HB0197 requires the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a comprehensive plan for establishing “Restorative Practices Schools” by July 1, 2026. A Restorative Practices School is defined as a public school that integrates restorative practices into the daily practices and activities of the whole school. In developing the plan, the Department must consult educators and organizations with experience in restorative practices and identify model training materials, standards for designation, and intended outcomes and performance metrics.
The bill also amends existing discipline law to update the definition of restorative practices and to direct the State Board and county boards to incorporate restorative practices, counseling, and other interventions into school discipline policies. It continues the prohibition on corporal punishment in public schools and requires annual discipline data reporting, including disaggregation by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, socioeconomic status, English learner status, and discipline type. The Department must also collect data on alternative discipline practices used in public schools.
If a county board chooses to establish a Restorative Practices School, it must use the State Department’s comprehensive plan. The Department must report to the Governor and General Assembly on the plan by December 1, 2026, and that reporting requirement sunsets in 2027. The act takes effect July 1, 2025.
The bill’s impact is primarily on state education policy and local school discipline practices. It creates a statewide framework for restorative-practices-based school models, expands technical assistance and data collection, and may influence how counties train staff, measure school climate, and respond to student misconduct. It does not require every school system to create a Restorative Practices School, but it sets the standards and guidance for systems that choose to do so.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text is supportive of restorative discipline and school climate reform, with an emphasis on accountability, prevention, and reducing exclusionary discipline. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no direct evidence of floor debate or recorded opposition in the materials supplied. The main likely point of contention is whether restorative practices should be a statewide model with formal standards and reporting requirements, versus a more local, flexible approach to school discipline implementation.
The bill amends Education Article § 7-306 and adds new § 7-306.1 to create a statewide framework for Restorative Practices Schools. It requires the State Department of Education to develop a comprehensive implementation plan, define training and designation standards, and report on intended outcomes and metrics. County boards that opt to establish such schools must follow the State plan, while existing discipline rules, corporal punishment prohibitions, and data-reporting obligations remain in place and are expanded to include more detailed disaggregation and alternative discipline data.
The bill appears generally favorable toward restorative justice and school climate reform, emphasizing preventive, relationship-based discipline and schoolwide implementation. The text suggests a policy consensus around reducing harmful disciplinary outcomes and improving student and staff well-being. No votes or committee testimony were provided, so there is no documented record here of formal support or opposition; however, the structure of the bill indicates a measured approach that preserves local choice while setting state guidance.
The main policy tension is between statewide standardization and local control. Supporters of the bill would likely favor a uniform Department-developed plan, training framework, and performance metrics to ensure consistent implementation of restorative practices. Potential critics may object to the administrative burden, the need for additional training and reporting, or the possibility that restorative practices could limit traditional disciplinary discretion. Another likely point of debate is whether the bill goes far enough, since it requires a plan and allows counties to opt in rather than mandating restorative practices schools statewide.