Sudbury schools, and democracy
Shira Rocklin
Hi everyone,
I just read this blog post about Sudbury Schools, and their democratic
system. And while it seems like a huge step in a positive direction for
schooling, I had some niggling doubts about some of the conclusions the
author came to. I thought other's might like to read it too.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201006/freedom-bullying-how-school-can-be-moral-community
Basically, when the author wrote that a principle asking a student to
take off an offensive piece of clothing is a form of bullying or "might
equals right," and that democratic student government is different from
that, I was a bit lost. It seemed to me that it might be more 'just'
for the majority to run things that way, in a school which has its
limitations... but isn't organized government a sophisticated system of
bullying/coercion in order to keep the order?
Is there a very huge belief in democracy as the only valid form of
governance among Sudbury type schools? I'm wondering how an child who
believes in anarchy would like it there. I wonder if that child with
the offensive garment really learned anything, or just learned that
majority rules?
Thoughts?
And how this would be different in an unschooled family? If a child
wore a shirt with a swastika on it?
Shira
I just read this blog post about Sudbury Schools, and their democratic
system. And while it seems like a huge step in a positive direction for
schooling, I had some niggling doubts about some of the conclusions the
author came to. I thought other's might like to read it too.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/freedom-learn/201006/freedom-bullying-how-school-can-be-moral-community
Basically, when the author wrote that a principle asking a student to
take off an offensive piece of clothing is a form of bullying or "might
equals right," and that democratic student government is different from
that, I was a bit lost. It seemed to me that it might be more 'just'
for the majority to run things that way, in a school which has its
limitations... but isn't organized government a sophisticated system of
bullying/coercion in order to keep the order?
Is there a very huge belief in democracy as the only valid form of
governance among Sudbury type schools? I'm wondering how an child who
believes in anarchy would like it there. I wonder if that child with
the offensive garment really learned anything, or just learned that
majority rules?
Thoughts?
And how this would be different in an unschooled family? If a child
wore a shirt with a swastika on it?
Shira
Robin Bentley
First of all, I wish Peter Gray had a copyeditor. "Hammer and cycle"?
I've never seen a wheeled conveyance on the flag of the USSR. It's
"sickle." Geez.
unschooling (other than occasional curiosity on my part), I'll answer
this question.
Unschooling families aren't democracies, in terms of deciding on rules
and punishments and so on. At least none that I admire are.
Unschooling parents discuss and model and work with their kids to know
what's okay *in their family* (or community) and what is not.
Sometimes, majority "rules" but not always. Sometimes, the needs of
the youngest trump everyone else's, for instance. No one sits around
discussing whether the fussy baby needs to nurse *right now* or not
and then decide "no" <g>.
Because our family principles of sensitivity to others' feelings and
what we believe to be socially and philosophically okay in our
community (and the ongoing discussion of such things), my daughter
wouldn't even consider wearing such a shirt. She's neither hateful,
nor likely to do that kind of thing for shock value to get noticed. If
for some reason it even came up, you can be sure we would discuss what
wearing such a shirt would mean. If it got to the point that she
insisted on wearing it, she wouldn't be going out of the house in it.
Her freedom to wear that symbol (which *is* a universally-accepted
hate symbol and *is* used for that express purpose) stops when what
she says by wearing it impacts another person. That's a principle, not
a rule, though.
Not to mention that I still buy all her clothes (which she prefers),
and that shirt isn't on the list <g>.
Bottom line: Sudbury is still a school. A kinder, gentler school,
maybe. But not unschooling.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I've never seen a wheeled conveyance on the flag of the USSR. It's
"sickle." Geez.
>Since Sudbury Schools and what they do have little to no impact on our
> And how this would be different in an unschooled family? If a child
> wore a shirt with a swastika on it?
>
unschooling (other than occasional curiosity on my part), I'll answer
this question.
Unschooling families aren't democracies, in terms of deciding on rules
and punishments and so on. At least none that I admire are.
Unschooling parents discuss and model and work with their kids to know
what's okay *in their family* (or community) and what is not.
Sometimes, majority "rules" but not always. Sometimes, the needs of
the youngest trump everyone else's, for instance. No one sits around
discussing whether the fussy baby needs to nurse *right now* or not
and then decide "no" <g>.
Because our family principles of sensitivity to others' feelings and
what we believe to be socially and philosophically okay in our
community (and the ongoing discussion of such things), my daughter
wouldn't even consider wearing such a shirt. She's neither hateful,
nor likely to do that kind of thing for shock value to get noticed. If
for some reason it even came up, you can be sure we would discuss what
wearing such a shirt would mean. If it got to the point that she
insisted on wearing it, she wouldn't be going out of the house in it.
Her freedom to wear that symbol (which *is* a universally-accepted
hate symbol and *is* used for that express purpose) stops when what
she says by wearing it impacts another person. That's a principle, not
a rule, though.
Not to mention that I still buy all her clothes (which she prefers),
and that shirt isn't on the list <g>.
Bottom line: Sudbury is still a school. A kinder, gentler school,
maybe. But not unschooling.
Robin B.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Shira Rocklin
Thanks Robin. Its great to hear how it would look like in an
unschooling family... how these values can be passed down. What you
wrote sounded much more like what I aspire to. Thanks. Shira
unschooling family... how these values can be passed down. What you
wrote sounded much more like what I aspire to. Thanks. Shira
Robin Bentley
Ha, the copyeditor showed up to work! It's fixed now.
On Jun 8, 2010, at 10:48 AM, Robin Bentley wrote:
> First of all, I wish Peter Gray had a copyeditor. "Hammer and cycle"?
> I've never seen a wheeled conveyance on the flag of the USSR. It's
> "sickle." Geez.
Pam Sorooshian
On 6/8/2010 10:48 AM, Robin Bentley wrote:
tyranny of the majority problem. My understanding is that the students
make up the rules and then sit in judgment on transgressors. Where does
that leave the individual who doesn't agree with the rules that the
majority chose?
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Bottom line: Sudbury is still a school. A kinder, gentler school,I've wondered, occasionally, how the democratic schools avoid the
> maybe. But not unschooling.
tyranny of the majority problem. My understanding is that the students
make up the rules and then sit in judgment on transgressors. Where does
that leave the individual who doesn't agree with the rules that the
majority chose?
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lylaw
From: Pam Sorooshian
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Sudbury schools, and democracy
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:24 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [AlwaysLearning] Sudbury schools, and democracy
On 6/8/2010 10:48 AM, Robin Bentley wrote:
> Bottom line: Sudbury is still a school. A kinder, gentler school,
> maybe. But not unschooling.
I've wondered, occasionally, how the democratic schools avoid the
tyranny of the majority problem. My understanding is that the students
make up the rules and then sit in judgment on transgressors. Where does
that leave the individual who doesn't agree with the rules that the
majority chose?
>>
that was exactly my problem with democratic freeschools, and my son's problem in particular. in addition, having age peers sit in judgement/impose "consequences" was worse in many ways than adults handing down consequences, because it really seemed to violate the sense of "us vs. them" which, although really unhealthy, was, I felt, healthier than all against each other, in the context of school.
lyla
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sandra Dodd
-=-I've wondered, occasionally, how the democratic schools avoid the
tyranny of the majority problem. My understanding is that the students
make up the rules and then sit in judgment on transgressors. Where does
that leave the individual who doesn't agree with the rules that the
majority chose?-=-
It leaves him ripe for unschooling.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
tyranny of the majority problem. My understanding is that the students
make up the rules and then sit in judgment on transgressors. Where does
that leave the individual who doesn't agree with the rules that the
majority chose?-=-
It leaves him ripe for unschooling.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Pam Sorooshian wrote:
We do lose members over really big conflicts--same-sex marriage, for instance. Sometimes people who are really uncomfortable with the direction a meeting is going will just disappear.
But one thing we can't be accused of is voting, and letting a majority run roughshod over a minority.
I remember when I first got involved in Quakerism being shocked that anybody could believe there was anything _better_ than democracy--we've all learned how radical the notion of majority rule, by the people, was, when America was founded, and I never questioned that. And I don't know how consensus decision-making scales up from the relatively small groups I've seen it work well in. But whenever I read anything about a Sudbury-style school, they seem sort of smug about their democratic process, and I'd be more interested personally in a school that was thinking more critically about governance.
Not that I'd be very interested in any school.
Su, mom to Eric, 9; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com
> On 6/8/2010 10:48 AM, Robin Bentley wrote:This is always one of my concerns, too. I'm a Quaker, and we make decisions by a form of consensus that focuses on people deeply listening to each other (and God, if you believe in that--not all Quakers do) rather than arguing. We don't move forward until we have gotten to a place of agreement; sometimes this means it takes us a long time to make decisions, or that we can't act because we can't find unity. But when we do act, it's with the support of the whole group, generally, though there is also the option for a person to "stand aside" from a decision if she's not in unity with it but it becomes clear to her that the rest of the group is in unity. And sometimes people allow a decision to go forward even if they don't 100% agree with it, if they feel they've been really heard in their concerns. This happened in my local meeting over the last couple of years as we decided to stop renting and build our own building. One woman said in so many words that she was comfortable moving forward even though she personally didn't want to take on the building project, because she felt like we had really listened to her.
>> Bottom line: Sudbury is still a school. A kinder, gentler school,
>> maybe. But not unschooling.
> I've wondered, occasionally, how the democratic schools avoid the
> tyranny of the majority problem. My understanding is that the students
> make up the rules and then sit in judgment on transgressors. Where does
> that leave the individual who doesn't agree with the rules that the
> majority chose?
We do lose members over really big conflicts--same-sex marriage, for instance. Sometimes people who are really uncomfortable with the direction a meeting is going will just disappear.
But one thing we can't be accused of is voting, and letting a majority run roughshod over a minority.
I remember when I first got involved in Quakerism being shocked that anybody could believe there was anything _better_ than democracy--we've all learned how radical the notion of majority rule, by the people, was, when America was founded, and I never questioned that. And I don't know how consensus decision-making scales up from the relatively small groups I've seen it work well in. But whenever I read anything about a Sudbury-style school, they seem sort of smug about their democratic process, and I'd be more interested personally in a school that was thinking more critically about governance.
Not that I'd be very interested in any school.
Su, mom to Eric, 9; Carl, 6; Yehva, 2.5
tapeflags.blogspot.com