by: Ji Ho (Geo) Yang, SESEC Family Program Specialist and PhD Candidate at the University of Washington
The Families, Education, Preschool, and Promise (FEPP) Levy was renewed late last year. The Levy itself represents the city of Seattle’s major investment in Seattle education ranging from early childhood to career readiness. The 2025 renewal signals Seattle constituents’ belief in investing in Seattle education for greater access and equity. SESEC has been on the front lines in galvanizing Southeast Seattle by informing CBOs and local community constituents about the renewal process and implementation design process, and elevating local community leaders’, advocates’, and organizers’ voices to keep the Levy design and implementation process accountable and true to its mission.
The main key “buckets” of the FEPP Levy are Ready to Start (early childhood), Ready to Learn (K-12), and Ready to Launch (college and career supports). Each bucket has specific strategies informing what areas within the buckets are focused on, how money will be invested, and how Levy implementations will be assessed.
In this two part blog series, I will be digging into the Ready to Learn bucket, specifically the strategies “Safety” and “Basic Needs”. I will be connecting my reflections and thoughts around Ready to Learn-Safety and Basic Needs through my research on a working article, where I talk with high school teachers about resource needs in a newcomer or immigrant community focused school in the Pacific Northwest. This blog will focus on safety and the following blog will focus on basic needs.
The Ready to Learn bucket is focused on K-12 education through “Student Academic Supports” and “Student Health and Safety”. Investments in Ready to Learn include middle school sports development and outdoor learning experiences within the strategy of “Expanded Learning Opportunities”, school-based health centers and mental health services within the strategy of “Health”, restorative practices and mentoring within the strategy of “Safety”, and housing, transportation, and food under the strategy of “Basic Needs”.
This blog will focus on the investment of “Restorative Practices” in the strategy of “Safety”. Restorative practices are nothing new in schools, such as the popularity and implementation of Restorative Justice (a type of restorative practice) in school discipline. Restorative practices can be traced to different cultures, including indigenous cultures of the Americas. What research, and more specifically, my conversations with high school teachers highlight, is that the shortcomings of restorative practices do not rest on the practices themselves, but the greater policy and implementation process of restorative practices in schools.
Teachers that I’ve spoken with have great passion for restorative practices in their classrooms and their school. They believe that punitive disciplinary practices do not help students grow and develop greater socio-emotional skills, and they see those types of practices as part of the “school-to-prison” pipeline. Teachers talked about how there was general consensus and buy-in amongst teachers on restorative justice, such as how restorative practices are more responsive for newcomer and immigrant students, support cultural learning while honoring home cultures, and develop skills. Staff received training for restorative justice to support teachers in best incorporating restorative justice into their own practices, pedagogy, and classrooms. While teachers noted that there was no universal consensus amongst all teachers, the shortcoming according to teachers, comes from commitment and buy-in from their leaders and their administrators. Without buy-in and commitment across all major staff in a school, the implementation and investment in restorative practices is doomed to be short-changed, temporary, or ineffective.
The primary driver for restorative practices under the safety strategy in the FEPP Levy is training for school staff. A lesson learned from teachers I spoke with in my research is that the first step to implementing responsive school practices is not training for staff. But rather, unpacking the values, cultures, ideologies, and assumptions of school communities, particularly educators and administrators. Without unpacking how our educators and school leaders think, believe, and perceive, any training regarding equity practices or resources will be half-hearted and will lack momentum in implementation; and thus will not be impactful in the long-run. Put it simply, we must interrogate the cultural foundations of school structures that hinder equitable practices and thus outcomes.
There is a plethora of research showing that the implementation of equity practices such as restorative practices fails because policies are dependent and solely focused on training school stakeholders rather than prioritizing unpacking the values, beliefs, and ideologies our educators and school leaders hold that underlie their teaching and leadership. What are the cultural roots (often centered on white supremacist, settle-colonialist, and neoliberal cultures) of our school structures, which are inhabited by school leaders? Without tackling the cultural and political assumptions of educators and school leaders, they will likely default back to their old ways and not implement restorative practices with fidelity and intention. Without interrogating and recalibrating hearts of leaders and the culture of our structures, how can minds commit to changing habits and practices?
The FEPP Levy is the City’s direct and primary means of education investment. SESEC and its greater coalition are on the frontline to help ensure that the Levy’s design and implementation are intentional in various aspects, from financial sustainability to community accountability. One area we need to continue to push on is the design of Ready to Learn and the strategy of Safety via Restorative Practices. Rather than solely focusing on school staff training, this specific strategy should focus on unpacking school culture; what lies in the hearts of our school leaders and the structural foundations that hold those hearts.
About Blog Series: The blog series is about sharing research, concepts, and issues of politics in educational advocacy and our community. As parts of educational advocacy work have been weaponized against justice and equity, it is important for us as advocates to distinguish between ‘real talk’ and ‘orchestrated distractions’. More importantly, educational advocacy cannot produce any justice or progress without a serious reflection of ourselves. Self-reflection is a foundational way to check ourselves in this work. As this blog series serves as an intimate exercise for me to do that critical self-reflection, I hope that it can serve as a resource for you to learn, question, and reflect (also share)! Thank you so much for taking the time to engage with the series, and please reach out if you have any wonderings, points of dialogue, etc ([email protected]).