Restorative Discipline is Responsive, Proactive, and Consistent Restorative discipline is neither autocratic nor permissive, nor is ?it a combination of the two. Approaching disciplin

Jean-Pierre & Parris-Drummond

414 REVUE DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION DE McGILL • VOL. 53 NO 3 AUTOMNE 2018

ALTERNATIVE SCHOOL DISCIPLINE PRINCIPLES

AND INTERVENTIONS: AN OVERVIEW OF THE

LITERATURE JOHANNE JEAN-PIERRE Ryerson University

SYLVIA PARRIS-DRUMMOND Delmore Buddy Daye Learning Institute

ABSTRACT. Increasing evidence shows that punitive discipline is ineffective and detrimental. Using empowerment theory and the opportunity-to-learn conceptual framework, this literature review seeks to broaden school personnel’s knowledge of alternative discipline interventions. Searching ERIC and JSTOR databases, we looked for English language, North American literature published between 1996 and 2016 that discussed alternative individual and school-wide disciplin- ary approaches. The literature we found indicates that punitive measures are counter-productive; that several alternative disciplinary models share common principles; and that studies point to favourable outcomes of some alternative school discipline models. While the transition towards alternative discipline may require additional resources and years of adjustment, a healthier school climate can foster the empowerment and academic achievement of marginalized students.

LES PRINCIPES ET LES INTERVENTIONS DE DISCIPLINE SCOLAIRE ALTERNATIVE : UNE

RECENSION DES ÉCRITS

RÉSUMÉ. Des données probantes démontrent de plus en plus que la discipline punitive est inefficace et néfaste. Cette recension des écrits vise à accroitre les savoirs en matière de discipline scolaire alternative à l’aide des théories du pou- voir d’agir (empowerment) et des théories des « opportunités d’apprentissage » (opportunity-to-learn). Nous avons utilisé les bases de données ERIC et JSTOR et recherché des recensions des écrits nord-américains publiés en anglais entre 1996 et 2016 qui abordent les plans d’intervention disciplinaire individuelle et scolaire. La recension indique que les mesures punitives sont contreproductives, que plusieurs modèles alternatifs de discipline scolaire partagent des principes communs et que des études démontrent les retombées favorables de modèles disciplinaires alternatifs. Bien qu’une transition vers un modèle disciplinaire alternatif puisse nécessiter des ressources additionnelles et des années d’adap- tation, un climat scolaire sain peut favoriser le pouvoir d’agir et la réussite académique des élèves marginalisés.

McGILL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION • VOL. 53 NO 3 FALL 2018

Alternative School Discipline Principles and Interventions

415

Over the past two decades, punitive disciplinary measures in schools such as zero-tolerance and “get tough” policies, or the implementation of physical searches, locks, fences, or cameras have been widely criticized. Several alternative disciplinary interventions have been introduced (by schools, educational leaders, teachers, etc.) to address misconduct and anti-social behaviour. These interven- tions can be categorized into two categories: 1) individualized interventions that target students with frequent or violent behavioural issues, and 2) school-wide interventions, which usually involve the entire school community. This paper summarizes the main alternative school discipline interventions discussed in the academic literature over the past 20 years for school administrators and teachers who aspire to improve the environmental school climate and broaden educators’ knowledge of disciplinary interventions.

This literature review is informed by both empowerment theory and the opportunity-to-learn conceptual framework. Empowerment theory suggests that by increasing the individual, interpersonal, and political power of youth, they can enact positive change in their lives, their immediate families, and their communities (Gutiérrez, 1995). Racialized and marginalized students are overwhelmingly affected by punitive school discipline (Gordon, 2017; Hayle, Wortley & Tanner, 2016; Salole & Abdulle, 2015; Woodbury, 2016). Applying techniques for personal empowerment can assist such students to develop a more positive identity, engage in social action, and contribute to the empowerment of their communities (Hipolito-Delgado & Lee, 2007). Schools can empower marginalized students who believe they were disciplined unfairly (Ruck  & Wortley, 2002; Salole & Abdulle, 2015) by attending to their opportunity to learn. Opportunity-to-learn theory proponents argue that disadvantaged students often lack equal access to resources and opportunities to learn (Farkas, 2009; Von Hippel, 2009); punitive measures such as suspensions and expulsions only worsen this situation by reducing their opportunities for formal learning.

For this review, we searched scholarly, refereed, and professional publications which discussed non-punitive school discipline practices. We used the ERIC and JSTOR databases to identify and select English language, scholarly, peer- reviewed articles that use the keywords: school discipline, school discipline model, school discipline alternative, and alternative discipline. To ensure the relevance of the selection for school professionals, we focused on articles published between 1996 and 2016 in North America, but included some highly relevant sources that predate this period, and some articles that were published in the U.K. that influenced contemporary debates about school discipline (see Table 1). We were especially interested in sources with concrete implications and relevance regarding specific alternative discipline approaches.

Jean-Pierre & Parris-Drummond

416 REVUE DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION DE McGILL • VOL. 53 NO 3 AUTOMNE 2018

TABLE 1. The corpus

Document Types Number Location Research Types Measurement Instruments

Scholarly refereed conceptual articles

N = 24 Canada N = 2 U.K. N = 1 U.S. N = 21

Philosophical, theoretical and policy advocacy

–

Scholarly refereed empirical articles

N = 27 Canada N = 5 U.K. N = 2 U.S. N = 20

Quantitative: N = 18 Qualitative: N = 5 Mixed: N=4

Interviews Focus groups Narrative case study Observation Content analysis Surveys School board and national datasets Quasi-experimental design

Professional articles

N = 13 U.S. Practice, policy, issues and trends –

Media article N = 2 Canada – –

Book N = 2 U.S. – –

Book chapter N = 4 U.S. – –

We coded the 72 sources (see Table 2 in Appendix A) deductively with respect to: a)  individual and school-wide interventions; b) appraisals of punitive ap- proaches; c) the values, goals and philosophies which underlie each alternative discipline model; d) assessed outcomes of alternative disciplinary interventions; and e) empowerment and opportunity-to-learn theories. Following coding and analysis, we found the following themes which can provide school adminis- trators and teachers with knowledge that can inform their strategic planning and daily decisions.

The reviewed literature highlights three important features of the discussion around school discipline in scholarly and professional journals over the past two decades: the growing consensus that punitive disciplinary practices are ineffective, the observation that alternative school discipline models share in common a number of principles, and the documentation of certain outcomes and assessments of alternative disciplinary interventions. Overwhelmingly, the literature indicates that punitive discipline is ineffective and can even have a detrimental impact. As they move away from punitive practices, several proponents of various alternative disciplinary practices uphold a number of values, goals, and philosophies in common, which we have summarized as overarching principles of alternative school discipline interventions. While most of the research regarding alternative school discipline models are still in the early stages of application and assessment, we present the emerging evidence of productive, empirically-based outcomes.

McGILL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION • VOL. 53 NO 3 FALL 2018

Alternative School Discipline Principles and Interventions

417

COUNTER-PRODUCTIVITY OF PUNITIVE DISCIPLINARY PRACTICES

Punitive interventions may take the form of suspension, detention, or expulsion; they are intended to deter other students from engaging in similar behaviours or to attribute a punishment that “fits the crime.” Some schools also adopt security and safety preventive measures such as installing fences, locks, cam- eras, conducting physical searches, or employing security and police officers to monitor students’ behaviour. While “get tough,” zero-tolerance policies, and “law and order” agendas may appear practical in creating safer schools and deterring antisocial, illicit, and violent behaviours, the literature does not support these assumptions. Beyond being ineffective, punitive interventions tend to disproportionately impact historically disadvantaged communities. Several studies show that Black and Latino students are overrepresented among students who are suspended or expelled in the United States (Brownstein, 2010; Fowler, 2011; Gregory, Skiba & Noguera, 2010; Nishioka, 2013). In Canada, Black students and other visible minority students perceive bias in the way discipline is applied in schools (Hayle et al., 2016; Ruck & Wortley, 2002; Salole & Abdulle, 2015; Shirley & Cornell, 2012). For instance, Black students in Nova Scotia (Woodbury, 2016) and Ontario (Gordon, 2017) are overrepresented among suspended students.

Punitive interventions do not cultivate appropriate conduct or better self- regulation. On the contrary, the literature indicates that punishment can worsen and escalate antisocial behaviours (Fenning, Theodos, Benner, & Bohanon- Edmonson, 2004; Mayer, 2001). Students with chronic or frequent behavioural problems may be the ones with the greatest and most complex needs (Gregory et al., 2010; Simmons, 2009). Increasingly, researchers are querying and inves- tigating the relationships between behavioural problems, mental health, and learning disabilities (Beckford, 2016; Noguera, 2003; Skiba & Losen, 2015); literacy and numeracy challenges (Fowler, 2011; McIntosh, Flannery, Sugai, Braun, & Cochrane, 2008; Noguera, 2003; Olley, Cohn, & Cowan, 2010); and the importance of engaging students with culturally relevant curriculum and pedagogy in multicultural settings (Monroe, 2005; Nasir, Ross, McKinney de Royston, Givens, & Bryant, 2013).

Punitive interventions such as suspensions often deprive students of valuable formal instruction. The opportunity-to-learn theoretical framework contends that disadvantaged students have fewer opportunities to learn because of their limited family and neighborhood resources (Farkas, 2009; Von Hippel, 2009). While the opportunity-to-learn framework is often associated with access to summer learning programs (Davies & Aurini, 2013; Davies, Aurini, Milne, & Jean-Pierre, 2015; Downey, Von Hippel, & Broh, 2004) or pre-school education (Duncan & Magnuson, 2011; Farkas & Hibel, 2008), it is less often applied to the impact of frequent and multiple suspensions and detentions that inhibit formal learning in class. Yet, studies show a positive correlation between time of study spent and academic achievement (Gregory et al., 2010).

Jean-Pierre & Parris-Drummond

418 REVUE DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION DE McGILL • VOL. 53 NO 3 AUTOMNE 2018

In cases where police officers are present in a school or when they are called to intervene following a violent altercation, punitive measures can contribute to the “school-to-prison pipeline” in certain jurisdictions (Mallett, 2016). This expression refers to the increasing proximity between school disciplinary in- terventions and students’ entry into the juvenile or adult correctional system (Meek, 2009). In the United States, the frequent use of punitive interventions often parallels the degree of racial diversity or poverty of a school district, and not necessarily the gravity of the student’s misconduct (Fowler, 2011; Ramey, 2015). Alternative disciplinary intervention proponents argue that schools should expand their knowledge of existing disciplinary interventions beyond detention, suspension, or expulsion in order to encourage prosocial behaviours among students.

OVERARCHING PRINCIPLES OF ALTERNATIVE DISCIPLINARY INTERVENTIONS

Several overarching principles tend to underlie all types of alternative disciplin- ary interventions. First, the collective effort and synergy of all administrators, teachers, school staff, and students in implementing an alternative model is required in order to achieve sustainable and long-term positive changes. Second, consistency is paramount to foster a healthy school climate and for students to perceive a fair application of discipline. Third, building caring and nurtur- ing relationships between students and school staff often results in positive behaviour. Fourth, offering initiatives that enhance the opportunity for all students to learn are likely to foster a healthy school climate.

Successful models of alternative discipline involve a multifaceted synergy from the entire school community. For instance, a shift toward an alternative model of school discipline may involve the participation of school counsel- lors, school administrators, teachers, students, support staff, and community activists (Day-Vines & Terriquez, 2008). It is highly advised that the school forms a committee to oversee the transition to alternative school discipline by collecting discipline-related data. The transition committee can: a) monitor disciplined students who may require additional supports, b) identify effective interventions and peak periods of misbehaviour, c) improve current practices, and d) provide positive feedback to teachers, staff and students (Day-Vines & Terriquez, 2008; Goodman-Scott, 2013; Luiselli, Putnam, Handler, & Feinberg, 2005). Several articles stress that strong administrative support is required to sustain preventive and proactive interventions, including training for teachers, administrators, and all staff members (Fenning et al., 2004; Goodman-Scott, 2013; Mayer, 2001; Nishioka, 2013; Ryan & Zoldy, 2011; Skiba & Losen, 2015; Warren et al., 2006).

Clear expectations and rules should be established, with pre-determined mean- ingful consequences or procedures, and should be understood by all students,

McGILL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION • VOL. 53 NO 3 FALL 2018

Alternative School Discipline Principles and Interventions

419

teachers, support staff, parents and administrators. It is important that the majority of the school staff support these expectations and rules (Goodman- Scott, 2013; Skiba  & Losen, 2015; Decoteau  & Clough, 2015). This can be achieved through initiatives such as letters of information for parents or workshops with students. Several authors have suggested that students should participate in the development of norms and behavioural expectations (Mayer, 2001; Nasir et al., 2013), and that schools should regularly affirm the values associated with school rules and expectations to foster self-discipline (Gibbs, 2000; Hawkes, 2011; MacAllister, 2014).

Curricular and pedagogical practices can also have an impact on the develop- ment of prosocial behaviours. Engaging students with culturally responsive and meaningful course material is an integral part of behavioural manage- ment (Luiselli et al., 2005; Nasir et al., 2013; Osher, Bear, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010). Moreover, the dynamic between students and teachers influences the relationship between students and the school community (Day-Vines & Ter- riquez, 2008; Gerlinger & Wo, 2016; Gregory et al., 2010; Luiselli et al., 2005). Olley et al. (2010) suggested that teachers and staff should strive to nurture caring and supportive relationships with all students, including those with chronic and frequent behavioural issues, while applying consistent disciplin- ary interventions fairly. One of the ways these relationships can improve is by listening to students and taking into account their perspectives of school discipline (Woods, 2008).

School administrators can strive to avoid suspension and maintain access to instruction for students with behavioural problems (Olley et al., 2010). In order to encourage prosocial behaviours, schools can enhance learning opportuni- ties by providing frequent and effective supports. Students with behavioural problems may require a comprehensive intervention plan to simultaneously address academic and non-academic challenges such as social, economic, and emotional issues (Noguera, 2003). In fact, to effectively address persistent or violent misconduct, Skiba and Losen (2015) suggested that school administra- tors should increase the number of mental health support workers available to students.

ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS FOR INDIVIDUAL STUDENTS

The various alternative practices found in the literature can be classified into two categories: 1) specific interventions aimed at working with students with chronic, frequent, or violent behavioural issues; 2) school-wide interventions which usually involve the entire school community. Built on preventive and proactive principles, school-wide interventions are often lauded for their impact on the decline of office referrals, and the improvement of the school environmental climate (Bear, 2011; McCluskey et al., 2008).

Jean-Pierre & Parris-Drummond

420 REVUE DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION DE McGILL • VOL. 53 NO 3 AUTOMNE 2018

The behavioural education plan: Check-in / check-out

Schools often intervene with the student(s) involved in misconduct. Alterna- tive individual interventions for students with frequent misconduct issues include the behavioural education plan, commonly known as the “check-in / check-out” program, which entails greater adult attention for students with frequent behavioural issues as well as the development of alternative behav- ioural strategies and communication skills (Hawken, Macleod, & Rawlings 2007). The behaviour education plan usually requires that a staff member engage with a student twice daily, before and after classes (Goodman-Scott, 2013). The student is expected to maintain a daily progress report in which teachers rate and comment on his / her behaviour, and that parents sign at home each day. When students behave adequately all day based on the school’s code of conduct, they can receive a reward during the day’s end check-out. The behavioural education plan can play a beneficial role in the reduction of misconduct (Swoszowski, Jolivette, & Fredrick, 2013).

The school survival group

Another individual intervention, the school survival group, aims to connect social cognition with behaviour to help students change their conduct (Dupper, 1998). This is a weekly after-school discussion group of typically 50-minute duration with a maximum of ten participating students with frequent or chronic behavioural issues (Ryan & Zoldy, 2011). These group sessions involve games and life scripts to explore the motivations and cognitive processes that lead to certain behaviours. School survival proponents encourage students to recognize their decision-making processes and cognitive distortions to develop a stronger internal locus of control (Dupper, 1998).

Conflict resolution and social-cognitive skills training

Conflict resolution training usually aims to teach students how to resolve a conflict where both parties’ needs can be fulfilled by a satisfying outcome fol- lowing dialogue and negotiation, all the while avoiding further polarization and violence (Breunlin, Bryant-Edwards, & Hetherington, 2002). The goal of social cognitive skills training is to teach students how to control negative impulses and behaviours (Ryan & Zoldy, 2011). The assumption behind conflict resolution skills training and social cognitive skills training is that “challeng- ing students aren’t always challenging. They’re challenging when the demands being placed upon them outstrip their skills to respond to those demands. Challenging episodes are actually highly predictable” (Greene, 2011, p. 26).

Conflict resolution and social cognitive skills training can be offered during the whole school year, at the individual and school-wide levels, during class or after school, and even after a suspension through workshops, peer-mediation training or skills-based training (Ryan  & Zoldy, 2011). Conflict resolution training has been associated with a decrease in physical violence and expul-

McGILL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION • VOL. 53 NO 3 FALL 2018

Alternative School Discipline Principles and Interventions

421

sions (Breunlin et al., 2002). Along with skills training, contracting can be adopted as another pedagogical instrument to teach conflict management and resolution. A teacher and a student can discuss and draft a contract together to set the terms of behaviour change and a consequence for future misconduct (Breunlin et al., 2002).

Comprehensive school counseling

Lapan (2012) suggested that a comprehensive personalized counseling pro- gram in a school requires more than career or guidance counseling. Through counseling, students can acquire self-regulation skills through the exploration of emotions, motives, consequences of behaviour, and positive reinforcement of good behaviour, which can result in fewer disciplinary incidents in schools (Lapan, 2012; Nielsen, 1979). Comprehensive school counseling can com- prise “cooling off” rooms for time-out, group therapy (3 hours / week), and individual counseling or guided group interaction (peer counseling over 12 weeks) (Nielsen, 1979). Schools in multicultural neighborhoods can enhance this service by hiring school counsellors who have experience empowering students from diverse ethnic, racial, religious, and ability backgrounds (Hipolito- Delgado & Lee, 2007).

Detention and in-school suspension

Another individual intervention is in-school suspension; this refers to after-school or lunchtime school detention (Andrews, Taylor, Martin, & Slate, 1998) and all-day in-school suspension (Sanders, 2001). Many school administrators prefer in-school to out-of-school suspension because the student is safe, supervised by adults, and may continue to receive instruction and engage in learning activities (Sanders, 2001). Some schools combine in-school suspension with counseling, the completion of assignments, or other alternative behavioural interventions (Ryan & Zoldy, 2011).

SCHOOL-WIDE ALTERNATIVE INTERVENTIONS

Authoritative school discipline model

The authoritative school discipline model is derived from the authoritative parenting style model introduced by Diana Baumrind, a developmental psy- chologist. In a seminal article still used in contemporary contexts, Baumrind (1966) introduced three prototypes of child rearing: permissive, authoritarian, and authoritative. The permissive parent behaves in a non-punitive way, accept- ing the child’s self-regulation with little externally defined structures whereas the authoritarian parent controls the child’s behaviour according to certain standards and restricts the child’s autonomy (Baumrind,1966, pp. 889-890). Between these, the authoritative model of parenting simultaneously encour- ages behavioural compliance and psychological autonomy in order to promote

Jean-Pierre & Parris-Drummond

422 REVUE DES SCIENCES DE L’ÉDUCATION DE McGILL • VOL. 53 NO 3 AUTOMNE 2018

prosocial behaviours, respect of adult authority, and independent reasoning (Baumrind, 1966, 1996). Similar to the parenting context, the authoritative model of school discipline encourages school administrators to combine struc- ture and support (Gregory & Cornell, 2009). This model suggests that schools should move away from the extreme “get tough or zero tolerance” approach, as well as the other extreme, the “caring and supportive” approach (Gregory et al., 2010). Gerlinger and Wo (2016) wrote that, “[s]tructure refers to the consistent and fair enforcement of school rules, while support is founded in the care and attention provided by adults” (p. 138). It has been found that support (positive teacher-student relationship, assistance with non-academic issues, extracurricular resources) combined with a high level of structure (supervision of students, enforcement of school rules) can be more effective than the implementation of security and punitive measures (Gerlinger & Wo, 2016). School staff members who develop positive relationships with students while upholding school norms and expectations can be characterized as enact- ing the authoritative model of school discipline (Gregory & Cornell, 2009).

While the authoritative model can inform the application of school disci- pline, it lacks specific guidelines and initiatives to implement a school-wide reform. Other alternative school-wide models such as restorative practices in education, strength-based or empowerment model, or positive model promote consistency and the development of nurturing relationships between school personnel and students but include clear preventive and responsive measures. However, the authoritative model is first and foremost preventive, and does not sufficiently address how to intervene when it comes to students who have frequent behavioural issues.

Democratic or student-driven school discipline model

The democratic school model is a student-driven reform of school discipline, which delegates power from the adults in the school to the students. While there are several variations of democratic schools, they usually involve students creating and enforcing the rules in the school. Proponents of democratic schools suggest that students will acquire leadership skills, civic virtues, and a profound grasp of democracy with this alternative disciplinary model (Cuevas & Kralovec, 2011). In fact, this alternative approach strives to bring the students’ voices into the decision-making process of school and to encourage them to promote the changes they want by assuming responsibility for their ideas. This model can take different forms and potentially provide an opportunity for students to write their own constitution (Grandmont, 2003) or create and participate in a student-led disciplinary committee (Hantzopoulos, 2011).

The first limitation of such a model is the difficulty of securing teacher support for relinquishing some of their power to students. Moreover, some parents can disapprove of such an initiative, especially if it is a completely new approach for them (Cuevas & Kralovec, 2011). Yet, this model incorporates students’

McGILL JOURNAL OF EDUCATION • VOL. 53 NO 3 FALL 2018

Alternative School Discipline Principles and Interventions

423

input in preventing and responding to behavioural issues while simultaneously developing leadership, communication, and conflict resolution skills. If teachers are not fully inclined or willing to relinquish power to students, the successful implementation of the democratic or student-driven model can be challenging.

Restorative practices in education model

Restorative practices in education are derived from the restorative justice model, which has mostly been examined in criminological studies and has been applied in different ways by New Zealand Māori and Canadian Aboriginal traditional healing circles (Ryan & Ruddy, 2015). Restorative justice can be defined as “a process to involve, to the extent possible,