The Spirit
of Ma’at Vol 1, No 10
Comparison
to Other Alternative Schools, and
Sudbury
Recommended Reading
The
following article was written by a founder of Fairhaven School, a Sudbury
school in Maryland.
by Romey Pittman
After
hearing a short explanation of our school's philosophy, many people
understandably try to link it with something already familiar to them. The most
frequently mentioned ''so-you're-sort-of-likes'' are listed below. We have
tried to be fair, but clear, in distinguishing ourselves from other
philosophies. However, all the subtleties of these educational models are not
laid out and comparisons are not made from every angle. We hope that the explanations
below serve to clarify what the Sudbury model is really about, and what it is
not.
A
MONTESSORI SCHOOL?
There are some ways in which the Sudbury model is similar to the Montessori
approach. Children in both settings are allowed more freedom to make decisions
about what interests them and how to pace themselves than in most other
schools. Both models also hold the basic assumption that children are naturally
curious and don't need to be forced to learn. But Montessori children may
choose only between the specific options presented by the teacher, not from the
full array of activities which life itself presents. Montessori educators
believe that all children learn according to specific patterns and sequences.
They base classroom activities on the model's assumptions about what is
''developmentally appropriate'' for each age group, and restrict access to
certain activities if earlier activities in the preplanned sequence have not
been completed. The Sudbury model makes no assumptions about how individual
children will learn at any age. There is no expectation that one learn
multiplication before negative numbers or how to draw a circle before a square.
Interest is the only criterion for engaging in any activity, and satisfaction
the only evaluation of success.
A
WALDORF SCHOOL?
Like Waldorf schools, Sudbury schools care about the whole child. We are not
only interested in academic success, but in the happiness and full human
potential of each individual. Like Waldorf schools, we do not push children to
read early, as traditional schools do. We both value play, ''deep'' (intensely
involved) play, in particular, as crucial to the development of children's
mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual selves, indeed as the fundamental
''work'' of children. We both respect the intuitive wisdom of children, and
take their world views and interests quite seriously. But the Sudbury model
espouses no particular path of spiritual or emotional growth. Rather than
listening to children in order to better guide them, we listen to them to
respond to their self-determined needs. Unlike Waldorf education, we have no
predetermined curriculum. We trust children to make their own mistakes, work
through their own problems, and come to their own solutions, with help, when it's
needed, but without the assumption that we know the best outcome. Waldorf
educators endeavor to move children, and society in general, in a particular
direction, and seek to set up an environment which fosters such social
transformation. By contrast, Sudbury schools seek to create an environment
where children can recognize and pursue their own agenda. Children and adults
together assess and modify the culture of the school through the School
Meeting. The democratic process in a Sudbury school can be loud and
contentious; it involves special interest groups politicking, voters making
judgments, defendants being sentenced. It is ''real'' and not necessarily
''enlightened'' (although always respectful). The Sudbury model simply aims to
give children access to the full complexity of life, and the curiosity,
confidence, and competence to participate in - and perhaps to change - society
according to their own interests, experience, knowledge, and goals.
A
PROGRESSIVE SCHOOL?
Sudbury schools believe, as progressive school reformers do, that traditional
schooling is not working. Both identify authoritarian teaching and
administration as problems, and seek to reduce the stresses students experience
in being coerced into learning and evaluated by ''objective'' testing. But the
Sudbury model also rejects the notion that the alternative to authoritarianism
is permissiveness - kind teachers giving kids second and third chances to shape
up, trying to prevent any unhappiness, and bending over backwards to ''make
learning fun,'' getting children to learn without them noticing they are
learning. When kids are treated permissively they do not learn personal
responsibility for their actions. Adults in progressive schools are still
retaining the authority to grant or deny that second chance, to step in to
resolve disputes, to establish the rules of conduct in their schools. There can
be an illusion of freedom or democratic decision-making in progressive school,
but if kids make poor decisions, adults always retain the power to step in and
solve the problem for them. In the context of learning, progressive schools
often try to have the curriculum follow students' interests. But the effect of
teaching to a child's interests is, as Daniel Greenberg has argued, like a
parent waiting for a child to open her mouth to speak before popping in the
medicine the parent wants to give her. Children who show an interest playing
Cowboys and Indians for a few hours, might be subject to six weeks worth of
projects about Native Americans, regardless of whether their interest is
sustained or not. The child administered medicine in such a manner may learn
never to open her mouth around a parent with a spoon; the student administered
education in such a manner may learn not to show interest, at least in school.
Learning something new can be hard work, and children are quite capable of hard
work - when they are working on something they want to do. When a student has a
serious interest, there is no stopping her, and ''making it fun'' is often an
intolerable distraction. When a student has an interest, we believe she should
be allowed to pursue it only as far as she feels necessary. She may return to
an important idea later, to deepen her interest, but forcing or manipulating
her to deepen it will only serve to lessen her curiosity and sense of
self-determination. Some progressive schools offer an array of courses, but do
not require attendance. Sudbury schools do not have standard offerings, because
learning to pursue one's own agenda can be challenging, sometimes painful,
sometimes boring. We think boredom is a valuable opportunity to make
discoveries about one's self. It is often easier to sit in classes, be
entertained (maybe not as well as TV entertains, but still better than
nothing), and avoid parental pressure, than it is to schedule one's own life,
wrestle with one's own questions, learn how to seek the answers, and master
one's own destiny.
HOMESCHOOLING? There is a particular philosophy
of homeschooling, often referred to as ''unschooling,'' which shares many
similarities with the Sudbury model. John Holt was its best known proponent,
and his writings have been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how
learning can happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to
learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject. Unschoolers
believe, as we do, that children are born curious about the world and eager to
succeed in life and that kids learn best through experience and experimentation
rather than by being told how and what to think. In the words of John Holt:
''Real learning is a process of discovery, and if we want it to happen, we must
create the kinds of conditions in which discoveries are made. . . They include
time, freedom, and a lack of pressure.'' But unschoolers, for the most part,
see the family environment as the best place for children to grow, while the
Sudbury model believes that, as the African proverb states, ''It takes a
village to raise a child.'' Children and parents have complex relationships and
interdependencies which make it harder for children to discover true
independence within the family. In the environment of a Sudbury school,
children face direct personal responsibility for their actions, without the
emotional baggage that family-based accountability can sometimes carry. In
addition, children are more able to develop some important social skills in a
democratic school - the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out
against inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group projects,
for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees him or herself as
ultimately responsible for the child's education, while at Sudbury schools,
that responsibility rests squarely with the child.
STUDENT
GOVERNMENTS IN TRADITIONAL SCHOOLS? Sudbury School Meetings are similar to student governments only
in that they are composed of students. But the School Meeting is a
participatory democracy, where every student and staff member has the option of
a direct vote in every decision made. Student governments are representative -
students are chosen to represent the larger student body. More importantly,
student governments are hardly ever given real power over substantive issues.
Elected positions serve primarily as symbols of status, popularity, and
''leadership potential'' for college admissions purposes. The School Meeting
decides who will be staff each year, how tuition will be spent, what each and
every rule of the school will be, and who will be suspended or expelled for
violation of those rules. Staff members are involved on an equal footing,
arguing their positions with gusto. But they are also equally bound to the
rules of the school. As a free majority, students experience real control over
their lives at school, and real consequences if they fail to meet the
responsibilities such control requires of them. That kind of government brings
a community identity and sense of individual empowerment no token school
government could hope to achieve.
Recommended
Reading List
The Sudbury
Valley School Experience, 3rd ed, 1992
A collection of essays discussing various aspects of the educational
philosphy underlying Sudbury Valley School, and vignettes illustrating its
atmosphere. An excellent introduction to the life and style of the school.
Free at
Last: the Sudbury Valley School, by Daniel Greenberg, 2nd ed. 1991 The spirit and flavor of daily life at SVS
come alive in this book, written in a light, anecdotal style.
Kingdom
of Childhood, edited by Mimsy Sadofsky and Daniel Greenberg, from interviews by
Hanna Greenberg, 1994 A remarkable
series of vivid personal recollections of life at Sudbury Valley, as recalled
by former students.
A New
Look at Schools, by Daniel Greenberg, 1988
A socio-cultural analysis of education in its historical setting. SVS is
discussed in the context of the type of schooling appropriate to
post-industrial societies.
Legacy
of Trust: Life After the Sudbury Valley School Experience, by Daniel Greenberg
and Mimsy Sadofsky, 1992 What has become
of children who attended Sudbury Valley School as they pursue their lives as
adults? Based on a comprehensive study.
A full
publication list can be obtained by writing The Sudbury Valley School, 2 Winch
Street, Framingham, MA 01701, or calling 508-877-3030, fax 508-788-0674. Visits
also can be arranged.