Aliyya Swaby Photo
Johnson and McClellan discuss “restorative” practices.
A proposed code of conduct would keep kids in school rather than suspend or expel them, requiring them to work through their issues rather than punishing them for acting out.
A citywide working group taking a first look at New Haven’s emerging new approach to school discipline looked through the existing code of conduct — and saw how far they had to go to refine it.
The two dozen educators, policymakers, academics and parents in the working group met one recent afternoon at Betsy/Ross Arts Magnet School to recommend policies to ultimately decrease suspensions and expulsions in favor of targeted mediation and support. They took the first step of figuring out how to implement “restorative practices” aimed at keeping troubled kids in district schools.
The Harp administration is looking into restorative practices as a way to help troubled kids instead of pushing them out of the school system and into violence.
Gemma Joseph Lumpkin, the district’s executive manager of district strategy and coordination, said she thinks the working group model — which includes gathering and analyzing data, interviewing experts and discussing material in-depth — will help convert conversation into action.
Offenses in the code of conduct range from a level 1, including “making noises in class,” to a level 4, which includes the sale of alcohol, arson, assault or homicide. In between the two extremes, level 2 “intermediate offenses” include cheating and profane language “directed at others.” Level 3, the first group of “major offenses” includes use of alcohol and drugs, bullying, and theft.
The code gives a list of potential administrator “responses” for each level. For level 1 offenses, students lose privileges, get a time out, or undergo mediation. Level 2 responses, which include detention, peer mediation and community service, “focus not only on prevention of future behavior, but also on consequences for negative actions.”
Students face in-school or out-of-school suspensions for the level 3 and 4 “major offenses,” if they endanger people or property or cause “serious disruptions” to learning.
A diverse group, including many outside of the district, split into small groups to discuss the code of conduct and come up with a list questions or comments, to be incorporated into future policies.
Most agreed that the document’s main weakness was its lack of specificity.
The offenses are “left to interpretation” with “no appropriate delineation of how offenses should be treated,” said Maysa Akbar, founder of the mental health practice Integrated Wellness Group.
Emily Byrne, the housing authority’s special assistant for education policy, agreed with Akbar that there were no specific “punishments associated with the offenses.”
Columbus Family Academy principal Abie Benitez and Rau.
“Consequences,” Damaris Rau, a district director of instruction, interjected to correct her. “We like to use ‘consequences,’” instead of “punishments.”
The teacher’s union received a $300,000 grant in part to hire William Johnson as a project director for a district pilot program in restorative justice. Johnson and three Yale law school students in the Equal Opportunity and Juvenile Justice Clinic came up with a few recommendations for how to incorporate restorative practices into the code.
Students who commit “level 4” offenses are required to be suspended from school for at least 10 days and are recommended to be expelled.
Addressing the group Wednesday, law student Cara McClellan said that suspensions do not get to the “root of the problem,” especially for students who do not want to be in school. A better method would be to find out “why don’t they want to be” and “what can the school do to make them want to” come. The code of conduct lists “mediation” as a “response” to a minor offense, but does not include any acknowledgement of resources “in terms of time, money, capacity” to implement that response, she said.
The code of conduct mentions that parents and guardians are to be notified of their students’ violations, but gives the principal ultimate discretion on whether and how to implement consequences — instead of allowing for a community response. “Nowhere does [the code of conduct] say that the parents will be part of the solution,” Akbar said.
“We see the offense as breaking the rules, not as something that happens to a community,” added Joe Brummer, a consultant formerly with Community Mediation, which worked on restorative practices within individual New Haven schools for decades.
Community Mediation’s Brenda Cavanaugh noted that the code of conduct lists several “alternatives to suspension,” including tactics also included in restorative practices such as peer mediation, anger management, reflective writing, and figuring out “ways to decompress.” But the list comes with a caveat that the alternatives are “dependent on the availability of resources in particular schools. Not all of these options may be available to all schools.”
“It begs the question, ‘Why not?’” Cavanaugh said.
The next working group meeting is Jan. 30 at Betsy/Ross.
Alost half of your respondents on this issue seem to favor relaxing discipline on the worst students (schools) while maintaining tougher discipline for somewhat less=troubled and better behaved students (schools)
Makes no sense to me,
Can't be lenient with the worst kids and still tough on the better, but not perfect kids
At least give a chance to improve to those kids who already better behaved than their peers
Worth a try, but let's not mess up those who are already a bit better.