Mike Sadofsky (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 10:37:06 -0400
The question of posting the article in this forum is one
that I can't address. It is lengthy, written by someone
else, and already published in the Journal.
As to a matter of philosophy, I, for one, fail to see any
consequential conflict. At school, there is no interference
with individual activity. But off campus, where School
Meeting members interact with the public, there is a need to
be circumspect and aware of how the community may react.
The School Meeting that adopted this procedure discussed
this reality and did not find a conflict either. Much as
the school ensures that its facility conforms to fire and
similar safety codes so as to ensure its legal right to
occupy the premises, it is incumbent on the school to
present itself to the external world as an institution that
takes its legal responsibilities extremely seriously. This
is particularly important because the SVS model of learning,
child development, and operation are so different from the
generally accepted image of a school.
The School has always seen itself as part of the larger
community and has found ways to show itself as a proper and
legitimate institutional citizen. To defy conventional
concepts of safety and personal security, and to defy
external bodies on matters of law, are NOT what Sudbury
Valley School is about.
Marko Koskinen wrote:
> > The entire matter, including how the school went about
> > discussing and formulating this modification in policy, is
> > discussed in some detail in Volume 29, Number 4, March 2000
> > issue of the Sudbury Valley School Journal.
> Could that article be posted here. I would love to read it, becuase it
> is in my opinion in some conflict with the philosophy of the school.
> Marko Koskinen
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:31 EDT