>What more are you
> asking for?
I think Adeshir and I, correct me if I am wrong, are discussing the few on
the edge in order to see where the Sudbury policy goes if you push it to its
extreme. Just testing the limits. At least that is my take on it.
----- Original Message -----
From: A&A Mitter-Burke <email@example.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 31, 2001 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: DSM: The Sudbury model -- appropriate for all children, yesor
> Warren & Adeshir,
> As a parent of three students, I am a member of the Assembly of Sudbury
> Valley School and therefore get mailed to me a copy of each graduating
> student's written defense of the thesis that they have "taken
> for preparing him/herself to be an effective adult in the community at
> large". It is a fascinating exercise which I have witnessed close-up for
> three years now, and this year there were almost twenty who went for it (I
> think a relatively high number?).
> A typical thesis of someone who came to SVS as a teenager includes a
> description of their alienation wherever they were before and the
> they experienced at SVS. But a variation on that theme is the "brush with
> the law" theme, in which this person discovers that SVS is a highly
> rule-driven place where infractions bring you into confrontations with
> peers instead of arbitrary adult authority figures.
> And the justice meted out by these peers is tediously incremental,
> records are kept and compared with successive infractions, and involves
> extensive determination and discussion of the facts with one's peers.
> Non-arbitrary, non-adult, a rotating committee of one's peers, on which
> will eventually serve.
> Patterns of repeated infractions can snowball, over time, into a
> for a few days, or (my favorite) an "indefinite suspension" through which,
> as I understand it, not only (as with all suspensions) does the kid have
> do the leg work of arranging for both his parents to come to a suspension
> conference with a specially-appointed suspension committee (composed, I
> think, of a couple students and a staff member), in which the situation is
> thoroughly discussed...
> ...but then the student has to go back before the School Meeting and make
> presentation of why they should be let back in, upon which there is a
> A "no" vote (the exception, not the rule) at that point doesn't expel the
> kid, it just says, "We're not convinced that you're ready, go think about
> some more, and come back and try again."
> And several theses each year include tales of catharsis in which this very
> reasonable treatment gets through to the previously impenetrable kid who
> an "aha!" experience and things fundamentally change going forward. And
> once in a great while (have there been any this year?) they don't get it
> after several tries and are expelled as the result of some major
> My point is that it's *tediously* incremental, it's fact-driven, it's
> kid-driven, and it's rare that anyone gets expelled. What more are you
> asking for?
> -Alan Mitter-Burke
> If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
> firstname.lastname@example.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
> subject) of the message:
> unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
> If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too
> you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
> This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
email@example.com with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:29 EST