Why Restorative Practices Aren’t Working (And How We Fix Them)

There’s a trend in schools right now—restorative practices. If you’re not familiar, the idea is that instead of traditional discipline (detention, suspension, etc.), kids have conversations about their behavior, reflect on their actions, and find ways to repair harm. Sounds nice, right?

Sure, in theory. But here’s the problem: the real world doesn’t work like that.

If you speed, you don’t get a cozy circle discussion with a police officer about how you feel about going 90 mph in a school zone. You get a ticket. If you don’t pay your mortgage, the bank doesn’t invite you to a restorative conversation. You lose your house.

So why are we pretending kids don’t need to learn about real consequences?

The Brain Learns from Consequences

Let’s talk about brain science for a second (because, you know, I’m all about that ).

  • The prefrontal cortex (The Mighty Owl) helps us plan ahead and make good choices. But it doesn’t fully develop until around age 25. So kids? Yeah, not the best decision-makers yet.
  • The amygdala (The Bulldog) processes emotions and stress. When kids experience consequences, they remember that feeling and learn from it.
  • The dopamine system (Zippy Squirrel) rewards behaviors. If kids only experience talks with no actual consequence, their brain never links actions to outcomes.

Translation: Kids who don’t experience logical consequences don’t learn to self-regulate. They repeat the same behaviors because there’s no real reason to stop.

Where Restorative Practices Get It Wrong

Some schools have taken restorative practices to an extreme—no suspensions, no detentions, just endless "restorative conversations." The result?
- Kids realize there are no actual consequences for their actions.
- Behavior gets worse, not better.
- Teachers get frustrated because nothing changes.

Let’s be clear—I’m not saying we should go back to the days of “Go sit in the hallway and think about what you’ve done.” That doesn’t teach anything either. But restorative practices shouldn’t replace consequences. They should work alongside them.A Better Approach: Logical Consequences + Restorative Conversations

Instead of choosing between consequences or restorative practices, why not use both?

Step 1: Logical Consequence – The child experiences a direct result of their actions.
Step 2: Restorative Conversation – The child reflects on what happened and how to fix it.
Step 3: Moving Forward – The child plans to do better.

Example:

  • A student damages a classroom book → They replace it (logical consequence) AND have a conversation about responsibility (restorative practice).
  • A student calls a classmate a name → They write an apology AND lose a fun activity for the day.
  • A student disrupts learning → They miss part of recess (so they’re not rewarded with free time) AND reflect on how their actions affected others.

Kids learn best when they experience both the natural outcome of their behavior and a conversation to help them improve. That’s how they become responsible, self-regulated humans instead of adults who expect to talk their way out of a speeding ticket.

The Real World Isn’t Restorative-Only

The biggest issue with pure restorative practices is that it doesn’t prepare kids for life.

  • If a kid never experiences consequences, they don’t learn self-discipline.
  • If they’re always given “another chance” with no real accountability, they expect the world to work that way—and it doesn’t.

We need to teach resilience, not enable entitlement. We need to let kids experience discomfort so they learn how to fix mistakes. Because real life? It doesn’t give unlimited do-overs.

So, let’s stop pretending a 10-minute chat replaces learning from a real consequence. Kids deserve better than that.

What do you think? Are restorative practices working in your school, or have they gone too far? Let’s talk.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

AI in the Educational World

  How AI Will Change Teaching, Not Replace Teachers: A 3rd Grade Teacher’s Perspective There’s been a lot of talk lately about artificial intelligence (AI) and whether it could replace jobs—teachers included. But as a 3rd-grade teacher, I’m here to tell you that AI won’t replace us. Instead, it will change the way we teach, in ways that will help us reach our students even more effectively. In the past, teaching often involved helping students memorize facts—multiplication tables, vocabulary lists, and historical dates. While these foundations are important, the reality is that AI can access and retrieve all that information in an instant. So, how does that change what we do? It gives us room to focus more on what really matters: helping our students ask better questions, solve problems, and think critically. Shifting Focus to Critical Thinking AI is already bringing about an exciting shift in teaching, and it’s not about making memory obsolete. You are right- critical thinking and...
Read more

Equity Is More Than Race, Culture, and Religion

By a Teacher Who Sees It Every Day When most people hear the word equity , their minds jump straight to race, culture, and religion. And yes, those are critical aspects. We absolutely must acknowledge historical and ongoing inequities based on race and identity. But if we stop there, we miss the bigger picture. Equity is not a checkbox. It’s a lens—a way of seeing every child, every family, every circumstance, and asking: What do they need to thrive? Let’s get real: equity shows up in the shoes a student wears to school, the food (or lack of food) in their lunchbox, and the chaos (or calm) they return to at home. It’s in whether a child has a quiet place to do homework or is babysitting siblings all evening. It’s whether a student has access to the internet, a functioning Chromebook, or someone at home who can help them with fractions. Equity is giving kids what they need—not what’s equal. Because fair doesn’t always mean “the same.” Fair sometimes means offering extended test time...
Read more