Adolescent Exposure to Restorative Practices and Their Perceptions of Structure and Support in the School Climate

• In Event: Disrupting Discipline: An In-Depth Examination of Restorative Practices’ Impacts and Implementation

Abstract

Objectives. Growing evidence shows that Restorative Practice (RP) reduces discipline (Augustine et al., 2018). Unanswered questions remain about whether RP improves school climate. This is imperative for students of color in low-income neighborhoods with lack of access to supportive, restorative schools. The objective is to offer findings from an experimental trial in 18 schools from a low-income neighborhood.

Theoretical framework. We draw on adolescent developmental theory. Similar to the authoritative parenting style with adolescents (Baumrind, 1991), scholars postulated that youth excel in schools offering fairness and consistent behavioral expectations (structure) and warmth and respect for autonomy (support; Authors et al., 2009). Evidence for this assertion has accrued for two decades.

The central tenets of RP align well with authoritative approaches. Restorative practices arise from Indigenous traditions (e.g., Maori’s family conferencing, Shah & Stauffer, 2021), that focus on strengthening community and repairing harm (Zehr, 2014). In schools, this means shifting away from a punitive approach to misconduct (Thorsborne & Blood, 2013). Given theoretical alignment, RP (e.g., circles/conferences) may foster support/structure (e.g., authoritative climates).

Method. For the RCT, we randomly assigned schools to intervention or business-as-usual. The intervention integrated RP with SEL and racial equity activities. It included professional development/coaching with leaders/staff (Authors et al., 2022).

At year one’s end, students in grades 5-12 took a 30-minute survey. The sample was 2,248 students (39% Black, 32% Latinx). We used validated scales of support/structure (Authoritative School Climate Survey, 2015) and racial fairness (Byrd, 2017). Drawing on factor analytic results, two RP subscales were: (1) RP elicit-voice (4-items, “My teachers use circles as a time for students to share feelings…”) and (2) RP problem-solve (3-items, “When someone misbehaves, my teachers have that person talk to who they hurt …”).

Findings. Using multilevel modeling, the RP Project did not lead to more positive perceptions of authoritative discipline (support/structure/fairness; d = 0.03 to 0.07; Table 1). Treatment/control students completed the RP subscales. We found no differences on RP subscales across conditions (ps > .10). However, results indicated beneficial outcomes for students who reported higher RP (Table 2). Students perceiving that RP elicited their voice and engaged them in problem-solving tended to perceive support, structure, and racial fairness.

Significance: This is one of the few US-based trials to examine the impact of RP on school climate. After one year, RP had no impact on school climate in schools facing the stressors of economic marginalization. However, the results did find that RP had positive school climate correlates. It suggests that initiatives may need greater intensity for more years to bolster substantive gains.

Authors

• Anne Gregory, Rutgers University

• Francis H. Lim Huang, University of Missouri

• Allison Rae Ward-Seidel, University of Virginia