Beyond Principals: Sudbury's Student Judicial Committee

by Bruce Smith

categories: Student Culture, Student Rights, Unschooling Alternatives

Published April 29, 2009 @ 12:09PM PT

In previous installments I've talked about Sudbury schooling from the perspective of educational philosophy and policy. I've argued that the best learning occurs when students are given a controlling voice in their education.

Today I want to go one step further and say that not only is learning better when students are in charge, but discipline as well. The judicial system at Sudbury schools provides a vivid example of just how empowering schools can be.

While the exact steps vary, one thing is universal: the adults do not lay down the law; there is no principal to whom students are referred. Alleged rule violations are instead handled by groups in which students form the majority.

JC Clerk: Okay, our first case: Greg wrote up Barry for A3.1. This happened yesterday, in the Main Room, around 3pm. The brief description: "Barry called me a doofus. When I told Barry to stop, he asked, ‘What's the matter, doofus? Can't handle the truth, doofus?'" Is there any discussion on hearing this case? All in favor?
JC members: Aye.

The standard process goes something like this: when disagreements can't be handled informally, or when the violator is unknown, anyone can fill out a written complaint—a simple form asking for essential details like the time and place, the people involved, and a brief description of the incident.

The Judicial Committee (JC) clerks—usually students—file the complaint form and bring it before a committee whose meetings they chair. JC consists of a number of students of varying ages and one staff member. It's a lot like jury duty, in that when it's your turn to serve, you're obligated to do so; and when you're called to testify, the same holds true (though like the system on which it's patterned, you don't have to testify against yourself). JC is one of the few aspects of Sudbury schools where participation is not optional.

JC Clerk: Barry, do you agree with Greg's version of what happened?
Barry: Hmm...mostly. Okay, so I was in the Main Room, eating lunch, when Greg and Josh and Alex came over and sat near me. They were being all loud and stupid. I told them to pipe down, but Greg said, "I'll pipe you down." So then I said "doofus" kind of under my breath. Greg asked, "What did you say?" and, I don't know, I just got pissed. So I said...you know, what I said.

Once the JC votes to hear a case, it questions the complainant, the alleged violator, and witnesses. Weighing ‘he said' versus ‘she said,' members come up with an official version of what happened; they then either drop the case or vote to charge one or more people with violating a rule. Those charged enter a plea: ‘not guilty' means a trial before a new set of jurors, while ‘guilty' pleas result in a sentence voted on by the JC.

JC member #1: I think we should charge both Greg and Barry.
JC member #2: Why?
JC member #1: Well, Barry's obvious. But Greg was disrespectful when he said "I'll pipe you down." Come to think of it, Greg, Josh, and Alex were all being loud.
JC member #3: But they stopped being loud right away. So I don't think that's part of the case. It's about disrespect, and yeah, I agree: both Barry and Greg should be charged.

Staff can be ‘written up' as well as students: everyone is expected to abide by the democratically-passed rules. More fascinating still is seeing children of all ages engaged in the sometimes painstaking work of fact-finding and judging whether a given action amounts to rule-breaking—and if so, how it should be handled. The creativity of even the youngest in cutting through the clutter of what happened and what ought to be done is frequently inspiring.

JC Clerk: Okay, sentencing...
JC member #4: How many priors do they have?
JC Clerk: Barry only has one A3.1; Greg has four.
JC member #1: I move that Barry and Greg can't have verbal or physical contact with each other for the rest of the day and all of tomorrow, and that Greg has to do Barry's chore today.
JC Clerk: Is there any more discussion? All in favor say ‘aye.'
JC members: Aye.
JC Clerk: Motion carries, 4-0. Greg, do you understand and accept your sentence?
Greg: It's not fair! Why I do have to do his chore?
JC Clerk: Well, you have four priors. Do you want to appeal your sentence to School Meeting?
Greg: No.

Most of the rule violations that make it to JC are of the ‘everything I needed to know I learned in kindergarten' variety: leaving messes, name-calling, being too loud, running in the building. Common sentences include staying out of a room or away from a person, doing someone's cleaning chore, or paying a small fine. Sentencing often aims at having the guilty party make restitution, and reducing the probability of the incident being repeated. Occasionally an individual case will be serious enough, or someone's record long enough, to warrant referral to School Meeting for a more serious consequence, such as suspension.

But again, what has impressed me most over the past twelve years has been students' capacity for dispensing thoughtful, fair justice. They take this responsibility seriously, and they do an outstanding job. Rather than being given lectures and abstract exercises, these students grapple with things like ethics, problem-solving, and civics in context. With all the complaints you hear about the breakdown in order in many schools, I consider myself incredibly fortunate to work in a place where respect is the order of the day, ably enforced by the students themselves.

Image by sunface13