Restorative Doesn't Mean No Consequences
In this video, Dr. Justin Baeder clarifies that genuine restorative practice was never meant to eliminate consequences — and that schools using it that way are doing it wrong.
Key Takeaways
- The original framework includes consequences - Restorative practice was designed to supplement discipline, not replace it
- 'No consequences' is a misapplication - Schools that use restorative practice as an excuse to eliminate consequences are distorting the approach
- Both elements are needed - Restoration and accountability must work together for either to be effective
Transcript
Restorative practice does not mean there are no consequences for misbehavior.
I'm seeing this all the time from educators, this idea that all we have to do is talk with kids and all they have to do is talk with the people they hurt and everything's good.
That does not fix the problem.
There have to be boundaries in place to protect the school environment, to protect the victims of said behavior.
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 then basically you get talked to and sent back to class, you didn't get in trouble.
And word spreads that there are no consequences for whatever the behavior was.
So if you've got kids punching each other or calling people racial slurs, we have to take action.
We have to follow the discipline policy and do something real and not just talk about it.
And of Work through it, make it right, but there still need to be consequences.
Restorative discipline is a good thing, but it doesn't mean no consequences.