CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT

138   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

particular, some scholars believe a shift toward restorative discipline in U.S.
schools may be the best way to end the racial bias endemic in U.S. schools today
and more adequately serve the needs of students of color (Husband, 2016).
Restorative discipline in schools may provide students of color and their families
a forum to point out systemic inequities, bring root causes of student behavior
to the surface, and allow more honest interactions between students and educa-
tors (Simson, 2014). Instead of excluding students from the school community
when their behavior does not align with school and classroom norms and expec-
tations and possibly even criminalizing the behavior, restorative discipline seeks
to keep students within the classroom and also seeks to build a stronger overall
school community. For these reasons, we are stressing that restorative discipline
is a promising way forward in classroom management.

METHODS OF RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE

As discussed at the beginning of this chapter, restorative measures within a
school community can be understood as a pyramid. The use of affective lan-
guage that serves as the foundation of this pyramid promotes awareness of self,
awareness of how one’s actions can affect others, and opportunities for self-
correction of behavior before small problems become large ones.Teachers can use
affective statements and questions in an ongoing and seamless way in classrooms
and wider school environments to develop students’ social and emotional skills
and consistently keep in the minds of students that they are part of a community
at school. Affective language also helps educators remember that students, like
all of us, are developing and becoming and are not “there” yet. These feeling-
centered and emotion-centered interactions require comparatively little plan-
ning and may involve all students in the classroom or school. Circle processes
occupy the middle level of the pyramid. Circle processes can be used either pro-
actively or reactively to strengthen relationships, discuss issues that affect school
community members, or resolve interpersonal conflicts. Some teachers use circle
processes as part of their regular classroom routines as a means to build commu-
nity among students. Use of these processes may require some planning and can
involve an entire class of students at a time or more. Conferences occupy the top
level of the pyramid. Conferences are typically used reactively in school settings
to repair a relationship after harm has been caused. This relationship may be
one that students need to repair with themselves, other students, staff members,
or the school community as a whole. Conferences are the most formal type of
restorative discipline measure, require the most planning, and involve the fewest
students. Although conferences and more formalized circle processes may take
more planning and preparation than less formal measures, they also provide a
more lasting sense of completeness and closure when a student’s behavior results
in harm to others (Wachtel, 2016). Overall, a restorative approach to discipline
positions students as actively engaged in the process from the onset, gives them a
voice in disciplinary issues, empowers them to take more responsibility for their

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    139

actions, and teaches them the effective communication skills for success in the
classroom and in other areas of their lives (Davidson, 2014). Moreover, these
approaches can help teachers reflect about and develop skills in communication,
relationship building, and understanding of their students as well.

Affective Language

The use of affective language, in a classroom or schoolwide, forms the foun-
dation of a restorative approach to discipline. By affective language, we mean
language that genuinely expresses feelings or emotions related to specific
behaviors or actions of others. Affective language provides a structure for
reinforcing desired behaviors and redirecting unwanted ones (Costello,
Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2009). Affective language includes the use of both
statements and questions that are integrated into the daily life of a class-
room or a school community. Affective language can be introduced as early
as preschool and can help establish a climate where positive relationships
are fostered. The use of affective language helps students acknowledge
the existence of difficult situations and feelings and is an important early
step toward avoiding future and more serious conflict (Morrison, 2007).
Affective language practices can be promoted within a single classroom or
throughout an entire school to foster greater awareness of how one’s actions
affect others, empathy for others, and a sense of personal responsibility
among students (Wachtel, 2013). These language techniques can be con-
sidered informal practices, as they do not take much planning and can be
integrated into the rhythm of the school day rather easily.

Affective Statements

The first type of affective language practice involves the use of affective state-
ments. The goal of an affective statement in restorative discipline is to help
students understand how their actions have affected others, with the goal of
building emotional intelligence and empathy (George, 2017). Affective state-
ments can be used either to reinforce positive behavior or to redirect negative
behavior, and they can be used with students whose actions are harming oth-
ers or whose actions are harming only themselves. In either case, educators
can use affective statements by following three steps (San Francisco Unified
School District, 2010):

1. Self-identify how you are feeling or how you were affected by the behavior.

2. Self-identify the specific action or behavior you are responding to.

3. Bring together Steps 1 and 2 in an authentic expression of how you are
feeling and how you were affected and the specific behaviors you are
reinforcing or redirecting.

140   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

For example, teachers can make affective statements to students such as
“James, I am very upset that you ripped pages out of your library book. When
you rip the pages out, other students cannot enjoy the book after you.”

Keys to the effective use of affective statements include

• focusing the statement on a specific behavior, not the intrinsic
worth of the student engaged in the behavior;

• allowing students to see the consequences of their behavior;

• delivering statements privately if possible; and

• offering multiple positive statements to a student for every
corrective statement given (Costello et al., 2009).

Students can be encouraged to make affective statements with one another
as part of effective communication as well. Using the steps outlined above,
students can communicate their feelings and emotions to one another either
as positive reinforcement of a fellow student’s behavior or to communicate
how they have been negatively affected by another student’s actions. Students
can be encouraged to make affective statements using sentence stems such as
the following (San Francisco Unified School District, 2010):

• I am so appreciative of you/your . . .
• I am feeling frustrated about/by/to see/to hear that . . .
• I am so excited to see/hear . . .
• I am angry about . . .
• I am having a hard time understanding . . .
• I am uncomfortable when I see/hear . . .

By practicing using sentence stems such as these, over time students can
begin to develop the ability to make affective statements a regular facet of
their communication with others. Teachers should model these statements
and interactions. In addition, if these practices begin early in students’ educa-
tional experiences, it more likely that these statements and language practices
will continue through their entire educational experience.

Affective Questions

The second type of affective language practice involves the use of affective ques-
tions. Affective questions engage students more fully than statements, prompting
them to reflect upon how their actions may have affected others. Moreover, the

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    141

questioning allows discursive exchange that can lead to deeper understandings of
the situation (and the people involved in the conflict). The following collection
of affective questions has been found to help students reflect upon their actions
and express their thoughts and feelings. Just a few of these questions, or variations
of them, should be used at a time. This series of questions can also be used in its
entirety during a restorative conference, a more formalized process discussed later
in this chapter.

Some questions educators can use when challenging a student’s behavior
(Costello et al., 2009, p. 16):

• What happened?

• What were you thinking of at the time?

• What have you thought about since?

• Who has been affected by what you have done?

• In what way have they been affected?

• What do you think you need to do to make things right?

Variations on these questions might look like the following: “What were
you thinking of when you took Mia’s snack off of her desk? How do you think
she has been affected? What do you think you need to do now to make things
right?” Questions such as these allow students to have a voice in interactions
with teachers when their behavior is being redirected. This encourages the
development of a sense of accountability for one’s actions and empathy for
others. Moreover, it gives students permission to make errors and to get it
right after they have messed up without worrying about consequences that
could be more punitive.

In addition to redirecting a single student’s behavior, affective questions
can also be used to resolve conflicts between students. This can be accom-
plished by first asking each student affective questions separately and then
bringing them together and asking them the same questions so that both stu-
dents can hear how they have affected each other. In cases where it is appar-
ent that the harmful behavior was largely the part of one student, questions
such as the ones below might be asked of the student who has been harmed
(Costello et al., 2009, p. 16):

• What did you think when you realized what had happened?

• What impact has this incident had on you and others?

• What has been the hardest thing for you?

• What do you think needs to happen to make things right?

142   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

Bringing students together through the use of affective questions for reflec-
tion and dialogue represents an informal restorative conference. Restorative
conferences will be discussed more fully later in this chapter.

Although educators who use affective language practices may not feel like
they are doing much at first, research would suggest that they are actually hav-
ing a powerful effect on school culture and discipline (Guckenburg, Hurley,
Persson, Fronius, & Petrosino, 2015). In the following vignette, Mr. Harris
uses both affective statements and affective questions while interacting with
students in his daily teaching practice. Use of affective language practices cre-
ates a classroom or a school environment that fosters awareness, responsibil-
ity, and empathy. Creation of this environment may significantly decrease
the need for more formal discipline methods (Wachtel, 2016).

VIGNETTE A: AFFECTIVE LANGUAGE

USE IN THE THIRD GRADE

Mr. Harris teaches third grade in a neighborhood of St. Louis, Missouri. His
literacy lesson for the day focused on using pictures in books to help stu-
dents figure out meaning. He started his lesson by asking, “In the books that
you have read this year, have you seen any maps, pictures, or illustrations?”
Mikala raised her hand and said, “I read chapter books like Nancy Drew.
Sometimes the chapters have pictures.” Mr. Harris continued, “Raise a quiet
hand if pictures help you figure out what a book is about.” Shawn, Elise, and
Isaiah also raised their hands and proceeded to describe various books and
their pictures. Mr. Harris explained how he was recently reading the book
The BFG by Roald Dahl, and it talked about a snozzcumber. He wasn’t sure
what a snozzcumber was, and used the illustration to figure out that it was
kind of like a cucumber. He then said, “Remember, diagrams and illustra-
tions can help you to learn new words. Okay, everyone get started on the
first part of your work!” Students moved into a variety of activities: reading
alone, reading to a partner, and vocabulary cut-and-paste activities. Within
a few moments, students were sitting all over the room, alone and in pairs
sitting on the floor, and at tables. Mr. Harris began to circulate among all of
the groups.

Although most students in the room were engaged in their read-
ing work, Emma was not. Instead of reading on her own, Emma had
taken her cell phone out from her desk and was playing her favorite
video game. Mr. Harris approached Emma and said, “Emma, I am very
disappointed that you are playing a game on your phone instead of read-
ing. You are usually such an independent student and you typically make
better choices.” Emma rolled her eyes, but then she put her phone away
and opened her book.

Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Harris called everyone back to their desks
and asked students to “raise a silent hand” if there was a picture in the

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    143

book they read. About half the students raised their hands. Mr. Harris told
the students to tell their neighbors what their illustrations were about,
if they had seen any. Then as a large group, he asked a few students to
explain what they saw and how it helped them understand the book. He
then directed students to begin their next activity.

Jeremiah and Brian sat down together, and Jeremiah began to read
aloud to Brian. But after a few minutes, Brian was no longer paying
attention to Jeremiah. Instead, Brian was trying to catch the attention
of Tiona, who was sitting at the next table. As Mr. Harris approached
the two boys, he saw a look of frustration on Jeremiah’s face as the
student glanced at his partner, Brian. Mr. Harris called Brian over and
asked him, “What’s happening here?” Brian looked at him blankly and
said, “Jeremiah is reading to me.” Mr. Harris continued, “Have you been
listening to him?” Brian responded without making eye contact, “No,
not really.” Mr. Harris asked Brian, “So what have you been thinking
about?” Brian responded, “I was . . . I was . . . just trying to ask Tiona
for her green pen.” Mr. Harris said, “So . . . what do you think you need
to do to make things right?” Brian responded, “I . . . I probably need to
tell Jeremiah that I’m sorry I disrespected him . . . he is just trying to
read to me. And I need to listen to him. And get that green pen later.”
Mr. Harris responded, “That sounds about right to me. Can you please
do that?” Brian returned to where Jeremiah was sitting and said, “Sorry,
Jeremiah, you were reading aloud for me and I wasn’t even looking at
you. I’ll listen better now.” Jeremiah raised his fist, bumped it against
Brian’s fist, and opened his book again. Mr. Harris then approached
Jeremiah and said, “Jeremiah, I have been listening to you read. You are
really doing well sounding out words that are unfamiliar to you. I am
impressed by your persistence in finishing this story.” Jeremiah smiled
and looked down at the page. He returned to reading again, Brian was
listening, and Mr. Harris walked away.

Fifteen minutes later, Mr. Harris asked all of the students to return
to their desks again. He asked them to think about the books they were
reading and how pictures helped them understand the books. He then told
them, “Take 30 seconds and talk to the person next to you about how the
pictures helped you.” Once they finished their brief conversations, he asked
students to share with the class experiences they had with any pictures
that helped them a lot. Bethany responded that her book had a picture of
children sitting around a campfire, and that helped her understand that
the children were on a camping trip in the forest. Mr. Harris responded,
“Bethany, I am really impressed that you followed that book’s storyline!
That book has a lot of vocabulary words in it that we don’t normally use.
Great work using the pictures to help you understand the story!”

Later in the day, while students were at recess, Mr. Harris thought
about the students in his class and how he could continue to promote

144   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

a sense of awareness, accountability, and empathy through his use of
affective language. He wondered,

• What opportunities did he miss to make positive affective
statements to students other than Jeremiah and Bethany?
For instance, how could he be more nurturing of his stronger
readers like Mikala, Shawn, Elise, and Isaiah?

• How could he shift his interactions with Emma from affective
statements to affective questions, so that she might reflect
more deeply on her own behavior?

• This was not the first time that Brian was more interested in
Tiona’s attention than the lesson at hand. Tiona did not seem
to like the attention from Brian and appeared uncomfortable
when he pestered her a lot. Should he talk with Brian more at
length about his interactions with Tiona? Should he check in
with Tiona to see how she is feeling about the attention she
gets from Brian?

As we see in this vignette, a teacher’s use of affective statements
and questions can promote a classroom culture that supports self-
awareness of students’ actions, helps students become more aware of
how their actions affect others, and promotes a sense of community
among learners. Mr. Harris redirected Emma’s behavior using a correc-
tive affective statement. He engaged Brian with affective questions that
led him to correct his own behavior. And he affirmed the successes of
Jeremiah and Bethany with affective statements that focused on specific
actions the students took that were worthy of praise. Using affective lan-
guage can improve classroom management, as students develop senses
of themselves as class community members who can contribute to the
group overall in positive ways while growing in their abilities to manage
their own distracting behaviors.

Affective Language Practices Improve
Classroom Management in Urban Schools

The research literature related to restorative practices (Costello et al., 2009;
Guckenburg et al., 2015; Morrison, 2007; Wachtel, 2013, 2016) has dem-
onstrated that affective statements allow teachers to recognize and encourage
positive behavior and redirect unwanted behavior before it escalates. Teachers
can also encourage students to use affective statements with one another,
which is a communication skill that will benefit them their entire lives. Using

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    145

affective questions allows teachers to lead students to reflect on their actions
and how their actions affect others. Affective questions also lead students to
self-correct before small problems become big ones. Use of affective language
creates a classroom or school culture and promotes awareness of self, awareness
of others, and the belief that students can correct and grow past their mistakes.
These foundational ideas promote development over punishment and may
avoid many of the racially biased pathways that are part of a punitive discipline
system.

Circle Processes

As in all forms of restorative discipline, circle processes focus on promoting
strong relationships and a sense of community among students and school
staff. The most popular restorative justice method used in schools (Zehr,
2015a), circle processes can be used both proactively as part of daily class-
room and school routines and reactively to solve problems. Greenwood (2005)
describes the circle process as

a distinctive kind of space for restorative dialogue. . . . Circles are
fashioned in such a way that interconnectedness, interdependence,
and equality within the participants are encouraged to share a sense
of mutual responsibility for the well being of the community and the
individuals within it and an understanding that what happens to one
affects all. (p. 2)

Circle processes draw upon more traditional forms of problem solving
than typically used in the Western legal tradition (Winn, 2013). In many
African societies before European colonization, crime was not considered
a state issue, and most problems were solved through negotiation between
offenders, people harmed by the offenders, and the families of both parties
(Drozdek, 2010). This circle approach is supported by the African concept
of ubuntu, which suggests that a person exists only because that person is
connected to others (Skelton & Frank, 2001). Customary courts in southern
Africa operated in a way that focused on determining what wrongs had been
committed and how best to make amends (Dlamini, 1988)—the very heart
of the restorative circle process.

Circle processes are used by many North American indigenous groups
to remedy conflicts and give community members a significant role in tasks
such as repairing broken relationships, sentencing offenders, and address-
ing situations in the wider community that may have given way to the inci-
dent at hand (Zehr, 2015a). Circle processes are used in the Yukon province
of Canada as an alternative to formal sentencing proceedings (Lilles, 2001).
In the Navajo Nation, circle processes are used when individuals believe that
wrongs have been committed against them, and they want the situation to be
made right (Yazzie, 1994). Circle processes are also used as spaces of healing

146   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

for problems such as alcoholism and violent behavior. Using circle processes
in this way increases public safety by holding offenders accountable to others
as they make amends and reintegrate into the community, and also increases
the safety of offenders by providing a forum and mechanism to address com-
munity concerns about the reintegration (Van Ness, Morris, & Maxwell,
2001). Among the Anishinaabe people in Manitoba, Canada, circle processes
are used to address problems such as these in a way that cares for the person
who committed the harm and helps the person end destructive behavior
(McHold, 2001).

Research suggests that restorative circles are effective ways to deal with con-
flicts in U.S. school settings. Ortega, Lyubansky, Nettles, and Espelage (2016)
conducted interviews with students and staff at one U.S. high school that used
restorative circles to solve problems. Participants reported positive outcomes
such as greater student ownership of the conflict resolution process, improved
relationships, interruption of the school-to-prison pipeline, prevention of
additional destructive behavior, and engagement in meaningful dialogue.
These researchers also found that it is important for students to participate in
circle processes voluntarily, as circle processes in which students are compelled
to participate do not tend to work. In Minnesota, the state commissioned a
study of four school districts that piloted restorative discipline programs over a
3-year period. This study was part of a statewide response to escalating expul-
sion rates in Minnesota schools. Findings indicated that using a circle process
to resolve conflicts was an effective alternative to exclusionary measures such
as suspensions and expulsions (Minnesota Department of Children, Families,
and Learning, 2002).

Amstutz and Mullet (2005) described steps to be used for implementing
circle processes in school settings. Students sit in chairs in a physical circle,
and a facilitator leads the meeting. Although descriptions of circle pro-
cesses in the classroom typically enlist the teacher as the circle facilitator,
students might serve as facilitators as well. The facilitator makes an intro-
duction and reminds students and any additional staff present of the values
embodied in the circle process. Values expressed typically center upon the
idea that everyone in the circle is connected by core values but that each
person has a right to his or her individual beliefs. Beliefs, of course, can and
do change (Milner & Woolfolk Hoy, 2003). Circle processes also highlight
values such as accountability, honesty, responsibility, and compassion. To
begin, the facilitator poses a question or topic to the group and then passes
the talking piece. Circle participants can talk only when holding the talk-
ing piece, and only one person can talk at a time. Participants can pass the
talking piece if they do not want to talk. The facilitator both opens and
closes the circle process. Although most descriptions of classroom circle
processes do not include any type of personal or silent reflection time after
the circle closes, students may benefit from an opportunity to reflect either

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    147

in silence or through writing on topics that are particularly sensitive or
personal.

Circle processes may be particularly powerful tools to shape school cul-
ture because they shift the dynamic most students expect in the classroom
and wider school building. Traditionally, students sit in classrooms in straight
rows. Most of their interactions are with a teacher who stands at the front of
the room, and they interact only minimally with other students. When circle
processes are used, this dynamic completely shifts. Students are seated in a
circle interacting with one another and with the teacher on more equal foot-
ing. This act alone—sitting in a circle—promotes a greater sense of equality,
community, connection, inclusion, and fairness among students (Costello,
Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2010).

Circle Processes as a Daily Educational Routine

Circle processes can be used as a daily part of the educational routine. Using
the basic steps outlined above, circle processes as regular classroom practices
can promote intragroup relationships and develop a common understanding
of ideas, values, and expectations among class members. Both teachers and
students can have input that shapes the values and expectations of class mem-
bers. Teachers can call for circles to talk about troubling events in the news
or community, to discuss a book the class is reading, or to brainstorm ideas
about how best to use what they are learning in science to develop a class proj-
ect. In circle processes such as these, students can take more prominent roles
and teachers can shift from the role of “authority” to the role of facilitator,
participant, and learner. These shifts can build community and connection
among students who are learning together.

Some teachers find circle processes great ways to start or end the school day,
or both. Students can be guided to reflect on what they are learning and call
attention to any problems they are having with new content, share personal
highlights of the school day, discuss and resolve minor tensions with fellow
classmates, describe what is going on in their lives outside the classroom, or
simply talk about ideas that are important to them (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005).
Many early childhood teachers call these experiences “morning meetings,”
where students are able to talk with one another. Morning meetings have been
reported as essential opportunities for helping students anchor themselves for
success, especially at the start of a week such as on Mondays after students have
been away from school for more than a day. Using circles in these routine ways
builds student comfort with the process and builds community among learners.

Circle Processes Can Solve Problems

Circle processes can be used to solve problems among students and address
issues of student behavior. Circle processes bring together students and

148   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

sometimes school staff to discuss a conflict. The goal of a circle process
used for problem solving is to provide a remedy for harm done by a student,
understand how the harm affected specific individuals and the school com-
munity overall, propel students to take responsibility for their actions, and
allow students to acknowledge how their behavior has affected others in the
school community (Mergler, Vargas, & Caldwell, 2014). Problems such as
fighting, teasing, bullying, and other types of misbehavior can be remedied
through circle processes. Students are held accountable to one another in
identifying a harmful or unwelcome behavior, to identify and acknowl-
edge the effects of the harm or behavior, and work toward a resolution to
repair the situation. Discussions that occur within a circle process can
be wide ranging. This can occur as people participate with different
viewpoints on the conflict and may have a variety of ideas about situations
within the school or community that need to be addressed so that incidents
like the one in question do not continue to occur (Zehr, 2015a). We
encourage teachers to use circle processes in a proactive and preventive
way, so that small conflicts in the classroom do not become large or
explosive ones.

Circle processes for problem solving are similar to circle processes for
learning in that all participants sit in a physical circle, a facilitator introduces
and closes the process, and the group uses a talking piece that students agree is
significant (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005). When using a circle process to resolve
a problem, any of the affective questions (or restorative questions) may be
helpful as starting points. The following three questions may be the most
essential for addressing behavior problems in a circle setting (Costello et al.,
2009, p. 44):

• What happened?

• What harm resulted?

• What needs to happen to make things right?

Although variations can certainly be used, these questions get to the
heart of the matter: it allows students to admit their part in a problem and
opens the doorway to allow them to make things right. Even if students do
not know how to make things right after their behavior has caused harm to
others, other students within the circle may provide ideas, guidance, and
insight. This shifts the role of the teacher entirely from being an enforcer of
the rules to being a facilitator when community problems arise. The teacher
may have to model the use of affective language if a student struggles with
righting their wrongs.

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    149

VIGNETTE B: CIRCLE PROCESS FOR PROBLEM

SOLVING AMONG SIXTH GRADE STUDENTS

Mrs. Morrison was upset. For the third time this week, someone had
used a blue permanent marker to scrawl the phrase “Davis SUCKS” on
a desk in the classroom. And it was only September. Why was graffiti a
problem already, this early in the school year? As Mrs. Morrison had just
wiped all of the desks clean at the beginning of the day, she believed
that the person responsible was one of the students right in front of her,
in her first block prealgebra class. She decided to call a class circle to
discuss the matter.

At Davis Middle School in Charlotte, North Carolina, many teachers use
circle processes throughout the day. Davis students regularly begin their
school days in homeroom with an opening circle. Sometimes their home-
room teachers pose questions about what they are doing in their classes,
and sometimes the teachers ask them questions about their lives outside of
school. They particularly used circle processes a lot at the beginning of the
school year, as they endeavored to build community among students com-
ing from three different elementary schools. So when Mrs. Morrison told
her class, “I need everyone to circle up, I have a concern that we need to dis-
cuss,” everyone knew what to do. All of the students picked up their chairs,
placed them in a circle at the front of the room, and sat down facing one
another. Mrs. Morrison then reminded everyone that Davis Middle School is
a community of learners connected by common beliefs in academic excel-
lence, perseverance, and kindness, but that everyone in the community also
has a right to their individual beliefs. She also reminded the students that
Davis Middle School uses a circle process to highlight the importance of
accountability, honesty, responsibility, and compassion for others.

After this introduction, Mrs. Morrison opened the circle by saying, “I
am upset because for the third time this week, I believe that someone in
this group wrote ‘Davis SUCKS’ on one of the desks in this room, using a
permanent marker. How do you all feel about this?” She then passed the
small inflatable globe to Jenna, the student who was seated on her right.
The globe was the talking piece they used in Mrs. Morrison’s room during
circle processes. Jenna held the talking piece for a moment, said nothing,
and then silently passed it to Silas, who was seated on her right. Silas said,
“Permanent marker is tough to remove. I feel bad for Mrs. Morrison if she
is the one scrubbing the marker off of the desks.” Silas passed the globe
to the student on his right, Jamar. Jamar said, “Well, I know who did it. I
think that person should own up to it.” He passed the ball to Aniyah who
said, “Well, I don’t know who did it, but it makes me feel bad to see that
because I like going to school here.” She passed the globe to Maira, next

150   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

to her, who said, “I like going to school here too. I don’t think our school
sucks. I don’t understand why someone would write that.” After a few
more students participated, the globe was passed to Eli. Eli said, “Well,
I don’t like going to school here. My old school had a soccer team but this
school doesn’t have one. They told all of us that came here from Greene
Elementary that Davis had a soccer team, and it doesn’t. So, I can’t play
soccer like I did at Greene. All of the other middle schools have a soccer
team. This school sucks.” The group was silent. Mrs. Morrison then said,
“So Eli . . . what happened?” Eli responded, “Well, I hate it here because
I can’t play soccer. So I have been writing that because it is true. Davis
sucks.” As the globe was passed around the circle, Brandon and Colin,
who also had come to Davis from Greene Elementary, admitted that they
had also been writing the same message around the school, for the same
reason. Mrs. Morrison then said to the three boys, “Well, first of all, I want
to acknowledge how much I respect your honesty, and I am impressed by
the courage you have to admit this within our class circle. No matter what
else we talk about now, you are honest and courageous, and I am proud to
be your teacher. I can see now that the three of you have been very disap-
pointed and frustrated, and I understand why. Can you see any harm to
others that have resulted from your actions?” Eli responded, “No,” and
then he passed the globe. When the globe came around to Brandon, he
said that he thought that Mrs. Morrison was harmed because she had to
wash the desks off every time it happened. After he passed the globe, a few
other students commented that Aniyah and Maira were harmed because
seeing the graffiti made them feel bad about their school. And then other
students commented that it made them feel bad too.

Mrs. Morrison than asked the group, “So what needs to be done here
to make things right?” Colin thought that he, Brandon, and Eli should
apologize to Mrs. Morrison and the class for the graffiti. Colin went first,
and apologized wholeheartedly to Mrs. Morrison and the class. After a few
moments, Brandon spoke up and said that he was sorry too, and that he
didn’t mean any harm to anybody. Finally, Eli spoke again and said he was
sorry that his actions meant Mrs. Morrison had to clean the desks and that
some students felt bad about what he wrote. Brandon then offered to stay
through the morning break period and clean the latest writing off of the
desk so that Mrs. Morrison didn’t have to do it herself again.

Then Aniyah said, “Mrs. Morrison, what can we do to start a soccer
team at this school? Maybe Eli, Brandon, and Colin would like our school
more if Davis had a soccer team.” The class then moved into an animated
discussion about how they could best go about organizing a school soc-
cer team. After an initial plan had been made, and students agreed to
talk with their parents about their idea, Mrs. Morrison closed the circle
process. All of the students—including Brandon, Eli, and Colin—were
smiling. The bell rang, and students put their chairs away and filed into
the hallway. Brandon grabbed a spray bottle and rag from the closet and

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    151

began to clean the writing off of the desk. As students left the room,
Mrs. Morrison wondered:

• Could she or her students do more to make the students who
came from Greene Elementary feel welcome at Davis Middle
School?

• Who else in the class might be having a difficult transition
from elementary school to middle school? Could she find out
by holding more circle processes to build community among
students?

As we see in this scenario, circle processes have the potential to build
community among students and teachers, solve problems, and even
identify contextual problems that gave way to undesired behavior.

Circle Processes Can Improve
Classroom Management

When used proactively, circle processes can build community among learn-
ers and enable students to become sources of ideas and knowledge for one
another. This shifts the role of teacher from class authority to class facilitator
and learner. When circles are used to solve problems, they allow students to
explain their actions and intentions and promote student accountability in
making things right. Perhaps most powerfully in urban settings where more
students experience systemic inequities related to race and poverty, circle
processes can expose the roots of problematic behavior and promote creative
community solutions to contextual problems.

Conferences

Conferences are used within a restorative discipline model when relationships
have been broken and are in need of repair, when serious harms have been
committed, or when students demonstrate behavior that indicates that they
may be experiencing personal crisis and need targeted support. When confer-
ences are used to resolve conflicts, they afford students (and possibly staff) the
opportunity to meet face to face, discuss what each person believes happened
and why, talk about how each person feels about the situation, decide what
needs to be done to make things right again, and agree how to avoid a similar
situation in the future (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005).

Restorative conferencing in schools is a practice borrowed from the
criminal justice field. The most well known conferencing model in the U.S.
criminal justice system is victim-offender conferencing. In this model,
conferences are arranged between people who have committed offenses,
those who have been harmed, and supporters of each party. Victim-offender

152   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

conferences allow both offenders and those harmed to speak directly to one
another, ask questions of one another, and discuss their future intentions
(Hansen, 2005). Internationally, the most well known program related to
restorative conferencing may be South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation
Commission, which served to attend to the injustices of that country’s
apartheid system (Gade, 2013). Through public hearings arranged by this
commission, some South Africans who were identified as experiencing
human rights violations at the hands of the South African government gave
public statements about their experiences, and some government officials
responsible for human rights violations publicly accepted responsibility
and asked for amnesty from legal prosecution (Fullard & Rousseau, 2009).
Restorative conferencing offers a powerful avenue to address conflict by
focusing on accountability for one’s actions and making things right to the
extent possible.

A conferencing model has been found to be effective in addressing the
wrongdoings of youth in a variety of countries worldwide (Van Ness et al.,
2001). Restorative conferencing is an integral part of the youth justice sys-
tem in New Zealand, where the process used builds upon Maori traditions
to build character among youth who have made mistakes and strengthen
the community overall (McHold, 2001). In this model, youth who admit
to breaking the law and their families meet with a youth justice coordina-
tor instead of a judge. Those harmed by the young person’s actions, family
members and supporters of those harmed, and police officers may also par-
ticipate. The group is tasked with coming up with a remedy for the harm that
has been caused. A similar model has been used successfully in some areas
of postapartheid South Africa as well (Skelton & Frank, 2001). A key fea-
ture of restorative conferencing in addressing the behavior of youth appears
to be allowing youth to feel “reintegrative shame” in front of their family
members. In other words, the conferencing process allows them to experi-
ence negative feelings about their actions and accept responsibility for their
actions in front of their family members, have an opportunity to make things
right, and experience family support as they reenter society in good standing
(Zehr, 2015a).

Successful implementation of restorative conferences requires attention to
three key ideas. First, the conferences must be facilitated by someone who
can attend to the needs of all of the parties involved and is seen as impartial
(Shaw & Wierenga, 2002). Second, conferencing in schools typically involves
only the affected parties, school personnel, and in some cases family members
of involved students. This is the main distinction between conferencing and
circle processes: circle processes involve more community members, but con-
ferences typically involve only the parties directly involved and their families.
And third, facilitators should use open-ended and student-centered questions
that prompt students to talk and restore broken relationships. The set of ques-
tions at the top of the next page extends the set of questions shared earlier in

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    153

the “Affective Language” section of this chapter. Questions to ask in a restor-
ative conference can include the following (Davidson, 2014):

• Tell me what happened. What was your part in what happened?
• What were you thinking at the time?
• How were you feeling at the time?
• Who else was affected by this?
• What have been your thoughts since?
• What are your thoughts now?
• How are you feeling now?
• What do you need to do to make things right? Repair the harm

that was done? Get past this and move on?
• What can we do to support you?
• What might you do differently when this happens again?

In order to be an effective means of conflict resolution, it is important
that restorative conferences held in schools meet the following four goals,
described by Zehr (2015b). First, participation of all students must be volun-
tary. Second, the student whose behavior harmed others must have admitted
at least some responsibility for the incident before meeting with anyone who
feels harmed. Third, during the conference, the harm caused by the person’s
behavior must be acknowledged by all parties, and there must be discussion
of how to make things right again. And fourth, at the end of the conference,
all parties that were in conflict must sign their names in agreement to specific
steps in the future to avoid similar harms.

Restorative conferences can also be used when a student’s behavior indi-
cates that he or she may be experiencing personal crisis, even if his or her
actions have not harmed others. The following set of questions is a means of
allowing students to explore problems they may be wrestling with and encour-
aging them to make things right within themselves (Davidson, 2014):

• Tell me what’s been happening. What has not been working for you?
• What are you thinking about this situation?
• How are you feeling about this situation?
• How is this getting in the way of your learning? Feeling okay

about school? Being the person you want to be at school?
• What do you need to learn or to do to make things better? Make

things right? Reset and get back on track?
• What can we do to support you?
• What might you do differently the next time you find yourself in

this situation?

154   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

Probing questions such as these may help students sort through their feel-
ings and attitudes about difficult family situations, personal dilemmas, or
simply resistance they have about managing their own behavior within the
school community. Moreover, the answers to these questions can help school
personnel provide the kinds of supports necessary to support not only stu-
dents who have been harmed but also those who have caused the harm.

Restorative conferences have been used successfully to address many of
the problems when zero-tolerance policies have fallen short. These problems
include school truancy, allegations of defiant or disrespectful behavior, prop-
erty theft or damage, bullying, assaults, and problems involving weapons or
drugs (Morrison, 2007). The restorative conference model has been found to
be particularly effective for addressing the problem of bullying, as it attends
to the developmental needs of the bully as well as students who are harmed
by bullying, and it may get the pattern of bullying to stop (Molnar-Main
et al., 2014). However, it is important that conferences held to stop bullying be
very well facilitated, and separate conferencing with the bully and the student
harmed may be needed instead of bringing the two together in order for the
student harmed to feel safe (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005). Even in cases as complex
as gang conflicts that spill inside school walls, a conferencing model can still
provide a way forward (Smith, 1993). However, in these cases, outside facilita-
tors with credibility among the parties in dispute (such as former gang members
now involved in conflict resolution endeavors) may need to become involved
(Sweeney, Schmadeke, & Meisner, 2017).

VIGNETTE C: RESTORATIVE

CONFERENCING AFTER A FIGHT

Jasmine had just about had it. Every time she went through the lunch
line, Marisa would take something off of her tray right after she paid for
it. Marisa appeared to think this was funny. Jasmine had told her before
to stop, but she just kept on doing it, day after day. Jasmine had thought
that by the time she was in 11th grade she would not have to deal with
childish behavior like this from her classmates, and she was frustrated.

Things came to a head in the cafeteria Friday afternoon while many
of the students waited for pizza from the lunch line. Marisa walked past
Jasmine as soon as Jasmine paid for her pizza, grabbed the slice of
pizza off of Jasmine’s tray, and took a big bite. She then returned the
half-eaten pizza slice back to Jasmine’s tray. Jasmine glared at Marisa
and then pushed Marisa back into a stack of chairs lining the wall. Both
Marisa and the chairs fell over and one of the chair legs smashed against
Marisa’s face, cutting it. Another chair fell on top of Roberto, who was
standing next to Marisa with his lunch tray and tripped when Marisa fell.
A teacher grabbed Jasmine and escorted her to the principal’s office.
A teacher’s aide helped Marisa and Roberto up and walked them to

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    155

the nurse’s office. After the nurse treated the cut on Marisa’s face and
checked over Roberto, she escorted Marisa to the school counselor’s
office. Both girls knew that they would now have to discuss their part in
this conflict with school staff. Roberto returned to lunch.

Mr. Samuels, the school principal, called Jasmine into his office.
Mr. Samuels could tell that Jasmine was very upset. He asked her,
“Jasmine, can you tell me what happened?” Jasmine explained to
Mr. Samuels that Marisa had been taking food off of her lunch tray
for weeks, and that when she grabbed her pizza slice today, Jasmine
had simply had enough. She told Mr. Samuels she pushed Marisa.
She was not intentionally trying to hurt Marisa, she just reacted. Mr.
Samuels then asked Jasmine what she was feeling at the time. She
said, “Angry. Marisa has been taking my food for weeks and I’ve asked
her to stop a number of times. Why does she think this is funny?”
Mr. Samuels then asked Jasmine, “Who else has been affected in this
situation?” Jasmine thought for a minute and said, “Well, Marisa was
affected for sure, because I pushed her. And Roberto kind of got pulled
into it. Literally . . . Marisa pulled him down on accident when she fell.”

Mr. Samuels then asked Jasmine, “So, what are your thoughts
about this situation now?” Jasmine responded, “Well, I still am sick of
Marisa’s childish behavior, but I probably shouldn’t have pushed her.”
Mr. Samuels followed up, “How are you feeling now, Jasmine?” Jasmine
told Mr. Samuels that she was feeling calmer. Mr. Samuels then asked
Jasmine, “What do you need to do to make things right?” She said, “I
should probably apologize to Roberto and maybe buy him some pizza
from the cafeteria, since he didn’t get any. I know I need to apologize to
Marisa for pushing her, but I’m still angry that she has been bothering
me for weeks.” Mr. Samuels then said, “So what needs to happen in
order for you to get past this problem?” Jasmine responded, “Marisa
needs to apologize for taking my lunch. And she needs to stop.” Mr.
Samuels said, “Okay. That seems fair. One more question: What might
you do differently if a situation like this happens again?” Jasmine
thought for a moment and then said, “I could just tell her to knock it
off instead of pushing her. I could talk to you about it too, I guess.” Mr.
Samuels agreed that both of those options would be more effective than
pushing Marisa again. Finally he asked Jasmine, “Is there anything I
can do to support you?” Jasmine thought for a moment, and said that
she was okay. He asked Jasmine if she would be willing to have a con-
ference with Marisa about what happened, and she agreed to do so.

Although the nurse had cleaned Marisa’s face and placed a ban-
dage on her cheek, it was still a bit sore as Marisa talked with Mrs.
Atherson, one of the school counselors. Mrs. Atherson began by asking
Marisa, “So what happened?” Marisa explained that she was joking with
Jasmine and Roberto, and then Jasmine pushed her into the stack of

156   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

chairs. She lost her balance and pulled Roberto down too as she fell.
Mrs. Atherson then asked her, “So what was your part in what hap-
pened, Marisa?” Marisa said, “Well, I was just joking with Jasmine and
I took a bite of her pizza. But Jasmine took it to a whole other level, and
she got really mad. So I guess my part was just joking with someone
who can’t take a joke.” Mrs. Atherson asked her, “Well, what was the
joke about?” Marisa said, “About eating lunch.” Mrs. Atherson contin-
ued, “So Marisa, what were you thinking about when you took a bite of
her pizza?” Marisa responded, “I was thinking I was hungry!” When Mrs.
Atherson asked Marisa, “How were you feeling when you did this?” she
responded, “Well, I was feeling pretty good at first because I had man-
aged to get some pizza even though my mom hasn’t sent me to school
with money for lunch in weeks. But after Jasmine pushed me, I was
pretty embarrassed that I fell and there was so much attention on me.”
Mrs. Atherson asked Marisa who else was affected by what happened.
Marisa thought that Roberto was definitely affected because she pulled
him down when she fell, and Jasmine was affected because Marisa had
been joking with her. Marisa thought that some of the other students
standing in line for pizza that day were also affected, because they saw
Marisa trying to joke with Jasmine.

When Mrs. Atherson asked her, “What are your thoughts about this
situation now?” Marisa responded, “Well, I guess Jasmine really didn’t
think my joke was funny. And Roberto probably didn’t appreciate getting
pulled into it.” Mrs. Atherson continued, “So how are you feeling now?”
Marisa said, “Well, I’m pretty mad at Jasmine still—even if she didn’t
think my joke was funny, she should not have pushed me. That was really
embarrassing. There were a lot of people watching.” Mrs. Atherson then
asked, “So what needs to happen to get past this incident? What do you
need to do to make things right?” Marisa thought for a moment and
then said, “Well, I need Jasmine to apologize for pushing me. But I think
I should probably tell Jasmine I’m sorry for swiping pieces of her lunch.
I wasn’t trying to make her mad, I just don’t have money for lunch so
I’ve been swiping bites from a few different people who always get the
full lunch.” Mrs. Atherson then asked Marisa, “What needs to happen
for you to make things right with Roberto?” Marisa said that she should
definitely apologize to Roberto for pulling him into the incident. She also
said she should try to get Roberto some pizza since she dumped his
tray, but she did not have the money to do so. Mrs. Atherson said she
appreciated Marisa’s thoughts on the matter and then asked her, “What
can our school do to support you?” Marisa thought for a moment and
then said, “Well, it would be nice if I could get some lunch without having
to make it so obvious that I don’t have the cash.” Mrs. Atherson said she
thought she could arrange for that. Marisa also asked if Mrs. Atherson
could help get Roberto a lunch today as well, and Mrs. Atherson agreed

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    157

to do so. Finally, Mrs. Atherson asked her, “What might you do differ-
ently if you need something like lunch and you don’t have the money to
get it?” Marisa sighed and said, “Maybe talk to you. Or Mr. Samuels or
a teacher. To see if I can get a loan or a free lunch or whatever instead
of swiping bites.” Mrs. Atherson smiled and said, “That’s a good idea,
Marisa.” Mrs. Atherson then asked Marisa if she would be willing to
have a conference with Jasmine. Marisa agreed, and the conference
was set for the next morning.

The next morning, Jasmine, Marisa, Mr. Samuels, and Mrs. Atherson
met in the school conference room. Marisa admitted to Jasmine that
she was wrong to swipe bites of her lunch, and she would stop doing
it. Jasmine said she appreciated that Marisa said that. She also told
Jasmine that it was really embarrassing for her to have so much atten-
tion on her when Jasmine pushed her. Jasmine also thanked Marisa
for her apology, and then admitted that she was wrong to push Marisa
into the chairs. She apologized to Marisa for pushing her. She also told
Marisa how much it bothered her when Marisa took items off of her
lunch tray. She told Marisa, “I work after school so that I can pay for
my lunch and lunch for my two younger brothers. I work hard for that
money and it really upsets me when you disrespect me by messing with
my lunch.” As the girls talked, they agreed that Marisa would not take
anything else off of Jasmine’s lunch tray, and if Jasmine gets frustrated
with Marisa that she will tell her instead of pushing her. At the end of
the conference, Mr. Samuels wrote down an agreement, and both girls
signed it. After Mr. Samuels wrote both of them passes to enter their
first period classes late, the girls left the conference room and went to
their classes. Mr. Samuels and Mrs. Atherson remained for a moment,
reflecting on the conference they had just held for the two students.
They wondered:

• Did they do enough to protect Jasmine from Marisa’s irritating
behavior?

• Did they need to do more to make sure that all students who
needed it had access to the school’s free lunch program? How
could they find out who else was not buying lunch because they
could not afford it?

• Would Marisa really stop taking food off of Jasmine’s tray, or
was she just saying what the school staff wanted to hear?

• How should both girls make things right with Roberto? Should
Mr. Samuels and Mrs. Atherson arrange a separate conference
with Jasmine, Marisa, and Roberto now that the two girls had
moved past their conflict?

158   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

Although restorative conferencing will not eliminate all conflicts
between students, it allows students to explain their part in what hap-
pened and have a voice in how the situation is resolved. In a school that
relies upon exclusion to address conflicts between students such as this
one, it is likely that both Jasmine and Marisa would have been excluded
from their classes for a period of time as a result of their behaviors. This
might have led to both academic challenges and perhaps more discipline
problems. This would not have resolved their conflict and the teasing and
pushing may have continued in the future. Exclusion also would not have
exposed the underlying context that caused the problem: that Marisa did
not have money to buy lunch for herself.

Restorative Conferences Can Improve
Classroom Management in Urban Schools

Restorative conferences provide students the support they need to resolve con-
flicts they have within themselves, with other students, and with the larger school
community. It provides students a chance to explain themselves and allows stu-
dents the opportunity to make things right again after harms have occurred.
Restorative conferences have great potential for urban settings, as they allow for
systemic issues related to race or poverty to be identified. Restorative conferences
also allow discussion of contextual roots of behavior, and they give attention to
strategies for conflict resolution that may be overlooked in punitive systems. By
approaching this situation through a restorative discipline lens, both the conflict
between the two girls was resolved and Mrs. Atherson was able to address the
underlying problem: that Marisa was hungry and needed help to get lunch. If a
punitive discipline approach had been used, both girls would likely have faced
consequences for their actions, but they might have never talked about how to
stop future incidents, and the underlying problem of Marisa’s consistent hunger
and lack of lunch money might never have been discovered.

IMPLEMENTING RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE

Clearly teachers have many competing priorities that may dissuade them
from implementing restorative discipline measures. Teachers are constantly
pressured to cover enough content and prepare students well for state assess-
ments. Teachers may also not feel supported by their colleagues or adminis-
trators in implementing restorative discipline measures. However, the time
and energy investment required to operate within a restorative discipline
environment is worth the effort. Teachers who make this investment in their
students will see positive results in terms of their classroom environment as
a whole and in the experiences of their students. Additionally, teachers will
know that when they use restorative discipline strategies to address student

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    159

behavior, they are leading their students closer to the experience of justice
and equity that all children deserve in U.S. schools. Consider students in the
first vignette who benefited from Mr. Harris’s use of affective language in
the classroom. Both Jeremiah and Bethany were praised for their academic
efforts, and Emma and Brian were gently corrected in a way that will likely
curtail future misbehaviors. In the second vignette, Mrs. Morrison was able to
resolve the issue of classroom graffiti through a circle process without sending
Eli, Brandon, or Colin to the office. Furthermore, her students welcomed the
opportunity to investigate how to get a school soccer team so that the three
boys felt more at home in the Davis Middle School community. And finally
in the third vignette, principal Mr. Samuels and counselor Mrs. Atherson
were able to resolve the altercation between Jasmine and Marisa through the
restorative conferencing process. Through this process both girls were able
to make amends for their unwanted behaviors and agree not to repeat the
same interaction in the future. Through this process, the root cause of the
problem—that Marisa was hungry and had no means of buying lunch—was
discovered and addressed by the school staff. None of these successful out-
comes would be as likely under a punitive discipline model.

Teachers and administrators interested in adopting a restorative discipline
model can benefit from the experience of other educators who have imple-
mented this type of system. In this section, we discuss keys to implementation.
A review of literature on the topic of restorative discipline authored by Fronius,
Persson, Guckenburg, Hurley, and Petrosino (2016) indicates that restorative
discipline initiatives have been implemented across many states and school dis-
tricts nationwide, to varying degrees. This review also indicates that five states
in particular—California, Illinois, Colorado, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania—
have the longest history of implementing restorative discipline systems and
have had the most success in systems that are both large scale and sustainable
(p. 19). Although little rigorous research has been done on the impact of restor-
ative discipline practices, and funding to study it seems to be scarce, key studies
in the state of Minnesota, in Denver Public Schools, and in the school system
of Queensland, Australia, indicate that the method is an effective alternative to
reliance on suspensions and expulsions (Suvall, 2009). In Denver, findings also
indicate that achievement test scores increased during the period of time when
restorative discipline measures were implemented. Although researchers note
that this may be a coincidence, it also may be a by-product of reduced school
exclusion (González, 2015). Of course, restorative discipline practices are not
perfect procedures, and do not always lead educators to reach the goals they set
in conflict resolution. For this reason, we will also discuss critiques of restor-
ative discipline approaches in this section.

Keys to Implementation

The most effective implementation of a restorative approach to discipline
appears to rely on a few key factors: a building-level approach as opposed to

160   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

a classroom-level approach, buy-in from the entire staff, and a clear imple-
mentation plan. First, a building-level approach is recommended because
restorative discipline is more effective when implemented by an entire school
community, not just one teacher (González, 2015; Simson, 2014). Although
single teachers can use affective language practices, circle processes, and
restorative conferencing on their own without any administrative support,
these disciplinary methods are far more effective when adopted schoolwide
(Davidson, 2014). This is the case because adopting restorative discipline
schoolwide can shift the overall culture of the school and provide a much
more coherent experience for students as they move from class to class.
Adopting a restorative discipline approach on a schoolwide level may be a
daunting process, as it requires that the school redefine discipline policies and
modify the student code of conduct (Schiff, 2013). The second key to success
is buy-in from all staff members. This is most readily accomplished through
extensive and ongoing staff training in restorative discipline where staff learn
about the effects and influences of the shift in practices. A significant and
ongoing commitment to staff training is essential because if some staff mem-
bers remain “stuck” in the use of punitive discipline, the overall culture of the
school will not shift (González, 2012; Simson, 2014). And finally, enacting
a restorative approach to discipline schoolwide requires a clear implementa-
tion plan. Findings from the study of Denver Public Schools indicated that
beginning with a small pilot phase of the approach, extending it gradually,
and moving to widespread adoption allowed educators, community mem-
bers, and students to realize the values and benefits of a restorative approach
to school discipline (González, 2015). An implementation rollout period of
3 to 5 years is recommended for schools considering adopting a restorative
discipline approach schoolwide (González, 2012; Shaw & Wierenga, 2002).
It is important to note that schools should study the effects of the program
not only by examining student test scores, attendance, and grades but also by
listening to the voices of staff, students, and family members about the effects
of the shift.

Critiques of Restorative Discipline

Although restorative discipline does offer educators a relationship-based way
of solving problems in schools without resorting to exclusionary practices, this
approach is not without critique. For instance, Ortega et al. (2016) offer a
critique of the circle process to solve problems in schools, sharing findings
from an empirical study. Students in this study reported that they sometimes
felt frustrated by the circle process when it was used for problem solving. They
reported this frustration as caused by a belief that other students in the circle
were not authentically participating but rather saying what facilitators would
want to hear in order to end the process. For this reason, circle processes that
are not truly voluntary may not be effective means of solving problems. Simson
(2014) offered two additional critiques of the restorative discipline approach.

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    161

First, restorative discipline methods do not offer the traditional procedural
protections such as due process to those harmed that participate in school
hearings or other court systems on the basis of a punitive discipline model.
In this way, restorative discipline methods may be constructed as continuing
to oppress those harmed by the actions of others. Second, some believe that
restorative discipline measures may place too much importance on shaming
students involved in misbehavior. A heavy focus on shame may not be appro-
priate for students facing challenges such as living significantly below the pov-
erty line, alcohol or drug addiction, or mental health problems. Students who
engage in harmful behavior amid these powerful forces may require an assess-
ment of their actions that includes attending to these significant challenges
and less of an emphasis on them experiencing shame.

Overall, it seems that a restorative approach to discipline takes a significant
commitment on the part of a teacher and/or a school in order to be effective.
When used schoolwide, time and training to ensure that all staff understand
and will use the process are essential. Although it is not a panacea to end con-
flicts within schools and not a perfect process, restorative discipline offers an
alternative to punitive discipline measures that remove students from learning
and set them apart from the school community. In our opinion, restorative
discipline offers educators the best opportunity to address student behavior
while also moving U.S. classrooms and schools away from the cradle-to-prison
pipeline and closer to the ideal of justice and equity for all U.S. students.

RESTORATIVE DISCIPLINE IMPROVES
CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT

Classroom management indeed calls for a restorative discipline model.
Restorative discipline is built upon the foundational idea that schools are places
where students are expected to make errors and learn from them, both in the
learning of content and in learning how to be good members of the school com-
munity. Of course, no approach to discipline is perfect, and restorative discipline
is no exception. Although this approach highlights the normalization of making
errors and promotes the idea of students seeing themselves as good members of a
school community, it does not necessarily address what happens when the con-
cept of “what it means to be a good member of the community” is problematic.
In other words, what happens when students feel oppressed, marginalized, or
discriminated against in a school environment and are “misbehaving” as a result?
However, this approach shows much more promise than what has been the
approach through exclusionary practices. Over the past 40 years, U.S. schools
have relied upon exclusionary practices such as suspension and expulsion, which
are components of the punitive discipline process. Although schools first did so
as a more humane alternative to corporal punishment and public embarrass-
ment, punitive discipline and exclusion have had many damaging effects on too
many students, especially those of color and those living below the poverty line.

162   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

Whereas exclusion takes students away from the support of the school com-
munity, restorative measures highlight the importance of students’ owning up
to mistakes in behavior, understanding the harms they may have caused, and
endeavoring to make things right again. In doing so, students are supported by
the school community as they grow and learn instead of being rejected by the
school community for mistakes they have made (or that others have perceived
that they have made). Furthermore, educators are learning about student needs
in the process.

At either the classroom level or the school level, educators can promote
restorative discipline through three methods. First, the use of affective lan-
guage in the classroom or the school can reinforce positive behavior, redirect
unwanted behavior, and lead students to reflect on how their actions have
affected others. Affective language practices allow educators to address prob-
lems while they are still small and relatively easy for students to self-correct.

Second, circle processes can be used either proactively or reactively in
classrooms or school buildings. It is very important that educators in urban
settings understand that circle processes can be used prior to the occurrence of
behaviors as well as after they occur. Again, relationship building is at the core
of this approach. When used proactively, circle processes can develop a deep
sense of community among learners and educators. Teachers can use circle
processes as a regular feature of their class routines as a means to stimulate
discussion, increase student input, and shift their own role from class author-
ity to class facilitator and learner. When used reactively, circle processes can
result in the resolution of conflicts in a manner owned by students. Solutions
may address deeper contextual problems and even systemic inequities once
these circumstances are uncovered.

And third, restorative conferences can be used when relationships have
been broken or serious harm to individuals or the school community has
occurred. The restorative conference model allows students to explain
their thoughts and feelings at the time of the unwanted action, gives them
the support they need to make things right again, and offers them a path-
way to rejoin the school community in good standing. Keep in mind that
circle processes can be enacted with large groups, and conferences can be
enacted with just the few students who are involved in the situation, and
affective language can be used in both of these processes. Overall, these
methods offer a promising alternative to the use of suspensions and exclu-
sions that are negatively affecting so many students today. Indeed, the use
of restorative discipline strategies instead of punitive discipline approaches
may represent our best way forward for marginalized students such as stu-
dents of color, those with learning differences, and those who live below
the poverty line. By addressing student behavior without punitive and
exclusionary consequences that unfairly target these marginalized young
people, we may disrupt the flow of these students from entering the cradle-
to-prison pipeline, affording greater justice and equity for all.

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    163

Key Ideas and Recommendations

Restorative Practices Affective Language Circle Process Conference

(Overall) Use of statements Group process Used when
and questions to that can be used relationships have
Relationship-based express feelings or proactively as part of been broken and are
approach to discipline; emotions related daily classroom and in need of repair or
presumes students to behaviors or school routines and when serious harms
can become aware of actions of others reactively to solve have been committed
how their actions affect (Costello et al., problems
others, self-correct 2009) Affords students
some behavior, and Promotes student opportunity to
make things right when Encourages accountability for meet face-to-face
others are harmed students to self- actions and allows and discuss what
correct their own creative community happened and why,
Provides an alternative behavior before responses to problems how each person
to punitive systems small problems or conflicts; develops feels, how to make
that may unfairly become large ones greater awareness things right again, and
exclude students of needing greater of how one’s actions how to avoid a future
color and students disciplinary action; affect others; shifts similar situation
living below the poverty can both affirm teacher role from rule (Amstutz & Mullet,
line from classrooms positive behavior enforcer to facilitator 2005)
and schools (Schiff, and redirect
2013) unwanted behavior Participants sit in Keys to success:
a physical circle, voluntary participation;
Key implementation Affective statements facilitator introduces responsible students
considerations: help students and closes process, acknowledge actions
understand how starts by posing an before meeting with
Building-wide approach their actions open-ended question, those harmed; harm
better than class affected others (San group uses a talking acknowledged by all
by class; extensive Francisco Unified piece (Amstutz & during conference;
staff training needed School District, Mullet, 2005) parties discuss how
for teacher buy-in; 2010); affective to make things right
rollout period of 3 to 5 questions prompt again; parties must
years recommended students to reflect sign agreement to
(González, 2012, 2015; on how their actions steps to avoid future
Shaw & Wierenga, affect others, harms (Zehr, 2015b)
2002; Simson, 2014) resolve conflicts
(Costello et al.,
2009)

REFLECTING ON THE CHAPTER . . .

1. Teachers might take some time to reflect upon a recent interaction with a student
where the teacher addressed a relatively minor discipline issue such as not paying
attention or talking with classmates during an inopportune time. How could this
discipline conversation be different if the teacher uses an affective statement or an
affective question to address the behavior?
(Continued)

164   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

(Continued)

2. Teachers may consider the many instructional and community-building activities
they engage in with students throughout the day. Which activity could most easily
be turned into a circle process, thereby introducing students to this new routine?

3. Teachers could consider a recent time when they had to address a discipline
situation that resulted in a student’s being sent to detention or suspension. Did
the consequence seem to change the student’s behavior? How might the situation
have ended differently if a restorative conference occurred for the student
instead?

4. How might teachers advocate for schoolwide restorative discipline programs?

5. What are some possible barriers to implementation of schoolwide restorative
discipline practices? How might teachers address these?

REFERENCES

Advancement Project. (2014). Restorative practices: U.S. schools: A research review. San Francisco, CA:
Fostering healthy relationships & promoting positive WestEd Justice & Prevention Research Center.
discipline in schools: A guide for educators. Cam-
bridge, MA: The Schott Foundation for Public Fullard, M., & Rousseau, N. (2009). Truth telling,
Education. identities, and power in South Africa and Guate-
Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little mala. New York: International Center for Transi-
book of restorative discipline for schools: Teaching tional Justice.
responsibility; creating caring climates. New York: Gade, C. (2013). Restorative justice and the
Good Books. South African truth and reconciliation process.
Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009). South African Journal of Philosophy, 32(1), 10–36.
The restorative practices handbook for teachers, dis- George, G. (2017). Restorative practices. Retrieved
ciplinarians and administrators. Bethlehem, PA: June 8, 2017, from http://rpforschools.net/
International Institute for Restorative Practices. pdfs/0Z8_RestorativeProcesses.pdf
Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2010). Girvan, E. J., Gion, C., McIntosh, K., &
Restorative circles in schools: Building community Smolkowski, K. (2017). The relative contribution
and enhancing learning. Bethlehem, PA: Interna- of subjective office referrals to racial dispropor-
tional Institute for Restorative Practices. tionality in school discipline. School Psychology
Davidson, J. (2014). Restoring justice. Teaching Quarterly, 32(3), 392.
Tolerance, 47. González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools:
Dlamini, C. (1988). The role of chiefs in the admin- Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the
istration of justice. Unpublished LLM thesis, Uni- school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law & Educa-
versity of Pretoria, Pretoria, South Africa. tion, 41(2).
Drozdek, B. (2010). How do we salve our González, T. (2015). Socializing schools: Address-
wounds? Intercultural perspectives on individual ing racial disparities in discipline through restor-
and collective strategies of making peace with our ative justice. In D. J. Losen (Ed.), Closing the
own past. Traumatology, 16(4), 5–16. school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive
Fronius, T., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, exclusion. New York: Teachers College Press.
N., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice in Greenwood, J. (2005). The circle process: A path
for restorative dialogue. St. Paul: Univeristy of

Chapter 5  •  Classroom Management Is About Restorative Discipline    165

Minnesota Center for Restorative Justice and Handbook of restorative justice. New York: Taylor
Peacemaking. & Francis.
Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., Persson, H., Fronius, Ortega, L., Lyubansky, M., Nettles, S., & Espelage,
T., & Petrosino, A. (2015). Restorative justice in U.S. D. L. (2016). Outcomes of a restorative circles pro-
schools: Summary findings from interviews with experts. gram in a high school setting. Psychology of Violence,
San Francisco, CA: WestEd Justice & Prevention 6(3), 459–468.
Research Center. San Francisco Unified School District. (2010).
Hansen, T. (2005). Restorative justice practices and Restorative practices: Curriculum and supporting doc-
principles in schools. Saint Paul: University of Min- uments. Retrieved June 9, 2017, from http://www
nesota Center for Restorative Justice and Peace .healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/Resources/
Making. index.php
Husband, T. (2016). Recommendations. In San Francisco Unified School District. (n.d.). Restor-
T. Husband (Ed.), But I don’t see color: The perils, ative practices whole-school implementation guide.
practices, and possibilities of antiracist education. Retrieved from http://www.healthiersf.org/Restor
Rotterdam, the Netherlands: Sense. ativePractices/Resources/documents/SFUSD%20
Lilles, H. (2001). Circle sentencing: Part of the Whole%20School%20Implementation%
restorative justice continuum. In A. Morris & 20Guide%20final.pdf
G. Maxwell (Eds.), Restorative justice for juveniles: Con- Schiff, M. (2013). Dignity, disparity, and desis-
ferencing, mediation and circles. Portland, OR: Hart. tance: Effective restorative justice strategies to plug
McHold, P. (2001). Primary restorative justice the “school-to-prison pipeline.” Los Angeles: Uni-
practices. In A. Morris & G. Maxwell (Eds.), versity of California, Los Angeles, Civil Rights
Restorative justice for juveniles: Conferencing, media- Project.
tion and circles. Portland, OR: Hart.
Mergler, M., Vargas, K., & Caldwell, C. (2014). Shaw, G., & Wierenga, A. (2002). Restorative
Alternative discipline can benefit learning. Phi Delta practices/Community conferencing pilot evaluation.
Kappan, 96(2), 25–30. Melbourne, Australia: University of Melbourne.
Milner, H. R. (2014). Research on classroom man- Simson, D. (2014). Exclusion, punishment, racism
agement in urban classrooms. In E. T. Emmer & and our schools: A critical race theory perspective
E. Sabornie (Eds.), The handbook of classroom man- on school discipline. UCLA Law Review, 61(2),
agement: Research, practice, and contemporary issues 506–563.
(2nd ed., pp. 167–185). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Skelton, A., & Frank, C. (2001). Conferencing in
Erlbaum. South Africa: Returning to our future. In A. Morris
Milner, H. R., & Woolfolk Hoy, A. (2003). A case & G. Maxwell (Eds.), Restorative justice for juve-
study of an African American teacher’s self-efficacy, niles: Conferencing, mediation and circles. Portland,
stereotype threat, and persistence. Teaching and OR: Hart.
Teacher Education, 19, 263–276.
Minnesota Department of Children, Families, and Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C. G., Rausch,
Learning. (2002). In-school behavior intervention grants M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race is not
final report 1999–2000. Saint Paul, MN: Author. neutral: A national investigation of African Ameri-
can and Latino disproportionality in school disci-
Molnar-Main, S., Bisbing, K., Blackburn, S., pline. School Psychology Review, 40(1), 85.
Galkowski, L., Garrity, R., Morris, C., . . . Singer, Smith, M. (1993). Mediation in juvenile justice
J. (2014). Integrating bullying prevention and restor- settings. Journal for Juvenile Justice and Detention
ative practices in schools: Consideration for practitio- Services, 8(1), 51–55.
ners and policymakers. Camp Hill, PA: Center for Suvall, C. (2009). Restorative justice in schools:
Safe Schools. Learning from Jena High School. Harvard Civil
Morrison, M. B. (2007). Schools and restorative Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44(2).
justice. In G. Johnstone & D. Van Ness (Eds.), Sweeney, A., Schmadeke, S., & Meisner, J. (2017).
How to stop guns, gangs and poverty? Chicago

166   “These Kids Are Out of Control” relationships, and strengthen civil society. Pipersville,
PA: The Piper’s Press.
seeks solutions after violent 2016. The Chicago Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining restorative. Retrieved
Tribune. Retrieved from http://www.chicagotri May 28, 2016, from http://www.iirp.edu/images/
bune.com/news/ct-chicago-violence-solutions- pdf/Defining-Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf
met-20161230-story.html Winn, M. T. (2013). Towards a restorative English
U.S. Department of Education, Office for Civil education. Research in the Teaching of English,
Rights. (2016). 2013–2014 civil rights data col- 48(1), 126–135.
lection: A first look. Retrived February 1, 2016 Yazzie, R. (1994). Life comes from it: Navajo
from https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/ justice concepts. New Mexico Law Review, 1(1),
docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf 179–190.
Van Ness, D., Morris, A., & Maxwell, G.. (2001). Zehr, H. (2015a). Changing lenses: Restorative justice
Introducing restorative justice. In A. Morris & for our times (25th anniv. ed.). Harrisonburg, VA:
G. Maxwell (Eds.), Restorative justice for juveniles: Herald.
Conferencing, mediation and circles. Portland, OR: Zehr, H. (2015b). The little book of restorative jus-
Hart. tice. New York: Good Books.
Wachtel, T. (2013). Dreaming of a new reality: How
restorative processes reduce crime and violence, improve

CONCLUSIONS, IMPLICATIONS,
AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A ttempting to understand the complexities of classroom management is
indeed an arduous task. Students must be placed at the center of our
efforts to build a classroom that optimizes their learning opportunities while
maintaining important aspects of their beings. We must understand how stu-
dents live both inside and outside of school. We must also problematize what
we mean by “appropriate” and “normal” behavior. Like knowledge construc-
tion, students’ behavioral practices and patterns are constructed on the basis of
social and cultural conditions and realities. Thus, we must work to understand
how students’ social and cultural experiences influence what they do, what
they choose not to do, and how they conduct themselves in the classroom.
Moreover, teachers must understand that what they perceive as appropriate
behavior is also socially and subjectively constructed. Teachers bring their own
views, preferences, and insights into interpreting student behavior and also
in setting their expectations for what is and is not acceptable in a classroom
environment.

As mentioned, we have consistently heard teachers in different social con-
texts across the United States (and for at least two of us in other parts of the
world) who lament, “These kids are out of control.” We hope readers embrace
the idea that students should be out of the control of adults—including edu-
cators. We should not pursue practices of control over other people. Students
are not to be controlled—they are not wild, dangerous animals. Thus, when
teachers stress that students are “out of control,” they should do so with relief.

However, we understand that what many educators mean when they talk
about students and control is that their classroom environments are not con-
ducive to optimal teaching and learning opportunities. We have stressed the
necessity for educators to co-construct with students (and families) classroom
contexts that bolster student identity and learning. Classroom environments
where students feel safe, motivated, and engaged—not controlled—are places
where they are intellectually curious, allowed to take risks, and see themselves
explicitly reflected in the curriculum and instructional practices of the space.

Additionally, classroom management must involve more than a focus on
student behavior. On one hand, we must be aware of the multiple and varied
experiences among students and the inconsistencies that exist between them
and their teachers. However, we must not stereotype, generalize, and reify
incorrect assumptions and misconceptions about students and teachers. To
do so would contradict the very essence of this book. We must understand

167

168   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

that students bring into the classroom knowledge, expertise, brilliance, and
a set of experiences that must be drawn from and incorporated in the very
fabric of the classroom. Building on students’ prior knowledge, including
how they have been taught to behave in the past, is essential in developing
skills to ensure success. For instance, as Dillard (2000) stressed, students of
color are not White people with pigmented skin. Their experiences are shaped
by and framed by their race. But at the same time, teachers must recognize
that they are teaching individual raced people.

Students and parents must bear some responsibility for student behavior in
classrooms. In like form, teachers, administrators, policymakers, and teacher
education programs must also carry some of the responsibility. Clearly, there
needs to be some collaboration and effort on the part of many to provide opti-
mal learning opportunities for students. As we have discussed, developing
parental and community alliances can be essential in supporting students’ aca-
demic and social success. To do so, teachers must demystify and break down
barriers that may exist between schools and families. Intimidation parents may
feel from schooling structures can disrupt parental and community partner-
ship that can be central to developing strategies to help students understand
what Delpit (1995) has described as a culture of power in the classroom.

Indeed, when students are not in the classroom—that is, when they
are sent out of the classroom for punishment reprimands—they do not
have access to opportunities to learn. This inaccessibility to curriculum
and instructional opportunities is dangerous and needs to be seriously
considered because students are missing important learning opportuni-
ties. Monroe and Obidah (2004) wrote that “teachers who address inap-
propriate conduct in the classroom without relying on formal procedures,
such as office referrals, may enable their students to avoid detrimental
effects associated with recurrent disciplinary action” (p. 266). With this
in mind, we conclude and offer the following recommendations for dif-
ferent, and equally important, constituents involved in the educational
enterprise.

A CHARGE TO TEACHER EDUCATION

Many teacher education programs across the United States still do not
have courses that deeply and sustainably address race, justice, and urban
education—not to mention urban classroom management. This is a program-
matic void that needs to be filled (Matus, 1999) if we are committed to sup-
porting teachers to build the types of classroom environments with students
that maximize student potential. According to Weinstein et al. (2004), “A lack
of multicultural competence can exacerbate the difficulties that novice teach-
ers (and even more experienced teachers) have with classroom management”
(p. 26). Teacher education must help teachers and future teachers pose
tough questions about classroom management for the sake of all students

C onclusions, Implications, and Recommendations   169

(Milner, 2003; Milner & Smithey, 2003). There needs to be a linking of con-
text, content, and classroom management practices to better support teacher
learning and development.

It is imperative that teachers understand that

children must learn (and be taught) the culture of the classroom in
order for them to effectively participate in learning . . . if the children
understand and learn the appropriate expected behaviors for different
classroom contexts, communication and interaction between the
teacher and students should increase. (Garibaldi, 1992, pp. 26–27)

But we are suggesting that students should actually be involved in this
classroom culture construction and not be told or expected to simply adhere
to cultural norms set by a teacher.

In addition, some teachers may still enter some classrooms secretly afraid
of the students “because . . . [they have] never known anyone who looked,
talked, or acted like [their students]” (Weiner, 1993, p. 119). The manners by
which teachers interpret student behavior in classrooms have the potential to
guide and mitigate learning, and teacher education needs to be on the front line
in helping teachers understand that they must not fear their students and must
instead see and embrace the very humanity of them.

Weinstein et al. (2004) wrote,

Teacher educators and researchers interested in classroom management
must begin to make cultural diversity an integral part of the
conversation. We need to ask whether diversity requires different
approaches to classroom management, to examine the kinds of cultural
conflicts that are likely to arise in ethnically diverse classrooms, and
to consider the best ways to help preservice [and practicing] teachers
become multiculturally competent. (p. 27)

In short, teacher education must help teachers develop the skills, knowl-
edge, attitudes, beliefs, thinking, practices, and dispositions to teach all stu-
dents effectively. We cannot expect teachers to build these critical aspects of
teaching without support from teacher education (preservice and in-service).
Conceivably, teachers who feel efficacious about their abilities to perform in a
context are much more likely to persist—even in the midst of adversity. Teacher
education programs are critical in this regard. Students need and deserve com-
petent and committed teachers. And teachers deserve working environments
where they feel safe and confident to teach all their students successfully.

A CHARGE TO RESEARCHERS

Obviously, we need to know more about classroom management in all schools.
There simply are not enough studies on this pressing topic, particularly

170   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

studies that problematize what classroom management actually is and those
that frame classroom management as an equity imperative. Weiner (2003)
declared, “One of the most serious obstacles to understand anything about
urban schools is the lack of reliable data” (p. 306). Weinstein et al. (2004)
posed several interrelated questions that might be an anchoring point in
thinking about future research that really takes into consideration complexi-
ties associated with classroom management and justice. For instance, the
researchers posed questions such as these:

What types of cultural conflicts can arise in classrooms
that might make it more difficult to have a safe,
caring . . . environment? . . . What approaches are most appropriate
when students in one particular classroom come from a variety
of cultural backgrounds? . . . How can we sensitize our (mostly
White, middle-class) teachers to their own biases, assumptions, and
stereotypes so that they undergo genuine personal transformation
rather than simply learning to mouth the socially appropriate
responses? (pp. 35–36)

It is essential for researchers to conduct this research in classrooms, to
make connections to teacher education, and to see with a cultural eye (Irvine,
2003), regardless of the research paradigm the researchers use (qualitative
and quantitative studies alike are needed). Moreover, teachers themselves
should be prepared to conduct research to examine their classrooms and to
think about alternative and effective approaches to supporting students. As is
the case for teachers who work in classrooms across the country, researchers
cannot assume that their research is culturally and ethnically neutral (Milner,
2007). The nature of questions posed, the research design, instrumentation
decisions, how the questions are posed, on behalf of whom, and to whom,
and how data are analyzed and reported or represented are all issues embed-
ded in one’s worldview and positionality (Milner, 2007)—issues that have
cultural and racial implications.

Jeff, a high school English teacher in Brown’s (2003) study reminded
us, “You’re there to teach kids—not subjects! We often forget this point”
(p. 278). In this same vein, researchers should craft their research projects
and agendas in ways that build, broaden, and expand our knowledge about
creating better learning contexts for students who experience classroom
life. The point is that our research ought to inform practice for the sake
of all children, and our research should be designed to respond to the very
humanity of students. After all, we are studying people—human beings,
not subjects or lab rats. Weiner (2003) declared,

Because so little research has been done that examines a full
range of contextual factors that influence urban schools and the

C onclusions, Implications, and Recommendations   171

classrooms within them, we have relatively little information
that is confirmed by research about how the social context of the
school and the social organization of the school itself influence
urban teaching in general and classroom management in
particular. (p. 307)

To date, research that looks specifically at classroom management with lin-
guistically diverse students is limited. While there is a growing and meaningful
body of literature focusing on English language learners and learning, the
connections to classroom management are scarce. Still, Curran (2003) main-
tained, “A teacher’s management decision-making process becomes even more
complex when she or he doesn’t speak the first language of students who are
new to U.S. classrooms” (p. 334). Because a wide range of students enrolled in
schools and classrooms are (and will be) from non-English-speaking countries,
we need to know more about the linguistic diversity, needs, and perspectives
these students bring into the classroom in order to develop a knowledge base
about how best to build learning environments that support and enhance who
they are and “reduce the likelihood for linguistic and cultural miscommunica-
tion and conflicts” (Curran, 2003, p. 334) in the classroom.

There is a great need for researchers to use new and more innovative
research methods to more deeply conceptualize and analyze the central role of
race in classroom management strategies, options, and decision making. Using
critical race theory as an analytic and conceptual framework to explore how
inequity manifests policy could elicit new and more profound insights. There
are also important questions beyond policy that can shed light on practice. For
instance, what role does race play in students’ behavior practices and in teach-
ers’ interpretation of those practices? How do historical, social, cultural, and
political constructions and experiences influence teacher and student inter-
actions? In what ways do systemic, institutional, and legal policies and man-
dates shape the nature of schooling and educational experiences available to
students? For example, how do property taxes shape the kinds of schools avail-
able to particular students, and how do these policies reproduce, enable, and
maintain the status quo and inequity?

Research continues to forge forward on classroom management in class-
rooms, schools, and districts, but as a collective, more synergy is needed to
build a more comprehensive knowledge base. In a recent review Milner (2014),
the first author of this book, conducted on classroom management and urban
environments, several themes emerged that could be used as sites to organize
and advance what we know about classroom management for urban schools,
in particular, through research, theory, practice, and policy: (a) teacher learn-
ing and teacher education; (b) teacher knowledge, beliefs, and emotions;
(c) program and model evaluation and assessment; and (d) classroom prac-
tices. But these themes, to be clear, must center equity and justice as we work
to build a more robust knowledge base.

172   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

Adapted from that review of the literature (Milner, 2014), we provide
some general critiques of the research and scholarship and make some recom-
mendations on the basis of those analyses to advance the field.

• In his chapter published in the first Handbook of Classroom
Management, Milner (2006) pleaded for more studies with
a concerted and concentrated focus on culture, race, and
inequity. He reviewed literature both inside and outside of the
field of classroom management in an attempt to cultivate and
galvanize researchers to design studies that were explicitly
equity focused. Much of that work focused on teacher thinking
and instructional practices that were culturally centered to
address classroom management challenges. Since then, there
appears to be some emphasis on issues of equity, but certainly
not a collective movement toward such a focus. Because so
many more students attending urban schools are not having
their needs met (Milner & Lomotey, 2014), again, researchers
should design future studies that specifically focus on equity,
posing research questions that attempt to get at the core of
why students in these contexts are too often not successful.

• Although classroom management has a heavy emphasis on
students in urban environments, much of the recent literature
since 2006 has focused on teachers, not students. More studies
are needed that focus on students. Providing insights about
students on the basis of their test scores, suspension rates, or
grades on report cards provides one level of evidence regarding
students. Studies should also include student voices and
observable behavior of students to provide triangulation between
what students say and what researchers actually observe.

• Many studies do not define what they mean by “urban”
environments or “urban” classroom management. Because
this book is not only focused solely on urban education, a
similar case can be made for other contexts, such as rural
and suburban. Mentioning these sites without definition is
problematic and does little to advance the field. This—the
lack of definition work—is a serious problem and does not
adequately allow the field to build knowledge about and spaces
that carry similar contextual characteristics. Studies need to
provide situational information that sheds light on how the
researchers and those in the studies characterize and define
environment. Who were the students in these environments?
What were their racial and ethnic backgrounds? What material

C onclusions, Implications, and Recommendations   173

and capital resources were available to them? What is the size
of these environments?

• Most of the quantitative research studies did not focus much
on the populations under study. In many studies reviewed,
large scale studies do not provide enough descriptive statistics
or data to make sense of the populations being examined.
Studies that provide information such as “students in poverty”
or “students on free and reduced-price lunch” only provide
a basic, superficial level of information regarding students
that do not provide a more complex picture of the identities of
students in the studies. We need to know more—much more—
about who the students (and teachers) were, the structures in
place to support teachers, as well as what the authors mean by
their use of the terms urban, suburban, and/or rural.

• In many cases, researchers did not define or conceptualize
what was meant by “classroom management” itself. This lack of
conceptualization is an additional definition absence issue that
makes it difficult to build synergy between and among studies.

• Much of the large-scale, quantitative research does not reference
or build on established theory or qualitative research in the field
(or beyond) related to urban classroom management. This failure
to build on previous studies leaves holes in the knowledge base
regarding classroom management. Similarly, qualitative studies
often do not build on findings from other related quantitative
studies and leave similar absences in the knowledge base.

• Some researchers, especially in quantitative studies, misuse
and inappropriately use terms like at risk, urban, minority,
and low income when they are discussing students in studies
on classroom management. This language use carries with
it a deficit orientation. In other words, researchers approach
the research context (i.e., urban, rural, suburban) and the
people in it focused on what this community does not have or
what it lacks rather than focusing in on what it actually has
or possesses (their assets). Moreover, deficit descriptors are
used to describe people rather than the unjust, inequitable
structures and systems that underserve students, families, and
communities and perpetuate the status quo.

• Many of the studies do not adequately review the established
research literature, and many of them do not build on existing
theory. In this way, many studies in the area are atheoretical

(Continued)

174   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

(Continued)
and do not contribute much to theory building related to

classroom management. More emphasis on theory building
is important to contribute to the intellectual rigor of the field.
Qualitative studies were more likely to incorporate theory, but
even those studies tended to be thin on theory.

A CHARGE TO REFORMERS

Haberman (2000) explained that “urban educators who can control and
manage their classrooms and schools are not removed simply because stu-
dents are not learning” (p. 205). These teachers often are viewed as excel-
lent teachers even though their students are not making academic progress.
Certainly, we need to rethink these mindsets, which can result in policies
that reward teachers whose accomplishments center on “controlling” stu-
dents (who are quiet and docile) rather than propelling the voice and power
of students. Besides, as we have stressed, classroom management involves
much more than discipline and it should reject the control of others’ bodies.
Classroom management should be focused on increasing students’ oppor-
tunities to learn and building spaces where students want to be and feel
ownership within. Thus, reform efforts need to focus on supporting teach-
ers to enhance student learning opportunities, not reward them for trying
to control human beings.

Nieto (1994) stressed that true reform occurs when we listen to the experi-
ences and voices of the students who are in a variety of schools. By interview-
ing a diverse group of successful junior and senior high school students, she
learned of these students’ struggles in schools but also came to understand
the factors that enabled the students’ persistence and success. In Nieto’s view,
reform has to include dialogue, perspectives and insights from students them-
selves. Where school reform is concerned, Nieto posited that “developing con-
ditions in schools that let students know that they have a right to envision
other possibilities beyond those imposed by traditional barriers of race, gen-
der, or social class” (p. 422) was essential.

Irvine (1988) stressed that students’ home environment cannot and
should not be deterrents to thinking about optimal reform. She main-
tained that variables such as school quality, pedagogical materials and
equipment, and characteristics of the teachers are integral to students’
learning opportunities. Thus, reformers cannot escape systemic and
structural responsibilities by insisting that so much is out of their hands.
Reformers must take responsibility for the issues that are in their control
(such as quality of schools, technology enhancements, curriculum materi-
als, professional development of teachers, and instructional supports). In
Irvine’s words, “the fact that a child was on welfare and perhaps living
in a single-parent home was never used as an excuse to justify a student’s
non-achievement” (p. 237) in reform efforts that were transformative for
communities. Thus, reform movements must consider what is actually

C onclusions, Implications, and Recommendations   175

possible as they work to create conditions where all students have an equi-
table opportunity to learn.

Irvine (1988) outlined several common characteristics among effec-
tive schools: (a) “visionary” leadership; (b) effective, relevant, and responsive
instruction; (c) both rigid and flexible bureaucracy (where autonomy and flex-
ibility are welcomed in some instances and strict, rigid administration is nec-
essary in other instances, such as disciplinary policies and procedures to keep
everyone safe); and (d) partnerships and collaboration with parents and com-
munity members. Thus, reform, particularly reform at the classroom level, is
necessary and will prove beneficial not only for those attending and working
in urban schools but all in a variety of contexts. As Hilliard (1992) explained,
“any reform that benefits those students who are poorly served always works to
the benefit of all” (p. 375).

A CHARGE TO TEACHERS
AND OTHER EDUCATORS

Perhaps most important, we are hopeful that educators and especially teach-
ers are energized to improve their practices and reimagine what classroom
management might mean for them and their students. In the following table,
we capture recommendations and themes that we have attempted to convey
throughout this book.

Table of Classroom Management Recommendations in and for School Contexts

Summary of Classroom Management Recommendations

Teachers adopt learner lenses: Teachers do not assume that they know everything, and they
deliberately and assertively learn about the life experiences of their students. They are
researchers themselves and build the skills to consistently study the place of people in their work.

Engage in critical self-examination and reflection: Teachers engage in introspection that brings
to the fore their own strengths, weaknesses, privileges, prejudice, and needs; teachers
encourage students to engage in self-reflection; both groups work to examine how they
contribute to creating a classroom climate of learning, development, care, analysis, and
critique.

Work with students, families, and communities to understand the culture of power (and to challenge
or change it): Teachers do not assume that students, families, and communities implicitly
understand expectations and rules; teachers work with students to develop classroom norms
explicitly. They facilitate opportunities to disrupt power structures that oppress in all the space.

Use accessible, relevant language: Teachers do not complicate expectations by using unclear
and inaccessible language.

Student input, ownership, and contribution in expectations and rules: Teachers rely on, build on,
and expect students to participate in classroom rules, expectations, and overall classroom
community building.

(Continued)

176   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

(Continued)

Summary of Classroom Management Recommendations
Caring and empathetic attitudes and dispositions: Teachers attempt to understand their students
and work with them to solve problems rather than seeing students as the enemy. Teachers
demonstrate their care by handling disciplinary and punishment measures inside of the
classroom rather than sending students to the office.
Rejection of deficit thinking: Teachers believe that students are in fact knowledgeable and bring
a wealth of knowledge and expertise into the classrooms; teachers see students as assets,
not as problems.
Cultural and racial awareness and understanding: Teachers understand that students’
experiences are shaped historically, socially, and politically; teachers connect to students’
culture and race through curriculum, instructional, and assessment practices.
Avoid color-blind ideologies: Teachers recognize and acknowledge students’ race as a central
dimension of who students are; teachers attempt to know more complete students, not
fragmented ones; teachers understand that students’ race influence how they experience the
world and the school.
The development and maintenance of trust: Teachers co-create a trusting environment where
students feel cared for and about. They believe in their students and give them multiple
opportunities to succeed, and most important, trust is constructed when teachers allow
students to take risks without fear of failure and repercussion.
Family and community partnerships: Teachers recognize that there is strength in building
and maintaining partnerships with families and the community; teachers work to develop
partnerships with families and community members to both understand and scaffold learning
and behavior practices in the classroom.
Multiple opportunities: Teachers understand that students are often learning and codeveloping
a new culture of power and that they will need multiple chances to succeed; teachers see
students as developing beings; teachers do not give up on students; teachers realize that too
many students are not used to experiencing success inside of the classroom and encourage
students to put forth effort even when tasks are difficult.
Avoid placing students’ destiny in the hands of others: Teachers realize that they likely know
their students better than any other in the school and refuse to place students’ discipline,
punishment, or correction in the hands of others (e.g., principal, resource officer).
Develop and maintain high expectations: Teachers realize that they must push students to reach
success because the stakes are so high for their students; teachers refuse to water down
the curriculum because they feel sorry for their students; teachers are committed to helping
their students succeed and refuse, as Ladson-Billings (2002) stressed, to grant students
permission to fail.
Realize that each student is an individual: Teachers realize that each student brings a different
set of strengths and needs into the classroom.
Be stern and fair: Teachers make it clear that they expect excellence and, at the same time,
keep in mind that they must be fair to each individual student.
Use humor to demystify and break down barriers in the classroom: Teachers understand that
it is acceptable to laugh in the classroom and to create the kind of classroom space where
students feel safe and happy.
Develop a frame of mind for success: Teachers really believe that their students can and will
succeed; they build a way of thinking about and a way of viewing their students as those who
can and will succeed; teachers’ practices consequently are shaped by this belief, and students
reap the benefits.

C onclusions, Implications, and Recommendations   177

A CHARGE TO PROFESSIONAL
DEVELOPMENT FACILITATORS

Finally, we cannot stress enough how important it is for professional devel-
opment facilitators to seriously consider the ways in which classroom man-
agement, power, and control are addressed in learning and development
opportunities for teachers and other educators. Rather than developing learn-
ing opportunities for teachers that only marginally push them to center their
own power and privilege, facilitators have an opportunity to shepherd teach-
ers into transformative practices that disrupt the status quo. Too many profes-
sional development sessions are presented from a race-, culture-, power-, and
justice-neutral standpoint, and such an approach can be devastating for par-
ticular groups of students, as discussed throughout this book. If facilitators
are serious about improving teaching and learning opportunities in schools,
they must get serious about discussing the taboo—the uncomfortable—for
the sake of student learning and overall health and humanity.

We also encourage professional development facilitators to develop
sustained opportunities for teachers to develop over time. It is difficult
for lasting, scalable influence of professional development to show up in
teachers’ practices when professional development opportunities are not
well focused and sustained over time. Thus, professional development
focused on classroom management should center the ideas throughout
this book in ways that are relevant for their context and do so consistently
and over time. We hope that individual teachers will transform their prac-
tices, and we are even more hopeful that entire schools will change their
cultures to rethink and reimagine classroom management for justice. This
means that professional development needs to be done with individual teach-
ers, collectives of them, and the whole school. If we seriously rethink the ways
in which we provide professional learning opportunity for educators, and if
educators are actually consciously involved as cofacilitators of their learning
(just as students should be in the classroom), we could gain much more trac-
tion in improving classroom management practices for equity and justice.
We strongly encourage professional development opportunities that address
and center the list of recommendations in the previous section.

FINAL INSIGHTS

We conclude with a final call to educators to fight for and with every student
they interact with every single day. Students, regardless of their race, gender,
sexual orientation, ZIP code, language, or religious affiliation (or not), deserve
educators who expect the very best for them while concurrently co-constructing
learning environments that are fair and equitable and that help students real-
ize and reach their full capacity to live and learn. As Delpit and White-Bradley
(2003) shared their memories of working with students, they wrote,

Because we serve low-income African American and other
students of color—children who are part of a demographic group

178   “These Kids Are Out of Control”

most likely to be classified as disciplinary problems or behavior
disordered—you might expect that our memories would be replete
with stories of children engaging in unruly and dangerous acts.
To the contrary, we see thinking children who must grapple with
issues of power and control [italics added], and who for the sake
of their humanity, often insist that their voices be heard even as
schools [and classrooms] find new ways to silence them. (p. 288)

Teacher educators, researchers, policymakers, reformers, and professional
development facilitators must include the students themselves from urban,
rural, and suburban schools whose needs and interests are too often left out
of their respective agendas. By changing and rejecting deficit notions, by
recognizing and embracing the expertise students bring into the classroom,
and by realizing that there is room for negotiation as we think about the social
construction of behavior practices, discipline, and punishment, we might bet-
ter attend to the needs of students in classrooms. The time is now and the
issues are plentiful; the question is, What are we going to do to ensure that
every student has an equitable opportunity to learn?

We are hopeful that the title of this book, “These Kids Are Out of Control,”
resonates with educators in ways that they remember: It should not be educa-
tors’ charge to “control” students. Rightfully so, students resist practices that
oppress them, and one of the most intense forms of oppression is the propensity
to try to control another. We must do better if we are serious about meeting and
responding to the humanity of our students. We must do better if we are seri-
ous about reimagining classroom management for equity and justice. We hope
this book serves as an invitation to teachers and a tool to assist those teachers
who work overtime to make a difference for all their students every day!

REFERENCES

Brown, D. F. (2003). Urban teachers’ use of cultur- Garibaldi, A. M. (1992). Preparing teachers for
ally responsive management strategies. Theory Into culturally diverse classrooms. In M. E. Dilworth
Practice, 42(4), 277–282. (Ed.). Diversity in teacher education: New expecta-
Curran, M. E. (2003). Linguistic diversity and tions (pp. 29–39). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
classroom management. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), Haberman, M. (2000). Urban schools: Day camps
334–340. or custodial centers? Phi Delta Kappan, 82(3),
Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural 203–208.
conflict in the classroom. New York: New Press. Hilliard, A. G. (1992). Behavioral style, culture,
Delpit, L. & White-Bradley, P. (2003). Educating and teaching and learning. Journal of Negro Edu-
or imprisoning the spirit: Lessons from ancient cation, 61(3), 370–377.
Egypt. Theory Into Practice, 42(4), 283–288. Irvine, J. J. (1988). Urban schools that work: A
Dillard, C. B. (2000, April). Cultural consider- summary of relevant factors. Journal of Negro
ation in paradigm proliferation. Paper presented at Education, 57(3), 236–242.
the annual meeting of the American Educational Irvine, J. J. (2003). Because of the kids: Seeing with
Research Association, New Orleans, LA. a cultural eye. New York: Teachers College Press.

Conclusions, Implications, and Recommendations   179

Ladson-Billings, G. (2002). Permission to fail. In Milner, H. R., & Lomotey, K. (2014). Handbook
L. Delpit & J. K. Dowdy (Eds.), The skin that we of urban education. New York: Routledge.
speak: Thoughts on language and culture in the class-
room (pp. 107–120). New York: New Press. Milner, H. R., & Smithey, M. (2003). How
Matus, D. E. (1999). Humanism and effective teacher educators created a course curriculum
urban secondary classroom management. The to challenge and enhance pre-service teachers’
Clearing House, 72(5), 305–307. thinking and experience with diversity. Teaching
Milner, H. R. (2003). Teacher reflection and Education, 14(3), 293–305.
race in cultural contexts: History, meanings, and
methods in teaching. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), Monroe, C. R., & Obidah, J. E. (2004). The influ-
173–180. ence of cultural synchronization on a teacher’s
Milner, H. R. (2006). Classroom management perceptions of disruption: A case study of an African-
in urban classrooms. In C. M. Evertson & C. American middle-school classroom. Journal of Teacher
S. Weinstein (Eds.), The handbook of classroom Education, 55(3), 256–268.
management: Research, practice & contemporary Nieto, S. (1994). Lessons from students on cre-
issues (pp. 491–522). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ating a chance to dream. Harvard Educational
Erlbaum. Review, 64(4), 392–426.
Milner, H. R. (2007). Race, culture, and researcher Weiner, L. (1993). Preparing teachers for urban
positionality: Working through dangers seen, schools: Lessons from thirty years of school reform.
unseen, and unforeseen. Educational Researcher, New York: Teachers College Press.
36(7), 388–400. Weiner, L. (2003). Why is classroom management
Milner, H. R. (2014). Research on classroom man- so vexing for urban teachers? Theory Into Practice,
agement in urban schools. In E. Emmer & E. J. 42(4), 302–312.
Sabornie (Eds.), Handbook of classroom management Weinstein, C. S., Thomlinson-Clarke, S., & Cur-
(pp. 167–185). Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis. ran, M. (2004). Toward a conception of cultur-
ally responsive classroom management. Journal of
Teacher Education, 55(1), 25–38.



INDEX

Figures and tables are indicated by f or t following the page number.

Academic rigor, 71–73, 108–109, beliefs about students and learning,
115–116, 129 104–107, 129

Accavitti, M., 105 co-creation of classroom cultures,
Access to services, 37–38 101–104
Access to teachers, 125
Active listening, 123–124 defined, 97
Affective language, 135–136, 136f, expectations and, 107–108
partnerships and, 120–128, 129, 168
138–145, 163 persistent practices and, 111–120, 129
Affective questions, 140–142 rigor and, 71–73, 108–109
Affective statements, 139–140 student-centered approach to,
African societies, 145
Alternative schools, 47–48 98–104, 129
Amanti, C., 125 Check-ins, 113
Anger, 123–124 Circle processes
Artists in residence, 125
Autobiographies, 63–64 overview, 135f, 136, 163
Autonomic nervous system, 115 conferences compared, 152
Awards, 79 critiques of, 160
Banking approach to education, 99 relationship building, 162
Basic human needs, meeting, 126 use of, 145–151
Beliefs, 62–63, 104–107, 108, 129 Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC),
Belonging, 117–119
Biases, 105–107 43–44
Black students Class discussions, self-reflective, 67
Classroom community, 85–90
exclusionary discipline, 42–43, 44 Classroom culture, 101–104. See also
expectations and, 106
praise given to, 21 Caring environment
punishment and, 15 Classroom design, 87–88
Body language, 124 Classroom management
Bondy, E., 27–28
Booker, K. C., 117–118 context and, 11
Braids, 73 culturally responsive teaching
Brown, D. F., 28
Bullying, 154 and, 24–27
Buy-in, 160 diversity and, 12–13
Call and response approach, 69 institutional and systemic barriers
CampbellJones, B., 105
CampbellJones, F., 105 to, 22–24
Canada, 145, 146 justice and, 4–5, 11–12
Care, interest in students and, punishment referral patterns

28, 112–114 and, 15–18
Caring environment recommendations for, 175–176
teacher/student congruence and
overview, 97–98, 99f, 128–129
dissonance, 18–22, 19f
Co-construction of knowledge,

75–76, 99, 113
Co-creation of classroom norms, 101–104,

116, 118, 128, 129t, 176t
Cohn-Vargas, B., 115
Collective learning practices, valuing of, 73
Color-blind dialogue, 21

181

182   “These Kids Are Out of Control” Curran, M., 24, 27, 168, 169, 170, 171
Communication with families, 120–126 Curriculum, avoiding confrontation
Communities, partnerships with,
126–128, 129 by not teaching, 23
Community building, 145–151 Darling-Hammond, L., 38
Community resources analysis, 126–127 Davis, J. E., 15
Competition, 79, 86 Davis’ classroom community
Conferences
overview, 135f, 136, 138, 163 vignette, 88–90
affective language and, 141–142 Deep caring relationships with students,
relationship building, 162
use of, 151–158 112–114
Conflict with families, 123–124 Deficit thinking, 80, 173
Confrontation avoidance, 23 Definitions, 172–173
Content knowledge, 71 Delale-O’Connor, Lori, 3
Control, 1, 23, 167, 174 Delpit, L., 177–178
Coping skills, 39 Delpit, L. D., 111
Cradle-to-prison pipeline (CTPP) Demanders, warm. See Warm Demanders
explained, 33–34 Demographic divide, 18–20, 19f
inside-of-school factors in, 36t, 40–48 Desk arrangements, 87–88
Marcus vignette and, 49–50 Disability status, punishment and, 17–18
outside-of-school factors in, 36–40, 36t Discipline, 15, 40–41. See also
school punishment mirroring adult
punishment, 18 Punishment; Restorative discipline
student involvement in disrupting, 51 Discipline gap, 13
See also Restorative discipline Disengagement, 118
Critical autobiographies, 63–64 Disproportionality, 34
Critical hope, 116–117 Disrespect, 16, 17, 108
Critical race theory, 171 Diversity, 12–13, 25, 44, 59–60
Critical reflective practices Dropout rates, 35
overview, 59–61, 70, 91–92 Duncan-Andrade, J., 112, 114, 117
critical self-reflection, 61–64, Effective instruction
128, 175t
defined, 59 overview, 90–92
implicit bias and, 106–107 classroom community for, 85–92
lesson planning, 65–66 components of, 57, 59f
Miss Thomas vignette, 68–70 pedagogy of poverty and, 57–58
professional development about, 66 positive framing, 80–84, 91–92
students learning, 61, 67–68 See also Critical reflective practices; High
unit planning, 64–65
CTPP. See Cradle-to-prison student engagement
pipeline (CTPP) Effective schools, characteristics of, 175
Cultural diversity as strength, 25 Emancipatory worldview, 26–27
Cultural knowledge, 125 Empowerment, culturally responsive
Culturally responsive teaching
critical reflective practices and, teaching and, 26
60–61 Engagement. See High student
need for, 13, 24–25, 168–169
principles of, 25–27 engagement
rigor and, 115–116 Ennis, C. D., 22–23
student-centered approach to lessons Enthusiasm, 80–81
and, 100–101 Environment, caring. See Caring
teacher training and, 45
tenets of, 25–27 environment
Cultural mismatches, 100–101 Equitable practices, 12, 13, 172
Cultural practices, 68 Equity, 12–13, 61, 64–66, 171,
Cunningham, Heather B., 3
177–178
Errors, 86, 114
Exclusionary discipline.

See Punishment
Exclusion versus belonging, 118
Expectations, 106–108, 129
Extracurricular activities, 113

I ndex   183

Families, partnerships with, Identity safety, 115
120–126 Implicit bias, 105–107
Incarceration rates, 34–35
Favela, A., 126 Indigenous groups, 145–146
Funding, 38 Individualization, 12
Funds of knowledge, 125 In-person meetings, 124–125
Gallingane, C., 27–28 Intentions versus subconscious, 21
Gangs, 154 Interruptions, 69
Garibaldi, A. M., 169 Interviews, 112
Gay, G., 20, 24, 25–27, 129t Introductions to families, 121
Gender, punishment and, 17–18 Introspection, 24
Geographical opportunities, Irvine, J. J., 174–175
Jasmine restorative discipline
37–38
Get-tough policies, 36t, 41–43 vignette, 154–158, 159
Gilliam, W. S., 105 Jordan, W. J., 15
Gilmer, Gloria, 73 Journaling, 67
Gonzalez, N., 125 Justice
González, T., 159–160, 163t
Green’s caring environment classroom management and, 11–12,
116, 170, 177–178
vignette, 119–120
Greenwood, D., 145 restorative, 42, 135–138, 145, 152
Grossman, H., 21, 24 social, 59, 66, 75, 92, 106, 116
Growth mindset, 42, 86 Juvenile justice system, 35, 48, 151, 152
Gun-Free Schools Act (1994), 42 Katz, S. R., 22
Haberman, M., 174 Kestenberg, Erika Gold, 3–4
Hair braiding, 73 Kleinfeld, J., 111
Hambacher, E., 27–28 Knowledge as co-constructed, 75–76
Hammond, Z., 115 Ladson-Billings, G., 71, 74, 92t,
Handbook of Classroom
125, 129t, 176t
Management (Milner), 172 Language use, 123
Harris’ affective language Law enforcement presence, 47
Learning modalities, 74–75
vignette, 142–144, 159 Learning versus control, 174
Help seeking, 86–87 Lesson planning, 65–66, 99–101
Highly segregated schools, 43 Like versus love, 114
High student engagement Lindsey, R. B., 105
Listening, 123–124
overview, 91–92 Long’s positive framing vignette,
behavior improved by, 79–80
belonging and, 118 83–84
co-construction of knowledge Love versus like, 114
Lyons, J. E., 117–118
and, 75–76 Maori, 152
defined, 70–71 Marcus cradle-to-prison pipeline
expectations and, 108
learning modalities and, 74–75 vignette, 49–50
Mrs. Williams vignette, 76–79 Marisa restorative discipline vignette,
rigorous content and, 71–73, 97–98,
154–158, 159
107–109, 114–115 Mass shootings, 45
student-centered approach to lessons Maupin, A. N., 105
Meetings, 124–125
and, 99–101 Metal detectors, impacts of, 47
student experience and background Michael, R. S., 15–16
Milner, H. Richard, IV, 2–3, 44,
drawn on for, 73–74
Holistic view, 26 112–113, 172
Hope, fostering, 116–117
Housing, 37
“How” of lessons, 101
Howard, T., 35, 59, 61, 64, 92t

184   “These Kids Are Out of Control” Positive versus negative contact, 122
Miss Thomas critical reflective practices Poverty. See Socioeconomic status (SES)
vignette, 68–70 Power, 15, 26, 98–103, 124, 168,
Modeling, 67–68, 114
Moll, L., 125 174–178
Monroe, C. R., 27, 168 Praise, racial differences in, 21
Morning meetings, 147 Pringle, B. E., 117–118
Morrison’s restorative discipline Privilege, 62
vignette, 149–151, 159 Problem solving, 147–151
Mr. Davis classroom community Professional development, 66, 177
vignette, 88–90 Project Implicit, 105
Mr. Harris affective language vignette, Psychological safety, 114–116, 118
142–144, 159 Punishment
Mr. Long positive framing vignette, 83–84
Mrs. Morrison restorative discipline classroom management and, 15–18
vignette, 149–151, 159 cradle-to-prison pipeline and, 18, 35
Mr. Stevenson caring environment disability status and, 17–18
vignette, 109–111 discipline compared, 15
Mr. Summer caring environment gender and, 17–18
vignette, 103–104 problems with, 42–43
Mrs. Williams engagement race and, 15, 16, 17–18, 44
vignette, 76–79 socioeconomic status and, 17–18
Ms. Green caring environment subjectivity in, 16, 43–44
vignette, 119–120 suspensions, types of, 41
Ms. Sanchez caring environment See also Restorative discipline
vignette, 127 Punitive discipline model, 40–41,
Multidimensional teaching, 26
Multiple intelligences, 74–75 161–162. See also Punishment;
Nardo, A. C., 15–16 Restorative discipline
Native Americans, 145–146 Pygmalion effect, 107
Neff, D., 125 Race
Negative versus positive contact, 122 exclusionary discipline and, 44
New Zealand, 152 implicit bias and, 105–107
Nieto, S., 174 incarceration rates and, 34
Noguera, P. A., 18, 20 punishment and, 16, 17–18
Noncompliance, 17 security in schools, 46
Norms of classroom, 101–104 zero-tolerance policies and, 42–43
Obidah, J. E., 21–22, 27, 168 Rap sessions, 113
Objective versus subjective language, 123 Recommendations for classroom
Open body language, 124 management, 175–176
Optimism, 80–81 Referral. See Exclusionary discipline;
Paige, D. D., 108 Punishment
Partnerships, 120–128, 129, 168 Reflection, 22, 24. See also Critical
Party starters, teachers as, 80–81 reflective practices
Pedagogical content knowledge, 71–73 Reflection in action, 59
Pedagogy of poverty, 57–58, 68, 71 Reflection on action, 59
Peer feedback, 86–87 Reformers, 174–175
Personal introductions, 121 Regard for teaching and learning, 82–83
Peterson, R. L., 15–16, 17 Reintegrative shame, 152
Place, 12 Relationship building, 112–114
PNP (Positive-Negative-Positive Researchers, 169–174
sharing approach), 122 Resistance by students, 23, 58, 72–73
Police presence, 47 Respect, 28, 69
Positive framing, 80–84 Restorative discipline
overview, 133–135, 135f, 161–163
affective language and, 135–136, 135f,

138–145, 163
benefits of, 136–138, 137t

I ndex   185

circle processes, 145–151, 152, Students
160, 162, 163 knowledge of, 12
relationships with teachers, 18–22, 19f,
circle processes and, 135f, 136, 138 28, 112–114
conferences and, 135f, 136, 138, resistance by, 23, 58, 72–73
role in learning, 23
141–142, 151–158, 162, 163 21st-century students, 71, 74–75
cradle-to-prison pipeline and, 136–137 voice, 12, 88, 99–104, 129t, 138, 141,
critiques of, 160–161 158, 172, 174, 178
defined, 135
goals of, 134 Subjective versus objective language, 123
implementation, 158–161 Subjective viewpoint, critical reflective
punitive discipline model compared,
practices, 69
136–137, 137t Subjectivity in punishment, 16, 43–44
research on, 146 Success, communication of, 81–82,
Restorative justice, 135–138, 137t
Restorative practices, psychological safety 117–119
Summer’s caring environment
and, 115–116
Reyes, C. R., 105 vignette, 103–104
Rigor, 71–73, 108–109, 115–116, 129 Surveys, 122
Ross, D. D., 27–28 Suspensions, in-school versus
Safety, 42, 86–87, 114–116, 118
Sanchez’s caring environment out-of-school, 41
Talking pieces, 146
vignette, 127 Teachers
Schlosser, L. K., 20
Schon, D. A., 59 as co-creators of learning, 99
School funding, 38 conflict with students and families,
School resource officers (SROS), 45–48
School security, 45–48 17, 123–124
School shootings, 45 connection with students, 20
Seating arrangements, 87–88, 147 intentions versus subconscious, 21
Security cameras, impacts of, 47 lack of diversity in, 44, 59–60
Security in schools, 45–48 recommendations for, 175–176
Segregation, 37 role of, 14, 177–178
Self-reflection. See Critical reflective subjectivity in punishment, 16, 43–44
Teacher/student relationship, 18–22, 19f,
practices
Services, lack of access to, 37–38 28, 112–114
SES. See Socioeconomic status (SES) Teacher training, 44–45
Shame, 152, 161 Teel, K. M., 21–22
Sharing, 114 Tessellations, 73
Shic, F., 105 Text selection, 72
Shootings, 45 Thomas’s critical reflective practices
Shulman, L., 71, 91
Sizemore, J. M., 108 vignette, 68–70
Skiba, R. J., 15–16, 17 Tomlinson-Clarke, S., 24, 27,
Smith, G. S., 108
Social networks, 37 168, 169, 170
Socioeconomic status (SES), 17–18, Torres, D., 126
Transformation, culturally responsive
34–35, 46, 57–58
South Africa, 152 teaching and, 26
SROS (school resource officers), 45–48 Trauma, 38–40
Steele, D., 115 Trust, 114
Stereotypes, 14, 105–107 Truth and Reconciliation
Stereotype threat, 115
Stevenson’ caring environment Commission, 152
21st-century students, 71, 74–75
vignette, 109–111 Ubuntu, 145
Stress and learning, 115 Unequal access, 23, 36–39, 49–50,

125, 127, 168
Unit planning, 64–65
Urban characteristic spaces, 7, 8f

186   “These Kids Are Out of Control” Weinstein, C. S., 24, 27, 168, 169, 170
Urban education, described, 6–7 “What” of lessons, 100–101
Urban emergent spaces, 7, 8f White-Bradley, P., 177–178
Urban intensive spaces, 7, 8f “Why” of lessons, 99–100
Validation, 25 Williams, T., 17
Victim-offender conferencing, 151–152 Williams’s engagement vignette,
Wage gap, 35
Wanless, S. B., 114, 115 76–79
Warm Demanders, 111–112 Winn, M. T., 145
Weiner, L., 170–171 Zero-tolerance policies, 36t, 41–43.

See also Race

Helping educators make the greatest impact

CORWIN HAS ONE MISSION: to enhance education through
intentional professional learning.

We build long-term relationships with our authors, educators,
clients, and associations who partner with us to develop and
continuously improve the best evidence-based practices that
establish and support lifelong learning.