University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study

(USC Thesis Other)

Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

Restoring Justice in Urban K-12 Education Systems:
An Evaluation Study

by

Adabel Reyes

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 2021

Copyright 2021 Adabel Reyes

ii
DEDICATION

To my son, Coatzín, you have fundamentally changed my life. Your beautiful brilliance, kind
heart, encouragement, and humor ground me. My life is not possible without you.
To my partner in life, Arturo Aguilar, your unconditional love and support for the person I am
are what strengthens my spirit. Thank you for being my forever.
To my mom, Gloria Reyes and dad, Antonio Reyes, les debo todo.
To Eliuth and Arturo Aguilar, thank you for loving me as your daughter.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am thankful for the guidance and support of my dissertation committee. Dr. Ekaterina
Moore, who served as the chair of my committee, never lost hope in me and provided the support
and thought leadership I needed to complete my dissertation. Dr. Artineh Samkian challenged
me to think more critically and provided invaluable guidance that will impact me beyond the
program. Lastly, Dr. Michele Hamilton gifted me with her wisdom of restorative practices that
continuously restored my spirit to remind me of my possibilities. I was among giants with my
dissertation committee. I give thanks to all the Rossier faculty that left behind the seeds that
grew in ways that make me a better contributor to my community.
I express deep gratitude to my comunidad that has supported and poured into me the love
and encouragement that got me through the doctoral program. Elba and Cuate, there are
believers, and you both embody what it means to believe in the people you care about. I care
and believe in you both just as much as you did in me throughout my doctoral program. Chef
Cienfuegos, you always see the best in people. Thank you for always seeing the best in me.
Oscar Escobar, some friendships are unexpected. The support you provided following my
Thursday classes filled my soul and motivated me to continue through another week when the
program’s weight, work, and life felt so heavy on my shoulders that doubt shadowed what I
knew I was capable of. Max and MaryAnn, maybe because we have been through worst, but
your support was perfectly enough. Thomas Roth, thank you for your spiritual support, wisdom,
and caring heart. Kindra Montgomery-Block, you have encouraged me with your grace from the
first day we met, but especially throughout the doctoral program, which always helped me see
my path forward in moments when I was in doubt. Brit Irby, my friend that would not let me
give up on myself. Your kind gestures throughout the program that still have a place on my

iv
office window seal will remain in my heart forever. Dr. Patrick Reyes, thank you for being life-
giving through your gifts and friendship, which brought me back to my faith during moments of
uncertainty. To the many friends that took the time to offer support or check in on my well-
being throughout my doctoral journey, I am wholeheartedly thankful for you.
To my familia, whose ancestral roots are the strongest and most beautifully empowering,
I learned to be resilient because of you. Because of my strong roots, I did not break. To all my
Reyes and Aguilar brothers, sisters, nieces, and nephews, I love you, and I look forward to
seeing where my roots lead me to next. To the two most significant people in my life, Coatzín
and Arturo, you shape what I know love to be. Thank you for loving me through and to the
completion of my doctoral program.
Lastly, to our Cohort Nine, we truly are the best cohort. I thank you for caring, continued
collective support throughout the program, and the memories that will live within my heart
always.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... iii
LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................viii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... ix
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
Introduction of the Problem of Practice ....................................................................................... 1
Organizational Context and Mission............................................................................................ 3
Organizational Goal .................................................................................................................... 4
Related Literature........................................................................................................................ 5
Importance of the Evaluation ...................................................................................................... 6
Description of the Stakeholder Groups ........................................................................................ 7
Stakeholder Performance Goals .................................................................................................. 8
Stakeholder Group for the Study ................................................................................................. 8
Purpose of the Project and Questions .......................................................................................... 9
Conceptual and Methodological Framework ............................................................................... 9
Definitions ................................................................................................................................ 10
Organization of the Project ........................................................................................................ 10

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............................................................. 12
Restorative Practices in K-12 .................................................................................................... 12
Responsive Interruption in K-12................................................................................................ 13
Punitive to Restorative ......................................................................................................... 14
Transformative Skill Building and Staff Education.................................................................... 20
Positive School Culture ........................................................................................................ 21
Rethinking the Schoolhouse ................................................................................................. 22
Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences
Framework ................................................................................................................................ 23
Teacher Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences ............................................... 24
Knowledge ........................................................................................................................... 24
Motivation ........................................................................................................................... 29
Organization......................................................................................................................... 33
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and the
Organizational Context ............................................................................................................. 37
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 40

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS .............................................................................................. 42
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 42
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale ........................................................................... 43

vi
Interview Sampling Recruitment Criteria and Rationale ....................................................... 44
Data Collection and Instrumentation ......................................................................................... 45
Interviews ............................................................................................................................ 45
Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................ 47
Credibility and Trustworthiness ................................................................................................ 48
Ethics ........................................................................................................................................ 49

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS ...................................................................... 52
Participating Stakeholders ......................................................................................................... 53
Determination of Assets and Needs ........................................................................................... 54
Findings for Knowledge Influences ........................................................................................... 55
Conceptual Knowledge ........................................................................................................ 56
Procedural Knowledge ......................................................................................................... 60
Metacognitive Knowledge .................................................................................................... 63
Motivation Influences ............................................................................................................... 65
Value ................................................................................................................................... 67
Self-Efficacy ........................................................................................................................ 70
Organizational Influences.......................................................................................................... 72
Cultural Model ..................................................................................................................... 73
Cultural Setting .................................................................................................................... 76
Synthesis of the Findings .......................................................................................................... 79

CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................. 81
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences...................................................... 82
Knowledge Recommendations ............................................................................................. 83
Motivation Knowledge ......................................................................................................... 87
Organizational Recommendations ........................................................................................ 89
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan......................................................................... 92
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations .................................................................. 93
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators ............................................................................... 94
Level 3: Behavior ................................................................................................................. 95
Level 2: Learning ................................................................................................................. 98
Level 1: Reaction ............................................................................................................... 101
Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................................ 102
Data Analysis and Reporting .............................................................................................. 103
Summary ............................................................................................................................ 106

Limitations and Delimitations ................................................................................................. 106

Future Research ...................................................................................................................... 107

Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 109

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 111

vii
APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH ...................... 120

APPENDIX B: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL ............................................................................ 123

APPENDIX C: PRE AND POST TEACHER PLC ASSESSMENT SURVEY........................ 127

APPENDIX D: BLENDED INSTRUMENT ........................................................................... 128

APPENDIX E: TEACHER FEEDBACK SURVEY TO ADMINISTER FOLLOWING EACH
PLC ........................................................................................................................................ 129

viii
LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Just School District Mission, Global Goal, and Stakeholder Performance Goals .......... 8
Table 2: Knowledge Influence and Knowledge Type ............................................................... 29
Table 3: Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Types ........................................... 33
Table 4: Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Type .................... 36
Table 5: Teacher Participant Demographics ............................................................................. 54
Table 6: Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................. 56
Table 7: Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data ............................................. 66
Table 8: Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data .......................................... 73
Table 9: Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations ....................................... 84
Table 10: Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations ...................................... 88
Table 11: Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations ................................... 90
Table 12: Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes ...................... 95
Table 13: Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation ............................ 96
Table 14: Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors ....................................................... 97
Table 15: Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program ................................... 101
Table 16: Components to Measure Reactions to the Program ................................................. 102
Table 17: Sample Pre and Post Assessment Reporting Following Completion of PLC ........... 105

ix
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Conceptual framework .............................................................................................. 38
Figure 2. Pre-assessment reporting conducted at pre-training to gather baseline data ............. 104

x
ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to explore the implementation of restorative practices in a
K-12 urban education system as an alternative to punitive discipline practices. Using the Clark
and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework, this qualitative study sought to evaluate the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to implementing restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Interview data from 10 secondary
grade-level teachers representing four secondary schools in a California K-12 district was
collected then analyzed to identify performance gaps and assets affecting the district’s ability to
implement restorative practices. This study found two knowledge gaps, one motivation and one
organization gap, that may impact secondary teachers’ ability to implement restorative practices
to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Evidence-based recommendations to address
the performance gaps and an implementation and evaluation plan using the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) are presented based on the findings of this
study.
Keywords: restorative practices, K-12 education, secondary teachers, perceived
challenging student behaviors.

1

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Introduction of the Problem of Practice
This dissertation addresses the challenges of implementing restorative practices in K-12
urban education systems as an alternative to punitive discipline practices. According to Amstutz
and Mullet (2005), restorative practices can be defined as promoting the values of inclusion,
collaboration, and community while validating the needs of those marginalized or that have
experienced harm. This is a significant issue to examine because research suggests there is a
direct correlation between the academic performance of students and punitive practices in K-12
education systems (Utheim, 2014; Wadhwa, 2016). The evidence indicates that K-12 teachers
are not equipped with the skills or knowledge needed to address perceived challenging student
behaviors in a restorative manner (Crosby, Day, Baroni, & Somers, 2015). Additionally,
Wadhwa (2016) argues that schools are at-risk of negatively impacting students’ academic
performance when alternative discipline practices such as restorative practices are not
implemented in K-12 urban education.
Implementing restorative practices in K-12 urban education systems is fundamentality
challenging. In particular, Amstutz and Mullet (2005) emphasize that the challenges of
implementing restorative practices exist when K-12 policies and values are not transparently
rooted in relationship building and the social-emotional health of students. Furthermore, K-12
education lacks training aimed at equipping school staff in restorative practices to better respond
to difficult student behaviors (Crosby et al., 2015). Consequently, Crosby et al. (2015) argue that
school staff often perceive negative student behavior as willful defiance instead of an indicator of
possible trauma or social-emotional distress, often resulting in punitive discipline actions.
However, a review of relevant literature suggests that restorative practices create safe and caring

2
learning environments and are responsive to the social-emotional needs of students in K-12
urban education (Gregory, Clawson, Davis, & Gerewitz, 2014; Lustick, 2015; Payne & Welch,
2013; Wadhwa, 2016).
Various studies indicate the significant value of integrating restorative practices in K-12
urban education to transform school culture, climate, and improve academic achievement
(Ginwright, 2015; Gregory et al., 2014; Hantzopoulos, 2013; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012;
Noguera, 2008). In particular, Morrison and Allen (2012) reveal that restorative practices
increase positive school-based relationships that interact at a social-ecological level. In other
words, restorative practices not only have the potential to change the dynamics of school-based
relationships; restorative practices can also influence the social-emotional behaviors of students
in the physical spaces they engage with outside of school. Kaveney and Drewery (2011) found
that in addition to improving learning environments, restorative practices improve student
behavior and increase their understanding of the impact of one’s behavior on others. Conversely,
when schools respond punitively to student behaviors perceived to be challenging, the
consequences can be substantial.
According to the California School Board Association (2017), more students in
California are suspended from school than graduate. Consequently, vulnerable students, such as
students who are justice-involved (E.g. active probation status within the juvenile justice system)
are at greater risk of being suspended, expelled or in some instances, arrested, resulting in the
school-to-prison pipeline (Macallair, 2015; Macallair, Males, Enty, & Vinakor, 2011). Castillo
(2014) argues that as a result of K-12 zero-tolerance policies, schools are increasingly referring
students directly to the criminal justice system due to behavior concerns. In 2015, there were
71,923 juvenile arrests in California. Of these arrests, 30% were for felonies, 58% were

3
misdemeanors, and 12% were for status offense arrest (Criminal Justice Statistical Center, 2015).
Wadhwa (2016) suggests that schools risk contributing to the pipeline to prison (the phenomenon
of students pushed out of schools and into the justice system) when a school system lacks
policies or procedures that disrupt harmful disciplinary practices that negatively impact the
learning experiences of students. However, implementation of restorative practices as an
alternative to punitive disciplinary actions is more likely to create the learning environments K-
12 urban schools need for all young minds to flourish.
Organizational Context and Mission
Juvenile arrests are significant for a K-12 district located in one of California’s vibrant
urban cities, which serves as the project site of this study. The pseudonym, Just School District
(JSD) will be used to name the K-12 district as a result of ethical considerations based on the
unique circumstances of confidentiality for the population of students. JSD is an urban school
district located in a city with a population of about 125,000 and serves approximately 14,000
students enrolled in twenty-eight K-12 schools according to information reported on its website.
As indicated on the organization’s website, the mission of JSD is to exceed the district’s goals in
the area of equity, excellence, educational effectiveness, and economic sustainability.
1
Data
reported from the California Department of Education (2017) indicates that nearly 75% of the
district’s student population qualifies for the Free and Reduced Meal Program. JSD student
population includes: 37% Latinx; 29.8% African American; 2.6% Asian; and 8.2% White
(California Department of Education, 2017).
For this study’s purpose, secondary grade levels include two alternative education
schools (grades 6-12) and two comprehensive high schools (grades 9-12), representing the

1
URL has not been provided to avoid revealing the identity of the organization.

4
number of schools in JSD with approximately 150 teachers. JSD teacher population includes
11.6% Latinx, 16.2% African American, 3.6% Asian, and 56.6% White, with an average of 11
years teaching in JSD (California Department of Education, 2017).
In response to the needs of its students, JSD has implemented training for its secondary
grade level teachers in the areas of positive behavior practices, social-emotional and health needs
of students, restorative practices, and culturally relevant instruction. The training on restorative
practices is facilitated by an external agency that serves as one of the district’s community
partner’s that also works in close collaboration with the district’s senior level staff. The training
consists of an all-day professional development prior to start of a new school year that includes
review of the definition, application, and alignment of restorative practices to JSD’s goals.
However, the extent of time allocated to restorative practice professional development
throughout the school year varies. Additionally, JSD has experienced superintendent leadership
transition. Although the district remains committed to implementing of restorative practices, it
remains undetermined if the leadership change implicitly influences shifts in priorities for
district.
Organizational Goal
JSD’s goal is to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June 2021.
The district’s Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) Advisory Committee, which includes
community stakeholder engagement along with JSD administrators, established the goal during
the 2016-2017 school-year to meet annual school district requirements to support student
outcomes and overall performance. Although JSD established the goal during the 2016-2017
school-year, implementation of restorative practices did not begin until the 2017-2018 school-
year. JSD’s progress toward the goal will be measured by quarterly and annual discipline data

5
reports from August 2017 through June 2021. The expected annual measurable benchmark is to
decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 10%. JSD reported overall 13,000 behavior
referrals, which is significant for a district with limited social-emotional support for its students.
Counselors at the secondary grade-level, for example, are guidance counselors that
predominantly allocate time to academic counseling. Additionally, it is important to note that
JSD's African American students represent about 30% of the student population; however, they
represent nearly 60% of the middle to high school referrals and suspensions. This data indicates
a need to decrease not only JSD's referrals, but also a need to address the disproportionately high
level of ethnically diverse student discipline and an exploration of alternative in discipline
practices. Specifically, it is important to evaluate the organization's performance goal in relation
to the restorative practices implemented as alternative intervention support to punitive
disciplinary practices at the secondary grade level. According to the California Healthy Kids
Survey results, one-third of JSD secondary students surveyed reported feeling sad or hopeless at
school that affected their daily activities. JSD's objective is to have at least 75% of secondary
grade-level teachers and administrators trained in restorative practices by June 2021 and increase
the number of teachers and students that report a positive perception of school climate by 15%
(as measured by the California Healthy Kids Survey).
Related Literature
Disproportionate disciplinary data is not unique to JSD. In fact, students of color have
historically overrepresented the rates of behavior referrals and suspensions to that of other
students according to national and state-level data (Skiba et al., 2011). A United States
Government Accountability Office 2018 report on K-12 education discipline disparities
indicates, through an analysis of 2013-2014 school year data provided by the Department of

6
Education, that African American students, particularly young men, and students with
disabilities, are often disproportionately disciplined (U.S. Government Accountability Office,
2018, p. 12). Skiba et al. (2011) find that disciplinary actions for African American or Latinx
students are often a result of behaviors subjectively considered challenging to authority.
Although efforts to reduce the number of suspensions in K-12 increased following California’s
then-Governor Jerry Brown’s 2014 signing of AB 420 (California Department of Education,
2015), banning suspensions for reasons of defiance and disruption for grades kindergarten
through third, when disaggregated by racial or ethnic group, suspension data indicates that
disparities still exist.
Importance of the Evaluation
It is important to evaluate JSD’s performance goal of decreasing referrals, suspensions,
and expulsions by 20% by June 2021 in relationship to the restorative practices implemented as
an alternative intervention support for several reasons. If JSD does not decrease referrals, it risks
experiencing persistent disparities of student discipline that consequently results in the push out
of students from the classroom learning environment thereby increasing students’ risk of
academic and social-emotional instability. Kaufuman et al. (2010) suggest that discipline
referrals are significant data sources that can help guide decisions specific to school-related
intervention in addition to determining if an intended outcome is being achieved. Evaluating the
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that impact JSD’s performance toward
their goal will assist the district and its stakeholders in making informed decisions to ensure all
students have an opportunity at academic success.

7
Description of Stakeholder Groups
As indicated on the organization’s website, the mission of JSD is to exceed
performance in the area of equity, excellence, educational effectiveness, and economic
sustainability.
2
JSD teachers serve a critical role in the implementation of restorative practices
that contribute to the achievement of JSD’s performance goal. JSD teachers participate in
ongoing professional development training provided by district. In addition, while
predominantly the role of administers, JSD’s teachers use referrals as documentation of student
behavior to monitor the consistency of the school’s discipline system.
JSD students are a diverse stakeholder group that directly benefit from the achievement
of JSD’s goal. According to most recent data available on the Education Data Partnership (Ed-
Data) website, JSD African American students represent 59% of the suspensions, Latinx students
represent 23% of the suspensions, White students 7% of the suspensions, and Asian students
represent <1% of the out of school suspensions. The data suggests a need to examine disparities
among JSD’s disciplinary practices, specifically in how discipline is handled to ensure an
overall, across all ethnic and racial groups, decrease in suspensions. Table 1 provides an
overview of JSD’s mission, global goal, and stakeholder performance goals.

2
URL has not been provided to avoid revealing the identity of the organization.

8
Stakeholder Performance Goals
Table 1
Just School District Mission, Global Goal and Stakeholder Performance Goals
Organizational Mission
The mission of Just School District is to exceed in the area of equity, excellence, educational
effectiveness, and economic sustainability.
Organizational Performance Goal
By June 2021, Just School District’s goal is to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by
20%.
Teachers Students Administrators
By June 2021, secondary
grade-level JSD teachers will
be able to apply restorative
practices to address perceived
challenging student behaviors.
By June 2021, secondary
grade-level students will be
able to demonstrate a positive
relationship with at least three
caring adult or peer at schools.

By June 2021, all JSD
administrative staff will be
able to implement alternative
disciplinary actions for all non-
California Education Code
[sections 48915 (c)] situations
for behaviors.

Stakeholder Group for the Study
Although a complete analysis would involve all grade level teachers, students, and
administrators, for practical purposes, one stakeholder group will be the focus of this study.
JSD’s implementation of restorative practices started with its secondary grade-levels as part of
the district’s multi-phased implementation approach. Additionally, according to Skiba & Rausch
as cited by Skiba et al. (2011), few studies have focused on grade-level implications related to
discipline. Therefore, the stakeholder of focus for this study will be JSD’s secondary teachers.
The stakeholder goal, supported by the administrative staff, is that all secondary grade-level JSD
teachers will be able to apply restorative practices to address challenging student behaviors by
June 2021. Failure to accomplish this goal could potentially lead to disproportionality in student

9
discipline and reduced instructional time that can result in adverse behavioral or academic
outcomes.
Purpose of the Project and Questions
The purpose of this project is to evaluate the implementation of restorative practices in JSD
as an alternative discipline practice. The analysis will focus on knowledge, motivation and
organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goals. While a complete
performance evaluation would focus on all JSD stakeholders, for practical purposes the
stakeholder to be focused on in this analysis is secondary grade-level JSD teachers. As such, the
questions that guide this study are the following:
1. What is the knowledge associated with secondary urban education teachers’
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors?
2. What is the motivation associated with secondary urban education teachers
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors?
3. What is the interaction between the organizational culture and secondary urban education
teachers’ knowledge and motivation to implement restorative practices?
Conceptual and Methodological Framework
This study utilized the Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis, a systematic, analytical
method used to identify the knowledge, motivation and organizational influences based on the
literature, stakeholder of focus, and relevance to the organizational goal. The assumed
influences were adapted to use within an evaluation model and implemented as the conceptual
framework for this study. The methodological framework is qualitative and includes interviews

10
with participating teachers using a purposeful sampling strategy. A qualitative approach for this
study provides the rich and complex data needed to inform the interaction between the
participating stakeholder group’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational context related to
the research questions of this study.
Definitions
Restorative practices: Restorative practices promote values of inclusion, collaboration, and
community while validating the needs of those marginalized or that have experienced some form
of physical or social-emotional harm.
School to prison pipeline: Progression of trajectory from challenging behaviors to repeated
suspension and expulsion of students increasing the risk of involvement with the justice system.
Vulnerable at-risk students: Students who are particularly vulnerable to various societal factors
that lead to risks of academical failure and social-emotional trauma.
Zero-tolerance policies: Policies that apply disciplinary consequences that usually includes
suspension or expulsion regardless of the circumstances.
Organization of the Project

This study is organized into five chapters. This chapter provided key concepts and
terminology commonly found in a discussion about restorative practices in K-12 education.
Chapter One also provided an introduction to the organization’s mission, goals, and stakeholders
and the framework used for this study. Chapter Two provides a review of current literature
relevant to the study. Chapter Three details the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
elements examined as well as methodology when it comes to the choice of participants, data
collection, and analysis. The data is reviewed, assessed, and analyzed to infer findings in
Chapter Four. Chapter Five provides solutions for consideration based on the data and literature,

11
for closing the perceived gaps as well as recommendations for an implementation and evaluation
plan related to the problem of practice.

12
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
This dissertation addresses the challenges of implementing restorative practices in K-12
urban education systems as an alternative to punitive discipline practices. This is a problem
because as various studies suggest, there is a direct correlation between the academic
performance of students and punitive practices in K-12 education systems (Utheim, 2014;
Wadhwa, 2016). Chapter Two provides a review of the literature that addresses the major
factors, variables and causes that influence the problem of practice. This chapter is divided into
three major sections. The first section provides a review of the literature on the major variables
and factors that will be used to investigate possible links to the assumed knowledge-related
influences that are pertinent for the Just School District (JSD; pseudonym) to achieve their
stakeholder of focus goal. The chapter then explains the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences’ lens used in this study, including defining the types of
knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences examined and the assumed secondary
grade-level JSD teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on performance.
The chapter ends with a presentation of the conceptual framework guiding this study.
Restorative Practices in K-12
Paulo Freire (1970) argues that pedagogy is a moral practice that expands students’
knowledge and skills, thereby inspiring endless possibilities in the lives of young people. A
significant challenge in K-12 education systems, however, is the complicated process of
transforming vulnerable at-risk students into at-promise individuals by providing support
services that address barriers to learning. These challenges are not always as a result of a lack of
effort. On the contrary, often these challenges are encountered as a result of a lack of evidence-
based promising practices for supporting students who are often left behind by traditional

13
pedagogical practices. The next section describes the challenges of implementing restorative
practices in JSD, as examined through the Clark and Estes (2008) knowledge, motivation, and
organization gap analysis model.
Responsive Interruption in K-12
According to Stecher and Kirby (2004), accountability in education is aligned to the
responsibility of practice toward the achievement outcomes of students. In other words, in an
educational system, teachers and administrators, for example, are ultimately accountable for
providing quality services toward the educational success of students. Several studies argue that
teachers have the most direct impact on the overall success of student in the classroom while
administrators are accountable to the creation of safe and positive school culture that aligns to
the overall goals of the school district (Deal & Peterson, 1998; Duncan-Andrade & Morrell,
2008; Ohlson, 2009; Stecher & Kirby, 2004). Clark and Estes (2008) state that organizational
accountability includes an alignment of institutional goals and individual practices. However,
when positive school culture is lacking, and students feel disconnected from the classroom
learning experience, they often find themselves the receivers of punitive disciplinary practices
(Utheim, 2014). In fact, several studies reveal that students of color are particularly vulnerable
to disproportionate rates of punitive disciplinary practices in schools (Castillo, 2014; Lustick,
2015; Noguera, 2008; Rodriguez, 2007; Skiba et al., 2011). Investing in students repeatedly left
behind academically and transforming pedological practices from ones that are punitive to
actions that are restoratively responsible to the needs of students is a responsive interruption in
K-12 education.

14
Punitive to Restorative
Rather than support students in their development, punitive school discipline policies
often result in students being pushout of the learning environment, ultimately hindering their
opportunities for a quality educational experience (Castillo, 2014; Ginwright, 2015). Perceived
challenging student behaviors in school are frequently met with exclusionary discipline practices
that seldomly address the root cause of the behaviors. Consequently, perceived challenging
student behaviors seldomly change, risk of academic failure increases, and positive relationships
between students and teachers are diminished (Castillo, 2014; Gregory, Clawson, Davis &
Gerewitz, 2016; Lustick, 2015).
Punitive practices. Punitive practices in K-12 can be damaging to the educational
experiences of students and to the culture of a school environment (Castillo, 2014; Teasley,
2014; Wadhwa, 2016). Castillo (2014) notes that punitive practices can consist of adversarial
accountability of behaviors focused on punishment instead of facilitation of understanding and
restoring any harm (e.g., negative social, emotional or physical impact) created as a result of an
individual’s actions. Observable teacher practices that trend toward a punitive response to
address perceived challenging student behaviors may include subjective reaction to behaviors
and pedagogy centered on social control (Welch & Payne, 2010), classroom management
focused on punishment instead of accountability, and public humiliation or unnecessary harsh
tones with students (Smith, Fisher, & Frey, 2015). Zero-tolerance policies in K-12 are
particularly contingent forms of punitive practice that leads to suspension or expulsions (Castillo,
2014). In response to the 1994 Gun-Free Schools Act to address violence and drug problems,
zero-tolerance policies mandated a one-year expulsion for offenses connected to firearms and, as
a result, expanded practices under schools zero-tolerance policies that increasingly became more

15
punitive than preventive safety measures (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Simson, 2014).
According to the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, zero tolerance practices in
schools is punishment that students receive regardless of the circumstances that usually results in
mandatory suspension or expulsion. Zero-tolerance policies are implemented in schools with the
premise to address safety concerns; however, the results often negatively impact the academic
achievement of students with little to no resolve in school safety concerns (Castillo, 2014;
Teasley, 2014). Castillo (2014) argues that as a result of zero-tolerance policies, schools are
increasing referring students directly to the criminal justice system due to behavior concerns.
A byproduct of zero tolerance in schools is the school-to-prison pipeline, which describes
the progression trajectory from challenging behaviors to repeated suspension and expulsion of
students thereby increasing risk of involvement with the justice system (Castillo, 2014; Noguera,
2008; Skiba et al., 2011; Wadhwa, 2016; Gibson, Wilson, Haight, Kayama, & Marshall, 2014).

Intended to address student behavioral challenges, zero-tolerance policies in schools
consequently disproportionately impact students, particularly vulnerable population of students.
Simson (2014) suggests that disproportionality exists because punitive disciplinary school
practices perpetuate institutionalized racial hierarchies that he argues are further explained
through a critical race theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) that asserts race as a significant
factor in education. Ladson-Billings and Tate (1995) state that when applied to the context of
education, critical race theory offers an understanding of inequities that exists in educational
systems particularly for marginalized groups. Vulnerable population of students such as those
who are supervised by the juvenile court system, are significantly at greater risk of recidivism
and academic failure as a result of the policies established to manage behavior in K-12 systems
(Mallett, 2016; Gibson et al., 2014). In other words, punitive school discipline practices through

16
the school-to-prison pipeline, increase likelihood of student involvement in juvenile justice
systems thereby decreasing their opportunities of K-12 academic success (Skiba et al., 2014).
Restorative practices, however, can serve as an alternative to K-12 punitive disciplinary
practices.
Restorative practices. Schools are increasingly exploring restorative practices to
improve students’ educational experiences and reduce reliance on punitive discipline
practices(Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Zehr, 2002). Moorison and
Vaandering (2012) suggest that restorative practices at the secondary grade levels focus on
students’ interpersonal relationships to avoid disruptions to the overall positive school and
classroom environment. According to Amstutz and Mullet (2005), restorative practices are
defined as values of inclusion, collaboration, and community while validating the needs of those
marginalized and those who have experienced a form of physical or emotional harm. For
instance, students, particularly those living and attending schools in urban communities,
encounter numerous factors that impede positive academic outcomes, such as community
violence, social, cultural, and socioeconomic challenges that are harmful to their wellbeing
(Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Gubi & Bocanegra, 2015). Restorative
practices nurture relationships while creating opportunities to involve individuals that are
negatively impacted by incidents increasing their agency in the repair of the harm experienced.
Gibson et al. (2014) present a summary of restorative practices, specifying the elements
and descriptions from prevention to intervention. Gibson et al. (2014) summarize preventative,
restorative practices as those that focus on building relationships and community (e.g., affective
statements and circles) while restorative practices that are considered intervention, focus on
repairing harm and restoring community (e.g., conference meetings and restorative questions).

17
According to Zehr (2002), circles are the most commonly found approach in the educational
implementation of restorative practices. An example of restorative practices includes a circling
approach (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Zehr, 2002), in which the intended focus is on building or
restoring positive teacher-student relationships, encourage supportive, cooperative classroom
learning environments, and facilitate the development of student problem-solving skills (Amstutz
& Mullet, 2005; Bouchard, Hollweck, & Smith, 2016). In another case, circles focused on
peacemaking are facilitated to bring together individuals who have experienced physical or
social-emotional harm to engage in the process of healing support toward restoring a sense of
safety within a learning environment (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Bouchard et al., 2016).
Although there are various types, several elements are consistently found in circles. Elements
can include, for example, physically situating participants in a circle, involving facilitators as
“circle keepers” (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005, p. 53), and using a talking piece to help ensure all
voices get heard (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Zehr, 2002).
Victim-offender mediation, class meetings, reconciliations, truancy mediations, and
communication processes that promote meaningful teacher-student relationships are further
examples of restorative practices (Lustick, 2017; Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Zehr, 2002).
However, while these examples are tangible implementation practices, Smith, Fisher, and Frey
(2015) suggest that restorative practices are integrated operating procedures coupled with
consistent expectations. Specifically, Smith et al. (2015) indicate that classroom procedures
support self-regulation, particularly in secondary grade levels, such as providing students the
ability to manage their personal needs, for example, when needing to go to the restroom instead
of teacher-directed approval. Smith et al. (2015) describe the communication of expectations
with students as every time an interaction occurs, for example, describing such expectations as,

18
“when we encourage them to enroll in advance placement courses or strive for honors credits, we
signal that we see their potential; when we reaffirm their dreams, we signal that their aspirations
have value” (p. 59). As Smith et al. (2015) points out, integration of classroom operating
procedures along with high expectations, better positions teachers to responsively address the
academic and social-emotional behavioral needs of students’ that may not be met otherwise.
Beatty (2013) suggests that schools have a role in addressing the comprehensive
academic and social-emotional needs of students. In other words, schools that implement
comprehensive support services reduce the risk of further negatively impacting the academic
progress of students. Significant academic gains and improved learning experiences for students
are likely to occur when schools implement wraparound support services in tandem with
restorative practices (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Noguera, 2008).
According to Reimer (2009), restorative practices as an alternative to discipline lead to positive
academic outcomes, specifically in secondary education. Evidence from a case study in one
Ontario public school that implemented restorative support practices reported that 98% of
involved students felt cared about, while 84% of students reportedly did not reoffend during the
one-year time period of the study (Reimer, 2009). However, Wadhwa (2016) indicates that
restorative practices require a shift in mindset, moving K-12 educators from punitive disciplinary
practices toward restoring the social-emotional well-being of students, thereby removing barriers
to learning. A paradigm shift focused on restorative practices that contribute toward creating
supportive and healing classroom learning environments offers students opportunities for real
academic success by mitigating perceived challenging student behaviors in K-12 education.
Focus on social emotional healing. To successfully develop healthy students amidst the
real challenges students encounter, it is critical that K-12 urban education pursue new promising

19
practices that address barriers to learning (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Archwamety &
Katsiyannis, 2000). Researchers have found that over their lifetimes, student dropouts depend
more on public assistance and have lower income earnings, poorer health, and higher rates of
unemployment, mortality, criminal behavior, and incarceration compared to their peers who
complete high school (Breslau, 2010; Orfield, 2004). Subsequently, educational attainment is
critical to the lifelong health and success of students. Evidence suggests that there is a
connection between improved student behaviors and implementation of practices focused on
addressing the social-emotional healing needs of the student (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000;
Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Lustick, 2017). Ginwright (2015) states
that schools must examine procedures that address challenging student behaviors through a lens
of individual and collective indicators of social-emotional harm. Such indicators of social-
emotional harm may include personal and interpersonal social difficulties with others and lack of
academic motivation (Gubi & Bocanegra, 2015). However, research suggests that educational
systems have the opportunity to address behaviors caused by social-emotional harm experienced
by students through instructional strategies that are restorative in practice (Crosby et al., 2015;
Ginwright, 2015; Wadhwa, 2016; Watson, 2018). Beatty (2013) suggests that schools have a
role in addressing the comprehensive academic and social-emotional needs of students.
According to Gubi and Bocanegra (2015), learning occurs best when social-emotional support in
the classroom environment establishes conditions for students to self-regulate behaviors,
meaningfully interact with teachers, and with their peers. Ginwright (2015) emphasizes that a
focus on healing to shift challenging behaviors impact on the academic success of students in K-
12 education is necessary to foster healthy outcomes for students.

20
Transformative Skill Building and Staff Education
Commitment to transformative training is required if K-12 educators are to be perceptive
to the needs of traumatized learners through restorative practices. A significant factor that
contributes to the challenges of implementing restorative practices in K-12 is that educational
systems lack or are void of school staff education in trauma-related practices to better equip
educators in identifying indicators of trauma and their ability to address student needs in the
classroom (Crosby et al., 2015). The process of transforming K-12 systems requires an
investment in developing the capacity of teachers to equip them with instructional strategies that
are restorative in practice and responsive to the social-emotional needs of students (Crosby et al.,
2015; Watson, 2018). In addition, to “teach more responsively” (p. 35) as Brookfield (1995)
would argue, teacher training includes the process of critical reflection to reveal pedological
practices and individual ideologies that confirm classroom inequities that negatively impact
teacher-student relationships. Consequently, when teachers are ill-equipped, challenging student
behaviors are often misinterpreted as defiant as a result of insufficient knowledge of trauma-
related behaviors that vulnerable population of students commonly experience (Castillo, 2014;
Wadhwa, 2016). Numerous studies, however, argue that increasing teacher knowledge in
trauma-related behaviors alone is insufficient in transforming K-12 systems and that a shift
toward positive student-adult relationship building pedagogy is necessary to successfully
implement restorative practices (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Ladson-
Billings, 2014; Watson, 2018). Restorative practice is an approach that focuses on healing the
harm associated with perceived challenging student behaviors and consequently disrupts punitive
discipline of students by providing a supportive and caring learning environment.

21
Positive School Culture
Student educational experiences in K-12 often are influenced by the culture,
environment, and leadership of a school. Leadership roles, such as school site principals or
teachers, are critical in the successful implementation of organizational practices that affect the
culture of educational systems (Deal & Peterson, 1998; Ohlson, 2009). Several studies argue
that K-12 educational systems have a responsibility to ensure that all students have access to
academic success opportunities through positive educational experiences (Crosby et al., 2015;
Ginwright, 2015; Noguera, 2008). In addition, researchers indicate the importance of
establishing a positive organizational culture, which they suggest is necessary to successfully
implement any new program or pedagogical practices within an educational institution (Atiles,
Gresham & Washburn, 2017; Hinde, 2004; Rhodes, Stevens & Hemmings, 2011). For example,
Hamilton (2008) indicates trust and respect between teachers and students as critical contributing
factors toward establishing a positive school culture. School culture is the social construct that
affects the relationships between teachers and students and guides their interactions within the
learning environment (Rhodes et al., 2011). Establishing positive school culture, however,
requires an investment in not only the transformation of the organization but also in transforming
the skills of staff to increase knowledge on how to restoratively address perceived challenging
student behaviors to increase positive academic achievement and the social-emotional wellbeing
of students.
Transformation of teacher skills, however, is not completely sufficient in creating a
positive school culture. Ginwright (2015) argues that knowledge alone is insufficient in
disrupting practices that are counterproductive to responsive care of students wellbeing in
schools. There is complexity involved with developing a restorative mindset among teachers

22
since individual beliefs often inform an approach to discipline (Smith et al., 2015). Shifting
teacher thinking from solely skill development to an awareness discovery of the qualities needed
to value the implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors is a contributing factor that transforms positive school culture (Ginwright, 2015).
Brookfield (1995) states that it is through the process of critical reflection that increases one’s
own awareness and values as a teacher, that subsequently results in continuous transformative
improvement of not only pedagogy, but of the school culture.
Rethinking the Schoolhouse
Identification of support services that are restorative in practice in addition to being
academically relevant to the needs of K-12 urban students requires an exploration beyond the
schoolhouse. In other words, coordinated community-school strategies are needed to implement
restorative practices in K-12 urban education systems as an alternative to punitive discipline
practices. According to Waston (2011), partnerships between schools and communities are
essential to the overall success and well-being of vulnerable populations of students. Vulnerable
students can be considered students who are susceptible to various risk factors including,
academic failure, social-emotional trauma, or other related factors that negatively impact their
overall well-being (Schargel, 2017). Waston (2011) argues that to think that teachers alone are
capable of meeting the individual needs of all students is an unrealistic notion. However,
Waston (2011) suggests that community engagement strategies such as establishing partnerships
with youth-serving agencies, particularly those operating within the context of students lived
experiences not only can improve academic achievement, but can also improve the culture of the
classroom. However, Outley, Bocarro, and Boleman (2011) state that educational systems are
limited in the ability to provide the necessary resources or opportunities that support students

23
who encounter unstable conditions that consequently have negative impact on students’
academic achievement. Furthermore, Outley et al. (2011) argue that inequitable allocation of
resources prohibits schools from implementing programs or new innovative approaches such as
restorative practices. Research suggests that collaborations between support serving community-
based programs and schools can lead to the healthy development of students’ by removing
barriers to learning (Ryan, Williams, & Courtney, 2013). Specifically, they argue that healthy
development is dependent on coordinated community-school partnerships and other “socializing
agents” (p. 455) consistently investing in the care, education, and overall well-being of students.
In other words, rethinking the role of the schoolhouse has a direct impact on the level of
accountability to responsive interruption in K-12.
Clark and Estes (2008) Knowledge, Motivation and Organizational Influences Framework
According to Clark and Estes (2008) framework, gaps in performance are caused by a
lack of knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers. In addition, Clark and Estes (2008)
state that motivation-related challenges impact performance and as such, argue that motivation is
an essential influence toward achieving an intended goal. In other words, an understanding of
the purpose, and a belief in the value of an intended goal, is a strategy to address motivation-
related influences. Furthermore, Clark and Estes (2008) state that it is essential to enhance skills
and knowledge to ensure an understanding of the performance needed in a work environment to
achieve an organizational goal and in preparation to more readily address any foreseeable
challenges. This dissertation will utilize Clark and Estes (2008) gap analysis framework to
review the knowledge, motivational, and organizational influences related to JSD’s teachers’
implementation of restorative practices to address challenging student behaviors.

24
Teacher Knowledge, Motivation, and Organizational Influences
This review of current literature focuses on knowledge-related influences that are
pertinent for the Just School District to achieve their teacher-focused goal. The goal is that all
secondary grade-level JSD teachers will be able to apply restorative practices to address
challenging student behaviors by June 2021. According to Amstutz and Mullet (2015),
restorative practices can be defined as the practice of promoting the values of inclusion,
collaboration, and community while validating the needs of those marginalized or who have
experienced harm. This is important to address because JSD’s organizational goal is to decrease
referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June 2021. Stecher and Kirby (2004) indicate
that professional accountability is important in education because of the assumption that teachers
are equipped with the knowledge or skill set needed to address the comprehensive needs of
students. Similarly, Clark and Estes (2008) state that it is essential to enhance skills and
knowledge to ensure an understanding of the performance needed in a work environment to
achieve an organizational goal and in preparation to more readily address any foreseeable
challenges. In fact, numerous studies indicate that a depth and breadth of knowledge of
restorative practices is particularly important since only in recent years has it increasingly
become embraced by educational systems as an alternative to punitive discipline practices
(Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Noguera, 2008; Rodriguez, 2007).
Knowledge
To achieve the stakeholder goal, JSD teachers must have the knowledge and skills needed
to integrate restorative practices. According to Anderson et al. (2001), the four types of
knowledge needed to address individual performance and to achieve an intended goal are factual,
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive. Factual knowledge is knowledge of facts, essential

25
elements of a task, or terminology related to a specific area focus (Krathwohl, 2002). In contrast,
conceptual knowledge is knowledge of the interrelationship or differences between concepts
(Krathwohl, 2002). Procedural knowledge is the knowledge of skills or steps necessary to
perform or demonstrate a task, while metacognitive knowledge is the awareness and knowledge
of one’s cognitive processes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Simply defined by Flavell (1985),
metacognition is the process of thinking about thinking.
For the purposes of this dissertation, conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive will be
the knowledge type of focus. Based on a review of literature, JSD teachers need to have the
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge to apply restorative practices to address
challenging student behaviors. Specifically, JSD teachers need to know the conceptual details of
a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice in addition to the procedural knowledge to
know how to integrate restorative practices into the classroom environment. Subsequently, the
following discussion of knowledge types will inform the methods to assess each of the
knowledge influence.
Conceptual knowledge. The first knowledge influence that JSD teachers need to
achieve their stakeholder goal is the conceptual knowledge of the details of a punishment-to-
restorative continuum of practice to address challenging student behaviors. A continuum of
restorative practices moves from left to right with classified punishment consequences to more
restorative formal and structed restorative practices (Amstutz & Mullet, 2015; Kimball, 2013).
Restorative practices can serve as an alternative to K-12 traditional discipline that are often
punitive in practice, particularly in zero tolerance actions that lead to suspension or expulsion. In
contrast, restorative practices require a shift in mindset, moving K-12 educators from punitive
disciplinary practices toward restoring the social-emotional well-being of students, thereby

26
removing potential barriers to learning (Wadhwa, 2016). In particular, Reimer (2009) suggests
that utilizing restorative practices as an alternative to discipline lead to positive academic
outcomes, specifically in secondary education. Accordingly, the first knowledge influence that
JSD teachers need is the conceptual knowledge to differentiate the details of a punishment-to-
restorative continuum of practice to address perceived challenging student behaviors.
Procedural knowledge. The second knowledge influence that JSD teachers need to
achieve their stakeholder goal is the procedural knowledge to integrate restorative practices into
the classroom learning environment. Crosby et al. (2015) argue that K-12 teachers are not
equipped with the knowledge and skills needed to address negative student behaviors
restoratively. Consequently, teachers risk further harming and negatively impacting K-12
students’ academic performance when alternative discipline practices such as restorative are not
implemented in K-12 education systems (Wadhwa, 2016). Therefore, JSD teachers need to have
the procedural knowledge to integrate restorative practices in the classroom learning
environment. Schools, however, are increasingly exploring restorative practices to improve
educational experiences in addition to reducing reliance on punitive discipline practices of
vulnerable students. Beatty (2013) suggests that teachers have a role in addressing the
comprehensive academic and social-emotional needs of students. In other words, schools that
implement comprehensive support services reduce the likelihood of negatively impacting
academic progress of vulnerable population of students (Beatty, 2013). Significant academic
gains and improved learning experiences for vulnerable population of students, such as students
at-risk of academic failure or involved in the juvenile justice system, are likely to occur when
schools implement wraparound support services in tandem with restorative practices (Duncan-
Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwrigth, 2015; Noguera, 2008, Rodriguez, 2007). Moreover,

27
Crosby et al. (2015) argues that educational systems invest in developing the capacity of teachers
to equip them with instructional strategies that are restorative in practice and responsive to the
social-emotional needs of students. Accordingly, JSD teachers must know the procedures to
integrate restorative practices into their classroom learning environment.
The procedures to integrate restorative practices can distinctively be categorized as a group
of processes, approaches, and skill-set rooted in notions of discipline and authority (Hopkins,
2003; Morrison, Blood, & Thorsborne, 2005). Processes and approaches of restorative practices
include interventions that seek to repair hurt that has been experienced by an individual or group
in the form of physical or social-emotional harm (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Hopkins, 2003;
Morrison, Blood, & Thorsborne, 2005). Such interventions can include, for example, restorative
healing circles that are ceremoniously facilitated with a structured opening, use of a talking
piece, guided by foundational values, and closing (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Zehr, 2002). A
restorative healing circle approach engages all individuals affected by a particular behavior in
collective dialogue to increase shared understanding of the behavioral influences with an
opportunity for healing to occur (Ginwright, 2015; Hopkins, 2003). Reintegration following a
suspension is another example of a procedural approach that assists in the re-engagement of
students into the classroom through an established system of support plan (Amstutz & Mullet,
2005). On the contrary, as a preventive approach, restorative practices can include class
meetings that are structured discussions between student and teacher centered around addressing
issues that arise in the classroom (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005). Hopkins (2003) argues, however,
that specific knowledge or skills are necessary for successful integration of restorative practices;
for instance, active and empathic listening, facilitation of discussions to surface participant-
driven solutions, and compassion and patience. Hopkins (2003) further argues that it is a deeply

28
rooted value for the principles of restorative practices that determine the application of
knowledge or skills necessary to integrate restorative practices in the classroom learning
environment.
Metacognitive knowledge. The third knowledge influence that JSD teachers need to
achieve their stakeholder goal is metacognitive knowledge to examine the strategies used to
implement restorative practices. Teachers need metacognitive knowledge to be able to examine
the strategies used related to the implementation of restorative practices to address challenging
student behaviors. Consequently, metacognitive knowledge will enable teachers to continuously
improve performance toward their stakeholder goal with an awareness and knowledge of one's
cognitive processes (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001). Schraw and McCrudden (2006) suggest
that how individuals organize knowledge influences how they learn and meaningfully apply what
they know. Collaborative teacher discussions offer multiple perspectives or disciplines to
critically contribute to a reflective exploration of various problem-solving strategies (Horn &
Little, 2010; Rodgers, 2002). Therefore, providing JSD teachers with the opportunity to engage
in metacognitive activities such as peer collaboration to discuss aloud the strategies and
processes related to implementing restorative practices can increase teachers' ability to
implement restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors.
Table 2 provides an overview of the knowledge influences that JSD teachers need to apply
restorative practices. Specifically, Table 2 indicates the knowledge types of focus which are
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge. Additionally, Table 2 provides a brief
description of the assumed knowledge influence of focus for each knowledge type.

29
Table 2
Knowledge Influence and Knowledge Type

Motivation
Motivation is the second dimension required for JSD teachers to achieve their stakeholder
goal. Motivation is the process that prompts and sustains a goal-focused activity (Schunk,
Pintrich, & Meece, 2009). Clark and Estes (2008) indicate that motivation influences an
individual’s desire to engage in a task and the individual’s belief in achieving a task in pursuit of
an intended goal. In other words, merely having knowledge of a task does not necessitate a
desire to do the task. Three components influence motivation to achieve an intended goal: active
choice, persistence, and mental effort (Clark & Estes, 2008; Rueda, 2011). Clark and Estes
(2008) describe that active choice is when an individual is choosing to pursue a task related to a
goal, while persistence is an individual’s ability to maintain goal-focus despite encountering
Organizational Mission
The mission of Just School District is to exceed in the area of equity, excellence, educational
effectiveness, and economic sustainability.
Organizational Global Goal
Just School District’s goal is to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June
2021.
Stakeholder Goal
By June 2021, secondary grade-level JSD teachers will be able to apply restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors.
Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type

Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to
know the details of a punishment-to-restorative
continuum of practice to address perceived
challenging student behaviors.
Conceptual
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to
know how to integrate restorative practices
into the classroom learning environment.
Procedural
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to
examine the strategies used to implement
restorative practices.
Metacognitive

30
distractions. Mental effort accompanies active choice and persistence as the invested effort
determined by an individual’s confidence toward the achievement of a particular goal (Clark &
Estes, 2008).
This section will review literature that focuses on motivation influences related to JSD
teachers achieving the intended goal of applying restorative practices to address challenging
student behaviors. Although many motivational factors could influence a teacher’s
implementation of restorative practices, two motivational theories will guide the focus of this
literature review. Specifically, this section will discuss the Expectancy Value Theory and Self-
efficacy Theory related to JSD teachers’ ability to meet their goal.
Expectancy-value theory. Expectancy-value theory suggests that the expectation one
has of success and the value one has towards a task is what motivates an individual’s
achievement-related choices (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). There are four dimensions of
expectancy value theory which includes utility value, attainment value, intrinsic value, and cost
value as discussed in Rueda, (2011). According to Rueda (2011), utility value indicates the
belief that an individual has regarding tasks toward an intended goal while attainment indicates
an associated value based on individual’s performance on a task. Intrinsic value refers to an
individual’s inherent interest in a specific task whereas cost value refers to an individual’s
perception of the effort or time required related to a task (Rueda, 2011). Although there are
several motivational influences, utility value and self-efficacy are the two that will be of focus in
this section. A focus on utility value is not intended to suggest that the other motivational
influences are any less significant. Instead, the focus on utility value is to understand in-depth
how it influences JSD’s teachers’ integration of restorative practices. Specifically, to achieve
their stakeholder goal, JSD teachers need to know the utility value of applying restorative

31
practices. In addition, if JSD teachers value the usefulness of applying restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors, their motivation or self-efficacy is enhanced.
Utility value. The first motivational influence related to JSD teachers achieving their
stakeholder goal is utility value. JSD teachers need to see the value in integrating restorative
practices into the classroom learning environment. Wadhwa (2016) states that restorative
practices require a shift in mindset, moving K-12 educators from punitive disciplinary practices
toward restoring the social-emotional well-being of students, thereby removing potential barriers
to learning. Specifically, Wadhwa suggests that teachers must have an understanding of the
importance of restorative practices in K-12 education to value restorative practice as a relevant
alternative to punitive disciplinary actions. In other words, JSD’s secondary grade-level teachers
will increase their beliefs about the usefulness or benefits of integrating restorative practices into
their classroom learning environment if teachers value the practice as it relates to their role as a
JSD teacher. Teasley (2014) argues that restorative practices in K-12 have a greater likelihood
of success if the K-12 educational system integrates strategies that will enhance or promote
teachers’ positive expectancies for success. Accordingly, the utility value of integrating
restorative practices into the classroom learning environment is enhanced if JSD teachers believe
in the usefulness of restorative practices to achieve the organizational goal to decrease referrals,
suspensions, and expulsions.
Self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is defined as personal judgment regarding task-
specific performance capability rather than an individual’s personal qualities (Bandura, 1994;
Zimmerman, 2000). Consequently, since self-efficacy is task-specific, an individual may have
varying levels of self-efficacy beliefs related to different aspects within the same task (Bandura,
1994; Zimmerman, 2000; Rueda, 2011). As an underlying motivational influence, self-efficacy

32
provides a foundation for motivation and is a predictor of performance. Therefore, JSD teachers
need to increase their self-efficacy regarding their ability to implement restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors.
Teacher Self-efficacy. The second motivational influence related to JSD achieving their
stakeholder goal is self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1991), self-efficacy is the perceived
belief in one’s own ability to perform a task. Self-efficacy is an especially critical affective
characteristic that needs to be considered for JSD’s secondary grade-level teachers to apply
restorative practices to address challenging student behaviors. Self-efficacy affects motivation
and therefore can influence JSD’s teachers’ decision to meaningfully participate in the
application of restorative practices. Additionally, Rueda (2011) states that self-efficacy beliefs
can influence the emotions and behaviors of an individual. Bandura (1991) suggests that
individuals with low self-efficacy may perceive certain tasks with greater difficulty consequently
causing an individual to experience feelings of anxiety or stress. In other words, JSD teachers
need to believe and feel confident in their ability to apply restorative practices and to reflect on
how they do this. Moreover, self-efficacy provides a foundation for motivation and behavior and
therefore can influence teachers’ decision to meaningfully integrate restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors. Table 3 provides an overview of the two motivation
influences of JSD’s secondary grade-level teachers that may impact JSD in achieving its
stakeholder goals.

33
Table 3
Assumed Motivation Influences and Motivational Types

Organization
This section focuses on the related organizational influences required for JSD to achieve
their stakeholder goal. According to Clark and Estes (2008), organizational models or settings
that lack alignment to an organization’s goals increase the likelihood of inefficiency in
organizational performance. An organization’s culture can be analyzed based on the cultural
setting and cultural model that exist in it (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Cultural setting is
concrete and include the employees, tasks, how and why tasks are completed, and the social
context in which work is performed. Cultural model refers to cultural practices and shared
Organizational Mission
The mission of Just School District is to exceed in the area of equity, excellence, educational
effectiveness, and economic sustainability.

Organizational Global Goal
Just School District’s goal is to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June
2021.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2021, secondary grade-level JSD teachers will be able to apply restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors.

Assumed Motivation Influences

Motivation Type Assumed Motivation Influence
Value (Utility) Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to see
the value of integrating restorative practices into
the classroom learning environment as it relates
to the organizational goal.
Self-Efficacy

Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to
believe they are capable of applying restorative
practices to address perceived challenging
student behaviors and to reflect on how they do
this.

34
mental schema within an organization (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). For this dissertation,
cultural setting (i.e., the infrastructure of accountability and cultural model) and allocation of
resources, will be the two organizational influences of focus.
Allocation of Resources. Efficient allocation of resources is necessary to build capacity
of a K-12 teachers toward integration of restorative practices to address challenging student
behaviors. According to Gibson et al. (2014), the pathway to transforming traditional practices of
teachers includes comprehensive ongoing staff development. In other words, JSD will need to
allocate the resources to equip teachers with the knowledge necessary to apply restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Gregory et al. (2016) suggests that
a sustainable positive culture and climate of a school system requires investment toward the
capacity building of staff. Various studies indicate a lack of resources as a pitfall of an
educational system's ability to transform traditional pedagogy toward effective integration of
restorative practices that remove barriers to learning (Crosby et al., 2015; Ginwright, 2015;
Hopkins & Woulfin, 2015). However, allocation of resources in K-12 can assist in establishing
an organizational culture of continuous improvement that shifts school-based leaders such as
district teachers from being performance managers to leaders of knowledge around restorative
practices (Hannay, Jaafar, & Earl, 2013; Gibson et al., 2014). Subsequently, teachers are more
likely to feel supported in their pedagogical efforts not only by the allocation of resources but by
distributed support through shared leadership of knowledge and purpose (Duncan-Andrade &
Morrell, 2008; Hannay et al., 2013; Noguera, 2008).
Infrastructure of Accountability. Establishing an infrastructure of accountability is
critical for teacher success in applying restorative practices. According to Stecher and Kirby
(2004), there is a direct alignment between educational accountability and the responsibility of

35
achieving positive student educational outcomes. In other words, in an educational system,
teachers and administrators, for example, are ultimately accountable for providing quality
services toward the educational success of students. Hopkins and Woulfin (2015) argue that an
examination of educational infrastructure must include attention to the relationship between
practice and infrastructure. Hopkins and Woulfin (2015) state that educational infrastructures
are the implementation tools, while practice describes how teachers implement the tools within
the context of the learning environment. Ginwright (2015) distinguishes restorative practices
from a program, stating that restorative practices require a change in mindset to integrate into an
educational system with measurable outcomes. Lustick (2017) cautions that when restorative
practices in schools prompt transactional versus relational practices between staff and students,
the impact on student outcomes is minimal. Establishing a meaningful teacher-student
relationship can significantly alter the achievement performance and social-emotional well-being
of a student, whereas a transactional relationship lacks the personal connection to enhance the
learning experience of both teachers and students.
Spilt, Koomen, and Thijis (2011) found through a qualitative study that conducted 60
interviews with teachers that having a positive relationship with students was a factor of
motivation for teachers. Spilt et al. (2011) indicated that transactional or less meaningful
relationships with students were more likely to cause strife between students and teachers in
addition to negatively impacting the professional well-being of teachers'. Restorative practices
in schools that promote transactional relationships between teachers and students are
counterintuitive to restorative practices (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Ginwright, 2015).
Furthermore, Amstutz and Mullet (2005) emphasize that progress toward effective
implementation of restorative practices is determined when an educational system establishes

36
organizational policies and values rooted in building caring and healthy relationships between
teachers and students.
The stated organizational influences, cultural settings infrastructure of accountability and
devotion of resources, are contributing factors toward JSD teachers’ successful implementation
of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. The knowledge and
motivation influences related to JSD achieving their stakeholder goal must not be absent of the
organizational influences, devotion of resources and infrastructure of accountability. Table 4
provides an overview of the two organizational influences that may impact JSD in achieving its
stakeholder goals.
Table 4
Assumed Organizational Influences and Organizational Influence Type

Organizational Mission
The mission of Just School District is to exceed in the area of equity, excellence, educational
effectiveness, and economic sustainability.

Organizational Global Goal
Just School District’s goal is to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June
2021.

Stakeholder Goal
By June 2021, secondary grade-level JSD teachers will be able to apply restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors.

Assumed Organizational Influences Organizational Influence Type

The organization needs to allocate professional
development support resources toward the
integration of restorative practices.

Cultural Model
The organization needs to establish an
infrastructure of accountability related to
developing a restorative mindset that address
perceived challenging student behaviors.

Cultural Setting

37
Conceptual Framework: The Interaction of Stakeholders’ Knowledge and Motivation and
the Organizational Context
According to Maxwell (2013), the purpose of a conceptual framework is to present a
system of concepts, assumptions, beliefs, and theories that supports and informs research. In
other words, a conceptual framework is a visual presentation of theoretical concepts based on the
work of others and a model established by personal experiences. While potential influencers
were previously independent of each other, it is important to recognize that they do not remain in
isolation from each other. This section will detail the interaction between the stakeholders’
knowledge, motivation, and organizational context in relation to the research questions
previously presented. Figure 1 below depicts the conceptual framework for this study.

38

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework
Figure 1 above presents the interaction between teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences to be examined. To achieve the goal indicated by the green square,
JSD teachers must have the knowledge or skills needed to implement restorative practices.
According to Anderson et al. (2002), the four types of knowledge needed to address individual
performance and to achieve an intended goal are factual, conceptual, procedural, and
Stakeholder
Knowledge (i.e.,
knowledge types),
Skills, Motivation
(i.e., self-efficacy,
value, etc.)

39
metacognitive. Based on a review of literature, JSD secondary grade-level teachers need to have
the conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive knowledge to apply restorative practices to
address challenging student behaviors as indicated by the blue circle. Specifically, JSD teachers
need to know the conceptual details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice in
addition to the procedural knowledge to know how to integrate restorative practices into the
classroom environment.
According to Amstutz and Mullet (2005), punishment practices often consist of actions
that are absent from relevant connections between the behavior and the enacted punishment.
This exemplifies the interrelationship the cultural setting and modeling of JSD has with its
teachers to achieve its intended goal. Restorative practices in the continuum meaningfully seek
to align the punishment or consequence with the behavior; understanding the root cause of the
behavior is sought to better meet the needs of the student (Amstutz and Mullet, 2005). Amstutz
and Mullet (2005) indicate that restorative practices include the student throughout the process
while recognizing the need to understand the root cause of behaviors while simultaneously
addressing the needs of a student whose behavior is considered challenging in addition to the
individual harmed. Specifically, Amstutz and Mullet (2005) propose a punishment-to-restorative
continuum in which they describe as "moving from punishment to consequences to solutions to
restoration" (p. 21).
The organizational goal is to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by
June 2021. Restorative practices can serve as an alternative to K-12 traditional discipline that are
often punitive in practice, particularly in zero tolerance actions that lead to suspension or
expulsion. Schools implement zero-tolerance policies to address safety concerns, however, the
results are often higher school suspensions and expulsions that consequently lead to negatively

40
impacting the academic achievement of students (Castillo, 2014). Castillo (2014) argues that as
a result of zero-tolerance policies, schools are increasingly reinforcing the pipeline to prison
concerns. In contrast, restorative practices require moving K-12 educators from punitive
disciplinary practices toward restoring the social-emotional well-being of students, thereby
removing potential barriers to learning (Wadhwa, 2016). The constructs in Figure 1 present the
organizational influences that interact with the teachers’ knowledge and motivation influences.
Accordingly, the cultural setting and cultural model of the organization as indicated by the gray
circle include a need to establish an infrastructure of accountability related to developing a
restorative mindset and a need to allocate professional development support resources. Each of
the described influences represent an interworking relationship with the potential to disrupt the
achievement of the organization goal.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study is to explore the implementation of restorative practices in K-
12 urban education systems as an alternative to punitive discipline practices. Specifically, this
study will explore Just School District’s secondary grade-level teachers’ application of
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Additionally, the study
will focus on the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to the
implementation of restorative practices in K-12 urban education as related to achieving the
organizational goals.
Chapter Two review of literature presented numerous studies that suggest a depth and
breadth of knowledge of restorative practices is particularly important for teachers since only in
recent years has it increasingly become embraced by educational systems as an alternative to
punitive discipline practices (Duncan-Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Noguera,

41
2008; Rodriguez, 2007). Additionally, the review of literature suggests that the interaction
between teachers’ knowledge and motivation should not be absent of an examination of
organizational influences. The study’s conceptual framework presents the interaction between
the stakeholders’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences to be examined. Chapter
Three of this dissertation will present the study’s methodological approach.

42
CHAPTER THREE: METHODS
The purpose of the study was to explore the implementation of restorative practices in K-
12 urban education systems as an alternative to punitive discipline practices. According to
Amstutz and Mullet (2005), restorative practices are defined as promoting the values of inclusion
collaboration, and community while validating the needs of those marginalized or that have
experienced harm. Specifically, this study explored Just School District's (JSD; pseudonym)
secondary grade-level teachers’ application of restorative practices to address perceived
challenging student behaviors. This study focused on the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences related to the implementation of restorative practices in K-12 urban
education as related to achieving the organizational goals. This chapter outlines the
methodology, research design, and data collection of the study.
The questions that guide this study are:
1. What is the knowledge associated with secondary urban education teachers’
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors?
2. What is the motivation associated with secondary urban education teachers’
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors?
3. What is the interaction between the organizational culture and secondary urban education
teachers’ knowledge and motivation to implement restorative practices?
Participating Stakeholders
The stakeholder group of focus for this study was JSD's secondary grade-level teachers.
This population consists of approximately 150 full-time teachers, serving students in grades sixth

43
through grade 12. This study sought to develop a “criterion-based selection” (Merriam and
Tisdell, 2016) of teachers across JSD's secondary grade-level school sites implementing
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors (p. 97). Specifically,
this study conducted interviews with secondary grade-level teachers using a purposeful sampling
strategy.
A qualitative research approach was most appropriate for this study, which sought an in-
depth understanding of the assumed knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that
teachers experience in the implementation of restorative practices in K-12 urban education to
address perceived challenging student behaviors. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016),
qualitative research provides rich descriptive data from which to derive findings and infer
meanings from the experiences of people. As such, interviews with participating stakeholders
were conducted using a purposeful sampling strategy. The following sections describe the
criteria associated with this qualitative study’s targeted stakeholder group for sampling
participants.
Interview Sampling Criteria and Rationale
Criterion 1. Current teaching grade-level. Teachers who taught at JSD’s secondary
grade-levels, which includes ninth through 12th grade across four high schools with
approximately 150 teachers. Although a complete analysis would have involved all grade level
teachers, interview sampling included only teachers who taught in one of JSD’s four high
schools, grades ninth through 12th since JSD’s implementation of restorative practices centers
around its secondary schools. Additionally, JSD’s disproportionate discipline data, when
disaggregated, indicates higher rates of behavioral referrals, suspensions, and expulsions among
its secondary grades ninth through 12
th
grade students. Current teaching grade-level, therefore,

44
was essential criteria to ensure participants were teachers in JSD’s secondary schools trained in
restorative practices.
Criterion 2. The number of years teaching. Although JSD established its
organizational goal during the 2016-2017 school year, the implementation of restorative
practices began during the proceeding 2017-2018 school year. As such, conducting interviews
with secondary teachers that have taught in JSD for at least three years was important to provide
significant insight into this study’s research questions related to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences. Additionally, teaching for at least three years was a determined
criterion to accurately reflect JSD secondary teachers' experience implementation of restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors.
Interview Sampling Recruitment Strategy and Rationale.
Interviews were conducted as part of the qualitative research of this study. A reasonable
sample size of 10 secondary grade-level teachers were recruited to participate in formal
interviews. JSD provided support to the researcher in the recruitment of teachers across four
school sites that met the previously indicated criteria. Although JSD provided the researcher
support in the recruitment of teachers, participation remained voluntary. Maxwell (2013)
suggests that an important aspect in selecting participants in a qualitative study is determining
the individuals that are able to provide information to answer the research questions.
Accordingly, this study’s sample size of 10 interviews with secondary teachers that have taught
in JSD for at least three years was the appropriate number to adequately examine the interaction
between the participating stakeholder’s knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences.
An electronic email was sent randomly to 15 teachers that met the criteria previously described
that detailed information about the study and an option to agree to participate in an interview

45
voluntarily. A follow-up to coordinate scheduling of date and time most convenient to the
participant occurred directly with teachers who replied in agreement to participate.
Data Collection and Instrumentation
Qualitative data collection methods were used for this study to provide rich and complex
data to inform the interaction between the participating stakeholder group’s knowledge,
motivation, and organizational context in relation to the research questions that guide this study.
The method of data collection for this study was interviews with the participating stakeholder
group. Interviews were done to better understand how the knowledge and motivation of the
participating stakeholder group are enacted from the perspective of secondary grade-level
teachers.
Interviews
A semi-structured interview protocol was used to conduct the interviews for this study to
best allow for participants to respond to questions through a more detail sharing of information
related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences. Appendix B presents the
interview protocol. Merriam and Tisdell (2016) indicate that semi-structured interviews better
position the researcher to respond to the interviewee in-the-moment to glean useful and relevant
insights. Specifically, this study sought to understand the conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge needed to apply restorative practices. As such, the researcher used a
semi-structured interview protocol to include questions related to knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences to gather data.
Additionally, a semi-structured method allowed the researcher an opportunity to probe
during the interview to ensure the breadth and depth of data necessary to infer quality findings.
The researcher conducted ten separate interviews utilizing a semi-structured interview protocol

46
that included 20 questions related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational needs to
implement restorative practices in K-12 urban education. The interviews were conducted within
a one-hour period and over the course of six-weeks.
Secondary grade-level teachers are the stakeholder of focus for this study; therefore,
interviews were conducted before or after school hours through a platform that was accessible to
the participant to avoid conflict with work commitments. The interviews helped the researcher
draw relevant inferences and conclusions. The interviews were conducted once with 10 teachers,
each interview lasted an estimated one-hour to ensure an appropriate length of time to conduct
the interview adequately and for the participant to feel the time was provided for honest and rich
responses. Data was captured through notetaking and audio recording to increase the accuracy of
transcription of the data collected. Informed consent forms were provided, reviewed, and signed
by all participants before conducting the study. Appendix A presents the informed consent form.
Glesne (2011) states that informed consent is critical to ensure that participants of a study are
aware that the data collected will not disclose information that could identify individuals and that
participation is solely voluntary. In other words, the confidentiality of participants was critical
for the stakeholder of focus in this particular study since information gathered from the
interviews conducted included sensitive details related to the unique circumstances of
confidentiality for the population of students. Additionally, the researcher gained permission to
record audio during the interviews through the informed consent form and reminded participants
at the start of the interview that participation was voluntary with the option to withdraw at any
time during the process.

47
Data Analysis
Merriam and Tisdell (2016) argue that a study is undermined when a researcher waits
until the completion of the data collection to begin the data analysis. Therefore, the researcher
simultaneously conducted the data collection and qualitative analysis for this study. In other
words, ongoing analysis simultaneously occurred as the researcher collected data through the
interviews conducted.
Several strategies were utilized to analyze data from qualitative interviews. Following
each interview conducted, the researcher wrote a memo to immediately document reflection and
themes aligned with the research questions of this study. This strategy allowed the researcher to
compare the data as it was collected through the interviews. Although the researcher used
transcription services to transcribe the audio recordings from the interviews conducted, the
researcher replayed audio for each transcription to compare to the memos to note additional
analysis.
The researcher used open coding as the first phase of a coding strategy as part of this
study’s data analysis process. Open coding is often the form of coding used during the early start
of the data analysis to capture what may be relevant to the research questions (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016). The researcher used axial coding following the open coding phase to group
codes, which most closely aligns to the immediate reflections after conducting interviews related
to the research questions of this study. The researcher utilized an Excel workbook to document
and manage the data analysis process related to the knowledge, motivation, and organizational
conceptual framework of this study.

48
Credibility and Trustworthiness

According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), the researcher in a qualitative study serves as
the instrument and consequently often interprets the data collected through an inherent bias.
Subsequently, as the instrument in this qualitative study, there are unique challenges or issues to
consider related to credibility and trustworthiness. However, there are approaches that a
researcher in a qualitative study can utilize to address concerns related to credibility and
trustworthiness (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Adequate engagement and respondent validation
were the strategies attempted to increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the study and are
further described in the subsequent section.
To gain insight of the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to
teachers’ implementation of restorative practices, the researcher used adequate engagement as a
strategy during the collection of data. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), adequate
engagement is a strategy that increases the credibility of the study by the researcher interviewing
the number of people that the data collected begins to "feel saturated" (p. 246). In other words,
the researcher conducted interviews with adequate engagement through a reasonable length of
time that the findings surface no new information (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Credibility and trustworthiness of this study was equally important in the data analysis
phase as it was in the design and data collection. Therefore, the researcher attempted respondent
validation as a strategy to ensure consistency of the preliminary findings from interviews
conducted. The researcher shared the preliminary findings with three interviewed participants as
part of this study and requested feedback regarding the researcher’s interpretation of the data
collected thereby minimizing the researcher’s biases in the data analysis phase. Merriam and
Tisdell (2016) argue that respondent validation is an essential strategy that avoids the researcher

49
misinterpreting what participants have said in the interviews conducted. Specifically, the
researcher individually asked respondents if the preliminary analysis accurately resonated with
their experiences.
Ethics
According to Merriam and Tisdell (2014), the ethical practices of a researcher can
significantly impact the integrity of a study. As such, there are several ethical considerations the
researcher is responsible for with respect to involving human participants in this study.
Subsequently, the research submitted the study to the University of Southern California
Institutional Review Board (IRB) to obtain approval. The IRB provides clear ethical guidelines
that the researcher conscientiously adhered to, including, a requirement of informed consent
from all participants. An informed consent form was provided, reviewed, and signed by all
participants prior to conducting the study. Appendix A presents the informed consent form.
Glesne (2011) states that informed consent is important to ensure that participants of a study are
aware that the data collected will not disclose information that could identify individuals and that
participation is voluntary. Additionally, the researcher gained permission to record audio during
the interviews through informed consent. However, the researcher reminded participants at the
start of the interview that participation was voluntary with the option to withdraw at any time
during the process.
The research utilized an online service such as rev.com to transcribe interviews
verbatim. Transcription of a recorded interview verbatim increases the quality of data for the
researcher to conduct the analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2014). Although services provided
transcribed interviews verbatim, the researcher was responsible for coding potential identifiers
such as names with pseudonyms for ethical consideration to participant confidentiality. Data

50
collected, including participant recorded audio, was appropriately stored and secured using a
password protected computer.
This study sought to engage a purposeful sample of teachers that have taught in JSD's
secondary grade-level school sites for at least two years. The relationship of the researcher with
JSD and its teachers is that of community partner with no legal, contractual obligations or formal
supervisorial conflicts. Subsequently, participation would not affect performance evaluations or
job advancement opportunities. However, to avoid any perceived or potential feeling of coercion
or pressure to participate, the researcher reiterated at the start of the interview that participation is
confidential with complete anonymity. In addition, the researcher reminded participants that
participation was voluntary, and incentives would not be provided. Although, the researcher sent
a thank you card to each participant as a gesture of gratitude.
Addressing assumptions and biases of the researcher was an ethical responsibility of
consideration in conducting this study. Rubin and Rubin (2012) argue that the role of the
researcher in conducting an interview is to hear what the interviewee has to say, not to express
personal beliefs or opinions. It was critical that the researcher account for any assumptions and
biases prior to the collection of data, conducting an analysis of data, and other study-related
activities. Therefore, the researcher assumed the following:
• JSD secondary grade-level teachers want all students to be academically successful;
• JSD teacher participants care about all students and want all students to be social-
emotionally healthy; and
• JSD teacher participants will be transparent in their interview responses.
The researcher accounted for the following biases in conducting this study:
• Over 15 years in the field of education and youth development;

51
• Ethnicity, culture, and language is reflective of the population of students within JSD;
and
• Belief in restorative practices as an alternative to punitive disciplinary actions in K-12
urban education.
The researcher had no central role in JSD, however, acknowledges the assumptions and
biases indicated above must be accounted for to avoid possible ethical problems in conducting
this study. Merriam and Tisdell (2014) suggest that researchers account for ethical
considerations related to biases since awareness of one's own biases may not always be evident.
Accordingly, the researcher was attentive to the ethical responsibilities and considerations
concerning involvement of human participants in this study.

52
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND FINDINGS
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of restorative practices in
the Just School District (JSD) as an alternative discipline practice with a focus on the knowledge,
motivation and organizational influences related to achieving the organizational goal to decrease
referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June 2021 using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap
analysis framework. This study utilized a qualitative approach to answer the research questions.
The questions that guided this study were:
1. What is the knowledge associated with secondary urban education teachers’
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors?
2. What is the motivation associated with secondary urban education teachers’
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors?
3. What is the interaction between the organizational culture and secondary urban education
teachers’ knowledge and motivation to implement restorative practices?
A review of relevant literature determined the assumed conceptual, procedural, and
metacognitive knowledge influences associated with contextual JSD and its secondary grade-
level. Specifically, it was assumed that JSD secondary grade-level teachers need to know: (a)
the details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice to address perceived challenging
student behaviors (conceptual knowledge); (b) how to integrate restorative practices into the
classroom learning environment (procedural knowledge); (c) examine the strategies used to
implement restorative practices (metacognitive). Similarly determined were the assumed
motivational influences. In particular, JSD secondary grade-level teachers need to see the value

53
of integrating restorative practices into the classroom learning environment as it relates to the
organizational goal (utility) and believe they are capable of applying restorative practices to
address perceived challenging student behaviors and to reflect on how they do this (self-
efficacy). There is one cultural model and one cultural setting that describe the assumed
organizational influences affecting JSD’s ability to implement restorative practices as an
alternative to punitive disciplinary actions. JSD needs to allocate professional development
support resources toward integrating restorative practices (cultural model) and establish an
infrastructure of accountability related to developing a restorative mindset that addresses
perceived challenging student behaviors (cultural setting).
Participating Stakeholders

As mentioned in previous chapters, a complete analysis would involve all JSD grade
level teachers, students, and administrators. However, for practical purposes, the stakeholder of
focus for this study was JSD’s secondary teachers. During data collection, 15 teachers were sent
electronic mail communications that included an introductory email, a follow-up email to
encourage participation, and a reminder email to those who replied agreement to voluntarily
participate in an interview. A total of 10 secondary grade-level JSD teachers participated in
interviews conducted using an interview protocol (see Appendix B). Qualitative data analysis
simultaneously occurred as data was collected through the interviews conducted. Table 5 shows
the demographics of the teachers that participated in the interviews conducted for this study
which included representation from at least one of each of the four secondary schools in JSD.

54
Table 5
Teacher Participant Demographics
Participant
3
Gender Ethnicity Years with JSD
AB Male White 8
CD Male Black 8
EF Female Black 4
GH Male White 10
IJ Female Latina 5
KL Female Latina 3
MN Female Black 6
OP Male Asian Pacific
Islander
7
QR Female Asian Pacific
Islander
9
ST Female White 9

Determination of Assets and Needs
The qualitative data presented is informed by the interviews conducted to validate the
assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences. Specifically, interviews were
conducted with JSD secondary grade-level teachers using an interview protocol with 20
questions to understand the knowledge, motivation, and organization needs and assets influences
affecting JSD’s ability to implement restorative practices as an alternative to punitive
disciplinary practices. This chapter presents the qualitative data collected and organized by the
previously described assumed knowledge, motivation, and organization influences.
Furthermore, this chapter categorizes the influences based on data analysis as a validated gap
indicating a need or invalidated suggesting an asset. By analyzing the data gathered from the
interviews conducted, influences were considered a validated gap or need if fewer than six of the
participants interviewed confirmed the assumed influence. Similarly, an invalidated gap or asset

3
The names given are pseudonyms and not the actual names of the participants.

55
was determined if the data analysis indicates more than six participants interviewed reject the
assumed influence. An asset does not suggest that further improvement is not required; however,
it suggests that additional support is needed to address the validated gaps or needs for JSD to
achieve its intended goal.
Findings for Knowledge Influences
Research Question #1: What is the knowledge associated with secondary urban
education teachers’ implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging
student behaviors?
This study's data indicate particular attention to knowledge influences that produce
challenges to implementing restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors in JSD. Although a clear interest among teachers to support students when perceived
challenging student behaviors occur exists as indicated by data analysis, the data analysis also
revealed gaps in the assumed knowledge influences. Conceptually, teachers desire to implement
restorative practices in the classroom. However, an identified knowledge gap regarding the
details of a punishment to a restorative continuum of practice was less apparent based on data
analysis. Additionally, a validated lack of procedural knowledge limits teachers' ability to
integrate restorative practices as an inherent aspect of their classroom learning environment.
Teachers reported reliance on JSD's professional development as the designated time to examine
strategies to implement restorative practices and reported involving other stakeholder groups to
reflect on the implementation process. Table 6 below shows the knowledge influences for this
study and indicates each influence's determination as an asset or a need.

56
Table 6
Knowledge Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data

Conceptual Knowledge
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to know how to examine the strategies used
to implement restorative practices.
There are two notable knowledge gaps or needs as indicated by the analysis of data of the
interviews conducted with teachers. The first is consistent with what Beatty (2013) suggests,
that the complexities of support that students may require cannot solely rely on restorative
practices as a prescribed solution to all students’ diverse needs. In other words, complex needs
must be met with a comprehensive system of support that includes restorative practices in
alignment with similar initiatives that may already exist in schools. The second is that teachers’
emotional support needs must be recognized, and responsive measures must be implemented to
prevent teachers from becoming emotionally overwhelmed.

Assumed Knowledge Influence Knowledge Type Asset or Need
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers
need to know the details of a
punishment-to-restorative continuum of
practice to address perceived
challenging student behaviors.

Declarative (Conceptual) Need
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers
need to know how to integrate
restorative practices into the classroom
learning environment.

Procedural Asset
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers
need to know how to examine the
strategies to implement restorative
practices.

Metacognitive Need

57
The first knowledge influence is associated with the conceptual knowledge of a
punishment to a restorative continuum of practice to address perceived challenging student
behaviors. Three significant themes emerged specifically to teachers’ conceptual knowledge of a
punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice by analyzing the interview transcripts. The first
theme that emerged is that a shift from punishment to restorative practices is rooted in
relationships, while the second theme that emerged centered around a sense of agency that
students develop as a result of restorative practices implemented in the classroom. The third
emergent theme is related to support for students beyond the restorative practice of circles. The
proceeding section provides a summary of the interview findings related to conceptual
knowledge.
Five teachers described positive engagement and interactions between teacher and
students as an indicator of restorative practices implementation. For instance, teacher IJ stated,
“you can tell by how a teacher talks with their students if they really care… a real connection
from a teacher with their students is usually how to tell that restorative practices are being
implemented.” IJ’s quote shows positive interaction between teacher and student that
demonstrates the implementation of restorative practices. Teacher OP described implementation
of restorative practices as language used among teachers when discussing students. Specifically,
when asked how one would know that if a teacher was implementing restorative practices,
teacher OP stated, “if restorative practices are being implemented, you’ll know because of how a
teacher will not talk in a deficit about students.” Six of the teachers interviewed similarly
described restorative practices as a shift in how teachers discuss (e.g., strength-based, support-
focused) or address students (e.g., asset-based) in the school environment. Like the assertion by
Gubi and Bocanegra (2015), meaningful engagement between teachers and students is more

58
likely to occur when social-emotional support exists in the classroom learning environment.
These findings further support the notion that restorative practices improve students’ educational
experiences by reshaping the relationships between teachers and students in the learning
environment (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2010).
In describing how restorative practices address harm in the community, teachers
indicated that students’ emotional skills and the agency developed within the classroom are more
readily transferable to how students interact in their lived community. Although circles were
often indicated by the teachers interviewed, the type of circle was absent from the teachers’
responses suggesting a possible gap in teachers’ conceptual knowledge of the types of restorative
circles. Teacher EF, for instance, referenced restorative circles and expressed that “support
students receive through circles gives space for students to feel safe and build resilience that
many of our students need just to survive in their neighborhoods.” The inference drawn from
EF’s excerpt was that a lack of indication of the circle type does not necessarily diminish
teachers’ understanding of students’ social-emotional development resulting from the
engagement in restorative circles. Four teachers expressed that students develop empathy and an
awareness of others as a result of listening to each other when participating in restorative circles
that then influences student behaviors when outside of school. For example, teacher KL stated,
“teachers are limited in what we can do when our students are away from school, but what is in
our control is what we teach and hope that it makes a difference for them at home, with their
friends or in their community.” Teachers interviewed acknowledged the personal-social and
emotional development achieved as a result of implementing restorative practices in the students’
lives. Because restorative practices often provide a level of support needed in students’ own
lived environment (Archwamety & Katsiyannis (2000). When student’s social-emotional needs

59
are a focused area of support by implementing restorative practices, schools will often
experience a decline in behavioral conflicts (Archwamety & Katsiyannis, 2000; Duncan-
Andrade & Morrell, 2008; Ginwright, 2015; Lustick, 2017). However, participants also
acknowledged limitations suggesting that the safety created by restorative practices in the
classroom is not necessarily a guarantee when students navigate the spaces beyond the school,
such as in their neighborhoods, homes, and workplace.
Three of the teachers interviewed were particularly critical of the extent to which
restorative practices can address harm in the community. For instance, teacher EF expressed,
“the stories that some of the students share during circle … it’s like any difference we make is
not enough once our students go home and deal with some of the stuff … one of my student’s
got caught stealing then was in juvenile hall for several days.” Another teacher similarly noted
the complexity of experiences that students may encounter in the community is beyond the
support restorative practices alone provide. Indicating, for example, “one of my student’s had
his friend killed right in front of him. Restorative practices can’t solve these kinds of issues or
trauma. We have to figure how to get other services that our students need.” Such responses
show that teachers’ knowledge of a continuum or restorative practices better informs their
approach to the comprehensive needs of students that may require support services beyond those
readily available within the classroom, in addition to knowing the type of restorative circle most
contextually relevant to the unique needs of the student. Ryan et al. (2013) described the healthy
development of students as dependent on a continuum of care involving community partnerships
that provide support to students beyond those available during school hours. The effectiveness
of restorative practices in various situations poses limitations when thought of as a program
instead of a practice model with principles that guide the inherent questions that seek to restore

60
in a wide range of circumstances (Zehr, 2002) that seem beyond reach, like those indicated by
teachers interviewed.
Procedural Knowledge
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to know how to integrate restorative practices
into the classroom learning environment.
The second influence is related to procedural knowledge. The assumed influence that
secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to know how to integrate restorative practices into the
classroom learning environment is an invalidated gap or asset as determined from findings from
the data collected through the interviews conducted. Teachers acknowledged that implementing
restorative practices in the classroom requires necessary conditions to shift from a traditional to
restorative learning environment. However, conveying the specificity of integrating restorative
practices was limited. Additionally, most teachers described community agreements and
articulated how agreements are utilized in the classroom to facilitate a sense of community and
the use of agreements to approach classroom management. However, they expressed little else
to indicate how restorative practices are integrated in the classroom learning environment. As
such, procedural knowledge is a determined asset.
For JSD to meet its organizational goal, teachers need to know how to integrate
restorative practices into the classroom learning environment. In other words, teachers need to
know applicable practices (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001) associated with the implementation of
restorative practices. Findings from the interviews conducted indicated two specific themes.
The first theme involves restorative practices creating conditions for change, and the second
theme focuses on a shift from rules to community agreements.

61
Four teachers described the implementation of restorative practices in the classroom
involves creating the conditions for change. Specifically, several responses described restorative
practices as a reshaping of one’s own beliefs, a process that is often encountered on a personal
level and with complexity (Smith et al., 2015). For instance, teacher IJ stated that
implementation of restorative practice “requires a deep re-examination of your role as educator
and what that role means in the lives of students.” Here, IJ’s quote shows teachers applying
restorative practice involves rethinking traditional teacher roles in classroom beyond the
facilitator of subject content to a caring adult in a student’s life. Whereas teacher OP suggested
that restorative practice is addressing the emotional needs of students by stating:
Hurt translates into behavior or words that you might find in any other circumstance
disrespectful, but if you’re truly implementing restorative practices, then you’re no longer
about pushing kids out or punishing them just because you get cursed at one day.
The inference drawn from OP’s statement is that restorative practices reframes apathy
among teachers when perceived challenging student behaviors occur. For example, when
teachers were probed to provide an example of when a student was not following the classroom
rules, six teachers similarly responded by describing the importance of acknowledging student’s
feelings in the moment feelings surface instead of a reactionary consequence. According to
Hopkins (2003), successful integration of restorative practices occurs when educators apply
compassion and active listening skills in learning environments. These fundamental acts of
relationship building and restoration are not easily established through traditional content-
centered teaching (Ginwright, 2015). Teacher MN, for example, expressed the importance of
understanding the cause of the behavior sharing, “the student won’t be in a place to learn if we’re
not addressing what has happened first.” Teacher EF’s response was common of most

62
responses, noting that understanding the root cause of the behavior is often needed to
appropriately address what surfaces in the classroom (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005), as perceived
challenging student behaviors. Teacher OP’s response summarizes the findings indicative of the
theme stating, “conditions in the classroom have to create safeguards and an environment that is
a learning space that values each student as a person first.” Additional specificity emerged when
teachers were asked to describe typical classroom management in their classrooms.
The act of refocusing and re-centering of behavior was also similarly indicated by
teachers when probed to describe when the classroom felt out of control, or a student was not
following the classroom rules. Teacher ST specifically stated, “don’t often have classroom
management issues in my classroom. We have established agreements, and students know what
the expectations are.” Teacher MN indicated that students are redirected to the classroom
agreements, further adding that a restorative conversation, which Amstutz and Mullet (2005)
describe as a preventative approach, with a student occurs to resolve conflict or de-escalate
behaviors that are seemingly disruptive to the classroom community. Three teachers
distinguished classroom rules from classroom agreements describing classroom agreements as
inclusive of students and teachers’ shared needs to facilitate a culture of community within the
classroom. Teachers are more readily able to facilitate prosocial behaviors in the classroom with
clear agreements and established procedures (Smith et al., 2015). For example, teacher CD
stated, “We spent time exploring what was needed to create a safe, meaningful learning
environment and then we talked through a shared understanding of what each of our agreement
would look like in practice” when asked to provide an example of how to implement restorative
practices in the classroom. Agreements work better among varying size groups when developed
with those that will be using applying them (Smith et al., 2015). Another teacher expressed that

63
although classroom agreements may differ from each classroom, they are a consistent restorative
practice across all secondary classes. Interestingly, classroom agreements emerged as a theme
suggesting a reliance on practical procedural implementation of restorative practices in
classroom management which is why procedural knowledge is a determined asset.
Metacognitive Knowledge
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to know how to examine the strategies used
to implement restorative practices.
The last knowledge influence is metacognitive knowledge. Four teachers notably
indicated a desire to involve other school stakeholders such as students to critically examine
implementation strategies that closely align with the restorative philosophy of students’ voice as
an essential practice of a restorative approach in schools (Smith et al., 2015). In addition,
consistency in implementation to address perceived challenging student behaviors emerged as a
necessity for JSD secondary grade-level teachers to examine the strategies used to implement
restorative practices. Accordingly, metacognitive knowledge is determined to be a need.
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to know how to examine the strategies used to
implement restorative practices to meet JSD’s organizational goal. To evaluate metacognitive
knowledge, teachers were asked to describe the type of challenges they have experienced
applying restorative practices in the classroom and how they mitigate those challenges. Two
themes emerged from the data collected and are presented below.
Five of the teachers interviewed described various reflection processes they would
undergo when challenges occur applying restorative practices in the classroom. For instance,
three indicated convening a circle for teachers and students to reflect on the successes and
difficulties of restorative strategies used in the classroom. Teacher OP, for example, described

64
the process as an opportunity to address challenges by listening to the multiple perspectives that
are influential in the overall success of implementing restorative practices. Teacher OP stated,
“for us [teachers] to do better, we have to include and be open to student feedback around what’s
not working.” A structured process of reflection involving teachers gathering feedback from
students provides the opportunity for teachers to examine pedogeological practices centered
around student learning (Rodgers, 2002) or experiences in the classroom.
Teacher QR’s response is reflective of the theme that emerged across most of the
interviews conducted by expressing, “the challenge I often encounter is non-responsiveness or
lack of engagement from students.” When teachers were probed to describe how they mitigate
challenges they experience, nearly half of the teachers interviewed stated that challenges are not
immediately mitigated. Instead, teachers indicated documenting the challenges encountered
when applying restorative practices in the classroom to explore how to mitigate those challenges
amongst colleagues during scheduled professional development sessions. For instance, teacher
GH expressed, “if I’m having difficulty getting a student to reengage and the practices I’m
attempting are not working, then I’ll use that experience to explore how to address it if should
happen again during one of our PD’s [professional development].” Avoiding the escalation of
circumstances when implementing restorative practices prevents unnecessary assertation of
power over students (Smith et al., 2015). Critical to teachers’ knowledge development is context
from the classroom experience (Horn & Little, 2010). Further, consciously deciding to bring
forth challenges experienced in scheduled professional development sessions offers an
opportunity for critical inquiry that Ginwright (2015) describes as facilitated conversations,
discussions, and problem-solving issues to occur. Seemingly, teachers may be aware of
challenges experienced when applying restorative practices. However, they may not

65
immediately in real-time mitigate those challenges. Discerning behaviors lends itself to
providing teachers an informed framework to determine if an immediate response is required
and, if not, discerning what possible response would be most appropriate (Smith et al., 2015).
Conversely, five teachers specifically expressed a lack of consistency among teachers or
staff in the strategies used when asked to describe a type of challenge experienced when
applying restorative practices in the classroom. Teacher GH explicitly expressed the challenges
caused by the lack of consistency by stating, “It’s difficult to create restorative culture in my
class when it’s not the same experiences students are having in another class. It diminishes our
efforts and sends a concerning message to our students.” When probed about how to mitigate
such challenges, teacher ST shared that establishing clear guidelines and maintaining consistency
even if absent in other classrooms is essential to mitigating challenges related to lack of
consistency. However, students better understand what to expect even when the procedures
differ from each classroom when related restorative practices are well-defined (Smith et al.,
2015). Teacher MN’s response exemplifies this theme that emerged through the interviews by
stating, “if we’re to see a level of impact that I think we’re all expecting, then there has to be
consistency in how we’re using restorative practices in the classroom and at the school.” The
lack of consistency in implementing restorative practices and examining such strategies, as
indicated by teachers’ responses, informs metacognitive knowledge as a determined need.
Motivation Influences

Research Question #2: What is the motivation associated with secondary urban
education teachers’ implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging
student behaviors?
In addition to knowledge influences, this study has assumed motivation influences

66
derived from an expectancy value theory and a self-efficacy theory both that impact JSD
teachers’ implementation of restorative practices. Specifically, the assumption of this study is
that the value teachers feel about integrating restorative practices and their belief in their ability
to confidently apply restorative practices may impact JSD’s implementation of restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. In other words, low self-efficacy
and minimal value among JSD teachers will suggest a motivational gap; however, significant
value and self-efficacy conversely suggest a motivational asset. Findings associated with the
assumed motivation influences are presented in the subsequent sections. Table 7 below shows
the motivation influences for this study and indicates each influence's determination as an asset
or a need.
Table 7
Motivation Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data

Assumed Motivation Influence Motivation Type Asset or Need
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers
need to see the value of integrating
restorative practices into the classroom
learning environment as it relates to the
organizational goal.

Utility Value Asset
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers
need to believe they are capable of
applying restorative practices to
address perceived challenging student
behaviors and to reflect on how they do
this.

Self-Efficacy Need

67
Value
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to see the value of integrating restorative
practices into the classroom learning environment as it relates to the organizational goal.
The first motivation influence is associated with value. Specifically, secondary grade-
level JSD teachers need to see the utility value of integrating restorative practices into the
classroom learning environment to meet JSD’s organizational goal. Teachers’ responses
expressed value for restorative practices and further indicated that value, although not always
immediate, can be established over time. Findings from the interviews conducted suggest that as
an understanding of restorative practice develops over time, teachers’ motivation increases,
thereby increasing the likelihood of teachers utilizing restorative practices instead of punitive
disciplinary actions. Additionally, a pattern of a supportive culture of discipline emerged
exploring the value of integrating restorative practices into the classroom to address perceived
challenging student behaviors. Accordingly, the assumed influence that JSD teachers need to see
the utility value of integrating restorative practices into the classroom learning environment is
determined to be an asset.
Three of the teachers interviewed explicitly acknowledged their own hesitations with the
implementation of restorative practices, noting their own lack of belief when asked to share
thoughts when some people say that restorative practices in education provide no added value.
Describing the early phases of implementation as another program layered on-top of the multiple
prevention and intervention programs being implemented by the district. To demonstrate this
trend, one teacher expressed:

68
As teachers in a district such as ours you get introduced to a new program every school
year. There’s new research that says we should be doing this or that and the district will
implement the program without consideration to the unique needs of our schools.
Teacher ST similarly shared, “Initially, I didn’t think restorative justice seemed practical
especially since we were already expected to be responsible to do all the other programs.”
Restorative practices go beyond a newly added program; restorative practices offer a new
framework for practice that should complement existing approaches of teachers or educators
(Amstutz & Mullet, 2005).
Although three teachers described their initial hesitations with the implementation of
restorative practices, responses shifted expressing a resounding value of restorative practices in
education on the culture of the school. For example, teacher EF indicated a noted difference in
teacher planning stating, “it’s no longer how do we fit this into our classrooms, it’s an integrated
practice.” Teacher IJ described a behavioral shift among teachers and staff when discussions
occur about students stating, “how we talked, our language shifted; we’re no longer talking about
these students as a problem, but we are trying to determine factors causing student behavioral
problems.” While seemingly of value to the pedological practices of teachers, participants
similarly indicated a significant value of restorative practices in relation to students.
Teachers interviewed expressed the value of restorative practices in education,
specifically in the context of student behavior. In particular, six of the 10 teachers described an
improved change in how students are perceived and the manner in which student discipline is
addressed. Teacher CD’s response reflects this theme by stating:

69
Considering where we were before it was if we had given up on some of students not
because we didn’t care but honestly because we just didn’t … we just were overwhelmed.
You know restorative justice practices has made us reexamine how we handle discipline.
Providing an example, teacher EF stated, “I’ve noticed an increase in attendance, and there’s
better communication between my students and me,” when asked to describe the behavioral
change among students resulting from the integration of restorative practices. Shared nurturing
and supportive, trusting, and meaningful relationships between students and adults required by
restorative practices combined with meaningful relevant instructional lessons reduces likelihood
of perceived challenging student behaviors (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Smith et al., 2015).
Teacher MN’s response further illustrates this theme by expressing:
The culture of our school is far less reactive and much more responsive to the needs of
students. To not give a behavioral referral but to have a restorative conversation with my
students to better understand the root cause of misbehavior so that we can go back to
meaningfully engage in the academic learning.
The inference drawn from this statement is that punitive disciplinary practices are less likely to
occur and further suggest that a reliance on restorative practices as an alternative positive
approach to discipline is likely to occur to avoid negatively impacting students learning. As
teachers increasingly value integrating restorative practices into the classroom learning
environment, a reimagining of school discipline similarly occurs closely aligning with a
restorative approach (Evans & Vaandering, 2016).

70
Self-Efficacy
Secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to believe they are capable of applying
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors and to reflect on how
they do this.
The second motivation influence is associated with self-efficacy. Secondary grade-level
JSD teachers need to believe they are capable of applying restorative practices to address
perceived challenging student behaviors and to reflect on how they do this to meet JSD’s
organizational goal. Several responses from teachers suggest that challenging circumstances
involving students negatively impacts teacher’s performance resulting in low self-efficacy. This
finding supports Weiner’s (2009) suggestion that self-efficacy is dependent on individual
perception. In other words, context variables can significantly alter a perceived ability to
implement a task. Conversely, observable positive results on student behavior when applying
restorative practices consequently positively influences teacher’s self-efficacy. Depending on
teachers, alone, to be responsible for the implementation of restorative practices to address
perceived challenging student behaviors in itself is unjust and lacks accountability for overall
school culture and climate which requires a commitment from all stakeholders. Teachers alone
cannot effectively address the needs of all students when faced with the complexities of urban
education (Watson, 2012).
The assumed influence that JSD teachers need to believe they are capable of applying
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors and to reflect on how
they do this is determined to be a need. Although most teachers seemly expressed a value for
restorative practices, few expressed a belief in their abilities to apply restorative practices to
address perceived challenging student behaviors. Several teachers that noted a lack of immediate

71
results or notable changes in behavior felt less efficacious in their abilities to address perceived
challenging student behaviors. Smith et al. (2015) emphasize the importance of acknowledging
that restorative practices involve a series of intervention responses exist with no response
significantly more critical over another. However, since self-efficacy is task-specific (Bandura,
1994), teachers’ self-efficacy may influence their application of restorative practices when
perceived challenging student behaviors fluctuate.
Responses from teachers interviewed suggested a possibility of low self-efficacy in
circumstances when teachers perceived student behavior escalated beyond the scope of their
capacity to apply restorative practices. Teacher QR for example, expressed concern specifically
noting that “when emotions are heightened and a student feels angry it’s difficult to prevent
certain behaviors from acting out.” Teacher KL similarly stated, “there are behavioral triggers
teachers aren’t equipped to identify let alone address” and further explained, “our school
counselors offer little support so the accountability of emotional behaviors weighs heavily on
teachers.” Such responses suggest that teachers may not feel capable of applying restorative
practices to restore harmony in the classroom when confronted with what they perceive as
complex, challenging student behaviors and are less likely to reflect on their attempts.
Consequently, teachers risk reverting to unsuccessful punitive disciplinary (Evans & Vaandering,
2016).
Four of the 10 teachers interviewed, however, expressed a strong belief in their ability to
apply restorative practices and indicated how they are able to do so. For example, teacher OP
felt confident in the ability to use restorative practices stating, “it’s probably imperfect, but you
have to be confident”, adding that the value of “my imperfection equates to authenticity in how I
use restorative practices in my classroom.” Teacher GH similarly stated, “I feel confident in my

72
ability to use restorative practices although I would probably describe my ability as novice.”
Teacher MN expressed the importance of “persistence” and participation in “the restorative
professional development” in helping to influence the ability of using restorative practices.
Teacher EF simply stated, “always in development” when asked to describe ability to use
restorative practices and further added, “I ground myself in what I know, but recognize a need
for continuous growth.” Although teachers acknowledge an ability to implement restorative
practices, their responses often included recognizing an opportunity to foster continued
professional development or expressed a lack of feeling efficacious when perceived challenging
student behaviors seemingly extended beyond teachers’ knowledge-based experience. Evans
and Vaandering (2016) suggest that teachers will become discouraged and are least likely to
believe in their ability to apply restorative practices without ongoing teacher professional
development to provide the support necessary for sustainable implementation. Teachers’ quotes
demonstrate why the motivational influence, self-efficacy is a determined need.
Organizational Influences

Research Question #3: What is the interaction between the organizational culture and
secondary urban education teachers’ knowledge and motivation to implement restorative
practices?
In addition to the knowledge and motivation influences, this study has assumed
organizational influences that affect JSD’s secondary teacher’s ability to implement restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. This section provides the findings
from the interviews conducted with teachers specific to JSD’s cultural model and cultural
settings. Cultural models can be described as the beliefs or values of an organization and the
cultural settings as the observable concrete appearance of cultural models (Gallimore &

73
Goldenberg, 2001). This section provides the findings from the interviews conducted with JSD’s
secondary teachers specific to the cultural model and cultural settings. The cultural model
assumed influence evaluated in this study was allocation of resources, specifically the allocation
of professional development support resources toward the integration of restorative practices.
The evaluated assumed influence of cultural setting of this study was an infrastructure of
accountability related to developing a restorative mindset that address perceived challenging
student behaviors. The subsequent section presents the results and findings aligned to these
assumed cultural model and setting influences. Table 8 below shows the organization influences
for this study and indicates each influence's determination as an asset or a need.
Table 8
Organization Assets or Needs as Determined by the Data

Cultural Model
The organization needs to allocate professional development support resources toward
the integration of restorative practices.
The first organizational influence that affect’s JSD’s teachers’ ability to implement
restorative practices is cultural models. Specifically, the organization needs to allocate

Assumed Organization Influence Organization Type Asset or Need
The organization needs to allocate
professional development support
resources toward the integration of
restorative practices.

Cultural Model Asset
The organization needs to establish an
infrastructure of accountability related
to developing a restorative mindset that
address perceived challenging student
behaviors.

Cultural Setting Need

74
professional development support resources toward the integration of restorative practices. Data
gathered from interviews conducted with secondary grade-level JSD’s teachers indicated two
themes. The first theme is that teachers find the professional development offerings
encouraging, particularly noting an appreciation for peer collaboration. The second theme that
emerged similarly showed an appreciation for peer learning integrated with aspects of healing.
Restorative circles were notably indicated as an aspect of learning the professional
development provided. However, notably absent from teachers’ responses were restorative
practices used in the classroom other than circles, such as procedures that support self-regulatory
behaviors (Gubi & Bocanegra, 2015; Smith et al., 2015) or explicit practices focused on
restoring students’ social-emotional wellness while nurturing teacher-student relationships
(Amstutz & Mullet, 2005; Wadhwa, 2016). In addition, findings suggest that collaborative
learning with other teachers and the healing that occurs during the scheduled professional
development are an essential asset. Consequently, the cultural model influence that the
organization needs to allocate professional development support resources toward the integration
of restorative practices is determined to be an asset.
When asked about the kind of professional development provided related to restorative
practices, all the teachers described professional development opportunities offered by the
district, which is essential to sustaining a positive school culture and climate (Gregory et al.,
2016). Teachers shared that the district provides a professional development session focused on
restorative justice at the start of the school year for all staff intended to establish context and
promote expectations for the new school year. Teacher CD’s response encompasses several of
the teachers’ responses when asked to describe the kind of professional development provided:
“everyone gets trained in the theory and strategies of restorative justice practices at the start of

75
the school, but not everyone participates in the ongoing training throughout the school year.”
Beyond the all-staff start of school professional development, teachers indicated ongoing
monthly professional development that several described as opportunities for cross-site
collaboration with teachers from other schools. Teacher OP’s response demonstrates this theme
by stating, “the monthly PD [professional development] relationship building and collaboration
with school teachers.” Teacher GH similarly noted that the district, “provides continued PD to
practice and participate in circle process.” Teacher CD also detailed collaboration with teachers
from other schools by stating, “connecting with other teachers creates a very supportive
experience and helps in my learning.” The findings from this study similarly align with that
suggested by researchers that through collaboration, multiple perspectives from various
disciplinaries create an opportunity for teachers to critically think about how to address
challenges experienced in the classroom (Rodgers, 2002; Horn & Little, 2010).
When probed to describe the learning experience during professional development, a
theme of peer learning and healing emerged. For instance, several teachers expressed an
appreciation for application of the skills that enhanced the learning experience. Teacher QR for
example, expressed that the “actual circle experiences during our PD were eye opening.
Actually, doing taught me so much.” Teacher ST response similarly demonstrates the emergent
theme by stating, “I think a real strength of the monthly professional development is that we get
to practice with each other; each one of us gets a turn to lead a circle.” The peer learning and
opportunities for application of implementing restorative practices through facilitation of circles
emerged as valuable learning experiences for teachers interviewed. The application of the
procedural knowledge was notably critical for the teachers interviewed, however, equally notable
was a resounding expressed transformation of space from learning to healing, and collegial

76
emotional support. For instance, teacher KL expressed gratitude for the learning and the
“moments of healing, community building that better prepared us before going into the thick of
it.” Teacher IJ emphasized relationship building with other teachers as an aspect of healing
stating: “fosters relationships with other teachers that are experiencing similar challenges or
successes. It’s a learning space for us and a safe space for us to openly discuss challenges we’re
experiencing and to explore our own needs of healing.” These findings suggest that meaningful
teacher learning occurs because restorative practices provide the necessary conditions of shared
terminology, beliefs, values, and approach (Ginwright, 2015; Evans & Vaandering, 2016) that,
when absent in professional development, limits the experience of authentic teacher learning
(Horn & Little, 2010). Teacher quotes noted collegial interconnectedness and experiential peer
learning among the benefits resulting from the professional development support resources
provided by the organization toward the integration of restorative practices. The organization’s
influence, cultural model, that JSD needs to allocate professional development support toward
integrating restorative practices is a determined asset.
Cultural Setting
The organization needs to establish an infrastructure of accountability related to
developing a restorative mindset that address perceived challenging student behaviors.
This section presents the findings from the interviews conducted with JSD’s teachers
centered around the organizational influence, cultural settings, which are the observable
contextual indicators of cultural models. In particular, an infrastructure of accountability related
to developing a restorative mindset that address perceived challenging student behaviors is
needed in order for the organization to achieve its goal. Findings from the interviews conducted

77
suggest a lack of infrastructure with minimal accountability beyond teacher’s implementation of
restorative practices in the classroom.
The assumed influence that JSD needs to establish an infrastructure of accountability
related to developing a restorative mindset that addresses perceived challenging student
behaviors was determined to be a need based on findings from the interviews conducted.
Teachers interviewed overwhelmingly indicated little to no discussion centered around
implementing restorative practices at school site level during departmental or staff meetings.
There was further indication, based on the data collected, that a lack of support exists beyond
teachers themselves. In other words, teachers seemingly shoulder the accountability of
implementing restorative practices with minimal support from school site or district level
administration. Findings suggest that if not all staff are committed to the implementation of
restorative practices then consequently, concern for accountability would be justifiable.
Eight of the teachers interviewed stated little to no occurrence of discussions related to
teachers use of restorative practices during staff meetings. Teacher AB, for example, noted that
the discussions, if they occur, “are usually limited” while teacher QR similarly stated, “it's rare,
but when it is discussed usually it’s as result of teacher making it a point of discussion.” What is
demonstrated from these quotes is that the discussion of restorative practices is a relatively
misplaced priority. Two teachers, however, similarly described staff meeting discussions
associated with restorative practices occurring in the context of intervention. For instance,
teacher GH stated, “if we have a student with behavioral or discipline issues then there’s a
discussion around RJ [restorative justice] attempts.” Minimal impact is achieved on student
outcomes when schools implement restorative practices to operate as a program instead of an
approach requiring a relational pedagogy between students and staff (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005;

78
Ginwright, 2015; Lustick, 2017). Teacher CD expressed that a lack of districtwide buy-in
negatively impacts implementation of restorative practices stating, “messaging from the district
is inconsistent.” Further indicating, “inconsistency from the top, I think, results in the
inconsistency at the school sites.” Overall, responses from teachers interviewed suggest that
minimal formalized opportunities exist devoted to discussion around the implementation of
restorative practices during staff meetings and a lack of supportive messaging from the district.
When asked who provides support with implementing restorative practices, four teachers
explained that they go to other teachers, and six explicitly stated that they seek support during
the monthly professional development. Teacher ST, for example, indicated other teachers as a
source of support, stating, “there’s no designated support person, so I usually seek support from
other teachers.” Two teachers similarly expressed going to other teachers that teach the same
subjects as them for support when needed. This approach seemingly suggests an informal
established peer network of support outside of the scheduled monthly professional development
exists to address implementation support needs of teachers at a localized school-site level.
Typical of most responses from teachers, although restorative practices may occur in the
classroom, a lack of commitment across the internal operating systems within an educational
organization limits the accountability for effective and responsive shared accountability of
implementation. However, providing a formalized infrastructure for teachers to examine and
address performance progress can support teachers’ implementation of practice in the classroom
(Hopkins & Woulfin, 2015). The cultural setting influence that JSD needs to establish an
infrastructure of accountability related to developing a restorative mindset that address perceived
challenging student behaviors is a determined need.

79
Synthesis of the Findings

This chapter presented the findings from the interviews conducted with secondary grade-
level JSD teachers. Using Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis framework, this qualitative study
sought to evaluate teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to the
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors.
Findings from this study suggests two knowledge gaps, one motivation gap, and one
organization gap as is discussed in this section.
Teachers interviewed overwhelmingly indicated a desire to implement restorative
practices and, more importantly, to support their students. Although teachers stated circles to
describe restorative practices, minimal differentiation of the circles’ types was conveyed in
teachers’ responses. Teachers expressed, however, confidence in their ability to implement and
apply classroom agreements as a procedural restorative practice. Findings further revealed that
although teachers may not examine real-time implementation challenges while in the classroom,
an awareness of those challenges is apparent and explored during scheduled professional
development. While it is essential for teachers to mitigate behaviors that are potentially harmful
to students' wellbeing, extensive training experience is needed to avoid the potential for further
harm, revictimization, or disempowerment of students (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Smith et al.,
2015).
Although teachers expressed a sentiment shared in the value of restorative practices in the
classroom, findings showed that when teachers perceive student behaviors are escalating, their
reliance on integrating restorative practices diminishes. Teachers' ability to rely on a restorative
continuum of practice consequently results in limitations to address perceived challenging
student behaviors when they occur. The findings suggest that the better equipped teachers are

80
with the knowledge necessary to implement restorative practices, the increased likelihood of
feeling efficacious when confronted with perceived challenging student behaviors.
Organizational influences, particularly around establishing an infrastructure of
accountability related to developing a restorative mindset while existing among teachers
implementing restorative practices, showed that schoolwide accountability is not consistent and
less districtwide. An invested resource allocation for continuous professional development
emerged as a support need for teachers for ongoing space for individual healing and
collaborative learning. The findings further suggested a collegial network of support informally
established between teachers resulting from necessitated support between scheduled professional
developments.
The proceeding Chapter Five makes recommendations based on the knowledge,
motivation, and organization influences. Specifically, the evidence-informed recommendations
are framed to address performance gaps as identified in this chapter. The New World
Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick, 2016) is utilized in Chapter Five to present an
implementation and evaluation plan.

81
CHAPTER FIVE: RECOMMENDATIONS
This study explored the knowledge, motivation, and organization influences related to the
Just School District (JSD) secondary-grade teachers implementing restorative practices to
address perceived challenging student behaviors as an alternative discipline practice. Chapter
Two presented the literature reviewed aligned with the assumed knowledge, motivation, and
organization influences of JSD’s secondary grade teachers integrated use of restorative practices
to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Chapter Four summarized findings from the
interviews conducted to answer the questions of this study’s qualitative research. This chapter
details evidence-based recommendations to address the performance gaps specific to this study’s
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences of focus. In addition, with the use of the
New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016), the recommendations
indicated in this chapter are presented as a suggested implementation and evaluation plan
intended to support the stakeholder of focus in achieving its performance goal, and ultimately,
JSD’s in meeting its goal to decrease referrals, suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June
2021.
The recommendations, implementation, and evaluation plan presented in this chapter
were developed based on the validated influences indicating a need resulting from this study’s
research findings. Consideration to training needs of teachers in a system readily designed or
organizationally structured to “industrialize schooling and undermine the well-being of
individuals and their communities” (p. 12) according to Evans and Vaandering (2016) further
developed the recommendations, implementation, and evaluation plan. This chapter concludes
with a section on the limitations of this study and considerations for future research around
integrating restorative practices in K-12 education.

82
Recommendations for Practice to Address KMO Influences
Chapter Four summarized the interviews findings conducted for this study to validate the
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences as needs or assets through the analysis of
data collected. Chapter Five considers the validated performance gaps or needs in the context of
evidenced-informed recommendations to address the knowledge types examined in this study,
including the motivation and organization influences secondary grade-level JSD teachers need to
implement restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Each
recommendation is framed in a proposed implementation and evaluation plan to address the
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences that impact JSD’s secondary grade-level
teachers’ ability to implement restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behavior.
The data suggest teachers lack the needed conceptual and metacognitive knowledge to
appropriately implement restorative practices. Specifically, findings from the data collected
identified four knowledge gaps as validated or determined need. Teachers’ lack the conceptual
knowledge of details within a punishment to restorative continuum of practice to address
perceived challenging student behaviors and lack the metacognitive knowledge to examine
strategies used to implement restorative practices. As such, the recommendations detailed in the
subsequent sections are guided by the supports suggested by Clark and Estes (2008) to close the
identified knowledge needs. These include training focused on concrete details of a restorative
continuum of practice (Amstutz & Mullet, 2005) to help teachers operationalize procedures and
job aids to guide teachers based on relevant real-world context. In addition, job aids can be
provided that assist teachers’ self-evaluation of current strategies implementing restorative
practices.

83
Knowledge Recommendations
Krathwohl (2002) provides the framework from which the knowledge types including
conceptual, procedural, and metacognitive were analyzed as part of this study’s examination of
JSD’s secondary grade teachers’ implementation of restorative practices to address perceived
challenging student behaviors. Table 9 represents a summary of assumed knowledge influences
with context-specific recommendations based on theoretical principles and indicated priority
based on being validated as a need as determined by the most frequently mentioned knowledge
influences to achieving the stakeholder goal during the interviews conducted. Clark and Estes
(2008) suggest that, “Training people effectively requires giving them accurate procedures,
practice, and corrective feedback that permits them to gradually automate the knowledge” (p.
74). In other words, identified learning strategies are necessary to enhance stakeholder
acquisition of knowledge. This is further supported by the review of literature (Anderson &
Krathwohl, 2001; Schraw& McCrudden, 2006; Wadhwa, 2016), indicating the assumed
knowledge influences presented in Table 9 are needed for JSD teachers to apply restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Specifically, Table 9 indicates the
validated knowledge influences and the recommendations based on theoretical principles.

84
Table 9
Summary of Knowledge Influences and Recommendations
Identified Knowledge
Influence
Knowledge
Type
Priority

Principle Context-Specific
Recommendation
Secondary grade-level
JSD teachers need to know
the details of a
punishment-to-restorative
continuum of practice to
address perceived
challenging student
behaviors.

Declarative
(Conceptual)
Yes Procedural
knowledge
increases when
declarative
knowledge
required to
perform the skill is
available or known
(Clark et al.,
2008).
Provide training that is
focused on concrete
details of a
punishment-to-
restorative continuum
of practice with
recruitment of staff to
support the modeling
of behaviors aligned to
continuum of practice.

Secondary grade-level
JSD teachers need to
reflect on their role in
integrating restorative
practices and evaluate the
effectiveness of their
current restorative
practices.

Metacognitive Yes The use of
metacognitive
strategies assist in
the facilitation of
learning (Baker,
2006).
Provide training that
utilizes case scenarios
to operationalize
procedures necessary
to integrate restorative
practices that
includes demonstrated
modeling of behaviors.

Provide a job aid that
includes a process
chart to guide self-
evaluation of current
integration of
restorative practices.

Declarative knowledge recommendations. The findings of this study indicated that
most secondary grade-level JSD teachers need more declarative knowledge about the specific
practices that move away from punishment toward restorative practices to address perceived
behavioral challenges as they occur. Information processing theory guides the recommendation
necessary to close this declarative knowledge gap. Clark et al. (2008) found that procedural
knowledge increases when declarative knowledge required to perform the skill is available or

85
known. This would suggest that providing learners with training around abstract practices to
inform the application in which learners can apply their knowledge through practice to support
learning. The training, therefore, will incorporate specific practices, such as determining
consequences with a meaningful connection to the perceived misbehavior (moving from
punishment to restoring the harm caused), or solution-based actions (seeking to address root
causes of behaviors), while involving the student throughout the decision-making process
(Amstutz & Mullet, 2005). Involving staff to support the modeling of behaviors aligned to a
restorative continuum of practices will help teachers differentiate specific details beyond the
application of circles through a guided application, which is particularly important since
conceptual knowledge is understanding of or making sense of ideas (Clark & Estes, 2008;
Krathwohl, 2002). The recommendation then is to provide training for JSD teachers that is
focused on concrete details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice with
recruitment of staff to support the modeling of behaviors aligned to the continuum.
Training is most useful when the learning needed includes increasing knowledge and
skills centered around new complex or less common practices (Clark & Estes, 2008). In order
for teachers to acquire the learning necessary to address perceived challenging student behaviors,
teachers must understand the concrete details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of
practice and discuss conditions of applicability (Kirkpatrick, 2006; Mayer, 2011). In addition to
a required shift in mindset (Wadhwa, 2016), JSD teachers need the conceptual knowledge to
differentiate the details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice to address
perceived challenging student behaviors. Therefore, training focused on concrete details of a
punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice with staff to model behaviors in alignment with
the continuum increases teachers’ learning. Subsequently, developing teachers’ preparedness to

86
process complex information while managing intrinsic load, enhances the learning experience
(Mayer, 2011).
Metacognitive knowledge recommendations. The findings of this study indicate that
JSD teachers need more metacognitive knowledge about how to reflect on their role in the
integration of restorative practices and self-evaluation of individual effectiveness of current
restorative practices. The use of metacognitive strategies assists in the facilitation of learning
(Baker, 2006). The information processing theory (Schraw & McCrudden, 2006) informs the
recommendation selected to close this metacognitive need. The recommendation then is to
provide training for JSD in which teachers have an opportunity to engage with peers to pair share
experiences with integrating restorative practices. An additional recommendation is to provide
teachers with a job aid that includes a process chart to guide teachers in steps necessary for self-
evaluation of current integration of restorative practices.
Opportunities for teachers to reflect on their effectiveness integrating restorative practices
to address perceived challenging student behaviors is critical for overall successful
implementation. Metacognitive knowledge is the self-awareness monitoring of one’s progress
through reflection strategies (Krathwohl, 2002). Additionally, metacognitive knowledge such as
reflection is a critical process of cognitive behaviors toward addressing problems by allowing an
individual to reflect on both the contextual and conditional characteristics of the problem of
focus (Rueda, 2011). Barley (2012) suggests that the use of knowledge and experience in
reflective practice serves as an essential component toward the identification of actions for
improved outcomes. Therefore, training with an opportunity for teachers to pair-share with peers
in addition to providing a job aid to guide teachers in the steps necessary for self-evaluation of

87
current integration of restorative practices contribute to teachers’ performance and transference
of learning.
Motivation Recommendations
The two motivational influences, utility value and self-efficacy, that guided this study are
described in Table 10. Based on the analysis of data collected, self-efficacy was determined to
be a motivational gap. Table 10 represent the complete list of assumed motivation influences
that were evaluated in this study. In addition, Table 10 presents the motivation influence,
motivation type, indicates the principle supported by the literature reviewed, and provides
context specific recommendations to address the need. Further discussion of the context specific
recommendation based on the noted theoretical principles and findings from the data collected
follow Table 10 below.

88
Table 10
Summary of Motivation Influences and Recommendations
Identified Motivation
Influence
Motivation
Type
Priority

Principle Context-Specific
Recommendation
Secondary grade-level
JSD teachers need to
believe they are
capable of applying
restorative practices to
address perceived
challenging student
behaviors and to reflect
on they do this.
Self-Efficacy Yes Self-efficacy
beliefs can
influence the
emotions and
behaviors of an
individual
(Bandura, 1991;
Rueda, 2011.

Feedback and
modeling
increases self-
efficacy (Pajares,
2006).

Learning is
enhanced when
learners have
positive
expectancies for
success
(Anderson &
Krathwohl,
2001).
Provide
opportunities for
teachers to reflect
with peers and to
collaborate for
shared supported
with a self-
reflection process
protocol that
guides toward
developing self-
efficacy.

Increasing teachers’ belief in their ability to apply restorative practices. The
findings of this study suggest that JSD teachers need greater belief in their ability to apply
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Specifically, results
indicate that when teachers perceive that student behaviors escalate beyond their capacity, a
teacher’s ability to apply restorative practices is negatively impacted. A recommendation
grounded in self-efficacy theory has been selected to improve this motivation influence. Self-
efficacy beliefs can influence the emotions and behaviors of the individual (Bandura, 1991;

89
Rueda, 2011). In addition, Pajares (2006) states that providing structured feedback increases
self-efficacy. This would suggest that providing teachers with a self-reflection process protocol
to engage with and receive peer feedback would support their development of self-efficacy.
Anderson and Krathwohl (2001) found that learning is enhanced when learners have positive
expectancies for success. This would suggest that JSD teachers are likely to have higher self-
efficacy in their ability to integrate restorative practices if they have positive expectancies for
their success based on the reflection and self-evaluation of their current practices. The
recommendation then is to provide opportunities for teachers to reflect and collaborate with
peers for shared learning with the use of a self-reflection process protocol.
According to Bandura (1991), self-efficacy is the perceived belief in one’s own ability to
perform a task. Self-efficacy is especially an affective characteristic that needs to be considered
for JSD’s teachers to apply restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors. Parajares (2006) indicates that high self-efficacy can positively influence motivation.
In other words, self-efficacy affects, and therefore can influence JSD’s teachers’ decision to
meaningfully participate in the application of restorative practices. From a theoretical
perspective, it seems that increasing teachers' self-efficacy would increase their application of
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. Consequently,
providing opportunities for teachers to engage in peer reflection and collaboration for shared
learning using a self-reflection process protocol increases development of self-efficacy.
Organization Recommendations
Two organizational influences were evaluated as part of this study. The two
organizational influences that were evaluated included, cultural model and cultural settings.
However, data analysis indicated a cultural setting gap specific to an infrastructure of

90
accountability related to developing a restorative mindset. Clark and Estes (2008) suggest that
organizational models or settings that lack alignment to an organization’s goals increase the
likelihood of inefficiency in organizational performance. An organization’s culture can be
analyzed based on the cultural settings and cultural models that exist within the organizational
structure (Gallimore & Goldenberg, 2001). Accordingly, both resources and processes, and
cultural models and settings must align throughout the organization’s structure to achieve the
intended mission and goals. Table 11 indicates a summary of the organization influences, related
theoretical principles, and context specific recommendation to address the need. The context
specific recommendation based on organizational change theory and findings from the data
collected are presented following Table 11.
Table 11
Summary of Organization Influences and Recommendations
Identified
Organizational Influence
Priority

Principle

Context-Specific
Recommendation
The organization needs
to establish an
infrastructure of
accountability related to
restorative practices that
address perceived
challenging student
behaviors (cultural
settings).
Yes Performance challenges
occur when there is a lack
of alignment between the
organizational culture and
organizational goals,
policies, and procedures
(Clark & Estes, 2008).
Align existing JSD
structures and processes
of accountability to the
implementation of
restorative practices at the
district and school site
level.

Provide dedicated time
for discussion of progress
related to implementation
of restorative practices on
district leadership and
school site meeting
agendas.

Establish an infrastructure of accountability. The findings of this study indicated a lack
of accountability necessary within JSD to sustain a culture of restorative practices to address

91
perceived challenging student behaviors. A principle rooted in organizational change theory has
been selected to close this resource gap. Performance challenges occur when there is a lack of
alignment between the organizational culture and organizational goals, policies, and procedures
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This would suggest that establishing an infrastructure within JSD related
to restorative practices will increase the accountability involved in addressing perceived
challenging student behaviors. The recommendation then is to align existing JSD structures and
processes of accountability with the implementation of restorative practices to address perceived
challenging student behaviors both at the district and school site level. An additional
recommendation is to provide dedicated time for discussion of progress related to restorative
practices that address challenging student behaviors on district leadership and school site
meeting agendas.
According to Stecher and Kirby (2004), there is a direct alignment between educational
accountability and the responsibility of achieving positive student educational outcomes. Clark
and Estes (2008) note that failure in an organization is often as a result of misalignment between
an organizational structure, processes, and goals. In the context of restorative practices, Amstutz
and Mullet (2005) argue that if a school’s mission states that the organization cares, “then
specific practices of care should be habits within your school” (p. 39). In other words, building a
supportive infrastructure of accountability would increase the shared responsibilities required for
developing a restorative mindset of practice and for achieving an organization’s goals.
Moreover, Evans and Vaandering (2016) suggest that stakeholder participation is not limited to
school staff when implementing restorative practices in education. They argue that decisions
regarding school stakeholder groups should involve the voices of those specific stakeholders,
such as parents and other community members. Similarly, building an accountability

92
infrastructure with shared responsibilities relies on involving other stakeholder groups (e.g.,
school board members, school-community partners, students) to hold JSD accountable,
particularly when leadership transitions occur, such as turnover in superintendents for
implementing restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors.
Fundamentally, reshaping the organizational culture and climate in ways that lend itself to
achieving schoolwide integration of restorative practices toward ultimately districtwide
implementation.
Further alignment of existing JSD structures and accountability process includes the
context-specific recommendation to provide dedicated time for discussion of progress related to
restorative practices on district leadership and school site meeting agendas. Such dedicated time
can contribute toward improved accountability by messaging the importance of restorative
practices as a whole school approach that extends beyond the sole responsibilities of teachers.
Additionally, it promotes a framework of accountability to assess collected data to examine what
is working, identify the challenges encountered, and determine data-informed areas for
improvement and progress.
Integrated Implementation and Evaluation Plan
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) guides the design
of this study’s implementation and evaluation plan. Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) describe
four levels of evaluation to demonstrate intended learning outcomes, ultimately resulting in
observable behavioral change. The four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016) in
reverse order as described by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) are as follows: Level Four
(Results); Level Three (Behavior); Level Two (Learning); and Level One (Reaction). The
proceeding section describes the four levels of the New World Kirkpatrick Model (2016).

93
Level Four (Results) is the initial step of evaluation, indicating the extent that intended
outcomes are achieved as a result of the stated implementation efforts. Level Three (Behavior) is
the extent that learners apply the learning necessary to drive real-time performance in the work
environment to achieve intended outcomes. Level Two (Learning) assesses the degree that
learning has occurred by measuring the knowledge, skills, self-efficacy, and motivation required
to participate in Level 3 critical behaviors. Lastly, Level One (Reaction) evaluates the extent of
a learner’s satisfaction with the learning and the degree of meaningfulness with the experience.
The New World Kirkpatrick model’s four levels collectively provide a framework to inform the
implementation and evaluation plan of the recommendations identified to support JSD’s
secondary teacher’s implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging
student behaviors.
Organizational Purpose, Need, and Expectations
Just School District’s mission, as indicated on their website, is to exceed the district’s
goals in the area of equity, excellence, educational effectiveness, and economic sustainability. In
response to JSD’s reported 13,000 behavior referrals, limited social-emotional support for its
students, and disproportionate discipline data, JSD established a goal to decrease referrals,
suspensions, and expulsions by 20% by June 2021. The stakeholder group of focus for this study
were JSD’s secondary grade level teachers. In alignment with the organizational goal, secondary
grade-level JSD teachers are to be able to apply restorative practices to address perceived
challenging student behaviors by June 2021.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of restorative practices in
JSD as an alternative to punitive discipline practices, specifically examining the knowledge,
motivation, and organizational influences of JSD’s secondary grade-level teachers’ application

94
of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. The proposed
solution is intended to provide the continuous support for teachers to confidently operationalize
restorative practices with the necessary organization accountability for establishing a sustainable
restorative school-community of practice.
Level 4: Results and Leading Indicators
There are both internal and external short-term indicators to suggest intended outcomes
are achieved. A short-term external outcome that would indicate that teachers are achieving the
desired results include a reduction in negative perception associated with behaviors among
students in JSD as measured by the number of complaints from teachers regarding negative
behaviors from students of color. Additionally, improved positive perception of school culture
and climate can serve as a short-term external outcome that can be measured by an increase in
reported positive feedback from parents about improvement in school culture and climate.
Internal outcomes such as ensuring that students attending JSD schools participate in restorative
practices that intervene with disciplinary actions and improved positive healthier relationships
between students and teachers would indicate that teachers are achieving the desired results.
These stated internal outcomes can be measured by the number of restorative interventions
conducted, a reduction in the number of office discipline referrals, and the number of students
reporting overall positive attitude about school. Table 12 describes the Level 4 outcomes,
metrics, and methods for external and internal outcomes toward JSD’s teachers achieving their
intended goal.

95
Table 12

Outcomes, Metrics, and Methods for External and Internal Outcomes

Outcome Metric(s) Method(s)
External Outcomes
Reduce the negative
external community
perception associated with
behaviors among students
in JSD.
Number of complaints from
teachers regarding negative
behaviors from students of
color.
Monthly reports of positive
success stories and trends
related to student achievement
outcomes.
Improved external
positive perception of
school culture and
climate.
More positive feedback from
parents about the improved
school culture and climate.
Families and students informed
of the integration of restorative
practices versus punitive
discipline.
Internal Outcomes
Ensure that students
attending JSD schools
participate in restorative
practices that intervene
with disciplinary actions.
Number of restorative
interventions (E.g., circles,
restorative conversations,
restorative conferencing).

Reduction in the number of
office discipline referrals.
Monthly report from teachers.

Monthly school discipline report
from principal
Improved positive
healthier relationships
between students and
teachers.
Number of students reporting
overall positive attitude about
school.
Mid and end of year student
surveys.

Level 3: Behavior
Critical behaviors. There are several critical behaviors that JSD teachers will have to
demonstrate to achieve the intended outcomes. Specifically, teachers will have to demonstrate
application of restorative practices as the primary intervention to address perceived challenging
student behaviors that can be measured by the number of behavioral referrals and monitored by
revising the student handbook to include restorative practices in the district’s discipline protocol.
In addition, teachers will have to utilize restorative dialogue when engaging with students.
Lastly, teachers will have to demonstrate positive relationships with students through the use of

96
restorative practices. Duncan-Andrade (2008) indicates that relationships between student and
teacher involve teachers seeing students as critical source of knowledge and solutions. Table 13
indicates the key behaviors that teachers will have to demonstrate to achieve the intended
outcomes, metrics to measure progress, methods of monitoring, and timing for evaluation.
Table 13

Critical Behaviors, Metrics, Methods, and Timing for Evaluation
Critical Behavior Metric(s)
Method(s)
Timing
1. Teachers apply
restorative practice
as primary
intervention for
addressing
perceived
challenging student
behaviors.
Number of behavioral
referrals.
Revise student
handbook to include
restorative practices in
the district’s discipline
protocol.
Daily
2. Teachers utilize
restorative dialogue
when engaging
with students.
Observation notes
with evidence
indicating use of
restorative language.
Conduct classroom
observations
Bi-weekly
3. Teachers work to
build positive
relationships with
students through
the use of
restorative
practices.
Gather student
feedback.
Conduct student
interviews
Monthly
Required drivers. According to Clark and Estes (2008) framework, gaps in
performance are caused by a lack of knowledge, motivation, and organizational barriers. To
address such gaps, JSD needs to allocate resources to support the integration of restorative
practices in addition to establishing an infrastructure of accountability specific to how restorative
practices address challenging student behaviors. Necessary to achieve JSD teachers’ outcomes
are several required drivers to support critical behaviors that teachers will have to demonstrate.

97
In particular, reinforcing behaviors through ongoing professional development related to
restorative practices, encouraging teacher peer collaborative meetings to discuss progress toward
success, and rewards to acknowledge performance achievement. Additionally, monitoring
behaviors through staff peer observations, teacher self-assessment, and meetings with students
and families to share experiences with the classroom restorative process are necessary to drive
the achievement of teachers’ outcomes. Table 14 shows methods, timing, and indicates the level
of required drivers to support critical behaviors.
Table 14
Required Drivers to Support Critical Behaviors
Method(s) Timing
Critical Behaviors Supported
1, 2, 3 Etc.
Reinforcing
Staff meetings include
standing agenda item discuss
progress related to restorative
practices and to determine
additional professional
development needs
Monthly 1, 2, 3
Encouraging
Teacher peer collaborative
meeting to discuss successes.
Monthly 1, 2
Rewarding
Incentives provided based on
performance achievement
when classroom-specific
behavioral referrals decrease.
Quarterly 1, 2, 3
Public acknowledgement of
positive progress achieved
through school site and
district level communications.
Quarterly 1, 3
Monitoring
Staff peer classroom
observation to provide non-
evaluative feedback.
Bi-weekly 1, 2, 3
Teacher self-assessment
reflection of practice.
Weekly 1, 2, 3

98
Teacher, family, and student
meetings to share experiences
with classroom restorative
processes.
Monthly 1, 2, 3

Organizational support. JSD will need to support the teachers’ critical behaviors by
allocating resources toward the integration of restorative practices. Allocation of resources to
support JSD’s ability to provide ongoing capacity building focused on restorative practices and
integration of strategies for staff. JSD will also need to establish an infrastructure of
accountability related to restorative practices that address perceived challenging student
behaviors. Specifically, aligning existing JSD structures with processes of accountability for the
implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors at
both the district and school sites. Additionally, JSD will need to provide dedicated time for
discussion of progress related to the integration of restorative practices on district leadership and
school site meeting agendas.
Level 2: Learning
Learning goals. Following completion of the recommended solutions, JSD teachers will be
able to:
1. Recognize the details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice (Conceptual
Knowledge).
2. Reflect on their role and strategies to integrate restorative practices and evaluate their
effectiveness (Metacognition).
3. Apply with confidence restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors (Self-Efficacy).

99
4. Engage in discussions of progress related to the implementation of restorative practices
through an established structural process of accountability with colleagues and
administration (Cultural Settings).
Program. The learning goals indicated in the previous section, will be achieved with a
professional development training program for JSD teachers in restorative practices that explores
in-depth the concrete details of punish-to-restorative continuum of practice. The learners, JSD
teachers, will increase their knowledge and capacity around practical application of restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. The program is aligned with JSD’s
school-year calendar, consisting of pre-training prior to the start of each school year, monthly
training sessions throughout the school-year that will serve as Professional Learning
Communities (PLC), and an end-of-year reflection session.
During the pre-training prior to the start of the school year, JSD teachers will be provided
concrete details of a punishment-to-restorative continuum of practice. This activity will include
the recruitment of staff to increase meaningful learning engagement through the modeling of
behaviors along the continuum to build a relevant framework for restorative practice within JSD.
In addition, JSD teachers will be provided with a list of practical steps toward the integration of
restorative practices that can also include strategies beyond circles like recognition of academic
accomplishments or instructional strategies that are explicitly restorative, such as designing
relevant and engaging lessons (Smith et al., 2015). Not intended to serve as a checklist, the list
of practical steps provided during the pre-training can serve as a job aid reference when teachers
are in the classroom.
Additionally, during the monthly PLC, JSD teachers will be provided with a job aid to
guide individual reflection and self-evaluation of restorative practices to address perceived

100
challenging student behaviors. The individual reflections and self-evaluations will further
support management of ongoing monitoring of the program and inform updates to the PLC as
needed. Furthermore, the PLC will provide JSD teachers with materials and activities that are
relevant and practical application of restorative practices based on real-world context for teachers
with demonstrated positive impact on student behaviors through the use of evidence-based
research and literature. The PLC will provide opportunities for teachers to collaborate and
reflect with their peers using a job aid to guide process.
The end-of-year reflection session will serve as a culminating professional development
training that is inclusive of the job aids and focus during the pre-training and PLC. Specifically,
JSD teachers will reflectively discuss the value of integrating restorative practices in the
classroom discussion that will be centered around demonstrated impact on student behaviors.
Additionally, JSD teachers will be provided with an opportunity to inform areas in which further
capacity building support is needed to improve the integration of restorative practices.
Evaluation of the components of learning. Evaluation of learning for declarative
(conceptual) and metacognitive knowledge that is taught is critical. Prior to learners applying
the knowledge necessary to address a problem, learners must often first demonstrate declarative
(conceptual) knowledge. In addition, it is critically important that learners value the professional
development training with a confidence to apply their newly learned knowledge and skills of
restorative practices in the classroom. Moreover, learners must be committed to monitoring
progress of integrating restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors at
their school site. As such, Table 15 lists the evaluation methods and timing for the components
of learning.

101
Table 15
Evaluation of the Components of Learning for the Program
Method(s) or Activity(ies) Timing
Declarative (Conceptual) Knowledge
“I know it.”

Critical dialogue in small groups and report out
to larger group concrete details of a punishment-
to-restorative continuum of practice.
During pre-training prior to start of school
year
Procedural Skills “I can do it right now.”
Teachers will be observed applying restorative
practices to demonstrate procedural knowledge
in various scenarios.
During monthly professional learning
community
Attitude “I believe this is worthwhile.”
Discussion among teachers about the value of
restorative practices.
During monthly professional learning
community
Confidence “I think I can do it on the job.”
Teacher pair share of successes, challenges, and
barriers to applying restorative practices.
During monthly professional learning
community
Commitment “I will do it on the job.”
Self-evaluation of progress. During monthly professional learning
community and end-of-school year session

Level 1: Reaction
According to Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016), Level 1 Reaction components are the
simplest to evaluate. Although Level 1 Reaction components are the simplest to evaluate,
evaluation of all three components is important to determine the degree in which learners report
the training that is relevant to their respective jobs, engaging, and satisfactory to their needs.
Specifically, observable engagement of learners during monthly professional development
training and pulse checks midway during each professional development through discussion will
be components to measure Level 1 Reaction to the program. Appendix D presents the small
group discussion or think-pair-share questions for pulse checks. Additionally, the anonymous
teacher participant survey upon the completion of every monthly professional develop will be

102
used to measure learners Level 1 Reaction to the program. Table 16 below list the methods to
determine how participants react to the program learning and timing for the components of
measurement.
Table 16
Components to Measure Reactions to the Program
Method(s) or Tool(s) Timing
Engagement
Observations of teacher participation in the
professional learning community.
During the monthly professional learning
community.
Relevance
Pulse checks midway during professional
learning community through discussion.
During monthly professional learning
community.
Customer Satisfaction
Anonymous teacher participant feedback
survey.
Upon completion of each professional learning
community.

Evaluation Tools
Immediately following the program implementation. The evaluation of the program
will include a pre and post participant assessment and a continuous improvement evaluation
design to monitor progress and engagement throughout the school year. This data will indicate
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) Level 1 and Level 2 effectiveness that will then serve as
pathway to Level 3 and 4. The pre-assessment will be administered during the pre-training prior
to start of the school year to gather baseline Level 1 and 2 participant reaction and learning.
Appendix C presents the pre-assessment. In addition, following the completion of each
professional learning community, a feedback survey will be administered to determine Level 1
and Level 2 impact aligned to learner satisfaction and learning experience. Appendix E presents

103
the feedback survey to be completed by learners following each professional learning
community.
Delayed for a period after the program implementation. Since integration of
restorative practices is fluid and responsive to the needs or behaviors of students, formative
assessment will be included in the monthly PLC and administered by site administration through
small group discussions and think-pair-shares with teachers. This will indicate Level 1 and
Level 2 participant reaction at each PLC throughout the school year. Appendix D presents the
prompts to guide the small group discussions or think-pair-shares with teachers. A summative
assessment will be administered by site administration to measure Level 3 behaviors and Level 4
results concluding each of the monthly PLC that serves as the professional development training.
In addition, a post assessment will be administered during the end of the year session to
determine overall satisfaction, engagement, job relevance, and learning. Appendix C presents
the assessment that will be administered as the pre and post assessment for all participating
teachers.
Data Analysis and Reporting
Data analysis and reporting will occur after administering the immediate and delayed
evaluation instruments in several ways. The reviewer will conduct the data analysis of the
immediate pre-assessment to ensure reporting of findings is utilized to inform and guide the
design of the monthly professional development learning community. This will support a data-
driven design of the monthly professional development learning community that is most
responsive to the learning needs of participants. In addition, the reviewer will provide a snapshot
report of the pre-assessment analysis that will be shared with school site leadership and the
participants so that there is transparency in program’s continuous cycle of improvement. Figure

104
2 provides a sample of the assessment data snapshot report of pre-assessment analysis. Table 17
provides a sample of the report of pre-assessment and post-assessment data analysis that will be
conducted following completion of the last professional development of the school year.

Figure 2. Pre-assessment reporting conducted at pre-training to gather baseline data. This graph
illustrates fictitious data and serves as a sample of participants knowledge and confidence prior
to training.

105
Table 17
Sample Pre and Post Assessment Reporting Following Completion of PLC
Survey Indicator Pre-Program
Baseline
Percentage
Strongly Agree
or Agree
Post-Program
Percentage
Strongly Agree
or Agree
Understanding of restorative practices.
Confidence in ability to apply restorative practices.
Knowledge of the elements of a punitive to restorative
continuum of practice.

Understanding of how to utilize restorative practices to
address perceived challenging student behaviors.

Knowledge of procedural elements of circles.
Confidence to facilitate restorative circles.
Ability to promote student self-reflection.
Confidence in ability to integrate restorative practices
in instructional time.

Understanding of how to use restorative practices with
conflict resolution.

Confidence in ability to structure classroom space to
promote community.

The reviewer will facilitate a restorative circle as an integrated summative assessment
practice to measure Level 3 behaviors and Level 4 results. The restorative circle will help
participants engage in a meaningful process of reflection centered around maximizing
transference of learning, identifying areas in need of improvement, and to demonstrate value
and impact. This restorative circle will occur as part of the monthly professional development
learning community. A summary impact report that will include data analysis from the pre and

106
post assessment, year-end disciplinary and referral data, testimonies from students and parents,
and recommendations will be prepared by the reviewer. As part of a continuous cycle of
improvement, the summary impact report will serve as a resource for both accountability and
monitoring of impact. JSD Superintendent, the school site principals, teachers and staff, and
school-community will have access to the summary impact report.
Summary
The New World Kirkpatrick Model by Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick (2016) was essential
in providing guidance to plan, implement, and evaluate the recommendations presented for JSD
to optimize achieving its stakeholder and organizational goal. Specifically, the New World
Kirkpatrick Model (2016) offered targeted and purposeful guidance in the integration of data
analysis and reporting as part of a continuous cycle of improvement for long-term sustainable
success of program implementation. The Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick framework (2016)
provided value in the determination of integrated Level 1 and 2 assessments in addition to
assessments for Level 3 transfer and Level 4 results.
Limitations and Delimitations
There are multiple limitations and delimitations to note related to this study. The
following section details the limitations and delimitation of this study. As a qualitative study,
there were several strategies intended to increase the credibility and trustworthiness of the study.
Most of the limitations, however, occurred during the final year of this study.
The first limitation of this study is the small sample size, resulting in the lack of
generalizations of findings beyond the targeted stakeholder of focus. Although the intended
sample size aimed to accurately represent the population of teachers across JSD’s secondary
school sites, unanticipated circumstances further exemplified the limitation of the resulting small

107
sample size. The Coronavirus or COVID-19 pandemic that occurred during the final year of this
study eliminated data collection strategies, such as classroom observations. Merriam and Tisdell
(2016) state that observations are often used in process of collecting qualitative data. However,
an inability to conduct classroom observations to examine the real-time interaction between
teachers’ knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences related to the application of
restorative practices is a limitation of this study.
A delimitation of this study includes the stakeholder group of focus. Data collected
through this study around the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences on the
implementation of restorative practices only included secondary grade-level teachers. Data
collection did not include additional stakeholder groups, such as school site administrators that
likely contribute to the implementation of restorative practices to address perceived challenging
student behaviors.
Future Research
This study's findings guide several recommendations for future research on implementing
restorative practices as an alternative disciplinary approach in K-12 education. As a qualitative
study, this study lacked a quantitative analysis of disciplinary and behavioral referral data to
examine the correlation between the findings that addressed the research questions. Therefore,
future research of restorative practices in K-12 should consider a mixed-method design and
expand stakeholders' inclusion to enhance the critical examination of restorative practices in K-
12 education.
Future research focused on restorative practices in K-12 education should consider
expanding perspectives to include other stakeholders such as parents, students, and
administrators. Particularly because parents, students, and administrators are critical actors

108
within a school system, offering insights that can address gaps in this study or further validate its
findings. Such an examination expands context to understand the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences from diverse stakeholder perspectives involved in implementing
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors in K-12 education.
Findings from this study suggest a need for further research on the impact of restorative
practices in students' real-world or lived experiences beyond the school. It is worth examining if
restorative practices, when implemented in schools, extend beyond teachers' reach of impact. If
so, does this indicate a negative reflection or limitation to restorative practices when
implemented in schools? Conversely, an examination of the knowledge and motivation
influences that shape students’ experiences in the real-world as a direct result of the
implementation of restorative practices in schools would be of added value to the field of
research.
An expansion of research examining primary grade levels may offer an opportunity to
more closely evaluate the knowledge, motivation, and organizational influences that this study
sought to understand through the context of secondary grade-level teachers. Such an examination
may validate other potential gaps or identify influences relevant to the implementation of
restorative practices districtwide. Accordingly, future research would be valuable in determining
limitations to implementing restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors at the primary grade levels and if the identified influences for secondary grade teachers
are broadly generalizable to grades beyond those in this study.
Furthermore, additional research is needed to examine how policy shifts influence system
change in K-12. Particularly in California, for example, with policies design to improve learning
environments, equitable practices, accountability, and increase positive behavioral interventions

109
and supports. In fact, a school discipline resource package detailing strategies for schools and
districts to improve school climate was developed in 2014 by the United States Department of
Education and the United States Department of Justice (U.S. Department of Education, 2017).
However, if such policies exist, further understanding of the knowledge, motivation, and
organizational influences that hinder transformation of K-12 education systems to implement
restorative practices would provide valuable context to the impact of restorative practices in
schools.
Conclusion
The purpose of this dissertation was to examine the challenges of implementing
restorative practices, which manifests itself in various ways, in an urban K-12 education system
as an alternative to punitive discipline. Specifically, this dissertation examined the assumed
knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting JSD’s secondary grade-level
teachers’ ability to implement restorative practices to address perceived challenging student
behaviors utilizing Clark and Estes’ (2008) gap analysis model. The analysis of the data
collected through this study identified one knowledge gap, one motivation gap, and one
organization gap needed for JSD’s secondary teachers to implement restorative practices to
address perceived challenging student behavior. Findings suggest that teachers must have the
conceptual knowledge to integrate restorative practices in the classroom in the various ways that
restorative practices occur. Additionally, teacher’s need to believe they are capable of applying
restorative practices, particularly when perceived challenging student behaviors presumably
escalate, and be able to reflect on how they do this. Moreover, findings from this study indicate
a need for JSD to establish an infrastructure of accountability related to implementation of

110
restorative practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors to provide the support
necessary between school sites to district for improved shared accountability.
The New World Kirkpatrick Model (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick, 2016) provides the
framework that guides the recommended support JSD secondary grade-level teachers need to
address the gaps surfaced by this study through a detailed implementation and evaluation plan.
The framework informed the internal and external indicators of improved positive perception of
school culture and climate, reported positive relationships between students and teachers (Level
4), demonstrated teacher application of restorative practices as a primary intervention to address
perceived challenging student behaviors (Level 3). Learning goals determined for JSD
secondary grade-level teachers in addition to an implemented professional learning community
(Level 2); measures to assess the degree that JSD secondary teachers report relevance of learning
community and satisfaction.
Findings from this study suggest that restorative practices are rooted in relationships with
the potential to create the conditions for change to improve the culture of discipline from
punitive to restorative. Over time, teachers indicated an increasingly value restorative practices
ability to transform students' and teachers' learning experiences. This study's recommendations,
implementation, and evaluation plan provide the guidance for JSD to support teachers' ability to
create restorative learning environments where all students can academically thrive and feel
cared for.

111
References
Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools:
Teaching responsibility, creating caring climates. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Anderson, L. W., et al. (2001). A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision
of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Anderson, L., & Krathwohl, D. A. (2001). Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching and Assessing: A
Revision of Bloom's Taxonomy of Educational Objectives. New York: Longman.
Archwamety, T., & Katsiyannis, A. (2000). Academic Remediation, Parole Violations, and
Recidivism Rates Among Delinquent Youths. Remedial and Special Education, 21(3),
161-170. doi:10.1177/074193250002100306
Bandura, A. (2000). Exercise of human agency through collective efficacy. Current Directions
in Psychological Science, 9(3), 75-78.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: W.H. Freeman.
Barley, M. (2012). Learning from reflective practice and metacognition—An anaesthetist's
perspective. Reflective Practice: International and Multidisciplinary Perspectives,
13(2), 271–280. doi: 10.1080/14623943.2012.657792
Beatty, A. S. (2013). Schools alone cannot close achievement gap. Issues in Science and
Technology, 29(3), 69-75. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1504464341?accountid=14749
Bouchard, K. L., Hollweck, T., & Smith, J. D. (2016). Fostering classroom communities through
circling with teacher candidates. McGill Journal of Education, 51(3), 1103-1120.

112
Retrieved from http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1913350141?accountid=14749
Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a Critically Reflective Teacher. (1st ed.). San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
California Department of Education. (2017). California Longitudinal Pupil Achievement Data
(CALPADS) Source File. Retrieved from
http://dq.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/cohortrates/GradRates.asp
California Department of Education. (2015). Implementation of Assembly Bill 420 Legislation
Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Retrieved from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/nr/el/le/yr15ltr0202.asp
California Department of Justice. (2015). Criminal Justice Statistics Center. Source File.
Retrieved from https://oag.ca.gov/cjsc/spereq
California School Boards Association. (2017). California School Boards Association. Retrieved
from http://csba.org
Clark, R. E., & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Castillo, J. (2014). Tolerance in schools for Latino students: Dismantling the school-to-prison
pipeline. Harvard Journal of Hispanic Policy, 26, 43-58. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest
com.libproxy1.usc.edu/docview/1618349164?accountid=14749
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

113
Crosby, S. D., Day, A. G., Baroni, B. A., & Somers, C. L. (2015). School Staff Perspectives on
the Challenges and Solutions to Working with Court-Involved Students. Journal of
School Health, 85(6), 347-354. doi:10.1111/josh.12261
Duncan-Andrade, J. M., & Morrell, E. (2008). The art of critical pedagogy: Possibilities

for moving from theory to practice in urban schools. New York: Peter Lang.

Education Data Partnership. (2018). Retrieved February 21, 2018, from http://www.ed-data.org/
Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The Little Book of Restorative Justice in Education:
Fostering Responsibility, Healing, and Hope in Schools. Good Books.
Flavell, J. H. (1985). Cognitive development (2nd. ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Ferry, N. M., & Ross-Gordon, J. M. (1998). An inquiry into Schon's epistemology of practice:
Exploring links between experience and reflective practice. Adult Education Quarterly,
48(2), 98–112. doi: 10.1177/074171369804800205
Gallimore, R., & Goldenberg, C. (2001). Analyzing cultural models and settings to connect
minority achievement and school improvement research. Educational Psychologist, 36,
45–56. doi:10.1207/S15326985EP3601_5
Gibson, P. A., Wilson, R., Haight, W., Kayama, M., & Marshall, J. M. (2014). The role of race
in the Out-of-school suspensions of black students: The perspectives of students with
suspensions, their parents and educators. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 274–
282. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.09.020
Ginwright, S. A. (2015). Hope and healing in urban education: How urban activists and

teachers are reclaiming matters of the heart. Routledge.

Glesne, C. (2011). Chapter 6: But is it ethical? Considering what is “right.” In Becoming
qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.) (pp. 162-183). Boston, MA: Pearson.

114
Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices
to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school
discipline. Journal of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/10474412.2014.929950
Gregory, A., Skiba, R. J. & Noguera, P. A. (2010). The achievement gap and the discipline gap:
Two sides of the same coin? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 59-68.
Gubi, A. A., & Bocanegra, J. O. (2015). Impact of the common core on social-emotional
learning initiatives with diverse students. Contemporary School Psychology, 19(2), 98-
102. doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s40688-015-0045-y
Hamilton, M. V. (2008). Restorative justice: Reconceptualizing school disciplinary theory and
practice. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Database. (UMI No. 2008.
3303484.)
Hannay, L., Ben Jaafar, S., & Earl, L. (2013). A case study of district leadership using
knowledge management for educational change. Journal of Organizational Change
Management, 26(1), 64-82.
Hantzopoulos, M. (2013). The fairness committee: Restorative justice in a small urban public
high school. Prevention Researcher, 20(1), 7-10. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-
com.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1413417130?accountid=14749
Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative Justice in Schools. Support for Learning 17, 144-149.

Hopkins, M., & Woulfin, S. L. (2015). School system (re)design: Developing educational
infrastructures to support school leadership and teaching practice. Journal of Educational
Change, 16(4), 371–377. doi: 10.1007/s10833-015-9260-6

115
Horn, I. S., & Little, J. W. (2010). Attending to Problems of Practice: Routines and Resources
for Professional Learning in Teachers’ Workplace Interactions. American Educational
Research Journal, 47(1), 181-217. doi:10.3102/0002831209345158
Johnson, R. B., & Christenson, L. B. (2015). Educational research: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed approaches. (5
th
ed.). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
Kaufman, J. S., Jaser, S. S., Vaughan, E. L., Reynolds, J. S., Di Donato, J., Bernard, S. N., &
Hernandez-Brereton, M. (2010). Patterns in Office Referral Data by Grade,
Race/Ethnicity and Gender. Journal of positive behavior interventions, 12(1), 44–54.
doi:10.1177/1098300708329710
Kaveney, K., & Drewery, W. (2011). Classroom meetings as a restorative practice: A study of
teachers' responses to an extended professional development innovation. International
Journal on School Disaffection, 8(1), 5-12. Retrieved from
http://libproxy.usc.edu/login?url=https://searchproquestcom.libproxy2.usc.edu/docview/1
018480563?accountid=14749
Kimball, C. (2013). Broadening our perspectives with restorative practices: An interview with
Ted Wachtel. PsycEXTRA Dataset. Doi: 10.1037/e534982013-007
Kirkpatrick, D. L. (2006). Seven keys to unlock the four levels of evaluation. Performance
Improvement, 45(7), 5-8.
Krathwohl, D.R. (2002). A revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy: An overview. Theory Into Practice,
41(4), 212-218.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2014). Culturally Relevant Pedagogy 2.0: a.k.a. the Remix. Harvard
Educational Review, 84(1), 74–84. doi: 10.17763/haer.84.1.p2rj131485484751

116
Ladson-Billings, G. & Tate, W. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47-68.
Lustick, H. (2015). Administering discipline differently: A Foucauldian lens on restorative
school discipline. International Journal of Leadership in Education,20(3), 1-15.
doi:10.1080/13603124.2015.1100755
Macallair, D. (2015). After the doors were locked: a history of youth corrections in California
and the origins of twenty-first century reform. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield .
Macallair, D., Males, M., Enty, D., Vinakor, N. (2011). Renewing Juvenile Justice. A

report to Sierra Health Foundation by the Center on Juvenile and Criminal

Justice. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537791.pdf

Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mayer, R. E. (2011). Applying the science of learning. Boston, MA: Pearson Education.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Morrison, B., Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing Restorative Justice in School
Communities: Addressing the Challenge of Culture Change. Public Organization
Review, 5(4), 335–357. doi: 10.1007/s11115-005-5095-6
Morrison, B. E., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and
discipline. Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138-155.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy2.usc.edu/10.1080/15388220.2011.653322
Noguera, P. (2008). The Trouble with Black Boys...and other reflections on race, equity,

and the future of public education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

117
Office for Civil Rights: U.S. Department of Education. (2019). Retrieved from
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/index.html
Payne, A. A., & Welch, K. (2013). Restorative Justice in Schools. Youth & Society,47(4), 539-
564. doi:10.1177/0044118x12473125
Reimer, K (2009). Teachers, administrators and gatekeepers of change: A case study of the
implementation of restorative justice in one Ontario public school (Order No.
MR61214). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.
Rhodes, V., Stevens, D., & Hemmings, A. (2011). Creating positive culture in a new urban high
school. High School Journal, 94(3), 82-94.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1353/hsj.2011.0004
Rodgers, C. R. (2002). Seeing student learning: Teacher change and the role of
reflection. Harvard Educational Review, 72(2), 230-253.

Rodriguez, N. (2007). Restorative justice at work: Examining the impact of restorative justice
resolutions on juvenile recidivism. Crime & Delinquency, 53(3), 355-379.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Chapter 6: Conversational partnerships. In Qualitative
interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.) (pp. 85-92). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE
Publications.
Rueda, R. (2001). The 3 dimensions of improving student performance. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Ryan, J. P., Williams, A. B., & Courtney, M. E. (2013). Adolescent Neglect, Juvenile
Delinquency and the Risk of Recidivism. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(3),
454–465. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9906-8

118
Schargel, F. R. A. N. K. L. I. N. P. (2017). Helping Students Graduate: a strategic approach to
dropout prevention. Place of publication not identified: TAYLOR & FRANCIS.
Schraw, G., & McCrudden, M. (2006). Information processing theory. Retrieved from http://
www.education.com/reference/article/information-processing-theory/.
Schunk, D. H., Pintrich, P. R., Meece, J. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2008). Motivation in education:
Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Merrill Prentice
Hall.
Simson, D. (2014). Exclusion, Punishment, Racism, and our Schools A Critical Race Theory
Perspective on School Discipline. UCLA Law Review, 61(2). Retrieved from
https://ssrn.com/abstract=2129117.
Skiba, R. J., Horner, R. H., Chung, C.-G., Rausch, M. K., May, S. L., & Tobin, T. (2011). Race
is not neutral: A national investigation of African American and Latino
disproportionality in school discipline. School Psychology Review, 40(1): 85-107.
Smith, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Better than carrots or sticks: Restorative practices for
positive classroom management. Alexandria: ASCD.
Spilt, J. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., & Thijs, J. T. (2011). Teacher wellbeing: The importance of
teacher-student relationships. Educational Psychology Review, 23(4), 457-477.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.libproxy1.usc.edu/10.1007/s10648-011-9170-y
Stecher, B., & Kirby, S. N. (2004). Organizational improvement and accountability: Lessons for
education from other sectors. PsycEXTRA Dataset. doi:10.1037/e658622010-001
Teasley, M.L. (2014). Shifting from zero tolerance to restorative justice in schools. Children &
Schools, 36(3), 131-133. doi: 10.1093/cs/cdu016

119
United States Department of Education. (2017). School Climate and Discipline. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/index.html
Utheim, R. (2014). Restorative Justice, Reintegration, and Race: Reclaiming Collective Identity
in the Postracial Era. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 45(4), 355-372.
Wadhwa, A. (2016). Restorative justice in urban schools: disrupting the school-to-prison
pipeline. New York: Routledge.
Watson, V. (2012). Learning to liberate: Community-based solutions to the crisis in urban
education. New York: Routledge.
Welch, K., & Payne, A. A. (2010). Racial Threat and Punitive School Discipline. Social
Problems, 57(1), 25-48. doi: 10.1525/sp.2010.57.1.25
Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy–Value Theory of Achievement
Motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25(1), 68-81.
doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1015
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
Zimmerman, B. J. (2000). Self-Efficacy: An Essential Motive to Learn. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 25(1), 82–91. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1016

120
Appendix A
University of Southern California Rossier School of Education
3470 Trousdale Parkway Los Angeles, CA 90089

RESTORING JUSTICE IN URBAN K-12 EDUCATION SYSTEMS:
AN EVALUATION STUDY

You are invited to participate in a research study conducted by Adabel Reyes, candidate
for Doctorate of Education in Organizational Change and Leadership under Dr. Ekaterina Moore
at the University of Southern California, because you are a secondary grade-level teacher in Just
School District (JSD; pseudonym). Your participation is voluntary. You should read the
information below, and ask questions about anything you do not understand, before deciding
whether to participate. Please take as much time as you need to read the consent form. If you
decide to participate, you will be asked to sign this form and will be provided a copy.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The purpose of this evaluation study is to evaluate the implementation of restorative practices in
as an alternative discipline practice in urban K-12 education systems. The researcher in this
study will be looking at what knowledge, motivation, and organizational resources are necessary
to influence secondary grade-level teacher integration of restorative practices to address
challenging student behaviors.

STUDY PROCEDURES
If you volunteer to participate in this study, you will be asked to participate in an in-person
interview for a one-time period of approximately one hour. The interview will explore questions
related to knowledge, motivation, and organization about the implementation of restorative
practices to address perceived challenging student behaviors. The in-person interview will be
audio recorded; should you choose to not have our interview conversation recorded, please
inform the researcher.

POTENTIAL RISKS AND DISCOMFORTS
There are no foreseen risks to your participation in this study. You may only be inconvenienced
by the time it takes to participate.

POTENTIAL BENEFITS TO PARTICIPANTS AND/OR TO SOCIETY
This study anticipates direct benefit to the organization and the field of education as a result of
your participation. This study anticipates informing the ways in which the organization provides
supports and resources to implement restorative practices to address challenging student behaviors to
help meet its goal to decrease referrals, suspension, and expulsions. As this is a research study, the
benefits are contingent upon the results.
INFORMED CONSENT FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH

121
PAYMENT/COMPENSATION FOR PARTICIPATION
You will not be compensated for your participation in this study. There is no cost to you for taking
part in this study

Your relationship with your employer will not be affected whether you participate or not in this
study.

CONFIDENTIALITY
Any identifiable information obtained in connection with this study will remain confidential and
will be disclosed only with your permission or as required by law. The members of the research
team, the funding agency and the University of Southern California’s Human Subjects Protection
Program (HSPP) may access the data. The HSPP reviews and monitors research studies to protect
the rights and welfare of research subjects.

The data will be coded with a false name or pseudonym; identifiable information will be kept
separately from your responses.

The data will be stored on password-protected computers and held until the completion of the
study. The data will be destroyed upon completion of the study. Recorded audio files will be
destroyed immediately upon transcription.

When the results of the research are published or if results are discussed in conferences, no
identifiable information will be used.

PARTICIPATION AND WITHDRAWAL
Your participation is voluntary. Your refusal to participate will involve no penalty nor will refusal
to participate result in any form of negative consequences. You may withdraw your consent at any
time and discontinue participation without penalty or negative consequences. You are not waiving
any legal claims, rights or remedies because of your participation in this research study.

INVESTIGATOR’S CONTACT INFORMATION
Principal Investigator: Adabel (bel) Reyes
Phone: 916-914-5250
Email: adabelre@usc.edu

RIGHTS OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT – IRB CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have questions, concerns, or complaints about your rights as a research participant or the
research in general and are unable to contact the research team, or if you want to talk to someone
independent of the research team, please contact the University Park Institutional Review Board
(UPIRB), 3720 South Flower Street #301, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0702, (213) 821-5272 or
upirb@usc.edu

122
I have read the information provided above. I have been given a chance to ask questions. My
questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have
been given a copy of this form.

AUDIO
□ I
agree
to
be
audio-‐‑recorded.

□ I
do
not
want
to
be
audio-‐‑recorded.

Name of Participant

Signature of Participant Date

I have explained the research to the participant and answered all of his/her questions. I believe that
he/she understands the information described in this document and freely consents to participate.

Name of Person Obtaining Consent

Signature of Person Obtaining Consent Date

SIGNATURE OF RESEARCH PARTICIPANT
SIGNATURE OF INVESTIGATOR

123
Appendix B
Interview Protocol
Welcome
Greetings, and thank you for agreeing to participate in this interview. Before we get
started, I would like to provide an overview of my study and answer any questions or concerns
that you may have. I am currently enrolled as a doctoral student in the Rossier Organizational
Change and Leadership program at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles,
California. To fulfill my doctoral degree, I am conducting a study around the implementation
restorative practices in K-12 urban education systems as an alternative discipline practice.
I want to provide an overview of the information previously provided to you in the
informed consent and in the consent to record. The interview will be audio-recorded to help
ensure our conversation is accurately captured, however, our conversation will be kept
confidential. In other words, I will not be using your name or any potential identifiers in my
report to ensure anonymity. In addition, I use the pseudonym, Just School District (JSD) to
name the K-12 district as a result of ethical considerations based on the unique circumstances of
confidentiality for the population of students. I have a list of several questions that I will ask
which you have the right to choose to not answer. Furthermore, you may choose to withdraw
your participation from the study at any time without consequence. In respect of your time, I
have planned this interview to last no longer than one hour. Do you have any questions for me
before we get started?

124
Interview Questions

1. To begin, please describe what a typical day of classroom management looks like in your
classroom (procedural).
Probing question: Talk about a time when you had a student that was not following your
classroom rules. How did you handle that?
Probing question: Tell me about a time when you felt your classroom was out of control.
What did you do?
2. How would you describe your expectations of student behaviors (conceptual)?
3. How would you describe restorative practices (procedural)?
Probing questions: How would you describe the use of circles? How would you describe
the use of mediations?
4. How would you describe the advantages of restorative practices (motivation)?
Probing question: Describe a specific time you felt success using restorative practices?
5. How would you describe disadvantages of restorative practices (motivation)?
Probing question: Describe a specific time you felt disappointment using restorative
practices?
6. How would you describe how other teachers feel about restorative practices
(motivation)?
Probing question: Some teachers would argue that restorative practices are a waste of
time. What would you say to those teachers?
7. How do you implement the restorative practices in your classroom (procedural)? Please
provide specific examples.

125
8. Let’s say you were observing a classroom, how would you know that a teacher was
implementing restorative practices (conceptual)?
9. How would you describe district-level support related to restorative practices
(organization)?
10. What kind of professional development is provided related to restorative practices
(organization)?
Probing question: How would you describe the learning experience during the
professional development?
Probing question: Do teachers have time to talk to each to reflect on their practices during
the professional development?
11. What
discussions
related
to
teachers
use
of
restorative
practices
occur
during

departmental
or
staff
meetings
(organization)?

Probing question: Do discussions occur informally or is the discussion around the use of
restorative practices an agenda item?
12. What messaging from the district do teachers receive related to restorative practices
(organization)?
Probing question: Are you able to share a recent memo or so document from the district
that teachers received related to restorative practices?
13. If someone were to ask, how would you explain how restorative practices address harm
in the community (conceptual)?
14. How would you describe your ability to use restorative practices (self-efficacy)?
Probing question: Tell me about a time when you used one of the practices and it went
well.

126
Probing question: Tell me about a time when you used of the practices and it did not go
well.
15. How would you describe the kind of behavioral change among students by integrating
restorative practices (procedural)?
16. What type of challenges have you experienced applying restorative practices in your
classroom (metacognition)? Please provide specific examples.
Possible follow-up question: How do you go about mitigating those challenges
(metacognitive)?
17. As a teacher, explain who you go to if you need support with implementing restorative
practices (organization)?
18. Some people say that restorative practices in education provide no added value. What are
your thoughts (value)?
19. What piece advice would you offer to a teacher that is considering implementing
restorative practices (motivation)?
20. What piece advice would you offer to a school that is considering implementing
restorative practices (motivation)?
Final Thoughts
These are all the questions I have for you. Is there anything that you would like to add to our
conversation that I may have not asked? Or do you have any questions for me?
Closing
I would like to thank you again for your time and willingness to share your thoughts with
me during this interview. With your permission, may I contact you again for a follow-up?

127
Appendix C
Pre and Post Teacher PLC Assessment Survey
Please indicate your level of agreement to
each statement below by using the scale:
Strongly
Disagree
Disagree Agree
Strongly
Agree

1. I have an understanding of what restorative
practices are.
2. I am confident in my ability to apply
restorative practices.

3. I have knowledge of the elements of a
continuum from punitive to restorative
practices.

4. I have any understanding of how to utilize
restorative practices in response to challenging
student behaviors.

5. I know the procedural elements of various
types of restorative circles.
6. I am confident in my ability to facilitate a
restorative circle.

7. I can frame questions for students that
promote reflections of how a student is feeling.

8. I am confident in my ability to integrate
restorative practices in my classroom
instructional time.

9. I have an understanding of how to use
restorative practices to help with conflict
resolution.

10. I am confident in my ability to structure the
layout of my classroom space in a way that
promotes community among students.

128
Appendix D
Blended Instrument
Small Group Circle Discussion or Think-Pair-Shares

Level One: Reactions

Engagement
1. In what way(s) did you take responsibility for being involved in the professional development
learning community today?

Relevance
2. In what way(s) is the information provided in today’s professional development learning
community relevant to behaviors that you experience in your classroom?

Level Two: Learning
3. How did the facilitation of today’s professional development learning community contribute
toward a meaningful learning experience?

Level Three: Behavior
4. Please describe one practical application of restorative practice that you have used since the
last professional development learning community.

5. Please describe one thing that you learned today that you would be able to apply immediately.

Level Four: Results
6. How would you describe your ability to apply restorative practices to address perceived
challenging student behaviors?

Open-Ended Response:
7. Please provide suggestions to improve the monthly professional development learning
community.

129
Appendix E
Teacher Feedback Survey to Administer Following Each PLC

Please place an X in the box to
indicate the level of satisfaction
with each statement.
Very
Dissatisfied
Somewhat
Dissatisfied
Neutral Somewhat
Satisfied
Very
Satisfied
1. Overall, How satisfied are
you with the professional
learning community today?

2. Overall, how satisfied are you
with the topics presented today?

3. What specific information did you find most useful?

4. What specific information did you find least useful?

5. What information or topic would you like a future professional learning community to
include?

6. Any additional comments or feedback?

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

Multi-tiered system of support as the overarching umbrella: an improvement model using KMO gap analysis to address the problem of school districts struggling to implement MTSS

PDF

Teacher perception on positive behavior interventions and supports’ (PBIS) cultivation for positive teacher-student relationships in high schools: an evaluation study

PDF

An evaluation of teacher retention in K-12 public schools

PDF

Influences on the use of restorative practices in a United Kingdom junior school: an evaluation study

PDF

Bridging the empathy gap: a mixed-method approach to evaluating teacher support in bullying prevention and intervention at an urban middle school in India

PDF

Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students

PDF

Lean construction through craftspeople engagement: an evaluation study

PDF

The academic implications of providing social emotional learning in K-12: an evaluation study

PDF

Implementing standards-based grading in the era of common standards: an evaluation study

PDF

Facilitation of postsecondary opportunities for secondary students with special needs: an evaluation study

PDF

Advising strategies to support high graduation rates of transfer students

PDF

Knowledge, motivation and organizational influences impacting recruiting practices addressing the gender gap in the technology industry: an evaluation study

PDF

Answering the call for shared leadership - the missing conditions for successful implementation of English language teacher leadership: an evaluation study

PDF

Critical factors impacting the exodus from teaching ranks: an evaluative study of an independent Christian school

PDF

Sustained mentoring of early childhood education teachers: an innovation study

PDF

Impact of mindfulness on early education teacher well-being: an evaluation study

PDF

Practices supporting newcomer students

PDF

Instructional differentiation and accommodations to support student achievement in SLD and ADHD secondary school populations: an evaluation study

PDF

Future educator programs in high schools: an evaluative study

PDF

Perception of alternative education teachers readiness to instruct English language learners: an evaluation study

Asset Metadata

Creator Reyes, Adabel (bel) (author)

Core Title Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Organizational Change and Leadership (On Line)

Degree Conferral Date 2021-08

Publication Date 07/26/2021

Defense Date 06/17/2021

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

Tag K-12 education,OAI-PMH Harvest,perceived challenging student behaviors,restorative practices,secondary teachers

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Moore, Ekaterina (committee chair), Hamilton, Michele (committee member), Samkian, Artineh (committee member)

Creator Email adabelre@usc.edu,breyes@innovationbridgeinc.com

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC15623318

Unique identifier UC15623318

Legacy Identifier etd-ReyesAdabe-9899

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Reyes, Adabel (bel)

Type texts

Source 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. The original signature page accompanying the original submission of the work to the USC Libraries is retained by the USC Libraries and a copy of it may be obtained by authorized requesters contacting the repository e-mail address given.

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 cisadmin@lib.usc.edu