Urban school leaders are under increasing pressure--in some cases, under threat of federal investigation (US Department of Education, 2014)--to use alternative models of non-punitive discipline, known generally as positive discipline practices such as restorative discipline (American Psychological Association, 2008; Anfinson, Autumn, Lehr, Riestenberg, & Scullin, 2010; US Department of Education, 2014; Gregory, Skiba, & Noguera, 2010). According to Amstutz and Mullet (2005), the term restorative discipline, which is derived from the restorative justice approach to criminal justice, describes any activity in which individuals are able to meet with those with whom they've had a conflict; identify the underlying reasons for the conflict; repairing harm and agreeing on next steps. Restorative discipline practices can include, but are not limited to, conferences, circles, mediations and reconciliations (Wadhwa, 2010). In comparison to zero tolerance policies, current research has found restorative discipline to improve staff-student relationships (McCluskey et al., 2008) correlate with reduced suspension rates (Chin, Dowdy, Jimerson, & Rime, 2012); and improve school culture by promoting trust and communication among students (Hamilton, 2008). As restorative justice becomes part of school, district, and even federal policy, one might presume its integrity. Quantitative research studies suggest, however, that racial disproportionality persists in discipline, even in schools where restorative practices are used (Wallace, Goodkind, Wallace, & Bachman, 2008). The author calls on leaders and scholars to look beyond labels of "socially just" and "democratic" discipline to how power is exchanged in the context of restorative practices. The author suggests what Foucault's philosophy of discipline--particularly the concepts of the panopticon and the confession--can reveal about the power within the restorative process, and explains why it is crucial to examine restorative work at this micro-level.