Relational and Restorative Approaches Create Greater Inclusion Than Behaviourist Approaches in Secondary Education

By Colin Newton, Derek Wilson & Ali Carr (May 2026)

Behavioural psychology has significantly influenced secondary education in the United Kingdom, particularly through behaviour management systems based on rewards, sanctions, compliance routines, and reinforcement. These approaches, rooted in behaviourist theory, aim to shape observable behaviour through external consequences. In many schools this has led to highly structured systems involving detentions, isolation rooms, behaviour points, public tracking systems, and zero-tolerance discipline policies. Although behaviourist approaches can produce order, predictability, and short-term compliance, progressive UK educational psychologists increasingly argue that relational and restorative approaches create more genuinely inclusive educational environments.

The central criticism of behaviourist systems is that they often reduce complex human behaviour to compliance and rule-following. Behaviour is interpreted primarily as an individual choice requiring correction or reinforcement. This perspective can overlook the emotional, developmental, social, and contextual factors influencing adolescent behaviour. In contrast, relational and restorative approaches understand behaviour as communication shaped by relationships, attachment, trauma, neurodiversity, emotional regulation, and social belonging. Rather than focusing primarily on controlling behaviour, relational models focus on understanding, connection, co-regulation, and repairing harm.

This critique can be understood through the lens of the Social Model of Disability, which takes the view that people’s experience of disability arises not from their individual impairments but from societal barriers that restrict participation. Behaviourist approaches tend to operate from the contrasting Medical Model perspective, locating the ‘problem’ within the individual child and seeking to modify their behaviour through external consequences. Relational approaches, by contrast, align more closely with the Social Model: they direct attention towards the school environment, relationships, and systems, asking how these create or remove barriers to participation for all young people.

The distinction between the social model and the medical model has major implications for inclusion in secondary education. Behaviourist systems frequently rely on exclusionary practices such as detentions, internal isolation, suspensions, and permanent exclusion. Research in the UK has consistently shown that these sanctions disproportionately affect vulnerable groups including autistic pupils, students with ADHD, looked-after children, pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs, and some minority ethnic groups. Critics argue that rigid compliance systems can unintentionally criminalise neurodivergence, trauma responses, emotional dysregulation, or communication difficulties. A student who struggles to sit still, manage sensory overload, regulate emotions, or process instructions quickly may be interpreted within a behaviourist framework as defiant or disruptive rather than needing support.

The evidence for this is stark. The DfE’s own data shows that pupils with SEN support are six times more likely to be permanently excluded than their peers without SEND, and those with an EHCP are more than four times as likely. The most commonly recorded reason for both suspension and permanent exclusion - cited in over half of all cases - is persistent disruptive behaviour. This is itself a behaviourist framing: it describes what a child does, without necessarily asking why. It locates the problem in the child rather than in a school system that may not be meeting their needs.

Internal exclusion, including the use of isolation rooms or booths, is a particularly concerning example of this. Unlike suspensions, there are no national rules governing when or for how long isolation can be used, making it largely hidden and unregulated, and educational psychologists frequently report working with young people who have ‘failed isolation’ (as was recently described by a pupil) and with a consequence of further days in internal exclusion, often for many consecutive days. A recent large-scale study in England found that one in twelve pupils reported being placed in isolation at least once a week, often for more than a full school day (Thornton et al., 2025). Children with an EHCP were more than twice as likely to be isolated as their peers. Rather than preventing more serious sanctions, schools with higher isolation rates tended also to have higher suspension rates, suggesting that removing children from the classroom does not address the underlying difficulties. Isolated pupils reported lower sense of belonging, poorer relationships with teachers, and reduced mental wellbeing.

There is also growing evidence that punitive approaches do not achieve what they set out to do. A systematic review found limited evidence that disciplinary behaviour management strategies improve behaviour or academic outcomes, and increasing evidence of harm to mental health and wellbeing (Dickson et al., 2024). For pupils with SEND, the picture can be actively counterproductive. Behaviours that arise from sensory overload, emotional dysregulation, or communication differences are routinely interpreted as defiance, triggering sanctions that increase distress and further damage the relationships that those pupils most need. The result is a cycle in which unmet needs trigger behaviours which lead to consequences which, in turn, deepen exclusion - all without the underlying need ever being addressed. 

Relational educational psychologists challenge  behaviourist interpretations by arguing that behaviour must be understood contextually rather than morally. Instead of asking, “How do we stop this behaviour?” they ask, “What is this behaviour communicating?” This shift reflects attachment theory, trauma-informed practice, and developmental psychology. Influential figures such as John Bowlby emphasised the importance of secure relationships for emotional regulation and learning, while relational practitioners argue that students are more likely to engage positively when they experience trust, emotional safety, and belonging within school.

Restorative approaches deepen this relational perspective by transforming the understanding of discipline itself. Traditional behaviourist systems usually ask what rule has been broken and what punishment is deserved. Restorative practice instead asks who has been harmed, what needs have emerged from the conflict, and how relationships can be repaired. Accountability therefore becomes relational rather than purely punitive. Students are encouraged to reflect on the impact of their behaviour, listen to others, take responsibility, and actively repair harm. This approach seeks not only to manage behaviour but also to develop empathy, emotional literacy, and social responsibility.

A major reason relational and restorative approaches are considered more inclusive is that they prioritise belonging over exclusion. Behaviourist systems often operate through conditional belonging: students remain accepted so long as they comply with behavioural expectations. When they fail, removal and exclusion become common responses. Relational and restorative approaches attempt to preserve connection even during conflict. Students are still held accountable, but they are not positioned as outsiders or permanently labelled as “problem students.” This is particularly important during adolescence, when identity formation, peer relationships, and social belonging are developmentally central.

Relational approaches also recognise that many adolescents require co-regulation rather than punishment. Behaviourist systems often assume students can independently regulate behaviour if consequences are sufficiently clear. However, progressive educational psychologists argue that students affected by trauma, anxiety, attachment difficulties, ADHD, autism, or chronic stress may lack mature self-regulation capacities. In such cases punitive sanctions may escalate distress rather than improve behaviour. Relational schools therefore emphasise emotionally available adults, de-escalation, emotional literacy, and supportive relationships that help students gradually develop regulation skills.

One good example of the shift from a behavioural to a relational approach has to do with our definition of what it means to be ‘fair’ when responding to rule-breaking. 

Typically ‘fair' means everyone gets the same - this is the behavioural, linear, no room for argument definition. And I guess what we often bump into this definition when we recommend doing something differently for an individual child - as a given reason why a reasonable adjustment can’t be made by a school - it wouldn’t be ‘fair’. 

In this context, it is more useful to define ‘fair’ as 'everyone gets what they need’ - not what they want or what everyone else has. Thus it is ‘fair' for a particular child to sit on a cushion or on the floor to participate, others may want this too (‘it’s not fair’) but they don’t need to do it to participate so they don’t get to do it. No doubt individual class teachers will need to debate this expanded definition with the class as a whole, but ultimately I do think other pupils will recognise that some will need different arrangements from others and will therefore accept this definition. Equally part of our work is to give Headteachers access to scripts that they might not otherwise have arrived at when promoting inclusive practice in their schools. I think this script is usable by Heads when they want justify treating a particular student differently.

Furthermore, relational and restorative approaches are generally more adaptable to neurodiversity and SEND. Behaviourist systems often prioritise standardisation and uniform compliance, whereas relational approaches allow greater flexibility and individual understanding. Students who experience sensory difficulties, communication differences, or emotional dysregulation are less likely to be punished for behaviours connected to disability or unmet needs. Instead, schools are encouraged to adapt environments, relationships, and expectations to support participation. This reflects a broader inclusive principle that the school itself must adapt to diverse learners rather than simply demanding that learners conform to rigid systems.

Another important difference concerns student voice and participation. Behaviourist systems are typically hierarchical and adult-directed, with rules imposed from above and students expected to comply. Relational and restorative approaches increase inclusion by giving students opportunities for dialogue, reflection, mediation, and collaborative problem-solving. Students become participants in school community rather than passive recipients of discipline. This can strengthen engagement, trust, and responsibility, particularly for students who may otherwise feel alienated from education.

However, behaviourist approaches are not entirely without value. Supporters argue that clear routines, predictable boundaries, and consistent consequences can create safe and orderly learning environments. Some teachers also argue that relational or restorative systems can become inconsistent, time-intensive, or difficult to sustain under pressures of accountability and large class sizes. Most contemporary schools therefore use hybrid approaches combining structure and boundaries with restorative conversations, trauma-informed practice, and relational pedagogy.

Nevertheless, progressive UK educational psychologists generally maintain that relational and restorative approaches create greater inclusion because they preserve connection rather than sever it, interpret behaviour developmentally rather than punitively, and recognise the importance of belonging, emotional safety, and participation in learning. Inclusion is therefore understood not simply as physical presence in school, but as meaningful membership within a supportive educational community. From this perspective, schools become not merely institutions of behavioural control, but relational environments designed to support human development, dignity, and participation for all students.

References

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and Loss: Volume I: Attachment. London: Penguin.

Bomber, L. M. (2007). Inside I’m Hurting: Practical Strategies for Supporting Children with Attachment Difficulties in Schools. London: Worth Publishing.

Carpenter, B. (2020). A Recovery Curriculum: Loss and Life for Our Children and Schools Post Pandemic. Birmingham: Evidence for Learning.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York, NY: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.Department for Education (n.d.) Fast Track Data Table (Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions. Explore Education Statistics: https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/data-tables/permalink/6705c12c-18e9-4667-9517-08deaa7729f8

Department for Education. (2024). Suspensions and Permanent Exclusions in England. London: DfE.

Dickson, K., Melendez-Torres, G. J., Fletcher, A., & Hinds, K. (2024). Disciplinary behaviour management strategies in schools and their impact on student psychosocial outcomes: A systematic review. PLOS ONE. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0307688

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. London: Macmillan.Rogers, C. (1969). Freedom to Learn. Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Thornton, E., Humphrey, N., & Wigelsworth, M. (2025). Lost learning: Prevalence, inequalities and outcomes of internal exclusion in mainstream secondary schools. British Educational Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.70049Thorsborne, M., & Blood, P. (2013). Implementing Restorative Practices in Schools: A Practical Guide to Transforming School Communities. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Wachtel, T. (2013). Defining Restorative. Bethlehem, PA: International Institute for Restorative Practices.

Wearmouth, J., McKinney, R., & Glynn, T. (2007). Restorative Justice in Schools: Theoretical Opening and Practical Possibilities. Educational Research, 49(4), 421–434.

West Yorkshire Combined Authority. (2023). Neurodiversity, SEN and School Inclusion, Exclusion and Absence. West Yorkshire Combined Authority. neurodiversity-research-2023.pdfWilliamson, B. (2019). Policy Networks, Performance Metrics and Platform Markets: Charting the Expanding Data Infrastructure of Higher Education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 2794–2809.

Newton, C., & Mahaffey, H. (2008). Restorative Solutions: Making It Work. Nottingham: Inclusive Solutions UK Ltd.