FALSE.  Not that long ago, teachers would discipline students “in loco parentis,” or “in place of the parent.”  Parents expected discipline in schools, and if their student should be the recipient, oftentimes that discipline would pale in comparison to what was waiting for Johnny or Janie when they got home.  In short, the parents worked in partnership with the teachers.

Further, principals had the backs of teachers.  If a student was truly disruptive, the teacher could remove them from their classroom by sending them to the principal’s office.  Students from our generation regarded this to be an escalation in discipline indeed: “Did you know so-and-so got sent to the principal’s office??”  The principal could administer corporal punishment, detention, or expulsion, ensuring the classroom disruption is discontinued.  This is no longer how it works.

Upon learning that their child was disciplined in school, parents are more likely to give the teacher an earful than their misbehaving child.  Instead of partnering with the teacher, the parents are hostile to the teacher.  Further, the principal no longer supports the teacher, either.  Oftentimes, a student sent to the principal’s office is sent right back.  Or the mountain of paperwork that goes with this action is enough to make the teacher think twice.  Expulsions don’t happen in order to keep those numbers low.  Unruly students stay in the classroom.  Bad behavior has no consequences.  Learning is disrupted and/or the teacher’s personal safety is at risk.  No wonder teachers are leaving in droves.

FALSE.  Our Williamson County TN chapter dug into this. Reference Metro-Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) MTSS and even Williamson County Schools’ Board Policy 6.300 on Disciplinary Action to see that even the most serious Tier 4 infraction (including death threats, physical assault, sexual assault) can be dealt with via “Restorative Conference.”  Parent reports to this chapter indicate experiences where all three of these issues have gone unpunished by WCS.

FALSE.  Bullies go unpunished, thus creating a culture of fear for their victims and sometimes their teachers.  All three groups, the victim, the teacher, and sadly, the bully, have learned all too well that there are no consequences for disciplinary infractions.  We have also received accounts of teachers simply evacuating their classrooms while the problem student remains inside to destroy property at will.  How does this environment of fear and constant interruption promote learning?

NOT LIKELY.  Teachers have a limited amount of time to accomplish the curriculum allocated for the day.  If a student profanes or attacks another student, it is unlikely that the teacher will drop everything to convene a sit-down so that students can talk through their feelings.  What is more likely to occur is the teacher just permits the behavior to continue, as there is not an option to send the student out of the classroom.

FALSE.  Restorative Justice practices appear to be the top reason teachers are leaving their profession.  Teachers are routinely profaned and assaulted in the classroom. RJ programs discourage them from sending unruly students to the principal’s office.  If they want to initiate action to remove the student from their classroom, it is often a 6-month paperwork nightmare.  By many accounts, when a teacher sends a student to the principal’s office, the principal’s office simply sends them back in short order.

Restorative Justice also pits school administrations against its teachers, pressuring them to make the numbers look good and second-guessing them for disciplinary actions taken.  See the FOIA requests (Discipline) from Williamson County Schools which appear to show school administrators second-guessing a teacher for disciplining a minority student, requesting her discipline referral numbers based on race and alleging bias.  No benefit of the doubt is given to the teacher or inquiry made as to the situation that caused the referral(s).

FALSE.  One of the original RJ programs, Broward County Schools’ PROMISE Program, was initiated from the ideology of social justice.  The Obama administration pushed this program into all schools across the nation via a joint Department of Education-Department of Justice “Dear Colleague” letter in January 2014.  This letter threatened schools with civil rights investigations on the basis of racial discrimination if their disciplinary statistics featured too many minority students.  The purse strings then followed, tying federal dollars to restorative justice programs and benchmark reporting.

FALSE.  It is more likely that schools are putting their reporting of disciplinary statistics first and social justice second.  Considering the rampant parent reports of un-disciplined bullies in schools across the country, student safety does not appear to be at the top of the priority list.  This is true of school districts across the country.

TRUE, but… not how you think it does.  Restorative Justice incentivizes schools to either 1) not report disciplinary actions, or 2) to not discipline at all.  The advertised statistics are usually skewed to make the school look good and to hide the true disciplinary numbers.

FALSE.  The original RJ program was built on a foundation of racial justice in Broward County schools.  The joint DOE-DOJ letter published in Jan 2014 under the Obama administration was almost entirely about race in schools, threatening schools with civil rights investigations for disciplining minority students.

FALSE.  Restorative Justice arguably cements a new avenue to prison by creating consequence-free environments in which bad actors are emboldened to continue these actions.  Without early intervention and discipline, these students are permitted to graduate under the guise of “this is how the world works and I can continue these actions.”  Well, perhaps that’s true in NYC, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Memphis, Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis and others, where RJ (i.e. no consequences) are supported by Soros-funded District Attorneys.

FALSE.  Restorative Justice actually began in the federal prison system as a way to bring closure to felons and their victims.  At the end of a sentence, the felon would be given a chance to meet with their victim to offer apology and show remorse for their actions.