Marko Koskinen (marko@vapaus.net)
Fri, 23 Mar 2001 23:53:30 -0500
I need to reply to my own message... =) I just wanted to say that I
didn't really mean it when I wrote that Sudbury Model isn't about
children's freedom and equality, of course it is, I must disagree with
myself... =) Maybe I should get some fresh air... =)
Marko
Marko Koskinen wrote:
>
> Joe wrote:
> > Am I concerned that the casual newcomer will read your list of norms and
> > assume that those are community norms encountered in the Sudbury model?
> > Yes. Do I think that your list of norms was designed to paint "norms" per
> > se in a negative light? Certainly. So do I think your biased list of norms
> > provides a reasonable premise on which to base a discussion of community
> > rulemaking? No way. For every silly norm you post I can post ten that you
> > and I rely on to survive and thrive.
>
> That's why I didn't say that people should fight against norms, but to
> fight against _irrational_ norms. I explained this more precisely in my
> previous post so I wont write about it more here.
>
> > But none of this means your conversations are out of place, it just means
> > that folks have to first agree with your premises and assertions about the
> > model as it exists now before they can even begin to consider your
> > alternatives, and I for one feel like I have questioned many of your
> > assertions about the model without hearing any responses from you. I know
> > you're probably busy up there, but I can't follow your "chain of deduction"
> > if the first link is broken...
>
> I'm sorry that you couldn't follow my reasoning but I've just felt that
> you've totally misunderstood what I've been saying and because some
> other people have also misunderstood I've tried to explain more rather
> that tell again and again "I think you've misunderstood here...". I just
> find it too frustrating. I'm also trying to figure out what's the best
> alternative for us in Finland and my mind keeps changing every now and
> then. That's why I think it's better not to argue very heavily against
> me but rather argue for the things that you think are better. I don't
> know if people have really much argued against me, but it feels like it.
>
> > > If so, I'm very puzzled that what people here (IYO)
> > > _should_ be discussing... And I still argue that what I've proposed all
> > > can be implemented in a Sudbury Model School without braking the
> > > underlying philosophy, unless people see democratic decision making and
> > > the JC as essential parts of a Sudbury Model School.
> >
> > Either:
> >
> > 1) you and I disagree as to what "democratic decision-making" means, OR
> >
> > 2) I *do* see democratic decision-making as an essential component of the
> > Sudbury Model.
> >
> > I see "democratic decision-making" loosely defined as a process in which the
> > majority makes decisions. Hopefully that majority is a unanimous majority,
> > but lack of unanimity does not exclude a decision-making process from being
> > described as democratic, in my view.
> >
> > How do you define "democratic decision-making"?
>
> Pretty much the same way as you do. I've just misunderstood the Sudbury
> Model. I haven't really thought that democratic decision making would be
> cruisal in it. Because if it is, I think that's a clear agenda, to teach
> democratic decision making. And because I believe that it's a common
> agreement that Sudbury Model doesn't have an agenda, then there's a
> conflict. I was kind of thinking that the idea of Sudbury Model was
> about equality and freedom of children. Well, it seems it isn't. I guess
> the homepage actually states it clearly: "an education at Sudbury Valley
> is also an education in hands-on democracy".
>
> But I guess we cannot really say what is a Sudbury Model school and what
> is not, because there is no such authority who can say that except maybe
> Sudbury Valley School Meeting or the Assembly. That's because the SM has
> the power to change the way the school operates. This is stated clearly
> in the by-laws of the Sudbury Valley School Inc. as follows:
> "...maintains a flexible structure which, while being free to adhere to
> valid traditional forms, will be also free to create new ones." (Article
> II, Purposes).
>
> If there is some higher power than the corporate by-laws, then I'd like
> to hear about that. And according to the by-laws, everything I've
> suggested, can be included in a Sudbury Model, or even in the Sudbury
> Valley School. So I guess that's the end of that discussion...
>
> A totally different question is wheter what I've suggested is rational
> or not.
>
> Marko
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:17 EST