University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

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

(USC Thesis Other)

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

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content

The Role of the Principal in Schools That Effectively Implement Restorative Practices
by
Karen Mercado

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 Karen Mercado 2021
All Rights Reserved

The Committee for Karen Mercado certifies the approval of this Dissertation

Salvador Torres
David Cash
Rudy Castruita, Committee Chair

Rossier School of Education
University of Southern California
2021

iv

Abstract
The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the role of the principal in middle schools
that have successfully implemented restorative justice practices and positive school climate on
one middle school in Orange County, California. In this qualitative study, 5 participants were
remotely interviewed via Zoom. The researcher investigated four areas: (1) the role of the
principal when restorative practices were implemented effectively, (2) the impact of restorative
practices on school climate, (3) how the use restorative practices have improved student
behavior, and (4) how restorative justice practices are evaluated as successful. The researcher
utilized remote interviews and document analysis to collect data from the participants. This study
was centered on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) work and on Creswell's (2018) steps on
conducting a research study. The purpose of this study was to contribute additional findings on a
topic that has received very little scholarly attention. The significant findings in this study can
support middle school principals who are seeking ways to effectively implement restorative
justice practices that can promote a positive school climate. The restorative justice practices that
were identified can support principals in reducing suspension rates. Additionally, the practices
can help build community amongst students, staff, and parents.

v

Dedication
This dissertation is dedicated to my mother, Ernestina Mercado. Thank you for being a strong
woman that raised four children in a new country. You are the pillar of our home. I admire your
strong work ethic and love for education. Te quiero, Mama!
To my brothers, thank you for your ongoing support during this journey. Thank you for your
patience and understanding these past three years. It is an honor to be your little sister. Thank
you for always believing in me and in my goals.
To my friends, you know who you are, thank you for being patient with me. I appreciate each
one of you! I look forward to making many memories with you.
Lastly, to the students and school communities that I proudly serve. Thank you for inspiring me
each and every day. I am humbled to serve you and will continue to do so for as long as I can.

vi

Acknowledgements
Dr. Rudy Castruita, my dissertation chair, has been instrumental in this journey. Dr.
Castruita’s commitment to excellence, feedback, and relentless motivation helped me get
through the dissertation process. He knew what I needed to hear to keep pushing through the
process and because of him I am a better educator. Dr. Castruita, your passion is infectious. I
strive to be the type of leader that you are, a leader that never stops learning, growing, and doing
what is right for students. Thank you for believing in me and for helping me become a better
version of myself.
I would also like to acknowledge my dissertation committee members, Dr. David Cash
and Dr. Sal Torres. Dr. Cash, you are the epitome of an instructional leader. When you talk
everyone listens because you speak with conviction. You stand up for what’s right and have
taught me that as a superintendent I must always keep students at the center. Dr. Sal Torres,
thank you for agreeing to participate in my dissertation committee. You are a dear friend who
has had to overcome many obstacles. I admire your tenacity, work ethic, and dedication to your
school community. You are more than a friend to me, you are like family, and your support
means a lot to me.
Thank you to Dr. Slayton, Dr. Hirabayashi, Dr. Hinga, Dr. Kho, Dr. Sanchez, Dr. Quinn,
Dr. Cash, and Dr. Castruita for adding tools into my toolkit that I will use on a daily basis as I
continue on my journey as a transformational leader.

vii

Table of Contents
Abstract .......................................................................................................................................... iv
Dedication ....................................................................................................................................... v
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................ vi
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. xi
List of Figures ............................................................................................................................... xii
Chapter One: Overview of the Study .............................................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................... 6
Purpose of the Study ........................................................................................................... 7
Research Questions ............................................................................................................. 8
Theoretical Framework ....................................................................................................... 8
Significance of the Study .................................................................................................. 10
Limitations and Delimitations ........................................................................................... 11
Definition of Terms ........................................................................................................... 11
Organization of the Study ................................................................................................. 12
Chapter Two: Review of the Literature ........................................................................................ 14
Background of School Discipline Policies ....................................................................... 14
California Law Requires Change in Discipline ................................................................ 16
Implementation of Restorative Justice Practices in California ......................................... 18
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 20
Critical Race Theory .................................................................................................... 20
Restorative Justice Theory ........................................................................................... 21
Reintegrative Shaming Theory .................................................................................... 21

viii

Restorative Justice in Education ....................................................................................... 22
Leadership in Schools and Its Impact on School Climate ................................................ 26
The Importance of School Climate .............................................................................. 26
Dimensions of School Climate .................................................................................... 26
The Principal’s Influence on School Climate .............................................................. 27
School Climate and Restorative Justice Practices ........................................................ 28
Challenges of Restorative Justice in Schools .................................................................... 28
Staff Buy-In .................................................................................................................. 29
Training ..................................................................................................................... 29
Models of Restorative Practices ................................................................................... 30
Paradigm Shifts Associated with Restorative Justice .................................................. 32
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 32
Chapter Three: Methodology ........................................................................................................ 34
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 34
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 35
Sample and Population ..................................................................................................... 36
Instrumentation ................................................................................................................. 36
Data Collection Procedures ............................................................................................... 37
Data Analysis .................................................................................................................... 38
Ethical Considerations ...................................................................................................... 39
Summary ........................................................................................................................... 39
Chapter Four: Findings ................................................................................................................. 41
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 41

ix

Presentation of Findings ................................................................................................... 42
Descriptive Characteristics ............................................................................................... 42
Demographics of Participating School District ........................................................... 42
Interview Participants .................................................................................................. 42
Results for Research Question 1 ....................................................................................... 45
Modeling ..................................................................................................................... 46
Training ..................................................................................................................... 47
Commitment ................................................................................................................. 48
Discussion for Research Question 1 ............................................................................ 49
Results for Research Question 2 ....................................................................................... 49
Increased Student Connectedness ................................................................................ 50
Parent and Community Engagement ............................................................................ 52
Teacher Retention ........................................................................................................ 52
Discussion for Research Question 2 ............................................................................ 54
Results for Research Question 3 ....................................................................................... 55
Suspensions .................................................................................................................. 55
Social-Emotional Learning .......................................................................................... 56
Discussion for Research Question 3 ............................................................................ 58
Results for Research Question 4 ....................................................................................... 58
Discipline ..................................................................................................................... 59
Student Behavior .......................................................................................................... 59
Restorative Justice Practices ........................................................................................ 60
Discussion for Research Question 4 ............................................................................ 61

x

Summary ........................................................................................................................... 62
Discussion ......................................................................................................................... 63
Chapter Five: Discussion .............................................................................................................. 68
Statement of the Problem .................................................................................................. 68
Purpose of the Study ......................................................................................................... 69
Research Questions ........................................................................................................... 69
Design Overview .............................................................................................................. 70
Review of the Literature ................................................................................................... 71
Theoretical Framework ..................................................................................................... 73
Key Findings ..................................................................................................................... 74
Implications for Practice ................................................................................................... 77
Limitations ........................................................................................................................ 78
Recommendations for Future Study ................................................................................. 78
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 79
References ..................................................................................................................................... 80
Appendix A: Participant Interview Instrument ............................................................................. 97
Appendix B: Superintendent Cover Letter ................................................................................... 99
Appendix C: Participant Cover Letter ........................................................................................ 100

xi

List of Tables
Table 1: Total Suspensions and Suspensions for Willful Defiance
in California, 2011 to 2018 4
Table 2: Demographics of Interview Respondents 43

xii

List of Figures
Figure 1: Creswell’s Six Steps for Qualitative Data Analysis 38
Figure 2: Social Discipline Window 66

1

Chapter One: Overview of the Study
If schools do not create a positive or supportive climate, students may not realize their
full potential or even meet basic standards (Urban, 1999). School climate can best be described
as a “set of internal characteristics that distinguish one school from another and influence the
behaviors of each school’s members” (Hoy & Miskel, 2005 p.185). To create a positive school
climate, the U.S. Department of Education (2014) encouraged educators to focus on the
prevention of behavior problems; to maintain clear, appropriate, consistent expectations and
consequences; and to pursue fairness, equity, and continuous improvement.
According to Hannigan and Hannigan (2016), traditional disciplinary practices were
guided by zero-tolerance policies and relied on exclusionary practices such as suspension or
expulsion. Teachers, particularly those employed from the 1980s onward, were accustomed to
sending students to the office for reasons ranging from not bringing a pencil to class to talking
back to the teacher (U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 2019). If students were found to be
willfully defiant, they were likely to receive an out-of-school suspension as a consequence.
Willful defiance referred to behavior that disrupted school activities or purposefully defied the
authority of school personnel, such as teachers (Freedberg, 2019). Data from the California
Department of Education showed that nearly half of the more than 700,000 suspensions that took
place in the 2011-2012 school year were due to willful defiance.
The zero-tolerance policy that guided the traditional discipline model applied the same
types of punishment to any type of misbehavior (Gjelten, 2015). By 1993, this policy, which was
also implemented by state and federal drug enforcement agencies, was adopted by school boards
across the country to tackle issues like drugs, weapons, tobacco-related offenses, and school
disruption (Skiba & Peterson, 1999). The goal of the zero-tolerance policy was to deter future
2

misbehavior and create a school climate that was more conducive to learning by removing the
disruptive students (Ewing, 2000). Students were suspended with the hope that, after their
punishment, they would not repeat their disruptive behaviors. However, despite this hope, school
suspensions predicted higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension amongst those students
who had been suspended (Mendez et al., 2003). They also significantly increase the chances that
a student would become involved in the juvenile justice system (Leone et al., 2003).
The data on suspensions revealed another ugly truth: Students of color receive a
disproportionate number of suspensions (Skiba et al., 2002). On average, Black students are
suspended and expelled from school “at a rate three times greater than White students” (U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2014a). Although they represent only 16% of
the student population, Black students represent 32% to 42% of those suspended or expelled.
Also, students with disabilities are more than twice as likely as students without disabilities (13%
to 6%, respectively) to receive out-of-school suspensions (U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Civil Rights, 2014a). Losen et al. (2014) found that, in the 2009-2010 school year, one out of
every three, of Black middle school boys with disabilities, or 36%, were suspended; the second
group most likely to be suspended were Latino middle school boys, of whom 22% were
suspended. This is particularly problematic because the way educators manage student behaviors
can impact a student’s academic performance (Deal & Peterson, 2009).
Being suspended makes students less likely to graduate on time and more likely to repeat
a grade, drop out of school, or enter the juvenile justice system (Balfanz & Boccanfusso, 2007;
Losen, 2014). Suspensions, and the zero-tolerance policies that fueled them, created a school-to-
prison pipeline, in which, according to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU, n.d.),
students were being funneled out of public schools and into the juvenile justice system. The
3

ACLU believed that suspensions were a harsh penalty for minor infractions. The School
Superintendent Association (AASA, 2014) conducted a survey of 500 superintendents: 40%
stated that insubordination, defiance, failure to obey, and disrespect of teachers/staff were the
most common infractions that triggered out-of-school suspensions in their districts. Most of the
superintendents (92%) surveyed believed that out-of-school suspensions had negative
consequences, with loss of class time mentioned by 67% of respondents.
The goal of suspension should be that students learn from their actions and refrain from
committing the same infraction again (Hannagin & Hannigan, 2016). However, most students
who are suspended are frequent offenders, with one study finding that nearly 40% of students
who were suspended received more than one suspension (Burke & Nishioka, 2014). Given the
ineffectiveness of out-of-school suspensions and the negative consequences of using them, it was
clear that something needed to change in our discipline system. Researchers recommended the
creation of an equitable system that provided all students, regardless of race, with a second
opportunity (Harper et al., 2019). Some recommended a system such as positive behavior
supports (PBS) that allowed students to take ownership of their actions and learn from their
mistakes (Safran & Oswald, 2003). Nearly 40% of the superintendents surveyed identified
character education, social-emotional learning, and conflict resolution as strategies to reduce
suspensions (School Superintendents Association and Children’s Defense Fund, 2014).
Because the traditional discipline model was not working to extinguish undesirable
behavior (Safran & Oswald, 2003), the paradigm shifted from the retributive model, where the
focus was placed on punishing the offender, to the restorative model, where the focus was on
repairing the harm (Hermann, 2017). Hopkins (2002) stated that in the retributive justice model,
misbehavior was defined as breaking school rules and letting the school down. In the restorative
4

justice model, misbehavior was defined as harm done to one person or group by another. This
change of focus moved away from establishing blame or guilt and toward problem-solving by
expressing feelings and needs. It also resulted in a reduction in the number of out-of-school
suspensions. In California, for example, the number of suspensions dropped dramatically, as did
the number of suspensions for willful defiance (see Table 1).

Table 1
Total Suspensions and Suspensions for Willful Defiance in California, 2011 to 2018
Note. Adapted from “Data Quest” by California Department of Education.

School year Total suspensions Suspensions for willful defiance
2011-2012 709,702 335,079
2012-2013 609,810 255,367
2013-2014 503,191 181,479
2014-2015 396,751 96,421
2016-2017 381,835 78,238
2017-2018 363,406 59,808
5

Senate Bill 419 permanently prohibited willful defiance suspensions in Grades 4 and 5
and banned suspensions in Grades 6 through 8 for five years (Sheeler, 2019). The recommended
alternative was restorative justice practices in public education. Zehr (2002) said that the purpose
of restorative justice is to bring stakeholder groups together to resolve conflict. In the school
setting, it serves as an alternative to the traditional discipline system and the practices of
suspension or expulsion (Losen, 2014). Instead of focusing on the consequence, in restorative
justice, the emphasis is placed on communication between the teacher and the student (Gonzalez,
2012) and on the ability to understand where each person is coming from, rather than on being
reactive (Ashley & Burke, 2009).
With more of a focus on hope rather than despair, restorative justice practices allow
students to take ownership of their behavior and develop empathy, and they impact the way that
students interact with people of all ages (Restorative Practices Working Group, 2014). Some of
the largest school districts in California have made significant investments in restorative justice.
For example, Los Angeles Unified School District budgets more than $10 million annually to
restorative justice; the Santa Ana Unified School District received a multiyear, $3 million federal
grant to implement restorative practices; and San Diego Unified School District approved an
$800,000 budget for restorative justice in 2017-2018 (Washburn & Willis, 2018).
Deal and Peterson (2009) found that when teachers and students feel a sense of
community, they are more satisfied with the work that is done, more likely to attend school,
enjoy what they are doing, and produce a higher level of achievement. Over 25,000 schools
across the United States have adopted Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) to
create schoolwide expectations for students to follow throughout the day (PBIS, 2019). PBIS
committees are comprised of different stakeholder groups, such as parents, students, teachers,
6

out-of-classroom personnel, and administrators. According to the Center on Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (2018), one of the goals of the PBIS committee is to look at
discipline data and determine ways to correct the behaviors that teachers identify as impeding
instruction.
The U.S. Department of Education (2014) said that a critical component of a healthy and
positive school climate is a schoolwide discipline policy that (a) sets high expectations for
behavior; (b) provides clear, developmentally appropriate, and proportional consequences for
misbehavior; and (c) uses disciplinary incidents to help students learn from their mistakes,
improve their behavior, and meet high expectations.
Some teachers feel that restorative justice practices do not work and that, in fact, they do
not improve behavior. They feel frustrated when they hear the term restorative justice and think
that we are becoming "too soft" in the way we handle student misbehavior (Fronius et al., 2019).
These teachers feel that restorative justice is the removal of a punishment without a replacement
for accountability (Washburn & Willis, 2018). However, schools in Oakland and Santa Ana,
California, and in Chicago, Illinois have seen a difference in student behavior due to restorative
justice practices (Washburn, 2018; U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights,2014b).
What has not been examined, though, is the role of the principal in schools that successfully
implement restorative justice practices.
Statement of the Problem
Schools across the country are now using restorative justice practices to address student
behavior and promote a positive school climate (Evans et al., 2013). In response to the high
number of out-of-school suspensions reported across the country as a result of traditional,
punitive discipline models, many schools have begun using restorative justice practices to
7

address student behavior and promote a positive school climate (Evans et al., 2013). However,
any change in practice requires time and patience (Gesme & Wiseman, 2010). The school leader
must be prepared for an implementation dip to occur when adopting restorative justice practices
at their school site (Anyon, 2016). Fullen (2001) described an implementation dip as a dip in
performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new skills and
understandings.
This qualitative study researched the role of the middle school principal in schools that
effectively implemented restorative justice practices. Though restorative justice practices have
received scholarly attention (Ryan & Ruddy, 2015), a comprehensive review of the literature
uncovered very little research on the principal’s role. In addition, there was little research
specific to middle schools and the restorative justice practices that are effective in that
environment.
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the role of the principal in a middle school that effectively
implemented restorative justice practices. The researcher used critical race theory, restorative
justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory to provide a perspective on the research. In
isolation, the theories explain how restorative practices can be used in different settings, such as
in criminal justice or educational settings. However, together, the theories provide a framework
that offers a better understanding of why restorative justice practices are beneficial in the
educational setting in particular. Using these theories as a lens, the researcher used in-depth
interviews and an analysis of relevant documents to analyze the role of the principal in one urban
middle school within Orange County, California. Understanding how a principal can effectively
8

lead a school community through a shift in disciplinary procedures will allow other school
leaders to reflect and improve upon their own practices and will fill a gap in the literature.
Research Questions
The research questions that follow helped guide this study:
1. What is the role of the principal when implementing effective middle school
restorative justice practices?
2. What are the impacts of the implementation of restorative justice practices on the
climate of the middle school?
3. How has the implementation of restorative justice practices improved student
behavior at the middle school level?
4. How is restorative justice implementation evaluated for evidence of success at the
middle school level?
Theoretical Framework
Restorative justice practices were examined through the lenses of critical race theory,
restorative justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory. In isolation, the theories provide an
understanding of how restorative practices can be used in different settings, such as the criminal
or educational setting. However, together, the theories provided a framework that offered a better
understanding of why restorative justice practices are beneficial in the educational setting.
Critical race theory originated in the 1970s, when a group of activists and scholars
wanted to study the relationship between race, racism, and power. Today, it is common to use
this theory to better understand these issues as they relate to school discipline. Critical race
theory attempts to understand and change social situations to improve society (Delgado &
9

Stefancic, 2001). This theory was relevant to the study because racially based differences were
found in the implementation of disciplinary procedures and consequences across the country.
Restorative justice theory was applicable to this study because of its emphasis on
building connections between everyone in the school by promoting positive relationships and
creating a safe space where all individuals can speak and be heard, especially when harm has
been committed (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Instead of kicking a student out of the
classroom for talking back, the teacher and the student can work on repairing the harm so they
can understand each other better. The restorative justice theory was applicable to this study
because the researcher investigated the principal’s role in implementing practices that evolved
from the theory.
Reintegrative shaming theory was created by John Braithwaite in 1989. The theory stated
that shaming, if applied in a reintegrative model, can lead to a decrease in offensive behavior.
The reintegrative model is carried out in a respectful and healing manner (Murphy & Harris,
2007). Although this theory was developed with the use of restorative practices in a criminal
setting, the model can be applied to the educational environment. The core claims of the theory
are (a) tolerance of crime makes things worse, (b) stigmatization or disrespectful out cast
shaming of crime makes crime worse still, and (c) reintegrative shaming, or the disapproval of
the act within a continuum of respect for the offender, prevents crime. In the educational setting,
shaming can be direct actions, such as requiring a student to apologize publicly, or indirect
actions, such as expression of disappointment by a teacher to a parent or a student (Fronius et al.,
2019).

10

Significance of the Study
The traditional approach to discipline in schools, which was guided by zero-tolerance
policies and relied on exclusionary discipline practices, was shown to be both ineffective and
damaging to students (Burke & Nishioka, 2014). It was also shown to be unfairly applied.
According to Skiba and Peterson (1999), zero-tolerance policies were used to discriminate
against Black males. For example, in the 2009-2010 school year, national research showed 31%
of Black boys in middle school were suspended at least one time (Kang-Brown et al., 2013). In
2014, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) stated that Black students were suspended and expelled
at three times the rate of White students. A longitudinal study in Texas found that African
American students were more likely to receive out-of-school suspension for a first-time
infraction than were Latinos and Whites (Fabelo et al., 2011). A report from the Civil Rights
Project at UCLA found racial disparities in California school districts’ disciplinary practices. The
report noted that Black students were disproportionately dealt the harshest exclusionary
penalties: expulsions and out-of-school suspensions (Losen et al., 2012). In response to these
reports and others like them, school districts across the nation started using restorative justice
practices in their schools.
Morrison et al. (2005) stated that the implementation of restorative justice practices is a
cultural change that requires a paradigm shift from punitive to relational; if this change is to be
sustained, it will need to be managed effectively by school leaders. However, very little research
has focused on the role of the principal in schools that effectively implement restorative justice
practices and create a positive school climate. The amount of research that has focused on the
middle school principal is even smaller. This study contributes to the body of work on restorative
11

justice practices by looking at the role that school leaders, and middle school leaders in
particular, have in this field.
Limitations and Delimitations
This study was limited to staff in one middle school in Orange County, California that
effectively implemented restorative justice practices. Only a small sample size of middle school
principals and staff were interviewed. This may limit the generalizability of the results.
Definition of Terms
• Multi-tiered system of supports: An integrated, comprehensive framework that focuses on
common core state standards, core instruction, differentiated learning, student-centered
learning, individualized student needs, and the alignment of systems necessary for all
students’ academic, behavioral, and social success (CDE, 2019).
• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: An evidence-based, three-tiered
framework to improve and integrate all of the data, systems, and practices affecting
student outcomes every day. PBIS creates schools where all students succeed (PBIS,
2019).
• Restorative justice: A process to involve, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in
a specific offense to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations in
order to heal and put things as right as possible (Zehr & Gohar, 2003).
• Restorative practices: Practices on how to strengthen relationships between individuals as
well as social connections within communities (IIRP, 2019).
• Social-emotional learning: The process through which children and adults understand
and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for others,
12

establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (CASEL,
2019).
• School climate refers to the quality and character of school life. Based on patterns of
students', parents' and school personnel's experience of school life and reflects norms,
goals, values, interpersonal relationships, teaching and learning practices, and
organizational structures (NSCC, 2019).
• School culture: The beliefs, perceptions, relationships, attitudes, and written and
unwritten rules that shape and influence every aspect of how a school functions. The term
also encompasses more concrete issues such as the physical and emotional safety of
students, the orderliness of classrooms and public spaces, or the degree to which a school
embraces and celebrates racial, ethnic, linguistic, or cultural diversity (Glossary of
Education Reform, 2019).
• Zero-tolerance policy: A policy that punishes all offenses severely, no matter how minor
(Skiba & Peterson, 1999).
Organization of the Study
This study was organized into five chapters. Chapter 1 provided background information
on the traditional discipline system, which primarily consisted of punitive consequences that
aligned with retributive practices. In addition, the chapter discussed critical race theory,
restorative justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory and how, working in tandem, they
provided a lens through which to view the topic of this study.
Chapter 2 provides the reader with a review of the most current literature related to the
research questions. Chapter 3 introduces the methodology that was used for this study, including
data collection protocols and the rationale for this study. Chapter 4 discusses the results and
13

outcomes of the study. Last, Chapter 5 serves as the conclusion of the study and includes the
implications of the findings and recommendations for further research.

14

Chapter Two: Review of the Literature
This chapter presents a review of the literature that is relevant to the research on
restorative justice practices. It will fill a gap in the literature on the role of the principal in
schools that effectively implement restorative practices and positive school climate. The chapter
will review (a) the history of school discipline polices, (b) the shift in practice from punitive to
restorative, and (c) how the use of restorative practices impact school climate.
Background of School Discipline Policies
School discipline policies in the United States can be traced back to the 19th century,
when corporal punishment was the most common form of discipline (Lambert, 2018). By the
1970s, “time out” was the most common form of discipline (Sutori, 2019). Across our country,
the 1980s led to a significant concern around school safety (Gjelten, 2015). Shortly after, the
zero-tolerance policy was introduced into the public education system. Zero-tolerance policies
were developed in response to school shootings and violence. The goal was to decrease behavior
issues (Gjelten, 2015). In 1989, California and New York were the first two states to mandate the
expulsion of students (Skiba, 2000). Offenses such as drug possession and violence on a school
campus required a school administrator to seek expulsion (Morton, 2013). By 1997,
approximately 79% of schools had adopted the zero-tolerance policy for violent offenses (Kang-
Brown et al. 2013). The zero-tolerance policy assumed that the removal of disruptive students
would result in a safer climate for others and deter others from disruption (Ewing, 2000).
In 1994, the federal law known as the Guns Free Schools Act of 1994 mandated a one-
year expulsion for possession of a firearm, knife, or other weapon on school property. Local
education agencies (LEAs) had to adopt this act to receive federal education assistance.
Additionally, LEAs that adopted the Safe Schools Act of 1994 became eligible for grants. As the
15

years passed, more initiatives were developed, and LEAs that implemented these initiatives were
able to apply for grants (Brock & Kriger, 2017).
Data gathered on the 1990s showed that the percentage of students who reported being
victims of crime at school decreased, and most students reported feeling safer at school (U.S.
Department of Education, 2018). In the 1990s, the Clinton administration created two grant
programs: COPS in Schools and the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative (Brock & Kriger,
2017). The goals of the Safe Schools/Healthy Students Initiative were to focus on student mental
health, improve school safety, continue to prevent substance abuse, and promote positive social
behaviors in school-aged children. The development of new grant programs continued during the
Bush administration. The focus of most grants and initiatives was school safety, but in particular
around gun violence. The zero-tolerance policy of the 1990s continued to be used in school
districts across the United States for any student who committed an offense, such as drug
possession or violence on campus.
Over time, the zero-tolerance policies that were supposed to only apply to specific
violations started being utilized with students who were involved in fistfights and verbal abuse
(Brady, 2002). Zero-tolerance policies increased the number of youths being "pushed out" (i.e.,
suspended or expelled) and showed no evidence of a positive impact on school safety. An
analysis of out-of-school suspension by Skiba and Rausch (2004) showed that only 5% of all
out-of-school suspensions were due to possession of drugs or weapons, while 95% of
suspensions were due to disruptive behaviors or other infractions. Research also strongly linked
suspension and other school discipline policies to failure to graduate (Losen, 2015). According to
the ACLU, nearly 50% of the students who entered high school with three or more suspensions
16

eventually went on to drop out of school, and each suspension decreased the student’s odds of
graduating high school by 20% (as cited in Balfanz et al., 2014).
In response to the overuse of suspensions and expulsions, particularly in low-income
communities and with students of color, in the 2010s our current school discipline policies
started to emerge. The Obama administration addressed the need to find an alternative approach
to school disciplinary policies due to the disproportionate amount of minority students who were
disciplined during the zero-tolerance era (Brock & Kriger, 2017). Evans and Didlick-Davis
(2012) found that these rigid practices led to the development of a school-to-prison pipeline, in
particular for low income and minority students. According to Skiba and Peterson (1999), zero-
tolerance policies have historically discriminated against Black males. For example, in the 2009–
2010 school year, 31% of Black boys in middle school were suspended at least one time (Kang-
Brown et al., 2013). In 2014, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) released a report that stated that
Black students were suspended and expelled at three times the rate of White students. A
longitudinal study in Texas found that African American students were more likely to receive
out-of-school suspension for a first-time infraction than Latinos and Whites (Fabelo et al., 2011).
A report from the Civil Rights Project at UCLA found racial disparities in California school
districts’ disciplinary practices (Losen et al., 2012). The report noted that Black students were
disproportionately dealt the harshest exclusionary penalties: expulsions and out-of-school
suspensions.
California Law Requires Change in Discipline
In 2010, California received a Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) grant. The $38.8 million
grant was awarded to 11 states (National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments,
n.d.). The primary focus of the four-year grant (which lasted from 2010-2014) was to improve
17

school climate, specifically around school safety, bullying, substance abuse, positive
relationships, and student engagement. Half of the 95 districts that received the S3 grant money
reported a reduction in harassment, bullying, and suspensions for violence without physical
injury. Many lessons were learned as a result of the grant, including that a change in disciplinary
policies was needed. The recommendation of the California Department of Education was to
adopt a tiered intervention, such as Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports or restorative
justice (California Department of Education, n.d.).
In 2012, Governor Brown vetoed Assembly Bill 2242 (AB 2242 Assembly Bill-Veto,
2012). He vetoed Bill 2242 because it limited the authority of school officials to suspend
students for "willful defiance or disruption of school activities." He did not feel that he could
support limiting the authoritative role of school leaders during a time when budget cuts led to an
increase in class size and a decrease in school personnel (AB 2242 Assembly Bill-Veto, 2012).
In 2014, Governor Brown passed AB420 (Loveless, 2017). AB420 prohibited public
schools from expelling or suspending students in third grade or below for the offense of willful
defiance. Willful defiance ranged from shouting obscenities at a teacher to forgetting to bring
supplies, such as a pencil or paper, to school (Loveless, 2017). In September 2019, Governor
Newsom signed Senate Bill 419, which stipulated that beginning July 1, 2020, willful defiance
suspensions were permanently prohibited in fourth and fifth grade and were banned for five
years in Grades 6 through 8 (Sheeler, 2019). State Senator Nancy Skinner wrote Senate Bill 419
as a response to the high number of California students who were missing school due to
inappropriate behavior. In the 2016-2017 academic year, California students missed more than
150,000 days of school. A 2018 report by professors at UCLA and San Diego State University
18

found that Black male students represented 15% of willful defiance suspensions in Grades 4
through 6 and 21% in Grades 7 through 8 (California State Senate Democratic Caucus, 2019).
In 2018, California State Senator Nancy Skinner authored Senate Bill 607, which stated
that students in Grades K-12 could not be suspended due to willful defiance. A report from the
Civil Rights Project at UCLA (2016) found that only 71% of 10th-grade students who had been
suspended graduated from high school. They also stated that suspensions contributed to 10,000
additional high school dropouts in California and 67,000 across the United States per year. The
economic losses for 67,000 dropouts caused by school suspensions exceeds $35 billion in lost
tax revenue. (Civil Rights Project, 2016). However, Skinner’s bill did not have the support of the
Association of California School Administrators and the California School Boards Association;
to gain the support of these organizations, Skinner agreed to remove Grades 9 through 12 from
the bill (Washburn, 2018a).
School districts in Los Angeles, Oakland, San Francisco, and Sacramento were already
eliminating the use of willful defiance as a reason to suspend students. Data gathered for the
State of California showed that suspensions for willful defiance were already dropping before the
new laws were passed. For example, in the 2011-2012 school year, 335,079 out of 709,702
suspensions were due to willful defiance, while in the 2017-2018 school year, 59,808 out of
363,406 suspensions were due willful defiance. Hence, willful defiance suspensions went from
being responsible for half of suspensions to being responsible for one in six suspensions
(Freedburg, 2019).
Implementation of Restorative Justice Practices in California
In 2013, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) developed and adopted the
School Climate Bill of Rights, which advocated the use of restorative justice and made LAUSD
19

the first district in the state to ban out-of-school suspensions and expulsions for behavior that
was labeled as defiant or disruptive (Washburn, 2019). As a result of this, LAUSD saw a drastic
drop in suspensions: a sixfold decrease in schools from 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 (Swaak, 2019).
In 2014, along with the passing of AB420, Governor Brown also funded a $15 million grant that
focused on a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) with an emphasis on restorative justice,
social-emotional learning, and other alternatives to traditional punishment (Washburn, 2018b).
Some of the largest school districts in California began to allocate substantial amounts of
their budgets to restorative justice. In the 2017-2018 school year, Oakland budgeted $2.5 million
to restorative justice practices, including 35 facilitators. LAUSD budgeted more than $10 million
annually toward restorative justice with a goal of implementation in all schools by 2020. San
Diego Unified School District budgeted almost $800,000 toward restorative justice practices for
the 2017-2018 school year. Last, Santa Ana Unified School District received a multi-year, $3
million federal grant to implement restorative practices in schools throughout the district
(Washburn & Willis, 2018).
Restorative justice practices in schools tend to focus on conflict mediation or restorative
circles, in which students are taught how to reflect on the impact of harmful behavior
(Freedburg, 2019). A survey conducted by Guckenburg et al. (2016) found that respondents used
circles, restorative questioning, and one-to-one mediation. A large majority of respondents (90%)
reported that circles were a component of the restorative justice model at their site. Circles are
used to bring together everyone who was impacted by an incident to have a discussion and
resolve the conflict. Of the survey respondents, 80% stated that they used restorative questioning
to defuse situations, while 65% said that they used one-on-one mediation.
20

Since receiving the grant from the Federal Department of Education, Santa Ana Unified
School District has seen a 75% decrease in suspensions (Washburn, 2018b). The implementation
of restorative practices has also reduced the number of office referrals for disruptive behaviors in
Oakland Unified. The adoption of restorative justice by the Oakland School Board in 2010 led to
a 40% decline in suspensions of Black students in one year (Oakland Unified School District.
(n.d.). According to Oakland Unified School District (n.d.), 47% of the staff stated that
restorative justice helped reduce referrals for all students, and 53% reported that it reduced the
referrals for African American students. Additionally, 88% of teachers reported that restorative
justice had been very or somewhat helpful in handling student behaviors and with classroom
management.
Theoretical Framework
The purpose of this study was to research the role of the principal in middle schools that
are effectively implementing restorative justice practices. The researcher combined three
different theories to serve as a framework for this study: critical race theory, restorative justice
theory, and reintegrative shaming theory. These theories provided a perspective on the research
and why this research was necessary. Understanding these theories is essential for understanding
the relationship between what is being studied and its environment.
Critical Race Theory
Critical Race Theory originated in the 1970s when a group of activists and scholars
wanted to study the relationship between race, racism, and power. It is now commonly used to
grasp a better understanding of school discipline. Critical race theory attempts to understand and
change social situations to improve society (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This theory was
21

relevant to the study because racially based differences were found in the implementation of
disciplinary procedures and consequences across the country.
Critical race theory has five themes: the centrality and intersectionality of race and
racism, the challenge to the dominant ideology, the commitment to social justice, the centrality
of experiential knowledge, and the interdisciplinary perspective (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
The researcher focused on the theme of commitment to social justice to understand how
restorative practices can be used to address student behavior in schools, specifically for students
of color who are suspended at a more significant rate than are White students. Johnson-Ahorlu
(2017) said that educators can use CRT to dismantle racism in education and to inspire social
agency that will, in return, create a more just society.
Restorative Justice Theory
The restorative justice theory was first proposed by McCold and Wachtel (2003) to
explain and predict the effects of restorative justice practices. The theory has three structures: the
social discipline window, stakeholder roles, and the restorative practices typology. The
researcher used the social discipline window to understand the role of the principal when
implementing an effective restorative justice program. The social discipline window structure
states that everyone with an authoritative role decides on how to maintain social discipline. At
the school-site level, the principal and the teachers play an authoritative role. The goal is that
there is a shift from punishment to collaborative problem solving.
Reintegrative Shaming Theory
In 1989, John Braithwaite developed the reintegrative shaming theory. The theory stated
shaming, if applied in a reintegrative way, can lead to a decrease in offensive behavior. The
reintegrative model is carried out in a respectful and healing manner (Murphy & Harris, 2007).
22

Although this theory was developed with the use of restorative practices in a criminal justice
setting, the model can be applied to the educational environment. The core claims of the theory
are (a) tolerance of crime makes things worse, (b) stigmatization or disrespectful outcast shaming
of crime makes crime worse still, while (c) reintegrative shaming, or disapproval of the act
within a continuum of respect for the offender, prevents crime. In the educational setting,
shaming can be direct actions such as requiring a student to apologize publicly or indirect actions
such as expressions of disappointment by a teacher to a parent or a student (Fronius et al., 2019).
However, Vaandering (2010) stated that the use of shaming can cause unintended harm in school
settings; therefore, educators must know how to use shame to reintegrate rather than to
stigmatize. The researcher used this theory to understand the role the principal has in
implementing an effective restorative justice program and the impact that restorative justice
practices have on the climate of a middle school.
Restorative Justice in Education
In the school setting, restorative justice is used as an alternative to traditional discipline,
and to suspension and expulsion in particular (Losen, 2014). The search for an alternative
approach arose in response to the potentially harmful consequences linked to exclusionary
discipline practices. The implementation of restorative justice practices in schools can vary
greatly. Some programs might consist of the schoolwide implementation of restorative justice
principles and training all staff and students. At the same time, other schools might embed
restorative practices into their current discipline continuum (Fronius et al., 2019). Nonetheless,
restorative disciplinary practices are more supportive, inclusive, and educational than other
approaches because restorative discipline approaches wrongdoing in a way that is not punitive,
neglectful, or permissive (Varmam, 2004).
23

For example, according to Davis (2013), the Oakland Unified School District's
implementation of restorative practices was broken into three tiers. The first tier involved the
entire classroom coming together to form a community circle to talk about problems and voice
their concerns. The group established its norms before the conversation began to ensure respect.
The second tier consisted of the creation of smaller groups, which were utilized when there was a
specific conflict. In the smaller group model, the facilitator brought the harmed student and the
person causing the harm together. The third tier was used for student reintegration after a
suspension.
Larry Ferlazzo (2016) asked some educators how to practice restorative justice in
schools. The former principal of June Jordan School for Equity in San Francisco, Matt
Alexander, said that for schools to implement restorative justice with fidelity, they must follow
these four steps: They must intentionally create a community that is anchored in shared values;
make participation in the community a requirement, not an option; model and teach community
values; and enforce the values and hold students accountable. In his words, "You can't restore
justice to the community when you haven't created a community, to begin with" (as cited in
Ferlazzo, ,2016, p. 1). A teacher in South Los Angeles stated that one way that restorative justice
looks different is with the role of the teacher/administrator. The facilitators' purpose is to ask
open-ended questions to promote reflection. Questions schools that implement restorative justice
can use include, "What happened? What were you thinking about at the time? What have you
thought about since? Who has been affected by what you have done? What do you think you
need to do to make things right?" (Mirsky, 2014). In a nutshell, the restorative approach in
school shifts from managing behavior to focusing on the building, nurturing, and repairing of
relationships (Hopkins, 2002).
24

Ashley and Burke (2009) stated that schools should utilize restorative justice practices
because they emphasize the values of empathy, respect, honesty, acceptance, responsibility, and
accountability. Additionally, the practices provide ways to address behavior effectively, offer a
supportive environment that can improve learning, improve safety by preventing future harm,
and most important, offer an alternative to suspension and expulsion.
Numerous studies have showed the effectiveness of restorative justice practices. For
example, the Youth Justice Board (2004) for England and Wales conducted a study on 19
schools in the United Kingdom. Results from that study showed that restorative practices
improved the school environment and enhanced the learning of students. A separate study
conducted on 18 Scottish schools found that restorative practices offered a cohesive framework
that allowed the student to feel safe and respected and to have a positive relationship with others
(McCluskey et al., 2008). Another study focused on three schools in Pennsylvania and found that
they experienced a reduction in disruptive behavior and disciplinary practices (Mirsky, 2003). A
study in South St. Paul School District in Minnesota found that students in several schools had
fewer expulsions, suspensions, behavior referrals, and better overall attendance after the
implementation of restorative justice practices (Stinchcomb et al., 2006). Additionally, schools in
Peoria, Illinois, had a 35% decline in detention referrals and a 43% decline in detention referrals
of Black students (Brown, 2008).
More recently, the RAND Corporation conducted a study in Pittsburg and Maine on the
implementation of restorative justice practices. Findings from the Pittsburg study showed that
suspension rates fell at the 22 schools that implemented restorative justice practices. Interestingly
enough, though, the suspension rates also fell at the 22 schools that did not implement restorative
justice practices. However, during the second year of the study, the suspension rate at the schools
25

that applied restorative justice was 12.6%, versus 14.6% at the schools that were using the
traditional discipline practices. Additionally, teachers reported that their school climate had
improved due to the use of restorative practices (Augustine et al., 2018). The study in Maine
consisted of 13 middle schools and approximately 2,770 students. This study did not report any
significant changes; however, the students who were a part of the treatment schools stated that
they saw an improvement in school climate, connectedness, and social skills and a reduction in
cyberbullying (Acosta et al., 2018).
Advocates argue that restorative justice practices can foster positive relationships among
students and staff and that this is something that punitive approaches cannot do (Ashley &
Burke, 2009). Restorative justice uses community-building to improve relationships, thereby
reducing the frequency of punishable offenses while yielding a range of benefits (Gregory et al.,
2016). Some reports indicated that the practices have resulted in an improved school climate
(Brown, 2017; Mirsky, 2007; Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007). Other reports suggested that restorative
justice has led to increased student connectedness, greater community and parent engagement,
improved academic achievement, and the offering of support to students from staff (Cavanagh et
al., 2014; González, 2012). Also, several detailed reports highlighted decreases in discipline
disparities, fighting, bullying, and suspensions as a result of a restorative justice program
(Brown, 2017; González, 2012; Suvall, 2009).

26

Leadership in Schools and Its Impact on School Climate
The Importance of School Climate
DuFour and Eaker (1998) stated that the reason student achievement has not improved
over the past three decades is that schools have failed to address the importance of culture and
climate. The implementation of a positive school culture lowers suspensions and increases
attendance rates (Ohlson, 2009). A positive school climate leads to increased graduation rates,
reduced school violence, and increased communication amongst all stakeholders (U.S.
Department of Education, 2014a).
According to Losen and Skiba (n.d.), exclusionary practices such as suspension and
expulsion harm the school climate. Schools with high suspension and expulsion rates had a lower
rating on overall school climate (American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task
Force, 2008). Gregory et al. (2010) found that students were more likely to respond to
authoritative figures when the school promoted a climate where students’ voices were respected
and adults showed that they cared. The overall goal of embedding restorative justice practices at
a school site is to create an environment that is respectful, tolerant, accepting, and supportive
(González, 2012; Hantzopoulos, 2013; Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007). To foster this culture, schools
must nurture relationships among students and staff that focus on the use of active listening and
respect (Brown, 2017; Cavanagh, Vigil, & Garcia, 2014).
Dimensions of School Climate
School climate is comprised of major spheres such as safety, relationships, teaching and
learning, and the environment (Cohen et al., 2011). These dimensions are known to shape how
students feel about being in school. For example, a study of 643 students in 37 secondary schools
found that three domains of student-teacher interactions could be used as indicators to predict
27

higher student test scores at the end of the year. The three domains consisted of emotional
support, classroom organization, and instructional support. Specifically, the emotional support
component consisted of a teacher’s ability to establish a positive emotional climate (Allen et al.,
2013).
These four spheres, safety, teaching and learning, institutional environment, and
interpersonal relations, are also referred to as dimensions. The interpersonal relationships
dimension shapes school climate. In contrast, the institutional environment dimension is a
student's sense of belonging to a school, the quality of the school facility, and community/family
involvement (Cohen et al., 2008/2009).
The Principal’s Influence on School Climate
A positive school climate does not just lead to increased graduation rates, reduced school
violence, and increased communication (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). It also promotes
teacher retention, which, in return, has an impact on student success (Cohen et al., 2011). High
principal turnover also hurts climate and student achievement. A study conducted by a group of
researchers found that high principal turnover was associated with low scores on achievement
tests because turnover affects the overall climate of a school (Seashore et al., 2010).
To improve school climate, Chicago has been using the 5 Essentials survey. This survey
focuses on healthy school climates, and Weiner (2018) found that principals who improve
student achievement have teams of teachers who meet regularly to look at students' behavior,
attendance, grades, and work. Between 2009 and 2014, test scores improved drastically for
Chicago’s public-school students in third through eighth grade (Reardon & Hinze-Pifer, 2017).
Hoy and Miskel (2005) conducted a study on the organizational health of secondary
schools and described three dimensions: institutional, administrative, and technical function
28

(Gülsen & Gülenay, 2014). The administrative dimension showed that the administrative process
was the responsibility of the principal. A primary function of that role is to motivate teachers,
and research conducted by Gülsen and Gülenay (2014) suggested that consistent administration,
or low turnover, and teacher in-service on school efficacy should be top priorities when a school
leader wants to improve school climate.
School Climate and Restorative Justice Practices
Restorative justice practices are a tool that educators can use to create a positive school
climate (Health and Human Development Program, 2012). Augustine et al. (2018) found that
restorative justice caused a statistically significant increase in teachers' perceptions of school
climate. Their survey looked at how teachers viewed school safety and their understanding of
student conduct. The study also found an improvement in teachers' perceptions of their working
conditions. A survey of schools that implemented restorative justice in Oakland, California,
found that 69% of staff believed that restorative justice had improved school climate, and 64%
attributed it to the development of caring relationships between students and teachers (Jain et al.,
2014).
Challenges of Restorative Justice in Schools
Restorative justice practices can decrease suspension and expulsion rates. They can also
be used to build a school community and a healthy school climate (Brown, 2017). However,
many schools struggle with how to develop, implement, and sustain restorative justice programs.
Research from both Ashley and Burke (2009) and Brown (2017) found that schools are more
successful in establishing a restorative justice program that works and lasts when they focus on
integrating restorative justice into their philosophy.
29

Some of the challenges that schools face when implementing restorative justice practices are
staff buy-in, training, and funding (Fronius et al., 2019).
Staff Buy-In
Anyon (2016) conducted a study on the success of restorative practices in Denver
schools. Anyon found that staff members' willingness to support and actively engage in
restorative justice practices was the second most important strategy for the overall success of the
program. The opportunity for staff feedback is the approach the principal implemented to create
buy-in. Some educators are resistant to restorative justice because it is sometimes perceived as
being too soft on student offenses (Evans & Lester, 2013). Another element that created staff
buy-in was when staff saw the benefits of the program, such as when resistant staff started
witnessing a change in student behavior.
Blood and Thorsborne (2005) stated that schoolwide implementation can take between
three and five years; therefore, the principal must get buy-in from several teachers to establish a
core group. This core group of teachers can then use the strategies that they learn through their
training. The principal needs the support of the lead teachers, and once they see the benefits, then
others tend to follow (National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence
Prevention, 2007). Another technique that principals can use to create staff buy-in is showing
how restorative practices can support and improve student achievement (Restorative Practice
Consortium, 2017).
Training
The Restorative Practice Consortium (2017) said that to implement a strong restorative
justice program, staff need to have training in restorative practices and restorative culture. A
substantial amount of time is required in the initial stages of implementation (Summer et al.,
30

2010). However, high-quality ongoing training must also be taken into consideration when
considering the implementation of restorative justice. The use of restorative justice practices is
resource-intensive. Schools need to consider a range of factors such as who gets trained and in
what order, costs of training, and funding sources for training (Morrison, Blood, & Thorsborne,
2005).
Funding
Although a lot of effort has been put forth to have schools use restorative justice
practices, the reality is that finding and keeping funding for a program such as restorative justice
can be challenging (De La Rosa, 2019). Budget cuts in Oakland Unified School District led to
recommendations that the program there no longer be funded in 2019, even though they had data
that showed that it was working (Washburn, 2019). Luckily the program received funding for
another year; however, this might not be the case moving forward (Washburn, 2019). School
districts need to be creative, such as by partnering with community-based organizations that
might train staff at little to no cost or attempt to allocate other school funding to the program
(NEA, 2014).
Models of Restorative Practices
When considering a systemwide implementation of restorative justice practices, a school
needs to decide which restorative models to implement (National Center for Mental Health
Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention, 2009). Some of the models that are used across
schools are circles, restorative conferencing, and peer mediation (Kidde, 2017). All these models
can be used at different times for a variety of reasons, from conflict resolution to building
community.
31

Circles are a communication model that supports the principles of connection, equality,
and power-sharing (Shumacher, 2014). There is a wide array of circles. However, all of them
include the following elements: ceremony opening/closing, centerpiece, identify
values/guidelines, talking piece, and facilitator (Boyce-Watsob & Prannis, 2014). Some of the
most common circles used in a school setting are peacemaking circles, which are used to address
interpersonal conflict, and classroom circles, which are used to build community and deal with
behavior issues before they escalate (Costello et al., 2010). A study by Shumacher (2010) on the
use of circles with adolescent girls in an urban high school found that talking circles provide a
supportive haven where the girls learn to trust and respect each other, all while honoring the code
of confidentiality. The girls were able to be themselves without fear of judgment and were able
to demonstrate signs of empathy toward one another. Talking circles are used to explore a topic
or a recurring issue and create opportunities to hear different perspectives (Kidde, 2017).
Restorative conferencing is used when trying to identify, repair, and prevent harm
(Kidde, 2017). It allows each participant, the victim, and the offender, to provide insight on the
harm that has been committed and to consider some possible solutions to repair the harm
(Stinchcomb et al., 2006). According to O’Connell et al. (1999), conferences usually have a
script in which the offender(s) are asked the questions that follow:
a. What happened?
b. What were you thinking about at the time?
c. What have you thought about since?
d. Who has been affected by what you have done?
e. What do you think you need to do to make things, right?
32

This is followed by the victim being asked what they would like at the outcome of the
conference. Once this is discussed with the offender, and once an agreement is reached, a
contract is written and signed.
Peer mediation involves a trained and neutral third party whose role is to help those who
are in conflict to come to a mutually acceptable resolution or to find a way to move forward.
Peer mediators can range in how long they have been trained in conflict resolution, mediation,
and restorative dialogue. The peer mediator is there to resolve and manage conflict (Kidde,
2017). Some of the benefits of peer mediation are self-regulation, self-esteem, and self-
discipline, as well as the transfer of skills into other settings (Turnuklu et al., 2010).
Paradigm Shifts Associated with Restorative Justice
Morrison et al. (2005) stated that the implementation of restorative justice practices is a
cultural change that requires a paradigm shift from punitive to relational, and it must be managed
effectively if the school leader wants a successful and sustainable implementation. A shift is
required in the way that schools view students, their behavior, and their value. A shift must also
be made from one focused on social control, where the emphasis is on managing student
behavior, to one of social engagement, where collaboration, mutual respect, accountability, and
growth are the focus (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). A shift in attitudes toward punishment
may take one to three years (Karp & Breslin, 2001), and the deep shift to a restorative-oriented
school climate might take three to five years (Evans & Lester, 2013).
Summary
School discipline policies have moved from zero tolerance to the use of restorative justice
practices. Studies have shown that the use of restorative justice practices has reduced the use of
punitive discipline, including suspensions and expulsions. Schools that have effectively
33

implemented restorative justice practices have also documented a change in school climate.
However, districts face challenges to sustaining restorative justice programs, such as a lack of
staff buy-in, training, and funding.
Very little research has been conducted on the role of the middle school principal in
schools that effectively implement restorative justice practices and create a positive school
climate. Therefore, it is necessary to examine this phenomenon. This study contributes to this
body of work by looking at the role that school leaders have in this field. Chapter 3 will include a
discussion of the research design, the sample and population, data collection procedures, data
analysis, and ethical considerations for this study

34

Chapter Three: Methodology
This study examined the role of the principal in a middle school that effectively
implemented restorative justice practices and created a positive school climate. The purpose of
this study was to gain a better understanding of the role the school leader played in promoting
these effective practices. Additionally, the study examined the impact of restorative justice
practices on school climate. The results of this qualitative study contribute to the field of
education by increasing understanding of the role of the principal and the impact of these
practices as well as by identifying evidence, such as discipline data, that can be used to measure
the success of restorative justice implementation.
Chapter 3 begins by summarizing the problem statement and the purpose of the research
and then restates the research questions that were developed to guide this study. The chapter then
provides information on the methodological approach that was selected for this study and a
description of the participants, instrumentation, procedures for data collection, and methods of
data analysis. Last, ethical considerations, such as confidentiality and data security, are
discussed.
Statement of the Problem
Schools across the country are now using restorative justice practices to address student
behavior and promote a positive school climate (Evans et al., 2013). In response to the high
number of out-of-school suspensions reported across the country as a result of traditional,
punitive discipline models, many schools have begun using restorative justice practices to
address student behavior and promote a positive school climate (Evans et al., 2013). However,
any change in practice requires time and patience (Gesme & Wiseman, 2010). The school leader
must be prepared for an implementation dip to occur when adopting restorative justice practices
35

at their school site (Anyon, 2016). Fullen (2001) described an implementation dip as a dip in
performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new skills and
understandings.
This qualitative study researched the role of the middle school principal in schools that
have effectively implemented restorative justice practices. Though restorative justice practices
have received scholarly attention (Ryan & Ruddy, 2015), a comprehensive review of the
literature uncovered very little research on the principal’s role. In addition, there was little
research on the middle school environment and the restorative justice practices that are effective
in that environment.
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this study was to examine the role of the principal in a middle school that
effectively implemented restorative justice practices. The researcher used the critical race,
restorative justice, and reintegrative shaming theories as a framework to provide a perspective on
the research and why it was necessary. A comprehensive review of the literature found very little
research on the role of the principal; therefore, this study contributes to this body of work by
looking at the role that school leaders have in this field.
The research questions that follow helped guide this study:
1. What is the role of the principal when implementing effective middle school
restorative justice practices?
2. What are the impacts of the implementation of restorative justice practices on the
climate of the middle school?
3. How has the implementation of restorative justice practices improved student
behavior at the middle school level?
36

4. How is restorative justice implementation evaluated for evidence of success at the
middle school level?
Sample and Population
The researcher remotely interviewed five participants from one urban middle school in
Orange County, California. Purposeful sampling was used to select the participants. This type of
sampling allowed the researcher to select individuals who could provide rich information on the
phenomena of interest (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). This study attempted to identify the specific
practices that school leaders, such as principals and assistant principals, used to effectively
implement the restorative justice practices that improved school climate. Participants in this
study were sixth- through eighth-grade public middle school counselors, assistant principals, or
principals within Orange County.
Instrumentation
The researcher utilized two methods to collect data for this qualitative study. According
to Maxwell (2013), it is common to use different data collection methods when conducting
qualitative research; doing so serves two purposes: it assures the validity of the research and
broadens its scope. The data gathered from the interview protocol and document analysis was
used to answer the research questions.
Semistructured interviews were used to remotely interview the participants.
Semistructured interviews allow for flexibility that structured interviews do not. For example,
semistructured interviews allow the researcher to toggle between structured, non-structured, and
open-ended questions. The use of less structured, open-ended questions allows the researcher to
dig deeper into the subject (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). Appendix A outlines the questions that
were used with the participants. The interview protocol was designed to address Research
37

Questions 1 through 4. The 30-minute interviews were recorded digitally, with the consent of the
participants, and transcribed.
The researcher also examined documents from the research site that provided insight into
the factors that contributed to the creation of a positive school climate through the use of
restorative justice practices. Documents, such as minutes from the Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS), Single Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA), and Local
Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP), contained information that assisted the researcher in
understanding the climate of the middle school.
Data Collection Procedures
For this study, the researcher utilized remote interviews and document analysis to collect
data from the participants. Multiple forms of data helped the researcher triangulate the findings
and minimize research bias.
The researcher conducted remote interviews with school site administrators (i.e.,
principal and assistant principals), counselors, and classroom teachers. The goal of the interviews
was to uncover the participants’ perspectives on the effective implementation of restorative
justice practices and the impact of those practices on the school climate. The interviews, each of
which lasted approximately 30 minutes, focused on how school site personnel perceived the role
of the principal in the effective implementation of restorative justice practices. The interview
protocol was aligned to answer the four research questions.
The researcher scheduled interviews at a time and date that accommodated the
participants and did not interfere with their work obligations. Prior to conducting the interviews,
the researcher obtained informed consent. This ensured that all participants understood the intent
of the research, that their participation was voluntary, and the possible risks posed by their
38

participation (Rubin & Rubin, 2012). After informed consent was provided, the interviews were
recorded and then transcribed for further analysis. Once the responses were finalized, the
responses were coded and themes were established. The analysis of documents, such as meeting
minutes and SPSA, allowed the researcher to gain additional knowledge that might not have
been collected through interviews.
Data Analysis
Creswell’s (2018) six steps for data analysis were used to analyze the interviews and
documents. Figure 1 is a graphic representation of Creswell’s six steps.

Figure 1
Creswell’s Six Steps for Qualitative Data Analysis

Note. Creswell’s Six Steps for Qualitative Data Analysis. Adapted from Research Design:
Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches (p. 197), by J. W. Creswell,
2018, SAGE.
39

The researcher followed these steps to collect and analyze the data. The first step was to
organize the data and prepare for analysis through transcription and extended note-taking. Next,
the researcher examined the data and obtained an overall interpretation of the meaning of the
interviews and documents. This was followed by the coding process, in which data were chunked
into categories; the chunks were then developed into themes using open and priori codes and
descriptions that added to the complexity of the analysis. The researcher then determined how
the themes were represented in the qualitative narrative. In the final step, the data were
interpreted to make meaning from the findings.
Ethical Considerations
The participants' protection and privacy were ensured, and ethical conduct procedures
were followed. The USC Institutional Review Board reviewed and approved the research
proposal for this study. Confidentiality was protected through the use of pseudonyms for people,
places, and organizations. As noted by Glense (2011), a researcher must ensure participants'
confidentiality and protect any confidential information. The data that were collected were stored
in a secure location and will not be used for other studies. At the end of the study, the
participants received a copy of the findings. According to Merriam and Tisdell (2016), this level
of transparency is vital.
Summary
Chapter 3 provided an outline of the research methods that were used to perform this
study. The chapter contained a statement of the problem, the purpose of the research, the
research questions that guided the study, and a description of the sample and population,
instrumentation, data collection, and data analysis. The chapter also discussed the ethical
considerations that were used to ensure the confidentiality of the participants. This study was
40

centered on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) work and on Creswell's (2018) steps on conducting a
research study. The research questions and goals led to the collection of qualitative data. A
qualitative case study was used to analyze the role of middle school principal in a school that
effectively implemented restorative justice practices and created a positive school climate.
Chapter 4 will present an analysis of the data as well as the significant findings that emerged as a
result of this study.

41

Chapter Four: Findings
Student achievement has not improved over the past three decades; this is, at least in part,
because schools have failed to address the importance of culture and climate (DuFour & Eaker,
1998). A positive school culture contributes to lowering suspensions and increasing attendance
rates (Ohlson, 2009). A positive school climate also leads to increased graduation rates, reduced
school violence, and increased communication amongst all stakeholders (US Department of
Education, 2014). Therefore, this study focused on the implementation of restorative justice
practices at the middle school level and the impact those practices had on school culture. The
results are presented through the lens of critical race theory, restorative justice theory, and
reintegrative shaming theory
Purpose of the Study
This study examined the role of the principal in a middle school that effectively
implemented restorative justice practices. The researcher used critical race theory, restorative
justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory to provide a perspective on the research. In
isolation, the theories explain how restorative practices can be used in different settings, such as
the criminal justice or educational setting. However, together, the theories provide a framework
that offers a better understanding of why restorative justice practices are beneficial in the
educational setting. The researcher analyzed the role of the principal in one urban middle school
within Orange County. A comprehensive review of the literature found very little research on the
role of the principal; therefore, this study intends to contribute to this body of work by looking at
the role that school leaders have in this field.

42

Presentation of Findings
This chapter presents the findings of this study. These findings may help school site
leaders implement effective restorative justice practices that will, in return, have an impact on
school climate. The findings are based on data collected from interviews conducted by the
researcher via zoom and a review of relevant documents. The research questions that follow
helped guide this study:
1. What is the role of the principal when implementing effective middle school
restorative justice practices?
2. What are the impacts of the implementation of restorative justice practices on the
climate of the middle school?
3. How has the implementation of restorative justice practices improved student
behavior at the middle school level?
4. How is restorative justice implementation evaluated for evidence of success at the
middle school level?
Descriptive Characteristics
Demographics of Participating School District
School District A served students in kindergarten through 12th grade and was comprised
of 36 elementary schools, eight intermediate schools, and seven high schools. The school district
had a total enrollment of approximately 47,000 students, 88% of whom received free/reduced
lunch.
Interview Participants
The participants for this study were selected from one urban school district within Orange
County. The study examined the role of the principal in middle schools that were effectively
43

implementing restorative justice practices. The researcher selected participants from one middle
school that utilized restorative justice practices. The participants received an overview of the
study and a description of what their participation would entail. Table 2 presents the
demographics of the interview participants. The researcher used pseudonyms to protect their
identities.
Table 2
Demographics of Interview Respondents
Interview participants Role Years in current position
A
B
C
D
E
Intervention Specialist
Principal
Counselor
Assistant principal
Parent liaison
2
1.5
<1
1.5
2

44

To gain an understanding of their lived experiences, the researcher conducted a semi
structured interview via zoom with each of the participants. Semistructured interviews are more
flexible than structured interviews. For example, they allow the researcher to toggle between
structured, non-structured, and open-ended questions. The use of less structured, open-ended
questions allowed the researcher to dig deeper into the subject of interest (Merriam & Tisdell,
2016). The interview protocol was designed to address Research Questions 1 through 4. Each
interview was conducted remotely via the Zoom video conference application.
Interview Participant A was the intervention specialist for the site. The participant’s
overall focus was to lead circles, repair harm, and resolve conflicts. A circle is a
versatile restorative practice that can be used proactively, to develop relationships and build
community, or reactively, to respond to wrongdoing, conflicts, and problems. Circles give people
an opportunity to speak and to listen to one another in an atmosphere of safety, decorum, and
equality (Pranis, 2005). Participant A provided space for students to process their feelings and
identify the root causes of their misbehavior. Participant A was introduced to restorative
practices through Homeboy Industries.
Interview Participant B was the middle school principal and had been working at the
research site for two years. Participant B received extensive training in restorative practices and
leads by example. During the principal’s tenure, there has been an 80% reduction in suspensions
at the middle school. Participant B professed a commitment to changing the school’s perspective
on discipline. Participant B believed that building relationships is one of the most critical
components of moving a school to the next level. Participant B was introduced to restorative
justice practices at the age of 18, while attending a national conference on community justice.
45

Since then, Participant B has facilitated circles and led community groups based on restorative
practices.
Interview Participant C was a middle school counselor who recently returned to the
school district. Participant C attended this school district as a child and had come back to work in
the community. Participant C’s primary role was to support students’ academic needs.
Participant C believed that to address academics, it was necessary to focus on students' social-
emotional needs. This participant believed it was not possible to talk about getting good grades
without knowing what was going on for students behind the scenes.
Interview Participant D had been a middle school assistant principal for a little over one
year. Participant D was formerly a principal in a different school district in Southern California.
Participant D was familiar with community circles prior to joining the school and was interested
in getting to the root of issues, rather than simply giving students a consequence for their
behaviors.
Interview Participant E was the family and community engagement liaison. Participant E
supported families and the community by providing them with workshops. Participant E’s
knowledge of restorative justice practices was limited. However, this participant saw a difference
in student behavior after the principal implemented restorative practices. Participant E worked
closely with Participant A and had learned a lot. Participant E was committed to helping the
students and parents within the community.
Results for Research Question 1
What is the role of the principal when implementing effective middle school restorative
justice practices?
46

This question explored the role that the principal has in implementing effective
restorative justice practices. Despite the availability of research on restorative practices, very
little research has been conducted on the principal's role. Three themes emerged through the
analysis of the data. The first theme was modeling. The second theme that emerged from the
interviews and the analysis of relevant documents was that the principal needs to provide training
for all staff. This finding supported those of the Canadian Restorative Practice Consortium
(2017), who stated that to implement a strong restorative justice program, staff need to have
training in restorative practices and restorative culture (Restorative Practice Consortium, 2017).
The third theme that emerged was commitment. The principal has to be committed to the
process, which can be met with resistance from staff members. Karp and Breslin (2001) stated
that a shift in attitudes may take one to three years, and the deep shift to a restorative-oriented
school climate might take three to five years (Evans & Lester, 2013).
Modeling
During the remote interviews, all of the participants stated that the principal plays a
critical role in implementing restorative justice practices. Participant A stated, "It has to come
from the top down and support the idea of restorative practices within the campus." Participants
B and C alluded to the same idea when they stated that the principal needs “to practice what you
preach.” Participant D further highlighted that the principal has to have a vision and said the
principal should say, “This is the type of school that I run, this is the culture that I want to set
forth in my school and either you are on board, or you are not." Participant E highlighted that it
goes back to the culture that the principal creates. Participant D stated, "The principal does things
with love, so much care and passion, that it really inspires us."

47

Training
According to the Canadian Restorative Practice Consortium (2017), staff needs to have
training in restorative practices and culture to implement a strong restorative justice program.
The principal at the research site provided high quality, ongoing training for the staff. For
example, Participant D stated the principal conducted a circle with the adults during a
professional development day. As a result, Participant D shared that the staff was able to "unpack
some of their trauma and that made such a huge difference and we started seeing more teachers
lead circles versus me having to go in and lead them." Anyon (2016) found that staff members'
willingness to support and engage in restorative justice practices was the second most crucial
strategy for the program's overall success. Therefore, it is essential that principals ensure that the
staff receives proper training so that they feel comfortable engaging in restorative practices.
Participant A stated that through the use of professional development, the principal was
"building culture and community, and it is a beautiful change to see."
Participant B, who was the principal, stated that something needed to be done because
there were at least eight fights per week in the school. Participant B also added, "My main role as
a principal was to change the culture and the perspective of the discipline system.” For example,
during the first professional development with teachers, Participant B said, "Our kids do not need
you to feel sorry for them, and our kids do not need you to punish them for things that they are
not aware that they are doing so have to change our mindset.” Some educators are resistant to
restorative justice because it is sometimes perceived as being “too soft” on student offenses
(Evans & Lester, 2013). The principal can address this flawed thinking by providing staff
members with proper training.
48

Commitment
Systematic change typically takes three to five years to accomplish (Blood & Thorsborne,
2005). A substantial amount of time is required in the initial implementation stages (Summer et
al., 2010). A review of documents, such as school-wide positive behavior support meeting
minutes, showed that this middle school was committed to reviewing data, reflecting on their
practice, and changing things when they were not working. Participant E recalled a time when
things were so out of control that the principal had to stand on a lunch table and tell everyone to
stop acting up.
Participant B, the principal, professed a commitment to creating change at the middle
school. This commitment was expressed when the participant pursued additional funding to hire
an outside organization to help the school make the transition to restorative practices. The
contract was more than the school could afford at the time, so Participant B reached out to
district personnel. As the school site principal, Participant B advocated for the students and
requested that adequate resources be provided. A review of the budget document showed that the
school site now allocates funds to maintain the contract with the partnering organization.
Participant B often meets with the school site council and other stakeholder groups to hear their
opinions and to help identify what is needed as they continue the work with restorative justice
practices. Participant B passionately stated,
As a principal, I want to make sure that everybody in the school understands the true
meaning of restorative practices community [RPC] and what that really means. What
happens is that RPC can be like putting a Band-Aid on a hurt. It is not putting a Band-Aid
is not going to take five minutes. This takes weeks. It takes months. It takes relationships;
49

it takes building a core soul relationship between groups of people and continuing that
checking in. That is a true RPC.
Discussion for Research Question 1
A thorough analysis of the qualitative data collected from the remote interviews and the
review of documents showed that the participants felt the principal played a pivotal role in
implementing restorative practices. They all believed that a school leader should lead by example
and is instrumental in making change happen. Morrison et al. (2005) stated that the
implementation of restorative justice practices is a cultural change that requires a paradigm shift
from punitive to relational; this change needs to be managed effectively if the school leader
wants a successful and sustainable implementation.
The three themes that emerged from the data for Research Question 1 were modeling,
training, and commitment. The participants' responses aligned with the theoretical framework on
restorative justice theory. By modeling behavior that aligns with restorative justice theory,
training the staff on how to create relationships with one another and with students, and
maintaining commitment to change, the principal can ensure that restorative justice practices are
implemented successfully.
Results for Research Question 2
What are the impacts of the implementation of restorative justice practices on the climate
of the middle school?
Research Question 2 focused on the impact that restorative justice practices had on the
climate of a middle school. School climate can best be described as a “set of internal
characteristics that distinguish one school from another and influence the behaviors of each
school’s members” (Hoy & Miskel, 2005, p. 185). To create a positive school climate, the U.S.
50

Department of Education (2014) encouraged educators to use the following three principles:
prevention of behavioral problems; clear, appropriate, consistent expectations and consequences;
and fairness, equity, and continuous improvement. A few themes emerged from the analysis of
the data on school climate such as student connectedness, parent and community engagement,
and teacher retention.
Increased Student Connectedness
When considering a systemwide implementation of restorative justice practices, a school
needs to decide which restorative models to implement (Restorative Justice Implementation
Guidelines, 2009). Some of the models used across schools are circles, restorative conferencing,
and peer mediation (Kidde, 2017). Circles, restorative conferencing, and peer mediation have
increasing student connectedness as their goal. All these models can be used at different times
for various reasons, from conflict resolution to community building. During the remote
interview, Participant A shared that, before the implementation of restorative justice practices,
there were always fights on the campus. Additionally, Participant B shared that it was essential
to educate the students and help them understand that you do not “aggressively attack someone
just because they look at you the wrong way.”
Participant A shared an inspirational story about a male student who was part of a group
specifically for males and family structure. The group members were boys who had parents who
were either incarcerated or had not been in the picture since birth. The students were asked to
design a mask. Participant A shared,
This particular boy felt he came from a broken family, and he broke down the division in
his art; there was so much division in his mask. This boy felt like he was a family clown,
like everybody just came at him, whether at school or home. So, he painted a clown face
51

and then broke the mask down into different parts of the family. Through this experience,
he was able to process the pain he had felt from being disconnected from his family and
find kinship.
Circles are a communication model that supports the principles of connection, equality, and
power-sharing (Shumacher, 2014). Through the use of circles, the students at this middle school
learn skills that can be transferred to high school. Multiple participants shared that students learn
how to communicate, listen, and share without interrupting each other.
Participant B shared that it is vital to create a space for students to be heard and stated, "It
is changing the cultural perspective of the school, making sure our kids are being heard, making
sure our kids have the right to be heard." Additionally, Participant B shared that there has been a
shift in the students' energy and the way they talk to each other. For example, prior to the school
shut down, Participant B witnessed kids doing their own restorative-like circles, and if students
got in trouble, they would say, "Oh, are we going to go into your office, get a circle?"
Participant C shared that students have become better communicators since the
implementation of restorative justice practices. This, in turn, has increased their level of
connectedness. Participant C stated,
Students are verbalizing what they are feeling rather than fighting or cursing. The students
know that people care and they trust the adults on the campus, and that is when the magic
happens. Students know you are not going to persecute or oppress them. They start to
believe in themselves and develop higher self-esteem because they see that other people
believe in them. They, in turn, begin to believe in themselves, and it is just an awesome,
amazing feeling.
52

Parent and Community Engagement
The second theme that emerged in response to Research Question 2 was parent and
community engagement. Participant B increased parent engagement by using mediation and
circles when meeting with families. Participant B also shared that the process takes time. For
example, on one occasion Participant B spent three hours with a family. Participant B said,
You cannot tell a person that's crying and the parent that's screaming at their kid that it is
done because I have a meeting in one hour. It is not about time. It is about the process
that the family needs to go through.
Participant E received training on restorative practices and how they apply in the school
setting in order to be better prepared when discussing it with parents. Participant E shared how,
at times, restorative justice practices are also used with parents because sometimes issues happen
outside of the school setting. All of the participants stated that the collaboration amongst staff,
especially the partnership with the out-of-district organization, has been an excellent resource for
parents. The participants stated they have seen an increase in parent attendance when there are
workshops that pertain to restorative justice practices. The facilitators model a practice so that
parents can then use the practice at home.
Teacher Retention
Another area in which the impact of restorative justice practices was felt was in teacher
retention. According to Deal and Peterson (2009), when teachers and students feel a sense of
community, they are more satisfied with the work that is done, are more likely to attend school
and to enjoy what they are doing, and have higher achievement (Deal & Peterson, 2009).
Participant A shared that fewer teachers have left the school site since the implementation of
restorative justice practices. Participant A also shared that more teachers are opening up about
53

how they feel during staff meetings and are interested in leading restorative practices in their
classrooms. Teachers ask for resources and want someone to come in and model how to lead a
circle within their classroom. After Participant A showed the other teacher how to lead a circle,
the other teacher decided to lead one herself. The teacher thought no one would show up to the
first circle she held after school, but almost all the students showed up to the circle.
Participant B shared that restorative justice practices are modeled during staff meetings.
For example, teachers might be asked to pick a norm and a community agreement. Participant B
shared that, at the beginning, the teachers were broken because of their lack of trust. However,
Participant B has seen a change in their lens and in how they connect with the administration.
Participant B said very beautifully,
I am not out to get them, and that is what I practice. I am not out to get you; I am out to
work with you. And then we work together as a team. The kids will see that, and because
they see that, they will become part of our team, and it becomes that circle of trust that
we need to run a positive culture and climate.
Participant D validated this statement and shared how the administration supports
teachers. “For example, if a teacher has 30 referrals, I will talk to that teacher but not from a
punitive lens”. Participant D shared that the goal is to unpack what is really going on and to
identify the root causes. At times, the root cause leads to uncovering the teacher's own, perhaps
previously unknown, trauma. Participant D explained that teachers no longer think that
suspending a student is the solution to misbehavior. Teachers collaborate with each other and
with the administration. They look for alternative solutions, such as a circle or a mediation, to
rectify misbehavior. The collaboration and frequent communication have in return had an effect
on teachers choosing to stay at the school site rather then consider to transfer to another site.
54

Discussion for Research Question 2
Schools should utilize restorative justice practices because they increase empathy,
respect, honesty, acceptance, responsibility, and accountability (Ashley & Burke, 2009). An
analysis of the qualitative data collected from the remote interviews revealed that all five
interview respondents saw a positive change in the school climate. They attributed this change to
the implementation of restorative justice practices.
As the researcher analyzed the data, several themes emerged, including increased student
connectedness, parent and community engagement, and teacher retention. The participants'
responses aligned with the theoretical framework on critical race theory and restorative justice
theory. Critical race theory is used to understand and change social situations to improve society
(Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This theory was relevant to the study as the researcher wanted to
understand the impact that restorative justice practices had on student behavior at the middle
school grade level.
Critical race theory has five themes: the centrality and intersectionality of race and
racism, the challenge to the dominant ideology, the commitment to social justice, the centrality
of experiential knowledge, and the interdisciplinary perspective (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001).
The researcher focused on the theme of commitment to social justice to understand how
restorative practices are used to address student behavior in schools.
The restorative justice theory was first proposed by McCold and Wachtel (2003) to
explain and predict the effects of restorative justice practices. The theory has three structures:
The Social Discipline Window, Stakeholder Roles, and the Restorative Practices Typology. The
researcher focused on the social discipline window structure. The social discipline window
structure states that everyone with an authoritative role decides how to maintain social discipline.
55

At the school site level, that would be the role of the principal and the teachers. The goal is that
there is a shift from punishment to collaborative problem-solving.
Results for Research Question 3
How has the implementation of restorative justice practices improved student behavior at
the middle school level?
The implementation of restorative justice practices is a cultural change that requires a
paradigm shift from punitive to relational (Morrison et al., 2005), and it must be managed
effectively if the school leader wants a successful and sustainable implementation. It requires a
shift in the way that schools view students, their behavior, and their value—a replacement from
social control, where the emphasis is on managing student behavior, to one of social
engagement, where collaboration, mutual respect, accountability, and growth are the focus
(Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Karp and Breslin (2001) stated that a shift in attitudes about
punishment may take one to three years to manifest; the deep shift to a restorative-oriented
school climate might take three to five years to accomplish (Evans & Lester, 2013).
Nevertheless, the two themes that emerged from the data revealed that suspensions had
decreased and that addressing social-emotional learning through circles and mediation had an
impact on the shift in student behavior.
Suspensions
For many decades, schools have used the traditional model to discipline students.
According to Hannigan and Hannigan (2016), the traditional school discipline method consists of
zero tolerance policies and exclusionary practices such as suspension or expulsion. The goal of
zero-tolerance policies was to deter future misbehavior and to create a school climate that was
more conducive to learning by removing disruptive students (Ewing, 2000). In the traditional
56

model, students were suspended with the hope that the disruptive behavior would not reoccur.
However, school suspension appears to predict higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension
amongst those students (Mendez et al., 2003). It also significantly increases the chance that a
student will be involved in the juvenile justice system (Leone et al., 2003). Compared to
elementary school, middle school student behavior and discipline issues are more of a challenge
(Briggs, 2009). Deal and Peterson (2009) found that the way educators manage student behaviors
can impact a student's academic performance.
All participants expressed that before using restorative justice practices, the middle
school students were frequently getting into fights, being removed from class, and being
suspended. The cycle repeated itself day in and day out. Participant B said, "The students were
crying for help." Documents showed that after the shift to restorative justice practices, the
suspension rate dropped by over 80%. A review of the school-wide positive behavior support
meeting minutes showed that prevention and early intervention were stand-alone agenda items
that were discussed at every meeting. For example, during an interview, Participant A shared that
a new group focused on female empowerment will be starting next semester. This group was
developed because the school site team saw a need for this type of support.
The shift in student behavior was a common thread reported by all the interviewees. They
all shared that students looked happier, reported feeling like they were being heard, and that,
most important, they knew they would not be automatically suspended for misbehavior.
Social-Emotional Learning
Social emotional learning (SEL) is the process through which children and adults
understand and manage emotions, set and achieve positive goals, feel and show empathy for
others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions (CASEL,
57

2019). The School Superintendent Association and the Children’s Defense Fund (AASA & CDF,
2014) surveyed 500 superintendents; 40% of those surveyed stated that character education,
social-emotional learning, and conflict resolution were strategies to reduce suspensions.
Restorative justice practices have been shown to increase social-emotional learning (CASEL,
2019).
Participant B shared that when the school first made a shift to restorative justice
practices, they asked district personnel for funds to hire an out-of-district organization to help
with the social-emotional work needed within the school site. Participant B evaluated what the
school site needed based on student behavior, what was seen, and what was heard, and
Participant B knew resources were needed immediately. Finding and keeping funding for a
program such as restorative justice can be challenging (De La Rosa, 2019). However, Participant
B knew that social-emotional work was essential to the successful implementation of restorative
justice practices, which, in turn, were essential the success of the school.
Participant C shared that it can be a challenge to focus on the social-emotional domain
when your role is ostensibly to focus on a student’s academic needs. However, Participant C
believed that we cannot talk about grades without dealing with the social-emotional aspect of
why a student’s grades are low. The larger school community seemed to agree. Participant A
informed the researcher that next semester (Spring 2021), new groups will be formed to address
different topics specifically around social-emotional support and the pandemic. Now, more than
ever, our students need to know that they are being heard. Everyone interviewed for this study
echoed this sentiment.
58

Discussion for Research Question 3
The researcher collected qualitative data to explore how the implementation of restorative
justice practices has improved student behavior. A couple of themes emerged. Based on an
analysis of the remote interviews and documents, the participants shared the similar belief that
student suspensions had decreased drastically and that social-emotional learning was critical to
address via circles and mediation. The participants felt that the addition of personnel to help
address social-emotional learning through restorative justice practices has been valuable. A
school budget that earmarked funds for social-emotional learning resources and outside contracts
helped the school invest the time required to truly repair harm.
School districts need to be creative, such as by partnering with community-based
organizations that might train staff at little-to-no cost or by attempting to allocate other school
funding to the program (NEA, 2014). Schools and districts have begun to integrate restorative
justice into their overall philosophy to address school climate, culture, and the social-emotional
growth of students (Fronius et al., 2019). The results uncovered in response to Research
Question 2 in this study support further investment in restorative justice practices.
Results for Research Question 4
How is restorative justice implementation evaluated for evidence of success at the middle
school level?
This question uncovered what indicators the school looked for to determine whether
restorative justice practices were successful. Restorative disciplinary practices are more
supportive, inclusive, and educational than other approaches because they approach wrongdoing
in a way that is neither punitive, neglectful, nor permissive (Varman, 2004). Some of the themes
that emerged from the remote interviews and document analysis were how discipline was being
59

handled by the staff, the shift in student behavior, and the use of restorative practices such as
circles and mediation to address conflict between students and adults.
Discipline
Research from both Ashley and Burke (2009) and Brown (2017) stated that schools are
more successful in establishing a restorative justice program when the schools focus on
integrating restorative justice into their philosophies. During a remote interview, Participant D
shared how important it is to have a vision that does not focus on punitive treatment. Participant
D shared that the administration agrees that suspension should be the last resort when
disciplining a student. Participant D also shared that the team monitors progress. The document
analysis of meeting minutes showed that discipline data is reviewed on a biweekly and monthly
basis. The teams look for trends or outliers and establish specific steps to address behavior.
Another common thread amongst all the participants was the notion of following up with the
student who got in trouble. The team used the Aries documentation system and reviewed the data
from those reports to see if specific students might benefit from a different type of support. The
school has a system in place that collects qualitative and quantitative data that measures the
success of their restorative justice practices. In order to improve on their practice Participant D
shared that the school plans to begin a mentoring program so that there is constant follow up.
Student Behavior
Students are more likely to respond to authoritative figures when the school has promoted
a climate where students' voices are respected and adults show that they care (Gregory et al.,
2010). Participant A explained how, too often, the focus is on data that can be measured, such as
suspension or referral data. However, it is also important to observe behaviors that are not
60

always quantified, such as a student turning in an assignment for the first time in a week—
understanding that that is something to celebrate.
Participant A shared an example of how a substitute teacher was struggling with
classroom management. The permanent teacher went on maternity leave, and the students were
acting up. Participant A went into the different periods, led a circle with the students, and shared
that their teacher did not want to leave them, but she had to leave them because she was having a
baby. Participant A asked the students to honor that journey and accept that someone is coming
in to fill in (substitute teacher) while their permanent teacher bonds with her new child. As
Participant D shared, many of the students at this middle school have experienced trauma;
therefore, it is essential to communicate with them so that they can learn how to express their
feelings in a healthy way. After that intervention by Participant A there were no longer any
behavioral issues in that classroom. The substitute teacher was able to teach and was treated with
respect by the students.
Restorative Justice Practices
Restorative justice practices in schools tend to focus on mediation or restorative circles.
Students are taught how to reflect on the impact of harmful behavior (Freedburg, 2019). Circles
are used to bring together everyone impacted by an incident so they can have a discussion to
resolve the conflict. Restorative justice uses community-building to improve relationships, thus
reducing the frequency of punishable offenses while yielding a range of benefits (Gregory et al.,
2016).
All participants shared positive experiences with circles, whether or not they were the
facilitator. Seeing students trying to model circles during lunch, students staying after school to
be a part of a circle, and male students coming together and sharing a symbolic piece of art that
61

they designed were just some indicators of how restorative justice practices were thriving at this
middle school. Participant A articulated it best when asked about how the success of restorative
justice practices is measured. All the participants believe in leading by example. Participant A
said,
I just set the example of how to facilitate restorative practices to honor the truth and a
spirit of our practices, which is to create a space that is inviting and open to listening and
hearing each other out and supporting each other being there with one another.
The frequency with which the participants reported using restorative justice practices showed the
researcher that the implementation was successful.
Discussion for Research Question 4
Research Question 4 focused on the indicators that can be used to identify the success of
restorative justice practices. The researcher identified three themes based on the qualitative data
collected through remote interviews and an analysis of meeting minutes. First, the school has
seen a reduction in repeat offenses because they review the data every month and intervene as
soon as possible. They use progress monitoring to deal with misbehavior. Second, they have seen
an improvement in student behavior both in- and outside the classroom setting because of their
team approach. Last, their use of restorative justice practices such as circles has helped with
student accountability and a sense of belonging.
The overall goal of embedding restorative justice practices at a school site is to create an
environment that is respectful, tolerant, accepting, and supportive (González, 2012;
Hantzopoulos, 2013; Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007). To foster this culture, schools must nurture
relationships among students and staff that focus on active listening and respect (Brown, 2017;
Cavanagh et al., 2014).
62

Summary
Analysis of the qualitative data from five remote interviews and relevant documents
revealed some key findings related to the research questions that guided this study. Key findings
for Research Question 1 included that principals need to lead by example if they want to have
staff buy-in. In addition, the principal should secure funding that will allow for training around
restorative justice practices. Last, the principal must be committed and understand that systemic
change takes three to five years to accomplish (Blood & Thorsborne, 2005).
The key findings for Research Question 2 focused on the increase in student
connectedness, parent and community engagement, and teacher retention that occurred after the
implementation of restorative justice practices. These themes were identified as indicators that
restorative justice practices had a positive impact on the school's climate. The decrease in school
fights was mentioned by all participants as an indicator that restorative justice practices were
indeed working. Deal and Peterson (2009) found that when teachers and students feel a sense of
community, they are more satisfied with the work that is done, are more likely to attend school
and to enjoy what they are doing, and have higher achievement.
The key finding for Research Question 3 was that restorative justice practices improved
student behavior. Both the interviews with participants and the review of relevant documents
showed evidence of a reduction of suspensions from one school year to the next. All participants
expressed that before using restorative justice practices, the middle school students were getting
into fights, being removed from class, and being suspended. The cycle repeated itself day in and
day out. Participant B said, "The students were crying for help." A second theme that emerged
from the data revealed that the school site was addressing social-emotional learning through
circles and mediation. These practices had an impact on student behavior. The addition of
63

personnel to help address social-emotional learning through restorative justice practices has been
valuable. A school budget that earmarked funds for social-emotional learning resources and
outside contracts helped the school invest the time required to truly repair harm.
Research Question 4 sought to understand what indicators the school looked for to
determine if the restorative justice practices were working. The qualitative data collected showed
that staff evaluated the effectiveness of restorative justice practices based on discipline data,
student behavior, and restorative justice practices. The analysis of meeting minutes showed that
discipline data was reviewed on a biweekly and monthly basis. The teams look for trends or
outliers and establish specific steps to address behavior. Another common thread amongst all the
participants was the notion of following up with the student who got in trouble.
Observable student behavior was another key finding that emerged from the interviews.
Educators often focus on the data that can be measured, such as suspension or referral data.
However, it is also essential to observe behaviors that are not always quantified, such as a
student treating another with respect. All participants shared positive experiences with circles.
Seeing students trying to model circles during lunch, students staying after school to be a part of
a circle, and male students coming together and sharing a symbolic piece of art that they
designed are just some indicators of how the use of restorative justice practices at this middle
school are thriving.
Discussion
Chapter 4 presented the findings from this qualitative study. The interview participants
were school-site personnel, such as administrators, counselors, parent resource liaisons, and
outside agency partners. They voluntarily participated in remote interviews so that the researcher
64

could identify the role of the middle school principal in schools that have effectively
implemented restorative justice practices.
The data that were collected aligned with the four research questions that guided this
study. The themes that emerged from the analysis of the data demonstrated the important role the
principal plays when implementing restorative justice practices in a school. Some of those
themes were modeling, professional development, commitment, and school-wide
implementation of restorative practices such as circles and mediation. The document analysis
showed that the principal must be committed to the vision and also budget for additional
personnel or partnerships with outside organizations, as necessary, to ensure the successful
implementation of restorative justice practices.
Restorative justice practices were examined through three theoretical frameworks: critical
race theory, restorative justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory. In isolation, the theories
explain how restorative practices can be used in different settings, such as the criminal or
educational setting. However, the theories in tandem with one another provide a framework that
offers a better understanding of why restorative justice practices are beneficial in the educational
setting.
Critical race theory attempts to understand and change social situations to improve
society (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This theory was relevant to the study as the researcher tried
to understand the impact that restorative justice practices have on student behavior at the middle
school grade level. Critical race theory has five themes: the centrality and intersectionality of
race and racism, the challenge to the dominant ideology, the commitment to social justice, the
centrality of experiential knowledge, and the interdisciplinary perspective. The researcher
focused on the responsibility to social justice theme to understand how restorative practices are
65

used to address student behavior in schools. This theory supports the work that the participants
said is taking place at the school site to help students understand how to use their words to
express and advocate for themselves. For example, the use of circles and mediation have
changed the way that students interact with one another and school staff. It shed a light on the
importance that building connections has in a school setting and how buy-in from the school
leader can transform school climate. The participants shared how teachers have become more
comfortable in leading their own restorative practices and have seen the positive impact that
student voice can have in their classroom.
The reintegrative shaming theory states that shaming if applied in a reintegrative model,
can lead to a decrease in offensive behavior. The reintegrative model should be carried out in a
respectful and healing manner (Murphy and Harris, 2007). For example, the use of mediation
allows for the victim and the offender to come together and resolve their problem. The
participants shared how at times they also use mediation to bring families together to come to an
agreement. Vaandering (2010) states that the use of shaming can cause unintended harm in
school settings; therefore, educators must know how to use shame to reintegrate rather than to
stigmatize.
The restorative justice theory encourages building connections between everyone in the
school by promoting positive relationships and creating a safe space where all individuals can
speak and be heard, especially when harm has been committed (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).
It was first proposed by McCold and Wachtel (2003) to explain and predict the effects of
restorative justice practices. It has three structures: The Social Discipline Window, Stakeholder
Roles, and the Restorative Practices Typology. The researcher focused on the social discipline
window structure. One of the characteristics of the social discipline window is that it focuses on
66

doing things with people rather than to them or for them (Wachtel, 2005). Figure 2 shows the
four approaches that are used to maintain social norms and behavior boundaries. The social
discipline window shows how the restorative approach is characterized as high support and high
control.

Figure 2
Social Discipline Window

Note. Social Discipline Window. Adapted from Defining Restorative by P. McCold & T.
Wachtel, 2016., Retrieved January 15, 2021, from https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf.
Copyright 2006 by Ted Wachtel.

67

Additionally, the social discipline window considers restorative practices to be a
leadership model for parents, school staff, and other public service fields such as law
enforcement and social work (Wachtel, 2005). Furthermore, Wachtel (2005) states that “human
beings are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make a positive change
when those in positions of authority do things with them rather than to them or for them.”
Chapter 5 will include an additional discussion of the findings, the study limitations,
implications for practice, and recommendations for further study.

68

Chapter Five: Discussion
Chapter five provides a summary of the study. It re-states the study’s purpose and the
research questions that helped guide the study. The chapter will also provide key findings found
by the researcher. It concludes with the limitations of the study, implications for practice, and
recommendations for further research.
Statement of the Problem
Schools across the country are now using restorative justice practices to address student
behavior and promote a positive school climate (Evans et al., 2013). In response to the high
number of out-of-school suspensions reported across the country as a result of traditional,
punitive discipline models, many schools have begun using restorative justice practices to
address student behavior and promote a positive school climate (Evans et al., 2013). However,
any change in practice requires time and patience (Gesme & Wiseman, 2010). The school leader
must be prepared for an implementation dip to occur when adopting restorative justice practices
at their school site (Anyon, 2016). Fullen (2001) described an implementation dip as a dip in
performance and confidence as one encounters an innovation that requires new skills and
understandings.
This qualitative study researched the role of the middle school principal in schools that
have effectively implemented restorative justice practices. Though restorative justice practices
have received scholarly attention (Ryan & Ruddy, 2015), a comprehensive review of the
literature uncovered very little research on the principal’s role. In addition, there was little
research on the middle school environment and the restorative justice practices that are effective
in that environment.

69

Purpose of the Study
This study examined the role of the principal in a middle school that effectively
implemented restorative justice practices. The researcher used critical race theory, restorative
justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory to provide a perspective on the research. In
isolation, the theories explain how restorative practices can be used in different settings, such as
in criminal justice or educational settings. However, together, the theories provide a framework
that offers a better understanding of why restorative justice practices are beneficial in the
educational setting in particular. Using these theories as a lens, the researcher used in-depth
interviews and an analysis of relevant documents to analyze the role of the principal in one urban
middle school within Orange County. Understanding how a principal can effectively lead a
school community through a shift in disciplinary procedures will allow other school leaders to
reflect and improve upon their own practices and will fill a gap in the literature.
Research Questions
The research questions that follow helped guide this study:
1. What is the role of the principal when implementing effective middle school
restorative justice practices?
2. What are the impacts of the implementation of restorative justice practices on the
climate of the middle school?
3. How has the implementation of restorative justice practices improved student
behavior at the middle school level?
4. How is restorative justice implementation evaluated for evidence of success at the
middle school level?

70

Design Overview
The study was completed using a qualitative research design. According to Maxwell
(2013), it is common to use different data collection methods when conducting qualitative
research. The researcher utilized two methods to collect data. The data gathered from the
interview protocols and document analysis were used to answer the research questions.
Semistructured interviews with five participants that worked at the site were used to gain
a deep understanding of the participants’ perspectives on the principal’s role in implementing
restorative justice practices at the middle school level. Interview Participant A was the
intervention specialist for the site. The participant’s overall focus was to lead circles, repair
harm, and resolve conflicts. Interview Participant B was the middle school principal and had
been working at the research site for two years. Interview Participant C was a middle school
counselor who recently returned to the school district. Interview Participant D had been a middle
school assistant principal for a little over one year. Interview Participant E was the family and
community engagement liaison. Semistructured interviews allow for flexibility that structured
interviews do not. For example, semistructured interviews enable the researcher to toggle
between structured, nonstructured, and open-ended questions. Less structured, open-ended
questions also allow the researcher to dig deeper into the subject (Merriam & Tisdell, 2016). The
interview protocol was designed to address Research Questions 1 through 4. The 30-minute
interviews were conducted remotely with the five participants via Zoom, were recorded digitally
with the participants' consent, and were transcribed.
The researcher also examined documents that provided insight into the restorative justice
practices that contributed to a positive school climate. Documents such as minutes from the
Positive Behavior Implementation Support (PBIS), Single Plan for Student Achievement
71

(SPSA), and Local Control Accountability Plan (LCAP) contained information that assisted the
researcher in understanding the climate of the middle school.
Maxwell (2013) states that using different data collection methods serves two distinct
purposes: it assures the validity of the research and broadens its scope. The researcher used
Zoom remote interviews and document analysis to support the conclusions. The use of
interviews and document analysis broadened the investigation because it combined the
participants’ perceptions with the concrete evidence recorded in the documents.
Review of the Literature
In 1989, California and New York were the first two states to mandate students'
expulsion (Skiba, 2000). Offenses such as drug possession and violence on a school campus
required a school administrator to seek expulsion (Morton, 2014). By 1997, approximately 79%
of schools had adopted zero-tolerance policies for violent offenses (Kang-Brown et al., 2013).
The zero-tolerance policy assumes that a disruptive student’s removal will result in a safer
climate and deter others from creating similar disruptions (Ewing, 2000).
Starting around 2010, the dialogue around school discipline policies began to change.
The Obama administration addressed the need to find an alternative approach to school
disciplinary policies due to the disproportionate number of minority students who were
suspended or expelled during the zero-tolerance era (Brock & Kriger, 2017). Evans and Didlick-
Davis (2012) found that these rigid practices led to the development of a school-to-prison
pipeline, particularly for low income and minority students. A report from the Civil Rights
Project (2016) at UCLA found racial disparities in California school districts' disciplinary
practices. The report noted that Black students were disproportionately dealt the harshest
exclusionary penalties: expulsions and out-of-school suspensions (Losen et al., 2012).
72

The zero-tolerance policies, which were intended to only apply to specific violations,
were now being utilized as a consequence for students who were involved in fistfights and verbal
abuse (Brady, 2002). An analysis of out-of-school suspension by Rausch and Skiba (2004)
showed that only 5% of all out-of-school suspensions were due to possession of drugs or
weapons, while 95% of suspensions were due to disruptive behaviors or “other”. Research also
strongly linked suspensions and other school discipline policies to failure to graduate (Losen,
2015). According to the ACLU, nearly 50% of the students who entered high school with three
or more suspensions went on to drop out of school, and each suspension decreased the student’s
odds of graduating high school by 20% (Balfanz et al., 2014).
In 2010, California received the Safe and Supportive Schools (S3) grant. The $38.8
million grant was awarded to 11 states (CA DOE, 2010). The four-year grant (2010-2014)
focused on improving the school climate, specifically around school safety, bullying, substance
abuse, positive relationships, and student engagement. Half of the 95 districts that received the
S3 grant reported a reduction in harassment, bullying, and suspensions for violence without
physical injury. The California Department of Education's (CA DOE, n.d.) recommendation was
to adopt a tiered intervention, such as positive behavioral interventions and supports or
restorative justice.
Restorative justice practices in schools tend to focus on conflict mediation or restorative
circles. Students are taught how to reflect on the impact of harmful behavior (Freedburg, 2019).
A survey conducted by Guckenburg et al. (2016) showed that respondents used circles,
restorative questioning, and one-to-one mediation. Restorative disciplinary practices are more
supportive, inclusive, and educational than other approaches because they are not punitive,
neglectful, or permissive (Varman, 2004).
73

Theoretical Framework
In this study, restorative justice practices were examined through three theoretical
frameworks: critical race theory, restorative justice theory, and reintegrative shaming theory. In
tandem, the theories provided a framework that offered a better understanding of why restorative
justice practices are beneficial in the educational setting.
Critical race theory attempts to understand and change social situations to improve
society (Delgado & Stefancic, 2001). This theory was relevant to the study because the
researcher wanted to understand the impact that restorative justice practices have on student
behavior at the middle school level. The use of circles and mediation have had an impact on the
way students interact with their peers and adults. All the participants said that they have seen an
improvement in student behavior since the implementation of restorative justice practices.
The reintegrative shaming theory states that shaming can lead to a decrease in offensive
behavior if applied in a reintegrative model. The reintegrative model should be carried out in a
respectful and healing manner (Murphy & Harris, 2007). For example, mediation allows the
victim and the offender to come together to resolve the problem. The participants shared how, at
times, they also used mediation to bring families together to come to an agreement. Vaandering
(2010) stated that shaming can cause unintended harm in school settings; therefore, educators
must know how to use shame to reintegrate rather than stigmatize.
The restorative justice theory encourages building connections between everyone in the
school by promoting positive relationships and creating a safe space where all individuals can
speak and be heard, especially when harm has been committed (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012).
It was first proposed by McCold and Wachtel (2003) to explain and predict the effects of
restorative justice practices. For this study, the researcher focused on the social discipline
74

window structure. The social discipline window shows that the restorative approach is
characterized as high support and high control which is characterized by doing things with
people rather than to them or for them (Wachtel, 2005).
Advocates argue that restorative justice practices can foster positive relationships among
students and staff, something that punitive approaches cannot do (Ashley & Burke, 2009).
Restorative justice uses community-building to improve relationships, reducing the frequency of
punishable offenses while yielding a range of benefits (Gregory et al., 2016). Some reports
indicate that restorative justice has improved school climate (Brown, 2017; Mirsky, 2007;
Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007). Other reports suggested that restorative justice has led to increased
student connectedness, greater community and parent engagement, improved student academic
achievement, and the offering of support to students from staff (Cavanagh et al., 2014; González,
2012). Also, several detailed reports highlighted decreases in discipline disparities, fighting,
bullying, and suspensions resulting from a restorative justice program (Brown, 2017; González,
2012; Suvall, 2009). The researcher found that the findings from the study supported the
literature. For example, the participants stated that they saw a decrease in school fights. They
attributed this as an indicator that restorative justice practices were indeed working.
Key Findings
The key findings of the qualitative study were based on the information shared by five
research participants and on an analysis of relevant documents, such as meeting minutes and
school site plans. The participants in the study reflected on their experiences implementing
restorative justice practices in one middle school, and the documents presented concrete
evidence of the school site’s plans, procedures, and outcomes. After an analysis of the collected
data, 10 themes emerged as presented in chapter 4 findings. Further analysis of those 10 themes
75

showed that two of the themes were identified by all participants as instrumental to their
successful implementation of restorative justice practices. The two themes were positive effect of
restorative justice practices in student behavior and a reduction in suspensions.
The interview respondents all shared similar beliefs on the positive effect of restorative
justice practices such as circles. A circle is a versatile restorative practice that can be used
proactively, to develop relationships and build community, or reactively, to respond to
wrongdoing, conflicts, and problems. Circles give people an opportunity to speak and to listen to
one another in an atmosphere of safety, decorum, and equality (Pranis, 2005). It was clear that
the participants believed the best way to correct misbehavior was not through punishment but,
rather, by creating safe spaces where students could talk and get to the root cause of their
problems. Furthermore, an analysis of the interviews and documents has shown that the staff
frequently met to analyze discipline data, discuss the results of using restorative practices, and
reflect on how they could improve their use schoolwide. The data also revealed that the staff
used specific restorative justice practices, such as circles and mediation, more than others. All
five participants shared their positive experiences with the use of circles. Some of the indicator’s
participants used to show that restorative justice practices were thriving at this middle school
included stories about students trying to model circles during lunch and staying after school to be
a part of a circle.
All five participants stated that since the schoolwide implementation of restorative
practices, there had been a significant reduction in the number of suspensions. A review of the
School Plan for Student Achievement (SPSA) confirmed that suspensions had been reduced by
80%. They expressed how, before using restorative justice practices, there were multiple fights in
one school day. They shared stories about how chaotic lunchtime used to be and how the
76

administration reverted to suspending students for misbehavior. All of the participants stated that
students looked happier and reported feeling like they were being heard. Most important,
students knew they would not be automatically suspended for misbehavior. This demonstrated
that restorative justice practices can be used as a tool to foster positive relationships amongst
students and staff (Ashley & Burke, 2009).
All participants believed that, for restorative justice practices to positively impact school
climate, the principal must lead by example and model the use of the practices with all
stakeholders. Modeling was an effective way to get staff buy-in, and the participants shared some
examples of how this was accomplished during various faculty meetings. For example,
Participant D shared that the principal conducted a circle with the adults during a professional
development day. Furthermore, the participants shared that it was important for the principal to
maintain the vision and stay committed to making changes such as the pursuing additional
funding for additional personnel and the schoolwide implementation of restorative justice
practices as an alternative to suspensions. This was especially important, given that systemic
change takes three to five years to accomplish (Blood & Thorsborne, 2005).
Another finding that emerged from the interviews was the importance of anecdotal data,
such as observable student behavior. More often than not, results are focused on information that
can be measured, such as suspension or referral data. However, the participants shared stories of
student behavior that was observed but not always quantified, such as students treating each
other with respect. Three of the participants shared the shifts they saw in how some students
handled conflict or frustration. In this way, the participants shared that data only tells part of the
story. The other part of the story is told through the change in students’ behavior.
77

The researcher also found that a challenge that schools face is a lack of funding to sustain
the use of restorative justice practices. A considerable amount of time and funding are required
to build and sustain a restorative justice program at a school site (Guckenburg et al., 2016).
School districts need to either be creative by partnering with community-based organizations that
might train staff at little to no cost or attempt to allocate other school funding to the program
(NEA, 2014). A review of the documents showed this school site utilized some of its school
budget to hire a restorative justice practitioner.
Implications for Practice
This research found implications for principals in schools that are implementing
restorative justice practices. The purpose of this study was to contribute additional findings on a
topic that has received very little scholarly attention. The significant findings in this study can
support middle school principals who are seeking ways to effectively implement restorative
justice practices that can promote a positive school climate. The restorative justice practices that
were identified can support principals in reducing suspension rates. Additionally, the practices
can help build community amongst students, staff, and parents.
This study revealed that the school leader can increase staff buy-in by modeling the
restorative practices. The use of restorative justice practices during professional development
helps adults understand the power of the practices. School leaders in this study consistently
modeled restorative practices with the staff. This increased the likelihood that other staff
members would use restorative justice practices in their own classrooms.
The findings of this study support the need to hire additional personnel to address social-
emotional learning. The participants felt that doing so has been invaluable. School leaders in this
study closely analyzed the budget to find the funds to hire an intervention specialist. This
78

position allowed for more social-emotional support for students and resources for staff, both of
which were invaluable to their success in implementing restorative justice practices.
Limitations
This study only focused on one middle school in Orange County that effectively
implemented restorative practices and created a positive school climate. This presents an issue of
representativeness and, therefore, may limit the generalizability of the results. The selection of
more middle schools would have provided for a richer and more informative analysis of the data.
Recommendations for Future Study
This study contributes to understanding the role of the principal in middle schools that
effectively implement restorative justice practices. This study contributes to an understanding of
the role a middle school principal might play in the effective implementation of restorative
justice practices. The researcher recommends the following considerations for future studies:
1. Adding more schools and school districts to the research study to yield a more extensive
data sample,
2. Adding more participants to increase the generalizability of the findings and to limit the
possibility of bias,
3. Using restorative practices during remote instruction to see how the practices can be
transferred into the virtual space and how schools can ensure privacy so that students feel
safe to talk about their problems, and
4. Conducting a study on the sustainability of restorative justice practices and having school
sites share their best practices.
79

Conclusion
This study contributes to the existing body of literature on the middle school principal's
role in schools that effectively implement restorative practices and create a positive school
climate. The data revealed the critical role that the principal plays when implementing restorative
justice practices. Modeling, professional development, commitment, and schoolwide
implementation of restorative practices, such as circles and mediation, were identified by
participants as important for the principal to implement. Additionally, the study also revealed
that the principal must be committed to the vision and budget for additional personnel or
partnerships with outside organizations. This information may help guide future principals in
implementing these practices in their school sites and, in turn, may help teachers and students
create safe environments that will help children reach their full potential.

80

References
AB 2242 Assembly Bill - Veto. (2012). www.Leginfo.ca.Gov. Retrieved April 26, 2020, from
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_2201-
2250/ab_2242_vt_20120921.html
Acosta, J., Chinman, M., Ebener, P., Malone, P. S., Phillips, A., & Wilks, A. (2019). Evaluation
of a whole-school change intervention: Findings from a two-year cluster-randomized trial
of the restorative practices intervention. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 48(5), 876–
890. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-019-01013-2
Allen, J., Gregory, A., Mikami, A., Lun, J., Hamre, B., & Pianta, R. (2013). Observations of
effective teacher-student interactions in secondary school classrooms: Predicting student
achievement with the Classroom Assessment Scoring System--Secondary. School
Psychology Review, 42, 76–97.
American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). School to prison pipeline. (n.d.) Retrieved from
https://www.aclu.org/issues/juvenile-justice/school-prison-pipeline
American Psychological Association Zero Tolerance Task Force. (2008). Are zero tolerance
policies effective in the schools? An evidentiary review and recommendations. American
Psychologist, 63(9), 852–862. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.63.9.852
Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools:
Teaching responsibility; creating caring climates. Good Books.
Anyon, Y. (2016). Taking restorative practices school-wide: Insights from three schools in
Denver. Denver School-Based Restorative Practices Partnership.

81

Ashley, J., & Burke, K. (2009). Implementing restorative justice: A guide for schools. Illinois
Criminal Justice Information Authority.
Augustine, C. H., Engberg, J., Grimm, G. E., Lee, E., Wang, E. L., Christianson, K., & Joseph,
A. A. (2018). Can restorative practices improve school climate and curb suspensions?
An evaluation of the impact of restorative practices in a mid-sized urban school district.
RAND Corporation. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2840.html
Balfanz, R., & Boccanfuso, C. (2007). Falling off the path to graduation: Middle grade
indicators in [an unidentified northeastern city]. Center for Social Organization of
Schools.
Balfanz, R., Byrnes, V., & Fox, J. (2014). Being suspended in the ninth grade. Journal of
Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2), 13.
https://digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1217&context=childr
enatrisk
Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005). The challenge of culture change: Embedding restorative
practice in schools [Paper presentation]. Building a Global Alliance for Restorative
Practices and Family Empowerment Meeting, Part 3. Sydney, Australia.
Boyes-Watson, C., & Pranis, K. (2014). Circle forward: Building a restorative school
community. Living Justice Press.
Brady, K. P. (2002). Zero tolerance or (in)tolerance policies? Weaponless school violence, due
process, and the law of student suspensions and expulsions: An examination of Fuller v.
Decatur Public School Board of Education school district. Brigham Young University
Education and Law Journal, 2002(1), 159.
https://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/elj/vol2002/iss1/7
82

Braithwaite, J. (2010). Restorative justice: Theories and worries.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/24b3/fe47e8b82b815490107c7c0780df504597f1.pdf
Briggs, S. (2009). Risks and opportunities in adolescence: Understanding adolescent mental
health difficulties. Journal of Social Work Practice, 23(1), 49–64.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02650530902723316
Brock, M., & Kriger, N. (2017). School safety policies and programs administered by the U.S.
federal government: 1990-2016 [Review of School Safety Policies and Programs
Administered by the U.S. Federal Governments: 1990-2016]. Federal Research Division.
Brock, M., Kriger, N., & Miró, R. (2017). School safety policies and programs administered by
the U.S. federal government: 1990–2016. National Institute of Justice.
Brown, L. (2008). “DMC Story Bank” DMC eNews, Action Network a Project of Models for
Change. (2008) 1:1.
Burke, A., & Nishioka, V. (2014). Suspension and expulsion patterns in six Oregon school
districts (REL 2014-028; ED544749). ERIC. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED544799
California Courts Newsroom. (2018, August 2). Restorative justice: Healing California’s youth.
https://newsroom.courts.ca.gov/news/restorative-justice-healing-californias-youth
California Department of Education. (n.d.). Safe and supportive schools. Retrieved March 26,
2020, from https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/safesupportive.asp
California State Senate Democratic Caucus. (2019, September 9). Gov. Newsom Signs SB 419,
Ending Willful Defiance Suspensions. https://sd09.senate.ca.gov/news/20190909-gov-
newsom-signs-sb-419-ending-willful-defiance-suspensions
Cavanagh, T., Vigil, P., & Garcia, E. (2014). A story legitimating the voices of Latino/Hispanic
83

students and their parents: Creating a restorative justice response to wrongdoing and
conflict in schools. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47(4), 565–579.
Civil Rights Project. (2016, June 1). School suspensions cost taxpayers billions [Press release].
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/news/press-releases/featured-research-
2016/school-suspensions-cost-taxpayers-billions
Cohen, J., Pickeral, T., & McCloskey, M. (2008/2009). The challenge of assessing school
climate. Educational Leadership, 66(4). http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-
leadership/dec08/vol66/num04/The-Challenge-of-Assessing-School-Climate.aspx
Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2010). Restorative circles in schools: Building
community and enhancing learning. International Institute for Restorative Practices.
Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches. SAGE.
Davis, M. (2013, October 4). Restorative justice: Resources for schools. Edutopia.
https://www.edutopia.org/blog/restorative-justice-resources-matt-davis
Deal, T., & Peterson, K. (2009). Shaping school culture: Pitfalls, paradoxes, and promises.
Jossey-Bass.
De La Rosa, S. (2019). Restorative justice programs struggling due to lack of funds. Education
Dive. https://www.educationdive.com/news/restorative-justice-programs-struggling-due-
to-lack-of-funds/558043/
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race theory: An introduction (1st ed.). New York
University Press.

84

Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2012). Critical race theory: An introduction (2nd ed.). New York
University Press.
DuFour and Eaker (1998)/ National School Climate Center https://aesimpact.org/school-climate-
and-culture/
Duncan, A. (2014, January 8). Rethinking school discipline. U.S. Department of Education.
https://www.ed.gov/news/speeches/rethinking-school-discipline
Evans, K., Lester, J., & Anfara, V. A., Jr. (2013, May). Restorative justice in education: What we
know so far. Middle School Journal, 44(5), 57–63.
Evans, M., & Didlick-Davis, C. (2012). Organizing to end the school-to-prison pipeline: An
analysis of grassroots organizing campaigns and policy solutions.
https://lsa.umich.edu/content/dam/sid-
assets/SID%20Docs/Organizing%20to%20End%20the%20School.pdf
Ewing, C. P. (2000, January/February). Sensible zero tolerance protects students. Harvard
Education Letter, 16. http://www.edlettr.org/past/issues/2000-jf/zero.shtml
Fabelo, T., Thompson, M. D., Plotkin, M., Carmichael, D., Marchbanks, M. P., III, & Booth, E.
A. (2011). Breaking schools’ rules: A statewide study of how school discipline relates to
students’ success and juvenile justice involvement. Council of State Governments.
Retrieved from http://justicecenter.csg.org/resources/juveniles
Ferlazzo, L. (2016, February 6). Response: How to practice restorative justice in schools.
Education Week.
https://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/classroom_qa_with_larry_ferlazzo/2016/02/response_h
ow_to_practice_restorative_justice_in_schools.html

85

Freederg, L. (2019, September 9). Gov. Newsom must decide whether to expand ban on student
suspensions for willful defiance. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2019/gov-newsom-to-
decide-whether-to-expand-ban-on-student-suspensions-for-willful-defiance/617238
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
Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. Jossey-Bass
Gesme, D., & Wiseman, M. (2010). How to implement change in practice. Journal of Oncology
Practice, 6(5), 257–259. https://doi.org/10.1200/jop.000089.
Gjelten, E. (2015, April 09). What are zero tolerance policies in schools? Retrieved March 31,
2018, from https://www.lawyers.com/legal-info/research/education-law/whats-a-zero-
tolerance-policy.html
Glesne, C. (2011). Becoming qualitative researchers: An introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.
González, T. (2012). Keeping kids in schools: Restorative justice, punitive discipline, and the
school to prison pipeline. Journal of Law and Education, 41(2), 281–335.
Gregory, A., Clawson, K., Davis, A., & Gerewitz, J. (2016). The promise of restorative practices
to transform teacher-student relationships and achieve equity in school discipline.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 26(4), 325–353.
Gregory, A., Cornell, D., Fan, X., Sheras, P., Shih, T., & Huang, F. (2010). Authoritative school
discipline: High school practices associated with lower bullying and victimization.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(2), 483–496.
86

Guckenburg, S., Hurley, N., Persson, H., Fronius, T., & Petrosino, A. (2016). Restorative justice
in U.S. schools: Practitioners’ perspectives. WestEd Justice & Prevention Center.
https://www.wested.org/wp-
content/uploads/2016/11/1453742980resourcerestorativejusticeinusschoolspractitionerspe
rspectives-3.pdf
Gülsen, C., & Gülenay, G. B. (2014). The principal and healthy school climate. Social Behavior
and Personality, 42(1), S93–S100. https://doi.org/10.2224/sbp.2014.42.0.S93
Gun-Free Schools Act. (2015). Education Law. https://usedulaw.com/323-gun-free-schools-
act.html
Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990, 18 U.S.C. §§ 921 et seq.
Gun-Free Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. §§ 7151 et seq.
Hannigan, J., & Hannigan, J. (2016). Comparison of traditional and innovative discipline beliefs
in administrators. CLEARvoz Journal, 3(1), 39–46.
Hantzopoulos, M. (2013). The fairness committee: Restorative justice in a small urban public
high school. Prevention Researcher, 20(1), 7–10.
Harper, K., Ryberg, R., & Temkin. D. (2019, April 29). Black students and students with
disabilities remain more likely to receive out-of-school suspensions, despite overall
declines. Child Trends. https://www.childtrends.org/publications/black-students-
disabilities-out-of-school-suspensions
Health and Human Development Program. (2012). Workbook for improving school climate &
closing the achievement gap Using your California Healthy Kids and California School
Climate surveys (2nd ed.). California Department of Education.
87

Hermann, D. H. J. (2017). Restorative justice and retributive justice: An opportunity for
cooperation or an occasion for conflict in the search for justice. Seattle Journal for Social
Justice:16(1), Article 11.
Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative justice in schools. Support for Learning, 17(3), 144–149.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00254
Hopkins. B. (2012). Restorative justice as social justice. Nottingham Law Journal. 21, 121–132.
Hoy, W., & Miskel, C. (2005). Education administration: Theory, research, and practice (7th
ed.). McGraw-Hill
Jain, S., Bassey, H., Brown, M. A., & Kalra, P. (2014). Restorative justice in Oakland schools:
Implementation and impacts. Oakland Unified School
District.https://www.ousd.org/cms/lib/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/134/OUSD-
RJ%20Report%20revised%20Final.pdf
Johnson-Ahorlu, R. N. (2017). Efficient social justice: How critical race theory research can
inform social movement strategy development. Urban Review, 49, 729–745.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-017-0419-8
Kang-Brown, J., Trone, J., Fratello, J., & Daftary-Kapur, T. (2013, April 25). A generation later.
Vera Institute of Justice. https://www.vera.org/publications/a-generation-later-what-
weve-learned-about-zero-tolerance-in-schools
Karp, D., & Breslin, B. (2001). Restorative justice in school communities. Youth and Society,
33(2), 249–272.

88

Kidde, J. (2017). Whole-school restorative approach resource guide: An orientation to a whole-
school restorative approach and guide more in-depth resources and current research.
Vermont Agency of Education.
https://education.vermont.gov/sites/aoe/files/documents/edu-integrated-educational-
frameworks-whole-school-restorative-approach-resource-guide_0_0.pdf
Leone, P. E., Christle, C. A., Nelson, M., Skiba, R., Frey, A., & Jolivette, K. (2003). School
failure, race and disability: Promoting positive outcomes, decreasing vulnerability for
involvement with the juvenile delinquency system. The National Center on Education,
Disability, and Juvenile Justice.
Losen, D. J. (Ed.). (2014). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive
exclusion. Teachers College Press.
Losen, D. J. (2015). Closing the school discipline gap: Equitable remedies for excessive
exclusion. Disability, Culture, and Equity Series (ED577223). Teachers College Press.
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED577223
Losen, D. J., Hodson, C., Ee, J., & Martinez, T. (2014). Disturbing inequities: Exploring the
relationship between racial disparities in special education identification and discipline.
Journal of Applied Research on Children: Informing Policy for Children at Risk, 5(2),
Article 15.
Losen D. J., Martinez, T., & Gillespie, J. (2012) Suspended education in California The Civil
Rights Project. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/resources/projects/center-for-civil-
rights-remedies/school-to-prison-folder/summary-reports/suspended-education-in-
california/SuspendedEd-final3.pdf

89

Losen, D. J., & Skiba, R. (n.d.). Suspended education: Urban middle schools in crisis. The Civil
Rights Project.. https://civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/school-
discipline/suspended-education-urban-middle-schools-in-crisis/Suspended-
Education_FINAL-2.pdf
Loveless, T. (2017, March 22). The 2017 Brown Center report on American education.
Brookings. https://www.brookings.edu/multi-chapter-report/the-2017-brown-center-
report-on-american-education/
Maxwell, J. A. (2013). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach. SAGE.
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.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00131910802393456
Mccold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2003, August 12). In pursuit of paradigm: A theory of restorative
justice. Restorative Practices EForum. https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf
Mendez, L. M. R., Knoff, H. M., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). School demographic variables and out-
of-school suspension rates: A quantitative and qualitative analysis of a large, ethnically
diverse school district. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 259–277.
https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.10020
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2016). Qualitative research: A guide to design and
implementation (4th ed.). Jossey-Bass.
Mirsky, L. (2003, May 20). Transforming school culture with restorative practices. Restorative
Practices EForum https://www.iirp.edu/pdf/ssspilots.pdf

90

Mirsky, L. (2007). Transforming school cultures with restorative practices. Reclaiming Children
and Youth: The Journal of Strength-based Interventions, 16(2), 5–12.
Mirsky, L. (2014, Summer). The power of the circle. Educational Leadership, 71, 51–55.
Mirsky, L., & Wachtel, T. (2007). “The worst school I’ve ever been to”: Empirical evaluations
of a restorative school and treatment milieu. Reclaiming Children and Youth: The
Journal of Strength-based Interventions, 16(2), 13–16.
Morrison, B., & Vaandering, D. (2012). Restorative justice: Pedagogy, praxis, and discipline.
Journal of School Violence, 11(2), 138–155.
Murphy, K., & Harris, N. (2007). Shaming, Shame and recidivism: A test of reintegrative
shaming theory in the white-collar crime context. British Journal of Criminology, 47(6),
900–917. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azm037
National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention. (2007). Engaging
school administrators. Education Development Center.
National Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention. (2009, February).
Restorative justice: Implementation guidelines.
http://www.promoteprevent.org/sites/www.promoteprevent.org/files/resources/Restorativ
e%20Justice_implementation%20guidelines.pdf
National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments. (n.d.). Safe and supportive school
(S3) grants. Retrieved April 5, 2020, from https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/state-
grantees/safe-and-supportive-school-s3-grants

91

Oakland Unified School District. (n.d.). Restorative justice in Oakland schools; implementation
and impacts 2014: An effective strategy to reduce disproportionate discipline,
suspensions and improve outcomes.
https://www.ousd.org/cms/lib/CA01001176/Centricity/Domain/134/Exec_Summary_OU
SD_RJReport_2014.pdf
O’Connell, T., Wachtel, B., & Wachtel, T. (1999). The conferencing handbook. The Piper’s
Press.
Ohlson, M. (2009). Examining instructional leadership: A study of school culture and teacher
quality characteristics influencing student outcomes. Florida Journal of Educational
Administration & Policy, 2, 102–113.
Orfield, G., & Ee, J. (2017). Our segregated capital: An increasingly diverse city with racially
polarized schools. The Civil Rights Project.
https://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/k-12-education/integration-and-
diversity/our-segregated-capital-an-increasingly-diverse-city-with-racially-polarized-
schools/POSTVERSION_DC_020117.pdf
PBIS.org Home Page. (2018). Pbis.Org. https://www.pbis.org/ [Karen: I don’t think this
reference works because this page will constantly change. If possible, cite a particular
page or article from this website.]
Piscatelli, J., & Lee, C. (2011). School climate: Research, policy, teacher education and practice.
Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.
https://www.schoolclimate.org/themes/schoolclimate/assets/pdf/policy/policy_brief.pdf

92

Reardon, S. F., & Hinze-Pifer, R. (2017). Test score growth among public school students in
Chicago, 2009-2014. Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
https://cepa.stanford.edu/content/test-score-growth-among-chicago-public-school-
students-2009-2014
Restorative Practice Consortium. (2017). Restorative practice resource project: Tools and
successful practices for restorative schools supporting student achievement and well
being.
https://www.iirp.edu/images/pdf/ObqnNj_38e965_ad7507e9e2474f8aaa3b903afcb1ecf7_
2.pdf
Restorative Practices Working Group. (2014, March 20). Restorative practices: Fostering
healthy relationships & promoting positive discipline in schools. Advancement Project.
https://advancementproject.org/resources/restorative-practices-fostering-healthy-
relationships-promoting-positive-discipline-in-schools/
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.).
SAGE.
Ryan, T., & Ruddy, S. (2015). Restorative justice: a changing community
response. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 7(2), 253–262.
https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1057888.pdf
Safran, S. P., & Oswald, K. (2003). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary
practices? Exceptional Children, 69(3), 361–
373.https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290306900307
Safe and Supportive Schools - School Environment (CA Dept of Education).
93

(n.d.). www.Cde.ca.Gov. Retrieved March 26, 2020, from
https://www.cde.ca.gov/ls/ss/se/safesupportive.asp
School Superintendents Association and Children’s Defense Fund. (2014, July). School
discipline in the eyes of school superintendents.
https://aasa.org/uploadedFiles/Childrens_Programs/_files/SurveyReport-School-
Discipline-in-the-Eyes-of-Superintendents.pdf
Schumacher, A. (2014). Talking circles for adolescent girls in an urban high school. SAGE Open,
4(4). https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014554204
Seashore Louis, K., Leithwood, K., Wahlstrom, K. L., Anderson, S. E. (2010). Learning from
leadership: Investigating the links to improved student learning. Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement. https://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-
center/Documents/Investigating-the-Links-to-Improved-Student-Learning.pdf.
Sheeler, A. (2019, September 9). A new law signed by Gavin Newsom bans schools from
suspending disruptive kids. The Sacramento Bee. https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-
government/capitol-alert/article234912107.html
Skiba, R. J. (2000). Zero tolerance, zero evidence: An analysis of school disciplinary practice
(ED469537). Indiana Education Policy Center. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED469537
Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline:
Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34,
317-–42.
Skiba, R., & Peterson, R. (1999). The dark side of zero tolerance: Can punishment lead to safe
schools? Phi Delta Kappan, 80(5), 372–382.

94

Skiba, R., & Rausch, M. (2004). The relationship between achievement, discipline, and race: An
analysis of factors predicting ISTEP scores (ED488899). Center for Evaluation and
Education Policy. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED488899.pdf
Stinchcomb, J. B., Bazemore, G., & Riestenberg, N. (2006). Beyond zero tolerance: Restoring
justice in secondary schools. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 4(2), 123–147.
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. Thelton E.
Henderson Center for Social Justice.
Suvall, C. (2009). Restorative justice in schools: Learning from Jena High School. Harvard Civil
Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, 44, 547–569.
Swaak, T. (2019, September 18). As California expands ban on ‘willful defiance’ suspensions,
lessons from L.A. schools, which barred them six years ago.
https://www.the74million.org/article/as-california-expands-ban-on-willful-defiance-
suspensions-lessons-from-l-a-schools-which-barred-them-six-years-ago/
Türnüklü, A., Kacmaz, T., Sunbul, D., & Ergul, H. (2010). Effects of conflict resolution and peer
mediation training in a Turkish high school. Australian Journal of Guidance and
Counselling, 20(1), 69–80.
Urban, V. (1999). Eugene’s story: A case for caring. Educational Leadership, 56(6), 69–70.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. (2019, July). Beyond suspensions: Examining school
discipline policies and connections to the school to prison pipeline for students of color
with disabilities. https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/2019/07-23-Beyond-Suspensions.pdf

95

U.S. Department of Education. (2010) U.S. department of education awards $38.8 million in safe
and supportive grants. https://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/us-department-education-
awards-388-million-safe-and-supportive-school-grants
U.S. Department of Education. (2014) Guiding principles: A resource guide for improving
school climate and discipline. https://www2.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-
discipline/guiding-principles.pdf
U.S. Department of Education. (2017). School climate and discipline.
http://www.ed.gov/policy/gen/guid/school-discipline/index.html
U.S. Department of Education. (2018). Indicators of school crime and safety.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2019/2019047.pdf
U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights. (2014a, March). Civil rights data
collection: Data snapshot. https://ocrdata.ed.gov/downloads/crdc-school-discipline-
snapshot.pdf
U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights (2014b). School discipline, restraint, &
seclusion highlights. Government Printing Office.
Vaandering, D. (2010). The significance of critical theory for restorative justice in education.
Review of Education, Pedagogy and Cultural Studies, 32(2), 145–176.
Varmam, S. (2004). Seeing things differently: Restorative justice and school discipline.
Education and the Law, 17(3), 87–104. https://doi.org/10.1080/09539960500334061
Wachtel, T. (2005, November). The next step: Developing restorative communities. Paper
presented at the Seventh International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other
Restorative Practices, Manchester, UK.

96

Washburn, D. (2018a, October 1). Gov. Brown vetoes expansion of California’s school
suspension ban. EdSource. Retrieved April 26, 2020, from
https://edsource.org/2018/gov-brown-vetoes-expansion-of-californias-school-suspension-
ban/603084
Washburn, D. (2018b, July 25). Improving California school environments focus of pilot
program. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2018/improving-california-school-
environments-focus-of-pilot-program/600663
Washburn, D. (2018c, May 13). The rise of restorative justice in California schools brings
promise, controversy. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2018/the-rise-of-restorative-justice-
in-california-schools-brings-promise-controversy/597393
Washburn, D. (2019, July 1). Budget realities challenging California school districts’ restorative
justice programs. EdSource. https://edsource.org/2019/budget-realities-challenging-
california-school-districts-restorative-justice-programs/614572
Washburn, D., & Willis, D. J. (2018, December 11). School suspensions continue downward
trend in California, new data show. EdSource.https://edsource.org/2018/school-
suspensions-continue-downward-trend-in-california-new-data-show/605946
Weiner, R. (2018, August 1). Why school climate should be every principal’s top priority. The
Aspen Institute. https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/why-school-climate-should-
be-every-principals-top-priority/
Youth Justice Board. (2004). National evaluation of the restorative justice in schools
programme. http://creducation.net/resources/National_Eval_RJ_in_Schools_Full.pdf
Zehr, H. (2002). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.

97

Appendix A: Participant Interview Instrument

Interview Protocol
Date: Location: Start Time: End Time:
Interviewer: Interviewee:
Introduction:

I’d like to thank you once again for being willing to participate in the interview aspect of my study.
As I have mentioned to you before, my study seeks to understand the role of the principal in middle
schools that effectively implement restorative justice practices and positive school climate. Our
interview today will last approximately 30 minutes during which I will be asking you about the
role of the principal in relation to restorative justice practices, the implementation of restorative
justice practices, the impact that RJ has on school climate, and how RJ is evaluated to determine its
success.

Confidentiality:

This interview is confidential and your name will not be shared with anyone. Please rest assured
that none of your personal information will be revealed. My hope is that you are able to answer
these questions as truthfully as possible. A pseudonym will be used to protect your confidentiality.
Consent:

In an effort to capture your responses, with your permission, I would like to record our
conversation. At any point, if you would like me to stop recording please feel free to let me
know. I would like to respectfully ask if I have permission to record this interview? Do you
have any questions?

I am now providing you with the informed consent form. Please take a few minutes to read
and sign the document.
Transition:
I am going to start off by asking some questions about your role as a
(teacher, counselor, assistant principal, or principal)
How long have you been in your position?
What made you decide to pursue a career in this area?
Can you explain a little more about what responsibilities you have in this role?
How were you introduced to the concept of restorative justice practices?

98

1. What is your organizations philosophy about restorative justice practices?
2. How do you communicate this philosophy to parents, students, teachers?
3. How do you assess if the restorative justice practices are producing the desired outcomes
for the students?
4. What are some examples of restorative justice practices that are implemented at your
school site?
5. Do you feel your role supports the implementation of restorative justice practices? Can
you elaborate on this?
6. In your opinion, how does the principal influence and support effective restorative justice
practices?
7. Do you have any thoughts, observations, or comments about the implementation of
restorative justice practices and the way they are communicated or administered at the
school or district level? If so, please elaborate.
8. Tell me about some successes that you have had in implementing restorative justice
practices.
9. What impact do these practices have on your school climate?
10. What changes have you seen in your students or faculty that have implemented
restorative practices?
11. Since the implementation of restorative justice practices, what changes, have you seen in
student behavior? If possible, please provide examples.
12. What are the challenges that you face in your role when it comes the implementation of
restorative justice practices?
13. How do you as a teacher, counselor, assistant principal, or principal ensure that
restorative justice practices are being sustained?

Closing Comments:

As part of our wrap-up, is there anything I have not asked you that will help me understand your
experience with the restorative justice practices or school climate?
Thank you for your participation in this interview. If you have any questions, please contact me
by email at kmmercad@usc.eduThank you.

99

Appendix B: Superintendent Cover Letter

September 28, 2020
Dear _________________,
I hope that you are well and staying safe.

I am currently a doctoral student in the K-12 Educational Leadership Program at the University
of Southern California. I am conducting a research study titled: Examining the Role of the
Principal in Southern California Middle Schools that Effectively Implement Restorative Justice
Practices and Positive School Climate.
The purpose of this study is to examine the role of the principal in middle schools that are
effectively implementing restorative justice practices and positive school climate based on three
theories: critical race, restorative justice, and reintegrative shaming. The ability to develop a
principal’s perspective by learning from the best practices of other principals is the intent of this
study.

Our study will be based on information collected through a 25-minute remote interview of a
middle school principal, assistant principal, dean, and counselor(s). Participation in this study is
voluntary. This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects Research. The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. If you have questions, please contact us via email: Karen Mercado (kmmercad@usc.edu).

Your approval will greatly enhance my study. Thank you in advance for your consideration of
this study.

Respectfully,

Karen Mercado

100

Appendix C: Participant Cover Letter

December 4, 2020
Dear _____________________,
I hope that you are well and staying safe.
I am currently a doctoral student in the K-12 Educational Leadership Program at the University
of Southern California. I am conducting a research study titled: Examining the Role of the
Principal in Southern California Middle Schools that Effectively Implement Restorative Justice
Practices and Positive School Climate.
The purpose of this study is to examine the role of the principal in middle schools that are
effectively implementing restorative justice practices and positive school climate based on
three theories: critical race, restorative justice, and reintegrative shaming. The ability to
develop a principal’s perspective by learning from the best practices of other principals is the
intent of this study.
My study will be based on information collected through a 25-minute remote interview of a
middle school principal, assistant principal, dean, and counselor(s). Participation in this study is
voluntary. This research study has been reviewed and approved by the University of Southern
California Institutional Review Board (IRB) for Human Subjects Research. The IRB believes
that the research procedures safeguard your privacy, welfare, civil liberties, anonymity, and
rights. If you have questions, please contact us via email: Karen Mercado
(kmmercad@usc.edu).

Your cooperation will greatly enhance our study. Thank you in advance for your consideration of
participation in this study.

Respectfully,

Karen Mercado

Abstract (if available)

Abstract The purpose of this qualitative study was to examine the role of the principal in middle schools that have successfully implemented restorative justice practices and positive school climate on one middle school in Orange County, California. In this qualitative study, 5 participants were remotely interviewed via Zoom. The researcher investigated four areas: (1) the role of the principal when restorative practices were implemented effectively, (2) the impact of restorative practices on school climate, (3) how the use restorative practices have improved student behavior, and (4) how restorative justice practices are evaluated as successful. The researcher utilized remote interviews and document analysis to collect data from the participants. This study was centered on Merriam and Tisdell’s (2016) work and on Creswell's (2018) steps on conducting a research study. The purpose of this study was to contribute additional findings on a topic that has received very little scholarly attention. The significant findings in this study can support middle school principals who are seeking ways to effectively implement restorative justice practices that can promote a positive school climate. The restorative justice practices that were identified can support principals in reducing suspension rates. Additionally, the practices can help build community amongst students, staff, and parents.

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

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

PDF

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

PDF

Effective leadership practices used by middle school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Leadership styles conducive to creative tension in decision making among principals, vice principals, and deans at K-12 school sites

PDF

How urban high school principals implement social and emotional learning (SEL)

PDF

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

PDF

Leadership characteristics, practices and board perceptions that support superintendent longevity in urban school districts: a case study

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

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

PDF

Effective leadership practices of catholic high school principals that support academic success

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

PDF

An examination on educational management and the fostering of leadership sustainability in Hawaiian Catholic K-12 schools

PDF

Uncovered leaders in hidden schools: effective leadership practices in California Model Continuation High School principals

PDF

Best practices to improve mathematics achievement of middle school Latina/o students

PDF

The impact of Masters in Governance training on school boards

PDF

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

PDF

Middle school principals’ impact on effective professional learning communities in public schools in California

PDF

Efective leadership practices used by elementary school principals in the implementation of instructional change

PDF

Building strong school communities through authentic conversations: a restorative practices curriculum for teachers

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

Asset Metadata

Creator Mercado, Karen (author)

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

School Rossier School of Education

Degree Doctor of Education

Degree Program Education (Leadership)

Publication Date 03/15/2021

Defense Date 02/12/2021

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

Tag OAI-PMH Harvest,restorative practices,school climate

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Castruita, Rudy (committee chair), Cash, David (committee member), Torres, Salvador (committee member)

Creator Email kmerc27@gmail.com,kmmercad@usc.edu

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c89-427137

Unique identifier UC11668239

Identifier etd-MercadoKar-9319.pdf (filename),usctheses-c89-427137 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier etd-MercadoKar-9319.pdf

Dmrecord 427137

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Mercado, Karen

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