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.
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
