USING RESTORATIVE PRACTICES TO TEACH AND UPHOLD DIGNITY IN AN AMERICAN SCHOOL DISTRICT
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The protection and promotion of dignity is a foundational objective of restorative justice. Dignity-enhancing restorative justice practices, which are rooted in the traditional practices of Indigenous people groups, have been widely adopted in schools reactively, as a response to specific infractions. A growing number of schools are adopting restorative practices proactively, with a view to preventing misbehaviour by improving climate and strengthening relationships. This report from the Evanston / Skokie School District (K-8) in Illinois explores a cost-effective restorative practice implementation plan that focuses on volunteers and teachers partnering to introduce one key proactive practice, sharing circles, to classrooms. Using Donna Hicks’ “essential elements of dignity” as a framework, I argue that restorative circle initiatives are a simple and effective means of transforming school communities by acknowledging, promoting and honouring the dignity of students.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it