Schools can call themselves restorative and still have a share of their staff who don't believe in it. In fact, it's rare to find a school where every adult has truly shifted their mindset on discipline. Most restorative schools are, in reality, schools in transition. Some staff are fully on board, some are curious but skeptical, and some are quietly waiting for the "real consequences" to come back while this restorative fad fades.
There are still people on our staff who believe punitive discipline equals consequences and restorative discipline equals permissiveness. That belief usually doesn't come from a bad place. Many of us grew up in schools where discipline meant detention, suspension, or being sent out of the room. Punishment is visible (a room full of kids in detention during lunch sends a signal that the school is tough on discipline to some staff members). Everyone can see it happen. It feels like something was done. Restorative work, on the other hand, often happens behind a closed door, in a circle, or in a conversation between a student and the person they harmed. From the outside, it can look like nothing happened at all.
When staff see discipline through this binary lens, punishment on one side and permissiveness on the other, it becomes very difficult for a school to "do discipline" in a way that earns buy-in from all stakeholders. Indeed, when a portion of the staff holds this binary view, it is nearly impossible for any school disciplinarian to hit the mark. If the measure of a "good" consequence is how much it hurts, then any response grounded in repair will always look too soft, weak, and permissive. There is no number of suspension days that will satisfy a belief that discipline exists to punish.
That's why disciplinarians shouldn't aim to hit the mark of what staff see as just/fair, especially when many staff haven't fully bought into restorative practices. That target keeps moving, and chasing it pulls us away from our purpose. Instead, disciplinarians should lead by example, grounded in the belief that restorative practices work, and that they provide healing, provide accountability, and promote a positive school culture. Our decisions should be anchored in our values, not in the hope of being seen a certain way.
I know I have been guilty of doing discipline to students so that staff would see me as "strong on discipline." Unfortunately, it almost never worked.
I remember a situation where I went against my restorative instincts and assigned a two-day in-house suspension for something that I know could have been repaired through restorative practices. I made that choice partly because I knew the teacher who wrote the referral wanted to see something tough (she had complained that I was “too soft” and had complained that kids wanted to be sent to my office). When I followed up with that educator, I expected appreciation for how firm I had been. Instead, the educator looked at me and said, "That was it?"
I let my ego get in the way of doing what I knew was right; what I knew aligned to a restorative mindset. That moment stayed with me for a long time. Looking back, I understand that this educator saw discipline primarily as a way to punish students. No matter what I had done, I would not have changed that mindset. I had given up what I believed in, and I still didn't get the approval I was chasing. Worse, the student didn't get what they actually needed: a chance to understand the harm they caused, face the people affected, and make it right.
What I could have done instead was let myself be led by restorative values: reconciliation, high support, and high accountability. That doesn't mean ignoring the teacher. It means including them. I could have invited that educator into the process, asked what harm they experienced, and given them a voice in how it would be repaired. I could have explained clearly what accountability would look like and followed up afterward to share what changed. That approach might not have won them over that day, but it would have shown them what restorative accountability looks like in action, which a suspension or an expulsion never could.
Undoubtedly, when a staff is misaligned on discipline, situations like mine will happen often. Some educators will see whatever you do as permissive and not enough. Others, usually those aligned with the philosophy behind restorative practices, will support and applaud the work. Both reactions will come, sometimes about the very same case. This is why consistency matters so much. If we swing toward punishment whenever we feel pressure, we send a message that restorative practices are something we believe in only when it's convenient. Staff notice that. Students notice it even more. But when we respond the same way, grounded in the same values, over and over, we build credibility. Over time, skeptical staff start to see students who repaired harm and didn't repeat it, relationships that were restored, and classrooms that became calmer. That evidence does more to shift mindsets than any training or lengthy theoretical explanation.
Finally, shifting mindsets on discipline takes time, and "restorative schools" rarely have 100% of their staff on board. Restorative practices are hard because they invest in the future development of the student, and much of that growth won't show up quickly enough for everyone to see it. A suspension produces an immediate, visible result. A restorative conversation plants something that may not bloom for weeks, months, or even years.But it will happen. Our job is not to win every staff member's approval on every case. Our job is to stay faithful to what we know works for kids, to model it with integrity, and to trust that the culture we are building will outlast the skepticism around it. Onward!