Todd Robinson (email@example.com)
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 00:18 -0800
>From what I can tell, from your input at least, my questions about institutionalized biases are resolved by the fact that democratic control of the school (via the School Meeting and other means) helps ensure that biases are created democratically and can therefore be changed democractically as the voters feel it is appropriate. To use your example, if the adults founding the school wanted all buildings to be environmentally-friendly, they would start things off this way; then, for future buildings once the school is running, they could argue their case in meetings, but the rest of the group would have to agree and support this, in which case it would be written into the by-laws or equivalent thereof. This sounds very appropriate to the mission of the school.
Thanks for your input into this discussion -- I hope others will also have things to say. Our interactions have brought some additional questions to my mind in regards to how school-related activities are determined to be within the students' realm of decision making or not, what the particular democractic and parliamentary procedures are for meetings, when a staff member should intervene to help a student (I just read an interview with your wife where she addressed this a bit), etc. However, I believe that I will wait on these questions until I get further into exploring Clearwater School here in Seattle and the Sudbury concept in general.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 27 2000 - 14:28:15 EST