FWIW, I wrote a fairly long piece on Sudbury schools here a year or two ago.

Bruce: questions: what are your thoughts on the equity issues here? It's a private system, yes? So can it be "scale-ready," to quote Duncan? Can it work for inner cities, etc?

What sorts of data, if any, exists to defend it against the inevitable detractors and skeptics?

Nice post - look forward to more.

Bruce - this is so well articulated, thank you.

How do we get people to challenge such deeply held assumptions in order that we can see change? In the main, we currently do not see the capacity for learning as a wholly individualistic and unique ability that each of us possesses and can develop using a potentially infinite combination of media, methods, content and approaches. So many of us have been taught to see "learning" as hierarchical - something that we give to someone who is lower down the pecking order than us, or something we are given by someone higher up.

Many conventional relationships that adults participate in appear to bear this theory out - I see a scary dependency on "experts" (academic, governmental, professional, medical, social), whose very existence relies on the perpetuation of such a dependency myth. So, is it possible for many (most?) people to challenge these assumptions, when their daily life appears to reinforce the principle belief that one's path in life is, to a greater degree, dictated by other people who are higher up the social chain?

I speak mainly in relation to the UK state education system, but the majority of parents (and adults in general) I speak to see the answer in more structure, control, discipline and conformity, rather than less. The concept of children as inherently lazy, stupid and ignorant prevails, and any suggestion that giving control of learning (back!) over to the individual is typically treated with scorn and mistrust. Children are viewed as pathological, rather than the system.

Despite their many disempowered experiences of a finite, meagre education and subsequent unsatisfactory or unfulfilling employment, those people still believe the answer is more schooling, not less. Unless people experience the joy of controlling their own destinies through lifelong, self-directed learning, they will always see the destinies of children as rightly in the hands of others.

To me, nothing is better to convince others than example. I'm truly excited about this concept actually being implemented, and I think in time the skeptics will be able to see the difference.

I really enjoyed listening to the young brother on the video talk about how he's adjusting himself to himself. He really hit it on the head and it's inspiring.

I'm currently teaching English in China. Maybe some of you know or have heard about the conformity I'm experiencing right now. If not, more so than Americans, Chinese are under pressure from parents to do well or what they're told in schools. I'm left with the effect of that in every class where students are just not interested. It's all just a misappropriation of energy which turns into resentment and/or apathy.

As you may have noticed by my excitability and broad comments, I'm new to the site and the cause. I look forward to learning more.

Thank you.

Lisa asks, "How do we get people to challenge such deeply held assumptions in order that we can see change?"

Will is absolutely on to something. The power of example is such that my own mantras in conveying the Sudbury essence to others are "results" and "front-row seat." Seeing how the prevailing system actually works, then seeing what Sudbury can do -- and I mean really seeing it, not just giving it a quick glance -- is far more powerful than any theoretical argument.

Another approach I've taken is to hold up the gap between the nice-sounding rhetoric of conventional schooling and its actual practices, then ask people if they see what I see. When I say this is a paradigm shift, that means it takes a real mental leap for people to see things anew. Such a leap occurs mainly as the result of some kind of stressful experience: in my case, it was becoming a teacher and seeing what the job actually entails. With many parents, it's seeing the effects of schools on their own children.

And yes, Lisa, it frustrates me to no end that we systematically disempower kids, then blame them for responding accordingly. When you treat students as incapable and immature, what other result can you expect? As a student of history, I have to say it's vaguely reminiscent of 19th-century characterizations of slaves as lazy and devious.

I'm looking forward to future posts, Bruce. This idea intrigues me and I have to admit that I don't know a lot about the Sudbury model.

What I'm wondering, though, is if instead of the model being maintained in current schools, which are private, it can be applied by public schools? I guess this is similar to Clay's question.

An idealist at heart, I love the way you've ended this post - the metaphor of starting all over again. However, there is a big part of me (the part that's been teaching for 11 years) that wonders if the world is ready for something so big... I mean, I know *I* am, but all those tax-payers? politicians? parents? They are the ones I worry will say, "No way." In the meantime, I make changes as best I can in my own classroom.

Which, by the way, reminds me: just because a school is not a Sudbury-model (or some other progressive model) school does not necessarily imply that it is "treat[ing] students as incapable and immature."  I think there are probably a great many schools and educators who do everything they can to empower the students they work with, even in the midst of "oppressive" conditions.

Bruce, When you say "can you imagine the schools where you live letting students decide what to learn (and when, and how), and letting them vote on rules, budgetary matters, and hiring/firing? Can you even imagine an entire school 'just saying no' to standardized testing?" I want to reply -- YES, I can imagine it.
I do think that many schools and educators are already doing this in part. Although I am not teaching in a public school, students in my classes have a tremendous amount of choice - they *do* vote on rules and many procedures for how things happen. Not budgets or hiring / firing, but their scope of influence is not as minimal as you might expect.  And many schools internationally already have said no to standardized testing altogether.  (I do think standardized testing has its place, btw, but not the way it's used in American education, which I suppose is your point.)
I wonder if there is a happy medium here -- a school that uses the Sudbury model as inspiration, but perhaps does not follow it to the letter. I am thinking in particular of my own high school experience, which was unique in that I attended a work-at-your-own pace school. Curriculum, yes. Classes, no.  (You can find out more about it via its Wikipedia entry or its website.)
I look forward to your posts which will address my questions / concerns.

Adrienne,

I agree that it's important to respect all efforts to improve schooling. Everyone has to start where they are, and choice is a hollow slogan unless each person can follow his or her own path. This is, in my humble opinion, the best possible "happy medium": complete, meaningful choice for all.

Speaking of which, my own take on democratizing education is simply that if some freedom is positive, then why not give students the whole package?

I welcome the concept of changing our K-12 education system. Yet I wonder if the concept of K-12 is part of the problem. Why do we have a system that supports the notion that every student needs to go to college? Why have we not realized that we need a vocational track as well? K-14 anyone? As a college administrator I see a system that attempts to funnel students towards a higher education that is not suited for them. Yet without a college degree these students are truly left behind. The two track model exists in many other countries. The choice is made pre-highschool. Students move down a vocational track and at the end of 14 years have the skills to earn a living. The other track is the university track. We are no longer an agricultural based economy. It is about time we created an education system that supported an industrial mentality as well as a university structure.

James raises an interesting point. As usual, I find myself wanting to take it further. Why just two tracks? Why tracks, period? Why, instead of gearing education to fit the non-schooling world  (i.e., what people actually need, do we continue bending people to fit the system?

This reminds me of yet another thing I like about Sudbury: it's as individualized and customized as a school could get. The only "track" that matters is formed by the subject matter each individual explores, dabbles, and delves into.

I agree that too many people go to college simply because, well, that's what people do after high school; and, of course, to get a credential, to increase their chances of getting a job after college. But why should "credential" be tantamount to "qualification"? Are you more interested in your mechanic's, plumber's, accountant's or lawyer's diplomas, or their demonstrated skill and integrity (and by "demonstrated" I also mean the reputation they've established)?