Restorative Justice in Schools: Research on Alternatives to Suspension

School discipline policy has received significant research attention as evidence has accumulated that exclusionary practices including suspension and expulsion produce poor outcomes for students and do not improve school safety or climate. Restorative justice approaches, which focus on repairing harm through dialogue and relationship rather than removing students from school, have expanded substantially across American school districts. Research on these approaches is still developing, but a body of evidence has begun to clarify what restorative practices involve, what they produce, and what conditions support their effectiveness. Suspension and expulsion are the most common forms of exclusionary discipline in American schools. Research on the consequences of school suspension finds consistent and concerning patterns. Suspended students are more likely to fall behind academically, to disengage from school, to be retained in grade, and to drop out than non-suspended students with similar prior academic performance and behavior. The school-to-prison pipeline, a term used to describe the pathway from school disciplinary action to juvenile justice involvement, reflects research finding that school suspension predicts later contact with the criminal justice system even after controlling for individual and family characteristics. Racial disparities in school discipline are among the most well-documented inequities in American education. Black students are suspended at rates approximately three times higher than white students nationally, and students with disabilities are suspended at significantly higher rates than non-disabled students. Research on these disparities finds that they are not fully explained by differences in student behavior, suggesting that implicit bias, differential application of disciplinary rules, and structural factors within schools contribute to unequal outcomes. This disparity in discipline contributes to differential educational opportunities and outcomes across racial groups. Restorative justice in schools draws on principles from criminal justice restorative practices that focus on repairing harm, restoring relationships, and involving all parties affected by a conflict or harmful behavior. In school contexts, restorative practices may include proactive circles that build community and relational trust before incidents occur, responsive circles or conferences that bring together students who have caused harm and those affected to discuss consequences and repair, and peer mediation programs that train students to facilitate conflict resolution. These approaches require a shift in school culture from punitive to relational and require sustained investment in staff training and time. Research on restorative practices in schools finds generally positive associations with reductions in suspensions, disciplinary incidents, and disciplinary disparities. Studies in Oakland, Denver, and other large urban districts that implemented restorative practices found significant reductions in suspension rates following implementation. Research in Chicago found reductions in disciplinary incidents and improvements in school climate following restorative practice implementation. However, many of these studies use pre-post designs that cannot definitively attribute changes to restorative practices rather than concurrent trends or other factors. More rigorous evaluations using comparison group designs are developing. A cluster-randomized trial of restorative practices in Pittsburgh found reductions in office referrals and improvements in school climate in schools assigned to the intervention compared to control schools. Research on restorative practices and academic outcomes finds mixed evidence, with some studies finding improvements in attendance and academic engagement alongside disciplinary improvements and others finding more limited spillover effects on academic indicators. Implementation quality is a critical moderating factor in restorative practice outcomes. Schools that implement restorative practices with full fidelity, including proactive community-building alongside responsive conflict resolution, that have trained and supported staff, and that have leadership commitment to the approach show better outcomes than those that implement partially or inconsistently. Research on implementation barriers finds that time constraints, staff skepticism, and inadequate training are the most common obstacles to effective implementation. The shift to restorative approaches does not mean the elimination of all consequences for student behavior. Research on effective school discipline emphasizes the importance of clear expectations, consistent consequences, and student accountability alongside relational repair. Restorative justice does not require that harm go unaddressed; it requires that the response to harm attend to the needs of those harmed and to the conditions that led to the harmful behavior, rather than focusing exclusively on punishment.