Restorative Practice Protocol Designer

Design a restorative practice protocol for addressing harm, rebuilding trust, and restoring relationships. Use when managing conflict, behavioural incidents, or relationship breakdown between students.

What it does

Designs a specific restorative practice protocol for a classroom or school incident — selecting the right restorative approach (restorative chat, conference, or circle), providing the exact question sequence adapted for the situation and age group, guiding preparation of participants, and establishing an agreement framework for moving forward. The critical principle is that restorative practice is not the absence of consequences — it is a different KIND of consequence, one that requires the person who caused harm to understand the impact of their actions, take responsibility, and actively repair the damage. This is more demanding than a detention (which requires only that you sit in a room) and more effective (because it addresses the harm rather than just punishing the behaviour). The output is a ready-to-use protocol that a teacher or pastoral leader can follow step by step. AI is specifically valuable here because selecting the right restorative approach and calibrating the questions for the specific situation and age group requires both restorative justice expertise and practical school knowledge.

The evidence behind it

Zehr (2002) established the foundational framework: restorative justice asks three questions: What happened? Who was harmed and how? What needs to happen to make it right? This contrasts with punitive justice, which asks: What rule was broken? Who broke it? What punishment do they deserve? Hopkins (2004) applied restorative principles to schools through the "Just Schools" model, showing that whole-school restorative approaches reduce exclusions, improve relationships, and create safer learning environments. Morrison (2007) demonstrated that restorative practice operates on three levels: primary (prevention — building relationships and community), secondary (intervention — addressing harm when it occurs), and tertiary (intensive — rebuilding relationships after serious harm). Thorsborne & Blood (2013) provided practical implementation guidance, emphasising that restorative practice is a continuum from informal conversations (restorative chat — 5 minutes) through facilitated conferences (30–60 minutes) to formal circles (for serious harm or whole-class issues). González (2015) reviewed evidence on restorative practices in schools and found reductions in exclusions, suspensions, and racial disparities in discipline — though implementation quality was the key predictor of success.

Sources

• Hopkins (2004) — Just Schools: a whole-school approach to restorative justice
• Morrison (2007) — Restoring Safe School Communities: a whole-school response to bullying, violence and alienation
• Zehr (2002) — The Little Book of Restorative Justice
• Thorsborne & Blood (2013) — Implementing Restorative Practices in Schools
• González (2015) — Restorative practices: from the evidence to whole-school implementation

How to use it in your lesson

For the best results with EvidenceLesson, give it:

• incident_description — What happened — the behaviour or conflict that needs addressing
• people_involved — Who was involved and in what roles — the person who caused harm, the person(s) affected, any witnesses
• student_level — Age/year group
• relationship_context (optional) — The relationship between those involved — friends, classmates, strangers, repeat pattern
• previous_incidents (optional) — Whether this is a first occurrence or part of a pattern
• severity (optional) — Low-level disruption, moderate conflict, serious harm
• available_time (optional) — How much time can be allocated for the restorative process
• school_policy (optional) — The school's behaviour policy context — is restorative practice embedded or being trialled?

Known limitations

1. Restorative practice requires facilitator skill. The protocol above provides the structure, but the facilitation — reading body language, holding silence, managing emotion, redirecting minimisation — requires practice. Teachers new to restorative approaches should start with restorative chats (simpler) before attempting conferences (more complex).

1. Restorative practice is not appropriate for all situations. Situations involving significant power imbalances (persistent bullying, abuse, harassment) may not be suitable for a face-to-face restorative conference, as the affected person may feel unsafe speaking directly to the person who harmed them. In these cases, the facilitator can shuttle between the parties rather than bringing them together, or an alternative approach may be needed.

1. Restorative practice takes more time than punishment. A detention takes zero preparation and zero facilitator skill. A restorative conference takes 30–40 minutes plus preparation. The investment pays off in reduced repeat incidents and improved relationships, but the initial time cost is significant and must be supported by school leadership.

Pairs well with