University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

(USC Thesis Other)

A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content Running head: RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

A RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE:
A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF RESTORATIVE JUSTICE IMPLEMENTATION IN
US SECONDARY SCHOOLS

by

Lauren M. Murphy

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 2018

Copyright 2018 Lauren M. Murphy
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

ii
Dedication
For my students who inspire me daily to be worthy of my role as their teacher, advisor,
mentor, and coach.

"He has told you what is good; and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice,
and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"
- Micah 6:8

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

iii
Acknowledgements
The past three years have been challenging, inspiring, and a time of great growth,
personally and professionally. I could not have thrived during this season without the support
and encouragement of various people.
First, I would like to thank my family. Dad, thank you for challenging my thinking, your
encouragement, and for reading books to understand what I was talking about. Mom, thank you
for being my editor and modeling hard work, dedication, and stellar writing. You both gave me
time and space to read, reflect, and write even though it often meant limiting the time we had to
together during breaks and holidays. Katy and Steve, thanks for the speaker phone calls to check
in and for cheering me on. Family, your love and support mean everything to me.
Next, I extend my gratitude to the administration, faculty, and staff at the participating
schools. Without your participation and candor this study would not be possible. Thank you for
being generous with your time and trusting me to tell your story.
Third, I would like to thank my dissertation committee for working with me. A huge
thanks to my dissertation chair, Dr. Ruth Chung, for instilling confidence in my ability to do well
and see this challenge through! Thank you to Dr. Larry Picus for your encouragement and
laughter. Thank you to Dr. Briana Hinga for pointing me in the right direction and helping me
refine my approach.
Fourth, thank you to my friends and colleagues. I appreciate all the times you inquired
about the process and checked in with me about how I was doing. Thank you for allowing me to
talk your ear off, bounce ideas off of you, and share the various emotions I have felt over the past
three years. I am thankful for your reinforcing why I pursued my degree and for coaxing me
away from time to time. I am grateful many of you have helped me keep things in perspective.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

iv
Fifth, I would like to acknowledge my school and USC for investing in my learning and
professional growth. Thank you for partnering to host cohort of life-long learners half way
around the word from USC. Technology enabled us to do amazing things, but nothing beat
having world-class educators facilitate our learning in person.
Last, but definitely not least, a heartfelt thank you to my cohort. I am forever grateful for
the time we spent together, including all the laughs and tears. I appreciated our thoughtful
discourse and the opportunity to learn from you. Each of you, in your own way, helped propel
me to the finish line. We conquered the marathon together!
All of you make up the best support team a lady could ask for!

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

v
Table of Contents
List of Tables viii
List of Figures ix
Abstract x
Chapter One: Study Overview, Background, and Review of Literature 1
Restorative Justice as Alternative to Zero Tolerance 2
Overview of the Study 3
The Consequences of Zero-Tolerance 4
Discipline Gap 6
Drop-out Rates 9
School-to-Prison Pipeline 10
Recommendations for Change 12
Restorative Justice 13
Defining RJ 14
Discipline Approaches 17
Punitive vs. Restorative 20
Theoretical Framework 23
Choice theory 23
Affective script psychology 23
Benefits of RJ 29
Proactive 30
Student-teacher relationships 31
Student achievement 32
Focus on learning 32
Developmentally appropriate 33
Background 34
Implementing RJ in Schools 34
Values 35
Skills 38
Practices 40
Benefits of Implementing RJ 47
US schools 48
Canadian schools 50
Scottish schools 51
Australian schools 51
Change Management 52
Culture and Paradigm Shift 54
Challenges 57
Whole-school Approach 58
Existing Models for RJ Implementation 61
Purpose of the Study 66
Chapter Two: Methodology 68
Sampling Procedure 68
School #1: Progressive Suburban High School 69
School #2: Enlightened Institute High School 69
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

vi
Participants 70
Instruments 71
Researcher as Instrument 72
Data Collection Procedure 73
Analysis 73
Chapter Three: Findings 75
Case Study #1: Progressive Suburban High School 75
Implementation 76
Rationale 77
Process 77
Training 78
Discipline Policy 79
RJ Approach 80
Challenges 86
Superficial implementation 86
Consistency 89
Understanding of RJ 91
Conclusion 93
Case Study #2: Enlightened Institute High School 94
Implementation 94
Rationale 95
Process 96
Training 98
Discipline Policy 99
RJ Approach 103
Challenges 107
On-going professional development 107
Consistency 110
Programmatic approach 111
Conclusion 112
Cross-Case Synthesis 112
Finding #1: Values and Principles Drive School-based RJ 112
Respect 113
Responsibility 114
Relationship 115
Empathy 118
Finding #2: Integrating RJ Theory in Discipline is Complex 120
Punitive consequences and RJ 122
Responsive consequences and RJ 123
Finding #3: Educators Want to Adapt RJ to their Style 127
Finding #4: Several Barriers Influence RJ Implementation 129
Resources 130
Buy-in 132
Leader priorities 135
Conclusion 136

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

vii
Chapter Four: Discussion, Implications, and Recommendations 138
Summary of Findings 139
Implications for Practice 142
Whole-school Approach 142
Implementation Models 143
Proposed Framework 143
Stage 1: Identifying needs and outcomes 145
Stage 2: Planning 147
Stage 3: Whole-school Implementation 149
Stage 4: Sustainability 150
Motivation 152
Organizational barriers 154
Knowledge 156
Limitations 159
Recommendations for Future Research 160
Conclusion 161
References 162
Appendix A: Interview Guide 177

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

viii
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Two Discipline Paradigms 21
Table 1.2: Two Approaches After Harm 22
Table 1.3: Tompkins’ Central Blueprint for Communities 26
Table 1.4: Restorative Script 42
Table 1.5: Five Stage Model for Implementation 63
Table 3.1: Participant Demographics at PSHS 76
Table 3.2: Participant Demographics at EIHS 94

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

ix
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Social Discipline Window 17
Figure 1.2: The Restorative Pyramid 35
Figure 1.3: Restorative Practice Continuum 41
Figure 1.4: Relationship Triangle 59
Figure 1.5: Steps for Transformational Change 64
Figure 4.1: Proposed RJ Implementation Framework 144

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

x
Abstract
Zero tolerance policies were intended to increase school safety and decrease discipline
issues. There is little research to support their use, while there is ample evidence that they do not
actually improve school safety or reduce the likelihood of future student misconduct (APA,
2008). These policies have contributed to inequities, such as the discipline gap (Hoffman, 2014)
and the school to prison pipeline (Fabelo et al., 2011). These exclusionary and punitive discipline
policies contribute to poor academic performance (Skiba et al., 2014) and cost taxpayers millions
of dollars (Rumberger & Losen, 2016). Restorative justice (RJ) is a promising alternative to zero
tolerance policies, which focuses on working with wrongdoers in the context of relationships,
respect, and responsibility, and engaging them in the discipline process (Morrison, 2015). The
purpose of this study was to (a) understand how US secondary schools adopt and implement RJ
and (b) learn about the challenges that arise during and after the implementation process. A
qualitative comparative case study research design was used to understand the RJ
implementation process at two case study schools through interviews and document analysis.
One case study school is a large, suburban Midwest public school that utilized an additive
approach to RJ, while the other school is a small urban charter school in northern California that
adapted a whole school approach to RJ. While each schools’ implementation story was unique,
four themes emerged from the cross case synthesis: (1) values and principles drive school-based
RJ practices; (2) integrating RJ theory into the discipline system is a complex process; (3)
educators want to adapt RJ to their style and context; and (4) several barriers influence RJ
implementation and sustainability. Findings were consistent with previous research on RJ
implementation, including common challenges. Based on the study’s findings and change
management and leadership theory, a framework for RJ implementation is proposed.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

1
CHAPTER ONE: STUDY OVERVIEW, BACKGROUND, AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Schools have the responsibility to educate students, while keeping them safe. Maslow’s
hierarchy of needs demonstrates that students need to feel safe, before they can be ready to learn
(Gregory & Kaufeldt, 2015). This philosophy has driven the punitive discipline approach in
schools for much of its history; punish bad behavior harshly, so students feel safe and bad
behavior is reduced. However, discipline in schools is more complex and multi-faceted. The
APA Zero Tolerance Task Force (2008) argues that schools have a duty to not only provide a
safe climate, but that discipline policies should also aim “to encourage a positive and productive
learning climate, to teach students the personal and interpersonal skills they will need to be
successful in school and society, and to reduce the likelihood of future disruption” (p. 859).
Discipline can be an effective tool for education, just like other modes of learning in schools
(Hansberry, 2016).
Punitive discipline is also known as exclusionary discipline, which in recent history is
known primarily under the umbrella of zero-tolerance policy. The terms: (a) punitive; (b)
exclusionary: and (c) zero-tolerance, will be used interchangeably. They all refer to a discipline
approach that enforces punitive punishments for wrongdoing, such as detention, in-school
suspension, out-of-school suspension, and expulsion.
Zero-tolerance, a policy originally developed to target drug trafficking, transitioned into
the school environment with the passing of the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, and required
expulsion for students who brought a weapon to school (Allman & Slate, 2011). Zero tolerance
policies are “defined as a school or district policy that mandates predetermined consequence/s or
punishments for specific offenses” (U.S. Department of Education, 1998, p. 18). As school
safety concerns grew through the late 1990s and early 2000s, zero tolerances policies expanded
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

2
to include automatic suspension or expulsion of students for an increased list of offenses (Evans
& Vaandering, 2016; Hoffman, 2014). These exclusionary policies have been scrutinized in the
past decade for being ineffective at improving school climate and school safety (American
Psychological Association, 2008), contributing to the overrepresentation of Black students
receiving exclusionary discipline, also known as the discipline gap (Hoffman, 2014), increasing
the likelihood students will drop out, which has substantial economic costs to taxpayers
(Rumgerger & Losen, 2016), and creating the school-to-prison pipeline (Fabelo, Thompson,
Plotkin, Carmichael, Marchbanks, & Booth, 2011).
Restorative Justice as Alternative to Zero Tolerance
As evidence that exclusionary, zero-tolerance discipline policies were more harmful than
helpful, researchers and government agencies began to call on schools to adopt alternative
approaches to discipline and student management (ED, 2014). Despite exclusionary discipline
being the de facto approach for many schools throughout the U.S., several alternatives have been
developed and adopted over the past few decades. One of the alternatives suggested in several
government reports (ED, 2014; White House, 2016) is restorative justice (RJ), which focuses on
repairing harm and restoring relationships over determining blame and allocating punishment
(Hopkins, 2002).
The foundation of RJ originated in the practices of native people groups in North America
and New Zealand (Evans & Vaandering, 2016; Rideout, Roland, Salinitri, & Frey, 2010), where
the communities focused on restoration of relationships, conferencing, and community conflict
resolution. In the mid-1970s the first victim-offender reconciliation program was developed in
Canada after a positive meeting between two teenagers and their vandalism victim (Wachtel,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

3
2016). RJ spread into U.S. and European criminal and juvenile justice system in the 1980s and
1990s (Evans & Vaandering, 2016).
By the mid-1990s, RJ transitioned into education, with an Australian educator using a
restorative conference in a school for the first time (Wachtel, 2016). RJ practices began to be
used in schools throughout the world (Evans & Vaandering, 2016), and with abundance in
Australia and New Zealand. Some of the most commonly implemented RJ practices, such as
small conferences, community/restorative conferences, and classroom circles, were used
independently in various schools worldwide (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). In the late 2000s,
several large school districts in the U.S. began to adopt and implement RJ practices (Evans &
Vaandering, 2016). Simultaneously, throughout the past two decades, several practitioners
throughout the world have worked on developing whole school models to provide guidance for
schools on how to implement a restorative, relational approach to discipline (Hopkins, 2004;
Thorsborne & Blood, 2013).
Overview of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive study is to understand how schools transition from the
theory of RJ to the practice as they adopt and implement RJ. This inquiry aims to find what is
actually happening when schools transition from a punitive discipline approach, to one that is
restorative. RJ is not just a program to implement in school setting; it is a way of being and doing
(Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). The need for a cultural paradigm shift within a school, caused by
the adoption of a new discipline approach is nuanced. The body of research on RJ practices and
effectiveness in schools has increased in the past decade, however there is little guidance for
schools on how to operationalize RJ (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). As schools begin to adopt
the praxis of school wide RJ, administrators and educators will need guidance on how to manage
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

4
the process in a positive and effective way (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Interviews and
document analysis at two U.S. secondary schools provided qualitative data on how RJ is
implemented in actual school contexts. The inquiry focused on why RJ was chosen, the process
of implementation, how RJ principles are present in school policy and practices, and the
challenges faced throughout the implementation process. This study aims to provide guidance for
schools implementing RJ by examining how two U.S. secondary schools implemented RJ,
including studying the challenges that arise when shifting from a punitive discipline to a
restorative approach.
This chapter consists of four sections. The first section, introduction, offers an overview of
discipline in the US and provides an overview of the study. The second section begins with a
review of current discipline polies and transitions to a focus on RJ, explaining what it is, how it
works, and why it works. The third section addresses the implementation of RJ in schools,
specifically detailing the values, skills, and processes of RJ in schools, change management, the
paradigm shift and culture change that follows a whole-school approach to adopt RJ, and
implementation models that currently exist. The final section provides the purpose of the study
and includes the study’s research questions.
The Consequences of Zero-Tolerance
Zero-tolerance, a policy originally developed to target drug trafficking, was implemented
in the school system in the mid-1990s to address school violence (Martinez, 2009). Soon it
moved “beyond its original intent, and school administrators were using it as a method to
relinquish responsibility for students with behavioral problems” (p. 154). The implementation of
zero-tolerance removes administrators’ ability to apply common sense and rehabilitative
consequences for students’ behavior, because it applies a “one-size-fits-all solution” and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

5
“mandates prearranged results for specific offenses” (Kajs, 2006, p. 20). Therefore, when a
student is referred to the office, the administrator must take some type of disciplinary action
based on the referral type, which limits their disciplinary options.
The impact of zero-tolerance policies is widespread. One of the most common punishments
stemming from zero-tolerance policies is suspension, which has been used on a larger scale in
recent history. The use of zero-tolerance policies in the 1990s led the amount of suspensions to
almost double from 1.7 million in 1974 to 3.1 million in 2000 (Wald & Losen, 2003). During
the 2013-2014, the Civil Rights Data Collection (CDRC) found that 2.8 million students were
suspended (2016). The overall decrease in suspensions is positive, and may be the result of
districts recently adopting alternative discipline approaches (Fight Crime, 2012).
Zero-tolerance policies “operate under the assumption that removing students who engage
in misconduct will deter such behaviors and allow others to continue learning, making schools
safer and creating an improved climate for those students who remain” (Advancment Project,
2010, p. 16). However, the American Psychological Association’s (2008) ten-year evidentiary
review of zero tolerance policies concluded that schools with higher suspensions and
expulsions, from the use of zero-tolerance policies, had less satisfactory rating for overall
school climate.
Lower school climate ratings could be due to the negative impact of zero-tolerance
discipline on students. Harsh punishments “either destroys a child’s spirit, has no effect at all,
worsens the problem, or makes it more difficult for you to work with the child in school – he or
she no longer trusts you” (Comer & Poussaint, as cited by Advancement Project & Civil Rights
Project, 2000, p. 10). In addition, zero-tolerance policies are likely to further reinforce negative
behavior by disconnecting students from positive socialization in school and cultivating a
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

6
distrust of adults (Boccanfuso & Kuhfeld, 2011). These factors hinder healthy adolescent
development, further compounding the negative impact of exclusionary discipline.
The negative effects of being subjected to punitive, harsh discipline can create negative
neural responses in the students it aims to keep safe. Based on research of the brain, Proges
(2011) found that when people sense criticism, judgment, anxiety, anger, or disinterest, their
neuroception, a nonconcious response, causes them to feel unsafe. The reactive feelings are
common for those who exist under the critical eye of a punitive authority figure. When this type
of neuroception is registered, the brain instantaneously responds by activating the sympathetic
nervous system, better known as the fight-flight-freeze response, which influences the way
humans behave and react to the stimulus around them (Olson, 2014). The fight-flight-freeze
response causes varied actions in people, however the common response is one of heightened
sensitivity and stress. Therefore, zero-tolerance policies promote a climate of fear, rather
creating a safe, learning environment as they were intended.
Despite the existence of zero-tolerance policies for over 20 years, there is little research to
support their use (Boccanfuso and Kuhlfield, 2011; Martinez, 2009). Yet, school districts and
administrators continue to use them based on the perception they keep schools safe and improve
behavior, despite evidence that they do not actually improve school safety or reduce the
likelihood of future student misconduct (APA, 2008). Instead of aiding in the education of
students, the use of zero-tolerance policies has had wide reaching, negative impacts on students.
Discipline Gap
Schools have a history of reflecting the society they exist in. That sentiment is still true for
today’s schools. Kupchik (2009) found that “contemporary schools perpetuate social
inequalities” (p. 293). Research supports this claim, by proving there are inequalities and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

7
disparities in discipline for Black students. The issue, known as the discipline gap, exists on a
national and state level.
Since the 1970s there has been evidence of the racial disparity in school discipline. The
Children’s Defense Fund (1975) found that Black students were suspended two to three times
more than White students. Since then, numerous studies have continued to find the disparities in
school discipline for Black students, both at the school district level (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, &
Peterson, 2002; Lewis, Butler, Bonner, & Joubert, 2010) and the national level (Wallace,
Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008; Losen, 2011). Inequity in discipline towards Black
students is a longstanding problem, exasperated by the more recent use of zero-tolerance
policies.
Hoffman (2012) undertook a study to research the effect of zero tolerance discipline
policies on racial disparities in school discipline. The study examined the expansion of zero
tolerance policies in an urban district in 2007-2008, and found that “racial disparities in rates of
recommendation for expulsion [were] exacerbated under the expanded zero tolerance policy” (p.
88). The percentage of Black secondary students being recommended for expulsion increased
from 2.2% before to 4.5% following the policy implementation, for a total of approximately 70
more Black students per year. The widespread use of zero-tolerance policies for discipline in
schools increased the discipline gap, negatively impacting more Black students then before.
One of the largest studies of the discipline gap for Black students was done using national,
longitudinal data. Wallace, Goodkind, Wallce, and Bachman’s (2008) study used a large
(74,000) nationally representative sample of U.S. 10
th
graders from 1991-2005 to identify
patterns and trends of racial, ethnic, and gender differences in school discipline. The findings
show Black students, both boys and girls, were consistently more likely to receive school
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

8
discipline than White students, and were significantly more likely to be suspended or expelled.
The data demonstrated that the suspension and expulsion rates for Black students increased
between 1991 and 2005, while other racial and ethnic groups’ rate decreased after 2000. The
findings of this study demonstrate that there is a persistent pattern of inequitable discipline
practices according to race, on a national level.
To add to the body of understanding around the discipline gap, Lewis, Butler, Bonner, and
Joubert (2010) sought to understand the difference in behavioral offenses between Black students
and their peers, and in doing so investigated the discipline responses to those offenses. The study
also found that Black males were subject to harsher punishments than their White peers for
similar discipline offenses. Despite receiving more punitive discipline, Black students aren’t
more likely than students of other races to commit serious offenses that mandate they receive
exclusionary discipline (Fabelo et al, 2011; Skiba et al., 2002).
The most recent data on the discipline gap shows that the pattern continues. The CRDC
(2016), citing it’s most recent national data from 2013-2014, stated, “Black K-12 students are 3.8
times as likely to receive one or more out-of-school suspensions as white students” (p. 3). The
data also shows that Black boys and girls have higher suspension rates than any of their peers.
Eighteen percent of Black boys receive an out-of-school suspension when compared to 5% of
White boys. Only 2% of White girls receive suspensions, while 10% of Black girls receive the
same punishment.
Year after year, the discipline gap continues, adversely impacting Black students. Kirwan
Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity (2014) captured the significance of the discipline
gap by stating, “racialized disproportionality in the administration of school discipline is now a
national crisis” (p. 5). While researchers cite varying reasons for the discipline gap, one thing is
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

9
certain, the disproportionate use of discipline with Black students must be addressed and districts
and schools must find a way to begin to close the gap.
Drop-Out Rates
Instructional time is imperative for student learning. When students are not in school, they
miss out on opportunities to learn, which cause them to fall behind in their academics. Gregory,
Skiba, and Noguera, (2010) noted there is a “strong positive relationship between time engaged
in academic learning and student achievement” (p. 60). Therefore, it is no surprise that missed
instructional time, may also translate to lower achievement scores on standardized tests
(Gregory, et al., 2010). There have also been various studies demonstrating a link between
frequent suspensions and an increased risk of academic underperformance (Gregory, et al., 2010;
Skiba, Arredondo, & Rausch, 2014). These studies confirm the logical conclusion that missed
instructional time can have an impact on the academic performance students have on classroom
and national assessments.
Another impact of time out of school, due to suspensions or expulsions, is the increased
risk for students to disengage from school and drop out, with one suspension even doubling the
risk for dropping out (Balfanz, Byrnes, & Fox, 2015; Lee, Cornell, Gregory, & Fan, 2011).
When suspended students return to school, their frustration of being behind may lead to negative
behaviors, increasing the chance they will be suspended or expelled again, causing them to fall
behind further. This vicious cycle significantly decreases the likelihood of them graduating
(Skiba & Rausch, 2013). Suspensions can impact students beyond academic achievement,
because when students miss school they may become less investing in school, schoolwork, and
potentially less academically motivated (Osher, Bear, Sprague, & Doyle, 2010). These factors
can lead a student to dropout.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

10
Suh and Suh (2007) used national longitudinal data for over 6,000 students to examine
statistically significant predictors of student dropout. One of the predictors was a previous
history of suspension, which was found to increase the probability of a student dropping out by
78%. A study of 289 Virginia schools, where the population was 60% White and 26% Black,
found higher dropout rates were associated with higher suspension rates, even when controlling
for demographic variables (Lee et al., 2011). A statewide, longitudinal study in Texas found that
students who were suspended and/or expelled were more likely to be held back a grade or to
drop out, than students who had not been similarly disciplined (Fabelo et al., 2011). Put simply,
suspension is the number one predictor of students dropping out of school (Flannery, 2015).
High dropout rates are a crisis on their own, but the negative impact is magnified by the
economic impact on taxpayers. A study comparing the economic outcomes of dropouts and high
school graduates from age 18-65, on earnings, crime, health, and welfare found that dropouts
cost U.S. taxpayers $11 billion in lost tax revenues over the lifetime of the dropouts (Rumberger
& Losen, 2016). The cost to the larger society, based on social losses defined by lower income
and productivity and higher health expenditures, is more than $35 billion.
It is important for students and society as a whole for schools to find ways to keep students
engaged and connected to school, even when they misbehave. The current discipline system is
fails to do this, so an alternative focused on reintegration and support needs to be explored.
School-to-Prison Pipeline
Literature also discusses the connection of exclusionary discipline, such as out of school
suspension and expulsion, to prison. This connection is known as the school-to-prison pipeline
(Fenning & Rose, 2007; Rocque, 2010). This phrase refers to “a journey through school that is
increasingly punitive and isolating for its travelers—many of whom will be repeatedly
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

11
suspended, held back in grade, banished to alternative ‘outplacements’ before finally dropping
out or getting ‘pushed out’ of school altogether” (Wald & Losen, 2003, p. 3).
According to a report by the Advancement Project (2010), schools are imposing tougher
sanctions on students for minor disruptive behavior, such as tardiness, absences,
noncompliance, and disrespect, resulting an unnecessary and unjust pushing out of students
from schools and into the school-to-prison pipeline. The study also noted that punitive discipline
policies have lead to an increase of the national prison population, which tripled from 1987 to
2007 (Advancement Project, 2010), and coincides with the implementation and increased use of
the zero-tolerance policies.
Researchers are beginning to study the likelihood of students entering the justice system
based on their experience with exclusionary discipline. A statewide, longitudinal study in Texas
found that more than one in seven students were in contact with the juvenile justice system
between seventh and twelfth grade (Fabelo et al., 2011). Contact was refers to contact with a
county’s juvenile probation department. Students who were suspended or expelled had a greater
likelihood, almost triple, of contact with the juvenile justice system in the following year (Fabelo
et al., 2011).
Disproportionality also exists in the school-to-prison pipeline, confirmed by a study of
adolescents in Missouri that found that the “even when they commit the same offenses as white
students, black students are significantly more likely to receive the type of exclusionary
discipline that contributes to increased contact with the justice system” (Nicholson-Crotty,
Birchmeier, & Valentine, 2009, 1015).
As school resource or police officers increase, schools are “increasingly utilizing the police
to enforce even the most basic student infractions, such as tardiness and school attendance”
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

12
(Advancement Project, 2010, p. 16). This can have a knockdown effect of more students having
contact with the justice system. Punishments associated with zero-tolerance policies put students
at greater risk for short- and long-term consequences, including academic disengagement,
academic failure, dropout, and involvement in the justice system (Skiba et al., 2014). The
discipline students receive in school can cause major, lifelong changes to their lives, which is
unjust and unnecessary.
Recommendations for Change
Research posits that implementation of zero-tolerance policies contribute to the discipline
gap (Hoffman, 2012; Wallace et al., 2008), drop-out rates (Balfanz et al., 2015; Lee et al., 2011),
and the school-to-prison pipeline (Fenning & Rose, 2007; Rocque, 2010) and does not actually
increase school safety (APA, 2008). Researchers have continually questioned the use of zero-
tolerance policies in school and their effectiveness (Skiba & Rausch, 2013; Wallace et al., 2008)
and have drawn links between them and racial disproportionality in discipline (Drakeford, 2004;
Rocque, 2010). The landmark report from the APA (2008) noted the evidence shows that zero
tolerance policies failed to live up to the rationale for their implementation – an effective
discipline approach which provides a safe school environment report called for a change in how
zero tolerance policies are applied and to develop alternative practices to “keep schools safe and
preserve the opportunity to learn for all students” (APA, 2008, p. 860). LaMarche (2011) asserts
in Education Week that “the time is right to end zero tolerance,” since zero tolerance policies
have led to suspension and expulsion rates at crisis proportions, denying students access to vital
services, while failing to improve student behavior.
Due to the increase criticism of the current discipline approach in a majority of U.S.
schools, the U.S. government has taken an interest in discipline reform efforts. In 2011, the U.S.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

13
Departments of Education (ED) and Justice (DOJ) joined forces to launch the Supportive School
Discipline Initiative in an effort to support the use of school discipline practices that “foster safe,
supportive, and productive learning environments while keeping students in school” (ED, 2014,
p. 1). In 2014, the ED and DOJ released a resource guide for improving school climate and
discipline (Duncan, 2014). The package included a “Dear Colleague” letter, that warned against
discipline policies that are discriminatory and stated that schools unlawfully discriminate even
"if a policy is neutral on its face--meaning that the policy itself does not mention race--and is
administered in an evenhanded manner but has a disparate impact, i.e., a disproportionate and
unjustified effect on students of a particular race" (Lhamon & Samuels, 2014, p. 7). The White
House joined in the call to reform with a report calling for the need to rethink discipline, citing
exclusionary practices unnecessary removal of students from school, disproportionate impact,
and the development of the school to prison pipeline (White House, 2016). Rather than pushing
challenging students out of school and into a life of struggle or prison, the educational system
needs to find alternative approaches to school discipline, which create systematic improvements,
so schools are safe and students have the support they need to learn. One such alternative is RJ,
which is included among the promising, alternative practices suggested by the various
government agencies. With a growing base of research, RJ has shown great promise as an
inclusive and just approach to discipline.
Restorative Justice
While RJ has been used in criminal justice for decades (Evans & Vaandering, 2016) and
in schools globally for some time, it has emerged as a promising alternative approach to
traditional discipline in several large U.S. school districts, such as Pennsylvania, Denver, and
Minneapolis (Karp & Breslin, 2001). School-based RJ is focused on inclusively working with
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

14
students on issues of discipline, so as not to exclude students from their education and the school
community in order to curb student drop out, the school-to-prison pipeline and the
disproportionate reliance on suspensions and expulsions (Gonzalez, 2012).
Defining RJ
The criminal justice system utilized RJ before it made a transition into education;
therefore it is helpful to understand RJ from a broader perspective before defining its use in
education. Zehr, known as the grandfather of modern RJ, defined it as ‘‘the process to involve, to
the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offense and to collectively identify and
address harms, needs, and obligations, in order to heal and put things as right as possible’’ (Zehr,
2015, p. 37). Bazemore (1999) built on that definition by noting that the RJ approach “links
crime to a breakdown in social relationships and hence prescribes a reintegrate response to crime
focused on attempts to repair, rebuild and enhance bonds or ties between young offenders and
their communities” (p. 155). Both note the need for all parties impacted by wrongdoing to be
involved in the restoration process, due to the impact on the interconnected relationships of all
those involved.
The premise of RJ in education is the same; recognizing our interconnectedness and doing
what needs to be done to make things right after something has gone wrong. However, schools
take it a step further and focus not only on reacting after harm has occurred, but also being
proactive about building and maintaining relationships as part of an interconnected relational
culture within the school. Therefore, a RJ school’s aim is to “create a context where individuals
can take responsibility, learn from and support each other through building the ties of social
capital” (Morrison, Blood, & Thorsborne, 2005). Social capital is the “connection among
individuals, and the trust, mutual understanding, shared values, and behaviors that bind us
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

15
together and make cooperative action possible (Wachtel, 2016).
Within educational RJ literature, authors use a wide variety of terms for RJ, including but
not limited to RJ in education (RJE), restorative practices, restorative discipline, and restorative
approaches (Song & Swearer, 2016). The literature also lacks consistency when defining
practices (Jennings, Gover, & Hitchcock, 2008), with various terms and different approaches to
using the practices in the school community. On one end of the spectrum, schools use RJ
practices to supplement their current practices and only to address serious incidents. On the other
end, RJ is infused throughout the school through a relational, responsive culture, which focuses
on building, maintaining, and repairing relationships (Vaandering, 2014).
Despite the challenges to label and define RJ in a concise way, on a universal scale, the
principles of RJ are consistent. Vaandering (2014) summarized the key principles found in
school-based RJ literature:
• Restorative justice addresses harm done, not rules broken;
• Restorative justice promotes healthy, caring communication and fosters nurturing
relationships; and
• Restorative justice facilitates dialogue for those affected by harm, those responsible for
causing harm and their supporting community members in order to expose and then
address the needs of all. (p. 66)
Harm is defined as “an adverse effect on another person or people, involving emotional or
mental distress and/or physical or material damage” (Hopkins, 2004, p. 30). Therefore, under the
philosophy of RJ, wrongdoing or misconduct is viewed as harm to relationships and the
community, rather than rule breaking or an offense against the institution (Suvall, 2009). The
goal after harm is done is to make things right, which requires an opportunity for the victim to
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

16
speak their truth and for the wrongdoer to have the opportunity to restore the relationship. A
wide variety of RJ practices exist to facilitate this process, which will be discussed later in this
chapter.
While some may view the RJ approach as not tough enough, it is important to note that
both support and accountability is paramount to RJ. It is the combination of support and
accountability that differentiates RJ from other discipline models (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012). The RJ approach to repairing harm is predicated on the belief that wrongdoers “have a
conscience and that they do or can feel guilt and remorse” (Jennings, Gover, & Hitchcock, 2008,
p. 169). If a student is not willing to take accountability for his/her actions and make things right
with those he/she harmed, then a secondary, more traditional approach to discipline is used. The
use of punitive discipline is a last resort, but will be used to reinforce accountability for one’s
actions.
While schools vary in their use of RJ practices and approach, research does not support
the process of administrators attempting to simply insert RJ practices into existing structures
(Vaandering, 2014). Purists would consider RJ a philosophy (Song & Swearer, 2016), which
approaches discipline with a relational ethos (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). RJ is not a
program one can simply “plug in” to a school to achieve specific outcomes. It is a “framework
that shifts the educational paradigm from control to engagement, such that individuals are
recognised as being part of a social web of relations and behaviour is understood in social
context” (Morrison, 2015, p. 448). Practitioners are calling for schools to use RJ to develop a
relational school culture that impacts all aspects of pedagogy, practice, and discipline (Morrison
& Vaandering, 2012), which can be accomplished through a whole school approach (Hopkins,
2004). To gain a better understanding of RJ, it is important to understand the various approaches
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

17
to discipline and how RJ contrasts with them.
Discipline Approaches
In today’s society, our typical response to wrongdoing is to punish those responsible.
Those who do not punish the wrongdoer are seen as permissive, allowing the wrong to go
unpunished. However, this perspective is limited and confines people to the choice to punish or
not to punish. Wachtel (2003) argues it is more appropriate to gain a more broad view of social
control and discipline through looking at the interplay between control and support. The “Social
Discipline Window” (figure 1.1) takes both variables into account and provides four different
approaches based on how they each utilize support and control.
HIGH

CONTROL
(limit-setting,
discipline)

LOW SUPPORT HIGH
(encouragement, nurture)
Figure 1.1. Social discipline window. Adapted from The Restorative Practices Handbook
Practices Handbook by B. Costello, J. Wachtel, and T. Wachtel, 2009, p. 50.
The bottom left quadrant is the neglectful approach, which is defined as ignoring behavior
and NOT doing anything. In this case, the person in authority does not set or communicate
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

18
expectations of behavior and fails to do anything when things go wrong (Hansberry, 2016). In
this approach there is very little limit setting or discipline and very little encouragement,
understanding, or nurturing (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2009). In addition to a lack of
accountability, this approach often ignores the needs of those involved in the wrongdoing. A
neglectful approach sometimes occurs when those in authority are exhausted and do not have the
energy and/or time to intervene in wrongdoing. A neglectful approach can also be viewed as
NOT meeting the needs of others (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013).
The other low control discipline approach is being permissive (bottom right quadrant). This
approach is extremely high in support, which communicates to students that the authority figure
cares about them because he/she does things FOR them. As with neglect, boundaries are not set
and clear expectations for behavior are not communicated or followed through on (Hansberry,
2016). However, there is a lot of support, understanding, nurture, and care provided to the
students with this approach. This approach can result from the authority figure’s desire to be
liked by those in their care (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013), and the results can sometimes blur the
lines between relationship and friendship for the students (Hansberry, 2016). Under this type of
authority, students’ behavior can go unchecked and the authority figure will tend to make
excuses for it. Since there is little accountability in this approach, being permissive can be seen
as providing support for the wrongdoer (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2009), rather than supporting
the victim and his/her needs.
The punitive approach, in the upper left quadrant, is in stark contrast to those who use a
permissive approach. Often, the authority figure’s response in this approach is reprimanding,
criticizing, and applying some kind of punishment. This type of approach is viewed as strict,
harsh, and without understanding. This authoritarian approach requires compliance and punishes
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

19
those who are non-compliant (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). The person in authority does
something TO the wrongdoer in the form of a punishment. Students are viewed as something to
be managed, rather than as people with needs (Hansberry, 2016). This approach offers little in
the way of support, neglecting students’ need to feel understood and cared for through the
discipline process.
The final approach found in the upper right quadrant is being restorative. This approach is
defined as working WITH those involved in wrongdoing. This relational, authoritative approach
has high expectations for behavior within a culture of high support and nurture (Thorsborne &
Blood, 2013). This approach is viewed as firm and fair, which effectively develops emotionally
intelligent, resilient, kind, and understanding students (Hansberry, 2016). Being restorative
requires accountability, but simultaneously takes the needs of all involved into account. This
approach creates an “environment that is conflict positive where conflict and wrongdoing is
addressed head on, not swept under the carpet (neglectful), minimised and excused (permissive),
or reacted to through a sense of panic and impending doom (punitive)” (Hansberry, 2016, p. 41).
The purpose of RJ is that discipline is fair and just, empowering those who have been harmed by
putting them in the center of decisions. It is about working WITH those involved to determine
what needs to be done to put things right. Wachtel and McCold (2004) provide a solid rationale
for the restorative approach:
The fundamental unifying hypothesis of restorative practice is disarmingly simple: that
human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make
positive changes in their behavior when those in positions of authority do things with them
rather than to them or for them. This hypothesis maintains that the punitive and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

20
authoritarian ‘to’ mode and the permissive and paternalistic ‘for’ mode are not as effective
as the restorative, participatory, engaging ‘with’ mode. (para. 3)
Schools do not need to be communities of authority and control, because order can be maintained
through building and maintaining a web of relationships in the community that “supports
individuals in making responsible decisions and holds individuals accountable for harmful
behavior” (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 339).
Punitive vs. Restorative
As mentioned previously, the typical approach to wrongdoing is one that is punitive.
Punitive discipline is grounded in a paradigm of authority, rules, and control. Counter to punitive
discipline, RJ is “grounded in the premise that human beings are relational and thrive in contexts
of social engagement over control” (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012, p. 139).
Since RJ focuses on doing things WITH the wrongdoer, the discipline process is one of
engagement and participation. In contrast, punitive discipline focuses on punishment and doing
things TO the wrongdoer, which does not require the wrongdoer to engage with the process.
Wachtel (2001, as cited by Karp & Breslin, 2001) captures the drawbacks of the punitive, non-
participatory approach:
Our society’s fundamental assumption is that punishment holds offenders accountable.
However, for an offending student punishment is a passive experience, demanding little or
no participation. While the teacher or administrator scolds, lectures and imposes the
punishment, the student remains silent, resents the authority figure, feels angry and
perceives himself as the victim. The student does not think about the real victims of his
offense or the other individuals who have been adversely affected by his actions. (p. 264)
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

21
The purpose of punitive discipline is to hold the wrongdoer accountable, but when the person is
not required to own up to his/her decision(s), that intent is lost. RJ creates space for those who do
wrong to account for their actions and take steps to make it right again.
Punitive discipline and RJ view wrongdoing in two distinctly different ways. Punitive
discipline views wrongdoing as a violation of the rules and therefore the institution, where RJ
views it as “a violation against people and relationships in the school and wider school
community” (Cameron & Thorsborne, 1999, p. 6). Varied views on the core of the “offense”
lead to different responses to it. Punitive discipline focuses on control and punishment, while RJ
focuses on relationship and restoration (table 1.1).
Different Approaches
Traditional/Punitive Discipline Restorative Discipline
Crime and wrongdoing are violations against
laws/rules.
Crime and wrongdoing are violations of
people, relationships, and community.
Justice requires that blame is assigned and
punishment is imposed.
Justice involves victims, wrongdoers, and
community members in an effort to put
things right.
Focus is on wrongdoers getting what they
deserve.
Focus is on victim needs and wrongdoers
responsibility to repair harm.
Table 1.1. Two discipline paradigms. Adapted from The Little Book of Restorative Justice by H.
Zehr, 2015, p. 30.
The different approaches to handling a wrongdoing can be see through the questions that
are asked after a wrongdoing has occurred (table 1.2). Since the punitive discipline approach is
built on a foundation of authority and control, the response to a wrongdoing focuses on assigning
blame and punishment. Alternatively, RJ is built from the belief that everyone is connected
through a web of relationships, so when a wrongdoing occurs, the web becomes torn (Zehr,
2015). The emphasis for the restorative approach is to make things right and repair the tear.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

22

Different Questions
Traditional/Punitive Discipline Restorative Discipline
What rules have been broken? Who has been hurt and how?
Who did it? What do they need?
What consequences/punishment do they
deserve?
Who is responsible for meeting these needs?
How do we ensure these needs are met and
reduce the chance of these harms happening
again?
Table 1.2. Two approaches after harm. Adapted from A Practical Introduction to Restorative
Practice in Schools: Theory, Skills, and Guidance by B. Hansberry, 2016, p. 62.
Another distinct difference between the two approaches is in how the victims of harm are
treated throughout the discipline process. When harm occurs, the victim has a wide variety of
needs and questions, such as, “Why did this happen to me?” In a punitive system, those needs are
not taken into account, which does not allow the victim’s experience or concerns to be validated
nor does it reassure them they won’t be victimized again in the future (Suvall, 2009). By creating
a safe space for all those impacted by a harm to meet and discuss it, RJ provides the opportunity
for victims to have their need for understanding and validation meet by hearing from the
wrongdoer.
Punitive discipline denies wrongdoers and victims a meaningful role in the discipline
process (Karp & Breslin, 2001) and fails to use the discipline process as a learning opportunity to
teach and promote appropriate behavior (Kline, 2016; Suvall, 2009). In contrast, the restorative
justice process becomes a learning experience and an opportunity for the wrongdoer to develop a
sense of responsibility.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

23
Theoretical Framework
There are several theoretical frameworks that support the RJ approach and provide an
explanation for why RJ works. Two of the major theories will be reviewed in this section.
Choice theory. Glasser’s (1998) choice theory provides an understanding of why
students would be motivated by a restorative approach within schools. Several aspects of the
theory are intertwined with the RJ approach. Glasser believes humans are genetically driven to
satisfy five basic needs: (a) survival; (b) love and belonging; (c) power; (d) freedom; and (e) fun
(Gregory & Kaufeldt, 2015). Glasser notes that the most important need is the need to belong,
which pairs well with the RJ values of relationships and interconnectedness. The meeting of
these needs take precedence over everything else, so a person is prone to disengage with things
not meeting their needs and engage with something that will. RJ emphasizes two of these needs,
belonging and power, in its principles and practice and is designed to satisfy them, which should
encourage students to take part in proactive and reactive RJ practice.
In addition, Glasser’s (1998) Seven Caring Habits of supporting, encouraging, listening,
accepting, trusting, respecting, and negotiating differences run parallel to the values, skills, and
processes of RJ. Choice theory revolves around the axiom of belief that each person controls
their own behavior, not external circumstances, and recognizes the importance of relationships in
the behavior process (Gregory & Kaufeldt, 2015). This focus on relationships and taking
responsibility for your own behavior, in addition to the needs and habits of the choice theory,
provides an understanding of the theoretical base for student motivation and rationale for RJ.
Affective script psychology (ASP). Having a restorative approach is more about
“understanding and acknowledging people’s feelings than anything else” (Hansberry, 2016, p.
76). Therefore, it is invaluable for educators to understand Tompkins’ (1962, 1963, 1991, 1992)
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

24
theory of emotion, ASP, because it enables them to have insight into the biological
underpinnings of why RJ works.
ASP is a theory of emotion and motivation, based in neurobiology, which was drawn
from the work of Charles Darwin on the motivational function of emotions (Thorsborne, 2016).
Tomkins described nine basic affects that each of us were wired with at birth, regardless of our
culture or race (Hansberry, 2016). These affects explain the expression of emotion in all humans
(Wachtel, 2016). When these affects are triggered it changes the neural firing in our Central
Nervous System (CNS) and the affect is subsequently displayed on our face. This process brings
the affect to our conscious awareness (Kelly, 2012, as cited by Thorsborne, 2016).
Affect, feeling, and emotion have distinct definitions in ASP. Affect is the “biological
and innate response that occurs in our CNS as a result of change in the rate and density of neural
firing as sensory information is received” (Thorsborne, 2016, p. 29). In other words, it is our
basic biological programming for specific neural firing. Feeling “occurs when we become aware
that an affect has been triggered” (Thorsborne, 2016, p. 29). This conscious awareness is due to
the body’s response to the affect, usually shown and felt through facial changes. Emotion is “a
learned response scripted from our life experience with our affects, the responses of others to our
affects, and our observations of the affects of those around us” (Kelly, 2012, as cited by
Thorsborne, 2016, p. 29). In other words, emotion is our biology and feelings combined with our
biography, the memory or association of past experiences when that affect was triggered
(Hansberry, 2016). Our memories of previous experiences with a particular affect develop into a
script in our mind. That script is like a set of “instructions or rules about what to say and do in
new moments to get more positive affect (good feelings) and less negative affect (bad feelings).
Motivation is derived from affect, because an affect or a script drives how we behave.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

25
Most of Tomkins’ nine affects are defined by pairs of words that represent the least and
most intense expression of that affect. The two positive affects are interest-excitement and
enjoyment-joy. Surprise-startle is the only neutral affect, which acts like a reset button (Wachtel,
2016). The six negative affects are shame-humiliation, fear-terror, anger-rage, distress-anguish,
disgust, and dissmell, which Tomkins created to “describe ‘turning up one’s nose’ in a rejecting
way” (Wachtel, 2016, p. 5). While the affects use some names that are similar to common
emotions, affects are not the same as emotions; they are the biological system that underlies
emotion (Tomkins Institute, 2014).
We are social and emotional beings and our affects are highly contagious to one another
(Hansberry, 2016). When someone is laughing, it is difficult not to laugh or at least smile. Being
around interested or joyful people tends to be interesting and joyful because those effects are
triggered in us. When someone near us is in distress, the affect resonates with us and can easily
transfer to us. Affective resonance is what motivates us to care about one another (Hansberry,
2016). If your distress triggers my distress, I am motivated to end your distress because it will
ease my own. This care for one another is what makes restorative practice work.
Central blueprint. Tompkins also argues that we are hardwired to conform to an internal
blueprint (Wachtel, 2016). His Central Blueprint is a set of biological rules that direct and govern
our sense of emotional wellbeing (Thorsborne, 2016). Both the individual and community
Blueprints provide a neurobiological rationale for why RJ works, however the focus of this
explanation will focus on the community aspect as it relates more closely with the school
community, the environment of inquiry. This community blueprint (table 1.3) is at the heart of
ASP and its four imperatives explain how we are wired and thus, as humans what we desire
(Hansberry, 2016). Tomkins explained, “human relationships are best and healthiest when there
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

26
is a free expression of affect or emotion” (Wachtel, 2016, p 5), which the community blueprint
provides for.
Tomkins’ Central Blueprint for Communities
We do better when we: In other words:
1. Share and maximize the positive affects. Show others when we are feeling good.
2. Share and minimize the negative affects. Negative affect dissipates when we make it
mutual (i.e. share) with others what we feel
bad about (within the accepted rules of our
community).
3. Create opportunities for the public
expression of affect.
Make it okay within out community to talk
together about what feels great and what
feels awful.
4. Maximize the ability to achieve goals
1-3
Anything that helps to achieve goals 1-3 is
good for the community, and anything that
hinders this makes the community
emotionally unwell.
Table 1.3. Tompkins’ central blueprint for communities. A Practical Introduction to Restorative
Practice in Schools: Theory, Skills, and Guidance by B. Hansberry, 2016, p. 88.
The blueprint connects with affective resonance and our care for one another because if a
person can ‘catch’ affect from another, that person will want to maximize others’ positive affects
and minimize negative affects. The Central Blueprint for a school community is summed up well
by Hansberry (2016):
Young people and adults are happier and more productive in schools where the positive
affects are maximised, negative affects minimised, where there is sharing with one another
of what feels good and bad, and when people always look for new ways to help one
another feel good. (p. 89)
RJ practices aim to do just that. The goal of RJ practices are designed to bring people together in
a safe space (goal 4) to express their feelings about an incident (goal 3) with a goal of sharing
and maximizing positive affect and minimize negative affect (goal 1-2). It is through the RJ
process that we are able to provide opportunity for the mutual and public expression of affect,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

27
which builds community by creating emotional bonds (Nathanson, 1998, as cited by Wachtel,
2016). RJ, at its core, is about building a healthy community, where people and relationships
come first.
Affect shame. One of Tomkins’ affects, shame, plays a pivotal role in the RJ process.
Braithwaite (1989) identified a social-psychological process that all wrongdoers must work
through in RJ, which is the management of shame related emotions (Braithwaite, Ahmed,
Morrison, & Reinhart, 2003). Affect shame biologically signals when something good has been
interrupted (Thorsborne, 2016), when something has gotten in the way of our positive affects of
interest or enjoyment. This is why victims of a crime sometimes report feeling a sense of shame
(Wachtel, 2016). Shame motivates us to investigate what the impediment is, so we can do
something about it and return to positive affect, as discussed in Tompkins’ Central Blueprint.
When a person causes shame affect to be triggered in another, it creates shame related
emotions. One instance where this can occur is disapproval of another’s actions, due to not
meeting an expectation or breaking a code of conduct. When the shame affect occurs, one of the
responses is shaming. These shaming behaviors can be highly respectful of the wrongdoer and
reintegrative, or they can be disrespectful and stigmatizing (Braithwaite et al., 2003).
The RJ process aims to be reintegrative, providing an outcome of adaptive shame
management. Adaptive shame management requires that the wrongdoer respond in two ways.
One, that his/she acknowledges the wrongdoing, by admitting it, taking responsibility, and
making amends (Braithwaite et al., 2003). Second, the wrongdoer resists blaming others, making
excuses, or citing external factors as the reason for their behavior (Braithwaite et al., 2003). If a
wrongdoer points the finger at others or external factors, it is called displacement, which has
been associated with bullying (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2011). The RJ process is designed to
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

28
encourage shame acknowledgement and discourage displacement. In other words, restorative
practices are developed in such a way to trigger affect shame and motivate those involved to
restore so they can return to feeling good again about themselves and others (Hansberry, 2016).
In the same vein, Nathanson (1992) further developed Tomkins’ work in the area of affect
shame. Nathanson recognized shame as a critical regulator of human social behavior (Wachtel,
2016) and thus focused on the ways human beings react when they feel shame. The Compass of
Shame was developed to illustrate the ways people react when they feel shame. Each pole
represents a type of theme of behavior and the behaviors that are associated with them. The first
pole is withdrawal, which includes shutting down, pulling away from others, isolating oneself,
and silence (Thorsborne, 2016; Wachtel, 2016). Attacking others, the second pole, includes
lashing out verbally or physically, blaming others, angry put-downs, sarcasm, and verbal abuse
(Thorsborne, 2016; Wachtel, 2016). A third pole is avoidance, which is characterized by denial,
drug or alcohol abuse, and pursuit of wealth, thrill, and other distractions (Thorsborne, 2016;
Wachtel, 2016). The fourth pole, attacking self, is demonstrated by self put-downs, masochism,
self-mutilation, self-recrimination, or suicide (Thorsborne, 2016; Wachtel, 2016). While shame
management brings challenge, it is imperative that people have the opportunity to work through
their shame, rather than ignoring, projecting, or minimizing it (Thorsborne, 2016). If shame is
not managed in an appropriate way, it can lead to destructive behaviors. As mentioned earlier,
the RJ process deliberately addresses shame affect, so those involved can process it in a healthy
way and return to positive affect. Despite shame’s poor reputation in today’s language, it has a
vital task to “keep us close to our community by becoming an internal sanctioning mechanism to
regulate our behavior” (Hansberry, 2016, p. 109).

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

29
Benefits of RJ
Since RJ has been used in the criminal justice system for several decades, most RJ research
has focused on studying RJ in the criminal justice system. Those studies’ findings are supportive
of RJ, finding high rates of satisfaction with the approach and reducing reoffending. In a review
of the criminal justice RJ research, Jennings, Gover, and Hitchcock (2008) found that
participants in RJ programs report high levels of satisfaction with the process and the outcomes.
More specifically, participants reported feeling safer and less fearful, because they received an
explanation from the wrongdoer and the wrongdoers reported feeling as if they were treated
fairly (Jennings et al., 2008). In addition, RJ program participation reduces the likelihood of
youth recidivism (Rodriguez, 2005). A meta-analysis of RJ research, which compared RJ
programs to traditional programs in the criminal justice system, found RJ programs to be
significantly more effective in increasing victim and offender satisfaction, compliance with
restitution requirements, and decreasing the likelihood of reoffending (Latimer, Dowden, &
Muise, 2005). While the research in criminal justice RJ is encouraging, it is important to see if
those positive outcomes transfer to the field of education.
One of the first studies to examine the impact of RJ in schools was done by Cameron and
Thorsborne (2001), which focused on two year-long studies of community conferencing in 119
schools in Queensland, Australia. The majority of the 89 conferences conducted in that time
dealt with serious cases of harmful behavior. The findings of the first trial, in 1996, indicated low
rates of reoffending behavior, increased view of safety, closer relationships, and participant high
satisfaction with process and outcomes achieved (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). The second
pilot study in 1997 confirmed that conferencing was highly effective for dealing with incidents
of serious harm in schools (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). However, Cameron & Thorsborne
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

30
(2001) also found that a significant number of serious incidents were not conferenced despite a
large amount of trained facilitators. Further investigation revealed implementation issues around
conflicting discipline philosophies in the school. Despite the tensions present, when conferencing
was used it was effective.
Proactive. Instead of just focusing on reacting after an incident, RJ also incorporates
proactive practices (Kline, 2016). Two of these proactive approaches are developing and
maintaining positive relationships and communicating expectations.
One proactive aspect of RJ focuses on building and maintaining positive relationships
through the use of morning meetings or classroom circles. Relationships are at the heart of RJ
and without them, there is no need to restore them after harm has been done, so care is taken to
develop a sense of belonging and interconnectedness within the community. Relationships are
important to human beings because our brains are wired to learn best within the context of loving
relationships, so creating a positive relational culture supports learning (Olson, 2014).
One of the tools used to develop positive relationships and a sense of belonging is
community building. Classrooms are an excellent space for building an interconnected
community, because when students depend on one another, relationships are developed and
strengthened. Interdependency stresses the importance of bonds, positive relationships, and a
sense of connectedness (Rodman, 2007). The connections and healthy relationships which
students create with one another in this environment helps them to develop empathy, confidence,
resilience, and a sense of capability (Rodman, 2007).
Relationships among students are not the only focus of proactive relationship building. It is
also necessary and beneficial for teachers to have positive, nurturing relationships with students
(Coggshall et al., 2013). These relationships will not only leverage some of the RJ processes,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

31
such as affective statements, but they will also establish mutual respect, care, and connection
between teachers and students. An increased understanding of how actions impact the web of
relationships will aid students’ empathy for their teachers, which will potentially modify their
actions and behavior with their teachers.
Another proactive aspect of RJ is clearly communicating expectations and setting
boundaries around behavior (Hansberry, 2016). It is important for students to understand what is
expected of them. When limits and boundaries are not clear, students will act in accordance to
their own guidelines, which may be in contrast to what authority figures desire. If the student
unknowingly crosses a line he/she didn’t know existed and an authority figure reacts with some
form of rebuke or punishment, that student may feel victimized and become angry or hurt. These
feelings are justified, because the student did not know what was expected of them. This type of
punitive situation can create a hostile or fearful environment, which is in direct conflict with the
relational culture RJ promotes. RJ is proactive and encourages clear and direct communication
about expectations, which should be in line with the value and beliefs of the school.
Student-teacher relationships. There are clear and distinct differences between punitive
discipline and RJ. One of the key aspects of RJ is its emphasis on relationships, including
positive ones between teachers and students. While there currently isn’t enough research to
determine if RJ rectifies the problems zero tolerance policies created, there is evidence that the
relationships built through a restorative approach do have positive outcomes, which offset the
drawbacks of zero tolerance policies. Gregory, Clawson, Davis, and Gerewitz (2016) found that
teachers with higher RJ implementation levels had better teacher-student relationships, based on
students’ perceptions of teacher respect. The high implementing teachers issued fewer
misconduct/defiance discipline referrals to Latino and Black students than teachers with low RJ
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

32
implementation levels (Gregory et al., 2016). This may be one reason that positive student-
teacher relationships are associated with reductions in dropping out and involvement with the
law (Croninger & Lee, 2001).
Student achievement. Positive teacher-student relationships contribute to positive
academic and social outcomes for students (Roorda, Koomen, Spilt, & Oort, 2011). Ortega,
Lyubansky, Nettles, Larson, and Espelage (2016) found that RJ practices, such as circles, lead to
improved academic and social achievements. A shift to RJ is a shift away from suspensions and
an aim to keep students in school. As noted previously, there is a “strong positive relationship
between time engaged in academic learning and student achievement” (Gregory et al., 2010, p.
60). Beyond improved student achievement, RJ is also focused on enabling students to learn
through the discipline process.
Focus on learning. Education is at the center of RJ. While punitive discipline fails to use
discipline as a learning experience (Suvall, 2009), one of the focuses of RJ is for all parties
involved in a wrongdoing to learn and grow through the experience. RJ encourages an inclusive,
educational approach to making things right, by respectfully responding to students inappropriate
behavior (Kline, 2016). The RJ approach emphasizes learning from our mistakes, but also
provides an opportunity for skill development for all those involved. This improves school
culture by teaching all involved strategies to resolve conflict, restore relationships, and manage
inappropriate behavior in a supportive way (Pavelka, 2013). In other words, RJ practitioners use
discipline for learning.
Social emotional learning (SEL) is a process through which students learn to understand
and manage their emotions and relationships (Coggshall, Osher, & Colombi, 2013). The SEL
process is well known in education and RJ can often be mistaken for an SEL program. While it is
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

33
not designed to fit the SEL criteria, the development of students’ understanding of themselves
and others does play a role in RJ practice. RJ is similar to SEL, in that both focus on developing
social and emotional competence in students and creating a positive school environment. When
teachers promote and facilitate this type of learning in classrooms, students’ social and academic
outcomes improve (Coggshall et al., 2013).
Developmentally appropriate. Neuroscience suggests understanding the brain to promote
developmentally appropriate practices for learning, discipline, etc. (Armstrong, 2016). Typically
the adolescents’ ability to think causality hasn’t developed and the emotional, limbic system
drives most decision-making. While punitive discipline ignores the critically important
emotional, psychological, and physical developmental needs of young people, RJ is
developmentally appropriate based on adolescent brain development.
An adolescent brain is like a car being driven with the pedal to the medal and no brakes
(Armstrong, 2016). The prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for decision-making,
impulse control, and other necessary functioning skills, is still developing through adolescence.
In “cold,” laboratory conditions, adolescents can use the prefrontal cortex to think like a mature
adult and make rational decisions (Armstrong, 2016). However, in real life, “hot” conditions,
where feelings are involved, the adolescent brain is complicated and typically influenced by the
limbic system (Armstrong, 2016). The limbic system is also known as the “emotional brain” and
is responsible for motivation, impulsivity, emotional expression, risk-taking, and seeking
rewards, sensation, and novelty (Armstrong, 2016). If students’ brains are being driven by
emotion and don’t have the ability to quickly and easily brake for rational thinking, it is no
surprise they sometimes behave out of character. Misbehavior is a part of development and
growing up. Rather than punish students for developmental mistakes, RJ focuses on shifting their
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

34
brain to use the prefrontal cortex to understand consequences to their actions and learn from their
mistakes.
One of the benefits of adolescent brains is its neuroplasticity, which is the brain’s ability to
create new neural connections, grow synapses, and modify structures within the brain
(Armstrong, 2016). This means that new behavior can be learned, and supports the RJ belief that
students can learn from the discipline process. When students begin to understand how their
behavior impacts others, it builds empathy, helps them learn from their mistakes, and hopefully
helps them to modify their actions in the future.
Understanding RJ and the influence of a restorative approach on students is the first step to
implementing RJ in a school community. However implementation of RJ in schools requires
change agents to move beyond an understanding of RJ in theory to one of practical application.
The next section will address the implementation of RJ in schools, including a discussion of the
values, skills, and processes of RJ, the benefits of implementing RJ, how to manage change the
paradigm and culture shift necessary for successful RJ implementation, and models of RJ
implementation that currently exist.
Background
Implementing RJ in Schools
The best way to visualize RJ in schools is through viewing the components as a triangle
(figure 1.2). The base or foundation is created by the values and ethos. If they are not in place,
then the approach will fail to launch. Once values and ethos are part of the culture, then the
proper skills can be developed, which will enable the processes/practices to be enacted. Since
acting restoratively is a way of being and doing (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013), following this
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

35
progression will allow RJ to flourish and grow, reaping the benefits of a relational, restorative
approach to discipline.

Figure 1.2. The restorative pyramid. Adapted from Just Schools: A Whole School Approach to
Restorative Justice by B. Hopkins, 2004, p. 31.
Values. To gain a deeper understanding of RJ, it is imperative to understand the values that
drive the practices. Zehr (2015) believed RJ principles can be “seen as a compass offering
direction” (p. 17) and used this broad approach by defining the three key values of RJ as: respect,
responsibility, and relationship. Braithwaite (2002, as cited by Morrison & Vaandering, 2012)
expanded on Zehr’s work and organized RJ values into three categories:
constraining values (e.g., respectful listening, equal concern for all stakeholders,
accountability, respect for the fundamental human rights); maximizing values (e.g.,
restoration of human dignity, relationships and communities, emotional restoration and the
restoration of freedom, compassion, peace, a sense of duty as a citizen); and emergent
values (e.g., remorse, apology, censure of the act, forgiveness and mercy). (p. 142)

Processes
Skills
Value base/ethos
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

36
Evans and Vaandering (2016) view the values of RJ in education as respect, dignity, and mutual
concern. The heart in each of these value sets is the same; to value and respect others, honor our
interconnectedness, and to take responsibility for behavior that hinders those relationships.
As discussed earlier, relationships are at the core of RJ. Without relationships, the RJ
process will be futile, because there is nothing to restore. Therefore, the school community must
put a high priority on relationships, by acknowledging the importance of them and taking
responsibility to nurture positive relationships (Morrison et al., 2005). This may require a
sacrifice of time away from preparing for high stakes testing, but the tradeoff is worthwhile
because students learn and achieve more when they feel their teachers treat them with care and
support (Coggshall et al., 2013).
Another key facet of the RJ value system is respect for one another. The RJ practices are
designed in such a way to maintain individual’s dignity and self-worth throughout the process
(Morrison et al., 2005). Every person has value and worth, and should be respected. In a
flourishing RJ community, all members of the community must be respected, including students.
The students need to feel they have a voice in the system and can share their opinions, thoughts,
and feelings. One way to develop their contributions to their environment is to communally
develop classroom agreements, rather than the teacher mandating rules.
Treating one another with respect is another aspect of the RJ value of respect. It is often
when someone feels disrespected when harm occurs; therefore, learning to engage with one
another in a respectful way is paramount for a relational community. In addition to respecting
one another’s’ space and belongings, students need to learn how to engage in respectful dialogue
in highly charged situations, so they can learn to effectively handle and recover from challenging
situations (Hansberry, 2016). An RJ community needs to be one of mutual respect and care.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

37
The RJ process needs to be viewed as just and fair. This begins by being a community
that is clear about expectations of behavior (Hansberry, 2016), as shown in the social discipline
window. However, these rules cannot be arbitrary or viewed as unjust. Suvall (2009) emphasizes
the importance of these expectations:
Strong school community expectations of behavior are essential for an ordered, well-
functioning school environment. While harsh punishments alone may deter some
individuals from misbehavior, a significant factor in students' decisions to follow
institutional rules is that they believe that these rules are just and legitimate. (p. 553)
Clearly articulated and explicit school codes of conduct are crucial for RJ to be successful,
however the students must be view them as reasonable. Adopting RJ in a school can be a catalyst
to re-examine the rules and guidelines, to ensure they align with the school’s values, beliefs, and
RJ practices.
In addition to rules being just, the RJ process needs to be viewed as fair in order for
students to invest in it. RJ practices are built on the idea of fair process, popularized by Kim and
Mauborgne (2003). The central idea of fair process is that “individuals are most likely to trust
and cooperate freely with systems—whether they themselves win or lose by those systems—
when fair process is observed” (Kim & Mauborgne, 2003, para 25). In short, when students
experience a fair process, they will more readily accept the consequence, which produces
“meaningful compliance and increased cooperation” (Thorsborne & Vinegrad, 2009, p. 30). The
three principles of fair process are: (a) engagement; (b) explanation; and (c) expectation clarity
(Kim & Mauborgne, 2003). Individuals must feel engaged in decisions that affect them by
listening to their views and genuinely taking their opinions into account. Once a decision is
made, the reasoning behind it needs to be explained to everyone involved or affected by it.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

38
Lastly, efforts should be made to ensure everyone clearly understands the decision and what is
expected of them in the future.
RJ practices are focused on doing the work WITH those involved, which lends itself to
being fair. However, educators need to model the values of fairness through engagement,
explanation, and expectation clarity in their classrooms. Acting in a fair way towards others
outside of an RJ process, will build credibility with students, which will help them to trust the RJ
process.
As a school shifts from one form of discipline to another, students will be unsure about
the changes, even if it is for their benefit. In order for them to engage in the process, they need to
believe in the process. Communicating the values of RJ in words is not enough; the community
needs to live out these values in everything they do. Educators must walk the talk, before they
can ask students to believe and trust in a new process (Hansberry, 2016).
Skills. Educators require several skills to be able to enact RJ practices. These skills are
straightforward and can be learned, if not already a part of the educator’s skillset.
The first of these skills is empathic listening. Listening with empathy and without
demonstrating judgment is the key to connecting with another person (Hopkins, 2004). Empathic
listening is also known as active listening, because it requires the listener to demonstrate through
their body language and words that they are engaged in the conversation, without questioning,
judging, or minimizing their feelings. In an RJ process, everyone needs to feel heard and their
perspective is valued. The listener’s response to the speaker can make or break a conversation, so
educators need to work on building their skills for empathic listening (Hopkins, 2004).
Restorative discussion skills are required to be able to productively engage in any
restorative practice. These skills include being able to acknowledge other’s perspective, keeping
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

39
emotions in check, focusing on problem solving, and asking questions, rather than telling.
Educators must develop skill in not showing or projecting their own emotional response onto
others or the situation. It may be difficult, but educators must work towards helping students
move their brain activity from the amygdala to the frontal lobe, so they can communicate clearly
and make rational decisions (Hansberry, 2016). This can be done by a measured approach to the
situation and by the teacher keeping his/her own thoughts and feelings in check. Being
restorative is not about one person imposing a solution and others conceding, because it breeds
resentment and hostility (Hopkins, 2004). Instead, it is about finding a way forward that satisfies
everyone and ideally meets each person’s needs. Therefore, educators must resist the temptation
to “solve the problem” themselves, and instead ask restorative questions to engage the students
in a process to explore the incident, uncover intent, share stories of harm and needs, and find a
way to make things as right as possible (Hansberry, 2016).
The skill of being able to tease out a story and reframe it for clarity and understanding is
another set of skills required for the RJ process to be effective. Allowing everyone’s story to be
heard is part of the RJ process, and if someone is struggling to give their account of the harm,
then the facilitator needs to be able to think of some additional questions to tease out the story
without sounding like an interrogator (Hopkins, 2004). Once everyone has told their story, the
facilitator may find it helpful to reflect back what has been said, in an effort to bring clarity and
confirm understanding. When doing this, the facilitator may reframe the statement, which retains
its essence, the meaning and emotions, while speaking in a direct and clear way. These skills are
needed to manage the dynamics within the RJ process and ensure everyone’s needs for being
heard and understanding are met.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

40
Practices. Within education, RJ practices can be described as “an umbrella of tools that
educators can use to establish positive relationships with all students and stakeholders” (Kline,
2016, p. 98). The aim of restorative practices is to “develop community and to manage conflict
and tensions by repairing harm and building relationships” Wachtel, 2016, p. 4). Building
relationships and developing community is proactive, while repairing harm and restoring
relationships tends to the reactive approach. Hopkins (2004) described restorative practice in a
simple, clear way:
A restorative process enables people in conflict, or between whom there is a rift because of
harm done by either side, to sit down together, to listen to each other’s perspective on what
happened, to hear how everyone is feeling, to hear how everyone has been affected by the
situation, to hear what everyone would like to see happen to put the matter right as far as
possible and to agree to a plan of action, which might begin by remorse and apology being
expressed where appropriate. (p. 62)
A range of school-based restorative practices exist, which all have varying purposes,
formality, and participants (figure 1.3). There are a wide variety of terms used in RJ literature to
describe these processes. For clarity, the Thorsborne and Vinegrad (2009) vocabulary was
selected to be used here, however the description of each practice may reference literature that
utilizes another term for the same practice.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

41

Affective
Statement/
Conversation
Individual
Conference
Small Group/
Impromptu
Conference
Large Group
Conference
Classroom
Circle/
Conference
Community
Conference

Less serious incidents More serious incidents

All adults in school Trained facilitators

Less preparation/less follow-up More preparation/more follow-up

Informal Formal

Teacher and student Teacher and several
students
Teacher(s) and whole
class
Teachers, parents,
and students
Figure 1.3. Restorative practice continuum. Adapted from Restorative Justice Pocketbook by M.
Thorsborne and D. Vinegrad, 2009, p. 59.
In RJ, the wrongdoers and victims are asked to engage in one of the processes noted
above to resolve conflict or restore harm. Restorative questions (table 1.4) drive all of the
practices and lay the groundwork for the victim to express their thoughts, feelings, and needs,
while the wrongdoer has the chance to build empathy, accept responsibility, and take
accountability to make things right. The questions are used as a type of “script” and can be
modified slightly based on the practice or situation (Hansberry, 2016).

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

42

Restorative Questions
Ask the wrongdoer
These questions are asked & answered first
Ask the victim
These questions are asked second
What happened? What did you think when this happened?
What were you thinking about at the time? What have been your thoughts since?
What have your thoughts been since? How has this affected you?
Who has been affected by what you did? In
what way have they been affected?
What’s been the hardest thing?
What do you think you need to do to make
things right?
What do you think needs to happen to make
things right?
Table 1.4. Restorative script. Adapted from Restorative Justice and Practices by International
Institute of Restorative Practices, 2006, p. 5.
Affective statements/conversation. On the informal end of the continuum is affective
statements and conversation, which are meant to challenge the inappropriate behavior while also
supporting the relationship with the student (Hansberry, 2016). They do not require very much
preparation and may not require follow up. Affective statements and conversations are some of
the easiest and most useful tools for building a restorative classroom (Costello et al., 2009). They
alert the student there is a problem and allow the student the opportunity to resolve it on their
own. Affective statements can be used to acknowledge any challenging behavior or to reinforce
any good and desirable behavior (Costello et al., 2009).
An affective statement is a brief comment that shares the impact of one’s behavior with the
person who is responsible, also known as the ‘I’ statement. This kind of interaction humanizes
the teacher and provides the opportunity for students to learn empathy. Affective statements help
teachers build relationships with students because they begin to see teachers as people who care
and have feelings, rather than an unfeeling authority (Costello et al., 2009). Hansberry’s (2016)
steps for affective statements are: (a) affirm the student; (b) challenge the behavior using an
affect word; (c) reaffirm the student; and (d) give right of reply.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

43
Affective questions and conversations take the process one step further, by asking the
wrongdoer questions about who was affected and how they were affected to prompt the
wrongdoer to consider the feelings of others. It is meant to be non-threatening and non-blaming,
so teachers need to regulate their own emotions and responses. The conversations should be
driven by the principles of connectedness, caring, values rather than rules, and building on the
strengths of the student to solve the issue (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013).
These practices take more time than the traditional “stop that” or “don’t do that” (Costello
et al., 2009), but they help build empathic, respectful, relational culture in the classroom that will
help the students learn to monitor their own behavior and impact on others. Simply put, the
payoff is worth the few extra minutes of time.
Individual conference. The next practice on the continuum is the individual conference,
also known as a restorative chat. Similar to affective statements and conversations, this process
requires minimal preparation or follow-up. This practice is for low-level incidents that haven’t
caused enough harm to warrant a conference involving others (Hansberry, 2016).
The restorative conference is designed to help the student consider the impact of their
choices on others and to create a plan to fix the issue and make things right (Thorsborne &
Blood, 2013). It is the first practice where the wrongdoer restorative questions are used. The
questions used in this process are open-ended, non-threatening, and are focused on the
immediate past (what happened), the present (the impact), and the future (what needs to happen)
(Hopkins, 2004). It is imperative that the focus be on the behavior, not a judgment on the person
(Hansberry 2016).
An individual conference can be used to prime or prepare the person for a small, large, or
community conference. During this time, the facilitator uses the process to verify the wrongdoer
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

44
is ready to acknowledge the shame and take responsibility for their actions (Hansberry, 2016). If
a student cannot manage their shame in the individual conference, they should not meet with the
victim in a larger conference setting.
Small/large group conference. These practices involve, at a minimum, the wrong doer and
the victim. Sometimes called, Victim/Offender Mediation, these conferences have a facilitator
and at least two other individuals. The term offender is not appropriate for the school setting, so
wrongdoer is typically used instead. These conferences aim to teach students how to think about
their behavior (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013) and how to have respectful conversations in the face
of challenging situations (Hansberry, 2016).
Conferences provide everyone with the opportunity to share their feelings, ask questions,
and have a say in how to make things right again (Wachtel, 2016). During this time the
wrongdoer hears firsthand how his/her behavior has affected others, which builds empathy and
provide an opportunity for adaptive shame management. All conferences should take place in a
circle, where everyone is included and can see everyone else (Hopkins, 2004).
Small group conferences are the most frequently used practice on the continuum at schools
(Hansberry, 2016). The purpose of a small group or impromptu conference is to address and
resolve a low-level problem or conflict before it escalates by engaging students in a process to
express their feelings, think about the impact of their behavior, and learn how to resolve conflicts
or harm (Costello et al., 2009). This type of process avoids teachers having to punish a student,
and then be viewed as taking a side, which causes anger, resentment, and disengagement
(Hansberry 2016).
Before beginning the conference, the facilitator should explain the expectations for the
conference. Typically those expectations include being respectful, being honest, and taking turns
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

45
to speak. The restorative questions for both the wrongdoer and victim are used during the
conference in a specific order, wrongdoer first. The key is the final question in both sets, because
it focuses on the reintegrative nature of RJ. It is important that the teacher or facilitator remain
neutral in this setting, so as not to hinder the process or hinder the students’ expression of feeling
and acceptance of responsibility.
Large group conferences follow a similar format, however they include larger group of
people, perhaps across classrooms or grades. This conference requires more preparation, as the
facilitator will need to manage more people, and follow up, since this is the first practice
discussed that will have an agreement as part of the outcome of the conference.
The facilitator will need to plan on how to run the meeting before it begins. This process
may include the restorative questions, but it does not always have to include the individual
explanation of impact if the problem at hand is universally known, understood, and equally
impacts all involved (Hansberry 2016). One of the outcomes of this type of conference is an
agreement based on the group’s recommendations for a plan to resolve the issue and move
forward in a positive way (Hansberry 2016). This agreement may be developed with a smaller
group of volunteers. Success of this process is contingent on the follow-up of the agreement
(Hansberry, 2016). Review meetings should be scheduled and completed, so students come
together to discuss how things are going. This step is critical to changing attitudes and behaviors
because it communicates that the process is high on support, but also on accountability
(Hansberry, 2016).
Classroom circles/conference. Circles themselves create a sense of community, which is
why they are the most versatile RJ practice. Circles involve a great deal of preparation and
require varying degrees of follow-up depending on the situation. They can be used proactively,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

46
to develop relationship and build community, or reactively, to respond to harm, conflicts, and
problems (Wachtel, 2016). This practice can be used for a variety of purposes including conflict,
support, decision-making, information sharing, and relationship development.
Everyone has the opportunity to speak and listen to one another in an atmosphere of safety,
respect, and equity (Wachtel, 2016). There are clear guidelines for how circles should operate -
only one person can speak at a time, everyone must wait their turn to speak (talking moves in
one direction around the circle), and everyone has the right to pass (Hopkins, 2004). A teacher
typically facilitates the circle, but should not control or lead the conversation or activity
(Wachtel, 2016).
Proactively, circles are used to check in or out with students, develop classroom norms,
cover content, set academic goals, or other community building activities (Costello et al., 2009).
On the other hand, classroom conferences are used to reactively deal with behavior problems that
have created classroom dynamics that put the learning and safety of the class at risk (Thorsborne
& Blood, 2013). In this case, the conference may involve a small group of students being held
accountable for their actions by the rest of the class or, if the wrongdoers are not known, the
conference may provide the students the space and opportunity to take responsibility and make
amends for the harm (Hansberry, 2016).
Classroom conferences should follow clear guidelines, which need to be addressed at the
beginning of conference (Hansberry, 2016). As the class community develops trust, comfort, and
expectations of behavior classroom conferences develop into an excellent tool to respond to
behavior issues that arise in the classroom (Costello et al., 2009). If circles are used consistently,
then the students will already know what to expect and hopefully actively engage in the process.
In summary, classroom circles can be used to build community, as an education tool, and as a
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

47
problem-solving process.
Community conference. The community conference, a formal conference which involves
a lot of preparation and follow up, is reserved for issues where significant harm has been caused
to people and relationships, and therefore have severely breached the school’s code of conduct
(Hansberry 2016). This type of conference is very structured, typically uses a script, and needs to
be facilitated by a trained professional. As with other conferences, the group should be seated in
a circle, with careful planning of seat assignments (Hopkins, 2004). Before a community
conference is convened, the wrongdoer must have accepted responsibility for the harm and
agreed to meet with those they have affected, including the victim’s family and friends
(Hansberry, 2016).
During the conference, the wrongdoer has the opportunity to share what happened. All
those harmed, including family and friends, share their stories, which helps the group explore the
harm and understand its depth and breadth (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Following this, the
wrongdoer is provided the opportunity to take responsibility for the harm and apologize. Then
the group works together to find a mutually acceptable way to make things right and repair the
harm, and develops a plan to prevent further harm (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). The outcome of
the meeting is a formal agreement, which is monitored by the facilitator after the conference via
review meetings (Hansberry, 2016). As with large group conferences, the follow-up on the
agreement is important.
Benefits of Implementing RJ
Existing and emerging research on RJ implementation and outcomes suggests several
promising outcomes. It is important to note that most RJ research has not meet rigorous
empirical standards. Some of the research on RJ outcomes is based on reviews of discipline data
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

48
pre- and post-RJ implementation, which is not always run through a statistical analysis. Others
are based on qualitative information from participants on satisfaction or their perception of
outcomes. However, there are emerging studies that utilize empirical research methods to study
RJ outcomes, which are verifying previous exploratory study findings.
US schools. Various size school districts in the US have implemented RJ and some have
study outcomes through in-district studies or by outside researchers. This section will review
studies from Denver Public Schools, Oakland Unified School District, and Pennsylvania.
Denver Public Schools phased in RJ practices through exploratory studies, grant-funded
pilots, and a district wide adoption in 2008 (Gonzalez, 2012). Exploratory data from four
secondary pilot schools indicated a high level of support for the RJ program from students, staff
members, community members, and family members who participated in an RJ process during
the first year of implementation (Jennings, Gover, & Hitchcock, 2008). The majority of
participants were satisfied with the outcome and would recommend the RJ program. Follow-up
data indicated that most of the students surveyed indicated that their relationship with the other
participant(s) improved as a result of taking part in the RJ process. These positive results after
only one year of implementation are encouraging. Review of discipline data from one of the pilot
secondary schools demonstrated a downward trend in suspensions and expulsions (Gonzalez,
2012). The review also noted increased attendance, decreased office referrals and confirmed a
high satisfaction rate with the RJ process from students and faculty (Gonzalez, 2012). Anyon,
Gregory, Stone, Farrar, Jenson, McQueen, Downing, Greer, and Simmons (2016) confirmed
previous findings with their study of Denver Public Schools’ 2012-2013 discipline data. The
study used multilevel modeling, which controlled for a range of student and school
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

49
characteristics, and found that students who participated in an RJ practice during the first
semester were less likely to be suspended during the second semester (Anyon et al., 2016).
Oakland Unified School District adopted RJ as a system-wide alternative to zero tolerance
in 2010 after pilot schools’ whole school RJ approach were showing promise. A study that
examined trends in discipline data over 5-years a pilot school, which adopted RJ in 2007, found
an 87% reduction in suspensions two years after RJ implementation (Sumner, Silverman, &
Frampton, 2010). In that same time period expulsions were eliminated, which is notable for a
school that had an expulsion rate higher than the district average in the years prior to RJ
implementation (Sumner et al., 2010). A mixed methods evaluation of district-wide RJ
implementation in Oakland schools found a variety of positive outcomes (Jain, Bassey, Brown,
& Kalra, 2014). In addition to lower suspension rates for all students, there was a significant
decline in suspension for Black students due to disruption/willful defiance. The declining
suspension rate was associated with RJ as there was a significant difference in the proportion of
African American students who were suspended (41.7%) in RJ schools, compared to non-RJ
schools (35.8%) (Jain et al., 2014). In addition, the Black/White discipline gap decreased from
25 in 2011-12 to 19 in 2012-13. Reading levels for grade nine students, measured by SRI,
increased 128% in RJ high schools compared to 11% in non-RJ high schools and -8.6% district
wide (Jain et al., 2014). Teachers and students also reported positive outcomes relating to
behavior management, conflict resolution, developmental assets, and school climate and
community (Jain et al., 2014). This report provides promising evidence to support the
implementation of RJ in schools and school districts to increase student engagement in school
and help curb disproportionate use of discipline.
SaferSanerSchools, developed by the International Institute of Restorative Practices (IIRP),
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

50
is a pilot program for restorative practices. Mirsky (2007) reviewed preliminary data for the pilot
program at Palisades High School in Pennsylvania, which showed a clear decrease in
disciplinary referrals, detentions, incidents of disruptive behavior, and suspensions from 1998-
1999 through 2001-2002. During that time, disciplinary referrals to the office dropped from 1752
to 1154, administrative detentions dropped from 716 to 282, detentions assigned by teachers
dropped from 128 to 50, disruptive behavior incidents dropped from 273 to 153, and out of
school suspensions dropped from 105 to 65. When the pilot program was implemented at
Palisades Middle School and Springfield Township High School, a pattern of significantly
decreased discipline issues after RJ implementation was established. The qualitative data
gathered by Mirsky demonstrates a culture change in the schools, with several participants
acknowledging more collaborative, caring, respectful environments. This evidence suggests that
RJ can positively influence student behavior, which decreases the amount of discipline incidents
in a school.
Canadian schools. After Safe Schools legislation, a school board in Ontario adopted RJ as
an integral part of their safe-school policy implementation (Rideout et al., 2010). A two-phase
explanatory, mixed-methods study was completed to assess and understand outcomes of the
implementation at the pilot schools. The first phase focused on collecting quantitative data on
outcomes associated with the identified aims and the factors that may have been predictive of
those outcomes (Rideout et al., 2010). The second phase analyzed qualitative focus group data
and sought to understand the phase one findings. The quantitative analysis found a significant
reduction in the number of behavioral infractions, which enhanced a sense of community based
on participant perceptions (Rideout et al., 2010). There was also a statistically significant
reduction in absences at the high school level, which may have been influenced by improved
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

51
relationship building through RJ practices (Rideout et al., 2010). Relationships and empowered
student voice was a theme that emerged from the qualitative data, illustrating non-discipline
related positive outcomes.
Scottish schools. A two-year 18 school study of RJ practices in Scotland focused on the
implementation of RJ practices in the school setting (McCluskey, Lloyd, Kane, Riddell, Stead, &
Weedon, 2008). The underpinning principles of the study were fostering social relationships,
mutual respect, responsibility, accountability, respect, empathy, fairness, equitable process,
active involvement, and reflective opportunities (McCluskey et al., 2008). The study used a wide
variety of data collection methods, from interviews to observation to data analysis, to develop a
holistic view of the implementation of RJ in the pilot schools. McCluskey et al. (2008) noted that
schools had very different approaches to implementation, ranging from whole school approach to
utilizing specific practices, with secondary schools having the most diverse approaches to RJ,
and also the slowest institutional change. Implementation was most successful when schools saw
a need for change and were committed to improving the culture by building and maintaining
positive relationships throughout the school community (McCluskey et al., 2008). A review of
the findings confirmed that the pilot program results were positive with most schools making
significant progress in school discipline and staff and student relationships (McCluskey, Kane,
Lloyd, Stead, Riddell, & Weedon, 2011).
Australian schools. Shaw (2007) conducted a study of a Pilot Community Conferencing
and Restorative Practices program in 18 Australian schools that was implemented from 2002-
2004. The study was focused on the conditions in which restorative practices were implemented
by collecting interview and survey data from eighteen primary and secondary schools. The
participants indicated that their schools were already utilizing strategies, such as circle time, peer
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

52
mediation, and pastoral care, which aligned with a restorative approach before the actual
implementation of the RJ program. The schools each handled the incorporation of RJ practices in
different ways based on their existing behavior management systems. Despite the varied
implementation approach, Shaw (2007) stated the participants supported restorative values and
principles. While the data was not included in the study, Shaw (2007) also noted that RJ
practices represented a “fundamental shift in thinking about school justice and discipline” (p.
131) for some teachers. There was also a discussion of the importance of strong administrative
support, collective will and time for implementation of RJ practices. While the participants
reported support for RJ implementation, it was recognized that it comes with challenges. The
qualitative data on RJ practices influence on behavior and the subsequent cultural change is
encouraging.
Change Management
To successfully implement any initiative in schools, those who are leading the charge need
to understand change and how to manage it. This is especially true with RJ implementation, as
the restorative approach of RJ conflicts with the current discipline approach in most U.S.
schools.
Change is a challenging and emotion process, especially when it impacts people’s purpose,
identity, or mastery at work (Moran & Brightman, 2000). Therefore, it is important to be mindful
during the implementation process and to understand the change that is being implemented
throughout the school. There are two different types of change: first-order and second-order
(Marzano, Waters, McNulty, 2005). First order change is incremental and seen as logical next
steps in the school. Second-order change is a drastic shift from the status quo, also known as
deep change, and changes the system in fundamental ways (Marzano et al., 2005). When looking
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

53
for long-term sustained change, then second-order change is required (Thorsborne & Blood,
2013).
Implementing RJ requires second-order change, because a cultural paradigm shift is
necessitated when adopting a restorative approach in schools. Moving from a punitive, control
based discipline approach to one that values relationships and restoration can be upending for
those in the school community, thus RJ implementation will require leadership that understands
and is skilled at leading change.
Change management, at its core, is about managing people (Moran & Brightman, 2000). It
is for this reason Heath and Heath’s (2010) approach to change makes sense. They argue that
change is about changing people’s behavior. Successful change involves capturing people’s
hearts, not just their minds (Heath & Heath, 2010). Making a rational case for change is
important, but if a leader cannot find the feeling and win over people’s hearts through emotion,
then the change is a non-starter (Heath & Heath, 2010). There is a clear, logical imperative to
move away from a punitive, zero-tolerance behavioral approach to behavior to a more restorative
one. However, leaders need to help people feel the need for change so that they can switch into
agreement with the change.
Speaking to people’s hearts through the change process enables leaders to use RJ values
and practices to facilitate the change. While change is complex, it is imperative that the change
be implemented with a restorative approach (Blood & Thorsborne, 2006; Morrison et al., 2012);
work WITH the school community to implement RJ rather than allowing it to be perceived as
being done to them. Keeping the RJ values at the front of the change effort allows, people to feel
valued, respected, and heard. In line with that principle, Cameron and Thorsborne (2001) suggest
utilizing RJ processes with the adults in the school community, which can include anything from
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

54
circles to restorative conferences. Using RJ at all levels within the school community and
practicing what is preached, will help transform the school culture.
Culture and Paradigm Shift
Schools original purpose of control, compliance, and morality is deeply embedded in most
school communities worldwide (Harber & Sakade, 2009). Therefore, most school structures and
responses to behavior reinforce social control and compliance. In contrast, RJ emphasizes social
engagement rather than a control paradigm (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). “Restorative justice
provides an opportunity for schools to practice participatory, deliberative democracy in their
attempts to problem solve around those serious incidents of misconduct that they find so
challenging” (Cameron & Thorsborne, 1999, p. 6). This vision requires more than simply using
RJ practices haphazardly. It requires a culture where students are respected and involved in a just
environment, with mutual respect. Developing this type of culture requires a paradigm shift in
regards to discipline, student management, and learning.
This drastic shift in paradigm is challenging. Karp and Breslin (2001) note that the
paradigm shift associated with RJ is usually met with high resistance in the high school setting.
For many educators, RJ represents a fundamental shift in thinking about discipline and school
culture. Implementing RJ may threaten some teachers because they perceive a loss of power and
control (Shaw, 2007). Educators and students have been socialized with a punitive approach for
so long and it is so ingrained in schools, that it can be difficult to adopt a restorative approach
(Karp & Breslin, 2001).
To shift paradigms, those implementing RJ must be willing to “disturb the traditional
dynamics of schools, moving from a one-size-fits-all regulatory framework” (Morrison &
Vaandering, 2012, p. 140) to one that is responsive and values relationship, restoration,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

55
engagement, and mutual respect. Seeing this kind of paradigm shift, through, requires a long-
term commitment (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Cameron & Thorsborne (2001) captures the
commitment needed:
The challenge of sustaining such a paradigm shift in the way schools ‘do business’ lies in
addressing, in a most fundamental way, beliefs and practices which have a central theme of
control, and use punishment and other disguised practices to achieve compliance. This
paradigm shift requires intellectual and organisational leadership, commitment and energy,
and must be focused at all levels within education, from policy making in district offices
which provide support to schools, and in classrooms, administrators’ offices and school
playgrounds. (p. 16)
To achieve a cultural change within a school, schools must transform the school community’s
mind-set associated with traditional, punitive discipline to one of restorative, relational discipline
(Morrison et al., 2005).
As school communities shift in mentality and practice, culture will follow (Thorsborne &
Blood, 2013). Culture is important because it is the way schools do business. “Culture reveals the
value base of schools” (Morrison et al., 2005, p. 339), therefore the foundational approach to
discipline and education must shift in order to see a cultural change.
To shift the discipline paradigm in a school and build a restorative school culture, the
values, policies, and practices must be congruent. While adapting RJ to the context of the
specific school community is critically important (Braithwaite et al., 2003), the values and
beliefs of RJ need to be maintained in that process. RJ is not just a set of new strategies for
educators’ toolboxes, but it is a transformational, whole-school approach to relationships in
schools, which creates meaningful change for the school community (Hopkins, 2004; Mirsky,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

56
2007; Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Restorative schools don’t just focus on RJ practices, but
develop restorative skills and language (McCluskey, 2008). RJ schools have a restorative school
culture that “permeates all aspects of school organization and relationships within the school, as
well as relationships between the school and the community” (Meyer & Evans, 2012, as cited by
Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Therefore, implementing RJ shouldn’t just be done at the student
management level.
Morrison & Vaandering (2012) propose RJ in schools be grounded in relational pedagogy
in addition to discipline policies and practices. This pedagogy should value and emphasize social
engagement and well being, nurture relationships, and encourage connectedness and belonging.
Vaandering’s (2014) study on RJ pedagogy supports that RJ’s infusion in teachers’ pedagogy
results in deeper, relational classroom culture. Building and maintaining those types of teacher-
student relationships can positively impact student behavior and academic outcomes (Coggshall
et al., 2013), which can interrupt the school to prison pipeline.
In addition to a sense of belonging, RJ is high on support for individuals and values their
experience, demonstrated through the RJ practices. When these values penetrate the school
culture and become “who we are” through holistic implementation, students will believe they
matter. Mattering is the feeling “that others depend on us, are interested in us, are concerned with
our fate, or experience us as an ego-extension exercises a powerful influence on our actions"
(Rosenberg & McCullough, 1981, p. 165). Rosenberg and McCullough’s (1981) research around
mattering found that when adolescents feel they matter, they are less likely to seriously
misbehave.
However, despite the challenge of shifting discipline paradigms and school culture, RJ can
be successfully implanted in schools. Mirsky’s (2007) study of the implementation of RJ at a
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

57
Pennsylvania high school noted that organizational adoption of RJ may take time, but as
“believers” model RJ practices and reluctant and critical teachers begin to see the positive
effects, the culture begins to shift and most people join in the implementation efforts.
Challenges. Several challenges can impede the shift from a punitive, controlling culture to
one that is restorative and relational. Based on current research there are already some known
hurdles to implementation of RJ. One major challenge of shifting from a punitive approach to a
restorative approach is time. In addition to time for professional development (Cameron &
Thorsborne, 2001; Mirsky, 2007), educators have expressed concern over the extra time it takes
to engage in an RJ practice over the quick and easy traditional approach of punishment and
control (Stinchcomb, Bazemore, & Riestenberg, 2006). Due to the extra time and teacher’s
already full plates, it could be easy for teacher to slip back into a punitive approach.
Beyond time constraints, it is difficult for teachers to mentally shift their paradigms of
discipline. In their study of pilot programs in Scotland, McCluskey et al. (2008) found teachers,
particularly those teaching in secondary school, had a difficult time reconciling their default
discipline approach with RJ discipline policies and practices. Most of the educators felt
punishment was sometimes still necessary, especially in serious situations. Therefore, McClusky
et al. (2008) argues that the central challenge in implanting RJ is “its contrast with the habitus of
schools; with the ‘‘taken for granted’’ structures and systems of discipline and control in
schools” (p. 413). Even when educators and schools embrace the importance of relationship
when dealing with behavioral issues and succeed at implementing restorative approaches to
discipline, they find it challenging to release the need to punish and exclude (McClusky et al.,
2011). The ‘default setting’ of traditional discipline is “still pervasive and powerful, and that
punishment is still an essential symbol of power and teacher strength” (McClusky et al., 2011, p.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

58
112). The control paradigm was the experience of most of today’s teachers when they were
students, so it is challenging for them to move beyond their own experience and give up control
and perceived power.
The positive outcomes from RJ will be limited if the tension between a school’s existing
philosophies and practices and RJ values and practices is not addressed (Cameron & Thorsborne,
2001). Yet, little attention is given to confronting the system of control and conformity that
creates structural and institutional influences on the school community (Vaandering, 2014). An
effective RJ implementation process will plan for and address the paradigm shift the school
community must undergo for RJ to succeed.
Whole-school approach. As discussed, a whole-school approach requires policy
alignment with RJ principles and practices (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). Therefore, the
whole-school approach should include proactive practices in addition to the more common
reactive practices.
The most common framework for whole-school RJ approach is structured as a triangle
(figure 1.4), with varying levels of intervention from universal to intensive. This visual structure
is similar to those used in Response to Intervention (Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008) and
could be used as part of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports. This framework, while structured
differently, emulates the continuum of practices; moving up the triangle, the RJ practices move
from informal to more formal.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

59

Figure 1.4. Relationship triangle. Reprinted from “Relational Restorative Justice Pedagogy in
Educator Professional Development” by D. Vaandering, 2014, Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), p.511.
RJ values form the foundation of the triangle, signifying their influence on the school
community as a whole and replicating the value base of the restorative pyramid (figure 1.2). The
second tier emphasizes relationship and community building and utilizes relational classroom
and school practices that proactively develop students’ social and emotional capacity
(Thorsborne & Blood, 2013).
The focus of the third tier is prevention and skill-building (McMorris, Beckman, Shea,
Baumgartner, & Eggert, 2013), which help resolve differences in respectful and caring ways and
maintain relationships (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Several RJ practices are used at the

Repairing
Full conference
Maintaining
Problem-solving; informal
chats; small groups;
classroom meetings
Building
Check-ins, ups, outs; cooperative learning;
curriculum; pedagogy; environment
People as humans not objects
Core values & beliefs
PROACTIVE
REACTIVE
WHOLE SCHOOL
FEW 1-5%
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

60
second tier to address behaviors that create minor harm or disrupt relationships within the school
community. The focus at this targeted intervention level is to manage difficulties and disruptions
(Thorsborne & Blood, 2013), by intervening early and restoring relationships before they
escalate (McMorris et al., 2013). The practices used at this level include restorative
conversations, small group conferences, and possibly circles.
The small top tier of the pyramid is aimed at responding to and repairing serious harm
through large group restorative conferences, classroom conferences, and community conference.
While many people are involved in the top tier processes, these intensive supports typically make
up only 1-5% of the incidents in a school community (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013).
Morrison et al. (2005) took the pyramid model one step further by developing a responsive
framework using a regulatory pyramid, with four faces. Two faces, vision and evidence, focus on
outcomes related to behavior and support one another on the opposite sides of the pyramid.
While the other two faces, practices and bridging focus on relationships, including individual and
institutional. The tiers of the pyramid are consistent with the levels of intervention in the other
model. The model emphasizes the interlocking nature of behavior and relationships in RJ, thus
the framework is responsive to behavior and restorative to relationships (Morrison et al., 2005).
Research supports a whole-school approach to RJ, by acknowledging that RJ is more
beneficial and effective when it is implemented holistically in schools. Using the results from the
1996 “Life in School” survey from Australia, Braithwaite et al. (2003) studied shame
management’s influence on bullying and how school culture’s role in shame acknowledgement
and displacement. Based on the study findings, Braithwaite et al. (2003) encouraged adopting a
“whole of school” approach to establishing a community of care as the foundation for any RJ
intervention. Ahmed and Braithwaite (2011) later reinforced the importance of working
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

61
restoratively on a daily basis, to promote adaptive shame management and pro-social norms,
noting that it is the only way to “make meaningful inroads into the prevention of harmful
behaviors” (p. 95).
In their review of the findings from Scottish pilot RJ programs, McCluskey et al. (2011)
confirmed the value of a whole-school approach. Their review found schools had three distinct
approaches to implementation. Data demonstrated the most successful approach was one that
emphasized “whole school ethos building, encompassing preventative and educative aims at all
levels, but also operating as a response to wrongdoing, conflict or when relationships have
broken down” (McCluskey et al., 2011, p. 109). Hopkins (2004) echoed the researchers’
conclusions that RJ is far more effective as part of a whole-school approach, where everyone in
the school community uses restorative skills on a daily basis. Therefore, as schools begin to
transition from a punitive to restorative approach to discipline, consideration should be given to
going “all in” and shifting the school community’s discipline paradigm to a relational ecology,
where discipline is grounded in high accountability and high support.
Existing Models for RJ Implementation
Researchers and practitioners have developed several different models for implementing
RJ in schools. These models provide a framework for implementation, based on change
management principles and experience working with schools adopting RJ. Four models will be
reviewed in this section. While they vary in depth and breath, all support and encourage a whole-
school approach to RJ implementation.
The first model is Hopkins’ (2004) five-stage model. Hopkins’ model stresses the
importance of a change process that is rooted in restorative values. Stage one focuses on owning
and developing the vision, by creating awareness of RJ and providing an opportunity for people
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

62
to ask questions and make suggestions (Hopkins, 2004). It is also suggested that some baseline
evaluation data on school climate be gathered at this point. Stage two calls for establishing and
developing a steering group, which includes representatives from throughout the school
community (Hopkins, 2004). Once established, this steering group is responsible for oversight of
the implementation, including development and progress monitoring, and should also work to
ensure the process is handled restoratively, which might require some training (Hopkins, 2004).
The third stage revolves around training; finding and developing a team that can be trained
as trainers, who will then provide training to the rest of the school community (Hopkins, 2004)..
Stage four is when the training begins across the school, while the administrative team develops
and supports the training team (Hopkins, 2004). Any and all groups within the school community
should have access to the training during this stage, including parents. The last stage expects that
after training everyone begins using RJ practices, as this stage focuses on reviewing policies of
the organization to ensure restorative practice and relational ethos is integrated into every aspect
of the school community (Hopkins, 2004). While this model provides a general overview on how
the progression of RJ implementation can progress, it is missing some key components that are
required to facilitate the change process.
The second model, Morrison et al.’s (2005) five-stage model (table 1.5), is based on the
New South Wales Police Service’s major reform initiative, the development of a behavior
change program. The steps are intended to assist schools with implementing a whole-school
approach that utilizes the behavioral and relational framework discussed previously. The model,
while linear in appearance, is recursive, as several of the stages may run concurrent to one
another (Morrison et al., 2005). Simply put, the stages are not necessarily distinct and dependent
on one another. When discussing this model, Morrison et al. (2005) emphasized that change
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

63
takes time and it is imperative to manage the emotional impact of the change along with
implementing the structure and practices of RJ.
Stages of Implementation
Stage 1: Gaining Commitment—
Capturing Hearts and Minds
1. Making a case for change
1.1 Identifying the need (the cost of current
practice)
1.2 Identifying learning gaps
1.3 Challenging current practice
1.4 Debunking the myths around behavior
management and what makes a difference
1.5 Linking to other priorities
2. Establishing buy-in
Stage 2: Developing a Shared Vision—
Knowing where we are going and why
1. Inspiring a shared vision
2. Developing preferred outcomes aligned with
the vision
3. Building a framework for practice
4. Developing a common language
Stage 3: Developing Responsive and
Effective Practice—Changing how we
do things around here
1. Developing a range of responses
2. Training, maintenance and support
3. Monitoring for quality standards
Stage 4: Developing a Whole School
Approach—Putting it all together
1. Realignment of school policy with new practice
2. Managing the transition
3. Widening the lens
Stage 5: Professional Relationships—
Walking the talk with each other
1. Promoting open, honest, transparent and fair
working relationships
2. Using restorative processes for managing staff
grievance, performance management and
conflict
3. Challenging practice and behavior—building
integrity
Table 1.5. Five stage model for implementation. Adapted from “Practicing Restorative Justice in
School Communities: The Challenge of Culture Change,” by B. Morrison, P. Blood, and M.
Thorsborne, 2005, Public Organization Review: A Global Journal, 5, p. 334.
The third model focuses on change as a process, rather than an event, therefore it is
represented in a circular fashion (figure 1.5). Thorsborne and Blood (2013) developed the model
based on Kotter’s (1995) linear change model. The model has three broad stages: (a) getting
ready for change; (b) overcoming inertia and getting the ball rolling; and (c) implementing and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

64
embedding change (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Within those stages are eight steps, which are
thoroughly described and provide clear direction on what should be undertaken in each step.

Figure 1.5. Steps for transformational change. Adapted from Implementing Restorative Practices
in Schools: A Practical Guide to Transforming School Communities by M. Thorsborne and P.
Blood, 2013, p. 137.
In addition to the model, Thorsborne and Blood (2013) provide a planning guide that
schools can use as they plan for successful implementation. The template includes specific areas
to plan for and possible tasks to complete within each stage (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). In
addition, space is provided to breakdown the implementation tasks for the school context,
detailing who will be responsible for the tasks, setting deadlines, and planning for how to
Making a case
for change
Putting an
implementation
team together
Creating a vision
for the future
Communicating
the vision to
capture hearts and
minds
Removing
obstacles and
empowering
action
Generating
short-term wins
Keeping the
pressure on
Maintaining
the gains
Implementing
and embedding
change
Getting ready
for change
Overcoming inertia and getting the ball rolling
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

65
measure or evaluate progress in each stage. This model is thorough, well thought out, and based
on change management. It provides clear steps and tasks for implementing RJ, but also allows
schools to adapt the model to their unique context.
While the above models are grounded in research and the practitioners’ experience, they
are purposefully broad in approach so they can be adapted to each school’s unique context. In
contrast, San Francisco Unified School District’s (SFUSD) whole-school implementation guide
provides a “step-by-step evidence-based approach that ensures an inclusive, comprehensive,
successful, and sustainable change effort through the implementation of Restorative Practice
(RP)” (Berkowitz, 2013, p. 2). After a board resolution in 2009, SFUSD adopted RJ as an
alternative discipline approach, which led to a 30% drop in suspensions between the 2009-2010
school year and 2012-2013 (SFUSD, 2014). While there were some promising results, SFUSD
remained concerned about the amount of Black and Latino students being discipline for “willful
defiance” (SFUSD, 2014). Therefore the board adopted a new resolution in 2014 that supported
full implementation of RJ.
SFUSD’s implementation guide suggests a practical four-stage model for implementing
restorative practices at a school site and provides multiple steps under each stage, with
directions, scripts, and handouts. The first stage is the school site introduction to RP, determining
needs and preferred outcomes of the implementation. The components of this stage include: (a)
restorative practices introduction to entire school community; (b) identifying a school
implementation support team and training them; (c) identifying need and preferred outcomes for
implementation; (d) determining school site leaders and implementation team; and (e) collecting
base-line data (Berkowitz, 2013). The second stage is focused the RP Implementation Team
planning the whole-school implementation and developing a timeline for implementation. This
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

66
stage includes scheduling professional development workshops for faculty and staff, planning for
RJ training for other stakeholders, reviewing proactive strategies that will assist with establishing
the foundation for a welcoming and safe school culture, and developing systems of support for
continued RJ professional development, problem solving, and support (Berkowitz, 2013).
Whole-school implementation is the third stage of the SFUSD model and its components
are non-linear and may occur simultaneously (Berkowitz, 2013). These components include: (a)
providing RJ professional development workshops and implementation strategies for the school
community; (b) RJ Implementation Team facilitating circles with the staff community to
establish a strong restorative foundation; (c) providing RJ workshops for families; (d) infusing
RJ into already existing structures; (d) utilizing PLCs for ongoing exploration of RJ concepts,
problem-solving, celebrations, practice, and support; (e) consistent community building and
celebrations; and (f) maintenance and progress monitoring of outcomes and implementation
fidelity (Berkowitz, 2013). The final stage is focused on sustainability and includes continued
community building, on-going progress monitoring, and realignment of school policy with RJ.
The SFUSD model is well thought out, as it takes a restorative approach to
implementation, supports teachers through the discipline paradigm shift, and prompts planning
teams to consider vital components of RJ implementation and sustainability. Due to the
implementation guide’s plethora of resources, the SFUSD model can be leveraged and adapted
for any school context by administrative or implementation teams.
Purpose of the Study
As criticism of zero-tolerance and exclusionary policies have grown, one of the
recommendations from several government reports (ED, 2014; White House, 2016) is to
incorporate restorative practices in schools’ discipline approach. As schools and districts begin to
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

67
undertake reform efforts, they will need assistance employing alternative discipline approaches.
While there is a growing body of research supporting RJ, more research is required to understand
the process of moving from theory to implementation and to comprehend the paradigm shift a
school undergoes during that process (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). This study explores how
schools operationalize RJ and transition from theory to practice. It also examines how schools’
policies and procedures change to reflect the practices, processes, and values of RJ. The goal of
the study is to provide a framework for school wide implementation of RJ practices, processes,
and values. In order to have a robust understanding of how schools adopt an RJ approach to
discipline, the implementation process and the challenges that arise due to the process were
studied. The specific research questions that guided the study are as follows:
1. How do US secondary schools adopt and implement RJ?
2. What challenges to US secondary schools experience during and after implementing
RJ?

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

68
CHAPTER TWO: METHODOLOGY
This study is a qualitative descriptive study that examined how schools implement RJ,
transitioning from theory to practice. This study examined the implementation process through
interviews and document analysis. The research was approached from a constructivist
perspective, as focus of the inquiry was to describe, understand, and interpret participants
experience with RJ implementation (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). A comparative case study design
was selected to study two unique implementation processes and develop a robust understanding
of the RJ implementation phenomenon from multiple perspectives. This chapter will detail the
methods of the study, including participants, instruments, and procedure.
Sampling Procedure
While several schools throughout the U.S. have begun to implement RJ, there were a
number of factors that influenced the selection of the sites involved in this research. It was
important to get a diverse perspective; so purposeful sampling was used to select school sites.
Purposeful sampling allowed me to select sites that best assisted in understanding the problem to
answer the research questions (Creswell, 2014).
To study implementation in a variety of contexts, schools with diverse make-ups were
selected to participate in the research. High schools were selected because the student body
consists of adolescents and discipline rates tend to be higher in secondary schools. To gain
perspective between a school working within the constraints of public education and one which
constructs its own guidelines, both a public and charter school were included in the study. A
school’s size might influence how it implements RJ principles and practices, so I deemed it
important to include schools that vary in size. Therefore, schools ranging in size from 450 to
2,000 students were purposefully included in the study.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

69
Karp and Breslin (2001) argue it could take up to three years after adopting RJ for effective
change to take place and to see results on student behavior. While Morrison et al.’s (2005)
timeline notes that best practice and cultural change due to embedded restorative behavior takes
four to five years. However, they suggest that after twelve months, the dialogue around
discipline changes, discipline statistics improve, and practices are being used in pockets
(Morrison et al., 2005). To study the actual implementation process and transition from RJ
theory to practice, schools that fall within the continuum were chosen. Schools that implemented
RJ beyond five years ago were purposefully excluded, because the process took place too long
ago for the institutional memory to be sound and accurate.
School #1: Progressive Suburban High School (PSHS)
The first case study site is a public, neighborhood high school located in a college town in
the Midwest. The school’s enrollment is just over 1,900 students, comprised of a majority (71%)
of white students. The school has won multiple state and national awards for excellence, which
has cultivated a tradition of excellence. The school is committed to a offering a personalized,
student-centered learning environment. The school is known for their progressive nature and is
committed to a culture of shared decision-making, collaboration, and a focus on student learning,
values that are in line with a RJ culture.
School #2: Enlightened Institute High School (EIHS)
The second case study site is a charter high school with over 450 students that is located in
the metro area of a large northern California city. The school has a diverse make-up, specifically
geared towards first generation college bound students. The school is part of a charter of three
schools that began in 2002. The specific school site that participated in this research has a math
and science focus and has been utilizing RJ since 2014, placing it within the desired
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

70
implementation timeline. The school is driven by commitments to be respectful, safe, work hard,
and support one another.
Participants
The participants in this study were all employees of the selected school sites. Different
perspectives were important to answer the research questions, so a wide variety of participants
were purposefully included in the research. The school personnel selected to participate in the
study were administrators, teachers, and support staff who routinely use RJ practices. Some of
the participants were self-selected based on their unique role in the school, such as the principal
and other administrators responsible for discipline. The teachers were selected based on
recommendations from the administrative team, after it was requested that they suggest some
teachers who were present during the implementation process and use RJ in their professional
practice. Each recommended faculty member was contacted via email or in person explaining
that he/she was recommended for the study and a brief description of the study was provided. At
that time, each person was asked if he/she was willing to participate in the study by being
interviewed and it was communicated that there would be no recourse if they did not opt-in to
the study. A total of ten educators were interviewed at PSHS, with the bulk of the participants
being administrators. Due to high turnover of educators at EIHS, there were a minimal number
of educators that met the criteria for participation, resulting in four participants.
Principals are responsible to lead the change efforts within the school; therefore, they can
provide an important understanding of how the implementation process was developed and
carried out. Even if the principal is not directly responsible for behavior management, they have
been shown to be a proctor of discipline management, with effective principals being more likely
to respond to misbehavior in a restorative way (Payne & Welch, 2015). The principal identified
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

71
the administrator responsible for discipline at each school, which was typically a deputy or dean.
These people oversee the restorative discipline approach on a large scale with periodic discipline
based interactions with individual students. They provide perspective on policy, practices, and
overall RJ development. Each school also has restorative practice facilitators, who provide a
similar assessment on RJ’s implementation process in the school and how the practices are
utilized as part of the school’s discipline.
Both teachers and support staff were included as participants, because they delivered
information on the practical interworking of RJ implementation and the restorative nature of
interactions throughout the school, including classrooms and non-instructional spaces. These
participants’ perspectives were invaluable in the study, as they shared reflections on how RJ
practices are used daily and provided data on how the practices reflect RJ principles and
framework.
Instruments
A semi-structured interview protocol was used for the interviews, to allow the participants
to share and articulate their own experiences. This less structured format allowed the me to probe
into a specific area or response and to respond to emerging perspectives of the participant
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol was adapted throughout the data collection
process based on emerging themes. The protocol can be found in Appendix A.
The interview questions were informed by the literature on theory, values, skills, and
practices of RJ, as well as implementation theory. The interview guide was designed to gather
the necessary data and gain a rich understanding of RJ implementation and challenges to answer
the research question. After the interview guides were initially developed, feedback was gathered
as to the questions’ clarity and impact on the participant (Maxwell, 2013).
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

72
Document analysis is a complementary data collection procedure that supported
triangulation of the data (Maxwell, 2013), which will increase the reliability of the study. The
process provided data that, in addition to that gathered through interviews, helped answer
research questions regarding the presence of RJ principles in school policies and procedure
(Bowen, 2009). Documents that were analyzed included student handbooks, discipline policies,
training materials, curricular materials, and paperwork used in the discipline process and the
faculty handbook.
Researcher as Instrument
As a qualitative researcher, I was an instrument in the study (Maxwell, 2013); therefore it
is important to establish my relationship with the study and ethics. I developed the interview
guide based on my research questions and literature review. I conducted all the interviews and
collected all ancillary documents. Prior to this study, I had no personal or professional
connection to either case study school. I do not have any training or experience with RJ, beyond
having a relational ethos in my classroom environment. I choose to study RJ due to my interest
in school discipline and the recent emergence of RJ as a possible alternative to current discipline
practices.
Qualitative research requires trust that the researcher conducted the study ethically
(Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). As a researcher, I followed rigorous data collection methods and
employed thoughtful and systematic analysis to ensure I did justice to each school’s
implementation story. I presented the interviewees’ perceptions with integrity, confirming I
captured the heart of their answers in addition to their words. I also utilized triangulation of data,
which was done to establish credibility in the results of the study (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
Throughout the study, I used reflection and metacognitive strategies to keep my bias and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

73
assumptions in check, so as to present results that are trustworthy and credible (Merriam &
Tisdell, 2016).
Data Collection Procedure
Interviews took place at each school site during October 2017. Interview times were set in
advance and took place in a quiet location to minimize distractions. Consent was received for
audio recording of the interviews. Recordings enabled me to be engaged in the interview,
allowing for further questioning on emerging information, rather than having focused intently on
note taking. I personally completed transcription of the interviews prior to the coding process.
Electronic documents, beyond what could be found online, were requested prior to on-site
data collection. This allowed me to review them in advance, also known as content analysis, and
add questions to the interview guide that were specific to the school site’s implementation,
policies, or procedures (Bowen, 2009). The documents that could not be accessed electronically
were reviewed on-site between scheduled interviews.
During the data collection and analysis process, I wrote various memos to capture my
observations, thoughts, and potential areas of focus for the analysis (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
These memos were referred to throughout the data analysis process to aid my development of
themes and key findings.
Analysis
The analysis process was inductive in nature; I searched for patterns to understand the
process of implementation at each school, rather than imposing a pre-determined view. The data
analysis process began with a skimming of the electronic documents to aid my inquiry during
interviews at each school site. After the on-site data collection via interviews, gathering
documents, and writing memos, the actual analysis process began.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

74
The analysis process included multiple cycles of coding, which included periods of time to
digest and reflect on the data and emerging categories and themes. Each case study was analyzed
separately, so other data did not influence the emerging themes. The PSHS data was analyzed
first, using the methods described below. Once the coding was complete, the cycles were
repeated for EIHS.
To begin, the interviews were coded using open coding, also known as initial coding. In
this cycle I used the process to gain familiarity with the interviews and develop an initial
codebook. The second coding cycle process utilized a mixture of descriptive, in vivo, and
process codes, to decrease the amount of initial codes while still capturing the participants’
experience through their own words and actions (Saldana, 2016). Then, I looked at the selected
data and developed categories for further coding. This was done to uncover persistent themes to
understand the implementation experience. Next, I completed pattern coding, where patterns
were identified amongst the codes and grouped according to the emerging themes and categories
(Saldana, 2016). Once complete, I organized the categories to identify emerging themes. Once
both case studies’ themes were categorized, the categories and codes were compared for a cross-
case synthesis to identify key findings.
Identified codes were also used to code the school documents and memos during the
document analysis, which took place after the first cycle analysis of the interview data. After
second cycle coding was completed, an additional review of the documents was completed, in
order to perform a thematic analysis with fresh eyes to see if any additional categories for
analysis emerged (Bowen, 2009). Last, a final review of the interviews and documents was done
to ensure all necessary codes were included and to identify any contradictory data and other data
that would be used for the findings.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

75
CHAPTER THREE: FINDINGS
The purpose of this comparative case study is to understand how schools operationalize RJ
as they transition from theory to practice by implementing restorative practices. RJ is an
approach to discipline that is rooted in a value system of respect, responsibility, and relationship
(Zehr, 2015). The adoption of a new discipline approach, which is not meant to be
programmatic, is nuanced. Case studies of two US secondary schools focused on why RJ was
chosen, the process of implementation, how RJ principles are present in school policy and
practices, and the challenges faced throughout the implementation process. The specific research
questions that guided the study were:
1. How do US secondary schools adopt and implement RJ?
2. What challenges to US secondary schools experience during and after implementing
RJ?
This chapter shares the research findings and consists of four sections. The first two
sections, one for each school, provide a background of the school, an in-depth description of the
unique RJ implementation story, and the challenges faced due to the adoption of RJ. The third
section is a cross-case synthesis, which discusses findings based on the emerging themes in the
research from both schools. The chapter concludes with a summary.
Case Study #1: Progressive Suburban High School (PSHS)
Progressive Suburban is an accredited high school located in a Midwest college town and
educates over 1900 students in grades 9-12. The majority of the student population is White
students (71%), while Black students makeup 12% of the population. The school employs seven
administrators, including the principal, over 120 faculty, and almost 50 support staff.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

76
The PSHS documents analyzed were the student handbook, including the discipline matrix,
and the presentation from the faculty workshop on RJ. Eleven educators were interviewed at
PSHS ranging from the principal to support staff. To help participants remain anonymous, a
pseudonym has been assigned to each of them and limited demographic information will be
shared about each participant (table 3.1).
Participant Demographics - PSHS
Name Role
Alice Support Staff
Angela Assistant Principal
Dave Teacher
Diane Assistant Principal
Fran Teacher
Mike Assistant Principal
Sam Assistant Principal
Teri Teacher
Theresa Support Staff
Trisha Principal
Will Support Staff
Table 3.1. Participant demographics at PSHS.
This section will describe the implementation process and the challenges that developed
during the adoption of RJ at PSHS, based on the research gathered from interview and document
analysis.
Implementation
Each school has an RJ implementation story that is unique. Schools have diverse
approaches to RJ and varied implementation processes (McCluskey et al., 2008). The
implementation of RJ at PSHS began at the district level. There was some confusion amongst the
interviewees about the main champion of the shift to a restorative discipline approach; some
cited a prior assistant superintendent while others mentioned the former superintendent.
Regardless of the main decision maker, it was clear to all interviewees that the district mandated
the shift to RJ. The initial rollout of the RJ initiative, which occurred in the 2013-2014 school
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

77
year, was described as starting “at the district level and became something that kind of filtered
down into the schools” (Sam).
Rationale. While a few interviewees were unsure of why the district chose to adopt RJ,
most noted the disproportionate rate of suspensions for Black students. Punitive, zero-tolerance
discipline has resulted in a discipline gap (Hoffman, 2012) and lead schools to seek alternatives
such as RJ. The school had received some warnings from the state department of education in
regard to their suspension numbers. Some interviewees also mentioned the district’s desire to
keep students in the learning environment. Sam shared, “There is a need and a desire, not only at
central office, but as administrators, to look at alternatives to taking a child out of the classroom
for extended periods of time.” Others noted the shift to a restorative approach was intended to
helped students learn from their mistakes, rather than just be punished time and time again. For
example, Will stated the move to RJ was to help create more reflection and learning in the
discipline process, so that “students understand what happened, how they learn from it, and have
some thought behind the actions.”
Process. The adoption of RJ practices at PSHS was a first order change (Marzano et al.,
2005) for the faculty, but was viewed by some administrators as a second order change. There
was no expectation for teachers to change their professional practices and classroom
management, while administrators had to reconcile a new way of approaching students and
discipline. Therefore, the implementation process focused heavily on training administrators and
adding RJ practices into the discipline structure. Teachers received some cursory information
about RJ, but were not required to change their classroom management approach nor focus on
building community and relationships.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

78
The implementation process was described numerous times as “slow,” with the principal
describing it has “hodgepodge.” Angela noted that approach was one where the administrative
team was told, “this is what we'd like you to do and we're going to give you training. Now go for
it.” Based on the data collected through interviews, it was unclear if there was a specified RJ
implementation plan for PSHS or if the administrative team was following the lead of the
district. Beyond training and encouraging the use of RJ when dealing with discipline issues, there
was no mandate to use RJ at PSHS. Despite the lack of a clear mandate to use the RJ practices,
two administrators mentioned RJ as their “go-to” approach when appropriate and all
administrators noted using the practices, but it was pointed out that they are not required to use it
as part of their discipline approach. While the district provided the initial implementation push
and subsequent trainings, there has been no mandate in PSHS’s district for RJ “to be a
comprehensive program” (Trisha). However, Trisha also explained that it is understood that RJ is
a “part of us.”
Training. A vital component of the implementation process is providing professional
development that integrates the what, why, and how of RJ (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). After
the district administration did a site visit to an International Institute of Restorative Practices
(IIRP) school and received training, the PSHS administrative team and some counselors received
a four-day training from a trainer from IIRP to support the change of discipline approach at
PSHS. The training included resources, such as books and a restorative questions cue card. Some
district personnel attended further training, to become trainers for the district. Since the initial
training, some administrators have attended additional training, including refresher courses.
Part of the trickle down to the faculty and staff at PSHS was a faculty workshop during the
professional development days prior to the start of the 2015-2016 school year. The workshop
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

79
was a 90-minute presentation, which included a PowerPoint presentation and a video of RJ in
practice. The presentation focused on what RJ is, the benefits of RJ, referral and suspension data
from PSHS, the RJ continuum, affective statements and questions, and next steps, including
additional training. Mike and Sam, the assistant principals (APs) who lead the training,
intentionally focused on affective language as a “jumping-off point” (Mike) for the faculty. They
encouraged teachers to try some “subtle changes in their languages to see if they get any results”
(Mike). In addition to encouragement, the workshop provided a broad understanding of RJ and
notified teachers they will have “greater involvement in resolving behavioral issues” (Grant &
Baker, 2015). Other than this training, there has been no follow-up or formal additional
information provided to teachers about RJ, beyond their experience with RJ practices as part of
the discipline process with administrators.
Since the initial training and faculty workshop, additional trainings have been offered to
faculty and staff at PSHS. These trainings are optional, yet are supported and encouraged by the
principal via email. A few teachers and staff have chosen to be trained and the principal has
supported them by providing professional development days and substitute coverage. Those who
have received RJ training are using various RJ practices in their classrooms and professional
practice, including community-building circles.
Discipline policy. As part of the implementation process, school policy needs to be
realigned with the RJ approach (Morrison et al., 2005). At some point in the implementation
process, the PSHS student handbook and discipline matrix was updated to include a restorative
conference as part of the recommended consequence for five infraction types. Those infractions
are: (a) abusive/inappropriate language/profanity; (b) disruptive behavior; (c)
harassment/intimidation; (d) insubordination; and (e) physical contact/horseplay. These
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

80
infractions are of a relational nature, which lend themselves well to an RJ approach. Beyond
noting the option of a conference as a consequence, there are no other mentions of RJ in the
student handbook.
RJ approach. The district chose to subscribe to the RJ approach promoted by the IIRP,
which includes the use of the term restorative practices instead of RJ. Therefore, some of the
quotes from interviewees will refer to restorative practices, while the term RJ will continue to be
used throughout the study for consistency.
As mentioned earlier, PSHS does not use a whole-school approach to RJ, electing instead
to focus on the tier two behavior intervention practices focused on repairing harm and restoring
one’s place in community. A whole-school approach would require an infusion of RJ values,
skills, and practices, both proactive and reactive, throughout the school, shifting the culture from
punitive to restorative in nature (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Despite the lack of whole-school
implementation, the components required for RJ implementation were present at PSHS. Hopkins
(2004) states that schools must first establish RJ values before they can build skills and enact the
RJ practices. At PSHS these values can be found in the principal’s message about the value of
building positive and trusting relationships and in the expanded definition of the school’s
philosophy of “freedom with responsibility” (PSHS Student Handbook, 2016). This freedom
hinges on relationships, respect, responsibility, resourcefulness, and rigor. The first three
attributes of the philosophy are bedrock values of RJ (Zehr, 2015). It was on this ethos that the
foundation for RJ at PSHS was built.
While the necessary RJ values were in place at PSHS, the RJ implementation process never
sought to become comprehensive in nature. The plan was to use the RJ practices as “part of our
whole discipline program” and not be “the only thing that we do” (Trisha). Therefore,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

81
administrators mainly use RJ practices when infractions occur. Even though RJ practices are
used as part of the discipline approach, they are not necessarily viewed as discipline. For
example, Will explained the use of RJ practices:
It's not even used as a discipline, but being used in the realm of an AP who issues the
discipline may say, "I don't think a suspension is warranted. I don't think an in school or
out of school anything is needed or warranted. I think we just need to sit down and talk
about it." So it's not used as a discipline type thing, but it is used as a community type
preventive measure basically.
In a discussion of his view of RJ practices, Mike, an administrator who regularly uses RJ,
explained that he views RJ as “a relationship tool more than a discipline tool. I don't even think
about it as a discipline tool. It's about resolving conflict without them resolving it for
themselves.” He went on to explain that he prefers to use RJ as an alternative to discipline every
time “if appropriate” for the behavior. This is in line with the rest of the administrative team,
who do not use RJ conferences for all types of behavioral issues, but those in which the situation
can be aided by a restorative approach.
By and large, PSHS uses the RJ approach to react, rather than prevent. Less than a handful
of educators at PSHS are using proactive community-building circles, with the majority of RJ
practices being leveraged by administrators as part of the discipline process. It is not the norm
for them to use the practices in a proactive way, because they are mostly not involved in the
classroom environment. Despite being reactive, Sam acknowledged that using the RJ practices
when issues do occur could potentially decrease the reoccurrence of the issue in a preventative
way:
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

82
I think we use it more in a reaction, reactionary situation. A lot of times we react more than
we do preventive. But, I think we also see restorative as a way of preventing something
else from happening. You know, we've used a restorative circle to address underlying
issues with groups of girls. Unfortunately, that is one of the main things we use it for.
The restorative approach is mainly used at PSHS for reacting to interpersonal conflict. This is
one of the themes, which emerged from the research, which is expanded on in the next section.
Interpersonal conflict. At PSHS, RJ practices are mostly used for restoration and
reintegration after interpersonal conflict. This mostly occurs with relationships between peers
and students and teachers, but will occasionally be used with teacher teams as well. Most of the
interpersonal conflict stems from drama, profanity, disrespect, cell phone use in class, and being
a distraction or disruption. RJ practices have also been used for threatening behavior and
inappropriate use of social media, which has occurred outside of school, but impacts
relationships inside the school community.
RJ conferences have been used to help students and teachers process through a situation
prior to reentry into a class or social situation. After conflict or harm has occurred, the process
most PSHS administrators use is to meet with each individual involved in the situation to talk
through what happened and to ensure they are ready to resolve the conflict, take responsibility,
and do the work to restore the relationship. Based on personal experience, Sam explained it is
important to process with students individually before you put them “back in a position to talk
through the other stuff.” It was reported that the use of the restorative questions during the
conference have prompted thoughtful and reflective discourse, which helps provide perspective
to the other parties involved in the conference.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

83
The restorative process is imperative to ensure relationships can move forward. Dave
expressed this when he said:
To me, it's common sense. It makes a whole lot more sense to have both people sit down
and talk through things and have it resolved and move forward in a positive way, than to
have animosity build up between two people.
Several administrators mentioned using RJ conferences with students to help resolve
“relationship problems” (Sam) and restore relationships. This has occurred in small groups with
friends or as part of a large classroom restorative circle, after some threatening behavior took
place on social media. In that situation, if the student had rejoined the class without any
discussion, the students might “legitimately be fearful thinking he was going to do something to
harm them” (Mike). It is in these situations that RJ is leveraged to help provide all parties the
opportunity to express their perspective, so everyone’s voice can be heard and those responsible
can take ownership and determine how to make things right (Watchel, 2016).
At PSHS, the RJ conference or circle isn’t just used for student relationships, but is also
regularly used for restoration of harm in student and teacher relationships. When a student is sent
out of class for behavior and the student gets punished for it, the student can build animosity
because of the punishment. Mike noted that after a teacher kicks a kid out of class, he can’t “just
drop a kid back in there.” This is why Mike uses a RJ conference with a teacher and student
before a student reintegrates back into a teacher’s class:
Say a kid uses profanity with a teacher and I have to put them in in-school suspension for
two days, they're just sitting there stewing because of the teacher for two days. So, if I
don't follow up and put them in class on the third day there going to, well the student might
be thinking, ‘you thought I cussed you out before.’ So, it's not effective. Now, if that
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

84
situation happens I'm going to remove that kid from that class only, for a day or two. And
then I'm going to meet with that kid in that teacher an hour an hour and a half before that
kid goes back in the class. That's the way I use it.
The student still has a consequence for his/her behavior, but also participates in an RJ conference
where he/she can share his/her perspective and take responsibility for his/her actions. Sam also
uses RJ conferences after consequences:
If it is a major offense, it might be some restorative after the child has returned or after they
have served their consequence, but before they return to the classroom. And I use that in
cases where, for example, a child has really gotten in a teacher's face and/or called a
teacher names. I use it in major situations where we need to not just punish, but we need to
start working on a relationship or tensions. There's going to be tension when the child
returns.
Students are typically not allowed back into a classroom until they have successfully participated
in an RJ conference to restore the relationship and reintegrate into the classroom environment. It
was reported by most administrators that sometimes students are not ready to participate in the
RJ process, which creates some challenges for reentry into the classroom.
Beyond restoring the student-teacher relationship, these types of RJ conferences can give
students a voice and provide an opportunity for the student and teacher to problem solve the
situation so it can be handled differently in the future. Diane shared that the goal of the RJ
conference is to not “have a repeat of whatever just happened.” In the RJ approach, it is
paramount for those in a conference to engage in respectful dialogue to establish an
understanding of each other and effectively determine how to move forward in a positive way
(Hansberry, 2016). Sam expressed that 85% of her job is to use RJ to help students “identify
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

85
where they went wrong, determine what they were thinking, how to process all of this, and help
them understand the impact, and what they need to do differently.” This is the crux of using RJ
practices to react to interpersonal conflict and help restore relationships.
Situational discipline. In addition to using RJ as part of the discipline approach, PSHS
administrators also administer discipline “based on facts and circumstances of each individual
case” (PSHS Student Handbook, 2016). While discipline is based on the situation, the behavior
expectations are clear and explicit in the conduct section of the student handbook, which is in
alignment with RJ and Bevington’s (2015) finding that teachers desire a clear behavior system
but also want to be able to be responsive to the situation. In addition, specific positive behavior
expectations are also defined as part of the “freedom with responsibility” philosophy. These
discipline components encourage fair process, where students can view the rules and
consequences as “just and legitimate” (Suvall, 2009, p. 553). While the discipline matrix is
specific about behavioral infractions and the escalating nature of the consequences for each
behavior, it provides some options and guidelines for administrators regarding consequences to
be assigned.
The personalized approach to discipline did not just exist in the black and white pages of
the handbook. Several administrators mentioned using their own judgment when assigning
various consequences, which were dependent on the student behavior and situation. Mike noted
that the administrative team “just kind of adapts to what we think is best for these kids.” And
Sam concluded that the APs “all handle each situation according to what is needed.” This
includes the use of restorative practices and consequences. Diane explained that she uses
restorative practices depending on the situation, utilizing RJ “if it is something that can be
restored, then I think that is what should happen.” Sam explained that she will assign
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

86
consequences “based on what the kid can actually do,” depending on their family or
transportation situation. Taking students’ situations into account when assigning consequences
speaks to maximizing the values of relationships and compassion (Morrison & Vaandering,
2012). It aligns with the RJ approach of doing the work WITH those involved, rather than TO
them.
An individualized approach to discipline is a double-edged sword. While dealing with
student discipline on a case-by-case basis allows the administrator to meet the student’s specific
needs and can be viewed as reasonable because circumstances are taken into consideration, the
approach also opens issues with subjectivity and inconsistency. It can potentially open the
administrator to complaints about fairness and equity if some groups are perceived as receiving
more favorable consequences than others. Students were not interviewed as part of the data
collection process, so no definitive answers can be provided here. However, a lack of
consistency has been problematic on other fronts during the implementation of RJ at PSHS,
which will be explored in the next section.
Challenges
Superficial implementation. The implementation process itself was a challenge for the
educators at PSHS. Due to the external influence of a district mandate, the school was not
involved in planning a school-wide rollout beyond what was required by the district. Since the
mandate to incorporate RJ practices came from the district instead of the school, there was a lack
of school-based champions to plan and lead an implementation process. This resulted in the
principal protecting the faculty from another district lead initiative, explaining her hesitation to
go all in with RJ despite her positive experience with it when she expressed, “I can't require it. I
can't, I just can't do it.” This could be because one teacher described the school as “pretty rogue.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

87
We do it our way, because it's the right way.” The faculty and staff did not have someone
internally planning, encouraging, and leading the shift to RJ, which could have influenced the
way they viewed and handled the change in discipline approach.
The approach PSHS took to implementation was therefore viewed as “not methodical” and
“sporadic” (Teri). One administrator expressed that the school doesn’t “have a clear plan for
doing it.” The lack of an implementation plan and limited training led to limited RJ deployment
and a lack of cultural shift at PSHS. Four years after the initial implementation, multiple
educators at PSHS noted that RJ practices are “spotty” and not “widespread enough,” with Fran
noting that RJ isn’t even being used at a “10% level.” Diane shared that due to a lack of full-
scale implementation at PSHS the school’s RJ practices are not required as a regular part of the
discipline approach and are therefore not authentic:
We're doing it at a superficial level, with really no authenticity or any expectation for that
being our first step. In the ideal world, if it's a situation where you use restorative practice
that ought to be in the consequence every time instead of punitive consequences. But, that's
not our practice. Sometimes, I think we do things to check a box.
Implementation of RJ did not persist past the initial rollout phase of administrator training and
cursory overview for teachers leading to the use of RJ as an add-on approach or as one
participant put it, “window dressing.”
However, had PSHS been intentional about training faculty and staff about the philosophy
and skills, the outcome might have been different. After noting the school doesn’t use RJ school-
wide, Dave pointed out that those who have been trained are still generally using the practices
despite there being no expectation to, “It's those who have gone through the training and thought
it was worthwhile that are the ones that have kind of continued to practice it.” The two faculty
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

88
members who had recently been trained expressed concern that more faculty members haven’t
received training and support to use RJ practices in their classroom. They strongly believed that
once more teachers were exposed to RJ principles and practices their classrooms would be
“transformed.”
Initially, the faculty received some cursory information about RJ and encouragement to try
affective language in their interactions. Yet, there was no follow up to the initial workshop
despite already having possible structures in place for additional professional development for
RJ. Mike expressed this when he described the challenge of follow-up and one way in which it
could have been done:
I think follow-through is the challenging part. Sadly, I don't know if we've done anything
with it since except for remind people that it is really good to use, to use circles and all this
stuff. I wish we had followed up more and more often, because we have the shared
planning meetings that are very inter-curriculum related PD every other week during the
school day. We probably should have practiced, talked about affective language, over and
over again. And we never really did. I think we've done a fairly poor job at my level of
following up.
As one of the “people responsible for implementation,” Mike took responsibility and honestly
said, “I don’t think we’ve implemented it nearly as well as we should have.” However, it is not
too late for PSHS to develop a clear and thoughtful implementation plan to infuse the RJ
throughout the school, if that is a priority for the administrative team. The values, as noted
earlier, are present in the ethos of the school, so if the school desires to adopt a whole-school
approach, the next steps would include providing training for faculty and staff on the RJ skills
and practices (Hopkins, 2004).
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

89
The incomplete implementation of RJ created a few tensions at PSHS since the initial
rollout of RJ. The two main tensions that arose are inconsistent use of RJ practices and a lack of
understanding of RJ.
Consistency. Using restorative practices is “not an expectation in this building” (Diane),
which has led to irregular use of the practices, inconsistency in the practices used, and
discrepancies in language. Schools are complex contexts that create challenges for RJ
implementation, however congruence is an important aspect of RJ implementation (Bevington,
2015).
As explained earlier, the discipline matrix includes RJ conferences as a consequence for
five of the infractions. It is noted that these are a “guideline of guidelines” (Sam) the
administrators can use as part of their situational discipline approach. However, the APs are not
required to use RJ practices when dealing with discipline issues. Sam shared, “there hasn’t been
an edict that has come down that says you have to do restorative practices.” Only two of the four
APs interviewed shared that they use RJ practices as their “go-to” approach when dealing with
discipline. Will, a staff member who regularly interacts with students who are experiencing
problems, explained that from his perspective RJ is “how you’re supposed to deal with kids
now.” This means students are bound to experience different discipline approaches based on
whom they are interacting with. Since the APs work with assigned groups of students based on
the first letter of their last name, students will typically interact with the same administrator. This
creates a level of consistency for a student, but inconsistency among groups of students’
experiences with discipline at PSHS. This potentially creates the appearance of inequity in
discipline for the administrative team and creates irregularity in the use of RJ practices, even if a
few administrators are using them regularly. This inconsistency prohibits RJ from taking root
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

90
and influencing the culture at PSHS. While some students gain insight into the
interconnectedness of relationships in a school community, others don’t gain the same
perspective.
Even when APs use RJ practices regularly, the specific process for the practices are being
inconsistently used, which also influences the ability to shift the culture around discipline. Sam
explained that the administrative team “utilizes different components of it [RJ] in different ways.
I think the uniformity of the system is what we are lacking.” This inconsistency has led to some
teachers having poor experiences with RJ. Teri expressed concern about this, “at times it feels
like teachers are being ganged up through the use of the restorative circle – they are not always
talked through until a consensus is made.” Prior to receiving RJ training, Fran shared that she
had a “messed up” RJ conference with a student and AP, where the student refused to engage
and the AP handed it the “wrong” way.
While Fran was sharing the great experience she has had with restorative practices, another
teacher told her a story of a negative experience with a restorative conversation facilitated by an
administrator and the teacher noted that she “will never get involved with a restorative practice
session again." Fran shared this encounter and linked the poor experience back to the
“administrator's lack of understanding and failure to correctly to implement the practice.” In her
view some of the administrators are “screwing it up” which then negatively influences the
teachers’ perspective of RJ. Even if the conference does go well, some faculty members are not
clear on the expectations moving forward from the conversation. Alice explained, “the sense I
have gotten is that the follow-up is a little unclear and uncertain.” Poor experiences with RJ
practices due to inconsistency in the process can lead to poor perception of RJ and limits
participants belief and trust in the process (Hansberry, 2016). Engagement, clear understanding,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

91
and knowing what to expect is necessary for RJ practices to be successful.
Language around RJ practices is also used inconsistently at PSHS. While there are various
terms used in the literature for RJ practices (Jennings et al., 2008), schools should remain
consistent in their terminology to create clarity and aid participants’ expectation about what will
transpire based on the RJ practice they are asked to participate in (Hansberry, 2016). The PSHS
administrative team had conflicting descriptions of the terms mediation and restorative
conferences. Mediations were viewed both as a process used when “we can’t restore the
relationship” (Diane) and as “restorative” (Sam). Diane explained that mediations are used to
“basically draw a contract up that says I'm going to leave this person alone. I'm not going to be
friends with them and I'm not okay with what they did.” While Mike explained the use of
mediation in a different way, sharing “when two or three kids are in conflict, we call it a
mediation and use restorative questions.” The latter has been cited as a restorative conference
throughout this chapter to remain consistent with language used in the first chapter. The
inconsistent use of language creates confusion and can breed misunderstanding of process and
outcomes for participants.
These inconsistencies will remain until addressed through a new implementation process or
developing clarity around the use of RJ practices at PSHS. Diane emphasized the importance of
implementation consistency when she said, “until there is a clear expectation in the building that
this is what we are going to do every time, it's window dressing. It's a Band-Aid on a wound.
Without deep implementation you don't get the results.”
Understanding of RJ. Due to the additive nature of RJ adoption and maintaining some
control based discipline policies at PSHS and the inconsistencies mentioned previously, there has
been a misunderstanding at PSHS about RJ and the restorative approach to student discipline.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

92
Teachers do not have a consistent understanding of RJ philosophy nor principles, which stems
from their lack of training and inconsistent experiences with the RJ practices.
Teachers were not provided in-depth training before the school began to adopt the RJ
practices. Trisha, the principal, said, “We have done a little bit as far as whole school
understanding of what is going on with it. A little bit. Nothing really extensive.” While Trisha
believes teachers “understand the concept” she attaches it to the understanding people have of
the process, meaning everybody knows “what it is when we say we're going to have a restorative
conversation or circle.” Based on the training materials for the teacher workshop about RJ
provided by the APs at the beginning of the 2015-2016 year, teachers were provided with a brief
explanation of RJ with a focus on its design to “repair harm done to the learning environment
and restore relationships damaged by behaviors or actions BEFORE the behavior has a chance to
occur again” (Grant & Baker, 2015). There is no evidence that the teachers have been provided
the opportunity to understand the philosophy of RJ. When referencing the 90-minute workshop,
Fran noted that “everybody left thinking it was a discipline system. And it's not! It is an
everything system. It is a way to avoid discipline. It’s about community building.” However, the
lack of systematic training has limited people’s understanding of RJ principles and practices
while inconsistencies and limited implementation have influenced their perception.
Two administrators, Diane and Sam, shared their experience with teachers not viewing
RJ as being an actual approach to discipline. They both noted that teachers want “a pound of
flesh” through the discipline process, with Diane noting teachers don’t see RJ “as a
consequence. Or it isn’t punitive enough for teachers. Even though in the long run it is better
for the kid. And it is better for the teacher and the class. They don’t see it that way always.”
They expressed the need for teacher training and more experience with RJ, so teachers can
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

93
understand the process and see that behavior is being addressed. Angela explained that
several teachers have reached out to her for help with specific student and classroom
situations. As teachers have positive experiences with RJ or hear about how RJ can help
with conflict and community, they are reaching out to administrators for support and
guidance. Receiving RJ training was “transformative” for Fran. She believes that “if more
teachers knew truly what it [RJ] was, I think there would be a greater outcome.” There is
strong indication that more education about RJ philosophy and practices can increase
understanding of RJ and positively influence teachers’ perception of RJ as a discipline
approach of value.
Conclusion
Even though RJ is used as an add-on to the current discipline structure, limited
training and lack of follow through has lead to flawed implementation, which led to issues of
consistency around expectations, use of practices, language, and understanding. Despite
these challenges and the subsequent tensions present in the school, there have been positive
experiences with RJ practices. The outcomes of those “powerful” (Dave) and
“transformative” (Fran) experiences are a decrease in the reoccurrence of behavior, less no-
contact agreements, lowered suspension rate, changed mindsets, increased student and
teacher empathy, and students taking the initiative to ask for help to process conflict.
However, it was also noted that RJ is not a magic pill, concluding it does not always work
for students or the situation at hand. Diane and Mike noted some of their RJ work with
students has been a struggle because RJ does not work well when its practices and ethos are
not part of the culture.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

94
Case Study #2: Enlightened Institute High School (EIHS)
Enlightened Institute is an accredited charter high school located in the suburbs of Oakland
and educates over 450 students in grades 9-12. The Institute also has a middle school on the
campus grounds. The majority of the high school student population is Hispanic/Latino (68%),
while Black students constitute 14% of the population. The high school employs four
administrators, including the principal, over 20 faculty, and around 10 support staff.
The EIHS documents that were analyzed were the self-study report for Western
Association of Schools and Colleges (WASC) for accreditation, the student handbook, including
the referral ladder, student reflection sheets, advisory documents, and classroom posters. Four
educators were interviewed at EIHS ranging from the former Vice Principal to teachers. To help
participants remain anonymous, a pseudonym has been assigned to each of them and limited
demographic information will be shared about each participant (table 3.2).
Participant Demographics - EIHS
Name Role
Allison Teacher
Gabe Middle School Vice Principal; former HS Teacher
Jessica Teacher
Shawn Middle School Principal; former HS Vice Principal
Table 3.2. Participant demographics at EIHS.
Based on interviews and document analysis, this section will share the implementation
process at EIHS and the unique challenges that arose while adopting RJ.
Implementation
The decision to adopt RJ at EIHS was made by the administrative team and began during
the 2013-2014 school year. Despite many initiatives at EIHS being driven by the charter
organization that oversees the school, this was a site-specific decision. The following sections
detail why RJ was implemented, the process of implementation, the ways in which school policy
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

95
reflects the RJ approach, and specific RJ practices EIHS uses.
Rationale. Disproportionate discipline under punitive discipline policies has led to
government agencies suggesting alternative discipline approaches (ED, 2014; White House,
2016), such as RJ, which has emerged as promising approach (Jennings et al., 2008; McCluskey
et al., 2008). One of the main reasons EIHS selected to move towards a relational approach to
discipline was that the current system wasn’t working for 20% of the students, who were
primarily Black boys. Shawn and the rest of the administrative team decided to make the system
more about relationships. They first started by having students serve detentions with their teacher
instead of the administrator. Shawn explained the original approach was too focused on
administrators, rather than the “relationship between the student and teacher. So that's when we
moved detentions back into teachers’ rooms instead of always with me. It's the relationship
between the student and the teacher and that is where the repair should happen.” The following
year, EIHS hired a new principal who had implemented RJ at a previous school.
All the interviewees agreed that the punitive discipline system they were using was not
working for all students and was disproportionately impacting minority students. Jessica
highlighted that “the system wasn’t set-up for people of color.” After reviewing discipline data
and noting inequities, the educators at EIHS decided to take on “an equity lens in terms of how
we teach and engage our students” (Gabe). Allison sums the rationale for EIHS shifting to an RJ
approach:
I think we were seeing from data that, how we give detentions and how we give referrals,
or write referrals and suspend students, do our classroom management, I don't think it was
feeling too good. And the statistics that came out of our discipline data didn't make us feel
good. We noticed that, you know, similarly to big public schools, our Black and Brown
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

96
students are getting in the most trouble. Our boys are getting the most suspensions.
Administration wanted to start thinking about what are some things we can do to start
lowering these numbers. So, I think we turned to restorative practices so that we could start
building better relationships with students, so that we wouldn't have to have as many
detentions, referrals, suspensions.
There was a consensus of understanding among interviewers as to the rationale for why RJ was
adopted and implemented.
Process. When undertaking second-order change (Marzano et al., 2005), such as adopting
RJ as a whole-school approach, it is imperative to have a plan (Hopkins, 2004; Morrison et al.,
2005; Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Prior to initiating the rollout process with the whole school,
the administrative team at EIHS received training on RJ and developed a three-year vision and
plan for RJ adoption. “Part one was around advisory. Part 2 was around building staff
relationships. And part three was around repairing harm,” (Shawn). These phases were enacted
over the course of a few years and were aimed at adopting a whole-school approach to RJ.
The process began at the tier one level with relationships and community building in
advisory. “We identified advisory as a system within the school where we were building
relationships. And so how can we implement RJ circles in advisory to build relationships with
each other” (Shawn). Community was built in advisories using circles, a proactive RJ practice,
during their longer meeting times.
The second year of the implementation process focused on building staff relationships,
which was also intended to help sustain the community building efforts in advisory. The thought
behind this phase of the process was to have staff “participate in community building circles in
order to connect with each other and build relationships among staff. And also experience
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

97
circles, so that then we could facilitate them” (Shawn). An administrator or consultant led these
circles.
The final phase of the implementation process was focused on integrating repairing harm
circles, which can be either a tier two or three intervention. The reactive RJ practices focused on
repairing harm can vary between small restorative conferences to large classroom/community
conferences. These practices began to be integrated into the discipline approach and were
primarily utilized by administration, who had received training to facilitate RJ conferences.
Rather than rely only on their understanding and training, the administrative team engaged
an outside consultant who assisted throughout the implementation process. The consultant led
the training, facilitated circles, and consulted when any of the admin team had questions. Shawn
expressed gratitude for the ability to consult with an expert, who has taken time to get to know
the EIHS context. He said the consultant was invaluable because he could “talk through what
might be the next best way to help people move, restore, either help restore other people's place
in the community or repair relationship.” The administrators at EIHS still utilize the consultant
on occasion.
Having an implementation plan enabled EIHS to adopt a whole-school approach to RJ,
however the vision wasn’t communicated clearly and consistently, which is invaluable in the
change process (Kotter, 2008; Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). While the leadership always planned
to leverage RJ culture in all aspects of school, one teacher thought the school was only using RJ
circles for relationship building in advisory, but then there was an expectation that teachers
should be thinking about RJ in their classrooms. From her perspective, administration expected
RJ principles to “trickle” into teaching practice.
Training. It is recommended that training be provided to the entire school community
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

98
(Hopkins, 2004), as the culture will only shift if everyone is actively engaged in a relational and
restorative ethos. To align the school culture and discipline model with RJ, EIHS utilized a
regional RJ training institute to facilitate their training and provide consultation services. The
training started with two administrators and a teacher leader during the 2013-2014 school year.
Since the principal had already received training, he did not attend. The initial RJ training was
five days and entailed two stages. The first stage was focused on RJ for community building and
the second stage was RJ for repairing harm.
Teachers received training during the 2014-2015 school year in the form of two, one-day
off campus retreats and a few professional development sessions at EIHS. The facilitators
embedded RJ practices as part of the training process, which allowed for modeling and practice.
Jessica remembers that everyone “participated in a circle as a staff. Where they led us through
what it is like to actually share your feelings, and talk about something personal.” The training
also provided a rationale for adopting RJ by focusing on “why we do this” (Gabe).
In addition to training, the faculty also participated in several professional development
sessions focused on RJ. Gabe remembers that the principal was “very strategic with how he used
that time. He gave us either more experience with being part of a circle or to practice doing it.”
Beyond skill building, these sessions also included opportunities for the faculty to build
community amongst themselves through circles, which was part two of the implementation plan.
One such session provided the opportunity for teachers to reflect on “who we are as educators
and our hopes for our students” (Gabe), which created space for colleagues to get to know one
another and build empathy.
The EIHS faculty has staff meetings and professional development once a week for four
hours. During the RJ implementation process some of that time was reserved for dialogue and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

99
development of RJ for community building:
A few years ago, we decided that the first half hour of every staff meeting would be
dedicated to advisory. So, during that time we would discuss things like, potential circles
that we could facilitate or have students facilitate. We would talk about just our own
individual restorative practices that we do. Or a teacher could talk about something that
they're having trouble with and we would all give input, unlike restorative things that we
have done, and the relationships that we have with individual students. (Allison)
The purposeful training assisted the teachers’ ability to develop necessary skills, share concerns,
and learn from one another while laying a foundation of understanding. As part of their whole-
school adoption of RJ, the administrative team wisely invested in providing training and
professional development for the faculty.
Discipline policy. Clearly communicating expectations and setting boundaries around
behavior is a necessary component of RJ (Hansberry, 2016). At EIHS this is done through
clearly defined policies and procedures in the student handbook and classroom posters of the
classroom management plan and code of conduct. As required for a whole-school approach, the
policies were changed to align with RJ principles and values (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). RJ
principles were integrated into the policies and procedures, and in some cases RJ practices were
explicitly noted. The classroom management and code of conduct changed to reflect restorative
practices, while changes to the referral ladder were in process.
The discipline policies and procedures were adapted to RJ throughout the implementation
process. In order to provide context for the change, the student handbook has a section on RJ in
which circles, repairing harm, and guided discipline are explained. Allison described the
adoption of different language and approach to detention:
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

100
A few years ago, we started changing the language around detention for 9
th
and 10
th
grade.
In 11
th
and 12
th
grade they didn't really change the language of changing detentions to
restorations until this year. We wanted to change the language around a bit, so when a kid
messed up in class, it was ‘let’s have a 30-minute conversation after school about being
reflective and how to move forward.’
While the verbal language that is used regarding detentions changed, the policies and discipline
documents still use the word detention. At EIHS detentions have a specific purpose, which is
grounded in RJ values:
Detentions are our primary system to model, teach, and practice desired behaviors with our
students. When a student receives a detention, they will also complete a reflection form
that guides them through the process of:
1. Taking responsibility for their behavior
2. Acknowledging how their behavior affects others
3. Carrying out an accountable consequence
4. Practicing how to change their behavior next time
(EIHS Student Handbook, 2016, p. 35)
These detentions have an element of accountability, but also allow space for students to reflect,
take responsibility, and restore. Shawn explained the heart behind the change in approach:
I think part of the goal is instead of serving your time, you are having an interaction.
Where the purpose of detentions before was you're just going to serve your time in a
quiet room where you have to sit and look forward and have your hands in your lap
and you can't do anything. Where this is where you are in a classroom working or
helping out clean something out or talking with the teacher.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

101
Since students typically serve a detention with the teacher who assigned them the detention as
part of the classroom management plan, they can use that time to process through what occurred
in a restorative conversation.
A supportive aspect of the discipline procedure allows for students to have “Think Time,”
prior to getting a referral due to escalating through the classroom management plan. This support
is defined as “an opportunity for students who need a chance to step outside of class, to go to
another classroom space to think about what’s bothering them or getting in the way of their
learning” (EIHS Student Handbook, 2016, p. 28). During this time, students fill out a reflection
sheet that prompts them to describe what is happening, think about what kind of support they
need, and determine how they can help themselves if they are in the same situation again. Upon
the student’s return to class, they have an impromptu conversation with the teacher to review
expected behavior and the next steps to take to be successful. This process was developed with
the intention of giving students “a chance to grow in terms of processing feelings/emotions”
(EIHS Student Handbook, 2016, p. 28). The referral process, which occurs after exhausting the
classroom management plan, also includes a written student reflection using a different template
that has questions to prompt the student to get the story out, take responsibility, problem solve,
and get support to keep on track.
The code of conduct also changed to reflect the adoption of RJ and implementation of
several RJ practices. Detention/restorative conversations and RJ circles are prescribed as
responses to specific behavior, such as hurtful or profane language, food/drink in class,
bullying/harassment, cheating, and vandalism. In cases of more concerning behavior, the code of
conduct provides for an RJ circle instead of suspension or in conjunction with suspension. Some
behavior, such as drug use, has mandated consequences according to California code, yet EIHS
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

102
provides for self-disclosure and restoration in the EIHS community. However, when possible the
discipline policy allows for administration to use their discretion to provide alternatives to
suspension and expulsion. This type of policy aligns with the principles of RJ and focuses on
keeping students in the learning environment to minimize isolation and disconnectedness from
community. While expulsion is still a possibility for some behaviors, it is evident in the EIHS
policies that it will be used as a last resort after support and intervention.
As middle school principal, Shawn has been working alongside the EIHS administration to
align the division referral ladders and integrate RJ, so he was able to share his perspective on the
changes to the referral ladder. The high school handbook was not updated when it was received,
but Shawn provided some context for the changes:
The referral ladder has changed this year to include more restorative language. It used to
really be a focus on consequences. It was eight steps long and basically the end of it was
expulsion. Steps 1 through 4 were meetings and plans and communication. Steps 5, 6, 7, 8
were increasing days of suspension and ending in expulsion. High school admin did
revamp of the referral ladder this summer to be more restorative and not have automatic
triggers of suspension and expulsion. So, the new referral ladder has way more support
plans, harm repairing circles, mediations, communication between advisor and teacher. It
focuses more on support plans, then on automatic days as suspensions as consequences.
We are assessing student needs when we start. “Do you need a counselor? Should we start
the SST process? Having parents come in and visit?’ There is no ending in suspension or
expulsion.
Rather than simply responding to behavior issues with punitive, zero-tolerance policies,
educators at EIHS are embedding RJ principles in their discipline approach. They are focused on
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

103
holding students accountable for their behavior, restoring their place in community, and keeping
them in school, when possible. Their focus on high expectations with supportive conferences and
reflection allows them to work WITH students in the discipline process (Thorsborne & Blood
2013) and enables discipline for learning.
Equity is of great importance to EHIS, which is why they adopted a discipline approach
that is responsive to students and aimed at lowering suspension and expulsion rates to keep
students in school (McMorris et al., 2013), so they can achieve and succeed. Along with having a
“clear and concise discipline system based on restorative practices” (Self Study Report, 2017, p.
161), EIHS has worked with the National Equity Project “in order to evaluate how the
organization and systems within the school can be strengthened to ensure all students are
succeeding” (Self Study Report, 2017, p. 3).
RJ approach. RJ is more effective and successful when implemented as a whole-school
approach (Hopkins, 2004; McCluskey et al., 2011). The administrators at EIHS desired to shift
the ethos of the school to one that is equitable, relational, responsive, and restorative, which is
why they went all in on RJ implementation. As discussed previously, EIHS implemented a wide
variety of RJ practices, which encompass all the tiers of support noted in chapter one
(Vaandering, 2014).
To focus on the tier one proactive supports of prevention and skill-building (McMorris et
al., 2013), EIHS adopted the use of classroom circles. The school utilizes the restorative circle
approach put forth by Watson and Pranis (2015) in Circle Forward. Their philosophy focuses on
creating a safe space for students, but also developing a community of compassion, care, and
concern. Circles were introduced and used in Advisory during the longer sessions that happen
twice a week. In the beginning of the implementation process, circles were being used every
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

104
week, “because we were trying to make it become the normal practice. Getting kids more
comfortable in that process” (Gabe). Eventually, the practice dwindled some and was used less,
ranging from once a week to once a month. Currently, the grade eleven and twelve students
rarely use circles, because of an “emphasis on college and work learning experience” (Jessica).
Building the students’ skills and understanding of circles to proactively build community
also influenced students’ comfort and preparedness to do circles when harm has been done.
Shawn elaborates:
It's interesting when kids learn what a circle is and are used to being in a circle in an
advisory. When a harm does happen and you come into a circle with a group of people
who are not happy with each other and you call it a circle, and you talk about your values
and talk with a talking peace and passed the talking piece around and do storytelling, kind
of set it up, when you actually get into the meat of it, their prior experience can be very
helpful.
The students’ comfort level in the setting of a circle and with sharing their point of view and
values were both important as the administrative team implemented tier three and four
interventions. The thought was to use restorative practices to “move away from just doing circles
in advisory to build relationships to using circles to repair harm in the community. How do we
get kids to take ownership of their behavior and look at it in the larger context?” (Gabe).
The administration and faculty at EIHS began using restorative circles when discipline or
interpersonal issues arose. One of the most common reactive RJ practices the EIHS team uses is
the restorative conference, which they call mediation. The practice is used for a variety of
reasons and in various contexts. Allison noted mediation is sometimes used “instead of just
suspending a student for five days.” Mediations have also been used to reintegrate students back
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

105
into the school community or to repair harm before a student returns from a suspension. These
formal types of mediations have occasionally included families. The mediation structure has
been utilized for student-to-student and student-to-teacher conflict. For example, on the day of
the interview, Allison was going to have a mediation focused on coming to an understanding and
then focusing on restoration, so that “things don't escalate over the weekend, because they've got
a long weekend this weekend.” Allison has even been involved in “a mediation with another staff
member, where harm was done to both of us and we needed to talk it out.”
As noted earlier, the RJ approach trickled into teacher’s classroom practices. While it
might not be formalized or recognized as RJ, the EIHS educators interviewed take a relational
approach to discipline. This means they may not always use the structured case room
management plan, as it is prescribed, but rather leverage their relationship and understanding of
the student’s needs in the situation to adaptively respond when situations arise. Allison explained
how she handles relational classroom management:
Some students I don't need to have that restorative conversation, because I just give a look
and they're like, “Oh, let me correct.” And sometimes the conversation isn't needed. For
most students the conversation isn't needed. Some students, you know, just want to get out
some energy. Or they just really want to talk. And then so they need those reminders and
might need a conversation, but it really does depend on the students.
When she does have a conversation with a student they are typically “restorative the first
moment I talked to students.” She uses affective language to encourage reflection and empathy,
which hopefully leads to the student changing his/her behavior.
Similarly, Jessica explains how one can approach classroom management with a relational
ethos:
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

106
If one of them [students] is agitated, and you can recognize that that the student is agitated,
knowing that student – do they actually want you to ask them, ‘are you okay?’ Or do I
know that that's a student where I'm just going to leave them alone today and not engage
them because they're clearly are...or maybe I'll check in with them after class or something
like that.
Jessica’s responsive approach to discipline typically includes a check-in and more in-depth
conversation with her students who were struggling with behavioral choices prior to a detention.
Therefore, the integration of a check-in, an impromptu RJ conversation, into the classroom
management plan aligned with her established approach. However, Jessica was surprised by the
new emphasis because she expected that teachers had already been using effective classroom
management practices, which don’t “escalate a kid” and provide a chance for the student to
course correct. She was passionate about culturally responsive discipline practices and “teaching
teachers how to recognize, and be aware of their students, rather than, a prescribed way to handle
a situation.” Jessica emphasized the value of teachers “who aren’t culturally black and/or male”
learning what they “can do to have a conversation to deescalate a situation that doesn’t lead to
the students getting a detention or referral.” Building relationships and empathy, two values of
RJ, combined with affective language, can assist teachers in managing behavioral challenges in
the classroom, which is what EIHS is aiming to do through their equity minded RJ approach.
To help sustain RJ and the relational ethos of the school, EIHS has a “delegated staff
position, the Vice Principal of Student Support, in charge of promoting school culture and
building relationships between students and staff. This administrator also works to enforce
discipline procedures and follow through with restorative” (Self Study Report, 2017). The
implementation of a whole-school RJ approach through multi-tiered supports and interventions
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

107
has enabled the faculty and administration to respond to student needs and behavior in a
proactive and reactive way. Shawn empathically explained that the adults at EIHS do
“everything in their power to help kids succeed,” which is demonstrated in their adoption and
integration of RJ.
Challenges
Despite one’s best-laid plans, challenges can arise. Even though EIHS’ implementation
process was planned and phased in, some growing pains have been experienced. Those include a
lack of training for foundational understanding and sustainability, and the development of a
programmatic approach to community building.
On-going professional development. Training is an essential element of RJ
implementation (Berkowitz, 2013; Thorsborne & Blood 2013), both for the initial rollout and for
sustainability. Gabe expressed the benefit of training; “I left that feeling a lot more confident in
terms of how I approached in my advisory but also with students.” Administration and faculty at
EIHS received multiple trainings and a professional development. However, the lack of ongoing
training as the implementation process progressed and the absence of an on-boarding process for
new staff has created tensions within the school.
While the administrative team and one teacher leader receive in-depth training on RJ
principles and the continuum of practices, the faculty training was focused primarily on the
rationale for RJ and relationship building through circles. As the implementation plan progressed
beyond community building in advisory, the teachers struggled to grasp the philosophy of RJ and
how RJ practices could be utilized in the classroom. From Jessica’s perspective, the faculty
“never got sat down and were told what restorative justice is” and what the school’s goal was for
bringing it into their classroom practice. She stated the teachers were provided the rationale for
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

108
using it in advisory, but not why they needed to use circles in the classroom. She expressed
confusion with how to integrate RJ in the classroom; “We are still using the language and the
administration wants to make sure we use restorative practices in our room. But it's like, really
what does that mean?” Jessica received focused training on circles, but it did not build her
awareness of the purpose and vision of RJ as a whole-school approach. However, she didn’t
rebuff the concept of bringing RJ philosophy into her classroom practices, and through
experiences and conversations with colleagues over the years, she managed to “piece things
together.”
Jessica was not alone in wrestling with understanding RJ and the expectation to use it in
her professional practice and classroom. Throughout her interview Allison wondered what it
means to be truly restorative and if her team was doing it correctly. She thought, “maybe as a
staff we need to learn more about the theory before we get stuck. We do a really good job of
protocols, procedures, logistics, without going into the deeper reason why.” Without having a
foundational understanding of RJ philosophy and principles, the practices can lack authenticity
and facilitators cannot always adapt to the situation that unfolds in front of them.
At the beginning of the 2017-2018 school year the teachers received posters with the
restorative questions. Allison “doesn’t particularly use it” but it is provided so “if teachers are
struggling with what a restorative conversation looks like, these are the things they can ask.”
Teachers are expected to facilitate mediations and repairing harm circles, yet they have not
received targeted training for those practices. Gabe was “one of the few that got to do additional
training, but it just never continued.” Despite only receiving the initial RJ training, she has
facilitated mediations, but noted that, “I still don’t feel strong doing that.” Gabe sees the value
for others receiving training on repairing harm circles because “I can see this being a great
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

109
resource for all adults at our school to be able to do, especially as advisors.” To holistically adopt
RJ and enable teachers to feel confident using the practices regularly, training on the philosophy,
principles and practices needs to be provided.
Since the initial RJ training, there has been a great deal of turnover at EIHS. Out of
thirty teachers, only eight received RJ training as part of the implementation process.
Jessica noted how “crazy” that is and highlighted that those who were present at the onset
of the implementation process are “the ones that don’t give that many referrals, detentions,
and stuff like that.” New teachers have limited experience and knowledge about RJ,
because they have not received training as part of the on-boarding process. Shawn shared
his disappointment that EIHS hasn’t done more to bring new people up to speed, but
acknowledged the challenge of on-boarding:
Site capacity, time, and priorities are challenges. So, half the staff had now done it
[RJ training] and the other has other half of the staff didn't. So, it's like, you need to
have someone who's differentiating professional development or, I mean there are lots
of different things that could be why. But, I think that was one of the big things that
wasn't. Also, it wasn't a major initiative again that year, as for the first year, when our
new principal started and I started the training.
Gabe’s sentiments concurred that the need for differentiated training was necessary, but
prohibiting, because it would require a lot of time and resources. He expressed that training
new people and still supporting them through the process can be time-consuming because
“each year we have to start the whole process over and over again.” That process entailed
training retreats and weekly professional development and reflections.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

110
Jessica feels for the new teachers hired at EIHS, because she thinks they are in a
“tricky” position “trying to figure out the purpose [of RJ] and also trying to figure out how
to follow instructions on a paper, and also figure out how to manage your advisory.
Balancing all three of those things can be very hard.” In the absence of training, the
teachers have made due. Allison shared that the teachers themselves are “our own best
resource.” New teachers are reaching out to experienced teachers for help, support, and the
possibility of “sitting in on it [restorative conference] so they can have an idea of what the
conversation is like.” While this model provides the support needed to do the best they can,
it can lead to inconsistencies.
Consistency. A tension of inconsistency is by-product of not having everyone trained in
RJ principles and practices. Jessica expressed her concern that EIHS wasn’t “doing it [RJ] well”
because “we have really high turnover, so we bring people in who are not familiar with
restorative practice and what that all entails and RJ and what that means. So, it's kind of like we
bring people in and saying that we do this but don't necessarily teach them how to do this.” Not
training people leads to them trying to forge their own way, which can result in inconsistent
application of RJ practices and potentially a discipline approach that does not encompass RJ
principles.
Since the professional development touch points of reflection and shared practice have also
disappeared from the regular practice at EIHS, people’s investment in a restorative discipline
approach may have diminished. Since the initial rollout, teachers have implemented the practices
to varying degrees, which led to differences in effectiveness. Gabe noted, “some circles were
more successful than others. Some advisories were more successful than others. From my
perspective, it just depends on the adult that was in the room and the relationships they were able
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

111
to foster and build.” Providing further training and opportunities to practice and dialogue about
RJ as a discipline framework are important steps to assist with consistent implementation and
sustainability. Taking additional steps to help diminish inconsistencies is important because
“students are really smart. And they will play on that really quickly” (Jessica).
Programmatic approach. RJ is not a program to be “plugged in” to the school, but rather
a philosophy (Song & Swearer, 2016), which involves approaching discipline with a relational
ethos (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Simply put, RJ is framework that influences the culture of
a school through pedagogy, practice, and discipline (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). As noted
previously, EIHS uses Circle Forward (Watson & Pranis, 2015) as a manual and curriculum for
their whole-school model. Shawn shared:
There is a common curriculum that that we follow. It's done in different ways and
different grade levels, depending on the style and time commitment of the person
who's leading it. But, there is a central curriculum for advisory for each grade level.
As part of the rollout of circles in advisory, teachers were provided “photocopies of different
types of activities we can lead in advisory” (Allison).
The availability of ready-made circle plans aided in the buy-in process since teachers
didn’t have to take time to plan on their own. However, some teachers took the pre-scripted
circles as an opportunity to mentally check out. Allison shared that some teachers viewed it as
“cool, I don’t have to lesson plan” and then “did not really think about the meaning of the
conversations or the relationships that are built or broken and have to be rebuilt.” This led
teachers to miss the point of RJ and use it as a curricular approach to advisory that checks a box.
If teachers are not connected to the RJ process at the tier one level, it may lead to a lack of
engagement and use of the RJ approach in other school venues.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

112
Based on her experience implementing RJ, through circles in advisory, relational discipline
in her classroom, and facilitating restorative conferences, Allison emphasizes that “whatever
textbooks or whatever resources are out there should be used as a resource and not curriculum.”
For some teachers, a possible reason for their programmatic approach to RJ could stem from the
absence of understanding RJ, which can be rectified through more training, as discussed
previously.
Conclusion
The whole-school approach at EIHS focuses on a multi-tiered system of supports and
intervention and had a well developed initial implementation plan. The school utilizes proactive
circles to build a relational community and reactive RJ practices to address harm and behavioral
issues. School policies and procedures reflect an RJ approach to addressing behavior, while
educators have slowly adopted a relational approach to discipline in their classroom practices.
While RJ practices are being used throughout the school, limited professional development has
been provided to support their use or to address their underlying philosophy. This lack of on-
going training has led to issues of consistency and a default to a programmatic approach to
circles for some teachers. Despite these challenges, participants at EIHS have noted better
relationships with students, experienced great and powerful moments using RJ practices, and
desire to find ways to increase student leadership in the RJ practices.
Cross-Case Synthesis
Finding #1: Values and Principles Drive School-based RJ Practices
Values and principles underpin the purpose of RJ and therefore drive the RJ practices.
Values are only effective when “behaviours that exemplify the value are named and practiced”
(Thorsborne & Blood, 2013, p. 157). Schools implementing RJ need to align school vision and
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

113
values to RJ (Bevington, 2015), because they are the heart of the school culture. Thus, schools
aiming to undergo a paradigm and culture shift to become a restorative school should seek to
embody the core values of respect, responsibility, and relationship (Zehr, 2015). These values
support the principles of RJ, which include: (a) addressing harm, not rules broken; (b) promoting
healthy, caring communication and nurturing relationships; and (c) exposing harm done and
addressing the needs of all participates through facilitated conversation (Vaandering, 2014).
Despite the varied implementation approaches at the case study schools, RJ values and principles
were present in the participants’ actions and approach to the practices. Without values, the
practices would lack meaning and lose effectiveness.
Respect. The value of respect is extremely important as Zehr notes, “restorative justice is
respect” (2015, p. 47). Respect is about valuing everyone in the RJ process, treating everyone
with equality, and recognizing our interconnectedness and differences. Shawn said EIHS is using
RJ to “build a culture of restoration, kindness, and inclusivity.” Will expressed how imperative
respect for all is, “You have to do this without prejudice. You can't feel it. It would be hard for a
person to have some prejudices or prerequisites about a person, ethnicity, race, and things of that
nature to be effective at it [RJ].” Fran emphatically shared how educators using the practice must
let go of their own judgments:
You can't have prejudice, of any kind. Whether it is religion. Whether it is skin color.
Whether it is socio-economic. Whether it is the way a cocky kid walks into a room.
That is probably one of my biggest struggles, right, that sense of “come on, don't play
that card.” You have to be able to let those things go, because there cannot be conflict
at all with the person conducting the environment.
Respect is the bedrock value in which all other values are built off. A restorative approach
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

114
requires respecting others’ human dignity, regardless of differences.
Responsibility. While the RJ system is high on support, it is also high on accountability
(Costello et al., 2009). Taking responsibility for one’s decisions and the impact on others is a key
element of RJ processes. Another element is taking responsibility for making it right and taking
ownership over future choices, which hopefully change after processing and learning through an
RJ process.
Both schools use the RJ practices to help students “understand and take
accountability” (Sam) through conversations, to stop the cycle of harm. Will shared that
PSHS is using the RJ discipline approach to “put the responsibility back on kids, that they
learn from it [discipline].” Accountability does not necessarily mean repenting or
apologizing, because “apologizing when it's not real is actually really harmful to the other
person, because they see it as fake. The whole point is that you're being real with each other
and hopefully that realness causes repair and not more harm” (Shawn). If students aren’t
willing to take responsibility through a RJ conversation, then a conference should not be
held. Unfortunately, this situation does arise from time to time at both schools. In that case,
accountability comes in the form of punitive discipline.
Part of the process to “repair harm and restore place in community” (Shawn) requires
participants to take ownership over their actions and figure out how to make things right.
This process allows the participants to move forward positively. From Jessica’s perspective,
RJ is about “teaching students that when they're reaching this point and they might have said
something or done something, how to restore that relationship so that they don't have this
tension with that person or teacher moving forward.” Sam explained her experience with
that process:
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

115
I think every one of the kids can identify what they did wrong and the impact. Where they
get stuck sometimes is about how to make it right. And I think that's every kid. It takes
time. I know some adults that don't know how to make situations right after they've done
something wrong. If I'm having a restorative conference with a teacher, then [the student]
gets an opportunity to be guided on how to do something that they might not be able to do,
which is to accept responsibility. You know, sometimes we assume that kids know what it
looks like to accept responsibility and come up with a solution to a problem. Well,
restorative practices help guide them through that process.
Along with taking responsibility by making it right, participants are encouraged to learn how to
change their behavior. Traditional discipline processes don’t always allow for this type of
conversation, processing, and taking ownership over choices and next steps. Will explained why
a school would change discipline approaches, “you don't want to have to write a kid up, and keep
kicking them out of school for the same thing. And then you keep him out of school for the same
thing and they never really learn from it. They just know they're going to get punished for it.”
Responsibility is a value that differentiates RJ and enables a different approach to discipline.
Relationship. Relationships are pivotal in RJ practices because RJ is based on the
principle that behavior is understood in a social context because individuals in the community
are connected through a web of relationships and when harm occurs, the web is torn (Morrison,
2015; Zehr, 2015). Therefore, schools must have a relational ethos that values community and
relationships between all stakeholders. Participants from both school sites emphasized the
relational culture in their classrooms and discipline process. Dave uses circles to “build
relationships and trust.” Theresa thinks students are open and approach her about issues because
she builds trusting relationships with students. Jessica believes her ability to connect with kids
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

116
helps her classroom management, as well as engagement in a challenging subject:
I'm building relationships. I'm keeping relationships. I'm holding firm lines with my
students, while also earning their respect. I don't have the behavioral issues. And
granted I teach math, so everyone, not everyone - a majority of students struggle with
math. And I have to overcome that anyways, so, looking at, I have hurdles to jump
over no matter what. But, I'm still able to build relationships.
Fran has seen her classroom and relationships with students transform since dedicating time to
building bonds with her students:
It goes back to that old adage that every teacher has heard "until they know that you
care, they don't care what you know." But, that's deeper with restorative. That sense of,
I have kids right now, who I have had major conflict with. Who, I know, look forward
to seeing me. And I look forward to seeing them. And they know I look forward to
seeing them. It's profound. So, I am taking time away from content, occasionally, just
to be with them.
A relationship between a student and teacher is invaluable, but it does not end there. The
value of relationship building also includes relationships in the context of the greater
community, whether it is in classrooms or school-wide.
While most of the RJ focus at PSHS is on reactive, discipline practices, Alice feels
community building is an imperative part of the process:
In a way the restorative practices kind of, the term practice, seems to be a misnomer
because it really is more 80/20, with community building and the sense of belonging
being 80%. And, yeah, there is the restorative practice where you go through the
session and everything, but the community building up front seems to be so important.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

117
Fran believes an RJ approach to community is “everything. It's from the time the kids walk
into your room to the climate and environment that you established. It is a day to day shift in
thinking and communication practice.” Theresa is working hard to build that community in
her day-to-day interactions with students because she wants “the sense of community to be
so great here.”
Participants at EIHS have seen great benefits to adopting circles for community
building and shifting the approach to handling harm in the community. Gabe values circles
because they “break up all the barriers and the borders. It's like, we're in this as a family.
Together.” Since adopting RJ, Jessica has noticed a shift in the community:
This process has opened up the community. The students are more open to expressing
themselves and feeling like they have a voice. And I will say that it was helping the aim,
kind of effective, not always but helped teachers learn how to build better relationships
with students.
The greater sense of community helps everyone see the greater impact of their behavior when
they make poor choices. Viewing community as a larger entity, including all stakeholders, also
provides additional perspective and support in the RJ process:
I've seen our principal do a harm circle with parents involved. With parents and students
coming together so that parents understand how this [behavior] trickles out into the
community. And allowing for space for everybody to really share their perspective but also
empathize with each other. So, I think it allows for us to really think about who's at the
table. Who are the stakeholders who are supporting the growth of our children.
In addition to the traditionally expressed values, the research participants frequently discussed
one underlying value, empathy, which is not typically mentioned in the literature.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

118
Empathy. RJ practices are predicated on providing the opportunity for participants to
share their perspective, while developing an understanding and awareness of others’ thoughts
and perceptions (Bevington, 2015). The value of empathy in RJ practices emerged in the data
from every interview. Building empathy took place through all the practices, from circles to RJ
conversations. Gabe shared his perception of the role of empathy in circles:
In circles, kids are invited to share a part of themselves that they wouldn't normally share.
It gives kids a safe space to be able to share those things. And share that with their peers.
Their peers might, in that moment, might be able to look at them a little bit differently.
Based on his experience, Dave has found that some issues that lead to an RJ practice are due to a
lack of understanding the other person:
I found that facilitating those meetings sometimes it's just a matter of one of the people not
understanding the other person's view. So, I ask, can you understand how they might feel
this way? Okay. Can you understand how she might feel this way? Yes. Once that happens,
they can put themselves in the other's position.
This type of empathy building conversation can often develop or restore the relationship and the
whole situation. As Will explained, “now kids are learning.” Sam’s experience has been similar:
Helping them choose to be different types of students, identify the impact of their behavior
on other people, and want to change their behavior. Knowing the impact, sometimes,
makes you want to redo or rethink how you do things the next time.
Knowing the impact comes from participating in an RJ conversation or conference, where the
experience and needs of each participate are shared and valued. Gabe described how empathy is
built into repairing harm conferences:
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

119
The harm circle it gives an opportunity for the child's that is affected to really express how
they felt in that moment. To share how they felt and the harm, or the damage that it's
caused to them, their lives, or to their community. It allows for multiple perspectives to be
at the table.
Through RJ practices, empathy can be developed between any groups of people, including
students and teachers. Sam believes an RJ conference helps teachers and students “because
sometimes we can turn the discussion so that the adult sees the impact of how they handle the
situation or how they set their class up and how it impacts the kid.”
For empathy to be possible, people need to be heard. A powerful part of the RJ process is
allowing for everyone to have a voice. Alice shared, “the other thing that seems to be important
is the sense that everybody gets the chance to be heard. Everybody has a voice. Everybody can
feel that their opinion, their perception of the situation, everyone gets their chance to voice that.”
One group of stakeholders in the school community that do not often get a voice is students.
However, the RJ practices are inclusive, collaborative, and respects the needs and well-being of
all involved, including students. Theresa shared how amazing it can be when students are
empowered to engage in the discipline process:
Often times kids sit down and they don't feel like they have an advocate or they can
advocate for themselves being young adults. And so, when you give them the power to talk
for themselves and you put the onus on them, and allow them to speak up for themselves,
it's such a beautiful thing to watch.
The RJ practices “value the opinion of someone who is transitioning to become an adult. They
do not treat a maturing adolescent as a child, but gives them an appropriate respect” (Alice).
Angela noted a “safe environment” is paramount to “allow kids space to express how they feel.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

120
Knowing that they are not going to get reprimanded, because these are the questions I'm asking.
What happened? And then the teacher understanding that, maybe their actions caused that. Or
vice versa.” This voice is predicated on teachers and facilitators listening. Theresa explained the
value of adults listening to students:
You have to be a listener. A lot of times as adults we want to talk, talk, talk. We want
to manage and control the situation with the two kids sitting there. And, in restorative
you have to learn to be a listener. You have to hear both sides. You have to wait and
be patient and let the kids figure it out in the end. I've learned some things, listening to
kids talk sometimes, and how they can put the words together and explain, especially
their feelings. They're young adults, like, trying to explain their feelings or why they
did what they did or said what they said, why they feel the way that they feel. I'm
learning from the kids. I'm able to see it from their perspective when they start talking.
Despite a varied approach to implementation, both schools experienced positive outcomes from
RJ practices, because RJ values were engrained in the process.
Finding #2: Integrating RJ Theory into the Discipline System is a Complex Process
If values lay the foundation for RJ in schools (Hopkins, 2004), then schools’ discipline
approach and how harm is handled should stem from those values. Two key principles of RJ are
accountability and taking responsibility (Braithwaite, 2002), which play an important role in the
discipline process. To avoid the punitive approach of a person in authority doing something TO
the wrongdoer as punishment, RJ theory suggests allowing students to take part in the decision-
making process regarding consequences for their behavior to work WITH those involved in
wrongdoing (Hansberry, 2016). Practically, this process can be very difficult given time,
capacity, and a deeply rooted belief that punishment is a proper response to wrongdoing
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

121
(McCluskey et al., 2011). For example, in a restorative conference the wrongdoer needs to take
ownership over his or her choices and work with the victim to determine how the wrong doer can
restore the relationship. Theoretically, consequences are part of this process, but are authentic,
specific to the situation, and meet the needs of the parties involved in the harm. Schools that
have implemented RJ have found that RJ practices can be time consuming (Stinchcomb et al.,
2006) and cannot always happen immediately because they often require preparation (Costello et
al., 2009) before the RJ conversation can take place. Shawn explained the need to find balance
between theory and practice:
If there is not someone who has the time, knowledge and skills to do restorative justice
right, I think it can feel a lot like too loose and no one's being held accountable. And
actually restorative justice is not that. It's no, you're going to be held accountable to that
other person or to that group of people. And then, you've got to restore your place in the
community.
Instead of allowing students off the hook, PSHS and EIHS have sought ways to cultivate
accountability through consequences that are assigned outside of the RJ conference structure.
As PSHS and EIHS integrated RJ into their discipline practices, they found it challenging
to find a balance between embodying an RJ approach to discipline and using mandated
consequences. Previous studies have found schools struggle to forgo policies of control and
exclusion creating tension between RJ adoption and traditional discipline (McCluskey et al.,
2011; Vaandering, 2014). This tension was present at both case study schools as their discipline
structures included RJ practices and prescribed punishment for the various types of infractions
(PSHS) or behavior issues (EIHS) that could occur.
The transition between two approaches is often not easy or smooth (McCluskey et al.,
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

122
2011). Two participants discussed a previous discipline approach at EIHS focused on rewards
and compliance inside discipline structure with clear guidelines, which helped the school run
efficiently. When the school adopted RJ, Jessica saw “the restorative justice piece kind of altered
the smoothness.” An objective discipline structure that assigns blame and imposes punishment
(Zehr, 2015) is typically viewed as smooth, but it is also punitive and passive for the wrongdoer.
While a restorative process, which engages the wrongdoer in the process, can be viewed as “soft
at times” (McCluskey et al., 2011, p. 112). Transitioning between approaches is complex
because there is nuance between holding students accountable for their behavior and using
consequences for punishment.
Both case study schools were working through finding balance between one-size-fits-all
discipline framework and one that is restorative. This is demonstrated by a continued use of
consequences as punishment with RJ practices added and occasional use of responsive discipline
practices that take the situation and participant needs into account. In a restorative approach,
consequences should be aligned with taking responsibility and making things right, not viewed
as punishments, as they are in traditional discipline. However, both schools still primarily use the
word consequence to mean punishment. RJ practices are used in the discipline process at PSHS
and EIHS in two different ways. First, they are used as an add-on to a specific assigned
consequence. In these cases, they are used to restore relationships and place in community during
or after the consequence is served. Second, RJ practices are given priority in the discipline
process and used in place of a consequence or to determine the appropriate consequence for the
situation.
Punitive consequences and RJ. At PSHS one AP is still using punitive consequences for
behavior issues, dictated on the discipline policy of the school:
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

123
Just because you were to do restorative doesn't mean there won't be a consequence. When
the student cussed out the teacher yesterday, he still going to have to do a Saturday
detention, and he still going to have to do the restorative practice with the teacher to be
able to come back and be part of the class. So, I kind of use it like that.
While Joel noted that at EIHS students “will still do whatever consequences there are, in addition
to having that restorative.” Jessica explained that restorative conversations were added to the
discipline structure but they aren’t used as a consequence, but in addition to the assigned
consequence. Rather than simply being viewed as punishment, consequences can incorporate RJ
values of relationships and responsibility, which creates more authentic accountability. When
students serve detentions at EIHS, they complete reflection and can use the time to restore
relationships. Shawn explained, “during Wednesday detentions they do more reflection in there
now. It’s like, ‘What's the behavior that led to this? What do you need to do to make this
relationship right? Or change this habit?’”
While Trisha acknowledged there are still consequences for behavior at PSHS, they can
potentially change based on what arises in the process of establishing what happened:
I can't say restorative practices have taken over for consequences. There are times when we
change a consequence based on what happens in the restorative conversation. But, part of
the idea with restorative practices is not that we, not that the consequence is the discussion,
there still has to be a consequence. It may just be seeing the impact of your actions on the
other person. In many cases we still have to give the consequence.
Administrators are still determining and imposing consequences as punishment.
Responsive consequences and RJ. While RJ conferences can be used in addition to
prescribed punishment, they can be used in a way that is responsive to situations to help
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

124
determine natural consequences or replace punishment. As Trisha pointed out, some conferences
are responsive to the situation and student needs, while focusing on accountability and
restoration. Gabe further developed that idea:
A lot of the times, you know, there's this clear-cut, oh, you did this so this the response and
this is the consequence. And I think, when you implement the restorative practices into that
fold, you want to generally understand where kids are coming from. You're actively trying
to build relationships. And not to excuse, you know, the behavior and say that there won't
be a consequence but you're looking at the students overall and thinking about, what is it
that this child needs.
Mike described a situation in which harm was addressed through RJ conference and no
consequences needed to be assigned:
I had an issue where a girl from here and a girl from another school had a real nasty
dispute over sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll, essentially. It was on Instagram and
everywhere else, so it was very, very public. An AP over there and I decided to have a
restorative conference with these two girls. I probably could have hammered the girls
with consequences due to everything they did on social media. But the conference
went so well, and they both felt so good about it and why spoil it, as they say. What do
we need to do to make it right? That organically happened through the conference. So,
the problem had been solved, there's your discipline.
Once PSHS adopted an RJ approach, Angela noted that she began to prioritize working with
students on discipline issues rather than jumping to the discipline matrix. She explained that
“rather than immediately going to an office referral and discipline, we are working through
situations.” When discipline issues arise, it may require some “cool down” time outside of
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

125
classes, but if a student is willing to engage in an RJ practice and “if it goes well, we’re not
going to document it. We are just going to send the students back to class” (Mike). An RJ
approach to discipline is responsive and is not based on a one-size-fits model. Jessica
recognizes the need for discipline to be responsive, “rather than saying, when this happens,
you should do this. And it's like, well that doesn't work for every single student. Every child
is different.” Sometimes the established discipline plan requires adaptions based on the
situation or student one is working with, which is why a responsive RJ approach is
beneficial. While RJ practices are beneficial, they shouldn’t be used in a one-size-fits all
way either. An RJ approach communicates respect for students and helps them maintain
their dignity. Another reason to be responsive rather than uniformly applying a consequence
is that “consequences can actually make a problem worse. You know, it straight up pisses
people off” (Mike).
When dealing with interpersonal conflict and harm that has arisen from it, Mike suggests
that sometimes there is not a need for a consequence if the harm is resolved and relationship is
restored in a RJ conference. “The point of discipline is to change behavior, so if the consequence
[of an RJ practice] changes the behavior there's no need to go there [additional consequences].”
In this case, Mike described RJ as the consequence for a behavior. Intertwining RJ practices and
consequences can be difficult, because they may begin to be viewed as the same thing, meaning
RJ practices may begin to be seen as a consequence. Trisha explained her beliefs about
consequences and RJ:
We don't actually want it [RJ conference] to be a consequence. We want it to be something
that aids resolution and restoration. So, I think schools need to think about how they want
to use it. If they're trying to use it as a structure, I don't think that's the point. The point is to
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

126
build community, build empathy, to give students tools to handle conflict and emotion and
all that stuff in a different way. To better understand offense and victimization and those
kinds of things, which are really difficult.
There are competing views regarding the purpose of RJ and how it should be used in the
discipline process. Similarly, educators have a variety of views on how discipline should be
handled.
In today’s education system, educators are teaching differently than they were taught
throughout their school experience. The same is true for working with students and handling
discipline. This brings a new challenge for educators, because “discipline is very personal to
people” (Shawn). Even when teachers agree with the value of RJ principles in the discipline
process, it is challenging for educators to release the need to punish and exclude, often defaulting
to traditional discipline and punishment for control and strength (McClusky et al., 2011).
Adopting RJ may require teachers to handle student discipline differently than what they
experienced in their own schooling or their homes. Jessica explained that she was raised with
parents who were “direct” and “laid out clear lines” and when she stepped out of line, she was
given a consequence and there were “no discussions about it.” This is in stark contrast to the RJ
approach of affective language and discussing how to make things right. Jessica has had to
reconcile her past discipline experience with RJ principles, to establish her relational discipline
approach. Shawn explains the complex nature of the tension between control and RJ values:
In many ways we are fighting against a dominant culture of justice as consequences. So I
think that's a big piece, is when we're fighting against something that is engrained in us by
our culture, by a white supremacist society. Even if the people in charge aren't white
supremacist, like a lot of our rules, law, and systems are based off of privilege in white
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

127
males. And so that's really hard to fight against daily.
When schools are implementing RJ, there should be an opportunity for everyone to confront the
control paradigm and wrestle with their past discipline experiences, so they may ultimately move
forward with an approach to discipline that encompasses RJ values and enables them to move
past their own discipline baggage.
Finding #3: Educators Want to Adapt RJ to Their Style and Context
Adapting RJ to the context of the school community is important (Braithwaite et al., 2003).
These adaptations, however, need to hold true to the values and principles of RJ. The ability to
contextualize RJ requires that educators have a solid understanding of the rationale for the RJ
approach, to maintain value-based foundation of the practices. Participants from both schools
shared their desire for the RJ approach to be adapted based on the educator’s style.
Several of the interviewees have already modified their language and approach when using
RJ practices. Mike noted how helpful the restorative question cards are:
The card helps because if you don't know what to say, you know, it's better than just sitting
there and asking, “what's the matter guys?” It's a good starting off place. And it's a good
place to end. The stuff in between you kind of have to adapt based on who's in your office.
Mike has committed the questions to memory, because he does not want to seem scripted or
disingenuous. He uses is “own words and phrases to make it a bit more conversational.” He
believes:
If you cannot pull it off naturally, kids don't buy it. They are so much smarter than this.
They can through see through our BS. If you're up there acting or if you're not being
authentic in what you're talking about, they are like "get out of here." I think you have to
do what is comfortable for you.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

128
His is not alone in adapting the language used during a RJ conversation or conference. Dave has
modified his language when using the restorative questions:
I think the little card is probably really helpful, but sometimes when you're in the heat of
the moment, you don't have the little card to go from. I think all these things in theory, in
the vacuum of training work great. But In the heat of the moment and in the practical use
of it, sometimes that's not always the way it goes.
Allison also thinks it is important to find and use “your own teacher style, your educator style.”
She has her “own way of having a conversation with students and bringing it back to being
productive in class, wanting to learn, wanting to teach, and how to make the classroom
environment better.” Allison recognizes different approaches to RJ:
Some individual teachers can personalize it and make it their own and just do a good job;
things that can't be figured out on a poster or instructions. The teacher next door does a
great job of building relationships with students, so his style of having restorative
conversations and just how he manages his classroom is so different from everybody else,
every other teacher on campus.
Jessica believes educators should be mindful of how they are using language with students who
they are trying to connect with and support:
Even within some of restorative practices, it's like, it can feel kind of condescending or
kind of degrading in some way that like, some of the ways that they are trying to have us
speak to kids, and handle kids, and it's like sometimes the practices don't always match
with who we are trying to use them on.
She thinks there is great value in teaching “teachers how to adjust and learn their students,”
rather than just applying a one-size-fits-all approach to RJ. Gabe also noted how his approach to
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

129
building “relationships with kids is very different than the teacher across the hall.” How one
builds relationships and has authentic conversations is unique to each individual, and RJ allows
space for that. RJ is not a lock-step program, but rather a philosophy and framework for building
a relational community and addressing harm within the context of community (Gregory et al.,
2016). To adapt the language and practices, it is imperative educators have a solid understanding
of the theory and principles of RJ. Dave’s training and experience with RJ leads him to believe
“if you understand the principles of it [RJ], it kind of works itself out if the person that is
facilitating kind of knows how to help people work through things.”
Since the RJ training at EIHS primarily focused on the rationale for RJ and community
building practices, Allison felt she didn’t have a solid grasp of the philosophical concepts. She
shared that her team has “got the structure down,” but wondered if they were “really getting the
underlying reasons of the purpose of RJ. It's not just how to implement it. It's like, what is the
purpose? Are we reaching the purpose? Are we really getting to restoration?” When discussing
developing an understanding of RJ theory, Allison noted, “I think it's really important, especially
for the new teachers, to really understand why we are doing these things, instead of just getting a
poster and getting sentence starters on how to facilitate over sort of conversation.” A lack of
understanding or a misunderstanding of RJ principles can lead to misuse of the practices and
“blow up in people’s faces creating a wildfire” (Fran).
Educators want to use the RJ practices in an authentic way, which for them means adapting
the language and practices to their style and context. An understanding of the underpinnings of
RJ language and practices is necessary for appropriate and accurate adaptation to take place.
Finding #4: Several Barriers Influence RJ Implementation and Sustainability
Barriers to implementation emerged as a theme in the data. The schools shared several of
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

130
the barriers that were experienced through the implementation and sustaining stage, which will
be discussed below. Those barriers include: (a) resources; (b) buy-in; and (c) leader priorities.
Resources. One of the greatest challenges when implementing RJ was the amount of
resources it requires. Resources such as time, money, training, and space and were identified as
constraints in previous studies (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). Prior to the implementation
process, administrators or planning teams must have time to develop a shared vision, develop a
framework for practice, and plan for the implementation process (Morrison et al., 2005). To
begin the RJ implementation process, schools need to be able to provide training to school
personnel, which require either time away from school responsibilities or time outside of regular
school hours. Training can occur prior to the school year, but it requires prioritizing RJ over
other professional development needs. In addition to time, training requires funds for materials
and the cost of the trainer(s). While the school can decide to have school personnel trained as
trainers, it requires upfront resources of time and money.
Instead of training everyone at once, which “would be expensive” (Trisha & Dave),
PSHS provided training to all administrators and made training optional for teachers through the
district. While the training is “provided to teachers at no cost. Principals must approve their staff
to leave to go to training, because schools pay for the substitutes. (Diane). Therefore, there “is a
limit” to how many people Trisha can afford to send to the training each year. Additionally, the
RJ training educators receive to support RJ implementation cannot just happen once. Shawn
explained the need for school personnel to have multiple and ongoing opportunities to learn and
practice skills foundational to RJ because “they are important and a lot of people don't have
those skills. Or they are still developing them. And therefore, time, resources, both money and
time need to be dedicated to helping people learn how to do that.” Participants from both schools
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

131
expressed how resources hindered parts of the implementation process.
Resource requirements do not necessarily diminish after implementation. Community
building practices, such as circles, require time in the school schedule and places for various
smaller class communities to meet, which can be challenging in schools with more teachers than
classrooms. Even with time allotted in the schedule, competing needs and interests can get in the
way of community building time. Gabe discussed the challenge of balancing circles with what
students perceived they needed to spend their time on:
When busy season comes around [circles] are the first thing that go. Is using those
practices, because now I have to get kids focused on stuff. And for kids too, they think, ‘I
don't want to sit here and talk about my problems. I'm stressed.’ But that would be the
perfect thing to use to help kids really debrief where they're at and what supports they
need. Things are great when they first start off and when we get busy is when we want to
kind of abandon ship.
Sustaining community and relationship building through the ebb and flow of busyness in schools
can be challenging. However, circles are not the only RJ practices that require a lot of resources.
Other RJ practices, such as restorative conversations and conferences, require additional
time for educators that cannot simply be planned for. Speaking with a student about his/her
behavior using affective language is more time consuming than simply telling them to “knock it
off.” Conferences require teachers to spend time outside of their regular job demands to
participate in or facilitate a conference. When teachers or administrators at PSHS and EIHS
facilitate a conference, they prepare for the conference by meeting with participants beforehand
to determine their preparedness. This preparation “takes a lot of work” (Dave) and “quite a bit of
time” (Gabe). Once it comes time to have an RJ conference, “you need time, space, and someone
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

132
in a position to be able to meet with students in that way” (Shawn). Gabe described his
experience with the resource cost of RJ:
I think in planning and prepping for [a circle], it took me like several hours. Looking
through the resources, thinking about who I needed to have be in that space, who I needed
to contact to negotiate time for them not being in class, but then using my prep time in my
class space to be able to do that. You don't set a time when you do restorative harm circle.
It's just like, we're here to try and repair harm. And it'll take as long as it needs to take. And
then just doing the follow-up after and checking in with individual student to make sure
they're up holding the things they said they were going to do.
Implementing and sustaining RJ requires resources, which may be constraining for some schools,
especially without proper planning and resource allocation. However, from Gabe’s perspective
the “rewards outweigh the costs.”
Buy-in. For an RJ to be effective in schools, it requires everyone in the school
community to believe in the approach and follow through with the practices (Hansberry, 2016;
Turnbill, 2002). People struggle with change when it impacts their purpose, identity, or mastery
(Moran & Brightman, 2000), which leads to a lack of buy-in for the change. This is common in
education, because each change brings uncertainty about required skills and how it will influence
professional practice and philosophy. Jessica shared how the EIHS community deals with
change:
Our community struggles with change. We have to know where we're headed. We
have seen some not-so-great effects of changing certain things, so we are very hesitant.
We need to know where we are going with this, and where it is going to lead us.
Since true RJ adoption requires new skills and a paradigm shift that disrupts traditional school
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

133
dynamics (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012), a struggle to gain buy-in can be expected. Most
participants from PSHS and EIHS identified buy-in as one of the largest challenges experienced
while implementing RJ.
One constraint that inhibits buy-in is lack of capacity. Teachers have a great deal of
responsibilities that they may find it hard to have time to master new skills and practices. Mike
shared:
Buy-in. Big time. BIG time. And this is not a slamming the teachers type of thing. They get
so much crap thrown at them. They have so many responsibilities, between 504s, IEPs,
getting grades out every two weeks, calling parents three times a week, and all these
things. They have been dumped on so extremely heavily.
When people feel they will not gain mastery at something, they could potentially push back on
the change instead or just not follow through (Clark & Estes, 2008).
Another constraint to buy-in is people’s comfort level, interpersonal skills, and philosophy
of education. Fran explained that to be effective using RJ in the classroom, one needs “to be
comfortable being vulnerable. You have to find a way to connect with all people.” She wondered
how teacher style impacted how teachers were able to use the RJ approach in their classrooms
and in relationships with students. Allison felt teacher style influenced how successful RJ was
“because if a teacher doesn't, or if a staff member doesn't know how to build strong relationships
with students, these restorative practices aren’t going to work.” Mike concurred with comfort
level influencing buy-in and use of RJ practices. “Affective language is really pretty powerful.
But, not everybody feels comfortable with that, at all. That is hard for people.”
People all have different views about what education is about and educators’ role in that
process. If the RJ philosophy doesn’t align with a person’s own viewpoint, they are not likely to
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

134
buy-in. Trisha noted that some people did not get into education “to council, to facilitate
community and trust, and all those kinds of things.” Based on Gabe’s perception, teachers at
EIHS have different perceptions of what an advisor, a key role in EIHS’ RJ structure, does:
I think there are some teachers that are more involved in their advisees behavioral
situations. And some are just purely like, I can support them academically or I am
supporting them to be able to go to the next grade level. So I think it depends, it depends
on the relationship those students have with the advisors.
Some view the advisor role as academic and do not necessarily believe in supporting
social/emotional issues. If RJ principles or practices do not support their view of their job,
educators are less likely to buy-in and therefore struggle to adopt them.
Even when a teacher’s philosophically aligns with RJ, it does not always translate to
buying-in to community building in the classroom. Some teachers don’t believe they can spend
class time investing in relationships and building classroom culture, while others have too many
demands on their instructional time due to performance assessments. Trisha explained:
I think the biggest challenge is to really make this [RJ] a cultural staple teachers would
have to invest in the concept that the building of community and trust in the classroom is a
worthy investment that will pay off in the end. And so giving time to it over content
regularly makes a huge difference. And the content and learning will be enhanced. But that
is really hard to accept.
Fran explained that prior to attending RJ training, because of her “sense of responsibility,
integrity, and character, I felt as if I needed to be teaching at all times period and producing
educational opportunities.” There are “so many demands” (Mike) on teachers that “very few
people are taking the time and the effort to build a culture in the classroom.”
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

135
It may take a positive experience with RJ before a person can buy-in. Mike noted that
people “see the benefits of restorative stuff, it's hard to kind of buy-in. I didn't buy it at first.”
Trisha shared, “anyone we've sent to training is excited about it, but we just can't get enough
people trained and jazzed about it to make sure we have full implementation in every
classroom.” Lack of buy-in inhibits schools from experiencing the culture shift required to be a
restorative school.
Leader priorities. Shifting a school’s discipline paradigm from punitive to restorative
requires focus and long-term commitment (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). When leadership
priorities shift so do resources and focus, which can slow or stifle the RJ implementation
process. Shawn expressed how influential a leader’s focus could be:
What are the priorities of leaders? So, I'm saying, like, myself included, of what am I
actually showing people, how we're going to spend our time learning? Is it going to be 15
million things that are competing for time? So, what's the priority?
After focusing on RJ for a while, EIHS shifted gears and is focusing on equity, which meant that
RJ is “not part of the professional development trajectory this year” (Shawn). While equity and
RJ are in the same bucket, the change in priorities meant there were no formal structures to
support continued learning and discussion of RJ practices.
The same shift in priorities took place at PSHS. Dave shared his perspective on leader
priorities:
As a teacher we kind of have a fad of the year. We get introduced to a lot of things, but
there isn't a lot of follow-through. And I haven't heard a whole lot about restorative stuff in
the last 2 or 3 years.
This perception of a change in priorities and losing focus on RJ was supported from an
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

136
administrator perspective as well:
I can admit that you kind of go on and the next thing comes. Now we're talking about
gradual release of responsibility and all these other instructional and instructionally
focused strategies. Do you know, it was kind of the flavor of the months that year -
restorative practices. (Mike)
RJ faded into the background, because it was no longer a priority at PSHS.
This problem is not unique to shifting priorities of current leaders, but also occurs when
new leaders take the helm of a school or district. As leaders change, so do the initiatives of a
school. This occurred at PSHS when a new superintendent was hired after RJ implementation.
Sam explained:
There was a change of focus for that leader, what are the big rocks, if you will. What are
we going to focus on most? Where are we going to get the biggest bang for the buck? Well,
we are going to focus on curriculum and instruction, because 85% of our kids are doing
phenomenally. When we focus on the negative, the discipline side of it, we are only really
only talking about 15% of our students. So, the idea is to focus on the curriculum and
instruction.
If RJ is viewed only as a discipline approach that involves a small amount of students, then it
will be hard pressed to compete against practices that will influence the entire student
population. Even if a school adopts a whole-school approach to RJ, a shift in resources due to
changing priorities threatens sustainability.
Conclusion
This chapter reviewed the findings of the comparative case study of two US high schools
that implemented RJ. One school adopted specific RJ practices for discipline intervention, while
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

137
the other adopted a whole-school approach. While their implementation process and stories
differed, common themes emerged during the data analysis process. Those themes include: (a)
values and principles drive school-based RJ practices; (b) integrating RJ theory into a discipline
system is a complex process; (c) educators adapt RJ to their context; and (d) there are several
common barriers to implementation and sustainability. The next chapter will discuss these
findings, address implications for practice, and discuss areas for further research.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

138
CHAPTER FOUR: DISCUSSION, IMPLICATIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Schools in the United States are struggling with equity issues, including the discipline gap
(Hoffman, 2014) and the school to prison pipeline (Fabelo et al., 2011), due in part to
exclusionary and punitive discipline policies, which contribute to poor academic performance
(Skiba et al., 2014) and cost taxpayers millions of dollars (Rumberger & Losen, 2016). These
policies were intended to increase school safety and decrease discipline issues, however they are
not working (APA, 2008). An alternative to zero tolerance policies is RJ, which focuses on
working with wrongdoers in the context of relationships, respect, and responsibility, and
engaging them in the discipline process (Morrison, 2015).
This qualitative comparative case study aimed to provide guidance for schools
implementing RJ by examining how two U.S. secondary schools implemented RJ, including
studying the challenges that arise when shifting from punitive discipline to a restorative
approach. At each case study site, multiple interviews were conducted with school personnel
who are using RJ in their professional practice and documents pertaining to implementation,
policies, and practice were reviewed. Data from each case study site were analyzed separately
and then a cross case synthesis was completed to answer the study’s two research questions:
1. How do US secondary schools adopt and implement RJ?
2. What challenges do US secondary schools experience during and after implementing
RJ?
The goal of the study was to describe the RJ implementation process and challenges from two
schools and to provide a framework for school wide implementation of RJ practices, processes,
and values. The implication for practice and suggested framework discussed in this chapter were
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

139
informed from the experience and recommendations from the research participants. This chapter
concludes with recommendations of future research and my final thoughts.
Summary of Findings
Progressive Suburban High School (PSHS), a large public school located in a Midwest
college town, was the first case study site. PSHS used RJ as an add-on to their current discipline
approach, due to a mandate from the district level. The focus was on using RJ to address
interpersonal conflict at the tier two level, with administrators being the main facilitators of RJ
practices. Training was optional for teachers, with a few attending and utilizing RJ practices,
such as circles, in their classrooms. The ethos of the school, “freedom with responsibility,”
highlights foundational RJ values, including the flexibility to adapt discipline to the situation
which can lead to student input and increase the likelihood of a fair process. PSHS faced some
challenges with the implementation process such as superficial implementation, lack of
consistency, and a misunderstanding amongst the faculty of what the RJ approach is, due to
minimal or lack of training and inconsistent application of the practices.
Enlightened Institute High School (EIHS) is a small charter school located in an urban area
in Northern California, which chose to adopt a whole-school RJ approach through a multi-year
plan. EIHS’s RJ implementation included a three-tiered approach, including advisory and a range
of RJ practices. Their discipline policies and procedures were changed to include the RJ
practices, how detentions are served, and the opportunity for think time and check-ins as part of
classroom management plans. The entire faculty received training as part of the implementation
process, however there has been limited follow-up since the initial rollout. Additional challenges
were inconsistency and a programmatic approach to advisory.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

140
A cross case synthesis of the data revealed four key themes regarding the implementation
of RJ at these two secondary schools:
1. Values and principles drive school-based RJ practices.
2. Integrating RJ theory into the discipline system is a complex process.
3. Educators want to adapt RJ to their style and context.
4. Several barriers influence RJ implementation and sustainability.
The first theme that emerged from the data was focused on the values and principles of RJ
and their importance in school-based practices. The three core values of respect, responsibility,
and relationship (Zehr, 2015) were present at both school sites and were an integral part of the RJ
approach at PSHS and EIHS. In addition to the main three values, the data also demonstrated the
significance of empathy in the RJ practices, which was highlighted by increased student voice
and participants sharing their perspective on situations, which confirms Rideout et al.’s (2010)
findings. Values are of paramount importance in the RJ process and make up the foundation of
the RJ practices (Hopkins, 2004).
Another theme that emerged from the data is tension between traditional and restorative
approaches, which creates a great deal of complexity when integrating RJ theory into a school’s
discipline system. While RJ theory is clear on the philosophy of a restorative approach, it is often
challenging for schools to implement it as theorized (McCluskey et al., 2011). Both schools still
rely on a discipline matrix that has assigned consequences for behaviors, which may include an
RJ conference. However, when it comes to consequences there is a fine line between punitive
discipline, defined as doing something to students in a passive exchange, and accountability in
the RJ process. Both case study schools were working to find balance between the one-size-fits-
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

141
all punitive approach and one that is responsive, restorative, fair, and encourages student
participation as part of the process.
The third theme to emerge from the data centered on educators’ desire to adapt the RJ
language and practices to their style and context. The overarching message from research
participants is that they want their language to be authentic and not scripted because high school
students will see right through it and then not buy-in. Each teacher and administrator has his/her
own way of interacting and communicating with students and therefore wants the RJ practices,
such as affective language, to be a natural extension of that. It is important for students to engage
and trust in the process and the facilitators (Hansberry, 2016), but it is also important for the RJ
practices to hold true to the purpose and intent (Vaandering, 2014). There is latitude to adapt and
contextualize RJ (Braithwaite et al., 2003), however it requires a deep understanding of the
theory in order to hold true to the values and principles of the process. Schools must focus on
developing a common understanding of RJ and building capacity for RJ practices, so that any
adaptations are appropriate and accurate.
The last finding that emerged from the data is the existence of several barriers that
influence RJ implementation and sustainability. The barriers are: (a) resources; (b) buy-in; and
(c) leader priorities. A great deal of resources, such as time, money, and space, are required to
adopt and maintain RJ in the school setting, which may be constraining in some schools
(McCluskey et al., 2011). However, knowing about the required resources in advance allows
schools to develop a resource management plan for their specific site needs. Everyone in the
school community needs to believe in RJ and follow through on the practices for effective
implementation of RJ, yet buy-in was a shared struggle at PSHS and EIHS. Some of the
constraints for buy-in were capacity, comfort level, philosophy, experience, and time. Leadership
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

142
also posed as a barrier due to shifting priorities from year to year which influences the focus of
professional development and resources.
The two implementation processes and the synthesized themes combine to share lessons
learned and provide implications for best practice filling a gap in the literature (Hurley,
Guckenburg, Persson, Fronius, & Petrosino, 2015).
Implications for Practice
This study explored the practical nature of adopting and implementing RJ in secondary
schools. Findings from the study revealed shifting the discipline approach in a school is a
challenging and complex process that requires a well-thought out plan to ensure consistency and
sustainability. Despite that, RJ is a promising practice rooted in values that is worth the time,
resources, and obstacles. The study’s findings suggest some implications for practice which link
back to RJ and implementation literature. The following implications were also informed by the
study participants experience and recommendations.
Whole-school Approach
Prior to planning for RJ implementation, school leadership needs to clearly establish their
purpose for implementing RJ and ascertain which approach would best meet the needs of their
school and community. There are two different perspectives on RJ implementation (Hurley et al.,
2015). One views RJ as a philosophy that influences all aspects of the school and is therefore a
way of being. This approach requires whole-school implementation. The other perspective is
focused on addressing student behavior through RJ skills and practices as an add-on to their
current system.
While there is value in adopting RJ principles and some practices in a supplemental
approach, it will have limited influence on the school culture. Many practitioners believe RJ is
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

143
not a program to be “plugged in” to the school, but rather a philosophy (Song & Swearer, 2016)
that influences the culture of a school through pedagogy, practice, and discipline (Morrison &
Vaandering, 2012). A whole-school approach requires a thorough implementation plan in order
to initiate and sustain second order change (Marzano et al., 2005). If a school is truly seeking to
break the cycle of disproportionate discipline and the school-to-prison pipeline through an equity
approach to discipline, while also increasing school connectedness through building a relational,
respectful, and responsible school community, then the whole-school approach is recommended.
Implementation Models
As demonstrated in the study findings, operationalizing RJ theory in practice can be
challenging, even more so without guidance, which is why theorists and practitioners provide
models for implementation. Schools should refer to established implementation models to
carefully and thoroughly plan out the implementation process in order to implement RJ with
fidelity, including addressing previous challenges and avoiding common pitfalls. There are pre-
existing models and research regarding implementation that schools can rely upon during the
process, rather than recreate the wheel. Four of these models were covered in chapter one for
your reference.
Proposed Framework
While the aforementioned models incorporate important actions required for the
implementation of RJ into practice at the school level, they are broad and fall short of addressing
the specific findings that emerged from this study. Therefore, I propose a framework that is
adapted from models developed by Thorsborne and Blood (2013) and SFUSD (Berkowitz,
2013). The Thorsborne and Blood model was based on the work of Kotter (2012), thus change
management and leadership theory are interwoven throughout the model’s stages and steps. The
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

144
SFUSD model is rooted in practice and was developed from practitioners who have implemented
RJ in schools. The proposed framework (figure 4.1) builds on the theory and practice of the other
models, while also attending to common implementation challenges by integrating performance
research from Clark and Estes (2008).

Figure 4.1. Proposed RJ implementation framework. Adapted from Implementing Restorative
Practices in Schools: A Practical Guide to Transforming School Communities by M. Thorsborne
and P. Blood, 2013, p. 137 and “Restorative Practices Whole-School Implementation Guide,” by
K. Berkowitz, 2013, p. 3-4.
Research on workplace performance has led to the identification of three major causes of
performance gaps. These causes are motivation, organizational barriers, and knowledge (Clark &
Estes, 2008). In order to implement RJ with integrity and fidelity, the common performance gap
causes should be proactively addressed in RJ implementation throughout the process; therefore,
they are the foundation of the proposed framework. This section will discuss the framework
stages and steps, then expand on how schools can improve implementation through a focus on
motivation, organizational barriers, and knowledge throughout the process.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

145
Prior to beginning, it is important for schools to recognize that RJ implementation takes
time and it may be years before the values and practices are embedded in the school culture
(Karp & Breslin, 2001; Morrison et al., 2005) given that this study found sustainability to be an
issue. This framework requires at least two years for the school to progress through the four
stages for the first time, recognizing that stages two, three, and four are recursive and should be
revisited as needed based on progress monitoring and evaluation measures.
The model has stage four on the left, so readers’ eyes are drawn to it first, because
outcomes should be considered first in the planning process. It is important for schools to start
with the end in mind, by identifying desired outcomes and indicators of success, then working
backwards and planning evaluation, progress monitoring, and training. (Fitzpatrick &
Fitzpatrick, 2016). Beginning with the end in mind doesn’t just help the school community know
what the end goal or desired state, but also provides an idea of what is possible. Heath and Heath
(2010) describe a vivid picture from the near future as “a destination postcard” which is meant to
show the mind where the change is going and appeal to the heart as to why the journey is
worthwhile. Establishing the end goal early in the process is imperative because it should drive
planning and implementation, including communication to the community.
Stage 1: Identifying needs and outcomes. The first stage includes making a case for
change and putting an implementation team together. Teacher buy-in, an imperative aspect of
implementing change and a noted issue in both case study schools, can be improved through this
type of process (Turnbill, 2002). Several change experts such as Heath and Heath (2010), Kotter
(2008), and Rogers (2003) suggest that change must begin with creating the urgency for change.
Before this appeal happens, the leaders seeking change need to gather qualitative and
quantitative data, which help illuminate the need for change and why the school is adopting RJ.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

146
This data should be used in such a way to win the hearts and minds of the school community
(Heath & Heath, 2010), which the administrators at EIHS did. This approach creates an
underlying sense of urgency to move (Kotter, 2008) and change the student educational
experience at the school and right the inequities the current system creates. Evidence from other
schools or bright spots can be used to demonstrate what is possible and highlight the need for
change within the school (Heath & Heath, 2010; Kotter & Cohen, 2002). Desired outcomes
should be established using the needs from the school and also the desired future state that
leadership would like to see achieved in the school.
Once the motivation for change is established, leadership can then provide an introduction
to RJ principles and research. This process should open dialogue in the school community and
encourage questions and concerns. The RJ process focuses on engagement, which needs to be
modeled as the school starts the process of considering how to implement RJ (Thorsborne &
Blood, 2013). Open communication is designed to keep the community informed, but aims to
minimize behaviors such as immobilization and deviance, which hinder or stop change (Kotter &
Cohen, 2002). This is another step in establishing and sustaining buy-in from the teachers, which
is vital for change, especially RJ, which is time consuming and intensive for teachers.
The next step in stage one is establishing an implementation team. Both case study schools
had only the administrative team leading the change, which provided some limits. Literature
suggests a team would be better suited for organizational change (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). This
team needs to be made up of the right people who can work as a team to establish and execute a
thorough implementation plan (Kotter & Cohen, 2002). The team must have enough power to
lead the change, so the formation of this team should be strategic and include school leadership,
early adopters, and those with influence and connections. Trust must be established at the onset
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

147
with this team, so they are able to openly communicate and make connections with their heads
and hearts. The team should engage in team building exercises to develop relationships and a
foundational level of trust, so team members can to point out when the group is deviating from
the agenda or vision and use restorative practices to deal with conflict (Thorsborne & Blood,
2013). At this time, the school should also collect baseline school climate and disciplinary data
(Berkowitz, 2013), which can be used for progress monitoring and evaluation.
Stage 2: Planning. The planning phase begins with creating a vision for the future. The
vision provides a clear sense of direction for the team, but also for the school as it implements
RJ. The vision should be simple, vivid, repeatable, and invitational (Kotter, 2012). It is suggested
that the school work with an outside facilitator or consultant during this process, so everyone can
be focused and immersed in the vision development (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). If the school
values don’t align to the new vision or if they aren’t present, then the team determines the values
that the change should be built upon. The values underpin the vision, so they should support the
RJ principles and need to be evident in the culture of the school (Vaandering, 2014). As found in
the literature and demonstrated in this study’s findings, the values need to be visible throughout
the school, not just in the student handbook. Team members should be familiar with RJ theory
and practice and if this is not the case, the team may need to receive training, as there should be a
foundational understanding of RJ throughout the team to complete the vision and planning work.
After the vision is established, then a plan for achieving the vision is developed. The
planning process should be aimed at meeting the school community’s needs by addressing
required knowledge and motivation, while determining what organizational barriers exist and
how to change the existing systems to support RJ. The three common performance gap causes
are addressed in a subsequent section and will therefore not be addressed in this section.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

148
However, it is important to note that this step requires a substantial amount of time and input
from stakeholders, so the whole-school implementation is productive and positive. Since there
are many different definitions and approaches to RJ (Hurley et al., 2015), time should be allotted
in this process for the team to develop a conceptualization of RJ that defines the philosophy and
principles (Vaandering, 2014), as the team needs to be clear on what RJ is in the context of the
school. The plan should include phasing in practices and policies over time, so efforts are
focused on generating results and building on them (Kotter & Cohen, 2012). This type of
approach allows teachers to get good at a practice before moving on, which increases
competency and decreases how looming and large the change seems (Heath & Heath, 2010).
After this, the team will need to operationalize RJ and manage the complex process of
addressing the structural and system changes required to shift discipline approaches (Vaandering,
2014). The process of transitioning a system of control and compliance to one that values
respect, responsibility, and relationships is complex (McCluskey et al., 2011; Vaandering, 2014)
and was a challenge for both case study schools. This process should include tackling how the
school policies and procedures promote a culture of control, rather than engagement and support.
It will be more seamless and impactful if the necessary changes are considered during in the
planning process and changes are implemented parallel to the rollout of RJ practices, rather than
afterwards. As this is taking place, the team should be mindful of the tension between
accountability in the RJ process and punishment in the traditional system, while wrestling with
how consequences and RJ practices will be integrated into the discipline structure.
A great deal of resources, such as time, money, and space, are required to adopt and
maintain RJ in the school setting, which may be constraining in some schools. However,
knowing about the required resources in advance allows schools to develop a resource
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

149
management plan for their specific site needs. Thorsborne and Blood (2013) and Berkowitz
(2013) provide a variety of valuable resources and templates for planning.
Stage 3: Whole-school Implementation. This stage emphasizes communicating the vision
to capture hearts and minds, as well as removing obstacles and empowering action. In short, it is
the whole-school rollout of RJ by executing the plan developed by the implementation team. To
start the process, the implementation team needs to be able to articulate the vision in a clear and
compelling way through words and actions regularly (Kotter & Cohen, 2002), in order to capture
the hearts and minds of the school community. Unveiling the vision should appeal to the heart
and evoke feeling and help stakeholders see the change in a small incremental way, so as not to
spook them (Heath & Heath, 2010). As the vision is being communicated, the team must be open
to helping reluctant community members by addressing anxiety, accepting anger, and evoking
faith in the vision (Kotter & Cohen, 2002) through individual conversation and question-and-
answer sessions. The vision and desired outcomes should be clearly communicated, so the school
community understands the desired outcomes and the steps necessary to get there. Without this
step, RJ implementation may be inconsistent as seen in both case study schools. These steps will
increase and sustain buy-in from stakeholders, including students and families.
Removing obstacles and empowering action will help get the ball rolling. In addition to
sharing the vision, it means providing training and support to stakeholders, while changing
school systems to reflect and support RJ implementation. Educators should be receiving the most
training and support in the beginning, but as the implementation process moves along, the school
should be providing training to parents and community members (Hansberry, 2016). Training
can be provided by an outside agency, such as IIRP, or through educators who have received
extensive training on RJ and training facilitation skills. It may also be helpful for schools to have
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

150
an expert, such as a consultant or district leader, where they can seek support and information
from throughout the implementation process. This stage is resource intensive, so the
implementation team should provide necessary resources or adapt the implementation to
accommodate limited resources, which may prolong the rollout process. The professional
development that the educators receive during this stage should provide them with a foundational
understanding of RJ, so they can adapt RJ to their style and context as they increase their
proficiency with the necessary skills and practices. Multiple levels of evaluation and progress
monitoring should occur at during this stage, so differentiated support can be provided as needed
(Mayworm, Sharkey, Hunnicutt, & Schiedel, 2016).
Major obstacles that need may inhibit RJ values and practices to take root are
misalignment of discipline policies and procedures, which was a challenge for some of the
participants at the case study schools. The implementation team should ensure the systems and
structures are addressed prior to the rollout to faculty. Then, during the implementation phase the
new policies and procedures can be integrated into the training. One of the ways to mitigate the
conflict between holding onto a punitive mindset, while integrating RJ into discipline is to ensure
all teachers and staff members are trained on RJ theory and principles. Educators need to be
provided the time to confront, reflect on, and resolve their own bias and discipline philosophy
with an equity lens.
As noted earlier, this implementation process is iterative. The team should gather feedback
and data to revise the implementation plan as needed, including communication, obstacles, and
training.
Stage 4: Sustainability. The final framework stage is focused on sustaining the change
effort by generating short-term wins, keeping the pressure on, and maintaining the gains.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

151
Celebrating early successes provides encouragement and keeps critics at bay. School leaders
should create structures where celebrations can take place in a timely and meaningful way. One
support structure that proved to be beneficial at EIHS was the opportunity for the teachers to
share their RJ success and challenges with one another. They were able to problem solve and
support one another as they all strived to improve their RJ skills and relationships with students.
It is recommended that schools establish interdisciplinary learning teams whose goals are to help
support one another, encourage active engagement in RJ implementation, and developing
proficiency in the practices (IIRP, 2011). These teams establish an expectation of active
responsibility for learning and using the RJ practices and embodying the vision and values,
which helps the behavior spread to reluctant members in the herd (Heath & Heath, 2010). These
teams enable celebrations of short-term wins, but also help keep the pressure on.
During this stage, to the stakeholders must maintain their sense of urgency (Kotter &
Cohen, 2002). It can be all too easy to declare victory when discipline data is changing and
students are engaging in a responsible and respectful way that values relationships. The change
needs to deepen and become woven in the fabric of the school (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). If
the school hasn’t done this in a previous stage, now would be a good time for the school to
establish a position for an RJ coordinator, who can provide training, support, and facilitate RJ
practices in the school. During this stage, the school has the opportunity to develop student
leadership by training and supporting students to take ownership over their community by
facilitating RJ practices with their peers. There is also opportunity to extend the RJ work into the
community, by involving parents, community organizations, and volunteers in the school in a
meaningful way. It may also involve using RJ practices with external conflicts that are
influencing the school community. Maintaining the gains requires keeping the vision in the
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

152
forefront of decisions and actions. This includes providing support and accountability for those
who are not aligning their practice with the vision or embodying the restorative approach. For
those who want to know more or refine their practice, additional courses including refreshers,
should be provided. Sustaining the change also means hiring people whose values align with RJ
and the school vision. When onboarding educators, site-specific training should be provided so
people can understand the ethos of the school and the contextualized restorative approach the
school uses. They need to be introduced to the culture and empowered to engage quickly. This
stage should also include measuring outcomes through school climate and discipline data.
Reflections on these outcomes and indicators of progress should be shared with the school
community.
It can take up to five years for a school culture to shift to one that is restorative (Morrison
et al., 2005), therefore schools need to keep focused on the change effort until the culture is
transformed and RJ is engrained in the paradigm of the school. Somewhere in this stage,
organizations often lose focus or put their efforts toward a different initiative (Kotter, 2012).
Maintaining effort, focus, and resources despite barriers and complacency is critical at this
juncture. It is important not to lose sight of the vision and desired outcomes until they become
engrained as a consistent reality.
Motivation. Getting started, sticking with something, and applying effort are all types of
motivation (Clark & Estes, 2008). Buy-in is another way of describing motivation and is a
common challenge for schools implementing RJ. Without teachers believing in a new system,
approach, or intervention, it will fail to launch or have a short tenure in the school. Therefore,
school implementation plans must meet the motivational needs of all stakeholders throughout all
phases of the process.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

153
The first step for getting educators started is developing a sense of urgency, as discussed
previously. This need for change must speak to the why behind the change, so people understand
why change needs to be made and why RJ will address those needs. This sense of urgency must
speak to the head and heart; otherwise change will be stagnant (Heath & Heath, 2010).
Stakeholders need to choose to work towards the goal of implementing RJ with fidelity and
integrity. It is pivotal for people to understand the importance of RJ and how using an approach
that works with students and emphasizes relationships can transform a school culture. A
transformation of this kind requires a paradigm shift (Morrison et al., 2006), but that won’t occur
without people being motivated to invest in the process.
Once educators buy-in and choose to invest in RJ implementation, they must be provided
the necessary knowledge and skills to be effective. Motivation is influenced by whether people
believe they are provided with goals and necessary resources that will result in a reasonable
amount of effectiveness (Clark & Estes, 2008). For this reason, up skilling and providing plenty
of opportunities to learn are important for educators to feel confident in their abilities and
continue to invest in the RJ implementation process. Even if buy-in doesn’t occur during the
sense of urgency stage, it may develop when teachers are participating in training and rolling out
the practices in their classroom. Several research participants mentioned they didn’t buy-in to RJ
at first, but with training and experience they eventually did. Once they saw RJ in action, they no
longer doubted the approach’s power and influence.
Choosing to persist through distractions and continuing to invest mental effort are other
facets of motivation that link directly back to the sustainability of the change. One way to
increase motivation, beyond increasing confidence, is creating a positive emotional environment
(Clark & Estes, 2008). This can be accomplished by aligning the school environment with RJ
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

154
values, which should occur as part of the implementation process. For example, school
personnel, especially leaders, should be using an RJ approach to handle conflict and other issues
between adults in the school community. School leaders must look for ways to celebrate small
and large successes, such as publicly acknowledging bright spots within the school, to sustain
persistence and effort towards RJ. Implementing RJ takes time, patience, and a great deal of
mental effort because it is challenging and requires educators to be responsive in novel and
dynamic situations. When people are overwhelmed, it is easy to decrease mental effort in areas
that require a great deal of it. Leaders must provide continual support and motivation by
reminding stakeholders of “the why,” progress monitoring and celebrating gains along the way,
and changing organizational barriers to limit the distractions that can divert and limit mental
effort and persistence.
Organizational barriers. Getting obstacles out of way for teachers, staff members, and
others in the school community to focus on implementing RJ practice is of utmost importance.
The planning phase should focus on reviewing system structures and processes of the school to
determine what needs to change to ensure restorative practice and a relational ethos is integrated
(Hopkins, 2004). However, this stage is often overlooked or little attention given to structural
elements as leaders insert RJ into their existing structures. Research has found that a “failure to
address reduced RJ to a decontextualized skill-building exercise committed to further controlling
behavior or producing empathic social relations” (Vaandering, 2014, 77). While integrating RJ
into school structures and discipline approach is complex, it is imperative that values drive the
process, so the school structures can embrace and support a relational ethos, rather a traditional
one of control.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

155
Organizational barriers that need to be addressed are resources, instructional time, and
discipline policies and procedures. Implementation teams should know upfront the considerable
resources that are required for planning, implementation, and sustainability of RJ and plan for
them. This study found it will require a great deal of time and money to initially train all
stakeholders in RJ practices, with residual costs of on-going professional development and
support. During the planning phase, the implementation team should assess whether they will
contract with an outside agency or consultant for the planning and implementation phase or up
skill someone or people within the school to lead the change process. Some schools have
resources readily available, while other resource limited schools may to phase implementation or
creatively address how they manage their resources.
In addition to resources, as noted in the study findings, schools need to address overload of
responsibilities teachers have in the classroom to provide space and opportunity for teachers to
make connections and build relationships. Strong student teacher relationships lead to increased
connections and student achievement (Coggshall et al., 2013). As one participant said, "until they
know that you care, they don't care what you know” (Fran). This is a drastic change from filling
every minute with instruction or teaching to the test, to gain or maintain high achievement
scores. This may mean a school leader clearly communicates permission for community and
relationship building in the classroom. An additional option is investigating the possibility of
launching an advisory program to meet the tier one needs of a whole-school RJ model, as EIHS
did. This change may require a structural change, more training, and additional communication
to the school community, but if planned and executed well can be part of the larger RJ rollout.
Implementation teams should consider what other things create barriers to implementation in the
classroom and plan to address them as part of whole-school implementation in stage three.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

156
Lastly, as noted previously, the school needs to consider what changes need to be made to
the discipline policies and procedures and determine how to transition them, to support the
implementation of RJ. There will be superficial implementation of RJ if the actual school
processes do not support RJ principles. This is the most complicated step; however only limited
guidance can be provided due to the complexity of each school’s context and needs. Schools
should tap into the expertise of their implementation teams and outside agencies, to help
facilitate this process to ensure a mindful and thorough value-driven transition from traditional to
a restorative approach. School culture plays a key role in supporting change or creating barriers,
depending on the alignment of leadership decisions, organizational behavior, and policies and
procedures (Clark & Estes, 2008). As noted previously, the school should work towards
congruency and alignment of all the organizational processes to RJ principles to maintain
motivation and remove unnecessary hindrances to implementing RJ.
Knowledge. When teachers are expected to adopt a new strategy or approach, they require
opportunities to acquire the necessary knowledge and skills. Knowledge, like the other two
causations of performance gaps, should be deliberately addressed and woven throughout the
implementation process. Teachers require information, training, and education to appreciate the
rationale for change, to learn the how-to knowledge and skills, and develop conceptual,
theoretical, and strategic knowledge and skills to handle dynamic situations with a restorative
approach (Clark & Estes, 2008). All three types of knowledge building may be intertwined, at
times, and should be addressed through well-designed professional development.
All training and education for RJ implementation and sustainability should utilize RJ
practices, such as circles, to model and build community while providing the necessary
information, training, and education for the stakeholders. Hopkins (2004) provides several
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

157
professional development activities that model and teach RJ practices, while making a case for
RJ by allowing educators to reflect on their own experiences, needs, and discipline philosophy.
Once teachers have had the chance to understand the rationale and wrestle with the philosophical
shift, professional development should transition to training, involving demonstration of skills,
guided practice applying the knowledge and skills, and targeted feedback during the practice
(Clark & Estes, 2008). There should be ample opportunities for practice.
Schools may choose to contract with an outside agency to provide professional
development and support or they may design and carry out their own. Schools developing their
own professional development or evaluating external training should be mindful of current
research and include the following critical characteristics in order to influence and improve
teacher practice: (a) content focus that trains teachers on content and how students learn it; (b)
active learning that provide opportunities to discuss and practice skills; (c) coherence that links
new information to prior knowledge and beliefs; (d) duration of training that lasts at least 20
hours over the course of a semester, which allows for ongoing development; and (e) collective
participation that encourages engagement and collaboration in training and through the
implementation process (Desimone, 2009). Professional development should also incorporate
Kirkpatrick and Kirkpatrick’s (2016) levels of training and evaluation. Participants need to find
the training engaging and walk out of the sessions confident in the knowledge and skills they
acquired, while committing to apply what they learned in their professional practice. School
leaders should then utilize processes and systems to monitor, reinforce, encourage, and reward
through the application phase, making adjustments as needed. Monitoring can include follow-up
evaluation and progress monitoring and should assess the extent to which teachers are correctly
using RJ practices and also provide differentiated training and practical support in the work
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

158
environment. Motivation and belief that they can effectively use RJ strategies will influence
educators’ behavior in their own professional practice (Kirkpatrick & Kirkpatrick 2016).
Therefore, it is of upmost importance that the professional development system and sessions are
well designed and executed.
Eventually some educators may want to adapt RJ practice to their own context and style, as
some study participants desired to. To do this, practitioners require education to help them
handle novel challenges or problems (Clark & Estes, 2008), which are common when working
with people because people are messy. Findings from the study indicated that both schools did
not do enough initially to focus on capacity building around common understanding of RJ theory
and principles. When training only focuses on the process, teachers do not understand enough of
the underpinnings to contextualize the practices. Educational opportunities should be designed in
such a way that practitioners can develop conceptual and theoretical understanding of RJ
principles to maintain the integrity and values of the RJ approach despite changing the questions
or the language. This contextualization will only occur once an educator has demonstrated a
proficiency of RJ knowledge and skills.
Providing training does not guarantee transfer of the skills and knowledge to the
classroom. Even when training is done well, ongoing follow-up support is required to transform
knowledge into applied skills used in professional practice (Mayworm et al., 2016). As noted
previously, support should be differentiated and provided based on multiple levels of evaluation
and progress monitoring. Integrating empirical literature, Mayworm et al. (2016) proposed a
multi-tiered model of RJ professional development to build teacher competency, which utilizes
consultation. While the model’s effectiveness has yet to be evaluated, it can provide schools
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

159
adopting RJ with guidelines on how to structure a professional development program if they
employ an internal or external expert to consult through the implementation process.
Developing knowledge and skills through professional development is one of the key
building blocks of RJ implementation. When adopting a whole-school approach to RJ, training
and education should be provided to everyone who works in the school, including support staff.
Once RJ has been implemented initially, schools may consider providing opportunities to
develop knowledge and skills to others in the school community, such as families and
community partners.
Motivation, organizational barriers, and knowledge play a key role in stakeholder
performance, which directly influences the implementation process. They are closely intertwined
and should be present throughout the process. Failure to address them will inevitably lead to
performance gaps and poor RJ implementation. Therefore, they are foundational to the change
effort and should be planned for and addressed throughout the implementation stages.
Limitations
The results of the study capture a moment in time at the case study schools and are based
on the participants’ perceptions. This study sought to understand how each school implemented
RJ, but since I did not experience the implementation process in person, data was gathered
through interviews and document analysis. However, not everyone in the school was
interviewed, so the presented findings were based on a small sample of participants at each case
study school. Therefore, the findings may not be reflective of all stakeholders’ experiences. In
addition, the accuracy of the participants’ recollections and trustworthiness of their statements
could not be controlled for. Care was taken to interpret data with truthfulness and credibility, but
may have been influenced by my own perception or bias. Another limitation of this study is the
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

160
degree to which the results are generalizable. This is a comparative case study with two cases,
one in the Midwest and the other in Northern California. Even though care was taken to select
two schools with varying demographics, the results are not generalizable to other secondary
schools.
Recommendations for Future Research
Several specific domains that are ripe for increased RJ research include efficacy of the
whole-school vs. add-on models, implementation effectiveness, factors impacting sustainability,
and success of RJ as a discipline model. Due to the varying approaches to implementing RJ, as
seen in the two case studies, future research should study the critical aspects of RJ that must be
implemented in order to be effective. While many experts and practitioners subscribe to the
whole-school approach, the outcomes from the whole-school and add-on approach should be
studied and compared to identify commonalities and differences.
The effectiveness of implementation approaches needs to be studied so evidence-based
approaches can be taken to implement RJ in schools. For example, while the proposed
framework in this study is research-informed, empirical research is required to validate its
elements. Focusing on studying the effectiveness of some of the components of implementation
would be helpful in establishing good practice. For example, while some suggested RJ
professional development designs are emerging, evaluating their efficacy would be beneficial. In
addition, research focused on sustainability of RJ in schools would be beneficial for schools
looking for exemplars, so they don’t succumb to the change effort stall.
Institutions that provide RJ training, such as the IIRP, have funded much of the current
research on RJ effectiveness. Additionally, most RJ research lacks rigorous impact evaluation
studies to assess RJ outcomes (Schiff, 2018). There is one five-year randomized trial studying RJ
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

161
impact on developmental outcomes and problem behaviors in process (Acosta, Chinman, Ebener,
Phillips, Xenakis, & Malone, 2016), however there needs to be an increase in empirical research
on the impact of RJ in educational settings, including causality. Results would provide concrete
evidence for RJ effectiveness or ineffectiveness and help school administrators determine if they
should integrate it into their discipline approach. Studying student and teacher outcomes beyond
discipline data would provide a more robust understanding of RJ’s influence on stakeholders and
the school community. For example, more research is needed on how to measure RJ in schools
because the outcomes are often challenging to measure because they include elements such as
environment, culture, and relationships. In that vein, studies on how schools are collecting and
evaluating would add to the body of knowledge on how to do program evaluation for RJ. The
proposed future research would not only add to the growing body of knowledge on RJ and
implementation process, but it may also act as a beacon of hope to educators and school leaders
that identifies RJ as a powerful and effective alternative to zero tolerance or punitive discipline
approaches.
Conclusion
Each school has a unique implementation story, regardless of the change or innovation
they are implementing. Change takes time and is messy, as many surprises and challenges
surface along the way. RJ has shown some promise, but schools can struggle to implement with
fidelity and sustainability due to time, necessary resources, complexity, and other common
barriers to change. Following the principles of the implementation framework, which is
grounded in research, will help school leaders navigate the changing landscape as they seek to
establish a relational ethos by shifting culture and discipline paradigms in their communities.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

162
References
Acosta, J. D., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Phillips, A., Xenakis, L., & Malone, P. S. (2016). A
cluster-randomized trial of restorative practices: An illustration to spur high-quality
research and evaluation. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4),
413-430.
Anyon, Y., Gregory, A., Stone, S., Farrar, J., Jenson, J. M., McQueen, J., Downing, B., Greer,
E., & Simmons, J. (2016). Restorative interventions and school discipline sanctions in a
large urban school district. American Educational Research Journal, 53(6), 1663-1697.
Advancement Project (2010). Test, punish, and push out: How “zero tolerance and high stakes
testing funnel youth into the school to prison pipeline. Washington, DC: Advancement
Project. Retrieved from
http://b.3cdn.net/advancement/d05cb2181a4545db07_r2im6caqe.pdf
Advancement Project, & Civil Rights Project (2000). Opportunities suspended: The devastating
consequences of zero tolerance and school discipline. Report from A National Summit on
Zero Tolerance, Washington, DC, June 15-16, 2000. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights
Project. Retrieved from https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-
education/school-discipline/opportunities-suspended-the-devastating-consequences-of-
zero-tolerance-and-school-discipline-policies/crp-opportunities-suspended-zero-tolerance-
2000.pdf
Ahmed, E., & Braithewaite, V. (2011). Learning to manage shame in school bullying: Lessons
for restorative justice interventions. Critical Criminology, 20(1), 79-97.
Allman, K. L., & Slate, J. R. (2011). School discipline in public education: A brief review of
current practices. Journal of Correctional Education, 47, 175-180.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

163
American Psychological Association. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the
schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American Psychologist, 63(9), 852-
862.
Armstrong, T. (2016). The power of the adolescent brain: Strategies for teaching middle and
high school students. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2015) Sent home and put off track: The antecedents,
disproportionalities, and consequences of being suspended in the 9
th
grade. In D. J. Losen
(Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive exclusion. New
York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Bazemore, G. (1999). After shaming, whither reintegration: Restorative justice and relational
rehabilitation. In G. Bazemore & L. Walgrave (Eds.), Restorative juvenile justice (pp. 155-
194). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.
Berkowitz, K. (2013). Restorative practices whole-school implementation guide. San Francisco,
CA: San Francisco Unified School District. Accessed at:
http://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/Resources/documents/SFUSD%20Whole
%20School%20Implementation%20Guide%20final.pdf
Bevington, T. J. (2015). Appreciative evaluation of restorative approaches in schools. Pastoral
Care in Education, 33(2), 105-115.
Blood P., & Thorsborne, M. (2006). Overcoming resistence to whole-school uptake of
restorative practices. Paper presented at the International Institute of Restorative Practices
“The Next Step: Developing Restorative Communities, Part 2” Conference, Bethlehem,
Pennsylvania, October 18-20, 2006. Retrived from:
http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/beth06_blood.pdf
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

164
Boccanfuso, C., & Kuhfeld, M. (2011). Multiple responses, promising Results: Evidence-based,
nonpunitive alternatives to zero tolerance. Washington, DC: Child Trends. Publication
#2011-09. Retrieved from https://www.childtrends.org/wp-
content/uploads/2011/03/Child_Trends-2011_03_01_RB_AltToZeroTolerance.pdf
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research
Journal, 9(2), 27-40.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press
Braithwaite, J. (2002). Restorative justice and responsive regulation. New York, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Braithwaite, V., Ahmed, E., Morrison, B., & Reinhart, M. (2003). Researching the prospects for
restorative justice practice in schools: The “life at school survey” 1996–9. In L.
Walgrave Repositioning restorative justice (169-190). Abingdon, UK: Taylor & Francis.
Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (2001). Restorative justice and school discipline: Mutually
exclusive? In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society (pp.
180-194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Clark, R.E. & Estes, F. (2008). Turning research into results: A guide to selecting the right
performance solutions. USA: Information Age Publishing Inc.
Coggshall, J. G. , Osher, D., Colombi, G. (2013). Enhancing educators’ capacity to stop the
school-to-prison pipeline. Family Court Review, 51(3), 435-444.
Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009). The restorative practices handbook for teachers,
disciplinarians, and administrators. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative
Practices.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

165
Creswell, J. W. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approachs. Los Angles, CA: Sage.
Croninger, R. G., & Lee, V. E. (2001). Social capital and dropping out of high school: Benefits
to at-risk students of teachers’ support and guidance. Teachers College Record, 103(4),
548–581.
Duncan, A. (2014). Guiding principles: A resource guide for improving school climate and
discipline. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/guiding-principles.pdf
Drakeford, W. (2004). Racial disproportionality in school disciplinary practices. Denver, CO:
National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems.
Enlightened Institute High School. (2017). Self study report.
Enlightened Institute High School. (2016). Student handbook. [Pamphlet].
Evans, K., & Vaandering, D. (2016). The little book of restorative justice in education: Fostering
responsibility, healing, and hope in schools. New York, NY: Good Books.
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M.D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., & Booth, E. A.
(2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to
students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. New York, NY: Council of State
Governments Justice Center. Retrieved from https://csgjusticecenter.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/08/Breaking_Schools_Rules_Report_Final.pdf
Fenning, P., & Rose, J. (2007). Overrepresentation of African American students in exclusionary
discipline the role of school policy. Urban Education, 42(6), 536-559.
doi:10.1177/0042085907305039
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

166
Fight Crime (2012). Classmates not cellmates: Effective school discipline cuts crime and
improves student success. San Francisco, CA: Fight Crime: Invest in Kids California.
Retrieved from http://fightcrime.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/CA-School-
Discipline-Report.pdf
Flannery, M. E. (2015). The school-to-prison pipeline: Time to shut it down. NEA Today
Magazine, 33(1), 42–45.
Glasser, W. (1998) Choice theory: A new psychology of personal freedom. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Gonzalez, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the
school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281-335.
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 and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325-353.
Gregory, G. & Kaufeldt, M. (2015). The motivated brain: Improving student attention,
engagement, and perseverance. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
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.
doi:10.3102/0013189X09357621
Grant, D. & Baker, T. (2015). Restorative practices. [PowerPoint].
Hansberry, B. (2016). A practical introduction to restorative practice in schools: Theory, skills,
and guidance. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Harber, C., & Sakade, N. (2009). Schooling for violence and peace: How does peace education
differ from ‘normal’ schooling? Journal of Peace Education, 6(2), 171-187
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

167
Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social
behavior. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16(4), 213-225.
Heath, C., & Heath, D. (2010). Switch: How to change things when change is hard. London, UK:
Random House Business Books.
Hoffman, S. (2014). Zero benefit: Estimating the effect of zero tolerance discipline polices on
racial disparities in school discipline. Educational Policy, 28(1), 69–95.
Hopkins (2002). Restorative justice in schools. Support for Learning, 17(3), 144-149.
Hopkins, B. (2004). Just schools: A whole school approach to restorative justice. Philadelphia:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Hurley, N., Guckenburg, S., Persson, H., Fronius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2015). What further
research is needed on restorative justice schools? San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved
at: https://jprc.wested.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/07/Restorative_Justice_Future_Research.pdf
International Institute of Restorative Practices (2006). Restorative justice and practices. Millom,
UK: IIRP UK.
International Institute for Restorative Practices (2011). Whole school change through restorative
practices. Bethlehem, PA: Author.
Jain, S., Bassey, H., Brown, M. A., & Kalra, P. (2014). Restorative justice in Oakland schools
implementation and impact: An effective strategy to reduce racially disproportionate
discipline, suspensions, and improve academic outcomes. Report from Oakland Unified
School District.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

168
Jennings, W. G., Gover, A. R., & Hitchcock, D. M. (2008). Localizing restorative justice: An in-
depth look at a denver public school program. Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 11,
167-187.
Kajs, L. T. (2006). Reforming the discipline management process in schools: An alternative
approach to zero tolerance. Educational Research Quarterly, 29(4), 16-28.
Karp, D. R., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth & Society,
33(2), 249-272.
Kim, W. C., & Mauborgne, R. (2003). Fair process: Managing in the knowledge
economy. Harvard Business Review, 81(1), 127-136.
Kirkpatrick, J.D. & Kirkpatrick, W. K. (2016) Four levels of training evaluation. Alexandria,
VA: ATD Press.
Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity. (2014, February). Racial disproportionality
in school discipline: Implicit bias is heavily implicated (Issue Brief No. 1). The Ohio State
University: Rudd, T.
Kline, D. M. (2016). Can restorative practices help to reduce disparities in school discipline
data? A review of the literature. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 97-102.
Kotter, J. P. (2008). A sense of urgency. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter, J.P. (2012) Leading change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kotter J.P. & Cohen, D.S. (2002) The heart of change: Real-life stories of how people change
their organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Kouzes, J., & Posner, B. (1997). The leadership challenge: How to keep getting extraordinary
things done in organizations. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review Press.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

169
Kupchik, A. (2009). Things are tough all over: Race, ethnicity, class and school
discipline. Punishment & Society, 11(3), 291-317.
LaMarche, G. (2011). The time is right to end ‘zero tolerance’ in schools. Education Week,
30(27), 35-37.
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectivenss of restorative justice practices: A
meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127-144.
Lee, T., Cornell, D., Gregory A., & Fan, X. (2011). High suspension schools and dropout rates
for black and white students. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(2), 167-192.
doi:10.1353/etc.2011.0014
Lewis, C.W., Butler, B.R., Bonner, F.A. & Joubert, M. (2010). African American male
discipline patters and school district responses resulting impact on academic achievement:
implications for urban educators and policy makers. Journal of African American Males in
Education, 1(1), 7-25.
Lhamon, C. E., & Samuels, J. (2014). Dear colleague letter: Nondiscriminatory administration
of school discipline. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education & Department of
Justice. Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/edu/documents/dcl.pdf
Losen, D. (2011). Discipline Policies, Successful Schools, and Racial Justice. UCLA: The Civil
Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles. Retrieved from:
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4q41361g
Martinez, S. (2009). A system gone berserk: How are zero-tolerance policies really affecting
schools? Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 53(3),
153-158.
Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. (2005). School leadership that works: From
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

170
research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. Los Angeles, CA:
Sage.
Mayworm, A.M., Sharkey, J.D., Hunnicutt, K.L., & Schiedel, C. (2016) Teacher consultation to
enhance implementation of school-based restorative justice. Journal of educational and
psychological consultation, 26(4), 385-412.
McCluskey, G., Kane, J., Lloyd, G., Stead, J., Riddell, S., & Weedon, E. (2011). Teachers are
afraid we are stealing their strength: A risk society and restorative approaches in school.
British Journal of Educational Studies, 59(2), 105–119.
McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2008). Can restorative
practices in schools make a difference? Educational Review, 60(4), 405–417.
McMorris, B. J., Beckman, K. J., Shea, G., Baumgartner, J., & Eggert, R. C. (2013, December).
Applying Restorative Practices to Minneapolis Public Schools Students Recommended for
Possible Expulsion. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota. Accessed at:
http://www.pediatrics.umn.edu/sites/pediatrics.umn.edu/files/legal-rights-center-report.pdf
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mirsky, L. (2007). SaferSanerSchools: Transforming school cultures with restorative practices.
Reclaiming Children and Youth, 16(2), 5-12.
Moran, J., & Brightman, B. (2000). Leading organizational change. Journal of Workplace
Learning: Employee Counseling Today, 12(2), 66-74
Morrison, B. (2015). Restorative justice in education: Changing lenses on education’s three rs.
Restorative Justice, 3(3), 445-452.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

171
Morrison, B., Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing restorative justice in school
communities: The challenge of culture change. Public Organization Review: A Global
Journal, 5, 335-357.
Morrison, B.E., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138-155.
Nicholson-Crotty, S., Birchmeier, Z., & Valentine, D. (2009). Exploring the impact of school
discipline on racial disproportion in the juvenile justice system. Social Science
Quarterly, 90(4), 1003-1018.
Olson, K. (2014). The invisible classroom: Relationships, neuroscience, and mindfulness in
school. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
Ortega, L., Lyubansky, M., Nettles, S., & Espelage, D.L. (2016). Outcomes of a restorative
circles program in a high school setting. Psychology of Violence, 6(3), 459-468.
Osher, D., Bear, G. G., Sprague, J. R., & Doyle, W. (2010). How can we improve school
discipline? Educational Researcher, 39(1), 48-58.
Pavelka, S. (2013). Practices and policies for implementing restorative justice within schools.
The Prevention Researcher, 20(1), 15-17.
Payne A. A., & Welch, K. (2015). Restorative justice in schools: The influence of race on
restorative discipline. Youth & Society, 47(4), 539-564.
Proges, S. W. (2011). The polyvagal theory: Neurophysiological foundations of emotions,
attachment, communication, and self-regulation. New York, NY: W. W. Norton &
Company.
Progressive Suburban High School. (2016). Student handbook. [Pamphlet].
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

172
Rideout, G., Roland, K., Salinitri, G., & Frey, M. (2010). Measuring the effect of restorative
justice practices: Outcomes and contexts. EAF Journal, 21(2), 35-60.
Rocque, M. (2010). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter? American Journal
of Education, 116(4), 557-581. doi:10.1086/653629
Rodriguez, N. (2005). Restorative justice, communities, and delinquency: Whom did we
reintegrate? Criminology & Public Policy, 4(1), 103-130.
Rogers, E. (2003). Diffusion of innovation (5
th
edition). New York: Free Press.
Rosenberg, M., & McCullough, B. C. (1981). Mattering: Inferred significane to parents and
mental health among adolescents. In R. Simmons (Ed.), Research in community and
mental health vol. 2. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011). The influence of affective
teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement: A meta-
analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493-529.
Rumberger, R. W., & Losen, D. J. (2016). The high cost of harsh discipline and its disparate
impact. Los Angeles, CA: The Civil Rights Project.
Saldana, J. (2016). The coding manual for qualitative researchers. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
San Fransico Unified School District (2014). Resolution no. 1312-10A4: Establishment of a safe
and supportive schools policy in the san fransico unified school district. San Francisco,
CA: San Francisco Unified School District. Accessed at:
http://www.healthiersf.org/RestorativePractices/About/docs/HANEY%20SAFE%20SUPP
ORTIVE%20POLICY%20FINAL%20FOR%20POSTING%202%2025%2014.pdf
Schiff, M. (2018). Can restorative justice disrupt the ‘school-to-prison pipeline?’ Comtemporary
Justice Review. doi: 10.1080/10282580.2018.1455509
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

173
Shaw, G. (2007). Restorative practices in australian schools: Changing relationships, changing
culture. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 25(1), 127-135.
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., & Nardo, A. C., Peterson, R.L. (2002). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review,
34(4), 317-342.
Skiba, R. J., Arredondo, M. I., & Rausch, M. K. (2014). New and developing research on
disparities in discipline. Bloomington, IN: The Equity Project at Indiana University.
Skiba, R.J., & Rausch, M.K. (2013). Zero tolerance, suspension, and expulsion: Questions of
equity and effectiveness. In C.M. Everston, & C.S. Weinstein (Eds.), Handbook for
classroom management: Research, practice, and contemporary issues (pp. 1063-1089).
Independence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Song, S. Y., & Swearer, S. M. (2016). The car before the horse: The challenge and promise of
restorative justice consultation in schools. Journal of Education and Psychological
Consultation, 26(4), 313-324.
Stinchcomb, J., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring
justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 123–147.
Suh, S., & Suh, J. (2007). Risk factors and levels of risk for high school dropouts. Professional
School Counseling, 10(3), 297-306.
Sumner, M. D., Silverman, C. J., & Frampton, M. L. (2010) School-based restorative justice as
an alternative to zero-tolerance policies: Lessons from West Oakland. Report from Thelton
E. Henderson Center for Social Justice at University of California, Berkley, School of Law.
Suvall, C. (2009). Restorative justice in schools: Learning from Jena high school. Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44, 547-569.
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

174
The Children’s Defense Fund (1975). School suspensions: Are they helping children?
Cambridge, MA: Washington Research Project.
Thorsborne, M. (2016). Affect and script psychology: Restorative practice, biology and a theory
of human motivation. In B. Hopkins (Ed.), Restorative theory in practice: Insights into
what works and why. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practices in schools: A practical
guide to transforming school communities. Philadelphia: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Thorsborne, M., & Vinegrad, D. (2009). Restorative justice pocketbook. Hampshire, UK:
Teachers’ Pocketbook.
Tompkins, S. (1962-1992). Affect imagery consciousness (Vols. I-IV). New York, NY: Springer.
Tomkins Institute (2014). Nine affects, present at birth, combine with life experience to form
emotion and personality. [Webpage]. Retrieved from http://www.tomkins.org/what-
tomkins-said/introduction/nine-affects-present-at-birth-combine-to-form-emotion-mood-
and-personality/
Turnbill, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives.
Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 235-252.
U.S. Department of Education (2014). Supportive School Discipline Initiative. Washington DC:
Author. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/appendix-
3-overview.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2016). 2013-2014 Civil rights data
collection: A first look. Washington DC: Civil Rights Data Collection. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

175
Vaandering, D. (2014). Implementing restorative justice practice in schools: What pedagogy
reveals. Journal of Peace Education, 11(1), 64-80.
Vaandering, D. (2013). Relational restorative justice pedagogy in educator professional
development. Curriculum Inquiry, 44(4), 508-530.
Wald, J., & Losen, D. (2003). Defining and redirecting a school-to-prison pipeline. Framing
paper for the School-to-Prison Pipeline Research Conference, Boston, Massachusetts, May
16-17, 2003.Retrieved from
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/eb44/edc9e73139794847e33ac9f9a3c6953acc55.pdf
Wallace, J. M. J., Goodkind, S., Wallace, C. M., & Bachman, J. G. (2008). Racial, ethnic, and
gender differences in school discipline among U.S. high school students: 1991-2005. The
Negro Educational Review, 59(1-2), 47.
Wachtel, T. (2003). Restorative justice in everyday life: Beyond the formal ritual. Reclaiming
Children and Youth, 12(2), 83-87.
Wachtel, T. (2016). Defining restorative. Bethlehem, PA: IIRP Graduate School. Retrieved from
http://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/Defining-Restorative_Nov-2016.pdf
Wachtel, T., & McCold, P. (2004). From restorative justice to restorative practices: Expanding
the paradigm. Paper from IIRP’s Fifth International Conference on Conferencing, Circles,
and other Restorative Practices, British Columbia, Canada, August 5-7. Retrieved from
http://www.iirp.edu/eforum-archive/4302-from-restorative-justice-to-restorative-practices-
expanding-the-paradigm
White House (2016). Report: The continuing need to rethink discipline. Washington DC:
Executive Office of the President. Retrieved from
https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/12/09/white-house-report-
RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

176
continuing-need-rethink-discipline
Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice: Revised and updated. New York, NY:
Good Books.

RELATIONAL APPROACH TO DISCIPLINE

177
Appendix A
Interview Guide
1. How long have you worked at the school? What has been your role(s) during that time?
2. Based on your perception, what were the considerations that lead the school to change its
discipline/student management approach?
a. Why did the school choose RJ/RP in particular?
3. Who was most instrumental in prompting and leading the change?
4. Which specific RJ/RP practices did the school adopt?
5. What, if any, process did the school follow to implement RJ/RP? How was RJ/RP
implemented? (How as it introduced? How was it rolled out?)
a. How long did each step of the process take?
b. What was the timeline?
c. What resources were provided as part of the implementation process?
6. Based on your perception, what was the most effective aspect of the RJ/RP implementation
at your school?
7. What challenges were experienced during the implementation of RJ/RP at the school?
a. How were the challenges addressed?
8. What advice would you give other schools that are looking to implement RJ/RP?
9. Is there anything else you would like to share about the implementation or practice of RJ/RP
at your school?

Abstract (if available)

Abstract Zero tolerance policies were intended to increase school safety and decrease discipline issues. There is little research to support their use, while there is ample evidence that they do not actually improve school safety or reduce the likelihood of future student misconduct (APA, 2008). These policies have contributed to inequities, such as the discipline gap (Hoffman, 2014) and the school to prison pipeline (Fabelo et al., 2011). These exclusionary and punitive discipline policies contribute to poor academic performance (Skiba et al., 2014) and cost taxpayers millions of dollars (Rumberger & Losen, 2016). Restorative justice (RJ) is a promising alternative to zero tolerance policies, which focuses on working with wrongdoers in the context of relationships, respect, and responsibility, and engaging them in the discipline process (Morrison, 2015). The purpose of this study was to (a) understand how US secondary schools adopt and implement RJ and (b) learn about the challenges that arise during and after the implementation process. A qualitative comparative case study research design was used to understand the RJ implementation process at two case study schools through interviews and document analysis. One case study school is a large, suburban Midwest public school that utilized an additive approach to RJ, while the other school is a small urban charter school in northern California that adapted a whole school approach to RJ. While each schools’ implementation story was unique, four themes emerged from the cross case synthesis: (1) values and principles drive school-based RJ practices

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices

PDF

Barriers experienced by teachers regarding restorative justice practices in Title 1 schools

PDF

Disciplinary systems in California high schools and their effects on African American males’ self-efficacy

PDF

Implementation of a Reggio inspired approach at the progressive academy of Southeast Asia's Early Childhood Center

PDF

Examining approaches to implementing Responsive Classroom within international schools

PDF

Racial disparities in U.S. K-12 suburban schools: an evaluation study

PDF

Teacher leadership for personalized learning: An implementation study in an international school

PDF

School disciplined reimagined: centering Black students in discipline policies

PDF

School-to-prison pipeline: an all-out assault on Black males in U.S. K-12 public schools

PDF

Oregon education policy implementation: a case study of the achievement compacts information dissemination of the Oregon Education Investment Board

PDF

School-wide implementation of the elements of effective classroom instruction: lessons from high-performing high-poverty urban schools

PDF

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

PDF

Promoting a positive school culture from three perspectives: a promising practices study from the administrator perspective

PDF

The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices

PDF

Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii

PDF

The role of positive behavior systems in reducing exclusionary school discipline

PDF

A descriptive study of the “hardware” of education: the relationship between zoning and schoolsites in the Los Angeles Unified School District

PDF

Examining parent involvement activities in two mmigrant-impacted schools: a comparative case study

PDF

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Murphy, Lauren M. (author)

Core Title A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 08/03/2018

Defense Date 05/10/2018

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

Tag change management,Discipline,exclusionary discipline,implementation,OAI-PMH Harvest,restorative justice,restorative practices,school leadership,zero tolerance

Format application/pdf (imt)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Chung, Ruth (committee chair), Hinga, Briana (committee member), Picus, Lawrence (committee member)

Creator Email murphy.lauren@gmail.com,murphyl@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-50420

Unique identifier UC11671937

Identifier etd-MurphyLaur-6628.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-50420 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MurphyLaur-6628.pdf

Dmrecord 50420

Document Type Dissertation

Format application/pdf (imt)

Rights Murphy, Lauren M.

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 a...

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