DSM: independent schools

sandra murphy (smurphy@win.bright.net)
Tue, 26 May 1998 13:24:52 -0500 (CDT)

>"snip" I could just start my own SVS school, under the
>auspices of the housing authority or a local church or independently.
"snip"

Sara,

I have a big problem with the idea of any SVS model school being under the
auspices of anything but the students and parents, and most _especially_
not a church. Someone else recently posted a message about trying to get a
foundering school begun in the SVS mode under the umbrella of some minister
or church.

Wow, is anybody else as bothered as I am about the thought of ANY religious
organization having ANYthing to do with ANY SVS type school?? To me, that
would be like having a school under the auspices of a political party.
There would be a "party line", "dogma", what have you, in any case,
regardless of how much anyone tried to convince themselves that the
positions of the organization would not be part of the school. I don't
believe that is possible.

As well, what happens when a student or parent speaks up at school meeting
with an opinion or idea that is 180 out from the beliefs of the
organization? Can you even imagine a student in a church "sponsored" school
delving into the history of religion and freely espousing atheistic views?

And then there is the Big "M": Money. Where does the money come from, and
if it comes from the congregation and/or some diocese-type level, for
example, what happens if the church is "pro life" and a student wants to do
an internship at a clinic that performs abortions??? Can you just see it?
"Oh sure, yah, no problem - go for it and learn a lot!" There is no such
thing as free money.

It comes down to this: if funding comes from tuition, then independence can
be a reality. If funding comes from any other source, whether it be the
state, feds, community at large, church, Loyal Order of the Leprechauns, or
anyone else, freedom and independence are permanently compromised. Having
an SVS model school under the "auspices" of ANY organization is, to me,
antithetical.