Teachers Getting Restorative? Restorative Practices Implementation, School Climate, and Teachers' Turnover Intentions

• In Event: Marriott Roundtable Session 12
  In Roundtable Session: "It 'Works,' but Will It Work for Me?" Supporting Teachers' Restorative Practice

Abstract

Purpose

High rates of teacher turnover in low-income, urban schools remains a concern for schools facing tough budgets and staffing issues (Papay, Bacher-Hicks, Page, & Marinell, 2017). Previous research on Restorative Practices (RP) suggests it could improve school climate (e.g., Mirsky & Wachtel, 2007) – a key working condition teachers consider when deciding to stay. However, critics of RP question whether it can actually accomplish this goal, suggesting instead that teachers might be overburdened and under supported in implementing RP programs (e.g., Dominus, 2016). Like the other studies in this symposium, this study seeks to include teachers’ experiences of RP as part of evaluating the full impact of RP in schools. In particular, this study uses quantitative data to evaluate patterns in teachers’ perceptions of RP implementation, school climate, and their turnover, across several schools and districts in the U.S.

Theoretical Framework

My hypothesized RP treatment theory hypothesizes that RP can improve the overall climate of the school through improved relationships (Costello, Wachtel, & Wachtel, 2009). These improved working conditions for teachers that would then induce them to stay (Simon & Johnson, 2015). However, RP, like many other whole school interventions, is likely to witness variation in implementation that will affect teachers’ experiences of it (Domitrovich et al., 2016; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002).

Methods

This study examines the effect of RP (in conjunction with another whole school intervention, Diplomas Now) on teachers’ perceptions of school climate and their turnover intentions, modeling the role of implementation in that process. This study draws from a randomized control trial of 32 schools (including 17 treatment schools) across 8 large urban districts in the U.S. Looking at the sample of treatment schools, I first examine how implementation of RP varied across the blocks and schools randomized to treatment. Next, within treatment schools I examine how this variation in implementation fidelity affected student and teachers’ perceptions of school climate and teachers’ reported turnover intentions. Then, comparing the samples of both treatment and control schools, I estimate the service contrast overall and across the blocks. Finally, I use a structural equation modeling approach to examine the indirect effect of RP on school climate and turnover intentions via its impact on usage of RP.

Results

Initial findings from this study suggest significant differences between schools and districts (blocks in this study) in implementation, school climate, and teachers’ turnover intentions. Implementation, from both students’ and teachers’ perspectives significantly predicted students’ and teachers’ perceptions of school climate. Teachers’ turnover intentions, were mostly unrelated to RP assignment and implementation overall. However, in a few of the study blocks, RP assignment and implementation strongly related with teacher turnover.

Significance

Results from this study can help inform practitioners and policymakers interested in the full range of effects of implementing (or trying to implement) RP in schools. In particular, these findings reiterate the importance of supporting teachers in the implementation of RP. School leaders could consider adding (and sustaining) professional development for teachers in schools trying to implement RP.

Author

• Ashley Anne Grant, Johns Hopkins University