Restorative Questions¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 5 claims (5 for) · 13 studies (6 causal, 3 review, 2 quant-synthesis, 2 theoretical), q1–q4 · 1 of 13 report an effect size

Description¶

Restorative questions are a structured set of open-ended prompts used after a conflict or harm to shift the conversation from blame ("What rule was broken? What punishment is deserved?") to repair ("What happened? Who was affected? What needs to happen to make things right?"). The facilitator asks the person who caused harm one set of questions (What happened? What were you thinking at the time? Who has been affected and how? What do you need to do to make things right?) and the person harmed a parallel set (What did you think when you realized what had happened? How has this affected you? What has been the hardest thing for you? What do you need to make things right?). They are carried out in one-to-one conversations, small circles, or classroom meetings, and are the core conversational tool of restorative practices.

Design Implications¶

Restorative questions operationalize the shift from external, rule-based control to internalized accountability: by requiring learners to articulate impact and generate repair themselves, they engage perspective-taking and moral reasoning rather than compliance Brief empathic discipline interventions reduce suspensions by improving teacher–student relationships. [+M]. Because the questions presuppose that the learner belongs to the community and is capable of repair, they function as a belonging signal rather than a marker of exclusion Belonging interventions improve academic outcomes, particularly for at-risk students. [+M].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A trained facilitator who can hold the questions neutrally and resist lecturing or moralizing
• Sufficient time and psychological safety for honest answers; the questions fail if learners expect punishment regardless of what they say
• A follow-through mechanism: the repair plan generated by the conversation must actually be enacted
• Whole-school or whole-class consistency — using restorative questions only for some students undermines their credibility
• A facilitator trained to ask without lecturing; the questions lose their function if embedded in an interrogation
• Sufficient relational trust that participants will answer honestly (Check-Ins and community-building routines establish this baseline)
• Time and privacy for genuine dialogue, not a hallway exchange between bells
• Follow-through structures so agreed repairs are actually completed and revisited

Constraints¶

• Inconsistent or selective implementation (e.g., restorative talk paired with unchanged punitive consequences) produces cynicism and can worsen trust [-M]
• Requires significant facilitator skill; poorly run circles can re-traumatize the person harmed or let the person who caused harm avoid accountability [-M]
• Not appropriate as the sole response to serious harm (violence, bias incidents) without additional supports and, where needed, formal processes [~M]
• Time-intensive relative to exclusionary discipline; under-resourced schools often implement a diluted version that loses effectiveness [-W]
• In low-trust or punitive-dominant climates, students give strategic or rehearsed answers and the questions become performance, not reflection [-M]
• Ineffective when used as a softer prelude to a predetermined punishment; students detect this and disengage [-M]
• Require facilitator skill and time; whole-staff adoption without training produces inconsistent, sometimes harmful implementation [-W]
• Less appropriate for acute crises or situations involving significant power imbalance (e.g., serious harassment) where immediate protective action must precede dialogue [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Formal restorative conference — full circle with both parties, supporters, and a written agreement
• Restorative chat — brief one-to-one use of the questions immediately after an incident, the most common classroom form
• Proactive circles — the same questions used preventatively in community-building meetings before any harm occurs
• Peer mediation — trained students facilitate the question sequence with peers
• Formal conferences: full scripted dialogue after serious incidents, often with families present
• Informal "restorative chats": two-minute versions of the questions used by teachers in the flow of class
• Proactive circles: the same question forms used preventively in community-building, not just reactively after harm
• Peer mediation: trained student facilitators run the dialogue, shifting the scaffolding role to peers

Target Learners¶

• K–12 students, with the strongest documented effects in secondary settings where exclusionary discipline is most prevalent Brief empathic discipline interventions reduce suspensions by improving teacher–student relationships. [+M]
• Students at risk of suspension or disengagement, for whom the belonging signal is most consequential Belonging interventions improve academic outcomes, particularly for at-risk students. [+M]
• Younger learners need simplified question wording and more facilitator scaffolding of perspective-taking
• Adolescents, who are developmentally primed for perspective-taking and identity work and respond better to autonomy-supportive than controlling discipline Autonomy supports intrinsic motivation. [+M]
• Students with weak self-regulation, for whom externalized reflective structure builds internal monitoring habits Self-monitoring improves self-regulation. [+M]
• Less effective for very young children without simplified question forms and concrete repair options [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Social-emotional learning: perspective-taking, emotional articulation, empathy Building empathy improves intergroup attitudes. [+M]
• Moral reasoning: connecting actions to impact and generating repair
• Community norms: internalizing accountability rather than complying with external rules
• Social-emotional learning: empathy, accountability, perspective-taking (Building Empathy)
• Self-regulation: connecting intentions, actions, and consequences
• Community norms: repairing relationships so learning can resume, rather than excluding the learner

Instructions¶

1. Separate and settle. Ensure everyone is calm enough to talk; meet with parties individually first if emotions are high.
2. Ask the person who caused harm the restorative questions — What happened? What were you thinking? Who was affected? How can you repair it? — using Active Listening and resisting the urge to lecture.
3. Ask the person harmed the parallel questions, centering their experience and needs rather than the incident narrative.
4. Facilitate a repair agreement generated by the students themselves, not imposed by the facilitator; the plan should be specific, achievable, and time-bound.
5. Follow up. Check that the agreement was kept and the relationship is functioning; use a Check-In in subsequent days.
6. Reinforce proactively. Use the same question format in community circles before conflicts arise, so the language is familiar when it matters.

Related Strategies¶

• Restorative Circles — the group format in which restorative questions are typically embedded
• Empathic Discipline — the teacher-mindset intervention that pairs naturally with restorative questioning
• Community Building — proactive use of the same dialogue structures to prevent harm
• Check-Ins — the proactive, low-stakes version of the same questioning stance; builds the trust restorative questions depend on
• Class Discussion — the general dialogic format; restorative questions are a specialized, norm-governed instance
• Coaching — shares the non-judgmental, question-driven elicitation of the learner's own reasoning
• Train teachers and staff on how to deal with conflict in constructive ways to prevent conflicts from escalating

Examples¶

• International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) — trains schools in the standard restorative question set; https://www.iirp.edu
• Oakland Unified School District (California) — one of the first large districts to adopt restorative questions district-wide as an alternative to suspensions; https://www.ousd.org
• Denver Public Schools — restorative practices program using restorative questions and conferences to reduce exclusionary discipline; documented in case studies by https://www.restorativejustice.org
• International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) SaferSanerSchools program — whole-school implementation training built around the restorative questions; evaluated in a randomized trial in Pittsburgh public schools (https://www.iirp.edu) [+M]
• Restorative circles in Oakland Unified School District — district-wide adoption as an alternative to exclusionary discipline, with formal conferences for serious incidents and informal chats for classroom-level conflict
• Community conferencing in Queensland, Australia — Morrison's work on restorative practices in schools used the questions in conference settings following bullying and property incidents

Key Sources¶

• Karp, D. R., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth & Society, 33(2), 249–272. doi:10.1177/0044118X01033002006
• 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.
• 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
• 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
• Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The pedagogy of restorative justice in education: Reviewing what we know and how we know it. Review of Research in Education, 40(1), 311–342.
• Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. The Smith Institute.
• Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Phillips, A., & Wilks, A. (2019). Evaluation of a whole-school change intervention: Findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial of the Restorative Practices Intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 876–890. doi:10.1007/s10964-019-01013-2
• Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying, violence and alienation. Springer.
• Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2004). Implementing restorative practice in schools: The challenge of culture change. Paper presented at the International Conference on Restorative Practices.