Mike Sadofsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 18:26:38 -0400
I guess the fundamental difference is that what we say to
the accrediting agency is the same thing we say in our
literature and the same thing we say to anyone we talk with,
whether a potential student, parent, staff, interested
inquirer, public official, attendee at a public
event,ubscriber to a listserver.... We do volunteer our
true position to the accreditating agency.
Your analogy doesn't quite fit. You are postulating someone
who selects a story to fit the audience, and changes the
story with the audience. I am confident that we have
avoided that, and will continue to do so.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com
> Behalf Of Joseph Moore
> Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 5:08 PM
> To: 'firstname.lastname@example.org'
> Subject: DSM: RE: RE: RE: religious school = more
> military like?
> Mike wrote:
> > 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
> > presence.
> > 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