Restorative Approaches Do Not Mean No Consequences

Why Students Need Both Accountability and Connection

Recently, I had a conversation with a School Resource Officer about restorative approaches in schools.  He told me that he values restorative work and believes strongly in relationships with students, but he was also concerned with what he called a “lack of consequences”.  He shared that administrators who favor restorative approaches are so focused on preserving relationships that they hesitate to give students meaningful consequences when the behavior is serious.  He wasn’t talking about a student refusing to put away a cellphone or disrupting class.  He was talking about fights, gang-related activity, criminal behavior, and situations that can threaten the physical and psychological safety of an entire school community, and the community at large. 

His observation raises an important question:  Have we sometimes confused being restorative with avoiding consequences?  If so, then we have misunderstood the assignment. 

A restorative school is not a school without consequences.  It is a school that understands that accountability and relationships are not opposites.  In fact, young people need both.

High Expectations and High Support

One of the foundations of restorative practices is the idea that people thrive when we combine high expectations with high levels of support.  According to the Social Relational Window adapted from McCold and Wachtel, (2003) If we provide high expectations without support, we become punitive and authoritative.  The message becomes: You broke the rule, so you don’t belong here.  But if we provide high support without meaningful expectations, we can become permissive.  The message can unintendedly become: We care about you so much that we won’t require you to take responsibility for impact of your behavior.

Neither approach gives young people what they need.  Restorative approaches ask us to hold both.

I care about you and this behavior is not acceptable.

You belong to this community and belonging comes with responsibilities.

Our community was impacted by what occurred. Let's work together to make things right.

That is a much more complex message than either punishment or permissiveness.  It is also much closer to what healthy relationships look like in the real world. 

Sometimes Removal is the Appropriate Response

There are times when removing a student from school may be necessary.  Restorative approaches should never require educators to minimize dangerous behavior or compromise the safety of other students and staff in the name of preserving a relationship.  If a student seriously harms another person, bring significant gang related activity onto campus, or creates an immediate safety risk, removal may be the most appropriate and relationship centered response available.

A restorative inquiry asks:

What is the purpose of the consequence?

What does the student need to understand?

Who has been affected?

What needs to happen to repair as much of the harm as possible?

What support does the student need to make a different choice in the future?

What needs to happen for this student to return successfully?

A restorative inquiry fundamentally changes how we think about discipline and consequences. 

Punishment and Accountability Are Not the Same Thing

In traditional discipline systems, consequences can easily become transactional: you did X, therefor you receive Y.  Fight = suspension, defiance = detention.  Repeated disruption = removal.  The consequences may stop the behavior temporarily, but it does not necessarily provide an opportunity for the student to understand what happened. Accountability asks for more.  From a restorative perspective, accountability means developing the capacity to recognize:

This is what I did.

This is why I did it.

This is who was affected.

This is the impact my action had.

This is what I can do to make amends.

This is what I can change going forward.

This is considerably harder than staying home for three days. A suspension may still be necessary, but suspension alone does not automatically produce accountability.  That distinction matters.

Behavior Has Meaning

As a community psychologist and restorative practitioner, I also believe we have to look beneath behavior without using that understanding to excuse it.   One of the principles I teach educators is: Behavior is Communication.  When young people repeatedly engage in aggression, gang activity, substance use, defiance, or other high-risk behavior, there is often something happening underneath the behavior. 

That doesn’t mean the behavior is acceptable.  It means the behavior has meaning.  From a depth perspective, what we see on the surface is rarely the entire story.  A young person may be communicating a need for belonging, protection, power, identity, recognition, autonomy, or safety.  This is particularly important when we talk about gang involvement.  If a young person finds identity, protection, status, and belonging within a gang, simply telling that student to make better choices ignores the psychological function the group may be serving.  Removing the behavior without understanding the need underneath it leaves a vacuum yearning to be filled.

A restorative response therefore asks two questions at the same time. What is this behavior telling us? And What must we do about this behavior?  Schools need the capacity to answer both. 

The Shadow Side of Relationship-Centered Discipline

There is another layer to this conversation that deserves attention.  Schools across the county have spent years trying to move away from zero tolerance policies.  That shift is important as exclusionary discipline can have serious consequences, particularly when students are repeatedly disconnected from instruction and their school community.  But every system can overcorrect. 

From a depth perspective, organizations have shadows just as individuals do.  When a school community strongly identifies itself as compassionate, trauma informed, inclusive or restorative, it can become difficult to acknowledge behaviors that do not fit comfortably within that identity.  We may begin to believe that consequences are somehow inconsistent with compassion.  However, sometimes the most compassionate response involves clarifying and setting a boundary. 

A Restorative Re-Entry

Perhaps the greatest difference between punitive and restorative is what occurs after the consequence.  Imagine a student is suspended after a serious fight.  In a traditional system, the student may serve the suspension and simply return to campus.  The punishment has technically been completed, but what has changed.  The conflict may still exist.  The student may still be angry. Others may still feel unsafe. Teachers may not know what happened.  This is precisely where restorative approaches become essential.   Before the student returns to campus, there may also be a restorative intervention, a restorative mediation, family meeting, re-entry circle, safety plan, check-in/check-out process, or daily connection with a trusted adult.  With this in place, the consequences become part of a larger strategy rather than the entire strategy.

We Have to Stop Choosing Between Safety and Belonging

Schools are being asked to do extraordinarily complex work.  They must create belonging while maintaining boundaries.  They must understand trauma without excusing harmful behavior.  They must preserve relationships while protecting victims.  They must support students while maintaining expectations. They must respond to behavior today, while also helping young people develop the skills they will need for tomorrow.  There is no single intervention that accomplishes all of this.  That is why schools need a restorative strategy, not simply a collection of restorative practices. 

Circles and conflict resolution are valuable.  Relationship building is essential. But restorative approaches must also inform discipline, intervention, re-entry, policy, and ways in which adults make decisions when something serious happens.  The goal isn’t to eliminate consequences.  The goal is to make consequences part of a thoughtful process that increases safety, accountability, learning and connection. 

High Expectations. High Support.  Strong Relationships.  Meaningful Accountability.

We don’t have to choose between them.  Our students need all of them. 

McCold, P., & Wachtel, T. (2003). In pursuit of paradigm: A theory of restorative justice.  International Institute for Restorative Practices.