Re: DSM: about Sudbury model


Eduardo Cortina (cortinae@juno.com)
Sat, 24 Mar 2001 12:14:55 -0500


Could you clarify what TCS is??
On Sat, 24 Mar 2001 11:28:10 -0500 Mike Sadofsky <sadofsky@mediaone.net>
writes:
> 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