top of page
Restorative Culture:
Cycle-on-Cycle Improvement
Internal Evaluation Brief
How structured student-facing data literacy and restorative practice curriculum produced a measurable improvement in how fairly and constructively students experience discipline and peer conflict.
PILLAR
Leadership
FACTOR
Restorative Culture
EVALUATION TYPE
Internal — shareable methodology
MEASUREMENT
BuzzGage Development Index (0-100)
PROGRAMME
UCL EdTech Labs
KEY FINDING
Restorative Culture improved by
+5 points cycle-on-cycle
A structured tutor programme — anchored in real BuzzGage student data and delivering restorative skills training — was associated with a measurable improvement in students' experience of discipline, accountability, and conflict resolution across all grade sections.
FACTOR INDEX
Cycle 1
61
Cycle 2
66
+5 points
STATUS: CONSOLIDATING
Defining Restorative Culture in BuzzGage
BuzzGage's Restorative Culture factor sits within the Leadership pillar of the measurement framework. It captures how fairly, respectfully, and constructively discipline is experienced by students, with a focus on accountability, learning, and repairing relationships — rather than purely punitive responses.
The Factor Index is a composite score from 0 to 100, aggregated from student voice signals across three year bands (Primary, Middle, Upper). Results are broken down by grade section, enabling the school to identify where restorative culture is strongest and where development is most needed.
What the data told us
In Cycle 1, Restorative Culture was among the lowest-scoring factors in the school's Leadership profile, scoring 61 (Developing). The school's overall cohort index was 72 (Consolidating), indicating that Restorative Culture was a specific gap rather than a sign of general underperformance.
How change was expected to happen
The theory of change rests on the premise that students who understand what the data says about their own school experience, and who are given structured skills and language for restorative behaviour, will shift how they engage with conflict and shared responsibility — producing measurable improvement in survey responses the following cycle.
📊
🧠
🤝
📈
🗣
Data shared with students
BuzzGage results shown in tutor sessions
Problem framing
Students identify root causes and shared responsibility
Skills training
De-escalation, restorative language, accountability
Behaviour commitments
Daily actions, verbal vows, tutor check-ins
Measured again
Restorative Culture index rises next cycle
What was delivered and when
The intervention was delivered through the school's structured tutor programme across one full cycle. All grade sections participated. The programme was sequenced across multiple weeks, moving from data sharing through to skills practice and commitment reinforcement.
SESSION FOCUS | CONTENT DELIVERED | RESTORATIVE LINK | FRAMEWORK(S) |
|---|---|---|---|
Relationship repair | Students reflected on appreciation, respectful communication, and how repair strengthens the wider school community. | Relational repair | CASEL 5; UChicago CULTIVATE |
Fairness and equity | Students explored fair treatment, differentiated support, neurodiversity, and how context can shape constructive discipline responses. | Fairness perception | Culturally Responsive Teaching; UChicago CULTIVATE |
De-escalation model | Students practised the four-step model: stop and follow instructions, use your voice not your anger, request privacy, and manage your own emotions. | Restorative language | Trauma-Informed Practices; PBIS |
Response rewriting | Students rewrote escalatory scripts into more constructive responses, including apology, accountability, and calm explanation. | Accountability | CASEL 5 |
Conflict scenarios | Students worked through classroom, corridor, and uniform-related scenarios where conflict with staff escalated publicly. | Conflict resolution | CASEL 5; Trauma-Informed Practices |
Data sharing | Students were shown the Restorative Culture signal from BuzzGage and asked to reflect on what the result meant for their school experience. | Data ownership | OECD Learning Compass 2030 |
How we measured change
Measurement framework
Student voice data is collected through a validated, age-calibrated instrument mapped onto the BuzzGage measurement framwork — a set of 120+ evidence-based indicators structured around three pillars: Engagement, Wellbeing, and Leadership. These indicators are derived from seven domains: Cognitive, Emotional, Social, Values, Perspectives, Identity, and Leadership.
Restorative Culture is a Leadership-pillar factor that captures students’ perceptions of whether discipline is experienced as fair, respectful, restorative, and oriented toward learning and relationship repair rather than punishment alone.
INSTRUMENT
BuzzGage Restorative Culture factor items
SCORING
Factor Index: 0–100 composite. Bands: Emerging, Developing, Consolidating, and Thriving
ATTRIBUTION APPROACH
No control group — change is attributed plausibly but not conclusively to the intervention. Limitations acknowledged
COMPARISON DESIGN
Within-school pre/post: Cycle 1 score (61) compared to Cycle 2 score (66) using the same instrument and population
DISAGGREGATION
Results broken down by grade section (8 sections) and available by year band (Primary Gr 3–5, Middle Gr 6–8, Upper Gr 9–12)
What the evidence shows
The overall Restorative Culture Factor Index moved from 61 (Developing) to 66 (Consolidating), a gain of 5 points. The BuzzGage platform marks the factor as "Improved" with a "Consolidating" status, indicating that the gain is real but not yet at a stable.
Grade-section level data (visible in the Performance by Grade Level chart) shows that most sections registered improved scores in Cycle 2, with Adare, Leigham, Culver, and Romeyn showing the strongest gains. Leithcote declined slightly, suggesting that the programme may have been delivered or received with variable fidelity across tutor groups.
PRIMARY RESULT
+5 point gain (61 → 66)
The school crossed the Developing / Consolidating threshold boundary. Status changed from Developing to Consolidating.
GRADE PATTERN
Most sections improved
6 of 8 grade sections showed higher scores in Cycle 2. Variation suggests tutor group delivery quality as a moderating variable.
What we can and cannot claim
This brief qualifies as an internal evaluation with a shareable methodology. It does not claim peer-reviewed evidence, independent third-party evaluation, or conclusive causal attribution.
No control group was used, so other school-level factors may have contributed to the change.
Session content was structured, but tutor delivery may have varied across groups.
The +5 gain is promising internal evidence, not proof of long-term sustained improvement.
A third cycle would help test whether the improvement consolidates over time.
Recommended next steps
MEASUREMENT
Repeat the Restorative Culture measure
Use Cycle 3 to test whether the +5 gain is sustained or improves further.
EVIDENCE MATURITY
Prepare for external review
If improvement is sustained, a third-party review could strengthen the evidence level.
FIDELITY
Add a tutor delivery checklist
Track which intervention components were delivered to strengthen interpretation.
BuzzGage is the evidence-based intelligence layer that makes student voice on wellbeing, engagement, and social-emotional development visible, comparable, and ready to act on across schools and education systems.
Graduated from UCL's EdTech Labs accelerator programme.
All rights reserved. © 2026 BuzzGage Inc. 169 Madison Ave, STE 15188, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
bottom of page