Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Restorative Justice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Restorative justice programs show reduced suspensions at some Montgomery County schools; council presses for funding and accountability
Summary
Principals and MCPS staff told the Education and Culture Committee that restorative justice (RJ) practices — coaches, circles and town halls — have reduced suspensions and repeat incidents at model schools, but councilmembers and advocates warned that funding, staffing reassignments and inconsistent reporting risk blunting district‑wide impact.
Montgomery County principals and district staff told the Education and Culture Committee on Thursday that restorative justice programs have produced measurable results in individual schools, but councilmembers and community advocates urged clearer funding commitments and stronger accountability to scale successes across the district.
At Julius West Middle School, Principal Craig Staton said the placement of a full‑time restorative justice coordinator changed how the school handles conflicts. "The circles that we conducted, we conducted more circles than we suspended," Staton said, adding that roughly half of issues could be resolved through dialogue and that the school’s suspensions had fallen to 15 for serious incidents.
District metrics and limits: MCPS staff reported that Montgomery County’s district suspension rate remains among the lowest in Maryland and cited unduplicated suspension and recidivism figures (staff reported roughly 81% of students did not repeat, compared with 79% in the most recent year). Staff cautioned that while RJ reduced overall suspension numbers, universal reductions can leave disproportionality ratios largely unchanged — meaning other anti‑bias interventions are required to address racial disproportionality in discipline.
Community and budget concerns: Wylia Chase of the Black and Brown Coalition for Educational Equity and Excellence urged the council to prioritize sustained investments in RJ instead of increasing security staff, asking, "Where's the investment in restorative practices?" MCPS acknowledged that coach stipends, RJ specialists and cluster supports are critical and said evaluations and coach listings are publicly posted, but councilmembers pressed the district to connect training attendance to measurable outcomes.
Staffing changes and accountability: Councilmembers raised that eight restorative justice specialists and three equity specialists were removed from the operating budget and described as being placed into new professional learning specialist roles. Staff said those specialists would be "placed into" the new roles but noted HR processes and the full scope of the new positions remain to be finalized; councilmembers asked that the specialists’ RJ and equity missions be preserved and tied to measurable school improvement objectives.
Why it matters: Principals described school‑level practices (town halls, classroom follow‑ups, reintegration within seven days after separation) that build belonging and reduce repeat incidents. But committee members emphasized that without clear public reporting, consistent coaching and dedicated funding, progress at model schools may not translate to district‑wide change.
Next steps: MCPS said RJ evaluations for the current year will be completed by late spring; the committee intends to review outcome data and budget proposals during upcoming sessions before final budget decisions.
