Restorative Justice in Schools FAQ
How to implement restorative practices in a way that maintains accountability and doesn't undermine school safety.
The Core Problem
Are schools really replacing consequences with restorative practices?
Yes. Thousands of schools across the country, and in some states by law, have been replacing progressive discipline with restorative practices. Not a single educator has told me it's working well. The people I trust most on this are teachers, and teachers have been saying over and over: we got rid of consequences and behavior got worse.
Watch the video →Why don't restorative practices work as a replacement for progressive discipline?
There are at least ten reasons. Students catch on fast that there are no real consequences. The approach treats behavior problems as conflicts to mediate rather than boundaries to enforce. It assumes bad behavior stems from a lack of skill rather than a lack of consequences. And it forces victims to accept apologies that may not be sincere. The research is clear: when restorative practices replace discipline, academics get worse, behavior gets worse, and schools become less safe.
Watch the video →Does "restorative" mean no consequences?
Absolutely not. Restorative practice was never meant to eliminate consequences for misbehavior. If all we're doing is talking with kids and there are no real consequences, they're onto us. Kids are smart. They know if you get sent to the office and just get talked to, you didn't get in trouble. Restorative discipline can be a good thing, but it doesn't mean no consequences.
Watch the video →If a behavior is serious enough for a restorative conversation, should there also be a consequence?
Yes, always. If it's serious enough to sit down and have a formal restorative process, it's serious enough for a real consequence. Without consequences, students learn very quickly that all they have to do is say the right words and they're out of there. That puts teachers in a terrible position and gives disruptive students power over the entire classroom.
Watch the video →Why It Fails in Practice
Where does the "no consequences" idea come from if trainers say they don't teach it?
Part of the problem is that districts are trying to reduce suspensions and reduce consequences that make them look bad. So even without being told by an expert not to have consequences, districts are implementing restorative practices without consequences. The other part is overpromising. Some advocates do claim that if you implement restorative practices effectively, you don't need consequences. That's malpractice.
Watch the video →What about the argument that restorative practices would work if schools just implemented them correctly?
That's an unfalsifiable claim. If it fails, you're told you did it wrong. Real solutions work even when imperfectly implemented. We've seen this tried in thousands of schools and the results have been catastrophic. Telling educators "if you're doing it right, you don't need consequences" is gaslighting. It's not true. Stop spreading it.
Watch the video →How can we tell if restorative practice actually has potential or is just a gimmick?
Three tests. First, clarity: can you actually explain what people are supposed to do? If it's all vague language about "centering" and "building community," people will be left to make their own decisions and unintended consequences will proliferate. Second, can you anticipate unintended consequences? If you've met a teenager, you should be able to predict what happens when you remove consequences. Third, can you contrast it with what we've been doing? If the "innovation" is just caring about kids, that's not new.
Watch the video →Is this problem unique to the US?
Not at all. Scotland replaced rules and consequences with what they call "inclusion" -- keeping every student in the classroom 100% of the time no matter what they do. Violence is off the charts. Teachers are getting injured. England, Australia, and Canada are seeing the same pattern. Every jurisdiction that removes consequences sees the same results.
Watch the video →The Motte-and-Bailey Problem
What is the "motte-and-bailey" of restorative practices?
When you push back on restorative practices, advocates retreat to "how could you be opposed to building relationships and teaching skills?" Those are things educators have always done and always supported. That's the motte -- the defensible position. But the bailey -- the real agenda -- is replacing consequences with conversations. Nobody can defend that out loud, so they retreat to the motte every time they're challenged.
Watch the video →Do restorative and trauma-informed approaches contain any genuinely new good ideas?
The good ideas aren't new. Caring about kids, building relationships, understanding their backgrounds -- teachers have always done these things. The new stuff -- replacing consequences with circles, refusing to remove violent students -- that's the part that's unproven and often harmful. What bothers me is that new-sounding programs steal credit for what educators have always done, then accuse anyone who pushes back of not caring about kids.
Watch the video →Violence and Safety
What should happen when a student is violent in the classroom?
There should be a firm boundary. If a student assaults a teacher, they cannot come back to that classroom. Ever. Think about how traumatizing violence is not just for the victim but for every other student who has to watch it and then act like everything is fine when the student comes right back. If we're going to be trauma-informed, we can't just think about the perpetrator. We have to think about everybody else.
Watch the video →Should we always try to repair the relationship after violence?
No. Violence sometimes should end a relationship permanently. Telling a teacher they must restore a relationship with a student who assaulted them is textbook domestic violence thinking. We should be modeling that violence has real consequences, including the permanent loss of relationships. Separation is sometimes the healthiest response.
Watch the video →Should teachers be required to forgive students who were violent toward them?
No. This idea that you can hurt somebody and then "repair the harm" -- ask a victim of domestic violence if that's really possible. Forgiveness should be a personal choice, not a job requirement. Teachers should have the right to say: if this person assaulted me, I don't have to forgive them, I don't have to get over it, and they cannot come back in my class.
Watch the video →"Repairing the Harm"
What's wrong with asking students to "repair the harm"?
Repair the harm sounds nice until you think about what it actually means. You cannot unpunch someone. You cannot unharass someone. When it comes to violence or bullying, "repairing the harm" is just a better-sounding version of apologizing -- and apologizing is not enough. The real problem is that this puts the burden on the victim, who gets pressured by authority figures to forgive and forget. That's dangerous and unhealthy.
Watch the video →Don't restorative circles give victims a voice?
They give victims a script. Restorative circles create enormous social pressure on the victim to accept the apology and be okay with what happened. In one bullying case that led to a student's suicide, the victim had previously been forced to "hug it out" with her bullies. A boundary is not real if all you have to do to break it is apologize. Talk is cheap when you've hurt somebody and face no real consequence.
Watch the video →Isn't forgiveness a good value to teach students?
Forgiveness can be healthy, but it should never be compelled. From a survival standpoint, it's actually smart to be suspicious and mistrustful of people who have already hurt you. When we teach students that they must forgive and forget after being victimized, we're teaching relationship patterns that set them up for abusive relationships as adults. That should concern every educator.
Watch the video →Ideology and Accountability
Why do you call restorative practice a "religion"?
Because advocates have started using religious language. When evidence shows it doesn't work, instead of admitting that, they pivot to saying it's "reformist" to expect results. They frame it as something you just have to believe in. You can't sell a practice by promising outcomes, then claim outcomes don't matter when they never materialize. That's not evidence-based practice -- that's faith.
Watch the video →What do you mean by "worship of the underdog"?
In the restorative practice framework, whoever is worst off in a given situation becomes the center of all attention and resources -- the student with the worst behavior, the most violence, the most disruption. The needs of the other 25 students don't compare. This is the kind of thing the policy class would never tolerate for their own children. It's only something people are willing to do to other people's children.
Watch the video →Does restorative justice belong in schools at all?
I think restorative justice has a legitimate place in the criminal justice system -- helping people who've served their time make amends with willing victims. But schools have a different mission. We're here to teach and create a safe learning environment, not to run relationship-restoring circles. The time spent on restorative processes takes away from instruction, and the process itself gives savvy students power to misbehave without real consequences.
Watch the video →Equity and Who Gets Hurt
Isn't restorative practice better for equity?
The great irony is that restorative-only approaches are being implemented in the name of equity while disproportionately harming students of color. Because of de facto school segregation, the students whose learning and safety are being sacrificed are demographically very similar to the students whose behavior is being excused. We are not helping any demographic group by removing consequences. We're creating two completely different worlds -- one for our own children and one for everyone else's.
Watch the video →Aren't suspensions harmful to students?
I've written extensively about this at principalcenter.com/suspension. There's a lot of research on the perceived harms of exclusionary discipline, but here's what we're learning: the alternative is far worse. Schools that banned suspension didn't see better outcomes -- they saw more violence, worse behavior, and teachers quitting. Consequences create something kids desperately need: boundaries and predictability.
Watch the video →Legal and Practical Consequences
Could restorative-only policies expose districts to lawsuits?
Yes, and it's already happening. The Washington Post reported on over 200 bullying-related wrongful death lawsuits in the past decade, with settlements up to $27 million. Parents have extensive documentation of what they reported and what schools failed to do. Districts that rely solely on restorative approaches to handle bullying and violence are sitting on enormous legal liability.
Watch the video →What will it take to end restorative-only discipline?
Two things are going to force the change. First, lawsuits -- when districts start paying millions because their restorative-only policies failed to protect students, they'll reconsider. Second, staff resignations. If you quit your job over safety issues the district won't address because of restorative practice, say so. Tell someone. Those are the only things that will drive the change back to progressive discipline.
Watch the video →What Should We Do Instead?
Should we have a moratorium on restorative practices?
I think it's worth considering. The violence is the problem, and the violence is being caused by the lack of consequences in the name of restorative practices. I'm sympathetic to trainers and authors who say schools are misimplementing their ideas. But too many people are getting hurt. We've got to do something, because we cannot do restorative practices without consequences and not have continued violence.
Watch the video →What should schools do instead of restorative-only discipline?
Go back to progressive discipline. It's not complicated. Have clear rules. Enforce consistent consequences. Use suspension when necessary. You can still care about kids, build relationships, and support struggling students -- teachers have always done that. But you cannot run a school safely without consequences. The good parts of restorative practice were never new, and the new parts aren't working. Return to what works.
Watch the video →