![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
How can restorative justice, an increasingly common alternative to zero tolerance discipline, serve as an opportunity to both close the racial discipline gap and promote more critical awareness of structural inequality? Using Knight and Wadhwa’s (Citation2014) concept of critical restorative justice, I analyzed interviews with youth leaders and staff at one urban charter high school who strove to implement schoolwide restorative justice practices with an explicit lens toward resisting structural oppression and the schools to prison pipeline. Despite evidence of this explicit commitment, participants still tended to favor exclusionary discipline, particularly to maintain order. It may benefit leaders to anticipate the countervailing pressures they will encounter as they try to enact restorative justice practices within districts and communities that are accustomed to punishment and order as markers of ‘good’ leadership. There also needs to be a greater emphasis on the words and deeds that contribute to ‘critical restorative justice,’ since restorative justice is so often discussed as a means for reducing the schools to prison pipeline without detailed attention to how it will disrupt traditional patterns of power and discipline in school.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Additional information
Funding
Notes on contributors
Hilary Lustick
Dr. Hilary Lustick is Assistant Professor of Research and Evaluation in Education at the University of Massachusetts Lowell College of Education, where she teaches students in the PhD and EdD programs. Lustick studies restorative practices, social emotional learning, and other preventative approaches to school discipline and climate. She also studies the role of emotion in data analysis.