You know this moment. A new initiative rolls in. There’s excitement, urgency, emails, PD sessions, and posters. “This is it.” “This is going to change everything.” If you’ve been in education for more than five minutes, you already know how this story usually ends. It doesn’t.

When It Lands on Your Desk

This one feels different though, because this time, it’s not just a school-wide initiative. It’s yours. You’re sitting in a room with two students. You had 30 minutes’ notice. There’s a talking piece on the table. One student looks completely unbothered. The other looks like they want to disappear. An apology happens. It sounds right. It checks the boxes. It changes nothing.

And you’re left with that quiet thought: This doesn’t feel like restoration.

You’re Not Wrong

If restorative justice feels off in practice, there’s a reason. Not because it can’t work, but because most schools aren’t actually doing it.

Problem #1: Nobody Agrees on What It Is

Here’s something almost no training tells you: There is no single agreed-upon definition of restorative justice. The field itself calls it a “contested concept.”

That means a hallway conversation, a quick check-in, and a full restorative circle can all get labeled the same thing. They’re not the same, and if we can’t define it clearly, we can’t measure it.

So when someone says “research supports restorative justice,” the real question is: Which version?

Problem #2: We Turn Practices Into Aesthetics

There’s a pattern in education that’s hard to ignore.

We take something meaningful, strip it down, package it, and call it a strategy.

We did it with Maslow. We did it with mindfulness. We’re doing it again here.

Restorative justice comes from deeply relational, community-based practices. It was never meant to be reduced to a script or a single conversation. Yet that’s exactly how it shows up in schools: a cue card, a few questions, and a talking piece. That’s not a framework.

That’s an aesthetic.

Problem #3: Schools Don’t Have the Conditions for It to Work

The research is very clear on this. Restorative practices only work under specific conditions, and most schools don’t meet them.

A real implementation requires:
– Whole-school adoption, not one person running circles
– Ongoing training, not a one-day PD
– Strong administrative modeling and support
– A full-time dedicated coordinator
– A 3–5 year commitment before meaningful results

That’s the baseline.

Not the ideal. The baseline.

What Happens When It’s Done “Well”

Even when schools get close to doing it right, the results are still complicated.

A large-scale randomized study from the RAND Corporation looked at restorative practices across dozens of schools with strong support systems in place.

What they found:
– Suspensions went down
– Violence did not significantly change
– Arrests did not significantly change
– Academic outcomes declined in some groups

That’s not a clean win. That’s a mixed result. And that was with resources most schools don’t have.

Problem #4: What You’re Being Asked to Do Isn’t What the Model Requires

A true restorative circle is not quick. It’s not improvised. It’s not something you run with 30 minutes’ notice.

It includes:
– Individual preparation with each student
– Voluntary participation
– A trained facilitator
– A structured, guided process
– Follow-up after the conversation

It takes time, training, and intention.

What most schools are doing instead? Two students. One conversation. Back to class.

That’s not restoration. That’s conflict management.

The Hard Truth About Harm

There’s another layer that rarely gets discussed: the harmed student.

Most restorative frameworks focus heavily on the student who caused the harm. Their accountability. Their reintegration.

Meanwhile, the student who was hurt is often expected to participate, listen, accept an apology, and move on. That’s not always safe or ethical, and it’s not always appropriate.

When Restorative Practices Should NOT Be Used

This part matters. There are situations where a circle is not the right intervention:

Ongoing safety concerns
Chronic bullying or power imbalances
Significant trauma history
Repeated harm with no change
Forced participation

In those cases, a circle doesn’t restore. It can actually cause more harm.

We’re Measuring the Wrong Things

Most schools measure success one way: Did suspensions go down? Here’s the problem. Suspensions can go down for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with restorative practices.

Fewer suspensions does not mean less harm, better relationships, or safer students

It just means fewer suspensions.

The real questions are harder: Are students actually feeling safer? Are relationships improving? Is the harmed student experiencing repair? Is change lasting over time? Are academic outcomes improving or declining?

If we’re not asking those questions, we don’t actually know if it’s working.

So What Do You Do With This?

You don’t have to reject restorative justice. You do need to be honest about it. It can work. Just not like this.

Not rushed.
Not undertrained.
Not unsupported.
Not mislabeled.

You are allowed to pause before saying yes. You are allowed to ask better questions. You are allowed to protect your role and your students.

You’re Not Meant to Carry This Alone

If you’ve been handed restorative practices and expected to “figure it out,” you’re not the problem.

You’re working inside a system that often skips the conditions required for things to actually work.

Inside the School for School Counselors Hub, the Blog, and the Mastermind, these are the conversations happening every day. School counselors thinking critically, asking better questions, and building clarity around what actually helps students.

If social media feels loud or surface-level, the Skool community offers a calmer space for real conversation and practical support with people who understand this work.

You don’t have to accept the aesthetic.

You can advocate for the real thing.