Evaluation of the Whole School Restorative Practices Project: One-Year Implementation and Impact on Discipline Incidents
Gregory, Anne; Huang, Francis L.; Ward-Seidel, Allison Rae (2021). Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED614590
-
examining5,878Students, grades1-12
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: March 2024
- Single Study Review (findings for Restorative Approaches to School Discipline)
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards without reservations because it is a cluster randomized controlled trial with low cluster-level attrition and individual-level non-response.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Disciplinary incident rate |
Restorative Approaches to School Discipline vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
11.10 |
18.20 |
Yes |
|
|
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
Male: 50%
Other or unknown: 50% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Northeast
-
Race Black 54% Other or unknown 44% White 2% -
Ethnicity Hispanic 38% Not Hispanic or Latino 62% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Free or reduced price lunch (FRPL) 91% No FRPL 9%
Study Details
Setting
This study was conducted in 18 elementary, middle, high, and combination schools in a large, urban school district in the Northeast United States.
Study sample
The sample was majority (54%) Black and 38% Hispanic. A large majority of the sample (91%) qualified for free or reduced-price meals. Nearly one in four students (24%) in the analytic sample had at least one disability. Half (50%) of the students were male.
Intervention Group
The Whole School Restorative Practices Project was implemented by Morningside Center for Teaching Social Responsibility. The program aims to change school-level practice and policy, and individual student- and educator-level attitudes and behaviors through professional development and coaching, to integrate restorative practices with social emotional learning and racial equity efforts. Components include (1) Principal and School Leadership, (2) Restorative Intervention, (3) Restorative Practices Schoolwide Staff Development, (4) Student Leadership and Voice, and (5) Family Restorative Practices Opportunities. Activities include weekly community- and SEL skill-building circles for students or staff, problem-solving circles, informal restorative conversations, and formal restorative conferences. In formal restorative conferences, students and staff share their experience of the incidents, identify who was harmed, and suggest solutions that could be implemented to repair the harm. A series of questions can be used to guide the conference, such as “What were you thinking/feeling at the time?” “Who has been impacted?” “What impact has this incident had on you and others?” “What do you think needs to happen to make things right?”.
Comparison Group
Comparison schools conducted business as usual and were offered the intervention at a discounted rate after study completion. These schools could continue receiving professional development in the areas of school discipline. Principals from four comparison schools indicated that their schools included restorative practices, such as community-building circles and having some staff trained in restorative approaches to discipline. However, these schools did not have access to an outside-funded coordinator to integrate and support a schoolwide restorative practices initiative with a focus on SEL and equity.
Support for implementation
RP Coordinators worked in the intervention schools for 1–3 full days per week for 9 months to help with implementing the intervention. Principals also worked individually with an RP principal coach during regular 90-min sessions. In the first year, teachers, paraprofessionals, administrators, and support staff attended a 15-hour, multi-day training implemented by RP Coordinators. After this training, implementation supports included coaching and follow-up sessions with staff.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).