Restorative Practices in Educational Settings: Models, Policy Drivers, and International Jurisdictional Advancements

I. Introduction: Defining the Restorative Paradigm in Global Education

The global proliferation of conflict resolution strategies within educational institutions necessitates a careful analysis of the core philosophy driving this shift: the restorative paradigm. This paradigm moves disciplinary approaches away from purely punitive sanctions toward models focused on relationship repair, accountability, and community building.

A. From Restorative Justice to Restorative Practice: The Continuum of Intervention

A critical distinction must be drawn between Restorative Justice (RJ) and Restorative Practice (RP). Restorative justice often refers specifically to facilitated, formal processes, historically applied within the criminal justice system, that enable persons harmed and persons causing harm to actively participate in resolving matters arising from an offense.¹ Examples include victim-offender mediation and restorative conferences.¹

Restorative practice, conversely, represents a broader continuum of implementation that emerges from RJ but extends beyond dealing with the aftermath of harmful behavior to include proactive relationship building and conflict prevention.² This continuum spans from informal, universal applications—such as using restorative language (expressing feelings and needs) and one-to-one conversations—to the more formal, targeted interventions like facilitated circles, meetings, and conferences.² The effectiveness of practice hinges on the extent to which it adheres to restorative values and principles.¹ Globally, the most frequently adopted restorative practices in schools include circles (reported in 26 studies analyzed), restorative conferences (17 studies), and peer mediation (10 studies).⁴

B. Policy Imperatives Driving RP Adoption in Schools

The impetus for adopting RP models varies significantly across jurisdictions, reflecting differing policy imperatives. In some regions, the driver is standardized quality assurance and professional management; in others, it is the urgent need for disciplinary reform to address systemic failures, or the necessity of providing post-conflict healing and social cohesion.²

A significant trend observed internationally is the movement of RP beyond auxiliary programming toward becoming an integrated, core management discipline. This institutionalization is essential for achieving large-scale, sustainable impact. Documents such as the Restorative Practices Ireland (RPI) Quality Assurance Framework ² and the Netherlands’ use of the Restorative Justice Maturity Grid ⁷ underscore this shift. These formalized standards and measurable organizational benchmarks transition RP from being a niche behavioral program into a foundational methodology embedded across organizational vision, working methodology, culture, and professional expertise.⁷

II. The Institutionalization and Standardization of Restorative Practice in European Education Systems

European nations have primarily driven RP adoption through legislative mandates focused on institutional quality, procedural consistency, and structural disciplinary reform.

A. Policy-Driven Standardization: The Irish Quality Assurance Model

Ireland has prioritized the growth, evolution, and sustainability of restorative practice across all domains, including youth work, workplaces, communities, and schools.² This commitment is formalized in the Restorative Practices Ireland (RPI) Quality Assurance Framework, ‘Aspiring to High Quality Restorative Practices,’ published in 2021.²

This Framework is designed to be a crucial resource for policymakers, service managers, practitioners, and oversight bodies, offering clear, practical information to encourage consistent adherence to high-quality standards.² By defining restorative practice as a continuum that extends from informal relational language to formal conferences, the Framework institutionalizes the understanding that quality is measured by fidelity to core restorative values and principles, providing a roadmap for practitioners across the entire spectrum of intervention.²

B. Disciplinary Reform and Systemic Equity (England/UK)

In the UK, the adoption of Restorative Approaches (RA) has been propelled by the critical need to address disproportionately high rates of school exclusions. Evidence has long highlighted that students, notably Black Caribbean boys, are significantly more likely to be permanently excluded from school than their white counterparts.⁵ This persistent disparity, identified initially in the 1970s, has profound implications, as permanent exclusion places a young person onto a “conveyor belt that takes them directly into the criminal justice system,” according to expert testimony reviewed by parliamentary committees.⁵

The policy intervention of RP in this context is, therefore, a critical structural mechanism intended to address racial disparities and disrupt the school-to-prison pipeline. Trials and evaluations supported by the Department for Education (DfE) have demonstrated the effectiveness of whole-school restorative approaches, particularly in preventing bullying, where 97% of surveyed schools rated RAs as effective.⁸ Furthermore, independent evaluations confirmed that RA implementation improved school attendance and reduced exclusion rates.⁸ Successful implementation, however, requires consistency in the school approach, robust support from senior leadership to endorse and model strategies, and a coordinated behavior policy.⁹

C. Whole-School Relational Fidelity (Belgium/Flanders)

Belgium’s (Flanders) approach focuses on the deep integration of RP as a comprehensive cultural shift rather than a targeted program. The Restorative Practices Intervention requires training all school staff on 11 “Essential Elements,” ranging from proactive, informal tools like using “affective statements” to communicate feelings, to formal restorative circles or conferences.³

This commitment to training every staff member and integrating a wide range of relational and restorative processes ensures that the philosophy permeates the entire school environment, moving beyond simple disciplinary intervention. This high-fidelity, whole-school model minimizes the risk of RP being reserved only for severe disciplinary cases; instead, it becomes the daily pedagogical and relational foundation of the institution. Such a comprehensive approach suggests that genuine cultural change requires universal behavioral and communicative shifts, thereby institutionalizing positive interaction alongside formal conflict resolution processes.³

D. Decentralized Civil Society and Juvenile Justice Integration

Several other European nations have pursued RP integration through decentralized civil society efforts or specific legislative mandates linking it to judicial processes.

In the Netherlands, restorative practices are flourishing beyond the formal legal sector. Neighboring mediation is delivered as a voluntary service in almost 300 cities, while peer mediation programs are integrated into many primary and secondary schools.⁷ The commitment to systemic implementation is further demonstrated by the use of the Restorative Justice Maturity Grid—a benchmark tool—in detention centers to assess organizational implementation across five levels.⁷

Italy utilizes the school system as a primary site for cultural prevention. The focus is on disseminating school mediation as a conflict resolution tool between peers and across the school community. This initiative is viewed as a formidable means to raise awareness and propagate a restorative justice culture at an early stage, linking training and experiences involving families and teachers to juvenile justice practitioners.¹²

Germany (Munich) implemented successful peer mediation pilot programs in schools, characterized by the neutrality and impartiality of the mediator, and the volunteerism of conflicting parties.¹⁴ The high consensus among teachers for supporting the program was identified as a crucial factor in its success, leading to high satisfaction rates with mediation outcomes.¹⁴

Portugal has concentrated on establishing a robust legal framework to govern mediation. Law 29/2013 sets forth principles applicable to all mediations conducted in Portuguese territory.¹⁶ A notable advancement is the requirement for the Directorate-General for Justice Policy (DGPJ) to manage an official list of certified private mediators. This legislative step ensures that mediation agreements facilitated by a DGPJ-listed mediator are legally enforceable without requiring a prior formal judicial decision.¹⁶ This focus on enforceability is crucial, as it elevates restorative processes beyond mere counseling sessions, establishing them as effective mechanisms for delivering binding justice outcomes within the broader judicial ecosystem.¹⁷

III. Restorative Practices in the Global South: Post-Conflict, Reparation, and Social Justice

In the Global South, the adoption of RP often addresses macro-level challenges, including legacies of national conflict, displacement, and inherited socio-economic violence. RP is deployed here as a tool for societal healing and transitional justice.

A. Transitional Justice and Reparation Legacies (South Africa and Chile)

The restorative paradigm in South Africa is inextricably linked to the legacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). The TRC aimed to unearth the truth about the past to heal a “traumatized and wounded people” and promote national reconciliation post-apartheid.¹⁸ Education, particularly history education, is seen as vital for remembrance and civic engagement, helping youth understand past events and societal problems.¹⁸ While the research material does not focus specifically on current school disciplinary models, the national prioritization of restorative principles mandates an environment where educational institutions must embed reconciliation and reparative approaches into their curriculum and conflict responses.

Similarly, Chile has demonstrated a national commitment to Reparative Justice, evidenced by its voluntary contributions to the International Criminal Court’s Trust Fund for Victims (TFV).¹⁹ This commitment recognizes reparative justice as an essential pillar for realizing victims’ rights, incorporating both reconciliation and reparation.¹⁹ Recent government policy shifts focusing on reparations for human rights violations committed during the 2019 uprising and revisiting demands from dictatorship survivors underscore a radical policy shift toward restorative frameworks.²⁰ This prioritization creates a mandatory policy environment for schools, viewing school conflict as a microcosm of wider societal trauma requiring restorative, rather than retributive, responses.

B. Addressing Systemic Violence and Displacement in Latin American Schools

RP serves a distinct crisis-response function in Latin American schools grappling with high rates of violence, often compounded by internal displacement and socio-economic hardship.

In Colombia, public schools in Bogotá face pervasive peer violence, with nearly 90% of reported incidents involving student-to-student aggression.⁶ This context is intensified by classrooms hosting high numbers of Venezuelan refugees and internally displaced students.⁶ Traditional punitive responses have proven ineffective in breaking these cycles of violence. Restorative practices are therefore positioned as a necessary, trauma-informed alternative, emphasizing strengthening relationships, repairing harm through dialogue, and mutual accountability.⁶ A Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) is underway in Bogotá public schools, testing the impact of structured RP workshops on students’ violence, mental health, and social cohesion.⁶ Given the concentration of students affected by national conflict and trauma, the goal of RP here is less about punishing a single transgression and more about restoring fundamental social links and acting as a societal stabilizer against instability.

Mexico faces a significant issue with school violence and bullying, with 23% of students reporting bullying at least once a month, according to PISA 2018 data.²¹ Existing legislation requires states to implement protective and corrective measures, but often lacks clear protocols.²² In response, exploratory studies have tested RP as a strategy for violence prevention. A five-month program implemented in primary and secondary schools in Sonora, a marginalized urban context, demonstrated that providing students with restorative strategies significantly improved their emotional self-regulation, self-determination, and adoption of peaceful conflict resolution strategies.²¹

Brazil’s initial projects focused on implementing Restorative Justice in State schools with the explicit goal of resolving conflicts within the educational environment, thereby preventing young offenders from entering the formal justice system.²³ This judicial deflection strategy combats the over-criminalization of youth and allows schools to retain ownership of educational processes. Furthermore, these efforts prioritize reaching the most vulnerable populations, collaborating with community groups focused on migrants and the homeless.²⁴ This positioning of RP as a tool for social equity demonstrates a pragmatic response to Brazil’s vast socio-economic disparities.

C. Integration of Customary Law (Kenya)

Kenya’s commitment to restorative mechanisms is enshrined in its 2010 Constitution, which mandated the promotion of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).²⁵ This drive was born from the realization that up to 95% of Kenyans do not access or trust formal courts, citing cost barriers and a historical legacy of unfair treatment by systems inherited from the colonial era.²⁵

The landmark Alternative Justice System (AJS) Policy, launched in 2020, formally integrates customary and informal justice systems alongside state-operated mechanisms.²⁵ Traditional mechanisms, facilitated by elders, focus on community participation, mutual accountability, and reconciliation, often concluding with a symbolic ritual (such as an embrace or handshake) to seal the agreement.²⁵ The enforcement mechanism is typically social penalty imposed by the community.²⁵ The official validation of these traditional methods challenges the dominance of Western retributive models and provides a globally significant blueprint for nations seeking to leverage indigenous restorative knowledge for sustainable justice and equitable access.

IV. Cultural Context and Relational Models in East Asia

In East Asia, the implementation of restorative practices is critically filtered through deeply rooted cultural ethics, such as Confucian relationalism, requiring careful adaptation of models to manage concepts like shame, harmony, and hierarchy.

A. Confucian Relationalism and Shame Management (Taiwan, Hong Kong)

Societies influenced by Confucian ethics—including Taiwan, Hong Kong, and parts of mainland China—are characterized by an emphasis on harmony, hierarchy, and duty-based morality, which can sometimes conflict with Western notions of rights.²⁶ For Restorative Justice to be effective in Taiwanese juvenile justice and educational contexts, practitioners must integrate a framework that links relationalism, transformation, and the appropriate management of shame.²⁷

In these highly relational cultures, the Western RP ideal of “empowering conflict parties” must be meticulously negotiated. The core function of the restorative process shifts from radical individual empowerment to the fulfillment of collective duty and the restoration of social harmony (Wa in Japanese contexts).²⁶ The process ensures that relationships are repaired while respecting the established social order and hierarchy, preventing the destabilization of the community structure.

B. Relational Harmony (Wa) in Japanese Contexts

In Japan, the application of restorative justice for school bullying cases is aimed at restoring community order and reaffirming community values by fixing damaged relationships.²⁸ Since traditional criminal justice often proves too stringent for minor school incidents, RP provides a necessary, intermediate approach that avoids formal adjudication but ensures that the harm is addressed and the relationships between parties are repaired.²⁸

A key strength of the Japanese approach is the clear classification of juvenile institutions and the commitment to balancing the offenders’ rights and responsibilities, while simultaneously prioritizing the rights and interests of victims when implementing restorative measures.²⁸ This model offers crucial references for other nations, such as China, seeking alternatives to criticism and standard education for handling school bullying.²⁸

V. Comparative Synthesis: Jurisdictional Advancement and Model Typology

A comparative analysis of international RP implementation reveals that jurisdictions generally adopt one of four distinct models based on their primary policy rationale.

A. Model Typology and Policy Transferability

B. Global Jurisdictional Advancement Matrix

The following matrix synthesizes the specific advancements made by key jurisdictions in institutionalizing restorative practices within educational and community settings.

Global Jurisdictional Advancement Matrix: Restorative Practices in Education

You may also read: Measuring the Effectiveness of Restorative Practices in Schools

VI. Conclusion and Recommendations

The global implementation of restorative practices in education demonstrates a dynamic and highly contextual field. While the core values remain consistent—emphasizing relationship, dialogue, and repair—the models adopted are tailored to address distinct national challenges, whether they involve systemic inequity (England), post-conflict trauma (Colombia), or distrust in formal institutions (Kenya).

A. Challenges of Fidelity and Scale: Maintaining RP Integrity

A persistent challenge identified across jurisdictions is maintaining high model fidelity when scaling up restorative practices. While many studies report short-term gains, such as increased emotional self-regulation in students ²¹, there is still limited evidence confirming the direct correlation and sustained impact of RP on long-term behavioral and academic outcomes.⁴ Superficial adoption, sometimes referred to as “restorative-lite,” occurs when formal conferences are used without the necessary cultural underpinning of proactive, informal restorative language and relationship building.² The success of the whole-school model, such as that adopted in Flanders ³, is directly dependent on comprehensive, consistent staff training and the integration of affective communication into daily pedagogy.¹¹

B. Recommendations for International Policy Transfer and Local Adaptation

Based on this comparative analysis, strategic policy recommendations for high-level implementation and funding bodies are presented.

1. Prioritize Cultural Translation and Adaptation

Policymakers must acknowledge that generic Western RP models often fail when transferred without adaptation. Successful implementations, particularly in transitional and culturally distinct settings (e.g., Kenya, Taiwan), demonstrate that RP must be deeply integrated with local customs regarding conflict, hierarchy, and dispute resolution.²⁵ This requires leveraging customary practices, such as symbolic reconciliation rituals, which validate non-state justice mechanisms and foster greater community buy-in, as seen in the Kenyan Alternative Justice System.²⁵

2. Utilize Organizational Maturity Grids for Assessment

To ensure institutional commitment and fidelity, policy bodies should adopt sophisticated frameworks for assessment. Frameworks such as the RPI Quality Assurance Framework ² or the Dutch Restorative Justice Maturity Grid ⁷ provide essential tools to measure implementation across multiple dimensions—from high-level organizational vision and policy to ground-level professional expertise and school culture.⁷ This moves evaluation beyond simple outcome metrics (e.g., number of circles held) to assessing true organizational capacity for restorative change.

3. Embed RP within Transitional and Reparative Justice Mandates

In nations dealing with systemic violence, post-conflict displacement, or historical human rights abuses (e.g., Colombia, South Africa), RP should be funded and legislatively mandated jointly by Ministries of Justice, Education, and Social Cohesion. Positioning RP as a tool for transitional and reparative justice ensures that it receives the necessary institutional weight and funding to address deep-seated societal trauma, rather than being treated merely as a niche educational disciplinary tool.¹⁹

4. Support Judicial Deflection Strategies

Jurisdictions facing judicial overburdening and high rates of juvenile criminalization (e.g., Brazil) should strategically invest in RP programs that successfully divert youth conflicts away from the formal justice system.²³ By strengthening internal school mechanisms—particularly in settings serving marginalized populations—RP functions as a crucial equity tool, preventing the permanent socio-economic damage associated with entry into the criminal pipeline.²³