Re: Working for love.

Naomi Gold (
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 17:04:30 -0500 (EST)

It turns out to be based on a misunderstanding. The question was asked
whether staff at a new SVS-type school would be paid "wages," and someone

"Of course not. Traditionally, the first year staff at a Sudbury school
work for love..."

What seems to have been actually MEANT by this statement is that the
first-year staff, that is, the staff during the school's first year of
existence, was not paid. However, the sentence is not articulated
clearly, and I took it to mean that first year SVS staff are not paid.
(While I regret having expressed so much outrage about a nonexistent state
of affairs, I do think that the misinterpretation is understandable.)

Anyway, Mimsy, that's how the "idea" got started. I'm very glad to know
that it is not the case, and I thank you for clarifying the school's
actual practice.

On Thu, 2 Apr 1998, Msadofsky wrote:

> WHOA!!
> I don't know where anyone ever got the idea that SVS (which does no fund-
> raising, and never has) does not pay first year staff. It did not pay staff
> in the first year of the school (1968) and wages went up ever so slowly after
> that, but we certainly pay ALL staff now, and pay them as well as they would
> get paid in any private school anywhere.
> Mimsy