SB68 requires the Maryland State Department of Education to develop a comprehensive statewide plan for establishing “Restorative Practices Schools” by July 1, 2026. The bill defines restorative practices as a culturally and communally responsive, relationship-focused discipline model that emphasizes prevention, accountability, repairing harm, and voluntary participation by harmed individuals. It also expands the existing education code’s description of restorative practices, clarifies that corporal punishment remains prohibited, and directs the State Board and local boards to support discipline policies that include restorative practices, counseling, and other educational interventions.
The bill also requires the Department to consult with educators, administrators, and state or national organizations experienced in restorative practices when creating the plan. The plan must identify qualified school staff who can serve as restorative practices coaches, create model training materials, set standards for when a school may be designated a Restorative Practices School, and define intended outcomes and performance metrics. Those metrics must include changes in disciplinary referrals, suspensions, expulsions, school arrests, absenteeism, truancy, teacher turnover, mental health indicators, and school climate. If a county board chooses to establish a Restorative Practices School, it must use the Department’s comprehensive plan. The Department must also report its plan to the Governor and General Assembly by December 1, 2026.
In terms of state law, SB68 amends Education Article § 7-306 and adds new § 7-306.1, creating a new statewide framework for restorative-practices-based school models. It does not require every school system to adopt a Restorative Practices School, but it does establish the state-level standards, training framework, and reporting structure that local boards must follow if they opt in. The bill also reinforces existing discipline-reporting requirements and data disaggregation by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, socioeconomic status, English learner status, and discipline type.
The overall sentiment reflected in the voting history appears generally favorable, with the bill passing both chambers by substantial margins after one rejected floor amendment. The lack of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the broad support suggests the bill was viewed as a constructive step toward improving school climate and discipline practices. The rejected amendment indicates there was at least some disagreement over the bill’s specifics, but not enough to prevent final passage.
The main point of contention appears to be the scope and implementation of restorative practices in public schools, including how much discretion local school systems should have and how prescriptive the state plan should be. Potential concerns likely centered on training requirements, accountability standards, and whether restorative practices would be effective in reducing serious discipline issues while maintaining order. Supporters, by contrast, appear to have favored a structured statewide framework that encourages consistent implementation, data collection, and school climate improvements.
SB68 amends Maryland’s Education Article to formalize restorative practices within school discipline policy and to create a new statutory requirement for the Department of Education to develop a statewide implementation plan for Restorative Practices Schools. It affects the State Board, county boards of education, and public schools by establishing training, reporting, and planning obligations, while leaving local adoption of Restorative Practices Schools optional but subject to state-developed standards and guidance.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported in the legislature, passing both chambers by comfortable margins after one amendment was rejected. With no committee transcripts available, the record suggests general approval of the bill’s goals—improving school climate, discipline, and student outcomes through restorative practices—along with some limited disagreement over details of implementation. The final enactment indicates the measure was ultimately viewed as a workable policy framework rather than a controversial overhaul.
The likely areas of contention were how restorative practices should be defined, how prescriptive the state’s framework should be, and whether local school systems should be required or merely permitted to adopt a Restorative Practices School model. Critics may have been concerned about training burdens, administrative costs, and whether restorative approaches would adequately address serious misconduct, while supporters likely emphasized reduced suspensions, better school climate, and more equitable discipline outcomes. The rejected floor amendment suggests at least one substantive disagreement, though the available record does not specify its subject.