Restorative Practices¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 9 studies (6 causal, 2 review, 1 quant-synthesis), q2–q4 · 0 of 9 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

Restorative Practices (RP) is a whole-school strategy that replaces punitive discipline with practices that build community and repair harm. It operates on two tiers: proactive community-building (circles, check-ins, affective language) that strengthens relationships before conflict occurs, and responsive repair (restorative conferences, mediation) that brings together those harmed and those responsible after harm occurs. The underlying assumption is that misbehavior is a violation of relationships, not rules, and that learning conditions improve when students feel connected and fairly treated.

Design Implications¶

RP improves climate and can reduce exclusionary discipline, but effects on academic outcomes are mixed and depend on faithful, sustained implementation Whole-school restorative interventions show inconsistent effects on academic outcomes. [~M]. Its learning-design value comes indirectly: students who feel a sense of belonging and psychological safety participate more, persist longer, and engage more deeply with instruction Belonging interventions improve academic outcomes. [+M]. Teachers' relational tone matters at the micro-level — brief empathic communication cuts subsequent discipline incidents in experimental work A brief empathic-discipline intervention reduces suspensions. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Training and ongoing coaching for all staff, not just discipline personnel — RP implemented by a few trained specialists fails
• Administrative commitment to reduce exclusionary consequences; RP layered on top of unchanged zero-tolerance policies produces cynicism
• Structured protocols (talking circles, restorative questions: What happened? Who was affected? What is needed to repair harm?)
• Protected time for community-building routines, not just reactive conferences
• Facilitator training in circle protocols, affective questioning ("What happened? Who was affected? What's needed to make things right?"), and conference facilitation
• Protected time for community-building routines, not only for responding to incidents
• School or program leadership willing to reduce reliance on exclusionary discipline, since classroom practice collapses when punitive channels remain the default
• Voluntary participation from the harmed party; restorative processes cannot be imposed as a lesser punishment

Constraints¶

• Effects on suspensions are inconsistent; some large evaluations (e.g., the RAND Pittsburgh RCT) found no district-wide reduction in suspensions and some increases in certain subgroups [~M]
• Poorly facilitated conferences can re-traumatize victims or pressure harmed parties into premature forgiveness [-W]
• Implementation without adult behavior change — teachers continuing punitive interactions while circles are added — produces no measurable benefit [-M]
• Time-intensive; circles and conferences consume instructional minutes, a real cost in high-stakes schedules [~W]
• Implementation without sustained training and leadership support produces superficial "circles" that do not change discipline outcomes [~M] — RAND's evaluation of the Pittsburgh initiative found improved school climate but no reduction in arrests or days lost to suspension in the first two years
• Can re-traumate victims if facilitators pressure participation or prioritize quick resolution over the harmed party's needs
• Inadequate facilitation can let dominant voices control circles, reproducing the inequities the approach aims to fix
• Poorly run restorative conferences can function as a lighter punishment students game, undermining accountability [~W]

Implementation Variability¶

• Proactive tier: daily check-ins, community circles, affective statements ("I noticed… I feel…") woven into instruction
• Responsive tier: restorative conferences, victim-offender mediation, harm-repair agreements
• Whole-school vs. classroom-level: classroom-only adoption limits effects to that teacher's relationships; whole-school adoption shifts norms but requires multi-year investment
• Hybrid models: RP combined with clear behavioral expectations outperforms RP as a replacement for all structure
• Responsive tier: restorative chats (teacher–student), mediation, formal conferences with families
• Whole-school models: International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) SaferSanerSchools; discipline-code reform paired with practice training
• Classroom-only adoption: circles and restorative language without formal conference infrastructure — lower cost, weaker effect on school-level discipline disparities

Target Learners¶

• Students at risk of exclusionary discipline; relational approaches keep them in class where instruction can reach them A brief empathic-discipline intervention reduces suspensions. [+S]
• Students from marginalized groups disproportionately affected by suspensions; RP is frequently adopted as an equity strategy [~M]
• Learners whose engagement depends on feeling known — belonging is a precondition for risk-taking in discussion and collaborative work Belonging interventions improve academic outcomes. [+M]
• K–12 students, especially in schools with high suspension rates or discipline disparities affecting students of color [~M]
• Adolescents developing perspective-taking and conflict-resolution skills Building empathy improves intergroup attitudes. [+M]
• Students whose sense of belonging has been damaged by exclusionary discipline; re-entry conferences after suspension support reintegration [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Social-emotional: perspective-taking, accountability, conflict resolution
• Climate conditions for academic goals: participation, attendance, persistence — RP serves academic objectives indirectly by stabilizing the learning environment
• Community norms: shared ownership of classroom rules and repair
• Social-emotional learning: perspective-taking, accountability, conflict resolution
• Classroom climate: discourse norms, psychological safety, Belonging
• Civic and ethical reasoning: understanding harm, responsibility, and repair

Instructions¶

1. Train all adults in affective language and restorative questions before introducing student-facing structures.
2. Establish proactive routines — open lessons with a brief check-in circle; use affective statements during instruction to build relational capital.
3. Teach listening and dialogue skills explicitly, using active listening as a taught skill rather than an assumed one.
4. Respond to harm restoratively — convene affected parties with a trained facilitator using the restorative questions; agree on repair actions with follow-up.
5. Build empathy deliberately across the curriculum, not only in discipline moments — see Building Empathy.
6. Monitor data on referrals, suspensions, attendance, and climate surveys; adjust tier intensity based on evidence rather than ideology.

Claims¶

• Denver Public Schools' restorative justice reforms coincided with falling suspension rates and a narrowed Black-White suspension gap [+W]

Related Strategies¶

• Check-ins — the daily proactive ritual that makes relational repair possible when conflict arises
• Active listening — the core facilitation skill for circles and conferences
• Acceptance, responsibility, and sharing — the accountability stance restorative conferences ask of students
• Provide schools, administrators, and teachers with supports and resources when curbing suspension use
• Classroom Discussion — circles formalize the turn-taking and listening norms discussion requires
• Building Empathy — perspective-taking is the core mechanism of repair dialogue
• Identify and address the root causes of discipline disparities in schools flagged as disproportionate
• Use RJ strategies such as proactive circles to manage classrooms and establish norms beyond discipline
• Structural supports for restorative practices: funding, people, time, discipline policy, and equity
• 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 a decision-maker checklist to assess and reform discipline data, policies, and school climate
• Use educative and restorative behavior supports rather than punitive and exclusionary discipline

Examples¶

• Oakland Unified School District (CA) — whole-school RP adoption since 2010 with a dedicated Office of Restorative Justice; associated with reduced suspensions for African American students in district reports (ousd.org/restorative-justice).
• Pittsburgh Public Schools / RAND study — a 22-school randomized evaluation of the SaferSanerSchools Whole-School Change program; the most rigorous test to date, showing improved teacher–student relationships but mixed discipline effects (rand.org).
• Classroom circles in EL instruction — EL Education schools use crew circles as a daily proactive structure, integrating RP with academic discussion norms (eleducation.org).
• International Institute for Restorative Practices — graduate programs and the SaferSanerSchools whole-school implementation program used in hundreds of schools.
• Pittsburgh Public Schools (RAND study) — a district-wide restorative practices initiative evaluated by Augustine et al. (2018), which found improved teacher–student relationships and school climate, with mixed effects on discipline outcomes.
• Oakland Unified School District — adopted restorative justice district-wide after a 2010s discipline reform; associated with reduced suspensions and narrowed racial discipline gaps in district reports.
• RP-Observe observation tool: Rutgers' observation tool for measuring restorative-justice implementation in schools

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
• Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(19), 5221–5226. doi:10.1073/pnas.1523698113
• Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute.
• 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. https://www.wested.org
• Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practice in schools: A practical guide to transforming school communities. Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewich, J. (2016). The triggers of teacher misconceptions in the implementation of restorative practices. Teachers College Record, 118(7), 1–40.
• Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining restorative. International Institute for Restorative Practices. https://www.iirp.edu