Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 1
Implementation of Restorative Justice in Schools
from a Teacher’s Perspective
by
Mike Leese
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC ROSSIER SCHOOL OF EDUCATION
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF EDUCATION
August 2023
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 2

Copyright by Mike Leese 2023

All Rights Reserved

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 3

The Committee for Mike Leese certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Gregory A. Franklin, Ed.D.
Marsha Boveja Riggio, PhD., LPC, ACS Committee Chair
Rufus T. Spann, Ph.D., LPC, NCPS, NCC

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2023

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 4
Abstract
When exclusionary policies such as zero tolerance are utilized in K-12 education settings,
they ostracize not only violent students but willfully defiant and disruptive ones. Granted, zero-
tolerance policies acknowledge the problems that would ensue if schools allowed students to act
in any way they deem appropriate, but because zero-tolerance policies result in the disciplinary
exclusion of vast numbers of students, K-12 schools within the United States and elsewhere
would find many more benefits by implementing a neutral disciplinary policy that addresses the
offender with positive behavior support as a disciplinary approach that can achieve both social
and academic success for all students. Restorative justice programs may offer this type of
approach if they symbiotically incorporate a variety of programs within a school setting. Given
the ambiguity of this and other definitions, it is unsurprising that many types of programs are
classified as restorative justice. This ambiguity may confuse teachers regarding what actions they
should take in their classrooms, which may minimize confidence, self-efficacy, and trust in a
restorative justice policy. Teachers may think they understand how restorative justice works, but
without professional development, relevant resources, or supportive follow-up that clarifies
restorative practices, teachers will likely arrive at their own definitions of restorative justice,
which can make work toward positive change in the common culture much more difficult
(Hopkins, 2015). The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how teachers experienced
the implementation of restorative justice programs in their classrooms. Specifically, this study
addressed the following research questions: (a) How are teachers implementing restorative
justice practices?; (b) How prepared are teachers to implement restorative justice practices?; (c)
How supported are teachers in implementing restorative justice practices?; (d) What are the
challenges in implementing restorative justice practices?; and (e) How can implementing
restorative justice practices be improved? To answer these questions, the study recruited eight
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 5
teachers from large urban school districts working at schools with a restorative justice policy.
The teachers chosen also had been trained in restorative justice practices and had experience
implementing restorative justice practices in their classrooms. Interview data allowed the
researcher to compare emergent themes and how themes addressed each of the research
questions. These emergent themes included a lack of support from administrative staff, a lack of
professional development, and a lack of funding and personnel to properly implement the culture
change required for a restorative justice disciplinary policy to be successful.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 6
Dedication
To my wife, Lisa.
I could not have accomplished this without you.
House and wealth are inherited from fathers, but a prudent wife is from the Lord.
Proverbs 19:14

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 7
Acknowledgments
I could not have completed this task without the help of so many people. My wife offered
her unwavering support, and my kids allowed me to miss their bedtimes for three years without
too much grief. I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge my classmates (my wolf pack), my
professors, my mentors, and so many others.
I thank you all.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 8
Table of Contents

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 4
Table of Contents ............................................................................................................................ 8
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY ......................................................... 1011
Background of the Problem .......................................................................................... 1213
Teachers ............................................................................................................ 1314
Principals........................................................................................................... 1415
District Administrators...................................................................................... 1617
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 1718
Research Questions ........................................................................................... 1920
Significance of the Study .............................................................................................. 1920
Teachers ............................................................................................................ 1920
Principals....................................................................................................................... 2021
District Administrators...................................................................................... 2122
Definition of Terms....................................................................................................... 2223
Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 2425
Positionality ...................................................................................................... 2425
Assumptions ...................................................................................................... 2526
Limitations ........................................................................................................ 2526
Delimitations ..................................................................................................... 2627
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 2627
Organization of the Study ............................................................................................. 2728
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ............................................................ 2829
Search Description ........................................................................................................ 2829
Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 2829
Origins and Theory Underlying Restorative Justice in Schools ................................... 3031
Preparedness ................................................................................................................. 3233
Commitment ................................................................................................................. 3435
Challenges ..................................................................................................................... 3637
Implementation by Teachers ......................................................................................... 3839
Successes....................................................................................................................... 4142
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 4344
Research Design............................................................................................................ 4344
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 4445
Setting ........................................................................................................................... 4445
Participants .................................................................................................................... 4546
Target and Accessible Population and Sample ................................................. 4546
Sampling Method .............................................................................................. 4546
Recruitment ................................................................................................................... 4647
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 4748
Demographic Survey ........................................................................................ 4748
Interview Protocol ............................................................................................. 4748
Procedures ..................................................................................................................... 4849
Confidentiality Parameters............................................................................................ 4849
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 9
Data Management ......................................................................................................... 4950
Dissemination of Findings ............................................................................................ 4950
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 5051
Descriptive Analysis ..................................................................................................... 5051
Thematic Content Analysis ........................................................................................... 5051
Reliability .......................................................................................................... 5152
Dependability .................................................................................................... 5152
Confirmability ................................................................................................... 5152
Validity ............................................................................................................. 5253
Credibility ......................................................................................................... 5253
Transferability ................................................................................................... 5354
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 5354
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS .................................................................................................... 55
Demographic Data Summary ................................................................................ 56
Research Question One: How are Teachers Implementing Restorative
Justice Practices? ...................................................................................... 56
Research Question Two: How Prepared are Teachers to Implement
Restorative Justice Practices? ................................................................... 60
Research Question Three: How Supported are Teachers in Implementing
Restorative Justice Practices? ................................................................... 61
Research Question Four: What are the Challenges in Implementing
Restorative Justice Practices? ................................................................... 64
Research Question Five: How can Implementing Restorative Justice
Practices be Improved? ............................................................................. 66
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 68
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 69
Summary of Findings ........................................................................................................ 69
Research Question One: How are Teachers Implementing Restorative Justice
Practices? .............................................................................................................. 69
Research Question Two: How Prepared are Teachers to Implement Restorative
Justice Practices? .................................................................................................. 70
Research Question Three: How Supported are Teachers in Implementing
Restorative Justice Practices? ............................................................................... 71
Research Question Four: What are the Challenges in Implementing Restorative
Justice Practices? .................................................................................................. 72
Research Question Five: How can Implementing Restorative Justice Practices be
Improved? ............................................................................................................. 73
Discussion ............................................................................................................. 74
Suggestions for Future Research/Recommendations........................................................ 74
Recommendation One ........................................................................................... 74
Recommendation Two .......................................................................................... 74
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 75
References ..................................................................................................................................... 77
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter .............................................................................................. 8886
Appendix B: Demographic Survey ........................................................................................... 8987
Appendix C: Interview .............................................................................................................. 9189
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 10
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY
Consider a common scenario in which an Algebra 1 teacher at a high school in Southern
California is tasked with educating Max, a very intelligent and enthusiastic student. However,
despite Max’s positive attributes, every day, he disrupts the classroom by either exclaiming
unrelated comments during instruction time or blurting out answers, not allowing any other
students to respond. On what seems like a daily basis, the teacher issues Max some sort of
discipline for what is seen as willful defiance. Some discipline methods administered include
verbal reprimands, parental notices, and detentions. The teacher also considers suspending Max
from class. Concerned about Max and knowing he is a bright child who can easily achieve, the
teacher just wants Max to stop interrupting class.
Freiberg et al. (1995) explained that conventional methods of discipline in response to
behaviors such as those displayed by Max consist of parental notices, detention, suspension, and
expulsion. These forms of discipline fall under the category of “zero tolerance,” a term that has
different meanings in different contexts. Within the context of education, zero tolerance is
usually considered a response to school violence and school shootings (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
Schools throughout the United States have adopted zero-tolerance policies to address student
discipline issues and to maintain safe classrooms. Schools that have adopted zero-tolerance
policies must be, by definition, intolerant of school violence and must punish students who
exhibit violent behavior. This punishment usually includes disciplinary referrals, suspension, and
expulsion (Krezmien et al., 2006). However, Max, the student in the scenario above, is not
exhibiting violent behavior, nor did he shoot a gun at school; yet, he might commonly receive the
same punishment as the student shooter. This is because, in time, disciplinary actions like
suspension and expulsion moved beyond targeting and punishing just those students who
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 11
exhibited violent behavior and began to target and punish students like Max, who simply talked
to a teacher disrespectfully or were considered willfully defiant. The original goal of zero-
tolerance policies was to create an appropriate school environment where students and teachers
feel safe, are free from violence, and are free to learn. However, today the policy has become a
catch-all for any behavior subjectively considered disrespectful or defiant.
Restorative justice is an approach to discipline that moves away from punishment and
exclusion and moves toward restoring a sense of harmony and well-being for all those affected
by a harmful act (Hopkins, 2004). A restorative justice policy provides all stakeholders a way to
ensure accountability while simultaneously breaking a cycle of retribution and violence.
Restorative justice maintains its quality through continual improvement and collaboration
between all stakeholders, especially principals, teachers, staff, and communities. Sellman et al.
(2014) proposed that although it is unlikely that there will ever be one agreed-upon definition for
restorative justice in a school, the approach can provide an opportunity for staff and students to
engage in such a way that conflict and harm are confronted and repaired; relationships are forged
upon the values of respect, inclusion, and equality; and a positive school culture results. Using
restorative practices, the Algebra 1 teacher in the scenario above has the opportunity to have a
private conversation with Max, in which the two of them can calmly review classroom
expectations and discuss the importance of listening and not blurting out. This one-to-one
conversation would allow Max to understand that he can affect the learning environment in class
positively or negatively, depending on his behavior. This conversation would also allow Max to
realize that his behavior in class is not the same as vandalism or physically assaulting another
student, but his actions are preventing other students from having the opportunity to think for
themselves, come up with their own answers, or hear and comprehend directions or class
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 12
lectures. Restorative practices allow teachers to create and use effective approaches, often
contrary to traditional methods of discipline, but help increase a student’s self-control. One such
approach is accessing breathing techniques that allow a student to consider thinking before
blurting out, raising a hand while considering blurting out or writing out their comments or
thoughts on a piece of paper instead of blurting them out.
Because restorative justice holds so much potential for students and their schools, this
research study sought to understand and analyze how teachers from one school implemented
restorative practices in their classrooms; how prepared and supported teachers felt with the
implementation of restorative justice practices in their classrooms; what challenges teachers may
have had with the implementation of restorative justice practices; and teachers’ ideas on how the
implementation of restorative justice practices can be improved. Two theoretical frameworks,
sensemaking (Weick, 1995) and bottom-up (Lane, 1983), were used as the lenses with which to
view the data collected for this study. These theories conceptualize how practices impact youth
behavior and how decision-making impacts policies.
A thorough understanding of the study undertaken begins with the background of the
problem and a clear problem statement, both of which follow below.
Background of the Problem
Anyone who, in some way, has an interest in or is impacted by the educational system is
considered a stakeholder. Various people have a “stake” in the success and welfare of a school:
students, parents, teachers, school administrators, the business community, government officials,
educational policymakers, school board members, taxpayers, colleges and universities, unions,
and voters. The primary focus of this study was teachers, principals, and district-level
administrators, whose mandated roles and unique perspectives were foundational background
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 13
concerning the problem of why restorative justice practices are utilized with less frequency than
traditional forms of exclusionary discipline.
Teachers
Teachers are expected to provide the discipline that engenders classroom control and
makes learning possible. Cameron (1998) identified the five most common characteristics of
classroom misbehavior as aggressive, physically disruptive, socially disruptive, authority-
challenging, and self-disruptive. Although zero-tolerance policies, designed to preserve order,
ensure safety and provide an example to other students by removing or suspending students who
violate school policies and disrupt the learning environment, in recent years, many teachers have
created and enforced zero-tolerance policies in similar ways that principals adhere to zero-
tolerance policies. It takes a lot more work for a teacher to spend extra time with a student and
make an effort to find out why that student is misbehaving in class than it does to simply send a
student to the principal’s office. It takes a lot of time and effort to come up with ideas and
classroom policies that are contradictory to zero tolerance, such as breathing techniques or
having students write down their thoughts instead of blurting them out. Yet, many teachers find
it easier, and more time efficient, to remove a student from class and continue with giving
directions or carry on with a discussion. Perhaps one must question if teachers are in the business
of performing acts that benefit themselves or performing acts that benefit the students. Perhaps
one must wonder if many teachers have lost the ability to acknowledge that creating a positive
learning environment, albeit positive for the majority of the class, completely neglects and
ostracizes the student who has been suspended.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 14
Principals
Perhaps the most significant factor that shapes a school’s climate is an effective principal.
Kraft et al. (2020) explained that without a positive school climate, there is unsupportive
leadership; a lack of teacher collaboration; and a lack of collective commitment to support
student learning, safety, order, and academic expectations in ways that affect teachers’ work and
their students’ learning (Kraft et al., 2016, as cited in Kraft et al., 2020). Without a safe
environment, students and teachers are unable to focus on learning and benefiting from an
orderly environment that minimizes disruptions in class (Carrell & Hoekstra 2010, as cited in
Kraft et al., 2020).
Although many other factors shape a school’s climate, such as the set of norms, values,
and beliefs, the school’s history, and even recent policy changes, effective principals remain key
change agents in efforts to improve school climate (Boyd et al., 2011, as cited in Kraft et al.,
2020). Ineffective principals often do not properly engage with their students, teachers,
community members, certificated staff, classified staff, teacher unions, and all other
stakeholders, which prevents any successful policy implementation and a consequent positive
change in school climate. Ineffective principals often lack the leadership abilities that are vital
for the successful implementation of a restorative justice policy because a successful restorative
justice policy requires a whole-school culture change. Restorative justice policies address the
unique cultural requirements of each school, yet an ineffective principals may not recognize the
culture of that school and know how to adjust accordingly.
While there is no singular path principals must take to implement whole-school
restorative practices and change the school culture, effective principals must develop a collective
commitment among their staff and a collaborative work environment that offers a framework
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 15
that can aid efforts and increase sustainability. Because restorative justice has a different
emphasis than more traditional approaches to wrongdoing, it challenges deeply embedded
notions of justice in our culture, homes, schools, and institutions (Hopkins, 2003). Julius et al.
(1999) elaborated by saying, “Neither should we pretend if you are serious about your ideals and
goals, that people will simply adopt ‘your’ new vision” (p. 14). Yet, how can even the most
successful leader and/or the most successful team combat lifelong identity influences, potential
biases, and so many persons’ varying perspectives of the entire world? Even well-meaning
principals may lack the ability to effectively convey a new ideology or policy, just expecting the
team to adopt the new vision. Principals also may not have the ability to acknowledge the
diversity within a group or may not have the leadership skills to coordinate productive group
work that allows for a change in school culture that also allows for inclusion for all group
members. Is it any wonder why principals are reluctant to implement a policy such as restorative
justice?
This work of collaboration is not easy by any means. Principals may choose to opt out of
a policy such as zero tolerance because it is explicit and free of interpretation. A student either
breaks a rule or does not, resulting in a consequence or no action. Less motivated principals can
simply explain to stakeholders that a set of rules needs to be followed and that the school is
acting according to those rules. Although this explanation lacks any awareness of the importance
of inclusion, equity, and positive collaboration with stakeholders, it does provide the principal
protection from any repercussions in the event that an unpopular decision or action was made.
Additionally, principals may not allow for collaborative decision-making and may not be
empowering each team member. Without participatory decision-making, a sense of promotion,
belonging, and mutual responsibility may be missing for all stakeholders. If principals cannot
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 16
create a strong school climate, which includes stakeholder collaboration and team empowerment,
positive culture-changing policies such as restorative justice will not be implemented.
District Administrators
Creating and monitoring district-wide policy is the district administrator’s job. As it can
be at the school site, the zero-tolerance policy at the district level is generally defined as one that
mandates predetermined consequences or punishment for specific offenses, regardless of the
circumstances, disciplinary history, or age of the student involved (National Education
Association, 2011). School districts have chosen to implement traditional methods of
disciplinary policies such as zero tolerance for several reasons. First, the use of a district-wide
zero-tolerance disciplinary policy makes it possible for schools to keep the learning environment
safe for students. If a policy is violated, a student receives a serious consequence, which may be
perceived as an unjust one, but can serve as a deterrent to other students who might be thinking
about violating the same policy. Second, such a zero-tolerance policy prepares students for the
real world. The real world inflicts real discipline. Law enforcement is only concerned with the
fact that a person violated that law. Zero-tolerance policies also create clear guidelines to follow,
which allows site and district administrators to act quickly with discipline based on the policy.
The expectations and consequences of such a district-wide policy are clear and communicated by
the district administrator to all stakeholders at the beginning of each school year.
Although district-mandated zero-tolerance policies are expedient and clear, evidence
suggests that a zero-tolerance policy increases student suspension and expulsion rates but does
not improve student learning environments, school climate, or perceptions of school safety
(Skiba & Peterson, 2000). Zero-tolerance policies also reduce academic achievement, increase
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 17
poor behavior, increase the likelihood of future suspensions and expulsions, and may impact
future employment (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2008; Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
Additionally, superintendents who lack the ability to influence students and staff may not
be able to create positive, school-site environments because positive school cultures are the
collective work of all site and district stakeholders. Restorative justice requires not just a policy
implementation, but a change. If district administrators do not create a connection with the
community and embrace the culture of the school, a change cannot occur within the school.
Productive change must be driven by collective teamwork that enables identification of best
practices and successful strategies that can generate a roadmap to specific actions that promote
adoption by all stakeholders. Superintendents also may not be employing their influence through
the duties they carry out. Instead, their leadership may be operating based on a moral authority
vested in the superintendent by subordinates’ perceptions of their values or beliefs. Some
superintendents, but certainly not all, are providing empty talk by advocating policies such as
restorative justice; yet, their lack of buy-in and consequent inaction trickle down into the
organization and cripples the implementation of a viable policy like restorative justice from
within.
Purpose of the Study
Although the research studies cited above demonstrate that restorative justice policies can
be viable alternatives to commonly adopted zero-tolerance practices, it is also clear that teachers,
principals, and district administrators can make productively implementing restorative justice
policies and practices a very difficult process. As is common with a new initiative handed down
from district administrators to principals and then passed to teachers, there seem to be plenty of
reasons given as to why the initiative should be implemented, but often there is slim evidence to
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 18
support specifically what the initiative might look like in a classroom. Restorative justice policies
require that teachers not only know what should be done in the classroom but the manner in
which it should be done. Doing the right thing the wrong way dooms productive discipline. A
review of the literature showed very little research on how teachers have positively or negatively
responded to implementing restorative justice policies. Their responses, in some ways perhaps
more valuable than those from district administrators and principals, can provide relevant keys to
overcoming the current obstacles and clearly specifying what it takes to successfully implement
restorative justice policies in the classroom. The purpose of this study, then, was to address the
problem of insufficient research on how teachers respond to the implementation of restorative
justice policies mandated by district administrators or principals. By collecting, analyzing, and
understanding teachers’ experiences, this study could strengthen best practices that teachers,
principals, and school districts could employ to implement restorative justice practices.
Consequently, research for this study was designed to collect, analyze, and understand
specifically how teachers are, or are not, implementing restorative practices in their classrooms;
how prepared and supported teachers feel about the implementation of restorative justice
practices in their classrooms; what challenges teachers had or may be having with the
implementation of restorative justice practices in their classrooms; and teachers’ ideas about how
the implementation of restorative justice practices can be improved. With a multitude of
practices and policies under the umbrella of restorative justice, more research is needed to clearly
define the practices with the greatest potential not only to address students who misbehave in
school but do so in the most effective manner.
With this purpose in mind, below are the five guiding research questions for this study.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 19
Research Questions
1. How are teachers implementing restorative justice practices?
2. How prepared are teachers in implementing restorative justice practices?
3. How supported are teachers in implementing restorative justice practices?
4. What are the challenges in implementing restorative justice practices?
5. How can implementing restorative justice practices be improved?
Significance of the Study
The significance of this study is rooted what can be learned and shared when the
responses of teachers to implementing restorative justice programs are collected, analyzed, and
extrapolated to improve the ease and viability of implementing improvements to existing
programs or establishing new programs. This study was a significant in that research revealed
not only what practices that teachers have found most valuable, but which tones or manners used
to implement those practices have been most productive and successful. Conclusions from this
study could significantly impact not only teachers tasked with implementing restorative justice
programs, but the principals and district administrators who design and mandate them.
Teachers
Restorative justice is not an approach that eliminates accountability for misconduct, nor
is it a quick fix to any existing disciplinary policy. Not all teachers agree with implementing a
restorative justice philosophy and they may need to make fundamental changes in their beliefs
and practices. When implementing new policies in most any corporate environment, there tends
to be a desire for a stated policy to also serve as a linear and choreographed “how-to” manual.
However, people, groups, and communities are dynamic, and the situations they encounter are
often not on-script; rather, they are unique and fluid. This study could allow teachers to expand
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 20
and enhance their knowledge and skills in relation to common best practices and principles for
implementing restorative justice policies and the best tones to use when implementing them. This
research also serves as a resource for teachers, policymakers, and stakeholders, to identify what
works in the classroom and what does not and provides research-based conclusions about
restorative justice approaches in schools. Vaandering (2010) claimed there is a need for a deeper
theoretical understanding of restorative justice so that its transformative potential can be further
experienced, sustained, and duplicated.
Principals
This study could also significantly assist principals in avoiding the common pitfalls of
implementing new initiatives. Principals sometimes do not support teachers in implementing new
policies, which, in turn can influence teachers’ successes (Kraft et al., 2020). Strong school
culture develops through strong school leadership and principals may not be focusing on
constructing quality teams for weekly team meetings and curriculum discussions to take place
(Shafer, 2018). Julius et al. (1999) suggested that when building a team, a leader should,
“appoint self-motivated people, set goals, ask for benchmark measures of success, and demand
more than acquiescence” (p. 119). The real-life application of this suggestion is much more
difficult than it sounds. It can be very difficult to get a group of diverse individuals to accept a
common goal with more than acquiescence; yet, principals must be adequately prepared to
embrace this challenge because without principal leadership, teamwork may be ineffective
and/or superficial. When alignment is tight and the culture is strong, new students and staff
members almost immediately pick up on an organization’s true vision and values (Hopkins,
2015), However, when leadership is lacking, the vision is lost, and the organization is poisoned
from within. It is the task of the principal to coordinate the activities between the district
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 21
administrators and the teachers. If a principal may not have the power to secure compliance from
all teachers when it comes to a policy such as restorative justice the principal may need to rely
heavily on negotiation, persuasion, and compromise. This is assuming that the principal is in
agreement with a restorative justice policy to begin with. It is quite possible that the power of
persuasion at the district level has not fully persuaded the principal to implement a restorative
justice philosophy. The consequent lack of buy-in trickles down into the school site. However,
assuming the principal is in philosophical agreement with a restorative justice policy, it is up to
the principal to gather, analyze, and distribute to all teachers the resources that they want and
need not only to successfully implement policies, but sustain them, as well.
This study could allow principals to play a more significant lead role in collaboration
between stakeholders by not only championing restorative justice as a site policy, but by
generously creating opportunities for teacher collaboration and learning by setting aside time in
the school schedule to do so. Principles can also ensure that teachers do not work in isolation
from one another, but work collaboratively, giving each other help and guidance to improve
instructional practices (Louis et al., 2010). Principals also have the capacity to foster appropriate
inter-district collaboration in which sister schools can exchange data and collaborate on what
strategies work and what strategies need improvement (Fullan, 2007). Principals have the ability
to increase mutual learning and eliminate the practice of teachers working in silos, both of which
are productive moves that benefit all stakeholders and allow for the stainability of any program.
District Administrators
District administrators need to realize that policy shapes implementation, but
implementation also shapes policy (La Rocque, 1986). A restorative justice policy is often
assumed to be a script to be followed. However, each school within the district has specific
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 22
intrinsic qualities and its own unique culture, which results in the need to adapt any restorative
justice policy to meet the needs of that school’s culture.
The teacher responses in this study remind district administrators that a productive
restorative justice policy needs to be viewed as an evolution of the ideas within the policy as they
apply to specific settings (La Rocque, 1986). More importantly, this study could allow district
administrators to realize that change often does not occur overnight and that given the
progression and strength of a school’s culture and the value of tradition and pride at each school,
change cannot be expected to occur quickly.
Definition of Terms
Challenge
The situation of being faced with something that needs great mental or physical effort to
be done successfully and therefore test a person’s ability.
Classroom
A learning space, typically in a school, in which students are taught.
District administrator
A person who directs and manages a school district, overseeing all aspects of the
district’s operational policies, objectives, and initiatives.
Implement
To put a plan, policy, or measure into action.
Prepared
Ready to do or deal with something.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 23
Principal
The head of a school who overseeing all its daily activities and maintaining its various
systems. Principals are subordinate to the local superintendent.
Restorative justice
The National Centre for Restorative Approaches in Youth Settings defines restorative
justice as “an innovative approach to offending and inappropriate behavior which puts repairing
harm done to relationships and people over and above the need for assigning blame and
dispensing punishment” (Hopkins, 2003, p. 3). A restorative approach in a school shifts the
emphasis from managing behavior to focusing on building, nurturing, and repairing relationships
(Hopkins, 2003).
Restorative justice practices
Specific, tangible strategies that exemplify restorative justice while serving a purpose for
each specific incident.
Support
To assist a person, cause, or interest.
Teacher
A person who helps students acquire knowledge, competence, or virtue via the practice of
teaching.
Willful defiance
Disrupting school activities or otherwise willfully defying the valid authority of
supervisors, teachers, administrators, school officials, or other school personnel engaged in the
performance of their duties (California Education Code Section 48900(k)(1)).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 24
Zero tolerance
Considering its use over the years, zero tolerance can best be defined as a “philosophy or
policy that mandates the application of predetermined consequences, most often severe and
punitive in nature, that are intended to be applied regardless of the seriousness of behavior,
mitigating circumstances, or situational context” (Skiba et al., 2006, as cited in Teske, 2011, p.
130).
Assumptions
Positionality
I am an active educator and an active police officer. As an educator, I have taught both
high school and community college students. At high school, classroom management was just as
time-consuming as navigation through the lesson plan. Some of my students admitted their lack
of intrinsic motivation for class by exclaiming that the sole purpose of enrolling was to receive
the necessary credits to graduate. At community college, classroom management is a non-issue.
As a police officer, I have spent almost 20 years in one of the most violent areas in the nation. I
have witnessed a brazen disregard for the law and human life.
My ontology and the nature of my social reality are shaped by my experiences in the
classroom as well as on the streets as a police officer (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This has led
to an epistemology and an idea about what I know and how I came to know what I know
(Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). My perspective is just one of many; multiple realities exist and are
constructed. By taking a constructivist approach to combat my biases, I was able to construct an
in-depth, contextually detailed understanding of the needs of individuals (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 25
Needing to deal with students misbehaving in class, as well as needing to deal with
members of society misbehaving, I have experienced a variety of disciplinary policies. I have
had to implement those policies from a “bottom-up theory” practical application. Because I am a
street-level bureaucrat, I am responsible for implementing policies and laws, using them as my
everyday problem-solving strategies (Garces & Cogburn, 2015).
As a street-level bureaucrat, I have had to personally administer punishment in
educational and law-enforcement settings. I have seen and personally contributed to the
disproportionate numbers of Black and Hispanic students subjected to disciplinary action.
Assumptions
Teaching requires dedication, hard work, engaging students, and a passion for learning.
However, it was an assumption that the teachers I interviewed were honest, ethical, and had the
sound moral judgment to provide reliable information. It was also assumed that the teachers I
interviewed had sufficient experience with implementing restorative justice practices to fulfill
the requirements of this research study. I also assumed that the participating teachers would
voluntarily provide critical feedback that could assist with future restorative justice practices,
which could lead to positive student outcomes and minimize marginalization.
Limitations
This study focused on only those teachers who had been asked to implement restorative
justice practices in schools. The results of this study may not be generally applied to a larger
population of teachers because not all of the teachers interviewed had attempted to implement
restorative justice strategies in their classrooms. Furthermore, the results of this study are based
on the participants’ perceptions and may not reflect the views of all the teachers who have
implemented restorative justice in their classrooms.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 26
Delimitations
The teachers interviewed for this study were from a school district in Southern California.
The results of this study may not be generalizable to other geographic regions or to other
teachers. The results of this study could be generalizable to teachers at a high school in
California that utilized restorative justice policies.
However, the personal experiences, prejudices, biases, and personal beliefs of the
researcher must not be included in the study, and objectivity must be maintained at all times. The
researcher must make a conscious effort when building rapport with interviewees not to reveal
any beliefs held by the researcher. This should eliminate any skewing of answers by interviewees
due to rapport that is established prior to the interview. Failure to acknowledge interviewees’
perspectives and inserting perspectives or an established theoretical perspective of the researcher
would marginalize and exploit the interviewees’ participation in the study, which would be a
serious ethical concern (Maxwell, 1992).
Conclusion
In Chapter 1, a historical method of discipline in schools, zero tolerance, was introduced
and critiqued. An inclusionary method, restorative justice, was introduced as an alternative. A
detailed analysis of the background of the problem of practice, as well as the purpose and
significance of the study, were also presented. Each of these three topics was examined through
the lens of three equally important yet equally distinctive roles within the educational system:
teacher, principal, and district administrator.
The ambiguity of what actually constitutes restorative justice practices, coupled with the
minimal research on which restorative justice practices are most successful, calls out for critical
research that allows for teachers’ experiences to be used as data (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 27
Organization of the Study
Implementation of Restorative Justice in Schools from a Teacher’s Perspective was a
qualitative study designed to identify best practices of restorative justice, using data collected
from teachers who had been tasked with implementing those practices. This dissertation is
organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 identifies the background of the problem as well as the
purpose of this study. Chapter 1 also defines key terms as they relate to restorative justice and
traditional disciplinary policies in urban schools. Chapter 2 provides a literature review that
analyzes four themes: origins and theory underlying restorative justice in schools; preparedness
and commitment to restorative justice; actions by teachers in implementing restorative justice
practices; and successes in implementing restorative justice. Chapter 3 contains the methodology
used for this research study and includes the sample population and how it was chosen, interview
questions, data collection, and analysis of the data. Chapter 4 is an exploration of the research
findings. Chapter 5 includes a summary of findings, implications, conclusions, and
recommendations. References and appendices are included in the conclusion of this research
study.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 28
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Research about restorative justice practices in schools does exist, but additional research
needs to be conducted to understand the experience of implementing restorative justice from the
teacher’s perspective. This chapter spotlights a series of topics relevant to the objectives of the
study and that provided a foundation for analysis and synthesis of the literature reviewed in
preparation for this study. The topics are the origins and theory underlying restorative justice in
schools; preparedness; commitment; challenges that teachers have experienced; and
implementation phenomena by teachers, which includes successes or recommendations for
improvement.
Search Description
In an effort to locate scholarly articles for this study, the researcher used different search
engines such as USC libraries and Google Scholar. The researcher searched by using keywords
including: restorative justice, history of restorative justice, restorative justice as a policy,
restorative justice in schools, restorative justice in high schools, restorative justice in urban high
schools, restorative justice as a school policy, restorative justice as a school disciplinary policy,
teacher implementation of restorative justice in schools, and teacher implementation of
restorative justice in high schools.
Theoretical Framework
Two frameworks served as the inspiration for this study. The first was sensemaking
theory because it suggested that the ways in which practitioners interpret a situation have an
impact on behavior (Weick, 1995; Weick et al., 2005). Restorative justice requires fundamental
shifts in the conceptualization and the practice of school discipline, so it is important to
recognize how individuals’ beliefs and attitudes impact the implementation of policies.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 29
Practitioners change their practices in part based on their understanding of the policy (Coburn,
2001). However these same practitioners interpret policy based on what they already understand
(Spillane et al., 2006). Because new policies are interpreted through prior knowledge and
experience, new ideas are often hard to learn and are either interpreted differently or
misunderstood (Spillane et al., 2006). Sensemaking assisted with explaining how two different
practitioners, with the same amount of information or training, can implement a policy in vastly
different ways. Sensemaking theory is particularly relevant to programs such as restorative
justice because it draws on philosophies such as community restoration as opposed to
punishment. Community restoration does not necessarily come with a list of specific instructions
on how to restore a community, which would more than likely require practitioners to rely on
prior knowledge or experience.
The second framework was bottom-up theory, and similarly to sensemaking theory,
bottom-up theory recognizes that the decisions practitioners make formulate or implement
policies and shape the impact the policies have (Lane, 1983). According to bottom-up theory, the
everyday problem-solving strategies of those tasked with policy implementation can influence
the delivery of the policy and mediate the implementation (Lipsky, 1980). From a bottom-up
perspective, should conflicting priorities arise between the policy and those who oversee
implementing the policy, the practitioner uses coping strategies to deflect directed programs
toward personal objectives (Lane, 1983). Bottom-up theory is particularly relevant to restorative
justice practices because a practitioner may need to make an effort to reduce possible conflict
between policy requirements and personal values.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 30
Origins and Theory Underlying Restorative Justice in Schools
Restorative justice was not originally designed for schools. The earliest applications of
restorative justice in the United States were in the criminal justice system, where evidence of the
effectiveness of restorative justice practices led to calls to implement those practices on a broader
scale (Sherman & Strang, 2007). Braithwaite (1989) conceptualized restorative practices within
the criminal justice system, focusing on committed crimes that were harmful not only to the
victims but to victims’ families, community members, and the offender. Restorative justice seeks
to repair those harms by bringing together those most closely affected by the incident and
working toward an agreement about how to repair the harm (Latimer et al., 2005).
Reintegrative shaming in a school setting acknowledges the impact of wrongdoing on the
offender and those who were harmed (Braithwaite, 2004). Shaming can be implemented via
direct actions, such as requiring a student to apologize publicly or indirectly, perhaps when a
teacher expresses disappointment about a student’s behavior to a parent. The concept of
reintegrative shaming is at the core of restorative justice because it leads to reconciliation with
and reacceptance of the wrongdoer and attempts to reintegrate the offender back into the
community as opposed to excluding the wrongdoer from the community. The principles of
restorative justice can also be applied to noncriminal behaviors, such as student misbehavior in
schools.
Research has indicated that punitive sanctions such as suspensions and expulsions may
have a dangerous effect on minority and poor students resulting in a “school-to-prison pipeline”
(Losen, 2014). Minority students are suspended three times more than White students in
American public schools (Payne & Welch, 2010). At one school district in Texas, Black students
were 26.2% more likely than White students to receive suspensions for their first offense, in
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 31
comparison to students who committed similar offenses, such as poor attendance, inability to
progress to the next grade, failure to graduate, and subsequent involvement in the juvenile justice
system (Osher et al., 2010; Skiba & Peterson, 2000).
Marginalized students may not be committing more serious offenses but may be more
likely to receive exclusionary discipline for offenses vaguely defined as “disrespectful” or
“willful defiance” (Payne & Welch, 2010). Teacher and administrator biases may lead to
disproportionate disciplinary actions toward students of color (Skiba et al., 2002). These biases
may impact how teachers view student behavior and notice misconduct. For example, preschool
teachers who were asked to monitor classroom video footage for “problem behaviors” and
teachers focused on Black boys in the classroom more than any other demographic profile
(Gilliam et al., 2016). Students labeled as defiant or difficult to deal with are more likely to
internalize these labels and act out in ways that match the expectations set for them (Johnson,
1995).
Restorative justice can impact racial discipline gaps within our public schools. In 2018,
four years after the implementation of restorative justice practices in the Los Angeles Unified
School District, discipline records showed that suspension rates for misconduct dropped for
Black, Latino, and Asian students, students with disabilities, and English learners (Augustine et
al., 2018). Another report focusing on restorative justice implementation at a high school
indicated that racial disproportionality in suspension rates for Black and White students
decreased after implementation (Fowler et al., 2016). An additional report determined that after
schools from Denver Public Schools implemented restorative practices, the suspension rate
dropped for Black and Latino students. The discipline gaps between Black and White students
narrowed, as did gaps between Latino and White students (González, 2015).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 32
Literature points to a high school in Queensland, Australia as possibly the first school to
implement school-based restorative justice practices, in response to an assault at a school-
sanctioned event (Blood, 2005; Sherman & Strang, 2007). Following this work, restorative
practices in schools were adopted widely across Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom,
other European nations, and eventually in Canada and the United States.
More than simply punishment, school discipline can be viewed as an opportunity for
learning, growth, and the building of a community (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005). In contrast to
traditional forms of zero-tolerance discipline, such as suspensions and expulsions, restorative
justice focuses on the inclusion of students who misbehave by holding them accountable for their
actions while at the same time providing support for their learning and growth. Restorative
practices take into consideration all participants’ perspectives and allow for all parties involved
to explain their unique perspectives.
Preparedness
Strong professional development programs are crucial for teachers and administrators to
understand specific restorative techniques and the reasoning behind the shift from traditional
punishment approaches to restorative justice approaches (Mayworm et al., 2016). It is
particularly important for teachers to receive training on restorative justice practices because
teachers frequently do not receive sufficient preservice training on classroom management and
certainly not on strategies that align with a restorative justice approach (Johansen et al., 2011).
By participating in professional development, teachers learn to lead meetings with students and
facilitate the examination of nonverbal cues, encourage reflection, and learn to convey a message
of equality among students (Kaveney & Drewery, 2011). Formal restorative justice training
teaches practitioners how to solve problems and foster group cooperation while ensuring
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 33
sensitivity to all participants (Mayworm et al., 2016). Rubio (2018) conducted in-depth
interviews with 10 research participants and reported that nine indicated “having district-
provided professional development and support was necessary for effective implementation of
restorative practices.” Liberman and Katz (2017) conducted a study of restorative justice in
Rhode Island schools and noted that practitioners believed a three-week training was “effective
in teaching the philosophy of restorative practices and implementing key restorative practice
tools” (p. 13). This study also revealed that practitioners appreciated the longer training period
because it provided opportunities to learn approaches, practice them in the classroom, and then
come together to improve their execution. Liberman and Katz (2017) emphasized that training
should include ongoing professional development with skilled facilitators, such as one-on-one
coaching, on-the-ground learning through shadowing, and learning through feedback after
leading conferences. Professional development that allows teachers to integrate what they have
learned into their classrooms as opposed to receiving “one-shot” training has resulted in better
outcomes (Hunzicker, 2011). Mihalic et al. (2004) found that teachers who did not receive
follow-up support across time stopped fully implementing the program or discontinued the
program altogether.
Consultants are ideal resources for addressing cultural considerations such as discipline
disproportionality because they are encouraged to be mindful of factors related to racial disparity
that are prevalent within the school context. These factors include barriers faced by culturally
diverse parents with children in school and biases that teachers may hold about ethnically diverse
students (Lott & Rogers, 2005).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 34
Commitment
According to Guckenburg et al. (2016), considerable time and resources are required to
build a successful restorative justice program. Brown (2017) argued that developing and
nurturing a culture that includes listening and connection through community-building circles
support school community members as they go through the challenging and sometimes difficult
process of changing their school culture. A commitment to whole-school implementation must
be embedded within a framework that honors the well-being and interconnected nature of all
stakeholders (Hopkins, 2011). Commitment also involves clearly and emphatically justifying the
need to change the school model of discipline because school staff, parents, and community
members may be resistant to a restorative model that diverges so greatly from a traditional,
retributive justice approach to responding to student misbehavior (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012). This justification has the most impact if data are used to support the need for a new
disciplinary process and if the community is offered opportunities to learn about the nature of
restorative justice. Thes data should consist of lowered referral rates, lower suspension rates,
overall satisfaction, as well as less racial disproportionality in discipline (Mayworm et al., 2016).
School leaders who demonstrate their buy-in are critical to the sustainability and effectiveness of
implementation (Liberman & Katz, 2017). According to an analysis of restorative justice
implementation by Liberman and Katz (2017), school principals and administrators can
demonstrate buy-in by discussing referrals, sitting in on conferences, meeting regularly with
teachers and staff, and providing the time necessary for adequate training for teachers whose
schedules are already very busy with little-to-no flexibility. It is crucial that school
administrators believe in the restorative justice philosophy because it may be necessary to
educate the community about what restorative justice is and what it is not; present findings from
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 35
other schools that have used a restorative justice approach; and work in collaboration to identify
a method of implementing restorative justice that is accepted by the broader community
(Mayworm et al., 2016). School districts should ensure that decisions about discipline and the
policymaking process consider all stakeholders, such as teachers, administrators, offenders,
victims, families, and community members, to ensure buy-in from all participants in system
change (Kiddle & Alfred, 2011). Restorative practices often require parental permission to
engage, so it is recommended to have materials about the restorative approach and parent
conferences to clarify the differences between the restorative and traditional discipline
approaches (Liberman & Katz, 2017).
One way to sustain restorative justice practices is to integrate the practices across the
entire school and district instead of having the practices be add-ons to an existing disciplinary
process (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). As when implementing other school programs, teachers
need to be supportive of restorative justice for it to be successfully sustained (Kiddle & Alfred,
2011). Restorative justice requires a long-term commitment and regular assessment of changes to
confirm that a culture shift is actually taking place and in what form (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012). After an initial implementation phase, school surveys should be collected to identify
teachers who may benefit from group or one-on-one consultation for reasons such as referring
numerous students to the office; referring a disproportionate number of ethnically diverse
students; self-identifying as needing support using restorative practices; or identified through
observations as needing additional support (Mayworm et al., 2016).
Commitment also needs to be in the form of patience. It may take a long time for
restorative justice to show signs of school culture improvement, and school leaders, teachers, and
community members need to have patience that change will come.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 36
Challenges
With new policy implementation, a lack of buy-in from stakeholders can be detrimental
to success. In a study surveying over 360 educators in California, 52% of respondents agreed that
closing racial discipline gaps should be a district priority. That same majority pointed to factors
other than teacher or administrator discretion in discipline, like implicit bias and student income
level, to explain the racial discipline gap. Forty percent of the respondents believed that
parenting is responsible for higher suspension rates, 42% of the respondents believed that student
behavior is responsible for higher suspension rates, and 48% of the respondents believed that the
students’ neighborhood is responsible for higher suspension rates (Dhaliwal et al., 2023).
Dhaliwal et al. (2023) also indicated that finding sufficient time to implement restorative
justice practices proved to be a major hindrance (mean = 2.90). The next most strongly cited
hindrances to implementing restorative practices were a lack of will (mean = 2.57) and a lack of
professional development (mean = 2.51). The relatively low emphasis on lack of leadership or
support from the school, district, and parent/community members (mean = 2.02) as a hindrance
was surprising given the importance of leadership frequently found in policy implementation
literature (Honig, 2006; Leithwood et al., 2002) and regarding restorative practices (Anyon et al.,
2016; Lustick, 2021).
A study reflecting the importance of leadership from a principal’s perspective was
conducted at Harper Elementary School, located in an urban area of Texas. The school hired a
new principal, who audited the school’s discipline data and discovered that exclusionary
discipline was a central issue impacting the school’s culture and climate. This finding caused the
principal to enact restorative justice practices at the school (Farr et al., 2020). Although the new
principal’s efforts reflected elements of social justice leadership by critically interrogating the
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 37
school’s data, identifying inequities, and taking action (Bogotch, 2002; DeMatthews &
Mawhinney, 2014; McKenzie et al., 2008; Theoharis, 2007), the new principal drastically
underestimated the complexity of enacting restorative justice in a racially diverse school situated
within a gentrifying community (Farr et al., 2020). Initial meetings that the new principal held
prior to implementing restorative justice were met with both support and skepticism, with
educators referring to restorative practices as “going soft” on kids and creating dangerous, unruly
school environments (Farr et al., 2020). Despite this distrust from the principal’s own staff and
the fact that Harper Elementary School was not officially identified as a restorative justice school
by the district, the new principal did not hesitate to enact restorative practices at the school (Farr
et al., 2020). Pushback resulted almost immediately when one student punched another in the
face, and rather than being suspended, the offender was allowed to go directly back to class. The
pushback came from not only the parents of the victim but from staff as well. Staff continued
throughout the school year with comments of disapproval, such as “A friend of mine worked at a
school where they did restorative justice, and she told me the students quickly figured out they
could get away with murder” and “Kids need consequences” or “They just aren’t responding to
this touchy-feely stuff” and “I’ve been here 21 years, and I’ve never seen children behave this
way” (Farr et al., 2020). This is consistent with research conducted by Liberman and Katz
(2017), where they discovered that one obstacle to smooth implementation was the belief that
restorative justice was “soft on students” or that students would take advantage of leniency to
misbehave. Understanding that not everyone will agree with a restorative justice philosophy is
crucial.
One of the ultimate goals of the research conducted by Dhaliwal et al. (2023) was to
explore how attitudes and beliefs predict both hindrances and the reported effects of
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 38
implementing restorative justice practices. The study found statistically significant hindrances to
implementing restorative practices were the participants’ beliefs about punitive discipline, the
degree to which school-based factors explain racial discipline gaps, and the level of
understanding about restorative practices. Participants who more strongly believed in punitive
discipline, such as zero tolerance, suspensions, and expulsions, reported greater hindrances to
implementing restorative justice practices. Participants who believed that school-based factors
such as implicit bias and teacher/administrator discretion are sources of the racial discipline gap
similarly reported high levels of hindrances. These results could either suggest that educators
who hold these beliefs work in school contexts where challenges to restorative justice
implementation are frequent, or they are less committed to restorative practices and find it
difficult to adhere to its implementation. Participants who strongly believe teachers at their
school site have a clear understanding of restorative practices are associated with reporting fewer
hindrances to implementation, perhaps because they work in schools that are more committed to
implementing restorative justice (Dhaliwal et al., 2023).
Implementation by Teachers
No matter how extensive the restorative justice program is, administrators and educators
need access to the tools and resources necessary to fund, implement, and evaluate their program
successfully (Ashley & Burke, 2009). Assessing the types of professional development often
offered has led some researchers to conclude that to ensure educators are able to implement
restorative justice practices successfully in their classrooms, training should include having
educators “live” restorative justice practices by honoring conflicting voices and making every
attempt to eliminate prejudice and oppressive power, while simultaneously encouraging
nurturing and empowerment for all (Vaandering, 2014).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 39
The three most common restorative justice practices used in schools by teachers and staff
are circles, conferences, and peer mediation (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Boyes-Watson & Pranis,
2015; Hopkins, 2004, 2011; Morrison, 2007; Pranis, 2005; Riestenberg, 2012). Each practice
exemplifies restorative justice and provides a purpose for each specific behavioral incident. A
circle is a highly structured intentional space designed to promote group connection,
understanding, and dialogue. The circle is a powerful tool for building relationships, establishing
norms, and working through differences. The circle fulfills the basic community function
because it holds a balance between individual needs and group needs (Boyes-Watson & Pranis,
2015). Utilizing ancient traditions from the indigenous people, a talking piece is used to regulate
conversation so that each person in the circle has an equal opportunity to speak. Only the person
holding the talking piece speaks while all the other stakeholders listen, and when that person has
said what they want to say, the talking piece then gets passed to the next person within the circle
(Pranis, 2005). With assistance from the talking piece, circles help facilitate equity, which is
especially important considering that traditionally marginalized students often have unequal
access to the communicative conventions of dominant groups (Bickmore, 2014).
Restorative conferencing is similar to talking circles because the participants usually
involve the person or people who have been adversely affected and their parents/supporters, as
well as the person or people responsible for causing the harm and their supporters (Hopkins,
2004). One key factor with conferencing is the elimination of labeling. As previously mentioned
in this chapter by Johnson (1995), students labeled as defiant or difficult to deal with are more
likely to internalize these labels and act out in ways that match the expectations set for them.
Hopkins (2004) reinforced this concept by forbidding the labels of “victim” or “offender” or
even “bully” in conferencing because labeling young people in this way can have long-term
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 40
damaging effects. Furthermore, restorative responses are focused on the person’s actions and not
their identity, so labeling the person rather than the behavior is incongruent with restorative
values. The purpose of a conference is to establish what harm was caused, why the harm was
done, what is needed to put things right, and how the situation can be avoided in the future
(Graef, 2000).
The idea of peer mediation is not novel and, when conducted correctly, can increase a
climate of care and cooperation at a school site and free up teachers to address more serious
problems that arise while giving peer mediators the task of assisting their peers with low-level
social problems and conflicts (Hansberry et al., 2017). Peer mediators work with students to help
solve issues by asking restorative questions that focus on the issue and help students to find their
own solutions to the problem. Peer mediators do not tell students what to do, nor do they give
advice. Rather, they support younger students in finding their own solutions. This is important in
building problem-solving skills and resilience in younger students (Hansberry et al., 2017).
Identification and selection of capable peer mediators are paramount. Peer mediators should be
able to relate to others and interact effectively with a diverse group of people in various settings.
Peer mediators need to have the ability to listen actively, recognize different points of view,
negotiate, and share ideas (Hansberry et al., 2017). Students who have the ability to relate well
with others are open to new learning and able to take on different roles in different situations.
They are aware of how their words and actions affect others and know when it is appropriate to
compete and when it is appropriate to collaborate. By working together, students can determine
new approaches, ideas, and problem-solving methods (Hansberry et al., 2017). Peer mediators
also need to understand the significance of the community. Community competency includes a
capacity to contribute appropriately as a group member, to make connections with others, and to
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 41
create opportunities for others in the community. Peer mediators who participate and contribute
to communities have a sense of belonging and the confidence to participate in new groups with
different contexts. They understand the importance of balancing rights, roles, and responsibilities
and contributing to the quality and sustainability of social, cultural, physical, and economic
environments (Hansberry et al., 2017).
Successes
One of the first restorative practice studies examined incidents at schools and reported
that stakeholders (i.e., victims, offenders, supporters, and administrators) were generally satisfied
with the process and outcomes achieved, including reducing repeat offenders (Cameron &
Thorsborne, 2001). One school district in Minnesota found that over a three-year period,
behavior referrals for physical aggression were reduced from 773 to 153, and suspensions were
reduced from 110 to 55 (Stinchcomb et al., 2006). A study conducted involving schools in
Pittsburgh found that schools that participated in the restorative justice practices of conferences
and circles showed significantly lower suspensions and better teacher perceptions of restorative
justice as a policy (Augustine et al., 2018). Augustine et al. (2018) also compared 22 restorative
justice control schools and discovered that with the implementation of restorative justice
practices, there was a 16% reduction in days lost to suspensions. This reported reduction in
suspension days was statistically significant among certain student subgroups, including Black,
low-income, female, and special-needs students. Armour (2013) reported an 84% drop in out-of-
school suspensions in one Texas school during the first-year restorative justice practices were
introduced and a 19% drop in all suspensions. Colorado schools that implemented restorative
circles and conferencing experienced a 44% reduction in out-of-school suspensions and an
overall decrease in expulsions across the three-year post-implementation period (Baker, 2009).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 42
In Oakland, California, Cole Middle School experienced an 87% drop in suspensions
across the first two years of implementation compared to the prior three years, and expulsions
were eliminated after restorative justice was implemented (Sumner et al., 2010). More recent
figures from Oakland suggest continued success, with a 74% drop in suspensions and a 77%
decrease in referrals for violence during a two-year follow-up (Davis, 2014). West Philadelphia
High School reported “violent acts and serious incidents” dropped 52% in the first year that
restorative justice practices were implemented, and this initial drop was followed by an
additional 40% drop through the first half of year two (Lewis, 2009). Goldys (2016) reported that
implementing restorative justice practices at an elementary school resulted in a 55% decrease in
office referrals. González (2015) reported that during restorative justice implementation, the
suspension rate at Denver Public Schools dropped from 10.6% to 5.6%, with significant drops
for Black students (17.6% to 10.4%) and Latino students (10.2% to 4.7%).
Following the implementation of restorative justice practices in the Los Angeles Unified
School District, a 2018 analysis of discipline records indicated that suspension rates for
misconduct dropped for all measured categories of students (Hashim et al., 2018). Gregory and
Clawson’s (2016) research on two large, diverse East Coast high schools indicated that
disciplinary referrals dropped by 21% after restorative justice implementation. In classrooms
where students indicated that teachers employed even one restorative practice, the suspension
rate for Black and Latino students was statistically significantly lower than in classrooms that did
not employ restorative practices (Gregory & Clawson, 2016).

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 43
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this study was to conduct qualitative research to analyze how teachers
responded to implementing restorative practices in their classrooms, how prepared and supported
teachers felt with the implementation of restorative justice practices in their classrooms, what
challenges teachers may have had with the implementation of restorative justice practices in their
classrooms; and what ideas teachers had about how the implementation of restorative justice
practices could be improved. By understanding teachers’ experiences, this study identified best
practices for school districts to employ when implementing restorative justice practices. From
their unique and profound classroom perspective, teachers can provide insight into the
interactivity among the systems and structures that create discipline policies. Using these data in
a comprehensive and organized manner led to an understanding of whether the components of a
disciplinary policy, such as restorative justice, are successfully or unsuccessfully implemented.
Research Design
Five research questions guided this study and framed the research method for data
collection. This phenomenological study focused on exploring and understanding how teachers
made sense of and experienced their world (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). The purpose of
phenomenological research is to produce clear, precise, and systematic descriptions of the
meaning that constitutes the activity of consciousness (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). This research
studied individual experiences and focused on describing how a phenomenon is universally
experienced.
Qualitative methods were used to access essential, insightful understanding of successful,
or failed, implementation of restorative justice practices in high school. In qualitative studies,
researchers are interested in understanding how people understand their experiences, how they
construct their words and what meaning they attribute to their experiences (Merriam, 2009).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 44
Qualitative research was appropriate for this study because it allowed for the experiences,
perspectives, and practices of teachers who deal with students’ disruptive behavior in the
classroom more than any other stakeholder to be used as data for analysis. Qualitative data
collection relies on various sources of information, including interviews and document analysis
(Merriam, 2009). Teachers are able to provide insight into the interplay among the different
systems, structures, and stakeholders that fundamentally contribute to policy implementation
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Their words were the heart of the data collected for this study.
Research Questions
To gain insight into restorative justice strategies utilized in classrooms, the following
were the guiding research questions:
RQ1: How are teachers implementing restorative justice practices?
RQ2: How prepared are teachers to implement restorative justice practices?
RQ3: How supported are teachers in implementing restorative justice practices?
RQ4: What are the challenges in implementing restorative justice practices?
RQ5: How can implementing restorative justice practices be improved?
Setting
Advances in information and communication technologies offer new opportunities for
interviewing research participants (Kenny, 2005). For the research participants, an online Zoom
interview was more attractive than an in-person interview because of an additional benefit of a
video-recording program; additionally, Zoom allowed the interviewer to concentrate on the
interview rather than writing notes (Gray et al., 2020).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 45
Participants
Target and Accessible Population and Sample
The target population was teachers in the United States trained in restorative justice, who
worked in schools with restorative justice policies, and who had experience implementing
restorative justice. The accessible population was teachers in Southern California who had been
trained in restorative justice, worked in a school with restorative justice policies, and had
experience implementing restorative justice. The sample was eight teachers in a Southern
California district who met the criteria above.
Sampling Method
There are several qualitative sampling strategies (Patton, 2002). Three of those strategies
were used to conduct research for this study: convenience sampling, purposeful sampling, and
snowball sampling. These sampling strategies and how they were used in relation to the study
sample of eight teachers are discussed below.
Convenience sampling involves engaging individuals or research sites most accessible to
the researcher (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). Any time a practitioner-scholar adopts specific
sampling criteria, they are engaging in a purposeful sampling strategy (Lochmiller & Lester,
2017). The participants in this study were selected based on the specific criteria listed above.
This purposeful sample of teachers was selected because it offered useful manifestations of
restorative justice in practice, not simply quantitative empirical generalizations derived from a
sample and applied to a population.
Finally, because restorative practices might be an official policy at a school but not
implemented by all teachers, snowball sampling was used in this study, allowing interview
participants to guide the further development of the sample by identifying which teachers are
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 46
implementing restorative justice practices in their classrooms (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017).
Conversely, snowball sampling also prevented the researcher from interviewing any teachers
who may work at a school with an official restorative justice policy that has not been
implemented.
Recruitment
Teachers in my immediate circle of contact were reached via a recruitment letter (see
Appendix A) and an email describing the research purpose. The email explained that I was a
doctoral student working on my dissertation about implementing restorative justice practices in
the classroom from the teachers’ perspective. I also explained to teachers that I was interested in
their experiences because they were tasked with implementing the policy, not the policymaker. I
assured potential participants that I was conducting only research on this policy and no
judgments would be made concerning their classroom management or how they performed as a
teacher. It was made clear to each teacher that the goal of the research was to understand their
personal response and perspective on implementing restorative justice practices in their
classrooms. It was explained that the interview would be a recorded Zoom session lasting
approximately 60 minutes. I asked those teachers within my personal circle to assist with the
identification of other teachers within their personal circles who also met the criteria of working
at a school that had a restorative justice policy, had attempted to implement the policy in their
classroom, and would be willing to participate in the study. I also explained to the teachers in my
personal circle that I was looking for only eight participants, and the first eight to agree to
participate would receive a $25 gift card. My phone number and email address were provided so
any willing participants could contact me.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 47
Data Collection
Following University of Southern California Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval,
those teachers who responded to the recruitment email and met the established research criteria
were asked to complete the study’s two instruments of data collection: a demographic survey
(see Appendix B) and an interview (see Appendix C).
Demographic Survey
The survey collected information such as years of experience, age, and self-identified
demographic status. These intersections were chosen because they served as a method to provide
insight regarding who provided the responses and assisting the researcher with describing
specific characteristics of the sample of teachers being questioned (Robinson & Leonard, 2019).
Interview Protocol
The interview questions were based on the five research questions: (a) How are teachers
implementing restorative justice practices?; (b) How prepared are teachers to implement
restorative justice practices?; (c) How supported are teachers in implementing restorative justice
practices?; (d) What are the challenges in implementing restorative justice practices?; and (e)
How can implementing restorative justice practices be improved? Using a semi-structured
interview, the researcher was able to provide specific interview questions but also have some
flexibility for various responses to each question.
The questions were presented in a question-and-answer format, giving the respondent as
much time as needed to answer each question. Participants were asked to elaborate on their
classroom experiences regarding implementing restorative justice practices in their classrooms.
The open-ended interview process is helpful in highlighting the main points of the participants
experiences with implementing restorative justice practices in their classrooms.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 48
Procedures
Prior to being interviewed, each participant signed an informed consent form (see
Appendix D). Each participant was assured that the interview would be 60 minutes, but if more
time were needed, the participant would be requested to meet again. Participants were also
allowed to select a date and time that was convenient for them to be part of our Zoom interview.
Verbatim transcripts from Zoom were used to analyze each interview and convert them
into text files. The text files were then cross-checked with the original audio recording of each
interview to ensure the transcripts were accurate. Participants were each emailed a transcript
copy of the interview, a copy of the notes taken, and a video file of the Zoom interview. Also
included in this email (see Appendix E) was a suggestion to contact me if they had any
comments or suggestions.
Confidentiality Parameters
Interview participants received assurance that our conversations were confidential. I
assured each participant that pseudonyms would be used for all the teachers interviewed and for
the name of the schools at which they taught. I explained to participants that the data for this
study would be compiled into a report and that while I planned on using some of what they said
as direct quotes, none would be directly attributed to them by name. Prior to each interview, I
confirmed the interviewee’s comfort with recording the conversation. I also reminded
participants that they had the option to drop out of the study at any point. All of the information I
verbally communicated to participants was also provided for them in a hard copy (see Appendix
F) presented prior to the recorded interview. Once verbal and written consent were obtained,
each interview could begin.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 49
Data Management
I am knowledgeable about current cybersecurity practices and have the latest McAfee
Total Protection (2020) software to protect my personal information and documents. Research
data were protected with two-factor authentication for Windows login security, and backup data
were stored in Google Drive. Regarding the two-factor authentication and security, I ensured that
access to all confidential and sensitive data were managed appropriately by using strong
passwords, restricting user permissions to the files being used, and locking the workstation when
it was not in use.
Data were collected, saved, and coded with pseudonyms to protect the identity of each
participant. Each interview was transcribed and coded to identify common themes throughout
each interview. Physical copies of transcripts, notes, and other documents were stored in a
locked filing cabinet in a secure location. After five years, all documents will be destroyed with a
paper shredder. All digital files stored on the computer used during the study will be permanently
deleted. The highest priority of data management is to protect the privacy and well-being of the
participants. No personal information was disclosed to anyone under any circumstances.
Data encryption was used for additional protection for data gathered. It was stored using
a coding system to ensure each participant’s privacy. The encryption accompanied the data as it
passed through all networks, the Internet, database, and application servers.
Dissemination of Findings
Dissemination of research results is a critical piece of the research process. If vital
information does not reach those who need it, in this case, such as teachers, students, community
members, certificated staff, classified staff, teacher unions, and all other stakeholders, the
replication of the successful research is futile. This dissemination of research was pivotal to the
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 50
transfer of successful best practices, spotlighting restorative justice strategies, documentation of
unsuccessful implementation, and highlighting strategies to improve restorative practices at
schools. Research findings can be disseminated in several ways, including publishing in peer-
reviewed journals, presenting at professional development for teachers, principals, and district-
level administrators, and during Internet conferences.
Data Analysis
There were two types of data analysis: descriptive and thematic. A descriptive analysis
for this study was completed using the demographic survey data submitted. Thematic analysis
was conducted using the answers from teacher interviews.
Descriptive Analysis
The demographic survey (see Appendix B) data were collected and exported from
Atlas.ti to Excel (Office, 2019) for analysis. Demographic data were analyzed using averages
and percentages.
Thematic Content Analysis
Thematic content analysis (TCA) was a descriptive presentation of qualitative data used
for this study, with data extracted from the transcripts of the semi-structured interviews
conducted with the teachers. The six-step process of TCA (i.e., familiarization, coding,
generating themes, reviewing themes, defining and naming themes, and writing up) was used to
analyze the results of the interviews. Zoom transcription, which provides verbatim transcription
with 90% accuracy from recordings, was also used for thematic content analysis. With Atlas.ti
software, I examined and coded the data to identify recurring themes, topics, ideas, and patterns
of meaning that appeared. Transcript checking is a procedure utilized in qualitative research to
improve credibility, validity, and accuracy (Hagens et al., 2009). I compared the handwritten
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 51
notes to the recorded Zoom transcripts for this study to verify accuracy. Quotes and other
research findings from the TCA were organized to correspond with each of the five research
questions.
Reliability
These next sections explain the different elements of quality criteria commonly applied to
assess the trustworthiness and transparency of qualitative research. Reliability is a concept that
refers to producing consistent results time after time (Guba, 1981). If the dependability,
confirmability, validity, credibility, and transferability aspects of the research are taken into
consideration, qualitative research should be trustworthy and transparent.
Dependability
Dependability refers to the consistency and reliability of the research findings and the
degree to which research procedures are documented, allowing someone outside of the research
to follow, audit, and critique the research process (Age & Gustavsson, 2016). In this study, I
have provided a detailed explanation of my methodology, research design, implementation, and
details of data collection, which allow anyone from outside of this research to duplicate this
study. Also provided are my ontology, epistemology, the nature of my social reality, how I came
to know what I know, and the acknowledgment that this self-assessment of subjectivity can
reduce bias and increase dependability by increasing the transparency of the research process
(Guba, 1981).
Confirmability
To achieve confirmability, researchers must demonstrate that the results are clearly linked
to the conclusions in a way that can be followed and replicated (Moon & Blackman, 2014). Even
though this may sound similar to credibility, confirmability has particular implications for
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 52
research that lead to policy recommendations. To achieve confirmability, steps must be taken to
help ensure that the findings are the result of the data collected from the participants and that the
evaluation of those data was determined by evidence (Guba, 1981). In this qualitative study, the
epistemological and philosophical position of the research was determined by the predisposition
of my social reality, what I know and how I came to know what I know, and my personal
experiences in the classroom (Lochmiller & Lester, 2017). I have clearly stated my positionality
to ensure that the results of this study are based on the participants’ experiences rather than mine.
Validity
Validation in qualitative research is trying to assess the “accuracy” of the results, as best
described by the researcher, the participants, and the readers (Creswell & Miller, 2000). Ensuring
validity in qualitative research involves conducting the investigation ethically. Member checks
form a common strategy for ensuring validity or credibility (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). In this
study, transcribing the Zoom recordings verbatim, as well as allowing each participant to edit or
make any corrections to the transcripts, confirmed the respondent validation, fulfilled the
member checking strategy precaution, and ensured trustworthiness and credibility with the
findings.
Credibility
The credibility of criteria involves providing evidence that the results of the interviews
are credible or believable from the participant’s perspective in the research (Trochim, 2022). The
semi-structured interviews were conducted with a set of standardized questions that were asked
of eight teachers who all met a specific criterion of teaching at a school with a restorative justice
policy and attempted to implement restorative practices in their classrooms. Even though each
teacher met the same criteria, the interview results were rich with diverse data because teachers
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 53
were able to discuss their personal experiences in their specific environment and provide a
detailed analysis of how the implementation of a policy such as restorative justice is not a one-
size-fits-all policy. Teachers revealed how adaptations are required, depending on several
factors: the culture of the school; diversity and culture of the classroom, which may differ from
one class to the next, even if the same teacher teaches the class; positionality of the teacher;
positionality of the principal; and the positionality of the district-level administrators. The
purpose of this study was to understand the phenomenon of implementing restorative justice
from the teacher’s perspective, and the teachers are the only ones who could legitimately judge
the credibility of the results (Trochim, 2022).
Transferability
Transferability refers to the degree to which the results of the interviews can be
generalized or transferred to other contexts or settings (Trochim, 2022). Because of the small
sample size of eight teachers and the unique criteria of each participant, this study may not be
generalizable according to quantitative standards (Maxwell, 1992). The purpose of this study was
to identify and begin to explain the phenomenon of implementing restorative justice in a
classroom because current research lacks clarity. Research was required for this topic to
understand, through multiple perspectives, the real-life application of this ambiguous policy
(Denzin & Lincoln, 2011).
Conclusion
This section detailed the researcher’s methods to properly and accurately obtain the data
necessary to strive toward answering the research question. The research questions were
designed to gain insight into how teachers experience the implementation of restorative justice
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 54
practices in their classrooms. Chapter Four delineates the findings by examining the data
collected concerning each of the five research questions.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 55
CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to examine how teachers experience the implementation of
restorative justice in their classrooms. Specifically, this study addressed the following research
questions: (a) How are teachers implementing restorative justice practices?; (b) How prepared
are teachers to implement restorative justice practices?; (c) How supported are teachers in
implementing restorative justice practices?; (d) What are the challenges in implementing
restorative justice practices?; and (e) How can implementing restorative justice practices be
improved? To answer these questions, the study recruited eight teachers who worked at a school
with a restorative justice policy, had been trained in restorative justice practices, and had
experienced implementing restorative justice practices in their classrooms. This chapter
represents the findings from the study on how teachers experienced the implementation of
restorative justice practices in their classrooms.
Each study participant was asked to complete four demographic survey questions,
allowing the researcher to gather and graphically represent background information about the
study sample. (see Table 1).
Table 1
Demographic Survey Results
Participant
Pseudonym
Age Level Race Teaching Highest
Education
Years of
Experience
Derek 45-49 Hispanic Masters 15-19
Sarah 45-49 Black Masters 15-19
Rebekah 30-34 Hispanic Bachelors 5-9
Phil 30-34 Asian Masters 5-9
Rachel 45-49 Asian Masters 15-19
Leah 40-44 Black EdD 15-19
Miriam 50-54 White Masters 25-29
Frank 30-34 Other Bachelors 5-9
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 56
Demographic Data Summary
These survey questions were used to determine the participants’ age, race, highest level
of education, and years of teaching experience. The data showed that the mean age was around
41, and the percentage of female participants was 63%, while the percentage of male participants
was 37%. A majority of the participants (63%) had over 15 years of teaching experience.
Research Question One: How are Teachers Implementing Restorative Justice Practices?
The findings for research question one reflected the sensemaking theory and the bottom-
up theory, the two frameworks that served as theoretical foundations for this study. During the
interviews, four of the eight participants spoke about how difficult it was to implement
restorative practices in their classrooms due to a lack of training in the practical application of
restorative justice practices. This theme of “lack of practical strategies” that was identified
through coding proved to be an obstacle for practitioners to implement restorative justice
practices with self-efficacy. Even though all participants had restorative justice disciplinary
policies at their respective school sites, and every participant was expected to implement
restorative justice practices ins their respective classrooms, it was unclear to half of the
participants what restorative practices look like in a practical setting. One participant reported
receiving emails from administrators indicating that restorative practices should be used in
teachers’ classrooms. However, the study participants’ training was theoretical and lacked
practical application. Participants expressed their struggles related to limited knowledge of
actual, specific practices that should be used. One teacher said, “I have received training from
my district on what restorative justice is, but that’s not a practical strategy. How can you expect
me to effectively enact it?”
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 57
Restorative justice requires fundamental shifts in the ideology of what school discipline
looks like, and if teachers do not have a clear understanding of what to do, they can defer to
sensemaking theory because practitioners change their practices in part based on their
understanding of the policy (Coburn, 2001). Additionally, if practical strategies are not provided
for restorative practices, teachers can interpret restorative justice through prior knowledge and
experience because new ideas are often hard to learn and are often either interpreted differently
or misunderstood (Spillane et al., 2006). Theoretical training is necessary for restorative justice,
but without training for specific restorative justice practices that can be used in a classroom,
teachers have no choice but to rely on prior knowledge. For example, the concept of community
restoration is fundamental for a successful restorative justice policy, but asking teachers to
“restore their community” is complicated work without practical strategies to apply.
Teachers frequently deal with students misbehaving and, over the years, have been given
various disciplinary policies designed to address those students. Teachers have become experts
in policy implementation from a “bottom-up theory” practical approach because, as street-level
bureaucrats, it is most often the teachers who implement the policies, not the policymakers
(Garces & Cogburn, 2015). Teachers are the experts on what works and what does not. Teachers
are required to innovate, adapt, and manipulate restorative practices to meet the needs of their
students and school’s culture. The second framework identified within the findings of research
question one is bottom-up theory, which says that the decisions practitioners make, or the
policies they formulate and implement, also shape the policies’ impact (Lane, 1983). The
teachers in the study who did apply non-traditional disciplinary practices in their classrooms
were not necessarily using restorative justice practices. Instead, they created hybrid versions of
social-emotional learning training or similar training they may have received throughout their
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 58
careers and utilized this training in the form of one-on-one conferences or counseling sessions.
One teacher stated, “I have received some training on domestic harmonizer, which has helped
with incidents in my classroom.” The everyday problem-solving strategies of those tasked with
policy implementation influence the delivery of the policy and mediate the implementation
(Lipsky, 1980).
The three most common restorative justice practices used in schools are circles,
conferences, and peer mediation (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Boyes-Watson & Pranis, 2015;
Hopkins, 2004, 2011; Morrison, 2007; Pranis, 2005; Riestenberg, 2012). Four of the eight
teachers interviewed mentioned the importance of relationship building as a priority for
classroom culture. Conferences emerged as a theme as the most frequently used strategy for
restorative justice. Although some teachers may not have realized it due to a lack of training,
their implementation conferences relate directly to the principles within the restorative justice
approach. For example, one teacher relayed a story about a student continually talking during an
assessment. After addressing the students’ behavior several times, the student yelled, “Okay!”
Rather than addressing this behavior immediately and in front of the other students in class, the
teacher decided to allow the student to calm down and later pulled that student aside and
explained that his behavior was unacceptable and should not continue. Restorative conferencing
involves the person or people who have been adversely affected and the person or people
responsible for causing the harm (Hopkins, 2004). However, if a classroom culture has not been
established and if daily bonding has not occurred between the student and teacher, conferencing
is not effective. Instead, it appears phony. One teacher stated, “I build relationships with daily
bonding, [like saying] ‘Hey, how was your weekend? What did you do? Because if I don’t, and a
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 59
personal issue or altercation comes up, the student will not want to discuss the issue or incident
with me.’”
One key factor with conferencing is the elimination of labeling. As previously mentioned
by Johnson (1995), students labeled as defiant or difficult to deal with are more likely to
internalize these labels and act out in ways that match the expectations set for them. Hopkins
(2004) reinforced this concept by eliminating the labels of “victim,” “offender,” or even “bully”
in conferencing because labeling young people in this way can have long-term damaging effects.
Furthermore, restorative responses are focused on the person’s actions and not their identity, so
labeling the person rather than the behavior is incongruent with restorative values. By allowing
the student time to cool off and not addressing the behavior in front of other students, the student
was not labeled as “defiant” nor was the student labeled as an “offender.” The purpose of the
conference is to establish what harm was caused, why the harm was done, what is needed to put
things right, and how the situation can be avoided in the future (Graef, 2000).
Another teacher provided an example in which she was able to conference with two
students after one threw a piece of gum at the other. This teacher had the intellect and the
resources to request the assistance of another teacher to monitor her class while she escorted the
two involved students to a secure location for a conference to discuss the incident. Outside the
classroom, the teacher allowed the students to express their feelings and took time to reiterate the
classroom rules and expectations. This effort to minimize labeling, and the possibility of long-
term, lasting effects of labeling, reinforce the fundamentals of a restorative justice policy and is
the exact opposite of traditional exclusionary disciplinary policies such as zero tolerance because
this scenario may have resulted in one or both of the students being suspended.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 60
Research Question Two: How Prepared are Teachers to Implement Restorative Justice
Practices?
One of the main themes that emerged from the findings for research question two was
how recently the participants had received restorative justice training. Taking into consideration
the ambiguity of the definition of the word “recently,” perhaps it is necessary to clarify the
importance of not only receiving initial training but training that is frequent, ongoing, and
includes professional development with skilled facilitators, such as one-on-one coaching,
learning through shadowing, and learning through feedback (Liberman & Katz, 2017). Seven of
the eight teachers interviewed indicated that the last restorative justice training any of them had
received was at least two years ago. Professional development that allows teachers to integrate
what they have learned into their classrooms as opposed to receiving “one-shot” training has
resulted in better outcomes (Hunzicker, 2011). Mihalic et al. (2004) found that teachers who did
not receive follow-up training across time stopped fully implementing the program or
discontinued the program altogether. The only teacher who did receive follow-up training
explained the reason:
my school district had taken the initiative on social-emotional learning and with that
we’ve been able to receive resources, professional development, and the district even
formulated a committee that contracted guest speakers who have come to update us on
how to work through restorative justice approaches.
Another theme that emerged from research question two was who, in particular, received
follow-up training and who did not. One teacher responded, “I don’t know why I didn’t receive
any follow-up training. I know other staff have received follow-up training, perhaps maybe they
think I don’t need it.” This was an interesting response because it appears the district is providing
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 61
follow-up training on restorative justice, but it is not available to everyone. Another respondent
who has taught for more than 30 years made the statement, “I’m on my way out, so maybe they
didn’t want to waste the training on me.” This may indeed be the case, or is it that the district is
reserving the training for particular teachers who lack classroom management skills? Johansen et
al. (2011) reported that it is particularly important for teachers to receive follow-up training on
restorative justice practices because teachers do not receive sufficient preservice training on
classroom management and certainly not strategies that align with a restorative justice approach.
Perhaps there is a disconnect between administrative staff and teachers regarding why certain
teachers receive follow-up training and why some do not.
Another theme was the lack of effectiveness of the training. Four of the eight respondents
indicated that the training they received did not properly prepare them for the implementation of
restorative justice practices in the classroom. One respondent stated, “I don’t feel as if I have
been trained properly. Teach it to me by people who are doing it.” Another respondent stated, “I
feel like there’s always a disconnect between the idea of it and maybe the reality of it.”
Research Question Three: How Supported are Teachers in Implementing Restorative Justice
Practices?
This “one-shot” training philosophy created a theme because four of the eight participants
made statements about training for new policy, such as, “That’s how it is, they put a new policy
in place, we all receive training, and then we never hear anything about it again.” Another
teacher responded to this phenomenon by saying, “Welcome to the world of education.”
Restorative justice requires a long-term commitment and regular assessment of changes to
confirm that a culture shift is occurring and in what form (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).
Support also needs to be in the form of patience because it may take a long time for restorative
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 62
justice to show signs of school culture improvement, making it imperative that school leaders,
teachers, and community members all need to have patience. One teacher responded:
We need consistent and specific training. I feel like we are given one 8-hour training, and
you get no time to discuss, and you just do it. Or, you know, we’ll just move on to the
next thing next year anyway, so who cares? If you’re going to choose one as a school
site, really choose it for like five years, and having that, you know, first year is education,
second year is we come together and let’s talk about how we failed, what we need and
how we can do better.
Another teacher responded:
non-committal. It was, you know, we’re not going to lead by example. You’re going to
do what we say, and we’re not going to give you enough of the tools and resources to
even show you how. The expectation has always been there, but they’ve always fallen
short on what that would look like, and it’s never been consistent.
After an initial implementation phase, school surveys should be collected to identify
teachers who may benefit from group or one-on-one consultation for reasons such as referring
numerous students to the office; referring a disproportionate number of ethnically diverse
students; self-identifying as needing support using restorative practices; or being identified
through observations as needing additional support (Mayworm et al., 2016). Of note, it is quite
possible that the disconnect I referred to earlier in regard to administrative staff and teachers may
not be a disconnect at all. Administrators could very well be conducting observations of teachers
and determining who requires additional support and training and who does not, making those
observations the reason why some of the teachers received additional training and some did not.
However, it is important to note that not one of the eight teachers interviewed mentioned school
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 63
surveys for teachers to self-identify as needing support using restorative practices, nor did any
teachers recall being observed while attempting to implement restorative justice practices in their
classroom.
Another theme identified was a lack of support from counselors and school
administrators. Three of the eight teachers interviewed mentioned feelings of a lack of support
from outside of their classrooms. One respondent stated:
I don’t feel that restorative justice is successful because I’m not supported by my
administrators or my counselor. I should be able to collaborate with my administrators,
counselors and students and together explain proper guidance, rules and regulations for
the school and the overall expectations on our campus when it comes to restorative
practices, and we all need to give the student the why because I think most of our
students are unaware. Students don’t understand why we have restorative practices, and
we can no longer suspend.
A commitment to whole-school implementation must be embedded within a framework that
honors the well-being and interconnected nature of all (Hopkins, 2011). Support also involves
justifying the need to change the school model of discipline because school staff, parents, and
community members may be resistant to a model that diverges so greatly from a traditional,
retributive justice approach to responding to student misbehavior (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012).
The concept of understanding the “why” for a new disciplinary policy was an additional
theme for research question three. The justification used to support the need for a new
disciplinary process and provide the school community the opportunity to learn about restorative
justice has greater impact if data are presented. These data should consist of lower referral rates,
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 64
lower suspension rates, and lower racial disproportionality in discipline (Mayworm et al., 2016).
Three of the eight respondents indicated they believed that restorative justice practices should be
implemented in schools, but they explained that they did not think other stakeholders have been
educated on the importance. One respondent stated:
I think restorative justice creates a more equitable environment for all students, but
specifically benefiting those historically marginalized students who have been adverse
recipients of traditional discipline in American schooling, but I don’t believe our parents
or other students feel that way.
Another respondent stated, “Show me the data that it works. I’ve heard the data is out there. I
haven’t gone looking for it myself, but it would motivate me.”
Research Question Four: What are the Challenges in Implementing Restorative Justice
Practices?
From a bottom-up perspective, the practitioner uses coping strategies to deflect directed
programs toward personal objectives should conflicting priorities arise between the policy and
those who are in charge of implementing the policy (Lane, 1983). Bottom-up theory is
particularly relevant to restorative justice practices because a practitioner may make an effort to
reduce possible conflict between policy requirements and personal values. One theme identified
from the findings related to research question four was lack of buy-in. School districts should
ensure that decisions about discipline and the policymaking process consider all stakeholders
such as teachers, administrators, offenders, victims, families, as well as community members, to
ensure buy-in from all participants in change (Kiddle & Alfred, 2011). Not one of the eight
teachers interviewed remembered being asked by administrators if they were in agreement with a
restorative justice policy at their school.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 65
One teacher expressed reservations about the policy:
I feel like there’s this pendulum swing in education where we want to solve issues by
going the opposite way. So, if the issue is that we are a manifestation of systemic racism,
and we are targeting Black and brown students, unconsciously or consciously, in our
discipline, we swing to the other side where now there’s no discipline. There’s no
suspensions. I mean, we’ve heard stories of students getting away with physical attacks
on teachers. It happened in my wife’s district, where some student has taken some sort of
physical action against a teacher, and the administration has done nothing. I know of
instances where teachers have had to call the police themselves because the administrator
would not support them.
Another teacher responded, “This is a lot of extra work for us. Sending them out of class is easy.
And the student isn’t being held accountable.” A third teacher stated:
We have to do more work, and the accountability just isn’t matching up right. For
instance, if I have a student that I don’t know, is disrespectful or yelled at another
student, or possibly, you know, put hands on the student, I should, you know, give them a
chance to rectify it, and if they don’t, then the next time it happens again, then I call
them. Then I have to document that. So, I have to type that all up that I documented. If it
happens again, there’s at least three or four different things that I’m required to do before
I can send the kid to the guidance counselor before there is a parent conference where the
administrator speaks with them or the counselor speaks with them.
These responses could reflect the results of a research study conducted by Liberman and
Katz (2017) that reported one obstacle to smooth implementation was the belief that restorative
justice was “soft on students” or that students would take advantage of leniency to misbehave. It
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 66
is crucial to understand that not everyone will agree with a restorative justice philosophy. These
responses may also relate to a study conducted by Dhaliwal et al. (2023) that explored how
attitudes and beliefs predict both hindrances and the reported effects of implementing restorative
justice practices. Some of the teachers in this study may have found difficulty with implementing
restorative justice practices because of their beliefs about punitive discipline; the degree to which
school-based factors explain racial discipline gaps; and the level of understanding restorative
practices is statistically and significantly related to hindrances in implementing restorative
practices. Teachers who more strongly believe in punitive discipline such as zero tolerance,
suspensions and expulsions report greater hindrances to implementing restorative justice
practices (Dhaliwal et al., 2023).
Instilling teacher buy-in and self-efficacy are certainly crucial elements of successful
implementation of restorative practices. However, the lack of buy-in may not just be associated
with teachers. School administrators are just as susceptible to attitudes and beliefs that can
produce hindrances with the implementation of restorative practices or any new policy. The
relationships that teachers have with those who support their work in the classroom, namely
principals, heavily influence teachers’ overall success (Kraft et al., 2020).
Research Question Five: How can Implementing Restorative Justice Practices be Improved?
One theme identified with the findings from research question five was a lack of
leadership from school administrators. One respondent said:
It needs to start with the principal. I want a clear mission and vision where we are
heading—I mean, you’re the leader. So, tell me where we are going. Tell me why we’re
going there. Give me that data. Get us on board. Get some buy-in.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 67
Another teacher responded, “To be honest with you, there was no further discussion after
we received the initial training. There was no follow-up and definitely did not lead from the top
down.” Principals can create a school culture that ensures teachers do not work in isolation from
one another, but work collaboratively, giving each other help and guidance to improve
instructional practices (Louis et al., 2010). Principals also have the capacity to foster inter-district
collaboration in which sister schools can exchange data and collaborate on what strategies work
and what strategies need improvement (Fullan, 2007). Principals have the ability to minimize
teachers working in silos and increase mutual learning, which would benefit all stakeholders and
allow for sustainability. However, as mentioned above, it may not be a lack of buy-in from
teachers. It may be the principal impeding the progress of restorative practices. Whether this
obstruction by school leaders is implicit or explicit, the lack of buy-in will migrate down. One
teacher responded regarding her school’s principal by saying, “He doesn’t want controversy. He
doesn’t want to get involved in anything that could lead to any backlash from anybody. He just
wants everybody working in isolation.” School leaders, principals in particular, learn from data,
but to make effective decisions, principals also need “soft” information about the organization’s
culture and politics. The only way a principal can gain this intelligence is to talk to people with
critical knowledge about the situation. Principals who leave their teachers working in silos make
the success of any policy implementation difficult.
Of note, responses to other research questions that involve themes such as training and
support can imply the ways that implementing restorative justice practices can be improved. For
example, one teacher responded to research question five by saying, “I would like to see
somebody teach me how to do it in my classroom. I would like to see it in action myself. I’d like
to observe it. Just make everything clearer.” This was an appropriate response for question five,
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 68
but the theme of training was discussed by all teachers who were interviewed in almost every
single research question. Four of the eight teachers responded to research question one with
training-related issues and all eight teachers responded to research questions two through five
with training-related issues.
Summary
Schools that decide to implement restorative justice do so to address a number of issues.
One of the most common reasons is to address the overuse of exclusionary discipline practices
such as zero tolerance that result in suspensions and expulsions. To be successful, restorative
justice requires training, staff buy-in, time and patience, and school leadership, so that restorative
justice can integrate into a school’s overall philosophy to address school climate, culture, and the
social-emotional growth of students (Fronius et al., 2019).
A policy such as restorative justice cannot be a political statement expressed in words but
not backed by deeds. School leaders need to do more than just claim their school is
implementing restorative justice to appease those who are either advocating for restorative
justice or against traditional exclusionary practices. School leaders need to lead by taking action
and leading by example. School leaders need to train practitioners, have patience to allow the
culture change that is required for restorative justice to be successful to take place and then see if
through to fruition, be available to communicate, collaborate, and follow up with practitioners. If
practitioners are not given the tools that they need to succeed they will either perform their job to
minimal expectations or refuse to implement the new policy. Either scenario is detrimental to
students’ success. Chapter Five helps identify recommendations that could help educators gain
the confidence and self-efficacy that is crucial for successful implementation of restorative
justice practices in the classroom.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 69
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this study was to analyze how teachers implement restorative practices in
their classrooms; how prepared and supported teachers feel with the implementation of
restorative justice practices in their classrooms; what challenges teachers may be having with the
implementation of restorative justice practices in their classrooms; and teachers’ ideas about how
the implementation of restorative justice practices can be improved. By understanding teachers’
experiences, this study helped to identify best practices for school districts to employ when
implementing restorative justice practices. These best practices include building teachers’ self-
efficacy; developing and/or improving professional development curriculum for restorative
justice practices; creating a shared understanding of what restorative justice is; and providing
additional support for teachers that facilitates successful implementation. Following is a
summary of findings, discussion, and suggestions for future research and recommendations.
Summary of Findings
Research Question One: How are Teachers Implementing Restorative Justice Practices?
Based on the responses of participants who were interviewed, findings for research
question one revealed how difficult it was to implement restorative justice practices in teachers’
classrooms due to a lack of training, and in particular, training that provided practical
applications of restorative justice practices that could actually be used in their classrooms. This
theme of a “lack of practical strategies” was identified through coding and, for teachers, proved
to be an almost insurmountable barrier because it was unclear to the participants what restorative
justice looked like in a practical setting. The success of restorative justice, to the extent to which
its intent is achieved, depends on what happens during implementation and the changes that
actually occur in the district or schools (La Rocque, 1986). It is crucial that district-level
administrators do not view the implementation of restorative justice practices in schools as a
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 70
hierarchical relationship between policymakers and policy implementers or that of manager and
subordinate. Nor should it be assumed that policymaking and policy implementation are to be
bounded and successive activities, with the implementation resulting from the “irresistible
unfolding” of the policy (Majone & Wildavsky, 1979). Essentially, even if the policy is well-
formulated, the successful implementation is not a foregone conclusion. Collaboration between
stakeholders with a policy such as restorative justice has to include training that provides
specific, practical strategies to be used successfully in a classroom.
Research Question Two: How Prepared are Teachers to Implement Restorative Justice
Practices?
Based on the responses of participants who were interviewed, findings for research
question two exposed a concern with training issues. Although each participant expressed an
individual and exclusive rationale for their training-related issues, none felt content with the
training they had received. Ultimately, these training issues led to a lack of self-efficacy in
implementing restorative justice practices in the classroom. Due to insufficient training,
respondents were forced to rely on prior knowledge from previously received, non-restorative
justice training to implement what they believed was restorative justice. All the respondents
claimed to support restorative justice intrinsically, but this assumes that all respondents answered
truthfully. The respondents’ overall grievance was training. A lack of training led to a lack of
self-efficacy to implement, which led to a lack of buy-in and confidence in restorative justice as
a policy, eliminating any success their school may have had toward a successful culture change.
All respondents agreed that to improve restorative justice practices, a commitment from school
leadership in the form of practical, functional training needs to be the priority.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 71
One of the goals of this study was to identify best practices for restorative justice
implementation. However, what was discovered is that due to a lack of training, implementation
by teachers interviewed was neither consistent nor strategic, which minimized respondents’
confidence in identifying best practices. Only one of the eight respondents was comfortable
providing examples of best practices for implementing restorative justice policies. That
respondent was also the only teacher to have school leaders who had buy-in for restorative
justice and worked in the only district identified as providing any follow-up training with
restorative justice.
Research Question Three: How Supported are Teachers in Implementing Restorative
Justice Practices?
Based on the responses of participants who were interviewed, findings for research
question three revealed a lack of support from counselors and school administrators with regard
to collaboration and connectivity. School administrators and counselors need to collaborate with
teachers to create a dynamic, living document of resources that can be used by not just teachers,
but principals as well. The voice of the teacher is crucial to determine best practices for
implementing a successful restorative justice policy at a school. Principals learn from various
types of hard data, such as financial and operational data, and strategic and functional plans.
However, to make effective decisions, principals also need information about the organization’s
culture and politics. The only way a principal can gain this intelligence is to talk to the people
who have critical knowledge about the situation. Teachers frequently deal with students
misbehaving and have experienced a variety of disciplinary policies designed to address those
students. Teachers have become experts with policy implementation from a “bottom-up”
practical approach because as street-level bureaucrats, it is the teachers who implement the
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 72
policies, not the policymakers (Garces & Cogburn, 2015). Teachers are required to innovate,
adapt and manipulate restorative practices to meet the needs of their students and schools’
culture. Teachers in this study felt as if the implementation of restorative practices was simply lip
service to appease the public and ineffective, “one-shot” training philosophy was the window
dressing to appease the teachers.
Research Question Four: What are the Challenges in Implementing Restorative Justice
Practices?
Based on the responses of participants who were interviewed, findings for research
question four identified a lack of leadership as the most significant challenge teachers faced
while implementing restorative justice practices. Even though they believed in restorative
practices as a superior alternative to traditional, exclusionary disciplinary policies such as zero
tolerance, teachers in this study did not think that their school leaders agreed with them.
Certainly, if the school leaders did agree, for teachers, administrators, and counselors, there
would be more collaboration, more training, and more commitment to identifying best practices.
Many respondents criticized restorative justice because implementation required considerable
time and other resources for which no provisions had been established. Participants in this study
believed school leaders lacked buy-in with restorative justice but were required to implement it
anyway. One teacher commented that restorative justice does not work for every student, and
that some students still need to be suspended based on their behavior. One key requirement of
restorative justice is that the offender accepts responsibility for their behavior. Regret or remorse
can be useful indicators that an offender accepts responsibility for their actions; however, if no
guilt is expressed, other forms of discipline may need to be used for that student. One teacher
mentioned the pendulum that has swung so far one way that it seems students, particularly
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 73
students of color, appear incapable of being suspended. The response to systemic racism and
targeting students of color for discipline in schools cannot be no discipline at all.
Research Question Five: How can Implementing Restorative Justice Practices be
Improved?
Based on the responses of participants who were interviewed, findings for research
question five were a culmination of suggestions taken from previous research question
responses. For example, participants thought implementation could be improved if training
involved sufficient practical strategies to utilize in the classroom (RQ1). Effective training can
also improve implementation because training builds self-efficacy and confidence (RQ2).
Participants also believed if training were long-term and included follow-up support and
collaboration, as opposed to “one-shot” training, successful implementation of restorative justice
would be more likely (RQ3). Participants also thought that if school leaders truly had buy-in for
restorative justice, the resources required for successful implementation, such as training, would
not be lacking or substandard.
Participants also believed that if collaboration between all stakeholders improved,
successful implementation of restorative justice would also improve. Some respondents believed
there was a disconnect between administrator and subordinate, so if better multi-level
communication and collaboration were to take place, improvement with implementation would
also take place (RQ1). Specifically, some respondents did not think they were being heard by
administrators at their school and cited a lack of support, evidenced by a lack of collaboration
and connectivity regarding feedback and identification of best practices (RQ3). Communication
and effective teamwork assist with the identification of best practices and leadership is
responsible for creating the teams and initiating the teamwork. Participants thought improvement
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 74
in school leadership would improve with not only collaboration and teamwork but with the
implementation of restorative justice practices in the classroom.
Discussion
Stinchcomb et al. (2006) indicated that empirical research on the impact of restorative
justice practices in schools is sparse. That research is even more insufficient when describing
restorative justice practices from the perspective of a teacher. Policies such as restorative justice
cannot become stagnant. They need to adapt in real time and adjust to the world around them.
Students’ needs are continually changing and policies such as restorative justice need to change
with them. A concept of quality through continuous improvement, and consistent collaboration,
is crucial for a policy such as restorative justice to be successful.
Suggestions for Future Research/Recommendations
Recommendation One
A larger sample size would assist with the identification of best practices. One of the
goals of this study was to identify best practices for restorative justice in a classroom. However,
research responses revealed that due to a lack of training, collaboration, leadership, self-efficacy
and confidence, respondents were forced to rely on prior knowledge and their personal
interpretations of what practical strategies of restorative justice practices look like in a
classroom. A larger sample size of teachers would improve the probability of identifying
teachers who do have self-efficacy with restorative justice practices and therefore be able to
identify best practices for successful implementation.
Recommendation Two
The sample of teachers in this study all believed in the restorative justice philosophy. It
would be naive to think that every teacher at every school with a restorative justice policy
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 75
believes in it. This skewed data in favor of those truly embracing restorative justice and
transferred the responsibility for lack of success, such as insufficient training, collaboration, and
leadership, to administrators. Perhaps a sample of teachers who did not agree with restorative
justice as a philosophy would have self-identified as the most significant challenge to the
successful implementation of restorative justice, which, in turn, could have prompted further
research about training teachers in a way to achieve initial buy-in of a policy such as restorative
justice. If respondents of such an expanded sample would be entirely candid in their responses
about lack of buy-in, themes could have been identified explaining why some teachers do not
believe in restorative justice. With that information, curricula could be developed to combat a
lack of buy-in.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to understand and analyze how teachers implement
restorative practices in their classrooms; how prepared and supported teachers feel with the
implementation of restorative justice practices in their classrooms; what challenges teachers may
have with the implementation of restorative justice practices in their classrooms; and teachers’
ideas on how the implementation of restorative justice practices could be improved. Teachers
who participated in this study shared their lived experiences and detailed how restorative justice
practices are implemented in their classrooms. Educators expressed the importance of restorative
justice but did not believe their school’s leaders shared the same enthusiasm. Teachers said this
was not expressed in words by school leaders but rather by not properly training, supporting, and
collaborating with them in implementing restorative justice practices. If leadership is lacking, the
vision of restorative justice is lost, and any chance of successful implementation is futile. When
the strategic alignment is arranged to best support the fulfillment of restorative justice, it creates
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 76
a strong culture and allows for all stakeholders to embrace the school’s true vision and values
almost immediately (Hopkins, 2015). Restorative justice is not a policy that can be simulated or
fraudulent. Administrators, counselors, and teachers all need to believe in a policy like
restorative justice, or it will be evident to all involved. Restorative justice should not be a policy
forced onto a school simply to appease the public or a political party. Making a statement to the
media indicating that school suspensions have lowered with restorative justice policies in place
might be true, but if students on campus have increased their misbehavior, the policy is not a
success. Such media statements are simply irrelevant and misleading information serving to
obscure the truth of a situation. If implemented properly, restorative justice provides all
stakeholders a way to ensure accountability while simultaneously breaking the cycle of
retribution and violence and creating a positive school culture. Thoroughly trained and motivated
teachers are the heartbeat of that positive school culture. The findings of this study are an
important step toward helping teachers, principals, and district administrators create and
maintain that important heartbeat.

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 77
References
Age L. J., & Gustavsson B. (2016). The art of discovering—experiences of novice researchers.
Qualitative Research Journal, 16, 125-137.
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.
Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools:
Teaching responsibility, creating caring climates. Good Books.
Anyon, Y., Gregory, A., Stone, S., Farrar, J., Jenson, J. M., McQueen, J., Downing, B., Greer,
E., & Simmons, J. (2016). Restorative interventions and school discipline sanctions in a
large urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1663-1697.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831216675719
Armour, M. (2013). Ed White Middle School restorative discipline evaluation: Implementation
and impact, 2012/2013 sixth grade. University of Texas, Austin.
Ashley, J., & Burke, K. (2009). Implementing restorative justice: A guide for schools. Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority.
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. https://www.rand.org/pubs/researchreports/RR2840.html.
Baker, M. (2009). DPS Restorative Justice Project: Year three. Denver Public Schools.
Bickmore, K. (2014). Peacebuilding through circle dialogue processes in primary classrooms:
locations for restorative and educative work. In E. Sellman, H. Cremin & G. McCluskey
(Eds.), Restorative approaches to conflict in schools (pp. 175-191). Routledge.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 78
Blood, P. (2005). The Australian context: Restorative practices as a platform for cultural change
in schools. Paper presented at the XIV World Congress of Criminology, Philadelphia,
PA.
Bogotch, I. E. (2002). Educational leadership and social justice: Practice into theory. Journal of
School Leadership, 12(2), 138-156.
Boyes-Watson, C., & Pranis, K. (2015). Circle forward: Building a restorative school
community. Living Justice Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Restorative justice: Assessing an immodest theory and a pessimistic
theory. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 25, pp. 1-127).
University of Chicago Press.
Braithwaite, J. (2004). Restorative justice: Theories and worries (Visiting Experts’ Papers, 123rd
International Senior Seminar, Resource Material Series, No. 63, pp. 47-56). United
Nations Asia and Far East Institute for the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of
Offenders.
Brown, M. (2017). Being heard: How a listening culture supports the implementation of
schoolwide restorative practices. Restorative Justice: An International Journal, 5(1), 53-
69.
Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (2001). Restorative justice and school discipline: Mutually
exclusive? In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society (pp.
180-194). Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, R. J. (1998). School discipline in the United Kingdom: Promoting classroom behavior
which encourages effective teaching and learning. School Psychology Review, 27(1), 33-
34.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 79
Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading
policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
23(2), 145-170. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737023002145
Creswell, J. W., & Miller, D. L. (2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into
Practice, 39, 124-130.
Davis, F. (2014). Discipline with dignity: Oakland classrooms try healing instead of punishment.
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 23(1), 38-41.
DeMatthews, D. E., & Mawhinney, H. (2014). Social justice leadership and inclusion: Exploring
challenges in an urban district struggling to address inequities. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 50(5), 844-881.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2011). Introduction: The discipline and practice of qualitative
research. In Denzin N., Lincoln Y. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative research
(4th ed.). SAGE.
Dhaliwal, T., Daramola, E. J., Alonso, J. D., & Marsh, J. A. (2023). Educators’ beliefs and
perceptions of implementing restorative practices. Education and Urban Society, 2023,
55(1), 88-118.
Farr, B., Gandomi, M., & DeMatthews, D. (2020). Implementing restorative justice in an urban
elementary school: A principal’s commitment and experiences eliminating exclusionary
discipline. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 23(3) 48-62.
Fowler, B., Rainbolt, S., & Mansfield, K. (2016). Re-envisioning discipline in complex contexts:
An appreciative inquiry of one district’s implementation of restorative practices.
Presentation at the annual convention of the University Council for Educational
Administration.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 80
Freiberg, H. J., Stein, T. A., & Parker, G. (1995). Discipline referrals in an urban middle school:
Implications for discipline and instruction. Education and Urban Society, 27(4), 421-440.
Fronius, T., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hammond, S. D., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A. (2019).
Restorative justice in U.S. schools: A research review. WestEd.
https://www.wested.org/resources/restorative-justice-research-review/
Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass.
Garces, L. M., & Cogburn, C. D. (2015). Beyond declines in student body diversity: How
campus-level administrators understand a prohibition on race-conscious postsecondary
admissions policies. American Educational Research Journal, 52(5), 828-860.
Gilliam, W. S., Maupin, A. N., Reyes, C. R., Accavitti, M., & Shic, F. (2016). Do early
educators’ implicit biases regarding sex and race relate to behavior expectations and
recommendations of preschool expulsions and suspensions? Yale Child Study Center.
Goldys, P. (2016). Restorative practices: From candy and punishment to celebration and
problem-solving circles. Journal of Character Education, 12(1), 75-80.
González, T. (2015). Socializing schools: Addressing racial disparities in discipline through
restorative justice. In D. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable
remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 151-165). Teachers College Press.
Graef, R. (2000). Why restorative justice? Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.
Gray L. M., Wong-Wylie G., Rempel G. R., & Cook K. (2020). Expanding qualitative research
interviewing strategies: Zoom video communications. The Qualitative Report, 25(5),
1292-1301.
Gregory, A., & Clawson, K. (2016). The potential of restorative approaches to discipline for
narrowing racial and gender disparities. In R. Skiba, K. Mediratta, & M. Rausch (Eds.),
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 81
Inequality in school discipline: Research and practice to reduce disparities (pp. 153-
170). Palgrave Macmillan.
Guba, E. G. (1981). Criteria for assessing the trustworthiness of naturalistic inquiries.
Educational Technology Research and Development, 29, 75-91.
Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., Persson, H., Fonius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice
in U.S. schools: Practitioners’ perspectives. WestEd.
http://www.wested.org/resources/restorative-justice-practitioners-perspectives/
Hagens, V., Dobrow, M., & Chafe, R. (2009). Interviewee transcript review: assessing the
impact on qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology.
Hansberry, C. L., Thorsborne, M., & Hansberry, B. (2017). Restorative peer mediation for
schools: A manual for training and implementation. Jessica Kingley Publishers.
Hashim, A., Strunk, K., & Dhaliwal, T. (2018). Justice for all? Suspension bans and restorative
justice programs in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Peabody Journal of
Education, 93(2), 174-89.
Honig, M. I. (2006). Complexity and policy implementation. In M. I. Honig (Ed.), New
directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity (pp. 1-23).
SUNY.
Hopkins, B. (2003). Restorative justice in schools. Mediation in Practice, April, 4-9.
Hopkins, B. (2004). Just school: A whole school approach to restorative justice. Jessica
Kingsley Publishers.
Hopkins, B. (2011). The restorative classroom: Using restorative approaches to foster effective
learning. Optimus.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 82
Hopkins, B. (2015). From restorative justice to restorative culture. Social Work Review/Revista
De Asistenta Sociala, 14(4).
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional
Development in Education, 37, 177179. doi:10.1080/19415257.2010.523955
Johansen, A., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2011). An examination of New Zealand teachers’
attributions and perceptions of behaviour, classroom management, and the level of formal
teacher training received in behaviour management. Kairaranga, 12, 2-12.
Johnson, J. (1995). Life after death: Critical pedagogy in an urban classroom. Harvard
Educational Review, 65(2), 213-228.
Julius, D., Baldridge, V., & Pfeffer, J. (1999). A memo from Machiavelli. The Journal of Higher
Education, 70, 2, 113-133. doi:10.1080/00221546.1999.11780758
Kaveney, K., & Drewery, W. (2011). Classroom meetings as a restorative practice: A study of
teachers’ responses to an extended professional development innovation. International
Journal of School Disaffection, 8, 5-12.
Kenny, A. J. (2005). Interaction in cyberspace: An online focus group. Journal of Advanced
Nursing, 49, 414-422.
Kiddle, J., & Alfred, R. (2011). Restorative justice: A working guide for our schools. Alameda
County School Health Services Coalition.
Kraft, M., Falken, A., & Grace, T. (2020). Why school climate matters for teachers and students.
State Education Standard, 20(2), 33-35, 50.
Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., & Achilles, G. M. (2006). Suspension, race, and disability:
Analysis of statewide practices and reporting. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral
Disorders, 14(4).
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 83
La Rocque, L. (1986). Policy implementation in a school district: A multiperspective approach.
Canadian Journal of Education/Revue Canadienne de L'éducation, 11, 4.
Lane, J. E. (1983). The concept of implementation. Statsvetenskaplig Tidskrift, 86(1), 17-40.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A
meta-analysis. Ottawa: Canada Department of Justice Research and Statistics Division.
Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers’ motivation to
implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 94-119.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x02381005
Lewis, S. (2009). Improving school climate: Findings from schools implementing restorative
practices. International Institute for Restorative Practices
Liberman, K., & Katz, M. (2017). Implementing restorative justice in Rhode Island schools:
First-year implementation of case conferencing. Urban Institute.
https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/88936/implementingrestorativejustic
einrhodeislandschools0.pdf
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in public services.
Russell Sage Foundation.
Lochmiller, C. R. & Lester, J. N. (2017). An introduction to educational research: Connecting
methods to practice. SAGE.
Losen, D. (Ed.). (2014). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive
exclusion. Teachers College Press.
Lott, B., & Rogers, M. R. (2005). School consultants working for equity with families, teachers,
and administrators. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 1-16.
doi:10.1080/10474412.2005.9969524
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 84
Louis, K. S., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K., & Anderson, S. (2010). Investigating the links to
improved student learning: Final report of research findings. The Wallace Foundation.
Lustick, H. (2021). “Restorative justice” or restoring order? Restorative school discipline
practices in urban public schools. Urban Education, 56, 1269-1296.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042085917741725
Majone, G., & Wildavsky, A. (1979). Implementation as evolution. Policy Studies Review
Annual 1979, 2, 103-117.
Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational
Review, 62(3), 279-300.
Mayworm, A., Sharkey, J., Welsh, K., & Scheidel, K. (2016). Teacher consultation to enhance
implementation of school-based restorative justice. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 385-412.
McKenzie, K. B., Christman, D. E., Hernandez, F., Fierro, E., Capper, C. A., Dantley, M.,
González, M., Cambron-McCabe, N., & Scheurich, J. J. (2008). From the field: A
proposal for educating leaders for social justice. Educational Administration Quarterly,
44(1), 111-138.
Merriam, S. (2009). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. Jossey-Bass.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mihalic, S., Irwin, K., Fagan, A., Ballard, D., & Elliott, D. (2004). Successful program
implementation: Lesson from blueprints (No. NCJ 204273). U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 85
Moon, K., & Blackman, D. (2014). A guide to understanding social science research for natural
scientists. Conservation Biology, 28, 1167-1177.
Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school response to bullying,
violence and alienation. The Federation Press.
Morrison, B., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138-155.
National Education Association. (2011). Multiple responses, promising results: Evidence-based,
non-punitive alternatives to zero tolerance. http://www.nea.org/home/alt-zero-tolerance-
policies.html
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school
discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58.
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research & evaluation methods (3rd ed.). SAGE.
Payne, A., & Welch, K. (2010). Modeling the effects of racial threat on punitive and restorative
school discipline practices. Criminology, 48(4), 1019-1062.
Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of circle processes. Good Books.
Riestenberg, N. (2012). Circle in the square: Building community and repairing harm in school.
Living Justice Press.
Robinson, S. B., & Leonard, K. (2019). Designing quality survey questions. SAGE.
Rubio, R. (2018). Effective implementation practices of restorative justice: A qualitative case
study [Doctoral dissertation, LaFetra College of Education]. ProQuest database.
(10822810)
Sellman, E., Cremin, H., & McCluskey, G. (2014). Restorative approaches to conflict in schools:
International perspectives on managing relationships in the classroom. Routledge.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 86
Shafer, L. (2018). Building a strong school culture with foresight, intentional action, and
reflection, principals can shape the shared values of their school. Harvard Graduate
School of Education.
Sherman, L. W., & Strang, H. (2007). Restorative justice: The evidence. Smith Institute.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. L. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to
safe schools? Phi Delta Kappa, 80(5), 372-382.
Skiba, R. J. & Peterson, R. L. (2000). School discipline: At a crossroads: From zero tolerance to
early response. Exceptional Children, 66, 335-347.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Paterson, R. L. (2002). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review,
34(4), 317-342.
Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Gomez, L. M. (2006). Policy implementation and cognition: The
role of human, social, and disturbed cognition in framing policy implementation. In M. I.
Honig (Ed.), New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity
(pp. 47-64). SUNY Press.
Stinchcomb, J., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring
justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4, 123-147.
doi:10.1177/1541204006286287
Sumner, D., Silverman, C., & Frampton, M. (2010). School-based restorative justice as an
alternative to zero-tolerance policies: Lessons from West Oakland. University of
California, Berkeley, School of Law.
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 87
Teske, S. C. (2011). Collaborative role of courts in promoting outcomes for students: The
relationship between arrests, graduation rates and school safety. Family Court Review:
An Interdisciplinary Journal, 51(3).
Theoharis, G. (2007). Social justice educational leaders and resistance: Toward a theory of social
justice leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 43(2), 221-258.
Trochim, W. (2022). Research methods knowledge base: Qualitative validity. conjointly.
Vaandering, D. (2010). The significance of critical race theory for restorative justice in
education. Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 32(2), 145-176.
Vaandering, D. (2014). Relational restorative justice pedagogy in educator professional
development. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 508-530.
Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. SAGE.
Weick, K. E., Sutcliffe, K. M., & Obstefeld, D. (2005). Organizing and the process of
sensemaking. Organization Science, 16(4), 409-421.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.1050.0133

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 88
Appendix A: Recruitment Letter
Dear Mr./Ms. Last Name,
Thank you for your interest in my study on the practical application of restorative justice. I am
writing to ask whether you would be willing to pass along the enclosed information to fellow
teachers who may be interested in participating in this study. You are under no obligation to
share this information and whether or not you share this information will not affect your
relationship with the staff at the University of Southern California.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Mike Leese

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 89
Appendix B: Demographic Survey
Demographic Profile of the Teacher Respondents
Directions:
This research is focused on implementation of restorative justice in schools. Please answer the
questions below by checking the appropriate circle or by filling in the circle. Your responses will
be treated with the utmost confidentiality.
If you choose not to answer any of the questions, feel free to leave the question blank. Feel free
to select multiple answers rather than one single choice. As a reminder, this questionnaire is
voluntary.
1. What is your age
O 21-24 O 50-54
O 25-29 O 55-59
O 30-34 O 60 years old and above
O 35-39
O 40-44
O 45-49

2. What is your race (feel free to select multiple answers)
O American Indian or Alaskan Native
O Asian
O Black or African American
O Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander
O Latino or Hispanic
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 90
O White
O Some other race, ethnicity, or origin
O Prefer to self-describe
O Prefer not to say

3. What is your highest level of education
O Bachelor’s Degree O EdD PhD
O Master’s Degree O Others (Please specify)___________
4. How many years have you been teaching
O 1-4 O 15-19
O 5-9 O 20-24
O 10-14 O 25-29
O 30 or more years

IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 91
Appendix C: Interview
First of all, I would like to thank you for taking the time to answer a few questions for me
about restorative justice. As previously mentioned, I am a doctoral student working on my
dissertation on the implementation of restorative justice policies in the classroom from the
teacher’s perspective.
I am interested in your experiences because you are the one who is tasked with
implementing the policy, not the policymaker. I want to make it clear that I am strictly doing
research on this policy. I will not be making any judgments on your classroom management or
how you perform as a teacher. My goal is to understand your perspective.
Your school has a restorative justice policy. I will be interviewing several teachers from
this school and other schools who also have restorative justice policies. Let me assure you that
this conversation is confidential. I will use pseudonyms for all of the teachers interviewed, and I
will also change the name of the school you teach at. The data for this study will be compiled
into a report, and while I do plan on using some of what you say as direct quotes, none of this
will be directly attributed to you. I would like to record this interview so I can quote you
accurately. Is that okay?
I also want to remind you that you always have the option to drop out of this study at any
time. All of this information is included in the signed consent form in front of you. I just want to
make it clear before we begin.
I have promised that I will keep this interview to 60 minutes in length and I want to be respectful
of your time.
Do you have any questions at all before we begin?
1. If someone were to ask you what restorative justice is, what would you say to them?
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 92
a. If someone were to ask you what restorative justice may look like inside of a classroom,
what would you say to them? (RQ #1)
b. Can you give me an example of a recent time when you enacted restorative justice in
your classroom? (RQ #1)
c. Was that time successful? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4)
d. If yes, why? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4)
e. If not, why? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#4, RQ#5)
f. Do you feel confident with providing best practices for the use of restorative justice in a
classroom? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
g. If yes, why? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
h. If not, why? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
2. Can you tell me about the support you receive as a teacher that prepared you to implement
restorative justice in your classroom, if any? Was that support adequate? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3,
RQ#4, RQ#5)
a. Who provided the support? (RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
b. What does the support look like? (RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
c. What does the support sound like? What I mean by that is, can you recall a conversation
in which you felt supported as a teacher to enact restorative justice inside your
classroom? Can you describe that conversation? Who was that conversation with?
(RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
3. Can you please describe any professional learning opportunities you have received in the last
year related to restorative justice practices, if any? (RQ#2, RQ#3)
a. How did you hear about this professional learning opportunity? (RQ#2, RQ#3)
IMPLEMENTATION OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IN SCHOOLS 93
b. What were some of the reasons you decided to attend? (RQ#2, RQ#3)
c. Can you explain to me what a restorative justice professional development session looks
like? What were the strengths? What were the weaknesses? (RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)
4. How would you describe your principal’s role with the implementation of restorative justice at
your school? (RQ#3, RQ#4)
5. How would you describe your school district’s administrators with the implementation of
restorative justice at your school? (RQ#3, RQ#4)
6. What suggestions do you have to improve the implementation of restorative justice at your
school? (RQ#1, RQ#2, RQ#3, RQ#4, RQ#5)

Asset Metadata

Creator Leese, Mike (author)

Core Title Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Degree Conferral Date 2023-08

Publication Date 07/17/2023

Defense Date 07/15/2023

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag Challenge,implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,preparedness,restorative justice,support,teacher,willful defiance,zero tolerance.

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Advisor Riggio, Marsha (committee chair), Franklin, Gregory (committee member), Spann, Rufus (committee member)

Creator Email michaelleese16@yahoo.com,mleese@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC113281389

Unique identifier UC113281389

Identifier etd-LeeseMike-12096.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-LeeseMike-12096

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Leese, Mike

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20230719-usctheses-batch-1069 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email uscdl@usc.edu

Abstract (if available)

Abstract When exclusionary policies such as zero tolerance are utilized in K-12 education settings, they ostracize not only violent students but willfully defiant and disruptive ones. Granted, zero-tolerance policies acknowledge the problems that would ensue if schools allowed students to act in any way they deem appropriate, but because zero-tolerance policies result in the disciplinary exclusion of vast numbers of students, K-12 schools within the United States and elsewhere would find many more benefits by implementing a neutral disciplinary policy that addresses the offender with positive behavior support as a disciplinary approach that can achieve both social and academic success for all students. Restorative justice programs may offer this type of approach if they symbiotically incorporate a variety of programs within a school setting. Given the ambiguity of this and other definitions, it is unsurprising that many types of programs are classified as restorative justice. This ambiguity may confuse teachers regarding what actions they should take in their classrooms, which may minimize confidence, self-efficacy, and trust in a restorative justice policy. Teachers may think they understand how restorative justice works, but without professional development, relevant resources, or supportive follow-up that clarifies restorative practices, teachers will likely arrive at their own definitions of restorative justice, which can make work toward positive change in the common culture much more difficult (Hopkins, 2015). The purpose of this qualitative study was to explore how teachers experienced the implementation of restorative justice programs in their classrooms. Specifically, this study addressed the following research questions: (a) How are teachers implementing restorative justice practices?; (b) How prepared are teachers to implement restorative justice practices?; (c) How supported are teachers in implementing restorative justice practices?; (d) What are the challenges in implementing restorative justice practices?; and (e) How can implementing restorative justice practices be improved? To answer these questions, the study recruited eight teachers from large urban school districts working at schools with a restorative justice policy. The teachers chosen also had been trained in restorative justice practices and had experience implementing restorative justice practices in their classrooms. Interview data allowed the researcher to compare emergent themes and how themes addressed each of the research questions. These emergent themes included a lack of support from administrative staff, a lack of professional development, and a lack of funding and personnel to properly implement the culture change required for a restorative justice disciplinary policy to be successful.