Marko Koskinen (marko@vapaus.net)
Sat, 24 Mar 2001 17:29:10 -0500
Joe wrote:
> 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.
I probably agree with you here. I really haven't made up my mind about
this issue yet... =)
> 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.
Yes, I agree. I don't have experience with other schools than SVS, so I
can't tell what are the practices in different schools. So I guess if
I've said that I disagree with the model, I should alter my position.
We're probably sticking with the model, but how we (I) would want to do
in that model is as follows in a nutshell:
- no rules (except possible by-laws that would be required by the
government)
- guidelines that aren't enforced
- problems solved on a personal level with a possible help from a
mediator
- mediators are chosen by the School Meeting
- School Meeting operates by consensus decision making
- Assembly would be the highest decision making forum and would probably
function democratically (???)
- School Meeting would make decision in all the matters that the
Assembly doesn't
- All students and staff members would be School Meeting Members
This is practically how I picture the school that I would want (now). I
am happy to change my position in any of these issues if I find the
reasoning good enough.
> 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.
Well, I guess we've discussed this alot and I still disagree. I consider
consensus decision making the best alternative if the goal is individual
freedom, but I also agree that it may not work in all situations, at
least I can imagine situations when it would be very hard to accomplish.
> 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).
I think I know what's best (or better) for many people but I also think
that there are no means for me to make them do those things. The best
way to influence people to do things that I consider best for them is to
act according to my beliefs myself and be a "role model" and to support
them so that they could think more clearly.
> 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.
I guess I agree.
> 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.
I'm not really sure if I can agree with you. If you agree that all the
aspects that I've mentioned above in the list are already implemented in
some Sudbury Schools, then I agree. If not, then I disagree, because I
think there's a big difference in doing something and having the
possibility to do something.
> > So I guess that's the end of that discussion...
>
> OK, mano.
Just to give room for other discussions... =)
> Take it easy,
Thanks, I'll try... =)
Marko
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:19 EST