DSM: RE: Examples of problem solving

Joe Jackson (shoeless@jazztbone.com)
Mon, 5 Mar 2001 23:37:59 -0500


All of the things you have described in this post can and do happen in
Sudbury Schools as they exist now.

I'm quite confused - what exactly is it you think should be changed?

Joe Jackson

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org]On Behalf Of Marko
> Koskinen
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2001 8:47 PM
> To: Sudbury Valley mailing list
> Subject: DSM: Examples of problem solving
> I think some examples are in order. I take some real-life situations
> from SVS as examples and see how they would be delt with in the system I
> described.
> Problem 1. X throws a snowball at Y after Y had asked him not to.
> Solution: Y goes to a PS and tells the story. PS then seeks X out and
> asks him if he feels he considers this incident something that he
> shouldn't have done. If X says he shouldn't have done it then the PS
> askes what X would like to do to fix the problem. X might come up with a
> solution that satisfies Y and the problem would be solved. If X couldn't
> come up with a satisfying solution, Y could bring the issue up again and
> X would be given another chance and probably the PS could ask wheter X
> would like to have some help in figuring out a better solution. If X
> would want help he could ask the PS or another PS to help him or he
> could ask Y to discuss with him about the issue in which case Y could
> ask PS to join them as a mediator/chair.
> If X didn't think he had done anything wrong, then the PS would gather
> both X and Y and let them decide wheter they would want some PS to be a
> mediator or not and if either one wanted to have a mediator, then they
> would have one, which would be chosen by the one willing to have one. If
> both wanted to have different mediators, they could both have one. And
> the negotiation would go on until it would be solved.
> The role of PS:s would be to see that each member involved in the
> problem, would be equally allowed to talk.
> Problem 2: Z didn't do the trash on her day.
> Solution: G finds this out and tells it to the PS, who then seeks Z out
> and asks if she thought she should've done this. If Z thought she
> should've then the PS asks what would she do to fix the problem. If the
> solution proposed satisfies G then the problem would be over. See above
> what would happen in other cases.
> Problem 3: C, H and T were roughhousing and this upset L.
> Solution: L would tell this to a PS who then would seek C, H and T out
> and ask them if what they'd done was something they shouldn't have done.
> Let's suppose they didn't think they did anything wrong. Then the PS
> would get all four (including L) together and all four could decide
> wheter they would want a PS in their problem solving group or not. If
> they did, all requested PSs would come. And once again, the discussion
> would go on until mutual agreement would be reached.
> I went throgh a number of actual JC cases and didn't find any that
> couldn't be handled this way.
> This kind of system would make many rules unnecessary and reduce
> unnecessary bureaucracy. As John stated the PSs would probably need some
> knowledge about problem solving, group processes and emotions.
> Marko

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:53 EST