There鈥檚 a familiar, frustrating tension between practice and policy. When it comes to grading, devices, equity, choice, student behavior, and much else, there are yawning gaps between the views from inside and outside the schoolhouse. Worse, educators and policy types often wind up talking past one another. I think we can do better. To delve into this disconnect, I reached out to Alex Baron, the director of academic strategy at a District of Columbia charter school, an Oxford Ph.D., and a former early-childhood and high school math teacher. Together, we鈥檒l try to bridge a bit of the practice-policy chasm.
鈥搁颈肠办
Rick: So, one point of endless frustration for policymakers and practitioners is when policies get adopted in ways that don鈥檛 make any sense. Educators wonder why policymakers dreamed up this idiocy. Policymakers wonder why educators can鈥檛 do it right. And then parents get frustrated that they鈥檝e got to deal with the results.
A big part of the problem, of course, is that policymakers can tell teachers to do things, but they can鈥檛 make them do those things well. And schools are such complex, human entities that the key to making any meaningful change deliver is usually more about how it鈥檚 done than whether it鈥檚 done. I wrote about this at length some years ago in , and it鈥檚 no less true today.
Meanwhile, teachers are constrained by norms, routines, and rules that limit what they feel able to do. It turns out that these formal and informal impediments are incredibly hard to change. As a result, well-intended dictates can fizzle or implode鈥攆requently doing more harm than good. I鈥檓 always reminded of the aftermath of teacher evaluation, test-based accountability, and de-tracking, when a lot of lackluster classroom practice and dismal student outcomes would be met with a policymaker saying, 鈥淲ell, that鈥檚 not the way it鈥檚 supposed to work.鈥�
I鈥檓 concerned that we鈥檝e launched into yet another cycle of this with school discipline, where deep-pocketed, well-meaning champions of 鈥渞estorative justice鈥� have produced a strategy that yields and makes students that their teachers have less control over behavior. We鈥檝e seen the same kind of from the tech-buying binge that elected officials funded and superintendents embraced. And I can鈥檛 help but wonder if we鈥檙e about to do the same with strategies to curtail chronic absenteeism, such as by kids to attend school, or promote evidence-based literacy.
I鈥檓 curious what you make of this. Are you less skeptical than I am? Do you have a strong take on what you鈥檙e seeing with discipline, tech, absenteeism, or literacy鈥攁nd is it wildly different from mine?
Alex: During the post-COVID federal funding years (R.I.P.), our school had high-dosage tutoring. The tutoring provider had a prescriptive model, which didn鈥檛 jibe with our schedule. When the tutoring company reps visited our school, I braced for admonitions about implementation infidelity. Instead, after their observation, they said, 鈥淲ow, this is different from what we imagined, but it鈥檚 great. Can we share your approach with other schools?鈥�
This goes to show that policy-practice implementation gaps can be features, not bugs. Just as preschoolers can see 80 uses for a pencil that adults could never imagine, schools can creatively implement policies beyond what policymakers envisioned. I鈥檓 not saying that this creative implementation is the modal scenario; instead, I鈥檓 saying that alignment between policymaker and practitioner need not be our North Star. Even if a policy 鈥渨asn鈥檛 supposed to be implemented that way,鈥� it still might be working.
Rick, above you mentioned four areas with implementation friction鈥攍et鈥檚 start with restorative justice. Conceptually, restorative justice is simple: When harm occurs, the person who did the harm has to repair it with the aggrieved parties. Restorative justice doesn鈥檛 inherently obviate consequences like suspensions鈥攖hough many districts have implemented it in that way. Instead, restorative justice simply involves stuff like restorative conversations and community service.
To me, whether restorative justice succeeds or fails depends on a school鈥檚 scale. Restorative justice in education presumes a web of relationships鈥攃onstituting a school culture鈥攖hat can be harmed and healed. When schools are too big or lack structures that promote community, restorative justice struggles: You can鈥檛 restore a relationship that didn鈥檛 exist in the first place and you can鈥檛 repair harm to a community that isn鈥檛 a meaningful entity.
But per our , I鈥檇 say the issues with restorative justice are rooted as much in disagreements about the purpose of school as they are in the actual policy-practice gap. If you see schools鈥� paramount purpose as driving learning for motivated students, then you may be comfortable with a traditional punitive culture. But if you want schools to teach all kids鈥攊ncluding struggling ones鈥攖he real work of building healthy communities, then you might tolerate learning disruptions that you otherwise wouldn鈥檛.
What do you think, Rick? Is the real issue that restorative justice isn鈥檛 being implemented correctly, or is it that people disagree about schools鈥� underlying goals for discipline policy?
Rick: While I think you鈥檙e right that restorative justice gets us into competing views of the purpose of schools, I don鈥檛 see that as the most important disconnect. For me, the bigger issue with restorative justice is that it often feels like an ideology being sold as an intervention. By that, I mean that it gets pitched as a 鈥渂etter鈥� way to maintain student discipline and address misbehavior but that those who champion it aren鈥檛 actually focused on those things. Rather, they鈥檙e focused on a romantic notion of how they think schools should work and how young people would ideally behave. Unfortunately, outside of boutique environments, the world rarely conforms to restorative-justice advocates鈥� rosy vision.
This is a common version of the policy-practice problem, I鈥檇 submit: Restorative justice is less about behavior and discipline and more about a notion of how things should work. Now, restorative justice is a bit of an odd case because much frustration with the tensions between policy and practice involves ideas like test-based accountability or teacher evaluation that are pushed by elected officials, while restorative justice emerges from the world of ed. schools and progressive activism. And these people are usually regarded as the good guys by teacher influencers.
But the problem is a familiar one: Those who鈥檝e designed and piloted restorative justice have done so in select environments with a lot of resources, support, and sign-on. I鈥檒l stipulate that this can work in those instances. But even so, it turns out to be really tough to do responsibly or well in chaotic schools where there鈥檚 a lot of skepticism from students and teachers. And worse, done poorly, there鈥檚 every chance that restorative justice will allow misbehavior and teach students to scoff at authority, aggravating issues with behavior and discipline.
In short, you鈥檙e surely right that it鈥檚 partly about goals, but I also think it gets to the fundamental disconnect between those in government, foundations, or academe who have a notion of how they鈥檇 like students and schools to be鈥攁nd those in classrooms who have to wrestle with the practical consequences of these well-intentioned ideas.
Well, that鈥檚 how I tend to see it, my friend. Curious where you might agree and where you think I鈥檝e got this wrong.
Alex: My family welcomed a baby girl in April. Thus far, restorative conversations with her have been disappointingly one-sided. But once she鈥檚 old enough, we鈥檒l discuss why it鈥檚 wrong to take someone鈥檚 toy, use unkind words, or鈥攚hen the treasured teenage years arrive鈥攕neak out at night. When she鈥檚 older, we鈥檒l also discipline her by taking her phone and grounding her; but to achieve sustained behavior change, she鈥檒l need to understand her behavior鈥檚 impact, often via conversation with the people she affected. These conversations about harm, impact, and next steps are no-brainer parenting moves.
The point is: Most of us default to restorative practices when we鈥檙e redirecting kids with whom we have meaningful relationships. Restorative justice isn鈥檛 any more of an ideology than punitive discipline; we鈥檙e just so culturally steeped in the latter that, like our own bad breath, we no longer smell it as an ideology. Rick, you argued that restorative justice isn鈥檛 seriously concerned with addressing misbehavior, but I鈥檇 say the same about punitive discipline. abounds that suspensions鈥攗sed in isolation鈥攄on鈥檛 address the roots of misbehavior, but we do it because it comports with our underexplored retributive ideology.
That said, to your point, restorative justice also doesn鈥檛 work except in rosy environments, which applies more to one-to-one parenting than to educating; a school鈥檚 scale often requires educators to manage 30 kids, which leads teachers to use punitive discipline. Thus, I agree with you that many schools don鈥檛 have conditions that are conducive to restorative justice. The work of repairing relationships at school takes as much as or more effort than it does in adult life. In a social conflict, school leaders may talk with one student, then the other, and then bring them together with their families for a mediation. These things take time that teachers don鈥檛 have.
However, principals can鈥檛 give the requisite time because their policy bosses underestimate the investment required. In our , I noted that 74 percent of a D.C. school鈥檚 evaluation derives from math and ELA scores; in that environment, administrators may want restorative conversations but can鈥檛 practically implement them. If teachers shorten reading lessons in favor of a class circle to address students鈥� disengagement, the school may jeopardize their reading scores. To make restorative justice work, district policies and evaluation frameworks must enable schools to make time, invest in deans, and train staff.
It鈥檚 a tall order. If we don鈥檛 think schools鈥� purpose involves teaching conflict resolution, then I can understand your skepticism, pal. But if we want to educate kids for adult life in relational dynamics as well as academic ones, then there are no shortcuts. When done well, restorative justice is the gold standard to build student-student, student-teacher, and schoolwide culture. And when a strong school culture enables kids to take intellectual and interpersonal risks, the academic and human learning that occurs can be second to none.
