Book Review
The School Leader’s Guide to
Restorative School Discipline.
Luanna H. Meyer and Ian M. Evans.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 2012.
169 pages. ISBN 978-1-4129-9860-4 (pbk.)
The Teacher’s Guide to Restorative
Classroom Discipline.
Luanna H. Meyer and Ian M. Evans.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. 2012.
197 pages. ISBN 978-1-4129-9861-1 (pbk.)
Reviewed by Glen Dunlap
University of South Florida and
University of Nevada, Reno and
Janice K. Lee
University of Nevada, Reno
Let us begin this book review with a tribute to the
authors. Luanna Meyer and Ian Evans, both individually
and collaboratively, are pioneers in the field of
behavior support. Their contributions have been seminal
and substantial. For example, in the middle to late
1980s, they authored two books (Evans & Meyer, 1985;
Meyer & Evans, 1989) that defined a revolution in the
way that we perceived and intervened with difficult,
problem behavior. They were among the very first
scholars to conceptualize problem behaviors as skill deficits
and as manifestations of inadequate environments,
and they were also among the first to articulate procedural
strategies that were person-centered, respectful,
educative, comprehensive, and remarkably effective
(e.g., Berkman & Meyer, 1989). The work of Meyer and
Evans foreshadowed and helped establish the foundation
of what is now known as Positive Behavior Support.[
The guidelines that they presented more than a
quarter century ago are the standards that we now aspire
to implement. There are no two authors in the field
today who have earned more credibility than Meyer
and Evans, and so their current contributions require our
attention and our respect.
The two books that are the subject of this review, The
Teacher’s Guide and the School Leader’s Guide,
describe the details of Meyer and Evans’ current approach,
Restorative Discipline. Restorative Discipline
is an educative model for schools that places the emphasis
on “making things right” as opposed to simply correcting
or suppressing problem behaviors. The orientation is
centered around relationships and the need for comprehensive
guidance and instruction on positive social interactions
and peaceful conflict resolution. The approach
is consistent with leading frameworks of school-wide
positive behavior support (e.g., Sailor, Wolf, Choi, &
Roger, 2009; Sprague & Golly, 2005; Sugai et al., 2000),
but it has some notable distinctions.
The two guides are for different audiences: one for
teachers implementing at the classroom level, and one for
school leaders, such as principals, for implementing at
the school level. The content of the guides is similar,
providing a description of the implementation of restorative
discipline in school and classroom settings, although
they have different emphases, as their respective titles
suggest. The School Leader’s Guide focuses more on
school-wide information and implementation and provides
just an overview of classroom-level practices,
whereas the Teacher’s Guide offers more detailed information
about classroom-level strategies and addresses
the school-wide context largely from the perspective of
how it influences the classroom. Moreover, the Teacher’s
Guide offers greater emphasis and information about
classroom climate, cultural responsiveness (in the context
of positive relationships), and classroom support
structures (e.g., how to use peer support, address bullying,
and create and maintain a restorative classroom
discipline structure).
As with other models of school-wide support, the Restorative
Discipline approach is based on the multitiered
framework of universal prevention strategies (for all),
targeted interventions (for some), and individualized interventions
(for a few). Such tiered systems have become
increasingly common in a variety of fields such as public
health, school psychology, education, and early childhood
intervention (e.g., Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Joseph, &
Strain, 2003; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002; Sugai et al., 2000;
Walker et al., 1996). For schools, multitiered frameworks
offer a template for efficient confrontation of the
myriad of challenges that they face on a regular basis.
Administrators, teachers, and other school staff are faced
continuously with issues beyond academic instruction, including
improving and maintaining family engagement,
managing and responding to bullying and cyber bullying,
educating students with disabilities and those with high risk
factors, helping students with mental health issues such as
depression and suicidal tendencies, and on and on. Schoolwide
systems are designed, in large part, to organize and
implement a continuum of strategies for addressing these
formidable concerns. Restorative Discipline is an admirable
addition to the growing array of systemic models for
promoting a positive social and behavioral school climate.
Myer and Evans’ model focuses on (1) developing positive
relationships within the school setting and the larger
community, and (2) resolving conflicts peacefully. It is
a strength-based prevention and intervention approach
for elementary, middle, and high school settings where
all students, regardless of ability, disability, and/or behavior
challenges, are truly valued. Restorative Discipline
is based on the restorative justice vision that transgressions
signify a conflict between individuals, and this conflict
should be resolved by restoring the relationship
between the individuals involved and making things
right. All the while, this philosophy protects the dignity
of those involved and promotes social emotional
competence for all. This contrasts vividly with discipline
approaches that focus on punitive consequences
and retribution.
Restorative Discipline includes these key features:
• development of school-wide and classroom behavior
expectations, with detailed step-by-step guidance for
building expectations in all settings and activities;
• a focus on establishing positive home-school partnerships
that incorporate cultural and intercultural
competence;
• nurturance of a community of learners that includes
cooperative learning, peer support networks, and problem
solving;
• promotion of school-wide systems and policies about
behavioral issues to ensure that responses to problem
behaviors are consistent, fair, and transparent;
• ongoing evaluation, including user-friendly data
collection;
• ongoing professional development;
• secondary and tertiary prevention and intervention,
including a four-component tertiary model that is similar
to existing models (e.g., Dunlap et al., 2010) but,
consistent with the notion of restoration, incorporates
a cognitive element (“think”) as part of the intervention
routine.
A major strength and distinctive feature of Restorative
Discipline is its emphasis on the relationships between
and with students, families, and school staff, and
when conflicts occur (i.e., behavior problems) the effort
is intended not just to resolve the issue but also to repair
the relationships between the individuals involved.
Although the prominence of positive relationships and
social emotional competence is not unique in tiered
models (e.g., Fox et al., 2003), this is not typically the
case for school-aged models. In fact, in Restorative Discipline,
the relationship is viewed as the origin of the
conflict and this approach for schools seeks to create a
true community of acceptance and problem solving
that provides an ethos of inclusion for all while addressing
the social and emotional needs for students and staff
alike.
But what about students who are unable to understand
and/or communicate these types of sentiments?
Although the guides promote the inclusion of all students,
there is little explicit mention about students
with significant intellectual disabilities and/or substantial
challenging behaviors. The authors provide case examples
of creating individualized interventions and describe
scenarios where interventions and supports are truly individualized
for the student and respect and honor the
student’s strengths and interests. However, unless the
reader is familiar with students who have the most intensive
needs, the examples and scenarios may not adequately
address the needs for ALL students. One example
of this type of challenge is how a teacher or other staff
member would facilitate a restorative conference between
two high school students–one with an intellectual
disability and one a typically developing student who
was bullying the student with the disability. A restorative
conference typically involves a conversation to resolve
the conflict and restore the relationship between
the individuals involved. If one or both parties require
substantial support to understand what is being presented,
how would this type of conflict ultimately get resolved?
The guides do not provide explicit direction for mediating
relationships involving students with significant needs,
and perhaps this simply reflects an ongoing need for
specialists who are able to facilitate such interactions.
Now, it needs to be understood that this is a limitation
that is very common among existing school-wide models
and, rather than constituting a criticism of the Restorative
Discipline approach, it is more of a signal that we
need to do more to describe and demonstrate the effectiveness
and feasibility of tertiary (individualized and intensive)
supports within the overall context of classroom
and school-wide systems.
There is much to admire about Restorative Discipline,
and it is an easy matter to offer an enthusiastic recommendation
for both of these guidebooks. The approach
is fully consistent with TASH values, and its focus on
positive relationships, social emotional competence, and
personal dignity provides an excellent foundation for creating
inclusive school communities. The books are very well
written, and their organization facilitates an easy comprehension
of the key principles and basic strategies of
the model. It is evident, throughout, that the content
is based on extensive experience, wisdom, and vision.
Given the noteworthy backgrounds of the authors, these
attributes are not a surprise.
References
Berkman, K. A., & Meyer, L. H. (1988). Alternative strategies
and multiple outcomes in the remediation of severe selfinjury:
Going “all out” nonaversively. Journal of the Association
for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 76-86.
Dunlap, G., Iovannone, R., Wilson, K., Kincaid, D., Christiansen,
K., Strain, P., et al. (2010). Prevent-teach-reinforce: A school-based
model of positive behavior. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Evans, I. M., & Meyer, L. H. (1985). An educative approach
to behavior problems: A practical decision model for interventions
for severely handicapped learners. Baltimore: Paul
H. Brookes Publishing Co.
Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G. E., & Strain,
P. S. (2003). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting
social competence and preventing challenging behavior in
young children. Young Children, July 2003, 48-52.
Meyer, L. H., & Evans, I. M. (1989). Nonaversive interventions
for behavior problems: A manual for home and community.
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Sailor, W., Wolf, N., Choi, H., & Roger, B. (2009). Sustaining
positive behavior support in a context of comprehensive school
reform. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner
(Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 633-669).
New York: Springer.
Sandall, S. R., & Schwartz, I. S. (2002). Building blocks for
teaching preschoolers with special needs. Baltimore, MD:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Company.
Sprague, J., & Golly, A. (2005). Best behavior: Building positive
behavior support in schools. Boston: Sopris West.
Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J.,
Nelson, C. M., et al. (2000). Applying positive behavior
support and functional behavioral assessment in schools.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2, 131-143.
Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J.,
Bricker, D., et al. (1996). Integrated approaches to preventing
antisocial behavior patterns among school age children
and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4,
194-209.