Centering Student Voices in Restorative Practices Implementation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, this paper offers a strong contribution to the literature and scholarship on the implementation of restorative justice. The insights the author offers are valuable in that they come from the student perspective, and they too have intimate knowledge of the setting as someone who worked at the study site in multiple capacities. As the SDW is referenced often in RJ scholarship, I believe that the insights to expand and dig deeper into it is an original contribution that will allow us to understand the intricacies of building relationships (positive and negative) through RJ implementation, and what it might take to truly address the myriad forms that harm can take in schools. I did take a few notes that I hope are valuable in the (minor) review process:

• First, I encourage a re-framing of the term “egregious” at the top of 2.5, not because students voices are not glaringly absent, but because it implies intentional neglect on the part of researchers. I have found as a relatively early career scholar that gaining access to schools can be quite difficult (especially if one takes a faculty role in a new city/state) and especially post-Covid, many school districts are not allowing outside research to be conducted at all. Furthermore, it is a much more detailed and difficult process to include minors, which is at least in part why I assume this study was conducted with alumni rather than current students. This study does lend a much needed perspective and I hope encourages other scholars to find creative ways to access, include, and honor student voices.
• At the beginning of the literature review, you begin to discuss RPs in the US and then back up and say you are going to foreground punishment first - I suggest not starting to introduce RPs in that paragraph or make it a more direct framing of the lit review rather than the beginning of a discussion on RPs. 
• At the end of section 2.5.4 Current Research, you note that few studies have included student voices, but there are indeed at least a couple that do - it would be important here to add another short section highlighting what those studies have found. I am primarily thinking about multiple papers and books by Dr. Maisha Winn that should be included. This framing would allow you to make a tighter connection between your work and the extant literature in the discussion section.
• If there is space, it would be great to see an example in the methods section on how the 42 thematics became 4 codes. As a note, I appreciate seeing large chunks of student voices, and your description of how you did some initial analysis together during the interviews.
• Throughout the findings, I found the term “sites” to be a bit confusing. Perhaps you were referencing specific interpersonal sites, but I interpret the labeling of the sites as various school sites (which doesn’t make sense in this context because it is only one school). I wonder if there is a clearer way to label the various ways students experience social discipline within the same school?
• In the findings, you described a situation where one student had negative interactions with other student around international day that was neglected by the adults. All of the rest of the references to international day were glowing accounts of how it was truly for and by students. I wonder of if you could provide some context that could make those accounts align? Or perhaps they don’t, but it seems like that mismatch in experiences should be fleshed out a bit.
• In the discussion, you stated that “four themes emerged” but from what I can tell, those came straight from your theoretical framework (the SDW).
• Both in the findings and the discussion, I found the threat by the teacher to knock Louie out to be shocking and truly horrendous. Not at all to negate the experience or interpretation, but I wonder if you could provide a bit more context? In reading into the discussion, it sounds like the teacher was angry that Louie was talking in class, and based on my experiences, I can assume that the teacher had a bias against using home languages in class or flipped out because Louie was asking for support from peers. However, those details are not there and it would be helpful to understand how that comment (that reads primarily as a threat) communicates low expectations for participation.
• In the title of your revised social discipline window, I suggest giving it a more specific name. I understand that you are positioning it as something that should be further revised, but it is quite full useful and usable in its current form with the contribution of the “against” and the negative quadrants. Also, in my reading of the title, it leads me to think about the discipline as emergent rather than the revised SDW as emergent (I hope that makes sense). 
• As mentioned above, in addition to situating your findings in the lit on the SDW, the discussion could have a tighter connection to the current literature on RJ implementation, especially if you are able to add a section in your lit review on what we know from studies that include student voice. 
• Finally, since your whole paper really centers student voice, I suggest adding insight to the implications for policy for including student voice. In out top-down school systems, neglect of student voice often starts at the top and continues on down and it is obvious despite teachers’ and administrators’ best efforts to be responsive.

Author Response

Thank you SO much for your careful read and thoughtful feedback! Each of your comments pointed me more closely to the story I am hoping to tell with this piece. THANK YOU!

 

Comment 1: 

• First, I encourage a re-framing of the term “egregious” at the top of 2.5, not because students voices are not glaringly absent, but because it implies intentional neglect on the part of researchers. I have found as a relatively early career scholar that gaining access to schools can be quite difficult (especially if one takes a faculty role in a new city/state) and especially post-Covid, many school districts are not allowing outside research to be conducted at all. Furthermore, it is a much more detailed and difficult process to include minors, which is at least in part why I assume this study was conducted with alumni rather than current students. This study does lend a much needed perspective and I hope encourages other scholars to find creative ways to access, include, and honor student voices.
• Response: Thank you! I have changed this wording to: 

  Then, I provide an overview of current research on RP, and I argue that student perspectives on RP have been notably sidelined in current research. 

  
  
  
• Comment 2: 
• At the beginning of the literature review, you begin to discuss RPs in the US and then back up and say you are going to foreground punishment first - I suggest not starting to introduce RPs in that paragraph or make it a more direct framing of the lit review rather than the beginning of a discussion on RPs. 
• I have amended my "roadmap" to: Before discussing Restorative Discipline in U.S. schools and current research on RP, I foreground conventional punishment practices in schools. Specifically, I discuss the emergence and impact of 1) Zero Tolerance Policies, 2) trends of Racially-Disproportionate Punishment, and 3) the phenomena of the School-to-Prison Pipeline. I focus on these areas because, according to the literature, these are some of the important areas of that are situated as problemssalience to Restorative Practices is poised to addreess (Stutzman and Mullett, 2014; Vogel and Fitzpatrick, 2019; Wachtel, 2013). 
• Comment 3: At the end of section 2.5.4 Current Research, you note that few studies have included student voices, but there are indeed at least a couple that do - it would be important here to add another short section highlighting what those studies have found. I am primarily thinking about multiple papers and books by Dr. Maisha Winn that should be included. This framing would allow you to make a tighter connection between your work and the extant literature in the discussion section.
• Response: GREAT point! I love Dr. Winn and am glad to be reminded of her good work. I have added: 

  There are some notable exceptions. For example, Winn (2011, 2018) has documented how student voices illuminate the role of restorative justice practices in classrooms and schools, highlighting how literacy, justice, and healing intersect. These studies show that youth perspectives are essential in understanding both the possibilities and limits of RP. My study builds on and extends this work by focusing specifically on alumni voices in the implementation of RP at a large urban high school.

Comment: 

• If there is space, it would be great to see an example in the methods section on how the 42 thematics became 4 codes. As a note, I appreciate seeing large chunks of student voices, and your description of how you did some initial analysis together during the interviews.
• GREAT point! I have amended as follows: 

  6.5.2. Phase 2

  In phase two, I engaged in axial coding to understand the relationship between thematic categories. For instance, initial codes such as ‘not being heard,’ ‘admin making decisions,’ and ‘student-led but controlled’ were later collapsed into the broader axial code of ‘For sites.’ In this way, the 42 codes were distilled into four analytic categories aligned with the SDW. Through axial coding, I distilled the 42 original categories into 4: “with” sites, “to”sites, “not” sites, and “for” sites.

  Comment: 
• Throughout the findings, I found the term “sites” to be a bit confusing. Perhaps you were referencing specific interpersonal sites, but I interpret the labeling of the sites as various school sites (which doesn’t make sense in this context because it is only one school). I wonder if there is a clearer way to label the various ways students experience social discipline within the same school?
• Response: Great point! I have added a distinction in the findings section:  use the term ‘sites’ not to indicate separate school locations, but rather to describe distinct relational contexts or interactional experiences between students and adults (e.g., ‘To’ sites, ‘With’ sites).
• Comment: In the findings, you described a situation where one student had negative interactions with other student around international day that was neglected by the adults. All of the rest of the references to international day were glowing accounts of how it was truly for and by students. I wonder of if you could provide some context that could make those accounts align? Or perhaps they don’t, but it seems like that mismatch in experiences should be fleshed out a bit.
• Excellent point: I have added the following 

   It is important to note that while most alumni remembered International Day as empowering and student-led, Ase’s experience shows that not all interactions around the event were supportive. This contrast suggests that even celebrated school traditions can be experienced differently depending on how adults respond to individual student concerns.

  Comment: In the discussion, you stated that “four themes emerged” but from what I can tell, those came straight from your theoretical framework (the SDW
  
  
  
  
• Response: Thank you for urging this clarification. I have amended: Four themes—‘To,’ ‘Not,’ ‘For,’ and ‘With’—were identified through open and axial coding, and are analytically aligned with the Social Discipline Window framework. While guided by the SDW, these themes were grounded in student narratives.
• Comment: Both in the findings and the discussion, I found the threat by the teacher to knock Louie out to be shocking and truly horrendous. Not at all to negate the experience or interpretation, but I wonder if you could provide a bit more context? In reading into the discussion, it sounds like the teacher was angry that Louie was talking in class, and based on my experiences, I can assume that the teacher had a bias against using home languages in class or flipped out because Louie was asking for support from peers. However, those details are not there and it would be helpful to understand how that comment (that reads primarily as a threat) communicates low expectations for participation.
• Response: Thank you - I have added the clarification Louie graduated when he was 21. Louie told me about a time in 2014 when a teacher told him, “I would knock you out and send you to the hospital” when the teacher perceived Louie as being disruptive when he asked peers in Spanish to clarify instructions."
• Comment: In the title of your revised social discipline window, I suggest giving it a more specific name. I understand that you are positioning it as something that should be further revised, but it is quite full useful and usable in its current form with the contribution of the “against” and the negative quadrants. Also, in my reading of the title, it leads me to think about the discipline as emergent rather than the revised SDW as emergent (I hope that makes sense). 
• Response: I have thought SO long about this! I recently published an article that cites it as "an emergent social discipline window," so I'm going to keep the title for consistency sake, but I'd love to keep messing with it!
• Comment: As mentioned above, in addition to situating your findings in the lit on the SDW, the discussion could have a tighter connection to the current literature on RJ implementation, especially if you are able to add a section in your lit review on what we know from studies that include student voice. 
• Great point: I have added ". These findings also build on existing RJ scholarship that incorporates student perspectives (e.g., Winn, 2011, 2018), extending this literature by showing how alumni voices illuminate both restorative and harmful experiences, as well as gaps in frameworks like the SDW." at the end of that first paragraph in the discussion. Thank you!
• Comment: Finally, since your whole paper really centers student voice, I suggest adding insight to the implications for policy for including student voice. In out top-down school systems, neglect of student voice often starts at the top and continues on down and it is obvious despite teachers’ and administrators’ best efforts to be responsive.
• Response: YES! thank you for this! I have added that at the end of 9.1 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My biggest comment is in regards to the tension (or conflation) between restorative relationships and restorative disciplinary practices. I think the author uses these two concepts somewhat interchangeably, but these are two distinct things. You can have restorative relationships in the absence of restorative discipline and you can have restorative discipline in the absence of restorative relationships. I think some thoughtful recoding or reconsideration based on the distinction between what may be indicative of a restorative relationship rather than restorative disciplinary practices would be helpful, particularly given that the manuscript is framed as a school discipline paper. Some of the examples highlighted are not disciplinary incidents and relate instead to just relationships. It may be worth re-thinking this distinction. 

,

Author Response

Thank you for point out the following comment: My biggest comment is in regards to the tension (or conflation) between restorative relationships and restorative disciplinary practices. I think the author uses these two concepts somewhat interchangeably, but these are two distinct things. You can have restorative relationships in the absence of restorative discipline and you can have restorative discipline in the absence of restorative relationships. I think some thoughtful recoding or reconsideration based on the distinction between what may be indicative of a restorative relationship rather than restorative disciplinary practices would be helpful, particularly given that the manuscript is framed as a school discipline paper. Some of the examples highlighted are not disciplinary incidents and relate instead to just relationships. It may be worth re-thinking this distinction. 

I agree! Thank you for this important observation. I revised the manuscript to clearly distinguish between restorative relationshipsand restorative disciplinary practices. Specifically, I made the following changes:

1. Conceptual Framework (Section 4): I added a clarifying paragraph that defines the distinction between restorative relationships (everyday interactions grounded in care and mutual respect) and restorative disciplinary practices (formal responses to conflict or harm). 

2. Findings Section (Section 7): I revised the opening of the findings and the theme headers to consistently identify whether alumni stories reflect restorative relationships or restorative disciplinary practices. For example, I clarified that some “With” sites represent relational practices, while others reflect disciplinary moments.

3. Discussion Section (Section 8): I added a framing paragraph that revisits this distinction, noting that the alumni’s accounts highlight both restorative relationships and restorative disciplinary practices, and that both are important to understanding school discipline. 

4. Abstract: I adjusted the wording in the abstract to signal this distinction, specifying that the study examines alumni perspectives on both restorative relationships and disciplinary practices as part of the transition from punishment to Restorative Practices.

Together, these revisions address the concern by ensuring that restorative relationships and restorative disciplinary practices are not conflated but instead treated as related, yet distinct, phenomena throughout the manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for submitting this paper. I really enjoyed reading it, both because it was well written and because the subject area was so interesting, it was great to see so much rich data, and that helped to make a compelling story. There are a few ways in which I think you could strengthen the paper, which I have listed below. Some of these are relatively minor so hopefully they wont take too much time. I look forward to reading the final paper in print.

1. The introduction is nice and clear, situating the paper well in the Us context of RP in schools. There is a good opportunity to broaden out the relevance and impact of the paper here by including more of a discussion on RP in schools outside of the US. there is a range of excellent papers on the subject, and doing so would help to show the broader context of your work.
2. As with the introduction, the literature is a well written section with some nice points and some suitable sources. In the same vein as the suggestion for the introduction, starting the lit review with a wider scoping of RP and in schools would help to expand the impact of the paper. The doesn’t necessarily have to be a lot of material, it could be an initial section talking about the development of RP, and some of the many evaluation of RP, in a global context. There is, for example, a lot of material on schools in the UK.
3. You might also think about the number of sub—headings you use. 2.1 for example is very short, and 2.2, 2.3 and possibly even 2.4 could be part of the same section. When broken up into so many short sections there is a tendency for each of those sections to feel a bit ‘underdone’ as in the arguments, literature, and exploration feel a bit more limited. The same is true for the sub-sub-headings in 2.5. I appreciate this may be a stylistic choice on your part, which is fair enough, but hopefully this reflection will be of use in considering a possible impact of that choice.
4. The section on the social discipline window is useful, but I feel could be theorised a little further especially in the strengths/weaknesses portion. There are a range of works (again from the Us and beyond) that have explored its application to schools and other contexts that you could use to strengthen these arguments.
5. Nice to have a clear positionality statement; I wonder if it might work as part of the method, towards the end of that section perhaps, as you can then relate how this directly impacted on your data collection. There are indeed methodological reflections in there (such as the use of jutting on zoom) that don’t make as much sense before the method section.
6. This may be a reflection of language from a non-American audience, but in the method I am not sure on the use of the term ‘race’ for a number of reasons. Firstly, you have equated race with skin colour (ie black); secondly, some of those groups you mention are nationalities and another is a broad continental category that overlaps with some of the listed nationalities. I appreciate that ‘race’ is a highly contested term, at once both biologically debunked but still socially active and therefore relevant, but in terms of specificity of language I think you would be better off dropping the term and simply talking about how those students identified themselves. The points you make about disproportionality are still as valid without using race.
7. The method could perhaps be condensed a little. For example, section 6.4 seems a little repetitive of the text right at the start of the section under 6. Youd be better off making each set of arguments well once (and perhaps as part of that thinking about the best order for those points). Similarly, table 1 seems to be a short version of table 2.
8. In section 6.5 you say this is grounded theory, but you need to tell us why and how you took a grounded theory approach – and in fact, a lot of your coding in phase 2 was deductive, being fit into the social discipline window terms. For simplicity, if I were you, I’d be tempted to just take that portion out. Later on in that section, you also slip into the future tense.
9. I really like the data section, the quotes are rich, and the descriptions are useful. It is, perhaps, a little long and one thing I’m not sure you need is section 7.6 for two reasons: firstly, it's ok to have material that doesn’t fit in a qualitative study; it isn’t contradicting your approach, just isn’t relevant. That having been said, I think the first example of the toilet break and the armed guard is a very good example of a ‘to’ situation, which is punitive and authoritarian - but honestly, for non-US audiences having an armed guard in such a circumstance is so hard to image, id be tempted to move that to the ‘to’ example. I'd probably also say the Louis example was punitive as well, as its an example of getting into trouble for a behaviour.
10. The discussion is useful, but really it needs to be more thoroughly theorised. Again, this is where a broader literature base in the early section of the par can help as you can show how this example might tally with other examples in the US or elsewhere. Your paper takes a very experiential/participant lense (which is absolutely fine) as opposed to one evaluating how ‘well’ or faithfully the restorative process was deployed. Given that, both here and in the lit review you might include more literature on how RJ/RP is received by participants. Again, there is lots of literature on that with which you could make some compelling arguments.

Author Response

Thank you so much for your kind words and your careful reading! I found your comments to be so thoughtful and helpful in pointing me toward the "heart" of the paper. Thank you! Below, I share a summary of each of your comments and my response. Thank you, again!

Comment 1: The introduction is nice and clear, situating the paper well in the Us context of RP in schools. There is a good opportunity to broaden out the relevance and impact of the paper here by including more of a discussion on RP in schools outside of the US. there is a range of excellent papers on the subject, and doing so would help to show the broader context of your work.

Response 1: Thank you! I added a paragraph to clearly share the global context some of my reviewed literature comes from. 

Comment 2: As with the introduction, the literature is a well written section with some nice points and some suitable sources. In the same vein as the suggestion for the introduction, starting the lit review with a wider scoping of RP and in schools would help to expand the impact of the paper. The doesn’t necessarily have to be a lot of material, it could be an initial section talking about the development of RP, and some of the many evaluation of RP, in a global context. There is, for example, a lot of material on schools in the UK.

Response 2: Similarly, I have added a section that focuses on the global contexts of some of my reviewed articles. 

Comment 3: You might also think about the number of sub—headings you use. 2.1 for example is very short, and 2.2, 2.3 and possibly even 2.4 could be part of the same section. When broken up into so many short sections there is a tendency for each of those sections to feel a bit ‘underdone’ as in the arguments, literature, and exploration feel a bit more limited. The same is true for the sub-sub-headings in 2.5. I appreciate this may be a stylistic choice on your part, which is fair enough, but hopefully this reflection will be of use in considering a possible impact of that choice.

Response 3: I have thought so much about this! Right now, I am going to keep it the way it is. Sometimes, as a reader, I do enjoy a shorter paragraph, but I will be open to edits from the journal about this! 

Comment 4: The section on the social discipline window is useful, but I feel could be theorised a little further especially in the strengths/weaknesses portion. There are a range of works (again from the Us and beyond) that have explored its application to schools and other contexts that you could use to strengthen these arguments.

Response 4: Thank you! I have added a clarifying paragraph at the start of section 4.2 to tie previous applications and Segway into limitations. 

Comment 5: Nice to have a clear positionality statement; I wonder if it might work as part of the method, towards the end of that section perhaps, as you can then relate how this directly impacted on your data collection. There are indeed methodological reflections in there (such as the use of jutting on zoom) that don’t make as much sense before the method section.

Response 5: For now, I am going to keep the positionally section separate because I see it as informing all of the study. I am, however, open to formatting requests from the journal.

Comment 6: This may be a reflection of language from a non-American audience, but in the method I am not sure on the use of the term ‘race’ for a number of reasons. Firstly, you have equated race with skin colour (ie black); secondly, some of those groups you mention are nationalities and another is a broad continental category that overlaps with some of the listed nationalities. I appreciate that ‘race’ is a highly contested term, at once both biologically debunked but still socially active and therefore relevant, but in terms of specificity of language I think you would be better off dropping the term and simply talking about how those students identified themselves. The points you make about disproportionality are still as valid without using race.

Response 6: Thank you for this. I have adjusted my language and the tables (deleting table 1 entirely) accordingly. 

Comment 7: The method could perhaps be condensed a little. For example, section 6.4 seems a little repetitive of the text right at the start of the section under 6. Youd be better off making each set of arguments well once (and perhaps as part of that thinking about the best order for those points). Similarly, table 1 seems to be a short version of table 2.

Response 7: I condensed these sections - thank you. 

Comment 8: In section 6.5 you say this is grounded theory, but you need to tell us why and how you took a grounded theory approach – and in fact, a lot of your coding in phase 2 was deductive, being fit into the social discipline window terms. For simplicity, if I were you, I’d be tempted to just take that portion out. Later on in that section, you also slip into the future tense.

Response 8: GREAT catches! I have clarified this and changed all future tense to past tense. 

Comment 9: I really like the data section, the quotes are rich, and the descriptions are useful. It is, perhaps, a little long and one thing I’m not sure you need is section 7.6 for two reasons: firstly, it's ok to have material that doesn’t fit in a qualitative study; it isn’t contradicting your approach, just isn’t relevant. That having been said, I think the first example of the toilet break and the armed guard is a very good example of a ‘to’ situation, which is punitive and authoritarian - but honestly, for non-US audiences having an armed guard in such a circumstance is so hard to image, id be tempted to move that to the ‘to’ example. I'd probably also say the Louis example was punitive as well, as its an example of getting into trouble for a behaviour.

Response 9: Thank you for this! I would like to keep this section, but I have revised some of my language and clarified the section overall. 

Comment 10: The discussion is useful, but really it needs to be more thoroughly theorised. Again, this is where a broader literature base in the early section of the par can help as you can show how this example might tally with other examples in the US or elsewhere. Your paper takes a very experiential/participant lense (which is absolutely fine) as opposed to one evaluating how ‘well’ or faithfully the restorative process was deployed. Given that, both here and in the lit review you might include more literature on how RJ/RP is received by participants. Again, there is lots of literature on that with which you could make some compelling arguments.

Response 10: Thank you! I have added that literature into the discussion. 

Thank you so much, again! I really appreciate your encouragement and advice. 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author did a good job responding to my concerns.