Bonsall High School is currently in the midst of auditing our student discipline policy, as well as

discussing methods of traditional consequence comparative to Positive Behavioral Intervention

and Supports (PBIS) and Restorative Practices (RP). For the previous four years, we used a Code

of Conduct that was voted upon and signed by students. Each student would sign their copy of

the Code of Conduct after reviewing together as a class during Advisory. The current internal

audit is being conducted by teachers, administration, students, and members of the Parent

Interest Networking Group (PiNG). Our previous principal led for four years, and her previous

experience was in the charter high school environment. Criticism - valid or not - toward the

school’s discipline policy has been that it lacks teeth, and that students don’t face any real

consequences when rules are broken. Our new principal comes from a similar charter high

school background, but brings a reputation of being a bit more of a realist. Our previous principal

employed strategies of Restorative Practices for many of the disciplinary issues stated above,

including defiance. Citing work on willful defiance completed in the Los Angeles and San

Francisco school districts, “willful defiance rules as grounds for suspension [are eliminated].

Instead, they will focus on programs that are preventative measures and keep kids in schools.”

(Tidmarsh, 2014) This has been met with some success, as students are now aware that defiance

will not be met with a defensive posture, but one of reflection and a philosophy based upon

remaining at school. Additionally, Restorative Practices have been utilized and met with

different levels of success to date, but students do express an appreciation for the holistic

approach to disciplinary measures. Students are indeed aware that being given responsibility to

own disciplinary challenges and work to an independent solution free of adult input does have

the potential to be rewarding. Students who know how to manage their conflicts constructively

and regulate their own behavior have a developmental advantage over those who do not (Burnett,
1992). The three categories that currently make up Bonsall High School’s Code of Conduct are:

dress code, public display of affection, and cell phone use. Within each category are bullet-

pointed consequences. Non-existent are policies and consequences for drugs on campus,

defiance, fighting, hate speech, vandalism, and bullying.

Dress Code

Dress code policy requires wearing of shoes and covered-up clothing, prohibits clothing, jewelry,

or personal items that can be viewed as profane or sexually suggestive, and requests professional

dress for presentation days. Two-tiered consequence pathway includes changing into PE clothes,

and confiscation of items until parent pick up.

Public Display of Affection

Public display of affection policy allows for quick hug and/or kiss, and prohibits physical display

of affection during class time, and prohibits touching below the waist across campus. Three-

tiered consequence pathway includes student conference, students sign agreement to discuss

relationship with parents or guardians, and phone call/parent conference.

Cell Phone

Cell phone policy allows for usage before and after school and during breaks, and for

instructional purposes only when classroom teacher gives approval. Three-tiered consequence

pathways include student conferences, email home, and phone call/parent conference.

After quick review of these policies, it is plain to see that the current Code of Conduct was

created with a broad stroke. Many students who had these expectations enforced found the

consequences to be varied, or inconsequential, depending on the student in question.

Additionally, some of the policies were weaponized by frustrated teachers, who on a few

occasions, confiscated entire classrooms full of phones. The Code of Conduct’s generalized

nature became its undoing, and the student body knew that enforcement was minimal and

inconsistent from teacher to teacher. By focusing on keeping students with disciplinary

challenges at school rather than building a minor’s system of educational incarceration, we hope

to see our new philosophy based on Restorative Practices with more clearly defined

consequences end with a clear understanding of social norms. Fostering a deep sense of social

responsibility in a learning community enculturates students to the very real need for empathy,

and models the desire to make significant contributions to society (Zhang, 2015).

References

Burnett, R., Dudley, B., Johnson, D., Johnson, R. (1992). Teaching students to be peer

mediators. Educational Leadership, 50(1), pp. 10-13. Retrieved from

http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept92/vol50/num01/Teaching-

Students-to-Be-Peer-Mediators.aspx

Fronius, T., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., Persson, H., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice

in schools: a research review. Retrieved from https://jprc.wested.org/wp-

content/uploads/2016/12/RJ_Literature-Review-updated-Dec-2016.pdf

Tidmarsh, K. (2014). Districts re-evaluate how to keep kids in school and out of trouble.

Governing The States and Localities. Retrieved from: https://csgjusticecenter.org/youth/media-

clips/districts-re-evaluate-how-to-keep-kids-in-school-and-out-of-trouble/