A Three- Year School- Wide Intervention to Build a Stronger and Healthier Community through Circle Practice

Background: Restorative Justice through circle practice is a powerful approach to strengthen relationships shifting away from punishment to a learning, and self-reflective modality of working with youth. Circle practice has been proven to nurture the social, emotional and academic needs of students and be an effective tool in addressing inequalities, reducing behavioral infractions and improving academic performance in schools. The effects of implementing circle practice with middle and high school students  to assess changes in social emotional competencies over time have not been examined. This study addressed this gap through a mixed method study of a three-year school wide initiative to improve school climate

 Methods: A mixed method study was conducted to assess the effectiveness of circle practice using the social emotional learning (SEL) curriculum. Data were collected between 2015-2018 to assess changes in social emotional competencies pre- implementation of circle work and at one and two year follow up periods from a sample of students (n=208) from 6-12th grade using the School Social Behavior Scale (SSBS-2). The DV’s were from four subscales: peer relations (PR), self- management (SM), academic behavior (AB), and social competence (SC). The IV was time, controlling for gender (male/ female), grade level (6 -12), cohort (low income male/female and non-low-income male/female), and race (White/ Colored ). A series of mixed -between and within subjects’ ANOVA’s, multivariate and mixed effects regressions were conducted. Additionally, four 60 minute focus groups were conducted with students (n= 17) and teachers (n=8) to better understand attitudes toward circle practice.

 Results: Year one and two results indicate that gender and cohort were significant factors in all subscales. Specifically, White, female, non- low income students scored higher than male, non- White, low income students across four subscales: PR [ F (1,166)=11.6, p<.001] ; SM[ F(3,164)=7.50, p<.001];    AB[ F (1,166)=5.7, p<.05]; and SC [ F(3,164)=4.7, p<.01] . Year three findings do not reveal a robust significant relationship between the SEL curriculum and student social/behavioral competencies, however, modest improvements were most noted for non-low income females[ F (1,166)=13.10, p<.001] and 12^th graders [F(3,159)=8.7, p<.001].Focus group findings suggest that teachers and students support the SEL curriculum and circle practice. Teacher focus groups highlight the need for additional administrative support and increased social worker input. Results from the students indicate a desire to include students in developing circle practice curriculum and including lighthearted topics.

 Conclusion: To date, there is no research on the effectiveness of SEL curriculum through restorative practices with the SSBS-2. We cannot directly infer from the analyses that the SEL curriculum had no effect on student behavior but that further research is warranted to assess student outcome over time using other school wide indicators. Implications for how to improve the delivery and implementation of circle practice such as including social workers in the circle process, intervention fidelity, and training of teachers are discussed. Focus group findings support the literature that circle practice is an effective tool in nurturing developmental opportunities for students, foster a sense of community, and improve overall school climate.