Joe Jackson wrote:
> ... In a Sudbury school,
> the School Meeting sets up a list of rules democratically in order to keep
> the culture from falling apart, and decides some method for seeing to it
> that individuals, regardless of whether they are staff or students, can't
> harm the culture by ignoring the standards the community they have chosen to
> be in have agreed to.
> If a student decides they cannot (or are not willing, depending on how you
> look at it) live by those standards, they cannot stay at the school.
> Whether or not that is best for the suspended student (I believe it *is*
> best for them) is irrelevent; the school cannot afford to have students on
> that always "get one more chance" unless everyone always "gets one more
> chance", and then you don't have a school (at least one my kids would want
> to go to).
I agree that giving "one more chance" is not productive. But
is expulsion any more productive?
I am sure there is an alternative to either of them.
> In the "adult" world (ha, ha), if one cannot or is not willing to live up to
> our laws, they are put on probation or behind bars or something like that.
> This is the more accurate analogy that I believe Ardeshir was looking for,
> and so the answer to her question is, the school is sending the message that
> you are responsible for living up to what the culture you choose to live in
> agrees to. That is "taking responsiblity for yourself" - satisfying an
> agreement you made when you decided to join a group of people. Integrity.
The answer of putting people behind bars is also not, I think,
something that is productive. How many people who have been
put behind bars, once they get out of prison, straighten out their
lives? I would venture to say, only a small minority. The majority
> This other idea, that there are students that "can't handle" the freedom of
> the school, is an idea that's been invented by a few people on this list
> within the past week (actually, I guess it's realistically been around for
> centuries - only "revived" on this list). Since the coop days before
> Fairhaven opened, I have seen nothing to even suggest that these students
> exist. And frankly, the very idea that these students exist only leads to
> justifying the further subjugation of children.
Here I agree.
> I realize that there are lots of people that would look at a student
> floundering or "hanging out" or "stagnating" at our schools and say, "that
> is not working", they "can't handle" freedom; this would be an incorrect
> interpretation. Perhaps the adult in question doesn't, as per puritan work
> ethic or something, approve of allowing a student to "stagnate; perhaps they
> have never seen a student allowed to "flounder" long enough to see the
> changes that follow extended "floundering": what kind of person the student
> becomes when given space.
> ... Then we move back to conversation 1A, which is based on the idea that
> Sudbury schools and conventional schools have ostensible differences in how
> they "deal with" students that can't take responsiblity for themselves. In
> the Sudbury school, the students and staff get together and decides what's
> OK and what's not, and if a student can't help but repeatedly do things that
> aren't "OK", they have to leave. Conventional schools set hard limits as
> well, but when a student repeatedly bumps into these limits the school
> diagnoses the child and attempts to do what is necessary to "cure" them
> (please chime in on this one, public school people).
Well, I would hardly put "cure" in quotes. We surely need to find a
way to integrate *all* people into a democracy. It is, IMO, hypocritical
and offensive to claim that democracy is not for everyone. Smacks of
fascism, to me.
> So my reaction to conversation 1A is that I believe that the schools that
> respond to students who are not willing to take responsibility for
> themselves by treating them as mental patients are not doing them a service.
> And that the Sudbury environment, which will not "engage" in that game with
> students who have not yet decided to look at themselves for their
> unwillingness to take responsibility is, in my experience, much more
> effective in leaving the student with no choice but to look inward for that
> unwillingness (or inability).
It might be instructive to know what happened to students who
were expelled from a Sudbury type of school. Did they get better,
or worse, at taking responsibility for themselves when they grew
In any case, consider the ideal situation: when *all* schools, every-
where, are of the Sudbury type. To which other school are we going
to expel such students, then?
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
email@example.com with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:29 EST