DSM: Disenstablishmentarianism, my #$&@

Joe Jackson (shoeless@erols.com)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:50:36 -0400


I don't even know what the hell that means or if it's really a word.

What I do know, is, that lying about what happens in your school is always
bad for the school in the PR arena, and I think all the SBM schools know
that - it just brings in yet more people who don't understand what they're
about to get involved with, and is a recipe for disaster. (enough people
don't listen when you tell the _truth_, much less lie)

You know what though, I don't even get why you think your analogy is shady.
Putting your personal convictions aside in order to expediate your rise to a
position where you can really help yourself or do some overall good and/or
choosing your battles is something you and I and every animal on this planet
with a cerebrum do every day (or so says MY collective subconscience).


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Sadofsky <sadofsky@mediaone.net>
To: discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org <discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org>
Date: Friday, July 16, 1999 6:48 PM
Subject: DSM: RE: RE: RE: RE: religious school = more military like?

>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: owner-discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org
>> [mailto:owner-discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org]On
>> Behalf Of Joseph Moore
>> Sent: Friday, July 16, 1999 5:08 PM
>> To: 'discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.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
>> sources.
>> 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