The College of Wooster Libraries Open Works Senior Independent Study Theses 2018 From Retribution to Restoration: An Analysis of Restorative Justice as a Policy Reform Effort to Dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline in New York City Public Schools Leigh T. Yartz The College of Wooster, lyartz18@wooster.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://openworks.edu/independentstudy Part of the Education Commons, and the Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons Recommended Citation Yartz, Leigh T., "From Retribution to Restoration: An Analysis of Restorative Justice as a Policy Reform Effort to Dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline in New York City Public Schools" (2018). Senior Independent Study Theses.edu/independentstudy/8110 This Senior Independent Study Thesis Exemplar is brought to you by Open Works, a service of The College of Wooster Libraries. It has been accepted for inclusion in Senior Independent Study Theses by an authorized administrator of Open Works.
For more information, please contact openworks@wooster. Yartz From Retribution to Restoration: An Analysis of Restorative Justice as a Policy Reform Effort to Dismantle the School-to-Prison Pipeline in New York City Public Schools By: Leigh Yartz An Independent Study Thesis submitted to the Department of Political Science at The College of Wooster March, 2018 in partial fulfillment of the requirements of Senior I. Thesis Advisor: Dr. Eric Moskowitz Second Reader: Dr.
Désirée Weber ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I owe many thanks to several individuals without whom this project would not have been possible. First, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my advisor, Dr. Eric Moskowitz, whose vast knowledge of and passion for urban politics and policy inspired the development of my own passion for education policy. His commitment to helping me pursue my research interests along with his mentorship and patience, have guided me throughout this process.
I am incredibly thankful for his insight and support, especially through every obstacle I came across in my research. I am continually in awe of and inspired by his dedication to encouraging students to seek out their passions. Second, I would like to thank Dr. Megan Wereley for her unwavering support and encouragement in all of my endeavors, both in academics and in life.
She has inspired my love for education and my desire to pursue a career in education policy by challenging my thinking and pushing me both in and out of the classroom to engage in critical thinking surrounding policy issues. Wereley has taught me to not take information at face value, but rather to carefully research and understand all facets of an issue in order to better address it, a skill that I know will be useful in my career. Third, I would like to express my appreciation and thanks to the individuals that I interviewed in New York City for my Independent Study. Without them, this project would not have been possible.
I am grateful for the time they took out of their busy schedules to not only talk to me about the work they do with restorative justice in New York City schools, but to also connect me with other resources and people to interview for this thesis. Last, I would like to thank my family, specifically my grandparents. Without them, I would not have found the College of Wooster. I am beyond grateful for their steadfast dedication to encouraging me to pursue my passions.
Their constant love, support, and faith in me has motivated me to try my hardest and helped me to see that I can accomplish anything I put my mind to. I would also like to extend many thanks to my friends, specifically Emma, Olivia, and Zoe, as they have encouraged and supported me throughout my time at Wooster. They have been a source of joy and laughter both in times of celebration and in times of stress. i ABSTRACT This Independent Study explores and examines restorative justice as a policy reform effort made by schools, specifically in New York City, to address a phenomenon known as the school-to- prison pipeline.
While it has been found that zero tolerance policies fuel this pipeline through the criminalization of minor infractions, this study argues that using restorative justice policies to manage disciplinary matters within schools creates an avenue to dismantle this pipeline. This occurs through establishing a more inclusive school climate, thus leading to lower levels of punitive discipline and school push out, which ultimately lessens the rate at which youth come into contact with the juvenile/criminal justice system. Utilizing a case study methodology that combines a historical narrative with semi-structured interviews done with providers of restorative justice policies and practices in New York City public schools, this study seeks to understand the impacts of both zero tolerance policies and restorative justice policies on this criminalization of students. When examining the interpretive causal impacts of both sets of policies, this study found support for the theoretical argument in that in New York City, utilizing restorative justice policies and practices to manage disciplinary matters can trigger a series of events that builds a more inclusive school climate, decreases the level of punitive discipline, lessens the rate at which students experience school push out, and ultimately decreases contact with the juvenile/criminal justice system.
This study also uncovers several components and impacts of restorative justice policies not found in the literature, as well as evidence of zero tolerance and restorative justice policies being used in conjunction with each other to address conflicts within schools. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION. 1 CHAPTER TWO: A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE. 6 ZERO TOLERANCE POLICIES.
6 Police Presence in Schools. 10 Security and Surveillance. 17 RESTORATIVE JUSTICE POLICIES. 19 Restorative Justice in the Community.
19 Restorative Justice in Schools. 20 Core Principles of Restorative Justice. 23 Models for Restorative Justice. 24 Implementation of Restorative Justice in Schools.
26 Effectiveness/Impact of Restorative Justice in Schools. 28 CHAPTER THREE: THEORETICAL ARGUMENT AND METHODOLOGY. 31 Model One: Causal Impacts of Zero Tolerance Policies. 32 Model Two: Causal Impacts of Restorative Justice Policies.
37 Summary of Two Causal Models. 43 Methodology and Case Selection. 43 Interview Questions for Providers. 48 CHAPTER FOUR: HISTORICAL NARRATIVE.
54 BACKGROUND OF SCHOOL ADMINISTRATIVE HIERARCHY. 54 BACKGROUND OF SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY SYSTEM. 55 HISTORICAL NARRATIVE OF POLICY SHIFTS. 56 CHAPTER FIVE: FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS.
63 SCHOOL DISCIPLINARY POLICIES. 63 Zero Tolerance Era: Police Presence. 63 Zero Tolerance Era: Exclusionary Discipline. 68 Restorative Justice Era: Model for Restorative Justice.
71 Restorative Justice Era: Community Involvement. 75 Restorative Justice Era: Coordinator/Specialist. 77 Restorative Justice Era: Miscellaneous Supplementary Components. 82 Zero Tolerance Era.
82 Restorative Justice Era. 87 Zero Tolerance Era. 87 Restorative Justice Era. 93 SCHOOL PUSH OUT.
97 Zero Tolerance Era. 97 Restorative Justice Era. 101 iii JUVENILE/CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM INVOLVEMENT .103 Zero Tolerance Era. 103 Restorative Justice Era.
105 CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION .111 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH. 117 APPENDIX A: SUMMARY OF INTERVIEWEES/ORGANIZATIONS. 123 iv CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION In January of 1998, a nine-year-old student in Virginia was suspended for sharing Certs breath mints with his classmates. The school cited their zero tolerance policy toward drugs and drug look-alikes, as the rationale for their disciplinary action, claiming the breath mints resembled a controlled/illegal substance (Oliver 1998).
Similarly, in October of 2004, a ninth grade student in Utah was suspended from school for having aspirin in her pocket, which allegedly violated the school’s zero tolerance policy toward drugs (Cabrero 2004). In January of 2008 in Queens, New York, a five-year-old student who suffers from speech problems, asthma, and attention deficit disorder threw a tantrum in his class that resulted in the student being taken to the principal’s office. Once there, the student knocked items off a desk, which caused the arrival of a school safety agent who used handcuffs to restrain the student. Rather than calling the parents, school officials and the school safety agent called 9-1-1 and had the five-year-old student picked up in an ambulance and taken to the hospital for a mental evaluation (Melago 2008).
These seemingly excessive punishments can be traced back to Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, an amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act passed by President Bill Clinton and the 103rd Congress. This legislation requires that states, as a condition of receiving federal funding, must have a law in place that requires local education agencies that receive state funding to implement a policy requiring the suspension for at least one school year of any student who brings a gun, knife, or other weapon on school grounds (Elementary and Secondary Education Act 2005). In addition to this, the Gun-Free School Act of 1994 mandates that schools must report that student to local law enforcement, and as a result, zero tolerance rhetoric emerged (Heitzeg 2009). While the original intent of this legislation was to crack down on 1 school violence and reduce the presence of weapons in schools, the reality of this Act became distorted when schools created similar zero tolerance policies for offenses other than bringing a weapon onto school grounds (Advancement Project et al.
Following the implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, schools began adopting a zero tolerance approach to disciplinary matters for minor and non-violent offenses such as tardiness, disorderly conduct, fighting on school property, truancy, talking back to teachers, disrupting class, alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. For consistency, schools used similar punishments for these offenses as they were already using for more serious offenses such as bringing a weapon on school premises (Heitzeg 2009). The theory behind this zero tolerance approach for such offenses was based on the broken windows theory of policing, which emphasizes that cracking down on non-serious offenses will deter and discourage individuals from committing more serious crimes in the future and therefore will create a safer environment (Nelson and Lind 2015). Schools translated this theory into their own policies and began relying heavily on suspensions, both in-school and out-of-school, and expulsions for non-serious offenses (Nelson and Lind 2015; Heitzeg 2009).
Also classified under zero tolerance policies are two other policy shifts that schools made in the 1990s: increased police presence on school grounds and heightened security and surveillance measures. While crime was indeed declining in schools during the 1990s, a handful of high-profile school shootings during this time led to a growing public fear of juveniles and school crime/violence (Theriot 2009; Beger 2002). These high-profile shootings, specifically the Columbine High School shooting, led to increased implementation of police presence in schools and intensified visible security and surveillance measure, as these events generated fear among parents, teachers, students, and the broader community (Addington 2009). The increase in police 2 presence on school grounds led to higher rates of school-based arrests and law enforcement referrals as officers began responding to situations in schools rather than school personnel (Theriot 2009; Beger 2002).
Additionally, the increase in security and surveillance through metal detectors, surveillance cameras, and random searches contributed to a shift that transformed schools into a more prison-like environment rather than a learning environment. This shift in school environment only exacerbated the impacts of the other policy shifts regarding school discipline and police presence. Ultimately, heightened police presence and an increase in security and surveillance combined with harsh and punitive disciplinary measures in response to minor, non-serious infractions created the school-to-prison pipeline, a conduit that routes students out of the school system and into the juvenile/criminal justice system. This can occur either through directly putting students into contact with the juvenile/criminal justice system through interference with law enforcement/security and surveillance measures on school grounds or through the use of excessively punitive discipline to push students out of the school system, providing them with limited opportunities and mobility, which ultimately heightens their likelihood of being incarcerated (Advancement Project et al.