A Comparison of Restorative Justice
Ideology Between Administrators,
Teachers, and Parents
Chapter 1: Introduction to the Study
Introduction
The following chapter introduces the study and provides support and reasoning for
the development of the study. The research included a comparison of restorative justice
ideology between administrators, teachers, and parents. Major sections of this chapter
include the background of the study, problem statement, purpose, research questions,
hypotheses, theoretical framework, nature of the study, definitions, assumptions, scope of
delimitations, limitations, significance, and a summary.
Background
Beliefs and practices associated with restorative justice originated in indigenous
populations from around the world (Roland, Rideout, Salinitri, & Frey, 2012). The
traditional practice typically involved some form of healing circles that included the
person or persons who caused harm, the victim, community members who may have been
impacted by or witnessed the harm, and community elders who served as peacemakers
(Hand, Hankes, & House, 2012). The focus of the healing circles is on regaining
harmony in the group or community instead of placing the focus on the actual act that
caused the harm (Hand et al., 2012).
The use of restorative practice in the United States and the Western democracies
first began as a movement in the 1960s and 1970s and then was introduced into the
criminal justice system (Lippens, 2015). Restorative justice gained momentum from
there and is currently being used in a variety of settings: criminal justice and legal
systems, schools, in some places of employment, and in other settings with forms of
healing circles (Garbett, 2015; Hand et al., 2012; Lippens, 2015; Morrison & Vaandering,
2012, & Roland et al., 2012). Education for restorative justice can also be found in
academic disciplines including schools of social work, sociology, theology, criminal
justice, law schools, education, and interdisciplinary studies (Armour, 2013). Restorative
justice encompasses many values such as empathy, harmony, dignity, openness,
inclusion, self-determination, human interconnectedness, collaboration, accountability,
repair, making amends, equality, victim centered, honesty, restoration, cooperation, trust,
healing, and respect (Armour, 2013; Hopkins, 2015; Gilbert, Schiff, & Cunliffe, 2013;
Hand et al., 2012; Roland et al., 2012). Roland et al. (2012) also identified three
principles of restorative justice to distinguish restorative justice ideology: healing,
cooperation, and restoration.
The discipline structure in schools has traditionally operated on principles that are
punitive based with the use of corporal punishment (Sparks & Harwin, 2016) and school
resource officers (McKenna & Pollock, 2014). School policies have also been enforced
that conflict with restorative values. Zero tolerance policies resulting from the war on
drugs in the Reagan era mandated specific punishments and even court referrals for
certain behaviors that administrators were previously allowed discretion based on the
incident (Schept, Wall, & Brisman, 2015). Multiple researchers found that zero tolerance
policies resulted in suspensions, detentions, expulsions, and the criminalization of
students (Bell, 2015; Mallett, 2016; Schept et al., 2015; Triplett, Allen, & Lewis, 2014;
H. H. Wilson, 2014; M. G. Wilson, 2013). Alternative methods such as a restorative
process have emerged after findings that zero-tolerance policies result in more harm than
good (Bell, 2015).
Restorative justice is a common alterative practice that has been used in schools
(Vaandering, 2014). Methods of implementation have varied from an occasional
alternative to expulsions to a whole school preventative approach (Roland et al., 2012;
Skiba, 2014). Some schools have attempted an entire cultural shift, whereas others have
only used the practice under specific circumstances (Vaandering, 2014). The one
consistency with the different methods found in the literature was some form of circle
conferencing (Lawrence & Hinds, 2016; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012; Roland et al.,
2012; Skiba, 2014; Vaandering, 2013, 2014). Additionally, literature featuring
elementary and secondary school training for restorative justice emphasized pedagogy in
the process to intentionally make restorative processes a part of the daily learning
experience (Vaandering, 2014). The values and principles of the educators who
implement the processes and work with the children daily are also a significant aspect of
training (Mullet, 2014).
Some of the challenges that threaten the implementation and sustainability of
restorative processes in schools include conflicting school policies (Pavelka, 2013), lack
of resources (Evans & Lester, 2013; Eyler, 2014; Gardner, 2014), transitioning from
theory into practice (Rinker & Jonason, 2014), clashing philosophies (Evans & Lester,
2013; Gardner, 2014) as well as ideologies (Roland et al., 2012), and lack of parental
involvement (International Institute for Restorative Practices [IIRP] staff, 2016).
Although there are challenges, the long-term benefits from restorative justice processes
outweigh the cost of punitive methods that show increased dropout rates, lack of
academic success, additional prison space needed, and the loss in social principle
resources (Fields & Suvall, as cited in Evans & Lester, 2013). The literature showed
consistencies between the challenges when the systems that are meant to benefit the
students in the restorative process fail to align (Roland et al., 2012). For example, it is
important that those who implement the processes have or are trained in restorative
justice ideology (Roland et al., 2012). When there is a lack of consistency and alignment
in restorative justice ideology at each level (i.e., administrators, teachers, and parents), the
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice practices are compromised.
Though I identified one study where the restorative justice ideology of teachers
was evaluated to determine if one sample of teachers possessed ideologies that were
closer to punitive principles or closer to restorative justice principles of cooperation,
restoration, and healing (Roland et al., 2012), I have not identified any research including
attempts to identify alignment between the primary systems that impact the
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice practices in schools, which
include groups of administrators, teachers, and parents. Comparing these groups for
levels of restorative justice ideology allows for the identification of alignment or lack of
alignment in these primary systems and provides a starting point to identify where
additional training in values, principles, and ideology is needed. Without identifying the
levels of restorative justice ideology between these groups, the implementation and
sustainability of the processes are at risk of failure.
Problem Statement
In many areas of the world restorative justice processes are now being used in
some schools as a component of behavior management and to hold the student
accountable, build relationships, and encourage healing (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2012).
In recent years, schools in the United States have implemented alternative methods that
are consistent with restorative justice models, with a shift that moves away from the
traditional punitive model still held by some schools (Hurley et al, 2015). Restorative
justice practices have included an alternative to suspension or detention as well as a
school-wide approach to establish a restorative environment (Hurley et al., 2015).
School policies play a significant role in the culture of the school and establish a
foundation for either supporting punitive ideologies with zero-tolerance policies that
require suspension or expulsion, or restorative ideologies that encourage inclusiveness,
restoration, and cooperative relationships among adults and students (Knight &
Wadhawa, 2014). Several researchers have suggested that zero-tolerance policies
negatively impact students such as disproportionately suspending minority students and
hindering resilience in students (Dubin, 2015; Hantzopoulos, 2013; Knight & Wadhawa,
2014; Teasley, 2014). Additionally, there is a correlation between suspensions and
dropout rates (Hantzopoulos, 2013). Therefore, some schools across the United States
are shifting from the zero tolerance, punitive based policies to policies that support
restorative processes (Dubin, 2015; Hantzopoulos, 2013).
The main principles of restorative justice are based on social and emotional
healing, reintegration, empowerment, and restoration (Ahmed & Braithwaite, 2012).
Improved grades and reduced office visits have been related to restorative justice theory
when implemented in practices in schools (Roland et al., 2012). Although there is
significant support for restorative justice in school, implementation and sustainability are
threatened when the teachers who implement the processes do not share restorative
justice ideology beliefs, which includes cooperation, healing, and restoration (Roland et
al., 2012). Additionally, traditional discipline models support authoritarian punishment
and conflict with the processes and ideology of restorative justice (Hantzopoulos, 2013).
Although school policies may be shifting away from punitive models of discipline, school
administrators, teachers, and parents may continue to possess authoritarian and punitive
beliefs that conflict with restorative justice ideology, such as the belief that failing to
punish is an act of permissiveness (Roland et al. 2012; Santa Rosa City Schools, 2016).
It is difficult to implement behavior modification programs in schools when all levels of
systems (e.g., district policy, school values and vision, staff values and beliefs, and parent
values and beliefs) fail to align (Diaz & Zirzel, 2012).
Although previous research illuminates important findings of challenges in the
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice processes when ideology and
ecological system levels are not aligned (Hong & Eamon, 2012; Roland et al., 2012), I
found no research on comparing the restorative justice ideologies of cooperation, healing,
and restoration between groups of school administrators, teachers, and parents. Thus, this
study was necessary to examine the differences in the restorative justice ideologies of
administrators, teachers, and parents of students to understand the documented problem
of non-sustainable implementation of restorative justice processes in the setting of
schools (see Roland et at., 2012).
Purpose
The purpose of this quantitative exploratory comparative study was to compare
the restorative justice ideologies of cooperation, healing, and restoration between groups
of school administrators, teachers, and parents in a regional area of the United States to
compare the levels of restorative justice ideologies and identify alignment or lack or
alignment between the groups. I used a descriptive, nonexperimental comparative design
with a cross-sectional survey to compare differences in restorative justice ideology traits
of cooperation, healing, and restoration with the restorative justice ideology measurement
instrument, comparing the levels of restorative justice ideology between the groups of
administrators, teachers, and parents of schools in the western region of the United States.
The responses to the survey determine the level of restorative justice ideology held by
respondents in each of the groups of school administrators, teachers, and parents.
Consistencies and inconsistencies are determined between each group.
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States?
H01: There are no statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H11: There are statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Research Question 2: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States?
H02: There are no statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H12: There are statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Research Question 3: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States?
H03: There are no statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H13: There are statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Research Question 4: What are the differences, if any, in the overall level of
restorative justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and
parents of schools in the western region of the United States?
H04: There are no statistically significant differences in the overall level of restorative
justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H14: There are statistically significant differences in the overall level of restorative
justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Theoretical Framework
The theoretical framework for this study includes components of restorative
justice theory as described by Strang and Braithwaite (2017), Watkins and Mortimors’
(1999) theory of pedagogy, and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Hong &
Eamon, 2012; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). Restorative justice theory described by
Strang and Braithwaite identifies a process of planned encounter and dialogue between
the victim of an offense and the offender together with members of the immediate family
and community to repair harm and redefine relationships that include all stakeholders. It
is important to focus on interconnectedness in relationships, with an inclusive approach
that encourages a respectful environment and supports caring interactions (Vaandering,
2014). Restorative justice theory when applied in schools is not a behavioral
modification but a culture within schools. The origins of the theory are based in values
and beliefs of indigenous cultures, where community peace and cohesiveness were
significant to community survival and success (Payne & Welch, 2015; Roland et al.,
2012; Vaandering, 2014). Restorative justice is an alternative process for managing
behavior in the school environment that requires all stakeholders be engaged (Strang &
Braithwaite, 2017). The opportunity for this engagement comes through education and a
pedagogy in the school system that is supportive of restorative options, resilience of
youth, and belief in the ability to learn from past mistakes to avoid repeating them in the
future (Payne & Welch, 2015).
Important to restorative justice theory is pedagogy, which Watkins and Mortimore
(1999) defined as the conscious activity of a person that is developed with the intention of
enhancing another person’s learning. Pedagogy is the vehicle to deliver expectations for
behavior to children in schools and to the larger community of stakeholders including
parents and teachers. Implementation of restorative strategy in schools involves
educating the community together (IIRP, 2017). However, some challenges in the
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice programs in schools are due to
sometimes preexisting embedded culture in the education setting that seeks compliance
and control, focusing on the individual, behavior, or broken rule and punishment instead
of addressing the harm done and focusing on the relationship (Vaandering, 2014).
Morrison and Vaandering (2012) identified teacher training pedagogy with the potential
capacity to either significantly support or undermine restorative justice implementation in
schools with concepts of conscientization, humanization, and praxis. The role of
pedagogy in implementing restorative processes highlights the roles of parents, teachers,
and school administrators, indicating a systemic approach to ensure successful
implementation (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). This systemic requirement brings
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory model into the framework, because
ecological systems theory helps to explain the roles of each significant player in the
implementation of restorative justice.
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model defines systems that impact the
development of a person (Hong & Eamon, 2012). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
model suggests the importance of the relationships between the components of ecological
systems. Applying Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory to children’s development begins
with a microsystem—with the child at home and the relationship with parents.
Simultaneously, there is a mesosystem, with the connections and activities between at
least two settings of the developing person such as the connections between extended
family, peer groups, and school teachers. Then there is an exosystem, which may include
the connections between school administrators who take responsibility for school
discipline policies, procedures and enforcement as aspects in the development of children
(Bronfenbrenner, 1974). The alignment of systems creates an ecological force that works
together to ensure individual socialization and overall internal community school safety
(Strang & Braithwaite, 2017).
With Bronfenbrenner’s model as a theoretical framework for successful
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice, behavior programs in education
and the relationships between child, parent, teacher, school administration, and school
policies and regulations should be evaluated to measure the consistency among these
groups that support the environment if there is intent on change. The levels are
connected, and each of these levels or groups influences the other through the established
relationships and structures. The administrators are responsible for the development and
implementation of school policies and discipline, placing them as a control mechanism
for the groups of teachers and students. As an example, if the mesosystem of teachers
and parents are promoting restorative approaches and repair of harm, while senior school
administrators in the exosystem require punishment, the system will be in conflict and not
function. The teachers are responsible for the enforcement or support of administrative
policies. For the purposes of this study, the measures of ideological alignment between
the various stakeholders representing the three levels of the restorative justice ecological
system come from the responses of each representative sample of stakeholders in the
school system to the previously validated survey instrument. The goal of the study was to
see how aligned, if at all, are the stakeholders in their ideology toward restorative justice.
More discussion of the instrument used in the study is in Chapter 3.
Each of the incidents a student is involved in may be considered a micro
experience for that student; however, the incident expands to the mesoexperience of the
other students in the class. There is also a connection between the child and parent in
relation to school discipline in the microsystem. The ideology of the parent impacts the
experience of the child, even if that experience occurred in school. A particular discipline
model or approach may be used in school to deal with an experience of a child, but if that
approach conflicts with the ideology of the parent the child may be left confused,
reducing the impact of the approach used at school. In comparison, when a parent
possesses and demonstrates ideologies in-line with an approach used at school to deal
with an experience of a child, that child may experience more clarity in the experience.
Therefore, each of these levels significantly impacts the relationships and experiences in
other levels (Strang & Braithwaite, 2017).
The measures of each of these groups of administrators, teachers, and parents are
grounded in the theory of ecological systems by categorizing each of the groups as
directly related to the microsystem, mesosystem, and exosystem of the developing child.
For the purpose of this study the parents are categorized in the microsystem of the child,
with the child’s immediate environment. The teachers are categorized in the mesosystem
of the developing child with their relationship with the child and their relationship to the
hierarchical structure with the administrators and established policies and procedures for
discipline. The administrators are categorized in the exosystem level due to their indirect
influence on the environment. The policies and procedure of discipline, which are not
evaluated in this study, can be associated with the macrosystem, as they are the structure
for the social and cultural values of the environment. Although there are multiple levels
of systems, each of the systems impacts the other, grounding this study in the ecological
systems theory and confirming the importance of alignment in ideology of the three
groups, administrators, teachers, and parents for a social change from the traditional
punitive approach to a restorative healing approach in the environment to occur.
Nature of the Study
The purpose of this quantitative nonexperimental comparative design was to
examine differences or lack of differences in the overall rating of restorative justice
ideologies of administrators, teachers, and parents. The comparative design employs a
cross-sectional survey for data collection that uses an established measurement
instrument for measuring restorative justice ideology with a Likert scale for response
options ranging from 1 to 5 or from strongly disagree to strongly agree (Roland et al.,
2012). The restorative justice measurement instrument is a 16-item Likert scale survey
that was developed to measure the beliefs of teachers that are consistent with restorative
justice ideology (Roland et al., 2012). The questions within the scale are meant to
measure three main principles of restorative justice ideology including cooperation,
healing, and restoration (Roland et al., 2012).
The instrument has established validity and reliability identified as most valid for
teaching staff (Roland et al., 2012). This study expanded the research to include
administrators, teachers, and parents to identify alignment or lack of alignment in
restorative justice ideology between these groups or levels of systems. The independent
variable included groups of administrators, teachers, and parents. The dependent
variables included a rating score for cooperation, healing, restoration, and an
accumulative score for all three principles together to determine a restorative justice
ideology score.
Data were collected through a Likert scale survey that was sent to potential
participants in electronic email with a SurveyMonkey link. The participants included a
sample of administrators, teachers, and parents in a western region of the United States.
The data were analyzed by importing the results from SurveyMonkey into an Excel file
for calculating, and then to an SPSS file, and using an ANOVA test to identify
differences, followed by a Tukey HSD post-hoc test to identify where the differences are.
Definitions
Definitions for this study include the independent variable, the dependent
variables, restorative justice, and restorative justice ideology. The independent variable
for this study includes categorical groups of administrators, teachers, and parents or
primary caretakers. The dependent variables in the study include a scale rating of
restorative justice principles of cooperation, healing, and restoration, in addition to a total
combined score that rates restorative justice ideology.
Administrators: For the purpose of this study, administrators are defined as
professionals who manage the staff and faculty within the school and who employ and
enforce the rules of the school. School administrators hold the position of principal, vice
principal, or assistant principal (https://www.scoe.org, 2017).
Cooperation: For the purpose of this study, the definition of cooperation was
created with the combination of items directly from the restorative justice ideology
measurement instrument. The combination of five items on the measurement instrument
create the dependent variable of cooperation, including the reverse score of items # 6, 10,
11, 12, 15 (see Appendix A).
Healing: For the purpose of this study, the definition of healing was created with
the combination of items directly from the restorative justice ideology measurement
instrument. The combination of four items on the measurement instrument create the
dependent variable of healing, including items # 9, 13, 14, 16 (see Appendix A).
Parents and primary caretakers: For the purpose of this study, parents and
primary caretakers are identified as the parent who has primary custody of the child, a
legal guardian, or the adult who is primarily responsible for and provides the majority of
the care for the student.
Restoration: For the purpose of this study, the definition of restoration was
created with the combination of items directly from the restorative justice ideology
measurement instrument. The combination of seven items on the measurement
instrument create the dependent variable of restoration, including items # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8
(see Appendix A). The items of the measurement instrument and the variables are
explained further in Chapter 3.
Restorative justice ideology: Created to provide the foundation for the restorative
justice ideology measurement instrument (Roland et al., 2012). The beliefs identified as
restorative justice ideology were developed through a factor analysis, which include
cooperation, restoration, and healing as the three main beliefs (Roland et al., 20012).
Restorative justice ideology as a dependent variable was created with the total score of
the measurement instrument (see Appendix A).
Restorative justice: There were many definitions found for restorative justice,
along with many contexts for which restorative justice could be used. However, for the
purpose of this study restorative justice is defined by Cormier “as an approach that
focused on repairing the harm caused by offending behavior, while holding the offender
accountable for his/her actions” (as cited in Roland et al., 2012, p. 435). The primary
focus in this study addresses restorative justice in the context of schools.
Teachers: For the purpose of this study, teachers are defined as professionals who
lead the classroom and are licensed to teach with an active teaching credential in the state
of California.
Assumptions
It was assumed that participants responded honestly in the self-administered
online survey. Participants were assured confidentiality to encourage true and honest
responses. The assumption of honesty was made for the following reasons: participation
is voluntary; the survey was distributed to the administrators, teachers, and parents with
information showing the survey was from a third party and not through the local region
office of education; confidentiality precautions were communicated; participants were
reminded to answer honestly; and participants were notified they were able to withdraw
at any time throughout the data collection process. Communication and action to support
these precautions is important in the validity of the data collection and research process.
Scope and Delimitations
The scope of this study limited the school staff that participated in the study to
groups of administrators and teachers, although many other staff classifications have
daily contact with students and are considered vital in the implementation and
sustainability of restorative justice processes in schools. Teachers are the primary contact
for students in their daily activities and teachers hold the position that carries the heaviest
responsibility for the implementation of restorative justice. Teachers also can embed
restorative justice in daily learning through pedagogy. Administrators were added to the
study because they hold the power to suspend students and assign detentions, along with
making other administrative decisions on budget, policy, and school values. Parents were
added to the study because the ideologies of parents can contradict or support the
methods used during the school day, which could impact the response of a child while
participating in restorative processes.
In the original study that portrayed the restorative justice ideology measurement
instrument only teachers were used, but this study aimed to establish validity for the
restorative justice ideology measurement instrument for administrators and parents as
well. Multiple studies have been identified that show the connection between school,
home, and the success of the student using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory as
a framework (Hong & Eamon, 2014; Lucero, Barrett, & Jensen, 2015; Mengya, Fosco,
Feinberg, & Xia, 2016). Adding the populations of administrators and parents in addition
to the group of teachers contributes to the overall body of knowledge on restorative
justice in schools.
Another delimitation for this study is a lack of generalizability for a wider range
population. The study focused on one regional area in a western region of the United
States. Although a sample was used that represents the administrators, teachers, and
parents in this region, the sample is not representative of all administrators, teachers, and
parents throughout the United States.
Limitations
There are a few limitations for this study. One limitation is that the data only
provide a snapshot of the ideologies of those in the identified groups in this area, and this
information can be used to understand a starting point for training needed and areas to
address to increase the success and sustainability of restorative justice processes in the
schools in the regional area of the study. There are two schools that were excluded in the
regional area due to personal conflict because my son attended one and is currently
attending the other to avoid any possibility of bias in the responses from participants and
from myself as the researcher in the interpretation of the data.
Some limitations exist that hold relevance to the internal validity related to design
considerations. The chosen design is nonexperimental, which means a narrow view of
the mean score of ideologies between groups is provided. This design does not provide a
history or identification of specific events between a first and second measure, which
could potentially identify factors that relate to a significant change. Even comparing the
original test results to the results of the current test would not be realistic for many
reasons, some of which include that the original test only used a sample of teachers, and
the current test expanded to groups of administrators, teachers, and parents. In addition,
the regional area of the study has been exposed to varying levels of training and policies
around the use of restorative justice. Another limitation is that there may be some level
of self-selecting bias for those participants who chose to complete the survey. Perhaps
those who chose to complete the survey are more educated on restorative justice, but this
element cannot be verified and cannot be considered in the analysis.
Ideally, future studies may include an element of statistical regression to further
examine extreme scores. In addition to statistical regression testing, I suggest adding the
consideration of level of exposure, use, or education regarding restorative justice, and an
evaluation of school policies in relation to the ideologies of each group. The ability to
prove or disprove a statistically significant relationship between the level of training, use,
or exposure of restorative justice and the level of restorative justice ideology could be
valuable information to the professionals in the field.
Significance
Implementation and sustainability of restorative justice processes is successful
when the beliefs and traits of those who are implementing restorative practices are
aligned with restorative justice ideology (Roland et al., 2012). To shift from punitive
discipline, it is suggested that there be a movement adopted by the entire school with a
complete change in culture (Hurley et al., 2015). Consistencies in restorative justice
ideology between all three groups of administrators, teachers, and parents provide a solid
structure for establishing a whole school approach with a movement toward a cultural
shift from punitive based discipline to a restorative environment.
This study is significant because it includes the initial identification of the
restorative justice ideology beliefs and traits of the administrators, teachers, and parents
of schools in a western region of the United States to establish alignment or lack of
alignment between levels of systems, including the level of school administration,
teachers who work daily with the students and parents who influence the students at
home. Identifying alignment or lack of alignment between system levels categorized by
participant groups of administrators, teachers, and parents can provide valuable
information needed to determine which, if any, areas need to be addressed for all levels to
become aligned. Each of these system levels of administrators, teachers, and parents
impact the implementation and sustainability of restorative justice processes in schools.
Understanding the current ideologies and cultural challenges from a systems level
approach in this regional area helps in determining what challenges need to be addressed
before implementation of a restorative justice practice can be sustainable (Hurley et al.,
2015). The theory of ecological systems is not being challenged in this approach, which
is being used as a theoretical framework to justify the importance of alignment between
the systems. This study aims to simply show alignment or lack of alignment between the
levels or groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Summary
Restorative justice has been used in indigenous cultures with forms of healing
circles to repair harm (Roland et al., 2012, Hand et al., 2012). Chapter 1 introduced the
study by providing the background and identifying the problem, research questions, and
limitations. Using the theoretical framework of restorative justice, pedagogy, and
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, I aimed to compare the restorative justice
ideology between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Chapter 2 will review current literature in regard to restorative justice, focusing on
restorative justice in schools. The history of restorative justice is discussed, identifying
the origin of restorative justice in the indigenous cultures (Roland et al.,
2012), the introduction of restorative justice in the criminal justice system (Vaandering,
2013), and the use of restorative justice in schools (Vaandering, 2013). In addition to
restorative justice, the history of school discipline is also discussed with the use of
punitive methods, zero-tolerance policies, and the shift from punitive methods in schools
to restorative methods in schools.
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Introduction
In recent years restorative justice processes have been implemented in schools in
forms that include both alternative methods to suspension and detention and as an entire
cultural shift from a punitive structure to a restorative environment (Hurley et al., 2015).
Restorative processes are a positive way to hold students accountable for their actions,
encourage healing, and build and maintain relationships (Ashmed & Braithwaite, 2012).
Restorative processes can also lead to outcomes such as reductions in office visits and
improved grades when restorative justice is implemented in schools (Roland et al., 2012).
However, in addition to positive outcomes, there are also many factors that may inhibit
the implementation and sustainability of restorative processes. School policies may either
support or conflict with restorative processes (Knight & Wadhawa, 2014). Additionally,
it is difficult to implement and sustain restorative processes in schools when teachers who
implement the processes do not possess and demonstrate restorative justice ideologies
(Roland et al., 2012).
This chapter includes an explanation of the strategies used for researching
literature related to restorative justice. From findings in the literature the theoretical
foundation was developed for the study, additional concepts related to restorative justice
in schools were identified, and the methodology and variables for the study were chosen.
Concepts discussed in the chapter include the historical perspective of restorative justice,
values and ideologies of restorative justice, a history of discipline in schools, restorative
justice in schools, training for restorative justice processes in schools, challenges, and
theoretical support for change with the theories of restorative justice, pedagogy, and
ecological systems.
Literature Search Strategies
The literature used for this literature review was found through multiple databases
and sources. EBSCO was used to access peer reviewed articles through Education
Source, ERIC, SocINDEX, and PsycINFO. ProQuest was used to review dissertations.
A variety of key words were used throughout the research process in combination with
others, and individually, which include administrators, challenges, culture change,
discipline, education, elementary, history, ideologies, interventions, origin, paddling,
pedagogy, policies, principles, punishment, punitive, restorative justice, schools, school
policy, shame, system, teacher, training, values, and zero tolerance. In addition to the
databases, some information was found on the International Institution for Restorative
Practices website, the Department of Justice website, and the California Department of
Education website.
Historical Perspective of Restorative Justice
Restorative justice beliefs and practices originated from indigenous populations
around the world (Roland et al., 2012). Some of the identified indigenous populations
known to use forms of restorative justice include native cultures of Japan, Australia, and
Africa, the Maori of New Zealand, aboriginal peoples of North America (Roland et al.,
2012), and Native American cultures of Northern America (Hand et al., 2012). The
populations with cultures that employ restorative justice practices traditionally use
healing circles (Hand et al., 2012), or peacemaking circles, as a way of healing after
damaging behaviors of community members (Morrison & Vaandering, 2012). The
practices of restorative justice are not focused on the events of the damaging behaviors
but instead on the disruption and restoration of harmony in the group or community
(Hand et al., 2012). Elders in the community serve as peacemakers who facilitate the
communication in the circles between the various parties involved in the events (Hand et
al., 2012). The harm done is viewed as a violation of the relationships and humans’
rights, and therefore all those impacted by the harm are invited and expected to
participate in the processes intended for healing (Roland et al., 2012). The expected
participants include the offender or wrongdoer, the victim(s), and community members
impacted by the harm (Roland et al., 2012).
In Western democracies restorative justice emerged as a movement in the 1960s
and early 1970s right after the counter-hegemonic or counter-cultural developments,
though at that time restorative justice was seen as only an idea (Lippens, 2015). The
practice or idea was first identified in the counter-hegemonic and counter-cultural
literature by Thomas Mathiesen in The Politics of Abolition, published in 1974,
communicating the need for unwavering justice as a continual goal of the community
(Lippens, 2015). Following Mathiesen’s pragmatism, the restorative justice movement
continued to expand in the criminal justice field (Lippens, 2015). Mark Yantzi, a
probation officer, reintroduced restorative justice into contemporary Western society in
the criminal justice system by suggesting that two adolescents who were accused of
vandalism meet the property owners who were the victims (Vaandering, 2013). Similar
situations that followed began the shift away from rules or laws broken and toward a
focus on repairing the hurt that had been caused and the needs of the victim (Vaandering,
2013). In later years restorative justice moved to a hybrid of methodological, theoretical,
and practical forms with an aspiration for a just and pure form of criminal justice
(Lippens, 2015). The responsive nature and diverse structure of restorative justice has led
the movement into becoming one of the dominant practices in the criminal justice field
(Lippens, 2015).
In more recent years, restorative justice has become a worldwide movement
(Garbett, 2015). Forms of restorative justice practices are currently used in the field of
criminal justice, schools, in some places of employment, and in other settings with forms
of healing circles (Garbett, 2015; Hand et al., 2012; Lippens, 2015; Morrison and
Vaandering, 2012, & Roland et al., 2012). Restorative justice is also offered in academic
disciplines such as social work, sociology, theology, criminal justice, law schools,
education, and interdisciplinary studies (Armour, 2013). However, though there are
numerous processes after an act of injury or harm that are claimed to function as
restorative practices, Garbett (2015) found no consistent idea is used. In addition to the
term restorative justice, multiple other terms have emerged such as restorative
approaches and restorative practice, signifying a new phase that embraces the repair of
harm through restoration in other settings such as schools, places of employment,
neighborhoods, and social services in addition to the criminal justice system (Green,
Johnstone, & Lambert, 2013).
Restorative Justice Values and Ideologies Values
There were many values associated with restorative justice found in the literature,
which included empathy, harmony, dignity, openness, inclusion, self-determination,
human interconnectedness, collaboration, accountability, repair, making amends,
equality, victim centered, honesty, restoration, cooperation, trust, healing, and respect
(Armour, 2013; Hopkins, 2015; Gilbert, Schiff, & Cunliffe, 2013; Hand et al., 2012;
Roland et al., 2012). Respect has also been acknowledged as one of the common values
of process for restorative justice (Armour, 2013). All these values were found to be
common across in literature on the restorative process, regardless of the setting.
There are various dimensions of restorative justice that contextualize the values
and principles (Armour, 2013). The dimensions of restorative justice include
fundamental principles, various restorative dialogue elements, the core practices of
restorative dialogue, and the differentiation of roles in the process based on identification
of who has been harmed, the needs of this person or group, who is obligated to address
these needs, the appropriate person(s) to be included in the response, and the process
most appropriate for the entire situation (Amrour, 2013). Furthermore, according to Zehr
(as cited in Armour, 2013), the fundamental principles are comprised of ensuring the
victim is at the center of the process, healing after harm has been endured, fulfilling
obligations and accepting responsibility for accountability, making amends and repairing
relationships, and transforming the situation from wrong to right. Umbriet and Armour
(as cited in Armour, 2013) also stated that listening without bias or opinion, sharing
authentic dialogue, and speaking to and viewing the whole person are elements of a
restorative dialogue.
The way in which these values are used is just as important as the value itself,
such as repairing harm without instilling guilt into the wrongdoer or focusing on the
action instead of the person who carried out the action (Amour, 2013). For example,
according to Mirsky (as cited in Hand et al., 2012), contemporary practices employed by
the Navajo Nation communicate the importance of reintegration of the wrongdoer into the
community as more important than imposing a punishment. The action is separated from
the person, and the action should not be respected, but the person should (Mirsky, as cited
in Hand et al., 2012). Additionally, humans can recognize right from wrong and desire
harmony; therefore, the restorative practice can restore harmony for the victim and
community as well as the offender (Hand et al., 2012).
Ideologies
Along with values, specific ideologies have been identified as well. After an
extensive literature review, ideology can be defined by Roland et al. (2012) through the
definition of restorative justice ideology: “a deep structure personal beliefs orientation
that is consistent with the principles of healing, cooperation, and restoration” (p. 438).
This definition emphasizes on relationships and reinforces the belief that restorative
justice is both a reactive and preventative approach.
Ensuring the identified values and ideologies are embedded in the restorative
justice process creates the space for empathy and dialogue with a center as opposed to
dialogue with sides as described by Armour (2013). With the resistance of taking sides to
shift toward the center, participants must suspend their personal opinions and make
efforts to see things from another angle (Armour, 2013). According to Gilbert et al.
(2013), the participants must place the importance on human relationships, personal
worth, and integrity.
Discipline in Schools
Discipline and correction of undesirable behaviors in schools have varied over the
history of the education system in the United States. Corporal punishment has been used
as a method of correcting undesirable behaviors in school since the 1800s, and in more
recent years alternative methods have been introduced and implemented (Mallett, 2016).
School policies around discipline and the stated values and vision of individual schools
and school districts change with new trends in the education system.
Law Enforcement Officers
The presence of law enforcement officers in schools began in the 1950s
(McKenna & Pollock, 2014). The officer presence initially started with their primary role
of enforcement and protection, and the use of officers increased in the 1990s with the
Safe Schools Act of 1994 and the launch of the Community Oriented Policing Services
Office (McKenna & Pollock, 2014). According to McKenna and Pollock (2014), the
increase of citations and arrests for minor offenses of students in schools directly reflects
the increase of officers in schools.
Corporal Punishment
There has been a significant decline in corporal punishment in recent years;
however, the method continues to remain legal and applied in multiple states across the
United States (Sparks & Harwin, 2016). In 2008 the United States Department of
Education’s office for civil rights shared that 223,190 students attending schools in the
United States in 2006 received physical punished in some form (as cited in Morones,
2013). The number decreased to 109,000 students in the 2013-14 school year in
classrooms across the United States (Sparks & Harwin, 2016). In 2013, corporal
punishment including paddling was still legal in 19 states, which was a decrease from the
22 states in 2004 that allowed the method (Sparks, & Harwin, 2016). Although the use of
corporal punishment is on the decline, there are still states that continue to use the method
legally.
Policies
Discipline in schools in the United States has also been impacted by the
continuous change in policies. Along with the War on Drugs in the Reagan
administration era emerged zero-tolerance policies in schools (Schept et al., 2015).
According to Triplett et al. (2014) federal criminal justice policies for weapons and drugs
in the 1980s influenced policymakers in education, leading to a range of zero-tolerance
policies in the 1980s. With these policies several states employed expulsion mandates for
fighting, gang-related activity, and drugs (Triplett et al., 2014). However, zero-tolerance
policies were not restricted to only high school or middle school students, and even
students as young as kindergarteners were suspended for bringing items to schools such
as toy guns, paper clips, and even cough drops (Summer, Silverman, & Frampton, as
cited in Teasley, 2014). Prior to the zero-tolerance policies these issues would be
categorized as minor offenses, but with the “get tough” policies in place administrators
had no choice other than the required suspension or expulsion (Schept et al., 2015). The
criminal justice-based policies turned typical developmental behaviors of adolescents and
children into criminal behaviors, establishing the school-to-prison pipeline, according to
Mallett (2016). The shift not only increased suspensions and expulsions but also
increased the likelihood of the adolescents experiencing punitive outcomes for these
minor offenses (Mallett, 2016).
The zero-tolerance policies experienced a significant increase in 1994 with the
federal Gun-Free School Act, which mandated schools who receive federal funding to
expel students for at least 1 year and make a court referral for any firearm incident (Bell,
2015; Mallett, 2016; Schept et al., 2015; Skiba, 2014; Triplett et al., 2014; H. H. Wilson,
2014; M. G. Wilson, 2013). Under this act any student caught bringing any weapons,
firearms, explosives, or committing arson would receive a court referral and be expelled,
and failure for the school to comply with this mandate could result in the loss of federal
funding (H. H. Wilson, 2014). Multiple researchers agreed these mandates removed the
freedom of using any form of discretion by the administration and increased the
criminalization of students (Bell, 2015; Mallett, 2016; Schept et al., 2015; Triplett et al.,
2014; H. H. Wilson, 2014; M. G. Wilson, 2013). Stemming from the federal Gun-Free
School Act of 1994, many other minor acts were added to the list for mandatory
expulsion, increasing the exclusion of students in the education system (Bell, 2015).
Initially, the zero-tolerance policies were thought to be an effective deterrent for
school gun possession and violence, along with the idea that the policy was keeping the
nonoffending students safe (Bell, 2015). But Bell (2015) found no studies that
determined school expulsion or suspension as an effective way to keep schools safe or
even reduce disruption. In addition, Skiba (2014) proposed that out-of-school
suspensions and expulsions resulting from zero-tolerance policies increased juvenile
justice system contact, increased rates of dropouts, and decreased graduation rates are all
moderately associated with out-of-school suspension rates. Monahan, VanDerhei,
Bechtold, and Cauffman (2014) also found out of school suspension and expulsion also
increase the risk of contact with the juvenile justice system.
In the aftermath of failing zero-tolerance policies there has been a shift in federal
and state polices around discipline in schools. In 2014 the United States Department of
Justice and the United States Department of Education published a letter that
acknowledged the problem of racial discrimination in processes of school discipline and
aimed to provide guidance in delivering equal opportunities of education to all students
through alternative programs that are evidence-based with demonstrated outcomes of
reducing misconduct and disruption, an emphasis on character development and positive
behavior, and support to help students reach achievements (United States Department of
Justice and Education, 2014). Some of the identified successful strategies in the letter
included counseling, positive intervention systems, conflict resolutions, and restorative
practices (United States Department of Justice and Education, 2014).
The California Department of Education implemented Assembly Bill 420 in 2015,
which eliminates the use of in and out-of-school suspensions for students in kindergarten
through third grade for willful defiance and disruption as identified in the California
Education Code Section 48900(k) (Torlakson, 2016). The California Department of
Education published a letter February 2, 2015, signed by Tom Torlakson, the State
Superintendent of Public Instruction about the assembly bill becoming law, and
discussing the implementation (Torlakson, 2016). Torlakson (2016) stated the change
would show a significant impact on suspensions, considering of the approximate 600,000
students who were suspended each year that forty-three percent were for this single
category of discipline. AB 420 also excludes the offense of willful defiance and
disruption as recommendation for expulsion for any grades kindergarten through 12, and
offers resources through the California Department of Education Behavior Intervention
Strategies and Supports Web page (Torlakson, 2016). Both the federal and state changes
in educational codes and policies recognize the zero-tolerance policies as ineffective and
support restorative processes.
Alternative Methods
According to Skiba (2014) after extensive research and documentation have
appeared showing the lack of desired outcomes and harm caused by the zero-tolerance
policies, alternative methods to school discipline and dealing with undesirable behaviors
have developed. Preventative discipline was the recommendation of Skiba (2014). The
preventative discipline approach simultaneously targets three levels of intervention,
including school-wide prevention, assessment of serious threats, and established plans
and procedures that effectively respond to the identified threats (Skiba, 2014).
Some positive behavior interventions have been implemented with the intention of
addressing undesirable behaviors and positively reinforcing desirable behaviors with an
approach viewed as less punitive than zero-tolerance policies and anti-bullying policies
(Vaandering, 2013). School-wide positive behavior interventions support directs a focus
on teacher-centered interventions to address inappropriate or recurring problems of
undesirable behaviors (Vaandering, 2013). Similarly, Triplett et al. (2014) identified
positive behavior interventions support, as the alternative most researched, and stated
studies of positive behavior interventions support showed increases in scores for
standardized reading and math, and significant suspension and referral reductions.
Social emotional learning is student-centered and focuses on self-management,
relationships, social awareness, self-awareness, and responsible decision-making
(Vaandering, 2013). According to Vaandering (2013) both social emotional learning and
school-wide positive behavior interventions support are beneficial in self-regulation and
personal development and are major methods in the area of school discipline
interventions, however, each of these interventions continues the focus on individual
behaviors. By continuing the focus on individual behaviors there is still a minimization
of culture that supports relationships, continuing the dynamics of inequality of power, and
supporting control instead of engagement (Vaandering, 2013). Buckmaster (2016)
identified a restorative justice approach as an ethically superior and viable replacement to
make school environments more stable and safe.
Restorative Justice in Schools
Restorative justice has been used in communities of indigenous people, in the
criminal justice system, in the workplace, and in the education setting according to
Roland et al., (2012). Davis (2014) identified the use of restorative justice in schools as a
practice and others may offer restorative justice as an alternative program. Lawrence and
Hinds (2016) identified restorative justice as a culture, stating restorative justice is more
sophisticated than just another program.
According to Vaandering (2014) restorative justice in schools follows a few key
principles that are common among literature that address restorative justice in schools.
Vaandering (2014) continued to describe the key principles as follows: the focus not on
the broken rule, but the harm caused; nurturing relationships are fostered, and the process
promotes caring and thoughtful communication and health; dialog is facilitated for all
those who were impacted by the harm, including the person who caused the harm and that
person’s community members in an effort to identify and then deal with the needs of all
those affected by the act that caused harm. Even though the core principles may be
similar, variation is found in the implementation and the identification of the methods
throughout the literature.
Knight and Wadhwa (2014) identified restorative justice as a way to create
opportunity for youth and as an alternative to the previously mentioned zero-tolerance
policies in schools. Knight and Wadhwa (2014) also identified this method in schools as
restorative discipline. Calhoun (2013) identified restorative justice in schools as
restorative practice, and places the focus on identifying whose needs in the aftermath of
an event or issue as paramount, along with distinguishing who should be identified as the
responsible person in the event. Pavelka (2013) identified restorative justice in schools as
a transformational approach with the core principles of repairing harm, reducing risk, and
empowering community. According to Pavelka (2013) the collaborative approach
provides solutions to violations of discipline with four common practices of restorative
justice that include peer mediation, peer accountability boards, conferencing, and circles.
Hantzopoulos (2013) also recommended restorative justice as a response to the
harmful impact of over-policing and zero-tolerance policies. A school in New York
implemented the Fairness Committee that includes all school members, such as teachers,
students, and staff from the office (Hantzopoulos, 2013). The committee is part of the
discipline policy that intends to be more inclusive, and consists of committee hearings to
address issues that arise (Hantzopoulos, 2013). Each committee is developed depending
on that particular issue, rotating in students from throughout the school and then the
committee discovers the consequence most appropriate for that situation (Hantzopoulos,
2013). According to Lawrence and Hinds (2016), the sophistication of restorative justice
requires that the cultural norm must be explicitly engrained in the classroom experience,
embedded in the activities for professional development of all staff, and well established
in the events and communication with the parents and families of students.
Just as zero-tolerance policies applied to all levels of students, kindergarten
through 12th grade, restorative justice can also be found in all grades, including
preschools according to Lawrence and Hinds (2016), and colleges according to Rinker
and Jonason (2014). Lawrence and Hinds (2016) found restorative justice in preschools
difficult to implement due to language development restrictions from the young children
who may be developmentally unable to accurately articulate through verbal language at
that stage. In preschools, objects and images can be used to help the children
communicate (Lawrence & Hinds, 2016).
Kindergarten through 12th grade may take a variety of approaches as mentioned
above. Some schools may implement a program that is an entire cultural shift, rich with
supportive inclusive values, and as a whole school approach according to Vaandering
(2014). Roland et al., (2012) and Skiba (2014) found some schools implement as a
preventative method, while others implement as a secondary option to a traditional
disciplinary system, resulting in a reactive response to a behavior issue (Roland et al.,
2012). Even though there is a wide range of varied implementation approaches, the
majority of the literature found included examples of some form of circle conferencing
(Lawrence & Hinds, 2016; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012; Roland et al., 2012; Skiba,
2014; Vaandering, 2013, 2014).
Restorative Justice Training and Implementation
Seeing that restorative justice is found in multiple settings, including the justice
system, grade schools, the workplace, community settings, and colleges in both the
coursework and in the student experience (Armour, 2013; Garbett, 2015; Hand et al.,
2012; Lippens, 2015; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012, & Roland et al., 2012), there are
also multiple forms of training and implementation. For the purpose of this study the
following research will focus primarily on forms of restorative justice training in the
educational setting. The literature related to training that was included in this literature
review highlights training in early education, grade schools, and in colleges.
Early Education
In the early childhood education setting Lawrence and Hinds (2016) suggested a
requirement for all staff members to exhibit competencies in positive communication and
de-escalation if he or she works with students or the families of students for
implementation of restorative processes. With the intention of identifying the natural
leaders for staff development Lawrence and Hinds (2016) also suggested the natural
choices of school social worker, school counselor, or assistant principal for developing
restorative justice training curriculum and materials for professional learning in the area
of restorative justice. Lawrence and Hinds (2016) continued by suggesting looking to the
less apparent choices of school nutritionists, health services, teaching staff, and clerical
staff who demonstrate outstanding relationship skills for facilitation and modeling
opportunities for relationship learning, consistent with restorative justice.
Another preferred support includes training for instructional assistants and
teachers in focused areas ranging from classroom procedure development, management
of the classroom, student behavior implementation plans, and the execution of behavior
curriculum with ongoing coaching in these areas as well (Lawrence, & Hinds, 2016). In
addition to the training and ongoing coaching for instructional assistants and teachers,
both should also be required to facilitate a variety of strategies for behavior instruction
with students, such as book studies with emotional and behavioral themes, the
development of oral fluency, and restorative/community circles (Lawrence, & Hinds,
2016).
Elementary and Secondary Schools
Effective restorative justice training was demonstrated with a framework of
productive pedagogies, emphasizing four main elements: connectedness, working with
and appreciating differences, intellectual quality, and an environment in the classroom
that is supportive (Vaandering, 2014). Because restorative justice aims to create a school
culture that is relational, the pedagogies framework is an impactful approach according to
Lingard, Hayes, and Mills (as cited in Vaandering, 2014), as the four elements of
pedagogies are essential in efforts to impact all students’ social and academic outcomes,
regardless of the student’s background. The practice connects social outcomes with the
practice of teaching, which is vital for the relationship focus of restorative justice
(Vaandering, 2014).
Restorative justice as a philosophy by Zehr (as cited in Mullet, 2014), while
Mullet (2014) then suggested the importance of educators to focus on principles and
values to lead their efforts in the implementation of the philosophy. Mullet (2014)
described the possibility of creating more harm than good when a discipline method is
used without the deliberate examination of the values behind the approach. Also
according to Mullet (2014) a statewide Chicago network, the Illinois Balanced
Restorative Justice (IBRJ) initiative offers consultation, technical support, and training
based on the individual needs and questions of schools. Because restorative discipline
varies, and is not applied the same across different groups the training and
implementation may be situational according to Mullet (2014). Mullet (2014) suggested
the majority of established school programs encourage a whole-school approach,
however, the center of restorative practice is cautious notice of the questions asked and
attention to the harm caused, and can be situational.
Unwind, Windup, and Rewind mini-chats are examples offered by Mullet (2014)
that can be incorporated into the daily issues that arise when harm occurs in schools.
Each of the three mini-chat strategies include sets of common adaptable question choices
that are reconciliation focused and may be used in the moment the harm was identified, or
postponed for an intentional alternative time (Mullet, 2014). According to Mullet (2014)
the educator holds considerable responsibility and must be versed in hearing all sides, and
heed vocabulary that suggests ownership and growth because it is not sufficient to simply
ask the questions.
Unwind, the first of the three strategies described by Mullett (2014) focuses on the
person who endured the harm, as the wounded person will need the opportunity to gain
self-control and unwind. The unwind strategy provides a safe space for the harmed child
to express their feelings, allowing the child to unwind from the harm with supportive
questions asked by the educator about the situation and the needs of the child (Mullet,
2014). Mullet (2014) suggested the questions are directly followed by positive
acknowledgement of courage and affirmation of the child’s personal strengths in an effort
to rebuild the personal identity that is lost in harm.
Rewind involves the child who inflicted the harm, reflecting on the situation with
the intention of that child gaining an understanding of how the harm inflicted may have
felt, and how to make things right again (Mullet, 2014). In this second strategy the
educator encourages reflection by asking the child who committed the harm what
happened in a safe place, inviting the student to empathize, identify how his or her own
actions in the situation were piloted, and acknowledge responsibility for changing his or
her outlook (Mullet, 2014). The child then participates in creating a plan for apology, or
making things right (Mullet, 2014). The educator may participate in the preparation with
role-play or a continuation of the conversation (Mullet, 2014).
The third and final strategy, windup, is compared to the wind up of a pitcher in
baseball according to Mullet (2014). The windup strategy is intended to support the
observers of the harm in the process of mending the harm and rebuilding the relationships
either in a circle environment or in private (Mullet, 2014). The educator can prompt the
observers with empowering questions about how the incident of harm made the observers
feel, with the educator also following-up with acknowledgement of courage for their
participation and pledge by each student to prevent acts of harm in the future (Mullet,
2014).
An online resource for anyone interested in learning about how to abolish severe
punitive exclusion discipline approaches, and employ solutions that allow all students to
succeed is provided at Fix School Discipline (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). The
resource offers an electronic file identified as a toolkit for educators that provided
justification for no longer using suspensions, and three alternative approaches, which
include School-Wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Support, restorative justice and
restorative practices, and social emotional learning (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017).
With the explanation of alternative approaches, examples of restorative practice
implementation were provided with sections about the Oakland Unified School District,
Los Angeles Unified School District, and the Loyola Marymount University Center for
Urban Resilience restorative justice project (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017).
The online resource suggested restorative circles with the facilitator, as either a
trained student or teacher, a talking stick for one person to speak at a time, and discussion
that includes positive agreements and values for the circle experience
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). In the beginning of the circle time each participant
can check-in by sharing how he or she is emotionally, mentally, or physically feeling and
each student can also check-out at the end of the discussion
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). These circles help build relationships and
community, prevent conflict, and establish a sense of belonging for students
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). The circles can also be used for establishing core
values for the classroom environment, establishing academic goals, and exploring
curriculum with students (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). The circles can also be
used to repair harm after it has occurred, with other participants who may include other
students, community members, parents or families, and a neutral and trained facilitator
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). The online resource suggested about 80% of the
restorative practices in schools should be focused on building relationships and
establishing a shared culture, while 20% may be responding to harm or conflict
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017).
The specific example of implementation in the Oakland Unified School District
suggested a shift in school-wide culture with the understanding that restorative justice is
for the entire community and school, meant to include all those who contribute to the
behavior of the student, which may include administrators, teachers, other staff members,
school security or officers, students, families of students and other community members
or organizations (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). This particular school district
utilizes a multi-tier approach that begins with a restorative justice facilitator creating a
work plan and scope of work with the restorative justice program coordinator and
principal of each school (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). Priorities are identified in
the plan and a timeline is established to achieve the priorities
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). The restorative justice facilitator establishes
intentional relationships with as many people possible at the school, facilitates proactive
circles to build community, and may establish a leadership team that can be trained for
when the facilitator transitions out of the school (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017).
The Fix School Discipline online resource recommended approximately 80% of
the entire school receives at least eight to 24 hours of training, with the first tier of
training to include everyone at the school (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). In this
first tier the school staff learn to use restorative strategies, such as talking circles in class,
and the development of shared guidelines and values between students and teachers in the
classroom (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). Tier two there is training provided for
the use of circles for conflict resolution, and as an alternative to suspension
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). Throughout the year, the circles facilitator
transitions from the restorative justice facilitator to the assistant principal, school
counselors, or peer restorative justice leaders as they receive training and participate in
circles (www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017). In the third tier the training curriculum is
focused on circles for reentry of students who have been incarcerated, suspended, or who
are not feeling welcome in the school, and these circles can include administrators,
probation officers, case managers, teachers, students, and families
(www.fixschooldiscipline.org, 2017).
Higher Education
An ethnographic exploration study of restorative justice conferencing in a college
setting with undergraduate students in a Conflict Studies Program (CSP), with the
students as facilitators for restorative justice conferencing was identified (Rinker &
Jonason, 2014). The study evaluated the experience as reflective practice with
appreciative inquiry, rather than distinguishing challenges (Rinker & Jonason, 2014).
Rinker and Jonason (2014) recognized the importance of closing the gap between theory
and practice and argued the need for conflict intervention pedagogy, restorative justice as
applied pedagogy, and reflective practice to influence campus change.
The deep and complex learning that was essential in the training, preparation, and
planning for the pre-conferencing of restorative justice conference facilitation involved
empathy, practice, creativity, and deep listening in addition to learning and following a
script developed as a safety net with controlled communication in an effort for validity in
the evaluation (Rinker & Jonason, 2014). Rinker and Jonason (2014) acknowledged the
controlled communication method was not consistent with traditional reflective practice,
but was necessary for the evaluation. Although the restorative justice conferencing was
beneficial for the participants in the process of repairing harm and creating social change,
the study found the benefits of the student facilitators and observers by far outweighed
the benefits of the participants, with significant outcomes in the learning process, the
facilitator’s role in conflict transformation, and in the challenges of applying theory in
practice (Rinker & Jonason, 2014).
Restorative justice training was also discussed in the setting of higher education
with a discussion of higher education professionals and resident advisors of college with
considerations for access for people of color and communities of color (Blas Pedral,
2014). Sin regards to student affairs professionals and higher education professionals
there should be mindfulness when taking a colorblind approach in the application of
restorative justice, as whiteness may be perpetuated (Blas Pedal, 2014). It is suggested to
recognize people of Color when the setting is in a place where White is the privileged
identity according to Blas Pedreal (2014). Patton, McEwen, Rendón, and
HowardHamilton (as cited in Blas Pedreal, 2014) recommend a means of disruption to
the dominance of racism and White privilege embedded in the approach of being
colorblind by paying attention closely to color.
The International Institute for Restorative Practices provides education programs
that include a variety of courses that may qualify for continued education units for some
degrees, conferences and symposiums, graduate certificate, and a master of science in
restorative practices (International Institute for Restorative Practice, 2017). As part of the
continued education courses there are opportunities for professional development, with
one option being the SaferSanerSchools™ Whole-School Change (WSC) Program, which
is a model for implementing restorative practices in schools (International Institute for
Restorative Practice, 2017). IIRP (2017) has licensed trainers and trains more than
10,000 people each year in restorative practices.
In early childhood education Lawrence, and Hinds, (2016) provided examples of
identifying natural leaders and embedding restorative customs within the learning
material for the children to be exposed to in their daily educational experience.
Elementary and secondary school training literature portrayed a few different approaches
to training, but there was an emphasis placed on using pedagogy to make restorative
processes intentionally a part of the every day learning experience (Vaandering, 2014),
along with placing significant importance on values and principles of the educators who
are implementing the process (Mullet, 2014). Again in the discussion of restorative
justice in higher education the importance of pedagogy is emphasized, concluding
pedagogy as a primary means of training and implementation for restorative processes in
schools, no matter the age of the students (Lawrence & Hinds, 2016; Rinker & Jonason,
2014; Vaandering, 2014).
Restorative Justice Challenges
With the variety of settings and forms of implementation for restorative justice
there are many challenges faced with the training, implementation, and sustainability of
restorative justice as well. In the educational setting there is a tradition of control,
obedience, compliance, and conformity with the intentional hierarchical structures of the
system that are extremely resistant to change, as education with the intent for obedience
profoundly implanted in the educational system structure (Vaandering, 2014). With a
culture dating back to the inception of schools in the United States among other countries,
changing the deeply engrained culture can prove extremely difficult on many levels.
Institutional Policies
The implementation of restorative justice in schools through the lens of practices
and policies was discussed, and Paveka (2013) identified two major challenges that
include institutional policies such as zero-tolerance policies that are constructed with
punitive sanctions, and the degree of restorativeness in the implemented program. The
punitive sanction of zero-tolerance polices and those similar are in direct conflict with the
values and principles of restorative justice, causing conflict in the implementation and
sustainability (Pavelka, 2013). The degree of restorativeness is described by Pavelka
(2013) with an explanation that many self-identifying restorative justice programs lack
the result of true restorativeness, possibly through an absence of inclusion of the victim or
stakeholder, failing to justly hold the wrongdoer responsible for his or her actions, or
failing to award the level of respect necessary to the victim in the situation. Morris and
Maxwell (as cited in Pavelka, 2013) suggested consistency, and the installation of a set of
established principles, rather than taking on one specific practice.
Lack of Resources
Minimal challenges were identified with ideologies of school staff not matching
restorative justice ideologies, but a strong significance was placed on lack of school
resources (Gardner, 2014). Sending a student home on a five-day suspension is easier to
deal with and requires less resources than providing the support that is needed to make a
transformation in the actions of the student that caused harm, and ultimately in his or her
thinking according to Gardner (2014). Evans and Lester (2013) agreed that resources and
the time required to implement sufficiently as challenges, with a suggestion of three to
five years as a possible requirement for systematic change significant enough to show
results. Additionally, Fields and Suvall (as cited in Evans & Lester, 2013) found that in
addition to the program development time requirement, and energy from staff in the
initial stages of implementation the programs also require funding for restorative justice
facilitators and for training staff. Consistent with Gardner (2014), and Evans and Lester
(2013), Eyler (2014) also identified patients as a major challenge, in addition to the need
for districts and individual schools to transform the structures of the schools into an
environment that is devoted to implementing restorative strategies.
Theory into Practice
A challenge in the facilitation process was identified, as the student facilitator may
experience difficulty in extracting the information during the actual conference that was
shared during pre-conferencing (Rinker & Jonason, 2014). The challenge is expressed
with difficulty in extracting the information previously shared without prompting the
participant with guiding questions, while maintaining equal support for the needs of all
parties (Rinker & Jonason, 2014). Practice and extensive experience were seen to help
with this challenge, showing real situation experience as an essential component in the
process of becoming proficient in facilitation (Rinker & Jonason, 2014).
Another difficulty identified includes the transformation of theory into practice
(Rinker & Jonason, 2014). Although the theory of restorative justice may show as ideal
for repairing harm and implementing inclusion, Rinker and Jonason (2014) brought light
to the difficulties in transforming theory into practical application with college students
attempting to do so with coursework, training, and then facilitating restorative circles
with other students. In a college setting with graduate student facilitators, developing a
structure based on theory showed difficult in the area of deciding to use a referral process
for student participants (Rinker & Jonason, 2014). In theory, the participation should be
voluntary if holding true to restorative process philosophy, consequently creating a
referral process that allowed potential participants the choice to participate, rather than
mandating participation created a challenge in the momentum for both systems and
interpersonal change (Rinker & Jonason, 2014).
Clashing Philosophies
Although there is significant research on restorative justice and outcomes in the
field of criminal justice Morrison and Vaandering (as cited in Evans & Lester, 2013)
found that there continues to be a lack of clarity for what restorative justice should look
like in schools. According to Evans and Lester (2013), clashing philosophies pose as a
challenge when implementing in schools due to the traditions of schools being engrained
with policies that support values aimed to control the student population in an effort to
maintain compliance, which is in contradiction to the statement of Gardner (2014), who
found minimal challenges related to ideologies. With the conflicting philosophies there is
a higher probability of resistance, and when implemented often the punitive methods
supersede the restorative approach. The contradictions can show in many ways, such as
the use of circle conferencing that is not led by peers, but led by teachers who hold power
over the students, conflicting with the true restorative justice principles (Evans & Lester,
2013). According to Evans and Lester (2013), a change of the control and punishment
paradigm is necessary to shift the philosophy from control to a focus on relationships that
nurture well-being and growth.
Restorative Justice Ideologies
A multiple stage study was completed, beginning with a literature review to define
ideology, and restorative justice ideology, an exploratory factor analysis, focus group
interviews, comparative components, and multiple regression analysis (Roland et al.,
2012). The exploratory factor analysis was completed with a sample of teacher
candidates in an effort to assess the measurements of the restorative justice ideology
instrument, the development of sub-factors, and to establish the foundation for measuring
construct validity (Roland et al., 2012). Focus group interviews were conducted with
administrators, teachers, and child and youth workers with the intention of gaining the
perceptions of the beliefs and understanding of restorative justice in schools from
restorative justice practitioners (Roland et al., 2012).
Through an analysis and discussion of the findings from the exploratory factor
analysis and focus group interviews a few trends were identified, which included a
difference between the secondary division and the elementary responses, and a difference
in some of the interpretations of instrument items between the administrators, teachers,
and child and youth workers due to their professional roles (Roland et at., 2012). The
restorative justice ideology instrument was then used to measure restorative justice
ideologies of teachers and comparative components assisted in the determination of the
three main ideologies of restorative justice, restoration, healing, and cooperation (Roland
et al., 2012). Measures of the restorative justice ideologies were compared to findings
from additional validated instruments that were administered to secondary and
elementary school staff including perspective taking (PT), which determines the three
dimensions of empathy, the Interpersonal Reactive Index, which measures empathic
concern (EC), personal distress (PD), pupil control ideology (PCI), and self-efficacy for
teachers (Roland et al., 2012).
Through a bivariate correlation computation, findings showed the restorative
justice ideology of restoration was positively related to EC, and PT, while the other two
restorative justice ideology of cooperation and healing were not positively related to EC,
and PT (Roland et al., 2012). However, all three restorative justice ideology of
restoration, healing, and cooperation were negatively related to PD, showing higher levels
of restoration, cooperation, and healing are associated with lower levels of PD (Roland et
al., 2012). Restoration, cooperation, and healing were also positively related to PCI
scores (Roland et al., 2012). Multiple regression analysis was also conducted with the
restorative justice ideology and teacher self-efficacy aspects, showing a positive
relationship between the restorative justice ideology and teacher self-efficacy (Roland et
al., 2012). These findings show the factors of the restorative justice ideology instrument
are measuring similar constructs as the measures of the PCI, and that higher levels of
teacher self-efficacy are needed to sufficiently and sustainably implement restorative
justice ideology beliefs in schools (Roland et al., 2012).
Challenges were summarized that included the implementation when teachers
demonstrate lower levels of restorative justice ideology, which is also related to teacher
self-efficacy (Roland et al., 2012). Within the study there are suggestions that future
training integrate aspects of empathy and self-efficacy, and that the measurement
instrument may be used in a baseline assessment to develop training, and in the
evaluation process (Roland et al., 2012). Roland et al., (2012) also suggested that the
measurement instrument be used in the prediction of classroom behaviors of teachers
with the implementation of restorative justice strategies, and to show the importance of
first focusing on the beliefs of the staff, before implementing restorative justice classroom
training for better outcomes.
Parent and Family Involvement
Numerous educators fail to inform and involve parents and families in
introductory phases of restorative justice implementation (IIRP staff, 2017). The
importance was recognized with the involvement of stakeholders at all levels of the
school community, and those stakeholders may include administrators at the school site
and the district level, school staff who are non-classified and classified, students, families
of the students, and organizations in the community that serve the students in some way
(IIRP staff, 2017). Failure to acknowledge the importance of family involvement early in
the process of planning and implementation poses the risk of families feeling defensive,
confused, uninformed, along with undesirable consequences to the implementation of the
process (IIRP staff, 2017).
Humans are more likely to change behaviors, and are healthiest and happiest when
authority figures involve them, and things are done with them, rather than to them
according to Ted Wachtel of IIRP (IIRP staff, 2017). Along with identifying the
challenge, the IIRP staff (2017) also identified five ways to inform and involve parents
and families with the intention of gaining support for implementing restorative processes,
which include written material proving information that the students can take home,
involve some families in the planning and implementation process, provide informational
meetings with varying times for working parents to attend, provide social media and
webinars for continuous learning and feedback, and utilize a consultant for technical
support and implementation of best practices. According to IIRP staff (2017), involving
the families early increases buy-in, and ultimately contributes to the success and
sustainability of implementing restorative practices in schools.
The challenges identified may give the perception that punitive models are more
efficient or more effective for immediate results, however, when compared to long-term
costs in the form of increased dropout rates, lack of academic success, additional prison
space needed, and the loss in social principal resources, the choice of restorative justice
outweighs the punitive attempts according to Fields and Suvall (as cited in Evans &
Lester, 2013). With consideration of the identified challenges of institutional policies
(Pavelka, 2013), lack of resources (Evans & Lester, 2013; Eyler, 2014; Gardner, 2014),
transitioning from theory into practice (Rinker & Jonason, 2014), clashing philosophies
(Evans & Lester, 2013; Gardner, 2014), and ideologies (Roland et al., 2012), the
literature shows consistency in a lack of alignment between systems that impact the
students who are meant to benefit from the restorative justice processes. Roland et al.,
(2012) discussed findings from significant research that those who are responsible for
implementing restorative justice practices should first have a level of restorative justice
ideologies for successful implementation. If this element is missing at any level,
administrators, teachers, or parents, the process or practice would not have the support
needed for successful implementation.
Theoretical Support for Change
There are three theories used as a framework for this study, which include
restorative justice, pedagogy, and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Hong &
Eamon, 2012; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012; Restorative Justice, 2017). Restorative
justice is known in many ways, including a method, practice, process, theory, philosophy,
and more, however, the philosophy of restorative justice is one of the main elements of
this study. Restorative Justice website (2017) identifies restorative justice as a
philosophy or practice that is used in a variety of settings, including but not limited to the
criminal justice system, communities, workplaces, schools, faith communities, and in
families (Restorative Justice, 2017).
Restorative Justice
Restorative justice aims to repair harm, and repair damaged relationships,
focusing on the needs of the victim and establishing accountability for the person who
created the harm, and including all stakeholders in the process (Restorative Justice,
2015). The focus is the relationship, not the broken rule or law, and the process aims for
inclusion, instead of exclusion as in the punitive tradition (Vaandering, 2014). Although
restorative justice is sometimes used as a behavior intervention, Roland et al., (2012), and
Vaandering (2014) suggested restorative justice is best implemented as a culture or a
whole school approach. For an entire cultural shift within schools, many elements must
be aligned, including policies and legislation, administrative support, teacher
participation, and parent and family understanding and buy-in (Roland et al., 2012;
Vaandering, 2014).
The pubic school system is impacted by legislation for government interventions,
such as the zero-tolerance policies to address drugs and weapons in schools (Bell, 2015;
Mallett, 2016; Schept et al., 2015; Skiba, 2014; Triplett et al., 2014; Wilson, 2014;
Wilson, 2013), and anti-bullying legislation with the intention of keeping students safe
(Vaandering, 2013). Even anti-bullying legislation is grounded in positional power,
compliance, and the discovery of who is right and who is wrong, which continues to
encourage youth to adhere to the agenda of adults and support the hierarchical structure
(Vaandering, 2013). Newer legislation and policies are in place that are now in support
of restorative justice practices in schools, yet the implementation and sustainability of the
practice within the schools are still inhibited with challenges. Two major theories address
and explain these challenges, including a systems approach that looks at multiple levels
of systems that impact the students, and pedagogy approach to achieve sustainability for
the implementation of restorative justice in schools.
Pedagogy
Pedagogy may be dinfined in the simplest form as “any conscious activity by one
person designed to enhance the learning of another” (Watkins and Moretimore as cited in
Vaandering, 2014, p. 65). A consistent theme throughout the literature was forms of
pedagogy in the training, implementation, and elements that make restorative justice
sustainable in schools (Lawrence & Hinds, 2016; Rinker & Jonason, 2014; Vaandering,
2014). Although multiple forms of pedagogy were discussed, the belief that restorative
justice should be embedded in the entire learning experience with intention was
consistent, showing the appropriateness for pedagogy to be an instrumental part of the
framework for this study.
A qualitative study was conducted with the intention of gaining a perspective of
the experiences of educators who are implementing and committed to restorative justice
in some form in schools by examining restorative justice in the context of productive and
engaged pedagogies (Vaandering, 2014). On one end of the spectrum restorative justice
is placed in the context of behavior and classroom management, and on the other end of
the spectrum restorative justice is placed in the context of engaged, and productive
pedagogy (Vaandering, 2014). The majority of the teachers, administrators, and school
board members who were part of the study fell closer to the behavior and classroom
management side of the spectrum, and very few participants in the study fell closer to the
engaged, and productive pedagogy side of the spectrum (Vaandering, 2014).
After the initial part of the study further research was completed, interviewing
administrators, and observing and interviewing teachers from both sides of the spectrum
over a six-week period of time (Vaandering, 2014). According to Vaandering (2014)
although the administrator who was portrayed in the study explained that her and other
school members are committed to restorative justice within the school for all grade levels,
an additional comment of “as long as they comply” (p. 69) followed that was
contradicting to restorative justice values and practices. The administrator expressed that
she was committed to “working with students,” (Vaandering, 2014, p. 69), however, she
also expressed that if the restorative processes did not work, and the student had to be
talked to additional times that she would move into the TO, which would turn to punitive
measures to address whatever problem was at hand (Vaandering, 2014). These comments
show the continued intention of rules, not a focus on relationships even though the
statement indicated commitment for restorative justice practices (Vaandering, 2014).
Interviews and observations of two teachers from the same school portrayed
different spectrums of restorative justice implementation (Vaandering, 2014). Both
teachers received just one training, consistent with all of the other teachers at the school,
and one teacher (teacher A) had been at the school and teaching only two years, while the
other teacher (teacher B), had been at the school and teacher for around 10 years
(Vaandering, 2014). Both teachers expressed they were committed to and excited about
restorative justice implementation in the school they are teaching at, but their experiences
were very different from one another (Vaandering, 2014).
Examples were used to demonstrate the perspective of teachers’ understanding of
restorative justice in multiple areas to demonstrate the discourse from either the behavior
and classroom management aspect or the engaged, productive pedagogy aspect
(Vaandering, 2014). One example includes the teacher understanding of restorative
justice, under the discourse of behavior and classroom management the perspective
included “confronting what was done wrong and fixing it” and under the discourse of
engaged, productive pedagogy the perspective included “RJ is ‘who I am”, ‘part of
teaching the whole child’” (Vaandering, 2014, p. 70). Even though each of the teachers
who provided the responses expressed their commitment to restorative justice, each
perspective is very different.
Other than the comments provided by each teacher, they were also both observed
for six weeks and the findings from the observations provided significant insights to the
importance of pedagogy and the implementation of restorative justice practices
(Vaandering, 2014). Teacher A was excited after receiving the restorative justice training
and looked at the process as a way to deal with larger behavioral issues but she did not
get the connection to curriculum or the overall classroom community experience
(Vaandering, 2014). Teacher A created an exercise for her class for a social studies
activity by diving the students in the class into groups to associated with particular
political parties for a few weeks, with particular students acting as the politician and
running political campaigns (Vaandering, 2014). When it came time for voting for the
election the researcher observed the students and participated in a brief conversation with
each of the students who were running as electoral candidates and reported that one felt
sick to his stomach, one felt as though he would wet his pants, and the other was
emotional and did not believe he would get any votes (Vaandering, 2014). Some of the
students who were assigned one political party actually threw their support to another
candidate and one of the running candidates only received one vote (Vaandering, 2014).
The students who were running were deeply affected by the social process, and the
teacher had no awareness of the damage caused by her exercise, stating she believed the
class participated with maturity and teamwork (Vaandering, 2014). In an interview,
teacher A stated she did not believe restorative justice did not impact or change her
teacher, that is was merely a way to deal with conflict (Vaandering, 2014).
Teacher B believes her role as a teacher is to listen to and support the students,
and she identifies with the lower socio-economic students who may struggle with the
academic aspect of school because she can see herself in them (Vaadering, 2014).
Teacher B also made the comment that she is restorative justice and reported a feeling of
belonging in this particular schools (Vaandering, 2014). Teacher A also values each and
every student just the way they are, in or out of her classroom, whereas teacher A sees the
potential in students and believes they need the right guidance and training to reach their
potential in life (Vaandering, 2014). In the classroom of teacher B each student is greeted
with a warm welcome of respect and dignity no matter what time he or she arrives,
confirming their value and not focusing on tardiness (Vaandering, 2014). In the
classroom there is a consistent and intentional focus on community and giving each
student a voice with meaning (Vaandering, 2014).
In many ways, teacher B ran her classroom in very similar ways before the
restorative justices training, so many aspects have not changed and have continued to be
inclusive and relationship based, but one example provided would not have been possible
before her restorative justice training (Vaandering, 2014). One of the students in the
classroom of teacher B physically harmed another student, and was receiving complaints
of sexual harassment from many of the students, and teacher B immediately facilitated
circle conferencing where the teacher invited each of the students to share any of their
feelings or concerns (Vaandering, 2014). The student had to spend some time away from
the classroom and elements of the issues were considered, but when the student returned
to the classroom, with the support from administration teacher B held a reentry circle
where the student was given the opportunity to apologize, and where another student
voiced the feeling that this student should be given another chance and that he is a
valuable part of the classroom community (Vaandering, 2014).
The examples of teacher A and teacher B show the difference of restorative justice
implementation in the same school, under the same administration, and with the same
training experience, however, the difference is found in the deeply embedded ideologies
of each teacher, and in the use of pedagogy to focus on the learning experience, not the
chosen intervention. By teaching from an aspect of engaged, and productive pedagogy
one classroom experience was inclusive and relationship based, with restoration and
healing intentionally embedded into the curriculum and the entire classroom experience
(Vaandering, 2014). Simultaneously at the same school the other classroom used
restorative justice only as a means to gaining compliance and control of student behaviors
and classroom management (Vaandering, 2014).
Although it was not clearly stated as the use of pedagogy, Lawrence and Hinds,
(2016) suggested the intentional use of learning materials such as books and activities
that teach restorative values and lessons to the preschool students. Pedagogy was also the
common theme in training and implementation for elementary, secondary, and higher
education settings (Rinker & Jonason, 2014; Vaandering, 2014). The example used in
Vaandering (2014) demonstrates an example of an educator who uses restorative justice
as an alternative form of discipline, and an educator who uses restorative justice as
integrated values in all lessons throughout the day, showing two completely different
experiences.
Ecological Systems and Restorative Justice
The general ecological model shows human development occurs through a
process of reciprocal complex interactions that occur regularly and are progressive over a
lengthy time period (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). These interactions are experienced in
childchild and parent-child activities, education activities, physical activities, reading,
participating in difficult tasks, or playing independently, and are known to
Bronfenbrenner (1994) as proximal processes in proposition one of the general ecological
model. Bronfenbrenner (1994) continued to describe the second property of the human
development, which included the proximal processes within the environment, both
immediate and distant as a joint systematic function in the development of personal
characteristics. Stated in simpler terms, the interactions of the child within the
environment are what contribute to the child’s development.
The ecological systems model consists of those interactions and relationships
within and between a set of structures that are nested within one another, beginning with
the structure closest to the child as an inner level and then moving outward to larger
overarching systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). According to Bronfenbrenner (1994) there
are five types of systems including microsystems, mesosystems, exosystems,
macrosystems, and chronosystems. Bronfenbrenner (1977) provided descriptions of the
first four systems, and did not yet mention the chronosystems. For the purpose of this
study the first four systems are used to for an explanation of how each system impacts the
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice processes in schools.
The microsystem is the system closest to the developing person, which involves
the face-to-face situation and instances with complex interactions of the immediate
environment with the developing person in a particular role, such as child, parent,
student, teacher, friend, etc. (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner, 1994). In this study
the microsystem includes the child at home as a child, the relationship with parents or
primary caretakers, the child as a student in the school, the teachers and relationships
between the students and teachers, and the student in relationships with other students as
peers. The immediate environments, both at home and in schools, and the relationships
with the primary care provider, teachers, and peers are the closest system to the
development of the child.
The mesosystems was described as the connections and activities that occur
between at least two of the settings of the developing person (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). As
an example related to this study, the mesosytems includes the relationship between school
and home. Bronfenbrenner (1994) also described this system as “a system of
microsystems” (p. 40). Bronfenbrenner (1994) described the exosystems as the
connections and activities that occur between at least two settings, where at least one of
the settings does not include the developing person, or student in this case. For this study
the exosystems include the connections between school administration and teachers.
Macrosystems consist of the all-encompassing configuration of the three lower
systems, micro-, meso-, and exosystems with features of a particular culture or
subculture, also including life-styles, material resources, hazards, belief systems,
customs, knowledge base, and the options of life course that are intertwined in each of
these systems (Bronfenbrenner, 1977; Bronfenbrenner, 1994). Bronfenbrenner (1977,
1994) described this system as the “blueprint” of a culture or subculture (1977, p. 515;
1994, p. 40). This may include a work environment, which is appropriate for the teachers
and administrators in the study, the school environment for the student, and the state and
local culture of the educational setting (Bronfenbrenner, 1977). Looking at these systems
at the macrosystems level shows how the developing person is impacted by the particular
psychological and social characteristics of the larger cultural norms and expectations
within the smaller microsystems level (Bronfenbrenner, 1994).
Multiple studies were found that employed Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems
model within research pertaining to students (Hong & Eamon, 2014; Lucero, Barnett, &
Jensen, 2015; Mengya Xia, Fosco, & Feinberg, 2016). Hong and Eamon (2014) used
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model as the framework for a study that examined
the students’ perceptions of school environments that are not safe. The perceptions were
examined with factors or the micro-, meso-, and exosystems and found that male youth in
the category of older teen showed a higher level of perceived risk (Hong & Eamon,
2014). Additionally, the study showed factors at each level that contributed to higher
levels of perceived risk and unsafe school environments for the students (Hong & Eamon,
2014). As an example, poverty was one of the factors that was found in relation to higher
levels of perceptions of unsafe school environments, however, after additional variables
of parenting and school were added, the variable of poverty was no longer significant
(Hong & Eamon, 2014). In the study, Hong and Eamon (2014) concluded that the
relationship and interactions of the parent and child or student and teacher may be more
important than the child living in poverty.
The ecological theory and family systems theory was used in a study that
examined the school success of adolescents and implications of domains of the
individual, family, and school (Mengya, Xia, Fosco, and Feinberg, 2016). Findings of the
study showed a more positive family climate as supportive influence for academic self-
regulation, and showed a school attachment increase over time (Mengya et al., 2016).
Additionally, the findings of the study also showed that a more positive school
attachment contributed to a more positive family climate, highlighting the point that
school and family factors impact the other, and both impact success in school (Mengya et
al., 2016).
A different study was based in the context of the school and family of the
individual child, and used the ecological framework to examine individual factors that
include ethnicity, race, and gender in the setting of the microsystem for identification of a
relationship between the factors and early delinquency (Lucero, Barnett, and Jensen,
2015). Lucero et al., (2015) confirmed that risk of early delinquency fluctuates by
ethnicity, nativity status, race, and gender, with findings consistent with pervious studies
from Aud, Fox, and KewalRamani; the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
Goodkind Shook, Kim, Pohlig, and Herring; Greenman and Xie; Hernandez; the National
Center for Educational Statistics; Walters (as cited in Lucero et al., 2015). The study also
showed findings that identified a positive relationship between early delinquency and
parental stress, and a negative relationship between early delinquency and school
belonging (Lucero et al., 2015), again demonstrating the link between family and school
experiences and environments and the impacts on children.
All of the school related studies mentioned above that use Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory as a framework show the connection between school, and
home on the development and effects of the student (Hong & Eamon, 2014; Lucero et al.,
2015; Mengya et al., 2016). The restorative justice theory is used for the framework of
this study because the process studied is restorative justice. The pedagogy theory is used
due to the substantial research that showed how changes in school programs, and even
more specifically, changes toward restorative processes are more successful when fully
embedded into the intentional teaching and curriculum for the student (Lawrence &
Hinds, 2016; Rinker & Jonason, 2014; Vaandering, 2014). Finally, Bronfenbrenner’s
ecological systems theory (Bronfenbrenner, 1994) supports the connection of all systems
impacting the child, both directly and indirectly for alignment of ideologies and better
success in the implementation and sustainability of restorative processes in schools.
Selected Variables
The selected independent variable for this study includes categorical groups of
administrators, teachers, and parents or primary caretakers. This study groups each of
these populations for a comparison of restorative justice ideologies between each group.
Each of the groups is described below.
Administrators
School administrators typically experience less direct contact with students than
teachers, however, administrators are responsible for school policies, and decisions on
disciplinary actions. The Association for California School Administrators (2017)
identifies school administration as the formal leadership of the school. According to
Bell, (2015); Mallett, (2016); Schept et al., (2015); Triplett et al., (2014); Wilson, (2014);
Wilson, (2013), some policies have previously been implemented on a federal, state, or
district level that require particular disciplinary mandates, and the policies did not allow
school administration to deviate from these disciplinary standards. Vaandering, (2014)
demonstrated the importance of support from administration in the implementation of
restorative processes, and also demonstrated how restorative processes were implemented
completed different between two teachers with the same training under the same
administration.
Teachers
Teachers are the adults who have the most daily contact with students during
school hours and in many cases are directly responsible for implementing restorative
practices, or are at least responsible for circle conferencing on some level (Hantzopoulos,
2013). As Vaandering (2014) demonstrated, the values, ideologies, and pedagogy theory
of the teacher have a direct impact on the implementation of restorative processes in
schools. The teacher also has to carry out the policies and rules developed by
administration or higher-level authorities.
Parents and Primary Caretakers
Parents and primary caretakers for the purpose of this study are defined as any
primary caretaker in the home of the student. Lawrence and Hinds (2016) claimed
communication and events with parents and the families of students should be embedded
with cultural norms that support restorative processes. Additionally, restorative processes
involve all of those who may have been impacted by the harm caused and should
participate in restorative circle conferences when their child is either the victim or
offender in a situation (Fix School Discipline, 2017). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological
systems theory also showed the connection between family and school in the
microsystems level of development, with the importance of relationship between home
and school (Bronfenbrenner, 1994).
Summary of Literature Review
Beginning in the cultures of indigenous populations restorative processes have
been used in communities for many years (Roland et al., 2012), but the processes are just
showing up in schools in more recent years (Garbett, 2016; Hand et al., 2012; Lippens,
2015; Morrison and Vaandering, 2012, & Roland et al., 2012). Although there is a
lengthy list of values and ideologies associated with restorative processes, the main
ideologies that are measured in this study include cooperation, healing, and restoration
based on a previous study that developed a measurement instrument for these restorative
justice ideologies (Roland et al, 2012). Discipline in schools has evolved from corporal
punishment with a punitive culture (Sparks and Harwin, 2016), to alternative methods
leaning toward preventative models that include restorative processes (Skiba, 2014).
With any major change in school practices or culture there are challenges, and
some of the identified challenges of the implementation and sustainability of restorative
justice processes include the application of theory into practice (Rinker & Jonason,
2014), the deeply embedded hierarchy of punitive structure in the education system
(Vaandering, 2013), policies that are in direct conflict with restorative processes
(Pavelka, 2013), and conflicting ideologies of those who are implementing restorative
processes or who have direct influence over the student (Rolend et al., 2012). The
theoretical framework for this study includes restorative justice (Restorative Justice,
2017), pedagogy (Vaandering, 2014), and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory
(Bronfenbrenner, 1994). School administrators, teachers, and parents or the primary
caretaker were identified as the most meaningful groups to be evaluated, as their direct or
indirect influence may effect the implementation and sustainability of restorative
processes in schools. In this study the restorative justice ideologies of cooperation,
healing, and restoration are compared between groups of administrators, teachers, and
parents or primary caretakers of students.
Chapter 3: Research Method
Introduction
Considering the theories of Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems showing the
connection between family and school (Bronfenbrenner, 1994), and the theory of
pedagogy with engraining restorative justice ideology into every aspect of the teaching
for social change (Lawrence & Hinds, 2016; Rinker & Jonason, 2014; Vaandering, 2014),
this study was aimed to identify differences or alignment in restorative justice ideology
between administrators, teachers, and parents. The following chapter includes the
research design, variables, research questions, hypotheses, population, setting and
sample, data collection method, the research instrument, data analysis, validity, and
ethical considerations. The chapter concludes with the summary of methodology.
Research Design
The purpose of this quantitative nonexperimental comparative design study was to
examine statistical differences in the overall rating and subscale ratings of restorative
justice ideology between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents. The
comparative design employs a cross-sectional survey for data collection that uses an
established measurement instrument for measuring restorative justice ideology with a
Likert scale that has response options ranging from 1 to 5 with strongly disagree to
strongly agree (Roland et al., 2012). The 16-item scale ratings provided a total
accumulative score for overall restorative justice ideology, and three subscales for
individual scores in cooperation, healing, and restoration (see Appendix A).
Rationalization of Quantitative Approach
The quantitative approach was chosen because I identified a measurement
instrument that measures restorative justice ideology with scores from responses in a
Likert scale. The questionnaire was administered to a large sample of the population in
electronic form for a sufficient response rate at a low cost. The measurement instrument
is validated with teachers and because the questionnaire allows responses on a Likert
scale the scores from the responses are easily analyzed by importing from SurveyMonkey
to SPSS.
Variables
The independent variable included three categorical groups of administrators,
teachers, and parents. The dependent variables include scores for predetermined factors
of restorative justice ideologies of cooperation, healing, and restoration. In addition, the
responses were calculated to determine an accumulative score for the entire instrument to
account for the dependent variable of restorative justice ideology. As previously defined
the independent variable for this study is in three categorical groups: administrators, who
who manage the staff and faculty within the school, and who employ and enforce the
rules of the school such as principals, vice principals, or assistant principals; teachers,
who lead the classroom and are licensed to teach with an active teaching credential in the
state of California; and parents and primary caretakers, who have primary custody of the
child or are a legal guardian or the adult who is primarily responsible for and provides the
majority of the care for the student.
Additionally, the dependent variables, as defined earlier, included cooperation,
healing, restoration, and restorative justice ideology. The definition of cooperation was
created with the combination of the reverse score for five items on the restorative justice
ideology measurement instrument, including items # 6, 10, 11, 12, 15 (see Appendix A).
The definition of healing was created with the combination of four items on the
measurement instrument, including items # 9, 13, 14, 16 (see Appendix A). The
definition of restoration was created with the combination of seven items on the
measurement instrument, including items # 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 (see Appendix A). The
context and operational definition for restorative justice ideology as a dependent variable
for this study includes the combination of beliefs identified as restorative justice ideology
restorative justice ideology as a dependent variable was created with the total score of the
measurement instrument (see Appendix A).
Research Questions
Research Question 1: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States?
H01: There are no statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H11: There are statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Research Question 2: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States?
H02: There are no statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H12: There are statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Research Question 3: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States?
H03: There are no statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H13: There are statistically significant differences in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Research Question 4: What are the differences, if any, in the overall level of
restorative justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and
parents of schools in the western region of the United States?
H04: There are no statistically significant differences in the overall level of restorative
justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, or parents.
H14: There are statistically significant differences in the overall level of restorative
justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents.
Populations
There are 177 schools located within 40 school districts in the participating county
of the western region of the United States, which was the area chosen for the study
(https://www.scoe.org, 2017). The public school staffing records for 2015-2016 school
year show approximately 401 administrators and 3,733 teachers according to the regional
office of education. In addition to the administrators and teachers, there are
approximately 3,283 other staff members that include counselors, nurses, teaching
assistants, and all other staff members in the public schools for the 2015-2016 school year
(https://www.scoe.org, 2017). Although the other staff positions have exposure to the
children, for the purpose of this study only the administrators and teachers were included.
According to the United States Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American Community
Survey Five-Year Estimates (2017), for the participating county there are approximately
78,007 school age students from kindergarten through 12th grade. The regional office of
education described school districts in both rural and urban areas, with enrollment for
each district varying from approximately 11 students in the smallest district to over 11,00
students in the largest district. Adding the published enrolment numbers in each district
shows there are a total of approximately 70,393 students enrolled for the 2016-2017
school year (https://www.scoe.org, 2017). One parent or primary caretaker for each
student is counted for the population of this study, with the understanding that some
households may have more than one school-age child. The population for the survey
included administrators, teachers, and parents or primary caretakers of students attending
the schools in the participating regional area.
Setting and Sample
With access to all the names of potential participants in the groups of
administrators and teachers available in the school directories, the sampling included a
single-stage sampling procedure. The sample is identified as a purposeful convenient
sample, as the participants had to meet the criteria of being an administrator, teacher, or
parent of a student attending one of the schools in the participating county.
The survey was sent to the administrators and teachers through e-mail, and parents
accessed the survey electronically as well. However, the group of parents did not receive
an e-mail due to limited access to parent e-mail addresses. The sample size was
calculated with G*Power 3.1 sample calculator, using the F test, ANOVA fixed effects,
omnibus one-way test, between groups with a priori type of power analysis, effect size .5,
error probability of .05, 80% power, and an alpha of .05, with three groups, which are the
administrators, teachers, and parents who rated the measure of restorative justice
ideologies of cooperation, healing, restoration, and then combine for an overall score.
With the use of G*Power 3.1 and the above-mentioned guidelines, the recommended
sample size was 42 participants for this study. The sample number from each group
totals 14 so that the responses from each group are even.
The survey was originally intended be open for a total of 2 weeks, unless there
were not enough responses in that time, in which case the survey was to remain open for
1 additional week. If a sufficient number of responses were received in the 2-week
period, a sample of 14 responses was to be taken from each group by entering the
responses into excel and using the random sample calculation. Previous researchers
presented a cross-sectional survey study that used a sample of 119 parents and 142
teachers from primary schools with a random sample strategy that requested the
participation of 200 teachers from a public list in Ireland to represent the 21,000 primary
school teachers of the area (Mcgovern & Barry, 2000).
The surveys were sent to at least 100 potential participants in the groups of
administrators and teachers, and at least 100 paper invitations were handed to parents
with the goal of receiving a 20% response rate from each group. The administrators
make up the smallest population in the study with a total of approximately 401 in the
regional area. Because sending 100 surveys to administrators was the goal for a
sufficient sample, and that is approximately one fourth of the total population, the study
obtained the sample participants from approximately one fourth of the schools in the
regional area.
There are a total of 177 public schools, and the school names were entered into
Excel and a random sample of school names was generated, identifying 45 schools to
participate in the study. Once those 45 schools were identified all the administrators from
each school and all the teachers from each school were entered into Excel to generate a
random sample of potential participants to send the survey to their school electronic mail
address. The survey was sent to a random selection of three teachers from each of the 45
schools. The potential participants from the groups of teachers were selected through a
random sample by retrieving e-mail addresses from the regional office of education
webpage.
Parent e-mail addresses are not public information. Therefore, the invitation to
complete the parent survey was issued through a paper invitation that includes a typed
web address for the survey on SurveyMonkey. The paper invitations were distributed in
person at the Parent Teacher Association meetings of each of the 45 schools that were
randomly selected for the sample of administrators and teachers. I distributed
approximately 20 paper flyers at each of the Parent Teacher Association meetings I was
able to attend out of the 45 schools.
The original plan was to review the response rates of the administrators and
teachers after 1 week, and if a sufficient sample was not received yet, an additional email
was to be sent weekly until a sufficient sample was received. If enough participants from
the group of parents did not complete the survey within a 2-week period after the flyers
with the web address were handed out to at least 100 parents, I planned on attending three
additional Parent Teacher Association meetings to hand out at least 20 more flyers at each
location in an attempt to obtain a sufficient sample from the group of parents. Locations
of three follow-up schools were determined by the schedule for the first three that were
holding the soonest meetings.
Data Collection Method
Data were collected by means of a self-administered questionnaire, known as the
restorative justice ideology measurement instrument. The questionnaire was
administered in electronic form through SurveyMonkey to the participants in each of the
groups. The online survey was accessible from a computer or any smart phone through
an electronic link that was included in an electronic mail message sent to the potential
participants, or the web address listed on the paper invitation for the parents. Considering
some of the parents or primary caretakers may not have a smart phone or access to
Internet, this is identified as a limitation within the study.
The questionnaire was available in English for all groups, and English and
Spanish for the group of parents. Other languages were considered, however, the
population in the regional area where the survey was administered consists of primarily
English and Spanish speaking adults according to the United States Census Bureau,
2011-2015 American Community Survey five-year estimates (American Fact Finder,
2017). The percentage of the adult population age 18 and over in the regional area
identified as a county in California who speak a language other than English or Spanish is
approximately 1.6% according to the United States Census Bureau, 2011-2015 American
Community Survey five-year estimates (American Fact Finder, 2017).
The electronic form of the survey for the administrators and teachers was issued
through an electronic mail message providing a brief description of the study, a simple
explanation of how the information will be used, and a hyperlink in the message
automatically directing the reader to the survey through SurveyMonkey. The email
address for each of the groups of administrator and teacher participants was sent to the
school issued email addresses. Many of the schools compile a school directory that
contains contact information with electronic mail addresses of parents and primary
caretakers of students. However, directories were very limited and all parent and primary
caretaker survey responses were solicited through a handout in person only.
A notice of informed consent and confidentiality was included at the beginning of
the survey accessed through SurveyMonkey as the first page preceding the actual 16-item
survey. Participants must check continue after reading the informed consent and
confidentiality before continuing to the survey. All items on the survey are required
fields to complete before submitting the survey. If a completed response was not
received within one week after the initial email by enough participants to fulfill the
needed sample size a follow-up email was sent exactly one week after the first email. If
enough participants did not provide a completed response within one week after the
second email, the plan was to send a third and final email as a reminder to complete the
survey. Survey responses were monitored for completion rates to ensure a sufficient
number of survey responses were received from participants in each of the groups. Once
a sufficient amount of responses was received from each group according to the
appropriate sample size for each population the results in SurveyMonkey were exported
to Excel for calculation, and then to an SPSS file for analysis.
Research Instrument
The restorative justice measurement instrument is a 16-item Likert scale survey
that was developed by four researchers and published in a study in 2012 to measure the
beliefs of teachers that are consistent with restorative justice ideology (Roland et al.,
2012). Karen Roland, one of the original researchers authorized the use of the research
instrument in the current study through electronic mail (See Appendix C). The questions
within the scale were created to measure three main components of restorative justice
ideology including cooperation, healing, and restoration (Roland et al., 2012). These
three dimensions of restorative justice ideology were identified through a factor analysis
that narrowed down the factors to three restorative justice principles of cooperation,
healing, and restoration.
Factors
After the factors were established the validity and reliability of the instrument
were tested (Roland et al., 2012). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was used to test reliability
and bivariate correlations were used with each of the factors (Roland et al., 2012).
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients assessment showed a = .87 for restoration, a = .85 for
cooperation, and a = .70 for healing, with a combined measurement of a = .81 (Roland et
al., 2012). According to Kaplan and Succuzzo (2005) the overall reliability with this
measure was very good (as cited in Roland et al., 2012).
Reliability and Validity
In the original study scores from each of the factors were cross-analyzed with
other validated measurement instruments in an effort to validate the factors, and the
restorative justice measurement instrument as a whole (Roland et al., 2012). The other
instruments used to cross-analyze each of the factors of restoration, cooperation, and
healing with bivariate correlations included three empathy dimensions by using the
Interpersonal Reactive Index to measure PD, PT, and EC (Roland et al., 2012). The
results from the bivariate correlations conclude higher levels of restoration are connected
to higher levels of EC and PT, with scores from Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showing as
significant for restoration and PT with a score of .414, and not significant for cooperation
and healing and PT with scores of .207 for cooperation and .202 for healing (Roland et
al., 2012). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient showed positive significant results for
restoration and EC as well, with a significant score of .226, and not significant scores for
cooperation and EC with a score of .210, and not significant scores for healing and EC
with a score of -.026 (Roland et al., 2012). The study also showed that higher levels of
restoration, cooperation, and healing are connected to lower levels of PD, with significant
scores of -.332 for restoration, -.298 for cooperation, and -.335 for healing, ultimately
associating restorative justice ideology with empathy (Roland et al., 2012). PCI was also
positively related to all restorative justice ideology factors of restoration, cooperation, and
healing by computing bivariate correlations, concluding participants with higher levels of
restorative justice ideology are associated with PCI scores that are more humanistic
(Roland et al., 2012).
With the consideration that the original measurement was only tested on a group
of teachers and this study aimed to test on groups of administrators and parents
Cronbach’s alpha was re-administered to test the reliability of the measurements for the
groups of administrators and parents. Each of the measures; restoration, cooperation, and
healing were individually analyzed as a measure, just as the original study did with the
group of teachers (Roland, et al., 2012). This additional step tests and ensures
identification of reliability of the measurement instrument with the slight changes that
were needed in an effort to make appropriate to take the test from the administrator or
parental view.
External threats to validity are minimal. However, the study is limited in the
population it was administered to. The results are not generalizable to each of these
groups throughout the United States, and only valid for the groups in the regional are that
the measurement instrument was administered in.
Minor Changes
The restorative justice ideology measurement instrument was originally developed
and validated with a group of teachers (Roland et al., 2012). This study added a group of
administrators, and a group of parents or primary caretakers for students. Minimal words
have been changed in the measurement instrument to make the instrument questions
appropriate for each of the groups, as the instrument used is being expanded from the
original use with teachers to include administrators and parents. The two questions that
were changed for the surveys sent to administrators and parents include items four and
five. Item four originally states, “I have a moral duty to help students get back on track”
and the words in this item have been changed to “Teachers have a moral duty to help
students get back on track” for the survey that was distributed to the administrators and
parents. Item five originally states, “It is my responsibility to develop empathy in
students” and has been changed to “It is a teacher’s responsibility to develop empathy in
students” for the survey that was distributed to administrators and parents (Please see
Appendix B). The instrument distributed to teachers was administered unchanged from
the original measurement instrument. Given that the measurement instrument was
originally developed and validated for teachers, additional measures were taken to
validate the instrument with administrators and parents, such as applying Cronbach’s
alpha to test for reliability of the measures of restoration, cooperation, and healing within
the groups of administrators and parents.
The original instrument includes instructions at the top of the page that were not
appropriate for the participation in the current study, considering the questionnaire was
sent out through electronic mail links instead of administered in a group, face-to-face
setting. Roland, Rideout, Salinitri, and Frey (see Appendix A) include a statement at the
top of the original questionnaire as follows:
For the purpose of this workshop this questionnaire will be self-scored and
confidential. In the following section please respond to each of the items as an
educator by checking the box that best reflects your degree of agreement or
disagreement (para 1).
The statement that instructs the participants to self-score the instrument has been
removed completely, as the scores were compiled and analyzed by the researcher, not the
participants. The next statement has been altered for the instrument that was sent to the
administrators and parents in a way that is appropriate for each of the groups of
participants. The statement at the top of the instrument sent to the administrators states,
“In the following section please respond to each of the items as an administrator by
checking the box that best reflects your degree of agreement or disagreement,” and the
instrument available to the parents states, “In the following section please respond to each
of the items as a parent considering your child’s or children’s school experience”.
Scoring
There is a total of 16 items on the measurement instrument. The original survey
shows responses labeled with numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, with the words strongly disagree
above the number one, and the words strongly agree above the number five. Numbers
two through four of the number choices are not labeled with words. The total score of the
instrument is derived as follows according to the original study instructions: number
responses from questions one, two, three, four, five, seven, and eight are added together
for a total score out of a possible 35 total, followed by a calculation of a percentage score
(See Appendix A). The percentage from this calculation provides the score for the
restorative justice principle of restoration (See Appendix A). Number responses from
questions six, 10, 11, 12, & 15 are reversed (i.e., 5=1, 4=2) and then added together for a
total score out of a possible 25 total, followed by a calculation of a percentage score (see
Appendix A). The percentage from this calculation provides the score for the restorative
justice principle of cooperation (see Appendix A). Number responses from questions
nine, 13, 14, & 16 are added together for a total score out of a possible 20 total, followed
by a calculation of a percentage score (see Appendix A). The percentage from this
calculation provides the score for the restorative justice principle of healing (see
Appendix A). The total of the three percentages can then be combined for an overall total
score of restorative justice ideology, with scores closer to 100% more in line with
restorative justice ideology, and scores closer to 16% more in line with punitive ideology,
and further from restorative justice principles. The original researchers who created the
restorative justice ideology measurement instrument developed the scoring process
described, and no changes have been made to the original scoring process.
The scale was analyzed with a total score for the overall rating of restorative
justice ideology, and with three subscales for each of the factors including, restoration,
cooperation, and healing. There are an uneven number of questions that relate to each of
the factors. However, the score from each factor were associated with a total percentage
for individual analysis of factors, and the three total percentages were combined for an
overall score.
The idea of using this measurement instrument again was not to compare the
results with the original study. The main idea was to expand the use of the measurement
instrument to administrators and parents, as these groups are also vital in the
implementation and success of restorative strategies in schools. The original test results
may be referred to in the final analysis.
Data Analysis
Once a sufficient sample of the data was collected an analysis of variance
(ANOVA) test was used to compare the restorative justice ideology scale measures of
each participant to calculate the mean of each group and compare between groups of
administrators, teachers, and parents. The ANOVA is appropriate for identifying
differences between categorical groups, and after a difference was identified a post-hoc
test was completed to identify where the differences exist. The data was imported from
SurveyMonkey to an Excel spread sheet and calculated, and then to SPSS with the
independent variable coded as follows: administrators (1), teachers (2), parents (3). A
score was entered for each participant in each factor of cooperation, healing, restoration,
and the total, as they were computed as per requirements mentioned above in the scoring
section of the measurement instrument first in Excel, ultimately resulting in four
dependent variables: the total score of overall restorative justice ideology, and subscales
of cooperation, healing, and restoration. Upon entering the data into SPSS and coding the
data, cleaning of the data occurred by reviewing each of the responses for consistency
and outliers. For survey responses that may have include a response that may have been
by accident, determined by consistency with other responses on the survey, the survey
was removed and an additional survey was added.
An analysis of the total mean score of the measurement instrument was compared
between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents. In addition, a subscale was used
for independent analysis of each of the restorative justice ideology beliefs of cooperation,
healing, and restoration (Roland et al., 2012). When there was a significant difference
determined in the overall score of restorative justice ideology between each group with
the ANOVA test a Tukey HSD post-hoc test was administered to determine where
differences, if any, exist between administrators, teachers, or parents. There are a smaller
number of administrators than teachers, and far less teachers than parents in this study,
however, the sample for each group was evenly distributed by using 14 survey results
from participants in each group.
Statistical Test Assumptions
An assumption of a statistical test shows the potential bias sources and acts as a
condition in the process of showing the statistical test works or does what it is supposed
to do (Field, 2013). The assumptions of the one-way ANOVA include the assumption of
independence, assumption of normality, and assumption of homogeneity of variance.
The assumption of independence requires the errors to be independent of one
another, not related (Field, 2013). Independence in the identified statistical test would
mean the responses or mean score of one group are not related to or dependent on the
responses or mean score of another group (Field, 2013). If the assumption of
independence is violated the significance test and confidence intervals are invalid and
further techniques should be applied (Field, 2013).
The assumption of normality is the normal distribution of dependent variables in
the population (Handon, 2015). With homogeneity of variance the spread of scores will
be roughly the same, meaning there is an assumption that the spread in the range of
scores within each group of administrators, teachers, and parents for each of the variables
of cooperation, healing, and restoration are roughly the same. Ensuring these mentioned
assumptions ensures the statistical analysis is working as designed. These assumptions
are addressed and analyzed as part of the statistical analysis in chapter 4.
Internal validity threats include the inability to apply the results to be generalized
in a larger population. The results may only be applied and appropriate for the regional
area of the United States that actually participated in the study. The selection process for
the survey participants may also pose a threat. Although the survey was sent to all
potential participants on email lists from the office of education for administrators, and
teachers, the potential parent participants were only accessed at parent association
meetings, which limited the variety of parent participants. A random sample of those
responses is used in the analysis of data.
Statistical Test Limitations
Limitations exist that hold relevance to the internal validity related to design
considerations. As stated in the introduction, the chosen design is non-experimental, and
therefore simply taking a snapshot of the mean score of ideologies between groups. This
design does provide a history or identification of specific events between a first and
second measure, which could potentially identify factors that relate to a statistically
significant change. Even comparing the original test results to the results of the current
test would not be realistic for many reasons. Some of which include that the original test
only used a sample of teachers, and the current test is expanded to groups of
administrators, teachers, and parents. In addition, the regional area of the current study
has been exposed to varying levels of training and policies around the use of restorative
justice.
Maturation could be considered with the use of a pre- and post-test, with regard
for increased time teaching or using restorative justice processes in the school
environment. Without the use of a comparison group as potentially present in an
experimental or quasi-experimental design, bias in the selection of the comparison group
participants does not exist. However, there may be some level of self-selecting bias for
those participants who chose to complete the survey. Perhaps those who chose to
complete the survey are more educated in the area of restorative justice. This element is
completely unknown and is not considered in the analysis.
Ideally, future studies may include an element of statistical regression to further
examine extreme scores. In addition to statistical regression testing I would suggest
adding the consideration of level of exposure, use, or training and education in the area of
restorative justice, and an evaluation of school policies in relation to the ideologies of
each group. The ability to prove or disprove a statistically significant relationship
between the level of training, use, or exposure of restorative justice and the level of
restorative justice ideology could be valuable information to the professionals in the field.
Simply taking a snapshot without further research leaves many factors unknown and
limits the knowledge gained.
Minimal limitations exist if assumptions for the ANOVA are valid, and this can
work as a powerful tool for this problem. However, when assumptions are not met
certain limitations emerge. With the assumption of independence the ANOVA is limited
in the area of only being able to determine that there is a significant difference, however
this test does not show or determine where the difference is. Once a difference is
determined Tukey HSD post-hoc test was then administered to determine which groups
the difference is between.
Ethical Considerations
This study poses a low risk for any human participants. Before any data was
collected, I established approval from the International Review Board (IRB). A letter of
cooperation was not needed from the regional office of education because all electronic
mail addresses for the administrators and teachers are public record. Parent participants
were recruited at times of parent association meetings and events, but I remained off
campus on public property. All participants were informed of confidentiality measures
taken with a notice of confidentiality that was included in the first page of the survey, and
each participant was required to check a continue box before continuing with the survey.
All results were confidential and were not associated with the electronic mail address of
any participant because the participants accessed the survey through a direct link to the
survey. Identification of the independent variable social group was determined with
coding for each participant response as follows: administrators (1), teachers (2), parents
(3). Upon completion and formal approval of the dissertation the potential participants
from the administrator and teacher email pool will be sent an executive summary of the
findings. Because the survey is confidential and responses were provided anonymously
there is no way to re-contact the parents and primary caretakers to provide an executive
summary unless individuals contact me through email to request further information.
Summary of Methodology
Chapter 3 discussed the methodology design of the study in sections that included:
research design, rationalization of qualitative approach, variables, research questions,
hypotheses, populations, setting and sample, data collection method, research instrument,
data analysis, and ethical considerations. The comparative, non-experimental design used
an ANOVA test to determine if there were statistically significant differences in
responses between groups, and if there were differences, a Tukey HSD post-hoc was used
to determine where those differences exist. Chapter 4 will provide a detailed analysis of
the results along with a summary, and chapter 5 will conclude the dissertation with a
discussion of the results and suggested next steps.
Chapter 4: Results
Introduction
Research discussed in Chapter 2 identified important findings of challenges in the
implementation and sustainability of restorative justice in schools when ideology and
ecological system levels are not aligned (Hong & Eamon, 2012; Roland et al., 2012).
The purpose of this quantitative nonexperimental comparative design study was to
determine alignment or lack of alignment in restorative justice ideology beliefs of
cooperation, healing, restoration, and restorative justice ideology between three levels of
ecological systems in schools with groups of administrators, teachers, and parents. In
Chapter 4 I describe data collection, sample demographic characteristics, tests of the
assumptions, and results of the analysis with tables to demonstrate the data and analysis.
The demonstration of a statistically significant difference or lack of statistically
significant differences between these social groups was determined with the one-way
ANOVA test, and identification of where the differences are, if any, between the groups
was determined with the Tukey HSD post hoc test. The analysis can be used to inform
practice with an ecological systems theory that all levels of systems should be aligned for
sustainable implementation of restorative justice processes in schools.
Data Collection
Data were collected from participants through a self-administered electronic
questionnaire that employed a Likert scale determining levels of cooperation, healing,
restoration, and restorative justice ideology. As described in Chapter 3, there were 177
public schools listed on the regional office of education webpage. The names of all 177
schools were entered into an Excel spread sheet and a random sample of approximately
25% (45) of the schools was created. Of those 45 schools, all e-mails for administrators
were entered into an Excel spread sheet. There were a total of 111 administrators for
those 45 schools. A random sample of 100 administrators was created from the list. A
list of all teachers from those 45 schools was created as well by visiting each school
webpage and either documenting the e-mail addresses for the teachers from the school
webpage or searching the regional office of education directory for each teacher e-mail
address that was not listed on the school page. When this study was in the earlier stages
of planning, teacher e-mails were all posted on the regional office of education webpage.
At the time of data collection, the e-mails were no longer listed but were still available
through a search in the directory. There was a total of 392 teacher e-mail addresses
available and a random sample of 100 teachers was created from this list. Once the lists
were created, an e-mail with an invitation to the survey and link to the appropriate survey
for each group was sent.
The webpages for the 45 schools were searched and there were 15 parent
association meetings or events in the first month that the survey was open. Of those 15
meetings or events I was able to attend 12. A few of the meetings were on the same date,
at similar times, and in different areas of the region so I was unable to attend them all
within the timeframe that there were still parents present. I stood off campus and talked
to the parents, either arriving or leaving, handed them a flyer that included a written
invitation and web address to the survey, and verbally requested their participation in the
survey. At approximately three school locations I was not able to make contact with a
single parent due to the size of the parking lot because no parent walked from off campus.
After 1 week of the surveys being open there were not enough responses from the
groups of administrators and teachers, and a second e-mail was sent out to all the
administrators and teachers. Consequently, a third and even fourth e-mail were sent in
the following weeks due to a lack of obtaining a large enough response rate. After 1
month there were also still not enough parent responses. Three additional parent events
were identified and attended through another week. To gather a sufficient number of
survey responses for each group it took approximately 5 weeks. At the end of the 5
weeks there were a total of 16 responses from administrators, 16 responses from teachers,
and 17 responses from parents and primary caretakers.
Sample Demographic Characteristics
The sample of administrators, teachers, and parents was created from all public
schools within the specific western region of the United States. The public schools
included in the creation of the random sample were all the elementary, middle, and high
schools in one geographical county. The public schools sample included traditional
public and charter schools. Private schools were not included in the sample.
According to the United States Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community
Survey 5-Year Estimates (2018) the approximate demographics for the county include a
population of just under 500,000 residents, with about 76% White, 1.6% Black or African
American, 3.9% Asian, and approximately 26% of the population Hispanic or Latino.
The median age in the county is just over 41, and the median household income is just
under $67,000 per year (United States Census Bureau, 2018). Schools from the sample
are located in both rural and urban areas.
Sample
The survey is completely confidential, and respondents did not provide any
personal or demographic identifiers. However, the random sample of public schools,
which then generated the samples of administrators, teachers, and parents are from public
elementary, middle, and high schools in the regional area, and therefore contain staff,
students, and families with varying portions of the demographics within the county.
Although the e-mail invitations for administrators and teachers were random, the sample
for parents and primary caretakers ended up convenient but originated from the random
sample of schools. Once the random sample of 45 schools was created the parents could
only be reached in person before or after parent association meetings and events. The
selection process limited the pool of parents because only parents who attended meetings
were invited to take the survey. The primary caretaker survey was available in English
and Spanish, but no Spanish responses were received.
A total of 16 responses were received from administrators, 16 responses were
received from teachers, and 17 responses were received from parents; however, only 14
from each group were used for the recommended sample size. The responses received
within each group are expected to be representative of the population within the regional
area, but cannot be generalized to larger groups of administrators, teachers, and parents
outside the regional area of the study. As stated in Chapter 1, administrators referred to
professionals who manage the staff and faculty within the school, and who employ and
enforce the rules of the school such as principals, vice principals, or assistance principals;
teachers referred to professionals who lead the classroom and are licensed to teach with
an active teaching credential in the state of California; and parents and primary caretakers
were defined as the parent who has primary custody of the child, a legal guardian, or the
adult who is primarily responsible for and provides the majority of the care for the
student.
Results Process
The data were exported from SurveyMonkey to three separate Excel spread
sheets. One spread sheet with the responses from administrators, one with teacher
responses, and one with English primary caretaker responses. No Spanish responses were
received. From the spread sheets the data were then coded with numerical scores for each
response rating from 1 to 5, with certain scores inverted as directed with the instructions
from original survey, and then calculated as per the original survey instruction, which are
provided in Chapter 3 and Appendix A. The calculations created a score for each
respondent for the dependent variables of restoration, cooperation, healing, and the total
restorative justice ideology score. Before entering into SPSS for analysis the cases with
outliers were removed. Three cases were removed from the group of parents and two
cases were removed from the groups of administrators and teachers. Each score was
entered into SPSS with even groups of 14 cases for each, and a total of 42 cases all
together.
Assumptions
There are six assumptions associated with the one-way ANOVA, and all six
assumptions were met. The dependent variables were measured in intervals in a score
ranging from 16-100 in each of the four areas, restoration, cooperation, healing, and the
total restorative justice ideology score. The independent variable consists of three
categorical, independent groups: administrators, teachers, and parents. There is
independence of observations, meaning there is no relationship between the three groups.
Each of the participants of the groups participated in the survey by taking the survey from
the perspective of his or her position. The administrators were addressed and invited to
take the survey as administrators, teachers were addressed and invited to take the survey
as teachers, and parents were addressed and invited to take the survey as parents. The
participants were informed that they were invited to take the survey based on their
belonging to one of the groups mentioned. Cases with outliers were removed.
The Sharpio-Wilk test of normality is appropriate to test normality with smaller
data sets (< 50 samples) and was completed for each of the factors of restoration,
cooperation, healing, and the restorative justice ideology total. For the administrator,
teacher, and primary caretaker social groups the dependent variable of restoration was
normally distributed. Normality is showed with a significance value greater than .05,
with administrators’ significance value of (p =.186), teachers (p =.364), and parents (p
=.117). For the administrator, teacher, and primary caretaker social groups the dependent
variable of cooperation was normally distributed, with administrators’ significance value
of (p =.641), teachers (p =.211), and parents (p = .265). For the administrator, teacher,
and primary caretaker social groups the dependent variable of healing was normally
distributed, with administrators’ significance value of (p = .498), teachers (p = .677), and
parents (p = .077). For the administrator, teacher, and primary caretaker social groups
the dependent variable of RJI total was normally distributed, with administrators’
significance value of (p = .757), teachers (p = .719), and parents (p =.149). The
Levene’s test was used to show homogeneity of variances. The test showed all
significant levels higher than 0.05, and therefore equal. Results ranged from (p = .242) to
(p = .856), concluding they were equal.
The descriptive results in Tables 1, 2, 3, and 4 show the median scores in the three
social groups of administrators, teachers, and parents with each of the scales. Table 1
shows the median scores of each social group with the scale for restoration, Table 2
shows the median scores of each social group with the scale for cooperation, Table 3
shows the median scores of each social group with the scale for healing, and Table 4
shows the median scores of each social group with the scale for the RJI total. The highest
median score was for the social group of administrators in the belief of restoration (n =
14), (M = 88.5, SD = 8.447; see Table 6), and the lowest median score was for the social
group of teachers in the belief of healing (n = 14), (M = 73.93, SD = 14.699).
The social group of administrators consistently scored higher in all three beliefs,
and accumulatively for the RJI total score than both other social groups, showing the
social group of administrators possess beliefs more consistent with restorative justice
rather than punitive. The social groups of teachers and parents showed similar scores in
the belief of cooperation, healing, and the RJI total. Another notable description is the
spread of scores within individual groups for certain beliefs. Multiple areas show a
spread of only 23 between the highest and lowest score. However, there was a 50-point
spread in the scores of the social group of teachers in the belief of healing, with the
highest score showing as 95 and the lowest score showing as 45 (see Table 2). The score
of 45 indicates that teachers possess beliefs that are more punitive than healing, and not in
line with restorative justice ideology.
Table 1
Descriptive Results: Cooperation
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Administrators 68 100 85.71 10.011
Teachers 56 92 78.86 11.251 Parents 52 96 76.86 12.666
Total 52 100 80.48 11.727
Note. Administrators (n =14), Teachers (n =14), Parents (n =14), Total (n =42)
Table 2
Descriptive Results: Healing
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Administrators 70 100 82.86 9.139
Teachers 45 95 73.93 14.699 Parents 60 95 76.43 11.507
Total 45 100 77.74 12.307
Note. Administrators (n =14), Teachers (n =14), Parents (n =14), Total (n =42)
Table 3
Descriptive Results: Restoration
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Administrators 74 100 88.50 8.447
Teachers 77 100 87.00 5.974 Parents 69 97 81.71 7.488
Total 69 100 85.74 7.771
Note. Administrators (n =14), Teachers (n =14), Parents (n =14), Total (n =42)
Table 4
Descriptive Results: RJI Total
Std.
Minimum Maximum Mean Deviation
Administrators 76 99 85.71 6.707
Teachers 62 96 79.21 8.17
Parents 67 90 78.21 6.253
Total 62 99 81.26 7.645
Note. Administrators (n =14), Teachers (n =14), Parents (n =14), Total (n =42)
Analysis
Four research questions were addressed with the one-way ANOVA test. The
oneway ANOVA was used to determine if there were statistically significant differences
between groups. Table 5 below shows the ANOVA analysis with the independent
variable of social groups, “Administrators”, “Teachers”, and “Parents” and the dependent
variables of “Restoration”, “Cooperation”, “Healing”, and “Restorative Justice Ideology
total”.
Research Question 1: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States? Based on the ANOVA test the null
hypothesis was accepted, meaning there are no statistically significant differences in the
restorative justice ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators,
teachers, or parents. The lack of statistically significant difference between social groups
and the dependent variable of cooperation was demonstrated by the one-way ANOVA
(F(2,39) = 2.340, p = .110). The significance level, (p = .110) is > .05, and therefore
there is no statistically significant difference between groups.
Research Question 2: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States? Based on the ANOVA test the null
hypothesis was accepted, meaning there are no statistically significant differences in the
restorative justice ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers,
or parents. The lack of statistically significant difference between social groups and the
dependent variable of healing was demonstrated by the one-way ANOVA (F(2,39) =
2.063, p = .141). The significance level, (p = .141) is > .05, and therefore there is no
statistically significant difference between groups.
Research Question 3: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States? Based on the ANOVA test the
alternative hypothesis was accepted, meaning there are statistically significant differences
in the restorative justice ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators,
teachers, and parents. The statistically significant difference between the social groups
and the dependent variable of restoration was demonstrated by the one-way ANOVA
(F(2,39) = 3.272, p = .049). The significance level (p = .049) is < .050, and therefore
shows a statistically significant difference between social groups. The ANOVA test does
not however show what groups the difference is between.
Research Question 4: What are the differences, if any, in the overall level of
restorative justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and
parents of schools in the western region of the United States? Based on the ANOVA test
the alternative hypothesis was accepted, meaning there are statistically significant
differences in the overall level of restorative justice ideology beliefs between groups of
administrators, teachers, and parents. The statistically significant difference between
social groups and the dependent variable of RJI total was demonstrated by the one-way
ANOVA (F(2,39) = 4.328, p = .020). The significance level (p = .020) is < .050, and
therefore shows a statistically significant difference between social groups. The ANOVA
test does not however show what groups the difference is between.
Table 5
One-Way ANOVA for Differences Between Groups
Df F Sig.
RJI Restoration
Between Groups
Within Groups
2
39
3.272
0.049*
Total 41
RJI Cooperation Between Groups 2 2.340 0.110
Within Groups 39
Total 41
RJI Healing Between Groups 2 2.063 0.141
Within Groups 39
Total 41
RJI Total Between Groups 2 4.328 0.020*
Within Groups 39
Total 41
* The mean difference is significant at the p< 0.05 level.
Once a statistically significant difference was determined with the ANOVA test
for the dependent variables of restoration and the RJI total with the significance value
being p < 0.05, the Tukey HSD post hoc test determined that with the dependent variable
of restoration there was a statistically significant difference between the social groups of
administrators and parents with a significance level exactly at (p = .05). However, there
was no statistically significant difference between the social groups of administrators and
teachers for the dependent variable of restoration, with (p = 835), and no statistically
0.853 -8.290 5.290
0.153 -1.500 12.080
0.050 * -13.580 0.000
significant difference between the social groups of teachers and parents, with (p = 153) as
demonstrated in Table 6.
Table 6
Tukey HSD Post Hoc, Multiple Comparisons for Dependent Variable RJI Restoration
95% Confidence
Interval
Teachers Administrators -1.500 2.787
Parents 5.286 2.787
Parents Administrators -6.786 2.787
Teachers -5.286 2.787 0.153 -12.080 1.500
* The mean difference is significant at the p< 0.05 level. (p=0.05 or <0.05 can be
considered significant)
Since the ANOVA test showed no statistically significant differences in between
the social groups and the dependent variables of cooperation, and healing there was no
need to follow-up with a post hoc test. Subsequently, the Tukey HSD post hoc test was
performed on the social groups and the dependent variable of RJI total, showing a
significant difference between administrators and parents, with (p = .021; see Table 7).
Table 7
(I) Social Group
(J) Social
Group
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sign.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Administrators Teachers 1.500 2.787 0.853 -5.290 8.290
Parents 6.786 2.787 0.050* 0.000 13.580
Tukey HSD Post Hoc, Multiple Comparisons for Dependent Variable RJI Total
95% Confidence
Interval
(I) Social Group
(J) Social
Group
Mean
Difference
(I-J)
Std.
Error Sign.
Lower
Bound
Upper
Bound
Administrators Teachers 5.875 2.680 .086 -.67 12.39
Parents 7.500* 2.680 .021* .97 14.03
Teachers Administrators -5.857 2.680 .086 -12.39 .67
Parents 1.643 2.680 .814 -4.89 8.17
Parents Administrators -7.500* 2.680 .021* -14.03 -.97
Teachers -1.643 2.680 .814 -8.17 4.89
* The mean difference is significant at the p< 0.05 level. (p=0.05 or <0.05 can be
considered significant)
In addition to the tests for assumptions, the ANOVA, and post hoc tests I
completed Cronbach’s Alpha to measure for internal consistency of the scale to show
reliability with the scale and each of the social groups. Originally this scale was created
for use with teachers. Testing the reliability of the scale with the groups of administrators
showed reliable with Cronbach’s Alpha at .784 (.809 on standardized items), reliable for
the group of teachers with Cronbach’s Alpha at .772 (.821 on standardized items) and not
reliable for parents with Cronbach’s Alpha at .506 (.609 on standardized items). A
coefficient of .70 or higher is considered reliable. The results from Cronbach’s Alpha
conclude this measurement instrument is not reliable with the social group of parents and
should not be used to measure restorative justice ideology in the social group of parents
in this Western region of the United States.
Summary of Results
A quantitative, comparative study was completed with the one-way ANOVA to
test for differences between social groups of administrators, teachers, and parents with a
Likert scale that measured restoration, cooperation, healing, and restorative justice
ideology as a whole. The sample included primary data gathered from groups of
administrators, teachers, and parents in a Western region of the United States. There
were statistically significant differences found between groups of administrators and
parents for the dependent variables of restoration, and the total restorative justice
ideology score, showing administrators possess higher levels of ideology in restoration
and restorative justice ideology as a whole, and parents showed lower scores for
restoration and restorative justice ideology as a whole. Administrators showed a mean
score of 88.50 in the area of restoration, while parents showed a mean score of 81.71 in
the area of restoration. In addition, administrators showed a mean score of 85.71 for
restorative justice ideology total, while parents showed a mean score of 78.21 for
restorative justice ideology total, concluding there is a statistically significant difference
between these two groups in the area of restoration and the RJI total. In Chapter 5 I
discuss interpretations of the findings, limitations of the study, recommendations going
forward, and implications for social change.
Chapter 5: Discussion, Conclusion, and Recommendations
Introduction
The purpose of this study was to determine the alignment on a systems level in the
beliefs of groups of administrators, teachers, and parents in restorative justice ideology.
The analysis for this study showed there are statistically significant differences between
groups of administrators and parents in restorative justice ideology beliefs of restoration
and in the total score of restorative justice ideology. Chapter 5 includes and
interpretation of the findings, discussion of the theoretical framework and the findings,
limitations, recommendations going forward, and implications for social change.
Interpretation of Findings
Research Questions
The research questions for the study are restated in this section with the
significance levels for each question.
Research Question 1: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of cooperation between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States? There is no statistically significant
difference between the groups of administrators, teachers, and parents in the restorative
justice ideology belief of cooperation. The ANOVA results show a significance level of
(p = .110; see Table 5), thus there is no statistically significant difference between the
groups in the belief of cooperation.
Research Question 2: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of healing between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States? There is no statistically significant
difference between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents in the restorative
justice ideology belief of healing. The ANOVA results show a significance level of (p =
.141; see Table 5), thus there is no statistically significant difference between the groups
in the belief of healing.
Research Question 3: What are the differences, if any, in the restorative justice
ideology belief of restoration between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents of
schools in the western region of the United States? There are statistically significant
differences between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents in the restorative
justice ideology belief of restoration. The ANOVA results show a significance level of (p
= .049; see Table 5), thus there is a difference between at least two of these groups in the
restorative justice ideology belief of restoration. The Tukey HSD post hoc test showed
that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups of administrators
and parents (p = .050; see Table 6).
Research Question 4: What are the differences, if any, in the overall level of
restorative justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and
parents of schools in the western region of the United States? There are statistically
significant differences between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents in the
overall level of restorative justice ideology beliefs. The ANOVA results show a
significance level of (p = .020; see Table 5), thus there is a difference between at least
two groups. The Tukey HSD post hoc test showed that there was a statistically
significant difference between the groups of administrators and parents (p = .021; see
Table 7). Both post hoc tests showed differences between the same two groups of
administrators and parents.
Comparison of Scores
Although the scores between the social groups of teachers and parents were close
when comparing the median, a statistically significant difference was determined between
the social groups of administrators and parents. On a scale, scores closer to 100 are in
line with restorative justice ideology beliefs. Scores closer to 16 (the lowest possible) are
in line with punitive beliefs. In the overall score for restorative justice ideology beliefs
the administrators show (M = 85.71), teachers (M = 79.21), and parents (M = 78.21; see
Table 4).
Although the group of teachers and parents show only a 1-point difference, only
the difference between the administrators and parents are statistically significant. The
statistically significant difference indicates all systems are not aligned in the belief of
restorative justice ideology, and therefore, implementation of restorative justice processes
in schools in this region will have difficulty in implementation and sustainability. For
those groups that do not show a statistically significant difference there is a level of
alignment that should be acknowledged as well.
Theoretical Framework and Findings
Three major theories were used as a framework through this study, which include
restorative justice, pedagogy, and Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory (Hong &
Eamon, 2012; Morrison & Vaandering, 2012; Restorative Justice, 2017). Scores from the
ANOVA, followed by the Tukey post hoc show lack of alignment between the groups of
administrators and parents. Using Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, the
development of the child is based in the experiences between child–child and parent–
child activities in addition to the child in the environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1994). If the
interactions, learning, and experiences of the child and parent involve more punitive
beliefs, which conflict with restorative experiences in a school environment, then
restorative processes in schools will not be sustainable. In addition, Hong and Eamon
(2014) concluded that the relationship and interactions of the parent and child or student
and teacher may be more important than additional variables that have been identified as
impacting a successful school experience.
Within the analyzed data, the group of teachers showed the largest range in scores,
with a 50-point difference in the belief of healing (Min. = 45), (Max. = 95; see Table 4).
These variations in scores indicate that when restorative justice is present in the pedagogy
it is not consistent in the regional area of the study. Variations like these can be
addressed through the implementation of restorative justice as a school-wide approach,
culture, or pedagogy, instead of using restorative justice as a behavior intervention
(Roland et al., 2012; Vaandering, 2014).
In contrast to teacher scores, the administrators’ scores were consistently higher.
Administrators often possess a higher level of education than teachers and many parents.
Administrators are also responsible for addressing the educational setting on a higher
level than the in-classroom, hands-on experience of the teachers, and home setting with
parents. Within the administrators’ scope of work lies policies and procedures, budgets,
and the school culture. The higher scores in restorative justice ideology for
administrators may have many contributing factors, such as their big picture view and
scope of work. However, without additional research the reasoning behind the higher
score is anecdotal and based on assumptions.
Participant Interactions
Through minimal interactions with survey participants, I also gained some
additional insights. There were not only differences in restorative justice ideology scores,
but there were also differences in opinions of the survey. An administrator from an
elementary school e-mailed me after completing the survey and stated it was a great
survey, and the administrator expressed excitement in learning of the findings. A teacher
also responded by e-mail and stated she found the survey to be very subjective. The
teacher found it difficult to choose a response to some of the questions because situations
can vary significantly in the classroom environment. The teacher response tells me that
restorative justice ideology is not part of her pedagogy.
I was also able to have a few conversations with parents as I handed out
invitations and engaged in brief conversations with parents who wanted to know a little
more about restorative justice. Many of the parents who asked questions had never heard
of restorative justice and had no idea if or how it was being used in their child’s school
experience. Through this study I have found restorative justice in the scope of work and
supported with budgets for public schools in the region. However, the implementation or
practice is not being communicated with some parents, and inconsistencies were found
through the casual conversations. In a separate conversation with a school administrator
it was acknowledged that even though restorative interventions are embedded in the
policies and supported with funding in the budget, that no teachers at that particular
school are trained in restorative justice. The only person on this campus who was trained
in restorative justice was the restorative justice worker, which is one noneducational
position that is dedicated to restorative justice and implementing interventions.
Limitations
Limitations exist within this study in multiple areas. The nonexperimental design
of the study was only intended to provide a view of restorative justice ideology beliefs
between groups in one regional area to identify the alignment of the systems. Lack of
alignment in the belief of restorative justice ideology was identified between groups of
administrators and parents, but this identification does not provide the reasons for the lack
of alignment. There may be different levels of exposure, training, or implementation
regarding restorative justice that may contribute to the differences, but that was not
measured in this study. An experimental design could provide richer information and a
stronger comparison of more variables. The current study does not provide justification
for the scores.
Another limitation is that the findings of this study are not generalizable for
groups of administrators, teachers, or parents outside the regional area where the study
was completed. The study may be expanded to include a sample that is more
generalizable in the future. In addition, the scale was originally created and validated for
teachers. The current study expanded the sample to administrators and parents. After
evaluating the scale reliability with Cronbach’s Alpha, I found the scale could be
expanded to measure restorative justice ideology in administrators, but the scale was not
found reliable for the group of parents who participated in the study in the regional area.
Additional validation would be needed to expand the scale to parents in the future.
Through minimal interactions with survey participants, I also gained some
additional insights. There were not only differences in restorative justice ideology scores,
but there were also differences in opinions of the survey. An administrator from an
elementary school e-mailed me after completing the survey and stated it was a great
survey, and the administrator expressed excitement in learning of the findings. A teacher
also responded by e-mail and stated she found the survey to be very subjective. The
teacher found it difficult to choose a response to some of the questions because situations
can vary significantly in the classroom environment. The teacher response tells me that
restorative justice ideology is not part of her pedagogy.
Recommendations
Now that a lack of alignment has been identified, the focus should shift to creating
alignment between all system levels. As mentioned earlier when identifying challenges,
IIRP staff (2017) found that involving the families early increases buy-in, and ultimately
contributes to the success and sustainability of implementing restorative practices in
schools. Restorative justice training for all levels of systems, but especially for parents
and teachers as the groups who showed lower levels of belief in restorative justice
ideology is one tool that can help create alignment. Roland et al (2012) found that those
with higher levels of training or exposure to restorative justice also show stronger
restorative justice ideology beliefs. Roland et al (2012) also suggested the restorative
justice ideology instrument could be used to develop a baseline of restorative justice
ideology beliefs, and then re-administered after consistent training to measure
effectiveness of training and a potential increase in restorative justice ideology beliefs.
It is suggested that not only should all levels of systems work toward alignment in
training and structure of restorative justice practices in schools, but that restorative justice
should also be embedded in the pedagogy of the learning environment. With
administrators showing the highest levels of restorative justice ideology, there should be
administrative support for training and implementation. The administrative support is
vital in allowing the teachers to not only take the time to participate in training, but to
encourage or even require the training.
With the statistically significant difference identified between administration and
parents, there are many suggestions already identified in the research that could help
close this gap. Some of the main challenges identified in the literature were parent and
family involvement. The parents who were surveyed were parents who attend school
events, yet many were still unaware of the idea of restorative justice, including how it is
currently being used in their child’s school currently. Parents have been introduced to
common core, as this is currently being used in their child’s school, but had no idea about
restorative justice.
According to IIRP staff (2017) failure to acknowledge the importance of family
involvement early in the process of planning and implementation poses the risk of
families feeling defensive, confused, uninformed, along with undesirable consequences to
the implementation of the process. Also mentioned in the literature review, Ted Wachtel
of IIRP (IIRP staff, 2017) stated humans are more likely to change behaviors, and are
healthiest and happiest when authority figures involve them, and things are done with
them, rather than to them. Along with identifying the challenge, the IIRP staff (2017)
also identified five ways to inform and involve parents and families with the intention of
gaining support for implementing restorative processes. After identifying the lack if
alignment between administrators and parents, I share these suggestions again as a way to
work toward alignment. IIRP staff (2017) suggest the use of written material proving
information that the students can take home, the involvement of families in the planning
and implementation process, providing informational meetings with varying times for
working parents to attend, providing social media and webinars for continuous learning
and feedback, and utilizing a consultant for technical support and implementation of best
practices.
Suggestions for further studies include an evaluation of policies that either support
or restrict restorative justice, and other qualitative methods of research, such as focus
groups for individual interviews to further explore the belied of these three groups, and
identify perceived barriers to restorative justice in schools. By adding support for
consistent training curriculum and implementation, and by identifying and addressing the
perceived barriers alignment on the systems level should improve. Another way to add to
the current study could include an evaluation of levels of training or exposure to
restorative justice in relation to the restorative justice ideology scores in each group.
Additionally, there are evidence-based restorative justice practices that are
identified on national clearinghouse databases. With the wide range of levels of
exposure, training, implementation, and practice in schools throughout the regional area
of the study, my strongest recommendation includes the adoption of an evidence-based
practice and implementing, including the parents and families with the planning and
implementation, and pursuing the process with fidelity to the model. For this to happen
and prove successful, policies region-wide would have to support the beliefs and
implementation, and all system levels need to be involved with each stage of planning
and implementation.
Implications for Social Change
The big picture with the conclusion of this study is that restorative justice in
schools has already shown beneficial, however, the implementation and sustainability of
this belief system in schools is not possible without alignment on a systems level, with
the beliefs and practices embedded into the pedagogy of the entire school environment,
and involvement with all system levels. There are current funding streams, and even
school and district-wide policies in support of restorative interventions, but due to lack of
alignment on a systems level these efforts are often unsuccessful, and even go unnoticed
as I discovered through conversations with parents, and administration.
This study found administrators with the highest level of restorative justice
ideology beliefs between the three groups. Therefore, categorizing the group of
administrators as the visionaries who possess the legitimate positional power, there is a
strong potential for widespread social change. With the top down support, consistent
messaging, and parent involvement with each stage, an evidence-based model could be
implemented successfully, even if it is just one school at a time. With the support of the
administration, sufficient policies can be developed and supported, encouragement and
support for training can be provided and enforced, and community school events and
parent involvement with planning and implementation could begin to bridge the gap
between the system levels from administrators, to teachers, to parents and the community.
By employing a whole school, and community approach alignment of the systems is
possible, which means the restorative justice beliefs and practices in schools can be
sustainable.
Policy makers in the regional area of the study have already implemented a certain
degree of restorative justice policies for the school system. However, it is evident that
additional research and support is needed for the policy makers to understand the
substantial need for the complete adoption of the restorative belief system and alignment
at all levels. Without the missing link of parent involvement, and buy-in, all of the
restorative work that is present during the school day is reversed through parent
interactions due to conflict in ideologies.
Through consistency in policies that support parent involvement, support from
administration, training, and implementing an evidence-based practice with fidelity to the
model, a shift in ideology is possible, ultimately allowing and encouraging alignment on
a systems level. Once there is a stronger shift toward restorative beliefs and ideology
aligning all systems levels there is a possibility for not only a change in the education
experience of the students, but a larger shift throughout an entire community to believe in
and support restoration, cooperation, and healing rather than the historical authoritarian
punishment methods still being used.
Conclusion
In this study I have presented research on the history of restorative justice in
schools, discussed alternative methods used in schools throughout history, and provided
support for employing restorative justice in the current education system. Theoretical
support was provided that suggests restorative justice can be sustainable when all levels
of system are aligned, and when the belief system is engrained in the pedagogy with a
whole school approach. The research study was developed with the purpose of either
identifying alignment, or lack of alignment on a systems level, comparing the restorative
justice ideology beliefs between groups of administrators, teachers, and parents in a
Western region of the United States. Through a one-way ANOVA, followed by the
Tukey HSD post hoc it was discovered that there was a statistically significant difference
between the group of administrators and parents in the restorative justice belief of
restoration, and in the restorative justice ideology as a whole.
My biggest acknowledgement throughout the course of this study is that
restorative justice ideology is a belief system, not a process or behavior modification to
just give a try in an effort to get a difficult child to behave. Adopting this belief system
that includes restoration, cooperation, and healing, and letting go of a deeply engrained
punitive structure is difficult due to the long history and overall authoritarian structure of
the system, but it is possible. Continued research and influence from the visionaries
throughout the educational system can provide the path for a needed change.
