Scott Gray (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:51:21 -0400 (EDT)
I'm not sure that everyone got this message... I am subscribed to this
list with two accounts, and it has come through on one but not the other.
I also am seeing a strange sendmail error on the host machine...
If you've already seen this message, please accept my apologies.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:09:43 -0400
From: Mike Sadofsky <email@example.com>
Subject: DSM: RE: RE: religious school = more military like?
In many minds, the question of whether or not to seek formal
accreditation appears to be the trade-of between the ability
to draw enrollment from the "larger" community vs
restricting one's "market" to those who buy into the
"alternative" philosophy. An ability to pay the bills goes
hand in hand with maintaining a functional and effective
At Sudbury Valley the debate continues. Fortunately, we
have thus far been able to deal with the accreditation body
WITHOUT "buying in" to their scheme. But clearly, we have
wanted to be able to say to parents (those who typically pay
enrollment fees), that even though we have a different take
on schooling and learning, we are legitimate. I suspect
every "alternative" has a similar view.
Joseph Moore wrote:
> In my question, I was thinking of 'accreditation'
> as a sort of short hand
> for the whole public school model - age-based
> grades, formal classes with a
> strict teacher-learner structure, de-emphasis on
> learning, big emphasis on
> conforming. Accreditation is a tool of the people
> that manage this model. It
> seems to me that seeking accreditation is in some
> sense buying into this
> whole scheme - am I wrong? (Aren't those Sudbury
> model schools that try to
> get accredited trying to 'beat the system' in
> some sense? Surely in the
> sense of casual public perception?)
> Anyway, looking at accreditation this way, I
> wonder why people who aren't
> supposedly aligned with the interests of the
> state - I was thinking
> religious people as an obvious example - would
> want their schools to conform
> to the state's model. Maybe it's one of those
> complicated historical things:
> the Quakers in Sharon's counter-example have
> always stood against the power
> of the state, so their schools are set up that
> way as well, while Catholics,
> as a bunch of immigrants outsiders in this
> country, wanted desperately to
> fit in, so that they become more structured than
> thou. Idle speculation now,
> but it would be interesting to know...
> (I wish I were succinct like Mimsy!)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:56 EST