DSM: RE: Simple solution

Joe Jackson (shoeless@jazztbone.com)
Tue, 5 Dec 2000 00:00:17 -0500

My apologies, but everything I have heard you say about the further
evolution of the model can only be implemented by taking power out of the
hands of students. That they have not already done anything you have
suggested is the will of their school meeting, so to implement anything you
have said is to tell school meeting they don't know what they're doing: THIS
is the further evolution of the model, now stand still while robert and the
rest of us force it down your throat.

Sorry, but that's not the kind of school I want.

> Please inform students that the institution, Sudbury, may now be
> brought up
> on charges in the JC.

Have the legislative members bring the legislature up on charges of poor
legislating to be heard by the judiciary? I briefly admire the bit of
poetry here, but in terms of a substantive proposal, I have heard nothin
sillier. Anyone could make changes through school meeting anytime they want
to, and to make these changes to the school through any other means amounts
to circumventing SM (and once again, taking the power out of the hands of
the student). Just... no.

> The suggested charge is this: Sudbury has not yet completed its
> evolution as
> a transport for youth into adulthood.

Well, first there has to be a rule to charge against, so SM must first make
a rule that says "The School shall at all times be, in the view of each
member of School Meeting and/or Joe Jackson and Robert Swanson (since the
charge is our suggestion), fully evolved as a transport for youth into
adulthood". It must then immediately write itself up: since the state of
evolution of the school as a transport is determined by the judgement and
guided by the vision of a DEMOCRATIC BODY, it almost by definition CANNOT
meet the expectations of each individual (as well as the expectations of you
and I...).

> Students &/or staff who make the charge must answer and defend what would
> make the Sudbus a better transport.

I would say that only full SM or an expressly elected representative can
defend the school in this vital capacity.

If full SM were defending, of course there'd be nobody left to charge,
cross-examine, or serve on JC. The only way to do this would be to ignore
the structures of the school in order to make the point and stage the
exercise (and yet again, taking the power out of the hands of the student).

Possibly a fun and enlightening exercise, as well as a hearty, well-meaning
abuse of JC and a spirited stomp on the head of student volition and

> If a corporation is needed to make the
> change, then the accusers are responsible for this as well.

Students starting a school corporation to explore ways to make the school
better is the only ethical (and meaningful) idea I have read in this post so
far. No offense - this is actually something I wouldn't have a problem with
happening in my kids' school.

> What is this a solution to? It is a solution to my admonitions that the
> development of Sudbury as an educational/developmental milieu
> should not be
> hindered by any status quo influence of the given culture. Maybe all that
> needs to happen is to open a door.
> Now students really can feel as though they have the freedom and power to
> control their destiny.

Now that we have proposed a solution to YOUR admonitions, STUDENTS have
freedom and power? Gee whiz dude.

Everything I read here translates to: "A bunch of people learning what I
want (e.g. 'further development of the model as an educational/developmental
milieu unhindered by cultural status quo') is more important than learning
what THEY want (e.g. ??????? ???????????????? freeze tag ????????? ????
????????? horse ?????? ???????? Wawa ????? aaaaggghhhhhh! ??????? ??????????
??? ??? Esperanto ?????? ??????? SMMOOOOTTCH! ??? ??? ??????? ?? ? D&D! RPG!
D&D! RPG! D&D! RPG! ??????? ?? ????)."

Do you refute this?


Joe Jackson

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:09:45 EST