Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Another assessment of Booroobin

From: <>
Date: Sat May 17 00:54:01 2003

Dear Derek:
I think it would only be fair of Booroobin to warn those officials of the
untimely demise of the British officials who tried to do the same thing to
Summerhill. Everyone sharpen your pencils!

By the way, I don't think you answered me about whether Jeffrey Robinson,
Summerhill's brilliant lawyer, is from Australia.

Jerry Mintz
Alternative Education Resource Organization

In a message dated 5/16/03 7:36:12 PM,

<< Hi,

Our School Meeting recently decided to let our networks of friends know that
we had been advised and are being subjected to yet another "assessment".
This follows inspections and assessments in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2001. There
were 2 visits in each of those years. The process last time was so inept and
drawn out, that it cost us well over $AUD100,000 directly in fees, charges
and legal costs and further tens of thousands of dollars through write offs,
through the forced sale of the School campus. For a School that commenced in
1996, we had worked hard, most of us sacrificing wages for years, to build up
our beautiful campus, resources and staffing to satisfy Students' needs.
There were still residual debts arising out of that last action, but we have
managed. The first 6 months of this year were going to be hard enough
financially. It is our intention to claw our way back to ownership of our
campus, over the next 2 to 3 years, unless the State government acknowledges
responsibility for our losses, as they ought to.

Booroobin is only one of about 3 democratic Sudbury model Schools in the
world, which is either partially or fully government funded.

This assessment is being undertaken by the relatively new Non-State Schools
Accreditation Board. The Board is an agent and a component of new
legislation governing non-State Schools in Queensland, passed by Parliament
in late 2001. Booroobin objected to elements of the legislation, when it was
being considered and after it was tabled. The legislation gives the Board
lots of rights and few clear responsibilities, and expect all sorts of
responsibilities of independent Schools and gives few rights (above beyond
accountability to our Students, members, insurers, ASIC, etc). We believed
that we were a guinea pig, a test case, for the way the legislation might
work, when we last had assessors in 2001. We were told we weren't, but we
maintain that opinion.

The Board advised at the beginning of the last School holidays that it had
"information that indicated we may not be complying with the accreditation
criteria". It was therefore issuing a "Notice of Entry" giving authority for
assessors to come onto the School premises and do almost anything they like,
including asking for any documents and taking copies of them.

The Assessors attended the School pn April 30. They were polite, and asked
all the same questions that had been asked previously. At their request, we
gave them many of the same documents as previously, including those available
to the anyone to see and print that are available on our comprehensive web
site, along with new documents developed in line with our democratic, ever
improving, changing and evolving nature. We spoke with the benefit of more

We have written requesting details of the "information" and asking for
natural justice. When the Chairperson responded, the requested information
was not supplied and we were simply told to do what had been required of us.
A week after the Notice of Entry, Directors agreed that we would write a
strong letter to the Premier of Queensland, making a plea for some
understanding, and to leave us to implement our philosophy and principles,
without so much intrusive intervention. We have invited him to visit. There
has only been an interim reply. The School Meeting has decided to undertake
a Freedom of Information (FOI) search, as we have done previously, and this
has been lodged.

We can't afford another impact like the last. We considered refusing the
Notice of Entry, but decided to allow entry, and give the new Board the
benefit of the doubt. We realise and are critical that no reasonable grounds
have been given for what is essentially a fishing expedition. But we had no
money for a legal defence, and didn't want to invest energy in that
direction. Civil disobedience might have been one avenue.

We may need at least moral, and perhaps written support. The School's 5
Staff and older Students were strong and clear, and spoke individually from
their own personal experiences, but as if with one voice, about who we are
and what we do. The Students told the Assessors simply and clearly that they
were capable of doing anything they wanted to. Usually there has been mixed
impacts on Students. Not so this time. Those Students who know and
understand the issue, are brilliantly supportive, working alongside Staff as
equals. Something that the assessors and most Schools are unused to. If the
assessors can get the message that the democracy of Booroobin is about a
world view and the big picture for each Student rather than the narrow view
of mainstream Schools, then we might get through the assessors' report to the
Board, who makes a decision based on what they receive. Our recent 2 weeks
end of Term holidays were completely consumed getting prepared for this
assessment, just as in most previous years.

Regards, Derek

The Booroobin Sudbury School - a centre of learning

Ph +61 07 5499 9944 Fax +61 07 3251 0470

Homestay boarding accommodation

Ph +61 07 5499 9943 >>
Received on Sat May 17 2003 - 00:53:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:05 EDT