot 8th

2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

34

Figure B. Discipline referrals by race compared to school demographics, 2014-‐2015

School Demographics

Using the demographic figures reported by NEISD, there was no disparity for Hispanic students in 2014-‐2015 in the proportion of discipline referrals to student percentage by race/ethnicity. The percentage of referrals for Hispanic students given their demographic percentage in the school, however, increased compared to the prior year. In 2013-‐2014, 56% of the students were Hispanic and this group received 40% of the discipline referrals. In 2014-‐2015, 55% of the students were Hispanic and they received 44% of the discipline referrals. African American and White students comprised 26% and 10% of the student body and received 45% and 8% of the referrals respectively. There was no substantial change between 2013-‐2014 and 2014-‐2015 in the percentage of disciplinaries for African American and White students given their demographic percentage in the school.

Office Referrals. The decrease in Year 3 in-‐school suspensions for 7th and 8th graders is countered by frequencies in office referrals. Office referrals are tracked in 9 week segments. Figures C, D and E compare frequencies over the past three years for each grade level. 6th graders had RD all three years. 7th graders had RD for the past two years. 8th grades had RD only in Year 3. The comparisons therefore include years when there was no RD in 7th or 8th grades.Figure B. Discipline referrals by race compared to school demographics, 2014-‐2015

Asian 2%

African American

26%

Hispanic 55%

White 10%

Mutliracial 2%

Not available 5%

35

Figure C. Comparison by quarter of 6th grade office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Figure D. Comparison by quarter of 7th grade office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Figure E. Comparison by quarter of 8th grade office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Office referrals for all grade levels continued the to be highest in the 4th 9 weeks of the semester, consistent with previous years. This time period includes STARR testing time and the end of the school year. The overall average number of office referrals dropped for 6th grade in Year 3, and rose slightly for the 7th and 8th grades. The most dramatic rise in referrals occurred in the 8th grade during the 4th 9 weeks of the school year, with a 74%

36

increase of office referrals compared to the previous year. Figures F and G compare frequencies for the RD pilot group (RD in 6th, 7th and 8th grades) and the next cohort (RD in 6th and 7th grades.

Figure F. Comparison by quarter of RD pilot group office referrals 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Figure G. Comparison by quarter of second RD group office referrals 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

For both the RD pilot group now in the 8th grade, and the second RD group now in the 7th grade, office referrals rose this school year. Office referrals for the RD pilot group rose dramatically in the 4th 9 weeks of the school year compared with previous years. Office referrals for the second RD group office more than doubled the rates of the previous school year during the 1st and 2nd nine weeks.

Truancy

Truancy is considered an indicator of school engagement. Students who are frequently truant have lower grades, lower scores on standardized tests and lower graduation rates. Chronic truancy in middle school is associated with failure in high school (Ekstrom, Goertz, Pollack & Rock, 1986). At Ed White, a student is considered tardy when they are up to 10 minutes late for class, and truant if they arrive after that. In this report, truancy is inclusive of tardiness. The school changed its truancy reporting system for the 2014-‐2015 school

37

year. In previous years, hall monitors around the school gathered students who were not in class when the bell rang, recorded student names, and escorted them to class. To minimize missed instruction time, hall monitors in Year 3 sent students directly to class and teachers were supposed to record the students who were late. However, often teachers were already busy with a lesson and did not take the time to input the information. Tables 14 and 15 compare monthly frequency counts for the 6th and 7th grades. Table 16 compares monthly frequency counts for the RD pilot group which includes the 8th grade for 2014-‐2015.

Table 14. 6th grade comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Total 2012-‐2013

886 1449 1232 988 1210 1407 1366 1576 574 43 10,731

2013-‐2014

606 788 564 556 649 860 642 624 333 8 5,630

2014-‐2015*

7 8 17 4 16 19 38 16 40 14 179

*Truancy reporting changed this year.

Table 15. 7th grade comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015


614 1140 722 493 694 1135 1078 362 411 9 6,658

2014-‐2015*

28 70 47 58 78 80 57 98 66 1 583


Table 16. RD pilot group comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015


886 1449 1232 988 1210 1407 1366 1576 574 43 10,731

2013-‐2014

614 1140 722 493 694 1135 1078 362 411 9 6,658

2014-‐2015*

17 40 27 34 51 64 50 109 75 0 467


Year 3 decreases in monthly frequency counts likely are inaccurate and reflect reporting activity, not actual truancies. Indeed, truancies remained a common complaint among teachers and were one of the most common discipline referrals. By grade, the highest frequency of truancy occurred in 7th grade with 583 incidents reported for the school year, followed by 8th grade with 467, and 6th grade with only 179. Table 17 compares frequencies for the whole school.

38

Table 17. Whole school comparison of truancy frequencies, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015


2421 3135 3471 3462 4241 3880 3893 4294 3341 342 32,480

2013-‐2014

1658 2792 1939 1550 2088 3280 2818 1864 1603 63 19,655

2014-‐2015*

215 343 225 224 305 193 327 780 314 5 2,931


Figure H. Truancy frequencies by grade level for March and April

The two months with the highest truancy frequencies were March and April, the months of STARR testing. This is consistent with patterns of truancy that increased during the same months in Years 1 and 2. The 6th grade had the lowest rates of truancy, and were the only grade level to work together to use RD classroom circles to reduce truancy at the start of the second semester. The 7th and 8th grade had markedly higher rates of truancy compared with the 6th grade and the rates increased from March to April.

Student School Performance

The State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STARR) was administered for the first time in 2012-‐2013, so there is no baseline data for an accurate comparison. The STARR tests also changed during the 2014-‐2015 school year relative to math content, reporting, and testing accommodations for special education students. Some testing standards were not available this year because testing is set to change again, with new standards starting in the summer of 2015. This makes the results from comparisons unreliable.

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Mar Apr Mar Apr Mar Apr

6th 7th 8th

39

Table 18. Reading and math scores on STARR, 2013 to 2015

Reading Math Writing # Tested # Passed % Passed # Tested # Passed % Passed # Tested # Passed % Passed 2013 867 567 65% 867 546 63% 280 145 52% 2014 830 586 71% 828 573 69% 282 155 55% % Change

6% 6% 3%

2015 659 366 56% 94* 66* 70% 178 67 38% % Change

-‐15% 1% -‐17%

*Many math scores were withheld as it was the first year of testing new content.

Table 19. Percent change in STARR pass rate in reading by ethnicity, economic disadvantage and special education, 2013 to 2015

African American Hispanic White Economically Disadvantaged

Special Education

Test Pass % Test Pass % Test Pass % Test Pass % Test Pass % 2013 787 421 53% 1140 866 60% 234 164 70% 2116 1193 56% 434 145 33% 2014 659 387 59% 1435 922 64% 229 157 69% 2149 1359 63% 335 219 65% % Change

6% 4% 1% +7% +32%

2015 427 221 52% 869 516 59% 145 109 75% 1264 727 58% 59 29 49% % Change

-‐7% -‐5% 6% -‐5% -‐16%

Though STARR test scores increased between 2013 and 2014 in the first two years of implementation, many scores decreased in this third year of implementation. There was an improvement of 6% in STARR passage rate for White students, and a decrease of 7% and 5% for African American and Hispanic students respectively. Of note is the 32% increase in passage rate for special education students in 2014, and a drop of 16% in 2015. However, the accommodations for special education students changed in 2015, as did much of the STARR test content. In addition, some scores were not reported by the Texas Education Agency (TEA) to be able to compare with previous years, such as STARR math tests. In 2014, 828 students’ math test scores were reported, whereas in 2015 only 94 students’ math test scores were available. In 2014, Ed White earned many distinctions, including Top 25% for Student Progress for the state, and student achievement in English, Math and Social Studies. These gains in STARR scores substantially raised the baseline of comparison for Ed White student performance for the 2015 school year, and Ed White would have needed to make very large gains in passage rates to have received such distinctions in 2015. Ed White received one distinction in 2015 for being in the Top 25% for Student Progress for the school district.

Summary. In-‐school and out of school suspension rates decreased for nearly all grade levels and remained well below the baseline suspension rates during the first year of implementation. For all grade levels, AEP placement increased. For the RD pilot group, suspension rates increased slightly overall compared to the previous year, but were still much lower than the baseline rates during the first year of implementation. The proportion

40

of discipline referrals rose for Hispanic students, and dropped for African American and White students compared to the previous year. Office referrals for all grade levels continued to be the highest during the 4th 9 weeks of the school year, with a dramatic rise in referrals this year in the 8th grade. Overall, office referrals rose this school year for all grade levels compared with the two previous years of implementation. In addition, the school’s internal reporting system changed for truancy dismantling the ability to make accurate comparisons. The two months with the highest truancy frequencies were March and April, the months of STARR testing, consistent with the first and second years of implementation. The 6th grade had the lowest rates of truancy. STARR tests also changed this year. Ed White received one distinction for being in the Top 25% for Student Progress for the school district. STARR passage rates for ethnic minorities, economically disadvantaged and special education students all slightly decreased.

Outcomes from Monthly Reviews of RD Program Implementation

Evaluation and implementation of RD is based on a review of monthly classification counts of student offenses, Circle-‐It forms, and teacher interviews.

Classification of Student Offenses. Tables 20 and 21 list the five most common student offenses for 6th grade by month and frequency. Tables 22 and 23 provide the same information for 7th grade, and Tables 24 and 25 for 8th grade. Totals of offenses are contrasted to total monthly offenses in all categories. Offenses are reviewed by month to evaluate the differences in frequencies and changes in classification over the last academic year and to compare 6th and 7th grades.

Table 20. 6th grade student offense categories and frequencies: First semester

Aug/Sept* # Oct # Nov # Dec # Disruption 13 Truancy 17 Disruption 10 Truancy 16 Truancy 8 Disruption 14 3 Strikes 4 Disruption 7 Physical Confrontation

7 Physical Confrontation

9 Failure to Follow Direction


5

Walked Out 6 Failure to Follow Direction

7 Truancy 4 Throwing Items

2

Slap/Hit 4 Dress Code 6 Horseplay 2 3 Strikes 1 Total 38/59 53/81 24/41 31/37 *Includes 6 incidents in August

Table 21. 6th grade student offense categories and frequencies: Second semester

Jan # Feb # Mar # Apr # May/June* # Truancy 19 Truancy 38 Truancy 16 Truancy 40 Disruption 16 Disruption 18 Walked

Out 13 Disruption 13 Disruption 29 Truancy 15

Failure to Follow Direction


8 Horseplay 11 Walked Out 16 Failure to Follow Direction

15

Walked Out

7 Class Disrupt-‐

7 Slap/Hit 7 Verbal Confront-‐

12 Walked Out 10

41

ion ation Inapprop. Remarks

4 Slap/Hit 4 Failure to Follow Direction


7 Inapprop. Remarks

5

Total 55/81

62/91

52/81

104/154

61/92

*Includes 2 incidents in June

Frequencies of offenses in 6th grade were relatively low in the first semester, with a peak in October consistent with the pattern of previous years. In the second semester, offenses increased overall and peaked in April, also consistent with the pattern of previous years of more offenses reported during the STARR testing period. Truancy and disruption were the most common offenses throughout the year, with Walked Out and Verbal Confrontation increasing in April when offenses peaked.


Aug/Sept* # Oct # Nov # Dec # Truancy 15 Truancy 48 Truancy 44 Truancy 53 Walked Out 13 Disruption 25 Walked Out 18 Walked

Out 17

Disruption 8 Walked Out 24 Disruption 12 Disruption 15 Profanity to Staff




12

Profanity 3 Profanity to Staff

9 Physical Confrontation

4 Profanity 6

Total 43/61 118/162 89/127 103/127 *Includes 4 incidents in August


Jan # Feb # Mar # Apr # May/June* # Truancy 44 Truancy 58 Truancy 56 Truancy 106 Walked

Out 15

Walked Out


26 Walked Out

20 Walked Out

47 Truancy 11

Disruption 20 Walked Out

19 Disruption 16 Disruption 18 Failure to Follow Direction

4

Failure to Follow Direction

12 Disruption 17 Failure to Follow Direction


13 Inapprop. Remarks

3

Profanity 5 Inapprop. Remarks

5 Horseplay 4 Profanity to Staff

9 Throwing Items

2

Total 102/121

125/152

110/131

193/247

35/45

*Includes 3 incidents in June

In 7th grade, overall offense frequencies were high both semesters. Truancy was the top offense category for eight out of the nine month academic year followed by Walked Out. These offenses involve students missing instruction time. Offense frequencies peaked in

42

October, consistent with previous patterns, and again in April during STARR testing. Offense frequencies were high through the year but increased even more during the second semester.


Aug/Sept* # Oct # Nov # Dec # Failure to Follow Direction

20 Truancy 40 Truancy 27 Truancy 34

Truancy 17 Walked Out 11 Walked Out 7 Prohibited Item

6

Walked Out 15 Failure to Follow Direction

9 Profanity 5 Walked Out

5

Disruption 10 Profanity 7 Physical Confrontation

4 Profanity 3

Profanity 4 Profanity to Staff

6 Inapprop. Remarks

3 Profanity to Staff

2

Total 66/98 83/100 46/58 50/60 *Includes 17 incidents in August


Jan # Feb # Mar # Apr # May/June* # Truancy 51 Truancy 64 Truancy 50 Truancy 109 Truancy 75 Walked Out

13 Profanity to Staff


14 Walked Out 49 Walked Out

22

Profanity to Staff

7 Walked Out

10 Walked Out

14 Cell Phone 34 PMB** 12

Inapprop. Remarks


10 Disruption 7 Failure to Follow Direction

29 Cell Phone 11

Profanity 3 Detention No Show

5 Inapprop. Remarks

5 Disruption 22 Profanity to Staff

10

Total 81/ 95

109/147

90/123

243/386

132/182

*Includes no incidents in June **PMB is Persistent Misbehavior

Offenses in the 8th grade were relatively low in the first semester with a peak in October consistent with patterns in previous years. . More offenses were recorded in the second semester. The 8th grade had the biggest peak and the largest number of offenses for any grade level in April with 386 offenses reported, compared with 247 for the 7th grade and 154 for the 6th grade.. Similar to 7th grade, truancy was the most common offense for eight out of the nine academic months. The 8th grade was the only grade level where the offense of Profanity ranked in the top four offense categories. Figure I below compares total offenses for each month by grade level.

43

Table 26. 2014-‐2015 total offense frequencies by month and grade level

Month 6th grade 7th grade 8th grade Aug/Sept 59 61 98

Oct 81 162 100

Nov 41 127 58

Dec 37 127 60

Jan 81 121 95

Feb 91 152 147

Mar 81 131 123

Apr 154 247 386

May/June 92 45 182

Total 717 1,173 1,249

Figure I. 2014-‐2015 total student offense frequencies by month and grade level

The 6th grade, where the teachers are in their third year of RD implementation, consistently has the lowest frequencies of student offenses. The RD pilot group of students now in the 8th grade started the year with a lower frequency of offenses compared with the 7th grade, but peaked dramatically in April.

Offenses related to physical contact such as Slap/Hit, Horseplay and Physical Confrontation were higher in Year 3 than in Year 2, but bullying offenses were very low. Of the 3,139 offenses during the school year, only 23, less than 1% of the total offenses were for

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

6th grade

7th grade

8th grade

44

bullying. Bullying dropped dramatically in the 6th grade from 40 incidents in Year 2 to only 5 in Year 3, whereas the number of incidents in the 7th grade rose slightly from 9 in Yeaer 2 to 12 in Year 3, and the RD pilot group continued its pattern of a decrease in bullying dropping from 9 incidents in in Year 2 to 6 in Year 3

Table 27. 6th grade bullying frequencies: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Sep 2 1 0 Dec 0 2 1 Mar 6 8 1 Oct 1 0 0 Jan 0 3 0 Apr 6 2 2 Nov 5 2 0 Feb 4 10 1 May 6 12 0 Total Bullying Incidents 2012-‐2013: 30 2013-‐2014: 40 2014-‐2015: 5

Table 28. 7th grade bullying frequencies: 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

Month 2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Month 2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Month 2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Sep 2 1 Dec 1 1 Mar 0 2 Oct 1 2 Jan 0 2 Apr 1 2 Nov 2 2 Feb 1 0 May 1 0 Total Bullying Incidents 2013-‐2014: 9 2014-‐2015: 12

Table 29. RD pilot group bullying frequencies: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

Sep 2 2 0 Dec 0 1 0 Mar 6 0 0 Oct 1 1 1 Jan 0 0 0 Apr 6 1 4 Nov 5 2 0 Feb 4 1 1 May 6 1 0 Total Bullying Incidents 2012-‐2013: 30 2013-‐2014: 9 2014-‐2015: 6

Referrals for student offenses also varied by teacher and academic content area Table 30 shows the distribution of referrals for each grade level by content area.

45

Table 30. Offense referral sources, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Content area

6th grade 7th grade 8th grade Total

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

%

Math 229 140 35 193 249 202 83 162 181 26%

Reading 98 305 129 84 209 435 157 234 289 34% Science 52 46 33 42 45 223 34 60 160 12% Social Studies

71 103 49 82 95 14 31 9 26 8%

Writing 89 144 67 241 72 51 54 176 178 20% Total 539 738 313 642 670 925 359 641 834 100%

Figure J. Offense referral sources, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Referrals from the 6th grade dropped 57.6% while referrals from the 7th and 8th grade increased 28% and 23% respectfully. The most referrals for the 2014-‐2015 school year were from Reading across all grade levels, with the highest frequency in the 7th grade. The other highest referrals were from Math and Writing. Of staff making referrals, 4 made more than 100, and 6 made more than 60 during Year 3. Staff members who made the most referrals were teaching in the 7th and 8th grades. In comparison, more teachers made large numbers of referrals in Year 2 than in Year 3: specifically, seven teachers in Year 2 made between 40-‐69 referrals, seven teachers made between 70-‐99 referrals and five teachers made over 100 student referrals.

Restorative Conferences and Circles. RD is used proactively in the classroom to build community and at the Tier 2 and 3 level to address peer and adult-‐student conflict

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

2012-‐2013

2013-‐2014

2014-‐2015

6th grade 7th grade 8th grade

Math

Reading

Science

Social Studies

Writing

46

and student offenses. Restorative discipline is classified as a “restorative conference” when it involves 3 people (often a teacher and two students), and is classified as a “restorative circle” when it includes more than 2 students and additional teacher(s) or administrator(s). Restorative conferences and circles are teacher or administrator facilitated. Tables 31, 32, and 33 compare grade level monthly frequencies of incidents by individual students for teacher-‐ and administrator-‐facilitated circles and conferences. If multiple students were involved in a circle, each is recorded as a separate entity. Circle-‐It conferences that are requested by students and not related to discipline referrals are not included here.

Table 31. 6th grade monthly frequencies of individual student incidents: Restorative conferences and circles, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Month Teacher Facilitated Administration Facilitated 2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015 2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015 August 3 1 0 0 0 4 September 30 0 0 24 14 5 October 33 0 0 23 3 11 November 20 0 3 6 0 3 December 54 0 0 3 2 1 January 18 1 2 7 1 2 February 17 2 0 4 0 3 March 18 2 0 3 0 1 April 4 1 0 3 3 6 May 6 3 0 6 0 1 June 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Student Incidents

203 10 5 79 23 37

Table 32. 7th grade monthly frequencies of individual student incidents: Restorative conferences and circles, 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

Month Teacher Facilitated Administration Facilitated 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015 August 0 0 2 0 September 0 0 18 3 October 3 0 26 2 November 2 0 16 1 December 0 0 4 0 January 1 0 19 0 February 0 0 43 0 March 0 0 12 0 April 0 0 50 0 May 0 0 0 0 June 0 0 0 0 Total Student Incidents

6 0 190 6

47

Table 33. 8th grade monthly frequencies of individual student incidents: Restorative conferences and circles 2014-‐2015

Month Teacher Facilitated Administration Facilitated 2014-‐2015 2014-‐2015 August 0 2 September 0 7 October 0 19 November 0 4 December 0 10 January 0 2 February 0 7 March 2 10 April 0 4 May 0 0 June 0 0 Total Student Incidents

2 65

The use of restorative circles and conferences appears to have substantially decreased this year, though one administrator reported that the school was not diligent about recording. Teachers reported using circles and numerous restorative conferences in biweekly interviews and focus groups but that is not evident in this data. The 7th grade recorded no teacher conferences or circles and only 6 administration-‐facilitated conferences for the entire school year, compared with 190 administration-‐facilitated conferences in the previous year. The 8th grade had the most administration-‐facilitated conferences and circles for the year at 65, and 6th grade administration-‐facilitated conferences and circles increased by 60% this school year compared with the previous year. Teacher-‐facilitated conferences in 6th grade decreased by 50% this year compared with the previous year. It is likely that more circles and conferences were done than were recorded and that this data underestimates the use of restorative practices in the school, especially facilitated by teachers. It is also important to note that, at Ed White, the AP moves with the school level cohort. Consequently the AP for the 7th grade in Year 2 was the AP for the 8th grade in Year 3. The greatest number of administration-‐facilitated conferences in Year 2 occurred in 7th grade (n= 190) and in Year 3 occurred in 8th grade (n=65) under the same administrator. It is possible, therefore, that the particular administrator is a significant factor in the frequency of administration-‐facilitated conferences in a given year.

Circle-‐It Forms. Circle-‐It Forms were created in Year 1 as an early warning instrument to alert the administration when students were in conflict with each other and to indicate the urgency of need to address the conflict through RD. The form and its use were modified in 2013-‐2104 (Year 2) and were used by the core administrative RD facilitator as an intake form for student or student-‐teacher conferences. The form includes a description of the incident, who was involved, an indication of urgency of the need for addressing the conflict, and the outcome of the circle/conference. There is space for participant signatures and a monitoring plan. A copy of the Circle-‐It Form is in Appendix B. Twenty-‐five percent of the total forms for each month were reviewed as indicators of the

48

yearly implementation process. Table 34 shows the frequency of the Circle-‐It Forms per month. Circle-‐It Form use severely dropped off in use this year compared with Years 1 and 2.

Table 34. Frequency of Circle-‐It Forms by month: 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Month 2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015 6th Grade 6th & 7th Grade 6th, 7th & 8th Grade August 0 5 3 September 11 30 17 October 107 37 13 November 47 23 6 December 34 19 9 January 39 39 1 February 21 24 9 March 25 12 7 April 14 12 8 May 35 13 4 Total 350 213 77

August. There were 3 Circle-‐It Forms filled out in August. The Circle-‐It Form sampled concerned a conference with two girls who had been talking about boys they liked when one told the other something about a boy not caring about her, which resulted in a threat to fight. Both girls apologized and hugged and said it was “stupid to start a fight about a boy” and that they wanted to remain friends. No action plan is mentioned.

September. There were 17 Circle-‐It Forms filled out in September. Four forms were sampled. The first involves a verbal argument between two girls. The outcome states that the girls agree they are not friends and will not talk to or about each other, and “if there is an altercation or fight it will be held as an administrative action.” The second form lists the conflict as urgent, with the student who submitted the form writing “call us now!” and “when you have time but hurry!” There is a note that the third girl did not want to have a circle with the other two, and no further information. The third form involved one girl insulting another, and the only further information on the form is that a third girl supposedly spread a rumor starting this conflict. The final form sampled was about a fight between three boys in class. Conference notes say that the boys all apologized to each other and promised that it wouldn’t happen again, and that the core administrative RD facilitator would tell the teacher the results of the conference and “continue to monitor to make sure the boys remain true to their contract” though it is not specified what she will do.

October. There were 13 Circle-‐It forms in October, and three were sampled. The first involved a verbal exchange of threats between two girls with one throwing a crayon at the other. One of the girls refused to do a circle, and the core RD administrative facilitator had both girls sign an agreement that they understand if there is a fight that they will both need to do an RD conference with an administrator. One girl agreed to tell her cousins and friends not to say anything insulting about the other to help prevent a future incident. The second form involved an incident in which two boys were threatening repeatedly to fight each other. After separate conversations over a few days, both boys agreed they would not

49

fight, and if something else happened they would do a circle with the AP. The third involves another fight between two boys, with one saying a verbal insult and the other hitting him in return. They both apologized.

November. There were 6 Circle-‐It forms in November, and two were sampled. The first involved a girl who said a boy upset her because he was touching her when she wanted to be left alone. She said she had been in a fight with her mom recently and had a lot of anger that the boy triggered. He agreed not to touch her anymore and she refused to have a conference with him but agreed to talk to the AP if it happened again. The second form lists three students’ names and a note that “Students worked things out with their own circle.”

December. There were 9 Circle-‐It forms in December, and 2 were sampled. One lists four girls’ names and no additional information except a note that “Girls wanted to have their own circle.” The second was for two girls who were making faces and speaking badly about each other to others, but no resolution or agreement is listed.

January. There was one Circle-‐It form in January. The form involved an incident of one girl speaking badly of another, saying she had head lice, and the other saying that she was unwilling to have a circle and that their friendship was over.

February. There were 9 Circle-‐It forms in February, and 2 were sampled. The first was concerning a name-‐calling and threats to fight between two girls. They agreed their friendship was broken and that they would tell their friends and siblings not to get involved, and one insisted she be switched to a new class so they could stay away from each other and volunteered to be in ISS until a schedule change was made. The girls also agreed to report back if they needed another circle to prevent a fight. The second form involved 6 students who were referred for acting out and talking too much in class so that it was distracting another student’s learning. The students agreed that they would speak more quietly and they had not realized their impact.

March. There were 7 Circle-‐It forms in March, and 2 were sampled. The first form involved a social media incident between 6 girls. No details are listed except that the girls agreed they did not want to fight. The second form was for a conference with a student and her parents to address her skipping class. The student signed an agreement with the following conditions: she will be on time for class, will not walk out for any reason, will “stay out of drama” and will come to the core RD facilitator if she has a bad day. Moreover if she skips any classes she will go to ISS and if she refuses ISS then the AP or principal will suspend her or send her to AMS, and that if she has 2 bad days in a row that her parents will come to school at least 3 days a week to physically walk her to every class.

April. There were 8 Circle-‐It forms in April, and 2 were sampled. The first form had two boys’ names on it and a referral from a teacher, but no notes of anything that was done about the conflict. The second form involved three students involved in an incident in which the first started a rumor that the second wanted to fight the third. There is no listing of a resolution or agreement and only one student signed the form.

50

May. There were 4 Circle-‐It forms in May and 1 was sampled. The form sampled had three girls’ names on it and two names had marks by them suggesting they were not willing to have a conference, but no notes were made.

Summary. There were many fewer Circle-‐It Forms used in 2014-‐2015. Similar to previous years, the incidents sampled rarely included monitoring arrangements or action plans, and mostly involved apologies or agreements to end relationships. A few also included agreements for students to inform friends and family that a fight or further conflict was not wanted. One circle involved parents, though none involved teachers or other administrators, and of all the forms sampled, this one had the most detailed action plan and a signed agreement. Few agreements were signed, and many included a note that future incidents would be addressed by administration, not the Circle-‐It process. It is possible that there were fewer circles this year because students are doing circles on their own. Indeed, one form indicated that students preferred to work the conflict out without an adult. A number of incidents involved students refusing to participate in circles, which indicates a possible loss of credibility in the circle process by students . Students may also need more preparation before a circle or are not yet ready to talk with someone else and might need some support themselves. For example, a student who indicated she was stressed out due to a fight with her mother might have been sent to counseling to get support, though this was not listed in the agreement. Also, the core RD administrative was out for about six weeks at the beginning of the second semester for family illness.

Outcomes from School Climate Surveys (SCS)

Teachers, parents/caregivers and students at Ed White filled out climate surveys to assess changes in the school’s climate. Following the same procedure as Years 1 and 2, each group was assessed three times: in September, December and May. The number of participants varied because filling out the survey was voluntary. Surveys were completed without any identification by name or code, so individual scores are not compared over time. Stakeholder group scores are summed and averaged and then initial scores from August are compared to scores in December and May.

The SCS is used both to evaluate change in school climate and also to assess areas that stand out indicating needs for improvement. Areas are assessed by calculating percentage change in individual survey items. Survey items differ for each stakeholder group. Copies of the SCS for each group are available in Appendix A. Tables and figures begin with staff SCS scores, followed by student SCS scores, and finally parent/caregiver SCS scores.

Table 35. Comparison of staff SCS scores 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

2012-‐2013 September (n=31) December (n=10) June (n=10) M=2.32 M=2.74 M=2.47


2014-‐2015 September (n=39) December (n=44) June (n=52) M=2.82 * M=2.62

*Survey distributed was incorrectly labeled and was not able to be used.

51

Figure K. SCS mean scores for staff from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

Table 36. Staff SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015

Questions September (n=39) June (n=52) % Change #1 4.59 2.88 37% #2 4.23 1.86 56%

#3 3.10 2.49 20% #4 4.03 2.73 32% #5 2.92 3.55 +22% #6 3.54 1.88 47% #7 3.56 1.71 52% #1a 3.23 2.75 15% #2a 3.33 1.98 41% #3a 3.28 2.51 23% #4a 3.31 2.59 70%

#5a 3.38 3.76 +11% #6a 3.41 2.69 21% #7a 3.33 2.25 32% #8a 2.31 2.88 +25% #9a 3.69 3.12 15% #10a 3.64 2.76 24%

Mean SCS staff scores over the first three years of implementation show a peak in December of Year 2, and a decline at the end of Year 2 and through Year 3. The biggest changes during year 3 were decreases in mean scores for Question 4a (“I am allowed to contribute to solving school-‐based problems that affect me.”), Question 2 (“The people involved in a conflict need to agree on a way forward.”), and Question 6 (“It is important that the person who has caused harm is given support to change their behavior.”).

2.32 2.74

2.47 2.88

3.16 3.04 2.82

2.62

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5 Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

June

2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

52

Comments in September were few and mostly positive. In December comments were mixed, such as “It has helped me to better serve my students and build relationships with them” and “It has not changed my practice. I do not believe we implement it in the way it was intended to be practiced.” In June comments are even more intense in their positive and negative feedback, from “My classroom is now a place of trust and family where lots of learning is taking place.” to “My experience has increased my negativity and disagreement with restorative practices.” A few teachers throughout the year commented that they needed more training and that certain students needed more support.

SCS scores for students are broken down into three groups: 6th graders from Year 1-‐Year 3, 7th graders who first received RD in Year 2 as 6th graders, and the RD pilot group that includes the 8th grade students in Year 3. Each group includes a comparison of mean scores over time as a table and graph as well as an analysis of responses to item scores in Year 3.

Table 37. Comparison of 6th grade student SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015




Figure L. SCS mean scores for 6th grade students from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

53

Table 38. 6th grade student SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015

Questions Sept (n=182) Dec (n=218) % Change June (n=219) % Change #1 3.70 3.30 11% 3.23 2% #2 3.49 3.47 > +1% 3.25 6% #3 3.43 3.22 +7% 2.90 10% #4 3.54 3.08 13% 3.06 >1% #5 3.48 3.11 11% 2.99 4% #6 3.50 3.22 8% 3.01 7% #7 3.57 3.56 > +1% 3.26 8% #8 3.47 3.61 +4% 3.19 11% #9 3.59 3.39 6% 3.26 4% #10 3.53 3.40 4% 3.31 2% #11 3.65 3.69 +3% 3.31 10% #12 2.16 2.56 19% 2.71 6% #13 3.46 3.10 10% 3.11 > +1% SCS mean scores for 6th grade students have risen over the first three years of RD implementation. Though mean scores dropped on average throughout the school year, each new group of 6th graders rated the school climate to be better upon entry so that there is still an overall improvement in climate over time. Some students commented that they liked the school, and others said they had items stolen. A couple complained that teachers were giving better grades and more opportunities for extra credit to students who behaved better and that it was unfair. One student said, “Please have respect for students who have hard times. They go through stuff and need time to process things. Give them a chance.”

Table 39. Comparison of second RD group student SCS scores 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

2013-‐2014 (6th grade) September (n=222) December (n=243) June (n=230) M=3.00 M=2.86 M=2.83


Figure M. SCS mean scores for second RD group students from 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

2.5

2.6

2.7

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

September December June September December June

2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

54


Questions Sept (n=195) Dec (n=178) % Change June (n=222) % Change #1 3.43 3.30 4% 1.89 43% #2 3.27 2.96 9% 2.16 27% #3 3.04 2.92 4% 3.09 +6% #4 3.08 2.97 4% 2.61 12% #5 3.07 2.76 9% 2.73 1% #6 3.38 2.98 12% 2.91 2% #7 3.42 3.15 8% 2.91 8% #8 3.26 2.98 9% 2.87 4% #9 3.36 3.01 10% 2.77 8% #10 3.38 3.11 8% 2.80 10% #11 3.48 3.20 8% 2.81 12% #12 2.39 2.84 +18% 3.44 +21% #13 3.14 2.85 9% 2.77 3% SCS means scores in Table 39 and Figure M represent students who were in 6th grade in Year 2 and in 7th grade in Year 3. Table 40 compares responses to items in Year 3. There was an overall worsening in climate during Year 3 with the biggest decrease in Question 1 (“I show respect for the teachers and staff in this school.” and Question 2 (“The teachers and staff show me respect in this school.”) The largest increase was for Question 12 (“When a student causes harm the main response by the school is a sanction or punishment.”) These questions suggest that the 7th grade started Year 3 with a more positive outlook on mutual respect and the use of RD than they ended with. Yet one student commented that, “This school has improved since last year. There is less violence.” In some instances students commented on teachers giving negative consequences for student misbehavior and several said they felt unsafe and intimidated by the police officer.

Table 41. Comparison of RD pilot group student SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015




55

Figure N. SCS mean scores for RD pilot group students from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015


Questions Sept (n=182) Dec (n=202) % Change June (n=207) % Change #1 3.41 3.27 4% 1.75 46% #2 3.18 2.89 9% 2.25 22% #3 3.06 2.87 6% 3.33 16% #4 3.07 2.90 6% 2.81 3% #5 2.95 2.89 2% 2.98 +3% #6 2.97 2.93 1% 3.14 7% #7 3.24 3.30 +2% 2.85 14% #8 3.19 3.07 4% 2.97 3% #9 3.19 3.00 6% 2.82 6% #10 3.23 3.20 1% 2.95 8% #11 3.17 3.04 4% 2.95 3% #12 2.70 2.96 +10% 3.41 +15% #13 2.87 2.46 14% 2.97 +21% SCS means scores in Table 41 and Figure N represent students who were in 6th grade in Year 1, 7th grade in Year 2 and 8th grade in Year 3. Table 42 compares student responses to items in Year 3. Mean SCS scores for the RD pilot group over three years show an overall improvement of school climate over the three years of RD implementation, but a worsening of school climate over time in Year 3.

The biggest changes in SCS item scores were during the second semester when students engage in STARR testing. Scores dropped the most for Question 1 (“I show respect for the teachers and staff in this school.” and Question 2 (“The teachers and staff show me respect in this school.”) The largest increases in agreement were with Question 12 (“When a student causes harm the main response by the school is a sanction or punishment.”) and Question 13 (“My possessions are safe at this school.”). These changes in scores suggest that the RD pilot group started Year 3 with a more positive outlook on mutual respect, the use of RD, and their sense of environmental safety than they ended with. One student commented, “This school needs to help us with problems with other students because

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

56

sometimes it can get out of hand.” Another student agreed stating, “People are always disruptive and that takes time out of learning.” A third said, “I think that teachers should listen to students who have anxiety or depression more. If you break your leg, do you keep walking on it? No, you let it heal. Mental wounds are the same so sometimes you just need a break.”

Many students commented that teachers were disrespectful. Many students also commented about fights and drama and felt that not enough was being done to address these issues and keep them safe. One said, “I personally dislike RD because nothing actually seems to be done. When I was younger I would come home from fights with other kids having black eyes and footprints on my back, neck and head. I don't get hurt while being here but mainly because I stand up for myself now.” On the other hand, another student said “most of us get along like a family” and many commented that they liked circles, wanted more circles. A few said it’s hard for them to trust people, and many students commented about items that had been stolen. Table 43 shows the mean scores over a two year period for the RD group that had RD in both 6th and 7th grades. Figure O graphs the scores. SCS scores for parents/caregivers are divided into five groups: 6th grade, 7th grade, 8th grade, parent responses from students that had RD in 6th grade in Year 2 and 7th grade in Year 3, and parent responses from the RD pilot group. Individual grade levels include a comparison of mean scores followed by an analysis of responses to the survey items

Table 43. Comparison of 6th grade parent SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015




Figure O. SCS mean scores for 6th grade parents from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

4.5

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

57

Table 44. 6th grade parent SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015

Questions Sept (n=127) Dec (n=73) % Change June (n=109) % Change #1 2.76 3.30 +20% 3.96 +20% #2 3.83 3.56 7% 3.58 + >1% #3 3.80 3.38 11% 3.41 + >1% #4 3.96 3.52 11% 3.42 3% #5 3.87 3.48 10% 3.32 5% #6 3.81 3.26 14% 3.54 9% #7 3.84 3.52 8% 3.48 1% #8 3.84 3.55 8% 3.49 2% #9 3.88 3.60 7% 3.43 5% #10 3.72 3.14 16% 3.09 2%

Over the course of the three years, there was a rise in the 6th grade parent/caregiver perception of school climate at Ed White. Compared to Year 2, Year 3 parents/caretakers were more positive about the school’s climate. Because each school year represents a different group of students, this suggests that parents/caretakers have perceived an increasingly more positive climate at Ed White each year of RD implementation for their students who enter the school.

The largest change for 6th grade in Year 3 was an increase of 43% from August to May for Question 1 (“Students and teachers/staff communicate to each other in a respectful way.”), which suggests that parents noticed a significantly positive change throughout the year in how students and staff were communicating. All other questions decreased slightly from the start to the end of the school year, the largest decrease of 17% for Question 10 (“A student’s possessions are safe at this school.”)

Table 45. Comparison of 7th grade parent SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015



Figure P. SCS mean scores for 7th grade parents from 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4


2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

58

Table 46. 7th grade parent SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015

Questions Sept (n=123) Dec (n=74) % Change June (n=66) % Change #1 2.94 3.20 +9% 2.68 16% #2 3.66 3.38 8% 3.68 +9% #3 3.51 2.89 18% 3.35 16% #4 3.48 3.29 5% 3.38 3% #5 3.59 3.14 13% 3.55 +13% #6 3.45 2.96 14% 3.32 +12% #7 3.61 2.99 17% 3.44 +15% #8 3.66 3.16 14% 3.30 +4% #9 3.62 3.28 9% 3.23 2% #10 3.09 2.70 13% 2.97 +10% SCS scores in the 7th grade did not change much from the beginning to the end of the year; Scores that dropped in December rose again in May. The largest change was a decrease of agreement with Question 9 (“When someone does something harmful, everyone involved helps decide how it can be avoided in the future.”), indicating that as the year went on parents felt that collaborative problem solving decreased.

Table 47. 8th grade parent SCS score means, 2014-‐2015


Table 48. 8th grade parent SCS item scores, 2014-‐2015 Questions Sept (n=167) Dec (n=90) % Change June (n=116) % Change #1 2.93 3.14 +7% 1.63 48% #2 3.56 3.44 3% 1.85 46% #3 3.60 3.48 3% 2.56 26% #4 3.59 3.47 3% 2.15 38% #5 3.62 3.39 6% 2.54 25% #6 3.47 3.07 12% 2.54 17% #7 3.54 3.20 10% 2.41 25% #8 3.71 3.49 6% 2.74 21% #9 3.62 3.24 10% 2.59 20% #10 3.04 2.74 10% 2.94 7% Overall parents began the school year with a positive impression of Ed White. One commented, “I look forward to seeing how this restorative dialogue will provide support to my student throughout the school year.” Another said, “I feel [the administration and teachers] work hard to care about the students.” A few commented that their children had been bullied the previous year and hoped that would not happen again, and a few were concerned about safety of their children’s possessions. In December parental responses were mixed. Some complained that possessions weren’t safe, that bullying needed to be addressed, and one said, “I feel some teachers don't care about their students.” Another said, “The teachers and staff at this school have always

59

excelled.” The comments were similarly a mixture of positive and negative in May, mostly related to bullying, communication and safety of possessions. One person said, “I have seen how everyone has gone out of their way to help families” while another said, “I have requested for teachers to contact me and there was no response!”

The SCS scores for the 8th grade changed dramatically throughout the school year, however, nearly all negatively. By the end of the year parents felt that respectful communication had decreased, students and parents had less of a voice in resolving problems, disagreements were being resolved less effectively, students were less likely to be given an opportunity to right a wrong, victims of bullying were less likely to be asked what their healing needs were, and possessions were less safe than the start of the school year. The biggest decrease was for Question 4 (“I am allowed to contribute to solving problems that affect my child/children.”), with a drop of 60% from August to May. These scores suggest that the 8th grade climate became increasingly negative throughout the year, was more negative than other grade levels, and more negative compared to parents’ experience in the previous two years of RD implementation.

Table 49. Comparison of second RD group parent SCS scores 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015



Figure Q. SCS mean scores for second RD group parents from 2013-‐2014 to 2014-‐2015

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4


2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

60

Table 50. Comparison of RD pilot group parent SCS scores, 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015




Figure R. SCS mean scores for RD pilot group students from 2012-‐2013 to 2014-‐2015

SCS scores for parents of the RD pilot group dropped this year to nearly the same level as they were at the start of the RD implementation in August of 2012. These low scores reflect parental perception of a worsening of the climate at Ed White in the 8th grade this year. On the other hand, though SCS scores were higher at the start of this school year for parents of the second RD group, there was a slight overall increase in parental perception of a more positive climate at Ed White between the first and second year of implementation for this group.

Summary. In this third year of RD implementation, staff responses on SCS surveys were very mixed. Some reported that RD had transformed their classrooms into caring, trusting environments that improved learning, while others felt it was not implemented well and had negative impressions of RD. SCS mean scores for 6th grade students rose over the first three years of implementation, suggesting that in the grade level implementing RD for the most time, students are feeling a benefit in school climate. There was a rise in the 6th grade parent/caretaker perception of school climate at Ed White over the three years as well, suggesting that Ed White’s reputation may be improving with parents and students new to the school. Overall parents began the school year with a positive impression of Ed White for all grade levels, and in December their responses were mixed. SCS scores in the 7th grade did not change much from the beginning to the end of the year. For the 8th grade, the RD pilot group, the climate worsened during Year 3, with many students commenting that

0 0.5 1

1.5 2

2.5 3

3.5 4

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

Septem

ber

December

June

2012-‐2013 2013-‐2014 2014-‐2015

61

teachers were disrespectful, there were fights, and items that had been stolen. Similarly, parent SCS scores for the 8th grade became increasingly negative throughout the school year. By the end of Year 3, many parents felt that respectful communication had decreased, students and parents had less of a voice in resolving problems, disagreements were being resolved less effectively, students were less likely to be given an opportunity to right a wrong, victims of bullying were less likely to be asked what their healing needs were, and possessions were less safe than at the start of the school year.

Twice Monthly Teacher Interviews. This year, 15-‐minute audiotaped interviews were held twice monthly with five 6th, five 7th and five 8th grade teachers to explore the teachers’ experiences with the RD implementation. Teachers’ involvement in the interviews was voluntary and some did not participate regularly.

Ten of these teachers were new to RD, four had been using RD for one school year, and one teacher had been using RD for two years. Areas analyzed by month include teacher’s verbal reports, their core attitudes, challenges, evidence of attitude shifts, assistance from the LRT or during interviews from the researcher, and questions. Recurring themes are described in the final section of the report “Themes from Teacher Interviews and Focus Groups.”

Outcomes from Teacher Interviews and Focus Groups

The sample used for the interviews and focus groups represent about 65% of the teachers on the campus (n=45). No individual interviews were conducted with administrators including the campus principal. Any inferences or judgments should take into account the proportion of the campus teachers included and the absence, in particular, of the campus principal’s perspective in terms of the completeness of the implementation overview, which limits its comprehensiveness. Moreover, this section of the report is based on qualitative or subjective data. The goal is not accuracy or thoroughness but rather understanding of the implementation experience from the perspective of only those persons who were interviewed.

Focus group outcomes. Focus groups with teachers and members of the LRT were held in December and May. In December, 30 teachers were interviewed in 7 focus groups and 3 members of the LRT were interviewed in 1 focus group. Teachers were interested to share their experiences and opinions of RD, both positive and negative. Many teachers felt RD had become more normalized in the school. Issues raised in the December focus groups included:

• Students need a lot of reminders and reinforcement after a circle or conversation; • Teachers need help understanding how to set boundaries with RD; • It is hard to make time for circles and it doesn’t seem like a school priority as it did

in Year 2; • There is a need to redo the respect agreement regularly because of student mobility; • Students need to not only share feelings but be held accountable in a meaningful

way and make amends for wrong-‐doing; • Some students are not taking circles seriously so teachers feel it’s a waste of time;

62

• There are concerns about students’ developmental understanding of RD; • Teachers expect older students to already know how circles work; • Intensive students need more support; • Students in 8th grade are tough and are trying to use RD as a weapon against

teachers.

In May, 28 teachers were interviewed in 7 focus group and 3 members of the LRT were interviewed in 1 focus group. Many teachers were more forthcoming about their experiences than in December, especially 8th grade teachers who really felt they had “made it” through a very challenging school year that was almost over. Issues raised in the May focus groups included:

• Student scores on the recent STARR tests were overall disappointing; • There was a common misconception that there are no boundaries for students in

using RD; • When a student impacts a class, the class needs to talk about their feelings and

understand what the student is doing to make amends; • Students are abusing RD and disrespecting teachers, especially in 8th grade; • There is concern about the RD leadership in the coming school year; • RD implementation feels partial still. It feels like it should be farther along than it is; • Teachers need to open up first, especially when they are of a different ethnicity or

gender to a student; • There are problems with students being tardy or truant; • Teachers and administrators are not getting along or communicating well; • The school needs more structure around using RD with support, expectations and

accountability for teachers; • There is concern about how the new magnet school coming next year will change Ed

White.

Themes from interviews and focus groups. The individual teacher interviews and focus groups were analyzed for content and recurring themes. There were four core themes: (1) Into the unknown; (2) Whose responsibility is this?; (3) Systemic limits of RD practices in school; (4) Commitment to a relational model.

This year all teachers and administrators had received RD training and were implementing RD practices in their classrooms and at an administrative level. The 8th grade Assistant Principal continued acting as the RD leader on campus in addition to his other duties. A few teachers who had been trained in RD previously were moved to the 8th grade, and due to turnover many teachers were new to the school. Consequently, throughout grade levels teachers had used RD practices for varying lengths of time. Some themes were present in the whole school, and each grade level was also in a unique position due to varied lengths of RD implementation.

Into the Unknown.

Teachers consistently reported that no classroom management skills were taught to them when they were in college besides posting rules on the wall and demanding that

63

students follow them. To move from that mindset into an RD model was challenging for most people. The relational focus of the RD model offers a new way of structuring classrooms and schools. Teachers and administrators are asked to show they care about the students, to listen and take time to explain the impact of students’ behavior on them, to talk about some non-‐academic topics of interest to students in the classroom in order to build community, and to give students a voice in regulating classroom behavior and norms. In the process of becoming an RD school in Year 3 of implementation, Ed White teachers experienced both unmet needs and successes.

Vision. Though teachers agreed they were all there “for the kids,” there was also a strong shared desire to belong to something bigger than themselves, to be part of a common mission and vision of education. Teachers were used to giving and receiving clear lessons and rules and repeatedly asked for an RD curriculum. One described the difference from the classroom structure she was used to with the structure of an RD classroom: “As teachers we’re taught we’re in charge, these are the rules and you’re gonna follow them period, and for me RD changed that. [The students and I] came up with expectations for each other.” Another teacher talked about the importance of communicating the big picture to teachers new to RD to help them transition:

When you’re doing RD there has to be an offense and if you look at details right now it looks bad but in the grander scheme of the whole RD program you’ll have offenses like the puzzle pieces that make up the picture to restore the whole thing. Teachers should go in with the big picture in mind like the box of a puzzle so the jigsaw doesn’t look so bad.

But what that full picture of a thriving, successful school was remained unclear for people. Teachers talked about not having “an identity at our campus.” They questioned the essence of the school, asking “What is Ed White? And if it’s Eagle Pride, what are the standards?” Administrators complained that teachers don’t bond and outside their grade level “don’t know each other’s names.” Teachers enjoyed a creative scavenger hunt the administration did on a staff development day early in the year, as well as periodic potlucks organized by the Assistant Principal acting as the RD campus leader and were hungry for more opportunities to come together to positively interact rather than problem-‐solve about student behavior or how to raise test scores. Teachers craved leadership and modeling from the LRT in communicating a clear vision of what being an RD campus meant and expressed disappointment that “the administration is not all on the same page.”

This confused vision filtered down to the students, and in one teacher’s class students expressed disappointment about the school and said that they felt stereotyped. She did a circle about it and asked them, ‘How can we change that?’ Another teacher had a student tell her that to make the class better all she had to do was ‘remove the bad kids’ to which she replied, “We can’t, there’s no bad kids. They’re just the kids who choose not to follow the rules and we’re gonna work on it.”

Boundaries. There was a lot of confusion around setting boundaries and expectations using RD. One teacher complained that, “There’s this misconception with RD, [that] the kid can do whatever he wants.” Several said that teachers were not creating

64

strong containers for students and setting standards of behavior, that using RD “we only got [students’] feelings.” Many teachers felt anxiety at the loss of control of the way they were used to running classrooms, that without clear rules and consequences there was only chaos. One said, “I feel like the systems have went out the window as far as the discipline side and we’ve gotten away from the foundations of how we grew up [and] what was working.” Another teacher explained a common challenge:

I've had teachers come up to me and be like 'This stuff doesn't work, this is ridiculous, it's not gonna work, I'm supposed to let them just get away with everything' and I'm like ‘No, it's not about letting them get away with anything…I'm still me, the only thing is like I take the time. It's not just like you get onto a kid and then that's it. It's like, “Okay let's sit down and talk. What's going on?” Like you get to know the kid and he may not be perfect all the time but he will be a whole lot better and he will have more respect towards you, but you could still have rules cause the teacher felt like she couldn't have rules or expectations because that wasn't being restorative and I was like ‘restorative is not about doing away with the rules’ and she was like, ‘Oh well that's what I thought, that I was just supposed to let them do whatever they wanted’ and I'm like ‘No, no, no no, that's not what you're supposed to do’ and so once I talked to her she was like, ‘Okay now I feel better’ and I'm like, ‘Okay yeah, it's not about letting them get away with whatever, no.’

One teacher agreed: “We gotta get these kids to understand that accountability to somebody doesn’t mean somebody can run you, it means somebody cares enough to hold you to a line…to expect more out of you than you think you have.” An administrator agreed that there needed to be something between student feelings and hard-‐and-‐fast rules: “the medium where [teachers] can consequence with love, still be the master of their class.”

Yet few teachers were clear on boundaries and accountability. Many expressed confusion about “the difference between punishment and consequences” and that they were used to “a negative response to negative behavior.” Teachers struggled with classroom structure as well as how to deal with serious behavior challenges. One teacher said she felt that kids “need to know there is a debt to society.” Another teacher asked, “Where does our power come from?” The community voice of the teacher and students in the class were usually excluded from the RD process for more serious offenses when a student was sent out of class, and teachers felt that “the ripple effect” of an offense was routinely ignored. Some teachers reported that students felt unsafe when the offending student was returned to class. A few teachers asked for students to be re-‐integrated into the class and reported that those whole-‐class circles facilitated by an AP went really well and that they felt a “real resolution.” Even without re-‐integration, teachers talked about their need to know the students’ accountability agreement so they could hold the student to those behavioral expectations.

Something is working. Teachers and administrators who have been at Ed White for a few years talked about the school having a better climate, especially related to student behavior. “Confrontation and drama, this year it’s really been at a low…[because] they’ve had it for a couple years like they’re willing to just call for a circle. I’ve literally had students walk up to me like ‘Sir, you know what, me and so and so we’re having issues, and I need to

65

go to [the AP]…to schedule a circle.’” A teacher who admittedly does not like RD said, “The climate has improved.” Other teachers reported a decrease in bullying behavior, that “kids are working with each other or being more aware of each other, respecting each other’s space.” One said the school “seems healthier.” Teachers felt that the problems they were dealing with were less intense overall than in previous years. Instead of serious offenses, one administrator said the referrals he received from teachers were “down to truancies, walking out of class and tardies.”

Teachers talked about students being more responsible and caring, such as thanking the principal for buying laptops for their class. Others saw students becoming more focused in class and getting to task faster than they used to. Teachers saw progress in specific students, with one sharing that a student “used to explode in class just over little things that [now] she has been able to take those breaths and kinda chill out so it’s been pretty cool to see her kinda evolve.” Kids were reportedly more aware of how peers felt and would “apologize for interrupting each other,” had “more empathy” and “more accountability with each other.” One teacher said, “The kids correct each other. It’s funny.” Students were learning to self-‐regulate, saying “I just need a moment” before responding to a teacher when they were upset. Teachers were also pleasantly surprised by how honest students were. One teacher who was frustrated by low grades on a recent test did a circle asking the students what they needed in order to do better academically, saying, “It was really cool, they were pretty open. Kids told me, 'You're doing all the work and so we're not thinking because you're just up there doing everything for us, so you need to let us think more, and make us do the work.' “

Summary. Ed White navigated new unknown territory this year implementing RD throughout the entire school. Teachers struggled to hold onto a shared vision of what it meant to be a relational school. They wondered what Ed White stood for, what it meant when they said ‘Go Eagles.’ Many were confused about sharing responsibility with students and seeing their power as grounded in relationships instead of their authority position as a teacher. Some understood this transition and were able to help others and lead their students clearly, while most had a hard time setting boundaries and wrestled with the difference between punishment and accountability. Despite the lack of clarity in this unknown way of being, nearly every teacher felt that RD was changing the school, that something was working. Most saw students individually maturing, and those who had been at Ed White for a few years reported that overall the climate of the school and level of negative conflict had decreased since RD had been implemented.

Whose Responsibility Is This?

The whole school, from students to teachers to administrators, experienced a re-‐negotiation of authority, roles and responsibilities. Teachers struggled to do RD with integrity and questioned its efficacy. Some administrators and teachers entered into an adversarial power struggle over who was responsible for supporting challenging students or communicating discipline outcomes. The 6th grade, in its third year of RD implementation, behaved for the most part like a team, whereas the 8th grade, in its first year of RD implementation, remained relatively resistant to RD the entire year. Overall

66

there was a lack of cohesion in the school among the adults, a lot of frustration, and a lack of trust between teachers and administrators.

Circle integrity. Universally, teachers struggled to make time for RD and community building in the classroom. One said, “I feel like this, all of this takes so much time that we don’t have.” Some teachers said they could make time for “fun” circles with light topics but taking time for “a meaningful circle” that went deeper was hard. Many started using shortcuts, such as doing “circles in rows,” playing hot potato with a talking piece, “restorative talks with the full class…but not necessarily in a circle.” One teacher admitted that not taking time to “move the desks into a formal circle, it was probably laziness in my part.” Another confessed, “A commitment that has been missing is simply time.” Many of these teachers then questioned the efficacy of RD, saying it works with some kids and not others and that a combination of restorative and traditional was needed.

Some teachers felt that circles were too complicated for middle school students at their level of development and maturity. One said, “It’s like we’re expecting kids that don’t have fully developed frontal lobes or whatever to pick up fully developed frontal lobe concepts.” Instead of circles, teachers tended to rely more on restorative chats and building relationships with students one-‐on-‐one, with community building in the classroom happening at random:

I would say I’ve done very little with circles. I’ve had chats with students but…I haven’t had any circles. I try to build relationships with my students and talk to them and I feel like I try to give. They have opportunities to ask questions in class or make comments in class and I think if that develops into a discussion then that’s fine.

A teacher in the second year of using RD who was frustrated by these shortcuts asked, “If you’re not following the rules of basketball, is it really basketball? If we’re not following the process of restorative discipline, is it really restorative?”

Intensive students. A recurring challenge throughout the year was how to support students who needed a lot of care or attention, which the school called “intensive students.” Some students at Ed White are homeless, do not have enough food at home, have parents in prison, and confronting such major life challenges makes it hard for them to focus on school. While teachers felt empathetic that kids “have situations,” they also felt that did not give them “the right to come in and disrupt everybody’s classroom.” There was a lot of frustration that what the school was doing was not working:

How many meetings we gotta do with this kid? …we’ve done the circle, we’ve had the one-‐on-‐one, the parent conferences, you know those mini circles in private not with the classroom and the kid’s still doing the same thing.

The majority of teachers felt that there ought to be a safe place for kids to go when they needed a break from class, and that teachers ought to be able to rely on administration to give them a break from challenging students sometimes. Although a plan was developed by administration and school personnel including teachers for how to respond to student behaviors and manage behaviors and communicated early in the year, some of the teachers felt that administration did not share as fully as they would have liked the responsibility of

67

supporting intensive students and reported being pressured to keep kids “in class.” A teacher said, “I need to be able to teach a class and not focus my entire period trying to chill out this one kid.” Teachers ended up helping out each other instead. One explained:

I’m sending [administration] a kid because I can’t deal with them anymore today, they crossed that line and I need somebody else to take over, and a lot of times they get sent right back. So sometimes it’s just easier to send that kid to another teacher because at least then you know that that kid is going to stay there…and you don’t have to deal with them for the rest of the day.

Teachers and students also started to question what responsibility students had in impacting each other’s learning. Some teachers felt students ought to be “responsible with their curriculum and making sure they’re not bringing down the learning community.” Many teachers did circles about this issue. One teacher reported that when “one student stormed out of class the other students clapped and were like, ‘ Oh yay. We can go on with our work.’” Another teacher had students in one class ask for a circle to “talk about things that are happening in class” and the students said “We’re not getting as much from the class because there are too many people who are doing what they’re not supposed to be doing.” Students then started holding each other accountable and taking responsibility for what they could do better or differently. Some teachers developed agreements with particular students to know when the student needed a break before they acted out, developing signals with each other or allowing students to ask for hall passes to go to another teachers’ class with whom they feel safe to talk about their problem.

Administration-‐Teacher RD. While the administration was pushing teachers to build relationships with students in their classrooms, teachers complained that the administration was not modeling RD and building relationships with them. There was a disconnect between teachers and some of the assistant principals and a lack of transparency in communication. Teachers consistently reported needing more information from the administration, especially about students who were disciplined outside of class. Some reported being shut out when asking for the information, and that administrators were not open to hearing about teachers’ needs. Administrators felt that teachers were assuming they “didn’t do anything” and thought teachers should trust them more. One teacher reported the assistant principal telling her that s/he “shouldn’t have to explain [his/her] job” to her and “if it was important and you needed to know, I’d let you know.” Some felt that the principal did not know how to do RD because they had never seen him do it. Others thought that his participation in circles in classrooms and use of circles in faculty meetings was absent but crucial to improving teacher-‐buy in and morale:

I think if [the principal] was more involved in the actual process of circles more teachers would be willing to fully buy into it, especially the teachers that don’t trust very easily…in the end he’s our overall leader, he’s the one that interviewed us…if he were to take a bigger role within our restorative process more teachers would be willing to say ‘If our leader’s doing it, then I need to try it’ and ‘if our leader’s making it where this is gonna work, then I need to try it.’

68

Teachers felt that the some of the assistant principals didn’t “want to keep morale up. That’s not their focus” and that “they don’t value our time as much.” There was an overall adversarial attitude between teachers and assistant principals that played out all year. One administrator said, “[T]his year we’ve communicated in a way that has maybe come off as negative, we took a stance ‘that’s a classroom issue.’ “ When asked about teacher-‐administrator communication one teacher said, “Believe you me, we need to have some circles.” Another said:

We sit in a meeting for an hour and a half when half of what’s said could be put into a PowerPoint and we could go over it on our own…a lot that’s said in meetings could just be in email. The focus a lot is on data…[T]hey say the focus is on the kid. [T]hey say the focus is on us working as a team but the reality behind that is [that]it’s all about the data. It’s all about what we look like to central office…[I]t runs us down.

Another said that the principal “has done good things” but there has been a lot of “turnover under him” because “he pushes and…he wants us to be a team, but he doesn’t do the things that need to happen to facilitate that.” One teacher summed it up as follows: “Admin says staff aren’t doing the basics. We have faculty versus admin and the river’s getting wider.” An administrator agreed: “If we do nothing differently next year, we’ll see the same division and see faculty over here (gestures away from body).” Another administrator agreed that “We need to make sure [teachers] are active participants in the process instead of the game that we have been playing.”

Sixth grade: Teamwork. Morale was highest among the 6th grade teachers who as a grade level have been using RD practices the longest. One teacher said, “Now 6th grade, we do act as a team. I would venture to say that like 80% of us do.” Another said, “Our 6th grade team is super strong…and we’re seeing the success of our team in our kids.” Sixth grade teachers reported that as a team they “communicated with each other about our different students” and that when a student was having a rough day each teacher might have their own “conversation with that kid throughout the day trying to get them to turn around and just supporting each other that way.” As another example of teamwork, in a faculty meeting 6th grade teachers came up with the top three things that were bothering them about their students: academics, attendance and student-‐on-‐student respect. With the leadership of the 6th grade AP, the team came up with suggested talking points that teachers used for classroom circle topics at the start of the spring semester, with different subject areas volunteering for each topic. Teachers said, “There were some very good conversations that came out of that” and “truancy declined.” Overall, communication was open between the teachers and the 6th grade AP. One 6th grade teacher said, “I think pretty much all of the APs and us teachers, we’re just better communicators…I would feel comfortable in saying ‘Can we talk about this?’ if there ever was an issue.” A teacher in another grade said of the 6th grade “they’re a well-‐oiled machine.”

In this supportive environment, teachers found it easier to make commitments to intensive students. One teacher talked about showing “the most affection” to her lowest reading students because she had learned they would be her “most defiant.”

69

Seventh grade: Innovation. Seventh grade teachers were not as strong of a team as 6th grade teachers. One teacher said, “I think we’re okay as far as communicating with each other and talking about what’s going on” and went on to explain that administration is not forthcoming about some decisions that are made, but when he takes time to go talk with them he gets the information he needs. Another teacher said she had a student curse her out. The student was removed from her class and she never knew what happened. Teachers reported students being moved from class to class without explanation, from one teacher to another and then back to the original teacher a few weeks later. Teachers consistently wanted more information about discipline done outside of the classroom.

On the other hand, one reported having monthly RD chats, watching videos and having discussions about RD and the use of circles during faculty meetings, though no one reported participating in actual circles during faculty meetings. There was also some collaboration and innovation in the 7th grade among individual teachers. One teacher was so impressed with the leadership he saw one student use in his class that he told the AP about it. The AP then introduced himself to the student and asked the student to help start a student leadership team for the 7th grade. Another teacher started an initiative called “The 51% club” in which students were challenged to honestly assess their level of commitment to academic achievement, hear the teachers’ and peers’ perspectives on it, and to regularly reflect what support they needed to increase their ownership of their success in school. “Coming Home Time” was an initiative another teacher used periodically at the beginning of class. She took time to regularly share with the students about her life, so in Coming Home Time the students were invited to share successes, fears, or whatever was going on in their lives with her and the rest of the class. These initiatives, though creative, remained with the individual teacher and there was no mechanism to advance the sharing of what was learned with others.

Eighth grade: Resistance. For the 8th grade teachers, this was their first year implementing RD, and it was very challenging. The adversarial attitude between teachers and administrators was strongest at this grade level. One teacher explained their need to prepare students for high school, saying, “They’re not elementary kids, we’re more structured with expectations and more traditional.” Many teachers had resistance and a negative perspective of RD at the start. One teacher said, “You say circle and they’re like ‘I don’t like that’ and so they already just have a wall up with it.” Overall 8th grade teachers felt that their classroom and behavior management techniques had worked well in the past and wanted to be shown how RD would be useful. Some teachers said they were willing to give RD “the benefit of the doubt.” Others were openly resistant, with one group openly rebelling against RD by refusing to pay attention during the training at the beginning of the year, texting on their phones and talking over the trainer. One teacher joked he was “looking forward to root canal and jury duty” over doing RD.

At the beginning of the year the 8th grade teachers were the only grade level to do a respect agreement with their AP. The AP asked for their trust in utilizing RD, but at the end of the year one teacher said trust was never there: “I would say the biggest thing is trust. That’s our biggest barrier to everything. [Our bonds are] built on a foundation of not trusting.” To build that trust, teachers wanted forthcoming communication about

70

administrator decisions: “I feel like where the distrust comes from is when [teachers] don’t feel like they’re on the same page with the admin.” One teacher said she found out after the fact that the AP had done a circle with one of her intensive students, the student’s mom and grandpa during her planning period but had not asked her to participate. On the other hand, one administrator felt that he would constantly invite them to “come talk to us about what we’ve done with a kid. Few will. The negative pockets would rather talk to each other in the teacher lounge…if there was trust, they would know whatever we did was best for the kid.”

Eighth grade teachers consistently reported that this group of students was the toughest they had ever had. One said, “I’ve had kids in my class this year gang up on me, a handful that attacks me and demands circles, walks out of class, threatening to hit the button to get [the AP] in here.” Another spoke similarly about the adversarial culture, saying that students are “using RD as a weapon” and “made it their mission” to “run off teachers,” that students are “power hungry.” There was agreement that “they’re make-‐or-‐break-‐the-‐teacher type kids.” Yet one teacher felt they were being confronted with their own hypocrisies and had “met their match” in the students. Another teacher who had worked with those students in a previous year did not feel they were a particularly difficult group:

I just think this particular group of teachers doesn’t really feel this whole RD stuff so they came in with like “Here’s the rules, you’re not gonna have what you did in 6th or 7th grade. We’re not like those teachers,” like we didn’t discipline them or something and so they went at it like “These are the rules. You won’t do this. You won’t do that”…I think that’s why they’re struggling with it, but I don’t think [the kids] are as bad as they claim them to be.

Despite these conflicts, most 8th grade teachers tried to implement some RD practices. As one teacher put it: “RD, it’s in the air here, everybody’s always talking, whether you’re talking about it good or you’re just not convinced yet.” Teachers who were implementing RD wanted follow-‐up and more support doing circles. Many wanted to sit in other circles or have someone else facilitate circles in their class to better understand how to use them. By the end of the first semester, one teacher who had yet to participate in a circle was frustrated that “we’re not practicing what we’re preaching.” During the second semester, the 8th grade AP did some grade level meetings in circles, and teachers found those helpful. One teacher summed up the year:

I think the roughest thing this year was just teachers and our lack of communication, commitment, and all of the above. We did try a couple circles and I think we were too deep in the hole, or (sighs) we didn't believe in the circle process enough to, and I think that's been a big, we blamed as an 8th grade a lot of our issues on RD.

Summary. There were some major challenges this year around roles and responsibilities in the school. Many teachers cut corners on the circle process and struggled to make time for them. Students who needed extra attention, called intensive students, were a universal source of frustration for teachers. Although teachers had been told in the Fall and at designated points in the year to keep students in the classroom for certain types

71

of behavioral offenses designated in the campus behavior management plan, a number of teachers perceived that they therefore had to keep students in the classroom no matter what. This led to teachers, in some instances, helping each other with challenging students and classroom discussions questioning each student’s responsibility in the learning environment. These differences in the interpretation of policy and other communication problems reflect some of the disharmony between teachers and administrators. Some teachers felt the administration cared more about the school’s image than teacher morale and building relationships between teachers and administrators. Overall the 6th grade, which was in its third year of RD implementation, behaved as the strongest team and some teachers felt that students were succeeding in class because of this strong support system. 7th grade, in its second year of RD implementation, was starting to get the hang of it, with teachers being innovative in using RD and creating new initiatives. 8th grade, in its first year of RD implementation, was resistant. Teachers reported there was no trust among the team and that the students were the toughest of their teaching careers.

Systemic Limits of RD Practices in School

In Year 2 of RD implementation, the administration asked teachers to do regular check-‐in, check-‐up and check-‐out circles and to put time for those in their lesson plans. This year those were not encouraged and teachers felt there was little accountability for doing RD. The administration did ask teachers to do Respect Agreements with each class period at the beginning of the year, and encouraged teachers to update those agreements in the second semester due to high student mobility changing the make-‐up of the school. Ed White did not have any on-‐site consultant from IRJRD this year, and did not have an RD coordinator. Instead the now-‐8th grade AP in his third year of implementing RD and a part-‐time staff member were in charge of leading RD in the school. This was likely confusing for teachers since the person in authority and to whom they were accountable was also playing the role of a RD coordinator, a role built on relationship, inclusiveness, and trust. There were no structures for teachers or students who were doing well with RD to step into leadership roles in the school, and many teachers felt that RD was not a priority anymore.

Respect Agreements. At the beginning of the school year teachers were asked to make respect agreements with each of their classes, considering four areas: teacher-‐student respect, student-‐student respect, student-‐teacher respect, and everyone respecting classroom space and tools. One teacher described these as “social compacts” that many teachers hung “up on the wall and referred back to.” Teachers felt As regards respect agreements, teachers felt that there was “a lot of support” and “encouragement” for doing them. One teacher described the mindset shift from classroom rules to using the respect agreement to hold students accountable for their behavior as follows: “I don’t do ‘You’re bad kids’ [instead] I’m like ‘You’re not meeting expectations, the expectations are on the wall’…so that it’s accountable on them.” Teachers reported that respect agreements only worked when students had a voice in creating them, and a few went back to redo them when they realized they did not give students enough of a say in initially creating them.

Some teachers were innovative with using respect agreements to build community in their classrooms. One teacher made a deal with her students that if they paid attention to

72

her lesson for the first thirty minutes of class, then they could work on their own and listen to their music with headphones for the last fifteen minutes. The students liked the arrangement so much that they “even call others out, like ‘Stop, be quiet, we’re gonna have our time, remember we agreed,. Let’s just give her the minutes so we can do our thing.’ “ Universally teachers reported that patience, persistence and reinforcement were required. One teacher said, “You’ve got to follow up and make sure the understanding stays.” Another said: “We have to constantly go back and be like ‘Okay, we agreed we weren’t going to make fun of anybody,’ and they’re like ‘Okay, oh my gosh, I forgot,’ and so they’re kids, you have to constantly [remind them].”

Overall teachers liked doing respect agreements at the beginning of the year. One said, “The sooner you establish your own personal relationship with the kids, the easier it is for them to take down their walls and you can start the mending and healing process. For most of the kids it happens.” Teachers found it challenging when classroom make-‐up changed due to high student mobility, and only some took time to redo respect agreements with the current class.

Transition zones. The two biggest frustrations teachers and administrators reported this year were students acting out in the hallways between classes and being late to class, and students acting out with substitute teachers. Nancy Riestenberg, Climate Specialist with the Minnesota Department of Education, who trained teachers in the first and second years of implementation, warned that transition zones with fewer boundaries were breakdown points for the successful implementation of RD. It is as if the transition between classes or between teachers is a metaphor for transitioning from a punitive model of discipline to a restorative one, and the chaos of that shift was evident in student behavior in the school’s so-‐called “transition zones.” Teachers felt that while student behavior changed in class, “When they walk out of the room it’s like they shift into a parallel situation…where they’re free.” To address this, the administration made a list of hallway expectations and asked teachers to go over them in class and have the students sign them, and for teachers to stand in the hallways and police student conduct. One teacher admitted, however, that students did not have a voice in creating the agreement: “Realistically we made them and they agreed to it” and that it worked to the extent that the students and teachers respected the administration. Teachers had no voice in the agreement either and said there was no team buy-‐in to policing hallways.

Teachers also reported that they were responsible for the first time this year for recording truancies and tardies. One said, “We have truancy that is just rampant.” Some did not keep up with the task, and students quickly learned which teachers would report them. One teacher felt that students might be more likely to be on time if teachers started class promptly and made it worth their while for students to be there at the bell. A few teachers expressed frustration about school policies being strict for students, whereas some teachers consistently showed up late for faculty meetings or morning duty and perceived that administration did not hold their colleagues accountable. Understanding that teachers may draw conclusions based on limited data or limitations on personnel matters, one said, “Like any other human being, why am I coming here early or getting anywhere on time when this person can come late every single time with no repercussion...Why is nobody

73

addressing this?” This perception of unfairness, regardless of accuracy might have contributed to the disconnect as seen by some of the teachers about themselves and administrators. The transition from a restorative classroom to a substitute teacher was challenging for students, and many teachers did circles before and after subs were in class to set expectations. Subs were reportedly “older and not restorative.” One student told her teacher, “They’re only here to babysit us anyways. They don’t really like us. They’re mean.” A couple teachers reported that students stole something while a sub was present or that the classroom was trashed, and were very disappointed. Another said her students were mad she was gone for two weeks while being sick and “just wanted to be regular” and have their environment back to normal. A teacher who had strong relationships with her students and had been in and out due to her son’s illness reported: “I was talking to the kids yesterday when I got back and they were like ‘Yeah I was skipping classes, but not during your class cause I didn’t want you to look bad.’ So I was like, that’s nice, kind of.” One teacher thought it would be helpful to have a circle with a substitute teacher and some students.

Priorities. As in Years 1 and 2, the use of RD dropped as the school year went on, and teachers did fewer circles during testing periods. One said, “If we were just relationship-‐building all day it would probably…be fun, but there’s some other stuff that has to go on.” Many felt that they were “a good teacher/bad teacher based on their scores.” The principal used data from Years 1 and 2 during a faculty meeting to show that referrals were going up and circle use was going down around the holidays and testing periods, and some teachers responded to that. Many did check-‐in circles before and after holiday breaks and before and after testing to see how students were doing and give them an opportunity to release some tension. Overall teachers felt that testing was of a higher priority than RD, and many felt a competition between building relationships and academic teaching.

Many teachers felt that students got more out of their class when they took time to build relationships at the beginning of the year. One said that her students’ scores went up compared to previous years but all she did differently was “I got to know my kids. I built relationships with them. I made them work.” Many said that students worked for teachers they liked and who respected them. One teacher reported that because she showed she cared for them, when she asked her students to work, they would say, “I got you, Miss. I’ll be good for you today.” Some intensive students remained academically hard to reach. One teacher expressed the dilemma he experienced:

If the kid doesn’t pass the STARR test but we make him a better person by circles or by talking to him and they go into the ninth grade…they’re more a whole person with their own personality rather than, okay now they can do 8th grade math but they’re probably gonna end up somewhere else because we didn’t cover the bases of what we needed to cover…I’d rather try to make them a whole person than push math down their throats…[P]eople can learn to read in 45 days but we teach kids reading for 13 years and yet at the end of 13 years they still can’t read. So how purposeful, how ethical is it to do what we’re doing?

74

Teachers also talked about the beginning of a new magnet school the following year at Ed White and wondered how RD would work with new students from other neighborhoods coming into the school and taking their own more advanced classes. Some felt that this was a new priority and that the RD implementation was on the back-‐burner.

AP as RD leader. Teachers perceived that the current 8th grade Assistant Principal was the de facto restorative discipline leader at Ed White. Although the Assistant principal for each grade level was responsible for RD at that grade level and assisted in the implementation throughout the school, the 8th grade Assistant Principal was formally assigned the role of the RD Administrative Liaison. Without a separate RD coordinator on campus, this AP had been doing two jobs at once all three years of implementation. However, the two-‐day a week presence of the external consultant during the first two years provided some support and another knowledgeable adult for discussion of issues. In Year 3 there was no external consultant. Describing the enormity of his role, when one teacher said he “was carrying that ball” another replied that actually “he was lifting that ball by himself.” Teachers were in agreement that he really “puts his heart into it,” and is “so passionate about it” and “is the face of RD on campus,” “the guru.” One said:

[He] is like pouring his everything into this, he’s really just like, he makes me wanna be a better teacher because he’s giving like 127% to everybody, the faculty, the students, and guys like that make me wanna keep working in spite of it being tough, and I know I’ve got support.

He became a repository for RD stories, with teachers throughout the school emailing him their successes and aha moments. Many appreciated that he shared a lot of those stories by email or in faculty meetings. Those who were struggling with RD said it helped to “know that this is working at some points.” One teacher said that her students at times often thought he was the principal because he did so much and knew so many people on campus.

Partway through the year IRJRD learned that the AP who was acting as RD leader was intending to leave Ed White at the end of the school year. When asked what RD would look like without him, teachers had mixed responses. Most were initially distraught at the idea of his leaving, saying that he “is really that guide,” is “instrumental in showing us and using it every day,” and is “the go-‐to guy” for questions. Some teachers felt that RD would fail without his passionate advocacy given the high rate of teacher turnover. Others felt that teachers needed to step up into leadership. One said: “Within the teachers that love RD we’re gonna have to really get together and figure some stuff out as in pushing it ourselves.” Some teachers hoped that a new AP would come from the current faculty and be someone who was strong with RD. Others thought perhaps the other two APs would step up into RD leadership roles. Another teacher thought there ought to be “an RD Committee,” “a group of 5-‐10 people” that met once a week to talk about “RD and how we’re implementing it and how we’re really pushing it and going forward with it.” Some teachers felt that though RD was “fragile in some grades” that it was “just too good of a plan to let it go, even if he’s not here.” No one, however, felt the principal could lead RD implementation, talk about potential student leadership, or saw the part-‐time administrator doing circles as a leader of RD on campus.

75

Support structures. The vast majority of teachers felt that RD practices offered useful tools for relationship building and addressing conflict, yet felt frustrated that three years into implementation they ought to be farther along. One teacher expressed it this way:

I don’t think we have a solid plan on how to use it, if it’s gonna be our vessel to get to a particular point, how are we gonna get there because it’s hard to say how…we haven’t reached Tier 2 and I think once we get to that point we can see a bigger effect from it…we know that’s what [students] need and we’re stumbling through that. It’s rough.

Teachers overall needed more support. One said, “I do them but I want to see more of them.” Many wanted someone else to facilitate a circle in their class. One teacher said, “I’ve had somebody else lead a circle and that’s just a lot more powerful than me leading it myself cause when you lead a circle they still view you as a teacher.” They felt that they had to repeatedly ask to get the help because the AP who was the RD leader was busy, and other teachers who were good at RD were teaching and could not come to help another class. One teacher said to get a circle facilitated in her class she had to be “adamant” and “set it up.” Some teachers said they wished administration would hold them accountable to push them to keep practicing RD. Others missed having built in time for check-‐in, check-‐up and check-‐out circles. Many gave up when they tried one circle and it did not go well. One teacher said, “I don’t know how you get through a circle with 25 students.” Instead, many focused on one-‐on-‐one chats and relationship building with individual students rather than a whole class.

Other teachers really took to RD and were very creative using it in their classes:

Sometimes I need to put the prompt or the scenario on the board. A scenario works really well with them: If you’re with your friend and you see she’s angry and other people are responding to her, what would you do? A lot of my groups have a hard time blurting out in between but we do the rounds and I’ve named my talking pieces so one is Horace the rock and we have Choices and depending what the circle is about I pull out a certain one and they think it’s me being silly but I want them to associate the one with a certain circle. Choices is a little pink dog and one of my seniors gave it to me years ago and said she named it Choices because students need choices. Then another student gave me a rock and we named it Horace after my ex boyfriend because he was kinda dense... [During circle] you’re not talking to the circle, you’re talking to Choices or Horace, and I’ll model it and since they think it’s funny they wanna do it to. It’s stopped a lot of blurting out. So ‘Tell Choices what you would do when your friend is being bombarded when that other kid was angry.’ So a lot of kids will hold up Choices to their face and talk to Choices.

Some even reported using RD outside of school with their own children or children in their neighborhood. One teacher shared that she does circles with kids on her street who are struggling to stay away from drugs to help them and as an example to her son. Another teacher talked about using a stuffed animal as a talking piece with her four children to check in how they were feeling when she got home from work in the evening. Some teachers started using students from other grade levels to have restorative chats with

76

students in their current classes. One teacher said that overall she felt that the staff has “gotten more personable” and that students “feel more structure and stability.”

Many teachers who were strong in using RD wanted the opportunity to do more. One teacher lobbied for months for support from administration for a girls’ group to address some ongoing gossip, bullying and drama she saw throughout the 6th grade, but did not get anywhere. Others talked about the importance of being able to have RD chats right at the moment of conflict, but if they were in the classroom alone that they could not do that. One teacher said, “That restorative chat had to happen right then and there. It’s not something ‘Oh let’s just follow up next week after school.’ It has to be done immediately and we don’t always have the opportunity to do that.”

Summary. In the third year of implementation most teachers felt that RD needed more support within the school to continue growing, and some felt that more should have been done already. The vast majority of teachers found creating respect agreements with their classes helpful, as well as focusing on building relationships with students early in the school year. Teachers reported the added benefit that this relational commitment from the beginning tended to improve student academic achievement as the year went on. Overall, teachers felt the commitment to RD in the school was not priority, and many reported experiencing a competition between RD and academic achievement, especially related to standardized testing. There were a lot of challenges in transition zones of the school, with teachers reporting that many students’ behavior became chaotic the minute they entered the hallway or had a substitute teacher. The Assistant Principal who had been acting as RD leader for these three years of implementation, whom most considered their RD guide or guru decided to leave at the end of the school year to pursue full time work as an RD consultant. Teachers were uncertain how RD would move forward without his passion.

Many teachers needed more support implementing RD, such as additional training or having circles facilitated for them in their classrooms. Some wanted more accountability from administration to push them to use RD more often, whereas others really ran with it and used RD creatively inside the classrooms and even in their own communities and homes. Yet there was limited support for teachers who wanted to do more RD, or teachers who understood it to help others who were learning. Although teachers, during the second semester, were invited to participate in an RD buddy system, none of them referenced this opportunity or taking advantage of it in the interviews.

Commitment to a Relational Model

Throughout the school, teachers and administrators built authentic relationships with students, some very strong. One teacher explained his commitment to RD: “I changed my way of thinking towards how the kids are and [now I] try to genuinely love them, each one.” Many were open and honest in a deeper way than they had been previously. A few teachers reported crying in front of students and seeing their students surprised that they cared so much. Students responded well to teachers’ sharing, asking for circles and looking forward to them, and teachers found it fun to get to know their students in a different way.

77

Student voice. Many teachers started to share power with students and make space for them to authentically express themselves in the school. Talking about circles and restorative conversations, one teacher explained the change in environment:

When I was in school, we didn’t get those…school’s about reading, math, science, social studies. It’s not about making you a deeper person, it’s about reason…but for a lot of our students…we need to think outside the box…and now with them they can get out their feelings and thoughts and feel like “I can actually talk about this” instead of keeping it in and then blowing up…they’re really getting life lessons rather than just the standard box of what we were normally used to.

A teacher who was not practicing much RD had a very moving experience one day when he sat down with his class for an impromptu restorative group conversation. The class discussion began with some things going on in the school, student behavior, some struggles students see that teachers have, and then one student who was usually very quiet said that she felt the entire culture of the school needed to change and that students needed to take learning more seriously and realize what an opportunity they each had in the country. She shared that her mother brought her to the U.S. two years ago from Mexico so they could have a better life and even commented on some immigration policy and a recent speech by President Obama. The teacher was so moved by the “wisdom” of her speech that he asked her to stay for the next two class periods and lead discussions with those classes as well. He said it, “made my week… I couldn’t wait to get home and tell my wife.”

Another teacher felt that his listening to students’ stories and sharing a few of his own allowed him to connect with them further and showed students that he cared in a way they did not expect, that “it’s making them know ‘It’s not just a job for him.’ “ Further, he felt students started to understand that he was not trying to shove information down their throats but that “I’m trying to teach you about life in the context of these things I have to teach you that are curriculum.” Many teachers discovered that creating a connection between curriculum and life lessons was really enlightening for students. One teacher asked her class to raise their hand if they thought they were good at math, and only a couple of hands went up. Then she asked students to raise their hands if they had been told they were not good at math, and almost everyone’s hand went up. Finally, she asked how many of them believed they were not good at math. She asked why and what could be done about this, and many students said they thought math was hard. The class discussion then turned into life lessons on following through on things that are hard, choosing not to feed the doubtful inner voice saying ‘I can’t do this’ and the rewarding feeling of achievement when completing a difficult task.

Teachers also were surprised what some students were struggling with when they took time to sit and listen to them, and how much it meant to students to be approached and asked what was going on with them. One teacher said he had not been paying much attention to a student who was quiet and did not cause trouble. When he sat down late in the school year and talked with her, she shared her fears about being held back and said that she already had repeated a grade once. She also said she hated him at the beginning of the year and now that he was talking with her she saw that he is actually cool and promised to work better in his class from then on. He said with that one thirty minute conversation

78

she “really just 180’d, just turned around like everything’s gotten better…work… attitude…I feel like it was neglect, I should’ve done this on the first day of school.”

A lot of teachers used circles to help students express themselves in tough times of year, like around STARR testing. One teacher used a circle to allow students to share with each other what to do if they feel anxious during the test, how to prepare beforehand to support themselves. She described it as “group therapy before the test” and said it also gave her the opportunity to give them perspective that “this doesn’t define you as a person…it’s not an intelligence test…it’s just a way to see what you’ve learned in this class and if you can put it in the way they want you to use it.” Other teachers used RD when they felt the students were too stirred up to pay attention in class and needed to talk about something. One said, “If I’m teaching physics on the board I have to get that out to clear whatever is inhibiting their learning,,,[I] also makes them feel better about it. They get a better understanding or they get to vent.”

Empathy. Many teachers reported relief that through RD students started to see them as “humans with feelings and challenges, not know-‐it-‐alls.” One teacher talked about his mindset shift from punishing a student coming into class cussing to “trying to meet him where he is and where he’s coming to me emotionally from…trying to connect with him enough to have him understand…in here these are the things that you have to do in order to express that [emotion].” Restorative discipline practices allowed teachers to better model empathy. When a student asked why the teacher was dealing with him differently than another student, the teacher offered the following analogy:

Look at it this way. You have a cut, I'm gonna give you a band aid. If he has a broken arm, do you expect me to give him a band aid?' He said “Well no, that doesn't make sense. Put a cast on it.” I said, “I'm giving you what you need. I'm giving him what he needs. What you both need is different.” So I'm looking at my classroom that way now. Who needs the band aid, who needs a pat on the back, who needs a hug, who needs a cast? You know, cause something is broken, and it's really been impactful for me cause I have had to look at things in a different light.

Students also increased their empathy. When a student walked out of class, the teacher gave her time to cool off. Then when she came back in, the teacher asked her to share how she was feeling. She told the class she was having a really bad day and the other students knew it and still chose to tease her, which made her upset and so she walked out. The teacher felt that really opened the students’ eyes to their impact on each other. Another teacher said she told a student, “Man, that’s kinda messed up what you said to me” and that the student felt bad, apologized and changed his behavior. Another teacher shared with her class that when they tell her a lesson is boring, she stays late to work on something better and ends up taking away time from being a mom to her own children. She reported that students responded with surprise and gratitude and some started working harder. Many teachers experienced that once one student shared something deep and started crying in a circle, many other students became “vulnerable and raw there in that moment.” Teachers were often surprised the direction and depth that a circle or restorative conversation went.

79

Teachers who were of minority ethnicity, who were male, and who grew up or lived in the neighborhood around the school felt they were at an advantage in implementing RD and relating to the students more easily. A few teachers who have been at the school for a long time have “taught whole families” and found students were more comfortable opening up with them. One said, “[B]eing an African American male I have an advantage because most of these kids are African American and Hispanic, so they relate to me because of that...I can say or do things that [other teachers] can’t.” A couple teachers attended Ed White when they were growing up and said they often use themselves as examples of how students are able to “surpass their circumstances” and pursue their dreams. Teachers also said when they see students in a grocery store or Walmart that students relax once they realize they live in the same neighborhood. One teacher talked about the importance of sharing her story with students to break through stereotypes, saying, “It’s important for teachers who are not of the same color. You have to open up with them. Cause they tell me ‘You don’t understand, you’re rich’ and they hear how I was when I was growing up…we ate potatoes, that was all we had…and they would realize ‘Oh my gosh, she didn’t grow up in a Leave It To Beaver type house.’ “

Mutual accountability. As teachers and students built more authentic relationships, teachers explained students’ impact on them, and students started holding teachers accountable for their actions as well. One teacher said she tells students when they do something to hurt her that, “You owe me. And what [are] we gonna do to work on our relationship?” Another said she pulls students aside and shares how their behavior feels for her, and asks, “What are you gonna do to make this better, how do we make this right in our classroom?” Another teacher had a classroom restorative conversation about the use of the word “nigger,” the history of it, how he felt when he heard students use it, and said to the class, “I’m not telling you to change how you talk to your movies in this setting. I’m making you understand that this setting is not something that is appropriate for it to be used, the reasons why, the way that people will perceive you, the effects long term of how people perceive you.” A teacher who learned students were being disrespectful behind her back said she talked to them about it, saying “You wanna be treated like an adult but this is what you’re doing outside my classroom” and “here’s how this makes me feel.”

Students also started holding teachers accountable for things. One teacher said she broke her part of the respect agreement by yelling in class, and the class called her out on it, so they agreed to a consequence. She said, “So they keep me accountable and so I keep them accountable.” Another teacher said she was “fussing” at her class for not completing a packet of work that she had given them by the due date, to which one student replied, “Remember when you said you would have such and such graded for us by such and such day?” That led to a class discussion on both teacher and students needing to “fulfill our responsibilities” and together they agreed on new due dates for both the packet and the grading. One teacher talked about how her class had a code word to use to help her calm down. She said,

Sometimes I have to talk myself down because…my first response is “You know better”…We actually have a code word so they say “Reset,” that’s their code word for “Miss R, reset.” I realized I need a cue as well…Sometimes I need to take it back a step.

80

Just remembering to ask them “Hey, how was lunch?” and doing that for them was huge but sometimes we forgot. It’s for them and for me. It tells me if there’s trauma or what and for them, they get to expel that energy verbally and we can move on.

Another student told her teacher that “sometimes you ask the wrong questions” in circle. He then told her to come up with questions for the next circle and said many of the students went a lot deeper with the students’ questions than they had with his, so that upon reflection he thought, “Man, I am asking the wrong questions!”

Being real. Many teachers found themselves being open and honest in a new way with students. One said, “Sometimes I’ll say ‘Do you want the real answer or the state of Texas’s answer?’ ” Teachers said that they were making “it a point to share with the kids. If I open myself up they become more readily available too.” Another teacher shared that his wife was in and out of the hospital and said to his students, “I need your compassion. You can give me your compassion by, I need you to do this quickly and quietly, let's get it done” and felt that the students really responded well. Another teacher was in and out of court to gain custody of her niece and said the students would check in and ask her how she was doing.

Teachers also apologized when they made mistakes. Many reported apologizing for being unclear about lessons or for yelling at students. Around STARR testing time one teacher sent out an email to others saying she realized she was projecting her frustration onto her students. This email helped another teacher see that she was doing the same thing in her classes, and both apologized to their students and felt a lot of tension release. A teacher said, “The one thing I have learned is that students are going to learn from people that they like.” She realized that it “wasn’t about me. It’s about getting to know them,” and was finding that there were always some points of connection no matter her or the students’ personalities.

As an added benefit, many teachers found that as the classroom culture changed into being more real, students started behaving differently with each other and stepping up more as leaders and being real with each other. One teacher shared a story in which two girls in class were arguing and creating a lot of tension, so she took them outside for a conversation, and without the teacher saying much, the girls started talking, with one saying, “I don’t like the way your attitude was to me” and the other replying, “Well I was having a bad day that day and I was giving attitude to everybody” to which the first girl said, “Yeah, I do that too.” That short interaction broke the tension and one shared that her mom had been incarcerated when she was a baby and got out recently and is with a man who doesn’t treat her well. The other girl said she didn’t like her mother’s boyfriend either. The teacher was amazed at how their aggression shifted so quickly into “now they have this commonality” and ultimately they became friends. Another teacher was talking with a student in the hallway about some “girl drama” when an older former student walked by and took over the restorative conversation. Pointing to the teacher, the older student said, “If it wasn’t for her I wouldn’t be an 8th grader today. I would still be a 7th grader. You need to figure out who your friends really are.” The teacher felt so proud of both students and said, “The kids have so much power when we allow them to be part of it. I mean he listened

81

to her. She was real, and he was just like wow, and then he started sharing some of his own personal things. I was like, this is amazing.”

Some teachers strategically asked specific older students to speak with their current students when they felt they had similar challenges and could offer a helpful perspective. One teacher talked about seeing a student heading in a bad direction and being reminded of a student who was now the president of the student council. She said:

I thought it would be good for her to talk to this girl…we sat down and I kind of briefly told her first why I was wanting her to talk to my 6th grader and I wish I would’ve filmed it. I told everybody, I was so moved by what went on, this peer telling this other girl about decisions... First of all she asked her, ‘What are you doing?’ and then she told her, ‘Yeah I was doing the same thing’ and about how she had changed herself and how she was upset because the coaches didn’t want her to play, and they’re both really tall. That was also what struck me because this other girl could be very athletic next year. So she said, “I was mad because the coaches didn’t want to deal with me because they had heard I was being bad and they didn’t want me. That hurt me because I knew what I could do and yet they were telling me no” and so that’s when she…gave her this great talk, and then these two girls that were just skipping in 7th grade sort of sat down with us and just started this conversation about rumors, how it hurts people and how you don’t wanna be a part of it, and she goes, “You may not even listen to me, you might hear me now and just go back to the room and do the same old thing but it’s gonna hit you” and I just, I barely said anything. , I kinda even felt like an outsider, I felt old…I know she planted a seed in one of them…and I’m so proud of her, and I just felt like it was a great moment of, this is what it’s all about…and so that girl, she’s been really good ever since…I was really proud to have been a part of that. It was good.

Summary. Using RD allowed space for students to share their perspectives and experience in a way that had not been available before. Many teachers were impressed with the spontaneous student leadership, or surprised by what was bothering students and grateful they took the time to get to know them better. Teachers reported that through the use of RD students were seeing them more as humans with feelings rather than know-‐it-‐alls trying to shove lessons into them. Further, teachers felt that students were showing more empathy with each other and were treating their classmates better. Many teachers shared power in a way that reflected the strength and depth of relationships within their classrooms. Not only were students more likely to listen and take to heart how they impacted a teacher or the class, students were also able to call teachers out for not sticking to their part of the respect agreement and hold them accountable. Finally, teachers enjoyed an openness and honesty with the students, and saw the students do the same with each other. There was ease over time in the relationships, an acceptance and an ability for people to be authentic and real with each other.

Overall Summary of Themes

The third year of implementation of RD at Ed White consisted of four main themes. The first was “Into the unknown.” Teachers navigated new territory this year implementing RD throughout the entire school, struggling to hold onto a shared vision of RD. Most had a

82

hard time setting boundaries and understanding the difference between punishment and accountability, yet nearly every teacher felt that something was working. The second theme was “Whose responsibility is this?” The school experienced challenges around roles and responsibilities, and teachers struggled to make time for circles without built-‐in check-‐in, check-‐up and check-‐out circles. Students who needed extra attention, called intensive students, were a source of frustration. In addition, there was a lot of discord between teachers and administrators. Overall the 6th grade behaved as the strongest team, 7th grade was starting to get the hang of RD, and 8th grade teachers resisted RD.

The third theme was “Systemic limits of RD practices in school.” Teachers felt that RD needed more support to continue growing. The vast majority of teachers found creating respect agreements with their classes helpful, as well as focusing on building relationships with students early in the school year. Overall, teachers said the commitment to RD in the school was not a priority. There were a lot of challenges in transition zones. With the Assistant Principal who had been acting as RD leader for these three years of implementation leaving at end of the school year, teachers were uncertain how RD would move forward. Many needed more support and training, while others really embraced and used RD creatively. The fourth theme was “Commitment to a relational model.” Many teachers were impressed with the voice RD gave to students and enjoyed getting to know their students better. Teachers reported that students were more empathetic, and overall teachers and students were more authentic with each other.

Certain elements appeared in all four themes. The need for a shared vision of Ed White as a relational school was a clear need in the school. The importance of RD in the school this year was diminished compared to the previous two years of implementation. Teacher frustration was strong throughout this third year of implementation and was highlighted by the need for improved communication between teachers and administrators. This frustration was exacerbated by an overall uncertainty about roles and responsibilities in the school. The time and attention needed by intensive students, and debate, conflict and uncertainty about whose role it was to provide support for them, created a lot of conflict in the school. Distrust and tension between teachers and administrators was prominent. This tension and role uncertainty filtered down to the students, and many teachers found students pushing boundaries in ways they had not experienced before. When teachers did not know what to do and looked to administration for support, they were mostly disappointed. Many teachers focused on using restorative conversations to build relationships with students. It may take more time to build relationships in this piecemeal fashion compared with whole-‐class circles, yet teachers found these easier to practice and to make time for, given their limited knowledge and training. Indeed, many cited the need for additional training or support to do circles more often in their classrooms, and without administrative support for regular check-‐in, check-‐up and check-‐out circles each week, few teachers could justify taking instruction time to do a circle unless there was an incident that needed to be addressed.

Discussion

In Year 3 the RD program reached full implementation in all grades. Behavior outcomes specific to disciplinary actions, offense referrals, offense frequencies, truancies, and

83

achievement performance, findings from climate surveys, and results from teacher and administrator interviews about their implementation experiences all point to a rocky year where gains from Year 2 began to unravel. Although teachers and administrators are vocally supportive of RD, this turn of events has raised question about RD’s sustainability. The concern is intensified because the Principal who brought RD to the campus and the AP who served as the school’s leader for RD implementation left Ed White in June, 2015. Although their new jobs allow for a more concentrated focus and expansion of RD, their leaving is a loss for Ed White and removes some of the props that held RD together.

Contradictions in Outcomes

Results from the Year 3 implementation suggest a number of contradictions. For example, RD went whole school, which meant that the number of students impacted increased by a third. At the same time, there was less use of the Circle It process for student-‐to-‐student conflicts or student teacher altercations. More precisely, in Year 1, there were 331 students involved in RD and 350 student generated circles or conferences were held. In Year 3, there were 875 students involved in RD but the number of student generated restorative practices dropped to 77.

Another contradiction is the increase in disciplinary actions but decrease in use of teacher and administrator-‐facilitated conferences and circles. Specifically, there was a 37% increase in 6th grade suspensions and in office referrals for both 7th and 8th compared to Year 2. Moreover, offense frequencies increased because of the addition of the 8th graders making the total 3,139 in Year 3 compared to 2,180 in Year 2. In contrast, 6th grade teachers facilitated only 5 circles or conferences in Year 3 compared to 203 in Year 1. Similarly, 7th grade teachers facilitated none this year compared to 6 in Year 2. In Year 3, 8th grade teachers facilitated only 2. The numbers for administrators, who are responsible for responding to Tier 2 and Tier 3 behaviors, show a similar trend. The 6th, 7th and 8th grades had 37, 6, and 65 administrator-‐led circles and conferences respectively.

The need for RD in Year 3 was strong. Student mobility, which was the highest in the district in Year 2, jumped even higher from 68% to 80%. Moreover, there was growing concern about teacher turnover. A major fallout from this constant churning is pronounced difficulty with the kind of permanence and continuity necessary for instilling shared values or building the relationships that are the core constituents of RD. Instead of additional supports to help weather the constancy of exits and entrances, Ed White, because of its fixed budget, lack of available consultation, and prioritications were not able to expand the resources. For example, there was no external consultant two days a week and exceedingly limited use of IRJRD. The RD administrative facilitator was not available for a number of weeks, and the AP for the 8th grade was also the RD Administrative Liaison, which meant he wore two hats which were often contradictory, i.e. an authority figure as well as a person embodying values such as inclusive decision making. Finally, the use of check in, check up and check out circles which provided some regular structure for students and teachers to be in circle in Year 2 was removed and replaced with bimonthly proactive circles. None of the teachers volunteered any comments about this new structure, suggesting that the use of proactive circles was sporadic and generally non impactful.

84

Lack of Resources and Investment

Besides the contradictions that point to a possible unraveling, there was also a lack of investment and resources to buttress RD implementation. Specifically, there has been a marked need for an RD Coordinator throughout the implementation process and particularly so during Year 3 when there was no two-‐day a week external consultant. Further, for the AP to also be the Coordinator created confusion because teachers were expected to jump psychological hoops in interacting in a trusting and honest way with an authority figure to whom they reported. Likewise, the person responsible for setting standards and limits was expected to engage as well in a non-‐judgmental and permission-‐giving manner to allay resistance and help teachers build skills and engage restoratively.

There were also continued problems with teachers’ lack of training in doing circles and in using Tier 2 and Tier 3 practices. Teachers were expected to handle the more challenging students themselves both because of their centrality in being the pivotal person in the student’s daily life and also to cut back on the habit of using a force external to themselves to address student behavior. Being new to RD, many teachers, however, did not realize that more advanced RD skills existed for Tier 2 and Tier 3 behaviors. In focus groups and individual interviews they regularly complained about challenging students who impeded the learning of others but with no tools to pull on, were inclined to fault RD and resort outside of it to punitive measures. Indeed, it is possible that the teachers’ discomfort with and limited use of teacher facilitated circles and their reliance on restorative chats and building one-‐on-‐one relationships, though useful, may have occurred because they were bereft of resources they needed for successful implementation.

Teachers also seemed confused about boundaries, setting limits and the use of consequences. They commonly felt that RD had no impact because it was devoid of consequences. When they would send challenging students to the AP, students would return to the classroom without teachers being informed about what happened. Frequently, students would again misbehave without the teacher having knowledge from the AP about how to build on the results from the AP’s engagement with the student. These dynamics created pressure cooker climates for teachers and students such that some teachers, forced back upon themselves, began sending troublesome students to teachers who could better manage their behavior and to get a break. Of note is the fact that students also began to hold each other more accountable for how they had interrupted or disturbed learning. Important though is the fact that teachers and administrators alike needed circle-‐based discussions and assistance in thinking through the changes in their roles as well as skills in the development of meaningful accountability agreements to counter the confusion about consequences. Although some efforts were made to allocate time for professional development, there was not sufficient time or resources given to bolster teachers’ needs.

There was, as well, a lack of clear direction from administration about the structure of RD at Ed White and its modeling. Teachers complained in both individual interviews and focus groups about: the expectation and lack of prioritization of RD; the need for more structure-‐specific to support; expectations and teacher accountability; problems with truancy which also were assigned to teachers to manage; and lack of organization in regulating transition

85

zones between class periods. These concerns about support structures had been voiced numerous times to the evaluators in Years 1-‐2 and were even more urgent this year.

The final manifestation of limited resources and investment was the growing lack of communication between teachers and administrators. Teachers noted that they were not included in the RD conferences with students outside the classroom. Besides the fact that results from these conferences were often not communicated, abrupt changes might be made to a student’s teachers, and there was limited to no integration of students back with their classmates after they had been pulled from the class for behavior issues.

Although Ed White has invested time and attention in moving from a punitive to a relational model and has enjoyed strong success in Years 1 and 2, the focus has been principally on the students. The school is committed to a whole school model that includes not just students but changes, as well, for teachers, administrators, and persons in all the support systems that help the school function. The concerns voiced primarily by teachers suggest that their needs have been neglected. Although they are considered critical to the students’ education and building positive relationships, what is essential for doing their job has not been made a priority. In many ways, they have been asked to make a major shift in their attitudes and behaviors without the resources necessary to be successful.

Consequences

The frustrations of many teachers and other personnel have fed some of the outcomes and implications for RD in Year 3. Specifically, although in-‐school suspensions decreased in 7th and 8th grades, office referrals, which are usually made by teachers, increased substantially in 7th and 8th grades. The largest rise was 74% and occurred in the 8th grade during the 4th 9 weeks of the school year. Without question, 8th grade teachers who were in their first year of RD, struggled more than the other grades in the three-‐year RD implementation process. The contradiction between reduced in-‐school suspensions and increased office referrals for the same grades suggests that administrators may not have responded to the referrals using traditional methods such as suspensions. The contradiction may also be an illustration of the discord between teachers and administrators about how to respond to student behavior

There were also drops in student performance in year 3 based on STARR test results. Although there were changes to the test and testing procedures that confuse the results as well as changes in the baseline for comparison, scores decreased in reading and writing, and the Year 2 notable STARR gains for special education students dropped 16% as well.

Consequences related to some of the issues already mentioned were evident in the decreases in SCS mean scores for staff, student and parent/caregiver groups. This information is particularly noteworthy because it focuses directly on stakeholders’ opinions about school climate. The final staff scores in Year 3 ended up just slightly above their scores at the beginning of Year 1. Mean SCS scores for the RD pilot student group show an overall improvement from Year 1 to Year 3 with a worsening of school climate over time during Year 3. This decrease likely reflects students’ experiences in the 8th grade, which were tainted by problematic relationships as reported by teachers in individual

86

interviews and focus groups. Parent groups follow a similar pattern. Seventh grade parents show little change, but 8th grade parent mean scores drop radically with increasing negativity through the year. When compared to Year 1, SCS parent scores at the end of Year 3, similar to the teachers, are at the same level as they were starting RD implementation.

As previously mentioned, a major consequence of the problems this year is the adversarial environment between many of the teachers and some of the administrators. Together they engaged in a stand off where an Assistant Principal waited for teachers to come for help and guidance and teachers, in turn, waited for the this person to be more forthcoming in communication. This dynamic replicated some of the pre-‐RD interactions between students and teachers when teachers (like the administrator) would feel attacked and students (like the teachers) felt mistrustful, feeling that the teachers (like the administrator) weren’t giving enough. Unfortunately, this lack of cohesion among the adults remained stalled. Because RD processes such as circles were only used with students, there was no normative structure to address the adversarial climate or teacher concerns by using RD circles or conferences. This left various players alone in their camps and resentful.

Differences Between Grade Levels

Although the 6th grade shared some of issues such as increases in in-‐school suspension rates, the cohort and its teachers did not reflect many of the trends that surfaced. Morale among the teachers stayed high and they worked as a team with the AP. In contrast to the other grades, for example, they were intentional in planning proactive circle topics together at the beginning of the second semester. Moreover, as office referrals increased for 7th and 8th grades, they dropped 58% in the 6th grade. The 6th grade also had the lowest levels of student offenses as well as the lowest rates of truancy and was the only grade level to work together to use RD classroom circles to reduce truancy. Administrator-‐led circles increased 60% (n=37) compared to Year 2. Student SCS mean scores dipped slightly during the year but were higher in Year 3 than in Years 1 and 2.

It is speculative as to what occurred for the Year 3 6th grade cohort so that the results specific to behavior outcomes and climate surveys are distinctly different from the 7th and 8th grades. It is possible that because the 6th grade level has had RD the longest, teacher familiarity and skill level may be more advanced than in the other grades. The AP in Year 3 for the 6th grade had been the 8th grade principal in Years 1 and 2. She, therefore, had the opportunity to watch RD evolve before having to implement it. She also had the advantage of administering it this year at a grade level that had been using it for two years. It is possible that learning from her unique vantage point equipped her to bypass some of the difficulties and assist the 6th grade teachers as well.

The 8th grade stands out because of the teachers’ resistance to RD. Students in the 8th grade comprised the RD pilot group and were in their third year of RD. Although teachers had observed the process for two years, their training was delayed until Year 3 when the 8th grade was added to the implementation. Students and teachers started the year with disparate levels of knowledge about RD. Students were well versed in circles and many of them had participated in numerous circles and conferences. In contrast, the 8th grade

87

teachers were new to RD, which likely exacerbated issues related to their authority and power in the classroom. Moreover, many of the teachers were proud of their accomplishments with former cohorts and were surprised when processes they had used in prior years did not work well with this year’s cohort. Given this development, it may have been better to have introduced the 8th grade teachers to RD earlier in the three-‐year implementation process.

Relationship Building: The Bright Light

Despite the challenges, teachers and administrators who have been at Ed White for a few years talked about the school having a better climate especially related to student behavior. They described that students were more responsible and caring. As students were reportedly more aware of how their peers felt, they had more empathy and apologized more to each other. Students were also learning to self-‐regulate.

The value of authenticity seemed most evident in teachers’ descriptions of and relationships with students. Many teachers were pleasantly surprised by how honest students were, and many adults were open and honest in a deeper way than they had been previously. A few teachers even reported crying and being very vulnerable in front of students. Students generally responded really well to teachers’ sharing, asked for circles and looked forward to them, and teachers enjoyed getting to know students in a different way. Many teachers also started to share power with students and make space for them to authentically express themselves through the use of classroom community-‐building circles and one-‐on-‐one conversations. It was common for teachers to say that once one student shared something deep, many other students became open and vulnerable and that the circle went a direction that was unexpected. Most felt that student empathy increased. And as caring, authentic relationships grew, teachers explained students’ impact on them. Students then began to hold teachers accountable for their actions as well. Teachers apologized when they made mistakes, and often found that as the classroom culture changed, students started behaving differently and stepping up into leadership roles among their peers. In this regard, it is important to note that relationship building is not a simple process. Because teachers relied principally on building one-‐on-‐one relationships with students and doing restorative chats rather than circles, they likely honed their relationship skills and grew in their confidence to use these skills over their assertion of authority.

An important challenge at Ed White is that the majority of teachers and staff were White females, and a majority of students and parents/caregivers identified as Hispanic, followed by African-‐American and then White. Teachers who were of minority ethnicity, male, or who grew up or lived in the neighborhood around the school indicated that they had an easier time implementing RD and relating to the students. A few said they found it helpful to use themselves as examples of how students can pursue their dreams no matter their backgrounds or circumstances growing up. One White female teacher talked about the importance of sharing her story with students to break through stereotypes, and many said that student attitudes towards them changed when they ran into each other in a neighborhood grocery store or Walmart.

88

Despite a lot of challenges, nearly every teacher felt that something was working, that RD was changing the school for the better. Most saw students individually maturing, and those who had been at Ed White for a few years reported that overall the climate of the school and level of negative conflict has decreased since RD implementation.

Future RD Implementation at Ed White.

Ed White has done a lot of work in Years 1-‐3 to advance RD in different grade levels. However, the school now needs to make some substantial changes throughout the school for RD implementation to be successful. The changes begin with an affirmation of prioritization of RD and a corresponding dedication of time and resources.

The necessary changes are both concrete and conceptual. Some concrete recommendations include the following: (1) designate an RD coordinator for the school; (2) offer teachers and administrators additional RD support and professional development during the school year; (3) create opportunities for student leadership in RD implementation; (4) offer Tier 2 and Tier 3 trainings to teach additional RD skills including meaningful accountability agreements; (5) use RD in faculty meetings; (6) plan time for the increased use of RD circles and conferences in peak times of stress in the school; and (7) involve parents/caregivers and other community members in RD processes.

Although many, if not most, of these concrete recommendations were made in the Year 1 and Year 2 evaluations, few were implemented. To assist in their fuller utilization, there must be understanding, as well, of the conceptual underpinnings and logic about how the individual pieces fit together to actualize the values on which RD is built. For example, school climate reflects the quality of all the relationships in a school. To that end, offering training to everyone is a way to honor and model the value of inclusivity. Moreover, when everyone feels valued and is included in decision-‐making in a school, there is a sense of community, belonging and team spirit that fosters resilience and creates an environment grounded in high expectations for all. This example demonstrates that just the offering of training to everyone does more than ensure fidelity. It actually builds community, which is the core of a positive school climate.

Another conceptual underpinning has to do with implementing practices and procedures that utilize restorative values. To that end, it is important to understand that the traditional disciplinary models that are built on rewards and punishments encourage self-‐centered motives and dependency on others for approval. Concrete recommendations such as use of RD in faculty meetings, opportunities for student leadership in RD implementation and opportunities for teachers to build positive relationships with each other and administrators instead encourage the RD values of mutual respect and appreciation, agency and belief in people’s ability to self regulate, empowerment through the opportunity to share one’s story, celebration of diversity, an inclusive approach to decision making, and congruence between beliefs and actions.

A third conceptual underpinning involves intentional planning specific to the use of RD practices to encourage academic engagement, which has been shown to be the strongest predictor of achievement (Bono, 2011). Recommendations listed above that encourage

89

that engagement include: RD training for students; Tier 2 and Tier 3 teacher skill training; installation of structures of accountability; intensifying use of RD practices during peak times of stress; and creating programs for specific issues, e.g. safety of possessions. These concrete recommendations collectively build a stronger safety net around students that further their classroom concentration by inducing calm and use of higher cortical centers in the brain. Moreover, in terms of intentional planning, academic engagement is further augmented through specific RD practices including: (1) integrating “getting to know you” activities into classroom instruction and faculty meetings; (2) providing opportunities for students and teachers to safely share community-‐specific experiences and aspects of their identities; and (3) identifying strengths and avoiding defining people by deficits.

Ed White has done a lot of work in the first three years of implementation. The next years are crucial in several ways. First, the results from Year 3 suggest that the school is teetering between undoing its gains and moving forward. In order to solidify its initial progress, it must do remedial work with a strong focus on teacher training throughout the year, use RD practices in faculty meetings and for improving relationships between teachers and administrators and the development of procedural systems that explicitly link to RD values while also increasing clarity, inclusivity and accountability.

Second, Ed White holds a position of prominence in the state because it was the first school to implement RD under the pioneering vision of its principal. As such, it has become a laboratory for the state and many watch carefully both as a model and a testimony to what does and does not work. Although this rise in status sets high expectations, Ed White likely has a responsibility not just to itself but to the movement it started throughout Texas and the impact its future has as well. To that end, it is strongly advised that the school invest its resources and those of the district to procure the additional support necessary for making the recommended changes. Because of the groundwork that has been laid, the potential for payoff is high. Because of the trends seen this year, the potential for backsliding, unfortunately, is also high.

Conclusions

The following are recommendations based on the first three years of implementation of RD at Ed White, with implications for next steps in the implementation plan. Many, if not most of these recommendations were made in the Year 1 and Year 2 evaluations.

• Designate/hire an RD coordinator for the school who has no other role in the school, preferably working full-‐time on-‐campus. The person preferably should reflect the cultural makeup of the student body.

• Create a school-‐wide RD vision for Ed White as a relational school with participation

of the RD coordinator, teachers, administrators, parents and students. Clarify values and outline a strategic plan consistent with the vision. The strategic plan should focus on four areas: systems (e.g. disciplinary system, behavioral system), learning and growth (e.g. professional development), resourcing (e.g. yearly cost for professional development, staffing coverage) and policy (e.g. vision, mission, referral process).

90

• Offer teachers and administrators ongoing RD support, mentoring and training

during the school year, including opportunities for reflection and feedback. Provide a firm staffing coverage plan to ensure teachers can facilitate and participate in circles.

• Offer RD training to students, parents, community members and all staff members.

• Facilitate more opportunities for teachers to build positive relationships with each

other and with administrators both informally and through embedding circle processes in meetings and using them with regularity.

• Create opportunities for student leadership in RD implementation.

• Offer Tier 2 and Tier 3 trainings to members of the Leadership Response Team and

teachers. As well teach additional RD skills, such as creation and implementation of meaningful accountability agreements and involvement of parents through Family Group Conferences.

• Set up stronger structures of support such as Circles of Support and Accountability for students needing more intensive interventions.

• Develop procedures and plans with faculty representatives for ensuring fidelity

including consistent and effective use of RD. Create accountability and support structures for teachers and administrators to regularly check in on RD implementation.

• Use RD circles in faculty meetings.

• Plan time for the increased use of RD circles and conferences in peak stress times

such as October and during STARR testing.

• Reinstitute the check in, check up and check out circles. Support the creation of RD programs such as regular circles to address issues such as bullying, gossiping and safety of possessions.

• Develop procedures and mechanisms for information sharing about student

involvement in RD processes outside the classroom as well as reintegrating students if they have been removed from the classroom.

• Offer targeted support to teachers struggling with RD.

91

References

2015 Accountability Ratings. Texas Education Agency. Retrieved September 25, 2015 from: http://ritter.tea.state.tx.us/perfreport/account/2015/index.html

Bergren, D. (2014). The Impact of School Climate on Student Achievement in the Middle Schools of the Commonwealth of Virginia: A Quantitative Analysis of Existing Data (Doctoral dissertation, George Washington University). Retrieved September 10, 2015 from: http://www.gradworks.umi.com/3615518.pdf

CADEM. (2014). Our California: Support for the implementation of restorative justice policies for all California school districts. Retrieved from http://www.cadem.org/our-‐california/resolutions/2014/support-‐for-‐the-‐implementation-‐of-‐restorative-‐justice-‐policies-‐for-‐all-‐california-‐school-‐districts

Chicago Public Schools Policy Manual, 2015, July 22). Student Code of Conduct for Chicago Public Schools. Retrieved from http://policy.cps.edu/download.aspx?ID=263

Chute, E. (2014, October 22). Pittsburgh schools get $3 million grant for restorative

practices. Pittsburgh Post-‐Gazette.

Daly, K. (2003). Mind the gap: Restorative justice in theory and practice. In von Hirsch, A., Roberts, J., Bottoms, A., Roach, K. & Schiff, M. (Eds.), Restorative justice and criminal justice: Competing or reconcilable paradigms, 219-‐36.

Davidson, C. (2014). Restorative justice and the prevention of youth reoffending. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Newcastle). Retrieved October 1, 2015 from: https://theses.ncl.ac.uk/dspace/bitstream/10443/2682/1/Davidson,%20C.%202014%20DAppEdPsy.pdf

Dayton Public Schools. (2014). Student Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://www.dps.k12.oh.us/students-‐parents/student-‐information/student-‐code-‐of-‐conduct/

Dorfman, D. A. (2014). Implementing the New School Discipline Law: Chapter 222 of the Acts of 2012. Retrieved from http://www.massappleseed.org/pdfs/events/school_climates/dorfman_050214.pdf

Doza, S. (2015, June 26). Students, parents, teachers and advocates applaud $2.4M speaker I\initiative to support restorative justice in New York City schools. Retrieved from http://www.dignityinschools.org/press-‐release/students-‐parents-‐teachers-‐and-‐advocates-‐applaud-‐24m-‐speaker-‐initiative-‐support-‐restora

92

Drewery, W. (2014). Restorative Practice in New Zealand Schools: Social development through relational justice, Educational Philosophy and Theory: Incorporating ACCESS, 1-‐13. doi: 10.1080/00131857.2014.989951

Engaging Schools (2014, October 2). Syracuse City schools move to restorative discipline

with new Code of Conduct. Retrieved from http://engagingschools.org/773/

Flannery, M.E. (2014). NEA and partners promote restorative justice in schools. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2014/03/24/nea-and-partners-promote-restorative-justice-in-schools/

Fowler, D., Mergler, M., Johnson, K. & Craven, M. (2015). Class, Not Court: Reconsidering Texas’ Criminalization of Truancy. Texas Appleseed. Available at: http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/Truancy-‐Appleseed.pdf

Gagne, M. (2014, April 27). District changing Code of Conduct, taking ‘restorative justice’

approach to correction. The Harold News. Retrieved from http://www.heraldnews.com/article/20140427/NEWS/140427031

Gardner, T. (2014). Make students part of the solution, not the problem. Phi Delta Kappan, 96(2), 8-‐12.

Gregory, A., Bell, J., & Pollock, M. (2014). How educators can eradicate disparities in school discipline: A briefing paper on school-‐based interventions. Discipline Disparities Series: Interventions, March. The Equity Project at Indiana University, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.

Hopkins, B. (2003). Just schools: A whole school approach to restorative justice. Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

Important changes to the Texas Assessment Program in the 2014-‐2015 school year. (August 29, 2014). Texas Education Agency. Retrieved on September 25, 2015 from: http://tea.texas.gov/About_TEA/News_and_Multimedia/Correspondence/TAA_Letters/Important_Changes_to_the_Texas_Assessment_Program_in_the_2014%E2%80%932015_School_Year/

Jain, S., Bassey, H., Brown, M. & Kalra, P. (2014). Restorative Justice in Oakland Schools Implementation and Impacts Report: An Effective Strategy to Reduce Radically Disproportionate Discipline, Suspension and Improve Academic Outcomes. Prepared for the Office of Civil Rights, U.S. Department of Education. Available at: http://www.ousd.org/cms/lib07/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/134/OUSD-‐RJ%20Report%20revised%20Final.pdf

Kelly, V. & Thorsborne, M. (Eds.). The Psychology of Emotion in Restorative Practice: How

Affect Script Psychology Explains How and Why Restorative Practice Works. (2014). Philadelphia, PA: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

93

Los Angeles Unified School District Policy Bulletin. (2014, February 14). Discipline Foundation Policy: School-‐Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Support. Retrieved from http://achieve.lausd.net/cms/lib08/CA01000043/Centricity/domain/576/operations/BUL-‐%206231.0%20DISCIPLINE%20FOUNDATION%20POLICY.pdf

Macready, T. (2009). Learning social responsibility in schools: a restorative practice. Educational Psychology in Practice, 25(3), 211-‐220. doi: 10.1080/0266736090315176

Mullet, J. (2014). Restorative Discipline: From Getting Even to Getting Well. Children & Schools, 36(3), 157-‐162. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdu011

Oakland Unified School District. (2014). Restorative justice in Oakland schools

implementation and impacts: An effective strategy to reduce racially disproportionate discipline, suspensions and improve academic outcomes. Retrieved from http://www.ousd.org/cms/lib07/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/134/OUSD-‐RJ%20Report%20revised%20Final.pdf

Payne, A. & Welch, K. (2013). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on restorative discipline. Youth & Society 47(4), 539-‐564. doi: 0044118X12473125.

Resolution Of The Board Of Education Of The Oakland Unified School District. (2013). Resolution No. 0910-‐0120 Restorative Justice. Retrieved from http://www.fixschooldiscipline.org/wp-‐content/uploads/2013/01/17.Oakland-‐USD-‐Board-‐Resolution.pdf

Restorative Justice: What it is and is not. (2014). Rethinking Schools, 29(1). Retrieved from:

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/29_01/edit1291.shtml Rowe, C. (2015, October 30). In school discipline, intervention may work better than

punishment. The Seattle Times: Education. Retrieved from http://old.seattletimes.com/html/education/2025538481_edlabrestorativejusticexml.html

Saenz, V. (2015, October 15). New Texas school truancy law is a step in right direction. The

Hill Blog. Retrieved from: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-‐blog/education/256927-‐new-‐texas-‐school-‐truancy-‐law-‐is-‐a-‐step-‐in-‐right-‐direction

Schott Foundation for Public Education. (2013, Sept. 13). Boston takes the lead in MA

discipline reform. Retrieved from http://schottfoundation.org/blog/2013/09/13/boston-‐takes-‐lead-‐ma-‐discipline-‐reform

94

Thomas, G., & Ruddy, S. (2015). Restorative justice: a changing community response. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education 7(2), 253-‐276. doi: 10.1080/03057640802063262.

Umbreit, M. & Armour, M. (2010). Restorative justice dialogue: An essential guide for research and practice. New York, NY: Springer Publishing.

Vaandering, D. (2014). Implementing restorative justice practice in schools: what pedagogy reveals. Journal of Peace Education, 11(1), 64-‐80. doi: 10.1080/17400201.2013.794335

Varnham, S. (2005). Seeing things differently: restorative justice and school discipline. Education and the Law, 17(3), 87-‐104.

Wachtel, J. (2013). HIN to fund first randomized controlled trials for restorative practices in 16 Maine schools. Restorative Works. Retrieved from https://restorativeworks.net/2013/09/nih-‐fund-‐first-‐randomized-‐control-‐trials-‐restorative-‐practices-‐16-‐maine-‐schools/

Williams, M. Texas Focusing on Restorative Discipline. (2015, June 12). Texas Education Agency, Commissioner Blog. Accessed on October 15, 2015. Available at: http://tea.texas.gov/Home/Commissioner_Blog/Texas_Focusing_on_Restorative_Discipline

95

Appendices

APPENDIX A. School Climate Surveys 95

APPENDIX B. Circle-‐It Form 99

APPENDIX C. Circle/Conference Agreement Form 100

APPENDIX D. Weekly Teacher Interview Guide 102

APPENDIX E. Focus Group Guide: Teachers 103

APPENDIX F. Focus Group Guide: LRT 104

APPENDIX G. 2015 Accountability Summary 105

96

APPENDIX A. School Climate Surveys

CLIMATE SURVEY FOR STUDENTS

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Your answers will help the researchers find out how helpful Restorative Discipline (circles) is to the Ed White Middle School students.

What is your gender? ☐ Male ☐ Female What grade are you in? ☐ 6th ☐ 7th ☐ 8th Which one or more of the following would you say is your race or ethnicity? Check all that apply: ☐ American Indian, Alaska Native ☐ Asian ☐ Black or African American ☐ Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin ☐ Pacific Islander ☐ White ☐ Other, please specify: ________________

Please check one box for each statement Nearly Always

Mostly Sometimes Rarely/ Never

Unsure

1 I show respect for the teachers and staff in this school.

2 The teachers and staff show me respect in this school.

3 The school asks my parents/caregivers to help sort out my problems at school.

4 In school I am encouraged to help sort out my own problems.

5 Disagreements are normally sorted out.

6 When people (students or adults) are in disagreement in this school, everyone is listened to.

7 If I harm (e.g., upset), bully or assault someone at this school, I get a chance to change my behavior and put things right.

8 If someone harms me at this school, I am able to say how things can be made better.

9 At this school, when someone does something wrong or harms others, all involved help decide how things can be made better.

10 In cases of bullying, the person harmed is asked to say what could be done to make things better.

11 When someone does something harmful, those involved help to decide how similar incidents could be avoided in the future.

12 When a student causes harm the main response by the school is a sanction or punishment.

13 My possessions are safe at school.

Please add any further comments below.

97


CLIMATE SURVEY FOR STAFF

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Your answers will be used to help find out how effectively the Restorative Discipline Program is being used at Ed White Middle School. What is your gender? ☐ Male ☐ Female What grade level do you teach? ☐ 6th ☐ 7th ☐ 8th ☐ Mixed grades Which one or more of the following would you say is your race or ethnicity? Check all that apply: ☐ American Indian, Alaska Native ☐ Asian ☐ Black or African American ☐ Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin ☐ Pacific Islander ☐ White ☐ Other, please specify: ____________ Please check one box for each statement: Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree Unsure

1 There is no place in meetings with students for emotions and feelings.

2 The people involved in a conflict need to agree on a way forward.

3 When someone causes harm you lose respect for that person.

4 It is best that people who are harmed do not meet the person who harmed them.

5 People who cause harm should be punished.

6 It is important that the person who has caused harm is given support to change their behavior.

7 When someone causes harm they should be allowed to make amends.

Please check one box for each statement Strongly

Agree Agree Disagree Strongly

Disagree Unsure

1 Students and staff communicate to each other in a respectful way.

2 The parents/caregivers of students relate to me in a respectful way.

3 The students and their parents/caregivers are invited to contribute to resolving school problems that affect them.

4 I am allowed to contribute to solving school-based problems that affect me.

5 Within this school, disagreements are normally resolved effectively

98

6 When students, staff and/or parents are in conflict, everyone’s views are listened to.

7 Students are given opportunities to make amends if they are responsible for causing harm.

8 When a student causes harm the main response by the school is a sanction or punishment.

9 In cases of bullying, the person harmed is asked to say what could be done to make things better.

10 When someone does something harmful, those involved help to decide how similar incidents could be avoided in the future.

Please indicate what level of staff development you have had in Restorative Discipline Program Practice. Check all that apply.

A. None

B. Awareness-raising session(s) and/or conferences

C. Training in specific Restorative Interventions, e.g. circles, mediation, family group conferencing

Only if you have checked box C above, please complete the first two questions below.

If you checked A or B, go to the last question.

How, if at all, has your experience of Restorative Discipline Program changed your practice?

How, if at all, has Restorative Discipline Program changed the atmosphere and in the school as a whole?

Please add any further comments below.

99


CLIMATE SURVEY FOR PARENTS AND CAREGIVERS

Thank you for agreeing to complete this survey. Your answers will be used to help find out how effectively the Restorative Discipline Program is being used at Ed White Middle School. What is your gender? ☐ Male ☐ Female What grade is your child / children in? ☐ 6th ☐ 7th ☐ 8th ☐ more than one grade Which one or more of the following would you say is your race or ethnicity? Check all that apply:

☐ American Indian, Alaska Native ☐ Asian ☐ Black or African American ☐ Hispanic, Latino/a, or Spanish origin ☐ Pacific Islander ☐ White ☐ Other, please specify: ________________ Please check one box for each statement Nearly

Always Mostly Sometimes Rarely/

Never Unsure

1 Students and teachers/staff communicate to each other in a respectful way.

2 Teachers and staff communicate to me in a respectful way.

3 The students are invited to contribute to resolving problems that affect them.

4 I am allowed to contribute to solving problems that affect my child/children

5 When students, teachers/staff and/or parents are in conflict, everyone’s views are listened to.

6 Disagreements are normally resolved effectively.

7 When a student does something wrong they are given a chance to put things right.

8 In cases of bullying, the person harmed is asked what could be done to make things better.

9 When someone does something harmful, everyone involved helps decide how it can be avoided in the future.

10 A student’s possessions are safe at this school.

Please add any further comments below:

100

91

!

APPENDIX B. Circle-It Form

Circle!it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Today! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tomorrow!!

Today! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tomorrow!

!!!!!!!!Your!name:!______________________________________!When!did!this!happen:!______________________________!Today’s!date:!!_____________________________________!!Other!person’s!name:!____________________________________!Other!person’s!name:!____________________________________!Other!person’s!name:!____________________________________!Other!person’s!name:!____________________________________!!!

101

92

!

APPENDIX C. Circle/Conference Agreement Form

!Circle!/!Conference!Agreement!Form!

(To!be!filled!out!during!each!circle!/!conference!as!agreement!is!reached.)!1. Background!Information!!Date:!!Participants:!(name!and!grade)!!!!!!!2. Incident!or!Concern:!

3. !Agreement!Details:!!How!the!harm!will!be!repaired:!!!!!How!the!harm!will!be!avoided!in!the!future:!!!!!How!the!person!who!did!the!harm!will!give!back!to!the!community:!!!!!What!support!will!be!give!to!the!person!who!was!harmed:!!

102

93 !

!4. !Monitoring!Plan!Tasks!(include!final!check7in!as!last!task)!By!Who?!!By!When?!!!!!!!!!!5. !Additional!Notes:!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

6. Signatures:!I!have!read!the!above!agreement!and!understand!and!agree!to!all!of!the!terms.!!I!intend!to!fulfill!any!obligations!detailed!above!for!which!I!am!responsible.!!________________________________/_______________________________________!Signature!of!Person!who!did!the!Harm!and!Signature!of!Person!Harmed!!!________________________________/_______________________________________!Signature!of!Circle!/!Conference!Facilitator!and!Signature!of!Other!Participant!!!________________________________/_______________________________________!Signature!of!Other!Participants!!

103

94 !

APPENDIX D. Weekly Teacher Interview Guide

Individual Weekly Teacher Interview Questions

1. Please describe how you used Restorative Discipline practices in your classroom

this week?

2. What did you use this week from the last conversation we had? How did it go?

3. How did you build respectful conversations between yourself and students?

4. Were there times when you talked about shared values; took responsibility for something that went wrong; talked about the impact of something on you; truly listened without interrupting?

5. What community building exercises and/or projects did you do with students?

!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

104

95 !

!!APPENDIX E. Focus Group Guide-Teachers

Focus Group Questions-Teachers

1. Please describe your learning process from (a) the time of the training to the

present (b) this Spring semester.*

2. Describe the climate in your classroom? How has it changed? What are critical events that occurred during the semester?

3. What has been the most challenging situations for you? What part of the Restorative Discipline Program has been the hardest to implement? What part has been the most rewarding?

4. Have you used the consultant Robert Rico and if so, how? Are there ways you could use him more? What stands in your way?

5. What support, if any, have you received from the school leadership? How has it helped of hindered your implementation of Restorative Disciplines?

6. If you were advising a seventh grade teacher about implementing Restorative Discipline practices in his/her classroom, what would you tell them?

!!

• (a)!to!be!asked!in!December;!(b)!to!be!asked!in!May!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

105

96 !

APPENDIX F. Focus Group Guide - LRT !

Focus Group Questions-Leadership Response Team

1. Please describe your learning process from (a) the time of the training to the present (b) this Spring semester.*

2. Describe the range of misconduct incidents you have dealt with this semester using Restorative Discipline practices? What has been the pattern of referrals?

3. What have been the most challenging situations for you? What part of the Restorative Discipline Program has been the hardest to implement? What part has been the most rewarding?

4. Describe the consequences and outcomes of the Restorative Discipline

Interventions? How are they monitored?

5. Describe what you have done with the student and what you have done with teachers to give students “a way back” to the classroom? How is it working and what changes have you considered making?

6. How have you used the consultant Stephanie Frogge and if so, how? Are there

ways you could use him more? What stands in your way?

7. What support, if any, have you received from upper administration? How has it helped of hindered your implementation of Restorative Disciplines?

8. If you were advising a leadership response tram in a different middle school

about implementing Restorative Discipline interventions, what would you tell them?

!!

!!!!!!!!!!!!*!(a)!to!be!asked!in!December;!(b)!to!be!asked!in!May!!!!!!!!!!

106

APPENDIX G. Accountability Summary

TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY

2015 Accountability SummaryWHITE MIDDLE (015910046) - NORTH EAST ISD

Accountability Rating

Met StandardMet Standards on Did Not Meet Standards on

- Student Achievement - NONE

- Student Progress

- Closing Performance Gaps

- Postsecondary Readiness

In 2015, to receive a Met Standard or Met Alternative Standard rating, districts and campusesmust meet targets on three indexes: Index 1 or Index 2 and Index 3 and Index 4.

Performance Index Report

0

25

50

75

100

Index 1

StudentAchievement

(Target Score=60)

Index 2

StudentProgress

(Target Score=28)

Index 3

ClosingPerformance Gaps(Target Score=27)

Index 4

PostsecondaryReadiness

(Target Score=13)

60 35 33 18

Performance Index Summary

Index

Points

Earned

Maximum

Points

Index

Score

1 - Student Achievement 929 1,551 602 - Student Progress 553 1,600 353 - Closing Performance Gaps 996 3,000 334 - Postsecondary Readiness

STAAR Score 17.8Graduation Rate Score N/AGraduation Plan Score N/APostsecondary Component Score N/A 18

Distinction Designation

Academic Achievement in Reading/ELA

NO DISTINCTION EARNED

Academic Achievement in Mathematics


Academic Achievement in Science


Academic Achievement in Social Studies


Top 25 Percent Student Progress

DISTINCTION EARNED

Top 25 Percent Closing Performance Gaps


Postsecondary Readiness


Campus Demographics

Campus Type Middle School

Campus Size 875 Students

Grade Span 06 - 08

Percent EconomicallyDisadvantaged 80.0

Percent English LanguageLearners 10.7

Mobility Rate 28.6

State System Safeguards

Number and Percent of Indicators Met

Performance Rates 10 out of 25 = 40%

Participation Rates 11 out of 11 = 100%

Graduation Rates N/A

Total 21 out of 36 = 58%

Ed White Middle School Restorative Discipline Evaluation · Ed White Middle School Restorative...

Documents

Transcript of Ed White Middle School Restorative Discipline Evaluation · Ed White Middle School Restorative...