Restorative Justice and Behavior in NYC Schools

Restorative justice (RJ) in schools was introduced with the best of intentions—reduce exclusionary discipline, address root causes, keep kids in class, and ultimately improve behavior through understanding and accountability rather than punishment. But in many real-world implementations, particularly in large urban districts like New York City, the results on actual student behavior have been disappointing or even negative.

Here’s what the data and on-the-ground experience show:

Evidence that behavior has not improved (and in some cases worsened)

• Suspensions down, but incidents up or unchanged NYC has significantly reduced suspensions since the major RJ push began around 2015–2018. Yet multiple sources—teacher surveys, school climate reports, police incident data, and independent analyses—show that serious and disruptive behavior has not declined correspondingly.
  • Police-reported incidents in NYC schools reportedly doubled in some tracking periods after RJ expansion.
  • Chronic absenteeism spiked dramatically (reaching 35–40% in many high-poverty schools in recent years), which is often linked to unsafe or chaotic school environments.
  • Violent and disruptive incident reports (from NYSED and NYC DOE data) have shown no consistent downward trend in many categories despite far fewer suspensions.
• Major studies on NYC’s RJ implementation
  • The Manhattan Institute (2023–2024 reports) analyzed NYC’s multi-year, $100M+ restorative justice initiative and concluded it failed to produce meaningful improvements in school climate, student behavior, suspensions (beyond the policy-driven drop), or academic outcomes.
  • Randomized controlled trials in Brooklyn high schools found no statistically significant positive effects on school safety, student perceptions of fairness, teacher authority, or actual incident rates when comparing RJ schools to similar non-RJ schools.
  • Implementation was inconsistent—many schools received minimal training, lacked follow-through on agreements, and had no real backup plan for students who repeatedly disrupted class.
• Teacher and staff feedback Numerous teacher surveys, union reports, and anonymous educator forums describe:
  • Loss of classroom control after suspensions were restricted
  • Repeated offenders returning to class quickly with little change in behavior
  • Increased teacher burnout and turnover in schools with high disruption
  • Students (especially quieter or more vulnerable ones) feeling less safe

Why RJ often fails in practice (even when the idea sounds good)

1. Lack of consistent accountability Restorative circles and agreements often lack enforceable follow-up. When students repeatedly break agreements, there is rarely a clear next step beyond another circle—leading to a perception of impunity.
2. Insufficient adult authority and structure Many teachers report that limiting suspensions without strong classroom management tools, administrative support, or consequences for defiance undermines their ability to maintain order.
3. Scale and resource problems Large districts like NYC struggle to train thousands of staff properly, hire enough trained facilitators, or provide the intensive social-emotional/mental health supports needed for RJ to work. Without those, it becomes performative rather than transformative.
4. No real consequences for chronic disruption When the only tool is dialogue and the most serious sanction (suspension) is heavily restricted, students who thrive on attention or power can exploit the system.

What has worked better in places that actually reduced disruptive behavior

Districts and schools that have seen meaningful improvements in behavior tend to use layered approaches, not RJ alone:

• Clear, consistently enforced rules with a range of consequences (including short-term removal when needed)
• Strong school culture and visible adult presence
• Proactive mental health and trauma-informed supports
• Targeted intervention for the small group of students causing most of the disruption
• Parental engagement and clear communication

The principle—helping students understand the impact of their actions and repair harm—is sound. But in practice, when it’s implemented as the primary or almost exclusive response to misbehavior, especially without strong backup systems, it frequently leads to worse school climate rather than better behavior.

Many educators and parents who initially supported RJ have reached the conclusion that it’s not delivering in the real world, at least not in the way it’s currently being rolled out in many large districts.