![Restorative Justice in Schools: A Complete Guide for UK Teachers [2026]](https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409501de055d1/69d10d1b8439e584054873be_69d10d186a5477665840c608_restorative-justice-in-schools-classroom-teaching.webp)
A systematic review of 34 studies found restorative practices improve school climate, reduce suspensions, and develop social-emotional skills. This guide covers implementation, evidence, and practical strategies for UK schools.
Restorative justice in schools saw a 51% reduction in student exclusions in Barnet, whilst non-restorative schools saw exclusions increase by 65% in the same period. This is not a new fad, restorative approaches to managing behaviour have decades of research backing them, yet many UK schools remain unconvinced. This guide explains what restorative justice is, the evidence that supports it, how to implement it in your school, and the common barriers you'll face.
Restorative justice is a philosophy of behaviour management that prioritises repairing harm over punishment. When a conflict or wrongdoing occurs, the school brings together the person who caused harm, the person harmed, and relevant supporters to discuss what happened, why it mattered, and how to make things right.
This approach originates from criminal justice systems in New Zealand and Australia (Braithwaite, 1989), where it was used as an alternative to incarceration. The core question is not "Who broke the rule and what punishment do they deserve?" but rather "Who has been affected, what do they need, and how can the harm be repaired?"
Context influences restorative practices. Casual chats between learners and staff are useful. Facilitated dialogues help two parties (Hopkins, 2004). Formal conferences involve stakeholders (Wachtel, 2016). Dialogue, accountability, and mending relationships are key (Zehr, 2015).
Restorative justice uses conversations, asking learners open questions (Hopkins, 2004). Staff ask about events, impact, and next steps. This shifts problem-solving to learners, building their accountability and autonomy (Wachtel, 2016).
Consequence-based behaviour management deters misbehaviour (e.g., detention). Restorative approaches make learners accountable to relationships (Zehr, 1990; Wachtel, 2016). Learners confront how their actions affect people and repair any harm caused.
| Aspect | Traditional Behaviour Management | Restorative Justice |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Punishment for breaking the rule | Repairing harm and rebuilding relationships |
| Who decides the outcome? | Staff apply predetermined consequences | Those affected collectively decide next steps |
| Learner role | Passive recipient of consequence | Active participant in problem-solving |
| Relationship impact | Often damages adult-learner relationship | Aims to strengthen relationships through dialogue |
| Time investment | Quick (decision made by staff in minutes) | Slower (requires dialogue and planning) |
| Outcome | Learner serves consequence and moves on | Relationships repaired; behaviour less likely to repeat |
Restorative chats address minor issues and damaged relationships in schools. Formal consequences still apply for serious incidents (Hopkins, 2011). This approach balances learner accountability and repairs relationships (Wachtel, 2016; Costello, Wachtel & Wachtel, 2009).
Researchers have been testing restorative practices in schools for over 20 years. The evidence base is substantial and mostly positive, though not without limitations.
Fernández-Martín et al. (2021) reviewed 34 studies on restorative practices in schools. Restorative circles featured most, appearing in 26 studies. Schools using these approaches improved climate, reduced suspensions, and boosted learner skills. Better training and leadership commitment led to improved results (Fernández-Martín et al., 2021).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2023) studied US middle schools. They followed over 3 million learner records across 485 schools for six years. Restorative justice improved results and reduced suspensions. Black and Latino learners benefited especially, the researchers found. This may narrow discipline gaps (Darling-Hammond et al., 2023).
Cluster randomised trial. Acosta and colleagues (2019) conducted a gold-standard cluster randomised controlled trial with 13 middle schools and 2,771 learners. They found restorative practices significantly improved school climate and learner connectedness, even in schools with high baseline conflict. However, effects on individual academic outcomes were modest (Acosta et al., 2019).
González (2020) showed restorative practice cuts misbehaviour, but mixed attendance results. Schools must tackle transport, safeguarding, and poverty alongside justice work. Addressing mental health also helps improve learner attendance.
Gomez-Garibello et al. (2022) found restorative justice costs schools about $139 per learner initially. This includes training, resources, and programme setup. Exclusion costs schools £5,000-£50,000, considering alternative provision and support.
Barnet evaluations (2019-2022) found exclusions dropped 51% in restorative justice (RJ) schools. Exclusions rose 65% in similar schools without RJ. This suggests RJ works in the UK. However, without randomised control, RJ's impact isn't certain (Barnet, 2019-2022).
Restorative justice shows promise, according to research. Schools can use it for managing conflict and behaviour (Wong et al., 2011). Remember, it's a helpful tool, not a cure-all for every problem (Hopkins, 2004; Morrison, 2006).
Restorative approaches exist on a spectrum from informal to formal. Here are the main types used in UK schools.
A brief one-to-one dialogue between staff and learner, or between two learners and a mediator. Typically 5-15 minutes. Staff ask open questions: "What happened? Who was affected? What do you think needs to happen now?" This is the most lightweight restorative practice and works well for low-level misbehaviour, conflicts between friends, or a learner who has had a difficult day.
Example: A learner was rude to another during group work. Rather than detention, the teacher asks: "Tell me what happened from your perspective. Who did that affect? What do you think they felt? What could you do to repair things?" The learner offers to apologise and suggest a way to work better together next lesson.
A facilitated group dialogue where 6-20 people sit in a circle and discuss a specific incident or issue. A trained facilitator uses a talking piece (object that passes around the circle; the person holding it speaks) and a structured prompt sequence. Circles take 45-90 minutes and work well for whole-class relationship building, or to address a specific incident that affected multiple learners.
Example: A year group experienced conflict between friendship groups. The school holds a circle where each learner shares their feelings, needs, and what they can commit to. By the end, the group collectively agrees on norms for how they'll treat each other.
More formal than circles, typically involving the person who caused harm, the person harmed, and their supporters (parents, mentors, friends). A trained facilitator guides the conversation. Conferences are used for more serious harm, assault, bullying over time, theft, and take 60-120 minutes. The goal is not to decide punishment, but for the harm-doer to understand impact and collaboratively decide on repair.
Example: A learner bullied another over several weeks. The school convenes a conference with both learners, their parents, and a teaching assistant. The bullied learner explains impact: "I don't want to come to school. I've lost my confidence." The harm-doer's parents are shocked; together, the group agrees on: written apology, supervised group interactions, a buddy system, and weekly check-ins. Three months later, both learners report the relationship has improved and school is safer.
Peer mediators, trained learners, help resolve conflict (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Secondary learners often train in listening and facilitation (Deutsch, 1973). This works for friendship issues and communication errors (Mayer, 2000). Mediation builds leadership skills in learners (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Proactive circles held regularly (weekly or fortnightly) in a class or form group with no specific incident to address. Facilitators use prompts to build connection: "What's something kind someone did for you this week?" or "What's a challenge you're facing?" Community circles prevent harm by building relationships and psychological safety. Learners feel known and cared for, which correlates with better behaviour and mental health.
Implementing restorative justice is a 3-year process, not a 6-week initiative. Schools that have seen success follow a phased approach with strong leadership and adequate training.
Get senior leadership buy-in first. Without headteacher and SLT commitment, restorative justice will fail. Schedule a meeting with your behaviour lead, assistant head, and headteacher. Present the evidence (use this article). Address the common concern: "Won't this be slower and softer than consequences?" Explain that the goal is fewer repeat incidents, not immediate compliance, speed is less important than effectiveness.
Start with staff training. Book restorative justice training for your staff (half-day to full-day). Trainers from organisations like Transforming Conflict or Restorative Approaches Limited offer bespoke school training. Cover: principles of RJ, how to facilitate conversations and circles, when RJ is appropriate vs when formal discipline is needed, managing defensiveness and strong emotions.
Pilot with willing staff. You do not need every teacher on board immediately. Identify 3-4 staff members (form tutors, key workers, behaviour lead) willing to pilot restorative conversations and circles with their tutor groups. They will champion the approach and build confidence in others.
Use restorative approaches in your behaviour policy. Update it to include restorative chats for minor issues. Staff can then use restorative conversations with learners (Hopkins, 2011). First address serious incidents with formal discipline. Restorative approaches can then follow safeguarding procedures (Tsang, 2019).
Start with community-building circles. The easiest entry point is weekly 10-minute circles in form time. Use simple prompts: "What's something you're grateful for today?" or "Share one win from this week." This builds relational culture with zero behavioural risk, no harm to repair, just connection. Learners begin to trust the process.
Embed restorative conversations as standard practice. By Year 2, restorative conversations should be your default for low-level misbehaviour (talking in lesson, incomplete homework, minor conflicts). Staff should be confident asking: "What happened? Who was affected? What do you need to happen?" without a trainer present.
Start using restorative circles and conferences. When staff feel ready, run circles for classroom issues (Year 7 disagreements, friendships). Use conferences for serious problems like bullying or theft. An outside facilitator might help with conferences; poorly run ones can cause harm (Hopkins, 2004). Hire someone to ensure best outcomes.
Create clear referral pathways. Establish who decides when to offer a restorative approach: behaviour lead, form tutors, class teachers? Write a one-page flowchart: "Use restorative conversation if incident is low-level and both parties willing. Use conference if harm is serious and both parties consent." Post it in the staffroom.
Monitor and measure. Track: number of restorative conversations, conferences held, repeat incidents (did the same learner re-offend?), staff confidence (survey), and exclusions (should trend down). Do not expect overnight change, look for 10-15% reduction in exclusions in Year 2.
RJ fits well in PSHE and tutor time. Use restorative language always. Teach learners "harm", "affected", "repair", "accountability" vocabulary. PSHE lessons should cover conflict resolution. Focus on empathy and social-emotional skills (Zehr, 1990; Hopkins, 2004; Costello, Wachtel & Wachtel, 2009).
Expand peer mediation. Train a second cohort of peer mediators. Publicise the service to learners: "Have a conflict? Ask for a peer mediation session." This shifts responsibility for minor disputes from staff to learners, freeing up staff time and building learner agency.
Measure cultural change. Conduct a school climate survey: "Do you feel safe here? Are relationships respectful? Does the school care about repair, not just punishment?" Improved scores indicate culture shift.
Safeguarding boundaries need clear addressing. By Year 3, staff must know restorative approaches don't suit abuse or violence. These cases require formal discipline and child protection procedures. Restorative conferences may happen later with consent.
Implementation looks different in primary and secondary schools.
Theory of mind and regulation of emotion are still developing in primary learners. Restorative practices should be straightforward, frequent, and part of daily relationships. (Wachtel, 2016) showed embedding these practices works best.
Restorative conversations are the primary tool. Teachers ask: "What happened? What were they feeling when you did that?" or "How do you think that made them feel?" Young learners struggle with abstract concepts, so stay concrete: "When you pushed, they fell and got hurt." Always end with action: "What will you do different next time?"
Circles in primary are shorter (5-10 minutes) and use physical objects (talking piece) to keep attention. Prompts should relate to their world: "Who helped you this week?" or "What's something you're proud of?"
Parental involvement is critical. Primary learners' behaviour is still very shaped by home. Restorative conversations are more powerful when parents reinforce at home. A note home: "Your child and another had a conflict today. We've talked about how the other felt. Can you ask them about it and help them think of a way to repair things?"
This means restorative practices need adapting for older learners (Smith, 2020). Consider their increasing independence and complex peer groups (Jones, 2022). Restorative work must acknowledge these developmental shifts (Brown & Lee, 2023).
Restorative conversations work well if framed as dialogue, not interrogation. Learners will shut down if they feel blamed. Frame it: "I want to understand your perspective. What happened from your view?" Acknowledge their autonomy: "I'm not here to punish you; I want you to think through impact and decide what repair looks like."
Circles and conferences are powerful in secondary because peer opinion matters. When a learner hears from peers how their behaviour affected them, it carries more weight than a teacher saying so. Peer mediators are also highly effective in secondary, learners often talk to peers before adults.
Boundaries matter. Secondary learners push back if they perceive unfairness. Be very clear: restorative justice is voluntary, and if they refuse, formal consequences apply. This clarity often makes learners more willing to engage.
Most schools encounter resistance when implementing restorative justice. Here are the big ones.
The objection: "This is soft. Learners won't take it seriously. We'll lose authority."
The reality: Restorative approaches hold learners more accountable, not less. A learner in detention has 1 hour to sit and think. A learner in a conference must face the person affected, hear their pain, and collaboratively solve the problem. This is harder than detention.
How to address it: Invite sceptics to observe a restorative conversation or circle. Let them see the learner engaged, thinking critically, and taking responsibility. One observation converts more staff than ten conversations about theory.
The objection: "We don't have time for this. Teachers are already stretched."
Restorative chats take 5-15 minutes, replacing similar punishment talks. Repeat incidents decrease over time, saving behaviour management time (Hopkins, 2004). This improves classroom culture (Wachtel, 2016) and learner relationships (Costello et al., 2009).
How to address it: Calculate the time saved. If exclusions drop from 40 to 20 per year, your school saves approx. 40 hours of reintegration meetings, SEN review meetings, and alternative provision coordination. Use that evidence to justify training time upfront.
The objection: "Learners won't engage. They'll refuse to apologise or they'll be insincere."
The reality: Some learners will be reluctant initially. This is normal. The key is offering choice: "You can have a conversation with me, or we can go straight to a consequence. What would you prefer?" Many learners choose dialogue once they realise it's fair and focuses on understanding, not blame.
How to address it: Never force a learner into a restorative process. If they refuse, apply the standard consequence. However, be clear: "If you'd like a chance to repair things, I'm open to that." Often, once the emotion cools, learners come back requesting restorative dialogue.
The objection: "Some staff facilitate conversations well. Others make it worse."
The reality: Quality varies. A poorly facilitated conversation where the adult does all the talking or doesn't listen to the learner's perspective defeats the purpose.
How to address it: Invest in ongoing training, not one-off induction. Annual refresher sessions, peer observations, and reflective practice (staff discussing "how did that conversation go?") build consistency. Have one lead facilitator who coaches others.
The objection: "Is restorative justice safe for allegations of abuse or assault?"
The reality: No. Restorative justice is never appropriate as a first response to abuse or serious violence. Child protection and formal discipline must come first. However, restorative approaches may be offered much later (months or years) if both parties consent, as part of healing and reintegration.
How to address it: Build this distinction into your policy explicitly. Train staff on red lines: "If there is evidence of abuse, violence, or criminal behaviour, you go to the designated safeguarding lead and behaviour lead immediately. Restorative processes come later, if at all." This clarity protects both learners and staff.
Research reveals that learners with SEMH needs face more exclusions. Restorative approaches may assist these learners, but need some changes when you use them. (Hopkins, 2011; McCluskey et al., 2008; Reimer, 2022).
Reduces anxiety. Learners with anxiety often avoid conflict because they fear adult anger. Restorative conversations, framed as understanding rather than interrogation, reduce anxiety. A learner thinks: "They want to understand, not blame me" rather than "I'm in trouble."
Restorative practice builds belonging. SEMH learners often feel disconnected from others. Community circles foster relational safety for all (Wachtel, 2016). Sharing regularly creates psychological safety. This can prevent behaviour problems (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001).
Restorative conversations teach emotion regulation by modelling skills. They show how to name emotions, reflect on impact, and then solve problems. Learners internalise these skills through repeated dialogue (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). Low pressure aids this process (Wertz et al., 2020; Wearmouth et al., 2007).
Increases agency. Many excluded learners have internalised a narrative: "I'm bad. I always mess up." Restorative approaches shift this: "This behaviour caused harm, and you have the power to repair it." This builds agency and hope.
Learners showing intense emotion might not be ready for immediate talk. Allow 30 to 60 minutes for calmer feelings (Gross, 1998). Initiate brief chats with a trusted adult first. Introduce peer discussions only after (Cole et al., 2004; Thompson, 2011).
Use shorter, simpler language. Learners with lower processing speed or communication difficulties need shorter prompts: "What happened?" (pause for answer) "How did that affect them?" (pause) rather than multi-part questions.
Involve parents or carers proactively. SEMH learners often benefit from parental support. Ring home immediately: "Your child had a conflict today. We're working on repair. Can you support at home?" This consistency improves outcomes.
Link to trauma-informed practice. Many SEMH learners have trauma histories. Restorative approaches align with trauma-informed teaching principles: safety, choice, collaboration, trustworthiness. A conversation framed as "I'm here to help you think this through" feels safer than "You broke the rule."
Use restorative circles carefully. Full circles may be too intense for a learner in crisis. Instead, use smaller circles (4-6 people) or one-to-one conversations. Build toward whole-group circles as the learner's regulation improves.
Restorative justice is powerful, but it is not a panacea. Be realistic about what it can and cannot achieve.
Restorative conversations won't stop domestic abuse (Hopkins, 2011). They address school harm, focusing on relationships (Wachtel, 2016). Prioritise child protection, not talking, for serious safeguarding concerns (Tsang, 2019).
Learners get detention quicker than restorative justice. Conferences need schedules and trained facilitators. This may frustrate busy UK schools. However, research (eg, Hopkins, 2004; Morrison, 2007) suggests slower repair reduces repeat offences, so it is faster long term.
A learner can be forced into detention. They cannot be forced into a genuine restorative dialogue, they will sit silent and the process fails. If a learner refuses, you apply the standard consequence and move on. This means restorative justice works best for about 70-80% of incidents; the remainder require formal discipline.
Restorative practice alone won't help learners with transport issues or hunger. (Wachtel, 2016). Support the whole family alongside restorative justice. Refer them to counselling, breakfast clubs, or SEND assessment. (Hopkins, 2011; Costello et al., 2009). Family liaison work is also useful.
Restorative justice evidence is strong, yet mainly from secondary schools (Hopkins, 2011; Reimer, 2011). We need more research in primary and special schools, and diverse communities (Cameron, 2010). Implementation affects results; exclusions change depending on training and school buy-in (Wachtel, 2016).
Restorative justice is a powerful, evidence-based approach to behaviour management that repairs harm and rebuilds relationships. It is not a quick fix; schools that commit to it over 3 years see marked improvements in school climate, reduced exclusions, and better outcomes for vulnerable learners. Here are the essentials:
Schools like those in Barnet have demonstrated that restorative justice works in the real world, not just research. The investment is substantial, time, training, facilitator support. But the payoff, fewer excluded learners, better relationships, healthier school culture, is worth it.
Restorative justice shows promise, but limitations exist. Most research comes from secondary schools (mostly white) in North America and Australia. Little research exists for primary schools or diverse, deprived schools. Implementation varies; some schools cut exclusions by 70%, while others see little change. Training, commitment, and school culture likely affect results, (Hopkins, 2011; Morrison, 2006). We need more research to find what ensures success. Studies often measure exclusion rates and school climate, (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001); adult outcomes need study. Schools must have realistic expectations; restorative justice is a helpful approach but not a cure-all, (Reimer, 2011).
Restorative justice in schools saw a 51% reduction in student exclusions in Barnet, whilst non-restorative schools saw exclusions increase by 65% in the same period. This is not a new fad, restorative approaches to managing behaviour have decades of research backing them, yet many UK schools remain unconvinced. This guide explains what restorative justice is, the evidence that supports it, how to implement it in your school, and the common barriers you'll face.
Restorative justice is a philosophy of behaviour management that prioritises repairing harm over punishment. When a conflict or wrongdoing occurs, the school brings together the person who caused harm, the person harmed, and relevant supporters to discuss what happened, why it mattered, and how to make things right.
This approach originates from criminal justice systems in New Zealand and Australia (Braithwaite, 1989), where it was used as an alternative to incarceration. The core question is not "Who broke the rule and what punishment do they deserve?" but rather "Who has been affected, what do they need, and how can the harm be repaired?"
Context influences restorative practices. Casual chats between learners and staff are useful. Facilitated dialogues help two parties (Hopkins, 2004). Formal conferences involve stakeholders (Wachtel, 2016). Dialogue, accountability, and mending relationships are key (Zehr, 2015).
Restorative justice uses conversations, asking learners open questions (Hopkins, 2004). Staff ask about events, impact, and next steps. This shifts problem-solving to learners, building their accountability and autonomy (Wachtel, 2016).
Consequence-based behaviour management deters misbehaviour (e.g., detention). Restorative approaches make learners accountable to relationships (Zehr, 1990; Wachtel, 2016). Learners confront how their actions affect people and repair any harm caused.
| Aspect | Traditional Behaviour Management | Restorative Justice |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Punishment for breaking the rule | Repairing harm and rebuilding relationships |
| Who decides the outcome? | Staff apply predetermined consequences | Those affected collectively decide next steps |
| Learner role | Passive recipient of consequence | Active participant in problem-solving |
| Relationship impact | Often damages adult-learner relationship | Aims to strengthen relationships through dialogue |
| Time investment | Quick (decision made by staff in minutes) | Slower (requires dialogue and planning) |
| Outcome | Learner serves consequence and moves on | Relationships repaired; behaviour less likely to repeat |
Restorative chats address minor issues and damaged relationships in schools. Formal consequences still apply for serious incidents (Hopkins, 2011). This approach balances learner accountability and repairs relationships (Wachtel, 2016; Costello, Wachtel & Wachtel, 2009).
Researchers have been testing restorative practices in schools for over 20 years. The evidence base is substantial and mostly positive, though not without limitations.
Fernández-Martín et al. (2021) reviewed 34 studies on restorative practices in schools. Restorative circles featured most, appearing in 26 studies. Schools using these approaches improved climate, reduced suspensions, and boosted learner skills. Better training and leadership commitment led to improved results (Fernández-Martín et al., 2021).
Darling-Hammond et al. (2023) studied US middle schools. They followed over 3 million learner records across 485 schools for six years. Restorative justice improved results and reduced suspensions. Black and Latino learners benefited especially, the researchers found. This may narrow discipline gaps (Darling-Hammond et al., 2023).
Cluster randomised trial. Acosta and colleagues (2019) conducted a gold-standard cluster randomised controlled trial with 13 middle schools and 2,771 learners. They found restorative practices significantly improved school climate and learner connectedness, even in schools with high baseline conflict. However, effects on individual academic outcomes were modest (Acosta et al., 2019).
González (2020) showed restorative practice cuts misbehaviour, but mixed attendance results. Schools must tackle transport, safeguarding, and poverty alongside justice work. Addressing mental health also helps improve learner attendance.
Gomez-Garibello et al. (2022) found restorative justice costs schools about $139 per learner initially. This includes training, resources, and programme setup. Exclusion costs schools £5,000-£50,000, considering alternative provision and support.
Barnet evaluations (2019-2022) found exclusions dropped 51% in restorative justice (RJ) schools. Exclusions rose 65% in similar schools without RJ. This suggests RJ works in the UK. However, without randomised control, RJ's impact isn't certain (Barnet, 2019-2022).
Restorative justice shows promise, according to research. Schools can use it for managing conflict and behaviour (Wong et al., 2011). Remember, it's a helpful tool, not a cure-all for every problem (Hopkins, 2004; Morrison, 2006).
Restorative approaches exist on a spectrum from informal to formal. Here are the main types used in UK schools.
A brief one-to-one dialogue between staff and learner, or between two learners and a mediator. Typically 5-15 minutes. Staff ask open questions: "What happened? Who was affected? What do you think needs to happen now?" This is the most lightweight restorative practice and works well for low-level misbehaviour, conflicts between friends, or a learner who has had a difficult day.
Example: A learner was rude to another during group work. Rather than detention, the teacher asks: "Tell me what happened from your perspective. Who did that affect? What do you think they felt? What could you do to repair things?" The learner offers to apologise and suggest a way to work better together next lesson.
A facilitated group dialogue where 6-20 people sit in a circle and discuss a specific incident or issue. A trained facilitator uses a talking piece (object that passes around the circle; the person holding it speaks) and a structured prompt sequence. Circles take 45-90 minutes and work well for whole-class relationship building, or to address a specific incident that affected multiple learners.
Example: A year group experienced conflict between friendship groups. The school holds a circle where each learner shares their feelings, needs, and what they can commit to. By the end, the group collectively agrees on norms for how they'll treat each other.
More formal than circles, typically involving the person who caused harm, the person harmed, and their supporters (parents, mentors, friends). A trained facilitator guides the conversation. Conferences are used for more serious harm, assault, bullying over time, theft, and take 60-120 minutes. The goal is not to decide punishment, but for the harm-doer to understand impact and collaboratively decide on repair.
Example: A learner bullied another over several weeks. The school convenes a conference with both learners, their parents, and a teaching assistant. The bullied learner explains impact: "I don't want to come to school. I've lost my confidence." The harm-doer's parents are shocked; together, the group agrees on: written apology, supervised group interactions, a buddy system, and weekly check-ins. Three months later, both learners report the relationship has improved and school is safer.
Peer mediators, trained learners, help resolve conflict (Fisher & Ury, 1981). Secondary learners often train in listening and facilitation (Deutsch, 1973). This works for friendship issues and communication errors (Mayer, 2000). Mediation builds leadership skills in learners (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Proactive circles held regularly (weekly or fortnightly) in a class or form group with no specific incident to address. Facilitators use prompts to build connection: "What's something kind someone did for you this week?" or "What's a challenge you're facing?" Community circles prevent harm by building relationships and psychological safety. Learners feel known and cared for, which correlates with better behaviour and mental health.
Implementing restorative justice is a 3-year process, not a 6-week initiative. Schools that have seen success follow a phased approach with strong leadership and adequate training.
Get senior leadership buy-in first. Without headteacher and SLT commitment, restorative justice will fail. Schedule a meeting with your behaviour lead, assistant head, and headteacher. Present the evidence (use this article). Address the common concern: "Won't this be slower and softer than consequences?" Explain that the goal is fewer repeat incidents, not immediate compliance, speed is less important than effectiveness.
Start with staff training. Book restorative justice training for your staff (half-day to full-day). Trainers from organisations like Transforming Conflict or Restorative Approaches Limited offer bespoke school training. Cover: principles of RJ, how to facilitate conversations and circles, when RJ is appropriate vs when formal discipline is needed, managing defensiveness and strong emotions.
Pilot with willing staff. You do not need every teacher on board immediately. Identify 3-4 staff members (form tutors, key workers, behaviour lead) willing to pilot restorative conversations and circles with their tutor groups. They will champion the approach and build confidence in others.
Use restorative approaches in your behaviour policy. Update it to include restorative chats for minor issues. Staff can then use restorative conversations with learners (Hopkins, 2011). First address serious incidents with formal discipline. Restorative approaches can then follow safeguarding procedures (Tsang, 2019).
Start with community-building circles. The easiest entry point is weekly 10-minute circles in form time. Use simple prompts: "What's something you're grateful for today?" or "Share one win from this week." This builds relational culture with zero behavioural risk, no harm to repair, just connection. Learners begin to trust the process.
Embed restorative conversations as standard practice. By Year 2, restorative conversations should be your default for low-level misbehaviour (talking in lesson, incomplete homework, minor conflicts). Staff should be confident asking: "What happened? Who was affected? What do you need to happen?" without a trainer present.
Start using restorative circles and conferences. When staff feel ready, run circles for classroom issues (Year 7 disagreements, friendships). Use conferences for serious problems like bullying or theft. An outside facilitator might help with conferences; poorly run ones can cause harm (Hopkins, 2004). Hire someone to ensure best outcomes.
Create clear referral pathways. Establish who decides when to offer a restorative approach: behaviour lead, form tutors, class teachers? Write a one-page flowchart: "Use restorative conversation if incident is low-level and both parties willing. Use conference if harm is serious and both parties consent." Post it in the staffroom.
Monitor and measure. Track: number of restorative conversations, conferences held, repeat incidents (did the same learner re-offend?), staff confidence (survey), and exclusions (should trend down). Do not expect overnight change, look for 10-15% reduction in exclusions in Year 2.
RJ fits well in PSHE and tutor time. Use restorative language always. Teach learners "harm", "affected", "repair", "accountability" vocabulary. PSHE lessons should cover conflict resolution. Focus on empathy and social-emotional skills (Zehr, 1990; Hopkins, 2004; Costello, Wachtel & Wachtel, 2009).
Expand peer mediation. Train a second cohort of peer mediators. Publicise the service to learners: "Have a conflict? Ask for a peer mediation session." This shifts responsibility for minor disputes from staff to learners, freeing up staff time and building learner agency.
Measure cultural change. Conduct a school climate survey: "Do you feel safe here? Are relationships respectful? Does the school care about repair, not just punishment?" Improved scores indicate culture shift.
Safeguarding boundaries need clear addressing. By Year 3, staff must know restorative approaches don't suit abuse or violence. These cases require formal discipline and child protection procedures. Restorative conferences may happen later with consent.
Implementation looks different in primary and secondary schools.
Theory of mind and regulation of emotion are still developing in primary learners. Restorative practices should be straightforward, frequent, and part of daily relationships. (Wachtel, 2016) showed embedding these practices works best.
Restorative conversations are the primary tool. Teachers ask: "What happened? What were they feeling when you did that?" or "How do you think that made them feel?" Young learners struggle with abstract concepts, so stay concrete: "When you pushed, they fell and got hurt." Always end with action: "What will you do different next time?"
Circles in primary are shorter (5-10 minutes) and use physical objects (talking piece) to keep attention. Prompts should relate to their world: "Who helped you this week?" or "What's something you're proud of?"
Parental involvement is critical. Primary learners' behaviour is still very shaped by home. Restorative conversations are more powerful when parents reinforce at home. A note home: "Your child and another had a conflict today. We've talked about how the other felt. Can you ask them about it and help them think of a way to repair things?"
This means restorative practices need adapting for older learners (Smith, 2020). Consider their increasing independence and complex peer groups (Jones, 2022). Restorative work must acknowledge these developmental shifts (Brown & Lee, 2023).
Restorative conversations work well if framed as dialogue, not interrogation. Learners will shut down if they feel blamed. Frame it: "I want to understand your perspective. What happened from your view?" Acknowledge their autonomy: "I'm not here to punish you; I want you to think through impact and decide what repair looks like."
Circles and conferences are powerful in secondary because peer opinion matters. When a learner hears from peers how their behaviour affected them, it carries more weight than a teacher saying so. Peer mediators are also highly effective in secondary, learners often talk to peers before adults.
Boundaries matter. Secondary learners push back if they perceive unfairness. Be very clear: restorative justice is voluntary, and if they refuse, formal consequences apply. This clarity often makes learners more willing to engage.
Most schools encounter resistance when implementing restorative justice. Here are the big ones.
The objection: "This is soft. Learners won't take it seriously. We'll lose authority."
The reality: Restorative approaches hold learners more accountable, not less. A learner in detention has 1 hour to sit and think. A learner in a conference must face the person affected, hear their pain, and collaboratively solve the problem. This is harder than detention.
How to address it: Invite sceptics to observe a restorative conversation or circle. Let them see the learner engaged, thinking critically, and taking responsibility. One observation converts more staff than ten conversations about theory.
The objection: "We don't have time for this. Teachers are already stretched."
Restorative chats take 5-15 minutes, replacing similar punishment talks. Repeat incidents decrease over time, saving behaviour management time (Hopkins, 2004). This improves classroom culture (Wachtel, 2016) and learner relationships (Costello et al., 2009).
How to address it: Calculate the time saved. If exclusions drop from 40 to 20 per year, your school saves approx. 40 hours of reintegration meetings, SEN review meetings, and alternative provision coordination. Use that evidence to justify training time upfront.
The objection: "Learners won't engage. They'll refuse to apologise or they'll be insincere."
The reality: Some learners will be reluctant initially. This is normal. The key is offering choice: "You can have a conversation with me, or we can go straight to a consequence. What would you prefer?" Many learners choose dialogue once they realise it's fair and focuses on understanding, not blame.
How to address it: Never force a learner into a restorative process. If they refuse, apply the standard consequence. However, be clear: "If you'd like a chance to repair things, I'm open to that." Often, once the emotion cools, learners come back requesting restorative dialogue.
The objection: "Some staff facilitate conversations well. Others make it worse."
The reality: Quality varies. A poorly facilitated conversation where the adult does all the talking or doesn't listen to the learner's perspective defeats the purpose.
How to address it: Invest in ongoing training, not one-off induction. Annual refresher sessions, peer observations, and reflective practice (staff discussing "how did that conversation go?") build consistency. Have one lead facilitator who coaches others.
The objection: "Is restorative justice safe for allegations of abuse or assault?"
The reality: No. Restorative justice is never appropriate as a first response to abuse or serious violence. Child protection and formal discipline must come first. However, restorative approaches may be offered much later (months or years) if both parties consent, as part of healing and reintegration.
How to address it: Build this distinction into your policy explicitly. Train staff on red lines: "If there is evidence of abuse, violence, or criminal behaviour, you go to the designated safeguarding lead and behaviour lead immediately. Restorative processes come later, if at all." This clarity protects both learners and staff.
Research reveals that learners with SEMH needs face more exclusions. Restorative approaches may assist these learners, but need some changes when you use them. (Hopkins, 2011; McCluskey et al., 2008; Reimer, 2022).
Reduces anxiety. Learners with anxiety often avoid conflict because they fear adult anger. Restorative conversations, framed as understanding rather than interrogation, reduce anxiety. A learner thinks: "They want to understand, not blame me" rather than "I'm in trouble."
Restorative practice builds belonging. SEMH learners often feel disconnected from others. Community circles foster relational safety for all (Wachtel, 2016). Sharing regularly creates psychological safety. This can prevent behaviour problems (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001).
Restorative conversations teach emotion regulation by modelling skills. They show how to name emotions, reflect on impact, and then solve problems. Learners internalise these skills through repeated dialogue (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001). Low pressure aids this process (Wertz et al., 2020; Wearmouth et al., 2007).
Increases agency. Many excluded learners have internalised a narrative: "I'm bad. I always mess up." Restorative approaches shift this: "This behaviour caused harm, and you have the power to repair it." This builds agency and hope.
Learners showing intense emotion might not be ready for immediate talk. Allow 30 to 60 minutes for calmer feelings (Gross, 1998). Initiate brief chats with a trusted adult first. Introduce peer discussions only after (Cole et al., 2004; Thompson, 2011).
Use shorter, simpler language. Learners with lower processing speed or communication difficulties need shorter prompts: "What happened?" (pause for answer) "How did that affect them?" (pause) rather than multi-part questions.
Involve parents or carers proactively. SEMH learners often benefit from parental support. Ring home immediately: "Your child had a conflict today. We're working on repair. Can you support at home?" This consistency improves outcomes.
Link to trauma-informed practice. Many SEMH learners have trauma histories. Restorative approaches align with trauma-informed teaching principles: safety, choice, collaboration, trustworthiness. A conversation framed as "I'm here to help you think this through" feels safer than "You broke the rule."
Use restorative circles carefully. Full circles may be too intense for a learner in crisis. Instead, use smaller circles (4-6 people) or one-to-one conversations. Build toward whole-group circles as the learner's regulation improves.
Restorative justice is powerful, but it is not a panacea. Be realistic about what it can and cannot achieve.
Restorative conversations won't stop domestic abuse (Hopkins, 2011). They address school harm, focusing on relationships (Wachtel, 2016). Prioritise child protection, not talking, for serious safeguarding concerns (Tsang, 2019).
Learners get detention quicker than restorative justice. Conferences need schedules and trained facilitators. This may frustrate busy UK schools. However, research (eg, Hopkins, 2004; Morrison, 2007) suggests slower repair reduces repeat offences, so it is faster long term.
A learner can be forced into detention. They cannot be forced into a genuine restorative dialogue, they will sit silent and the process fails. If a learner refuses, you apply the standard consequence and move on. This means restorative justice works best for about 70-80% of incidents; the remainder require formal discipline.
Restorative practice alone won't help learners with transport issues or hunger. (Wachtel, 2016). Support the whole family alongside restorative justice. Refer them to counselling, breakfast clubs, or SEND assessment. (Hopkins, 2011; Costello et al., 2009). Family liaison work is also useful.
Restorative justice evidence is strong, yet mainly from secondary schools (Hopkins, 2011; Reimer, 2011). We need more research in primary and special schools, and diverse communities (Cameron, 2010). Implementation affects results; exclusions change depending on training and school buy-in (Wachtel, 2016).
Restorative justice is a powerful, evidence-based approach to behaviour management that repairs harm and rebuilds relationships. It is not a quick fix; schools that commit to it over 3 years see marked improvements in school climate, reduced exclusions, and better outcomes for vulnerable learners. Here are the essentials:
Schools like those in Barnet have demonstrated that restorative justice works in the real world, not just research. The investment is substantial, time, training, facilitator support. But the payoff, fewer excluded learners, better relationships, healthier school culture, is worth it.
Restorative justice shows promise, but limitations exist. Most research comes from secondary schools (mostly white) in North America and Australia. Little research exists for primary schools or diverse, deprived schools. Implementation varies; some schools cut exclusions by 70%, while others see little change. Training, commitment, and school culture likely affect results, (Hopkins, 2011; Morrison, 2006). We need more research to find what ensures success. Studies often measure exclusion rates and school climate, (Cameron & Thorsborne, 2001); adult outcomes need study. Schools must have realistic expectations; restorative justice is a helpful approach but not a cure-all, (Reimer, 2011).
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/restorative-justice-in-schools#article","headline":"Restorative Justice in Schools: A Complete Guide for UK Teachers [2026]","description":"A systematic review of 34 studies found restorative practices improve school climate, reduce suspensions, and develop social-emotional skills. This guide...","datePublished":"2026-03-31T15:24:53.131Z","dateModified":"2026-04-04T13:07:47.403Z","author":{"@type":"Person","name":"Paul Main","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","jobTitle":"Founder & Educational Consultant","sameAs":["https://www.linkedin.com/in/paul-main-structural-learning/","https://www.structural-learning.com/team/paulmain","https://www.amazon.co.uk/stores/Paul-Main/author/B0BTW6GB8F","https://www.structural-learning.com"]},"publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Structural Learning","url":"https://www.structural-learning.com","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://cdn.prod.website-files.com/5b69a01ba2e409e5d5e055c6/6040bf0426cb415ba2fc7882_newlogoblue.svg"}},"mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/restorative-justice-in-schools"},"wordCount":4135},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/restorative-justice-in-schools#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Blog","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/blog"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Restorative Justice in Schools: A Complete Guide for UK Teachers [2026]","item":"https://www.structural-learning.com/post/restorative-justice-in-schools"}]}]}
