Going Restorative, Staying Tough: Principals' Perceptions of Restorative Practice Implementation

• In Event: Moscone Center West Roundtable Session 14
  In Roundtable Session: Birds of a Feather? Examining the Connections Between Restorative and Punitive Practices

Abstract

Objective
Principals are beholden to internal and external stakeholders’ expectations for what a safe and orderly school environment looks like, and Vaandering (2014) has found that these expectations hold cultural sway even in a school ostensibly committed to restorative practices and other nonpunitive discipline approaches. Payne and Welch (2015, 2018) have found principal effectiveness to be the strongest predictor of restorative practice, particularly in urban high schools. Drawing from a year-long ethnographic investigation of restorative practice implementation at three urban secondary schools, this piece focuses solely on principals’ perspectives and thought processes in making disciplinary decisions.

Conceptual Framework
School leadership scholar TJ Sergiovanni (2000) drew on Habermasian communication theory (Habermas, 1987) to develop a theory of “leadership in the lifeworld.” Restorative practices are systems. If they are rooted in the lifeworld, they will help foster responsibility among staff and students. They will both supplement and strengthen the unique school community. Restorative practices that are rooted in the systemsworld, however, focus instead on accountability, seeking obedience to rules without offering opportunities to build relationships. This paper uses these terms to analyze whether principals viewed restorative practices as a means to reinforce order or transform school culture.

Methods and Data
This study draws on data from a year-long ethnographic multi-case study of three New York City public, secondary, small schools, conducted in the 2013-2014 school year. I spent roughly 300 hours over three months per school, conducting observations of restorative practices and interviews with administrators, teachers, and students. The current study, while informed by the findings of the larger study, focuses on principal interviews. I coded these sections for evidence of “responsibility” versus “accountability.” Drawing on my conceptual framework, I discuss “responsibility” as lifeworld-based restorative practices and “accountability” as systemsworld-based restorative practices.

Findings
Overwhelmingly, principals seemed to feel caught between their ideological commitment to restorative practice (i.e., responsibility), and accountability to the status quo. Implementing restorative practices may correlate with a reduction in suspension rates, but it will not necessarily
change school culture unless those implementing it see their work as a means of cultural transformation and relationship-building. This requires a major shift in how principals are trained in restorative practices, which researchers and principal training programs should take on as a component of climate and social justice leadership.

Significance
School culture is a central topic in studies of strategies for restorative practice implementation (e.g., MacFarlane et al., 2019). However, these strategies do not address pressures my participants faced from external stakeholders, like parents and other principals in a shared building. Further research should investigate whether the pressures these principals perceived were realistic, as well as examples
of restorative practice implementation that fully engaged external stakeholders. Principal preparation programs should introduce schoolwide approaches to positive schoolwide discipline, restorative practice, and social/emotional learning, as well as some of the dilemmas associated with their implementation. This will enhance the potential for teachers to buy into these efforts in their classrooms, as well as the development of best practices for administration.

Author

• Hilary Lustick, University of Massachusetts - Lowell