CHAPTER 1: SECTION 3

“So great to meet you! We are so glad you could make it! I’m Rebecca. I’m the one you’ve been corresponding with!” I shook her outstretched hand which she then in turn put her opposite hand on top of mine like a miniature hand embrace. “This is Emily and this is Theresa, some of the other staff members. We’re just going through the lost and found box trying to figure out what goes to whom.”

In many ways I thought I could have easily just entered a child’s large birthday party. Children were streaking happily down the long hallway that lead from the front door to the back of the house while some children sat at the large table munching a snack, while others darted in and out of my view through the windows to the outside clearly on something with wheels.

Rebecca started me on a tour of Sego Lily. One might believe that in the democratic school model that it would be a free for all, but in each room I noticed a red sign posted by each door with titles such as: LEGO CERTIFICATION. MUSIC ROOM CERTIFICATION. FOAM ROOM CERTIFICATION. MICROWAVE CERTIFICATION. STOVE CERTIFICATION. TREE HOUSE CERTIFICATION. The first one Rebecca explained to me was the OUTDOOR CERTIFICATION.

“It’s a safety issue. We give the kids guidelines to go by to keep them safe. They have to prove that they have a working knowledge of the rules and then they get certified. We write their names on the paper here and we know and they know that they are safe to, say, go outside, for example. Some schools with acreage may not have such a system, but we are on a busy road that isn’t completely fenced, so this is an important aspect.”

“That’s really smart!”

“Well, in a school like this where the kids don’t have to be in a class or in a desk or in a certain room at any time, we need to be sure they will still be safe. And this gives them the control over what they can and can not do. So, as you can see from the guidelines here, if you’re over 12 you have free reign to go outside. If you are between 9 and 12 you can go outside anytime you want as long as you have a buddy that is over 12. Everyone under 12 must have a buddy to be outside. Then the 4 and 5 year olds are only allowed in a certain area outside.”

The other red sign rules are really common sense. In the Lego room the kids need to demonstrate that they can leave the legos in the room, lest they be lost, and share when appropriate. They do not force sharing, but allow children their need to be engrossed in what they want without having to share. Common sense here again. If a child has 4 sets of wheels and only need two, then obviously sharing is expected. Another Lego Rule is to respect the BRB or Tap Tap rule.

“What’s the Tap Tap rule?” I asked.

“Well, let’s say if Owen was building a house and he was hungry and wanted to get a snack he could Tap Tap his project. That would mean to everyone else that he would be right back and they couldn’t take apart his work. He could also put a BRB or Be Right Back Sign on it. But this is common sense too. If he’s gone over 10 minutes, he loses the right to his project and others can use the parts.”

Here’s that participatory democracy I had heard so much about! Democratic educators believe that decisions should be made by the people they affect . Most democratic schools will tell you that the children are more apt to follow the rules since, after all, they made them. As stated before, each week the students and staff attend the weekly school meeting where the running of the school is discussed and voted upon on every level. The weekly school meeting is also the place where the staff is voted in or out. Every year the students and staff vote on whether they would like a staff member to continue at the school. There is no union or tenure here. If you are doing a good job at mentoring, being available, or sharing specific skills you have to those that are interested, you will most likely stay. The vote will decide. Participatory democracy in action!

Ok, you say, kids are kids; so what happens when they don’t follow the red paper rules? If there are no teachers in front of the children at all times who is going to step in and finalize the argument? Another aspect of including students in participatory democracy is through peer justice. This sub group is created to deal with rule infractions in the manner of the court trial. The students and one staff member are elected or rotated into the judicial committee and are expected to answer to any complaint brought up to the committee. The innocent or guilty verdict is given as well as the sentence and this is all student driven. Democracy indeed. (Greenberg, Daniel; R-E-S-P-E-C-T: What Children Get in Democratic Schools - Mothering.com) This procedure is strictly based on the theory of judicial democracy: being innocent until proven guilty and being able to have a fair trial with a jury of your peers. They call it, The Judicial Committee, or JC.

The JC is in place to hold a trial for children that have disobeyed a rule and were not able to work it out amongst themselves. The child will either write up a complaint or in the case they can not write yet, they will have an older child write for them. They site who was involved, if there were witnesses, and the facts. The staff encourages the children to not use emotions when writing up the facts to the complaint. “Made me mad,” or “Hurt my feelings” is instead replaced with, “He kicked me” and “She called me a name,” to get the children into a more logical frame of thinking when it comes to peer justice.

The JC at the Sego Lily School is comprised of 5 students and a staff member which rotates on a daily basis so all students and staff get the opportunity to be involved. All children take a part in JC. Whether you are 5 or 18, you have a say and a vote. While I was talking legos with Rebecca, JC was about to start.

“Let’s finish the tour later,” said Rebecca excited. “This is JC. This is a very important part of our school, I want you to see this.” She opened the double glass french doors to reveal what could not be called anything except a family room complete with comfy chairs, couches, carpeted floors and an entertainment center at one end of the wall. The students were decked out casually waiting for JC to begin.

I made myself cozy on the floor with my notebook and with a thunk thunk of the gavel the trial began. (Ok, no, they did not have a gavel. Too much Night Court in the 1980‘s.) Theresa, the staff member for the day, opened the forum with, “Alright, everyone ready?” She began to read the first complaint of the day.

Case 1: Guy vs Dylan
Guy and Dylan each began to state their side of what happened. Guy charged that Dylan kicked him on the swing outside. Dylan countercharged that Guy had called him a name. The JC members confirmed the occurrences with the witnesses, who were also present at JC, that that is what occurred. After the confirmation from all parties involved that the facts were indeed correct, Theresa read the entire series of events out loud and Guy and Dylan and the JC members all got to vote on whether on the accuracy. Once everyone agreed to the charge, and the two boys pleaded guilty, it was time to lay down a sentence.

“Guy,” asked Trevor, the head of JC for the day and 13 years old, “Do you feel threatened by Dylan?”

“No, I don’t feel threatened.” answered Guy.

“Ok, that matters because if Guy still felt threatened then we would need to be sure our sentence made it so they weren’t in
the same room for a time.”

The ideas began spilling.

“I think they should both do two community service chores.”

“How about two random acts of kindness for each other?”

“Maybe they shouldn’t be able to go outside for a day or two?”

The JC members went back and forth trying to decide the right sentence. In the end the boys were sentenced to do extra community service chores.

“What’s a community service chore?” I asked

“Oh, we have chore chart,” explained Theresa.

“So the students clean the school?” I asked.

“Oh yes! We all are a part of keeping the school running; from the School Meeting each week that the children all have an
equal vote in, to the Judiciary Committee, to the cleanliness. We don’t ever want the kids to forget they are part of a community. The kids get points depending on the chore that they do. So each week the students and staff will look at the chart and they can see who has been doing their share of cleaning. If a student doesn’t have any points, that means they aren’t contributing, so a staff member or a student can give them a chore to do that day for no points to let them know that they are slacking. That person is the chore monitor and that rotates.”

Case 2 was next. Stan and Jason were sentenced to play a game together to renew their friendship over a misunderstood punching in the foam room where Jason meant to hit Stan with a piece of foam, lost it, and came in contact with his face. There was some debate on whether the game together was the proper punishment. Stan stated that he was still upset by the whole incident and was not sure he wanted to continue to be Jason’s friend. In this instance it is against the rules to force someone to be involved with another, therefore that would nix the game idea. I was astonished by the clear fact that the sentences are taken with great thought depending on the the children involved. The process is not taken lightly. Simply apologizing is not an option. An understanding exists that all actions have consequences.

As I sat and viewed case after case, I was astounded by the social maturity of the kids. A girl named Mia, a very level headed and well spoken girl, was present at each case to sight very objective views on the situation. She was able to take herself out of her emotional place and clearly see the point or purpose a solution to each side. A second example occurred when Theresa, the staff member had to ask Guy to stop rough housing.

Guy exclaimed, “It wasn’t me! It was Trevor!”

Trevor consented, “Yes, it was me.”

“Oh, sorry Guy,” Theresa said.

Guy, 7, started to laugh and said to Theresa, “Well, I usually am the problem.” This type of insight and self awareness at such a young age to me was refreshing. Opportunities like JC that teach the children presence of mind and responsibility for their choices and actions are surely a direct result.