Marko Koskinen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 11 Apr 2000 23:30:30 +0300
Okay. Thank you Mike. I think I can settle with that. =) I guess that is
the most reasonable thing to do, even if it's not the most ideal one...
> As to a matter of philosophy, I, for one, fail to see any
> consequential conflict. At school, there is no interference
> with individual activity. But off campus, where School
> Meeting members interact with the public, there is a need to
> be circumspect and aware of how the community may react.
> The School Meeting that adopted this procedure discussed
> this reality and did not find a conflict either. Much as
> the school ensures that its facility conforms to fire and
> similar safety codes so as to ensure its legal right to
> occupy the premises, it is incumbent on the school to
> present itself to the external world as an institution that
> takes its legal responsibilities extremely seriously. This
> is particularly important because the SVS model of learning,
> child development, and operation are so different from the
> generally accepted image of a school.
> The School has always seen itself as part of the larger
> community and has found ways to show itself as a proper and
> legitimate institutional citizen. To defy conventional
> concepts of safety and personal security, and to defy
> external bodies on matters of law, are NOT what Sudbury
> Valley School is about.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Tue Sep 26 2000 - 14:58:31 EDT