By Ali Ahmad and Derrick A. Max 

Conservatives across the country are salivating at the idea that Virginia’s new governor may sign a bill that opens her to the charge that she is siding with school bullies and delinquents over teachers and principals. 

House Bill 298, patroned by Delegate Delores McQuinn, is now on Governor Spanberger’s desk. The bill “prohibits any public elementary or secondary school student from being suspended, expelled, or excluded from attendance at school unless the school first considers at least one evidence-based restorative disciplinary practice,” with exceptions for serious offenses or aggravating circumstances defined in the bill. 

By handcuffing school leaders dealing with students whose behavior may necessitate suspension or expulsion to preserve student and teacher safety and restore order, the bill invites that criticism.   

Especially at a time when four-in-ten teachers have experienced students being violent towards them, with one-in-ten reporting a student is violent towards them at least a few times a month.  The NEA recently reported that student behavior is at a crisis point.   

The Constitution of Virgina gives significant powers to veto or amend bills sent to the governor as a necessary check; before the bill becomes law, the chief executive is given a chance to evaluate it on the impact it will have in the real world.  

So, leaning on the authors’ first-hand experience with restorative disciplinary practices in education, and first-hand experience advising governors on legislation, TJI offers the following bill review and recommendation.  

What does the bill do?  

“Restorative discipline” in schools has its philosophical roots in the restorative justice movement that emerged during criminal-justice reforms in the latter half of the 20th century. In the specific context of HB 298, “evidence-based restorative disciplinary practice” includes community conferencing, community service, mentoring, peer jury or peer mediation, post-conflict resolution programs or preventative programs, and restorative circles, as well as any other disciplinary practice that: 

• Establishes and supports goals that increase connection to community, restore relationships, build empathy, and ensure all perspectives are considered, including responsibility for one’s actions 

• Addresses the needs of those harmed and promotes healing 

• Responds to behavior that violates expectations by balancing accountability with understanding of behavioral health needs, reducing disruption, and keeping students in school 

• Engages individuals affected by an incident and includes community members reflecting the cultural and demographic diversity of the school community 

• Determines responses through a collaborative process involving students, families, educators, and community members 

• Provides solutions tailored to students’ cultures 

• implements policies informed by the science of the social, emotional, and cognitive development of children 

That is a lot of “justice” buzzwords — some implying the troubling concept that discipline might be applied differently based on “culture,” and none centered on the role of parents. Still, there is merit in the idea that disciplinary practices done right can rehabilitate student offenders and restore a sense of agency that encourages better behavior. 

Section 1, Subsection B contains the operative language: 

“No public elementary or secondary school student shall be suspended, expelled, or excluded from attendance at school unless the school first considers at least one evidence-based restorative disciplinary practice… Any time a school imposes exclusionary discipline instead of an evidence-based restorative disciplinary practice… the school shall document… the rationale for the decision…” 

The mandate to “consider” these practices, combined with the exception for serious offenses, may sound reasonable and is a nice sentiment. Exclusionary discipline — such as suspensions or expulsions – should never be handed out lightly. 

But does anyone seriously argue that they are? 

Regardless of the exemptions cited, the documentation requirement is a powerful regulatory tool designed to discourage alternative courses of action – to slow exclusion that may, in fact, be appropriate. It is the lion tamer’s whip, driving school leaders through the hoops.   

Two similar bills reached Governor Youngkin’s desk in 2024 and were appropriately vetoed. 

Why is it a problem?  

The bill seeks to impose “restorative discipline” without ensuring that the schools are taking the necessary steps to change their school culture through the implementation of restorative practices and positive classroom management, both of which must be done before restorative discipline can or should even be considered.   

“Restorative discipline” is meaningless and even counterproductive in a traditional school environment.   To “restore,” in this context, is to have a culture and classroom environment to which a misbehaving student will want to be returned or restored.     

The overwhelming evidence is that reductions in suspensions and discipline referrals rely on improved school climate, closer student and staff relationships, and positive classroom management. Nothing in this bill supports or even funds this necessary foundational change.  To just mandate a limit on suspensions before a “restorative box” is checked, may reduce suspensions artificially, but will almost certainly lead to greater and more serious misbehavior.   

Further, research shows that in large public schools, the application of restorative practices is complicated by high student-to-staff ratios, higher staff turnover and absences, and a lack of training.  Any change of this magnitude, according to the evidence, requires a gradual phase-in, massive investments in training, and a complete buy-in by parents, students and staff.  Imposing the end phase “restorative discipline” without the beginning foundational restorative practices in place, is a recipe for greater student misbehavior, more threats to teachers, and more teachers opting to leave the classroom.   

In short, restorative practices are not a discipline program – they are a radical shift in school climate to include a relationship-centered school culture that then allows a more nuanced and positive discipline method that keeps students in their classrooms and restores them to their peers and teachers more quickly and effectively. This cannot be done with a checkbox at the end of a disciplinary encounter. 

As conservatives, we believe in expanding parental choice and options — both within the public school system and beyond.  It is likely that with such a choice a well thought out and implemented system of restorative practices and positive classroom management may quickly become the choice of most parents and teachers.  Indeed, it is the choice of many elite private schools around the country.   

Such a model can transform lives.  It can create a culture where teachers and students connect, parents are empowered, and troubled students can turn their life around.  

But nothing listed above is meant to be implemented in a school environment that has not been fundamentally changed.  You can’t jump to discipline reform without first redefining school culture. And school culture cannot be redefined by a fiat from Richmond.  

Recommendation  

Teachers and principals, who know their students and school better than the General Assembly, need fewer regulations to provide every child with a safe, distraction-free place to learn — not more. This bill has reached the Governor’s desk on the strength of sentiment. Sentiment will likely see it signed; especially with the Virginia Education Association in support. An amendment to reduce the bill to a study of its implementation in a dozen schools or a mandate for the Virginia Department of Education to provide resources and training on the benefits of restorative practices (not discipline) would certainly improve this well-meaning legislation.  

Absent this change, Governor Spanberger should judge this bill on the merits — and veto it. 

Derrick A. Max is President and CEO of the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy

Ali Ahmad is a Senior Visiting Fellow at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy.