Re: DSM: Interest increasing?


The Highland School (highland@ruralnet.org)
Fri, 5 Jan 2001 19:10:27 -0500


I've hesitated to reply to the question of Sudbury Model Schools versus a
collection of democratic schools because I can see the strength of your
argument that having something to point to (SVS for 32 yrs) helps.
However, democracy is a process not just a model. The philosophy behind
democracy values each unique individual and each individual's self-created
path is important. When any group of people get together to start a
democratic school the process they experience is unique to them. Yes,
there are commonalities and I think sharing those is extremely valuable -
but the process of interacting between the specific people in their
specific environment is critical to the formation of their own unique
community. Democracy is a daily face-to-face process. No amount of
predetermined structure can guarantee its outcome.
Also, I think we should beware of names such as Waldorf or Montessori. It
may be harder not to have the name recognition, but teaching people about
democracy and the rights of individual kids can be part of the process.
Candy Landvoigt

----------
> From: Joe Jackson <shoeless@jazztbone.com>
> To: discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org
> Subject: RE: DSM: Interest increasing?
> Date: Friday, January 05, 2001 6:01 PM
>
>
> > My preference is to use the term "democratic schools", as this covers a
> > broader range of schools. The key point for me is that the
> > participants have
> > full authority to run the school. The Highland School (which I helped
to
> > found in 1981) is one school which does not use the Sudbury
> > "label" because
> > we started the school before we had heard about SVS.
> >
> > ~Alan Klein
>
> I have no debate with that, and I don't begrudge schools who are in the
> noble business of giving students real control over their schooling.
>
> However I would ask, is Summerhill then not a democratic school insofar
as
> the students don't have full authority to run the school?
>
> -Joe
>
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Connie Shaw <ordinary_person@email.msn.com>
> > >
> > > 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 - 11:15:53 EST