A publication of the Association of California School Administrators

Implementing restorative practices in a shifting community

Manteca Unified integrates new discipline practices with clarity and conversations

By Hans Schmitz | September | October 2025

There are many truths about Manteca Unified. One, our district serves three fast-growing cities and a township. Two, the communities within these areas hold a wide range of values and beliefs about how best to raise and support children, including what discipline should look like in schools.

This diversity stems from the richness of the communities themselves. Multigenerational San Joaquin County families who remember the small, rural area it once was live alongside newcomers from the Bay Area, relocating for more affordability and a family-friendly pace, as well as families who migrate seasonally based on agricultural labor needs, to name a few. All have differing perspectives — whether more traditional or more progressive — on education, student voice, and discipline.

The third truth is: We all deeply care about kids. But when it comes to how schools should respond when students make mistakes, there isn’t always common ground to stand on.

Naming the divide Say the words “restorative practices” out loud to a mixed audience, and you’ll get a mix of head nods, raised eyebrows, and a few polite but skeptical smiles. The perception? Restorative practices mean no consequences, just circles about feelings and kids getting off easy without formal consequences for their actions.

That’s where our work began — clearing the air. In Manteca Unified, restorative practices aren’t about replacing consequences. They’re about embedding accountability in relationships. A student who fights may still be suspended, but they may also have the opportunity to own what happened, hear from those they harmed, and find a way to make it right.

Building bridges through language The first major lesson? Language matters.

In the early stages of research, planning, and discussing the idea with committees, we spent a lot of time talking like we were in a professional development session. Terms like “restorative circles,” “harm repair,” and “affective statements” made sense to us, but we knew it would not resonate with our community.

So, we shifted. We spoke of accountability, ownership, relationships, and rebuilding trust. Not to mask our intentions, but to ground them. That language connects with students, parents, and educators on both sides of our ideological split because it is grounded in our existing practices.

We decided that reframing isn’t selling out. It is showing up in a way that our community can hear and would allow us to integrate practices that would benefit students.

A phased approach One learning method from the past that we hold on to is that rolling things out in a phased approach works best for our community. Instead of implementing restorative practices across all 29 of our schools with all 25,000 students, we are implementing it in thirds.

We have limited resources to implement restorative practices, and just rolling them out without a solid game plan will get us nowhere. We want to take a strategic approach by introducing it to 10 schools at a time. This allows us to collect data along the way, hold forums to collect feedback, and show that restorative practices are effective.

Anchoring restorative practices within our MTSS What is helping solidify restorative practices in our district isn’t a great pitch. It is a structure. Rather than roll out restorative practices as an isolated initiative, we integrated it into our existing Multi-tiered System of Supports (MTSS). In Manteca, we call it our Integrated Continuum of Supports. That continuity is helping educators and families see where restorative practices fit into the larger behavioral support system within our district.

Tier 1: Relationship-building circles are becoming part of classroom routines.

Tier 2: Targeted support for students showing early signs of conflict or disconnect. Tier 3: Formal conferencing is used when serious harm or chronic behaviors emerge.

These practices are not unique to restorative practices. They are deeply rooted in our Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and our Social Emotional Learning (SEL) culture, which has been in place for years in our district. Restorative practices do not stand alone; they are fully amalgamated into our Integrated Continuum of Supports. It’s not a systematic shift — it is simply a shift in the language we use to describe our already established system.

This framing makes it clear: Restorative practices aren’t the system itself. They are part of the larger system.

A community conversation, not a campaign As we planned, we knew that if we tried to just explain restorative practices with academic language and theory, people would not get on board.

How do we move the needle? By listening and inviting our community into the process. We did not “voluntell” our first set of schools — we looked for administrators who were interested and willing to be our champions. We asked them to bring teachers, classified staff, parents, and students to our training. We brought in experts who understood our philosophy of integration and language shifting to help us train. We invited skepticism and made space for discomfort.

Redefining discipline, not removing it Similarly to our implementation of PBIS years prior, we heard the concerns loud and clear: “Are you saying students don’t get suspended anymore? Are there any consequences?”

We responded with clarity: Suspensions still happen. But they aren’t the only thing that should happen. The consequences are part of the picture. So is accountability. So is repair. So is reflection.

One of the most effective analogies to effect positive change is that traditional discipline tells students what not to do. Restorative practices help them understand why it mattered and how to fix it. That kind of learning sticks.

We decided that reframing isn’t selling out. It is showing up in a way that our community can hear and would allow us to integrate practices that would benefit students.

Shifting the mindset: From policy to practice It isn’t enough to create restorative practices protocols. We need to build a culture. That means reframing for adults as much as supporting students.

We provided site-level training. We embedded restorative questions into behavior referral follow-ups and our suspension re-entry meetings. We provided every staff member with restorative questioning cards to always carry with them. We coached admin teams on how to respond restoratively in high-emotion moments.

This shift is what is turning restorative practices from what is traditionally thought of as “just another program” in our district into a practice.

Lessons in common ground In a community that can be ideologically split like ours, the success of restorative practices doesn’t come from compromise. It comes from clarity.

We honor tradition by maintaining clear rules and consequences. We honor progress by teaching students how to grow from their mistakes. We stayed grounded in student outcomes, not political positions.

We also realized this: You don’t need everyone to agree with everything. You just need enough shared belief to move forward. In Manteca, that belief is simple: Every student matters. And every student can grow.

Final thoughts Restorative practices asked us to slow down. To listen more. To believe that accountability and compassion can walk hand in hand. We aren’t implementing it perfectly. But we are implementing it intentionally. And through that, there is a fourth truth: We are finding something rare in divided times — common ground worth standing on.

Hans Schmitz is the coordinator of Student Services in the Manteca Unified School District.