Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 1

Building a Safe and Equitable Classroom:

Integrating Restorative Circles into Content Delivery

Olivia slid into her second row seat as she usually does on most days and pulls out the
book, Refugee by Alan Gratz. Olivia’s teacher, Mr. Logan, unbeknownst to him, chose the book
not only because he thought it was of high interest, but also many of the kids in the class had
been experiencing injustices within their own lives. Although Mr. Logan thought he understood
the fears of possible deportation of his students’ and/or their families, or the societal injustices
they faced, did he truly understand? Do his students feel safe in HIS class to truly express their
thoughts, feelings, and fears? Most importantly, have his students ever been provided a space
that supported an opportunity to express equity, self-reflection, empathy and sympathy? Olivia
can’t remember a time in school where she felt a part of something, much less comfortable
enough for her voice to be heard, especially her raw inside voice.

Imagine you are Olivia, sliding down into the uncomfortable desk chair in the second row
listening to the words roll off Mr. Logan’s tongue as he reads a section from Refugee. The
characters, Isabel and her family, have just been forced to leave their homeland of Cuba in order
to survive. They must leave all they have ever known due to the social injustices of the Cuban
government. This move is life or death for Isabel’s family. As a quiet and introverted student
who rarely shares her voice, this story, this connection, triggered an emotion she had not felt
before and definitely not towards a book! Although this story may not have resonated with every
student, it clearly did with Olivia. Using circles first and foremost to establish strong, supportive
relationships amongst students has a significant academic impact in the long run (Costello et. al.
“Restorative Circles in Schools” 23). Imagine if the classroom community had already
established a culture of support for Olivia. If Mr. Logan intentionally began reading each day in
a restorative circle, it would offer a voice to ALL students. The circle would foster a protected
space for students to dialogue openly about emotions that may arise.

Creating an effective educational climate that provides safe, equitable, and accessible
learning opportunities is a liberty of ALL students. While many people use circles for problem
solving alone and believe circles are something that happen only when educational goals are
impeded, it is undoubtedly clear by now that we advocate the integration of circles into the basic
structure of teaching. Teachers have many different means and techniques for delivering course
content, including lectures, small group activities, discussions, tests and quizzes, videos, projects
and games. “Think of the circle as adding another string to a teacher’s bow, a versatile technique
capable of serving multiple functions” (Costello et al. “Restorative Circles in Schools” 40). Our
belief is that if we are PROACTIVE and RESTORATIVE in our approach to daily content
instruction, this inclusive and collaborative learning environment is possible!

Restorative Practices and Restorative Circles

In order to discuss the relevance of incorporating Restorative Practices (RP) into content
instruction, we must first have a common understanding of the meaning. Ted Wachtel, founder
of the International Institute of Restorative Practices (IIRP), states that “RP is a social science
that studies how to build social capital and achieve social discipline through participatory
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 2

learning and decision-making” (Wachtel). Restorative Practices (RP) and Restorative Justice
(RJ) sometimes are used synonymously. However, the two practices are not synonymous. The
IIRP views RJ as a subset of RP. “RJ is REACTIVE, consisting of formal or informal responses
to crime and other wrongdoing after it occurs. The IIRP’s definition of RP also includes the use
of informal and formal processes that PRECEDE wrongdoing and those that PROACTIVELY
build relationships and a sense of community to prevent conflict and wrongdoing” (Wachtel).
That said, RP is a powerful tool to implement in support of building a safe and equitable
classroom-community.

As the late Rita F. Peirson shared in her inspiring TedTalks, “Kids don’t learn from
people they don’t like” (Pierson). We would argue that this stands true for not just KIDS but
ADULTS as well. Successful teachers are champions of building relationships with students in
support of classroom management, safety, and academic instruction. As we have discussed, RP
is a social science looking at how to build social capital through inclusiveness, collaboration, and
equity of voice.

The ability to build social capital, relationships, and maintain social discipline with our
students is an invaluable skill. “Everyone with an authority role in society faces choices in
deciding how to maintain social discipline: parents raising children, teachers in classrooms,
employers supervising employees or justice professionals responding to criminal offences”
(McCold and Wachtel). Historically, we have operated from a punitive perspective when it
comes to managing classrooms and schools. We continue to look at things in a “let the
punishment fit the crime” kind of way. Through RP the offender, victim, and school staff all play
a role in finding an answer. Until recently, Western societies have relied on punishment, usually
perceived as the only effective way to discipline those who misbehave or commit crimes
(McCold and Wachtel). There is a paradigm shift in our thinking when it comes to consequences
in school today. We are looking at the WHOLE CHILD taking into account trauma, socio-
economic background, past experience, etc. In order to truly comprehend RP, we need to look at
multiple parts: the Social Discipline Window, Fair Process, and the Psychology of Affect.

The Social Discipline Window

It is essential to have an understanding of the Social Discipline Window to continue our
discussion on defining RP. Costello and Wachtel assert that, the fundamental hypothesis of RP is
that “human beings are happier, more cooperative and productive, and more likely to make
positive changes in their behavior when those in positions of authority do things WITH them,
rather than TO or FOR them.” (Costello et al. “Restorative Circles in Schools” 40). The concept
of the Social Discipline Window is illustrated in the picture below. Students are more inclined to
take ownership of their learning when teachers are in the WITH or RESTORATIVE corner of the
window. Students, and arguably staff as well, will thrive in an environment where they have a
voice!
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 3

(Staff “Defining Restorative 4.4 Nine Affects”)

Fair Process
Another function of RP is to promote an inclusive, cooperative and participatory
community. As discussed, when we do things WITH people rather than TO or FOR them, the
outcome is typically more positive. This idea was dubbed “fair process” in an influential article
that appeared in Harvard Business Review (qtd. in Costello “Restorative Circles in Schools” 14).
The idea of Fair Process consists of three parts: “Engagement - involving individuals in decisions
that affect them by listening to their views and genuinely taking their opinions into account;
Explanation - explaining the reasoning behind a decision to everyone who has been involved or
who is affected by it; Expectation Clarity - making sure that everyone clearly understands a
decision and what is expected of them in the future” (Costello et al. “Restorative Circles in
Schools” 14). Fair process takes into consideration that some people will not ever agree upon a
decision. Overall, when people (e.g., students or staff) are involved in the process, and genuinely
feel like their voices have been heard, they are more likely to accept changes or get involved.
That said, when a classroom implements a fair process, students are inclined to be engaged and
active learners.

Psychology of Affect
According to Wachtel and Costello, the most critical function of RP is restoring and
building relationships. “The late Silvan S. Tomkins’ writings about the psychology of affect
(Tomkins, 1962, 1963, 1991) “asserts that human relationships are best and healthiest when there
is free expression of affect -- or emotion --MINIMIZING the NEGATIVE, MAXIMIZING the
POSITIVE, but allowing for FREE EXPRESSION” (Costello et al. “Restorative Circles in
Schools” 16). This free and mutual expression of ideas, emotions, and feelings is a prominent
argument for integrating RP and restorative circles into our daily instruction. Providing a
protected space for students to exchange ideas, share emotions, think critically, and most of all
grow through failure is our duty as educators! Examining the Social Discipline Window, Fair
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 4

Process, and Psychology of Affect will enable us to accomplish a safe and inclusive learning
community.

Restorative Circles
Moving forward with a shared understanding of RP and restorative circles, we can agree
RP elements provide community-building opportunities. For instance, “one of the essential RP
elements is the “Proactive Circle” in which teachers use structured group discussions and
meaningful exchanges while sitting in a circle” (Costello et al. “Restorative Circles” 40). Circles
by their very nature convey equality, safety and trust, responsibility, facilitation, ownership, and
connections. The simple act of introducing a new topic in a circle rather than in the typical
assigned seats can be powerful. Think about it. . . circles have been a tool for bringing people
together for centuries (e.g., Knights of the Round Table, Native Americans).

There are several different types of restorative circles, all of which lend themselves to
creating and maintaining a safe space for the expression of ideas and emotions. Academic circles
develop student voice, promote critical thinking, create equal opportunities for ALL students to
be heard, and check for understanding. Community circles can be utilized to build relationships,
gain trust, connectedness, and give a safe and equitable space for open discussions. There are
literally endless possibilities when looking to implement a restorative classroom-community
through use of circles.

Restorative circles in the classroom organically solicit sharing based on the shape of a
circle alone. When conducting a lesson or discussion in a circle, all participants are on equal
footing. Facing one another, they have frank and open discussions about academic topics (e.g.,
their academic goals for the day or the semester), emotional topics (e.g., their experiences being
the target of teasing), and classroom-specific topics (e.g., what norms of respect they would like
to establish in the classroom). The types of topics and specific content are limitless, yet the goal
is similar: provide an opportunity for students and teachers to learn about one another (and thus
respond more appropriately to one another) (Gregory et al.). A teacher who inclusively sets up a
restorative classroom-community utilizing circles daily is arguably prepared for most obstacles.

Limitation of Restorative Practices

At this point, I hope we can all agree that punitive school discipline systems are
ineffective and simply do not work. In most instances, punitive or zero-tolerance policies can
actually increase discipline issues and create a school community and culture that is not only
unhealthy but downright toxic. Furthermore, “we know that punitive discipline policies are
disproportionately applied to students identified as visible minorities, students with physical and
academic disability labels, and other students who are marginalized because they don’t fit inside
certain socially prescribed boxes” (qtd. in Zehr).

As a reaction to the zero-tolerance policies of the past, many states, districts, county
offices of education and/or classrooms have implemented some form of RP to deal with
discipline issues in hopes of creating a community that promotes egalitarian relationships.
Unfortunately, many school communities, in their zeal to replace a system of zero-tolerance,
have executed RP policies and procedures that are ineffective or restorative-ISH. While we
would agree that restorative-ISH is a better system than zero-tolerance, we also know firsthand
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 5

that an ineffective program creates a culture of mistrust and frustration that hinders buy-in from
school staff and students.

This is not to suggest that all RP are ineffective. In fact, we have found a number of
programs both nationally and internationally that have promoted a restorative system that does
what it’s supposed to do. However, in our research we have also identified a number of schools
who are frustrated with RP and actually feel that it has created a classroom environment that is
more dangerous and less controlled than before these practices were enacted. Not surprisingly,
most complaints fell into the following categories: implementation, lack of research, and
resistance to change.

Implementation
How many times in your career have you been bombarded with a new policy, procedure
or initiative that was promised to be the next revolutionary development in education? You
attend a training in a large room with a plethora of staff, watch someone read to you off of a
PowerPoint Presentation, then leave expected to be an expert in your classroom without any
follow-up or retraining. Sound familiar? It is the way it has always been done so it must be
effective right? Unfortunately, this model, while efficient, cost-effective and at times
appropriate, will not work with the implementation of RP. RP is not a traditional form of
curriculum. It is a whole-school culture rather than a linear type program. Therefore it must be
approached in a different fashion. Many programs and districts across the globe have attempted
to implement school-wide RP with great intentions. Regrettably, this has not happened and the
restorative programs currently in place throughout The United States and beyond vary so widely
it’s difficult to ascertain their effectiveness.

As mentioned above, school communities were so eager to implement a program that was
contrary to the traditional zero-tolerance policy, that most went a little rogue and developed a
design that was restorative-ISH. In a study of eighteen schools that had implemented RP, the
researchers found that “implementation across schools varied substantially, which they argued
may have been somewhat due to fundamental ideological differences between RP programming
and more traditional beliefs and practices about how to manage student behavior” (McCluskey,
et al.).

The various methods of implementation were not the only mistake the schools have made
however. Again, RP is a change in culture rather than a linear type of curriculum. Many districts
and schools, due mainly to financial issues (Song & Swearer) have not afforded adequate
training, follow-up and in-class support. Even advocates of RP have agreed that schools had
moved too quickly and in-turn created programs that were less effective than those who took the
time to change a school culture (Barshay). Samuel Song and Susan M. Swearer, in their article
entitled, The Cart Before the Horse: The Challenge and Promise of Restorative Justice
Consultation on Schools, point out the difficulties in RP implementation and training. RP is a
“way of being in the world, and therefore, there is no way to practice it that can be captured
adequately in a manual” (Song & Sweaer). Most programs that have been successful however,
tend to have two things in common: how they are trained and the support they receive thereafter.
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 6

Large group environments are not an appropriate method for RP trainings. Rather, the
initial setting needs to be in small groups where each member feels comfortable enough to share
honestly and from the heart. The core of RP is building social capital and maintaining social
discipline through participatory learning. When facilitating a RP training with an enormous
amount of participants, there is not much “air time” for all to share. Furthermore, the RP
trainings themselves need to be conducted in a way where all involved have a voice in the
direction and make-up of the training. There is no empowerment available if it's simply a
mandated requirement from an administrator. Again, this is a culture; not curriculum. When
building a restorative school culture, we also want to stay true to the goals of RP and be all
inclusive. A restorative school community will not flourish unless ALL staff is trained and on
board. This will start with the first person the student interacts with on campus. If this is the
enrollment office then this entire staff will need to attend RP training and have ongoing support.

The need for follow-up training and support is integral to the success of RP in any school.
RP can be a tremendous sea change not only for our students but the staff as well. You cannot
expect an administrator, teacher or staff member to become an expert at RP after one training
any more than you would expect a student to gravitate towards it after their first experience. This
is a process that takes time, initiative and the space to become comfortable with the theory and
practice of effective RP. Furthermore, the inclusion RP experts or “in-house consultants are
critical for any lasting effects in schools'” (qtd. in Song & Swearer).

Lastly, simply calling something restorative does not make it so. Introducing alternatives
to suspensions are great but not necessarily restorative. RP “doesn’t work as an add-on. It
requires us to address the roots of student “misbehavior” and a willingness to rethink and rework
our classrooms, schools, and school districts. Meaningful alternatives to punitive approaches take
time and trust. They must be built on schoolwide and districtwide participation” (“Restorative
Justice: What it is and what it is not”). All too often we have witnessed or researched schools
that wanted to embrace RP without putting in the time and effort necessary for a prosperous
program. RP cannot be a band aid on a broken leg or a finger in the dike. As John D. Rockefeller
said, “don’t be afraid to give up the good for the great”.

Lack of Research
Another major flaw with RP is the lack of available research which, as discussed above,
is not surprising when so many programs are implemented in a variety of ways. This is of major
concern as we have no clear picture of RP’s effectiveness and thus cannot use that data to drive
its implementation and growth. Researchers have found that RP has been “under-studied,
especially in schools. This is concerning because practice appears to be far ahead of the research
on effectiveness and successful implementation and sustainability, when in fact, research should
be facilitating data-based decision making” (Song & Swearer). It's like assigning a student an
algebra book before performing a qualified diagnostic. Furthermore, much of the prevailing
research is not peer-reviewed, usually takes place at only one school and does not follow
acceptable rules and procedures associated with professional research (Song & Swearer).

Research has also been misleading when RP’s effectiveness towards attendance and
behaviors is concerned. RP in programs are increasingly popular due to its promise to address the
school-to-prison pipeline identified some twenty years ago (Wald & Losen). For example, Los
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 7

Angeles Unified School District posted a 92 percent decrease in the number of days lost to
suspensions (Szymanski) since their adoption of RP as an alternative to traditional, punitive-
based policies.

Days lost to suspensions have dropped 92 percent. (Szymanski).

However, this statistic, which is common among schools, can be very misleading as it does not
track student behavior. Simply stating that RP is working due to a decrease in suspension is not
surprising when most schools have given directives not to suspend students in favor of a
restorative solution. While this sounds good in theory does it truly decrease the behavior issues
in the classrooms? Isn’t this the true measure of RP’s effectiveness? It’s like stating that arrests
for marijuana possession has decreased in states where it is now legal. Of course it has
decreased! The true measure is whether or not marijuana consumption has increased or decreased
in legal states. Regardless, any significant decreases in suspensions and increases in attendance
should always be applauded.

Resistance to Change
Change is difficult! In our twenty years in education we have seen so many different
initiatives, theories, practices and procedures; there is no way that we can remember them all.
We know in education some of these things are great, some are so-so, and others are downright
forgettable. We were not alone with our skepticism when we were first presented with RP in our
County Office of Education. Truthfully, we thought RP was some ineffective, touchy-feely,
kumbaya nonsense that had no place in the classroom. Change is difficult. However, after we
witnessed RP in action in a colleague’s classroom we were hooked. We could not believe the
level community and relationships that our colleague had with his students. Not only did
behavior issues decrease within his classroom, but he felt a bond with his students that he had
been missing for years. It was truly remarkable!
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 8

Unfortunately, not everyone was onboard. Not only in our area, but throughout the
nation, teachers exposed to RP had similar concerns. 1) Teachers felt that the program lacked
accountability. For many, accountability is defined as punishment which is why they would feel
a lack of accountability within RP. But RP actually has accountability in its framework when
conducted correctly and stresses the importance of self-responsibility and reparations. 2) RP is
too emotionally draining. Teachers are often turned off by the prospect of RP as the practice
itself can be burdensome to some, especially at the beginning. Proponents of RP however would
argue that constant behavior issues in the classroom can be far more draining than a well-
constructed circle. 3) Teachers feel that RP makes it harder to remove problematic students from
the classroom (Szymanski). This is by far the most common critique and fear associated with RP
and is a valid concern. In areas where RP or RJ has not been implemented with fidelity, schools
and teachers have actually witnessed an increase in behavior issues (Sperry). Yet, other schools
have found the exact opposite. In one Pittsburgh district, teachers reported that “their school
environments felt safer, rebutting critics who claim that reducing suspensions means chaos in the
classroom” (Barum). Perspective is a powerful view to those who choose to see; however, it can
also be limiting. Is RP’s fidelity measured through perspective? Maybe.

Another major issue again is the way in which RP is presented to staff. Administrators
need to be honest about the expectations and demands expected from staff when implementing a
program that is not a “one and done”. Remember, “the type of educational changes we are
hoping for cannot be accomplished in a few hours or 3-day-long sessions. And yet, due to
funding issues, lack of understanding of RJ, and an emphasis on standardization and
accountability, three days of RJ training are about as much as most principals are willing and/or
able to give up” (“Restorative Justice: What it is and what it is not” ). Administrators also need
to demonstrate a willingness to accept RP by including teachers in the decision-making and
planning process. Much like students who take ownership of their learning, buy-in is far more
likely when a collaborative environment has been created.

The Value of Restorative Circles as a Pedagogical Tool

As teachers, we universally design our content and differentiate our instruction, so that all
learners have access to grade level material. However, we must remain mindful that students
often have barriers that may not be readily visible, or appear on an academic diagnostic. Social
emotional obstacles such as anxiety and/or trauma will best be supported through the
PROACTIVE planning of building a safe and equitable climate. While research of RP tends to
be lacking at this point, one thing that seems to be universal is the importance of building a
community. While there are a number of ways in which RP is conducted, all programs aim”to
build a community and to foster the kind of student-to-student and educator-to-student
relationships that lead to supportive classrooms” (Flannery). Our objective therefore, should be
the establishment of a whole-school culture that fosters RP. Often times schools use RP as a
construct that is separate from the traditional academic curriculum. We argue that RP should be
an integral part of every teacher’s curriculum.

There seems to be a troubling trend among some schools that have enacted RP as a
separate entity from their curriculum. In Pittsburgh Public Schools, academic achievement,
especially with African American students, actually fell when exposed to RP compared to
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 9

students at schools who were disciplined as usual. While research is inconclusive at this point,
“one explanation for the uneven test results might simply be that teachers diverted time from
academics, causing students to be less prepared for exams (Barnum). Cristine Cray, an official at
Pittsburgh Public Schools, wants “teachers to see how restorative practices can be used to
complement academic instruction and not replace academic instruction.”

The implementation of RP can be a daunting task, as many novel endeavors tend to be.
Teachers are nervous about a new program and in turn their anxiety affects the students and the
overall environment of the room which may lead some to abandon RP all together. “Some
teachers fear they are being asked to become therapists, because they know that circles have been
used in therapeutic settings and because circles are a forum for the free expression of affect. But
as great teachers know, teaching is much more than conveying facts and information alone.
There is a significant interpersonal dimension to teaching (Costello et al. “Restorative Circles in
Schools” 24). Furthermore, RP “requires a high degree of student buy-in. Students cannot be
forced to talk about their grievances face-to-face with their classroom enemies. It’s a voluntary
process and not every kid wants to talk” (Barshay). Rather than attempting to reinvent the wheel
or biting off more than you can chew, start off slow and get comfortable with RP in the
classroom.

Conclusion

Imagine that you are an English teacher and your students have to read pages 15-30
together as a class. Which do you think works better: take out your books and read or create an
anticipatory conversation with your class that relates to some topic or theme in the day’s reading
where students can respond in a comfortable, safe environment? Circles have their value in RP,
but imagine a RP approach in a circle with academic content as the topic. Lower the affective
filter, create a connection to the content, and encourage students to communicate in a safe
nonjudgemental environment. Students need to feel safe with their teacher and with their peers in
order to ask questions, admit confusions, and try new skills. Creating a safe classroom and
school environment is a foundation for academic achievement (Boyes-Watson and Pranis 69).

Circles as the “opener” for academic lessons can bridge the gap between presence and
engagement. Furthermore, these anticipatory openers help create an environment where students’
backgrounds and interests connect to the curriculum. This is not simply related to English
courses only. This is appropriate for ALL core curricula. Let's reflect on Olivia. The student who
never wanted to stand out, wanted to blend in and never felt connected to her curriculum, until
her teacher Mr. Logan began a lesson that preceded the daily readings of Refugee. Olivia had
already been struggling with an internal connection to Isabel because of their similar
experiences. The circle provided a safe and equitable environment for her to process and discuss
her internal thoughts and feelings.

Olivia was provided an opportunity to develop connections with classmates and her
teacher within the circle, thus connecting students’ vast interests and backgrounds. Mr. Logan
designed his lessons with intent and provided opportunity and space for Olivia and all his
students' voices. The equitability of the circle can do much more than resolve conflict, it can also
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 10

allow students to create connections, graces, and understandings of those they may not have
spoken to or pursued on their own.

The schools that implement Restorative Practices with fidelity are experiencing an
overwhelming positive change to their school discipline and culture. Although the published
research has valid arguments for and against the practices of RP, in schools in particular, it is
apparent that not only the students, but also the staff and community are positively benefitting
from the practices. RP and academic content instruction should not be considered separate
entities, rather they should be seen as productive sidekicks. Partners. Comrades that work in
unison to achieve the ultimate goal for our students: an effective educational environment that
provides safe, equitable, and accessible learning opportunities for ALL students.

Works Cited

Barnum, Matt. “Major New Study Finds Restorative Justice Led to Safer Schools, but Hurt
Black Students' Test Scores.” Chalkbeat, Chalkbeat, 4 Jan. 2019,
chalkbeat.org/posts/us/2019/01/04/the-first-gold-standard-study-of-restorative-justice-is-
out-heres-what-it-tells-us/.
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 11

Barshay, Jill. “The Promise of 'Restorative Justice' Starts to Falter under Rigorous Research.”
The Hechinger Report, 6 May 2019, hechingerreport.org/the-promise-of-restorative-
justice-starts-to-falter-under-rigorous-research/.

Boyes-Watson, Carolyn, and Kay Pranis. Circle Forward: Building a Restorative School
Community. Living Justice Press, 2015.

Costello, Bob, et al. The Restorative Practices Handbook: for Teachers, Disciplinarians and
Administrators. International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2009.

Costello, Bob, et al. Restorative Circles in Schools: Building Community and Enhancing
Learning. International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2010.

Flannery, Mary Ellen. “How Restorative Practices Work for Students and Educators.” NEA
Today, 13 June 2019, neatoday.org/2019/06/13/how-restorative-practices-work-for-
students-and-educators/.

Gaudreault, Arlène. “Limits of Restorative Justice - Victimsweek.gc.ca.” Victims and

Survivors of Crime Week, Proceedings of the Symposium of the École Nationale De La
Magistrature, 2005,
www.victimsweek.gc.ca/symp-colloque/past-passe/2009/presentation/pdfs/
restorative_justice.pdf.

Gratz, Alan. Refugee. Scholastic Inc., 2017.

Gregory, Anne, et al. “The Promise of Restorative Practices to Transform Teacher-Student

Relationships and Achieve Equity in School Discipline.” Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, vol. 26, no. 4, 4 Nov. 2014,
doi:10.1080/10474412.2014.929950.

Lyubansky, Mikhail. “Nine Criticisms of School Restorative Justice.” Psychology Today,

Sussex Publishers, 7 Mar. 2019,
www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/between-the-lines/201903/nine-criticisms-school-
restorative-justice.

Mccluskey, Gillean, et al. “Can Restorative Practices in Schools Make a Difference?”

Educational Review, vol. 60, no. 4, 2008, pp. 405–417., doi:10.1080/00131910802393456.

Mccold, Paul, and Ted Wachtel. “In Pursuit of Paradigm: A Theory of Restorative Justice.”
12 Aug. 2003, http://www.iirp.edu/pdf/paradigm.pdf.

Morris, Allison, and Gabrielle Maxewell, editors. Restorative Justice for Juveniles:
Conferencing, Mediation and Circles. Hart Publishing, 2001.

Pierson, Rita. “Every Kid Needs a Champion.” TED: Ideas Worth Spreading, 3 May 2013,
 Hinkle, Parker, Poirier, Wolff 12

www.ted.com/talks/rita_pierson_every_kid_needs_a_champion?language=en.

“Restorative Justice: What It Is and Is Not.” Vol. 29, no. 1, 2014,

https://www.rethinkingschools.org/articles/restorative-justice.

Smith, Dominique, et al. Better than Carrots or Sticks: Restorative Practices for Positive
Classroom Management. ASCD, 2015.

Song, Samuel Y., and Susan M. Swearer. “The Cart Before the Horse: The Challenge and
Promise of Restorative Justice Consultation in Schools.” Journal of Educational and
Psychological Consultation, vol. 26, no. 4, 21 Nov. 2016,
doi:10.1080/10474412.2016.1246972.

Sperry, Paul. “How Liberal Discipline Policies Are Making Schools Less Safe.” New York
Post, New York Post, 14 Mar. 2015, nypost.com/2015/03/14/politicians-are-making-
schools-less-safe-and-ruining-education-for-everyone/.

Staff, IIRP. “Defining Restorative 4.5. Compass of Shame.” IIRP, 1998,

www.iirp.edu/defining-restorative/compass-of-shame.

Staff, IIRP. “Defining Restorative 4.4. Nine Affects.” IIRP, 1998, www.iirp.edu/defining-
restorative/nine-affects.

Staff, IIRP. “Defining Restorative 4.1. Social Discipline Window.” IIRP, 2005,
www.iirp.edu/defining-restorative/social-discipline-window.

Szymanski, Mike. “Restorative Justice Program Drastically Lowers Days Lost to Suspensions
in LAUSD.” LA School Report, 24 Mar. 2016, laschoolreport.com/restorative-justice-
program-drastically-lowers-days-lost-to-suspensions-in-lausd/.

Wachtel, Ted. “Defining Restorative.” International Institute for Restorative Practices, 2016,
www.iirp.edu/restorative-practices/defining-restorative/.

Wald, Johanna, and Daniel J Losen. “Defining and Redirecting a School-to-Prison Pipeline.”
New Directions for Youth Development, 2003, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14635431.

Woerkom, Marieke van. “Building Community With Restorative Circles.” Edutopia, 12 Mar.
2018, www.edutopia.org/article/building-community-restorative-circles.

Zehr, Howard, and Kathy Evans. “Restorative Justice in Education – Possibilities, but Also
Concerns.” ZEHR Institute for Restorative Justice (BLOG), EMU, 26 June 2014,
emu.edu/now/restorative-justice/2014/06/26/restorative-justice-in-education-possibilities-
but-also-concerns/.