Question 2: What Restorative Practices have been introduced at

grade level administrators and teachers) regarding implementation and discipline referral patterns?

The methods used for this question included a qualitative and quantitative approach using an in-depth interview and focus groups along with a student survey. The interview with CEO/Principal was semi-structured with an emphasis on how and why the decision was made to implement restorative practices into Charter HS. Doyle, (2019) defines the semi-structured interview as “a meeting in which the interviewer does not strictly follow a formalized list of questions. They will ask more open-ended questions, allowing for a discussion with the interviewee rather than a straightforward question and answer format” (p.1). The semi-structured interview allowed for more dialogue with the CEO/Principal. The protocol for this interview can be found in Appendix A.

Key concepts discussed with the CEO/Principal centered on why the decision was made to implement restorative practices within the school and what specific practices are being used with students and staff.

A focus group was conducted with administrators in the school. Lavrakas, (2008) defines focus groups as “a qualitative research method in which a moderator conducts a collective interview of typically six to eight participants from similar backgrounds, similar demographic characteristics, or both” (p. 2). Focus groups often create open lines of communication and provide powerful and diverse insights into policies and perspectives. All administrators at the school were invited to attend, and they all accepted the invitation. Five administrators participated in the focus group which lasted forty-five minutes and covered topics including discipline, restorative practices and relationship building.

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with three teachers from Charter HS. An email was sent by the Principal/CEO inviting all teachers to a focus group, however, only three teachers participated at separate times and the focus group became individual interviews. Each teacher offered their perspectives on the same topic areas as the Principal/CEO and administrators. Each interview was scheduled for one hour and the full hour was utilized by each participant.

Due to the COVID-19 pandemic that occurred in the Spring of 2020, I was unable to conduct focus groups with students due to the statewide closure of schools, therefore, surveys were distributed to all 11th and 12th grade students using the Qualtrics system. In developing the survey, I used the idea of construct validity. Trochim, (2020) defines construct validity as “the degree to which inferences can legitimately be made from the operationalizations in your study to the theoretical constructs on which those operationalizations were based” (p.1). This is based on the

research questions pertaining to how restorative practices are impacting the school in the area of student behaviors.

The survey was developed using the same questions from the original focus group but written in a way in which a Likert scale was used to indicate the degree to which the students agreed with the statements. The “Likert scale is a five (or seven) point scale which is used to allow the individual to express how much they agree or disagree with a particular statement” McLeod, 2008, p. 1). There were also multiple choice questions used to indicate demographic data and the like.

The consent and/or assent to participate in the survey was emailed to all 11th and 12th grade students and their parents by the Principal/CEO. The student information manager for Charter HS who managed the emails reported that 213 students and 321 parents received the consent and/or assent forms. The forms were created electronically and the actual consent/assent was recorded through Qualtrics. Once I received the consent form from the parent and the assent form from the student, I compared them to be sure that I had both forms, then the survey link was emailed to the student.

The response by the parents and students was minimal. After the initial email, I received less than five responses. A second email was sent to all students and parents a week and a half after the initial email. The first email was sent on a Friday with the intent that parents and students would view it Monday morning. The second email was sent on a Wednesday to enable students and parents to receive it during a school day and be more likely to respond. The second attempt was more successful as I received 25 total responses from students and parents.

The total number of students who responded to the survey was eleven. This low respondent rate led me to only use the results to enhance other concepts that arose from the various

stakeholders. Of the student respondents, five were in 11th _{grade and six were in 12}th _{grade. The}

gender of the respondents was five males, five females and one student who identified as non- binary. The racial breakdown of the 11 respondents is one American Indian, one Asian, four African Americans, three white and two listed as “other”. Finally, of the 11 respondents, two have been suspended from Charter HS at least once.

The specific questions asked for each group in the study focused on three subject areas, with associated sub-categories:

• School Climate and Culture

 Positive Student Outcomes

• Student Disciplinary Outcomes

 Consistent

 Equitable

• Relationship Building

 Authentic

The complete list of questions is listed in Appendix A, Table 1.

Concepts discussed focused on the implementation and types of restorative practices used within their classrooms and throughout the school. The focus was on the relationship building between students and teachers. The administrative focus group concentrated on how well they believe restorative practices are contributing to the desired disciplinary outcomes and how and what restorative practices are working well with students and teachers. Both teachers and administrators were asked about similar concepts and they relate in their perspective roles as teachers and administrators.

These data were transcribed and coded for themes and keys concepts and areas of alignment and divergence among the CEO/Principal, administration and teachers. The process of both inductive and deductive coding was used during the content analysis of the results of the qualitative data. Zhang & Wildemith, (2005) state that “inductive coding, which themes and categories emerge from the data through the researcher’s careful examination and constant comparison as compared to deductive reasoning which generates concepts or variables from theory or previous studies is also very useful for qualitative research, especially at the inception of data analysis” (p. 2). Both the interview and focus groups data was coded based on the themes that emerge from both inductive and deductive reasoning. A coding scheme can be derived from three sources: the data, previous studies and theories, however, where no theories exist, you must generate coding categories inductively (Zhang and Wildemith, 2005).

3.4.1.3 Question 3: Has the implementation of restorative practices led to changes in