During timed practice, a student wants to avoid treating a complex debate as a simple pro/con split. Issue: requiring a restorative conference before most suspensions. One side emphasizes that students should have a chance to understand harm and repair relationships. Another emphasizes that classrooms need quick protection when behavior seriously disrupts learning. A third emphasizes that students who cause harm still must accept consequences and make restitution. Which analysis best shows the underlying values that shape the disagreement?