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: Sen. Bennet, Michael F. [D-CO]
Target Audience
Population: Children and Adolescents in School Systems
Estimated Size: 55000000
- The bill is focused on implementing restorative practices, which aim to reduce student suspensions and expulsions, better manage student behavior, and improve student engagement and school climate.
- The population most directly affected by this bill includes students in elementary and secondary schools, especially those in environments currently using zero-tolerance policies that might lead to suspensions or expulsions.
- Teachers and school administrators will also be impacted, as they will need to adjust disciplinary approaches and may require training for implementing restorative practices.
- The long-term effects may influence parents and communities by promoting safer and more inclusive school environments, potentially reducing juvenile delinquency rates and improving educational outcomes.
- The school-to-prison pipeline disproportionately affects minority students and students with disabilities, so these groups would most keenly feel the impact of reforms proposed by the bill.
Reasoning
- The Restorative Practices in Schools Act of 2022 targets a large population of students, teachers, and administrators, but given the budget, the policy will need to prioritize some schools over others initially. This means not every school will benefit immediately, affecting the diverse impact among individuals.
- Considering a target population of over 50 million students and teachers, the policy intends to start addressing those most affected by zero-tolerance policies, prioritizing schools with higher rates of suspensions and expulsions, especially affecting minority and economically disadvantaged communities.
- The potential long-term benefits, such as reduced juvenile delinquency and improved educational outcomes, justify the investment, although immediate costs will include training for administrators and teachers, as well as restructuring disciplinary approaches.
- Simulated individuals will cover a range of direct and indirect stakeholder perspectives, including students, teachers, parents, and school administrators from varying backgrounds and school environments.
- Influential factors on well-being changes include the current disciplinary climate of their schools, their personal experiences with school discipline, and expectations about the efficacy of restorative practices.
Simulated Interviews
High school student (New York City, NY)
Age: 16 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I have seen many of my peers get suspended for minor things. It feels unfair.
- If this new approach helps keep students in school rather than pushing them out, I think it will help us succeed more in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Middle school principal (Rural Alabama)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've been needing a different approach to student discipline for a long time.
- Training teachers will be a challenge but necessary for this to work.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
High school teacher (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've seen how restorative practices can make a positive difference.
- I hope the policy will provide more resources and consistency for all schools.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Middle school student (Chicago, IL)
Age: 14 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's really harsh when you get suspended for small things.
- I think if teachers listened more, things wouldn’t get out of hand so fast.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Parent (Dallas, TX)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's frustrating to see my child punished so severely at school.
- Restorative practices could help my child feel better supported.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Superintendent (Detroit, MI)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The school-to-prison pipeline is a significant problem in our district.
- This policy could change outcomes for many at-risk students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Restorative practices trainer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Training is essential to make this shift work.
- I'm optimistic about how this will change school cultures.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
High school student (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 15 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the idea of being able to talk things out instead of just getting punished.
- It could help make schools a safer and better place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
School counselor (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Counselors like me are keen to see these practices implemented fully.
- Having more creative solutions than punishment alone will benefit students.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
College student studying education (Miami, FL)
Age: 23 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I remember how hard zero-tolerance policies were on students.
- As a future teacher, I look forward to using more restorative methods.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 3: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $18000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The effectiveness of restorative practices compared to traditional disciplinary measures, which will determine cost-effectiveness.
- Availability and willingness of local educational agencies to adapt to funding opportunities provided by the grant.
- Training and support enhancements required for effective implementation of restorative measures in schools.
- The data and methodology used by the Government Accountability Office in the study might affect the perceived success and potential further reform policies.