Resisting/Creating Change When $$$s are at Stake...
Joy Ridgway
influence the rate in which the Sudbury model is catching on in the
US. ("Hidden Assumptions." [http://www.sudval.com/essays/
082009.shtml])
In the essay, Alan says, "Why are the Sudbury schools not welcomed by
the educational establishment, and by the government that supports
them?"
What is your take on that question?
One of my concerns is with the following scenario-
The 'establishment' is currently a multi-billion dollar industry...a
bloated dinosaur...that is being pushed to expand every day as a
solution to the 'educational crisis.' The solution bandied about on
all levels is basically 'more of the same,' which translates into
creating more bureaucracy, more jobs, more regimentation for an army
of people who oversee kids that don't even want to be in the
school...all based upon fundamental assumptions that are outdated.
This translates into more and more people spending money to specialize
in becoming workers within this system...and then drawing salaries and
basing their livelihood on the continuance of this system.
In other words, these people now have a $$$ stake in keeping the
system going- it feeds their families, buys the Christmas presents and
provides for benefits, not to mention paying back school loans that
they took out in the first place to be able to work in the system.
Job security then becomes the holy grail for the fear-motivated...the
ones who internalized Industrial Revolution assumptions that told them
they were cogs in a machine who needed external experts to guide their
lives because their inner guidance could not be trusted to guide them
successfully into adulthood.
Why would these people welcome the Sudbury model if their financial
lives currently depended upon the establishment? Even if they did
open their minds to it...Danny said that one does not become an
effective citizen of a democracy overnight if one has been conditioned
by an autocratic one- it takes time/immersion/experience to learn
first how to be independent (replace Industrial assumptions with
freedom-based assumptions) and then also how to relate to others in a
way that respects their freedom in addition to one's own
(interdependence). That is a deep re-conditioning process that often
contains anxiety as one learns that it's ok to give up control and
embrace 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' So it's highly
unlikely that an 'old school- ha!' administrator or a teacher can
simply read a few SVS books and then land a job as a staff person at
an SVS school the next month.
When I think about this, I realize that I can't *fight* the
establishment...there's no such thing as *establishment*- it's
individuals with real needs/fears/concerns that are operating on
assumptions that in most cases, they have never even consciously
realized, never mind consciously questioned. The well-being of the
thousands of individuals who work in the educational industry is just
as important to the health of our country as the well-being of the
kids that we champion so whole-heartedly...
How does one maximize change with that in mind?
Are there any success stories out there of SVS supporters who have
successfully influenced the old guard? If so, how did you do it?
Or do you see it more as a 'waiting game'- waiting for the old
generation to pass away and the new generation to create education the
way it wants it to be?
Alan Morse
I live in a dirt-poor, rural area. At the time, taking care of a toddler, I'd taken a job in a nursery school running an "aftercare" program for older kids. It allowed me to be a parent and draw a check at the same time.
One of my co-workers had wonderful instincts and two kids approaching middle school. She moaned a great deal about her kids getting beaten down in the schools. She had/has a lot of sense, and I believe would have designed a school quite different from the one her sons attended, but...
At one point I realized there is a loophole in our state laws that would permit parents to remove in one swipe half the bs their kids put up with in the schools, while still keeping them enrolled there. It was a have-your-cake-and-eat-it-too solution which instantly allowed parents to opt out of testing and grades, and help kids take charge of their own education.
I went to this friend's house, all excited, and laid it out, fully expecting her to jump in with enthusiasm...but a look of panic crossed her face instead. Her mind shut down instantly and completely, and I felt I'd become an educational antichrist about to destroy the very fabric of her life.
I've seen that same reaction play out over and over as I've presented proposals to the school board for ways to do a better job with less money and more community involvement, and thereby save our rural primary schools from inevitable closure. I've seen the same look of panic from people who'd apparently rather ride their schools into a hole than contemplate change. When I've asked them to please help me by pointing out errors in my logic concerning budgets/education/demographics/long-term debt/etc, they first say they see no errors, and then their faces turn red and contort...and they insist we move on.
As the saying goes: "It's the most unhappy people who most fear change."
The fear is huge. There's a fear of being noticed and slapped down...a fear of challenging power and reaping the whirlwind. The fear ultimately translates into joining the powerful to suppress change, so our natural allies will die--and kill--to aid their oppressors.
---apm
Joseph Moore
As a matter of Darwinian survival, we are social animals - we only survive to reproduce in groups. Therefore, our most basic social instinct is to belong, first to our mothers, then to our family, and then, depending on circumstances, our tribe, our town, and so on.
What do we do if our mother, father, siblings, and so on, are cruel to us? Our choice, as a largely helpless child, is to fight back or - give in, and convince ourselves that, whatever happens, it's all for the best. While kids will often fight back a little, there really isn't a choice - you MUST belong. This integration is so complete, so buried in who we are, that change is all but impossible AND ANY behavior can be justified. I think of the Carthaginian women (to take one example out of an infinite sea of examples) whose babies were thrown, alive, into the fire - what did they think? Probably, this is the way of our people, we've done this for generations. In the back of their minds, maybe, they realized that to refuse is to be cast out (at best) to die alone.
In a world where shopkeepers willingly served at concentration camps, where Russian peasants willingly participated in the forced starvation of millions of other peasants, where moms hand over daughters for genital mutilation, and so on and tragically on, is it really surprising that people can say, on the one hand, boy, this schooling is awful! And, on the other, make their kids go, make them do the busywork, waste their evenings and poison their relationship doing homework? To do otherwise is, on a fundamental emotional level, to be alone. To be alone is to die, from a Darwinian perspective.
That's why supporting each other here and elsewhere is so important - on an emotional level, we need to be a part of some group to heal the wounds of being torn out from another. All the reasoning and evidence in the world will make no difference to people who fear rejection if they do anything about the evils of compulsory school.
Bottom line: when we say that modern schooling is INSANE, we're literally correct - reason, evidence, love of our children, none of these will matter in the face of crazy fear.
The million dollar question, one I've pondered for the last 20 years, is not why the world won't accept Sudbury, but how it is that anyone ever did? Miller talks of how key it is that a child have a sympathetic witness, someone who can say: you are not crazy, what is being done to you is wrong - some little voice that says things can be different. I would add, from my case, that being a part of communities that are not formed around schools - and these are few, by design, in the modern world - is key: family, church, whatever - people who don't care AT ALL about what your school experience is, since school figures NOT AT ALL in your membership in the group. Because then, you have a place to stand from which to challenge the school without fear of being rejected by the group.
Many of us here, without ever giving it a thought, are members of such groups, and so we assume others will hear the reasoning and see the evidence as we do. Ha. Think about how often office party or water-cooler discussions circle back around to school in one way or another. How, when kids meet a new kid, the first question is: what grade are you in? How jobs that have nothing to do with formal classroom education are still allocated to people with college degrees, as if college is going to make you a better claims adjuster or fireman or airline pilot. In that world, which is our world, the audience for a fair hearing for Sudbury is pretty damn small. We spend a lot of time finding that audience.
The good news: As we build larger and stronger communities of Sudbury people, we create our own group, which anyone can join - we provide a real option, emotionally, for those struggling with fear - be not afraid! Here we are, nice, sane people who love kids! For years now, when talking with parents, I've ALWAYS emphasized all the nice people involved, and the social events, and the nice kids - that has a chance to get through the fear. The bigger the group, the easier it is emotionally to join.
And we've been growing pretty steadily (we've got a waiting list! Imagine! And are close to getting a bigger building!), so, well, maybe it works.
Joseph Moore
DVS Parent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
The rules for the list are available at http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en
Sally Rosloff
Another factor that has been pointed out is privilege. My family is privileged in our society by being white and middle-class and perhaps it wasn't as "risky" to have my two kids unschool their high school years, including their decision not to get GEDs or to go to college. They have lots of support from us and their larger community and getting their first jobs may have been easier with that privilege. Those without it may not be willing to risk, at this point in history, their kids going an unconventional route when they may have a strike against them already. I know this is a lot of generalizing but I think there may be a kernel of truth here for why some people might reject Sudbury type schooling and/or think it inappropriate for it even to be offered. The whole issue seems at times to me both incredibly complex and amazingly simple.
Sally
Joseph Moore
- I agree with the money analysis offered earlier, but don't see how it applies to all those people who aren't feeding at that particular trough - most parents, for example. It's easy to see why people paid to do it support compulsory schools - harder to see why those who suffer under them still defend them to the death.
- Sudbury and politics don't map in any tidy way, and possibly in no coherent way at all. In my experience, people at first routinely assume that a Sudbury school could only arise out of people who share, more or less, their political convictions - so, when they meet an anarchist or an NRA member in the parking lot (we've had several of each at our school, and everything in between), they're surprised. You can approach Sudbury education as a radical individualist, an educational progressive, as a true and pure lover of democracy, a hater of all political structures - and in each case, you'll find something to love and something to hate in the model. It boils down to trusting kids and treating them like people - and that attitude seems, empirically, to be present and absent among people of every political stripe indifferently.
Anya
description of freedom and democracy should come first, as the basis
of a new person’s exposure to the school, or should it be later on as
the mechanics of how your kid will be put through an experience that
will make them a powerful person. Maybe it is the powerful person that
your kid will become that should be emphasized."
"Often it is the person who can roll all the underlying reasons down
into the nice little slogan who actually makes sense out of
everything. You might see quite clearly what it's all about, but can
you say it? Can you convince millions of people at the same time? Not
always. Often the difference between a great leader and a great
thinker is seizing emotion."
Michael Greenberg, The View from Inside
I am reading a book right now by Guy Kawasaki -- a man who was high up
at Apple -- called Enchantment. Although it is a business book, it has
great insight into people and what it is that causes them to form
lasting allegiences to products, ideas, etc. What is it? Emotion. Not
logic. Not a good and thoroughly factual argument. Although those, if
they are endorsed by a perceived expert do add -- but it basically
comes down to being "Enchanted" by an idea.
To enchant, you must understand what is important to the group you're
attempting to delight with your product (or educational model) and
then make a delightful connection between what you have and what they
want.
This sounds an awful lot like manipulation, doesnt it? From what I
have read, manipulation is something Sudbury strives to avoid (that
may be an understatement :) ). But the truth is there is a distinction
between enchantment and manipulation, albeit a fine one, and this book
explores that in great detail.
Personally, I think "Enchantment" might hold the answer, and I would
be interested to hear anyones thoughts on the relationship between
Sudbury and the concept of Enchantment, the circumstances where
enchantment shows up during the school day at Sudbury, how you feel
about the idea of enchantment and anyones thoughts on the differences
between Enchantment and manipulation. (Or the lack there of... :) )
Anya
Mike South
Two small thoughts:
- I agree with the money analysis offered earlier, but don't see how it applies to all those people who aren't feeding at that particular trough - most parents, for example. It's easy to see why people paid to do it support compulsory schools - harder to see why those who suffer under them still defend them to the death.
- Sudbury and politics don't map in any tidy way, and possibly in no coherent way at all. In my experience, people at first routinely assume that a Sudbury school could only arise out of people who share, more or less, their political convictions - so, when they meet an anarchist or an NRA member in the parking lot (we've had several of each at our school, and everything in between), they're surprised. You can approach Sudbury education as a radical individualist, an educational progressive, as a true and pure lover of democracy, a hater of all political structures - and in each case, you'll find something to love and something to hate in the model. It boils down to trusting kids and treating them like people - and that attitude seems, empirically, to be present and absent among people of every political stripe indifferently.
Karen Hyams
He's a good example of how movements are successfully propegated; as an individual he is completely clear on what his goals are and he can articulate them passionately and concisely. In order for another church to get his help, they have to embrace his methods and message completely. He will not compromise. In different terms, he's very top-down, dogmatic and authoritarian.
As Mike has, I've been a part of these conversations in the past and don't want to repeat myself, so I'm limiting my comments to this particular part of the problem.
Presumably, this guy's model isn't adaptable to the Sudbury schools movement. But I wonder how much overlap there really needs to be between the model as it is applied in the schools, and the larger organization of the schools themselves (such as it is). It makes sense to me that the people who are committed to democracy and individual choice in a very intimate, day-to-day way would not be interested in having a different kind of approach applied to spreading the word. And I think that is one of the biggest weakness when it comes to growing the schools.
The Tea Party talking points drive me crazy, but there is no doubt that they are a highly effective organization when it comes to making their point and mobilizing people to accept some fairly extreme ideas. We, the Sudbury people, suck at this. I wish I had a solution to the problem, but the reality is we'd probably have to do some things that are not appealing to us in order to make progress in prothelizing. And a lot of us probably don't even like that word.
Karen
--
Vegetarian recipes, meal plans and cooking tips:
http://thedailygrindchopandfry.com
Anya
are committed to democracy and individual choice in a very intimate,
day-to-day way would not be interested in having a different kind of
approach applied to spreading the word. And I think that is one of
the
biggest weakness when it comes to growing the schools.<
reality is we'd probably have to do some things that are not appealing
to us
in order to make progress in prothelizing. And a lot of us probably
don't
even like that word.<
personal exposure to students of the model over time is preferable. It
may be that Sudbury is building a foundation of support that has more
integrity and longevity than any attempt to convert people not
naturally predisposed to the processes and outcomes of the model.
Anya
Jim Whiteford
> To enchant, you must understand what is important to the group you're
> attempting to delight with your product (or educational model) and
> then make a delightful connection between what you have and what they
> want.
I haven't started the process of selling a school to customers yet - if we continue the sales language. I readily confess that sales is not my forté, and despite my own conviction for and enchantment with other ventures I have been involved with in the past, my ability to convert that energy into sales has been minimal. I can only hope that when the time comes, I have the help of someone likeminded who possesses those skills I lack. Nonetheless, (or perhaps because of that!) I do have a somewhat fatalistic view of this - in terms of the Sudbury model at least. In one of the books DG talks about marketing; all of the routes that were tried, analysis of what was successful and what wasn't. As I remember it, it was very hard to draw meaningful conclusions about target groups, numbers, conversion rates and so on - to use the language of sales speak. But I do remember there was a noticeable effect from advertising in a publication - whose name I forget - that was aimed specifically at mothers.
This says a lot to me. Mothers are often those in the conventional family unit we have who are attuned most to the emotional state of their children. So it is not surprising that a percentage of these will not only register their child's negative emotional status under the influence of traditional schooling, but will also question whether the values TS purports to instill are really so valuable, in comparison to the energised, happy, emboldened child they once knew and loved who has seemingly, gradually been mortified as TS wore on. These people have questions that the model can answer. Even then the school has to be sold as it were, but you're starting with people who have a genuine need for an answer. In that sense, you're not trying to change someone's beliefs. Though I personally think that every parent and child would prefer a Sudbury education if they could choose one, I am aware that 95% of the western world does not share that belief. It's going to take more than a cunning marketing plan, or Jobs-style enchantment (didn't he always say that he thought the key was to tell people what they want, rather than ask them and provide the solution?), to change their minds.
What I hold on to is the doubt that I perceive to lie in many parents' views of TS. That's the way in. If one can be enchanting about the model, then all the more success one will have with selling it, for sure. But there's another thing - many of the episodes that I read about in the books I found enchanting: Hanna's story of being out with a kid who wanted to pick a flower that "shouldn't" be picked. That was magical for me. I can understand how others would think it is a way of teaching vandalism, however much I might disagree. The whole plasticine story - for me that was pure wonder. But I'm sure for others it would turn their blood cold.
While writing this Karen sent a reply. Whereas political organisations (parties and, say, Unions) can be good at Organising (i.e. peoples' views), the result is often fairly hollow. It may appeal at a given time, but in retrospect many of those who supported it at first later regret it. They bought the advert, and later realised they'd been sold a dud. I simply don't think it's possible to convince people with an entirely different belief system that the Sudbury model of education is preferable to the traditional one. So what it boils down to, is to be able to reach a critical mass of people who make a long-term school sustainable. The more of those schools that exist, the stronger the model becomes, and the more chance the model eventually has of reaching people who might initially seem far away. I think a sudden surge of populist interest is never going to happen. Perhaps the question is more how do we find and talk to the people who are already asking the questions, rather than how do we convince the rest of the world that this is the way to go...
Joseph's is a very succinct description of the situation: Sudbury is not, as I see it, a political model - well of course it is, because it's essentially and thoroughly democratic. But what I mean is, in true democratic fashion, it appeals to all types of people, irrespective of their political colour. And otherwise it appeals to humanitarian values. For me these things help to validate and strengthen the model - the fact that it can't be set within a particular club or group speaks to its benefit.
dem...@att.net
I think your post has two questions. The first is more about marketing the school ("to millions"), and I see no useful purpose in avoiding "enchanting" perspective parents, educators, press members, politicians the way we've all been enchanted by the model.
The second is at school, and that one sounded closer to coersion. For the most part, unless a student has an unsupportive family at home, they don't have to be convinced of anything- and freedom sounds just fine.
Demian
Sent from my iPhone
Melissa Bradford
but I really like the book "Made to Stick" by Chip and Dan Heath. Here's an
article that summarizes their ideas.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/biztech/articles/070121/29eestickiness.htm
- Melissa
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Whiteford" <jw4...@gmail.com>
To: <discuss-su...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2011 3:50 PM
Subject: Re: [DSM] Resisting/Creating Change When $$$s are at Stake...
> To enchant, you must understand what is important to the group you're
> attempting to delight with your product (or educational model) and
> then make a delightful connection between what you have and what they
> want.
I haven't started the process of selling a school to customers yet - if we
continue the sales language. I readily confess that sales is not my fort�,
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Discuss Sudbury Model" group.
Discuss-sudbury-model is a publicly archived mailing list with many
subscribers; be careful about what you choose to send!
The rules for the list are available at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model/web/basic-rules-for-the-list
To post to this group, send email to
discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
discuss-sudbury-...@googlegroups.com
Others can subscribe at http://www.sudval.org/07_othe_02.html
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/discuss-sudbury-model?hl=en
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1392 / Virus Database: 1520/3868 - Release Date: 08/30/11
Karen Hyams
You are selling freedom and hope and an opportunity for a happier life. You can't do much (if anything) about people's beliefs, so don't even try.
I haven't started the process of selling a school to customers yet - if we continue the sales language. I readily confess that sales is not my forté, and despite my own conviction for and enchantment with other ventures I have been involved with in the past, my ability to convert that energy into sales has been minimal.
> To enchant, you must understand what is important to the group you're
> attempting to delight with your product (or educational model) and
> then make a delightful connection between what you have and what they
> want.
...These people have questions that the model can answer. Even then the school has to be sold as it were, but you're starting with people who have a genuine need for an answer. In that sense, you're not trying to change someone's beliefs.
Jesse Fisher
Excellent questions. Thanks.
Given the thoroughly entrenched nature of compulsion-based education,
I'm convinced that our only option is to:
Market freedom-based education in a way that causes people to abandon
the existing system with glee; find a way to make compulsion-based
education irrelevant in the educational marketplace. We have to
package it in such a way that parents would say, "I'd have to be
stupid NOT to send my child there."
Jesse
Anya
connections." I have read the book about being a teacher at Sudbury,
and although this language was not specifically used, it is obvious
that the teachers do their best to understand where each student is
coming from and connect with them in positive ways. "Conversation" is
the perfect example of a medium that depends on connection.
Connections between ideas, experiences, feelings, etc. To relate to
another often takes overlooking the ways in which you disagree and
focusing on the ways in which you agree. Again Michael Greenberg
recounts a conversation that he had with a young child who was
attempting to make a philosophical point about something by comparing
two things that were not parallel in many ways – from his point of
view. But instead of assuming the child did not have a clue, he asked,
what are the parallels you see? The child pointed out the parallels
and when Michael said, But I see these ways that your comparison is
not parallel-- the child responded that that was not the important
part.
I see many parents as being like the child in this story. They do not
have the ethical expertise that Sudbury people have, just as this
child lacked philosophical expertise and full understanding of things,
but also, like this child, that does not mean that on some level they
do not understand what they want – and it is my belief that freedom
yields more of what everyone wants -- people just don't know it.
>Perhaps the
question is more how do we find and talk to the people who are already
asking the questions, rather than how do we convince the rest of the
world
that this is the way to go...<
"converting" entrenched people? I also agree that it is mothers that
would be a natural group to connect with.
There are many who come here to this forum, for example, because they
are "hungry" -- they have seen something on the menu that attracts
them. They do not have to want to eat everything on the menu the first
time they connect with you -- they may just like the appetizer they
see. The restaurant will not turn them away because they only like one
thing. There is time. The restaurant will not form negative judgments
about the fact that most of the time they go to the restaurant down
the street that straps their children to a chair and force-feeds them
"healthy" food -- and the family claims to enjoy it! On the contrary,
it is helpful for the person running the restaurant to know what the
customer was attracted to on the menu. That might lead him to be able
to suggest a main course the person might genuinely enjoy. Not for the
purpose of coercing them into staying for a full meal, but for the
purpose of extending the delight of his customer. This may lead them
to come back -- maybe even buy the cookbooks that the restaurant sells
in the entrance.
If this forum, just as a small example, is viewed as an open door to
the public for the purposes of enchanting them, it would be unhelpful
to this purpose to use the adversarial language used in debate at
school meeting. It would be unhelpful to point out their prejudices
and hypocrisy. It would be advantageous to ask in one way or another
how they came to hear about the school and what about it interests
them. Or even to know what about it turns them off, try to understand
why and try to frame it differently to form some familiar connection
to them.
If the idea of going out of one's way to *genuinely* connect with
small *aspects* of peoples beliefs and desires with whom you feel no
natural or complete affinity for, and possibly feel are "wrong" for
certain of their beliefs or practices, then I guess this strategy
*would* feel disingenuous.
But if there is anything that the Sudbury community is not afraid to
be, it is genuine. It is one of the things I greatly admire about this
movement. And if enchanting seems disingenuous perhaps it is because
the thing that unifies your admirably diverse community is the
disenchantment of one kind or another that you all feel toward
mainstream educational models, and/or mainstream government. If this
is the case, you might consider connecting with others on the basis of
disenchantment. You might, for example, create an image of a student
learning in a hands on situation with the relational phrase (I do not
wish to use the word slogan) “We will never label your child ADHD –
Here we call it “active learning.” This is just one example off the
top of my head, but from doing some reading of your material I think
there is a goldmine of sensitive and insightful short quotations of
students who have gone to the school. In addition there is a goldmine
of quotes from famous people, people who may not define the complete
sudbury attitude and may demonstrate anti-sudbury qualities but whose
words you can be used to forge a connection between individual
disenchantment, a parental desire for the "success" of their child,
and a Sudbury education. Using the words of a famous person is
obviously not a guarantee of anything -- that does not matter --
because to the person making the connections it can *feel* like a kind
of guarantee. For example: "If I had learned education I would not
have had time to learn anything else."
--Cornelius Vanderbilt
There are plenty of magazines and groups that cater to the
disenchanted. But as my above example points out, you do not need to
go to those who are completely disenchanted in order to get your “foot
in the door” of their emotion on the subject of school. It would be
advantageous to the movement to view “advertisements” as appetizers –
emotional appetizers. And to view their relational campaign as a multi-
layered endeavor which leads a person from a delicious appetizer, to a
relational forum in which they are connected with and not judged, to
the bookstore, to enrollment. Because what you do relies on an
expertise unfamiliar to the mainstream, (an expertise in human
justice) it requires patience to bring people around. Expertise is, by
it's very nature, *exclusive* – it excludes those who have not had the
extensive experience or opportunity for exploration in a certain
field, on the basis of *skill* – but it does not exclude their
*humanity – their desires and their pain.* Understand that you may
have to sacrifice your urge to point out your superior mastery of the
practice of “human justice” in order to forge a bridge with others,
especially with those who have the money to pay your tuition – just as
Michael, in his description, allowed himself to “let go” of the
inconsistencies in the child's philosophical point in order to forge
an understanding between himself and the younger child.
And finally, all the various complexities of this issue fall away when
someone finds something that seems to address their greatest delight
or their greatest pain. I am willing to bet there are quite a few
parents who are willing to overlook aspects of the philosophy or
goings-on at the school that they do not agree with because their
greatest pain or their greatest hope has been largely alleviated or
fulfilled. Likewise, we can look all around us and find herculean
efforts to sustain the unsustainable all for the sake of the desires
of those doing the heavy lifting, or heavy spending. It is a
scientific fact that all the decisions we make are ultimately made
based on feeling – it has been shown that those whose emotional
centers have been compromised cannot make decisions at all.
So, to sum up, if the goal is to spread the movement, save adversarial
denouncements and the parsing out of distinctions of justice for the
governing of the school – or forums specifically designed for this
purpose. This forum mixes both interpersonal connection and the
parsing of concepts of justice – singly, they would both be useful and
helpful, together, the expertise in human justice potentially damages
the relational aspect of this forum – since pointing out to someone
without this expertise the ways in which they are demonstrating
prejudice or slander can begin to convert their initial positivity
into negativity – especially at it's fragile beginnings. To turn that
positive connection into a negative is a huge opportunity lost! I
noticed the teachers at this school often confine themselves to simply
answering the questions, what is this and what does it do? I see value
(and not a spec of dishonesty) in applying equal discipline to the
objective of having a forum that seeks solely to forge emotional
connections with outside persons through exploring the aspects of the
movement that address the greatest hopes and greatest pain of those
who come with interest. There are potential bridges everywhere and
your movement is honest and worthy and high-minded – in other words,
what you are “selling” does not require “cunning.” To build those
bridges, make a point to *genuinely* understand “their” greatest hopes
and “their” greatest pain – you might find more in common than you
think.
Joseph Moore
- I'm not and have never been staff, but it seems that it's a very tricky job, in that way that utterly simple things have of being tricky. The key, it seems, is treating kids like real, living human beings whose wants, needs and desires are every bit as real and valid as your own. Influence and teaching are a two-way street, just like with your adult friends, with the same 'rules of the road' - we adults tend to be very impatient with people who try to lead us around, or treat us as somehow inferior beings that need to be enlightened. Even the most subtle and best-intentioned attempts to 'seize the teaching moment' or otherwise impart our superior wisdom tend to be disastrous.
What's really interesting is that many people simply cannot see this - it's a sort of educational colorblindness. There's a right way to do it - their way - and OF COURSE they are respecting the kids.... That's why internships and staff elections are so critical.
- similarly, our relationships with adults, including especially the parents of students and prospective students, has got to be characterized by this fundamental respect. That doesn't mean we don't use discretion and tact, or that we pull any punches. My own experiences have no doubt colored my view - I spent maybe the first 5 years or so, after my own Sudbury 'conversion' experience, railing against the school system and the abuse our children suffer in it, the bullying, the insults, the sheer dazzling waste of their time - and people didn't care, I convinced no one, probably made a fool of myself more than once. So - I'm a little slow on the uptake - I switched, eventually, to talking about how happy my kids and the other kids in the school were, how nice it was to never fight over homework, how well out teenage children get along, and how well they are doing academically once they decided to do that sort of thing. BUT - key - have the kids around. Our biggest success for years now has been our open houses. We always have a good set of kids there, and ask them to give visitors a tour of the school (having a little kid proudly and articulately lead you around THEIR school - very nice, worth 10,000 words). Last few years, we've had a panel discussion with a couple kids and a couple parents taking questions from the audience - we often have to almost throw people out an hour after scheduled closing, people want to hang out and talk. Enrollment is way up, and the stress level among all the people involved is way down. (knock on wood - that can change in an instant...)
- finally, all the usual rules of marketing apply. Nice, tidy school (not easy with 40 kids ransacking the place, but the effort or lack of effort shows). Professionally friendly and presentable staff. Prompt, professional follow-up on all inquiries. It's good to have nice collaterals - web site, handouts, that sort of thing. Consistent outreach. Consistent messaging.
All this is a lot of work. We have an active Board of Trustees, which is made up chiefly of parents (of students and graduates) plus staff. We've been blessed with very good staff for the last several years, people who work hard at presenting a professional face to the public. (aside: running a school can be totally chaotic at times - it takes a special grace to be calm and cool on demand, like when people come in for interviews).
Anyway, thought I'd throw this real-world experience out there, as a data point in discussing how to spread the model.
-----Original Message-----
From: discuss-su...@googlegroups.com [mailto:discuss-su...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Anya
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 8:11 AM
To: Discuss Sudbury Model
Subject: [DSM] Re: Resisting/Creating Change When $$$s are at Stake...
"Enchantment" is really another word for "forging honest positive
connections." I have read the book about being a teacher at Sudbury,
and although this language was not specifically used, it is obvious
that the teachers do their best to understand where each student is
coming from and connect with them in positive ways. "Conversation" is
the perfect example of a medium that depends on connection.
Connections between ideas, experiences, feelings, etc. To relate to
another often takes overlooking the ways in which you disagree and
focusing on the ways in which you agree. Again Michael Greenberg
recounts a conversation that he had with a young child who was
attempting to make a philosophical point about something by comparing
two things that were not parallel in many ways - from his point of
view. But instead of assuming the child did not have a clue, he asked,
what are the parallels you see? The child pointed out the parallels
and when Michael said, But I see these ways that your comparison is
not parallel-- the child responded that that was not the important
part.
I see many parents as being like the child in this story. They do not
have the ethical expertise that Sudbury people have, just as this
child lacked philosophical expertise and full understanding of things,
but also, like this child, that does not mean that on some level they
do not understand what they want - and it is my belief that freedom
wish to use the word slogan) "We will never label your child ADHD -
Here we call it "active learning." This is just one example off the
top of my head, but from doing some reading of your material I think
there is a goldmine of sensitive and insightful short quotations of
students who have gone to the school. In addition there is a goldmine
of quotes from famous people, people who may not define the complete
sudbury attitude and may demonstrate anti-sudbury qualities but whose
words you can be used to forge a connection between individual
disenchantment, a parental desire for the "success" of their child,
and a Sudbury education. Using the words of a famous person is
obviously not a guarantee of anything -- that does not matter --
because to the person making the connections it can *feel* like a kind
of guarantee. For example: "If I had learned education I would not
have had time to learn anything else."
--Cornelius Vanderbilt
There are plenty of magazines and groups that cater to the
disenchanted. But as my above example points out, you do not need to
go to those who are completely disenchanted in order to get your "foot
in the door" of their emotion on the subject of school. It would be
advantageous to the movement to view "advertisements" as appetizers -
emotional appetizers. And to view their relational campaign as a multi-
layered endeavor which leads a person from a delicious appetizer, to a
relational forum in which they are connected with and not judged, to
the bookstore, to enrollment. Because what you do relies on an
expertise unfamiliar to the mainstream, (an expertise in human
justice) it requires patience to bring people around. Expertise is, by
it's very nature, *exclusive* - it excludes those who have not had the
extensive experience or opportunity for exploration in a certain
field, on the basis of *skill* - but it does not exclude their
*humanity - their desires and their pain.* Understand that you may
have to sacrifice your urge to point out your superior mastery of the
practice of "human justice" in order to forge a bridge with others,
especially with those who have the money to pay your tuition - just as
Michael, in his description, allowed himself to "let go" of the
inconsistencies in the child's philosophical point in order to forge
an understanding between himself and the younger child.
And finally, all the various complexities of this issue fall away when
someone finds something that seems to address their greatest delight
or their greatest pain. I am willing to bet there are quite a few
parents who are willing to overlook aspects of the philosophy or
goings-on at the school that they do not agree with because their
greatest pain or their greatest hope has been largely alleviated or
fulfilled. Likewise, we can look all around us and find herculean
efforts to sustain the unsustainable all for the sake of the desires
of those doing the heavy lifting, or heavy spending. It is a
scientific fact that all the decisions we make are ultimately made
based on feeling - it has been shown that those whose emotional
centers have been compromised cannot make decisions at all.
So, to sum up, if the goal is to spread the movement, save adversarial
denouncements and the parsing out of distinctions of justice for the
governing of the school - or forums specifically designed for this
purpose. This forum mixes both interpersonal connection and the
parsing of concepts of justice - singly, they would both be useful and
helpful, together, the expertise in human justice potentially damages
the relational aspect of this forum - since pointing out to someone
without this expertise the ways in which they are demonstrating
prejudice or slander can begin to convert their initial positivity
into negativity - especially at it's fragile beginnings. To turn that
positive connection into a negative is a huge opportunity lost! I
noticed the teachers at this school often confine themselves to simply
answering the questions, what is this and what does it do? I see value
(and not a spec of dishonesty) in applying equal discipline to the
objective of having a forum that seeks solely to forge emotional
connections with outside persons through exploring the aspects of the
movement that address the greatest hopes and greatest pain of those
who come with interest. There are potential bridges everywhere and
your movement is honest and worthy and high-minded - in other words,
what you are "selling" does not require "cunning." To build those
bridges, make a point to *genuinely* understand "their" greatest hopes
and "their" greatest pain - you might find more in common than you
think.
--
Anya
are perceived to be doing the exact opposite of what you care most
about is *hard*! In fact, it is the feeling itself of of desperation
to convert someone who is underming your own wonderful work that
crowds out your feelings of enchantment and ends up disempowering the
effort ( I know what feeling slow on the uptake is like :) ) Sharing
your personal enchantment is an answer. Luckily, if there is any group
of people who understands how and are adept at forging personal
connections, it is Sudbury people. To my mind, that is the very heart
of the model -- to allow the time and space for each kid to discover
her personal enchantment. The teachers stand as guardians and
nurturers of what, these days, can be a very fragile connection
between an individual and their sense of self. But once a person has
tasted life in connection with themselves their ability to connect
with others is unstoppable. This, it seems to me, is the very source
of the seemingly consistent ability of graduates to identify and seize
opportunities as they emerge in their lives -- the ability to
recognize and trust their personal enchantment. (I've been watching
the video segments on YouTube of some of the amazing journeys of
graduates -- awesome)
Anya
Amy Estersohn
I write this a) as an interested observer rather than a participant in the Sudbury model, and b) as somebody who skimmed through the responses without careful reading.
Here's a thought: organize an information session in your area- hold it at a library or a community center. Title the session something like, "does your child hate school?" Invite people who work at gifted programs, art programs, community service programs like City Year, homeschool networks to your session or fair and secure yourself a space to talk about Sudbury.
I understand how Sudbury is an all-or-nothing system from a prospective parent's point of view. Prospective parents need to believe in full freedom for their child, not just freedom after 3pm, otherwise the integrity of the school is compromised . However, it does not mean that Sudbury is the only model on which to educate a child, and I think school leaders would do well to let the merits of the system speak for themselves to a somewhat sympathetic audience.
Mesha
has strong people skills due to the two years he spent there.
When he returned to public school he came home excited to tell me
about all his teachers had prepared for him. Now a year later & he
still loves school.
I credit the Sudbury Model for that.
However we found no support from family & friends.They still ask about
that "crazy" school he went to.
I learned a strong lesson in $$$ controls from my years spent there.
It's interesting how these Sudbury Schools are just like little United
States governments.
You cannot run a school without money unless you have community
support and volunteer staff.
If you look at the Sudbury school in Utah, one of the few lucky to
recieve outside funds, that $ has made it possible for the school to
do well.
Yet like the United States government those whom have the money
control the out come.
So to keep the school truely each person one equal vote you almost
have to run on volunteers.
When staff are paid their motives might not be the right ones.
(Sudbury is not, as I see it, a political model - well of course it
Being a staff member made me pasionate about politics & made me
realize the school would be better off without $$$$.
Only then would it be thoroughly democratic like the others.
Mesha
On Sep 3, 7:19 am, Amy Estersohn <estersoh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I write this a) as an interested observer rather than a participant in the
> Sudbury model, and b) as somebody who skimmed through the responses without
> careful reading.
>
> Here's a thought: organize an information session in your area- hold it at a
> library or a community center. Title the session something like, "does your
> child hate school?" Invite people who work at gifted programs, art programs,
> community service programs like City Year, homeschool networks to your
> session or fair and secure yourself a space to talk about Sudbury.
>
> I understand how Sudbury is an all-or-nothing system from a prospective
> parent's point of view. Prospective parents need to believe in full freedom
> for their child, not just freedom after 3pm, otherwise the integrity of the
> school is compromised . However, it does not mean that Sudbury is the only
> model on which to educate a child, and I think school leaders would do well
> to let the merits of the system speak for themselves to a somewhat
> sympathetic audience.
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Karen Hyams
Schools that are able to pay staff seem to have more stability in both staff retention and staff effectiveness. Volunteers are wonderful and many schools could not survive without them, but they are more likely to burn out than people who are actually doing the job for a living.
Karen
So to keep the school truely each person one equal vote you almost
have to run on volunteers.
When staff are paid their motives might not be the right ones.
Mesha
Maria West
Samuel Parker
Karen Hyams
.....However my main concern is how do you keep all votes equal when one voter is financing the school therefore influencing the voters. I truly loved the school and believed that we were all equal. When I found out that wasn't true due to money it made me think the school would be better off or more true to the model if it didn't get the hand outs. The staff didn't stay long after they each found out they really weren't all equal, in fact totally powerless to the issues that would arise if the financial backing didn't agree with them.