Are you blushing now?
> If you have a diploma based solely on the
> amount of time spent at school (e.g., 3 years as a student in
> good standing), then what great sage determines the magical
> time it takes a student, at minimum, to get what the school
> has to offer?
Our Assembly decided. Nobody would disagree that there is a qualitative
difference between what the school can give them in a few days and what
it can give them in a few years. That's why many schools require a full
year of attendance upon admission.
The differences lie in answering the question precisely *what* does it
give them (and how much); the amount of time was arbitrary but generally
agreed upon, understandably.
> And where is it written that simply being a
> student in good standing is sufficient for that?
Again, that is a matter for individual Assemblies to decide. A
conventional school states, "we believe a regimen of academic courses,
grades and homework produce the type of students that our school can
endorse". Our former diploma procedures amounted to our Assembly
stating, "we believe that the methodology of full-time attendance in a
Sudbury model school *always* results in students that are attuned to
their inner voice, passions and motivations; in summary a person who is
heartily entitled to the school's endorsement."
> My intuition tells me it prefers an
> SVS/AVS diploma process over the Fairhaven process.
Just for the record, our (new) diploma procedures bear no significant
differences from the SVS procedures [hint: we had an assembly meeting
today :-) ].
> I don't perceive an equivalent sense of
> gravity in a diploma which is a token of one's attendance
That, then, would be where you and I differ. Based on my observations,
I see the gravity of a student living in a Sudbury environment for a few
years to be life-transforming and earth-shaking.
> As for those who argue that any sort of diploma is
> inconsistent with the Sudbury philosophy...yes, a diploma may
> be abitrary and evaluative, but I would ask whether the
> philosophical underpinning of democracy doesn't justify
> having a diploma process if a majority of the school wants
> one.
An interesting question. What if the majority wanted corporal
punishment, report cards and mandated group showers? Where is the line
between being a Sudbury model school, the core of which represents a set
of several basic beliefs about learning and culture, and simply being a
democratic school?
In my mind using the label "high-school dropout" as a stick to get
students to get up and perform in front of Assembly is inconsistent with
the ideals of the model. And while *no diploma* would be my second
choice, I think I agree with many who say the diploma is what we make
it. At least that's my intuition. :)
> My apologies for perpetuating the obfuscative confusion...
Sir, put your hands in the air and step away from the thesaurus!
Joe Jackson
Fairhaven School
===========
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom
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
"dsm-digest"
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST