RESTORATIVE APPROACHES TO STUDENT MISCONDUCT IN CANADIAN U.S. SECONDARY SCHOOLS: A SYSTEMATIC LITERATURE REVIEW AND RESEARCH AGENDA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Restorative justice is rooted in Indigenous tradition. Its methods have been widely adapted in secular contexts. The past two decades have seen restorative justice practices increasingly utilized in Canadian and U.S. secondary schools as forms of disciplinary responses. The tactics show promise to correct disproportionate discipline rates faced by students of colour and youth with identified learning challenges. Critical findings also arise in the area of relationship building. This thesis adopts a systematic literature review methodology to examine extant works regarding methods of restorative justice actioned in Canadian and U.S. secondary school communities. Synthesized literature produced four themes: Outcomes of Restorative Practices’ Implementation in Schools, Student Exclusions and Youth of Colour, Students of Colour and the School-to-Prison Pipeline and Restorative Approaches to Student Discipline. In response to this data, gaps in the research are outlined. A future research agenda regarding the field of restorative methods operationalized in school contexts is then proposed.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.013 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".