Original Article I have introduced the Sudbury Judicial System before (see the description of the “Judicial Committee” in the article Experience Sudbury). For most educators, the Sudbury Judicial System is a very unique existence, inextricably tied to the Sudbury model. In fact, the Sudbury Judicial System should be suitable for all schools. I do not know if setting up a Sudbury Judicial System in conventional schools would present special difficulties (on second thought, it seems feasible; after all, don’t many conventional schools host Model United Nations conferences?). However, it is certainly feasible in innovative schools. The key is for everyone to realize that the Sudbury Judicial System is not unique to Sudbury; rather, it should be a universally available and excellent mechanism for resolving child conflicts, and this mechanism carries very important and extensive educational significance. As a conflict resolution mechanism, the Sudbury Judicial System is completely applicable to all innovative schools. Therefore, this article hopes to recommend this model of resolving student conflicts to all innovative educational organizations.

Conventional Student Conflict Resolution Mechanisms

The traditional way most schools resolve conflicts between children relies on the intervention of adults. The adult acts as an arbitrator, striving to clarify the facts, determining who is at fault, and attempting to provide educational persuasion—using the opportunity to help children understand certain principles. It should be said that the conflict resolution mechanisms of most schools generally fall within this scope.

Problems

• Child Dependency on Adults: Because of this approach, children naturally view adults as the authority. When listening to an adult’s reasoning, they have no choice but to comply, even if they disagree. Furthermore, everyone develops a mindset of “pleasing authority” because doing so is likely to be personally beneficial. Consequently, such a mechanism naturally forms a dependency on adults. In this closed state of mind, the child’s own perception system is not open, and the teacher’s well-intentioned educational persuasion is mostly ignored.
• High Burden on Adults: Adults are also very exhausted in this process. If they are responsible, they need to figure out the sequence of events, judge right from wrong, and perform the work of persuasive education.
• Loss of Opportunity for Self-Education: As a good educator, I believe one of the principles is that as long as students can do something, we should let them do it themselves as much as possible. Only in this way can students receive more comprehensive development.

The Feasibility of the Sudbury Judicial System as a Universal Mechanism

Do students have the ability to achieve this? The half-century practice of the Sudbury Judicial System has proven that minors can do it. Of course, in the beginning, the role of the judge can be held by an adult to establish the procedures for complaints and hearings—including the fact-finding stage, the stage of determining if a school rule was violated, and the final stage of determining the punishment. ( Contrary to prevailing assumptions, I believe children—provided they are able to express themselves clearly—often exercise better judgment than most adults. ) Once the system is mature, older students in the school can volunteer for the position of judge. (Consider having three judicial positions so that when some students are absent, others can serve; or through rotation, everyone gets an opportunity to practice. At the same time, the three people act as a learning group, continuously improving their abilities by reviewing each “case”). When one person acts as the judge, the other two can take on the roles of clerk and investigator (such as going to the scene to collect evidence). Each stage requires a vote by the three members. However, at least one adult must be present at every “hearing.” The adult acts as a mentor and basically remains silent during the trial, only helping the judges learn and improve during the post-trial review.

Advantages Over Traditional Mechanisms

• A Guarantee of Fairness and Justice: This type of trial process—from complaint to hearing—is public. Complaints are posted, and anyone can voluntarily observe. In this way, all children will recognize this as a fair and just process, rather than feeling that their fate depends on the judgment of a single teacher—who might handle things hastily because they are too busy that day or in a bad mood. After all, handling such matters may not be within their regular work plan, and spending too much time on them can be a thankless task.
• Reducing Teacher Workload and Formalizing Conflict Resolution: The establishment of the Sudbury Judicial System model makes it a legitimate part of the school’s work. The teacher serving as a mentor naturally has the mental energy to invest in it. Moreover, the teacher is freed from the role of arbitrator and only ensures there are no issues with the process. Teachers no longer need to spontaneously think about what was improper in a child’s behavior or how to conduct persuasive education. Everything only requires the students to judge according to the school rules; transparent and open rules naturally become a “Common Covenant” shared by all.
• Universal Educational Opportunity: Because the entire judicial process is public and the final results are posted, everyone undergoes an educational process regarding the school rules. It is not just the individuals involved receiving education in a teacher’s office. The Sudbury Judicial System makes every complaint an opportunity to educate everyone. Only then will the concepts behind the school rules have educational significance and truly become a code that the community follows consciously.
• Developing Logical Thinking and Expression in Complex Systems: The trial process itself is a very important educational journey. Moving from fact-finding to identifying the violated rule and finally to determining the punishment is an exercise in logical thinking and expression. Therefore, judges are generally older students who have participated (as observers) in many trials and are interested in public affairs. This process is very rigorous and mirrors the normal operating mechanisms of society outside the school walls. Even adults who lack practice may not possess good logical thinking or expression skills. However, if a school has a judicial mechanism, minors can master these skills through a period of practice. Thus, this is a vital educational process.

Final Thoughts

The Sudbury Judicial System carries universal and important educational significance; its use is not limited to “Sudbury-style” schools—all innovative schools can adopt it. The form of the Sudbury Judicial System is simple and easy to operate; doing this well already provides immense educational value. Conflicts among students in schools are generally simple and not overly complex, unlike many cases in society. Therefore, there is no need to introduce overly complex systems like defense attorneys or juries. This is why Sudbury, founded over 50 years ago, has kept its judicial model in this very simple form. For innovative education in China, it is important to first do the simple things well and fully digest their educational meaning. If innovative schools are interested in trying the Sudbury Judicial System as a conflict resolution mechanism and need assistance with operations, they can contact Open Source Learning. Image Source: Sudbury Official Website

Original article All images in this article are from the official Sudbury Valley School website. This article introduces Self-Directed Education (SDE) and the Sudbury model. While this account has published introductory articles before, explaining these concepts is never easy because there are so many educational ideas to untangle. I will start from a vital point that is easy for everyone to grasp; through this, you should quickly understand what SDE and the Sudbury model are all about. I believe it has become a consensus that inner drive (intrinsic motivation) is the most important factor in learning. Innovative educational organizations emphasize this in their promotional materials. I recently heard a Waldorf principal emphasize the importance of a child’s inner drive, and even the traditional state system in China is beginning to highlight it. While every educational organization might agree that “inner drive is paramount,” the real distinction between models appears when we ask two follow-up questions: “Which behaviors destroy a child’s inner drive?” and “How do we truly protect and guarantee that inner drive?”

---

Which Behaviors Destroy Inner Drive?

To answer the first question, I will start with a somewhat absolute statement: “All teaching is harmful.” How do I explain this? Perhaps I can use the study of Buddhism as an example. Learning Buddhism is a lifelong pursuit. For many, after decades of study into their eighties, they may only have a sliver of realization. Indeed, with the Buddha’s teachings, countless scriptures, and commentaries by later teachers, learning “should” be easy. Yet, perhaps because there is so much material and instruction, true learning becomes difficult. I often ask myself: if these books didn’t exist, and I had to discover and think for myself, could I find the fundamental contradictions in my own logical system? How would I explore and resolve them? This kind of thinking allows one to exercise their awareness at a deeper level to learn better. When I read, I usually stop once I grasp a significant framework. I prefer to think through things within my own practice, filling in the framework with my own vital experiences to construct my own abstract knowledge model. Only after I have built my own model do I return to the books to see how others’ models differ.

The most important part of inner drive is this capacity for perception or awareness. Awareness is an omnipresent, constant ability—the so-called “Seeing”. We talk about educational equality because, fundamentally, everyone’s capacity for awareness is equal and constant. I divide this into two parts: Perception (sensing the core of life or vital experiences) and Creation (combining those experiences to build abstract models so that we may “see”). This awareness is inherent in life. The foundation of Self-Directed Education is an absolute belief in this capacity for awareness—a belief in life itself. It is not a 50% or 90% belief; it is absolute. The Sudbury model, as the complete form of SDE, is the most protective form of SDE, guaranteeing this protection through its institutional structure. If we ask “Which behaviors destroy inner drive?”, it is equivalent to asking: “Which behaviors destroy a child’s capacity for perception?” This includes perception of the self and the environment. Let’s look at the perception of “learning needs.”

Classes

Sudbury has no curriculum. There are no grade-level subjects set by authorities, nor are there teacher-led “themed” courses. Only when a student feels they want to learn something and wants a knowledgeable adult to teach them can they “request a class.” The frequency and duration are determined by the student’s needs. Once the need is met, the class ends immediately; there is no rigid requirement to span a full semester. However, during my 2016 visit to Sudbury, I found that even these requested classes had nearly vanished. I asked a staff member (Sudbury has no “teachers”) about this. She noted that because of the internet, students now find resources themselves. They might talk to an adult when they have a specific question, but they no longer request formal “classes” as they did in the early years. “Bravo!” I thought. The Sudbury model naturally adjusted to the internet age. In other models, it might take years for authorities to recognize the shift and slowly adapt.

Many other self-directed education organizations have teachers and students work together at the beginning of each semester to design a curriculum based on the students’ learning needs. Students can then freely choose from these courses. In even more SDE oriented organizations, students are allowed to not choose any of these courses at all, and instead study whatever they wish. Compared to traditional state-system education or many other forms of innovative education (which still contain strong compulsory elements), these methods are undoubtedly far more self-directed. For students living in a broader social environment dominated by compulsory education, being in such a setting already represents a tremendous liberation. However, the cross-semester nature of these courses is inherently rigid. They do not align well with the shifting learning needs of students and can easily foster a mistaken subconscious belief—that only this kind of relatively “formal” study counts as real learning. Sudbury has no such cross-semester courses. Yet, when reading interviews or memoirs of Sudbury graduates, one can sense that they possess a powerful ability to explore their lives at a very fundamental level. As I mentioned earlier: if the classics did not exist, how would you explore those questions yourself? This model forces you to perceive and think from the very bedrock of your existence.

Therefore, in terms of protecting a child’s inner drive, the Sudbury model could be called the most “conservative” among various self-directed education models. Of course, one could also say the Sudbury model is the most “radical,” because proposing such a model in the current educational climate is undeniably an act of extreme radicalism. When we later discuss the institutional guarantees Sudbury provides for a child’s inner drive, this “radicalism” will become even more apparent. Everyone’s way of perceiving is different, and the perceptual ability in specific areas follows a developmental process, but the awareness of life itself is constant and unchanging.

External Assessment

Assessment is a theme frequently encountered in education. So, what kind of damage does external assessment do to a child’s inner drive? The examinations in conventional schools are, naturally, a very rigid form of external assessment. However, even the so-called “diverse assessments” found in various innovative educational models are something Sudbury strives to avoid. Sudbury believes that everyone is capable of self-assessment, and it is self-assessment that truly matters. The founders of Sudbury go to great lengths to prevent any adult assessment from exerting an external influence on a child’s learning. Sudbury’s extreme persistence in this regard was so absolute that for many years, the school had no graduation ceremonies or graduation defenses. It was only at the request of many students—who felt the need for the sense of ritual marking their transition into adulthood—that Sudbury finally introduced the graduation defense. Students who feel they are ready to graduate submit an application and must then present at their defense why they believe they are ready to face adult society independently and responsibly, while accepting questions or challenges from the community.

Even with the introduction of the graduation defense, the founders of Sudbury still insist on not writing any comments or recommendation letters for students. Sudbury graduates who wish to attend university prepare for the SATs on their own and find other people to write their recommendation letters.

The Problem of “Integrating into Society”

Of course, at this point, many will ask: how do students from a model like Sudbury integrate into external society after graduation? Facing this question, many innovative educational models feel they should implement assessment systems within the school that mimic society to help students adapt to the outside world. This question is somewhat beyond the scope of this article. However, because so many people ask it—leading them to doubt self-directed education or the Sudbury model—I will briefly share my thoughts here. In our society, regardless of the country, external
assessment is omnipresent. It’s not just in schools; even at home, parents or surrounding adults constantly assess children. One could say that assessment is everywhere in society; even Sudbury children will undoubtedly encounter a vast amount of others’
assessments once they step outside the school. But finding a place that is completely inclusive, free of external assessment, and relies entirely on one’s own internal
assessment is exceedingly difficult. If a person first establishes a fundamental experience of life and builds confidence in life itself before facing the various imperfections or even “perversions” of society, it will be much easier for them to recognize and adapt. Conversely, if one’s perception and understanding of life are distorted from the beginning, it becomes extremely difficult to rediscover the self and life itself within a complex society.

Of course, I am not saying that the initial educational environment must be “perfect” or “pure” to the point where one never encounters anything negative. In fact, I oppose such a view. However, I believe that in the early stages, there should be authentic contact with life; once that contact and experience exist, life itself will possess the discernment to face different scenarios. When I was involved in part-time self-directed education, I often told parents: even if your children still have to attend school and take exams, or even if you’ve enrolled them in various classes so they are studying non-stop seven days a week, you must ensure the child has at least one or two major interests that they explore and learn entirely on their own. If children have these experiences, they will reflect on and identify the “bad things” in other environments themselves. But you must let them “taste the real thing” first. Only then can they face the great hardships of life later on. Though this is a slight tangent, these are issues common to parents or educators who lack confidence in self-directed education, so I’ve addressed them briefly. Therefore, while everyone talks about the inner drive for learning, the only model that truly offers complete protection for it is the Sudbury model. In fact, at the school’s founding, there was essentially only one initial concept: do not interfere with the child’s own learning. Reading the memoirs of Daniel Greenberg, the school principal and one of the founders, one can see how patiently they restrained themselves, forcing themselves to observe the children’s own learning and resisting the urge to “help”—unless a child truly requested an adult’s assistance. So, when discussing the inner drive for learning, we must first ask: “What destroys it?” Due to space constraints, I have only listed a few examples; there are many other “educational” behaviors that destroy inner drive, which you can explore yourself within this framework. Perhaps a major theme of educational innovation should be discussing which “educational” behaviors actually destroy a child’s inner drive and specifically how they do so. To answer this, I want to add one more point—a very important one: learning needs are incredibly rich and diverse. Only those with rich self-directed learning experiences themselves understand this richness and can accurately judge which “educational” behaviors actually negate a student’s ability to perceive their own diverse learning needs, thereby harming their inner drive. Many of our educators lack self-directed learning experiences themselves, so naturally, it is difficult for them to judge which behaviors are destructive. Thus, self-directed education is built on the foundation of rich self-directed learning experiences. Learning experiences in different fields vary greatly; if an educator has learning experiences across several major, distinct fields, they will better understand how to respect and protect diverse learning needs.

How Do We Truly Protect Inner Drive?

Sudbury is “radical” because it doesn’t just ask adults to restrain themselves; it builds a system that makes it impossible for adults to interfere with a child’s learning.

The School Meeting

The highest authority at Sudbury is the School Meeting, which is composed of all staff members and students. Important school matters—including financial budgets and the hiring and firing of personnel—are discussed and decided within the School Meeting. In the early days, Sudbury had another body called the Assembly, which included all parents. According to my conversation with Mimsy, one of the school’s founders, the Assembly’s primary responsibility was to review the budgets passed by the School Meeting. Under Sudbury’s bylaws, the Assembly had the power to veto the budget. However, in practice, because the Assembly felt that the members of the School Meeting had a much deeper understanding of the school’s actual situation, they never exercised this power. Eventually, Sudbury abolished the Assembly altogether. In the Sudbury School Meeting, adults and minors each have one vote per person. (Of course, one must be present to vote; younger children who find certain topics like budgets uninteresting may not attend, but older children are often highly engaged in many of the issues.) The school’s principal, Daniel Greenberg, along with the other founders, had to undergo an annual review and vote by the School Meeting; anyone receiving less than half the votes would be dismissed.

People in China often dismiss such institutional frameworks, believing that even with these systems, it would be too easy for adults to manipulate them. For instance, some argue that adults could initiate a motion while students are absent to pass certain rules. However, the School Manual already stipulates the meeting times for the School Meeting (usually once a week), and an agenda must be announced with sufficient lead time before any meeting takes place. Every meeting has recorded minutes. Therefore, manipulation is actually very difficult. Sudbury places a special emphasis on due process. If a School Meeting were convened as a surprise motion while students were absent, students could file a lawsuit based on the School Manual and dismiss the relevant personnel immediately, without waiting for the annual School Meeting. The School Manual explicitly states that such serious violations can lead to immediate dismissal. In fact, this actually happened at the Clearwater School (a Sudbury-model school, though not the original one), where students immediately initiated an emergency court session to trial the individuals involved. Note: The image above is from the official Sudbury website, and its title is “School Meeting.” However, when I visited Sudbury, the School Meeting actually took place in a large room with many adults and students participating—it did not look like this picture, which seems to show only a small group of people.

The Judicial System

The Judicial Committee is another system that guarantees the rights of students. In the beginning, Sudbury did not have a Judicial Committee; all matters were discussed at the School Meeting, which was extremely time-consuming. Consequently, discussions regarding violations (breaches of the rules in the School Manual) were moved to the Judicial Committee. While the School Meeting takes place once a week, the Judicial Committee meets every day for one hour.

The School Manual

The Chinese tradition often views such institutional structures with skepticism, assuming there are a thousand ways to manipulate them. However, their School Manual already has written measures to counter every one of those thousand ways. Therefore, the School Manual is absolutely central. The School Manual translates the community’s philosophies, principles, rules, and regulations into written form, making them easily accessible. It also establishes processes that allow all community members to participate equally in its creation and revision. Sudbury’s School Manual, which exceeds 800 pages, contains many rules and details that have been iteratively shaped over decades by the entire membership, including students, through actual practice. According to what Mimsy told me, the core keys are openness, transparency, and a clear definition of where power lies. For example, the Sudbury School Manual clearly stipulates that the School Meeting is the highest authority; beyond this, there is no other power structure composed solely of staff. Many innovative educational organizations in China operate as private companies rather than non-profit organizations. However, even as a private company, one can still choose to make finances public and establish the School Meeting as the highest authority—it is simply a choice. A School Manual is also essential. Yet, many innovative education organizations in China don’t even have a manual; a principal might impulsively invent rules on the spot. This is even more extreme, yet it is commonplace among domestic educational organizations. Without these structures, how can one guarantee that a child’s right to self-directed learning is protected? How can one guarantee their inner drive? This is the core of the Sudbury model. Only Sudbury truly guarantees these things. Moreover, this itself is a test for the founders: do they truly have the confidence to let children master their own learning? Lacking such confidence, a founder will still want adults to control the child’s learning. They might first grant the child only those learning rights they feel comfortable giving away, while clutching the rest—and may even retract those rights whenever they feel it is “necessary.” In contrast, the founders of Sudbury, from the very beginning, completely trusted children and handed over all learning rights to them, rights that no one can strip away. In my conversations with the Sudbury founders, they emphasized this part heavily, viewing it as an indispensable core of the model. To my knowledge, in the many Sudbury-model schools across the United States, without exception, the School Meeting serves as the highest authority, with adults and minors each having an equal, one-person-one-vote power. Aside from being unable to hold certain administrative roles in the School Meeting due to their minor status, the rights of minors are identical to those of adults.

An Independent Growth Environment

Recently, while reading several books on childhood education, I have come to a conclusion: the primary contradiction in education lies in the fact that children are not yet self-reliant or independent (for example, they may not know how to cook, or even how to dress themselves or use the restroom). Yet, developing an independent personality and the ability to take responsibility for one’s own actions is, in itself, one of the most important educational goals. The younger the child, the more numerous and complex these issues tend to be. A major theme in childhood education is how adults create scenarios or environments for independence (often, this doesn’t need to be an entire environment, but simply specific scenarios, especially for very young children). Skilled parents do this well, but most parents in the world are not naturally skilled; most do not know what psychological preparation they need before becoming parents—such as understanding that children are inherently active and even noisy. In this sense, the Sudbury model provides children and teenagers (from ages 4 to 18 or 19) with such a completely self-directed and independent growth environment. For minors over the age of 13, Sudbury actively encourages them to step out of the school and into society for internships. Sudbury staff also do their best to help students find social practice or apprenticeship opportunities. When I visited Sudbury in the United States, I rarely saw older children on campus; I later learned that the older students were generally off-campus. I saw a list on the school wall where all off-campus students were registered with their contact information.

The Educational Significance of Equal Participation in Community Building

Returning to the broader scope of self-directed education: this field includes formal settings, such as full-time or part-time schools, as well as informal settings, including companies, families, and other spaces outside of formal education. In a full-time environment like Sudbury, self-directed education inevitably requires that students participate equally in the building of that community—including the creation of rules and regulations, the handling of violations, the auditing of financial budgets, and the hiring and firing of personnel. As I mentioned earlier, perception and creation are inherent capacities of life; the fundamental goal of education is to protect and exercise these capacities. If students spend a vast amount of their time in an environment where they cannot participate as equals in its construction, their inherent powers of perception and creation are negated and suppressed by that very environment. Every individual, every life, naturally perceives its surroundings and seeks to creatively improve them. Such environments typically include families, schools, and companies—all of which are “full-time” settings. For these places to become healthy educational environments, they must allow individuals to improve the environment through their own perception, enhancing their own abilities through constant feedback and iteration. Therefore, from the perspective of self-directed education, these mechanisms and guarantees of equal participation found in Sudbury are indispensable for any full-time educational environment. Here, I must take another tangent. Some people may only understand the importance of perception and creation at a superficial level. For instance, many modern innovative educational models place heavy emphasis on “life skills” or “emotional intelligence,” often prioritizing “competencies” while neglecting “knowledge.” There are so-called “21st-century education frameworks” that claim the mastery of problem-solving, aesthetics, creativity, and independent thinking is what matters, while knowledge itself is unimportant. In my view, this perspective exists only because we are still in a phase of “breaking down” the old system; consequently, people blindly reject anything seen as part of the “old education,” such as knowledge. However, if we can truly deconstruct the flawed traditional concept of knowledge and see its essence—which is simply an abstract model built upon significant experiences—we would realize that everyone is creating their own knowledge (abstract models) based on their own perceptions (significant experiences). Thus, the pursuit of knowledge does not conflict with the cultivation of the aforementioned abilities; rather, they complement each other. Knowledge is a complex, organic living entity. Through years of self-directed learning across many different fields, I have experienced the immense richness of learning methods. In trying to summarize these diverse methods, I found they can only be understood through the lens of a living system. Generally speaking, learning is like navigating a complex living system: interest is the primary drive, the courage to explore is vital, and the perception of oneself, the environment, and its resources is essential. I won’t go into detail here, but those interested can read my article, “Knowledge is an Organic Living Entity.“ Therefore, knowledge acquisition—just like the development of problem-solving, aesthetics, creativity, and independent thinking—depends most importantly on the individual’s capacity for perception and creation. From this, you can see why I emphasize so strongly the importance of perceiving, creating, and peacefully constructing a community as equals. This is the root of learning.

I have always maintained that education and management are one and the same. When management is done well, education becomes easier to achieve; when education is done well, management becomes transparent and profound. The trend of human societal development is one where the importance of the “individual” becomes increasingly prominent (the shift from “people as cogs in a machine” to “the person as the center of the system.” ); this is true for the management of a company and the management of a society. Consequently, the importance of education within management is undoubtedly growing. Today, we already see many companies striving to become “learning organizations.” Although this is a slight tangent, I believe it will help everyone better understand the significance of the Sudbury model. I believe the Sudbury model holds vital importance for the future of human education. Through the experiment of the Sudbury model, its founders are solving societal problems.

The Significance of the Sudbury Model

I have always believed that Sudbury is a truly great experiment. Its founders launched it in 1968 with immense wisdom and a profound public spirit. For nearly twenty years—from its founding until the late 1980s—the vast majority of Sudbury staff worked as volunteers. It is important to distinguish the term “volunteer” here: in the Western context, it strictly means working without pay. If you receive a salary, you are an employee or a part-time worker. Sudbury’s 55-year experiment provides the world with empirical proof of at least two fundamental truths:

1. Children and minors, like adults, are fully capable of self-directing their own learning and taking responsibility for it.
2. Children and minors, like adults, are fully capable of participating in the equal and peaceful construction of a community.

Even if we look no further than these two points, Sudbury’s contribution to the future of education—and to human history itself—is monumental. Beyond proving these truths, Sudbury also provided a concrete operational model, which, in my view, can be summarized as the trinity of the School Manual, the School Meeting, and the Judicial Committee.

During my university years, I was an avid reader of novels. Reading literature from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, I felt their social structures were very similar to China’s: top-down systems where everyone lived “waiting for notice.” Western novels felt entirely different; it was hard to imagine how a bottom-up society could even function. Later, when I went to the United States, I wanted to see exactly how such a society operated. I observed American society closely—reading newspapers, watching CSPAN’s live broadcasts of Congressional sessions, and volunteering for various non-profit or grassroots organizations. My personal realization was that a bottom-up society can only function healthily if every individual assumes a degree of social responsibility. Generally speaking, the sense of social responsibility in the average American individual is significantly stronger than in the average individual in Chinese society. Upon returning to China, I was taken aback by the lack of public consciousness and social responsibility among many domestic non-profits and educational innovators. I had previously assumed this was a general societal issue, but I was surprised to find it so prevalent even among those non-profits and educational innovators. Too many founders of non-profits attract massive public attention and funding, yet still treat their organizations as their own “private affairs.” Of course, I have met educators and activists with great public spirit and dedication, but on the whole, the gap between our society and the rest of the world remains vast. In truth, a society and an educational organization operate on the same principle: whether the system is open and transparent, and whether individuals have an equal right to participate, determines whether they feel a sense of belonging, a sense of ownership, and a sense of responsibility. Chinese educators must first undergo their own “self-education” by cultivating their own social responsibility. From the perspective of life education, having a sense of belonging, ownership, and responsibility is a fundamental requirement for a flourishing life. A healthy, fulfilled life should be one that is deeply perceptive of its environment and proactively seeks to build a better one through action.

During my time in the United States, I was involved in the preparatory work for several Sudbury schools (a commitment I maintain to this day, whenever I learn of someone starting a Sudbury school, I offer as much support and help as possible). As described in the official book Starting a Sudbury School, these preparations are entirely open, public, and transparent processes. From the establishment of the Founders Group to site selection, financing, and staffing (Sudbury refers to them as “staff,” not “teachers”), everything is a matter of public deliberation. In reading about the founding of the original Sudbury Valley School, I saw this same radical openness. I believe everyone involved in creating these Sudbury schools shares a common conviction: we are participating in a public cause, pooling our collective strength to solve the fundamental problems of human education. I realize that to many people here, these words might sound like a fairy tale. Perhaps our cultural tradition truly lacks this specific element, whereas Western traditions possess more of it. Nordic culture, for instance—now widely admired for its education—is steeped in this public spirit. The Linux operating system was born in Finland, and the entire Open Source movement is inseparable from this Nordic ethos. For those outside the software world, it may be hard to grasp how different our world would be without open-source software. Even in many African cultural traditions, from what I understand, there is a deep well of this public spirit. I hope this doesn’t feel like too much of a tangent, but I feel that any discussion of the Sudbury model is incomplete without addressing this foundation of public consciousness.

Is it Suitable for China?

Some may argue that a model like Sudbury is too idealistic and unsuitable for China. It is ironic how many people who consistently criticize the “special national conditions” argument in other contexts will unconsciously use those very same excuses when it suits them. This excuse is indeed convenient; many people likely use it subconsciously without a second thought. But is it truly unsuitable, or have we simply not made a serious attempt to implement it? Articles on the official Sudbury website record that even in the United States, students are initially unaccustomed to the School Meeting and the Judicial Committee. They often find it hard to believe that adults will truly return the right to learn to the children. Whether they believe it or not, the School Meeting and Judicial Committee are there. Students inevitably get the chance to interact with them—perhaps by observing, or perhaps when they encounter an issue they truly care about or need to defend their own interests. Suddenly, the significance of the meeting and the committee becomes apparent, and they begin to realize their importance. In Hong Kong, children at a Sudbury-model school—even when facing trial and potential punishment by the Judicial Committee—stood up and voted to support the continued operation of the committee when another student impulsively moved to abolish it. Yes, Sudbury schools in Hong Kong and Taiwan, which share the same cultural roots as the mainland, are able to successfully execute the philosophy of the Sudbury model. So, how exactly would the Sudbury model be “unfit” for China’s environment? It is true that younger children, in particular, may find it difficult at first to grasp the significance of the School Meeting and the Judicial Committee; they might feel that participating takes away from their playtime. (It should be noted that attendance at the School Meeting is only required if one is interested in the agenda. As for the Judicial Committee, one only needs to appear if they are charged with violating a rule; otherwise, they are under no obligation to participate.) Some founders of SDE schools believe that by abolishing the meeting and the committee, they are “respecting the child’s needs.” First, I believe this is a superficial understanding of learning needs. Identifying a true need is not that simple. Second, the School Meeting and the Judicial Committee are institutional systems that protect the self-directed rights of students. Without them, there is no way to protect a student’s other learning needs. Therefore, their nature is entirely different from a mere “interest.” Furthermore, even if students do not perceive the need for them immediately, adults can still use the School Meeting and Judicial Committee to manage the school. This ensures that these institutions remain in place, giving students the ongoing opportunity to experience and realize their importance.

Therefore, my overall feeling is that we are too accustomed to using “different national conditions” to mask our other motives. Without truly attempting the Sudbury model, people blindly or haphazardly claim it is unsuitable for our country.

---

As this article draws to a close, I want to add one final point. While I am introducing self-directed education and the Sudbury model, I am not a “fundamentalist” who believes this is the only way or the only “good” model. Even though I say that “teaching” can be harmful, I still “teach”. However, my method of teaching is to strive, as much as possible, not to destroy the students’ inherent agency—their capacity to perceive and create—but rather to give those powers full play. I am also aware that the “PlayGround” I prepare for my students is only a customized environment. Therefore, from time to time, I “release” my students back into the vast world. Instead of only engaging with the high-quality resources I have curated, they must go out into the expansive world of the internet to experience for themselves how to evaluate resources of varying quality. This returns the most fundamental power of perception and exploration to the student. Furthermore, when a student is uninterested in a topic, I don’t simply say, “If you don’t want to learn it, then don’t.” Instead, I work on building the “PlayGround”, for example, I tell stories. Interest requires a process of contact and feeling; how can one be interested in something they have never encountered? Yet, from start to finish, there is a profound respect for life and an insistence on equality. Children naturally love to play with and explore all sorts of things. If something exists in their environment, they will eventually try it. And “play,” in its essence, is the most equal way of being.

Due to space constraints, I cannot delve any deeper here. Briefly, through my involvement with various educational organizations in China, I have come to highly value the work of many local learning communities. On the whole, China possesses a wealth of self-directed education organizations and diverse practices. From what I have observed, many of these domestic innovations are truly illuminating and offer valuable lessons for the global self-directed education movement. Note: In this article, I have followed common convention by referring to “children.” In reality, however, education transcends age; it applies to all people in all settings. A workplace, for instance, is a vital educational space, and the elderly are equally in need of ongoing education. Furthermore, education is not merely a tool for securing employment. While it is essential for survival, it is also a form of leisure and a means of self-fulfillment. I will leave these deeper explorations for another time.

---

Original Article In 2004, from the moment I heard about Sudbury Valley School from John Taylor Gatto, I felt that Sudbury was exactly what I wanted to pursue—an ideal educational model for children and adolescents. Through twenty years of self-directed education practice, in addition to my own teaching, I have observed various types of innovative education, which has made my feelings regarding the significance of the Sudbury model even deeper. Recently, I read the summary of the Sudbury model on the official SVS website. This summary is extremely concise, yet it perfectly aligns with my own inner understanding of the model. The following is quoted from the “Theory” page of the official Sudbury website: THE SUDBURY MODEL

“We respect the ability of every student, regardless of age, to plan and carry out their daily activities. We do not encourage students to follow particular paths, nor do we provide assessments of their performance. Rules to protect individual liberty are made by all community members through the School Meeting, and the social order is protected by a peer judicial system.”

It is evident that the founders of Sudbury spent a great deal of thought and energy to refine the most essential elements of the model and express them in the simplest language. Like the other pages of the new website, the founders strive to show the meaning and composition of the Sudbury model with the most concise text, hoping people worldwide can truly grasp its inner meaning. Ever since educators elsewhere wanted to replicate the Sudbury model and start new schools, Sudbury explicitly gave up the right to officially “certify” whether new schools belong to the model. Instead, they focus on doing their own work well and providing their own explanations, including various speeches, official publications, and multi-media materials in the internet age. Over a decade ago, there was a directory of global Sudbury schools on the website to help students and parents find schools near them, but later this directory was simply removed. The new version of the official website is naturally another major effort by the founders to “explain themselves well.” This explanation is divided into at least two parts on the website: “Theory” and “Practice.” In the Practice section, there is a “Framework,” which corresponds to the Sudbury Model in the Theory section. The following is taken from the website: FRAMEWORK

“Every student and staff member has an equal role in managing the school through the School Meeting. It determines rules of behavior, use of facilities, expenditures, and staff hiring, and delegates specific administrative functions to various agents. All members of the community participate in the School’s judicial system. The fair administration of justice is key to preserving the individual freedom on which the school is based.”

The design of the new website focuses on showing what the Sudbury model is and how to implement it. Each section begins with a segment of text that is very concise but summarizes the topic accurately, followed by two or three representative articles by Sudbury people. In this “Framework” section, the listed articles are:

• How The School Operates by SVS
• The Significance of the Democratic Model: Self-Esteem, Self-Rule, and Self-Motivation by Daniel Greenberg

I believe that through the “Sudbury Model” in the Theory section and the “Framework” in the Practice section, the official voice of Sudbury clearly expresses its understanding of the model. These two passages can be called the essence of the Sudbury model. For those who still have doubts or do not know what should or should not be included in the model, I think it should be very clear here.

In an article explaining “What is Sudbury Education?”, Sudbury Hong Kong summarized five points. Compared to the official website’s summary, those five points add “age-mixing”; the other four points correspond one-to-one. The official summary does not particularly emphasize age-mixing. Because the Sudbury concept is inherently that children can learn and participate in community affairs just like adults, age-mixing is self-evident. Since other models like Montessori also emphasize age-mixing, it is not considered a unique feature of Sudbury. However, the other four points summarized by Sudbury Hong Kong—self-directed learning, self-assessment, the School Meeting, and the judicial system—are completely unique to Sudbury. Although other models have elements of autonomous learning, they cannot compare to the autonomous learning of Sudbury. Therefore, the official summary can be expressed as four elements: self-directed learning, self-assessment, the School Meeting, and the judicial system. For those who cannot grasp the essence of these words, I will try to explain using the words of co-founder Daniel Greenberg. The core concepts of Sudbury are:

1. Children or minors, like adults, can independently choose their own learning and be responsible for it.
2. Children or minors, like adults, can participate in the equal and peaceful construction of the community.

We can see that these two ideas are precisely the core of the phrase: “We respect the ability of every student, regardless of age, to plan and carry out their daily activities… Rules to protect individual liberty are made by all community members through the School Meeting…” From a modeling perspective, these two ideas can also be expressed as the four elements: self-directed learning, self-assessment, School Meeting, and judicial system. Together, they constitute the Sudbury model in educational theory. We can say that Sudbury’s 55-year experiment has proven these two ideas for humanity. Of course, these two ideas can also be merged into one: the first sentence of the Sudbury Model description: “We respect the ability of every student, regardless of age, to plan and carry out their daily activities.” It is just that this “ability” can be specifically divided into the ability to choose one’s own learning and the ability to participate in community affairs. Greenberg’s educational philosophy emphasizes that children, like adults, can learn within a community—achieving learning by participating in affairs just as adults do. He mentioned this in many articles and speeches. Therefore, the fact that the first sentence of the Sudbury model combines learning and community participation shows that in the Sudbury philosophy, learning and participating/acting within a society are inseparable. Now, numerous innovative educations are springing up. Everyone is dissatisfied with modern education and sees its disconnection from contemporary society. Many innovative educations suggest that learning should not be separated from society, should be outside school walls, and should be combined with practice rather than just book knowledge. But these words often fail to be implemented and become hollow slogans. Many innovative educations, even with such slogans, are still disconnected from society and practice. One could say a lot about the specifics of these disconnections. To save time, I will summarize: the essence of these disconnections is that, conceptually, these children are not treated by educators as people who can participate equally in a community like adults. In practice, within the full-time environments where these children spend most of their time, they cannot participate equally in the affairs of that community (the school). The school remains what Greenberg called a “fake learning environment.” Since they cannot participate equally, students are deprived of the most important learning activity. No matter how much you shout about breaking down walls, the school is the wall; you just can’t see it. No matter how much you say learning shouldn’t be separated from society, the students are disconnected. Therefore, the significance of the School Meeting and the judicial system is not just about protecting rights; they are themselves the most important learning content. They embody the founders’ philosophy that “Life is Learning” and that “people learn through participation in a community.”

From this, we can see that as humanity moves away from the modern education born of the industrial era toward the education of the future, Sudbury—unlike other innovative educations—has moved beyond the stage of merely “deconstructing” and has “established” the new education paradigm from theory to practice. Indeed, among many innovative educations, the Sudbury model is not the most eye-catching, and is even little known. Even when starting a new Sudbury school, it is extremely difficult to find parents with a true understanding. It is truly difficult for people still mired in the mud of modern education to understand; too many old, wrong concepts need to be cleared, which takes a long process. But in the 55 years since its founding, the Sudbury model has grown steadily and continuously. This is exactly what other “popular for a time” educations lack. Thus, we see in the practical framework that the School Meeting and judicial system are the actual elements. Self-directed learning and self-assessment are reflected in the specific operation of these elements; these are the core learning contents. Within this framework, students can learn anything else they are interested in, and staff help as much as possible without destroying the students’ autonomy and drive. Sudbury students have rich learning activities, but the School Meeting and judicial system are the core community framework that no one can avoid. Everyone has an equal right to participate and learn from it. Simultaneously, it is the School Meeting and judicial system that truly protect the students’ self-directed learning of other interests and their self-assessment.

Domestic educational innovators, perhaps related to our culture, generally still have a mindset of treating learning as an isolated thing. Even quite radical educators find this hard to avoid and cannot fully integrate learning and practice. Thus, even if they emphasize self-directed learning, they ignore community construction. Learning is not integrated with life and practice, and students’ rights to self-directed learning are not protected; they are still subject to various adult controls. This is why we see that in the Sudbury practice framework, there are only community elements like the School Meeting and judicial system, and not “autonomous learning” or “self-assessment” as separate elements. Learning is everywhere; knowledge is everywhere; education is everywhere. One must be able to see that education is everywhere to truly understand the Sudbury model. Since entering self-directed education 20 years ago, I have always believed that learning happens in life and society. Everything is learning; it spans a lifetime. I have been committed to realizing this “ubiquitous” learning. However, children need a safe environment; they cannot walk fully open into society to learn. Therefore, I have always said that a model like Sudbury is the most ideal for children. Some might say there is no ideal model for everyone. Clearly, the founders of Sudbury disagree. We can discuss that separately. The significance of the Sudbury model lies in providing children with such a safe and completely equal community. If we think about the significance of Sudbury model in theory, it is right here. Learning should be in society and in all environments. We create our knowledge in all places of practice; we realize our learning through equal participation in community and society. It is the true embodiment of the “unity of knowledge and action” (知行合一). For adult learning, we still need much work so adults can learn better in society. For children, they need a safe community where they can participate equally. For teenagers over 13, Sudbury encourages them to go outside. Staff help students find apprenticeships or practice opportunities. During my visit, I saw few older kids; more than half were practicing outside the school. My personal understanding is that Daniel started a school, but his philosophy is actually against “schools.” He wants a “community,” not a “school.”

Therefore, beyond “Theory” and “Practice,” the third part of the website is “Into the World.” Sudbury prepares minors for the world through the aforementioned framework, rather than saying vaguely that children should just learn in the world. Thus, Sudbury’s concepts can be implemented. Innovative and even compulsory educations talk about “inner drive,” but only Sudbury truly protects it through the School Meeting and judicial system. They talk about breaking walls, but only Sudbury allows children to have a community where they can participate equally with adults. Regarding the School Meeting and judicial system, I want to emphasize: by ownership, the founders are the owners and have the right to manage the school. But they consciously “ceded” (让渡) this right to all members, including staff and students. This “cession” creates an environment where everyone participates equally. We must realize there is a “cession” of rights here. Usually, we think founders (and investors) are the owners with final decision-making power, teachers are employees, and students are “clients.” How can they have the right to manage? Especially a one-person-one-vote right equal to the founders? This point helps everyone understand the essence. Of course, this also reflects the founders’ public spirit. The founders and early staff worked as volunteers for nearly 20 years. This is also part of the essence. Is there room for further improvement or upgrades? Of course. Sudbury’s concepts also go beyond what is described here. For example, I feel their understanding of “knowledge” is an important part of the model as well, which I discussed in my article commemorating Daniel Greenberg. But the core is what is described here. We first need to understand and consistently achieve this step. This is what our current educational innovation lacks. Image source: SVS Official Website

Original Article

Knowledge is an organic living entity. Like our bodies, knowledge is an interconnected whole.

For example, knowledge needs a solid core to which it can effectively attach. The growth of knowledge must be organic, and our learning process should allow our knowledge to grow organically.

How Can We Foster the Organic Growth of Knowledge?

Having Deep, Vital Experiences as the core

First, we need profound and significant experiences. These serve as a strong core, enabling other knowledge to attach and integrate naturally.

In practical terms, this means that we should build our knowledge upon the most important experiences in our lives. Many students today, due to their school-based learning, struggle to identify what truly matters to them and what they actually need to learn. School education has introduced excessive confusion about learning, leaving them feeling lost.

If you care about something, you can learn about it. Learning is really that simple. However, modern education has misled people, making them uncertain about what they need to learn. While Self-Directed Education communities provide students with the freedom to learn, students coming from conventional schools often struggle to identify their learning projects. Rather than feeling a sudden surge of autonomy, many students initially fall back on external expectations, struggling to reclaim their own sense of curiosity. This is partly due to the lack of introspection, a crucial learning ability that schools fail to cultivate.

In self-directed learning environments like Sudbury schools, students who transition from conventional schools often spend an initial period in a state of “doing nothing” or “not learning.” However, over time, they gradually reconnect with their inner selves and begin to follow their own interests in life and learning. This suggests that introspection is an innate ability in everyone, but conventional education systems and flawed learning concepts have disrupted it.

Profound and meaningful life experiences should form the core framework of our knowledge. We do not learn for the sake of learning; we learn for life, for better living. Our learning should focus on fundamental life experiences—our confusions, sources of distress, and fundamental joys. By centering our knowledge growth on essential life experiences, we engage in learning that truly matters.

Self-directed learning shifts the focus to the questions that actually matter to you. In doing so, it transforms education from a list of requirements into a source of personal confidence. You can, through life experiences, existing social resources, and well-planned societal activities, explore answers to your deepest questions over time. These are not distant, unattainable pieces of knowledge; they are insights that every person can pursue and grasp.

These fundamental concerns should form the core framework of your knowledge. From these concerns, diverse interests naturally emerge. Through learning across broad fields, both outwardly and inwardly, individuals can develop essential understandings—such as the nature of beauty and the essence of life.

Another aspect of deep experiences is that when we become interested in a field and wish to acquire knowledge, we should first seek profound, immersive experiences in that field. This often requires hands-on practice. For instance:

• To learn programming, start by coding rather than just reading books.
• To learn how to swim, you have to get in the water—start by simply playing in a safe environment.
• To learn football, start by kicking the ball for fun.
• If interested in history or geography, travel to historical sites and immerse yourself in those environments.

While books are valuable learning tools, physically experiencing a place offers insights that cannot be gained from reading alone. When visiting historical sites, you may notice details that books fail to capture.

These deep experiences usually involve placing oneself in real, multi-dimensional environments and engaging physically. Knowledge has multiple dimensions, and as we will discuss later, learning requires understanding from various perspectives. However, if we first establish strong, meaningful experiences, knowledge gains a firm foundation for organic growth. Otherwise, knowledge remains disconnected and is easily forgotten over time.

A person’s learning needs always stem from their own life or the people around them. When we interact with those around us, we develop a desire to understand their needs. However, people are influenced by culture, which in turn is shaped by history and geography. Reading allows us to learn about history and geography, offering an important experience in understanding others. However, such experiences alone are not enough to form a solid foundation of knowledge. Only through personal travel or hands-on practice—where you directly experience the influence of history or geographical space—can these deeply felt experiences become a strong core for the growth of knowledge.

Search more, ask more, think more, and grow based on core experiences

Once we have core, profound experiences, we naturally develop interests in learning. To nurture these interests, we should actively:

• Research relevant information
• Ask questions
• Reflect on what we learn

By consistently inquiring and thinking critically, we allow knowledge to grow organically, forming an interconnected whole.

This process takes time. Through diverse life interactions and experiences, we continuously generate new interests related to our core experiences. Once an interest or question arises, we should promptly research, reflect, and expand our knowledge using available resources. This is a natural and organic process of knowledge growth.

Understanding Knowledge from Multiple Perspectives

To truly master a subject, one must examine it from multiple perspectives. Every field of knowledge comprises various layers of understanding. Only by asking numerous questions and exploring different angles can we attain a comprehensive grasp of a subject and shape it into an interconnected whole. Each new angle connects us with some significant experiences, thus deepening our understanding.

Breaking Free from Linear Learning Models

If we follow our inner guidance to grow knowledge, we should abandon the linear approach to learning. For example, when reading books, a good approach is not to read them one by one in a linear fashion, as done in conventional schooling. Instead:

• First, skim through all the books, reviewing their tables of contents and summaries.
• Identify the topics that interest you and read selectively.
• Skip books that seem unnecessary.
• Revisit good books over time, as they may offer new insights after gaining more knowledge.

Similarly, if you find an inspiring master or expert, you can treat them as a learning resource. Read all their works, as great thinkers often integrate knowledge holistically. Their writings are not limited to one specialized field but reflect attempts to answer profound life questions. By studying a master’s works in full, you gain insights into their interconnected knowledge system.

As knowledge grows, new questions and interests arise. In this process, past learning resources may take on new meanings. For instance, an old book might offer new insights when revisited in light of new knowledge.

This exploration of knowledge is deeply personal, requiring a strong connection to one’s inner self. Since this process takes time, effective tools for recording key experiences and reflections can significantly enhance our ability to structure and expand our knowledge. Learning, in essence, is about creating our own knowledge.

Knowledge Requires Practice and Application

Just as our bodies need exercise for healthy growth, knowledge also requires application and practice to develop into a robust, organic entity.

Bones grow and reshape in response to external pressure and force. Similarly, knowledge strengthens and adapts when actively applied.

Our bones have osteoblasts and osteoclasts, which continuously generate new bone cells or remove old ones based on the pressure or tension they experience. Through studies in mechanics, scientists have found that the shape of the human femur, the largest bone in the body, is perfectly designed to achieve the strongest mechanical effect. Therefore, the various external forces acting on bones are essential for their healthy growth. Muscles work the same way; only through exercise can they grow well.

Those whose knowledge is tied to their profession have abundant opportunities to practice it. Over years of professional engagement, they encounter numerous phenomena and problems, refining their understanding and structuring knowledge optimally.

When learning for pleasure rather than a profession, you often have to be more intentional about creating your own opportunities to practice. However, today’s digital era provides ways to engage with professionals and like-minded learners worldwide.

Moreover, knowledge application physically strengthens our neural networks, shaping our brains for better cognitive function. So it is literally a type of body exercise

Conclusion

Knowledge is a self-created, organic whole. Even when learning existing human knowledge, each person is creating their own understanding. This perspective fundamentally differs from the modern education system’s fragmented approach. Knowledge is not about memorizing isolated facts—it is about growing an interconnected organic system.