Restorative Practices

Circles, repair conversations, what good implementation looks like, and the misuses to avoid

Why this brief

Restorative practices have spread through U.S. schools rapidly over the past two decades — partly as alternative to zero-tolerance discipline, partly as response to documented racial disparities in punishment, partly as integration with trauma-informed practice. Implementation quality varies enormously. Strong restorative practices change school culture and produce real reductions in suspension and disproportionality. Weak implementations are mostly performance — circles run as compliance theater, repair conversations forced on students who haven't been heard, the language of restorative practice without the substance.

This brief covers what restorative practices actually are, the philosophical roots, what good implementation looks like, where the para fits, common misuses to avoid, and how restorative practices interact with other behavior support frameworks (PBIS, trauma-informed practice). It connects with brief 05.18 (PBIS), 05.10 (Escalation Cycle), 05.14 (Trauma-Informed Support), and 15.01 (Disproportionality).

1\. What restorative practices are

Restorative practices are a family of approaches that center relationship, accountability, and harm repair rather than rule violation and punishment. The core philosophical claim: when something goes wrong, the goal isn't primarily to identify who broke which rule but to understand who was harmed, what they need, and how relationships can be repaired.

The roots run through several traditions:

Indigenous justice traditions — particularly Maori and First Nations practices that influenced the modern restorative justice movement.

Restorative justice in the criminal justice system (1970s onward) — alternatives to retributive incarceration.

School adaptations beginning in the late 1990s and 2000s.

More recent integration with trauma-informed practice, healing-centered engagement (Shawn Ginwright), and abolitionist education.

1.1 Core questions

Restorative practices reframe the questions that are asked when something goes wrong:

| Punitive frame asks | Restorative frame asks |

| :-: | :-: |

| What rule was broken? | Who was harmed? |

| Who broke it? | What do they need? |

| What's the consequence? | Whose obligations are these? |

| How can we make it as right as possible? | |

| How do we prevent this from happening again? | |

These aren't just nicer-sounding versions of the same questions; they produce different conversations and different outcomes.

2\. The restorative continuum

Restorative practices span a continuum from light-touch daily practices to formal repair processes for serious harm.

2.1 Tier 1 — community-building

Daily community-building circles.

Affective statements and questions.

Small repair conversations after low-stakes friction.

Norms developed by the community rather than imposed.

Strong adult-student relationships.

Tier 1 is the heart of restorative culture. Without it, the more formal practices don't work.

2.2 Tier 2 — targeted repair

Restorative conversations between specific students after conflict.

Small group circles addressing specific issues.

Mediation.

Re-entry processes after a student has been absent (suspension, illness, family event).

2.3 Tier 3 — formal restorative justice

Formal restorative justice conferences after serious harm.

Structured processes with all affected parties — the harmed, the person who caused harm, supporters of each, sometimes community members.

Often facilitated by trained restorative justice practitioners.

Sometimes used as alternative to suspension or expulsion.

2.4 Why the continuum matters

Schools that try Tier 3 without Tier 1 often fail. The formal processes require relational and cultural capacity that has to be built first. Schools that only do Tier 1 ("we do circles every Monday") without integration into broader practice often produce performance without substance. Strong implementation builds across all three tiers.

3\. Circles

Circles are probably the most-recognized restorative practice. Specific elements:

Participants sit in a circle, no tables in between, eye contact possible.

A talking piece — an object passed around; only the person holding it speaks.

A facilitator — someone holding the structure, not directing content.

Round-robin format — everyone gets a turn; passing is allowed.

Purpose-shaped questions — community-building, problem-solving, repair.

Closing — a moment of acknowledgment or appreciation.

3.1 Types of circles

Community-building circles — "What's something good that happened this week?" "Tell us about your family."

Check-in circles — "How are you arriving today?" Often used at start of day or class.

Problem-solving circles — "What's been hard in our class lately?"

Repair circles — addressing specific harm.

Closing circles — "What's one thing you're taking from today?"

3.2 What makes circles work

Consistency — circles run regularly, not just when something is wrong.

Authentic facilitation — adults model real participation, not just enforcement.

Talking piece honored — even kids who never speak get the space.

No interrupting, no advice-giving, no fixing.

Time enough to do it well — rushed circles don't land.

Confidentiality — what's shared in circle stays in circle (with appropriate safety exceptions).

3.3 What undermines circles

Forced participation.

Adults who don't participate genuinely.

Using circles for surveillance or interrogation.

Making them performative — running them to check the equity box.

Same questions every time, going through motions.

Skipping them when there's "no time" — the pattern teaches that they're optional.

4\. Affective language

Affective statements and questions are smaller daily practices that don't require a circle.

4.1 Affective statements

Naming impact rather than rule violation:

"When you talked over Maria, I felt frustrated because she was working hard to share."

"I'm worried about you when you put your head down for the third class in a row."

"I noticed you stayed with Marcus when he was upset — that meant a lot."

Compare to:

"You're being disrespectful." (Rule frame.)

"Stop messing around." (Behavior frame, no relationship layer.)

"Good job." (Generic praise.)

Affective statements share what was felt and the relational impact, without going to consequence.

4.2 Affective questions

Open questions that invite the student to think rather than defend:

"What happened?"

"What were you thinking at the time?"

"What have you thought about since?"

"Who has been affected? In what way?"

"What do you need to make it right?"

These questions are often used in restorative conversations after harm. They're slow and require space to answer; they don't lead to a specific answer.

5\. Restorative conversations after harm

When harm occurs — a fight, a hurtful comment, property damage, exclusion — restorative practice substitutes a structured conversation for (or alongside) discipline.

5.1 The basic structure

Separate conversations first — with the harmed person, with the person who caused harm. Each has space to share what happened from their perspective.

Preparation — both parties decide if they want to participate in joint conversation; both prepare what they want to say.

Joint conversation — facilitated; structured around affective questions.

Agreement — what will happen to make it as right as possible. Specific commitments.

Follow-up — checking that commitments held.

5.2 Specific to the harm context

Don't force the harmed person to participate — re-traumatizing in ways that compound the original harm.

Don't let the conversation become coerced apology — "go say sorry" doesn't repair.

Don't substitute the restorative conversation for accountability where serious harm occurred (assault, harassment, abuse) — restorative practice complements rather than replaces protection.

Allow appropriate time — these conversations rarely fit in 5 minutes between classes.

5.3 When restorative practice isn't appropriate

Several situations where restorative practice should not be the primary response:

Sexual harassment or assault — protection of the harmed party comes first; mandatory reporting and Title IX procedures apply (cross-ref 13.02).

Imminent danger — safety first.

Significant power asymmetry between the parties — staff-student or older-younger student where the dynamic itself prevents repair.

Cases where the harmed person doesn't want to participate — their consent matters.

Cases where harm is ongoing — repair before it ends doesn't repair.

6\. The para's role

Paras are often well-positioned for restorative practice work because of relational proximity to students. Common roles:

6.1 Daily Tier 1 work

Modeling affective language.

Supporting community-building circles.

Building reliable relationships across the day.

Catching small frictions before they escalate.

Teaching the language of feelings, impact, and repair.

6.2 Tier 2 small repair

Mediating brief peer conflicts (with permission and training).

Supporting students through restorative conversations.

Re-entry conversations after a student has been out.

6.3 What paras don't typically do

Facilitate Tier 3 formal restorative justice conferences — typically requires specific training.

Make decisions about discipline alternatives.

Substitute for Title IX or mandated reporting processes.

Force participation.

6.4 Training

Many districts that adopt restorative practices invest in staff training. Common providers include the International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP), Center for Restorative Process, and various state-level affiliates. Teacher-only training without paraprofessional inclusion is a common gap; if you're working in a restorative-practices school but haven't been trained, surface to admin.

7\. Integration with PBIS

Restorative practices and PBIS (cross-ref 05.18) can integrate well. They're not opposed:

PBIS provides school-wide expectations, acknowledgment systems, tiered intervention.

Restorative practices provide the relational and harm-repair work that PBIS often under-emphasizes.

Together: PBIS as the structure, restorative practices as the relational substance.

7.1 Where they sometimes conflict

PBIS acknowledgment systems can feel performative; restorative culture emphasizes intrinsic motivation. Strong integration uses PBIS systems lightly without making them the substance.

PBIS often uses behavior charts and points; restorative practice tends to emphasize relationship and meaning over points.

PBIS can drift toward compliance; restorative practice toward agency.

Strong implementations bring both frameworks together rather than treating them as separate.

8\. Integration with trauma-informed practice

Restorative practices and trauma-informed practice (cross-ref 05.14) are deeply compatible:

Both center relationship as primary.

Both treat behavior as communication.

Both reject punitive responses to dysregulation.

Both build adult capacity to co-regulate.

8.1 Where they specifically reinforce each other

Trauma awareness shapes how restorative conversations happen — a student who experienced trauma may not be ready for repair in the moment; respect that pace.

Restorative culture is itself trauma-informed — predictable, relational, non-punitive.

Both recognize that harm has long arcs that don't resolve on adult timelines.

9\. Equity and disproportionality

One of the original drivers of restorative practices in U.S. schools was federal civil rights data documenting that students of color, particularly Black students, are suspended at rates far exceeding their share of enrollment. Punishment-based discipline produced these disparities; the question was whether restorative alternatives could reduce them.

9.1 What the evidence shows

Schools that implement restorative practices well show meaningful reductions in suspension rates, particularly for students of color.

Schools that implement weakly or perform implementation without substance often don't show those reductions.

Restorative practices alone don't fix structural racism in schools — they're part of the work, not the whole.

Some implementations have been critiqued for shifting punitive practice from discipline to surveillance — "restorative" labels on what's still essentially compliance work.

9.2 Implementation that shifts disparities

Substantial relational work in Tier 1.

Staff training that addresses race and power, not just procedure.

Building leadership commitment, not just teacher initiative.

Time built in — restorative work doesn't fit traditional 7-minute discipline conversations.

Discipline data tracked and used, not just collected.

Family and community involvement, particularly community members of color.

9.3 Implementation that doesn't

Surface adoption — circles run mechanically.

Restorative language layered on punitive practice.

Same staff who used punishment now using restorative as a different mechanism for the same outcomes.

No data tracking of disparities.

White-led implementations that don't engage racial dynamics.

10\. When restorative practice fails students

Several patterns where students get less than restorative practice promises:

10.1 The repair conversation forced before readiness

"Now apologize" produces compliance, not repair. Students who aren't ready to engage shouldn't be required to. Sometimes weeks of adult relationship-building precede a useful repair conversation.

10.2 Restorative practice as soft discipline

Some implementations treat restorative practices as a softer version of consequences — "you're going to circle as your punishment." This isn't restorative; it's coercion in a circle.

10.3 Adults using the language without the substance

"I noticed you..." can become a script that adults perform without the relational substance. Students notice the difference.

10.4 Skipping when convenient

"We don't have time for circle today." If circles only happen when nothing is on fire, the practice has no traction.

10.5 The harmed party silenced

Restorative processes that center the person who caused harm without adequate space for the harmed party recapitulate the harm. Some restorative justice practitioners argue restorative justice in schools has sometimes done exactly this.

11\. Honoring cultural roots

Modern restorative practices draw heavily on Indigenous traditions, particularly Maori (Aotearoa / New Zealand) and First Nations practices. The U.S. school adaptation has sometimes proceeded without acknowledgment of those origins or partnership with Indigenous communities.

Strong implementations:

Acknowledge cultural origins.

Don't treat restorative practices as a Western innovation.

Where Indigenous communities are part of the school community, partner with them.

Recognize that the practice is not the ownership of any one school or district.

Don't appropriate ceremony or sacred elements outside their cultural context.

12\. Common pitfalls

Adopting restorative practices without staff training.

Running circles mechanically.

Forcing apology.

Skipping circles when there's not time.

Using restorative practice as soft discipline.

Centering the person who caused harm at the expense of the harmed party.

Substituting restorative conversation for protection where protection is what's needed.

Ignoring cultural roots.

Not tracking discipline disparities to see whether the practice is actually shifting them.

Treating restorative practice as the whole frame rather than as part of integrated work with PBIS, trauma-informed practice, and equity.

13\. Resources

Field-defining

International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP) — iirp.edu — Major training and certification organization.

Center for Restorative Process (Kay Pranis) — centerforrestorativeprocess.com

National Center on Restorative Justice — ncrj.org

School-specific

San Francisco Unified School District restorative practices materials — sfusd.edu — Often-cited public-school implementation.

Oakland Unified School District restorative justice — ousd.org — Long-running district implementation with public materials.

Texts

Howard Zehr — Changing Lenses — Herald Press — Foundational text in modern restorative justice.

Kay Pranis — The Little Book of Circle Processes — Skyhorse

Bettina Love — We Want to Do More Than Survive — Beacon Press — Abolitionist context.

Shawn Ginwright — Hope and Healing in Urban Education — Routledge — Healing-centered framework.

Cross-references

Brief 05.10 — Escalation Cycle — this library

Brief 05.14 — Trauma-Informed Support — this library

Brief 05.18 — PBIS and the Para's Role — this library

Brief 13.02 — Mandated Reporting — this library

Brief 15.01 — Disproportionality in Special Education — this library

Page of