Becoming Restorative: A Mixed-Methods Analysis of Educator and Student Perspectives of Restorative Practices Implementation

Background/Context: Restorative practices have gained traction across the United States, featuring in at least 21 state education codes and numerous district policies. The existing research on its effectiveness underscores the implementation process, particularly fidelity, as a key determinant in whether restorative practices will accomplish their goals of reducing punitive discipline and improving school community. Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of Study: This study examines how restorative practices are implemented and scaled, drawing on data from four districts in a state that has mandated their use in discipline decisions. Using cognitive and organizational perspectives on policy implementation, we focus on understanding educator and student perceptions of implementation and identifying the organizational factors, contexts, and conditions that shape the use of the practices. By doing so, we provide novel evidence on how a statewide mandate translates into practice across schools and highlight the contextual dynamics shaping policy enactment. Research Design: We employ an explanatory mixed-methods approach, partnering with four districts in one county in Michigan. Data collection includes surveys from 493 educators and 4,805 students, alongside qualitative interviews with 47 staff members across nine schools during the 2022–23 school year. The explanatory design allows us to leverage interview data to explain patterns detected in the survey data. Conclusions/Recommendations: Survey results reveal that about half of classroom teachers, particularly at the elementary level, use proactive circles, while less than half of respondents use formal restorative conferences. Students generally report observing educators use restorative practices, with middle school students responding more positively on survey items related to implementation than high school students. However, students are less convinced about the community-building aspects of circles and whether the practices reduce conflict. Interviews indicate that implementation varies based on leadership expectations, alignment with existing practices, and site-specific discipline processes. We conclude with recommendations for policy and practice.