This paper explores how restorative philosophies in education (Hopkins, 2002) are reshaped when viewed through a disability-informed epistemological lens, with particular relevance for inclusive education. While restorative approaches are increasingly adopted in schools across Europe, the role of disability in shaping how restorative work is understood, enacted, and experienced remains under-theorised (Procter-Legg, 2025). This absence is striking given the persistent over-representation of learners with disabilities and special educational needs (SEND) affected by school exclusion and the way in which restorative practices are often framed as behaviour management or disciplinary alternatives. Moreover, although the evidence base is still developing regarding attendance and bullying (Darling-Hammond et al., 2020), a number of studies suggest restorative work also positively impacts school climates, learning cultures and inclusion (Bevington, 2015; Hibbin, 2023).  

By positioning disability not as a variable to be managed but as a lens of knowledge production, this study argues that disability-informed educational spaces reveal restorative philosophy as a more relational practice and as an ongoing, philosophy in action, rather than a set of procedural interventions which are solely designed to respond to negative behaviour. Drawing on comparative case studies of two specialist schools in England, the research asks:

In what ways does a deeper understanding of the lived experiences of young people with disabilities reshape normative understandings of restorative work in education?

The study aims to:

1. Extend restorative theory beyond individualised behavioural frames toward community- and system-level conceptualisations of harm.
2. Examine how different theoretical models of disability (medical, social, relational, and biopsychosocial) mediate the enactment of restorative philosophies.
3. Contribute disability-informed insights to inclusive education debates across European contexts, where tensions between needs-based inclusion and categorical systems persist.

The theoretical framework integrates restorative philosophy, understood as the enacted congruence between values, principles, and practices, with interactionist and critical realist disability theories (Bhaskar & Danermark, 2006; Shakespeare, 2014). Restorative values such as justice, dignity, solidarity, and truth are examined alongside localised educational restorative principles that view behaviour as communication of unmet needs and conflict as a learning opportunity. These are analysed in relation to evolving disability models that conceptualise disability as emerging through interactions between individuals, environments, and institutions rather than as fixed individual deficits.

This framework allows the paper to challenge dominant assumptions embedded in restorative education literature, such as linear verbal dialogue, uniform participation, and individual accountability. It achieves this by foregrounding neurodevelopmental diversity, trauma, and communication differences. In doing so, it reframes restorative work as inherently aligned with inclusive education goals, while also exposing paradoxes whereby restorative cultures flourish within semi-segregated disability-informed spaces.

By situating the findings within wider European debates on inclusive education, needs-based provision, and systemic inequity, the paper contributes to ECER discussions on how relational educational philosophies can address both interpersonal and structural forms of harm.

The study adopts a qualitative, interpretivist methodology, using a comparative heuristic case study approach (Bartlett & Vavrus, 2017) to examine restorative philosophy as a phenomenon enacted across contexts rather than as a bounded intervention. The “case” is defined as young people’s experiences of a restorative philosophy in action within disability-informed educational settings, rather than the schools themselves. Empirical data were generated from two specialist schools in the South of England serving learners with special educational needs and disabilities, one focused on social, emotional, and mental health needs and the other on moderate cognition and learning needs. Data collection took place over a sustained period and employed ethnographic methods, including: • walking-tour interviews with young people, • participant observation and field notes, • recorded conversations with staff and parents. Analysis followed a multi-scalar heuristic framework, tracing restorative philosophy across three interacting axes: • Vertical (institutional hierarchies, policy environments, and power relations), • Horizontal (variation across cohorts, diagnoses, and local contexts), • Transversal (developmental time, neurodevelopment, and lived experience). This design mirrors the relational ontology of restorative philosophy itself, foregrounding context, reflexivity, and interaction. Ethical approval was granted by the University of Oxford, and all procedures adhered to ethical guidance for educational research. Due to the heuristic approach and the detailed contextual information provided about the individual schools, this study offers strong analytical transferability for inclusive education research across European systems where categorical diagnostic methods are used to organise the educational provision for young people.

The findings indicate that disability-informed educational spaces significantly reshape restorative philosophies, expanding them beyond behavioural correction toward relational, multi-sensory, and developmentally attuned practices. Restorative work in these contexts is experienced as a constant flow of restoration, embedded in everyday interactions rather than isolated moments of repair. Key outcomes include: • A reframing of harm from individual wrongdoing to community- and system-level injustice, particularly relevant to learners experiencing exclusion and marginalisation. • The emergence of inclusive restorative adaptations, such as non-verbal communication strategies, play-based and sensory methods, and flexible participation, which challenge normative restorative assumptions. • Strong alignment between restorative philosophy and neurodevelopmental, trauma-informed, and relational pedagogies, suggesting the need to move away from siloed frameworks. However, the study also reveals a central paradox: restorative cultures are most fully realised within semi-segregated disability-informed spaces, raising critical questions for inclusive education. While these environments enable equity-focused practices, they also highlight the limited reach of restorative philosophy in addressing broader systemic harms such as admissions processes, diagnostic regimes, and structural ableism. For the Inclusive Education Network, the paper offers both empirical insight and conceptual provocation, arguing that inclusive systems must not only include diverse learners, but also learn from disability-informed contexts as sites of innovation for restorative and socially just education. Moreover, the findings suggest that restorative philosophies may be enacted differently across Europe due to the diverse ways in which disability is conceptualised within policy discourse (Castro-Kemp et al., 2025), including reflections on the way in which English schools may be limited in their adoption of restorative philosophies due to the localised, national conceptualisation of disability. These findings; therefore, create cross national, future questions for research, policy and practice.

Bartlett, L., & Vavrus, F. K. (2017). Rethinking case study research : a comparative approach (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315674889 Bevington, T. (2015). Appreciative evaluation of restorative approaches in schools. Pastoral care in education, 33(2), 105-115. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2015.1046475 Bhaskar, R., & Danermark, B. (2006). Metatheory, Interdisciplinarity and Disability Research: A Critical Realist Perspective. Scandinavian Journal of Disability Research, 8(4), 278-297. https://doi.org/10.1080/15017410600914329 Castro-Kemp, S., Herwegen, J. V., Antalek, C., & Kemp, P. (2025). An international analysis of SEND policy and practice: ScopeSEND. https://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/project/an-international-analysis-of-send-policy-and-practice-scopesend Darling-Hammond, S., Fronius, T. A., Sutherland, H., Guckenburg, S., Petrosino, A., & Hurley, N. (2020). Effectiveness of Restorative Justice in US K-12 Schools: a Review of Quantitative Research. Contemporary School Psychology(24), 295-308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-020-00290-0 Hibbin, R. (2023). Relational responsibility, social discipline and behaviour in school: re-orienting discipline and authority through a distributed network of relational accountability. Pastoral care in education. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/02643944.2023.2263453 Hopkins, B. (2002). Restorative Justice in Schools. Support for learning, 17(3), 144-149. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9604.00254 Procter-Legg, T. (2025). Restorative practice and young people with special educational needs and disabilities: a scoping study. Disability & Society, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2025.2489363 Shakespeare, T. (2014). Disability rights and wrongs revisited (2nd edition ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315887456