Summary

• Restorative practices work best when the student who experienced harm feels safe, has real choices about participation, and can share their perspective in a supported way.

• These approaches ask students who caused harm to take responsibility, repair relationships, and rebuild trust—helping all students learn from the experience while keeping the community connected.

• Restorative conversations should complement, not replace, required legal processes such as Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs), so that everyone’s rights and safety are protected.

• Panelists and testimony recommend: trained school staff, clear procedures, and ongoing communication with families to make restorative practices safe, fair, and effective for all students.

Why this briefing, and who we heard from

At the State Board’s October 15 public meeting, we focused on a simple question with real stakes for students and families: how can schools center people who experience harm through restorative justice approaches that are meant to build trust, repair relationships, and strengthen the school community? The discussion also explored how these approaches intersect with important federal and local policies, especially in cases involving bullying, cyberbullying, and students with disabilities.

Panelists brought a mix of practice, research, and family advocacy expertise. Dr. Justin Allen (Texas A&M University, a public research university) spoke about restorative approaches in K–12 settings and how schools build capacity. Megan Challender (Volare, a nonprofit that provides free, trauma-informed support and advocacy to transform how we respond to harm) offered direct examples from her practice. Nancy Duchesneau (The Education Trust, a national nonprofit working to close opportunity gaps) addressed discipline and equity research. Nadiya Pope (Advocates for Justice and Education (AJE), D.C.’s federally designated Parent Training and Information Center focused on education and disability rights) uplifted family and disability rights perspectives. Dr. Jo R. King (Boston University–Wheelock College of Education & Human Development, BU’s education and human development college) offered evidence on models that protect safety and dignity, and Yazid Jackson (RestorativeDC, a citywide initiative supporting restorative practices in D.C. schools) shared on-the-ground implementation in D.C. schools.

What restorative justice is, and what it isn’t

What it is:

• A structured, relationship-centered philosophy and approach that focuses on acknowledging harm, accountability, healing, and reintegration, inviting all parties to voluntarily repair relationships and rebuild community trust.
• A school-wide continuum (proactive circles → restorative conversations → formal conferences) used to build community first and respond to harm when it occurs with clear agreements, follow-up, and adult oversight.
• An offense-neutral framework that allows consistent responses whether incidents involve fights, in-person bullying, or cyberbullying. 

What it isn’t:

• Not a replacement for legal or safety processes, and not a “quick fix” or one-time circle.
• Not appropriate when a victim is unsafe or coerced; participation must remain voluntary for victims.
• Not a blanket substitute for exclusion in severe cases; it should supplement, not supplant, necessary protections and due process.
• Not solved by simply transferring students; moving a student doesn’t address root causes or protect others.

Core restorative questions

• What happened?
• Who was affected and how?
• What needs to happen next to make things as right as possible?

Application in schools

• Community-building circles establish norms and belonging.
• Restorative conversations repair relationships after lower-level conflicts.
• Formal conferences address serious harm with clear agreements, follow-through, and adult oversight.
• Strengthen implementation with MTSS, trained neutral facilitators, safety plans, and ongoing check-ins, especially for cyberbullying (preserve evidence, takedown protocols, designated trained POCs).

What “victim-centered” restorative practices looks like in practice

Victim-centered restorative practices ensure that the person who experienced harm is safe, has real choices to participate, and has a voice in the outcome. This framing emphasizes dignity and agency, especially in school settings where more than one person may be affected by an incident.

• Safety. Schools put immediate protections in place—such as no-contact agreements, escorted transitions, changes to seating or schedules, and adult supervision in shared spaces.
• Choice. No student should be pressured to participate. “If it becomes coerced or demanded, then it will not work for the victim or the person who caused harm,” Challender said during Q&A.
• Voice. Staff help the student identify needs and boundaries, then reflect those in any plan. Dr. King pointed to models where students who were harmed do not have to meet the person who caused harm.

Some models keep parties separate. In family group conferencing, the person who caused harm meets with their family or support team to propose concrete repair steps. Staff review the plan, confirm it addresses the needs identified by the person harmed, and set up check-ins to make sure it happens.

For models and training resources on restorative practices that prioritize victims’ safety and choice, see RestorativeDC’s model overview and the U.S. Department of Education’s “Guiding Principles for Safe and Supportive Schools”.

Illustrating the concept

According to expert panelist testimony, after a student, teacher, or parent alerts staff that a student is being repeatedly targeted online by a classmate, the school takes the following steps including safety measures, consent requirements, distinct legal processes, and restorative conference models.

1. Immediate safety. Issue a no-contact directive. Adjust class transitions. Notify teachers and deans to monitor. Offer counseling.
2. Information and options. A staff member explains options privately to the student and family. This includes restorative options that do not require a meeting, traditional discipline where appropriate, and how to report any new incidents.
3. Accountability pathway. The student who caused harm participates in a facilitated conference with their support network. They identify what they did, who was affected, and how they will repair harm.
4. Repair plan. The plan may include written acknowledgment of harm, removal of harmful posts, restitution where relevant (for example, replacing damaged property or restoring a privilege through service), digital citizenship lessons, and scheduled check-ins. The plan cannot involve contact unless the person harmed chooses it later.
5. Follow-up. Staff monitor the plan, keep the no-contact directive in place, and survey the student who experienced harm about safety and support.

Accountability and dignity at the same time

Restorative justice asks more of students who cause harm than a simple removal. Unlike exclusion such as school suspensions, which research shows does not create safer schools or address the underlying behavior and undermines the students’ access to academic learning, restorative approaches require students to name what happened, understand the impact, and take concrete steps to repair harm. As Duchesneau explained, exclusion “does not support students in learning how to resolve conflict and does not hold students accountable for repairing the harm they cause.” Dr. Allen added that when a student is simply removed or transferred, “the district retains responsibility to correct the underlying conditions at the original site to prevent recurrence.” In other words, sending a student elsewhere does not end the harm—it risks continuing it in a new environment. 

Dr. King emphasized that restorative practices “are not a monolith nor a panacea” and “can and should be implemented alongside exclusion in instances of severe behavior, including bullying.” In serious cases, time away from class may still be necessary to protect the person harmed while repair work proceeds. Two examples illustrate the point: an evaluation by The RAND Corporation, a nonprofit global policy think tank, research institute, and public consulting firm, found in Pittsburgh Public Schools that restorative practices reduced suspensions and improved school climate without harming academic outcomes overall, while narrowing discipline disparities, showing repair-focused approaches can support safety and learning; meanwhile, an APA task force’s review concluded exclusionary “zero tolerance” policies do not reliably improve school safety and can have adverse effects on student outcomes.

Federal protections are guardrails, not red tape

When a student with a disability is facing a disciplinary removal that could change placement, schools must hold a Manifestation Determination Review (MDR). An MDR is a legal step. It is separate from restorative conversations. The MDR answers two questions:

1. Was the behavior caused by, or did it have a direct and substantial relationship to, the student’s disability?
2. Did the behavior result from the school’s failure to implement the student’s IEP? discipline where appropriate, and how to report any new incidents.

Panelists agreed these legal steps should not be blended with restorative conversations. “MDR should be kept separated from the conversation of how a victim feels,” Pope said. Dr. Allen added that keeping the processes distinct helps avoid bias.  While also reducing bias, it also serves to protect the rights of everyone involved. Schools can run restorative planning on a parallel track, but they should not blend the meetings or decisions.

Clear documentation and family communication are part of care. Families need to know timelines, roles, and alternatives. That transparency helps prevent rushed or inequitable responses.

Panel discussion insights

The below best practices related to restorative justice were brought to light during the panel discussion.

Before harm. Build climate and community through classroom circles, shared expectations, and routines that teach social and emotional skills. As Jackson explained, “Where it starts is relationships.” Restorative practices work best when they are part of daily school culture, not an add-on. Dr. King noted that restorative practices “are not meant to be implemented as an isolated event and without sufficient staff capacity.” Schools need consistent training, adult coaching, and time for practice to take hold. Even with infrastructure—about 70 restorative coordinators across DCPS and 45 schools supported by RestorativeDC—implementation quality still varies, showing that staff capacity and follow-through matter as much as policy.

When harm occurs. Safety comes first. Schools should act quickly to ensure safety and record their actions. Restorative options should only be offered when everyone involved gives consent. “If it becomes coerced or demanded, then it will not work,” said Challender. Legal processes such as Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs) must remain distinct from restorative processes, though both can move forward on parallel timelines. Families should understand what each process covers and how they connect.

Cyberbullying. Every school should have a clear intake form for bullying, a trained point of contact, and coordination across Local Education Agencies (LEAs) or online platforms. Jackson emphasized that while DCPS’s no–cell phone policy has reduced in-school misuse, device limits alone are not enough. Schools still need digital citizenship lessons, family education, consistent follow-up, and clear consequences to prevent recurrence.

Students with IEPs or 504 plans. Restorative and special education supports should work together. Schools can use a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) to match interventions to need, a Functional Behavioral Assessment (FBA) to identify what drives a behavior, and a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) to teach and reinforce new skills. Jackson shared that aligning these frameworks “allows schools to merge restorative justice and special-education practices without compromising core values.” Psychologists, social workers, and counselors should have time and training to co-facilitate so both repair and support happen in tandem.

If transfer is considered. Ward 3 Representative Eric Goulet raised concerns about schools asking the student who experienced harm to transfer instead of addressing the student who caused harm. He and other panelists agreed that this practice should never be the first response. If a transfer does occur after other interventions are exhausted, both the sending and receiving schools should hold Support Circles to provide closure and continuity. In serious or repeated cases, temporary time away from class or schedule adjustments for the student who caused harm may be needed to protect the person harmed while accountability and repair continue.

Student safety and trust. Based on the 2024 annual report from the DC Office of the Ombudsman for Public Education (page 27), 24 percent of students report feeling safe at school, highlighting the need for prevention, clear communication, and sustained support. Restorative practices are not a substitute for consequences; they are a structure for accountability that centers safety, belonging, and dignity.

Additional themes raised by families, practitioners, and school staff

Families, practitioners, and school staff also shared what supports they believe are essential for restorative practices to truly protect safety and dignity.

Families. Parents and caregivers asked for transparent, timely processes and real choices that do not shift burdens onto the person harmed. They called for prompt bullying investigations with clear written notices and outcomes, which build trust even when findings are not in their favor. Families also asked for safety plans that are written, monitored, and designed around what makes their child feel safe in the building. Transfers or schedule changes should require consent and should never be the default response.

Practitioners. Educators, school-based clinicians, and legal advocates emphasized the need for clear procedural lines and real capacity. Manifestation Determination Reviews (MDRs) must stay separate from restorative conversations, with distinct teams and timelines, while restorative options can follow with consent. They also highlighted the importance of trained, neutral facilitators, structured time for victims to be heard, and routine check-ins after agreements. Several urged the Board to avoid unfunded mandates and to invest in coaching and fidelity monitoring so that practices remain consistent across schools.

School staff and leaders. Principals, coordinators, and teachers pointed to uneven implementation, mental-health staffing gaps, and the need for baseline anti-bullying infrastructure. Specific requests included a trained bullying point of contact in every school, protocols to preserve digital evidence and remove harmful content, inter-school coordination for cross-LEA incidents, and digital literacy for students and families.

Together, these perspectives outline the priorities that shape the policy work that follows: keep consent and no-contact options explicit, keep MDRs and restorative processes distinct, fund training and fidelity, align Chapter 25 with Student Fair Access, strengthen bullying intake and coordination, and measure outcomes for the students who experienced harm.

Looking ahead

Safeguards are not burdens. They are commitments to care. When schools center the student who experienced harm, expect real accountability from those who caused it to ensure that safety and community wellbeing can be upheld.