Individual Essay

EDFD220
Gabriel da Cruz
Australian Catholic University

The Restorative Practice approach to behaviour management is becoming

favourable for many schools across the country. What are the benefits and
limitations of restorative practice, and how does it compare with
alternative approaches?

In the world of ever developing personalities, there will inevitably be

conflict within the school. There are many methods and approaches to
intervention and conflict resolution that can be utilised by teaching staff,
and one of these is the restorative practice approach. This essay aims to
explore how the restorative practice approach came to be established,
and how it is used and impacts the school and the students. Furthermore,
this essay will examine the limitations and criticisms of the restorative
practice, as well as discuss and compare alternative behaviour
management approaches used in schools.
Restorative practice (RP) is an approach to conflict resolution and
intervention that aims to repair relationships that have been damaged, as
well as seeks to positively impact and change the future behaviour of the
offending child (Wachtel, 2013). RP aims to foster positive interpersonal
relationships between the offender and the victim following a conflict,
while at the same time avoiding direct punishment of the offender. RP
largely stems from Restorative Justice (RJ). RJ is an approach to legal
justice that emphasises repairing the harm done to people and
relationships, rather than only following legal principals and punishing the
offender (Zehr, 1990). It empowers the victim by giving them a voice and

an audience, as well as helping repair the situation by having those

involved analysing how the events have made an impact on themselves
and others. RP utilises what is called a conference to resolve conflict. A
conference is where an authority or practitioner (this would be a staff
member in a school context) asks the offender and the victim certain
questions in the presence of each other (Rigby, 2013). The conference can
be undertaken with varying levels of formality. While serious cases may
require parents to be in attendance, most cases in a school simply consist
of the teacher asking the offender and victim questions within the
classroom or in the yard, with not a lot of outside involvement. The
questions for the offender include:
What happened?
What were you thinking of at the time?
What have you thought about since?
The practitioner may now switch to the victim:
What did you think when you realised what had happened?
What have you thought about since?
What impact has this incident had on you and others?
Next, it is back to the wrongdoer:
What do you think you need to do to make things right?
(Rigby, p. 69, 2013)
The staff member is to follow this, or a slightly edited, script of questions.
These questions intend to encourage those involved to become aware of

their behaviour and thoughts, as well as think about how it affects those
around them. RP aims to separate the action from the actor, while at the
same time create a sense of personal accountability and restorative action
on the part of the offender, and feelings and actions of forgiveness from
the victim (Rigby, 2013). RP is both reactive and proactive by design. It is
reactive in the sense that a certain protocol must be followed after an
event has happened, but what is most attractive to school leaders, and
impactful on their school, is the proactive behaviour management aspect.
Maintaining relationships in life is extremely important, and this is
no different in a primary school environment. The impact of RP can be
significant in a primary school context as these children will be around
each other for the majority of their early developmental stages in life.
Because of this, it is vital that there are no long-term negative
relationships between students and that any conflict is quickly resolved,
as prolonged negativity can impact their school work, self-esteem, health,
and happiness (Slee & Rigby, 1993). Conflict is largely inevitable,
especially in a primary school, and this is why it is important for school
leaders to develop a school ethos that reduces the possibilities of such
conflict arising, (McCluskey et al., p. 405, 2008).
RP is a culture that must be adopted, and it has been shown that
whole-school approaches to behaviour management are more effective in
reducing cases of conflict and bullying in schools (Thompson & Smith,
2011). By making RP a whole-school approach, staff can create an
environment that has predictable consequences for unacceptable

behaviour, as well as modelling restorative language for the students to

use amongst themselves. During a two year RP implementation trial in a
Scottish primary school, the school had become distinctly calmer, and
students stated that they felt the teachers were fair and willing to listen to
both sides of the story (McCluskey et al., 2008). While this is not a wholly
conclusive or representational study, it does provide some evidence that
the RP approach can promote resilience and positive conflict resolution
skills amongst the students, and that it can also produce better
interactions between teachers and their students.
While RP has, in some cases, been shown to be quite effective in
managing behaviour and building positive relationships, it is not without
its own limitations and criticisms. A big point of contention is that the
questioning process needs to be handled very delicately. While the
questions are designed to make the offender experience feelings of
remorse in order to realise that they need to correct their behaviour, some
worry that these feelings could quickly turn into an exacerbating shame
(McCluskey et al., 2008). Rigby (2010) argues that, when working in an RP
approach, there are two types of shame: undesirable and desirable.
Undesirable shame, which is brought upon by negativity towards the
offender, is stigmatising and damaging, whereas desirable shame is
forgiving, respectful, and re-integrative of the offender. Teachers need to
be extremely careful with how they handle the conference, as a poor
conference will not re-integrate the offender, but instead could make them
resentful of the experience and of those involved, which is why training
and education is paramount (Morrison, 2007). This is not solely a

limitation of RP, but of all approaches, as a broad institutional

commitment is needed from the relevant educational authority, strong
leadership within the school, and adequate training being provided to
practitioners, (Rigby, p. 76, 2010). Unfortunately, this training can be
time-consuming, and it may turn some away some staff from learning a
new approach when they may already prefer an alternative, such as an
Assertive Discipline approach (Blood & Thorsborne, 2005).
The different approaches are all tools in the behaviour management
toolbox. Many aim to create positivity, thoughtfulness amongst students.
RP is a relatively modern approach that is often seen as a reaction
against traditional disciplinary means, (Rigby, p. 67, 2010) and it is a
method that some may not prefer. A traditional approach would be an
Assertive Discipline approach, which involves creating distinct rules and
expectations, and when these are met or not met, there can be positive or
negative reinforcement, as well as positive or negative punishment
(Martella, Nelson, Marchand-Martella, & O'Reilly, 2012). It is a very simple
approach, and the notion of rules and expectations are not exclusive to it.
While positive and negative reinforcement and punishment can be
effective in encouraging certain behaviours, supporters of RP argue that it
doesnt quite encourage the students to think about why their behaviour
is acceptable or unacceptable, and that there is a chance that no change
in underlying attitudes will be made (Jim, 2013). RP is an attractive
method to some school leaders and staff because it is a very personal and
reflective approach. It, too, works on the notion of expectation from the
teacher, but it also provides the students with the important ability to

analyse their own behaviour and how it affects others, and it as well helps
them practice building and maintaining positive relationships, using
restorative language, and peacefully resolving conflict.
It is also very important to mention that, unfortunately, a single
approach will not be 100% effective with all students. As a teacher gets to
know their students, they start to realise which approach will work best
with each individual (Tillery, Varjas, Meyers, & Collins, 2010). Just as one
student may be a predominately visual learner and another may be a
kinaesthetic learner, one student may respond well to a more assertive
approach whereas another may respond to the same approach in a
negative fashion (Blood & Thorsborne, 2005). This can present quite a
problem in a school where a whole-school approach is being utilised. The
teacher must be a part of the school culture by providing consistent
behaviour management, while at the same time they must be willing to
alter their methods when necessary. These alterations and tweaks are
things that cannot necessarily be taught, as they may only be effective in
one out of every one hundred students, but they are equally important for
teachers to think about. A teacher in Tillery et al.s study (2010) observed
they did not always think of behaviour management as a class-wide idea.
For them at times, it was very much an individual, one-to-one concept.
It is evident that RP aims to, and has shown to, foster relationship
building, as well as strengthening conflict resolution in the school. It is an
approach to behaviour management that, like other approaches, becomes
more effective if it is a part of a whole-school initiative and culture. Strong

school leaders and staff that are committed to PR give students more of a
voice during a problem, and this has been shown to greatly affect and
positively impact schools. It is not without its limitations as it does require
a lot of care during conferences in order to be re-integrative and not
harmful to the offending student. RP is an option for schools if they want
to attempt to change underlying attitudes as well as observable
behaviours. It is certainly not the only option available, but it is becoming
a lot more popular in contemporary education, as it encourages reflection,
resilience, and relationship building.

Word count: 1806

References
Blood, P., & Thorsborne, M. (2005, March). The challenge of culture
change: Embedding restorative practice in schools. In 6th
International Conference on Conferencing, Circles and other
Restorative Practices, Building a Global Alliance for Restorative
Practices and Family Empowerment (pp. 3-5).
Jim, D. (2013). Managing behaviour in the primary school. Routledge.
Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & O'Reilly, M.
(2012). Comprehensive behavior management: Individualized,
classroom, and schoolwide approaches. Los Angeles: Sage.
McCluskey, G., Lloyd, G., Kane, J., Riddell, S., Stead, J., & Weedon, E.
(2008). Can restorative practices in schools make a
difference?. Educational Review,60(4), 405-417.
Morrison, B. (2007). Restoring safe school communities: A whole school
response to bullying, violence and alienation. Federation Press.
Rigby, K. (2010). Bullying interventions in schools: Six basic approaches.
ACER Press.
Slee, P. T., & Rigby, K. (1993). Australian school children's self appraisal of
interpersonal relations: The bullying experience. Child psychiatry
and human development, 23(4), 273-282.
Thompson, F., & Smith, P. K. (2011). The use and effectiveness of antibullying strategies in schools. Research Brief DFE-RR098.

Tillery, A. D., Varjas, K., Meyers, J., & Collins, A. S. (2010). General
education teachers perceptions of behavior management and
intervention strategies.Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 12(2), 86-102.
Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining restorative. International Institute for
Restorative Practices.
Zehr, H. (1990). Changing lenses. A new focus for crime and justice, 1994.