Joseph Moore (email@example.com)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 14:07:57 -0700
> 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.
(being devil's advocate here...)
OK. So, let's say I'm running for a major public office. I can run as a
Republican, Democrat, Independent, or something else. Let's say that,
despite my fundamental irreconcilable differences with both major parties, I
decide to run as a Republican because it gives me an aura of respectability
and - especially - it allows me to raise funds with much greater success.
But I state to anyone who asks the right questions that I really don't agree
with the major premises of the Republicans, but, since I am a serious
candidate, I needed to go with the label in order not to turn off funding
Note that key among people to whom I don't volunteer my true political
stands are 1) Republicans, especially party officials, and 2) potential
donors. I won't exactly lie, I'll just spare them the parts they don't want
to hear anyway.
Hmmm. This seems, I don't know, kinda shady to me.
Why is accreditation any different?
> Joseph Moore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:56 EST