Autism teaching methods vs SVS model

[Dr. Evan Hughes]

Don,
After skimming your article (the one you presented, rather), I found the one common underlying difference between sudbury methods and the ones described in the article are the core goals. Classroom time in that model, is engineered towards specific skills, goals and outcomes. SVS does not engineer time with specifics in mind. That is not disrespect in any way shape or form to what those people are doing, it looks awesome. You need intensive work with people who wet themselves and can't control themselves on that level. And I see the relevance of the article, in the discussion of SVS principles; letting students unfold in their own process is a universal trait. It's applied at SVS and applied to this special needs school to powerful effect.
The hardest part of SVS is perhaps 1-allowing nature to go to work (which again, this article has demonstrated) and 2-Trust, that nature knows what it's doing.
#2 is a spectrum. How far do you trust it? How long do you let something go on? When is it time to step in and make a change? Why are you making that change?
I believe if you change an idea at it's core, you radically shape the outcome. The outcome of a school which seeks to teach specific things and manage the education of a student, will forever be profoundly different from SVS.
I am not commenting on your philosophy Don, because I don't actually know it. I'm sharing how the article hit me when I read it. Thanks for posting.

Evan

_____________________________________________________________
Find the right teaching school to meet your educational needs. Click to learn more.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3njBiItjArakPoB2GZWxu6cBVguRdh8Do2m6sH0zDVMW6HrB/?count=1234567890

[Rebecca Howarth]

I agree with a lot of what Evan mentioned. I'd also like to add an
additional comment. I think a lot of the extreme behavior that some people
associate with autism or other disabilities in fact comes about as a result
of mistreatment endured by these children. Most people have no idea about
the extent to which this kind of treatment happens. People frequently
regard disabled people with a contempt that most of us can hardly imagine.
Inhumane, cruel, abusive, unethical treatment is the norm in many
situations.

One perfect example is another school in Massachusetts, the Judge Rotenberg
Center. They advertise themselves as being a school that admits students
with the most extreme types of behaviors. And there's little doubt that the
behavior is extreme in many cases. But the Judge Rotenberg Center actually
employs electric shock "treatments" on its students, on top of a whole host
of other sadistic punishment/reward/shame/cruelty-based draconian tactics.
How much of the behavior is already there, and how much of it is brought on
by an unreasonable environment? I think if these kids were in a more
supportive and reasonable environment from the get-go, many of them would
behave very differently. I guess where I'm going with this is that the
presence or absence of a disability doesn't, in and of itself, provide any
reliable information about whether or not a student could or would take
responsibility for his/her own actions.

[Attitutor]

The horrors of the Rotenberg center are the polar opposite of Sudbury
schools. The extreme levels of control over both students and staff as
described in articles I have read about it are amazing (link to one of
them below).

The way that I understand how they could do such ghastly things to
children come from thinking about the philosophical foundations of
behavioral control. When you assume that all learning is effortful,
deliberate and avoidable then it only makes logical sense to apply
techniques that are proven to inspire effort, provoke deliberation and
can be managed in a totalitarian manner (thus becoming unavoidable.)
Thus the consistent repetition would naturally lead to ingrained
patterns that should persist. Of course, you have to be a pretty
extreme behaviorist to take it to the extent they do at Rotenberg,
because you also have to train your people to be pathologoically
immune to their own feelings of compassion and empathy.

Here is a short video (~20 minutes) that shows how such conditions
lead to evil outcomes:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html

In the video Philip Zimbardo, who conducted the famous Stanford Prison
Experiment, shows what he found in his research into how good people
can do bad things and how those conditions occurred in the Abu Gharib
case.

The alternative assumption is that learning is automatic, unconscious,
and unavoidable. That's what most people seem to mean by learning
being "natural." But, what some people forget is that it is still true
that learning specific academic skills can be effortful, deliberate
and avoidable. This creates an apparent paradox of exactly opposite
qualities being assigned to "learning" in everyday discussions. When
we invoke the "learning is natural" idea we tend to assign the
automatic, unconscious, and unavoidable qualities to all learning and
this causes those whose frame of reference is the learning of specific
academic skills to wince or simply dismiss our point of view as
insane. The opposite is also true. When someone invokes the necessity
of compulsion they are referencing experiences of their own efforts,
deliberation, and avoidance of the specific learning they were
expected to do in schools.

Thus, in my opinion everyone has it partly right, but the truth is
both/and not either/or. The true challenge is to discern when and
where we are facilitating learning in general versus when we are
facilitating the learning of specific knowledge, skills and
information. When we address learning in general we need to provide a
different kind of structure and process than when we are dealing with
specific learning objectives. The Sudbury style of community
organization is the best for developing a general attitude towards
learning, but more traditional forms are perfectly valid for the
instruction in specific academic skills. Of course, Sudbury take
advantage of both forms but as the autism spectrum disorders make
clear, some children do require a careful blend of both.

--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Blog: blog.Attitutor.com

Rotenberg Center article:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/school_of_shock_photo_essay_1.html

On Nov 3, 5:29 pm, "Rebecca Howarth" <rebeccahowa...@comcast.net>
wrote:

[David Rovner]

 

 

Something Daniel Greenberg wrote about people who have a specific disability or specific mental impairments that affect their drives:

"Why go to school?

 

For people who like to think through the important questions in life for themselves, Sudbury Valley stands as a challenge to the accepted answers.

 

Intellectual basics

 

The first phrase that pops into everyone's mind is: "We go to school to learn." That's the intellectual goal. It comes before all the others. So much so, that "getting an education" has come to mean "learning" -- a bit narrow, to be sure, but it gets the priorities clear.

 

Then why don't people learn more in schools today? Why all the complaints? Why the seemingly limitless expenditures just to tread water, let alone to progress?

 

The answer is embarrassingly simple. Schools today are institutions in which "learning" is taken to mean "being taught." You want people to learn? Teach them! You want them to learn more? Teach them more! And more! Work them harder. Drill them longer.

 

But learning is a process you do, not a process that is done to you! That is true of everyone. It's basic.

 

What makes people learn? Funny anyone should ask. Over two thousand years ago, Aristotle started his most important book with the universally accepted answer: "Human beings are naturally curious." Descartes put it slightly differently, also at the beginning of his major work: "I think, therefore I am." Learning, thinking, actively using your mind -- it's the essence of being human. It's natural.

 

More so even than the great drives -- hunger, thirst, sex. When you're engrossed in something -- the key word is "engrossed" -- you forget about all the other drives until they overwhelm you. Even rats do that, as was shown a long time ago.

 

Who would think of forcing people to eat, or drink, or have sex? *(Of course, I'm not talking about people who have a specific disability that affects their drives; nor is anything I am writing here about education meant to apply to people who have specific mental impairments, which may need to be dealt with in special, clinical ways.)* No one sticks people's faces in bowls of food, every hour on the hour, to be sure they'll eat; no one closets people with mates, eight periods a day, to make sure they'll couple......." 

 

[excerpt, Intellectual basics, Back to Basics, The Sudbury Valley School Experience, http://www.sudval.com/05_underlyingideas.html#09]

 

* emphasis mine

 

~ David

 

 

[Rebecca Howarth]

I'm getting the idea that people think there is some sort of axiomatic difference about disabled people.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  I realize that everyone has different needs in different situtations, but I just want to caution people about automatically assuming that disabled people, particularly those who are considered severely disabled, would have problems at a sudbury school.  I've seen those "clinical" ways that Daniel Greenberg speaks of, and believe me, it ain't pretty.  When he writes, "nor is anything I am writing here about education meant to apply to people who have specific mental impairments, which may need to be dealt with in special, clinical ways," my alarm bells go off.  Learning is obviously perfectly natural for disabled people too.  It's certainly been natural for people I've known who were considered "severely retarded" or "low-functioning" (whatever those things mean to . . . whoever they mean something to).  Somehow this is sounding more harsh than I'm intending, but I'm interested to have more discussion about people with disabilities attending sudbury school.

 

One resource that might be helpful is this blog, done by Dave Hingsberger, a disabled man who also works with other disabled people:

 

http://davehingsburger.blogspot.com/2008/04/names.html

 

Another resource is a blog by an autistic woman:

 

http://ballastexistenz.autistics.org/

 

her Youtube channel:

 

http://www.youtube.com/user/silentmiaow

----- Original Message -----

From: David Rovner

To: discuss-su...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, November 06, 2008 10:17 AM

Subject: [DSM] Autism teaching methods vs SVS model

[Bruce Smith]

In my experience, the baseline for making it at a Sudbury school comes down to whether one can function as an autonomous member of a community (i.e., without needing constant guidance/supervision). Accurate reading of social cues, impulse control, and a basic respect for others and their personal boundaries are all vital.

In other words, it's not about learning as such, but rather the capacity to uphold the norm of everyone pursuing their own interests.

And it's not as if there's a clear, black-and-white distinction between who can and can't meet this standard. Plenty of students find themselves on the bubble at some point, and it's whether they decide to coexist responsibly at school -- and then follow through on that choice -- that determines whether the school works for them, not the presence of some condition or character trait.

Bruce Smith
Alpine Valley School

On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:05 PM, Rebecca Howarth <rebecca...@comcast.net> wrote:

I'm getting the idea that people think there is some sort of axiomatic difference about disabled people.  Hopefully I'm wrong.  I realize that everyone has different needs in different situtations, but I just want to caution people about automatically assuming that disabled people, particularly those who are considered severely disabled, would have problems at a sudbury school. 

--

If I can stop one Heart from breaking
I shall not live in vain
If I can ease one Life the Aching
Or cool one Pain

Or help one fainting Robin
Unto his Nest again
I shall not live in Vain.

-- Emily Dickinson

[kathryn manz]

I recall a student at the Spring Valley School several years ago when I worked there who did not as Bruce pointed out "coexist responsibly at school -- and then follow through on that choice." As a result the rest of the community felt alienated from that child and in turn alienated him. In the end, I believe the parents decided that the school did not work for them although I must say they did cite his condition and character trait as a perceived barrier to his fulfillment. Notice I am saying the parents...from my perspective they hovered over the child too much and really didn't embrace the Sudbury philosophy so how could he? One the other hand, as a member of the adult community involved with the school and as a concerned parent, I was sometimes at a loss as to how to help facilitate his needs as he requested or indicated with the balance of the school philosophy. It was hard and I often felt that this child was falling fast through the cracks. I felt this often with disaffected teens too but somehow this child's situation was different. He wanted to explore and learn but he really needed some additional guidance and tools to interract. To be honest although I grew up with a mildly autistic and grand mal epileptic brother, I was seriously out of my element with some of the behaviors exhibited by this individual 20 years after my own experiences particularly since it was not a specialty I studied or encountered after my own brother died at age 17.  All I knew was - It really was not enough to leave him alone...that after all was the philosophy of the twisted sanitoriums for the mentally afflicted of the past...but how much intervention could or should we do at a SVS without proper guidance and training? Individuals with special needs have or should have those needs met. If the SVS community can help to facilitate that and everyone is comfortable with the arrangement, then perhaps a child can or will flourish in the environment but it is my observation that individuals with special needs might require additional boundaries not commonly existing in a Sudbury environment.
 
Kathryn Manz

---

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 07:18:25 -0700
From: cultural...@gmail.com
To: discuss-su...@googlegroups.com
Subject: [DSM] Re: Autism teaching methods vs SVS model

[Karen Hyams]

OK...."axiomatic"....assume to be true without immediate proof.  This is unfair.

At the Sudbury school where I was on staff, we had a fairly high number of kids with learning and developmental disabilities.  A fellow staff member was a registered nurse who had fostered and adopted a number of high-need children, and had a lot of experience with a wide range of disabilities.  Our comfort level with kids with the kinds of disabilities being discussed here was fairly high, and we gave a lot of kids who had a hard time fitting into regular school and wanted to avoid special ed or institutions a chance at a Sudbury school.

Many of the kids who tried DID have problems at a Sudbury school, and without a staff member with special clinical knowledge of their conditions would have not made it through visiting weeks.  Many didn't make it with the help.  As it was, I feel that the number of special-needs kids changed the atmosphere at the school in ways that were both positive and negative.  JC could be really challenging.  Potential students saw the school as being a place for special ed kids and did not enroll.  The culture was much richer and quirky for the huge diversity of the student body.  Truly funny things happened that made the community very tight-knit.

As for the benefit to the kids themselves, I agree with Kathryn's observations about the parents' heavy influence on the outcome.  We had parents who essentially saw their kids as broken and wouldn't allow them to heal, but even those kids had a nice space in their lives for the time they spent at the school.  Others, I think they might have needed to be in situations where they should have been developing specific skills to become independent, but I could be wrong.  I don't think we were equipped to help everyone, but maybe help isn't what they needed right then.

Karen

[Attitutor]

I think that all the stories I have heard about admissions policies
and practices suggests that many, if not most, democratic schools make
every effort to be inclusive by giving kids a chance to prove they can
handle the situation. Thus, the decisions are made on some evidence
and an awareness of the limited support that these schools have
available to meet kids needs. In fact, many schools do not explicitly
recognize the label of "disability" in the absence of evidence, at
least with respect to "learning disabilities."

--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Blog: blog.Attitutor.com

[Rebecca Howarth]

That's probably the most reasonable way of doing things.