High school teachers’ perceptions of restorative discipline practices

By: Stacey Rainbolt, Elizabeth Sutton Fowler, and Katherine Cumings Mansfield

Rainbolt, S., Fowler, E.S., & Mansfield, K.C. (2019). High school teachers’ perceptions of
restorative discipline practices. NASSP Bulletin, 103(2), 158-182.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636519853018

***© 2019 SAGE Publications. Reprinted with permission. Reuse is restricted to non-
commercial and no derivative uses.. This version of the document is not the version of
record. ***

Abstract:

Disproportionality in school discipline is a serious and ongoing problem. Some schools are
experimenting with alternative models to address persistent inequities. This article features one
high school’s adoption of a restorative practices discipline program with a focus on teachers’
perceptions of their experiences and the efficacy of the program. Findings indicate that
restorative practices can be a powerful means to strengthen relationships and reduce the number
of students receiving exclusionary consequences.

Keywords: school discipline | disproportionality | restorative practices | equity | justice

Article:

In the history of the American school system, there has been persistent societal concern about
discipline in educational settings (Golden, 1993; MacNaughton & Johns, 1991; Terrell,
1976; Williams, Pazey, Fall, Yates, & Roberts, 2015). In fact, these concerns go back as far as
Colonial times (Crews & Counts, 1997). Disruptive student behaviors have inevitably taken
away from instructional time (Dinkes, Cataldi, & Lin-Kelly, 2007) and have affected teachers’
emotional and occupational well-being (Aldrup, Klusmann, Lüdtke, Göllner, & Trautwein,
2018). Moreover, negative experiences with student discipline has required a large amount of
school resources, including time of teachers and administrators, and still accounts for the largest
percentage of workplace stress (Cornell & Mayer, 2010).

This combination of workplace stress and community concerns has led to a proliferation of
schoolwide discipline programs during the past 65 years (Maag, 2012). For example, in the
1950s, Dreikurs developed a widely used model that led with the concept of “discipline through
democracy” where teachers held the power to correct student misbehavior (Maag, 2012, p.
2094). The Dreikurs model was the standard until the early 1970s brought the development and
implementation of Canter’s assertive discipline model, which held that a firm, assertive teacher,
not an aggressive teacher, held power and maintained a stable classroom conducive to learning
(Maag, 2012). While the Canter’s model is still practiced in many schools, the late 1990s brought
attention to schoolwide positive behavior support, most often referred to as PBIS (Maag, 2012).
PBIS is a three-tiered model that works on a continuum, starting with proactive prevention
strategies and building to individualized supports as necessary (Horner, Sugai, & Vincent,
2005; Sugai & Horner, 2009).

While several models have been implemented over time in American schools, Curwin and
Mendler (1989) categorized all discipline programs as either obedience or responsibility models.
Obedience models center on establishing rules and consequences with Canter’s assertive
discipline model as an example (Maag, 2012; MacNaughton & Johns, 1991). On the other hand,
responsibility models borrow from the work of William Glasser’s reality therapy by focusing on
teaching students how to make their own responsible choices (Maag, 2012; MacNaughton &
Johns, 1991).

Relatively recently, attention has shifted to alternative discipline practices to address the problem
of disproportionality; that is, the overrepresentation of particular subgroups in disciplinary
referrals and exclusionary punishment, especially students of color, males, and those identified
for special education services (Mansfield, Fowler, & Rainbolt, 2018; Mansfield, Rainbolt, &
Fowler, 2018; DeMatthews, Carey, Olivarez, & Saeedi, 2017; Golden, 1993; Irby, 2018; Lustick,
2017; Ryan, Katsiyannis, Peterson, & Chmelar, 2007; Williams et al., 2015). For at least a
decade, we have recognized that this pattern of disproportionality is liable, at least in part, to the
incarceration of Black men and youth as well as former special education students (Mansfield,
Fowler, & Rainbolt, 2018; Mansfield, Rainbolt, & Fowler, 2018; Lustick, 2017). In fact, even
one school suspension seriously affects students’ life chances, drawing further attention to the
urgency of the situation (Whitford, Katsiyannis, & Counts, 2016). Williams et al.
(2015) reminded us that exclusionary discipline, while on the rise, is not only ineffective but
harmful (Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin, 2010). Moreover, exclusionary discipline has not improved
the safety or quality of a school’s learning environment nor has it reduced misbehavior
(American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Losen & Skiba,
2010; Skiba & Rausch, 2006). Rather, exclusionary discipline has negatively correlated with
academic achievement, school climate, student behavior, and school dropout at both the
individual and school levels (Williams et al., 2015).

The purpose of this research study is to address an urgent need identified by our colleagues:

Discriminatory discipline has been widely documented for decades, yet little progress has
been made to narrow the gap. Due to the long-standing history of discriminatory
discipline, current nationwide data, and recent federal initiatives, there is a need for a
comprehensive examination of this critical issue. (Salazar, 2016, p. 96)

In this article, we share the results of a mixed-method case study that investigated the
implementation and efficacy of a restorative practices discipline program in one high school in
the Mid-Atlantic States. Specifically, this article focuses on the teachers’ perceptions of their
implementation experiences as well as their beliefs around the efficacy of the program. We agree
with Salazar (2016) “that schools can work to decrease discipline disproportionality by
improving school climate and discipline practices and policies” (p. 96). And this study shows
that restorative practices can do just that.
First, we share an overview of the philosophical underpinnings of the restorative approach to
discipline and describe its fundamental components. Next, we outline the research methods used
to conduct this study followed by a presentation of the findings. The article concludes with a
discussion and areas for future research.

Literature Review

As indicated in the introduction, schoolwide discipline programs have garnered a fair amount
attention for over half a century (Maag, 2012). The variety and intensity of discipline programs
is astounding: from Dreikurs’s model of the 1950s, to Canter’s model of the 1970s, to PBIS of
the 1990s. As student behavior in school became increasingly publicized through intensified
media coverage, legislation swelled. The 1990s brought with them the birth of zero-tolerance
policies across the country (Mongan & Walker, 2012; Whitford et al., 2016). The first major
piece of zero-tolerance federal legislation was the Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 (Mongan &
Walker, 2012). The intent of Gun Free Schools Act of 1994 was to ensure that school campuses
were free from all weapons to safeguard students from major threats and harm (Mongan &
Walker, 2012). All K-12 public schools were mandated to enforce this policy in order to receive
federal financial funding (Mongan & Walker, 2012).

The use of zero-tolerance policies in schools has now extended beyond the original intent of
keeping campuses weapon and drug free (Cornell & Mayer, 2010). This expansion included
automatic suspension and expulsions for discipline infractions that previously would have
received a lesser consequence; these include the use of rubber bands as projectiles, water guns on
school property, and even the imitation of shooting a gun using one’s hand or fingers (American
Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008). With the advent of zero-tolerance
policies, exclusionary practices have become a use-first consequence instead of a last resort
measure (Maag, 2012; Whitford et al., 2016).

Given the negative impacts of traditional exclusionary disciplinary practices, the need for an
approach that both encourages order in schools while leading to positive, inclusionary
educational and personal outcomes for all students—regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, and
disability status—is clear. Restorative practices, which aim to create interactive, inclusive, self-
monitoring communities, hold promise for being such an approach.

Restorative Practices as a Response to Traditional Discipline

While most discipline programs center on punishment, restorative practices aim to do what the
name implies: restore. That is, in addition to proactively preventing negative behaviors from
occurring, restorative practices’ intent is to restore relationships between the offended and
offender when an infraction does occur (Kane et al., 2007). This means addressing misbehavior
within the context of which it occurred and with the people directly involved. This is a major
departure from traditional discipline where teachers send an offending student out of the
classroom to the principal’s office to handle the problem. The idea is that restorative practices
develop student maturity by facilitating problem solving, restitution, and reconciliation
(Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). In addition, this approach builds empathy and interest in others
while allowing feelings of anger, fear, and humiliation to be expressed and discharged by all
parties. The fusion of accountability and social support paves the way for reconciliation and
relationship building (Macready, 2009; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).

The SaferSanerSchools™ Model. One structured, comprehensive model is the

SaferSanerSchools Whole-School Change™ program from the International Institute for
Restorative practices (IIRP) in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania (Mirsky, 2011). This program, which
involves a 2-year formal implementation process, holds 11 elements at its core (IIRP, n.d.).
These 11 elements can be further divided into those that are preventative and those that are
responsive in nature (Gregory, Clawson, Davis, & Gerewitz, 2014). These elements are
represented and defined according to these two categories in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. SaferSanerSchools™ Preventative Elements.

Level of action Element Description
Tier 1: Affective statements Informal, respectful, personal statements of feelings, and how another’s
Schoolwide actions affect a person; humanize the speaker.
Fair process Approach to decision making that elicits student’s input when outcomes
affect them; not synonymous with democratic process of voting but does
espouse transparency as to why decisions are made and respect for all
opinions.
Restorative staff Models restorative practices (affective statements, circles, fair process,
community restorative questions, etc.) to attain conflict resolution and to build
healthy relationships.
Fundamental Cornerstone of all restorative practices; necessitates aligning actions with
hypothesis the belief that positive behavioral changes are most likely to occur in a
state of high, consistent expectations where authority figures do things
with, not for or to others.
Tier 2: Broad- Restorative approach Use of other restorative practices in interactions with families aimed at
based with families building transparency, respect, and meaningful relationships.
Proactive circles Precede incidents and focus on preselected topics; can be conducted with
any group that meets regularly; used to build trust and relationships, elicit
input from all, and to establish common expectations and sharing.
Ideally, 80% or more of circles experienced by students.

The five core elements represented in Table 2 are responsive in nature. They therefore are
implemented following a behavioral issue.

The primary-level elements are practiced universally by all school personnel. Tier 2 or secondary
elements are targeted to specific groups and in specific settings. These elements are aimed at
repairing harmed relationships. A Tier 3 conference is the most intensive and least used response
to a specific issue or pattern of issues. This tertiary action occurs only as a responsive element.

Though all staff members at a school implementing the SaferSanerSchools™ model should be
knowledgeable of the core elements, not everyone participates in the activities involved at all
levels of action (IIRP, n.d.). Building on Morrison and Vaandering’s (2012) analogy to a health
care model, the program elements practiced at the higher tiers are conducted by professionals
within a school setting specially trained to lead them. Thus, Tier 2 actions are practiced by
instructional personnel, administrators, and other professional staff. Tier 3 responses are
conducted by those select individuals who have received specific training in the conferencing
technique (IIRP, n.d.), such as administrators or pupil support personnel like school counselors
and school psychologists. Regardless of the level of action an element falls under, however, three
foundational keystones are ubiquitous in each: interpersonal connection, structured and fair
interaction, and inclusion of student voice (Gregory et al., 2014).

Table 2. SaferSanerSchools™ Responsive Elements.

Level of action Element Description
Tier 1: Restorative Informal questions that allow those affected to be heard by the offender and
Schoolwide questions places the onus for making things right back on the offender.
Small impromptu Involve two or more people involved in low-level conflict; breaks the cycle of
conferences/ escalation and requires answering of restorative questions in front of each
circles other, promoting expression of feelings and reflection on how actions affect
others.
Reintegrative Anticipates that shame results when negative behaviors are addressed; actively
management of listens and acknowledges sharing of shameful feelings and rejects negative
shame behaviors, but not the person; does not dwell on shame once acknowledged but
moves beyond.
Tier 2: Broad- Responsive Conducted in a circle with no barriers; engage a group in addressing behavior
based circles that has negative effects on members and promotes responsibility for actions
and making amends; opportunity to share feelings and plan for corrective
measures.
Tier 3: Targeted Restorative Most formal of restorative practices; held in response to a serious incident or
conferences pattern of less serious incidents; involve a facilitator, offender, victim, and
often their supporters (friends and family); highly scripted, eliciting input in a
set pattern from offender, victim, victim’s supporters, and offender’s
supporters; allows expression, then facilitates solution making and
reintegration of offender into the community.

Affective statements. Affective statements are a primary practice used schoolwide and according
to Mirsky (2011) are the practice that “underpins all of the Whole-School Change elements” (p.
4). The IIRP (n.d.) defines affective statements as “personal expressions of feeling in response to
specific positive or negative behaviors of others” (p. 6). Teachers, staff, and students can use
these statements to humanize themselves and to create an open and welcoming school
environment (Mirsky, 2011).

Circles. Talking circles are a secondary practice and are used to target specific circumstances or
relationships and can involve both staff and students (Mirsky, 2011). In a circle, everyone is
invited to participate, but only one circle member speaks at a time, tamping down overly
assertive students who may usually dominate (Mirsky, 2011).

Two basic circle types exist in the SaferSanerSchools™ model: proactive and responsive.
Proactive circles build trust, relationships, and create shared values and understanding. These
circles start light and build in depth (both within the specific circle time frame as well as
subsequent circles over time). Examples of initial topics for a proactive circle include helping
students with academic planning or setting ground rules for class expectations. Practice with
proactive circles scaffolds a student’s readiness for responsive circles. Responsive circles
manage tension and conflict within a group or class and aim to repair damage (Mirsky, 2011).
These circles are used for moderate issues or repeated behavior affecting the group (Mirsky,
2011).

The restorative conference. The restorative conference is a tertiary practice that is intensive in
nature, being used for only the most serious of cases. According to Mirsky (2011), this practice
is the one that takes the most planning: Led by a trained facilitator, a restorative conference
brings together those involved to explore what happened, who was affected, and what needs to
be done to make amends. Similar to the secondary circle practice, restorative conference
participants sit in a circle permitting only one person to speak at a time. Some schools establish
protocol for restorative conferences led by key staff that is scripted and formal, involving student
and parents, including everyone’s voice, and focused on relationship building and implementing
a restorative solution (McCluskey et al., 2008).

Steps to Implementation

Though examples abound of a wide spectrum of implementation practices, ranging from small-
scale, partial implementation to whole school involvement, research suggests that whole school
implementation is the most successful (Kane et al., 2007; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Whole
school implementation involves the inclusion of everyone in a school, including nonteaching
staff members, such as aides, monitors, and custodians (McCluskey et al., 2008). Training of
these staff needs to be planned as a part of implementation.

Kane et al. (2007) suggest that a solid and detailed plan should be created to implement
restorative practices to include clearly stated aims with planned strategies and measures of
success. Additionally, the planning process should allow for schools to set a realistic, yet flexible
timeline with clear incremental targets and milestones (Kane et al., 2007). Morrison, Blood, and
Thorsborne (2005) developed a five-stage model for implementation of restorative practices in a
school setting.

Stage 1, gaining commitment, is where the groundwork of establishing the need for change and
creating buy-in and commitment occurs (Morrison et al., 2005). This initial step can be
cultivated when fostering school readiness. Creating an awareness of the need for change can be
done through several avenues, but data may be one of the most persuasive. Suspension and
referral rates, attendance data, climate and safety surveys, and/or a review of school policy can
be harnessed for this purpose. Morrison et al. (2005) strongly emphasize that the place to start is
where “the energy exists” (p. 345). Once the data are shared and a need for change established,
planning should not be a top-down decision, but must involve key school-level stakeholders.
Restorative practice has its greatest impact when seen as a chance for faculty and staff to define
the “kind of school they [want] and how they [want] to ‘be’ with their pupils” (McCluskey et al.,
2008, p. 415).

Research shows that school leaders are crucial in Stage 2, developing a shared vision (Morrison
et al., 2005). School leadership must help staff define a clear vision which includes short-,
medium-, and long-term goals that address what the school is trying to achieve and the
importance of this change for the entire school community (Morrison et al., 2005). Clear
methods for delivery and measures of goal achievement also need to be established. Realistic
measurable objectives can include “data (e.g., reducing suspensions or office referrals by 10%),
policy (e.g., balancing prevention, intervention, and crisis management), staff development (e.g.,
increase support for staff struggling with discipline), and everyday practice (e.g., increasing the
use of dialogue and problem-solving circles)” (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 348). These measurable
objectives should be articulated to all stakeholders in the community.
Stage 3, developing responsive and effective practice, involves a focused effort on creating a
range of responses to various situations and then implementing training for all school staff
(Morrison et al., 2005). Such training is likely to be well received, as teachers “consistently [rate]
behavior management as the major area for which they want more training” (Maag, 2012, p.
2096). Creating a set standard of restorative responses for the school and training all faculty
members in these practices can lead to teacher empowerment when they find that they can
implement these elements on their own. Conversely, writing an office referral may actually
undermine a teacher’s authority with students who perceive the teacher as having handed the
problem off. The resulting consequence delivered by an administration can also “undercut a
teacher’s authority within the classroom and become a bone of contention between managers and
staff” (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 349).

A school’s administration can do much to support the implementation of restorative practices.

Administrator’s commitment, modeling, enthusiastic support, as well as investment in strong
staff development have been shown to contribute to a successful restorative practices
implementation (McCluskey et al., 2008). Providing training and professional development that
is focused on the needs of the school site is particularly crucial (Kane et al., 2007). For instance,
interest in restorative practice increased in secondary schools when training was conducted by
trained peers, especially teachers within one’s own department (McCluskey et al., 2008). A
strong impact on staff responsiveness also occurs when a school’s administration demonstrates a
commitment to training and emphasizes time to review training (McCluskey et al., 2008).
Administration also needs to give performance feedback to staff, as it affects the degree to which
teachers implement new strategies and, therefore, may be crucial to a full and sustained
implementation of restorative practice (Gregory et al., 2014). Thus, schools cannot just train at
the beginning of the year. Implementation instead is an ongoing process.

Stage 4, developing a whole-school approach, includes aligning policy and practice within the
building to restorative practices (Morrison et al., 2005). Restorative practices should be
integrated into whole-school policy and should not be viewed as an add-on. Policies on student
behavior will have to shift from the traditional punitive reactive model to be driven by proactive
restorative practices (Morrison et al., 2005).

Polka (2007) contends that organizational change is a continual process that starts with
leadership. A long-term strategic approach is necessary, but organizational progress can be slow,
so identifying milestones toward preferred outcomes in the short, medium and long term is
suggested (Morrison et al., 2005).

Stage 5, developing professional relationships, is where words and actions need to be in step.

If schools are to develop a restorative culture, the professional working environment must
also be underpinned by restorative philosophy and practice . . . this would be reflected in
the structures, communications and processes that engage staff in the everyday life of
school. (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 353)
Self-reflection and willingness to act on those reflections are a crucial step to Stage 5 and should
include more than just teachers. Perceived failures are often pinned on teachers, when in fact
many layers of implementation exist (Morrison et al., 2005). Zimmerman (2006) also proposes
that in any organizational change there is often an implementation dip. Change is difficult and
teachers’ confidence levels may decrease initially as they try new strategies; it is critical that
principals respond with the necessary feedback and reassurance and allow for continued practice
to occur (Zimmerman, 2006).

Method

Overview of the Study

We came to the research setting as a part of a community-based research partnership with a

school district in the mid-Atlantic states, Tenakomakah County Public Schools (TCPS). 1 Central
office leadership shared that Algonquin High School (AHS) 2 had significantly reduced discipline
gaps in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, and special education status, which caught the attention
of the superintendent and school board. They were curious to know whether there were “hard
data” that showed a relationship between the implementation of restorative practices and the
testimonies from AHS administrators about positive change over time. Upper administration was
keen to know more about the program at AHS in order to make some decisions around possibly
scaling up restorative practices across the district.

Context of the Case. Opened in the late 1970s, AHS has a current enrollment of approximately
1,400 students in Grades 9 to 12. The school is situated in a large metropolitan area in the Mid-
Atlantic region that includes a large, urban center and several inner ring suburbs and outer rim
exurbs. For the most part, concentration of economic and racial isolation is located in the central
city (students of color living in poverty) and the exurbs (relatively wealthy White students). In
between are the larger, more suburban areas that are quite diverse in terms of wealth, education
levels, and the racial/ethnic identity of families. Particular to this region is the presence of
expansive county school districts that serve families across all spectrums of economic and
educational levels as well as race/ethnicity, religion, and other identity markers. As a result, AHS
enrolls a diverse student body. In fact, according to the school’s state report card from the 2014-
2015 school year, Asian, Black, Hispanic, White, disabled, and economically disadvantaged
students are all enrolled at a percentage high enough to be included in the school’s aggregated
data with the largest percentage of students identifying as either Black or White ([X] Department
of Education, 2015). 3 The demographic of AHS teachers reflects the national trend of majority
White women.

In 2008, the TCPS Code of Student Conduct stated that students and staff shared “a primary
responsibility for creating a climate of mutual respect, honesty, and trust . . . in order that the
dignity of the individual [was] protected” (Regulation 401.1). The outcomes imposed on students
as a result of this then 20-page document did little to build this relationship between students and
staff in the view of AHS’s school psychologist at the time, however. He revealed that throughout

1
Pseudonym
2
Pseudonym
3
Some references are masked to enhance anonymity.
the county, between the years of 2003 and 2006, the number of school disciplinary infractions
had increased approximately 8.5%, while student enrollment went up only 3.5%. Current
disciplinary practice, he concluded, was not affecting the change TCPS hoped to see for its
school community. Faced with political and community pressure to increase state mandated test
scores and to meet federal and state requirements for on-time graduation, he further realized that
the exclusionary discipline practices of suspension and expulsion likely negatively affected these
measures of student academic success.

In 2008, this realization led AHS’s school psychologist to submit a written, researched proposal
to the TCPS Office of Student Conduct requesting formal training in restorative practices for the
staff of that office, as well as for Student Services staff. He suggested the IIRP in Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, as the source of this training. Though the paper was positively received, the
county did not move forward with training at that time.

Undaunted and believing in the power of restorative practices to make a change for the AHS
community, the school psychologist began to have conversations with the administrative team of
AHS regarding school punishments, including in-school suspension. As a result, in the fall of
2009, AHS introduced a set of restorative, reflective questions into in-school suspension. These
questions had to be answered in writing by any student receiving this consequence. These written
responses went to the students’ administrators, who began to use them in their conversations
with the offenders about their actions. This was one of the school’s first steps toward restorative
practices at AHS.

The school psychologists’ efforts at the time were bolstered by a supportive AHS administrative
team led by the principal, whom the school psychologist described as having an inherent
“humanistic slant” to discipline. Together, this team was able to secure a small grant from TCPS
that allowed them to bring in a restorative practices trainer from another region in the state to
provide 2 days of training to a small group of staff members. The original team receiving
training included administrators, school counselors, the school psychologist, and some teacher
leaders. As a result, restorative conferences were officially introduced for students facing
significant disciplinary consequences in the 2010-2011 school year.

Early Implementation Results. As reported elsewhere (Mansfield, Fowler, & Rainbolt, 2018),
the implementation of restorative practices at AHS are most likely related to the remarkable
changes experienced over a 5-year period from 2010 to 2015. For example, during the first 4
years of implementation, general office referrals during one school year dropped from over 3,000
to 500. In terms of overall suspension rates, there were consistent downward trends in both in-
school suspension and out-of-school suspension (OSS), dropping from 19% to 7% and 12% to
7%, respectively.

When the data were aggregated according to race/ethnicity, the situation at AHS matched the
national trends with Black students suspended at much higher rates than White students. From
2010 to 2015, OSS of White students held relatively constant while the rate of OSS for Black
students fell 12 percentage points (Mansfield, Fowler, & Rainbolt, 2018).
Similar to the United States as a whole, disproportionality according to gender and special
education status was also skewed with most referrals and suspensions given to male students and
students identified to receive special education services (Mansfield, Fowler, & Rainbolt, 2018).
In addition, recidivism rates for in-school suspension and OSS were cut by two thirds and one
half, respectively (Mansfield, Fowler, & Rainbolt, 2018).

While discipline gaps according to race/ethnicity, gender, and special education status were
greatly reduced, gaps still remained. School administrators reported struggling with teacher
turnover and the constant need to retrain teachers as new people joined the staff. For a more
detailed treatment of the above early implementation efforts, refer to Mansfield, Fowler, and
Rainbolt (2018).

Turning the Spotlight on Teachers

In addition to learning more about why and how restorative practices were implemented at AHS,
we were also curious to learn how teachers experienced the implementation of restorative
practices and their views on the efficacy of the program. Also, school administrators were hoping
to learn from teachers how implementation might be improved.

To fully elicit the voice of teachers, the current 2015-2016 teacher staff of AHS was asked to
complete an online survey. All teachers were invited to take the survey; therefore, the intended
sample was the entire population. The findings were based on the convenience sample of those
who completed the survey, which constituted just over 50% of the faculty. This survey was
disseminated to all teachers electronically through central office personnel. The invitation to
participate included an e-mail from the Director of Research and Evaluation for TCPS that
included an explanation of the study, a link to the survey, and reassurances that responses would
be kept confidential and available only to the research team. Faculty participation in the survey
was entirely voluntary, and no incentive was offered for participation. As part of the research
agreement with the school district, no demographics were collected in order to maintain
anonymity. Thus, we are unable to report participant characteristics, such as gender and
race/ethnicity.

We developed the survey which mostly consisted of responses reported on a Likert-type scale
with a few multiple-choice questions, as well as some open-ended questions. Foci of the survey
included how teachers are trained in restorative practices, how they currently implement this
program, how they receive support for their practice, and their perceptions of restorative
practices in their building. This garnered insight into the work setting, the teacher-student
relationship dynamic, and illuminated this stakeholder group’s perception of success. Staff
members were given a 2-week window to take the optional survey.

A second e-mail reminder of the survey was sent a week after the first one. In total, the survey
remained open for 2 weeks. Forty-four faculty members accessed the survey over that span.
While this was deemed an acceptable level of response by the research team, the lack of response
from nearly half of the staff is an acknowledged limitation of the study.
Though 44 faculty members accessed the survey, one chose to opt out of responding by
answering “I do not wish to participate in this survey” to the first question. This resulted in that
person exiting the survey, leaving a total of 43 faculty respondents. Additionally, some of those
43 respondents chose not to answer certain questions.

The length of tenure of the 43 survey respondents varied greatly with over 13% of the
respondents (n = 5) indicated that this was their first year at AHS. Nine had been employed at
AHS for 1 to 3 years, and two shared their employment ranged from 3 to 6 years. Importantly, 21
respondents to the faculty survey, or just under 57%, had worked at AHS for more than 6 school
years. Thus, the tenure of the majority of respondents began before the implementation of
restorative practices.

Findings

As indicated earlier, the two main purposes of the survey were to understand teachers’
perceptions on the efficacy of restorative practices as well as learn more about how teachers
experienced implementing the program. We first share findings dealing with the implementation
process, followed by how teachers perceived the program’s effectiveness.

Focus on Implementation

Earlier interviews with Algonquin’s administrators indicated that all faculty had been trained in
restorative practices by the beginning of the 2015-2016 school year. However, according to the
survey, two respondents shared they were never offered training while a third respondent
indicated being offered, but not yet attending, training. Nevertheless, the remaining 34 faculty
members who responded to this question had, in fact, been trained at least once in restorative
practices. Moreover, 32% of teachers reported they had been trained in restorative practices two
or three times, with over half of respondents (n = 19) reporting attendance on more than three
occasions. Thus, approximately 92% of those surveyed reported completing training in
restorative practices.

In addition to learning more about training, we included a survey question asking respondents
how often they use restorative elements at school. We found that around half of teachers used
restorative practices “often” with another 19% indicating they used restorative practices “almost
daily.” Conversely, nearly 30% shared that they “seldom” use restorative practices at school with
one person indicating they “never” use them.

In addition, teachers were asked to assess their peers’ use of restorative practices by responding
to the following statement: “I observe others using restorative elements, including restorative
language, in my school.” Participants were given a 4-point Likert-type scale of never, seldom,
often, and almost daily for this purpose. Fifty-six percentage of the responses answered often or
almost daily. In fact, the most popular selection was often, which was chosen by 18 of 36
respondents. Conversely, 16 respondents indicated seeing restorative practices used seldom.
None of the respondents indicated never seeing restorative practices used at AHS.
Earlier in the study, building administrators had expressed concern that teacher turnover may
affect the ongoing implementation or restorative practices. Consequently, we wondered if faculty
members had peers to whom they could go with questions or concerns about implementing
restorative practices in their classrooms. We found that 81% of faculty responded that they did
have peers whom they considered to be resources for restorative practices, whereas 16% of
respondents stated they were uncertain whether they have peer support on campus. One survey
respondent stated definitively that no peer existed whom could serve as a restorative practices
resource.

In addition to our curiosities around peer support, we also wondered whether teachers perceived
that students were knowledgeable about and experienced with restorative practices, as these
cultural characteristics may influence teachers’ perceptions around implementation fidelity. The
first of these questions asked, “How many students know about restorative practices at AHS?”
Possible answers included none, some, most, and nearly all. Out of the 35 faculty respondents,
60% (n = 21) selected “some” as their response. The other 40% of teachers reported “most” or
“nearly all” students know about and have experienced restorative practices No faculty member
indicated a belief that none of AHS’s students know about restorative practices.

Next, participants were asked how many students they thought participated in elements of
restorative practices. Responses indicated that 25% of teachers believed that “most” Algonquin
students participate in restorative practices. Meanwhile, most teachers (75%) indicated that only
“some” of AHS students were participating in restorative practices. Neither “none” nor “almost
all” were selected by any participant.

Focus on Efficacy

In addition to faculty perceptions concerning the implementation of restorative practices, the

survey also sought understand teachers’ perceptions on the effectiveness of the restorative
practices approach. First, we listed each of the 11 elements of the SaferSanerSchools™ model
along with a short definition. We asked teachers to indicate which of the restorative practices
elements they found most effective. Respondents could select as many or as few according to
their experiences or could skip the question altogether.

Eleven participants chose to skip this question, while 33 others chose to select one or more
elements. As indicated in Table 3, of the 33 respondents, 24 selected “Affective Statements” as
being most effective. The next most frequent response was “Fair Process,” which was selected
19 times. “Small Impromptu Conferences/Circles” was the third most popular selection,
receiving 14 votes as most effective. The complete list of the 11 elements of the
SaferSanerSchools™ model are represented in Table 3 in the left-hand column. The number of
times faculty ranked a particular element as being most effective appears in the right-hand
column.

Participants were then asked to evaluate the following statement: “I believe that RP works to
curb student misbehavior at this school.” Teachers could then select their answers on a Likert-
type scale: never assigned a value of 1; seldom was given a value of 2; often had a value of 3,
and; almost daily was assigned 4 points. Of the 35 faculty responses, 21 selected often and 14
selected seldom. No faculty selected either never or almost daily. Numerically speaking, these
responses had an average rating of 2.6, indicating teachers leaned more toward the perspective
that restorative practices often curb student misbehavior.

Table 3. Faculty Ranking of Restorative Practice Elements’ Efficacy.

Restorative practice element na
1. Affective statements 24
2. Fair process 19
3. Small impromptu conferences/circles 14
4. Restorative questions 12
5. Restorative conferences 10
6. Restorative approach with families 9
6. Proactive circles 9
7. Restorative staff community 6
8. Responsive circles 4
9. Reintegrative management of shame 3
10. Understanding fundamental hypothesis 2
a
Number of times this element was selected as “most effective” by 33 respondents.

We were also curious to know whether, given the slow implementation of restorative practices
over many years, the “Fundamental Hypothesis” of restorative practices had permeated the
school’s culture in the eyes of the faculty. Recall, the Fundamental Hypothesis of the
SaferSanerSchools™ model states that “actions within a school must align with the belief that
positive behavioral change occurs in a state of high, consistent expectations where authority
figures do things with, not to or for, others” (IIRP, n.d.). During visits to the school, we noted
two major cultural guideposts throughout the school. First, Algonquin’s “Chief Belief” was
posted in high-profile areas of the school, such as the entrance and cafeteria: “Building Respect
Through Building Relationships.” Second, the concept of aiming to be a “MARKSmen,” which
stands for Maturity, Accountability, Responsibility, and Knowledge, appeared on cultural
artifacts, such as posters and pamphlets.

Though these two mantras are visible throughout the school building, we wanted to know if
teachers’ perceptions of school culture reflected these high expectations with an emphasis on
relationships, two essential characteristics of restorative practices.

Toward this point, teachers were asked to rate the following statement on a 5-point Likert-type
scale: forming and maintaining positive relationships are important at this school. Choices
included disagree, disagree somewhat, neither disagree or agree, agree somewhat, and agree.
The 37 answers were also assigned a value between 1 and 5 based on the strength of their
response. The average value for all responses was a 4.68, most closely numerically aligned with
the 5-point answer of agree. In fact, 84% of the faculty surveyed assigned this statement the
highest rating available on the Likert-type scale.

Three further questions endeavored to gauge the faculty’s feelings about three specific types of
relationships: student, staff, and teacher-student relationships. Using the same Likert-type scale
described above, participants were asked to rate whether, generally speaking, student-student
relationships at AHS are respectful. Thirty-seven responses averaged to a mean score of 4.38,
numerically closest to the answer of agree somewhat on the Likert-type. The same statement was
made asserting that staff relationships at Algonquin are generally respectful, and staff was again
asked to rate it using the same Likert-type scale. An average rating of 4.49 was collected for this
statement, again most closely rounding to agree somewhat, but only by .01.

When rating the same statement regarding respectful relationships, but this time focusing on
teacher-student relationships, 37 responses were again collected. The average rating for this
statement rose to 4.51, tipping slightly toward the strongest available agree response. Thus, the
staff responses collected highlight teacher-student relationships as being the most respectful of
the three types of relationships looked at by this survey. Perhaps an even more striking finding
from this question is that no faculty member disagreed to any extent or was even neutral when
evaluating the statement that teacher-student relationships are respectful at AHS.

Teachers’ Insights Via Open-Ended Comments

In addition to Likert-type questions and other rating scales, faculty were asked three open-ended
questions:

1. How could the current use of restorative practices at AHS be improved or enhanced?
2. Based on your experiences with restorative practices, what suggestions would you have
for other schools looking to implement restorative practices?
3. Is there anything else that you would like to share regarding the implementation and
efficacy of restorative practices at AHS?

Unsurprisingly, since open-ended questions were placed at the end of the survey, comments were
not as plentiful as we would have liked. And while follow-up interviews with teachers will not
take place until the next phase of the study, we were still able to glean some important insights
into what teachers think is working well, as well as what some of their concerns are. In all,
across the three open-ended questions, five could be categorized as completely negative of
restorative practices, while 34 responses expressed more positive perceptions and often included
suggestions for improvement in practice.

Commendations, Concerns, and Suggestions for Improvement

Many teachers attested to restorative practices’ efficacy. For example, one teacher expressed, “I
sure wish I had learned about this before, when I had a couple of difficult years with
disrespectful students always looking for trouble.” Another teacher shared that patience and
persistence with restorative practices “pays off,” while another offered that “[t]here are
immediate benefits [to RP], but it also takes a few years to see the overall impact when you are
just starting the process.” Supporting this assertion that the true efficacy of restorative practices
is best assessed over a span of years, this faculty comment seems especially poignant:

Having taught at [Algonquin] for 9 years, I see restorative practices have been helpful to
both teachers and students. For teachers, it has been an effective tool for those who are
not natural relationship-builders. For many students, it has become an important tool to
keep them in the classroom where they belong and not in ISS or OSS. I notice a better,
more congenial overall atmosphere in the school. It’s a good thing.
Thus, this teacher was able to observe longitudinally the decrease in exclusionary discipline that
accompanied the implementation of restorative practices.

In addition to statements reflecting a positive attitude toward restorative practices, some

concerns were raised by respondents. For example, one teacher expressed the belief that students
“take advantage of the system and pay it lip service,” but they are not “truly changing or
modifying behaviors.” Similarly, in five other instances, teachers shared the concern that some
students could potentially manipulate the restorative process for the sole purpose of lessening
behavioral consequences. A third respondent shared, “School life is not real life with so many do
overs,” but went on to say, “I love teaching and I love kids—I am the closest thing to the real-
world in this school.”

In addition to the specific observations shared above, there were two comments that seemed
particularly vague and unconstructive. For example, when asked whether they had anything else
they would like to share, one participant typed, “a complete waste of time.” And when asked
what advice they would give to schools looking to implement restorative practices, one person
responded, “look for a different model.”

Many who shared their observations and/or expressed specific concerns also shared specific
strategies for improving the implementation process. For example, one teacher observed that
teachers “are rarely told when a student goes through the process with the administrative team.”
Another teacher suggested there needed to be “better follow-up” and that “[c]onsistency needs to
be improved.” Other suggestions fell into four main themes: onboarding, perseverance,
overcoming discomfort, and training.

The Importance of Onboarding. A recurring theme among respondents was the importance of
making sure “the entire school” was aware and “on board” with the philosophy behind
restorative practices. It was not enough to announce a new program or even follow it with good
training. Rather, teachers felt it was essential that people understand why restorative practices is
needed (e.g., overuse of exclusionary discipline, overrepresentation of Black students) and how
restorative practices is different from traditional punitive measures. One teacher suggested that
Algonquin specifically “spend less time focusing on circles and more on the philosophical and
ideological principles” behind restorative practices. Respondents had similar advice for those
considering implement restorative practices at their particular schools: That leadership must
“give context to the need for [the practice]” and warned would-be implementers of the need for
“a CLEAR understanding from the beginning [of] exactly what it is.” Another respondent stated
directly that the philosophy behind restorative practices “must be part of the school culture.” The
sentiment seemed to be that purposeful onboarding would communicate the urgency of the
situation and strengthen the will toward putting in the work necessary for successful
implementation.

Time and Perseverance Are Key. A second theme related to the implementation of restorative
practices concerned time and persistence. Time (or persistence over time) was specifically
referenced in seven responses across the three narrative questions. For example, one respondent
shared, “Patience. In the classroom, it may sometimes seem that restorative practices aren’t
working. But persistence pays off.” This sentiment was repeated by another who stated a
suggestion for improving AHS’s restorative practices: “Mainly just getting teachers to take the
time to use proactive circles and the restorative language when they have a conflict with a
student.” Meanwhile, the same respondent who characterized restorative practices as “A
complete waste of time” also expressed an unwillingness to spend time studying and practicing
restorative practices.

Overcoming Discomfort and Connecting With Students Authentically. Many teachers

expressed a desire to connect with students in an authentic, comfortable way. For example, one
person felt the circles were “too contrived.” Another person shared, “What I use works[,] and I
do not like or feel comfortable with some of the [RP] language and the circles.” Six additional
comments noted either discomfort with circles specifically or a desire to use behavioral
approaches that come more naturally to them. One respondent recommended they have a variety
of practices at hand “and use what works for them in their class.” Two additional people
suggested allowing teachers to self-select the element of restorative practices in which they want
to receive training. Another respondent thought that overcoming discomfort was possible if they
assigned an “‘RP expert’ to help with a proactive circle in [the] classroom . . . [because] Some
practical, first-hand guidance in the classroom could build teacher and student confidence in the
process.” While this theme brings to the fore the idea that teachers are uncomfortable with
certain elements or just prefer certain elements over others, there seemed to be an overall
recognition of the importance of building relationships, a core value of restorative practices.

Tailoring Training Opportunities. While the survey did not include an open-ended question
relating to restorative practices training, nine respondents shared specific implementation
suggestions related to training. One recommendation was to “pick a few specifics and really
focus on them” in training, while another reflected a preference for longer training opportunities.
This particular teacher felt that “[t]he full days of training were much more informative than a
one-hour session here and there.” Additional recommendations included holding trainings with
“documentaries” and “real-life, classroom-based examples.” These teachers felt restorative
practices needed to be made “real” for some people and that participating in role play might
alleviate discomfort and enhance implementation fidelity. One person’s suggestion reflected
what we learned from the quantitative data: Some teachers have been trained more than three
times on the same thing. This teacher felt restorative practices trainings “were redundant, [a]
waste of my time and almost insulting.” Finally, one teacher expressed a readiness to expand the
training beyond teachers to students, stating that “[s]tudents need to practice how [they] think
[things] ‘should’ have gone.” Overall, teachers seem to communicate their understanding that
training is something that is essential but that it needs to be better tailored to individual teachers’
needs.

Discussion

We were surprised by some of the findings related to teachers’ views of restorative practices’
efficacy. For example, faculty rated conferences/circles as one of the top three most effective
elements of restorative practices. However, in open-ended comments, teachers made their
aversion to, or discomfort with, circles clear. Yet this seeming contrast might be explained by
reexamining the wording of that listed element: small impromptu conferences/circles. Staff
members who do not “do” large, planned circles—or conduct them, albeit uncomfortably—may
still have selected this practice as most effectual because the phrasing also incorporated the use
of “small impromptu conferences.” Our combined experience of 50 years in the K-12 classroom
remind us that conferences are a staple of the profession and that may be the part of that
particular element with which teachers feel comfortable. Instead, teachers may be pointing out
that the more intensive, carefully planned restorative conferences are only lead by those
professionals specifically trained to lead them. Future conversations with teachers may help us
better understand these nuances.

On the other hand, we were not surprised by teacher responses indicating that restorative
practices have been effective in positively affecting the culture at AHS over the past several
years. For example, 84% of respondents agreed most strongly with the statement that forming
and maintaining positive relationships is important at AHS. This finding supports the notion that
valuing relationships, which is also at the heart of restorative practices, is a part of the AHS
culture. Thus, neither were we surprised to learn that 78% of respondents indicated a belief that
restorative practices contributes to positive relationships at AHS often or almost daily. Thus, one
could deduct that restorative practices is also contributing positively to the culture of this school.
Surprisingly, though, only 67% (n = 25) of 37 respondents agreed with this exact statement
linking restorative practices as a contributor to school culture either strongly or somewhat. In
fact, 19% (n = 7) actually disagreed or somewhat disagreed with the notion of restorative
practices positively affecting school culture at Algonquin. Perhaps the emphasis on relationships
and respect, inherent in restorative practices, are now so ingrained in the daily activities at
Algonquin that the staff no longer sees them as residual of restorative practices, but rather just
the way that things are done around their school. Again, future research is needed to tease that
hypothesis out more fully.

Unexpectantly, we also recognized a barrier to teachers accurately assessing the efficacy of

restorative practices. Though it was reflected in only one narrative comment, the statement, “We
(teachers) are rarely told when a student goes through the process with the administrative team,”
is concerning. Another teacher did caution about the lack of “follow-up,” though it was unclear
whether this was follow-up with the teacher or the student. Obviously, lack of communication
and/or follow-up about what had transpired would more than likely limit a teacher’s ability to
assess the efficacy of restorative practices. It would also make reintegration of the offender
exceedingly difficult. Thus, while only one or two people alluded to some communication or
follow-up issues, we still note this topic as a concern to share with school leadership for further
exploration.

As veteran educators, we were not surprised to also discover evidence of the second concern
related to the efficacy of restorative practices at Algonquin: the manipulation of the system by
the students in order to receive a reduced disciplinary consequence. This apprehension aligns
with other comments collected from teachers that state that restorative practices “is not real life
with so many do overs” and that “a student can learn from a harder consequence than a RP
[consequence].” Teachers, who may have not only taught under traditional disciplinary practices,
but who were likely raised and went to school under them themselves, may be hard converts to a
restorative practices mind-set. Being that restorative practices is relatively new as a disciplinary
approach; this statement might very well pertain to many more teachers than this initial survey
sample adequately communicated. Again, follow-up conversations will be important to further
understand this concern as well as to determine whether, if true, this tendency to game the
system seriously undermines the implementation process and/or should lead one to conclude it is
better to not implement restorative practices because of it. We also wonder whether these teacher
perceptions might also say more about a lack of trust of particular students and whether teachers
of different ethnicities and genders would talk about this concern differently. Comparing
teachers’ perceptions based in identity intersectionalities, such as race/ethnicity, gender, and
class, is an important area for further inquiry. Irby’s (2018) work on teachers’ sensemaking
around collective racial awareness and critical self-reflection would be an important guide for us.

Another interesting observation was the finding that while 9% of faculty indicated never having
been trained in restorative practices, either by choice or lack of opportunity, only 3% shared that
they do not use restorative practices. Thus, these results seem to indicate that some teachers are
implementing restorative practices even without having received formal training. It would be
interesting to explore whether there is an informal mentoring process whereby teachers well-
versed in restorative practices might be coming alongside those less so to aid in the
implementation process.

Finally, there were some conflicts in teacher perception. For example, findings on the teachers’
use of restorative practices do not align with their perception of the students’ knowledge of and
participation in restorative practices. That is, 68% of the faculty responses indicate they
personally use restorative practices either often or almost daily at Algonquin. A total of 56%
shared that they also observe restorative practices used at Algonquin often or almost daily. Yet
despite these levels of observation and self-reported practice, 60% of the faculty surveyed
believe that only some of the students at AHS know about restorative practices. Thus,
respondents report using restorative practices and observing others using restorative practices at
a higher rate than they believe their students are involved in restorative practices implementation.
These conflicting perceptions are something we hope to explore further in the future.

While no study can fully capture what is going on in a context as complicated as a high school,
our findings nonetheless fill an important gap in the literature. Restorative practices, as a
relatively new discipline approach, is emerging more strongly in public consciousness and the
research literature. Specifically, there is a lack of research focused on teachers’ perceptions of
using restorative practices as an alternative discipline model. As the discussion above implies,
our findings point to some important areas for additional research.

Conclusion

As the literature points out, disruptive student behavior takes away from instructional time,
requires a large amount of school resources, and creates an emotional toll on teachers (Aldrup et
al., 2018; Cornell & Mayer, 2010; Dinkes et al., 2007). As a preemptive approach, restorative
practices could be viewed as taking away from instruction time, although only one teacher in our
sample referred to restorative practices as a “big waste of time.” Almost all teachers in this study
reported they volunteered their time to be trained in the approach and used at least some
components on a regular basis. There is no evidence to suggest that teachers are feeling
despondent concerning disruptive behavior at present.
Also, the literature is clear that exclusionary discipline does not curb misbehavior or improve the
quality of the school environment (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, 2008; Losen & Skiba, 2010; Noltemeyer & Mcloughlin, 2010; Skiba & Rausch, 2006).
The theory of action behind restorative practices, on the other hand, aims to improve the school
culture by building relationships (Morrison et al., 2005). Almost 80% of respondents indicated
that restorative practices did indeed contribute to positive relationships at AHS. Meanwhile,
almost 20% of respondents disagreed or somewhat disagreed that restorative practices positively
affected the school culture at Algonquin. We are not sure why. But, when we revisit Morrison et
al.’s (2005) implementation steps, we note the importance of developing professional
relationships and that administrator communication is key. Some participants shared that they
needed clearer communication from the administrative team. This follow-up from administrators
is especially important in a secondary school context where students are usually taught by
numerous teachers each day. Strengthening communications and professional relationships
would surely bolster their efforts at improving school culture.

Finally, recall that the literature shows that implementation dips are a normal occurrence when
effecting change in schools. Moreover, teachers’ feelings of self-efficacy can decline as they try
new approaches, so it is critical their supervisors respond with developmental feedback and
positive reassurance (Zimmerman, 2006).

While some findings were mixed, the preponderance of positivity communicated by the teachers,
coupled with the data that there is an overall downward trend in racial and other discipline gaps,
leads us to conclude that, overall, implementing a restorative practices discipline approach is a
positive and effective way to improve school culture, contribute to a downward trend in
exclusionary discipline overall, and begin the process of recognizing the role implicit biases and
teacher/administrator level of tolerance plays in understanding and addressing discipline gaps.
Thus, we also join Irby (2018) and Lustick (2017) in concluding that implementing programs
that address student behavior is not enough. Rather, training around restorative approaches must
also include culturally relevant professional development opportunities that address educators’
attitudes and beliefs. White supremacy, racism, and implicit biases must be challenged and
transformed to strengthen the fidelity of program implementation and consequent organizational
change (Irby, 2018; Lustick, 2017).

We agree with Kane et al. (2007) that a shift in culture can only be attained through message
management from school leadership. Moreover, leadership needs to set the stage for
organizational change by (a) balancing top-down and bottom-up decision making, (b) including
stakeholders in developing a shared mission and vision, and (c) creating opportunities for teacher
collaboration and participation in decision making (Zimmerman, 2006).

Still there will likely be resistance to change. An adept leader recognizes issues related to
obstacles and resistance and works to promote change readiness among staff in a number of
ways. For example, by

1. modeling willingness to change and displaying risk-taking behaviors, even at the risk of
exposing weakness by taking on the role of learner,
 2. displaying optimism and determination while sharing one’s own learning curve and
encouraging others to try new things,
3. winning over the support of influential teachers to the change, and
4. working to earn teachers’ trust and to develop a culture of support (Zimmerman, 2006).

Research also shows that an external impetus for change is not as effective as an internal impetus
(Kane et al., 2007). Thus, a school may also be better prepared to implement restorative practices
when staff morale is high and a pervasive sense that staff can make the school better is evident
(Kane et al., 2007).

Schools with certain supports in place may be also at a distinct advantage when implementing
restorative practices. Restorative practices have been found to dovetail well with existing
practices and initiatives, such as peer mediation, cognitive reasoning programs, and social skills
curriculums (McCluskey et al., 2008). By building on familiar and successful school programs,
the school community is able to scaffold to create restorative dialogue and willingness to learn
(Macready, 2009). Support staff such as school counselors, school psychologists, and school
social workers are often key stakeholders in these existing programs and may be uniquely
qualified to aid this scaffolding process (McCluskey et al., 2008). Schools with such a sturdy
framework already in place may be most ready to implement restorative practices in a
meaningful, schoolwide manner.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests. The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest

with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or
publication of this article.

References

Aldrup, K., Klusmann, U., Lüdtke, O., Göllner, R., Trautwein, U. (2018). Student misbehavior
and teacher well-being: Testing the mediating role of the teacher-student relationship. Learning
and Instruction, 58, 126-136.

American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force . (2008). Are zero tolerance
policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American
Psychologist, 63, 852-862.

Cornell, D. G., Mayer, M. J. (2010). Why do school order and safety matter? Educational
Researcher, 39, 7-15. doi:10.3102/0013189X09357616

Crews, G. A., Counts, M. R. (1997). The evolution of school disturbance in America: Colonia
times to modern day. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Curwin, R. L., Mendler, A. N. (1989). We repeat, let the buyer beware: A response to Canter.
Educational Leadership, 46(6), 83.
DeMatthews, D. E., Carey, R. L., Olivarez, A., Saeedi, K. M. (2017). Guilty as charged?
Principals’ perspectives on disciplinary practices and the racial discipline gap. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 53, 519-555.

Dinkes, R., Cataldi, E. F., Lin-Kelly, W. (2007). Indicators of school crime and safety: 2007
(NCES 2008-021/NCJ 219553). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.

Golden, D. C. (1993). Discipline of students with disabilities: A decision-making model for

principals. NASSP Bulletin, 77(550), 11-20.

Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., Gerewitz, J. (2014). The promise of restorative practices to
transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline. Journal of
Educational and Psychological Consultation, 25, 1-29. doi:10.1080/10474412.2014.929950

Horner, R., Sugai, G., Vincent, C. (2005). School-wide positive behavior support: Investing in
student success. Impact, 18(2), 4-5.

International Institute for Restorative Practices . (n.d.). SaferSanerSchools™: Whole-school

change through restorative practices. Retrieved from http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/WSC-
Overview.pdf

Irby, D. J. (2018). Mo’ data, mo’ problems: Making sense of racial discipline disparities in a
large diversifying suburban high school. Educational Administration Quarterly, 54, 693-722.
doi:10.1177/0013161X18769051

Kane, J., Lloyd, G., McCluskey, G., Riddell, S., Stead, J., Weedon, E. (2007). Restorative
practices in three Scottish councils: Final report of the evaluation of the first two years of the
pilot projects 2004-2006. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive.

Losen, D. J., Skiba, R. J. (2010). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis.
Montgomery, AL: Southern Poverty Law Center.

Lustick, H. (2017). “Restorative justice” or restoring order? Restorative school discipline

practices in urban public schools. Urban Education. Advance online publication.
doi:10.1177/0042085917741725

Maag, J. W. (2012). School-wide discipline and the intransigency of exclusion. Children and
Youth Services Review, 34, 2094-2100.

MacNaughton, R. H., Johns, F. A. (1991). Developing a successful schoolwide discipline

program. NAASP Bulletin, 75(536), 47-57.

Macready, T. (2009). Learning social responsibility in schools: A restorative practice.

Educational Psychology in Practice, 25, 211-220. doi:10.1080/02667360903151767
Mansfield, K. C., Fowler, E., Rainbolt, S. (2018). The potential of restorative practices to
ameliorate discipline gaps: The story of one high school’s leadership team. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 54(2), 303-323.

Mansfield, K. C., Rainbolt, S., Fowler, E. (2018). Implementing restorative justice as a step
toward racial equity in school discipline. Teachers College Record, 120(14), 1-24.

McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., Weedon, E. (2008). Can restorative
practices in schools make a difference? Educational Review, 60, 405-417.
doi:10.1080/00131910802393456

Mirsky, L. (2011). Restorative practices: Giving everyone a voice to create safer saner school
communities. Prevention Researcher, 18, 3-6.

Mongan, P., Walker, R. (2012). “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”: A historical,
theoretical, and legal analysis of zero-tolerance weapons policies in American schools.
Preventing School Failure, 56, 232-240.

Morrison, B., Blood, P., Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing restorative justice in school
communities: Addressing the challenge of culture change. Public Organization Review, 5, 335-
357.

Morrison, B. E., Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 11, 138-155. doi:10.1080/15388220.2011.653322

Noltemeyer, A. L., Mcloughlin, C. S. (2010). Changes in exclusionary discipline rates and

disciplinary disproportionality over time. International Journal of Special Education, 25(1), 59-
70.

Polka, W. S. (2007). Managing people, things, and ideas in the “effective change zone”: A
“high-touch” approach to educational leadership at the dawn of the twenty-first century.
Educational Planning, 16(1), 12-17.

Regulation 401.1 . (2008). [Tenakomakah] County Public Schools Code of Conduct. (Reference
masked to protect anonymity. Copies in research team’s possession and available on request.)

Ryan, J. B., Katsiyannis, A., Peterson, R., Chmelar, R. (2007). IDEA 2004 and disciplining
students with disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 91, 130-140.

Salazar, P. S. (2016). In this issue . . . NASSP Bulletin, 100, 95-96.

Skiba, R. J., Rausch, M. K. (2006). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of
equity and effectiveness. In Evertson, C. M., Weinstein, C. S. (Eds.), Handbook of classroom
management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063-1089). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H. (2009). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior support.
In Sailor, W., Dunlop, G., Sugai, G., Horner, R. (Eds.), Issues in clinical child psychology:
Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307-326). New York, NY: Springer.

Terrell, H. W. (1976). School discipline: A cooperative approach. NASSP Bulletin, 60(397), 9-

14.

Whitford, D. K., Katsiyannis, A., Counts, J. (2016). Discriminatory discipline: Trends and
issues. NASSP Bulletin, 100, 117-135.

Williams, J., Pazey, B., Fall, A. M., Yates, J. R., Roberts, G. J. (2015). Avoiding the threat: An
exploratory study into a theoretical understanding of the de facto segregation of students with
disabilities. NASSP Bulletin, 99, 233-253.

[X] Department of Education . (2015). (Reference masked to protect anonymity. Copies in

research team’s possession and available upon request.)

Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it.
NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238-249. doi:10.1177/0192636506291521

Author Biographies

Stacey Rainbolt is currently the coordinator of testing for Goochland County Public Schools’
secondary schools. She also holds the position of director of School Counseling for Goochland
Middle School in Goochland, VA. Rainbolt is a graduate of Virginia Commonwealth University
with an EdD in leadership. Her passion is taking both quantitative and qualitative data and using
it to help educators create an environment of high structure and high support so that all students
can achieve. She has published in Educational Administration Quarterly and Teachers College
Record.

Elizabeth Sutton Fowler is currently the director of School Counseling for Goochland High
School in Goochland, VA. She graduated from Virginia Commonwealth University with an EdD
in Leadership. She has over twenty years combined experience as both a secondary classroom
teacher and a school counselor. She holds licenses in secondary English, gifted education, and
school counseling. She focuses in her current role on being an advocate for student voices and
equity. She seeks to help other professionals understand that strong relationships with students,
based on respect, can lead to positive educational, behavioral, and cultural change. She has
published in Educational Administration Quarterly and Teachers College Record.

Katherine Cumings Mansfield is associate professor at The University of North Carolina at

Greensboro in the Department of Educational Leadership and Cultural Foundations. She
graduated from The University of Texas at Austin with a PhD in Educational Policy and
Planning and a doctoral portfolio in Women’s and Gender Studies. Mansfield, a first-generation
college graduate and seasoned teacher and program administrator, has published in Educational
Administration Quarterly, Education Policy Analysis Archives, Educational Studies,
International Journal of Multicultural Education, International Journal of Qualitative Studies in
Education, and Teachers College Record.