Teaching and learning justice at Marbury


(Leonard Cohen BA; DipT; MACE)




This paper is about Marbury's approach to the teaching of justice. The approach is both broad in that it is based on a group of shared attitudes and beliefs evolved over many years, and focussed in that it gives examples of how certain issues relating to questions of justice have been dealt with. It seeks to respond to these questions:










Before answering these questions, here are some anecdotes that have been selected as examples of the range of responses and behaviours among staff and students in the management of issues concerned with justice. The circumstances and details have been altered to preserve anonymity but the essence of each narrative is faithful to the way things happen, the way things are and the things that have been done.



The problem of the common room.

It is winter. On the first day of Term Three, some students go into their common room. Peter draws graffiti on the board. They leave the furniture in disarray, papers on the floor, the lights on and the door open. There are muddy footprints on the carpet. What should be done and by whom?


Tom and Albert

Tom is waiting in line for the canteen to open. Heated words are exchanged and Albert punches him in the testicles. What is the problem and what is the just solution?


Marion's wallet

A wallet is taken from Marion's school bag. She publicly accuses Bethany of the theft. There is a history of conflict between them. What steps should be taken to ensure just treatment of the accused girl and what remedy might Marion expect?


When the Principal breaks the rules.

The principal is hurrying to an incident in the playground. She runs up a bank that is out of bounds to all. A five year old child is watching. What lessons are to be learnt here about the nexus between power and justice?


Sally and the late students

Sally arrives late to class to find some of her students are missing. A search is instituted and the missing pupils are located and return. This is not the first time this has happened with this class. She tells the students that they are thoughtless and deliberately attempting to sabotage her lessons. What issues of justice arise?






JUSTICE


The word derives via "iustitia", justice, from the Latin "ius", the law. The Latin phrase "Ius est ars boni et aequi" (Law is the art of the good and the just) suggests that "ius" should be composed of goodness and justice as practiced through the art of human understanding.

The art of handling people, of understanding human problems in a sophisticated and positive manner even when one may be personally and or professionally involved is an art every bit as uplifting as that of Picasso, Bessie Smith or Jane Austen. Like all arts it can be acquired through study, imitation and apprenticeship and again as with all arts it is clearly more attainable to a high degree by certain individuals.

Can any institution organise itself so that it can help its members to acquire the art of human understanding in the areas of morality and justice, or is this the province of gifted and inspired practitioners with the talents of Solomon or Portia or Lord Denning?


In English we define justice as lying somewhere between the qualities of fair dealing and equity; the principle of rectitude in the management of human affairs; the law and its administration and punishment for the transgression of laws.

Some of these concepts are antithetical to the school setting upon which this paper is based.


Marbury School, founded in Adelaide twenty-eight years ago, is one of the few schools anywhere in the world never to have used any form of punishment or moral suasion in the maintenance of its discipline. For this school, justice can never include the punishment of transgressors, blame of individuals or the disapproval of persons or their behaviour.

To the degree that the school rules are analogous to laws, we do not see the rules as justice. They are codes of behaviour and limitations undertaken as a condition of entry to the community.

That some rules are made by the Principal, some by students and some by staff or a combination of all three implies a form of equity and fair dealing at the base of the rules. That they apply to adults and children and that no one is immune from being brought to account for their behaviour broadens the equitable base of the rules. They may arguably be just rules, justly created and justly interpreted but they are not justice.

Justice at Marbury is not only done or seen to be done; it is to be found in the way the community lives, it is the background sound of the institution and the manner of our relating to each other. Justice is the leitmotif of the School Meeting system and the assumption of its universal applicability across the school is understood as a given.

Justice when experienced as a climate is not and can never be simply justice as a consequence of or a reaction to wrong behaviour or infraction of rules. Nevertheless, action must be taken in such cases.


This climate in which justice is designed to thrive has come about through the extraordinary talents of the founding principal, the late Margaret Langley, AO. Her model of a just society without moralism, punishment or disapproval shows how children can believe in a just and secure school environment.

Let us look at the five anecdotes summarised above.



The problem of the common room.

It is winter. On the first day of Term Three, some students go into the as yet unopened common room without permission. Peter draws graffiti on the board. They leave the furniture in disarray, papers on the floor, the lights on and the door open. There are muddy footprints on the carpet. What should be done and by whom?


Phil, a teacher, reports that students have used the room. (The former common room had been closed when it had become so messy and the fittings so abused that it was an unattractive environment and most students avoided it. At the end of last term, no students were prepared to take on the responsibility of managing it.)

The Principal agreed to call a meeting of the entire secondary school for 9.30 the following day. Staff were advised, classes suspended. The meeting, chaired by a senior staff member is held in a climate of openness and frank comments are appreciated. All have equal rights to speak and may voice their opinions as they choose, provided that they are courteous.

At the meeting, it is discovered that Simon, a teacher, had told the senior students that they would soon be getting a common room, but that it was not yet ready for them. They could not remember this and Simon, the class teacher, becomes aware that his communication with them had been inadequate. It was crucial that Simon be open in this interchange. His lack of defensiveness and capacity of reflection is mirrored in the ensuing student response. The students also agree that they had not been listening carefully enough.

The room had been entered only because Warren, the vacating teacher, had forgotten to lock it. Margot, the teacher on duty that day had seen the students in the room, thought it was an unpleasant, unfinished-looking environment but she assumed that it was now the new common room. Some students at the meeting and Margot agreed that they had made an odd assumption; after all, why would the school open up a common room in so unfit a state? One new boy, Larry, suggests that the room was unfinished and messy because the teachers thought that such a room was all the students deserved after the debacle of the previous term. The teachers and some students deny this, as the teachers would not have taken a punitive or moralistic approach like this.


Teachers Phil, Margot and Simon, as well as student Peter and the others who had used the room saw their part in the problem as the meeting unfolded, and acknowledged what had happened. Peter said that he thought the graffiti was all right to do since it was in chalk on a blackboard and that this was to be their common room. He agreed that it had been left in a mess, but when other students refused to help tidy it, he had left the room as it was. Rain had soaked the doormats so that it was hard to wipe shoes on entering. No blame is apportioned. Staff and students accept responsibility. The history of previous common room problems is mentioned and students are invited to present proposals for the decoration and management of the new room at. New gratings will be found to keep the mats dry. Later that week at the Thursday General Meeting Peter volunteers to keep order and tidiness in the common room. 12% of the students in the secondary school volunteer to work on setting it up.



Tom and Albert

Tom is waiting in line for the canteen to open. Heated words are exchanged and Albert punches him in the testicles. What is the problem and what is the just solution?


Tom is taken to the nurse to be checked.

Albert tells the teacher that Tom had been saying things he did not like, so he hit him. Tom is in Year Eleven and tall. Albert who hit him is in Year Eight and small. Albert is very bright and orally gifted, but lacks personal skills and empathy. Tom is more skilled with people but is not as capable intellectually as Albert.

Tom and Albert meet with a teacher when Tom has recovered, to discuss the event. Little Albert seems more distressed than Tom and is in need of reassurance. The teacher comforts Albert, the aggressor, while hearing Tom's story. Tom apologises to Albert for having provoked Albert. Albert apologises to Tom. Albert is reminded that there is a specific rule against hitting someone in the testicles. Albert's parents are contacted and arrange for him to attend anger management sessions.

At the next General Meeting Tom and some other Year Eleven boys explain that they cannot deal with little Albert's sarcastic and aggressive comments and agree that they have been teasing him and resenting his superior abilities with language. Albert listens to their complaints and agrees that he has been using his sharp wit and ascerbic language to annoy them. He explains that this is what he learned to do in self-defence in his last school and adds that he thought it was fair to hit someone much bigger and older than himself.

He is listened to with sympathy. Students and teachers discuss Albert's attitude and although there is some agreement on the principle of fair play, everyone agrees that the blow, directed as it was to the testicles was quite literally "below the belt". The Principal points out that there is a question of the rules here, and that Albert has no choice but to comply. Albert agrees and undertakes not to use this blow again.

The girls are interested in the impact that even a small boy can have on a much bigger one with this type of blow. While reminding the Meeting that Albert has broken a serious rule, a teacher sees an opportunity here to discuss issues of self-defence for women and girls. The boys join in, recounting examples of how they have felt when hit in the testicles. The Meeting agrees that the rule must be strictly adhered to and that should it happen again Albert must be suspended from school until his counsellor is satisfied that he is no threat to others.

There is an amused and light-hearted tone to the whole discussion, due to the location of the injury and the discrepancy in size and verbal abilities between Albert and Tom. The Year Eleven boys, led by Tom, agree to leave Albert alone and to bring any future conflicts with him to the Head Teacher for resolution rather than handle things themselves. Albert tells the Meeting he has decided not to talk to the Year Eleven boys any more.





Marion's wallet

A wallet is missing from Marion's school bag. She publicly accuses Bethany of the theft. There is a history of conflict between them. What steps should be taken to ensure just treatment of the accused girl and what remedy might Marion expect?


As theft is rare, a meeting of the senior school is called as soon as practicable after Marion reports her loss. Lessons are suspended.

Before the meeting starts, Bethany complains that Marion is saying she has taken her wallet. Marion repeats the allegation to teachers before the start of the meeting. The meeting discusses where the wallet had been left and Marion is criticised by some students for leaving it in an exposed place. Bethany agrees that she had been near Marion's locker immediately prior to the wallet's disappearance and denies that she took it. Marion says that she thinks Bethany did. There is some disquiet at her allegation, as he does not produce evidence to support it.


A student says that all the schoolbags should be brought into the meeting and publicly opened. The teachers, who argue that things could be found that should not be viewed by all, oppose this. The Principal and staff evince distaste at examining the students' property but can produce no effective counter-argument in the face of almost unanimous student agreement. Karl in Year Ten refuses to bring his bag to be examined, saying that he has things in it that he does not want the school to see. It is unanimously agreed that Karl would never take another student's wallet. The meeting decides to make an exception in his case and his bag is not searched. Everyone goes to collect their bags together and the teachers are asked to examine the contents in the meeting. Nothing is found.


The chair suggests that the thief be given time to return the wallet to some public place. The meeting disbands, except for Bethany, her friends and some teachers, to conduct a complete search of the building and the exterior. The wallet is found some ten minutes later in plain view on a table where it had not been before.

The meeting reassembles and the wallet is given to Marion. She is asked by the meeting to apologise to Bethany, but refuses on the grounds that it could have been Bethany who placed it on the table. Although it is pointed out that she never left the meeting room and could not have replaced the wallet, she still refuses to acknowledge what has happened. The meeting agrees to allow Marion time to reconsider and is then closed.

The following day, the General Meeting Thursday, Marion asks for an opportunity to speak. She apologises to Bethany who accepts.



When the Principal breaks the rules.

The principal is hurrying to an incident in the playground. He runs up a bank that is out of bounds to all. A five year old child is watching. What lessons are to be learnt here about the nexus between power and justice?


It is the day on which the School Registration board is touring the grounds with the Principal. The children know that these are important people of some kind. As they pass the bank up which the Principal had gone the day before, the child who had seen him break the rule comes forward.

"Alan, you broke a rule. You went up the bank," says Bessie, five.

The principal, Alan, stops his tour and talks to Bessie. Firstly he apologises for having broken the rule and explains what he was doing at the time.

"But you still did it," says Bessie. The principal then agrees not to break the rule again and Bessie pauses awhile, then steps back, apparently satisfied that order has been restored. The inspectorate look at Bessie who stands, hands on hips, until they move off. It is noted in the ensuing discussion that Bessie's stance had been almost the same as the Principal's.

Both had stood facing each other, their body language mirrored, their expressions serious, calm and thoughtful.



Sally and the late students


Sally arrives late to take her class to find that some of her students are missing. The absent pupils eventually return. It is not the first time they have done this. She tells the students that they are thoughtless and deliberately attempting to sabotage her lessons. What issues of justice arise?


Sally complains to a senior teacher that her students are arriving late and are rude. She does not ask for a meeting, seeking instead for the senior teacher to speak to the individuals. The class is annoyed with what they perceive as Sally's double standard and they independently ask for a meeting with Sally to be chaired by the teacher in charge of their section.

A meeting is called, at which Sally becomes clearly uncomfortable because the students discuss her irritable responses and lateness. The chair agrees that teachers are not allowed to be late nor to blame students for their behaviour.

Sally, relatively new to the school, is awkward in this situation where the political balance is not weighted in favour of teachers. She looks away, shuffles and eventually begins doodling on a pad. Jenny, fourteen, tells her that she must pay attention to the meeting like everyone else. Sally complies resentfully but is told by the other teacher that Jenny is correct and that no one is allowed to read or write in a meeting.

The chair asks Sally what her problem is with the class. As Sally is explaining, it suddenly becomes clear to her that the students have been modelling her behaviour by being late and insolent. She says that she has had this insight. The chair agrees, and also points out that the students were breaking a rule by being late consistently.

Following some discussion, the students decide to try to be more tolerant, as Sally is still new and needs time to adjust.


Although she said she felt condescended to, Sally becomes more cooperative and humble in the days after the meeting and seeks or accepts advice more readily from staff and students. The class meets a fortnight later with Sally and a senior teacher to report on progress. There are a few minor issues which are put on paper and pinned up in the classroom. After a fortnight the list is no longer seen by teacher or students as necessary and is removed.



Summary


To answer the seven questions posed at the beginning of this article is to say what Justice at Marbury is and how it is kept alive. It is important, however, to remember that the anecdotes selected from everyday life are just a few of the events in the web of relationships and attitudes that go to make up the ethos of the school. The anecdotes show that the staff and students take these issues very seriously and are prepared to work together to preserve and develop the most just environment that they can build.


Q:If something is not taught in a school, how can it be learned in a school?

A:Justice can be learned by experiencing just behaviour and by the rational examination of behaviour in the light of a code to which ones group subscribes. To subscribe in an informed manner to a code of behaviour requires a level of understanding of the rationale behind the code, or at least a high level of trust in those who propound, defend and enforce the code. In the case of young children and those for whom trust is enough, the existence of a code is sufficient in itself. For older children and adults, justice may also be understood by intellectual means and through the process of identifying with other people, much as is suggested by the Golden Rule.

For both groups, however, the experience of just behaviour is an opportunity to model on someone whom one believes to be behaving justly and whom one wishes to emulate.

If their pupils are to learn in the most effective manner, it is this leadership role which teachers must use. Thus, teachers need to be self-regulating, self-aware and conscious of the rules and the need of the community for fairness, order and good relationships.

The teaching style and content that go along with learning justice at Marbury is not, at its most fundamental level, the passing-on of concepts and the rational assessment of rights and duties. It is primarily shown in the high degree of value placed on just behaviour, empathy and rational thought, as expressed in the teacher's behaviour.

This is why the Meeting system is so powerful. Everyone can see who is doing what and there is less room for individuals to behave in an unfair or irrational manner. Teachers who possess the necessary skills and understanding to run such meetings provide models both for their colleagues and for the students. Wherever possible, students are encouraged to chair meetings and on occasion to run them without teacher input until the resolution is brought forward for ratification and teacher input.


Q:How might justice be learned when it is so hard to define?

A:It is the goal of each person to work out what is fair. Because staff spend a lot of time and effort in developing their understanding of justice and because this development is regarded as common currency for teacher meetings and staff discussions, it is less difficult to define than if it were a topic that seldom came up for examination. Working at becoming more just helps set the tone for the whole organisation.


Q:Whose justice should prevail?

A:In the case of Sally and the late students, where both sides appeared to have legitimate grievances and had independently sought arbitration, a ruling from the senior teacher would probably have been accepted as a fair outcome. However, the chair usually does not seek to rule on cases like this. Instead, one seeks opportunities for the parties to air their problems in a controlled and non-threatening environment where the expectation is that consensus and mutual understanding will make a third party ruling redundant. Thus, the justice that prevails is the mutually held view of the meeting.

This is not as unpredictable an outcome as one might fear because the accepted modes of discourse (no put-downs, no punishment or blame, a commitment to a positive solution for all concerned) guide the process.


Q:What is the best way to create a just climate in a school?

A:Key elements for this school's climate include: transparency in the making and changing of rules;

regular open discussion in a guided safe setting; a commitment by staff and students to the rules as a condition of membership of the community; freedom from negative or punitive attitudes; acceptance of an individual's right to his or her own feelings;an emphasis on rational thought, creativity and reasoned argument.

In an environment where the person with the best argument and not simply the person with the most political power can prevail, equitable outcomes are more likely to emerge. Where many voices can be heard and all the different viewpoints expressed, empathy and compassion are nurtured. This in turn helps each person to see the other's point of view and to move towards the solving of relationship problems.

The most significant element of all is the quality of the web of relationships: staff/staff, staff/student, student/student. It was this that made the meeting decide unanimously that there was no need to search Miriam's bag. When people know each other well enough and trust is allowed to determine what happens, justice is a natural outcome. The group's faith was borne out by the events.



Q:Is justice more a response to an event, or the background against which unjust actions are thrown into relief?

A:Both apply. In the case of Marion and the wallet, two events required solutions. The wallet had to be returned and Bethany's position needed to be restored. The bag and building searches were responses to an event and the apology by Marion came as a result of her being given time to reflect, in an accepting environment that understood her feelings while nevertheless expecting a rational and empathic response from her. Had it not occurred when it did, (the following day) the general set of expectations alive in the school would have made it likely to occur in time.


In the case of the new teacher Sally and the late arrivals, the students trusted the system more than the teacher did, because they understood the "background", the climate of justice, in a way that she did not. Sally is an experienced and well-informed teacher who has a good grasp of her subjects and is keen to teach but experience as a teacher in other schools had not prepared her for this approach. Her attempt to deal with the late students by having them "disciplined" came about because she was not fully aware of the political and equity issues that govern the life of this school. The students, the other teacher present and Sally herself all grew in understanding as a result of the process.


Q:Must justice exact punishment and compel remorse?

A:No.


Q:What is the relationship between justice and power, "might" and "right"?

A:There is a fundamental political relationship in a school that must be carefully managed to allow children to develop personally and politically and to deepen their understanding of justice. While teachers must retain and manage their greater power, the rules and the right of students to enforce them with teachers create the necessary checks and balances.

In a just environment, "might" does not equal "right".

Sally was not able to blame her students for being late, nor to arrive late herself. Bessie, the five-year-old enforcer of the rule about running up the bank, was right. The Principal moved from having been in the wrong to align himself with the rules, as Bessie demanded. By being publicly accountable to the student for his behaviour, the principal was helping to break the nexus between power and justice. He was restoring order and Bessie has been her helper.

The power of the rules is held to be greater than that of any individual.

It is the supremacy of the rules that prevents students from feeling powerless and that gives teachers their legitimacy. The rules provide for the Meeting framework and the no punishment policy, as well as a list of shalt's and shall not's. (There are no should's or ought's in the rules.)

In the eyes of the community, the most powerful person is the one who most acknowledges

and obeys the rules.


Leonard Cohen <lc@marbury.sa.edu.au>