LETTER: “Resorative discipline” in the Clark Count School District

In response to the Oct. 6 Review-Journal commentary “In defense of ‘restorative discipline’ ” by Barbara Strahl, Pat Sutherland and Ann Marshall:

The authors offer a hypothetical disciplinary case in which one student assaults another resulting in serious injury. Why they opt to forgo a medical exam for the bloodied victim is not clear. They are clear, however, that suspension and citation should be avoided and that reconciliation and resolution-building skills should be sought instead.

But why can’t both be employed (suspension for violence and conditional readmission based on counseling)? This may not be the best course for students such as Nikolas Cruz, but I get the impression that “restorative discipline” advocates would not make this distinction.

Schools are not juvenile detention centers, nor are they staffed for violent outbursts and dangerous students. Nowhere in the piece did the authors address student safety. Many parents don’t have the private school option, and it is incumbent on educators to provide a safe environment for students.

I think parents should be worried by the Clark County School District’s “restorative” emphasis of perpetrators over the justice of victims and the creation of a safe and secure student milieu.