Best AI for Restorative Practices in Schools: Research, Protocols, and Tools for 2026
Quick Answer: AI supports restorative practices in education by generating circle-keeper scripts for proactive and responsive restorative circles, conflict resolution dialogue frameworks, harm-focused questioning protocols based on Zehr's restorative lens, community-building circle plans for the start of the school year, and implementation guides for restorative practice integration across school culture. Platforms like EduGenius help teachers at Grades KG-9 develop the circle-keeping skills, questioning frameworks, and classroom community-building practices that make restorative approaches sustainable at the classroom level.
School discipline in the United States has been dominated by exclusionary practices—suspensions, expulsions, and removal—that research consistently shows fail to produce the intended effects while causing significant collateral harm. Students who are suspended:
- Miss instructional time
- Are more likely to fall behind academically
- Are significantly more likely to drop out or come into contact with the juvenile justice system (the "school-to-prison pipeline" that researchers have extensively documented)
Exclusionary discipline also disproportionately affects Black students, students with disabilities, and students experiencing trauma—creating systematic inequity that compounds existing educational disadvantage.
Restorative practices offer an evidence-based alternative grounded in restorative justice theory: rather than asking "what rule was broken and what punishment is warranted?", restorative approaches ask "who was harmed, what are their needs, and what is the obligation of those who caused harm to make things right?" This reframing from rule-based punishment to relationship-based accountability produces better outcomes on every relevant measure: reduced disciplinary incidents, reduced suspension rates, improved school climate, and better academic outcomes.
AI tools support restorative practice implementation by handling the preparation-intensive tasks: generating circle protocols, conflict dialogue frameworks, and community-building activities that practitioners can adapt to their specific contexts. The irreplaceable work of restorative practices—the relationships, the vulnerability of genuine accountability, the repair of harm—cannot be automated or delegated to technology.
The Research Foundations of Restorative Practices
Zehr: Restorative Justice
Howard Zehr's Changing Lenses: A New Focus for Crime and Justice (1990) introduced the restorative justice framework that has been adapted into school settings. Zehr contrasted two lenses:
- Retributive lens: Crime/wrongdoing violates the rule; justice requires determining guilt and administering proportional punishment; the state (or institution) is the primary party
- Restorative lens: Crime/wrongdoing violates relationships and creates obligations; justice requires repairing harm and meeting needs; victims, offenders, and community are all primary parties
The retributive lens asks: What rule was broken? Who is guilty? What punishment is warranted? The restorative lens asks: Who was harmed? What are the needs of those harmed? What are the offender's obligations to repair the harm? What do all parties need to restore relationship and community?
Zehr's framework has been influential across criminal justice, family court, and school settings because it shifts focus from punishment of wrongdoing to restoration of relationship—producing outcomes that serve both accountability and community cohesion better than punitive responses.
Braithwaite: Reintegrative Shaming
John Braithwaite's Crime, Shame, and Reintegration (1989) provided theoretical support for restorative approaches by distinguishing between:
Stigmatizing shaming: Public condemnation that permanently marks the offender as deviant—"you are a bad person"—creating shame that excludes rather than integrates. Associated with higher recidivism.
Reintegrative shaming: Disapproval of the harmful act that maintains respect for the person—"what you did was wrong, but you are not a bad person and you can make it right"—creating shame that motivates repair rather than defensiveness. Associated with lower recidivism.
Braithwaite's research demonstrated that communities that distinguish between act-shame and person-shame while maintaining social bonds produce better outcomes than communities that stigmatize wrongdoers. The restorative practice classroom implication: hold students accountable for specific harmful acts while consistently affirming their fundamental worth and belonging in the community.
Morrison: School-Based Restorative Practices
Brenda Morrison's research on restorative practices in schools (2006, School Bullying and Violence: Taking Stock of What We Know; 2007, Restoring Safe School Communities) provided early systematic evidence of restorative practice effects in school settings. Morrison documented:
- Schools implementing restorative conferences showed significant reductions in suspension rates and repeat disciplinary incidents compared to matched control schools
- Restorative practices were most effective when implemented as a whole-school cultural approach rather than only as a reactive intervention for serious incidents
- School belonging and connectedness—key protective factors for student wellbeing—improved significantly in restorative schools
- Teachers reported higher satisfaction with conflict resolution when restorative approaches replaced punitive approaches
Morrison's work established the distinction between restorative practices as a reactive intervention (responding to harm when it occurs) and as a proactive practice (building community and relationship quality before harm occurs). The research consistently shows that schools achieving the strongest outcomes implement both.
Thorsborne and Blood: Implementation Research
Margaret Thorsborne and Peta Blood's Implementing Restorative Practices in Schools (2013) provided the most comprehensive research-based guide to school-level implementation. Their key findings and frameworks:
The RP Spectrum: Informal (immediate, spontaneous RP responses) to formal (structured circles or conferences for serious harm); effective schools use the full spectrum, not only formal conferences
Tier system:
- Tier 1 (Universal): Proactive community-building circles for all students; RP philosophy embedded in school culture
- Tier 2 (Targeted): Small-group circles for students at risk; mentoring and support structures
- Tier 3 (Intensive): Formal restorative conferences for serious harm involving all affected parties
Teacher role transformation: RP requires teachers to shift from disciplinarians (rule enforcers) to circle-keepers (community facilitators)—a significant professional identity shift that requires ongoing training and support
Critical implementation factors: Leadership support, whole-school consistency, adequate training, and time for circle implementation are all essential; partial implementation often produces weaker effects
Gregory and Fergus: Equity in Restorative Practices
Anne Gregory and Edward Fergus's research on equity in restorative practices (2017, Educational Researcher) examined whether restorative practices reduce or maintain the racial disciplinary disparities documented in punitive discipline systems.
Their findings: restorative practices reduced overall suspension rates in schools that implemented them, but racial disparities were not automatically reduced—in some schools, the disparities persisted or narrowed only modestly. The researchers identified that disparities were significantly reduced when restorative practices were combined with:
- Explicit attention to racial bias in how harm is perceived and attributed
- Teacher professional development on implicit bias and culturally responsive practice
- Active involvement of students and families from underrepresented communities in circle design and implementation
- Attention to which students are being offered restorative processes vs. exclusionary discipline
Gregory and Fergus's work is a critical equity complement to restorative practice implementation: restorative practices are necessary but not sufficient for eliminating disciplinary disparities; explicit anti-racist attention to implementation is required.
The IIRP and Evidence Base
The International Institute for Restorative Practices (IIRP), founded by Ted Wachtel, has conducted and synthesized research on restorative practices across educational and community settings. Their research summary (2019) identified:
- Schools implementing comprehensive restorative practice programs reported 40-80% reductions in suspension rates
- Schools reported improvements in school climate, student sense of belonging, and teacher satisfaction
- Academic outcomes improved in most schools implementing RP—partly through reduced instructional time lost to discipline and partly through improved learning environment
The IIRP research is subject to methodological limitations (most studies lack randomized control designs), but the consistency of findings across different schools, communities, and researchers provides strong evidence for restorative practice effectiveness.
APA Task Force on Suspensions and Expulsions
The American Psychological Association's 2008 Zero Tolerance Task Force report (Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools?) provided the most comprehensive review of evidence on exclusionary discipline, finding:
- Zero tolerance policies and high suspension rates are not associated with improved school safety or student behavior
- Schools with high suspension rates are not safer or better ordered than schools with low suspension rates
- Suspension significantly increases students' likelihood of school failure, dropout, and juvenile justice involvement
- Students of color are suspended at rates 3-5 times higher than white students for similar behaviors, indicating systematic bias in implementation
The APA report effectively established the evidence base for moving away from zero tolerance policies—and created the policy context in which restorative practices have expanded rapidly as a replacement.
AI Applications in Restorative Practices
Proactive Community-Building Circles
"Generate a community-building circle plan for the beginning of the school year for Grade 7 students. The circle should: introduce the circle process (norms, talking piece, take-aways); include 3-4 rounds with progressively deeper sharing prompts; begin with light, relationship-building content and progress toward establishing classroom values and agreements; take approximately 45 minutes; and include circle-keeper facilitation notes for transitions between rounds and for managing the pace when sharing is rushed or extended."
"Create a weekly community-building circle for Grade 4 students (10-15 minutes) that can be repeated with different prompts throughout the year. Include: a circle opening ritual; two rotating prompt options (one lighter, one more reflective) for each of 20 weeks; a check-in round; and a closing round. The prompts should develop relationships across the year without requiring deep personal disclosure early in the year."
Restorative Questioning Protocols
"Generate a restorative questioning protocol for a teacher facilitating a conversation with a student who has harmed another student. The protocol should use Zehr's restorative lens (harm, needs, obligations) and include: affective statements ('When X happened, I felt... because...'); specific questions for each phase (understanding what happened, understanding impact, planning repair, reconnecting to community); and facilitation notes for responses that defend, minimize, or blame rather than acknowledge. Avoid punitive framing while maintaining clear accountability."
"Create a restorative conversation protocol for two students in conflict, facilitated by a trained peer mediator or teacher. The protocol should: give each student equal structured time to share their experience; focus on impact and needs rather than blame; identify what each party needs for the relationship to be repaired; and produce a written agreement. Include peer mediator facilitation scripts for common challenging moments."
Responsive Restorative Circles
"Design a responsive restorative circle protocol for a classroom incident where a specific student caused harm to another student or to the class community. The protocol should: use the talking piece; include structured rounds (what happened, impact, what's needed); create genuine accountability without shame; involve all community members, not just the 'parties'; and conclude with a community agreement about going forward. Include circle-keeper notes for managing defensive or minimizing responses."
"Generate a repair-agreement template for students who have completed a restorative circle after causing harm. The agreement should: name the specific harm that occurred; identify what the student who caused harm will do to repair the relationship or community; identify what support the student needs; and include a timeline and check-in point. Make it feel meaningful, not punitive."
Whole-School RP Implementation
"Generate a staff professional development session plan (90 minutes) introducing restorative practices to teachers who are primarily familiar with punitive discipline. The session should: use experiential learning (participants experience a brief circle); present the research on RP vs. punitive outcomes; address common teacher concerns (RP as "soft on behavior," time investment, managing difficult circles); and provide practical starting points for classroom-level RP. Include facilitation notes for managing pushback from skeptical participants."
EduGenius for Restorative Practice Support
EduGenius (edugenius.app) supports teachers in implementing classroom-level restorative practices through generated circle plans, questioning frameworks, and community-building activities. For teachers at Grades KG-9 who are developing RP skills, EduGenius provides the structured starting points—circle agendas, questioning scripts, repair agreement templates—that reduce the preparation barrier to beginning restorative practice. The credit-based system (from $7.99/month, 25 free welcome credits) makes systematic RP curriculum development accessible.
Classroom Scenario: Community Circle Practice in Djibouti City
Imagine you teach secondary social studies and ethics at a school in Djibouti City, the capital of the Republic of Djibouti—a small country of approximately 1 million people at the strategic junction of the Red Sea, the Gulf of Aden, and the Indian Ocean, on the eastern tip of the Horn of Africa.
Djibouti City is one of the world's most strategically located cities, hosting military bases from France (the colonial power until independence in 1977), the United States, Japan, China, and other nations—making Djibouti one of the most heavily garrisoned small nations on Earth.
A Multicultural, Multilingual Community
Djibouti has two major ethnic groups:
- The Afar people (approximately 35% of the population), who traditionally inhabit Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Eritrea
- The Somali-Issa people (approximately 60%), connected to Somalia and the Somali diaspora
The country also hosts a large refugee and asylum-seeker population from neighboring Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Somalia—including people displaced by the Tigray conflict (2020-2022), the ongoing Somali civil war, and Eritrean political repression. Djibouti's small size and relatively stable governance (despite its autocratic character under President Ismaïl Omar Guelleh, who has ruled since 1999) has made it a refuge for people fleeing violent conflict in surrounding countries.
This context—a multicultural, multilingual school community (Somali, Afar, French, Arabic in various combinations) with significant numbers of students who have experienced displacement and conflict—creates both acute need and genuine opportunity for restorative practices. Students who have experienced conflict, loss, and community disruption are not well-served by punitive discipline systems; they need community repair and belonging.
Designing a Year-Long Circle Curriculum
Say your school launches a restorative circles program, beginning with your classrooms and expanding to other teachers. You could ask EduGenius to help design a year-long community circle curriculum:
- Culturally Grounded Opening Rituals: EduGenius can generate options for circle opening rituals that connect to existing Afar and Somali community practices. The Somali tradition of shir (community assembly for collective decision-making) and the Afar tradition of aba gada (elder-facilitated conflict resolution) both have structural similarities to restorative circles—you could frame the school circles as connecting to community wisdom traditions that students' families already value, rather than as an imported Western technique.
- Multi-Stage Community Building: EduGenius can design a 20-week community circle curriculum that begins with light relationship-building (names, backgrounds, positive experiences) and progressively moves toward deeper sharing about challenges, fears, and hopes. For students who have experienced displacement and trauma, the progressive depth can be carefully calibrated—week 1 circles need not ask about displacement history; by week 10, students might share about what they hope for in their futures.
- Conflict Navigation Protocols for Intergroup Tensions: EduGenius can generate restorative questioning protocols specifically adapted for incidents involving inter-ethnic tensions (Afar-Somali or refugee-citizen tensions)—acknowledging the community-level context while maintaining the individual accountability focus of restorative practice, and including community elder involvement protocols when appropriate.
One of the most significant adaptations you could make is in the circle-keeper role: training three student co-facilitators (one Afar, one Somali-Issa, one from the refugee community) to co-keep circles with you. Multi-identity co-keeping signals that the circle is genuinely for the whole community, not facilitated by a single cultural perspective.
The Refugee Context
The presence of refugee students in Djiboutian schools creates distinctive restorative practice considerations. Research on trauma-informed restorative practices (Huynh-Hohnbaum 2018, Simmons 2019) emphasizes that restorative circles must be trauma-sensitive: asking students to share in circles must be genuinely voluntary (not subtly coerced), disclosure should not be required to participate, and facilitators need training in recognizing when students are experiencing trauma-related responses during circle.
You could work with your school's counselor to develop protocols for when circle participation seems to be reactivating trauma—a "step out" option, a check-in system for students who seem distressed, and a referral process for students who need individual support beyond what community circles can provide. The integration of restorative practices and trauma-informed care reflects current best practice in schools serving students who have experienced conflict and displacement.
Key Takeaways
- Zehr's restorative justice lens (1990) reframes discipline from "what rule was broken, what punishment is warranted" to "who was harmed, what are their needs, what are the obligations to repair harm" — producing better outcomes for accountability and community repair
- Braithwaite's reintegrative shaming theory (1989) distinguishes stigmatizing shame (you are bad) from reintegrative shame (what you did was wrong but you can make it right) — restorative practice consistently implements the latter, associated with lower recidivism
- Morrison's research (2006/2007) demonstrated 40-80% reductions in suspension rates in schools implementing comprehensive restorative practice, with improvements in school belonging and teacher satisfaction
- The APA Task Force (2008) established that zero tolerance/high suspension approaches are not associated with improved school safety — providing the evidentiary basis for moving to restorative alternatives
- Gregory and Fergus (2017) found that restorative practices reduce racial disciplinary disparities only when combined with explicit anti-bias attention in implementation — RP is necessary but not sufficient for equity
- Djibouti's position hosting multiple refugee communities from conflict-affected regions (Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia) illustrates that restorative practices in trauma-affected school communities require trauma-informed adaptations: voluntary participation, trauma-sensitive facilitation, integration with counseling support
- AI most effectively supports restorative practices by generating: community-building circle curricula for the school year, restorative questioning scripts, repair agreement templates, and staff development frameworks — while the relational work of circles remains irreducibly human
Frequently Asked Questions
How do restorative practices address serious harms like violence or sexual harassment?
Restorative practices are appropriate for a wide range of harms, including serious harms—but the intensity and structure of the process should match the severity.
A restorative conference for a serious harm (physical assault, sexual harassment) involves more preparation than a classroom circle:
- Pre-conference individual meetings with all parties to ensure safety and willingness to participate
- A carefully facilitated conference with trained practitioners
- Follow-up to monitor agreement adherence
Research on restorative conferencing for serious harms (particularly in criminal justice settings) shows high rates of victim satisfaction and offender accountability. Safety of the harmed party is the primary consideration: restorative processes should only proceed when the harmed party genuinely wants to participate.
How do I handle students who refuse to participate in restorative circles?
Restorative practice is built on genuine participation, not coercion—a circle conducted under duress is not restorative. For students who refuse:
- Explore the reasons for refusal (fear of judgment, distrust of the process, trauma response)
- Offer individual restorative conversations as an alternative to group circles
- Ensure voluntary participation is genuinely voluntary, not "participate or face harsher consequences"
- Recognize that building sufficient trust for voluntary participation may take time, particularly with students who have experienced punitive systems or trauma
The long-term benefit of genuine restorative engagement is worth more than coerced compliance with circle form.
Don't restorative practices let students get away with things?
Research consistently shows the opposite: students who complete restorative processes demonstrate higher rates of behavior change than students who receive only punishment.
The accountability in restorative practice is often more demanding than punitive accountability. It requires:
- Being face-to-face with the person you harmed
- Hearing the impact of your actions
- Taking responsibility for repair
This kind of genuine emotional engagement is not required simply by serving detention.
The perception that RP is "soft" reflects confusion between punishment (making someone suffer) and accountability (taking responsibility for harm and repairing it). Both are responses to wrongdoing; only the latter produces meaningful behavioral change.
How do I implement restorative circles in a classroom of 30 students without losing instructional time?
Proactive community-building circles are most feasible as weekly routines (15-20 minutes at the start of week) rather than occasional additions to curriculum. When embedded as a weekly routine, circles become time-efficient:
- Students know the process
- Transitions are smooth
- The relationship capital built through circles reduces instructional time lost to behavioral incidents throughout the week
When proactive circles are sustained as a routine, a school can ultimately spend less total time on behavioral responses because the frequency and severity of incidents tend to decline. For smaller incidents, informal restorative conversations (2-5 minutes) can be embedded in transition times rather than requiring dedicated instruction periods.
How do I get started with restorative practices if my school doesn't have a formal program?
Classroom-level implementation is possible without school-wide program adoption. Start with:
- Proactive community-building circles at the start of your class
- A talking piece and circle norms
- Restorative questioning language (who was harmed, what's needed) in everyday classroom conversations
IIRP's free resources, the Zehr Institute's publications, and the work of Carolyn Boyes-Watson and Kay Pranis (who developed the peacemaking circles framework) provide accessible starting points. Many teachers begin with the circle format and restorative language, then develop formal responsive conferencing skills through additional training as their practice develops.