Josh Daniels is currently the Student Court Coordinator and a JD/MPP candiate at the University of California, Berkeley.
David Luu is program coodinator for the Berkeley High Student Court.
Introduction1
As a discipline mechanism, suspension is usually unhelpful and often counterproductive. Students often view suspensions as nothing more than vacations. Suspended students are pushed further away from the school community rather than learning how to exist successfully in it. The act of being suspended can trigger feelings of abandonment and can damage self-esteem. Suspended students fall further behind in their classes. Perhaps most importantly, many students who are suspended are just as likely to repeat the behavior that got them suspended in the first place.
Berkeley High School (BHS) is one of many urban public high schools that use suspension as its primary discipline technique. As it is the only high school in the city, BHS enrolls over 3,000 students, many of whom are from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Even though the voters are generally supportive of the schools, BHS still struggles with many of the challenges that face most overpopulated, urban high schools. It lacks the support staff (there are 9 counselors and 5 vice principals) required to provide adequate assistance to struggling students. As a result, the suspension rate is quite high: the authors' personal experiences have shown that, on average, three to four students are suspended everyday; unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the students who are suspended are disproportionately African-American males. Exact suspension rates are unavailable as Berkeley High does not make such data public.
One of the many programs at BHS that attempts to remedy this problem is the Berkeley High Student Court, a student-based alternative discipline program. This article focuses on the history of the Berkeley High Student Court-i.e., how it was created-as well as on the impact that the program has had on the BHS student body, particularly those caught in the high school's discipline system. The hope is that the authors' experience with the Berkeley High Student Court will assist youth service providers with additional insight into how to better serve clients.
An Overview of the Berkeley High Student Court
The Student Court hears real discipline cases in which Respondents (students who have broken school rules) are brought before a student jury. Advocates (student lawyers) argue the case on behalf of either the Respondent or the BHS community before an adult judge, usually a Superior Court judge or community-based lawyer.
For Respondents to be eligible to participate, they must be charged with a suspendable offense and take responsibility for committing the offense. As a result, guilt is not at issue for deliberation by the jury; rather, the advocates argue over the Respondent's consequence, which can involve any combination of jury duty, community service, restitution, an essay assignment, counseling, and tutoring. In determining the consequence, the jury considers what will best help the Respondent understand the harm caused, repair the harm, and not repeat the offense. If the Respondent completes the consequence, he or she is not suspended and no suspension will appear on his or her record.
In order to be referred to the Student Court, a student must meet three criteria. First, the Respondent must not be a habitual truant; if found in violation, the Program Coordinator will refer the case back to administrators for suspension. Second, the offense must be serious enough to warrant a suspension, but not so serious as to warrant an expulsion; first-time offenders are given preference. Finally, a parent or guardian must sign a permission slip for the Respondent to participate in the program since family involvement is crucial to the attainment of positive outcomes.
Advocates are trained by enrolling in a BHS elective course. One or two law students from the UC Berkeley School of Law teach the class and are supervised by a full-time BHS teacher. One or both of these law students also oversee the trials.
A trial proceeds as follows: there is an opening statement from each side; there may be written statements (read by an advocate) from those who witnessed or were affected by the Respondent's actions; the Respondent is afforded an opportunity to make a statement; the advocates question the Respondent; the jury questions the Respondent; the advocates on each side are allowed to ask one clarifying question; each side gives a closing statement. The jury assigns the Respondent a consequence once it reaches consensus during deliberations. The judge's responsibilities are to bring a sense of formality to the trial, to maintain order throughout the trial, to keep the trial moving, to voir dire the jury, to rule on objections, to either approve the jury's consequence or reduce it in severity, and to determine an alternative consequence in the case of a hung jury. In deference to the jury, the judge is not allowed to dismiss completely or add to the assigned consequence.
The Student Court at BHS was inspired by the nationwide movement towards similar courts. Between 1994 and 2006, the number of youth courts increased from 48 to 1147, now operating in 49 states including the District of Columbia (National Association of Youth Courts, 2008, History of Youth Courts section, para. 1). These courts go by different names: in addition to "student courts," there are several county-based programs named "youth courts," "teen courts," and "peer courts." These programs are run out of various offices including the District Attorney's office, the Sherriff's office, the county probation department, or other nonprofit organizations. Generally, youth court has become the generic term for these programs regardless of location or affiliation.
All youth courts, including the Student Court at BHS, share fundamental characteristics. First and foremost, a youth court is a peer-based discipline program-i.e., youth determine the discipline consequences of their peers. In addition, the consequences must be restorative alternatives to the traditional form of discipline, such as suspension in schools or juvenile hall detention at the county level. For example, the alternative consequences often include components such as community service and restitution. Those courts with youth juries almost always include a component requiring the Respondent to serve on the jury of a future case. The vast majority of youth courts also require the Respondent to take responsibility for his or her actions by admitting guilt before appearing in front of the court (National Association of Youth Courts, 2008, Youth Court section, para. 2), which allows the court process to focus on the harm caused as well as the context in which the offense took place.
However, not all youth courts are structured like the Student Court. Some have a youth jury determine the consequence while others have a youth tribunal. For programs with youth juries, they range from having adult judges to youth judges to not having judges at all. Another distinction among courts is that some have youth lawyers whereas others do not.
The History of the Berkeley High Student Court
The Berkeley High Student Court was the brainchild of Miriam Rokeach-a former board member of the Berkeley Unified School District-and Annie Johnston-a teacher in the Community Partnership Academy (CPA), one of the small academies at BHS. Their vision included four key components: community involvement, student empowerment, staffing and support, and results.
Community Involvement
A key component of the Student Court is a Community Advisory Board (CAB), whose membership is comprised of teachers, school administrators, district administrators, and representatives from youth service and parent organizations. The CAB was crucial to helping launch the program. Four CAB members, including Rokeach and Johnston, wrote grants to help the program get off the ground. Shirley Issel, a member of the CAB and the Berkeley School Board, found a perfect trial location-the Berkeley City Council Chambers for the courtroom and an adjacent conference room for jury deliberation. Other CAB members assisted with finding community service locations and counseling locations in which to place Respondents.
The CAB has also been critical to sustaining the program. The members meet regularly to prepare grants, to discuss the program's status and growth, to offer honest feedback on the program's performance, to ensure that the program maintains its support within the District, and to assist the program in its outreach efforts to the communities outside of BHS.
Student Empowerment
In addition to the student-focused nature of the program itself, students played a fundamental role in the creation of the Student Court. In the year before the program began, Melissa Kujawski-a student teacher from California State University, San Francisco-worked with a group of students on designing a court. She provided the students with materials on other teen-based courts and guided their discussions and debates on the different aspects of a court. The final product was a report and presentation given to the Berkeley High School administration, which outlined the court's basic structure, philosophy, jurisdiction, and procedures.
The students justified the program on the grounds that (1) "a youth court offers an alternative method to solving altercations that happen on school grounds," (2) "[y]outh courts exist in many settings, like schools, youth justice systems, and boys and girls clubs," and (3) the "primary goal of these courts is to hold youth offenders accountable for their actions without pushing them further away from the educational system" (Youth Court Philosophy, 2005). Half of the class administered a student survey which demonstrated that "56% didn't think detention, suspension, and expulsion were effective methods of punishment, 66% think suspension can perpetuate problems in students' lives, and of the 36% [of students who] had been suspended, 76% thought the punishment was too harsh" (Youth Court Philosophy, 2005). The other half conducted a literature review which revealed that "[a]lternative forms of punishment are needed because there is a clear correlation between being suspended and dropping out of school altogether" (Youth Court Philosophy, 2005). The students also constructed the basic outline of the program, including the types of consequences, the roles for students and adults, the various trial procedures (e.g., objections, the prohibition against witnesses, and the ability to read letters) (Youth Court Structure, 2005), and the offense which the court was permitted to hear (Youth Court Offenses and Consequences, 2005).
Staffing and Support
In order to get the Student Court off the ground during its first year, many programmatic details needed to be filled in that were not covered in the student-created outline. There were the court logistics: the trial procedures needed to be completed and a referral process from the high school discipline office needed to be developed. Then there were the personnel challenges: judges needed to be recruited for the trials and students needed to be enrolled in the elective course that was to train them as advocates. Finally, there was the need for documentation: the program needed a syllabus to adequately train advocates on trial procedures, writing statements, and interviewing victims and Respondents.
Joshua Daniels, a UC Berkeley law student, took on this job during the first year for course credit. In addition to addressing the program's logistical, personnel, and documentation needs, he taught the BHS elective course in which the advocates were trained, he oversaw the trials, and he managed the caseload-i.e., he collected cases from the BHS discipline office and ensured that the Respondents fulfilled their assigned consequences. By the end of that first year, it became clear to Daniels that, especially when it came to the case management aspects of the program, the Student Court needed more resources and someone trained to work with Respondents throughout the process.
In order to address this problem for the second year, the Student Court expanded and brought on David Luu as Program Coordinator. Luu's primary responsibilities were to get cases from the BHS discipline office, ensure that the Respondents fulfilled the consequences, and oversee the program generally. (Daniels still trained the advocates and oversaw the trials.) With Luu on board, the Student Court improved its referral procedures as well as its case follow-up for the trials. In addition, Luu began to collect information on the experiences of Respondents, jurors, and parents who participated in the program as well as their attitudes regarding school discipline. This evaluative information allowed the Student Court to improve its work with Respondents, to better the juror experience, and to involve parents more, all of which offered more perspective on the true impact and potential of the Student Court at BHS.
Results
The Student Court's first year in operation was 2005-06. During the fall semester, Daniels administered just seven cases with 12 advocates and three judges (Berkey High Student Court Fall Semester Report, 2005). However, the program quickly expanded to 21 advocates, eight judges, and 18 cases in the spring semester (Berkeley High Student Court 2005-2006 Annual Report, 2006).
During the second year (with Luu on board), the Student Court flourished. Below are some facts and figures that demonstrate the year's successes (Berkeley High Student Court 2006-2007 Annual Report, 2007):
- 50 cases were referred to the Student Court, with 47 going to trial;
- Only three students did not fulfill the consequence assigned to them by the jury;
- 41 individual students were trained as advocates;
- 66 individual students served as jurors; and
- Respondents served 114 jury duties and 20 hours of community service.
There were also achievements in terms of the program's sustainability. In particular, the Student Court began to establish itself as a lasting program at BHS. Johnston and Rokeach secured grants that would provide annual funding, Luu solidified his position within BHS's administrative hierarchy, and Daniels created manuals for future law students to train the advocates and coordinate the trials.
The program is now in its third year and is on pace to have 60 cases, to train 25 new advocates, and to enter into a partnership with the Advocates for Youth Justice at the UC Berkeley School of Law.
An Evaluation of the Berkeley High Student Court
In its first seven semesters, the Student Court has achieved many successes and been stymied by many challenges. The three primary successes of the Student Court have been the reduction in suspensions, the empowerment of students, and the widespread school and community support. The first two successes were anticipated; after all, they are the underlying reasons for launching the program. The third success, however, was pleasantly surprising and turned out to be much more important to the program than was initially expected. Of the many challenges, the least expected was the difficulty of keeping Respondents involved in the process. Another challenge has been the Respondents' consequence completion rates. A third challenge is the difficulty in educating advocates about the restorative and social justice underpinnings of the Student Court. Lastly, the program has just begun to struggle with the challenge of having different law students run the advocate training program.
Successes
With the BHS suspension rate so high, particularly among African American males, any reduction is a move in the right direction. Every Respondent who appears before the Student Court is a suspension deferred and a student kept in school. With a completion rate of 77 percent, the program has avoided suspending 56 students in its first two years (Berkeley High Student Court 2006-2007 Annual Report, 2007). Moreover, anecdotal evidence suggests that after involvement in the Student Court process, Respondents are less likely to be suspended in the future.2
From its inception, the Student Court has strived to empower students. Students determined the program's basic design and presented it to the administration. At trials, students-as opposed to administrators-debate over and determine a Respondent's consequences; Respondents are given the chance to explain their actions to their peers, which creates a unique and honest dialogue among students. One tell-tale sign of the empowering effect the Student Court has on students is the way that the program allows students of all backgrounds, interests, and academic abilities to interact in a respectful manner. As one Respondent put it: "My advocate treated me with a lot respect and made me feel extremely comfortable-I really appreciated that" (Twelfth Grade Student, personal communication with David Luu, November 16, 2007).
The student experience in the program stands in sharp contrast with the rest of the student experience at BHS, in which students are told what to do by teachers and what not to do by administrators. Respondents, in particular, are offered a different experience. The Student Court gives them an opportunity to explain their actions to those who are most likely to understand-a jury of their peers. At the same time, this opportunity forces Respondents to hear the judgments of their peers, often a much more effective means of motivating students than administrators considering suspension. Furthermore, since every consequence also requires the Respondent to serve on a future jury, the program brings the Respondent's experience and judgment into the discipline process where no such perspective previously existed. It is also not uncommon for past Respondents to later become advocates in the program.
The Student Court's success was also due, in large part, to the support of the BHS administration and community. The school's acceptance of the program sent a positive message to the student body that the administration viewed the suspension rate as a problem. Moreover, given BHS's difficult and sometimes divisive politics, ensuring administration support was a necessity. On the other hand, the strength and breadth of community support was unanticipated. No one imagined that the community-parents, teachers, individual administrators, local youth services providers, etc.-would agree so strongly with the need for such a program. The members of the CAB came from many different communities and provided the program with a wealth of information and resources that it continues to rely on, especially when it comes to finding youth services like counseling programs and community service locations.
Challenges
The most surprising (but in retrospect, most obvious) challenge has been to keep Respondents involved in the process. Once the case has been referred to the Student Court, Luu often has a hard time locating the Respondent. In addition, the Respondents often fail to attend appointments with their advocates or even the trial itself. Those students who are most likely to be suspended (and thus those most likely to be referred to the Student Court) are also most likely to not be in class and to struggle with remembering appointments and being on time.
The most important challenge, which was expected, has been the Respondents' completion rates. Almost a quarter of Respondents do not complete their assigned consequences: some fail to attend subsequent trials in order to serve jury duty, others do not remember to show up at local community organizations to fulfill community service hours, and still others just give up and ask to be suspended. Our efforts to improve the failure rate are undermined by the lack of adequate and affordable resources available to youth. Funding cuts at the federal, state, and local levels have shrunk the quantity, quality, and variety of youth services. Therefore, even when there is a Respondent who is willing (and often eager) to see a counselor for anger management or for drug use, it is extremely difficult to find one. The program has struggled to find ways to improve the rate by making more efficient use of the program's community connections, the school's support services, and Luu's time on campus.
A third challenge facing the program is the difficulty in educating the advocates about the restorative and social justice underpinnings of the Student Court. This problem is best exemplified in the case of a Respondent who admitted to sexual harassment. The jury, based on the advocates' arguments, returned a consequence that included anger management even though the facts of the case and the Respondent's statements during the trial never indicated any difficulty with controlling anger. Although many factors led to the jury's decision, certainly one was the jury's poor understanding of the link between offense and consequence-anger management was not going to help the Respondent understand the harm he caused or keep him from repeating the offense.
A more recent challenge has been the difficulties faced with the transition of different law students to train the advocates. Many advocates stay in the class for more than one year, as the course is available for credit multiple semesters. With a change in law students, however, the teaching style and the training approach changes. The returning advocates often have a difficult time adjusting to the corresponding changes. The program has attempted to address this problem by preparing detailed training and trial manuals to ensure as much continuity as possible.
Conclusion
Although still in its infancy, the Berkeley High Student Court has begun to make a real difference in the lives of BHS students. As one Respondent stated, "I like that in the Student Court they help you a lot by being able to go [before a peer jury so] you don't get suspended and you can get an [alternative consequence]". Over the past seven semesters, it has gone from a basic outline to an integral part of the BHS discipline system and a transformative part of many students' lives. It is part of a nationwide movement that takes a new look at the issue of juvenile crime and discipline. As it continues to expand, the program hopes to encourage more student involvement by becoming jurors, to be more inclusive of parents, to provide better counseling and tutoring services for Respondents, and to help even more students avoid suspension and receive the support they need.
References
Berkeley High Student Court 2005-2006 Annual Report. (2006), 2.
Berkeley High Student Court 2006-2007 Annual Report. (2007), 3.
Berkeley High Student Court Fall Semester Report. (2005), 2.
National Association of Youth Courts. (2008). Facts and stats. Available at http://www.youthcourt.net/content/view/35/38.
Twelfth Grade Student (personal communication with David Luu, November 16, 2007).
Youth Court Offenses and Consequences. (Report to Berkeley High School Administration, 2005).
Youth Court Philosophy. (Report to Berkeley High School Administration, 2005).
Youth Court Structure. (Report to Berkeley High School Administration, 2005).
1The authors would like to thank all of the people and organizations that have made the Berkeley High Student Court such a success. The Berkeley High School administration, especially Vice Principal Alejandro Ramos, has welcomed the program and has allowed the Student Court to be an option for young people who are at risk. The school and community, through the Community Advisory Board, have provided valuable support and resources through a myriad of wonderful programs. In particular, Annie Johnston, Miriam Rokeach, and John True have been invaluable. Our sponsors, The Berkeley Community Fund, the Berkeley Public Education Foundation, Berkeley High School Development Group, the Mayor's Champions for Kids Fund, The Rex Foundation, the UC Chancellor's Fund, and the West Berkeley Foundation, among others, have generously provided us with the means to continue this important work.
2It has been difficult to establish a criterion to measure recidivism. For example, does one get the base recidivism rate from other students or from the Respondent's previous behavior? If the latter, how far in the future should the program look for a repeat offense and how far back in the past should the program look for a prior offense? Because the program only began collecting this type of information in 2006-07, accurate information on recidivism will not be available until the end of the 2007-08 academic year.