Marko Koskinen (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 25 Mar 2001 15:06:53 -0500
> Yes! That difference is that a school either CHOSE to do it or someone MADE
> them do it.
> In SM schools you and I have repeatedly agreed that the choice to do
> consensus and mediation is already there, and I continue to tell you over
> and over that the only difference you can possibly be suggesting is the
> manner in which decision-making and rule-enforcing/conflict-resolution
> systems are *implemented*.
> Otherwise, if you intend to give your students a choice in the matter, what
> you are suggesting already exists in the SM school.
Aah... =) Now I see why we've been disagreeing... We'be been discussing
the different issues... We totally agree that what I've suggested can be
implemented in a Sudbury Model School, but what I've been trying to
discuss (probably not very clearly) is that why I would want our Sudbury
Model School to be run by the principles I've mentioned before. And all
this time you've thought that I would want to change the model. (?)
Well, it seems, I don't want to change the model. It seems pretty good
to me as it is.
So, what I want to discuss is what consequenses would my suggestions
- If there were no rules, what would happen? (would there inevitably
become rules, that were unwritten? how would the guidelines be
interpreted? would people see the guidelines as rules? do people need
- Would a mediation procedure be enough to run the school smoothly? (if
there were no rules, would people ignore the mediation procedure and be
- Would it be possible to make all decisions in consensus? (would there
be decision to be made that had a schedule that would force majority
- What would be the best way to deal with "problem children", if we
didn't want to kick them out? (would a rogerian, or whatever "therapy"
allowed? would the children approve it rather than leave the school?
would the parents approve it? what if the parents were the ones who
needed the therapy in the first place?)
One thing I possibly should specify. With mediation process I don't mean
that there wouldn't be any consequenses, but rather I mean that the
person who feels guilty, is the person who decides what is the best
consequence. And if the consequence isn't good enough in the opinion of
the person who felt being target of injustice, then the people involved
would talk about it and if they couldn't talk about it without help,
they could use the mediator's assistance (or anybody else's for that
matter). And the role of the mediator woulnd't be to solve the problem,
but rather to see that each member of the discussion is allowed equal
opportunity to speak.
Many people have already addressed these questions, but I would still
like to hear more opinions, because I'm still considering what I've
suggested the best alternative, but I do admit that I may be wrong. I
have a bad habbit of trusting people more than I should, and it's
possible that my ideas aren't possible yet in this world situation, but
I truely believe that some day they will be. I'm just hoping they might
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:22 EST