An Exploratory Study of Educator Mindset in Relationship to Restorative Practices and Adolescent Development

• In Event: Implementing Restorative Practices in Schools: Perspectives From Practitioners and Researchers

Abstract

Background: Schools implementing restorative justice (RJ) are asked to shift from a culture of social control to social engagement (Morrison & Vanndering, 2012) and from viewing problematic behavior as a violation of rules to a violation of people and community (Zehr, 2002). This shift requires distributed leadership, in which the full range of educators (paraprofessionals, education assistants, teachers, administrators) are asked to apply new practices with students (Gregory et al., 2021). Yet educators may share the same cultural models of adolescence as the public (Busso et al., 2023), including beliefs about the behavior of children and adolescents that can undermine or result in ineffective adaptations of RJ implementation.
Data and Methods: To explore these cultural models within the context of schools’ RJ implementation, we studied whether there were different types or groups of educators indicated by their self-reported beliefs about accountability and use of restorative practices. The study involves a cross-sectional survey of over 1,400 educators in 20 PK-12 schools in the United States implementing whole-school restorative practices. The survey, administered yearly since 2019, includes items exploring punitive and restorative mindsets, and frequency of using different restorative practices. For this study, our analytic sample included respondents in year 3 of implementation (n=348). We conducted a latent class analysis (LCA) of 10 variables (4 mindset items, 6 practice items). We then assessed differences by grade span and in 5 proximal variables across educator groups/classes.
Results and Implications: LCA results revealed a 4-class model had both the highest statistical fit and practical value. Secondary educators were less likely than elementary educators to be restorative minded or use restorative practices (“resistant”, p<.001). Educators with higher rates of endorsement of both mindset and practice items (“aligned”) and educators who reported using practices while endorsing punitive mindset items at higher rates (“discordant/compliant”) reported significantly higher levels of trust in their principals (p<.05), higher belief that their school environment was restorative (p<.01), more success in ensuring students felt a sense of belonging (p<.05), and higher levels of restorative impulse (p<.01). Further differenced emerged by grade span.

Findings confirm the challenge of fitting restorative practices into the structures of secondary education and illuminate a need to include information about child and adolescent development in RJ training and coaching for educators, especially for secondary educators. Restorative practitioners and administrators could incorporate this typology of educators into differentiated coaching plans. Findings may also inform change frameworks that focus on restorative mindset as essential precursor to implementation; it is noteworthy that the “compliant” group had second highest outcomes.

Authors

• Kara Beckman, University of Minnesota

• Adrianna Bell, University of Minnesota

• Barbara McMorris, University of Minnesota