Lustick, H., Cho, V., & Miller, A. (2024). Restorative justice in a no excuses charter school. Education and Urban Society, 56(6), 756-776.
Hilary Lustick is an Educational Leadership scholar and critical qualitative methodologist. Her research focuses on school climate and culture, specifically for historically marginalized student populations. Vincent Cho specializes in advancing school leadership and student outcomes in the digital age. A former teacher and administrator, he helps schools and educators think through the “people problems” that can go along with technologies in schools. Andrew Miller is an Assistant Professor of Educational Leadership at the Boston College Lynch School of Education and Human Development. His research focuses on organizational change in schools, with an emphasis on Catholic school systems in the US.
In our study, we explored the complexities involved in implementing restorative justice (RJ) in charter schools, particularly in environments where a “no excuses” disciplinary model had been the norm. We examined how the interplay between restorative and traditional models of discipline affected both students and teachers, ultimately questioning whether RJ, when decoupled from its relational foundation, could fully address the needs of diverse students and the varied teaching styles of educators. Our study suggests that restorative justice is not a one-size-fits-all solution and that its successful implementation hinges upon continual adaptation, collaboration, and a shift in mindset among educators, students, and leaders alike.
Background and Theoretical Framework
The rise of restorative justice in educational settings can be traced back to broader societal shifts in how we view punishment, behavior management, and the role of schools in addressing conflict. Traditionally, many schools have adhered to a punitive, behaviorist model of discipline. Under this model, behavioral problems were typically addressed through systems of rewards and punishments. Students who followed rules were rewarded, while those who broke them faced punitive consequences, often without much consideration for the underlying reasons for misbehavior. In these systems, discipline was seen as something external to the student, often leading to disengagement, alienation, and a lack of genuine understanding of the impact of their actions.
Restorative justice emerged as a response to the limitations of this punitive model, aiming to shift the focus from punishment to repairing harm and fostering accountability through dialogue. Rather than asking what rule was broken and what punishment was deserved, RJ asks what harm was caused and how it can be repaired, emphasizing the need for mutual understanding, relationship-building, and community responsibility.
However, as we observed in our study, the transition from traditional disciplinary practices to restorative justice is not always smooth, particularly when schools have ingrained, behaviorist approaches to discipline. The challenge of balancing these two models—restorative and traditional—became the central focus of our research. In schools that have embraced “no excuses” logic, where strict discipline is often viewed as essential for student success, the integration of restorative practices presents a tension between two competing logics: a technical, outcome-based approach and a relational, process-oriented approach.
Findings: The Struggle Between Competing Logics
In our study, we found that the implementation of restorative justice was often viewed through a behaviorist lens, especially by those accustomed to traditional forms of discipline. Educators and administrators, despite their awareness of restorative justice principles, frequently applied it as a technical tool designed to elicit specific behavioral outcomes rather than as a transformative process aimed at building long-term relationships and shifting school culture.
One of the key findings from our study was that participants, especially administrators, often used restorative practices in a way that mirrored the punitive systems they had previously used. For example, instead of embracing restorative justice as a means of fostering communication and understanding, many viewed it as a way to “replace” or “modify” existing disciplinary measures, such as demerits or detentions. The focus was not on building relationships, but on finding more “appropriate” consequences for students’ misbehaviors.
This tendency to treat restorative practices as a mere substitution for punishment echoed a deeper struggle within the school community. Restorative justice, when reduced to a technical system for managing behavior, risked losing its true purpose. As one administrator pointed out, the goal should be to have students engage in the process of “righting a wrong,” but this perspective still reflected a behaviorist approach where the emphasis was on achieving compliance rather than fostering genuine understanding and growth.
The Challenges of Implementing Restorative Justice
One of the key challenges we identified was the lack of clear structures and guidance around how restorative justice should be applied in practice. Without concrete, technical tools for managing behavior, some educators and administrators found themselves unsure of how to handle situations that required immediate intervention. In the absence of a clear and consistent framework, many expressed frustration at the perceived inefficacy of restorative practices, especially in high-stress moments when behavior issues were most pronounced.
For instance, administrators and teachers shared concerns about how to implement restorative practices in situations where students’ behaviors were disruptive or violent. A middle school principal, for example, expressed feelings of “loss of control” when a student who had physically harmed another engaged in a restorative conference rather than facing a more traditional consequence, such as detention. The principal’s discomfort with this shift reflected a deeper concern that restorative practices were not providing the same level of certainty and order as traditional systems of punishment.
This struggle to balance restorative approaches with traditional ones was also reflected in teachers’ experiences. Many felt that, while restorative practices could be beneficial, they were often too abstract or inconsistent to address the immediate behavioral challenges they faced in the classroom. For example, when a student vandalized the school bathroom in imitation of a viral social media challenge, one administrator described assigning the student a “reflection” instead of detention, but admitted that this felt like a “placeholder” for a more conventional punitive consequence.
Such moments highlighted a deeper issue: the expectation that restorative justice could change behavior immediately, without recognizing that the shift to restorative practices requires a longer-term, cultural transformation. Restorative practices are not meant to provide immediate solutions, but to cultivate an environment where relationships are valued, conflicts are addressed collaboratively, and students are held accountable in ways that promote growth and learning.
The Role of the Restorative Justice Coordinator
Throughout our study, one of the most important roles we identified was that of the restorative justice coordinator. The coordinator’s role was seen by some as primarily technical—focused on ensuring that restorative practices were implemented correctly and consistently. However, as we observed, the most effective coordinators viewed their role as more relational, aiming to build the capacity of both students and teachers to engage in restorative practices in meaningful ways.
The restorative justice coordinator we spoke to emphasized that her job was not just to manage disciplinary incidents, but to create spaces where staff and students could develop the interpersonal skills necessary for effective restorative justice. She explained that, rather than giving step-by-step instructions, her role was to guide others in learning how to approach conflict with an open mind, to listen actively, and to engage in dialogue that promoted healing.
However, not all staff shared this perspective. Some administrators and teachers saw the coordinator’s role primarily as a “fixer”—someone who could troubleshoot when restorative practices didn’t work as expected. This view reflected a technical, outcome-driven approach to restorative justice, one that emphasized the need for immediate results rather than recognizing the ongoing nature of cultural change. This discrepancy in perspectives further illustrated the competing logics of behaviorist and restorative approaches within the school.
Implications for Practice
Based on our findings, we identified several key implications for practice, particularly for leaders in schools looking to implement restorative justice effectively.
- Shift the Focus from Technical Implementation to Cultural Change: We found that leaders in schools must begin by recognizing that restorative justice is not just a set of technical practices, but a process of cultural transformation. Rather than focusing solely on the mechanics of implementing restorative practices, school leaders should begin by articulating the values and principles that underpin restorative justice. This includes emphasizing the importance of relationships, communication, and accountability, and recognizing that these values must be embedded in the school’s culture at every level.
- Embrace a Recursive Process of Learning: Restorative justice implementation should be seen as a recursive, ongoing process of learning for both students and staff. Instead of expecting immediate results or viewing the process as a linear progression, schools should recognize that restorative practices are part of a broader journey toward building a positive, inclusive school culture. Leaders should encourage experimentation and reflection, allowing space for mistakes and growth along the way.
- Integrate Restorative Practices into Everyday Interactions: Restorative justice should not be viewed as a separate or special activity, but as an integral part of everyday interactions within the school. Teachers and administrators should incorporate restorative principles into their daily routines, modeling open communication, empathy, and problem-solving in their interactions with students. This approach fosters a school-wide commitment to relationship-building and conflict resolution.
- Provide Ongoing Support and Professional Development: Successful implementation of restorative justice requires continuous professional development and support for staff. Schools should invest in training programs that help teachers and administrators develop the skills necessary to engage in restorative practices effectively. Additionally, the restorative justice coordinator should be seen as a resource for ongoing support, rather than as someone who is solely responsible for implementation.
Implications for Research
Our study focused on one school and one stage of the restorative justice implementation process, but we believe there are several important avenues for further research.
- Study of Other Charter Schools: We recommend that future research explore other charter schools that have traditionally embraced “no excuses” policies. This would help to better understand how restorative justice can be integrated into schools with a history of strict disciplinary practices. Specifically, research could examine how these schools navigate the tension between restorative practices and the more rigid, behaviorist approaches they may have historically used.
- Longitudinal Studies on the Impact of Restorative Justice: Further research should also include longitudinal studies to examine the long-term impact of restorative justice on student behavior, school culture, and academic outcomes. Such studies could provide valuable insights into how restorative practices influence not only disciplinary incidents but also student engagement, social-emotional development, and academic performance over time.
- Addressing Critiques of Restorative Justice: Finally, we recognize that restorative justice has faced criticism from some who argue that it may be too lenient or ineffective in addressing serious behavioral issues. Future research could examine whether restorative justice can coexist with traditional “no excuses” policies or if it requires a more substantial shift in the philosophy and practices of discipline. Addressing these critiques through empirical research could help to refine the implementation of restorative justice in diverse educational contexts.
Conclusion
In conclusion, our study highlights the complexities involved in implementing restorative justice in schools, particularly in environments where traditional, behaviorist models of discipline have been deeply ingrained. We found that, while restorative justice has the potential to foster positive cultural change, its success depends on the extent to which it is understood and applied as a relational, process-oriented practice rather than as a technical tool for behavior management. By shifting the focus from immediate outcomes to long-term cultural transformation, schools can more effectively integrate restorative justice into their disciplinary systems, fostering an environment where students and staff engage in meaningful dialogue, build trust, and take responsibility for repairing harm.
As schools continue to experiment with restorative practices, it is crucial for leaders to embrace the challenges of this journey and to recognize that cultural change takes time. Through continued reflection, adaptation, and collaboration, restorative justice has the potential to create more equitable, supportive, and inclusive school environments.
