Mike Sadofsky (sadofsky@mediaone.net)
Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:28:10 -0500
Joe, I think you may have missed the same point I missed until a very
recent post of Marko's where he wrote:
>As I don't want any rules, I wouldn't want such a rule either... =) and
>I wouldn't want it to be in the guidelines either, I think this should
>be totally personal issue.
What I finally realize is that Marko is interested in an institution
(a school) without any rules, This is the dichotomy. I don't know
whether this is the anarchists dream or the anarchists nightmare, but
it is clearly some form of anarchy.
On reflection, I see a great deal of the TCS philosophy here, with
some unformed idea of trying to extend that to an institution.
I came to believe after a serious effort to discuss TCS with its core
proponents that even they have no feelings that they could ever
institutionalize their ideas. In fact, the idea of institutions
seems antithetical to them (except when it comes to their personal
sources of income). While there may be an opportunity to practice
what they espouse within the confines of the family unit or even with
several like minded families, I can't see any reality here in other
than a utopian world. I, for one, have lived too long to even think
about that as a possibility.
Regards,
Mike
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 09:23:57 -0500, Joe wrote:
>Yo Marko.
>
>> 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.
>
>What I write to you is in response to the fact that you said previously that
>you are against community norms. If you are reconsidering that then my
>points don't apply.
>
>> > 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.
>
>I can't speak for other people, but following your reasoning is not what I
>have a problem with. I have a problem with the premise that some of your
>ideas are based on, which is presumably that your solutions provide
>something to the school that doesn't already exist.
>
>You have suggested mediation as something that could be added, yet it's
>already there. You have suggested consensus, yet if it has not been used
>formally by many schools it certainly has been used informally, and could be
>used at any time if the students and staff thought it best.
>
>> I think that's a clear agenda, to teach democratic decision making.
>
>Since the word agenda speaks solely to *intent*, then I heartily disagree.
>IMO the intent students and staff have by choosing democracy is that a) the
>school has to be governed, and therefore b) democracy offers, by far, the
>best chance for the decisions of the institution to be in harmony with the
>freedom of individuals to make learning choices.
>
>> I believe that it's a common
>> agreement that Sudbury Model doesn't have an agenda
>
>I don't think so. Agenda of the model IMO include freedom, self-initiated
>learning and equality.
>
>> , 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".
>
>To suggest that democracy and freedom are are not at congruent ends is to
>suggest that governance is optional. It is not, and democracy (the
>definition of which does not exclude the representative republics necessary
>for governing large communities, John) is the system that gives equality and
>freedom the best chance of existing.
>
>The only people I have ever heard argue otherwise are folks that think they
>know what's better for people than the people do (but please believe me that
>I am not thinking of or accusing you when I say that).
>
>> 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.
>
>While these bodies define ion many ways what Sudbury Valley School is, I
>don't think those bodies will attempt to say what is or isn't a SM school.
>The only people that can say what they think is or isn't are individuals,
>and they can only say it for themselves.
>
>> 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.
>
>Moreover, my point to you a thousand times over, is that your suggestions
>already ARE included in the Sudbury Model to the extent that the model can
>choose them in thousands of big and little ways every day. The only
>possible difference in what you are suggesting can be in the way you
>implement your ideas.
>
>> So I guess that's the end of that discussion...
>
>OK, mano.
>
>Take it easy,
>
>Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:18 EST