Re: DSM: Sudbury Schools in an Urban setting


Bruce Smith (bsmith@coin.org)
Sun, 4 Feb 2001 09:22:44 -0700


>There was no closed campus policy. Therefore, there was no
>rule that prohibited the child to leave. He left, repeatedly. It made the
>school look bad to the authorities. The child broke no rule. It was an open
>campus to all ages, he left.

I have a very hard time believing that a student was suspended without
having broken a rule! That flies in the face of what we're all about.
Besides, your logic is flawed: just because there was no closed campus
policy, you cannot deduce that no rule was broken in this child's going off
campus. If you really have looked at the JC records (and as a non-School
Meeting member, I'm curious how you gained access to individuals' private
records), then you can tell us what specific rule(s) this child violated,
as well as the reason(s) School Meeting gave for suspending him.

If you "know of the facts," why don't you share a few? It would make
discussing this case a lot easier.

Bruce



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:33 EST