Restorative Practices Through an Anti-Ableist Lens

Restorative practices are more than a discipline alternative; they are a philosophy of relationship, reflection, and repair. When approached through an anti-ableist lens, restorative work becomes a way to honor disability, affirm differences, and transform school culture from control to care.

Too often, schools adopt restorative frameworks without addressing the ableist and racist beliefs that underlie their systems. This module invites you to look critically at your own school culture and consider how restorative practices can become tools for justice rather than compliance.

1. Seeing Behavior as Communication

Behavior is not defiance—it is communication. Yet in many classrooms, students’ differences in processing, attention, or regulation are interpreted as disruption. For Black and disabled students, these interpretations carry compounded harm: teachers may read movement, tone, or silence through racialized and ableist stereotypes.

Davis and Museus (2019) warn that deficit thinking leads educators to locate the “problem” within the child rather than within the structures surrounding them. Restorative practice begins by rejecting this deficit framing. When we ask, “What is this student telling me through their behavior?”, we open space for empathy, not punishment.

2. The Role of Teacher Beliefs

Teacher beliefs shape how restorative practices live—or fail—in classrooms. Without self-reflection, educators can unconsciously replicate carceral logics, using “restoration” as another form of control.

Annamma, Connor, and Ferri (2013) argue that ableism and racism are interdependent; both define certain behaviors and bodies as deviant. When teachers equate “respect” with eye contact or “engagement” with quiet compliance, they reinforce those hierarchies. Anti-ableist restorative practice, by contrast, accepts diverse ways of communicating, participating, and belonging.

Giroux (1983) reminds us that educators either reproduce or resist dominant power structures. Reflection on our own beliefs determines which role we play.

3. Restorative Justice as Disability Justice

Restorative justice calls for accountability, healing, and community repair. But in schools, it also calls for accessibility and inclusion. A DisCrit-informed restorative model centers students’ lived experiences and voices, especially those most often silenced by systems of discipline (Liang et al., 2022).

In practice, this might look like creating sensory-safe spaces for reflection, using visual supports in circles, or providing multiple modes for students to express harm and healing. Restorative justice becomes disability justice when it honors neurodiversity, embodiment, and access as integral to belonging.

4. Transforming School Culture

Restorative work must extend beyond individual classrooms—it must live in the culture of the school. That transformation begins when teachers see themselves as co-learners with students. Bal et al. (2014) show that schoolwide equity initiatives grounded in educator reflection and cultural responsiveness shift environments from punitive to collaborative.

Professional development in cultural competency and implicit bias is crucial (Harris-Murri, King, & Rostenberg, 2006). These opportunities invite teachers to interrogate their assumptions and replace “management” with mentorship. True transformation happens when every adult in the building views discipline not as punishment, but as a collective responsibility to restore community.

5. Humanizing Education

Langston Hughes wrote, “The land that never has been yet—and yet must be—the land where every man is free.” Restorative practices move us closer to that vision when they are grounded in love, access, and liberation.

Freire (1970) described education as “the practice of freedom.” Anti-ableist restorative practice embodies that freedom: it resists hierarchy, uplifts humanity, and creates classrooms where all students; disabled, neurodivergent, and otherwise, can thrive as full participants in their learning communities.

For Reflection

• How do you define “respect” or “appropriate behavior” in your classroom? Whose norms shape those definitions?

• When conflicts occur, how can you ensure accessibility for all students involved?

• What would a restorative process look like if it centered disabled and neurodivergent voices from the beginning?

• How can restorative practice become part of your school’s culture, not just an intervention after harm?