Restorative practice frames_only_2_pja2_final (50

Integrated Models of Prevention
and Treatment: Positive Behavior
Supports and Restorative Practices
Jeffrey R. Sprague, Ph.D.
The University of Oregon Institute on
Violence and Destructive Behavior
Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. APBS Webinar 2015
1

Agenda
• Background on the problem:
– School to prison pipeline.
– Disproportionate minority representation.
• What is punishment anyway and how do I
make it “work.”
• Integrating SWPBIS and Restorative
Practices:
– Improving school climate.
– Alternatives to exclusionary discipline.
Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. APBS Webinar 2015 2

Background
• Why do we need to do it this way?
– Discipline inequities.
• Race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation.
– School to prison pipeline.
– Teacher support.
• How can we make a difference?
• Culturally responsive SWPBIS.
• Restorative justice/discipline/practices.
• Define restorative practices.
– Provide background on the approach.
• Discuss and give examples of restorative
practices and their relation to SWPBIS
implementation.

Vocabulary
• SW-PBIS
• Restorative:
– Justice
• This is where RP is derived, and we recommend
you avoid “justice” language in schools.
– Don’t use “offender” and “victim”.
– Discipline
• Derived from the Greek “disciplus” which
means to “teach” or “follow”.
– Practices
• Methods used to achieve restorative (and
other) discipline outcomes.

Common questions about
PBIS and RP
• How do PBIS and RP address school climate
improvement?
– What is common?
– What is different?
• PBIS advocates for use of behavioral
interventions.
– What is the basis for Restorative Practices?
• How does PBIS address disciplinary inequities?
– Could restorative practices improve these outcomes?
• Isn’t restorative practice just another way to
assign consequences?
– If I treat each student differently, they will start
thinking some “get away with it”.
• Doesn’t using restorative practices take a lot of
time? Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. APBS Webinar 2015 5

Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. APBS Webinar
2015
Common response to behavioral
challenges: Apply exclusionary
discipline
• Increase monitoring and Supervision.
• Restate rules & sanctions (talk them out of it!)
• Pay more attention to problem behavior.
• Refer disruptive students to office, suspend,
expel.
– Apply exclusionary discipline.
6

2015
Suspension and Expulsion, Why?
• Suspension and expulsion from school are
methods used by school administrators to
decrease violence, discourage drug abuse, and
curtail criminal activities on campus.
• Suspension and expulsion are also used to deal
with difficult and challenging behaviors, including
truancy.
• Most U.S. schools have policies known as “zero
tolerance”—the term given to a school or district
policy that mandates predetermined
consequences for various student offenses, and
almost 90% of Americans support these policies.
– The ABA argues that it is wrong to mandate
automatic expulsion or referral to juvenile court
without taking into consideration the specifics of
each case (AKA due process).
7

2015
Children most likely to be suspended or expelled
are those most in need of adult supervision
and professional help
• Least likely to have supervision at home.
• Children growing up in homes near or below the
poverty level.
• Children with single parents are between 2 and 4
times as likely to be suspended or expelled from
school as are children with both parents at home.
• There may also be racial bias for application of school
disciplinary actions, with African American youth
suspended at nearly 2 times the rate of white students
in some regions (Skiba & Peterson, 1998).
• Children who use illicit substances, commit crimes,
disobey rules, and threaten violence often are victims
of abuse, are depressed, or have mental health needs.
10

Inequity in discipline outcomes
(Losen & Martinez, 2013)
11.8
24.3
6.1
12
6 7.1
5.6
8.4
2.4 2.3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1972-73 2009-10
Black
Latino
White
American Indian
Asian/PI
Figure 1. Secondary School Suspension Rates (by race): Then and Now

2015
• Punishment practices may appear
to “work” in the short term:
–Remove student.
–Provides relief to teachers, students,
administrator.
–BUT, we attribute responsibility for
change to student &/or others
(family).
12

2015
Does Exclusionary Discipline Work Without
A Balance of Teaching and Restoration?
• Detrimental effects on teacher-student
relations.
• Modeling: undesirable problem solving:
– Reduced motivation to maintain self-control.
– Generates student anger and disengagement.
– Results in more problems (Mayer, 1991).
• Truancy, dropout, vandalism, aggression.
• Does not teach: Weakens academic
achievement.
• Correlated with dropout, delinquency,
criminality and negative life outcomes.
13

2015
When youth are not in school, they are:
– More likely to become involved in a
physical fight and to carry a weapon.
– Smoke; use alcohol, marijuana, and
cocaine; and engage in sexual intercourse.
– Suicidal ideation and behavior may be
expected to occur more often at these
times of isolation among susceptible
youth.
– Drop out of school.
14

“Zero tolerance has
not been shown to
improve school
climate or school
safety.”
—APA Task Force Report
on Zero Tolerance

• What it is: School policies and practices that
push students out of traditional school
settings into more restrictive settings,
including juvenile justice settings
• Pathway:
16
School-to-Prison
Pipeline/Discipline Gap
Students
failing
academically
and
behaviorally
Reactive
disciplinary
policies (zero
tolerance,
criminalization
of behavior)
Disciplinary
exclusion
(AE,
suspension,
expulsion)
Youth
disengage-
ment from
school
Court
involvement
and juvenile
detention
M

School Discipline & Juvenile Justice
(Fabelo et al. 2011)

Juvenile Justice

Teacher support
• The National Center for Education
Statistics in 1998 pointed out a
staggering statistic:
– out of the 467 accredited universities and
colleges in the study, only 51% stated that
they offered specific courses in discipline,
and only 43% of the students at these
schools were required to take these courses.
• Greer-Chase, M., Rhodes, W. A., & Kellam, S. G.
(2002). Why the prevention of aggressive behaviors
in middle school must begin in elementary school.
The Clearing House, 75(5), 242-245.

Teacher Support

Isn’t restorative practice
just another way to
assign consequences?

Punishment
• You need to know your ABC’s:
– Antecedent.
– Behavior.
– Consequence.
• Punishment involves providing a consequence that
reduces the future probability of a behavior:
– Consequence.
– Reduced probability.
• We also know that teaching a replacement behavior
puts the “old” behavior on extinction:
– Make the problem behavior irrelevant, inefficient and
ineffective.
• O’Neill et al., 2014

Consider Exclusionary Consequences
as a form of Time Out
• Time-out refers to a behavior management
procedure in which the student is separated from other
students for a limited period in a setting:
– that is not locked; and,
– from which the student is not physically prevented from
leaving.
• Goals of the timeout procedure:
– to provide a student with an opportunity to regain self-
control.
– to reduce the future probability of problem behavior in the
“time in” setting (this meets the correct definition of
punishment).
• In this frame, any form of exclusionary discipline
can be considered “time out”.

• Always take data to monitor effectiveness:
– Start/stop/duration.
– Staff person name.
– Behavior.
– Behavior during TO.
– Any negative “side effects.”
• Always implement with high fidelity & by
highly skilled implementer.
• Always involve student, family, etc. in decision
making.
Punishment guidelines

School Wide Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports is….
• A systems-based strategy to create a “host
environment” in schools to reduce problem
behaviors:
– Three-tier intervention logic.
– Behavioral interventions.
– Team-based planning and implementation.
– Systematic use of student-level behavior data to support
decisions and improve program implementation.
– Systematic use of intervention fidelity assessments to
guide implementation.
– NOT a single “program”.

What we know about PBIS Effectiveness
• Evaluation reports, single-case studies, and a series of
randomized control trials have demonstrated that
implementation of SWPBIS is related to:
– reduction in problem behavior.
• Racial/ethnic gaps remain (Skiba et al., 2014)
http://aer.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/06/24/0002831214541670
– improved academic performance.
– improved perception of school safety.
– improved staff retention.
– improved organizational health of schools.
– reduction in bullying behaviors.
– increased social emotional competence of students.
• Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010).
• There is relatively strong evidence that direct instruction of
behavior school-wide, in small groups and individually within a
function-based behavior plan has a positive impact on problem
behavior.
– Dunlap, Iovannone, Wilson, Kincaid, & Strain, 2010;

A new move?
• We need to address the root causes of
behaviors that lead to suspension and
expulsion and provide alternative disciplinary
actions:
– These practices might be called “restorative
practice,” adapted from the concepts and
practices of “balanced and restorative justice”
commonly used in juvenile and adult corrections
and treatment programs.

• ‘what happened, who is to blame, what
punishment or sanction is needed?’
– The easiest consequence is the one most
likely to be delivered.
• ‘What happened, what harm has
resulted and what needs to happen to
make things right?’ (O’Connell, 2004)
– A restorative process will initially be
viewed as more effortful.

• Alongside a general interest in restorative
justice, attention has turned to the
adaptation of restorative justice practices in
educational settings.
• Restorative justice seeks to provide a much
clearer framework for restitution.
• Offenses can result in sanctions but,
– The relationship damaged by the offense is the
priority.
– This damaged relationship can and should be
repaired.
– The offending individual can and should be
reintegrated, not only for the good of that
individual but also for that of the community as
a whole.

Why focus on relationships
and community?
• Positive and trusting relationships among all
individuals in a classroom:
– are a prerequisite to classroom community.
– build the social capital necessary for positive collaboration.
• Students who perceive themselves a having
ownership in a classroom community tend to:
– comply with classroom rules more readily.
– be more motivated to complete assigned tasks.
– be more resilient against negative peer influences.
• and community building is communication.
• Greater student compliance and motivation
translate into less time spent on discipline
issues and more time spent on teaching and
learning.
• The key to relationships.

Restorative Practices
• Rather than simply punishing (i.e.,
excluding) those who have caused
harm, restorative practices hold
students accountable for their
actions by involving them in face
to face encounters with the
people they have harmed.

Restorative Practices
• Restorative practices used in schools is
where:
– Staff members and pupils act towards each
other in a helpful and nonjudgmental way;
– Adults and students work to understand the
impact of their actions on others;
– There are fair processes that allow everyone to
learn from any harm that may have been
done;
– Responses to difficult behavior have positive
outcomes for everyone.

Sanctions
TreatmentRestoration

Restorative Practices Continuum
Informal Formal
Affective
statements
Affective
questions
Small,
impromptu
conference
Group or
circle
Formal
conference
2015
Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009).
The restorative practices handbook for
Teachers, Disciplinarians and Administrators.
Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for
Restorative Practice.
35

Person
Harmed
Person
Who
Caused
Harm
Community

Restorative Questions for
the persons harmed
• What did you think when you realized
what had happened?
• What impact has this incident had on you
and others?
• What has been the hardest thing for you?
• What do you think needs to happen to
make things right?
• Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009). The
restorative practices handbook for Teachers,
Disciplinarians and Administrators. Bethlehem,
PA: International Institute for Restorative Practice.
2/3/2016 Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. (jeffs@uoregon.edu)

Restorative Questions for
the person who caused harm
• What happened?
• What were you thinking at the time?
• What have you thought about since?
• Who has been affected by what you did?
– In what way?
• What do you think you need to do to make
things right?
– Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009). The
restorative practices handbook for Teachers,
Disciplinarians and Administrators. Bethlehem, PA:
International Institute for Restorative Practice.
2/3/2016 Jeffrey Sprague, Ph.D. (jeffs@uoregon.edu)

Why do we think it “works”
• The Authoritative approach is more effective
than Authoritarian.
• Impulse control: slow things down:
– Implicit Bias.
– Vulnerable decision points.
• Social bonding/Social Capital:
– Empathy.
– Commitment.
– Repair and Forgiveness.
• Procedural justice.
• Institutional betrayal.
• Biosocial stress.

Social Discipline Window
HIGH
Control (limit
setting, discipline)
Punitive Restorative
Neglectful Permissive
LOW Support HIGH
40

Student Experience and Behavior
The Importance of Relationships:
• Social Capital.
• Procedural Justice.
• Institutional Betrayal.
• Biosocial Stress.

• Social Capital:
– Students’ relationships with each other,
teachers, administrators, and the school
itself.
• “My school is a good place to go.”
• “I care about what the other students at my school think
of my actions.”
• “I have almost no influence over what my school is like.”
– Increases in levels of social capital are
associated with increasing motivation to
behave appropriately and declines in
discipline issues.
Erik J. Girvan, Claudia Vincent, Jeffrey Sprague, Heather McClure and Tary Tobin
University of Oregon
John Inglish
Oregon Department of Education
Tim McCabe
Center for Dialogue & Resolution
42

• Procedural Justice:
– Students’ perceptions that the school’s
discipline policies and practices are fair, even
if the student does not like the particular
outcomes.
• “My teachers treat me with respect.”
• “When my teachers make mistakes they are able to
recognize them.”
• “My teachers give me the chance to put forward my own
points of view before making a decision about me.”
– Increases in levels of procedural justice are
associated with students taking responsibility
for their actions and declines in behavioral
issues.
John Inglish
Tim McCabe
43

• Institutional Betrayal:
– Students’ perception that, when something
happened to them (e.g., bullying, harassment),
the school’s response made it worse.
• teachers, staff, or administrators at your school played
a role in the bullying or harassment by:
– Not taking proactive steps to prevent this type of experience.
– Responding inadequately to the experience, if reported.
– Creating an environment where continued membership in the
school community was difficult for you.
– Decreasing levels of perceptions of institutional
betrayal increases student engagement in
school.
John Inglish
Tim McCabe
44

Student Experience and Discipline
• Biosocial Stress:
– Students’ chronic levels of anxiety:
• “In the last month, how often have you felt that you were
unable to control the important things in your life?”
• “In the last month, how often have you felt confident about
your ability to handle your personal problems?”
• “In the last month, how often have you felt that things were
going your way?”
– Decreasing levels of biosocial stress increases
student engagement in school.
John Inglish
Tim McCabe
45

A specific decision that is more vulnerable to
effects of implicit bias:
• Ambiguous judgments
• Snap decisions (including fatigue, anger)
• Unconscious behaviors
(McIntosh, Girvan, Horner, & Smolkowski, 2015)
Vulnerable Decision Points for Adults:
Slow it down (when it’s safe)

Implicit
Bias
Disproportionate
Discipline
Vulnerable
Situations
A Multidimensional View of Bias
(McIntosh, Girvan, Horner, & Smolkowski, 2014)

Time Investments and Savings due to
Implementing Restorative Practices
• Affective statements;
– Equal amount of time as behavior-specific praise statements.
• Affective questions;
– A bit more time to talk with student about behavior.
– Saved time due to preventing reoccurrence of behavior.
• Active listening;
– A bit more time to listen to student.
– Saved time by due to preventing reoccurrence of behavior.
• Reframing;
– A bit more time to talk with student about his/her perspective.
– Saved time due preventing reoccurrence of behavior.
• Proactive circles;
– Equal amount of time as teaching behavioral expectations.
John Inglish
Tim McCabe

Research base supporting restorative
practices:
• Higher levels of social capital have been associated with rule
compliance (Hoy & Weinstein, 2006).
• Absence of social capital has been associated with reluctance to
comply with rules (Gouveia-Pereira et al., 2003; Sanches et al.,
2012).
• High sense of procedural justice has been associated with
greater willingness to accept and learn from punitive
consequences (Tyler & Blader, 2003).
• Low sense of procedural justice has been associated with
greater engagement in deviant behavior and poorer academic
performance (Gouveia-Pereira et al., 2003; Sanches et al.,
2012).
• Low sense of institutional support has been associated with
alienation from the institution, increased anxiety, poorer health
outcomes and re-victimization (Smith, Gomez, & Freyd, 2014).
49
Erik J. Girvan, Claudia Vincent, Jeffrey Sprague, Heather McClure
and Tary Tobin
John Inglish

Evidence base linking restorative practices
to greater disciplinary equity
• Vulnerable students affected by inequitable discipline
outcomes:
• Students from non-White backgrounds, especially Black, Latino,
and Native American students.
• Students who identify as gay, lesbian, transgender, or
questioning.
• Students with a disability.
• Vulnerable students identify positive and trusting relationships
with their teachers and peers and caring teachers as the most
important contributor to their school success
50
John Inglish
Tim McCabe

Evidence base linking restorative practices
to greater disciplinary equity
• In small-scale or case studies, schools implementing
restorative practices have documented:
• Reduced disciplinary disparities across students from various
racial/ethnic backgrounds (Dravery et al., 2006; Gregory et al.,
2014; Simson, 2012).
• Improved student perceptions of the classroom as a safe place to
share problems (Morrison & Martinez, 2001).
• Improved teacher-student relationships (DeWitt & DeWitt, 2012).
• Improved peer relationships (McCarthy, 2009).
• It appears that relationship building might serve as a conduit
towards improved disciplinary equity.
51Erik J. Girvan, Claudia Vincent, Jeffrey
Sprague, Heather McClure and Tary Tobin
John Inglish
Tim McCabe

Approaches to Achieving
a Restorative School
• Whole school
– School-wide PBIS.
• Affective Statements and Reframing
• Conferencing
– Class meetings.
– Circles.
• Mediation
– Truancy.
– Conflict.
– More serious harm.
• Suspension and expulsion alternatives
• Reintegration following referrals or suspension
– Needs a specific protocol.

PBIS-RP Continuum of Supports
Primary Tier
School &
classroom
systems for all
students, staff, &
settings
Secondary Tier:
More intensive
support systems
for students with
at-risk behavior
Tertiary Tier:
Individualized systems for
students with high-risk
behaviors
Informal (relationship/
community building):
Primary Restorative
Practices:
• Affective statements
• Affective questions
• Active listening
• Reframing
• Proactive Circles
More formal
(relationship/community
affirmation):
Small circles, Peer mediation,
Teacher-student informal
conferences
Most formal (reintegration into
community/suspension alternative):
Formal Conferences, Mediation,
Reintegration after Exclusion
~80% of students
~15%
~5%
Erik J. Girvan, Claudia Vincent, Jeffrey Sprague,
Heather McClure and Tary Tobin
John Inglish
Tim McCabe

Integrate RP with PBIS
PBIS component Classroom implementation Restorative Practice
Define expected
behaviors
Display posters with school-wide
expectations (e.g., be safe, be
responsible, be respectful)
Develop matrix showing what
expectations look like during
classroom routines
Establish classroom agreements
through proactive circles and class
meetings
Establish lines of communication
through active listening
Teach what
appropriate behaviors
look like in all school
settings
Teach appropriate behaviors during
specific classroom routines (raising
hand, getting/putting away
materials, waiting your turn)
Teach classroom agreements
through proactive circles and class
meetings
Reward students who
engage in appropriate
behaviors
Provide 4 rewards to 1 correction.
Rewards can take the form of
verbal acknowledgements, tokens,
or privileges
Reinforce appropriate behavior
through behavior- specific affective
praise statements
54
John Inglish
Tim McCabe

Integrate RP with PBIS
PBIS component Classroom implementation Restorative Practice
Consistent
consequences for
violations of
behavioral
expectations
Provide continuum of
consequences for operationally
defined violations of behavioral
expectations
Responding to minor inappropriate
behavior with behavior-specific
affective statements (Tier 1)
Resolving minor conflict through
reframing (Tier 1)
Using affective questions and
reframing during impromptu
conferences (Tier 2)
Using reframing and affective
questions during restorative circles
(Tier 2 and 3)
Data-based decision
making
Collect data on students’
responsiveness to level of support
provided
• School and classroom level
• Individual student level
Collect and report data on student
and staff member perceptions of
school and classroom climate
55
John Inglish
Tim McCabe

2015
Implementation Questions
• Who will implement?
– Affective statements and reframing.
– Class meetings.
– Restorative conferences.
– Reintegration following exclusion.
• What is the “scope and sequence?”
• When will the RP and PBIS activities occur?
• How often will RP and PBIS activities occur?
• How will you provide material and coaching
support?
• How will you inform and involve students and
parents?
56

The Main Ideas Revisited
• School Wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
– Integrated Elements.
– Continuum of supports (tier 1, tier 2, tier 3).
• Restorative Discipline (RD)
– Relationship building and rebuilding reduces the impact
and amount of socially harmful behavior.
• School Wide Positive Restorative Discipline
(SWPRD)
– Promoting equity through strategies for reducing effects
of bias and relationship building/rebuilding at every
support tier.

Get a Vision!
• What are the key issues you would need to
consider if you were going to help a school [or
organization] implement restorative practice?
• What would be happening in a school that has
fully integrated restorative practice?
• What would ‘restorative classroom’ look like?
• What would ‘teaching and learning’ look like?

Sample References
• Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., O’Brennan, L. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Multilevel
exploration of factors contributing to the overrepresentation of black students in
office discipline referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 508-520.
• Costenbader, V., & Markson, S. (1998). School suspension: A study with secondary
school students. Journal of School Psychology, 36, 59-82.
• Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2008). Social Cognition: From Brains to Culture. NY:
McGraw-Hill.
• Gouveia-Pereira, M., Vala, J., Palmonari, A., & Rubini, M. (2003). School
experience, relational justice and legitimation of institutional. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, 18(3), 309-325.
• Greenberg, M. T., Weissberg, R. P., O’Brien, M. U., Zins, J. E., Fredericks, L., Resnik,
H., et al. (2003). School-based prevention: Promoting positive social development
through social and emotional learning. American Psychologist, 58, 466–474.
• Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for
behavior in high school classrooms. School Psychology Review, 37, 337-353.
• Kaufman, J. S., Jaser, S. S., Vaughan, E. L., Reynolds, J. S., Di Donato, J., Bernard, S.
N. et al. (2010). Patterns in office discipline referral data by grade, race/ethnicity,
and gender. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 44-54.

Sample References
• Sears, D.O., & Henry, P. (2005). Over thirty years later: A contemporary look at
symbolic racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 95-150.
• Simson, D. (2013). Restorative Justice in Schools Study. Unpublished.
• Skiba, R., Simmons, A., Ritter, S., Kohler, K., Henderson, M., & Wu, T. (2006). The
context of minority disproportionality: Practitioner perspectives on special
education referral. Teacher College Record 108(7), 1424-1459.
• Tarman, C., & Sears, D. O. (2005). The conceptualization and measurement of
symbolic racism. Journal of Politics, 67(3), 731-761.
• Vincent, C., Inglish, J., Girvan, E., Sprague, J. & McCabe, T. (in press). Integrating
School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) and Restorative
Discipline (RD). In Skiba, R., Mediratta, K., & Rausch, M.K. (Eds.). Inequality in school
discipline: Research and practice to reduce disparities. New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
• Vincent, C. G., Tobin, T. J. Hawken, L., & Frank, J. (2012). Disciplinary referrals and
access to secondary interventions: Patterns across students across African-
American, Hispanic-American, and White backgrounds. Education and Treatment of
Children, 35, 431-458.
• Vincent, C. G., Tobin, T. J., Swain-Bradway, J., & May, S. (2011). Disciplinary referrals
for culturally and linguistically diverse students with and without disabilities:
Patterns resulting from school-wide positive behavior support. Exceptionality, 19,
175-190.

More References!
• Algozzine, B., Barrett, S., Eber, L., George, H., Horner, R., Lewis, T., . . . Sugai, G. (2014). School-wide PBIS Tiered
Fidelity Inventory. Retrieved from www.pbis.org.
• Amstutz, L. S., & Mullet, J. H. (2005). The little book of restorative discipline for schools. Intercourse, PA: Good
Books.
• Arviso, V., Welle, D., Todacheene, G., Chee, J. S., Hale-Showalter, G., Waterhouse, S., & John, S. (nd). Tools for
IINA (life): The journey of the IINA Curriculum to the glittering world. American Indian and Alaska Native
Mental Health Research. Retrieved from
http://www.ucdenver.edu/academics/colleges/PublicHealth/research/centers/CAIANH/journal/Documents/Vo
lume%2019/19(1)_Arviso_Tools_for_Iina_124-139.pdf
• Costello, B., Wachtel, J., & Wachtel, T. (2009). The restorative practices handbook for teachers, disciplinarians
and administrators. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practice.
• Cross, T. L., Friesen, B. J., Jivanee, P., Gowen, L. K., Bandurraga, A., Matthew, C., & Maher, N. (2011). Defining
youth success using culturally appropriate community-based participatory research methods. Best Practices in
Mental Health, 7(1), 94-114. (Chapter 5).
• Csuti, N. (2008). The Colorado trust bullying prevention initiative staff survey. Retrieved from
http://www.coloradotrust.org/sites/default/files/BPI_Staff_Survey.pdf
• Espelage, D. L., Green, H. D., & Polanin, J. (2012). Willingness to intervene in bullying episodes among middle
school students: Individual and peer-group influences. The Journal of Early Adolescence. Online first.
• Espelage, D. L., & Holt, M. L. (2001). Bullying and victimization during early adolescence: Peer influences and
psychosocial correlates. Journal of Emotional Abuse, 2, 123–142. doi:10.1300/J135v02n02_08
• Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Low, S. K. (2014). Teacher and staff perceptions of school environment as
predictors of student aggression, victimization, and willingness to intervene in bullying situations. School
Psychology Quarterly, 29, 287-305.
• Farrell, A. D., Sullivan, T. N., Kliewer, W., Allison, K. W., Erwin, E. H., Meyer, A. L., & Esposito, L. E. (2006). Peer
and school problems in the lives of urban adolescents: Frequency, difficulty, and relation to adjustment.
Journal of School Psychology, 44, 169–190. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2006.02.001
• Feldman, J. A., & Hoy, W. K. (2000). Organizational Health Inventory - Secondary (OHI-S) Retrieved from
http://www.waynekhoy.com/pdfs/ohi-s.pdf
• Gay, G. (2010). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, and practice. New York: Teachers College.

Even More!
• Hoy, W. K. (2003). Organizational Health Inventory (OHI-E). Retrieved from http://www.waynekhoy.com/pdfs/ohi-e.pdf
• Hoy, W. K., Tarter, C. J., & Kottkamp, R. B. (1991). Open schools/healthy schools: Measuring organizational climate. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
• Hoy, W. K., & Tarter, C. J. (1997). The road to open and healthy schools: A handbook for change, 2nd Edition. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
• Hung, A. H., Luebbe, A. M., & Flapohler, P. D. (2015). Measuring school climate: Factor analysis and relations to emotional
problems, conduct problems, and victimization.School Mental Health, 7, 105-119.
• Konold, T., Cornell, K., Huang, F., Meyer, P., Lacey, A., Nekvasil, E., Heibrun, A., & Shukla, K. (2014). Multilevel multi-
informant structure of the Authoritative School Climate Survey. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 238-255.
• McArdle, L. (2011) High School Teacher Attitudes Toward Implementing Positive Behavior Support Systems. Dissertations,
Paper 135. Chicago: Loyola Universty. Retrieved from http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_diss/135
• McIntosh, K., Barnes, A., Eliason, B., & Morris, K. (2014). Using discipline data within SWPBIS to identify and address
disproportionality: A guide for school teams. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and
Supports. Retrieved from
https://www.pbis.org/Common/Cms/files/pbisresources/PBIS_Disproportionality_Data_Guidebook.pdf
• Mirsky, L. (2011, December). Restorative practices: Giving everyone a voice to create safer saner school communities.
Prevention Researcher, 18 (supplement), 3-6. Retrieved from http://www.restorativejustice.org/articlesdb/articles/10441
• Mitchell, M. M., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. (2010). Student and teacher perceptions of school climate: A multilevel
exploration of patterns of discrepancy. Journal of School Health, 80(6), 271-279. DOI: 10.1177/1098300709334798
• Pranis, K. (2005). The little book of circle process: A new/old approach to peacemaking. Intercourse, PA: Good Books.
• Riestenberg, N. (2012). Circle in the square: Building community and repairing harm in school. St. Paul, MN Living Justice
Press.
• Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 259-
275.
• Sprague, J. R. & Walker, H. M. (2005). Safe and Healthy Schools: Practical Prevention Strategies. New York: Guilford
Publications.
• Wachtel, T., & Mirsky, L. (2008). Safer saner schools: Restorative practices in education. Bethlehem, PA: International
Institute for Restorative Practices.
• Walker, H. M., & Severson, H. H. (1990). Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
• Walker, H. M., & Sprague, J. R. (1999). The path to school failure, delinquency and violence: Causal factors and some
potential solutions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 35(2), 67-73.

Restorative practice frames_only_2_pja2_final (50

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to Restorative practice frames_only_2_pja2_final (50

More from UO_AcademicExtension

Recently uploaded

Restorative practice frames_only_2_pja2_final (50