Teacher Perspectives on Effective Restorative Practice Implementation: Identifying Programmatic Elements that Promote Positive Relational Development in Schools

Abstract

This study highlights effective components of restorative practice programming from the perspective of teachers involved in piloting a restorative practices initiative. Data were collected through 10 qualitative interviews at the study site - an under-resourced, urban school. Findings capture teacher perceptions of how two elements of the program design that are very often missing from restorative practice implementation made distinct contributions to an overall positive impact: (1) a full-time restorative practices coordinator; one that focuses exclusively on restorative practice implementation and does not also hold another role at the school; and (2) a student leadership program that trains and empowers students in restorative practices and relational climate building. Drawing on Relational-Cultural Theory, the discussion emphasizes that strengthening relational bonds has potential to enhance school climates for marginalized youth, which is critical to improving outcomes in under-resourced schools.

Keywords:

• Positive school climate
• restorative practices
• restorative justice
• relational cultural theory
• school transformation
• social work
• teacher perspectives
• urban schools

Introduction

Punitive and exclusionary disciplinary practices like school suspensions have risen dramatically in American schools over the last four decades (Losen, Hodson, Keith II, Morrison & Belway, 2015). These increases have been felt most strongly by Black and Latinx communities, whereby at the high school level specifically, between 1973 and 2010, the proportions of Black and Latinx students receiving suspensions climbed 12.5 and 5.2 percentage points respectively, as opposed to only a 1.0 percentage point increase for their White counterparts (Leung-Gagné et al., 2022). Since 2010, suspension rates have declined for all groups, but suspension rates for Black students remains 3.6 times higher than that of their White counterparts (Leung-Gagné et al., 2022). Moreover, evidence has shown that Black and Latinx students face harsher and more frequent disciplinary consequences, even compared to students with comparable behavioral and socio-economic backgrounds (Castillo, 2013; Riddle & Sinclair, 2019; Skiba et al., 2011).

These rising and disparate rates are concerning given the mounting body of evidence that demonstrates how exclusionary discipline is ineffective at curbing unwanted behavior, and instead exacerbate negative student outcomes, such as increased antisocial behaviors, truancy, increased likelihood of dropping out, and chances of entering the juvenile justice system (Gerlinger et al., 2021; Lamont et al., 2013; Rosenbaum, 2020). Moreover, both educational and legal scholars and practitioners have raised particular concern about the relationship between punitive disciplinary cultures and what has come to be known as the School-to-Prison Pipeline, a phenomenon whereby harsh and exclusionary school discipline approaches in schools contribute to juvenile justice system contact and subsequent recidivism for affected students, and ultimately the criminalization of Black and Latinx youth (Bahena et al., 2012; Novak & Fagan, 2022; Wadhwa, 2015). Ultimately, concerns for optimal youth learning and development, as well as for racial equity in education, both direct the field away from punitive discipline practices and toward more nurturing approaches to school climate and behavioral management.

In response, educators and lawmakers have been recommending and implementing more humanizing alternatives to exclusionary approaches to end punitive and retributive practices. These include but are not limited to: robust multi-tiered interventions (Huguley, Fussell-Ware, Stuart McQueen, Wang, & DeBellis, (2022); Kyere et al., 2020); trauma-informed practices (Joseph et al., 2020); educator and school social worker collaboration (Huguley, Wang, Pasarow, & Wallace, 2020; Sosa & McGrath, 2013); and culturally responsive practices for interventions (Parsons, 2017). Additionally, in 2014, the United States Departments of Justice and Education jointly released a consensus report on school discipline that specifically prescribed strategies for multi-tiered restorative and relational practices (Morgan et al., 2014). In recent years, there has been substantial movement toward broad implementation of restorative practices in the field, with approaches ranging in their design and associated outcomes but that can generally be identified by components that both promote community building and non-punitive responses to harm and conflict (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Fronius et al., 2019; Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021). Much empirical attention has been paid to the outcomes associated with these practices, and scholarship has also sought to understand the experiences and mechanisms associated with its implementation and results. Across studies, however, few have specifically and richly captured the key discrete mechanisms within the restorative framework that contribute to overall program impact, particularly in considering how the work has contributed to academic and disciplinary culture improvements (Gregory & Evans, 2020; Zakszeski & Rutherford, 2021).

In response, in this paper we explore nuanced aspects of restorative practice implementation in a context where disciplinary and academic aims were achieved. Specifically, teachers’ perceptions after the first year of implementation were explored to ascertain what they perceived to be the most essential mechanisms of the program, and two major themes emerged: (1) the impact of the inaugural installment of a full-time restorative practices coordinator—one that focuses exclusively on restorative practice implementation and does not also hold another role at the school; and (2) leveraging student leadership programming that trains and empowers students in restorative practices and relational climate building. The paper proceeds as follows. First, a conceptualization of restorative practices is presented, including brief discussions of their utilization and effectiveness in schools in the United States as well as a summary of previous explorations of teacher perspectives on the approach. Next, relational culture theory is offered as a guiding framework for the program implementation at the center of this study. Following, the current study’s methodologies and findings are detailed. This paper ends with a discussion of the limitations of the current study, as well as the implications of this work for the field.

Restorative justice and restorative practices in schools

In stark contrast to the punitive and retributive school discipline practices that are too often the default in American public schools, restorative justice seeks to address harm and conflict through relational means and within community. Based on justice- and reconciliation-related cultural practices of indigenous peoples across the globe, restorative justice is guided by the view that harm and conflict not only impact those directly involved, but also more fundamentally, the established relationships and bonds of trust within their communities (Davis, 2014; Pranis, 2015). Therefore, in order to effectively repair harm or conflict where they occur, those inflicting harm must understand the impact of their actions, and subsequently make amends with those directly affected. Such amends are made through a mediated process between those principally involved, as well as others in the community who may have been impacted by the harm done. Often, the process requires healing on the part of the one who inflicted harm prior to engaging in the larger communal process (Duffy Rice & Smith, 2019). Practices associated with restorative justice had their start in North America through the criminal justice system in the mid-1970s and 80’s, developing alongside a process then known as the Victim Offender Reconciliation Program (Zehr, 2015).

Restorative justice in schools

Schools began adopting restorative justice practices into their discipline systems in the 1990s, primarily in response to the proliferation of zero-tolerance policies in that era that contributed to astoundingly disproportionate rates of suspensions and expulsions between Black students and their White counterparts (Davis, 2014; Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Fronius et al., 2019). The transition to school settings is sensible given that discipline in schools often mirrors the criminal justice system, with both retributive and rehabilitative motivations aimed at the one causing harm that effectively ignore the reparation needed for both the directly affected as well as the larger community. The underlying logic to punitive approaches is that such responses will deter future negative behaviors from the perceived transgressor and other community members, thereby establishing and/or maintaining a safe and controlled environment (Lamont et al., 2013; Morris & Perry, 2016). This approach is generally expected to be effective independent of existing school cultural or relational norms and practices. Yet in reality, there is no viable evidence that retributive and rehabilitative school discipline have a positive impact on school safety or climate in schools (Kupchik, 2016; Morris & Perry, 2016).

The restorative approach

In opposition to the focus on isolating transgressors and applying consequences, restorative justice in schools begins with the notion that schools must first proactively build community in and across classrooms through communal systems and practices. Restorative practitioners and scholars position community-building as the foundation of a restorative culture, because it fosters mutual respect between members of classrooms and creates an understanding of behaviors that are valued and respected in the group (Huguley, Wang, Pasarow, & Wallace, 2020; Karp & Breslin, 2001; Winn, 2018). Then, when harm or conflict does occur, restorative practitioners¹ respond by preparing for and providing space for a range of stakeholders, including caring peers and supportive adult community members not directly involved in a conflict, to discuss the issue and come to a communal decision on how to effectively and accountably resolve the issue (Fronius et al., 2019; Winn, 2018). In the process, the previously established values and relationships provide both safety and motivation for the person who caused harm, and guidance as to the type of communal norms and connectedness that needs to be restored (Huguley, Fussell-Ware, Stuart McQueen, Wang, & DeBellis, (2022); Karp & Breslin, 2001; Winn, 2018). When effectively applied, the restorative process holds greater accountability than exclusionary practice because it requires face-to-face reconciliation with the facts and experiences of the conflict for all involved, rather than a brief and detached period of isolation.

Given the widespread reliance on punitive approaches to discipline and conflict response in schools in the United States, restorative justice requires many schools to restructure their climate and behavioral practices in ways that can require a paradigm shift—away from detached, retributive, punishment-oriented norms and toward a humanizing, community-centered approach that centers building relationships and healing relational wounds (Morrison et al., 2005; Winn, 2018). Making this transition successfully as an institution often takes five or more years in schools (Fronius et al., 2019), and results of restorative reforms (many of which have not made it to the five-year mark) have been mixed across outcomes. While the adoption of restorative practices has been consistently associated with reduced use of exclusionary discipline, evidence on whether this reduction mediates changes in precise behavioral and academic outcomes is limited. These limitations in secondary effects may be explained in part by programmatic failures identified in qualitative studies; namely, that the execution of restorative approaches on the ground often lacks sufficient human resources and the ongoing support needed for buy-in and implementation fidelity across schools, particularly considering the material barriers that many schools face (Augustine et al., 2018; Eden, 2017; Fronius et al., 2019). Given the deleterious, inequitable effects of exclusionary discipline, in tandem with schools’ inadequate resources to implement viable alternatives, there is an urgent need to determine the feasibility and impact of optimally designed approaches to school climate and disciplinary reforms.

Teacher perspectives on restorative practice implementation

While much of what is known about restorative practice implementation comes from evaluation studies, an emerging literature base has begun to specifically explore the implementation of restorative justice programming from the perspective of teachers themselves (Dhaliwal et al., 2023; Hemphill et al., 2022; Lustick et al., 2020; Rainbolt et al., 2019; Weaver & Swank, 2020). These studies, to date, have tended to explore teacher perceptions on the outcomes, key mechanisms, and inhibiting barriers to restorative practice implementation, however few such studies have been conducted in schools that incorporated full time restorative practitioners into implementation models.

For example, in a descriptive study of teacher impressions of restorative practice implementation in a high school, Rainbolt et al. (2019) report survey results showing that the overwhelming majority of teacher-respondents felt that restorative practices positively impacted relationships at their school, and the three elements perceived to be most effective were: (a) affective statements, (b) fair process; and (c) small impromptu conferences/circles. Despite these perceived gains and key mechanisms, teachers also felt that more consistent administrative messaging and repeated training were needed in order to firmly embed restorative practices within their school environment. Specifically, in a finding mirrored in Lustick et al. (2020), teachers found circles to be an effective component to restorative practice, but also often experienced discomfort in hosting them for myriad reasons including, a lack of sufficient training in addressing distress that might arise from it (Lustick et al., 2020; Rainbolt et al., 2019). This lack of professional development support has been noted elsewhere as well, and is something that could potentially be remedied by the inclusion of an on-site full time restorative practitioner. However, these program models did not include one as distinct from school staff with other roles.

Weaver and Swank (2020) and Dhaliwal et al. (2023) also studied restorative practice, with Weaver and Swank (2020) specifically conducting a qualitative study utilizing interviews with a school administrator, students (N = 6) and teachers (N = 3) who were involved in a pilot implementation in their middle school facilitated by a faculty book study. Their findings captured several perceived positive outcomes of the restorative practice implementation among participating teachers and staff, including relationships that fostered a collective mindset and accountability; more meaningful consequences for harm where it did occur; and clearer direction on expectation setting. The authors cautioned, however, that as this implementation was primarily the result of a book study rather than a formal training, the work was not being implemented throughout the whole school, and therefore could not be considered an analysis on a schoolwide programmatic implementation. Meanwhile, Dhaliwal et al. (2023) discuss findings from a survey of 363 educators in a large, multi-district, diverse county in California (48% identified as teachers) who attended 2-day restorative practice trainings the county provided. This study similarly found that teachers perceived positive outcomes as a result of restorative practice implementation, including increased senses of community and safety, and decreased discipline and misbehavior. They also shared several hindrances to implementation that educators perceived that were consistent with prior literature, including a lack of time, faculty and staff will, and professional development for support. Here again, however, rather than engaging a model that included specialized full time restorative staff in each school that could help alleviate time constraints and provide additional training, in this case the 2-day county-wide teacher and staff training provided was in and of itself the restorative programming.

Finally, and similarly, Hemphill et al.’s (2022) single-subject case study provides an in-depth look at the difficulties faced by the too common scenario whereby teachers are schools that paradoxically have a stated restorative justice policy, yet shallow implementation of restorative practices and associated support structures. The challenges identified in the study include a lack of administrative support and teacher training (1st year teachers were provided with literature but not actual training), limited overall implementation and an overall lack of restorative school culture. Here again, no full-time restorative practitioners were incorporated into the implementation model (Hemphill et al., 2022).

In sum, previous studies on teachers’ perspectives of restorative practice implementation have affirmed the value and need for restorative-justice based practices, with positive outcomes consistently observed at the teacher level. Several key facilitators and barriers to successful implementation have also been identified, including limitations in training, time, and full-implementation. However, extant studies on teacher perspectives have tended to not be conducted in models where full-time restorative practitioners are being incorporated—practitioners that when in place can help to alleviate some of the structural and cultural barriers perceived by teachers and other staff members. Contributing to this emergent literature base, the current study utilizes data from in-depth interviews with teachers and a school social worker who participated in a restorative practice implementation effort, Restorative School Communities, that was seen as successful in transforming discipline and climate experiences in an under-resourced urban elementary school setting.² Restorative School Communities (RSC) is a research-to-practice university-school partnership that seeks to holistically support under-resourced urban schools by: (1) enhancing students’ sense of safety and belonging in schools; (2) reducing the need for and use of punitive and exclusionary discipline approaches, particularly in schools serving Youth of Color; and (3) increasing academic performance by way of increases in teacher effectiveness in classrooms, student engagement, and actual learning time spent in class for students. Notably, RSC’s programming model utilizes a full-time restorative practitioner to coordinate and oversee program implementation at the school. RSC’s two-year pilot results demonstrated not only decreases in punitive disciplinary responses (referrals and suspensions), but also increases in math and ELA proficiency rates that reversed previously negative trends in the two years prior to implementation. Teachers play a crucial role in Restorative School Communities’ model as they are at the forefront of the desired cultural shift that is expected to occur when restorative techniques are incorporated in the classroom and through school-wide culture building activities. They also need to buy into restorative responses as an effective and accountable process by which to resolve conflicts.

Below, we document a diverse group of teachers’ first-year experiences with the RSC restorative practice program implementation. We specifically focus on programmatic elements that the teachers deemed particularly essential in supporting positive relational climate development: a full-time restorative practitioner to lead the efforts, and a group of student leaders facilitating change at the peer-to-peer level.

Theoretical framework

Restorative School Communities’s practical and developmental approaches to school climate transformation are grounded in relational cultural theory, which strongly aligns with the philosophy of the restorative approach.

Relational cultural theory

The proactive community-building aspects of restorative practices are mirrored by relational cultural theory, a human development concept that challenges historically dominant developmental models that focus on the “myth of individual achievement” (Comstock et al., 2008; Miller, 1976). These earlier, White male-centered developmental models tended to emphasize internal attributes that facilitated individual success, and to not only dismiss connectedness and relationships as valuable, but also positioned them as developmental byproducts of successful individual independence-centered development. Consequently, such models have the effect of pathologizing more relationally-centered ways of being that have been associated with non-dominant genders and cultures (Comstock et al., 2008; Gilligan, 2009).

In contrast, relational cultural theory centers connection and relational interactions as both a primary source and optimal outcome of human growth. It purposefully identifies relational attributes as strengths that should be nurtured, and also closely considers the ways in which gender and culture affect socialization. Several disciplines have applied relational cultural theory in reimagining their field of study, including counseling and mentoring (Comstock et al., 2008; Fletcher & Ragins, 2007). Comstock et al. (2008) argued, for example, that within a relational framework, counseling has the potential to not only help individuals process their own socio-emotional challenges, but to also heal them through relational assets. To be effective from a relational perspective, counseling must include cultural competencies that allow clinicians to hold empathy for individuals unlike themselves, and to understand the ways in which people who have experienced marginalization and betrayal of trust often exhibit disconnection-oriented behaviors (Comstock et al., 2008). Indeed, through relational approaches, counseling clients may not only demonstrate individual improvement, but also go on to challenge larger forms of oppression that impact mental health (Comstock et al., 2008).

Relational cultural theory undergirds the practices of the Restorative School Communities’ model in several ways. Most prominently, the program’s school-wide community-building elements emphasize the potential of relationships and relational culture to change school climate dynamics. This emphasis is grounded in the notion that relationships are a catalyst for the kinds of empathy, communication skills, and personal growth that will reduce interpersonal conflict and the need for disciplinary responses in the first place. Moreover, the secondary and tertiary-level intervention elements in turn heavily leverage the established relational capital as the backdrop for empathetic responses to individual students involved in disruptive actions. Lastly, relational cultural theory’s call for cultural competency and intergroup empathy is especially important in under-resourced urban school settings, where teaching forces are typically over 90% White, while serving a majority of economically disadvantaged students of color.

Likewise, restorative practices leverage proactive community building activities as a prerequisite for healing harm through relational approaches in ways that are potentially more effective and accountable than punitive approaches. As with relational cultural theory, restorative practice centers relationships as both a means and end given that learning, growth, and healing all take place within a relational framework. In the context of these relational cultural theory, the current analysis examines teachers’ perspectives on the degree to which core mechanisms of the Restorative School Communities program facilitated individual and communal change as the school sought to move away from retributive and rehabilitative practices, and toward more relational and restorative norms.

The current study

This study explored teachers’ perspectives on the most impactful mechanisms by which a restorative practice-based school climate transformation effort, Restorative School Communities (RSC), contributed to the positive outcomes in student behaviors and the overall culture at the host school in its first year. This analysis is guided by the following research question: What resources and restorative practice program elements do teachers perceive as being essential to supporting relational climate development during the first year of implementation?

Context

The study was conducted at River Ridge Elementary School,³ which is a Title 1, under-resourced urban school serving grades 4 through 6 in a mid-sized metropolitan area of the northeastern United States. The student demographics included 596 youth, of which 72% were Black, 18% were White, 75% were economically disadvantaged, and 31% were receiving special education services. River Ridge was selected as a site for the program through a combination of factors, including: a preexisting partnership between the lead investigators and the school district; a veteran principal who was open to bringing restorative practices to the school; and high preexisting levels of school suspension. Also, because River Ridge served a majority of African American and economically disadvantaged students, it advanced RSC’s programmatic aim of equitable and reparative distribution of its resources. Specifically, as part of the school-university partnership, the university-based team of professional educators, social workers, and researchers provided the school with a full-time restorative practice coordinator, and supported the school and district with professional development and evaluation in support of positive school climate and restorative transformation.

The Restorative School Communities (RSC) program

Restorative School Communities aims to promote a positive school climate and a responsive disciplinary culture in ways that are attentive to the diverse needs of students (Huguley, Fussell-Ware, Stuart McQueen, Wang, & DeBellis, (2022); Huguley, Wang, Pasarow, & Wallace, 2020). Based on prior research and best practices employed by practitioners on the design team, the program model integrates reinforcing cultural, organizational, and human resource shifts that are needed for successful climate transformation; the model specifically calls for: school-community buy-in, a strong relational climate, restorative discipline policies, full-time restorative staff, integrated behavioral systems, attention to race and social context, structural supports for data and collaboration, and intensive mental health and behavioral supports (Huguley, Wang, Pasarow, & Wallace, 2020). To date, programs implementing these types of transformation approaches have had notable success (Davis, 2014; Fronius et al., 2019), including at the RSC pilot site, where there have been substantial decreases in suspensions and referrals, increases in student perceptions of school safety, and increases in overall levels of students’ academic proficiency (Huguley, Fussell-Ware, Stuart McQueen, Wang, & DeBellis, (2022); Huguley, Wang, Pasarow, & Wallace, 2020). Specifically, after two years of pilot implementation, River Ridge Elementary, the site of RSC implementation, experienced a 28% decrease in the number of individual students suspended, a 30% decrease in student office referrals, and increases in both math and ELA proficiency that reversed previously negative trends. Further, more than 90% of teachers wanted the restorative programming to continue.

Despite the growing evidence in support of restorative practices at RSC and abroad, systematic empirical discussion capturing the nuances of restorative practice implementation processes in schools remains limited (Gregory & Evans, 2020). Moreover, literature that centers teachers’ perspectives on programmatic elements that foster successful implementation of restorative practices is distinctly scarce, particularly in relation to programs with robust training and staffing. Illuminating the ways in which teachers experience restorative practice implementation designs that include robust program elements is an essential step in designing efforts that enhance teachers’ capacity for engaging in the restorative practice program components and interacting with students in a restorative manner. Accordingly, the current study aims to understand the ways in which teachers experienced the programming in year one, and in particular which components seemed to have contributed most to positive relational and behavioral outcomes.

Participants and data collection

Interviews conducted in this study were part of the process-oriented component of a program evaluation for the RSC pilot project. The interview participants were nine teachers and one school social worker⁴ (N = 10) from River Ridge. Participants were purposively sampled (Padgett, 2011) with the help of the school principal to represent a range of ethnicities, genders, teaching duties, experience levels, and degree of usage of restorative practice programming. Invitations to participate in interviews specifically noted that they did not need to use or even endorse restorative practices, and that their individual responses would not be shared with any school or district personnel. The sample included staff from all three grade levels (4th–6th) and the student support team. All 10 participants had been at the school for at least one year prior to implementation, and their total professional teaching experience ranged from 2 years to over 20. Mirroring trends in education in the US, the sample was majority White and female: among interviewees there were 4 White women, 2 Black women, 1 biracial woman, 2 White men, and 1 biracial man.⁵

Participants were given one semi-structured interview over the summer following the end of the 2017–2018 school year. The semi-structured interview was the most appropriate data collection format because it provides a level of uniformity for analysis, yet leaves space for participants to share their perspectives in their own voice (McIntosh & Morse, 2015). The interview protocol consisted of questions aimed at understanding how teachers experienced the restorative practice program implementation in year one, any changes they perceived in the school climate that were considered to be attributable to the program, and what they felt should be done to improve the program and the school climate going forward. Interviews were carried out by two of the members of the university research team, and ranged from 45 to 60 minutes in length. The interviews were recorded and subsequently transcribed by three members of the research team.

Data analysis

Interview transcripts were analyzed through multiple coding cycles. Two of the authors created a priori codes from familiarity with the research on school discipline and restorative practices and uploaded them into NVivo. Prior to engaging in coding, all team members read the transcripts multiple times, and two had also participated in conducting the interviews. The research team met to preview the a priori codes and each were assigned three to four transcripts to code, covering all transcripts in the first round. In the subsequent meeting, team members discussed their suggestions for grounded code (codes that arise from the data (Saldaña, 2012)) additions to the coding scheme, and the first author solidified the updated coding scheme before the second round of coding. All interviews were coded by at least two team members, and all coded sections were reviewed for consistency by the first two authors.

Reflexivity statement

Given the racial equity aims of the RSC work, the research team was intentionally diversified in terms of race and ethnicity, gender, and level of familiarity with restorative justice and teaching in the effort to promote a balanced interpretation of participant responses. Specifically, our seven-member research team included three African American women, one African American man, two White women, and one Asian American man. Four team members are former teachers (three in urban schools, one in rural schools), but only two team members have direct experiences with restorative practice implementation. Three of the seven authors are members of the Restorative School Communities evaluation team, and one took part in the initial research and design of the intervention. All of the authors have an interest in the positive outcomes of the Restorative School Communities model, but have a greater interest in the improvement of educational and social-emotional outcomes of Youth of Color in under-resourced urban schools. Thus, efforts were made to balance potential bias toward the intervention with the desire for it to be an effective initiative from the perception of the context-situated practitioners. Moreover, the authors posit that close proximity to the program implementation as well as familiarity with the role of teachers aids in the analytic process. Yet, at the same time, these interpretations have been reasonably checked by those on the team who lacked such access regarding program design, thereby balancing the interpretations advanced in the discussion that follows.

Findings

Implementing new initiatives in schools, particularly those that require a cultural shift, is decidedly difficult and often contentious work. Thus, it is critically important to understand the processes behind efforts like those of RSC, which have both been associated with desired behavioral and academic outcomes, and have also been widely endorsed by participating teachers and school staff. Our current analysis of teacher interviews demonstrates that two programmatic elements were consistently noted by teachers and staff to be major contributors to the positive climate and discipline developments, particularly in response to conflict or harm: the support of a full-time restorative practice coordinator, and the work of the Bridge-Builder student leadership group.

Restorative practices coordinator: supporting teachers and students in relational practices

The implementation of many restorative practice efforts in schools is often delegated to existing faculty or staff who already have other full-time assignments. In contrast, the restorative practice work at River Ridge was led by a full-time practitioner—Mr. Michael, an African American man and a Master’s level social worker who received school-based immersion training in restorative practices from two nationally recognized programs. Thus, as suggested by González (2015), Mr. Michael was a staff member specifically dedicated to leading all programmatic elements of the restorative practices at River Ridge, in the process designing and tailoring efforts to the specific needs of the school community. Under this model, Mr. Michael first led teachers through the proactive community-building efforts that start with mindset shift work and enhancing their relational toolkits in ways that can create more equity-oriented cultures in under-resourced and racially oppressed school communities (Huguley, Wang, Pasarow, & Wallace, 2020; Wadhwa, 2017). He then layered those provisions by directly supporting conflict and harm restoration throughout the school community. When asked about the most valuable aspects of the RSC model within the school, teachers and staff almost universally noted the critical value of Mr. Michael’s presence for conflict resolution supports, and shared several aspects of his work that were instrumental in shifting to restorative rather than punitive conflict and harm resolution at River Ridge, including (1) integrating into and shifting existing conflict response systems at the school; (2) the use of healing circles to address acute conflict or harm; and (3) relatability and mentoring capacity in student supports.

Integration into and shifting conflict response strategies

All interviewees endorsed Mr. Michael⁶ as a powerful and positive presence at the school, particularly in responding to challenging interpersonal conflicts that might otherwise have resulted in more punitive responses. Ms. Allen, a 4th grade teacher, described how Mr. Michael’s positivity and availability made him an asset when problems arose:

I think Mr. Michael brings really good charisma to the building. He’s always really upbeat, really positive. The kids love him. If I have a problem and I call him, he’ll always fit me in to talk about a situation, to have a circle, to talk to any of the kids who I need some help with.

Similarly, Mr. Michael regularly served as a resource for Mr. Griffin, a 6th grade teacher, in supporting students whose behavior was out of alignment with expectations, as he described that he and Mr. Michael “work closely all the time. I’ll go by his door in the morning, I’ll say ‘Hey, I’ve got so-and-so off track.’ (He will say) ‘Send them down to me.’” One veteran 6th grade teacher, Ms. Sanders, also noted that Mr. Michael became a support (and even a preferred alternative among students) to the vice principal as well, who was formally in-charge of disciplinary action. She explained, “I know many times I was in there and kids were lined up to talk to Mr. Michael, and not VP Thompson, which must have been helpful to VP Thompson.” These statements from teachers affirm the utility of collaboration between a social worker and educators; namely, the way Mr. Michael opened his space for both teachers and students to go to when they had issues that needed his attention.

Highlighting the power of growth and mindset shifting through relationships with others, Ms. Sanders shared that she viewed herself as more restorative in her teaching practice than she was in the previous year. She explained that her shift was in part due to the influence from Mr. Michael:

A large part of (becoming more restorative) is seeing the effect of his interactions with the kids in my classrooms, in the circles, and the kids who he sees regularly one-on-one, and just having him as an option…that is very effective for a teacher to have those kinds of backup people around.

Ms. Sanders, also described how their collaboration took some time to develop, noting that by the end of the year, “he and I communicated much better and got on a much better plan of how we were gonna deal with certain kids who had continuing issues in my room.”

Underscoring the skills of a social worker trained with a person-in-context perspective, as well as the relationship development features of restorative practices, teachers seemed to observe the relationships that Mr. Michael built with their students and recognized that providing his support as an intervention was an effective means of addressing behavioral challenges themselves as well as the ways in which teachers proactively and reactively approached them. Ms. Sanders also stated, “I put a lot of confidence with Mr. Michael. When I have a kid who’s hurting for whatever reason, I give them a pass… They don’t have to tell me what their issues are.” Missing class time and not fully understanding what took place when students left class was a challenge that some teachers had to overcome in utilizing Mr. Michael and a restorative model, but observing students return to class with resolved issues was enough to convince teachers that Mr. Michael was a resource in which it was worth investing their confidence.

Restoration through healing circles

As is common in most restorative practice efforts, teachers at River Ridge were asked to implement community circle activities in their classrooms, which are discussion activities designed to build relationships and empathy. Yet at River Ridge, teachers felt that what was especially valuable to the school climate was Mr. Michael’s specialized practice of restoring relationships within healing circles. Healing circles are mediated conversations that address conflicts and violations of community norms and values, and they tend to require more in-depth training to effectively execute. By design, at River Ridge the healing circles were primarily conducted by Mr. Michael rather than teachers because he had received the requisite intensive training, thereby providing a uniquely advantageous support to teachers in year one.

In the early stages, healing circles were generally requested by school administrators, but soon, teachers also began referring students directly to Mr. Michael as it became clear that healing circles were a useful support, particularly for student issues that needed immediate attention. Eventually, students actually began asking for healing circles themselves as they recognized that the process helped them to resolve issues in relationship rather than through altercation. Of the eight teachers who spoke about healing circles, six found them to be an effective intervention strategy that elicited positive outcomes in diffusing conflict and creating safe space for youth to express themselves as they problem-solved their way through internal and external issues.

Conflict diffusion through healing circles

Most teachers recounted ways in which Mr. Michael positively impacted the school climate by using healing circles to help students address conflict relationally. Mr. Griffin explained that while student conflicts in the past would fester and have the whole class on “pins and needles” for days at a time, Mr. Michael’s presence and healing circles gave them a sense that, “I can take this issue or problem to an adult somewhere.” Mr. Griffin continued on describing how in the past there would be multi-day conflicts that would eventually lead to violence, but, “We didn’t have that this year. I think because they would sit down, [Mr. Michael] would talk to them, they’d put their stuff out on the table, clear it up, clean it up, and it kept it calm.” In a similar vein, Ms. Campbell, a 5th grade teacher with 10 years of experience, noted healing circles were effective in “preventing fights, stopping things before they became horrible. Having someone for the children to talk to.” Both Mr. Griffin and Ms. Campbell highlighted that conflict was diminished because there was an adult (Mr. Michael) available during school time to support students in resolving issues.

Mr. Patterson, a 5th grade teacher with over five years of experience, found that healing circles were a positive addition to the school environment, as students recognized the value of addressing conflict relationally and began requesting to partake in them on their own. He explained:

They ask for (healing circles). They ask to go and speak to Mr. Michael. So, I think with the students…they want that. They don’t want something that’s punitive. They want to be able to talk about their feelings, express what’s going on, and find a solution. So, I think with the students it’s much more positive.

Ms. Allen, a 4th grade teacher in her second year, also identified the healing circles as a beneficial additional resource for students to address challenges. She shared, “I did like having the healing circles though because it was another resource we could use. Sometimes with the behaviors, sometimes the kids just need to get out of the room and talk to someone.”

Healing circles as safe-spaces

Significantly, reports from teachers described how healing circles contributed to an atmosphere Mr. Michael created in his office where students felt able to share internal conflicts they were experiencing, as well as to work out conflict between themselves and another person. Ms. Robinson, a fourth-grade teacher with over fifteen years of teaching experience, described that students appreciate knowing, “there’s a safe place to talk and have a conversation where they’re not judged within their classroom.” Mr. Griffin highlighted the significance of the space Mr. Michael created because of the limitation to providing emotional support in the classroom, as Mr. Griffin explained:

Even if (students) had a teacher they encountered they felt was quote-unquote ‘not listening’ to them, they had somewhere to go. (Mr. Michael’s) office could be full all day long, and it wasn’t because there was problems. The kid just maybe needed someone to, ‘let me just get this off my chest.’ But sometimes the difficulty is, these kids bring a lot of that to the table, whereas myself as a classroom teacher, I’ve got 25, 26 kids I’m expected to (academically) progress, not just counsel or help.

Knowing that someone was there to help students work through challenges helped reduce conflict at the school, as well as enhanced the school climate as students were supported to express themselves and build relational capacity.

Relatability and mentoring for marginalized students

Given what is known about racially oppressive systems and associated barriers in school discipline in the United States, River Ridge and RSC prioritized having a restorative practitioner that reflected the students’ backgrounds, both racially as well as having grown up in a similarly oppressed neighborhood and school conditions. Perhaps not surprisingly then, multiple teachers perceived Mr. Michael’s identity as a younger Black man as being beneficial to students who see their future selves in him. As one teacher-participant who also identifies as Black emphatically noted, “It’s a Black body in the building! They want to go talk to this Black person.” The same teacher-participant later added to that sentiment by explaining that male students in particular got excited about seeing Mr. Michael as a “positive Black man,” and that they demonstrated their joy by often saying about Mr. Michael, “Oh that’s my dad, that’s my uncle.” Mr. Bennett, a White colleague on the 5th grade team, would agree: “just having a Black male in the building that some of these kids can maybe feel more comfortable with, or make that stronger connection with is a great thing, and he’s a great role model for that.” Clarifying why students may feel more comfortable or have a stronger connection with Mr. Michael as a Black man, Ms. Sanders, a veteran White teacher with over twenty years of experience, explained:

Since I’m so old and he’s young and African American, which really helps ‘cause when you’re dealing with 90% African American (students), I think it was really helpful to have him come in. So, I liked having him in the room for those, both because he could be real with them, and because he has experiences I don’t have.

Overall, there was strong teacher agreement that Mr. Michael, a trained helping professional, was pivotal in the effort to lead quality and culturally congruent restorative practice efforts in the school. Because his focus was on relational and restorative work, he was able to address conflicts, build enduring relationships, and serve as a much-needed role model in ways that would not have been possible had he also been serving as a classroom teacher or building administrator.

Bridge-builder student leaders: multiplying restorative impact

The Bridge-Builder student leadership program was universally well-received in the first year. Fifth and sixth grade students became Bridge-Builder Leaders through a rigorous process of nomination, application, and interview. In the early fall, Mr. Michael planned a full-day leadership training for students at the campus of the university partner. Based in values of servant leadership, Bridge-Builder students were trained to view a leader as one who helps others and speaks up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. Mr. Michael aimed for the Bridge-Builders to be the student “banners” of the program, and as seen below the teachers affirmed this outcome. Many of the teachers described key Bridge-Builders leadership activities that included supporting teachers by mediating student conflicts and supporting their peers as emotional resources, and also planning and leading fun, learning-centered activities to engage all students in community building throughout the year.

Student agency in defuzing conflict

One of the most compelling aspects in the teachers’ responses about Bridge-Builders were stories of students who took ownership in defuzing issues in classrooms. Teachers spoke of specific leaders who, through program participation, began to exhibit more leadership and worked to redirect student peers to make more positive behavioral choices. Mr. Griffin described a specific leader in his class as:

(An) incredible young man…(he) used what he learned from being a leader with his peers that was absolutely just awesome. Stepping in and resolving things, calming escalating voices or aggression levels. He would step in in an appropriate way and it was just awesome.

In this same vein, Mr. Patterson described having a Bridge-Builder Leader that “was friends with probably the most poorly behaved student in my classroom. And you could see him almost daily trying to redirect this other boy to more positive choices for his education.” Ms. Russell, a learning support teacher on the 6th grade team, noted that overall, “I just saw more of the students taking ownership for things and becoming more leaders. They were helping each other more.”

Peer empathy and support

As part of the process of defuzing conflicts, the Bridge-Builders served as empathetic, social-emotional supporters to peers who were themselves impacted by conflicts that arose, either between other students or from external challenges. Ms. Russell shared a prime example of such care in the 6th grade, explaining that she had a student who came to school “really upset, crying, wouldn’t talk to anybody” except asked for a Bridge-Builder who talked to him alone for about 15 minutes and helped him “go back and have a great day after that.'' She also shared a story of a situation that happened to another one of her students who “kind of gets picked on a bit” and was struggling in school overall. She described the incident,

…somebody in the bathroom was pushing him. I think he was younger than him, and my student was smaller so he was real upset and had his fists all balled up…I went into the office to see if Mr. Michael was available and he had some boys in his office … And one of the boys that was in there was one of the student leaders. He’s not a student that was the most well behaved, but he was good. And he saw my student standing there and they were in the same homeroom, and he said “Who’s messing with you?” to my student…so my student went in and it worked so much better having that boy in there too, and this group of boys was able to help. I think that they had a small healing circle in there…We saw a lot of students, especially boys, I saw a lot of 6th grade boys this year really stepping it up as leaders and sticking up for other students, especially students that may be, like this boy, were picked on a little bit more.

Inspiring positive behaviors in themselves and others

Many of the students who were selected to be Bridge-Builder Leaders were those that already demonstrated positive leadership qualities, and the act of formally recognizing their leadership in the classroom was enough to positively influence many other students who were not in the program. Mr. Patterson shared, “My students were clearly excited about (the Bridge-Builder Leaders) and they were vocal about what was going on. They wanted to talk about it and you could see changes in their behavior to be more like student leaders.” For several of the leaders who many teachers in the school saw as having potential but perhaps were “leading in the wrong direction,” their selection into the program and the higher expectations it involved produced more positive behaviors. Still others were potential leaders that were subdued in the classroom because of introversion and/or academic challenges that affected their confidence. Ms. Sanders shared that she had a couple of quiet kids that “really blossomed” as a result of being in the program. She also spoke of two students that Mr. Michael brought into the program who were exhibiting negative behaviors but were “natural leaders” that were able to channel their strengths through the Bridge Builder program. In line with the strengths-based perspective in social work, having Mr. Michael’s Bridge-Builder Leader program as an outlet for students allowed Ms. Sanders to support the positive development of students who may have otherwise spent the majority of their time being disciplined for applying their leadership qualities inappropriately. As a whole, the Bridge-Builder Leader program was overwhelmingly viewed as a positive initiative in the school, and the faculty we spoke to even wanted to see the program expanded to include the fourth-grade level in following years.

Discussion

As evidence mounts around the harmful effects of exclusionary discipline practices on both individual students and school-wide outcomes (Kupchik, 2016), educators and policy-makers are increasingly recognizing the need to implement alternative discipline approaches, including the support of helping professionals (The Counseling not Criminalization in Schools Act, 2020). However, in planning effective and sustainable discipline reform strategies, one lacking but critical data source has been teachers’ richly descriptive discussions of programmatic elements that they perceive support successful implementation of alternative approaches (González, 2015; Kehoe et al., 2018). In response, the current study identified two school-wide restorative practice program components that teachers believed were pivotal in the success of a reform effort that has been associated with lower suspension and referral rates, higher academic proficiency, and improved student perceptions of school safety: (1) the presence of a professional full-time restorative practice coordinator; and (2) the development of the Bridge-Builder student leadership initiative. Findings across each of these components hold important implications for future research and practice in school discipline reforms and restorative practice implementation efforts.

Restorative practice coordinator

A key feature of restorative justice implementation at River Ridge was the presence of a professional full-time practitioner to lead the efforts. Without question, the restorative practice coordinator at River Ridge was instrumental to the success of the climate transformation work. Analyzing the narratives teachers shared about Mr. Michael, we believe that his training as a Master’s level social worker and restorative practitioner supported the interpersonal and programmatic activities that he facilitated to both reduce harm and provide a more relational atmosphere to address harm. While teachers tended to emphasize the values of his conflict and harm restoration contributions, such as leading healing circles and integration into existing behavioral response systems, they also described the value of community-building efforts such as modeling restorative efforts, being a role-model and mentoring to individual students, and training the Bridge Builders in community-building efforts. Not only do these features of restorative practices correspond well with social work training in group work, listening skills, empathy building, behavioral plans, and trauma-informed practices, but, Mr. Michael’s support of teachers and administrators reflects the clarion call for interprofessional collaboration between social workers and educators (Huguley, Fussell-Ware, Stuart McQueen, Wang, & DeBellis, (2022); Joseph et al., 2020; Sosa & McGrath, 2013). While the recommendation for a school-based restorative practices coordinator has been consistently recommended by leaders in the field (Gregory & Evans, 2020; Gregory, Ward-Seidel & Carter, 2021), not all schools around the country standardize the full-time restorative practitioner approach (Armour, 2015; McBride, 2019; Swaby, 2018). Indeed, these findings corroborate the value of that human resource investment from the teachers’ perspectives.

Situated with the relational cultural theory, the restorative practice coordinator facilitated positive growth through engaging in sustained positive adult-youth relationships, facilitating relational conflict mediation, and positioning student leaders as capable of holding healing spaces in their environment. Because Mr. Michael was able to connect with students in a culturally competent and empathetic manner, he served as a powerful ecological support for promoting youth engagement and emotional healing. This kind of support is too uncommon a narrative in urban contexts, wherein students often experience marginalization and exclusion in response to conflict and behavioral infractions. It is likely that the work of Mr. Michael as the restorative practice coordinator contributed to the achievement gains and stronger feelings of school safety River Ridge experienced since Restorative School Communities was initiated. These findings taken together and in the context of other emerging research, it is becoming clearer that having a professional restorative practice specialist on the school staff—one who has the sole purpose of creating proactive relational and responsive restorative activities for students and teachers—is an integral part of school climate reform.

Bridge-builder student leaders

Student leadership is not commonly discussed as a core component of restorative practices. However, Mr. Michael began adapting a leadership program to the River Ridge context based on training he received in Houston, Texas (Swaby, 2018; Wadhwa, 2017). River Ridge teachers’ responses suggest that their experiences with Bridge-Builder Leaders have been overwhelmingly positive, and that the student leaders played a key role in generating the successes that can be seen in school climate improvements. Given that no one understands the fabric of the school community better than students themselves, the Bridge-Builder Leaders were well-suited to design proactive relational culture-building activities that increase the positive interpersonal dynamics within their school. Further, student leaders are also uniquely positioned to anticipate, observe, and intervene in conflicts among their peers that teachers may not hear about until it is too late.

These findings provide support for a more central role for student leadership among the bedrock components of restorative practice programming. Perhaps even more importantly, such impactful student leadership also develops relational and empathetic capacities in teachers who previously had not viewed their students as capable of constructive conflict resolution–in this way, the student leaders often model for teachers the behaviors and strategies that relational cultural theory would ascribe to a relational practitioner. To be sure, much more research is needed examining how these leaders experience the restorative work themselves (Winn, 2018), as well as how student peers experience their leaders’ presence and activities. These inquiries were beyond the scope of the current project, but future studies should certainly explore these questions through interview and observational studies with the students themselves.

In sum, the two strategic components of the Restorative School Communities initiative discussed were leveraged to create positive growth in an under-resourced urban school setting. Issues such as the dearth of culturally responsive pedagogy across the nation’s schools, extreme lack of resources to support underserved and oppressed communities, and an absence of trust and feelings of safety between students and their school environments make implementing restorative practices in many schools very difficult. As such, the significant positive impressions and feedback from teachers participating in the RSC initiatives with a trained professional are critical to the field. The two primary components were effective because they were embedded within a whole-school framework that acknowledged the complexities of school change and human interaction. Perhaps most importantly, these components were powerful because they positioned both students and diverse practitioners across disciplines as influential actors in creating a more relational school climate.

Limitations & future research

There are several important limitations to the study findings presented here. First, as a qualitative study with a relatively small sample from a single site and geographic location, findings here are not to be considered generalizable to other contexts and school settings. Nevertheless, the work here does present an important and rich window into these teachers’ experiences in the first year of a restorative practice implementation; an experience thousands of teachers are currently having nation-wide. Of particular note is that this study presents a scarce window into teachers’ experiences with restorative practice implementation in a program framework that included robust human resources. As such, readers may find unique value in the experiences of participants in this particular program, including truths that they can use in tailoring programming to their own setting. Second, since only teacher and staff voices are represented—and not students, school leaders, or the restorative practitioner himself—findings here cannot tell the whole story of pilot year implementation at the host school. Rather, these results must be considered more strictly as teacher perspectives on key implementation components, and not a robust, multi-voice description of the experiences at hand. Future process-oriented studies of robust restorative practice implementation can and should take more diverse constituent representation into consideration in their inquiries.

Lastly, the focus on effective practices in this study should not be taken to assume there were no challenges to the program implementation. Indeed, the challenges are many and were systematically documented elsewhere by the researchers and evaluators. The purpose of the current analysis was to specifically capture what teachers considered to be the most instrumental practices to programmatic success—a question that often arises when practitioners consider implementation of multi-faceted programs. As such, the results here are a starting point to effective implementation, rather than a comprehensive guide. Future work should catalog key barriers to implementation, and should also take deep-dive topical approaches to experiences with particular sets of restorative practice components.

Conclusion

In recent years, overwhelming evidence has mounted against the overuse of exclusionary discipline, especially in schools that serve a high percentage of students of color. In efforts toward providing pathways to effective and sustainable school climate transformation, the current study illustrates how teachers perceive the most salient components of a restorative practice program in its first year of implementation. The school in study previously defaulted to more punitive responses to conflict primarily through referrals and suspensions. Yet within one year of implementing the Restorative School Communities model, many teachers recognized the power of restorative practices to both reduce the need for punitive discipline in their school community, and to improve the school’s effectiveness in responding to conflict and harm. These changes have life-long implications for Youth of Color, particularly Black youth, who are all-too-often pushed out of school by educators who value punishment over relationship-building. This study demonstrated that although school culture change can be a long and challenging process, positive change can begin as soon as schools decide that their children deserve to be educated in a safe and humanizing environment. As restorative practice efforts continue to demonstrate the powerful impact of relational approaches work, schools across the nation must look beyond exclusionary discipline as a source of reducing behavior infractions, and toward the intentional efforts of shaping interactions that produce empathy and interpersonal skills that lead to healthy, thriving young people.

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Availability of data and material

The datasets analyzed during the current study are not publicly available due to confidentiality provisions required by the University of Pittsburgh’s Institutional Review Board, but are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Disclosure statement

Neither I nor my coauthors have any conflicts of interests related to this manuscript or submission.

Code availability

Data was coded using the qualitative software NVivo.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research was awarded by the Heinz Foundation to the researchers through the University of Pittsburgh’s Center on Race and Social Problems and Motivation Center.

Notes

1 In this manuscript, we primarily use the terms “restorative practices” and “restorative practitioner” with the acknowledgement that they are rooted in restorative justice. Restorative practices are typically referred to in school settings that employ both proactive and reactive harm-reduction strategies. We use the term restorative practitioners to describe individuals who infuse their practice with a restorative justice-based philosophy.

2 We use the term under-resourced urban schools to indicate those in dense metropolitan areas that are paradoxically serving students with higher-than-average academic, social, and economic disadvantages with insufficient economic resources. In addition to the demographics noted above, River Ridge is in a state with some of the highest spending disparities in the country between districts serving more and less affluent families.

3 Pseudonym.

4 The social worker will be referred to with the teachers throughout the remainder of the paper for simplicity.

5 All genders and ethnicities cited were self-identified by the participants.

6 By design, Mr. Michael went by his salutation and first name rather than last, as was the typical case with school staff. He did this to indicate an openness to connection and to signify that he was not a disciplinarian in the traditional sense at the school.