Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
Barriers experienced by teachers regarding restorative justice practices in Title 1 schools
(USC Thesis Other)
Barriers experienced by teachers regarding restorative justice practices in Title 1 schools
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
Barriers Experienced by Teachers Regarding Restorative Justice Practices in Title 1
Schools
by
Manuel L. Albert III
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
A dissertation submitted to the faculty
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Education
May 2021
© Copyright by Manuel L. Albert III 2021
All Rights Reserved
The Committee for Manuel L. Albert III certifies the approval of this Dissertation
Briana Hinga
David Cash
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair
Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021
iv
Abstract
In a national effort to discourage school shootings in K–12 settings, the 1994 passing of the Gun-
Free Schools Act required all schools receiving public funding to expel for 1 year students who
were found to be in possession of a firearm while on campus, ultimately leading to an expansion
and progression of explicit zero-tolerance disciplinary policies. In an effort to curb the
disproportionately punitive discipline culture that resulted from these policies, restorative justice
practices were introduced to K–12 school sites in the late 1990s as an alternative disciplinary
approach, focusing on mending relationships harmed as a result of negative student behavior and
ultimately reducing the number of students of color removed from class settings. Understanding
the perceived barriers of teachers in low-income, urban schools in Los Angeles regarding support
from administrators with implementing and performing restorative justice practices is critical to
developing effective new or modified best practices, policies, or procedures to positively affect
success locally and abroad. This convergent mixed-methods study incorporated the analysis of
qualitative interviews from five teachers and quantitative survey results from 30 teachers from
various ethnic backgrounds who had been credentialed and teaching at their public, charter, or
private restorative justice–practicing school site in a low-income, urban secondary school in Los
Angeles for at least 1 year. Through transcription and coding, data were reduced to reveal
themes, patterns, and explanations in relation to the research goals. The study’s findings
indicated lack of training was the greatest barrier to implementation of restorative justice
practices with fidelity. Data obtained in this study also reflected the need for stronger
administrator leadership practices in providing specified teacher support strategies. Findings
from this study that could assist in the effective implementation and furtherance of restorative
justice practices include the need for expansion and consistent application of professional
v
development trainings, additional sustainable administrator supports, and a formalized process to
integrate student buy-in and teacher dialogue as measures of ongoing success.
vi
Acknowledgements
This research study could not have been completed without the love and support of my
parents and sisters. Thank you all for being a listening ear when needed and for always pushing
me to pursue my goals and aspirations. Thank you for giving me grace when missing family
gatherings, outings, and events.
I would like to thank Mario for his continuous love, support, and compassion regarding
this journey. It has truly made a difference in helping me reach this goal. To my true friends who
have supported me from the beginning, Brandon, Gabriel, and Chris: Your commitment to
pushing me to complete this process has not only fueled me along the way but has inspired me to
continue pursuing other dreams as well.
I am grateful to my incredible mentors, specifically Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation
committee chair and retired superintendent of the San Diego County Office of Education. It has
been an honor to have learned from you throughout my course study while at USC and also as
part of this dissertation research and writing process. You have truly impressed upon me what it
means to be a leader of equity, conviction, and integrity, and I aspire to embody all of those
qualities through my journey from this point forward.
I am grateful to my USC London colleagues, who have shown me that genuine support,
even in a pandemic, can empower one to move mountains. I am truly inspired by you every day
and truly cherish the relationships we have built as a result of traveling this journey together.
vii
Table of Contents
Abstract ..................................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................... vi
List of Tables .............................................................................................................................. x
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................... xi
Chapter One: Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................ 6
Purpose of the Study ....................................................................................................... 8
Importance of the Study .................................................................................................. 9
Limitations and Delimitations ....................................................................................... 10
Definition of Terms ....................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study .............................................................................................. 11
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ..................................................................................... 12
Restorative Justice Defined ........................................................................................... 12
The Impact and Influence of Exclusionary Practices ...................................................... 15
Benefits of Restorative Justice ....................................................................................... 21
Barriers to the Sustainable Facilitation of Restorative Justice ........................................ 25
Challenges in Determining School Success Using Restorative Justice Practices ............ 27
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework ........................................................................ 28
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 28
Chapter Three: Methodology .................................................................................................... 30
Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................. 31
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 32
viii
Research Questions ....................................................................................................... 32
Sample and Population .................................................................................................. 33
Design Summary ........................................................................................................... 34
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 34
Instrumentation and Protocols ....................................................................................... 35
Data Collection ............................................................................................................. 36
Data Analysis ................................................................................................................ 37
Validity and Reliability ................................................................................................. 38
Summary....................................................................................................................... 40
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion ..................................................................................... 41
Quantitative Respondent Demographics ........................................................................ 42
Qualitative Respondent Demographics .......................................................................... 43
Level of Agreement With Restorative Justice ................................................................ 43
Level of Knowledge Regarding Restorative Justice ....................................................... 44
Coding of the Data ........................................................................................................ 44
Research Question 1 ...................................................................................................... 45
Research Question 2 ...................................................................................................... 49
Research Question 3 ...................................................................................................... 54
Research Question 4 ...................................................................................................... 58
Summary....................................................................................................................... 60
Chapter Five: Discussion .......................................................................................................... 63
Methodology ................................................................................................................. 64
Purpose of the Study ..................................................................................................... 64
ix
Results and Findings ..................................................................................................... 65
Implications of the Study .............................................................................................. 69
Recommendations for Future Study .............................................................................. 71
Conclusion .................................................................................................................... 72
References ................................................................................................................................ 74
Appendix A: Restorative Justice Survey ................................................................................... 83
Appendix B: Interview Protocol................................................................................................ 91
x
List of Tables
Table 1: Percentages and Frequencies of Teacher Ethnicities .................................................... 43
Table 2: Qualitative Survey Demographic Data ........................................................................ 44
Table 3: Additional Restorative Justice Supports Provided by Administrators ........................... 46
Table 4: Perceived Barriers to Restorative Justice Implementation ............................................ 50
Table 5: Additional Restorative Justice Supports Provided by Administrators ........................... 55
Table 6: Teacher Evaluation of Restorative Justice Effectiveness .............................................. 59
xi
List of Figures
Figure 1: Social Discipline Window ........................................................................................... 4
Figure 2: Triangulation of the Data ........................................................................................... 39
1
Chapter One: Introduction
Attitudes of discipline in K–12 settings in the United States reaching as far back as the
18th century include the implementation of corporal punishment as a seemingly effectively
method for discipline. In this manner, students were subjected to any intentional method of
inflicting physical pain as a penalty for misbehavior, including excessive exercise drills, shaking,
paddling, and even electric shock (Dupper & Dingus, 2008). In Deater-Deckard et al.’s (2003)
longitudinal study of 425 students from varying socioeconomic statuses, it was determined that
students who were disciplined through corporal punishment were more approving of this
method, regardless of how often or the severity of the conditions for which they were punished.
This attitude is believed to have been reflected within the K–12 school system as far back as
research performed in the 18th century (Deater-Deckard et al., 2003).
Despite this nationally accepted disciplinary practice, subsequent research conducted
from the 1920s to the 1940s validated the need to move away from, and ultimately ban, corporal
punishment–related practices; they are currently banned in 29 states. Dupper and Dingus (2008)
confirmed that despite immediate actions of compliance seen through corporal punishment,
research has indicated additional deficiencies of students in the areas of social and self-control
skills. Armed with this and other supporting research, school culture then began to shift to a
different type of punitive disciplinary model, climaxing with the implementation of the Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994 (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
In an effort to discourage school shootings in K–12 school settings, the Gun-Free Schools
Act, enacted in 1994, required all schools receiving public funding to expel for 1 year students
who were found to be in possession of a firearm while on campus. Skiba and Peterson (1999)
argued that this initial legislation, which promoted zero tolerance, was subsequently expanded to
2
include other conditions outside of firearms and ultimately helped establish and fuel a culture of
exclusionary disciplinary practices in K–12 settings. A subsequent analysis performed by the
Civil Rights Project in 2000 in relation to the effects of the Gun-Free Schools Act legislation
found disproportionately high amounts of suspension and expulsion rates among students of
color, with African American students comprising 17% of the sampled student population but
making up 32% of the identified suspensions (Civil Rights Project, 2000). Additionally, with the
exception of Hawaii, in 2009 the 10 largest school districts in the United States had a
disproportionate rate of suspensions for their African American students (Civil Rights Project,
2000). Specifically, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) saw an enrollment rate
for African American students at 9.4% while the suspension rate for this same demographic was
recorded at approximately 27.6%. African American students accounted for almost 30% of all
school suspensions while comprising less than 10% of the total student population. Excluding
students from school through zero-tolerance policies such as the aforementioned modified Gun-
Free Schools Act has been linked to many negative outcomes, including low academic
achievement, delinquency, and ultimately dropping out (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Despite the
seemingly good intentions of the Gun-Free Schools Act—to prevent school shootings on K–12
campuses—the ultimate effects of this law served as the beginning of a wave of local zero-
tolerance policies for almost all schools (Skiba & Peterson, 1999), disproportionately affecting
students of color compared with their White counterparts.
In an effort to curb the punitive damage culture set forth as part of the signing into law of
the Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, restorative justice practices in K–12 settings were introduced
in the late 1990s as an alternative approach in which the focus was shifted to values and
principles used to guide actions and reactions used to mend relationships (Zehr, 2013). The goals
3
of restorative justice practices include helping students become accountable for their actions,
improving their social skills, and improving community safety (Zehr, 2013).
In understanding the role that restorative justice plays in varying approaches to discipline,
Wachtel (2003) proposed a social discipline window, highlighting four varying approaches that
incorporate different levels of control and support, as related to disciplinary practices. This
analysis of discipline approach (see Figure 1) demonstrates the key differentiating role that
restorative justice has in current education-related disciplinary policies.
Discipline approaches involving low levels of control include permissive and neglectful
ideals. Being permissive (see Figure 1) involves displaying the highest possible level of support
and includes students having actions or responses performed FOR them. However, this practice
involves having the lowest level of control or discipline with students, and, combined with the
highest levels of support, students are not tasked with meeting clear expectations or having
boundaries. High levels of support and encouragement involve students and teachers having
relationships as friends, where no clear boundaries or rule limits are set, while students are
supported in all actions they choose to perform (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). In the context of
mending relationships that have been harmed through conflict or otherwise, teachers and
administrators would be facilitating all actions on behalf of the student, with no structure or
guidance being enforced for students.
The neglectful segment of the social discipline displayed in Figure 1 includes having few
to no control parameters combined with minimal levels of support through encouragement or
nurturing. In this practice, the teacher or administrator is NOT doing anything concerning
restoring relationships harmed through conflict (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). This disciplinary
approach involves neglecting the needs of students involved in relational conflict.
4
The upper left segment of the social discipline table (see Figure 1) highlights the ideals
established by the zero-tolerance policies. It includes the highest levels of limit setting and
discipline while incorporating the lowest level of encouragement and nurturing. In this practice,
punishments are given with no effort to provide explanations to the student offender. This model
utilizes TO in order to signify that the teacher or administrator is distributing punishment to
student offenders.
Figure 1
Social Discipline Window
5
Finally, in the upper-right section of the social discipline window lies the approach
highlighted in this study, restorative. In this approach, discipline and control levels are their
highest while the environment created involves high levels of nurturing and support. To
characterize this method, the term WITH is used to indicate the collaborative nature of teachers
and administrators working with students to supply their needs emotionally with fairness.
Hansberry (2016) stated that this approach allows for all conflicts to be discussed openly and
honestly while diligently working to resolve all conflicts.
Zehr (2013) confirmed that restorative justice was created as a framework in contrast to
these aforementioned disciplinary practices, one that considers student misbehavior to be a
violation of relationships rather than rooted in the violation of specific rules. The restorative
justice framework focuses on community safety, accountability, and skill development of all
involved stakeholders and can include application in a single program or an entire campus (Zehr,
2013). With the adoption and implementation of these practices, many school districts have since
opted to implement restorative justice in various ways and over various timeframes. These
include having administrator and teacher personnel in varied quantities facilitate the
development, implementation, and ongoing progress of adopting restorative justice practices
across school sites over periods of 6 months to 1 year. Burke and Ashley (2009) proposed that,
once these practices are adopted, administrators should support their school sites in various
methods and with varying intentionality through training entire school staff personnel,
appointing a restorative justice practice coordinator, and developing and monitoring the progress
of determined restorative justice school-site policies. Zehr (2013), considered by many to be a
pioneer in the development of restorative justice practices, has argued that due to varying levels
of implementation, it is strongly recommended that restorative justice practices be coupled with
6
quantitative and qualitative forms of evaluation. To that end, it is critical to understand the
administrative support currently received by teachers to support the implementation and
facilitation of restorative justice practices, as a means of assessing potential modifications
required in training and/or leadership provided by school administrators.
Although multiple studies have validated that the implementation of restorative justice
practices has provided an overall benefit to participating school campuses, there are some
common issues concerning teacher support of the implementation that warrant further
investigation and understanding. Specifically, Augustine et al. (2018) performed a study in
which teachers reported, after analyzing the sustainability of implementing restorative justice
practices, that challenges included a lack of time given to teachers to implement restorative
justice with fidelity due to the expectation to also implement other district-driven initiatives.
Teachers also reported the issue of unclear expectations for various instances within the
restorative justice policy and a lack of frequent trainings to address new questions or concerns.
This study was designed to address these gaps. The researcher sought to understand the
perceptions of how teachers are supported by administrators in hopes of identifying potential
barriers to implementing consistent restorative justice practices with fidelity across urban
secondary school sites. Key concepts of the conceptual framework of critical race theory include
effective training protocols facilitated by administrators for teachers and themes of leadership.
Statement of the Problem
In accordance with research performed by Fronius et al. (2019), restorative justice
practices can be incorporated in many different ways within a secondary school setting,
including a whole-school approach or an addition to current discipline strategies currently in
place. In a whole-school setting approach, restorative justice practices incorporate the training of
7
all school personnel, including students, administrators, and classified staff, on policies and
procedures related to implementing restorative justice with fidelity. As an addition to current
disciplinary practices, restorative justice philosophies are incorporated into existing policies,
including but not limited to Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Social
Emotional Learning. Research evaluating the barriers to the whole-school or addition approach
to the implementation of restorative justice practices has been previously performed; however,
little research has occurred concerning focus on a demographic landscape primarily made up of
urban secondary school sites in Los Angeles, California. For example, barriers including time
constraints, teacher retention, and lack of teacher or student buy-in have previously been
identified in various studies. However, these themes have not been evaluated among urban
secondary schools in Los Angeles to determine any unique or varying barriers to teacher
implementation of restorative justice, given their unique demographic landscape.
Kidde and Alfred (2011) argued that funding for the training of teachers has been viewed
as an implementation barrier for administrators seeking to implement restorative justice
practices. Understanding how administrators in urban secondary school settings have leveraged
community partnerships to supplement funding for teacher training could highlight additional
strategies surrounding administrative support. This approach has proven successful in other
urban cities including Oakland, California (Kidde & Alfred, 2011). In a qualitative study of two
schools in Rhode Island performed by Liberman and Katz (2017), it was found that a culture of
accountability was first required before an implementation of restorative justice practices could
successfully occur.
What warrants further research within the literature are studies identifying gaps or
barriers in structural supports provided by administrators for teachers in urban secondary schools
8
regarding the creation of a culture of accountability. Despite training through professional
development sessions including the use of restorative justice facilitators, coaches, and
shadowing, additional research would enhance the need to potentially modify standard training
protocols for teachers in urban secondary school settings.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive study was to perform a mixed-methods-based evaluation
focused on the experiences of teachers in urban secondary schools implementing restorative
justice practices in Los Angeles. The following research questions guided the study:
1. How are secondary school teachers, performing restorative justice practices,
supported by administrators in urban, low-income school sites in Los Angeles?
2. What internal or external barriers are perceived by secondary school teachers in
urban, low-income sites in Los Angeles regarding administrators supporting the
implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity?
3. What specified teacher support strategies or actions are used by secondary school
administrators in urban, low-income schools in Los Angeles regarding restorative
justice practices?
4. How do teachers evaluate the schoolwide success or failure of the implementation of
restorative justice practices?
This study was performed using a theoretical framework involving critical race theory
(CRT). Within CRT, the researcher’s positionality involving prejudice and inequity was used to
interpret study findings through a lens by which to understand the role that racism has played in
relation to restorative justice practices and supports provided for teachers regarding students of
color in urban areas in Los Angeles. The researcher used this theoretical framework to
9
acknowledge racism as a social construct within education and its direct and indirect impact on
teacher supports given for restorative justice practices for ethnic minorities. Stovall (2005)
argued that CRT examines racism as both a group and an individual phenomenon that functions
on multiple levels. This systematic idea and phenomenon was used as a theoretical framework in
the interpretation and analysis of various findings of this study. Findings from this study utilizing
the CRT approach may lead to transformative practices through the presentation of the
experiences of teachers regarding students of color. Creswell (2007) argued that CRT solutions
to racial, sexual, and class subordination in institutional structures can be achieved through the
incorporation of CRT.
Importance of the Study
This study highlighted the unique needs of teachers in low-income, urban secondary
schools in Los Angeles regarding the implementation of restorative justice practices. Through
the identification of internal or external barriers perceived by teachers regarding the support from
administrators in implementing restorative justice practices, future implementation strategies can
be modified to specifically address the unique needs of secondary school sites in Los Angeles
serving students in low-income, urban communities. Ultimately, through addressing the findings
confirmed in this study, new processes, policies, and procedures can be developed to positively
influence the attendance, academic outcomes, safety, and overall school climate with the
successful incorporation of restorative justice practices.
This study is important to practitioners because the specific needs highlighted by
secondary school teachers in low-income, urban schools regarding the successful implementation
of restorative justice practices may be used to modify current school practices regarding areas
such as ongoing restorative justice training or facilitation. For policymakers, the study can
10
inform current or new district or state policies regarding legislation designed to address the
identified barriers in order to maximize program effectiveness. By identifying the issues found in
this study, policymakers could implement regulations that directly address the barriers, thereby
mandating that school-site administrators address the highlighted barriers and ultimately
removing them from serving as a hindrance to successful implementation. These policymakers
may glean additional insight into the differences required for legislation among schools in low-
income, urban areas compared with their suburban counterparts.
Researchers will be able to compare the findings in this study obtained from teachers in
urban secondary schools in Los Angeles with those of other studies. Having this study’s findings
serve as a foundation for comparison provides researchers with a measuring tool to use in their
comparisons across schools in multiple states, regions, public settings, charter settings, or private
settings or among students from varying socioeconomic demographics. Findings obtained in this
study can thereby be used to determine varying research methods, questions, or areas of focus
regarding similar research topics or themes.
Limitations and Delimitations
As the data for this study were gathered over a 1-year period, a limited number of teacher
responses were obtained and analyzed for the findings, discussion, and conclusion. Time was
therefore a limitation of this study. Additionally, this study focused on the support given to
teachers from teachers’ perspectives only. The study purposefully did not incorporate the views
of additional stakeholders, including school administrators, students, classified staff members,
and parents. This limitation prevents the voices of these additional stakeholders from being
included in the data findings and analysis. Data gathered as part of this study were obtained
through virtual interviews utilizing Zoom and surveys.
11
Delimitations for this study included the teacher demographic determined for analysis.
Secondary school teachers in low-income, urban schools in Los Angeles were selected as
participants in this study. Additional delimitations included urban secondary schools in Los
Angeles that have claimed to implement restorative justice through whole-school or an additive
model. Furthermore, time was a delimitation that encompassed responses and interviews
captured within the year 2020.
Definition of Terms
Low-income, urban secondary school: High school located in a nonsuburban area in Los
Angeles that qualifies for Title 1 funding as defined by at least 40% of students enrolled coming
from low-income families. These students are of low socioeconomic status (SES) and are eligible
for free or reduced-cost lunch.
Restorative justice: “An approach in which the victim/survivor and offender, and in some
cases other persons affected by a crime, ‘participate actively together in the resolution of matters
arising from the crime, generally with the help of a facilitator’” (UNICEF, n.d., para. 1).
Organization of the Study
This research study consists of five chapters. Chapter Two comprises a review of the
literature outlining the disciplinary pathway within education that has led to restorative justice
being implemented as a current practice and an overview of restorative justice and current gaps
in research. Chapter Three provides an overview of the methodology used to perform this study.
The study’s findings are presented in Chapter Four, and conclusions, discussions, and future
considerations are outlined in Chapter Five.
12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
For thousands of years, many indigenous cultures have been documented as utilizing
structures of conflict resolution through the practice of peace circles, the strategy believed to
precede the invention and incorporation of restorative justice practices (Hamlin & Darling,
2012). The process of using peace circles involves a selected handheld, inanimate object that is
passed around in a single circle to permit each holder to speak in order to provide a semi-
structured dialogue to discuss any conflicts or issues. It is in this taking-turns approach that
involved and affected members of any given tribe are able to voice any concerns and suggested
solutions to resolve issues or conflicts. When describing these peace circles, Pranis (2005) said
that in addition to resolving conflicts, peace circles were also historically used to facilitate
celebrations, improve community understanding, and determine and deliver judgment-related
sentencing for convicted crime offenders (Pranis, 2005). Peace circles are indeed still utilized in
modern Western cultures today, mainly as means of conflict resolution within large groups
regarding stakeholders being directly or indirectly affected by the actions of others, such as
workers strikes or college student issues affecting a large volume of the student body (Hamlin &
Darling, 2012). Peace circles help facilitate direct participation in an equitable forum for all
stakeholders, and it is believed that this practice served as a foundation for what we now
formally use for traditionally smaller groups known as restorative justice practices (Hamlin &
Darling, 2012).
Restorative Justice Defined
Prior to their incorporation into the educational landscape, restorative justice practices
were originally developed to address crime-related issues in hopes of restoring relationships with
victims damaged by the aggressor(s) (Bazemore & Umbreit, 2001). Despite restorative justice
13
being a disciplinary practice that predates the realm of educational institutions such as the justice
system, it can be defined by a structure or practice that mandates dialogue among all affected
parties regarding a specific issue or behavior (McCluskey et al., 2008). Through this process, all
stakeholders, including teachers, school administrators, students, parents, and members from the
community, work together in order to resolve conflicts through the strengthening and
reestablishing of relationships affected by incident-related harm or trauma. In a school setting,
restorative justice is primarily used as a disciplinary practice that diverts offenders from being
forced into school suspension or expulsion, which would typically result for the offenses
committed under more traditional disciplinary measures (Kuo et al., 2010). Although currently
utilized by multiple schools in the United States, restorative justice officially began in schools in
Australia during the early 1990s (Cameron & Thorsborne, 1999). One of the critical differences
between restorative justice and other disciplinary practices is that when facilitated with fidelity,
restorative justice requires active participation at the school level, with the intention to drive
positive student outcomes in the areas of school safety, student discipline, academics, dropout
rates, and even the school-to-prison pipeline (González, 2012). The aim is to resolve conflict
through accountable actions taken to restore any relationships harmed through the action of the
offender(s). This restoration can occur through multiple dialogue channels, including dialogue
circles and small mediations involving all affected stakeholders, such as teachers, students,
school administrators, or any other individuals (Hopkins, 2004). At its core, the disciplinary
practice of restorative justice seeks to keep the student integrated into the school community
throughout the process of the resolution of a given conflict, rather than having the student
separated from the school environment through forced removal (González, 2012).
14
In 2004, in order to determine the level of understanding of what incorporating
restorative justice practices (RJP) organizationally requires and provide new insight on how it
informs current practices based on its implementation, the Scottish Executive commissioned a 2-
year pilot study including 10 local primary schools and seven local secondary schools
(McCluskey et al., 2008). Data collection included individual and focus group interviews,
surveys, and observations of 627 school staff members and 1,163 students. Results from the
study demonstrated that restorative justice practices helped inform disciplinary standards of
practice involving reinforcing the importance of fostering social relationships in a school
community, maintaining respect for other people, the willingness of students and staff to pursue
reflective changes, and the need to create and enforce an equitable process for conflict resolution
(McCluskey et al., 2008). Findings from the study also showed that RJP were best implemented
upon a collaborative agreement supporting the belief that at the core of every conflict, behavior
should always be considered the primary issue (McCluskey et al., 2008; Sumner et al., 2010;
Zehr & Mika, 1998). It has been shown that this common belief must be coupled with visible
commitment and modeling by school leadership in order for a positive impact on relationships to
be developed as part of restorative justice disciplinary practices (Hansberry, 2016; Zehr, 1995).
Through a study involving an empirical assessment of the process of RJP, Kuo et al.
(2010) found that as part of RJP offenders were charged to engage in dialogue, increase moral
communication compared with a traditional court process, and build relationships. Dialogue has
been characterized as one of the key principles of RJP (Zehr, 1995). The process of relationships
being restored can occur only through dialogue between victims and offenders. Dialogue also
allows for offenders to reflect in hopes of furthering the restoration of the harmed relationship(s)
(Zehr & Mika, 1998). Using empirical evidence involving 289 legal cases from Canberra,
15
Australia, from 1995 to 1999 as part of the Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE), Kuo et
al. (2010) determined that participants actively engaged in RJP showed significant increases in
relationship building, dialogue, and moral communication compared with those in traditional
disciplinary settings. The transition from peace circles to RJP did not spontaneously occur, but it
is believed to have been ushered into the education arena as result of the impact and influence of
exclusionary discipline practices that came prior (Zehr, 1995).
The Impact and Influence of Exclusionary Practices
In response to efforts to curb drug use in schools and prevent the presence and usage of
guns on school campuses, K–12 educational institutions implemented increasingly explicit
punitive disciplinary practices, beginning as recently as the early 1980s (Skiba & Peterson,
1999). The Gun-Free Schools Act (GFSA) of 1994 served as a gateway to the height of punitive
discipline practices in K–12 school systems. School suspensions and expulsions for offenses
expanded beyond the possession of guns or drugs. These less severe offenses, including but not
limited to defiance, disruptive behavior, and even tardiness, received the same severe
punishments (Civil Rights Project, 2000; Jain et al., 2014; Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Levick
(2000) contended that disciplinary action determined by misbehavior does not consider student-
specific situations and prohibits the ability to influence positive Social Emotional Learning
(SEL) life skills embedded within judgment (Levick, 2000). Research on this disciplinary
approach has shown it ultimately leads to students being systematically removed from their
school setting and effectively shuttled into the school-to-prison pipeline (González, 2012).
In 1996, Maguin and Loeber performed a meta-analysis focused on naturalistic studies
concerning the determination of a correlation between academic performance and delinquency
behaviors. In addition to identifying an inverse relationship between these factors, the study also
16
highlighted implications for education policy concerning the impact on student absence as a
predictor of more severe delinquency-related behaviors, such as truancy (Maguin & Loeber,
1996). The study further outlined findings supported by other researchers demonstrating that
when students are not permitted to be present in school, delinquency-related behaviors can
escalate, potentially leading to substance abuse, school dropout, failure to obtain legitimate
employment, and involvement in other nonspecific illegal activities (Cameron & Thorsborne,
1999; Levick, 2000; Maguin & Loeber, 1996; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).
Zero-Tolerance Policies
Zero-tolerance disciplinary policies have been analyzed and determined to coincide with
disciplinary policies implemented in the criminal justice system (González, 2012). Specifically,
zero-tolerance policies, created in school settings primarily out of the desire to eliminate gun
possession in schools, possessed the objective of dissuading potential offenders from engaging in
discouraged behaviors through heavily imbedded punishment deterrents. Included in the
construct of zero-tolerance policies lies the core principle that every act of misbehavior
committed by a student should be immediately met with a predetermined punishment. As part of
the GFSA, states mandated school legislation to be created to address gun possession through the
incorporation of three main components: first, that students found to have possession of a gun on
campus be suspended for 1 year; second, that these students be systematically referred to the
juvenile justice system; and lastly, that the local educational agency have discretion to modify
the given suspension based on its professional judgment (Gun-Free Schools Act, 1994). Despite
this initially mandated response from states reinforced through districts as part of GFSA,
research has shown that students subject to these disciplinary practices subsequently struggle
with the cognitive ability to exercise good judgment as a result of not genuinely learning from
17
mistakes while in a K–12 school setting (Civil Rights Project, 2000). As previously mentioned,
this approach to discipline in K–12 schools directly correlates with increased rates of student
suspensions, expulsions, and ultimately criminal incarceration. Research from the Advancement
Project (2019) confirmed the role that zero-tolerance policies have in the increased quantity of
students in the juvenile system who identify as minority or disabled, a disproportionate
representation that will be discussed in sections to follow.
With the intent of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies being grounded in the objective of
achieving school safety, it is important to highlight research with converse findings. In 2008, the
American Psychological Association commissioned a task force to evaluate the impact of zero-
tolerance policies on school safety. Specifically, one of the identified objectives of the group was
to determine if schools were shown to be more effective in dealing with disciplinary issues as a
result of zero-tolerance policies (Skiba, 2008). Data from the study suggested that rates of
student suspensions or expulsions, as a result of zero-tolerance policies, are predictors of higher
future rates of misbehavior, school dropouts, and failure to graduate on time (Skiba, 2008).
Additionally, in an analysis of the effectiveness of zero-tolerance disciplinary policies, Skiba and
Peterson (1999) outlined the results of an NCES study on school violence in which principals
were asked which facets of traditional zero-tolerance discipline policies they incorporated into
their school site, including metal detectors, expulsions, and locker searchers. Results from the
data showed that schools with no reported violent crimes were in fact less likely to have a zero-
tolerance discipline policy in place involving locker searchers and other similar practices,
compared with schools containing higher frequencies of violent crimes. The researchers
concluded that schools that incorporate zero-tolerance disciplinary policies are statistically less
safe than those that have them (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
18
Skiba and Peterson’s (1999) research also calls into question the issue of how to address
the removal of access to education for students who are suspended or expelled as a result of zero-
tolerance policies. In a paper on the incorporation of zero-tolerance policies in K–12 educational
settings, Wasser (1999) highlighted that, according to the United States Department of
Education, it is estimated that only 56% of students expelled from K–12 schools in 1998–1999
were offered alternative educational opportunities while at home. This approximates to 38,200
students. This inequitable access to education can negatively affect students who are traditionally
in need of additional academic supports, and this group is often made up of students who are not
considered major threats to school safety (Wasser, 1999). In a study performed by Morrison and
D’Incau in 1997 examining 158 expulsion records of California K–12 schools in suburban areas
between 1993 and 1995, 80% of students identified as being expelled under zero-tolerance
policies were determined to be first-time offenders with no serious threat to school safety.
Students who made up the remaining 20% were considered dangerous (Morrison & D’Incau,
1997).
Disproportionality
Much research has been performed to outline specific impacts on ethnicity, gender, and
ability status related to exclusionary disciplinary practices. In 2012, Losen et al., in collaboration
with the Civil Rights Project, published a report encompassing nearly 500 school districts in the
state of California identifying more than 400,000 students given at least one out-of-school
suspension over the course of the 2009–2010 academic school year (Losen et al., 2012).
Alarmingly, when the data were further reviewed, researchers confirmed that nearly one of every
five African American students and one of every 14 Latino students were suspended in this time
frame, compared with one in every 17 White students. When racial and gender differences were
19
aggregated among the 10 largest districts in California, African American and Latino males
made up 38% and 19% of suspended students, respectively. For the largest district in California,
the Los Angeles Unified School District, suspension rates for African American male students
were found to be approximately 18% higher than those of White male students (Losen et al.,
2012). The report also illuminated that students with disabilities were twice as likely to
experience suspensions compared with their able-bodied counterparts. Approximately one in
seven (13.4%) of students with disabilities received suspensions, compared with one in 16
(6.4%) of students identified as able-bodied (Losen et al., 2012).
When the American Psychological Association initiated a task force in 2008 to determine
the impact zero-tolerance policies had on students of color, it theorized that the disproportionate
impact on students of color could be due to lack of teacher preparation in classroom
management, lack of training in culturally relevant practices, and/or racial stereotypes (Skiba,
2008). In a 2014 study, Skiba et al. examined the results of identified categories previously
shown to influence racial disparities through the analysis of school discipline records from 648
public schools spanning the 2007–2008 school year. Results showed that at the school level,
percentage of African American student enrollment, individual student socioeconomic status
level, and principal perspectives were statistically significant predictors of out-of-school
suspension or expulsion, among others.
In 2010, Rocque performed a study in which the effect of race was evaluated using
office referrals from 45 elementary schools while controlling for behavioral ratings of each
student by teachers in each school (Rocque, 2010). The data collected encompassed
approximately 28,634 students across Virginia County, and the results showed that African
American students received significantly more office referrals than White students, taking into
20
account gender, GPA, and free lunch status. Final results from United States Department of
Education Office for Civil Rights data collected in 2004 confirmed that African Americans were
almost three times more likely to be suspended than other groups, even after considering
socioeconomic status (APA Zero Tolerance Task Force, 2006). Despite research from Gregory
and Weinstein (2008) suggesting that out-of-school suspensions given to African Americans are
largely situationally specific, they are still overrepresented when compared with other ethnic
groups (Gregory & Weinstein, 2008). A statewide study for Tennessee published in 2006
showed that African Americans have maintained a trend from 2001 to 2005 of being
disproportionately represented under the category of zero-tolerance offenders (Tailor & Detch,
2006). For example, in the urban school district of Davidson, African Americans made up only
46% of the total school population but comprised more than 60% of the zero-tolerance violations
given that school year (Tailor & Detch, 2006). Research focused on settings in California have
demonstrated similar results. Mizel et al. (2016) examined the impact that demographic,
individual, and family factors had on disparities in school suspensions among 2,539 California
students in 10th to 12th grade. Results from the study found that African Americans, boys, and
students whose parents had minimal education were more likely to be suspended.
Additional research analyzing potential conscious or unconscious processing by teachers
or school administrators resulting in the varied treatment of various racial and gender groups is
warranted (Gregory et al., 2016). Furthermore, additional research is warranted on the impact
that cultural mismatching between teachers and students potentially has on fear and conflict,
leading to increased suspensions and expulsions (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). These themes
were infrequently observed in the research.
21
Benefits of Restorative Justice
It is strongly believed that the two foundational benefits of restorative justice include
improved dialogue and positive relationship building (González, 2012; Skiba & Peterson, 1999;
Sughrue, 2003; Zehr, 1995). As a foundation of restorative justice, Roche (2003) argued that
accountability for effective dialogue must be equally shared among all affected parties. True
benefits of restorative justice must be initiated through effective voluntary dialogue between the
offender and the offended. Relationship building is the second foundational benefit in restorative
justice, as it is repaired as a result of voluntary dialogue occurring with fidelity. Many
researchers have asserted that a critical component of relationship building involves repairing the
emotional and psychological trauma caused by the offender (Zehr, 1995). Roche also contended
that although it is important to focus on the relationship directly harmed by the offender, indirect
relationships that have been affected should be included in all dialogue as well (Roche, 2003). In
addition to restoring these additional relationships, Loevinger (1976) added that the morality of
all parties involved is strengthened as well.
Traditional approaches to measuring the success of the implementation of restorative
justice practices include methods in which data can be used to demonstrate whether harmed
relationships were restored by all affected stakeholders. This can be done through the analysis of
changes in suspension rates or absences, or even in the determination of improvement in
academic or social outcomes. Within the Denver Public Schools system, the first longitudinal
restorative justice study conducted in an urban school in the United States included data
reviewed from 2006 to 2013 utilizing both empirical and qualitative data collection methods
(González, 2015). Results from the study, which analyzed more than 1,300 restorative justice
cases, demonstrated key insight into the benefits of implementing restorative justice practices,
22
including how the implementation at school and district levels could serve as a vital component
toward reducing the disproportionality in discipline outcomes for students of color and those
with disabilities. Specifically, overall suspension rates fell for all subgroups, with African
Americans experiencing the largest decline (7.2%) compared with their Latino and White
counterparts (González, 2015). The principal foundations of the benefits of restorative justice can
be effectively categorized into the following commonly explored themes for further review: (a)
school culture and safety and (b) student-teacher relationships, as evidenced by reduced
disciplinary action and improved student achievement.
School Culture and Safety
In a 2014 report from the Oakland Unified School District in California, Jain et al. (2014)
performed a research study on the impact of implementing restorative justice in specific K–12
schools. The study’s focus was on evaluating all elements of the restorative justice program
geared toward reducing harm, building community, and helping to ensure the successful
reintegration of marginalized students from the juvenile justice system (Jain et al., 2014).
Findings from the study showed considerable reductions in suspensions of students, especially
among African Americans, in schools with the restorative justice program in place compared
with those without it. These findings have magnified meaning based on results from research
performed by Voight et al. (2015), which found, after teacher and student surveys obtained from
approximately 400 middle schools with no restorative justice practices in California, that African
American and Latino students had weaker perceptions of overall connectedness with schools
compared with White students. Students from the schools with the evaluated restorative justice
programs reported an overall benefit to school culture on their campuses through increased
factors evaluated, including the ability to better manage their emotions, having greater empathy
23
for fellow students, and maintaining positive relationships with peers (Jain et al., 2014). A pilot
restorative justice program at Cole Middle School in West Oakland, California, evaluated in
2010 showed similar findings, including restorative justice implementation strengthening overall
relationships in the school and fostering increased student responsibility (Sumner et al., 2010).
Finally, when Augustine et al. (2018) structured a research study utilizing one of the first-ever
randomized controlled trial methods to evaluate the effects of restorative justice practices on
school climates in the Pittsburgh School District, results demonstrated an improvement in overall
school climates, determined by 63% of teachers included in the study.
Student-Teacher Relationships
In an effort to inform practices toward the achievement of equity in school discipline,
Gregory et al. (2016) conducted a study to evaluate student-teacher relationships in schools with
implemented restorative justice practices. Results from the 29 classrooms (approximating 412
students) surveyed showed that teachers who implemented restorative justice practices with
diverse students had more positive student-teacher relationships, comparatively. Students also
perceived teachers who implemented restorative justice as more respectful, and these teachers
also issued fewer suspensions compared with teachers with no restorative justice program in
place. Finally, results from the study also showed that overall, fewer discipline referrals were
issued to Latino and African American students from teachers with restorative justice programs,
comparatively (Gregory et al., 2016). Efforts to implement restorative justice practices have also
demonstrated the yielding of positive relationships in as short a period as a few months; teachers
reporting disciplinary issues from an elementary and middle school in Michigan saw reductions
of 73% and 75%, respectively (Porter, 2007). In a 12-year study focused on the impact of
restorative justice on LAUSD school suspensions, researchers saw a large overall decline in
24
suspension records along with a reduction in the suspension gaps between those students
identified as frequently disciplined compared with their less-disciplined student counterparts
(Hashim et al., 2018).
Findings observed from the Scottish Restorative Project, a study evaluating the effect of
restorative justice in 18 schools that included approximately 231 students and 400 staffers,
demonstrated an increase in staff and student morale (McCluskey et al., 2008). Reflections from
students included experiencing school staff as more fair regarding conflicts and being
comfortable with utilizing language associated with restorative justice practices, especially in
primary school settings. These improved student-teacher relationships were credited with
empowering students to make better choices regarding behavior, as evidenced by a decrease in
exclusions and referrals across multiple school sites. Additional findings from the study
suggested that the implementation of restorative justice practices served as a driving force
toward the allocation of more individualized student focus on completing academic
requirements.
Improved student achievement has commonly been seen to occur as a result of positive
teacher-student relationships connected to restorative justice practices (Hansberry, 2016;
Hopkins, 2004; Roorda et al., 2011; Zehr & Mika, 1998). In a meta-analysis, Roorda et al.
(2011) investigated correlations between affective teacher-student relationships and students’
school engagement and achievement. This meta-analysis, including 99 studies and encompassing
students and teachers from preschool through high school, found that affective teacher-student
relationships were positively linked with both student school engagement and academic
outcomes (Roorda et al., 2011). In addition to academic achievement, social achievement has
also been documented in research concerning students and the impact of restorative justice
25
programs. Ortega et al. (2016) analyzed outcomes concerning restorative circles being
implemented among 35 high school students in the southeast United States and found that in
addition to improved relationships, academic and social achievements were seen among students
in the data sample.
Barriers to the Sustainable Facilitation of Restorative Justice
Despite the plethora of research demonstrating the benefits of implementing restorative
justice practices, many studies have highlighted the barriers to successful implementation as well
(Augustine et al., 2018; Hansberry, 2016). In a 2-year study in Australia, Cameron and
Thorsborne (2001) evaluated data from 119 schools concerning implementation barriers of
restorative justice practices. Findings showed that one of the biggest barriers to the initial and
sustainable effective implementation of restorative justice is a lack of dedicated financial
resources. This includes funding to create shared and agreed-upon structures regarding
restorative justice practices and opportunities for all school staff to expand their capacity to
become trained in the behavior management of developing and maintaining healthy relationships
through the sufficient allocation of school funds (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). Removing the
barrier of a lack of dedicated financial and training resources would help facilitate the
development and maintenance of highly skilled facilitators of restorative justice practices
through professional development trainings and other enrichment methods (Morrison et al.,
2005).
Training school site and district-level personnel who will implement restorative justice
practices with fidelity relates to the second main barrier that research has identified in the
sustainable facilitation of restorative justice practices: buy-in (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001;
Hansberry, 2016; Turnbill, 2002). Consistent buy-in from all school and district staff is critical in
26
creating a sustainable restorative justice practices program. Creating buy-in for new teachers can
be accomplished through preservice trainings stressing the important connection that
relationships have to pedagogy and providing teacher mentors to assist them in building their
skills (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). Buy-in methods should also take place with students and
can be accomplished through teacher- or administrator-led dialogue on the creation of school
policies concerning restorative justice practices. A study by Augustine et al. (2018) showed that
school staff who received direct support from leadership reported higher levels of buy-in
compared with those left on their own to reach out to coaches or school leadership for support.
The last major barrier is restorative justice practices not being perceived as a consistent
priority among school leadership. According to Morrison and Vaandering (2012), priorities
among leadership should consistently help promote clear dialogue among all stakeholders,
including students, parents, teachers, and support personnel, in all expectations related to
restorative justice practices. Having conflicting organization requirements or unclear
expectations at the school compared with the district presents inconsistencies among
expectations and priorities within senior leadership and can lead to unclear goals and objectives
regarding new restorative justice practice focus areas (Augustine et al., 2018). General increases
in the demand for mandated teacher services at the school site and district level, coupled with
poor channels of communication, may add to the priority of restorative justice practices being
unclear or lost by senior leaders. It is important for district staff to align and incorporate
restorative justice practices with other highly prioritized initiatives where possible in order to
allow centralized messaging surrounding expectations and vision to be disseminated among
individual school sites (Augustine et al., 2018).
27
Challenges in Determining School Success Using Restorative Justice Practices
Research has indicated multiple methods used by researchers to measure and determine
the success of restorative justice practices at the school level. These include an analysis of a
change in discipline referrals across student groups and an improvement in attendance rates,
arrests, absences, transfers to other school sites, or comparisons of academic performance
(Augustine et al., 2018). Although these methods provide metrics to confirm correlations
between the implementation of restorative justice practices and their effectiveness, little research
has been performed on attempts to standardize the evaluation of the implementation of these
practices against other school sites or districts. Minimal research has attempted to compare the
effectiveness of similar restorative justice discipline structures across multiple school sites.
Additionally, little research has been conducted using economically driven methods to evaluate
the cost-benefit measure of implementing restorative justice practices. This could include
analyzing the costs and benefits of any of the aforementioned areas, such as student-teacher
relationships, for students in schools implementing restorative justice compared with those in
schools utilizing exclusionary discipline practices. Challenges in determining school success also
include minimal research found on the impact that restorative justice practices have on the family
members of stakeholders affected by a given conflict (offender or victim). Obtaining these data
could inform modifications made to current restorative justice practices to improve overall
outcomes.
Finally, despite progress toward the dialogue and development of standard restorative
justice practice curricula for implementation in K–12 school settings in various regions, limited
research was found on the development or implementation of standardized mechanisms for
measurements of success. In an era involving increased state and federal accountability measures
28
surrounding school and student outcomes, research informing the creation of standardized
restorative justice effectiveness methods is warranted. To that end, evaluating the perceptions of
the success of restorative justice practices from teachers is likely to aid in that endeavor.
Theoretical and Conceptual Framework
For this study, multiple theoretical and conceptual frameworks were used. The Quality
Implementation Framework provides a structured approach to the installation of new processes
and strategies, such as restorative justice disciplinary practices (Durlak et al., 2012). As
restorative justice involves the adoption of a disciplinary shift rooted in effective communication
and problem solving among all affected stakeholders, organizational change theory must also be
applied to envelop institutional changes resulting from findings regarding barriers preventing
sustainable facilitation of restorative justice and teacher support strategies actively performed by
school administrators. Lastly, this study was also rooted in critical race theory, as it is strongly
believed that educational inequities should be removed for all students (Ladson-Billings & Tate,
1995). CRT involves the perspective that, when evaluating the education system in the United
States, influences of race must systematically be applied (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995). CRT,
in effect, strives to attribute genuine value to the voices of minorities through the analysis of
their narratives, upholding the ideal that a radical approach ultimately leads to change.
Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to determine the supports and barriers perceived by
teachers concerning the implementation and sustainable facilitation of restorative justice
practices, along with evaluating mechanisms to determine school-site levels of success. Despite
the successful use of restorative justice practices through peace circles, community conferencing,
peer juries, and peer mediation (Hamlin & Darling, 2012; Hopkins, 2004; Kuo et al., 2010;
29
McCluskey et al., 2008; Pranis, 2005; Zehr, 1995), little research has been performed to confirm
how teachers in urban secondary schools in Los Angeles are specifically supported by
administrators to implement these strategies with fidelity. Furthermore, among the
aforementioned restorative justice practices, gaps in the research exist regarding which strategies
have been used and identified as effective by teachers in urban secondary schools in Los
Angeles. One inability or barrier regarding the implementation of restorative justice practices has
been traditionally linked to a lack of training (Augustine et al., 2018; Cameron & Thorsborne,
2001; Morrison et al., 2005). Specifically, the absence of ongoing professional development and
training with restorative justice practice facilitators through observation and feedback,
shadowing, or one-on-one coaching has been seen in multiple instances. However, studies
evaluating the barriers experienced or perceived by teachers in urban secondary schools are
lacking. Furthermore, a plethora of studies exists confirming the success of the implementation
of restorative justice programs through an analysis of multiple factors, including academic
performance, truancy, absenteeism, school referrals, suspensions, school transfers, high school
dropout rates, expulsions, and disciplinary issues, among others (González, 2012; Hansberry,
2016; Hashim et al., 2018; Kuo et al., 2010; McCluskey et al., 2008; Zehr, 1995). It is important
to capture teachers’ perceptions of schoolwide success or failure of restorative justice practices
in urban secondary schools, as research on this topic is currently sparse and results may inform
strategies on where to allocate resources in this setting to yield maximum results. Chapter Three
details the methodology used in the design of this study and includes the statement of the
problem, the purpose of the study, a review of the sample population, the instrumentation, and
the data collection and analysis.
30
Chapter Three: Methodology
Attitudes of discipline in K–12 settings in the United States reaching as far back as the
18th century include the implementation of corporal punishment as a seemingly effective method
for discipline. In this manner, students were subjected to any intentional method inflicting
physical pain as a penalty for misbehavior, including excessive exercise drills, shaking, paddling,
and even electric shock (Dupper & Dingus, 2008). Research by Dupper and Dingus has
confirmed that despite immediate actions of compliance seen through corporal punishment,
students exhibit behavioral deficiencies in the areas of social and self-control skills. As a result
of the expansion of the zero-tolerance exclusionary discipline policies established by the Gun-
Free Schools Act of 1994, Black and Latino students in K–12 settings were found to be
disproportionately targeted for suspensions and expulsions (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). To combat
these disproportionate exclusionary practices in K–12 settings, restorative justice was introduced
as a disciplinary model in the late 1990s, with a focus on restoring relationships harmed by all
affected stakeholders as a result of bad behavior (Zehr, 2013). Ideally, students being held
accountable for their behavior improves their social skills, ultimately leading to an overall
improvement in community safety (Zehr, 2013).
This study aimed to address the gaps in the research regarding teacher-perceived barriers
to support from school administrators in low-income, urban K–12 school settings leading to
challenges with implementing restorative justice practices. This study sought to identify potential
barriers to implementing restorative justice practices with fidelity across urban secondary school
sites and abroad, with the goal of informing policy, best practices, and specific school-site
strategies for teachers and school administrators.
31
Statement of the Problem
In 2009, the 10 largest school districts in the United States had a disproportionate rate of
suspensions for their African American students (Civil Rights Project, 2000). Specifically, data
from LAUSD showed that African American students accounted for almost 30% of all school
suspensions while comprising approximately 10% of the total student population. In a national
effort to discourage school shootings in K–12 school settings, the passing of the Gun-Free
Schools Act, enacted in 1994, required all schools receiving public funding to expel for 1 year
students who were found to be in possession of a firearm while on campus, ultimately leading to
explicit zero-tolerance policies fueling a culture of exclusionary disciplinary practices in K–12
settings (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). Research has confirmed that student suspension or expulsion
resulting from zero-tolerance policies leads to multiple negative outcomes, including low
academic achievement, delinquency, and dropout (Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
In an effort to curb the disproportionately punitive discipline culture resulting from the
implementation of the Gun-Free Schools Act, restorative justice practices in K–12 settings were
introduced in the late 1990s (Zehr, 2013). As an alternative disciplinary practice, the initial aim
of implementing restorative justice practices in K–12 school settings was to shift the focus
toward values and principles used to guide actions and reactions, with the ultimate intent of
mending and restoring relationships (Zehr, 2013).
In a 12-year longitudinal study by Hashim et al. (2018), LAUSD student-level suspension
data from 2003 to 2015 were studied to determine trends in suspensions given the banning of
suspensions for willful defiance in 2011 and expansion of restorative justice practices across all
school sites in 2014. Despite reductions in suspension rates seen across all school sites, urban
schools identified by the district as in most need of reform still saw significant suspension gaps
32
between Black and non-Black students, suggesting additional support and strategies were still
needed (Hashim et al., 2018). These and similar findings indicate that understanding the
perceived internal and external barriers of teachers in low-income, urban secondary schools in
Los Angeles regarding support from administrators with implementing restorative justice
practices is critical to developing modified or new strategies, policies, and procedures to
positively influence current best practices and measures of success locally and abroad.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive study was to understand the internal and external
implementation barriers experienced by teachers receiving support from administrators in low-
income, urban secondary schools in Los Angeles regarding restorative justice practices.
Identifying these internal and external barriers experienced by teachers may inform best practices
regarding administrators supporting teachers concerning restorative justice implementation.
Research Questions
To understand the administrative barriers that teachers in low-income, urban secondary
schools perceive regarding restorative justice implementation, the following research questions
guided the study:
1. How are secondary school teachers, performing restorative justice practices,
supported by administrators in urban, low-income school sites in Los Angeles?
2. What internal or external barriers are perceived by secondary school teachers in
urban, low-income sites in Los Angeles regarding administrators supporting the
implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity?
33
3. What specified teacher support strategies or actions are used by secondary school
administrators in urban, low-income schools in Los Angeles regarding restorative
justice practices?
4. How do teachers evaluate the schoolwide success or failure of the implementation of
restorative justice practices?
Sample and Population
This study incorporated interviews and survey results from male and female credentialed
teachers of varying ethnicities serving in low-income, urban secondary charter or public schools
(ninth through 12th grade) in Los Angeles, CA. Participants in this study encompassed 40
teachers from various content areas who had taught at least 1 full school year at an eligible
school site. Eligible criteria for school sites included schools practicing a school-wide model of
restorative justice for at least 1 year prior to the study. Additionally, low-income, urban
secondary schools were defined as high schools located in nonsuburban areas of Los Angeles
and qualifying for Title I funding as defined by at least 40% of students enrolled coming from
low-income families eligible for free or reduced-cost lunch.
Purposive sampling was used to support this study, as the goal was to derive insight from
the given participants based on specified criteria previously provided (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016).
The focus of this study was to understand the perceived internal and external barriers of support
of teachers in low-income, urban secondary schools. The researcher determined that selecting
teachers with at least 1 year of teaching experience at an eligible school site would best help
address the research questions posed in this study (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
34
Design Summary
The researcher chose a mixed-methods study design based on the transformative
worldview due to the overarching goal of the participants and K–12 educational field ultimately
benefiting from the study’s findings (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). By giving voice to the
participants through a transformative mixed-methods framework study incorporating both
qualitative and quantitative elements, changes may be promoted to improve the lives of
stakeholders (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). This mixed-methods study was grounded in Creswell
and Creswell’s (2018) proposed mixed-methods approach, which includes the collection of
qualitative and quantitative data based on research questions developed by the researcher, the use
of rigorous analysis of both sets of data, and the integration of the data obtained through
explanations provided as a result of merging and applying the data to a larger framework. By
minimizing the limitations of analyzing qualitative and quantitative data alone, utilizing a mixed-
methods approach provided the researcher the opportunity to compare different perspectives
drawn from each set of data, thereby developing a more accurate analysis of needed
modifications to current K–12 school culture, policies, and best practices regarding teacher
support from administrators in relation to restorative justice practices (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Methodology
The methodology used in this study included the collection of open-ended qualitative
data from the interviews of certified teachers who had taught in low-income, urban schools in
Los Angeles for at least 1 year, and closed-ended quantitative data from teachers surveyed. In an
effort to learn as much as possible about a series of events not seen (Weiss, 1994), the interview
protocol created encompassed a semi-structured, standardized open version (Merriam & Tisdell,
35
2016). This protocol model allowed for greater flexibility toward the wording of questions asked,
and although scripting questions were utilized, it provided multiple opportunities for additional
related topics to be discussed based on the participants’ interests and topic preference. All of the
research questions previously identified were addressed through the closed-ended, quantitative
survey questions and the open-ended, qualitative interview questions used in this study.
Due to virtual distance learning limitations experienced as a result of the COVID-19
pandemic, the researcher determined that a convergent mixed-methods design was appropriate.
After different data elements from qualitative and quantitative instrumentation are obtained, they
are initially analyzed separately and then compared to conclude confirmation or disconfirmation
(Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this design model, data analyzed from each instrumentation type
were merged before findings were interpreted to compare with one another. Parallel concepts in
this study were measured through the data collection and analysis from each instrumentation
segment and compared using the side-by-side comparison (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). In this
manner, the researcher first provided quantitative statistical results, then subsequently provided
qualitative findings that supported or disconfirmed the statistical results (Creswell & Creswell,
2018).
Instrumentation and Protocols
Qualitative Instrument
Qualitative data for this study were obtained through the performance of interviews with
teachers in low-income, urban secondary schools in Los Angeles. Interviews were conducted
through an online web-based video chat in an effort to understand and interpret the experiences
of the participants (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The interview protocol used contained 11
questions (see Appendix B), and all questions were designed to address the previously outlined
36
research questions for this study. Interview questions 1–5 contained additional follow-up
questions to provide the researcher with additional insight related to the study. The interview
protocol used was a semi-structured, open standardized format, and notes were taken (Creswell
& Creswell, 2018).
Quantitative Instrument
This study utilized a survey distributed to 40 certified teachers currently teaching in a
low-income, urban secondary school in Los Angeles for at least 1 year for the purpose of
capturing quantitative data. The survey contained four sections with a total of 15 closed-ended
questions (see Appendix A). All questions used in the survey were created to address the
research questions previously outlined in the purpose of the study section of this chapter. Section
I of the survey provided insight on demographic information for participant eligibility, while
sections II and III addressed research questions on the theory and training components. Section
IV highlighted specific barriers and effectiveness measures. The design of the survey occurred
through the use of the software SurveyMonkey and incorporated a 4- and 5-point Likert scale for
sections II, III, and IV. In sections II and IV, the following descriptors were used: Strongly
Disagree, Disagree, Agree, and Strongly Agree. In section III, the following descriptors were
used: Not True, Slightly True, True Approximately 50% Of the Time, Mostly True, and
Completely True. The survey instrument was accessible to all participants and was designed to
capture the numeric description of the perceptions of administrator support for teachers regarding
the implementation of restorative justice practices.
Data Collection
Maxwell’s (2013) data collection methods were followed in this research study, including
negotiating research relationships, participant selection, strategies used to obtain specific
37
elements of data, and how the researcher interprets the data obtained. Regarding the quantitative
data, surveys were provided to 40 teachers based on meeting previously outlined participant
eligibility criteria. To capture qualitative data, interviews were performed with 10 consenting
teachers who met eligibility requirements. Interviews were recorded with permission and took
approximately 50 minutes to complete. Interview data collection was performed via an online
web-based video chat with a unique code used for each participant to increase privacy. Based on
consent provided by study participants, interviews were recorded and stored on the researcher’s
password-encrypted personal thumb drive solely dedicated to this study. Transcriptions of the
interviews were performed and reviewed by the researcher for this study. Lastly, follow-up calls
were performed, where needed, to ensure participant responses were aligned with the study’s
research questions.
Data Analysis
A convergent mixed-methods approach was used as the framework for the data analysis
of this research study. In this manner, qualitative data derived from interviews and quantitative
data derived from survey responses were independently analyzed, then merged to determine
confirmation or disconfirmation of the findings in each. Research questions previously outlined
were utilized to facilitate the data analysis of this research study, and the confidentiality of each
participant was preserved. The researcher considered it critical to protect participants in this
study through various confidentiality methods, including disassociating names from responses
during the coding and recording process (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). Findings from each
instrumentation method were transcribed and coded, with the final analysis developed utilizing
the process of concurrent triangulation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
38
In concurrent triangulation (see Figure 2), validity is determined to be added to the study
if themes are established through the convergence of multiple data elements or perspectives
obtained from study participants (Creswell & Creswell, 2018; Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). For this
study, these elements included qualitative findings obtained from face-to-face or telephone
interviews, quantitative findings obtained from survey results, and a review of the literature as
provided in Chapter Two. Findings confirmed from the research study were analyzed to
determine convergence, divergence, or a combination thereof (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Critical race theory was incorporated in the analysis to provide connections to a larger theme and
meaning. This study, rooted in the theoretical framework lens of CRT, allows for data reviewed
to be used as a tool to understand racial inequities in education that gender and socioeconomic
class are incapable of demonstrating. Additionally, the Quality Implementation Framework
provides a structured approach to the installation of new processes and strategies, such as
restorative justice disciplinary practices (Durlak et al., 2012). Organizational change theory was
also incorporated in this study, as critical elements of problem solving and communication must
be embedded systemically regarding restorative justice implementation supports for teachers in
low-income, urban secondary schools due to internal and external barriers identified as part of
this study.
Validity and Reliability
Multiple strategies were used to promote validity and reliability for this study. Maxwell
(2013) confirmed that two of the biggest threats to validity in research studies are researcher bias
and reactivity. Researcher bias includes the researcher discriminately selecting data that fits his
or her determined existing theory or goals, while reactivity includes the influence that the
39
researcher has on the participants included in the study (Maxwell, 2013). For this study, actions
to maximize accuracy and remain consistent were taken to maximize validity and reliability.
These validity procedures were performed to ensure trustworthiness, authenticity, and
credibility regarding the study through the convergent triangulation of different data sources,
using thick descriptions to convey study findings, identifying and clarifying bias brought to the
study by the researcher, and incorporating peer review (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
Figure 2
Triangulation of the Data
Qualitative
Data:
Interviews
Theories:
Critical Race
Theory
Research
Findings
Quantitative
Data:
Surveys
40
Summary
This research study used a convergent mixed-methods approach with quantitative data
obtained through closed-ended survey responses and qualitative data obtained through open-
ended interviews. Data obtained from participants were used to address the research questions.
Findings from the analysis of the data are presented in Chapter Four, with discussion of the
findings presented in Chapter Five.
41
Chapter Four: Findings and Discussion
This study was conducted to identify the perceived internal and external barriers from
secondary school teachers in urban schools in Los Angeles regarding support received from
school administrators to implement restorative justice practices with fidelity. Restorative justice
practices in K–12 settings incorporate an alternative discipline approach to historically used
punitive-based practices and integrate discipline strategies that focus on values and principles
used to guide actions and reactions in order to mend harmed relationships (Zehr, 2013). The
goals of restorative justice practices include helping students become accountable for their
actions, improving their social skills, and improving community safety through multiple
approaches such as the use of affective statements, equitable dialogue, and shared responsibility
(Zehr, 2013).
Findings from this study may inform best practices, policies, and procedures specific to
secondary schools in urban areas and can be used to maximize the implementation and
modification efforts by school leadership. In Chapter One, an introduction, background, and
rationale for performing this study were presented. Chapter Two outlined and demonstrated an
overview of current scholarly literature on restorative justice and the overarching barriers
experienced by stakeholders across multiple school sites and demographic makeups. Chapter
Three provided a description of the convergent mixed-methods approach used to analyze the
results through the theoretical framework lens of critical race theory, with additional elements
including quality implementation and organizational change concepts. Chapter Four presents and
discusses the findings based on the convergent mixed-methods approach used. Quantitative data
obtained from surveys distributed through SurveyMonkey were analyzed against qualitative data
42
received through virtual interviews over Zoom and were triangulated with findings in the
literature to determine mirroring or conflictive comparisons (Creswell & Creswell, 2018).
This convergent mixed-methods study sought to answer the following research questions:
1. How are secondary school teachers, performing restorative justice practices,
supported by administrators in urban, low-income school sites in Los Angeles?
2. What internal or external barriers are perceived by secondary school teachers in
urban, low-income sites in Los Angeles regarding administrators supporting the
implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity?
3. What specified teacher support strategies or actions are used by secondary school
administrators in urban, low-income schools in Los Angeles regarding restorative
justice practices?
4. How do teachers evaluate the schoolwide success or failure of the implementation of
restorative justice practices?
Quantitative Respondent Demographics
The research survey was distributed across a sample of approximately 176 secondary
school teachers, of which 146 either did not respond or did not meet the participant criteria for
the study (including providing confirmed consent or completing all survey questions). The final
survey responses included 30 total participants. The survey sample consisted of 18 female (60%)
and 12 male (40%) participants with the following self-identified ethnic demographics: Asian
7% (N = 2), Black or African American 13% (N = 4), Latinx 43% (N = 13), Middle Eastern 3%
(N = 1), White 27% (N = 8), Multiracial 3% (N = 1). Table 1 describes the ethnicity profile of the
participants. The participants were disproportionately distributed among public (N = 11; 37%),
charter (N = 17; 57%), and private (N = 2; 7%) school settings.
43
Table 1
Percentages and Frequencies of Teacher Ethnicities
Ethnicity Responses (%)
Asian
Black or African American
Hispanic or Latino
Middle Eastern
Multiracial or Multiethnic
White
Another race
2 (7%)
4 (13%)
13 (43%)
1 (3%)
1 (3%)
8 (27%)
1 (3%)
Note. Female (n = 18, 60%), male (n = 12, 40%).
Qualitative Respondent Demographics
Table 2 displays the demographic data for the five secondary school teachers interviewed
for this study. Interview participants previously participated in the quantitative survey instrument
and were selected for a qualitative interview based on their willingness to be interviewed, as
asked at the conclusion of the quantitative survey. All five participants selected for qualitative
interviews were California-certified secondary school teachers in Title I schools who had taught
at their current restorative justice–practicing school site for at least 1 academic year.
Level of Agreement With Restorative Justice
Results from the survey indicated that most survey participants agree that restorative
justice practices provide positive benefits to secondary school environments. Specifically, 96%
said they believe that restorative justice can be used to increase student behavior, while 94% said
that student behavior has improved over the last academic school year due to the implementation
44
of restorative justice practices. Additionally, 77% of participants indicated that classroom culture
improved due to restorative justice practices being implemented, while 24% disagreed.
Level of Knowledge Regarding Restorative Justice
When asked questions regarding participants’ knowledge of restorative justice practices,
77% of survey participants reported being confident in their ability to use restorative justice
practices. Furthermore, 99% of participants had confidence in their understanding of the purpose
of restorative justice practices; 42% reported being familiar with knowing how to implement
restorative justice practices, and 58% reported being only somewhat familiar.
Coding of the Data
Research questions were analyzed through a process involving the transcription of
qualitative interviews, analyzing survey results, and developing overarching themes that proved
to mirror or be inconsistent with the literature. Coding processes used for data analysis
encompassed open and inductive methods, and themes were determined based on axial and open
analysis measures.
Table 2
Qualitative Survey Demographic Data
Name Ethnicity Gender Content area School type Years at school site
Teacher 1 White Female Theatre Public 2
Teacher 2 Hispanic Female World history Charter 1
Teacher 3 Hispanic Male Spanish Private 2
Teacher 4 Hispanic Male English Charter 6
Teacher 5 Black Male English Charter 5
45
Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was “How are secondary school teachers, performing restorative
justice practices, supported by administrators in urban, low-income sites in Los Angeles?”
Multiple themes were determined through the analysis of the quantitative survey results (see
Table 3). Professional development (PD) sessions were a major administrative support indicated
by teachers, as 59% of teachers confirmed through survey responses that a PD session on
restorative justice had occurred in the last year, while 41% indicated that none had occurred.
Teachers were asked to identify any additional restorative justice supports received from
administrators outside of a professional development setting, and 37% of respondents indicated
that no additional supports from school administrators were provided. Additionally, supports that
were identified included modeling of restorative justice practices (7%), in-person discussions or
email blasts (19%), providing observation feedback (15%), and answering specific questions
about restorative justice implementation (22%). When asked if teacher school sites had a
restorative justice coach who is responsive to them when needed, 63% indicated they did not,
while 37% indicated not being aware if their school had one.
46
Table 3
Additional Restorative Justice Supports Provided by Administrators
Support type Frequency
Provide general info via in-person discussion or email
Answer specific questions
Modeling
Provide feedback based on observations
No supports provided
5 (19%)
6 (22%)
2 (7%)
4 (15%)
10 (37%)
Note. n = 27 responses. Participants were allowed to bypass this question in the survey.
The qualitative portion of data collection reflected similar themes as confirmed by survey
participants. Specifically, Teacher 5 echoed the theme of professional development trainings as a
primary support, indicating that trainings occurred during indistinct periods throughout the year,
were rarely labeled as “Restorative Justice PDs,” and most often occurred in the format of
restorative justice practices “sprinkled” within PDs and including nonrelated topics. This theme
was reflected in the responses from two additional teachers interviewed as well. Teacher 5 also
stated during the interview that administrative support includes facilitation of the conversation
among all harmed parties during an incident. Teacher 1 remarked that although there were no
specific examples of support they could name, they felt that the administration was supportive of
each teacher’s individual needs regarding restorative justice implementation in the classroom and
was confident that questions would be answered if asked. Similarly, Teacher 2 stated that
although restorative justice practices are part of their school’s disciplinary policy,
implementation is determined by the discretion of each specific teacher. A similar reflection was
provided by Teacher 4, who confirmed that although two separate PD sessions specific to
47
restorative justice occurred, no support from admin was provided at their school site to apply the
transition in practice:
Unfortunately, if you are beyond a first-year teacher, the expectation is that you handle
your own discipline issues. If you were to look at our disciplinary infraction matrix today,
you would clearly see that if the issue isn’t a big deal, then the teacher should handle it on
their own.
Teacher 3 said that although teachers at their school site did not have any PDs over the
past year specific to restorative justice, discussions occurred surrounding specific students solely
with affected teachers:
In various grade-level meetings, teachers would focus on specific students who were
more inclined to require tiered restorative justice practices. All teachers of those agreed-
upon students would have a discussion about any recent disciplinary issues and then
would talk through strategies to help them. . . . But this has never occurred in a whole
staff training for restorative justice.
Furthermore, Teacher 1 relayed that although there have been no PDs specifically on restorative
justice at their school site, they have been given approval to pursue virtual professional
development on school-related topics, including but not limited to restorative justice practices.
Literature aligns with the findings determined as part of this study regarding school
administrator supports provided to teachers, specifically encompassing various dialogue efforts
in supporting teachers involving restorative justice implementation and continuance (Zehr,
1995). Themes identified as part of RQ 1 were also similar to findings presented in research
performed by Kuo et al. (2010), which included administrators being found to perform specific
48
strategies involving relationship building through training, in-person discussions, and
observational feedback.
Under the Quality Implementation Framework lens, an additional theme surfaced
regarding support from administrators. Qualitative interview feedback demonstrated the
following factors that were identified as critical in supporting teachers’ implementation of
restorative justice practices. Meyers et al. (2012) characterized this framework as four distinct
phases of an implementation process: initial considerations, creating a structure, the ongoing
structure, and improving future applications. School administrators taking greater strides to
facilitate restorative justice dialogue between students and teachers was viewed as desirable
across all qualitative interviews and findings. This ideal form of support would be in alignment
with supporting the creation of a structure that would enable restorative justice practices to be
performed consistently. In support of this theme, Teacher 5 stated, “Theoretically, teachers
should be part of the discussion with impacted students, but the role of admin should really be
mitigated to facilitation of the conversation.”
Similarly, Teacher 1 provided this reflection during the interview:
As a teacher, I have had a lot of conversations with LatinX students where they have told
me that they feel like teachers only care about Asian students or that teachers and
administrators don’t care about them or see them. . . . I would like to be included in
conversations where administrators help students have deeper conversations with all
parties involved about what happened and why they are in trouble. I would like to see
more debriefing conversations from administrators with students about their behavior
with an attempt to look more at any root issues.
49
Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was “What internal or external barriers are perceived by secondary
school teachers in urban, low-income sites in Los Angeles regarding administrators supporting
the implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity?” Evaluation of results from the
survey and interviews resulted in the top three overarching themes for barriers identified by
teachers: lack of training, time, and lack of direct and consistent administrative support.
Limited or lack of training was cited as a barrier by 23% of survey participants, while
time constraints were identified by 13% of respondents and lack of consistent administrative
support 15% (see Table 4). While 59% of respondents confirmed that a PD on restorative justice
had occurred over the last academic year, 41% reported one had not. A total of 71% of teachers
also confirmed that PD sessions took place once per semester, while the remaining survey
participants indicated training taking place less frequently.
Lack of Training
When discussing lack of training as a barrier to teacher support from administrators,
Teacher 5 confirmed that professional development sessions including restorative justice had
taken place over the past year but could not recall the approximate frequency. Teacher 5 also
expressed a need to have more sustained PD trainings on restorative justice more often
throughout the year in order to help foster more administrative support from teachers in getting
more restorative justice–related initiatives, like PBIS, off the ground.
When reflecting on lack of training as a barrier, Teacher 1 stated,
Our school site has half-heartedly attempted to put together a PBIS system since its
implementation of restorative justice, but in all of the PDs that have taken place over the
last year only two of them included any information on PBIS and each segment on it was
50
approximately 20 minutes. . . . Lack of training has led to a lack of structure for our PBIS
program, thereby impacting our restorative justice system, and has made it so that no one
really understands the rules or goals.
Teacher 3 reiterated the lack of training theme by stating the following: “We have had one PD
where restorative justice was briefly mentioned but never a PD as a whole staff.”
Table 4
Perceived Barriers to Restorative Justice Implementation
Support type Frequency
Time constraints
Personal lack of buy-in
Limited training
Lack of direct, consistent support
Student buy-in
Lack of cohesiveness between RJ practices and concurrent discipline policy
Lack of understanding/student expectations
Frequent leadership and teacher turnover
Other
8 (13%)
1 (2%)
14 (23%)
9 (15%)
6 (10%)
7 (12%)
7 (12%)
4 (7%)
4 (7%)
Note. Barriers identified in the Other category include lack of consistency to make specific goals,
ABA practices for students with moderate to severe special needs, and an overall lack of
administrator dedication.
51
Lack of training as a barrier is a theme supported in the literature through multiple
studies, including work by Johansen et al. (2011) in which 42 teachers from five primary schools
in New Zealand cited minimal preservice and active training through professional development
as a major barrier in limiting their ability to administer restorative behavior practices effectively
and influence their perceptions and understanding of the impact of these practices on their
overall school culture. Research published by Hunzicker (2011) further aligns with this study’s
finding of lack of training as a barrier by highlighting the need for effective teacher training to
transition from a “sit and get” model to one that is ongoing through multiple opportunities.
Furthermore, Kane et al. (2007) showed that consistent messaging from school administrators
through multiple means, including ongoing training, positively shifts school culture as it relates
to restorative justice practices.
Time Constraints
While discussing time constraints as a barrier, Teacher 1 identified that due to a lack of
time admittedly from their administrative staff to support restorative justice efforts, teachers have
been positioned as having more flexibility to implement restorative justice practices as frequently
(or sparingly) as desired based on their personal determination. This ideology has also justified
school administrators’ lack of direct, consistent feedback and is explained through Teacher 1’s
following reflection: “Our school administrators understand that everyone needs different
supports when it comes to restorative justice and due to their limited time capacity empowers
teachers with as little or as much support as they want.”
Teacher 5 also echoed time constraints as a barrier by emphasizing that most teachers are
aware of the multitude of daily issues that require the attention of administrators and that
although administrators are perceived to care about restorative justice practices, the reality is
52
often that they do not possess adequate time to devote to it. Teacher 3 summarized similar
experiences through the following reflection:
I have often been in situations where vice-principals or the school principal were
scheduled to have meetings with myself and a student, and admin has reached out to me
to handle it on my own due to them not having enough time in their schedule that day. . . .
I hate to admit it, but with everything I know administrators do concerning school budget
planning and more severe daily discipline issues, lack of time prevents them from playing
their given role in this process. This ultimately also has an impact on the school culture.
Research on time identified as a barrier for administrator support of the implementation
of restorative justice is supported through literature findings presented in McCluskey et al.’s
(2008) 2-year analysis of restorative justice implementation in schools in the United Kingdom, in
which school staff members surveyed identified a lack of time for school administrators to
review and prepare training. Blood and Thorsborne (2005) also highlighted this barrier in their
research, in which they supplied a restorative justice framework identifying a 3- to 5-year time
span required for sustainable changes to be made regarding restorative justice practices.
Lack of Direct, Consistent Support
Teacher 5 characterized the lack of consistent administrative support as a barrier in the
following statement:
I believe our school’s shifting priorities are the cause of administrators lacking in
supporting teachers more consistently. We jump from one initiative to the next very
quickly and very often. . . . My hope is that administrators understand the amount of
consistent effort it takes to implement restorative justice. My experience has been that
administrators are often times guilty of wanting a simple solution, but this is not a
53
practice that shows results overnight, and the lack of immediate results leads to a lack of
direct, consistent support.
Additionally, Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 4, and Teacher 5 expressed a lack of direct,
consistent administrator support due to a lack of administrator follow-through, demonstrated by
no commitment to having continued dialogue with teachers after the initial rollout of their
restorative justice program. Teacher 2 further indicated in their experience that this lack of direct,
consistent support appeared due to varying levels of relationships between teachers and school
administrators. Teachers with stronger relationships with administrators were seen as having an
inadequate amount of direct support from administrators, but more than newer teachers with
weaker personal or professional relationships.
As specifically noted by Teacher 4, an additional belief held by many teachers obtained
from interviews concerning a lack of direct, consistent support includes a lack of understanding
of what restorative justice is and how it can best be integrated into their school site for their
specific urban student demographic. As noted by Teacher 4:
We tout practicing restorative justice at our school site, yet given multiple opportunities, I
have yet to hear any of our administrators clearly define or articulate exactly what
restorative justice is or how it has specifically improved our school culture outside of our
suspension rates.
Lack of consistent support is a theme supported through multiple arms of research,
including the Alameda County School Health Services Agency’s Framework, currently being
utilized in multiple K–12 schools in the Oakland Unified School District. The framework
specifically outlines strategies to combat lack of consistent administrative support through the
development of a longitudinal action plan involving creating a realistic timeline over a 3-year
54
period that includes formal and informal trainings and feedback sessions with teachers to further
progression toward the continued integration of restorative justice in a whole-school model
(Kidde & Alfred, 2011). A published 2012 district data brief on restorative justice practices in
Jefferson County Public Schools in Kentucky involving 23,197 students from 2011 to 2012
indicated that 28% of teachers did not believe school administrators were consistent in
supporting teacher efforts to sustain restorative justice practices (Rodosky, 2012).
Teacher 1, Teacher 4, and Teacher 5 reflected that this lack of direct, consistent
administrative support may be due to a belief by administrators that single-episode intervention
is required for most restorative justice episodes. Despite having some understanding of
restorative justice practices and their benefits, administrators may not provide consistent support
due to a core belief that one significant intervention is all that is required to mitigate the given
student behavior. Teacher 5 supported this subtheme through the following reflection: “I think
sometimes administrators are guilty of wanting a simple solution that can be accomplished in one
defining intervention. . . . Unfortunately, restorative justice was not designed to work in that
manner.” Although this specific perception has not been widely researched in the literature, the
overarching theme of a lack of consistent support from administrators being combatted through
multiple methods, including longitudinal training, culture building, and stakeholder inclusion,
has been supported by multiple works (Blood & Thorsborne, 2005; Liberman & Katz, 2017;
Mayworm et al., 2016; Zimmerman, 2006).
Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was “What specified teacher support strategies or actions are used
by secondary school administrators in urban, low-income schools in Los Angeles regarding
restorative justice practices?” Through teacher interviews and survey responses as part of this
55
study, the following themes displayed in Table 5 were determined to be support strategies,
outside of specific restorative justice professional development trainings, provided by
administrators concerning the implementation of restorative justice.
Findings presented in this section analyze prevalent themes that emerged during
interviews and survey responses. A theme was determined to be prevalent if it ranked within the
top four categories of those surveyed and discussed. Specifically for Table 5, this included the
support type categories of no supports provided, answering specific questions, providing general
information through in-person discussion, and feedback provided based on observations.
Table 5
Additional Restorative Justice Supports Provided by Administrators
Support type Frequency
Provide general info via in-person discussion or email
Answer specific questions
Modeling
Provide feedback based on observations
No supports provided
5 (19%)
6 (22%)
2 (7%)
4 (15%)
10 (37%)
Note. n = 27 responses. Participants were allowed to bypass this question in the survey.
56
It is important to note that among the four most prevalent restorative justice support
categories identified, as outlined in Table 5, the highest-ranked additional support from
administrators was that administrators do not provide any additional supports. This theme was
outlined by Teacher 1, Teacher 3, Teacher 4, and Teacher 5 during interviews for this study.
Teacher 4, when asked what supports were provided when their school transitioned to a
restorative justice disciplinary model, replied, “No supports were given.” The second highest
theme reported in survey responses was administrators providing additional support through
answering specific questions about restorative justice. Interviews concerning this theme
confirmed findings that these questions asked by teachers occurred typically during professional
development sessions not related to restorative justice settings and were posed to administrators
due to an absence of a responsive, designated restorative justice coach onsite. This is reflected in
survey results indicating that 63% of survey responders did not have a responsive coach when
needed and 38% were not aware if one existed on their school site at all. Observation feedback
was confirmed as an additional support by 15% of survey responders, with comparable survey
response results for one-on-one in-person discussions or email blasts.
Best practices outlining school administrator supports for the Golden Unified School
Restorative Justice Framework include administrators taking a proactive role in building the
capacity of teachers to implement restorative justice practices with fidelity through building
systems of support to allow barriers to teacher engagement and participation to be removed.
These supports include administrators working to be or have a designated restorative justice
coach on their school site, providing observational feedback to teachers during mock and actual
restorative justice circles, and having informal and formal meetings to discuss individual and/or
collective predetermined goals with teachers on their progress.
57
In the interviews, a subtheme emerged for ideally preferred administrator supports
encompassing the implementation of a structure for teachers to reflect on their given actions
regarding restorative justice and administrators supporting an increased integration of teachers in
the process with students as a result of their individual reflective progress. Teacher 2
acknowledged their desire for this supportive strategy in part by stating, “I would greatly
appreciate having additional support through being evaluated on my current understanding of
restorative justice and being more connected to the actions I can take as teacher regarding the
social-emotional aspects of it.” Teacher 5 also shared this sentiment:
I believe that teachers should be given the space to reflect on where they individually are
with restorative justice practices, in comparison to the measuring stick provided by
administrators . . . eventually leading to the administrator’s role being one of a moderator
in restorative justice interactions between students and teachers, while teachers (properly
trained) would take on the role of the facilitator.
Teacher 1 reiterated the importance of the reflection and additional integration support strategy:
I would really like to see administrators facilitate more conversations with teachers about
biases amongst our varying student demographic groups in connection with restorative
justice. . . . I believe this would enable teachers to ultimately play a more active role in
facilitating discussions with students when discipline issues occur and restorative justice
practices need to be activated.
Although the literature clearly supports the theme of consistent feedback on progress
being provided to teachers by administrators in order for restorative justice practices to be
sustainable, the specific need for this feedback process to include explicit steps and strategies for
teacher reflection is believed by the researcher to be implied as part of teacher and administrator
58
evaluation discussions regarding teacher progress goals and was not explicitly identified in any
current or past literature.
Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was “How do teachers evaluate the schoolwide success or failure of
the implementation of restorative justice practices?” The most prevalent findings from survey
responses on the various classifications of how teachers evaluate the schoolwide success or
failure of restorative justice practices at their school site are displayed in Table 6, with teachers
ranking student attitudes or buy-in (20%) along with school referrals (21%) as the primary
determining factors of success regarding restorative justice practices at school sites. Teacher 4
reiterated both themes:
As long as the school’s referral and/or suspension rates are down, administrators are
happy. But I evaluate success through the informal polling of students even though I
know that data isn’t typically considered by our administrators as gauges of effectiveness.
Reflections from three interviews supported an analysis of referral rates among varying student
demographic groups, including students in special education and also of varying ethnicities, as
effective measures of success as well.
59
Table 6
Teacher Evaluation of Restorative Justice Effectiveness
Effectiveness evaluation measures Frequency
Student attitudes or buy-in
Parental attitudes
School disciplinary referrals
School suspensions or expulsions
Average daily attendance (ADA) rates
Teacher dialogue amongst peers and senior leadership
I am not aware of how RJ practices are evaluated
Other
13 (20%)
4 (6%)
14 (21%)
10 (15%)
6 (9%)
11 (17%)
5 (8%)
3 (5%)
Note. Effectiveness evaluation measures identified in the Other category include positive
interactions and perceptions of inviting classrooms upon observation.
Approximately 17% of survey responders indicated teacher dialogue between colleagues
and administrators as a determinant of success at their school site. Teacher 5 summarized this
theme by explaining that updates from their school’s Positive Behavior Interventions and
Supports during professional development meetings once a month would be placed on the
agenda to provide updates on school referrals but would also generate conversation between
teachers and administrators present to discuss “glows” and “grows” of this restorative justice–
based strategy with a focus to improve overall effectiveness.
The interview responses from Teacher 1, Teacher 2, Teacher 4, and Teacher 5 were in
concert with teachers surveyed indicating school referrals, suspensions, or expulsions as metrics
of success due to required periodic state reporting of these metrics, which are made available to
the public. School suspensions and expulsions are a metric currently displayed on the California
60
Dashboard, an online accountability platform designed to evaluate how schools are performing
based on state-determined areas. Finally, average daily attendance (ADA) was identified as a
measure of success by 9% of survey respondents. Teacher 3 explained,
Outside of school referrals and suspensions, the only other metric consistently mentioned
when discussing PBIS progress or student incidents has been these factors’ influence on
attendance. As a teacher, I am aware that ADA drives the main funding for the school, so
I understand why this is often integrated into multiple conversations.
Student referrals, suspensions, and improvement in attendance rates were measures of
success reflected in multiple research studies (Augustine et al., 2018). Additional measures of
success also frequently observed in the literature include reductions in disciplinary actions (not
inclusive of a referral, suspension, or expulsion) such as those related to bullying (Karp &
Breslin, 2001). Dialogue between teachers and administrators was seen in multiple studies within
the literature as a strategy to provide informal perception data and feedback on individual and
schoolwide progress of restorative justice practices (Mayworm et al., 2016; Oakland Unified
School District, n.d.). However, is important to note that this metric was traditionally used in
concert with objective data such as referrals and suspensions and was not seen in any studies
being used as the sole or primary metric in the overall evaluation or effectiveness of restorative
justice practices at a school site.
Summary
Chapter Four presented findings from 30 surveyed secondary high school teachers from
Title 1 schools in Los Angeles County. Qualitative interviews were performed with five
secondary high school teachers from the same location with similar demographics. As outlined in
the results, the majority of teachers received at least one professional development training on
61
restorative justice in the past academic year, while approximately 44% received little to no
additional supports. While effectually all of the teachers surveyed indicated that no restorative
justice coach was made accessible at their school sites, one of the biggest administrator supports
cited was in the form of administrators providing answers to posed questions from teachers.
Additionally, lack of training was cited as the greatest barrier to the implementation of
restorative justice practices with fidelity. This finding is closely aligned with the work of
Hunzicker (2011), whose research identified the need for school administrators to provide
teachers with effective, continuous training opportunities instead of infrequent occurrences, if
effective sustainability of restorative justice practices is desired.
Data obtained in this study also reflected the need for stronger administrator leadership
practices in providing specified teacher support strategies, as the teachers surveyed identified no
specific additional supports given as the greatest experience at their school sites. These findings
align closely with the needs outlined in the Golden Unified School District Restorative Justice
Implementation Guide, in which administrators are charged with providing the ongoing
facilitation and organization of supports including mock sessions and professional learning
communities at their school sites. Findings from this study concerning teacher reflection were
not congruently found in concert with the literature to explicitly confirm the critical nature of
consistent teacher reflection and an increased structural integration of active teacher participation
in restorative justice practices at school sites in order for restorative justice practices to be carried
out with fidelity.
Teacher measures of success were primarily determined by school referrals, student buy-
in, and attendance rates, which is mostly aligned with the work of Augustine et al. (2018),
warranting additional research on student buy-in as a potential effective measure of success. This
62
study’s finding on student buy-in demonstrates a preference by teachers to consistently include
and track perception data of additional stakeholders, including students and potentially other
demographic groups, regarding the effectiveness and progress of restorative justice practices and
potential modifications to the practice as needed. This finding can be linked to the sustainability
and effective growth of restorative justice practices and is aligned with the research of Mirsky
(2011), who emphasized that having greater stakeholder involvement leads to greater buy-in
when implementing and sustaining restorative justice practices in a whole-school model.
Findings from this study that could assist in the implementation of restorative justice practices
include the need for expansion and consistent application of professional development trainings,
effective and sustainable administrator supports, and a formalized process to integrate student
buy-in and teacher dialogue as measures of ongoing success.
Chapter Five will present the findings, along with implications for practice, future
research needed, and the conclusion of the study.
63
Chapter Five: Discussion
As a result of the punitive damage culture established after the passing of the Gun-Free
Schools Act of 1994, restorative justice practices in K–12 settings were introduced in the late
1990s, offering an alternative approach in which the focus was shifted to values and principles
used to guide actions and reactions used to mend relationships (Zehr, 2013). Zehr, a widely
acknowledged leading research authority on restorative justice, confirmed in his 2013 research
that restorative justice was created as a framework that views student misbehavior as a violation
of relationships rather than traditional perceptions rooted in the violation of specific rules. The
restorative justice framework focuses on community safety, accountability, and skill
development of all involved stakeholders and can include application in a single program or on
an entire campus (Zehr, 2013).
As an addition to current disciplinary practices, restorative justice philosophies are
incorporated into existing policies, including but not limited to Positive Behavioral Intervention
Supports and Social Emotional Learning. Research evaluating barriers to whole-school or a
specific disciplinary area approach to the implementation of restorative justice practices has been
previously performed; however, little research has occurred concerning focus on a demographic
landscape primarily made up of urban secondary school sites in Los Angeles, California. For
example, barriers including time constraints, teacher retention, and lack of teacher or student
buy-in have previously been identified in various studies. However, these themes have not been
evaluated among urban secondary schools in Los Angeles to determine any unique or varying
barriers to teacher implementation of restorative justice or a lack of administrator support
thereof, given their unique demographic landscape and student populations.
64
Methodology
This research study was designed with a convergent mixed-methods approach and was
conducted through the collection of semi-structured, open qualitative data (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016) from five interviews of certified teachers who had taught in low-income, urban schools in
Los Angeles for at least 1 year, and closed-ended quantitative data from 30 teachers surveyed. A
convergent design model was determined appropriate due to physical limitations caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this design approach, data from qualitative and quantitative
instrumentation were initially analyzed separately and then compared to conclude confirmation
or disconfirmation (Creswell & Creswell, 2018). All of the research questions previously
identified were addressed through the closed-ended, quantitative survey questions and the open-
ended, qualitative interview questions used in this study. The approach to coding used for data
analysis encompassed open and inductive methods, and themes were determined based on axial
and open analysis measures.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this descriptive study was to examine the perceived barriers experienced
by teachers in urban secondary schools regarding administrator support in implementing
restorative justice practices in Los Angeles, California. Findings from this study may inform best
practices, policies, and procedures specific to secondary schools in urban areas and can be used
to maximize the implementation or modification efforts by school leadership.
This study used a theoretical framework involving critical race theory. Within CRT, the
researcher’s positionality involving prejudice and inequity was used to interpret study findings
through a lens by which to understand the role that racism has played in relation to restorative
justice practices and supports provided for teachers regarding students of color in urban areas in
65
Los Angeles. The researcher used this theoretical framework to acknowledge racism as a social
construct within education and its direct and indirect impacts on teacher supports given for
restorative justice practices for ethnic minorities.
Results and Findings
Findings presented in this convergent mixed-methods study were based on qualitative
and quantitative data that were collected and analyzed. This section presents these data, linking
findings back to the literature where appropriate.
Findings for Research Question 1
Research Question 1 was “How are secondary school teachers, performing restorative
justice practices, supported by administrators in urban, low-income school sites in Los Angeles?”
Three significant themes emerged from findings related to this research question. The first theme
was that support was primarily provided through specified professional development training
sessions on restorative justice. A total of 59% of teachers reported these taking place on average
twice over the last academic year, with approximately 65% of teachers believing that these
trainings help them to better implement restorative justice practices in their classrooms. These
findings are supported by Smith et al. (2015) and Zimmerman (2006), who highlighted effective
professional training as a critical component of restorative justice practices being sustainable at
any school site.
The second theme that emerged from the study was the absence of additional supports
provided by school administrators. A total of 44% of teachers indicated that they did not receive
any supports from administrators at their school sites (including professional development
training). These findings were not aligned with research seen in the literature, as teachers at
school sites claiming to have implemented restorative justice practices were traditionally seen as
66
having some type of professional development training for teachers (Augustine et al., 2018;
Burke & Ashley, 2009; Kidde & Alfred, 2011).
The third theme that emerged from this study involves similar findings from Kuo et al.
(2010), in which school administrators were cited as performing specific supports through
relationship building as a result of in-person discussions and observational feedback. These
same, more traditionally perceived forms of administrator support were also reflected in findings
as part of this research study.
Findings for Research Question 2
Research Question 2 was “What internal or external barriers are perceived by secondary
school teachers in urban, low-income sites in Los Angeles regarding administrators supporting
the implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity?” Three significant themes were
derived from data analyzed from this study: lack of training, lack of time, and lack of consistency
in support from administrators. Lack of training was determined as the primary barrier perceived
by teachers as part of this study, with 23% of teachers citing this factor. This finding was
mirrored during qualitative interviews by all teachers and is also in alignment with published
literature, including research by Zehr (1995) that identified administrators providing continuous
dialogue efforts in restorative justice implementation and continuance as a critical component of
sustainability for this disciplinary practice.
The second theme found was a lack of time perceived by teachers regarding the daily
required workload of school administrators. This barrier of a lack of time was cited by 13% of
teachers surveyed and was also heavily reflected in qualitative interviews. This theme is also
supported in the literature, including findings published by McCluskey et al. (2008) and Blood
and Thorsborne (2005) in which lack of time for administrators to review and prepare continuous
67
teacher trainings was cited as one of the barriers to the sustainability of restorative justice
practices.
The third theme that emerged from the findings in this study was a lack of consistency in
support provided by school administrators. A total of 15% of teachers surveyed cited this barrier
as part of their perceptions, and this was also highlighted throughout the qualitative interviews.
Qualitative interviews provided additional clarity regarding this support, which included, but was
not limited to, little to no follow-through made by administrators on ongoing teacher training,
school updates or progress, or any potential issues or concerns. Multiple studies, including
research by Kidde and Alfred (2011), have highlighted the importance of effective, continuous
support from school administrators and also provided best practices for how these strategies can
be successfully implemented.
Findings for Research Question 3
Research Question 3 was “What specified teacher support strategies or actions are used
by secondary school administrators in urban, low-income schools in Los Angeles regarding
restorative justice practices?” One major theme and one subtheme emerged from findings related
to this question. It is important to note the distinction between RQ 1 and RQ 3, in that the intent
of this question was to determine and highlight specific best practices teacher support strategies
used outside of professional development settings.
The primary theme that emerged in the findings was that no specific additional supports
were given to teachers at school sites; 37% of teachers surveyed said they had received none
over the past academic year. These findings are in direct contrast with those found in the
literature, as the Golden Unified School District Restorative Justice Implementation Guide
charges administrators with providing ongoing facilitation and organization of supports including
68
mock sessions and professional learning communities at their school sites. A subtheme found
based on findings from qualitative interviews performed in this study identified the desire of
teachers to have critical reflection of their individual progress embedded into their ongoing
supports. Findings from this study were not found to be in concert with the literature to explicitly
confirm the necessity of consistent teacher reflection and an increased structural integration of
active teacher participation in restorative justice practices at school sites in order for restorative
justice practices to be carried out with fidelity.
Findings for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 was “How do teachers evaluate the schoolwide success or failure of
the implementation of restorative justice practices?” Two major themes emerged from the
findings in this study related to this question. The first theme determined was the identification
of traditionally classified measures of success for restorative justice practices, including school
referrals and attendance rates. These measures of success, cited by 21% and 9% of teachers
surveyed, respectively, mirror measures found in the literature, as multiple studies on the
effectiveness of restorative justice were found to use school referrals as a measure of success or
failure (Augustine et al., 2018; Karp & Breslin, 2001; Zehr, 2013).
The second theme determined based on findings in this study was student buy-in or
attitudes identified as a measure of success regarding restorative justice practices. Despite
student buy-in not being confirmed in the literature as a primary measure of success for
restorative justice practices, this perception has been seen in multiple studies as one of many
metrics used to gauge the overall success of the implementation or successful continuance of
restorative justice practices (Gregory et al., 2016; Hansberry, 2016; Hopkins, 2004). Mirsky
69
(2011) proposed that the use of student buy-in as a measure of success, rooted in stakeholder
feedback, is linked to the sustainability of restorative justice practices in whole-school models.
Implications of the Study
This study contributes to the research regarding best practices in leadership for Los
Angeles school administrators to support teachers currently engaged in restorative justice
practices in secondary schools within low-SES communities. As a result of the data analysis
incorporating the convergent model and the reviewed literature being evaluated with the research
findings, this study provides implications for the effective implementation and sustainability of
restorative justice practices, highlighting barriers identified by teachers and informing policies
and procedures to achieve maximum effectiveness.
Professional Development
Although teacher trainings through professional development are traditionally supported
by school administrators when restorative justice practices are first implemented, it is critical, if
effective sustainability is desired, to provide continued, ongoing support to teachers through
varied scheduled training sessions. These ongoing training sessions not only provide the ability
for teachers to build their capacity in skills needed to perform restorative justice practices with
fidelity, but also promote the required component of positive school culture building through
consistent messaging from school leadership (Kane et al., 2007). Furthermore, in alignment with
critical race theory, it is imperative that professional development sessions be enveloped in and
explicitly inclusive of anti-racism and anti-Blackness awareness and reflection for all
participants. In this manner, training sessions should be tailored to incorporate both the
procedurally required elements of restorative justice implementation and the systemic anti-
racism context critical to understanding the need from which restorative justice was created.
70
Central themes surrounding transformative justice ideals, understanding what school safety looks
like for teachers, and developing a culture of safety through the reflection of needs expressed by
teachers and administrators should be embedded as critical components of the training structure
provided to teachers during professional development sessions as part of this effective training
framework.
Barriers to Support
Sustainable, effective restorative justice practices require ongoing teacher support
through multiple means. School administrators lacking the ability to provide consistent support
in the area of restorative justice practices should consider the onboarding of a restorative justice
coach to enable consistent and varied forms of teacher skill development. Additionally, having
increased stakeholder involvement and a decentralizing of responsibilities regarding restorative
justice will ideally improve perceptions of administrator consistency and support continued
training (Kidde & Alfred, 2011; Oakland Unified School District, n.d.).
Specified Teacher Support Strategies
Although professional development trainings are vital to the success of restorative justice
practices in school sites, stronger administrator leadership practices in providing specified
teacher support strategies are warranted. The findings of this study demonstrated a desire of
teachers to have ongoing critical reflection of their individual progress and greater active
integration among all stakeholders embedded into their ongoing supports.
Measures of Success
Despite measures of restorative justice success being determined primarily by more
traditional metrics, including school referrals and attendance rates, the findings from this study
confirmed student buy-in as a valued measure by teachers and supported the literature promoting
71
perception data of additional stakeholders as measures of effectiveness and progress (Mirsky,
2011). As a result, formally including the tracking of perception data of additional stakeholders
may be warranted to improve school culture and the effectiveness and progress of restorative
justice practices and potential modifications as needed.
Recommendations for Future Study
This study surveyed 30 secondary school teachers and interviewed five secondary school
teachers from Title 1 schools in Los Angeles, California. Findings from the study uncovered
areas that should be considered for further exploration. The following are recommendations for
further research:
• Further explore and evaluate teacher perceptions of effective professional development
trainings regarding restorative justice practices
• Conduct a study on restorative justice best practices required to effectively serve students
within specific demographic categories, including English Language Learners and special
education
• Expand research on perceived teacher barriers to implementation or continuation of
restorative justice practices to include suburban and rural communities in Los Angeles,
California
• Further explore the study of the implementation of barriers experienced by secondary
teachers in low-income, urban schools as analyzed from a school administrator or
counselor perspective
• Conduct a study on intrinsic motivations and incentives that promote effective school
administrator supports for restorative justice practices
72
• Explore students’ and parents’ perceived barriers of the effective implementation and
continuance of restorative justice practices in low-income, urban communities in Los
Angeles
Conclusion
This study presented secondary school teachers’ perceived barriers of restorative
justice practices regarding school administrator support in low-income, urban communities in
Los Angeles. The findings from this study may be used to inform best practices, policies, and
procedures specific to secondary schools in urban areas and can be used to maximize the
implementation or modification efforts by school leadership in collaboration with teachers.
While professional development training is a key requirement to achieve this goal, it is
critical that this training is consistently provided at multiple points throughout the year in
order to yield maximum results. Perceived school administrator barriers of teacher support
including lack of time and lack of consistency can be in part resolved through a prioritization
of restorative justice practice development through a proposed shared responsibility model
involving multiple stakeholders and a dedicated restorative justice coach.
The data from the 30 surveyed secondary school teachers and five interviewed
secondary school teachers who work in low-income, urban schools in Los Angeles,
California, have shown the importance of evaluating not only the effectiveness of restorative
justice practices using traditional approaches such as school referrals and daily attendance,
but also student attitudes. More work needs to be done in order to standardize the formal
capturing of nontraditional measures of success, including student perception data on
effectiveness. Understanding and identifying these perceived barriers will enable effective
modification to current best practices in order to maximize results, thereby providing student
73
populations affected most by these disciplinary practices with greater access to improved
educational outcomes.
74
References
Advancement Project. (2019). Restorative practices: Fostering healthy relationships &
promoting positive discipline in schools: A guide for educators.
https://www.schooljusticepartnership.org/component/mtree/resource-library/role-of-
schools/75-restorative-practices-fostering-healthy-relationships-promoting-positive-
discipline-in-schools-a-guide-for-educators.html
APA Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2006). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An
evidentiary review and recommendations. Adopted by APA Council of Representatives.
Augustine, C., Engberg, J., Grimm, G., Lee, E., Wang, E., & Christianson, K. (2018). Can
restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions? An evaluation of the
impact of restorative practices in a mid-sized urban school district.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR2800/RR2840/RAND_
RR2840.pdf
Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (2001). A comparison of four restorative conferencing models. In
G. Bazemore & M. Umbreit (Eds.), Juvenile justice bulletin. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005, March). The challenge of culture change: Embedding
restorative practice in schools [Paper presentation]. Sixth International Conference on
Conferencing, Circles and Other Restorative Practices, Sydney, Australia.
Burke, K., & Ashley, J. (2009). Implementing restorative justice: A guide for schools. Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority.
75
Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (1999). Restorative justice and school discipline: Mutually
exclusive? [Paper presentation]. Reshaping Australian Institutions Conference
“Restorative Justice and Civil Society,” Australian National University, Canberra,
Australia.
Cameron, L., & Thorsborne, M. (2001). Restorative justice and school discipline: Mutually
exclusive? In H. Strang & J. Braithwaite (Eds.), Restorative justice and civil society (pp.
180–194). Cambridge University Press.
Civil Rights Project. (2000). Opportunities suspended: The devastating consequences of zero
tolerance and school discipline.
www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/research/discipline/call_opport.php
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five
approaches (2nd ed.). Sage.
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed
methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage.
Deater-Deckard, K., Lansford, J. E., Dodge, K. A., Pettit, G. S., & Bates, J. E. (2003). The
development of attitudes about physical punishment: An 8-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Family Psychology, 17(3), 351–360.
Dupper, D. R., & Dingus, A. E. (2008). Corporal punishment in U. S. schools: A continuing
challenge for social workers. Children & Schools, 30(4), 243–250.
Durlak, J., Meyers, D., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework: A
synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 50, 462–480.
76
Fronius, T., Darling-Hammond, S., Persson, H., Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., & Petrosino, A.
(2019, March). Restorative justice in U.S. schools: An updated research review. WestEd
Justice & Prevention Research Center. https://www.wested.org/wp-
content/uploads/2019/04/resource-restorative-justice-in-u-s-schools-an-updated-research-
review.pdf
González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the
school to prison pipeline. The Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281–335.
González, T. (2015). Socializing schools: Addressing racial disparities in discipline through
restorative justice. In D. Losen (Ed.), Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable
remedies for excessive exclusion (pp. 151–165). Teachers College Press.
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, A., & Weinstein, R. (2008). The discipline gap and African Americans: Defiance or
cooperation in the high school classroom. Journal of School Psychology, 46(4), 455–475.
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 8921 (1994).
https://www.govinfo.gov/app/details/USCODE-2000-title20/USCODE-2000-title20-
chap70-subchapXIV-partF-sec8921
Hamlin, J. B., & Darling, J. (2012). Use of peace-circles in large scale community conflict: A
case study. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 29(4), 403–419.
Hansberry, B. (2016). A practical introduction to restorative practice in schools: Theory, skills,
and guidance. Jessica Kingsley.
77
Hashim, A., Strunk, K., & Dhaliwal, T. (2018). Justice for all? Suspension bans and restorative
justice programs in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Peabody Journal of
Education, 93(2), 174–189.
Hopkins, B. (2004). Just schools: A whole school approach to restorative justice. Jessica
Kingsley.
Hunzicker, J. (2011). Effective professional development for teachers: A checklist. Professional
Development in Education, 37, 177–179.
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.
Johansen, A., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2011). An examination of New Zealand teachers’
attributions and perceptions of behaviour, classroom management, and the level of formal
teacher training received in behaviour management. Kairaranga, 12, 3–12.
Kane, J., Lloyd, G., McCluskey, G., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E. (2007). Restorative
practices in three Scottish councils: Final report of the evaluation of the first two years of
the pilot projects 2004-2006. Scottish Executive.
Karp, D., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth & Society,
33(2), 249–272.
Kidde, J., & Alfred, R. (2011). Restorative justice: A working guide for our schools. Alameda
County School Health Services Coalition.
Kuo, S., Longmire, D., & Cuvelier, S. (2010). An empirical assessment of the process of
restorative justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(3), 318–328.
78
Ladson-Billings, G., & Tate, W. F. (1995). Toward a critical race theory of education. Teachers
College Record, 97(1), 47–68.
Levick, M. L. (2000). Zero tolerance: Mandatory sentencing meets one-room school-house.
Kentucky Children’s Rights Journal, 2–6.
Liberman, K., & Katz, M. (2017). Implementing restorative justice in Rhode Island schools:
First-year implementation of case conferencing. Urban Institute.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development. Jossey-Bass.
Losen, D. J., Martinez, T., & Gillespie, J. (2012, April 10). Suspended education in California,
Los Angeles, Calif. The Center for Civil Rights Remedies at the UCLA Civil Rights
Project. Retrieved August 24, 2018, from
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-rights-
remedies/school-to-prisonfolder/summary-reports/suspended-education-in-
california/SuspendedEd-final3.pdf
Maguin, E., & Loeber, R. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. Crime and
Justice, 20, 145–264.
Maxwell, J. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (3rd ed.). Sage.
Mayworm, A., Sharkey, J., Welsh, K., & Scheidel, K. (2016). Teacher consultation to enhance
implementation of school-based restorative justice. Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 385–412.
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.
Merriam, S., & Tisdell, E. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation
(4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
79
Meyers, D. C., Durlak, J. A., & Wandersman, A. (2012). The quality implementation framework:
A synthesis of critical steps in the implementation process. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 50(3–4), 462–480.
Mirsky, L. (2011, September). Building safer, saner schools. Educational Leadership, 69(1), 45–
49.
Mizel, M. L., Miles, J. N. V., Pedersen, E. R., Tucker, J. S., Ewing, B. A., & D’Amico, E. J.
(2016). To educate or to incarcerate: Factors in disproportionality in school discipline.
Children and Youth Services Review, 70, 102–111.
Morrison, B., Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). Practicing restorative justice in school
communities: Addressing the challenge of culture change. Public Organization
Review, 5(4), 335–357.
Morrison, B. E., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138–155.
Morrison, G., & D’Incau, B. (1997). The web of zero-tolerance: Characteristics of students who
are recommended for expulsion from school. Education & Treatment of Children, 20(3),
316–335.
Oakland Unified School District. (n.d.). Oakland Unified School District restorative justice
implementation guide: A whole school approach. Available at
https://www.ousd.org/Page/1054
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.
Porter, A. (2007). Restorative practices in schools: Research reveals power of restorative
approach. Restorative Practices E-Forum, 2.
80
Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of circle processes: A new/old approach to peacemaking. Good
Books.
Roche, D. (2003). Accountability in restorative justice. Oxford University Press.
Rocque, M. (2010). Office discipline and student behavior: Does race matter? American Journal
of Education, 116(4), 557–581.
Rodosky, R. (2012, May). Restorative justice practices in schools: Review of the literature and
current district data brief. Jefferson County Public Schools Department of Data
Management, Planning and Program Evaluation.
https://www.jefferson.kyschools.us/sites/default/files/RestorJustisPract2011_JV.pdf
Roorda, D. L., Koomen, H. M. Y., Spilt, J. L., & Oort, F. J. (2011, December). 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.
Skiba, R. (2008). Are zero tolerance policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and
recommendations. The American Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862.
Skiba, R. J., Chung, C., Trachok, M., Baker, T. L., Sheya, A., & Hughes, R. L. (2014). Parsing
disciplinary disproportionality: Contributions of infraction, student, and school
characteristics to out-of-school suspension and expulsion. American Educational
Research Journal, 51(4), 640–670.
Skiba, R. J., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe
schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372–376.
Smith, D., Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2015). Better than carrots or sticks: Restorative practices for
positive classroom management. ASCD.
81
Stovall, D. (2005). A challenge to traditional theory: CRT, African-American community
organizers, and education. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education,
26(1), 95–108.
Sughrue, J. A. (2003). Zero tolerance for children: Two wrongs do not make a right. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 39(2), 238–258.
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, Berkeley,
School of Law.
Tailor, H., & Detch, E. R. (2006). Getting tough on kids: A look at zero tolerance. Tennessee
Office of Education Accountability, Comptroller of the Treasury.
Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing restorative practices in schools: A practical
guide to transforming school communities. Jessica Kingsley.
Turnbill, B. (2002). Teacher participation and buy-in: Implications for school reform initiatives.
Learning Environments Research, 5(3), 235–252.
UNICEF. (n.d.). Restorative justice - definition & discussion. UNICEF diversion and alternatives
toolkit. http://www.createsolutions.org/unicef/whatdefinitionsrj.html
Voight, A., Hanson, T., O’Malley, M., & Adekanye, L. (2015). The racial school climate gap:
Within-school disparities in students’ experiences of safety, support, and
connectedness. American Journal of Community Psychology, 56(3–4), 252–267.
Wachtel, T. (2003). Restorative justice in everyday life: Beyond the formal ritual. Reclaiming
Children and Youth, 12(2), 83–87.
82
Wasser, J. (1999). Zeroing in on zero tolerance (zero tolerance policies in public schools). The
Journal of Law & Politics, 15(4), 770–772.
Weiss, R. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies.
Free Press.
Zehr, H. (1995). Changing lenses: A new focus for crime and justice. Herald Press.
Zehr, H. (2013). Evaluation and restorative justice principles. In E. Elliott & R. M. Gordon
(Eds.), New directions in restorative justice: Issues, practice, evaluation (pp. 296–303).
Willan Publishing.
Zehr, H., & Mika, H. (1998). Fundamental concepts of restorative justice. Contemporary Justice
Review, 1, 47−55.
Zimmerman, J. (2006). Why some teachers resist change and what principals can do about it.
NASSP Bulletin, 90, 238−249.
83
Appendix A: Restorative Justice Survey
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Appendix B: Interview Protocol
My name is Manuel Albert and I would like to first relay to you the overall purpose of
this dissertation research study and to allow you to ask any questions before we begin. In this
research study I am interested in exploring the experiences regarding the support of high school
teachers from administrators in implementing restorative justice practices. For this study I will be
analyzing results from the survey you previously completed and the data from teacher interviews
to gain insight and inform best practices and policies related to restorative justice
As part of the data collection required for this study, I would like to officially confirm
with you if it will be acceptable for me to record our interview. This will allow me to better
ensure complete and accurate information gathering as part of this research study. Will it be
acceptable for me to record this interview?
This interview will in no way evaluate your ability to implement restorative justice
practices, and all identifying data collected will be published in the study anonymously.
Meaning, your name, information, and interview responses will be classified as confidential and
will not be shared with any other school personnel.
I would be more than happy to provide you with a copy of my approved dissertation if
requested.
This interview is expected to take between 15 and 25 minutes. Are there any questions
you have about the interview at this time?
92
1) First, can you tell me about your background as related to your current school-site?
a) What is your current role within your school-site?
b) How long have you served in that role?
c) How did you become interested in serving in your current role?
d) Tell me about your current relationship with administrators at your school-site, on a
typical day
2) Can you tell me about your experience regarding any training you received as a
teacher connected to implementing restorative justice practices, if any?
a) What professional development training(s) specific to restorative justice practices have
you participated in, if any?
b) If you did participate in any, how would you describe the activities that were included in
these trainings?
c) What did you find most valuable about these trainings?
d) What suggestions on how these trainings could have been improved could you provide,
if any?
3) Can you provide an example of what an ideal or exemplary restorative justice
practices would look like if demonstrated at a high school school-site?
a) What role(s) do you believe teachers have in implementing restorative justice practices?
b) What role(s) do you believe administrators have in implementing restorative justice
practices?
4) When restorative justice practices were first implemented at your school site, describe
the support you were offered to help you transition into this new practice
a) Since its implementation, does the way restorative justice operates today in your school
reflect the initial plan as was implemented?
b) If not, describe the major differences in support you have experienced.
Now I’d like to ask you some questions about how the implementation of restorative
justices by teachers is supported by school administrators
5) As a teacher, tell me about the support you receive by administrators regarding
restorative practices, if any.
a) For you, what does the support look like in the context of administrators supporting
teachers?
b) Describe a time you felt supported as part of the implementation or facilitation of
restorative justice practices
c) Describe a time you did not feel supported as part of the implementation or facilitation of
restorative justice practices
93
6) What internal barriers are perceived by teachers regarding administrators supporting
the implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity, if any?
7) Some teachers argue that administrators are consistent in making themselves available
to assist in the implementation of restorative justice practices. How would you categorize their
frequency in this area of support?
8) To what extent have you been able to share your experiences with restorative justice
practices with administrators, if at all?
9) Describe any modifications you would like to see concerning restorative justice
practices at your school, if any.
a) If you suddenly became an administrator at your school site, what components of the
current restorative justice program would you modify and why?
10) In what ways are you currently gauging the success of failure or restorative justice
practices, if any?
What other information would you like to include as part of our interview?
Thank you for choosing to speak with me today as part of my research study. I am
extremely grateful for the time you have carved out, and if it is determined that I may have
additional questions, would I be able to contact you?
Again, thank you for playing a critical role as a participant in this study!
Abstract (if available)
Abstract
In a national effort to discourage school shootings in K–12 settings, the 1994 passing of the Gun-Free Schools Act required all schools receiving public funding to expel for 1 year students who were found to be in possession of a firearm while on campus, ultimately leading to an expansion and progression of explicit zero-tolerance disciplinary policies. In an effort to curb the disproportionately punitive discipline culture that resulted from these policies, restorative justice practices were introduced to K–12 school sites in the late 1990s as an alternative disciplinary approach, focusing on mending relationships harmed as a result of negative student behavior and ultimately reducing the number of students of color removed from class settings. Understanding the perceived barriers of teachers in low-income, urban schools in Los Angeles regarding support from administrators with implementing and performing restorative justice practices is critical to developing effective new or modified best practices, policies, or procedures to positively affect success locally and abroad. This convergent mixed-methods study incorporated the analysis of qualitative interviews from five teachers and quantitative survey results from 30 teachers from various ethnic backgrounds who had been credentialed and teaching at their public, charter, or private restorative justice–practicing school site in a low-income, urban secondary school in Los Angeles for at least 1 year. Through transcription and coding, data were reduced to reveal themes, patterns, and explanations in relation to the research goals. The study’s findings indicated lack of training was the greatest barrier to implementation of restorative justice practices with fidelity. Data obtained in this study also reflected the need for stronger administrator leadership practices in providing specified teacher support strategies. Findings from this study that could assist in the effective implementation and furtherance of restorative justice practices include the need for expansion and consistent application of professional development trainings, additional sustainable administrator supports, and a formalized process to integrate student buy-in and teacher dialogue as measures of ongoing success.
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Implementation of restorative justice in schools from a teacher's perspective
PDF
The role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative practices
PDF
Analyzing middle school teachers’ implementation and sustainability of professional development regarding non-exclusionary discipline practices
PDF
Time out for mental health: barriers and strategies for high school coaches
PDF
A relational approach to discipline: a comparative case study of restorative justice implementation in US secondary schools
PDF
Building strong school communities through authentic conversations: a restorative practices curriculum for teachers
PDF
Teacher perceptions of evaluation policy in Hawaii
PDF
Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices used by teachers in kindergarten through second grade in Los Angeles County urban elementary schools
PDF
Using restorative practice community-building activities to meet the social-emotional needs of students
PDF
A study of the leadership strategies of urban elementary school principals with effective inclusion programs for autistic students in the general education setting for a majority of the school day
PDF
A case study of promising leadership practices employed by principals of Knowledge Is Power Program Los Angeles (KIPP LA) charter school to improve student achievement
PDF
The knowledge, motivation, and organization influences affecting the frequency of empathetic teaching practice used in the classroom: an evaluation study
PDF
The use of students funds of knowledge to increase college success among low-income and first-generation students
PDF
A comparative analysis of teacher evaluation systems utilized by public and charter schools in Southern California
PDF
Impact of academic scholarships on persistence of first-generation low-income students
PDF
Promising practices of school site administrators within established ninth‐grade transition programs at large high schools
PDF
Discipline with dignity for African American students: effective culturally responsive practices for elementary classroom teachers in third through fifth grade in Los Angeles County urban schools
PDF
Restoring justice in urban K-12 education systems: an evaluation study
PDF
School-to-prison pipeline: an all-out assault on Black males in U.S. K-12 public schools
PDF
Cultivating effective and resilient urban principals: empowering school leaders to create enduring success in the inner city
Asset Metadata
Creator
Albert, Manuel Louis, III
(author)
Core Title
Barriers experienced by teachers regarding restorative justice practices in Title 1 schools
School
Rossier School of Education
Degree
Doctor of Education
Degree Program
Education (Leadership)
Publication Date
04/27/2021
Defense Date
03/16/2021
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
convergent mixed-method,Los Angeles,low-income secondary schools,OAI-PMH Harvest,restorative justice,Teachers
Language
English
Contributor
Electronically uploaded by the author
(provenance)
Advisor
Castruita, Rudy (
committee chair
), Cash, David (
committee member
), Hinga, Briana (
committee member
)
Creator Email
ManuelAlbert3@gmail.com,mlalbert@usc.edu
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-454867
Unique identifier
UC11668250
Identifier
etd-AlbertManu-9549.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-454867 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
etd-AlbertManu-9549.pdf
Dmrecord
454867
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Albert, Manuel Louis, III
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
Tags
convergent mixed-method
low-income secondary schools
restorative justice