Bill Overview
Title: Restorative Practices in Schools Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Department of Education to award grants for local educational agencies to replace existing zero-tolerance disciplinary polices and punitive discipline in elementary and secondary schools with restorative practices. Additionally, the bill directs the Government Accountability Office to study and report on the use of discipline practices that funnel students out of school and toward the juvenile legal and criminal legal systems (i.e., the school-to-prison pipeline).
Sponsors: Rep. Cohen, Steve [D-TN-9]
Target Audience
Population: Students and education professionals
Estimated Size: 60000000
- The bill targets elementary and secondary schools, which in the United States is typically comprised of grades K-12.
- According to recent data, there are approximately 56 million students enrolled in K-12 schools in the United States.
- The implementation of restorative practices can impact all students and teachers by changing the way discipline is managed.
- These practices may also have indirect impacts by reducing the number of students who enter the juvenile legal system, particularly affecting those schools that disproportionately discipline minority and lower-income students.
- Globally, the impact will be on those regions and countries interested in adopting similar restorative practices or influenced by U.S. education reforms.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to replace zero-tolerance disciplinary policies with restorative practices, which would have varying impacts depending on people's current involvement in or views on the education system.
- Given the budget limitation, it's important to ensure the funds are prioritized in schools with high suspension rates and those located in low-income or minority-dense areas which are most at risk of contributing to the school-to-prison pipeline.
- Teachers and administrators will need support and training in the implementation of these practices, highlighting the necessity of targeted grants for educator training programs.
- While students form the most significant group affected, educators and families are also key stakeholders whose well-being could improve with less punitive environments.
- The potential reduction in entry to the juvenile legal system could offer long-term societal benefits, though these might be harder to quantify in the short term for individuals outside of targeted schools.
Simulated Interviews
Student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 17 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think moving away from suspensions would help students like me who want to do better without being scared.
- If they really mean it, we need more counselors or teachers trained to help us through issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
High School Teacher (Detroit, MI)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This change is long overdue, as suspensions do not solve root issues.
- The challenge will be shifting the entire school culture, which requires proper training and resources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
School Administrator (New York, NY)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Implementing restorative practices will be challenging but could significantly benefit our students if we get full buy-in from staff and students.
- We need clear guidance and adequate funding to train our staff properly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Student (Austin, TX)
Age: 10 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I don't really get in trouble, but I don't want my friends to be sent away from school anymore.
- I like the idea of talking things out.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Parent of two children in elementary school (Chicago, IL)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 7.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic about this shift, as long as it keeps kids safe and fair.
- Educators need to be patient as they adapt to new strategies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Teacher (Rural Kansas)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm open to it, as discipline here is typically minor, but any improvement is good.
- I fear it may be hard to implement in rural areas without much state support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
New English Teacher in a high-risk area (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This sounds like a promising change to create a more cooperative classroom.
- As a new teacher, I'll need robust support structures to integrate this successfully.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
School Board Member (Seattle, WA)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 12.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see potential in this policy to fairly administer discipline and reduce student pushout rates.
- Budgetary constraints might limit its full potential; we need to be strategic in targeting high-impact areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
High School Student (Miami, FL)
Age: 15 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been pushing for more understanding in our discipline at school.
- This approach seems like it could really help students feel more respected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Juvenile Justice Advocate (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We can't dismantle the school-to-prison pipeline without deep systemic change, but this is a promising step.
- The focus should be on the most affected communities for real impact.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 2 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $160000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $200000000)
Year 2: $160000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $200000000)
Year 3: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $190000000)
Year 5: $150000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $190000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Providing adequate training and resources for the implementation of restorative practices is crucial for the success of the initiative.
- Schools with higher disciplinary referral rates, particularly those impacting minority students, may require greater attention and resources.
- Ongoing evaluation of the program's effectiveness will be necessary to ensure desired outcomes are achieved.
- Coordination between federal, state, and local agencies will facilitate the smooth transition to restorative practices.