Connie Shaw (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 09:29:30 -0700
> I believe that structures such as School Meeting and JC are not
> part of the model, and in a Sudbury Model school, the participants DO
> what structures to use...
> I'm interested, since the only real constants of the model is that the
> students and staff see to the day-to-day governance, and that learning is
> student-led (two concepts you are in harmony with), why aren't you
> a Sudbury School?
By this definition, we are a Sudbury school. I was taking care not to use
that label, because my previous interactions with staff at a Sudbury school
I visited, and with a founders group in California led me to believe that
the model included the forms of governance.
So, my question now is, is it helpful to use the label? I'd be interested to
hear what people on this list have to say about this. In talking to people
about the Living School, I find that when I mention Sudbury, very few people
have heard of it. For those that have, it does offer a good reference point
for what we're about. For those who haven't, there is the possibility that
they will look at the SVS website and learn more.
Does anyone know why the schools that Joe mentions that apparently *are*
Sudbury schools by his definition (New School and Tutorial School), choose
not to use the label?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:15:46 EST