Restorative Justice Committee (RJC)

One of the many powerful features of our Sudbury school is the Restorative Justice Committee (RJC). It’s been through many transformations over the years, starting as a copy of Sudbury Valley’s Judicial Committee (JC) that’s modeled after the US judicial system in many ways. Fairly early on in our school’s history, we decided we didn’t like asking young people to “plead guilty or not guilty.” That felt like too much - too rigid.

We decided to ask if a person “took responsibility” for what they did, or what someone else said they did. We moved from having a “jury” of rotating peers with a judge-like “Chairperson” holding a gavel and ruling a “sentence” for the “case” - and even holding people in “contempt” when they were disruptive - to a “panel” that would help advise on the “complaint” and what the “consequence” would be. Even with all the wording changes it still didn’t feel like it was consistent with the rest of the ethos of community and collaboration that we were working toward outside of these JC sessions.

In 2020 I joined a group of other Sudbury staff from around the world in weekly video call sessions discussing a workbook called “Developing a Disrupter’s Ear” that was written by two brilliant women specifically to help self-directed education (SDE) communities explore places of unseen bias, structural racism, and unconscious assumptions. All of us in the group were re-evaluating the “judicial” systems at our schools and wondering how we could make them more consistent with our shared values of equality, compassion, and accountability. Language played a large role but it was the structure that needed an overhaul.

Our Miami Sudbury School community called for an All School Meeting to discuss the issue of JC. There were many people who felt like even the panel system was a hostage situation and that when people didn’t want to be somewhere they didn’t do a good job and often created distractions or sometimes diluted the importance of an issue. A student proposed to get rid of the panel structure. I remember feeling a little shocked - I couldn’t myself imagine the process without this feature. Wasn’t it a “jury of peers” that kept things fair? But I was clearly not in the majority and figured we’d see how things would go without a panel.

Really, what happened, is that the whole system really became much simpler and better. The Chairperson became the Facilitator and the “cases” or “complaints” became “concerns.” We experimented with calling it the “Joint Concern” meeting (to retain the JC initials), but I believe I put forward the suggestion based on my discussions with other Staff to call it and think of it as a “Restorative Justice Committee” - so we added an R to make it RJC.

In moving to a more discussion-based model with “resolutions” that were mutually agreed upon instead of “consequences” or “sentences” voted upon by a panel or jury, some students worried that RJC would “have no teeth.” They worried that people who felt their rights or the school’s rules had been violated wouldn’t be vindicated and problems would persist without proper “punishment.” In fact, we decided to write in the preamble to all RJC sessions that “this is not about punishment but about finding resolution.” So what happened?

Interestingly, several things happened as we moved to a more discussion and resolution based model: RJC sessions typically moved along faster than the more procedurally-heavy version from before. We also started to notice a decline in the number of concerns being written. Was this because things were getting resolved better or because they became less of a “weapon” when someone was upset with another person? Perhaps both.

Eventually, even the written script with preamble and procedure faded away and students learned from one another how to ask the people involved if they want to read their own concern or have the facilitator read it. They then ask everyone involved what more they want to say about the concern. Then, they ask how everyone thinks this could best be resolved. The facilitator also now rotates every two weeks instead of being a long-term elected position. Most everyone in the community gets a chance to facilitate these sessions at some point.

Now that you have the history, I want to share three concerns from this week that I think give a wonderful window into the power of RJC for our young people.

This week’s RJC was facilitated by a dynamic older teen who has been with our community for over 5 years now. She’s lived many of our various iterations of problem solving and now provides an amazing example of solving problems both with compassion and clarity. A 12 year old was the secretary for the session. I was the Agreement Advisor, a staff member who attends sessions usually on the sidelines to be available should the facilitator want some advising about the concern. We also keep an eye out for any conflicts of interest, for example reminding the facilitator they should find someone else to manage a concern if it involves a family member or very close friend. Mostly by now students do that themselves without a reminder.

The first concern that day involved two younger students. One wrote a concern about the other playing too roughly with them in the indoor gym. While a concern like that could have involved a lot of back and forth “No I wasn’t” and “Yes you were,” the student who the concern was written about agreed that he was playing too roughly - he’d taken it too far. The student who wrote the concern suggested decertification from the gym for the rest of the day and the student who was too rough readily agreed. And the concern was over.

Although I’ve watched many RJC concerns over the years, it never ceases to amaze me when the culture of our community cultivates this kind of cooperation. No one looked to me as they made this resolution. It wasn’t to please an adult, it was just expedient and clearly considered a fair consequence. Everyone involved was so nonchalant about the exchange but I sat in quiet wonder. How many people - of any age - can learn to accept the consequences of their choices with such grace? Powerful.

The next concern would perhaps be even more mind-boggling to an outsider. In this one, four younger students wrote the concern about THEMSELVES. They were running and being loud upstairs during the “rush hour” time we all voted would mean upstairs was quiet and downstairs could be loud. They were likely encouraged by an older student to write themselves up (or the older student would write the concern about them…) and so they did! Even the facilitator was a little surprised that all four of these younger students wrote the concern about themselves.

I often mention when I’m touring a prospective student how our students will sometimes choose to write a concern about themselves. The prospect student almost never believes me - why would anyone write themselves up?!? I try to briefly explain that in our school culture it gets you a lot of respect to take responsibility. It’s a very different paradigm from being “in trouble” or “sent to the principal’s office” (which we don’t have!). They can almost never believe me until they witness it themselves.

Since all the people involved in the concern were already agreed that they didn’t do the right thing, discussion moved quickly to brainstorming resolutions. They suggested that they make signs to hang on the door to the second floor to remind themselves there’s no running up there. They discussed how it would need to be double-sided and placed inside the door window so it wouldn’t get wet if it rained. Everyone was agreed they would try this intervention and the discussion was finished. Amazing.

The final concern discussed that day again involved the indoor gym. A young student was concerned because they felt another student had been too rough with their plushie while they were playing. Instead of a simple one-way complaint, the facilitator asked more about what was going on and what rules they’d mutually decided upon while they were playing. She wisely noted, “This sounds like this was a communication issue.” The person who wrote the concern agreed that he was also playing rough and they could all do a better job communicating what was ok and not ok when they did rough play. There was no particular resolution needed here beyond the need for more mutual understanding.

This was just a normal day at RJC. It started around 10:45 and was wrapped up by around 11:15. The younger students got to watch a teen deftly facilitate discussion and help draw out the important elements of the issues for mutual resolution. Everyone got to engage in respectful and relaxed problem solving. No one yelled or was shamed. And they really didn’t even need an adult to help navigate proceedings or solutions.

This is likely why many of our high schoolers put “Conflict Resolution” on their transcripts. They don’t do assigned readings or papers on the topic, they engage in it in real time, watching how others do it and figuring it out for themselves with peers in this time regularly carved out for resolution.

Now what happens if the agreed-upon resolution fails to fully solve the problem? Usually it goes back to another RJC to try something else out. Sometimes it’s really an interpersonal issue that needs more personal intervention and RJC will recommend that the people involved schedule a mediation with a staff mediator who will help everyone express their feelings and come to agreements everyone can feel better about.

Sometimes if the issue is just too recurring and not resolving it gets sent to School Meeting for discussion. Usually that helps a student struggling with a particular issue see that the community takes it really seriously. Sometimes School Meeting will ask for Staff to have a meeting with the student and their family to see if family input helps, and also to show the student it’s a big deal. Usually by that point the student decides they want to stay in our community more than they want to keep doing whatever has been disruptive. Our school is a really special place. It’s not everywhere that young people get to take a crack at resolving their own issues these days.

I’m grateful for the evolution of our problem solving process - and who knows how it may continue to evolve! I think the most important thing is that it’s clear, and clearly shown in these examples, that our community values accountability, respect, and resolution. That our young people get to practice this on a daily basis to the point of not even seeing it as the remarkable thing it is - that’s frankly remarkable.