Restorative Approaches¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 3 claims (3 for) · 8 studies (6 causal, 1 quant-synthesis, 1 review), q3–q4 · 0 of 8 report an effect size

Description¶

Restorative approaches replace punitive responses to misbehavior with processes that bring together those harmed and those responsible to acknowledge harm, take accountability, and agree on repair. In classrooms this spans a continuum: proactive community-building circles and affective statements that build relationships before conflict, and responsive practices — restorative questions, mediation, conferences — that address harm after it occurs. The underlying shift is from asking "what rule was broken and what punishment is deserved?" to "who was harmed, what are their needs, and whose obligation is it to meet them?"

Design Implications¶

Restorative approaches treat classroom climate as a precondition for learning: students who feel a sense of belonging and relational trust are more available for academic risk-taking and engagement Belonging interventions improve outcomes. [+M]. Proactive circles function as structured Check-Ins that build the social capital later drawn on during conflict. Evidence for academic outcomes is promising but mixed — well-implemented programs improve climate and reduce suspensions, while weak or partial implementation can produce no effect or even harm [~M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Training and ongoing coaching for facilitators in circle-keeping and conferencing; untrained facilitation of harm conversations can retraumatize participants
• Whole-school adoption with administrative backing — classroom-level restorative practices inside a punitive school system create inconsistency students notice
• Time allocated in schedules for circles and conferences, not treated as an add-on
• Voluntary participation by those harmed; coerced "forgiveness" undermines the process

Constraints¶

• Implementation without adequate training or buy-in shows null or negative effects on discipline outcomes [~M] — the RAND evaluation of the Pittsburgh Restorative Practices Intervention found no improvement in arrest rates and mixed academic effects in early years
• Restorative conferences are inappropriate for some harms (e.g., severe trauma, power-imbalanced bullying) without specialist support
• Can be co-opted as a lighter form of punishment ("restorative detention"), losing the relational core
• Time-intensive; a single conference can consume an hour that a suspension "costs" nothing in class time, creating pressure to revert to exclusion

Implementation Variability¶

• Proactive tier: daily or weekly community circles, affective statements ("I feel… when… because…"), norms co-created with students
• Responsive tier: restorative questions ("What happened? Who was affected? What do you need to do to make it right?"), peer mediation, formal conferences with agreements
• Whole-school models: programs such as the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) whole-school implementation or San Francisco Unified's restorative practices rollout

Target Learners¶

• K–12 students broadly, with the strongest documented effects on school climate and disciplinary outcomes in secondary settings [~M]
• Students at risk of exclusionary discipline; suspensions disproportionately harm students of color, and empathic-discipline interventions reduce this disparity Brief empathic discipline interventions cut suspensions. [+M]
• Students with weak peer relationships, for whom structured relational routines build connection Building empathy improves intergroup attitudes. [+M]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Social-emotional: perspective-taking, accountability, conflict resolution
• Classroom climate: trust, belonging, and norms that support academic engagement
• Civic and ethical reasoning: understanding harm, repair, and community obligation

Instructions¶

1. Establish proactive routines first: run regular community circles using a talking piece and round-robin prompts so every voice is heard (Check-In).
2. Co-create classroom norms with students, framing them as commitments to the community rather than rules imposed by authority.
3. Use affective statements daily — brief teacher expressions of feeling and expectation — to model the language of accountability.
4. When harm occurs, respond with restorative questions before consequences; separate the deed from the doer.
5. Facilitate a restorative conference or mediation where affected parties speak, needs are named, and a written repair agreement is made.
6. Follow up on agreements publicly but discreetly, and repair any facilitator–student relationship damage from the incident itself.

Related Strategies¶

• Classroom Community Building — the proactive relational base that restorative responses draw on
• Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports — often combined with restorative practices; PBIS supplies structure, restorative approaches supply relational repair
• Social-Emotional Learning — restorative dialogue exercises the same competencies in authentic contexts
• Identify and address the root causes of discipline disparities in schools flagged as disproportionate
• Provide schools, administrators, and teachers with supports and resources when curbing suspension use
• Use RJ strategies such as proactive circles to manage classrooms and establish norms beyond discipline
• Adopt positive, restorative discipline approaches and ban harmful exclusionary practices
• Build safety and belonging by detracking, offering low-barrier extracurriculars, and implementing restorative approaches in place of exclusionary discipline
• Use educative and restorative behavior supports rather than punitive and exclusionary discipline

Examples¶

• International Institute for Restorative Practices — whole-school implementation model and training; the basis for the RAND Pittsburgh study.
• San Francisco Unified School District — district-wide restorative practices adoption replacing "zero tolerance" discipline after 2014.
• Classroom circles — a weekly 20-minute circle in which students respond to a prompt (e.g., "one thing you need from this community this week"), building the relational fabric that makes responsive conferences work.

Key Sources¶

• Augustine, C. H., Engberg, J., Grimm, G. E., Lee, E., Wang, E. L., Christianson, K., & Joseph, A. A. (2018). Can restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions? An evaluation of the impact of restorative practices in a mid-sized urban school district. RAND Corporation. doi:10.7249/RR2840
• Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2019). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: An updated research review. WestEd.
• Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute.
• Okonofua, J. A., Walton, G. M., & Eberhardt, J. L. (2016). A vicious cycle: A social–psychological account of extreme racial disparities in school discipline. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 381–398.
• Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practice in schools: A practical guide to transforming school communities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.