The documentary I linked to goes into the issue of "kids being able to handle freedom" quite effectively. It's so worth a watch.

You're quite right: the older students are when they encounter Sudbury, the more issues they tend to have adapting. They have more things to unlearn, more bad habits and attitudes. To the extent that children's natural curiosity is suppressed (ironically, in the name of nurturing, curriculum, etc.), they lose touch with their instinctual ways (and love) of learning. That's got to warp people at least a little.

Freedom's hard. Figuring out what to do with your days is far more challenging than being given things to do, being entertained/distracted. Yet in my experience, there are very few students who can't handle "[this] kind of freedom." Those who can't pick up on social cues, and those with poor impulse control, will have a much harder time of it, for sure. In most cases, though, it comes down to whether or not a person is ready/willing to take responsibility for their actions. Without responsibility, there can be no freedom.

Joe, it's so interesting that you use the term "detox." So does the Sudbury student (at 4.00) in the video clip I introduced Bruce's first post with here.

He literally said he had to spend his first year of freedom doing "nothing" in order to detox. Then he started mastering computer game coding in his second year. You really should give it a watch. I think you'd love it.

And I'm with you, by the way, on looking forward to more from Bruce.

Thanks, Joe. It's very gratifying to have this forum to share my Sudbury experience.

Having taught in a public high school for five years, your comment resonates deeply with me. My experience was that schooliness is an inherent aspect of the system. "Disingenuous" is a nice way of putting it. Schooliness is the manifestation of an almost Orwellian mindset that denies the realities of how people learn, as well as the dignity of students and teachers. It warps people and their relations with each other.

That said, I wouldn't worry about losing your soul over it. As long as you're questioning rather than rationalizing, you'll be fine. If you believe students are full-fledged human beings who deserve better, well, that's exactly the place to start.

Let's not just be in awe, folks. Let's not worry that things like Sudbury are too good to be true. They are true, and they need our support!

I have to confess my ignorance regarding EdVisions. As for Montessori, my understanding is that Sudbury has even fewer expectations about what kids should be doing at certain ages. We don't group kids by ages, not even three-year groupings, and we don't believe in a hierarchy of activities (meaning some things, like academics, are considered inherently better for students to be doing).

Similarly, I wouldn't use the word "progressive" to describe Sudbury schools. Again, in my mind that term denotes schools that have agendas for students, that deliberately attempt to direct their learning "for their own good." In contrast, Sudbury is about as agenda-free as a school could get. We expect every student to be respectful and responsible community members, and we trust that in that kind of environment they will thrive. How they do so, though, is up to them.

If you're interested, here's an article (Ok, So You're Sort of Like") comparing and contrasting Sudbury with other models. Written by a former Sudbury staff member, we've circulated it among ourselves for some years.

http://www.fairhavenschool.com/broadband/Articles.html

A couple of thoughts... After Bruce's first post on Sudbury, I looked through several Sudbury school websites and found one with a Q&A section. There was a question expressing concern about what happens when a student does not receive a good, broad base of skills to which the answer was, they'll pick up later what they really need. Well... maybe. But as a parent and an educator, that really doesn't cut it for me. Especially as an urban educator. I just can't imagine this type of school effectively educating children from impoverished homes who do not have adults at home to help them learn to read or to learn necessary pre-math skills.

As a Montessorian, I must say that while we do have expectations about what kids CAN (not should) do/learn at certain ages (high ones, much higher than traditional educators), we do not believe that academics are inherently better for students than non-academic activities. Practical Life is an entire subject within the Montessori curriculum from ages 3 to 19. Social, democratic, and ethical development of children is also intrinsic in a Montessori education.

One point I strongly agree with Bruce is that ed reform does not need any more rhetoric or etherial verbage. Reform must begin with proven, solid models. There is certainly a lot to be learned from Sudbury schools, but I'm not sure they could be duplicated authentically with success in every neighborhood.

Jennifer,

To say that “a student [might] not receive a good, broad base of skills” at a Sudbury School means that you do not consider “social, democratic, and ethical development,” which is the central “lesson” of democratic schools like Sudbury, to be adequately good or broad enough to form a complete basis for other forms of development. You further “can't imagine” how a Sudbury school will “help them learn to read or to learn necessary pre-math skills.”

First, I assert that “social, democratic, and ethical development” forms the foundation upon which all academic and vocational skills are built, therefore those skills ARE a good, broad base. Sudbury, along with the hundreds of other Democratic Schools around the world (including the Village Free School where I am a volunteer), effectively provides an environment where the kids know on a non-verbal pre-conscious level that they are intimately interdependent with everyone else in their learning community. So part of the problem of imagining how this kind of school helps kids learn one specific skill that you arbitrarily deem to be crucial to future survival (like reading or pre-math skills) is that you do not know what it's like to be intimately interdependent with everyone else in a learning community.

By making “social, democratic, and ethical development” the central organizing principle of these learning communities means that when a group of people within that community learn a  valuable skill then the dynamics of intimate interdependence kick in and that skill will tend to diffuse through out the community. That includes reading skills, math skills, practical living skills and many others. Thus your fear is well founded, if the school was entirely made up of impoverished young children who did not have any meaningful sources for learning skills then, left to their own devices, it would be downright stupid to expect them to learn much. But Albany Free School, for instance, has been operating for about forty years in an urban environment in New York and their students appear to do fine in the world. Democratic schools are made up of a rich variety of people, some of them are impoverished others are not. No one is left to their own devices, they are all supported to pursue their own goals and aspirations within the community (including the wider community beyond the school).

I whole heartedly agree with your conclusion. No model “could be duplicated authentically with success in every neighborhood.” That's universally true of Montessori, Waldorf, Sudbury, Summerhill, KIPP, and every other school model that can or could exist. It sure would be nice if the “reformers” would enable communities to take their choice amongst the proven models, including Sudbury and other democratic school models.

For further explorations of differences between Democratic and Mainstream Schooling please visit my web site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/democratic-schooling.html
--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem

Don,

Actually, I didn't say that a student wouldn't receive a broad base of skills at a Sudbury school. The Question in the Sudbury school website Q and A said something to that effect. And the school's Answer agreed that, in fact, many students wouldn't, but replied that would be OK. Their words, not mine. What I said was that that doesn't cut it for me, personally.

Regarding "social, democratic, and ethical development" in school, I applaud it. I was responding to Carl's question and Bruce's answer about how Sudbury compared with Montessori. I stated that Montessori also develops these values.

It's great that the private school you are involved with is diverse, Don, but there are thousands and thousands of public schools that are not. I've taught in them. I've advocated for students in them. So I guess my concern (not fear, as I certainly do not "fear" the Sudbury method. In fact I think many aspects of it are swell) is well-founded.

It's not that I "don't know what it's like to be intimately interdependent with a learning community", as you suggest. I have experienced this on many occassions, both as a student and a teacher.

No, my concern as an educator and a parent regards the lack of a curriculum. It's a philosophical difference, I know, but one to which I am certainly entitled, don't you think?

Marcy asked a question about languages. Let's say a student decides they're interested in learning Mandarin. Is there an adult at the school that can facilitate this learning? Probably not, as there is no Mandarin curriculum. Other schools have Spanish, French, Latin, and Mandarin teachers who are native speakers on staff.

Or, let's take a young child who may have a love of and inclination towards algebra, but has never been exposed to it. How does that child approach an adult or older student in the school on her own and ask for a demonstration or information about a binomial cube (for example) if they haven't been exposed to it, as they are with the Montessori curriculum?

Now, I don't disagree that much of the traditional school curriculum is forgotten, unused, and unnecessary. And I certainly believe it's more important to know how to find the answers than to know the answers. And I actively advocate against the traditional, one size fits all curriculum, high stakes standardized testing, and the current insane emphasis on standards.

However, I do believe that a child should be followed, observed, and directed - within a scope and sequenced curriculum - towards their learning in all subjects by those who are trained in those subjects and in the level of childhood development the student is in. 

And I certainly disagree that I am "arbitrarily" deeming reading as a necessary skill within society. There have been many studies that show that the illiterate become disenfranchised. There is a direct relationship, in other words, between literacy and democracy. The town hall meetings in Sudbury schools where voting information is verbalized so that non-readers may still vote do not exist in the "real world".

Jennifer,

I suspect that my tone is coming across more aggressive than I would ever use in person, so I am sorry if that's the case. I am passionate about the subject and try to be respectful of differences of philosophy and opinion, though I may not always succeed.

I agree that you are certainly entitled to differ in your philosophy. It simply appears to me that the Sudbury model is being mischaracterized. For instance, you say, “my concern as an educator and a parent regards the lack of a curriculum” and that is not true. It has a curriculum of "social, democratic, and ethical development." Of course, what I mean by “curriculum” is the systematic organization of educational experiences and what I mean by “educational” is the application of sufficient attention to enable the learner to incorporate that experience into their mental models. These meanings are in contrast to the narrower meanings in common use where “curriculum” usually indicates the imposition of adult mandated activities and ”educational” refers to the idea that what counts as “educational” is what the adults say is “educational.” So a philosophical difference is fine, but if you don't understand what you are disagreeing with then, you might not disagree after all. If you believe that it is absolutely necessary for adults to play “big brother” by constantly observing and judging whether children are making the right choices, then we certainly do disagree.

In regards to learning Mandarin or Algebra, it is patently absurd to assume that the staff of any school could accommodate all the potential learning needs of every potential future student. There is simply no such thing as a school that could possibly hire a teacher for every possible language that a student might have an interest in. But in an open learning community like what is done at Sudbury schools, they can take advantage of the resources in the local community. Thus if it is an urban school, which seems to be your central concern, then there are probably many ways to pursue that interest, including attending a local language school or making the acquaintance of people who speak Mandarin. Democratic Schools do not make the absurd assumption that they can provide for every students whim. But they do assume that when they act collectively as a community to access the diversity of learning resources within their extended sphere of influence (meaning the entire world given the internet), then they can meet the needs of any student with a serious interest in any subject.

As for algebra, it is something that is useful in the real world, and since the kids are actually free to engage in real world activities, then when the kids realize it is useful they will ask for it. Obviously, they won't ask for it in math-speak but when a real world problem that would be solved by figuring out how to deal with a binomial cube comes up then they will have the passion and enthusiasm to find out where and how to learn what they need to know to solve the problem. And it doesn't matter what age they are nor whether they have ever been exposed to any math before. The fact that they are engaged with the world through a school power structure that trains them in how to pursue their own learning within a supportive community means they will succeed to the best of their ability. And Sudbury Valley and Albany Free Schools have each been doing that successfully for over 40 years and Summerhill in England for over 70 years.

My problem with the idea of  “necessary skills” is the assumption that kids in a well connected community would somehow be able to avoid picking up skills that are necessary. Here's what John Taylor Gatto said in his book The Underground History of American Education (http://www.johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/3d.htm), “I know a school for kids ages three to eighteen that doesn’t teach anybody to read, yet everyone who goes there learns to do it, most very well. It’s the beautiful Sudbury Valley School...” This is what I was trying to get at in my comment about intimately interdependent learning communities. I have no way of knowing if your experiences match my description, but the dynamic of innovation diffusion is what ensures that Sudbury students are all literate. They are deeply embedded in a community in which acquisition of literacy is simply taken for granted, and they all learn it sooner or later. Of course, the community  respects the fact that younger kids haven't picked it up yet, but that is just a sensible extension of their curriculum of "social, democratic, and ethical development." Wouldn't it be great if the real world could reflect a curriculum of "social, democratic, and ethical development?"

Regarding my remark about "arbitrarily deeming reading necessary": In the sense that an adult has to decide to designate some skill as “necessary” and then seek to impose a program of instruction for it then whatever skill they choose will be arbitrary regardless of what correlations with future success are shown in studies. The truth is that if the skills are truly necessary in the real world, then the kids in a democratic learning community will be able to see the value of those skills and seek to acquire them without adults making it a required course of study.

There is no one model that will serve all students, so we already agree that neither of our favored models are universal solutions. Democratic schooling and Montessori both are models that should certainly be much more wide spread than they are currently.
--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem

Hi, Don. I think your passion's great. The kids are lucky to have you as a school volunteer. However, passion can sometimes get in the way of understanding others. We are defining "curriculum" in different ways.

I do not believe that having a scope and sequence curriculum that includes core academics is playing "big brother". I believe in a balance between total student autonomy and total adult authoritarianism. And I believe that balance is developmentally appropriate. I question whether every student could become literate just by being in a Sudbury school if they weren't coming from literate homes.

Here's a quote from Ode magazine from Alfie Kohn, with which I strongly agree:
http://www.sudval.org/archives/dsm8/1369.html

"I applaud Sudbury Valley's focus on freedom, but not what I take to be an
inattention to community," says Alfie Kohn. "Sudbury has a libertarian bent, and the
worldview seems to see all adult involvement as an authoritarian restriction of personal
autonomy. Total autonomy is not developmentally appropriate. Kids need guidance and many
of them need structure at the same time that they need the opportunity to learn how to
make good decisions."

Thanks for bringing that article back into my awareness.

First, I would like to point out that we agree on the necessity of “a balance between total student autonomy and total adult authoritarianism.” In fact I would be so bold as to assert that everyone agrees on that, in principle. The differences are in how we strike that balance.

Next I want to point out that Sudbury does NOT provide “total student autonomy,” nor do I believe for a second that Montessori provides “ total adult authoritarianism.” No school that provided “total student autonomy” could last, for the very reason you and Kohn and others have pointed out, it simply does not meet children's needs. What distinguishes the Sudbury approach from others is the kind of structure they provide and the adult roles made available within that structure. Kohn grossly exaggerates the truth when he characterizes Sudbury as seeing “all adult involvement as an authoritarian restriction of personal autonomy.” If that were the case then adults would be excluded from the school, which they are not. The adults are expected to be full participants in the democratic community with additional responsibilities for ensuring that the operations of the school are properly managed. (Although, I admit, there is plenty of rhetoric to draw from to support that impression, I contend their operations suggest those a merely rhetorical flourishes.)

At the Village Free School where I volunteer both parents and staff are recognized as having a special role to play in the guidance of children's behavior. It just happens to be guidance that is provided as equal members of a caring community, not as a powerful minority with special authority to exert control over smaller, younger people. Everyone in our community is equally empowered to provide guidance to all members of the community. It's pretty cool when a five year old calls out the executive director on his behavior. The special role that adults play in our community is simply as people with more knowledge and experience. And we are expected to take that role seriously by being actively engaged with everyone in the community. It doesn't take the power to control someone else's activities to inspire them to be great, it takes a good relationship. And we believe that the most important way to foster those kinds of good relationships between people of all ages is to hold them all equally accountable to each other for being caring and respectful. All else follows from how we structure that foundation.

In my opinion all good schools actually operate in the same way, even if they don't realize it. They have complicated ideas about lots of “necessary skills” but those expectations just provide easier ways to make decisions about what to do each day. In the hands of good people those expectations are just a ritual way to do things together. Unfortunately, in the hands of unskilled people those expectations become distractions from what really matters, which is the building of caring relationships based on  mutual respect and responsibility.  

So to finish my response to Kohn, his characterization of democratic education is a caricature. Democratic schools do provide both structure and guidance, though the structures are social, not academic, and the guidance is grounded in personal relationships and the inherent authority of adulthood, instead of formalized institutional roles. 
--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem

This comment thread reinforces my decision to take this Sudbury blog in a more concrete direction. Not that the philosophy will ever disappear, but I'm reminded once again that philosophy alone is susceptible to significant misinterpretation.

First off, I can't believe Alfie Kohn has spent any significant time actually in a Sudbury school. (He's definitely never visited the ones I've worked in.) How do I know this? No one who sees what Sudbury is truly like would use the phrase "inattention to community." My Sudbury schools have always had the very distinct feeling of an extended family -- something like the environment of the church where I grew up. People look out for each other, and you're so close you almost feel related. Every time someone wants to do something that impacts others, or whenever there's any conflict, the equation between individuals and community has to be balanced.

I can see how Kohn and others would perceive this so-called "libertarian bent" if, again, they'd only read some of the literature. But "total autonomy" misses the mark (and at what age does one assume total autonomy anyway?). Autonomy does not equate to isolation and individualism: in Sudbury schools, it simply denotes the fact that all individuals get to make their own choices. When those choices prove incompatible with respect for others and the community as a whole, then those individuals are held accountable. Even at Sudbury schools, people are suspended and, occasionally, expelled -- for "inattention to community," one might say.

Guidance and structure are other areas where it appears very easy to form a misimpression of the Sudbury reality. Regarding guidance, Sudbury places such an emphasis on, and room for, authentic relationships between people of all ages that guidance and support happen all the time. They're just not imposed. They happen naturally, in the course of respectful interactions. When adults are integrated into the community, having trained experts follow kids around and pre-emptively direct them becomes unnecessary. If it does indeed "take a village to raise a child," then maybe Sudbury schools work because they are, in effect, mixed-age villages.

And structure? Check out the second chapter of John Holt's Freedom and Beyond, in which he says, "There are no such things as 'unstructured' situations. They are not possible....We do not need to put structure into children's lives. It is already there." My goodness, Sudbury schools have so many rules and procedures, we're sometimes accused of being bureaucratic! Where structure appears lacking -- for instance, in the sense of a "scope and sequenced curriculum" -- we have found that letting kids build their own structures is far more beneficial. Initiative, prioritization and self-discipline, for example, can only emerge to the extent that students aren't over-structured.

As for broad bases of skills, my interpretation of that Sudbury school's FAQ is that everyone has gaps in their learning, and certainly no program of systematic exposure of going to keep that from happening. For me, what matters is that students be allowed to develop the personal strength and skills to fill in those gaps when and where they become issues for them -- as they encounter real life itself, not some curriculum in which it's a lesson. To use another cliche', Sudbury allows kids to "learn how to learn." In contrast, I think most schools overestimate the effectiveness of school-imposed exposure, training, etc. Wasn't it Plato who said "nothing learned under compulsion stays with the mind"?

I want to thank Jennifer and Don for stimulating such great discussion and giving me more ideas for future posts (e.g., whether Sudbury schools could work in impoverished communities, which will require more time and space than I have here).

You're welcome, Bruce. That's what it's all about!

"...and no program of systematic exposure of going to keep that from happening.

Sixth paragraph, first sentence...can everyone mentally change the second "of" to "is"? Ugh! My kingdom for editable comments!

Thank you for championing the cause of schools like Sudbury in this kind of forum!

To further refute Kohn's assertion about an "inattention to community" at Sudbry schools here is a Sudbury Parents comment:

"So it's great that sudbury will get in a kid's face about their behavior. Not just the big stuff like stealing, lying, breaking rules etc. but in this case being annoying. Once again, JC is a neutral tool for telling people that the way they are acting just will not work in the community." http://eggheadbrainiacclub.blogspot.com/2009/03/behavior-modification.html


This is the exact opposite of what Kohn apparently assumes is going on. And it is far more effective to have your peers telling you that you are being annoying than having an authority figure do it.
--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com

Free E-book: The Attitude Problem in Education

Sudbury schools place a premium on respect, yet depart from the standard practice of using schools to advance social agendas. So we don't "teach" multiculturalism, but we remain as open as possible to diversity of class, ethnicity, lifestyle and ideology, as well as the remarkable diversity of fully realized personalities.

Sudbury schools demonstrate the remarkable potency of combining empowerment with responsibility. I recently ran across a quote by Howard Thurman which, I think, helps explain our approach: "Don't ask what the world needs. Ask what makes you come alive, and go do it. Because what the world needs is people who have come alive."

As for teaching languages, our emphasis on self-directed learning means students can learn anything they choose -- including languages. Given the curricular freedom at Sudbury schools, students can plumb the depths of any subject. Given the emphasis on social learning, communication skills are practiced in context, and developed in spades.

Marcy,

As I understand it Sudbury Valley School has done some research that indicates that their student population has generally reflected the demographics of their community. Since they don't have a particularly diverse community then the school is not especially diverse. But the Albany Free School has been operating since 1969 in the inner city with a highly diverse student population. (http://albanyfreeschool.com) It is shares the self-directed educational philosophy though it's institutional management structure might be different.

Sudbury is as American as apple pie, it does not have any connection to England. It was entirely conceived as a uniquely American enterprise organized to reflect the democratic ideals of the New England town meeting. You might have been thinking of Summerhill School in England which is also famous for its philosophy of self-directed learning. The differences in management are substantial, however. For example, Summerhill has a head mistress who is fully responsible for hiring and firing staff, for instance. At Sudbury, the hiring and firing of staff is handled through the democratic process.

Admittedly, the majority of democratic schools do not reflect much racial diversity. Achieving diversity  has been something that most of the people in the movement would like, but have not yet figured out how to do. I think that if Obama/Duncan can ensure that their charter school initiatives can be set up to honor self-directed learning, then charter schools modeled after Sudbury or Albany Free School could be created to serve a greater diversity of students. --
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem

What sort of people do Sudbury schools present to society?  Given the self-learning philosophy, the students seem pretty one-dimensional.

One-dimensional? Oh, my...after ten years, I can assure you that they're anything but! These people display an incredible depth and richness. They've gone into all sorts of fields, and they are very well-adjusted -- vibrant, self-assured, highly competent at realizing their dreams, and good people to boot.

I noticed that you didn't mention race when you addressed my question re: diversity and multiculturalism.

Well, I did address "ethnicity". Did you have something else in mind?

The Sudbury school view on diversity and multiculturalism concerns me

As for "the Sudbury school view on diversity and multiculturalism," I wouldn't say there's any one such view. We each have our own perspective, and I'm simply trying to explain what I see. That said, maybe I can clarify my remarks a bit.

It's ridiculous to say schools shouldn't aspire to foster good character in students; the question is, how best to do so? In my opinion, it's counterproductive to put kids into a system that doesn't believe they're capable of directing their own lives, then preach progressive values to them.

Far better, in my opinion, to raise them in an environment that both gives and expects a great deal of respect. When children grow up as moral agents immersed in considerations of fairness, seeing what it's like both to give and receive respect, their ethical nature is enhanced.

Not to mention, on a macro scale, it's difficult to be as racially diverse as some would like when a government monopoly forces parents to choose between schools they already support with their taxes and those that are forced to charge tuition.

We do what we can where we are, no?

There is a fallacy in the premise that mere “exposure” to content is the key to discerning whether a student will have a fulfilling relationship with a given subject. You presume that being “exposed” to material on poetry, government, and the trappings of high socio-economic status are inherently valuable. That premise does not reflect the reality of learning as I understand it.

Take your “exposure” to poetry, for example. I would suggest that it was not merely the fact that your 7th grade teacher “did” poetry that transformed you into a poet (or at least a person with a profound respect for the art.) It was a combination of the relationship to poetry that was modeled by that teacher and your relationship to that teacher that made the difference, not your “exposure” to the content of that teacher's poetry lessons. When that combination of factors occurs then it does not matter what the subject is, the student will leave the class with a profound respect for it. And that is also why that teacher and the content of his/her lessons probably did not have exactly the same effect on every other student in your class. Every student in your class had differing relationships with the teacher and the subject therefore the results varied accordingly.

In order to make the “exposure” premise make sense with my experiences of teaching and learning then we have to restrict ourselves to meaning the exposure of enthusiastic students to teachers who have a passion for their students and/or their subject (preferably both). Given this idea that true education requires a passionate teacher teaching an enthusiastic student then the question is how to increase the odds that such a happy accident will occur more often.

This is where the Sudbury model is far superior to the traditional system. The conditions in which passion and enthusiasm most often flourish are where people are actively pursuing self-selected goals and aspirations within a network of community support that enables the diversity of individual goals to become aligned in mutually beneficial ways. The alignment can be organized around specifically defining the kinds of support the community will provide, as in specifying acceptable goals. Or it can be organized around defining a community-based decision making process for allocating resources for  mutual benefit, as in the democratic school model.

So given this reframing of the premise then I share your central concern that some kids don't get enough “exposure.” But the exposure I argue is necessary is exposure to passionate people, regardless of what subjects they are pursuing. This has me fear for those who are embedded in a system that has a habit of alienating and burning out the most passionate teachers and squelching the enthusiasm of students.

I did not get a sense that you fully appreciate the value of plumbing the depths of whatever is immediately available in your environment. Plumbing the depths of Quidditch, for example, is a valuable learning experience when it arises from a genuine interest and can be pursued to the exhaustion of the enthusiasm that generated the interest. The value of any particular interest, whether it's Spanish, Quidditch, physics, fairies, or video games, is not in the content, it's in the lessons about managing yourself and the resources at your disposal in pursuit of your goals. When a child taps into a genuine interest then that becomes a model for the challenges of pursuing every interest they will encounter throughout the rest of his/her life. There are always limitations within which we have to pursue our goals and decisions we have to make about how to manage the pursuit. Those lessons do not depend on having any particular content, it depends on being supported to have meaningful relationships with the social, economic and political limitations within which you exist.

The great value of the democratic schools like Sudbury is the fact that the kids get to make significant decisions within the confines of a community of other people also pursuing passions and interests and constantly renegotiating how to do that in mutually beneficial ways. They have access to reality within the confines of a community that will ensure they honor their agreements to care for themselves and others. (Or at least that's about how we put it at The Village Free School where I volunteer.)

Are there gaps? Of course there are gaps. But I went through 18 years of traditional schooling and I have gaps, big ones. (And the worst gaps are the gaps caused by being forced to be taught by someone who was burned out on teaching which gave me an aversion to those subjects. That is an entirely preventable tragedy.) Everyone has gaps in their knowledge, the world is far too complex to expect anything else. The question is whether you can fill your gaps when you discover them.

The kids who have cut their teeth on how to pursue their own interests are way ahead in that game. I am sure they will do what anyone does when they discover a gap in their knowledge in the midst of a conversation, politely nod and make a mental note about whether the subject is important enough to pursue later. And that decision will largely be determined by their esteem for the other person in the conversation. Thus, if they are embarrassed by their ignorance in front of a person they respect and admire, then it will have a far greater impact. Once again it comes down to the combination of factors that I said was central to learning in the first place. If the relationships are passionate and enthusiastic, then transformative learning will result, even from a casual conversation. And enabling those kinds of conversations is the central organizing principle of democratic education, IMHO.

Adrienne, I really appreciate your willingness to share these festering questions.  :-)

Who is deciding what these children are exposed to, and when they are exposed to it?

The short version is, no one decides. To grasp what this means, we need to step out of the mindset of believing someone is (or should) be in charge. Sudbury students do make their own decisions, chart their own course, etc., but they do so in a community -- and they hardly stop being influenced by their families. So the answer to Adrienne's question is, really, "all of the above."

What you get in a Sudbury school is exposure via randomness and relationships. Intense interactions over an extended period with people of various ages, backgrounds, and interests practically guarantees exposure to an enormous range of things. Boredom factors in as well: when you're not being entertained/distracted all day, your natural curiosity is augmented and you find yourself driven to expose yourself to even more things.

Comparing my public-school career with my Sudbury experience, I find the latter environment a far richer source of exposure. Instead of being limited to six or seven subjects a day, students get "all the world and time," as it were. Even in a small school, with everyone pursuing his or her interests you expand geometrically the range of things people are exposed to.

Which reminds me: I strongly disagree with the statement that "children -- even those thriving in democratic, respectful communities -- don't have the access to gain exposure to media as independently as do the adults around them." Well, maybe I just don't understand how "independent" is meant here. What I do know is this: It's a truism that most kids can run rings around most adults in tapping into media of all sorts. This is something children take to like the proverbial fish to water. And with the access provided by a Sudbury school, plus the culture of critical thinking, I have no worries that our students will experience anything resembling a lack of exposure.

To address Adrienne's specific examples, first, there's no guarantee that a Sudbury student will be exposed to poetry. However, art in all its forms - including verbal - has a profound appeal to practically all humans. We as a species love to make things and decorate, hear and tell stories, dance, sing, etc. It's entertaining, and it's how we expand our understanding of life. That being the case, I can't imagine a Sudbury student not seeking out artistic expression. Whether poetry is part of that experience will depend on a number of factors which simply cannot be controlled. But if something is basic to human nature/life, chances are Sudbury students will encounter it sooner or later.  

And as Don says, they don't have to risk being turned off to poetry (or whatever) because of its being forced on them when they weren't ready/interested. This is no mild concern. Don's comment on gaps is also spot on. We do all have gaps, and a Sudbury education is stellar preparation for gap-filling. As for what Adrienne might have done if she'd been exposed to poetry as an adult-without a teacher to cultivate that new-found interest-what do any of us adults do when we encounter a subject that grabs us? We read books, we go online, and if we're serious or social enough, we find like-minded people. There are creative writing classes out there, and people form writing groups all the time. The point is, if you're used to learning new things and making things happen for yourself, figuring out how to explore a new subject that sparks your interest is no problem.

In fact, I believe many of us exaggerate the importance and power of exposure, assuming that (a) someone must carefully plan and manage it, and (b) exposure equals learning. This brings me to the question of the student who's been exposed to the subject of congressional legislation. First off, I have some difficulty imagining the topic coming up in the course of young people's conversation. But let's say it does. The typical Sudbury student might indeed not know the specific workings of the legislative and executive branches: however, he or she will know quite intimately the underlying political dynamics-fact-finding and negotiating, coalition-building, and the sometimes tedious process of arguing your case in meetings run by parliamentary procedure. My strong suspicion is that, while the student forced to memorize an abstract (to them) procedure will retain this for a short time, the Sudbury student immersion in democracy itself will mean a much deeper and longer-lasting understanding of what the political process actually entails.

Again, thanks for the questions. I love talking about this stuff!

Don,

I think you misunderstood my concern about exposure. I don’t presume that exposure to a concept, topic, or idea is the key to having a relationship with it. This is certainly not true. I’m certain that some students in the same class as me hated poetry; exposure does not correlate to interest. I also don’t presume that there is value in *everything* our children are exposed to. My concern is more about equity. When children themselves decide, it is – has to be! – based to some degree on their community and what is available *in* it, and not all children in all communities have equal access. This is where the Sudbury model troubles me.  I do think that in the end, the child (the individual) will decide what is valuable, and this is the part of Sudbury schools that I am attracted to – the concept of choice.  Nor is my concern at all about the value of “plumbing the depths of whatever is immediately available in your environment” – I certainly see the value of this. But what is immediately available in one child’s environment may be very different from the next child’s due to their socio-economic background. Do you see what I am getting at? The equity issue concerns me. 
The example I gave about poetry actually had little to do with the teacher. I could argue that many of the interests that grabbed me through my schooling also had little to do with the teacher; this is particularly true for me during my adolescence, as I went to a work-at-your-own-pace independent study school, where I was essentially guiding myself through curriculum. My point is that having a curriculum – even a broad one (I am not talking about most American models here, I will be clear about that) – can give exposure to those ideas and concepts that we value as a society or even as a community. The Latvian immigrant’s family who doesn’t speak any English will not have the same access as the 4th generation American family next door, but they may live in the same community. The community does, I think, need to agree to some degree about what is important for the children who will thrive within it. Perhaps the exposure to the passionate people is important, like you say, but I think exposure to ideas and concepts is important, too.
You say the value “is not in the content, it's in the lessons about managing yourself and the resources at your disposal in pursuit of your goals” – while I agree that this is important, my point was that a child may not learn he/she has an interest, skill, or talent in a particular area until he/she is exposed to it. I learned I am musical because my family is musical. But what about the child who might be a gifted violinist, but no one in his family even listens to music? He might not learn of his passion for music until he goes to school to discover it. 
Bruce -  you said “It's a truism that most kids can run rings around most adults in tapping into media of all sorts.” I did not mean to imply that children couldn’t find the media or know what to do with it, or understand it. What I meant was, they can’t always go out to actually acquire and “have” it. We adults have incomes from the jobs we do. Those incomes provide us with money with which to make choices. Those choices more than likely result in our access to media: we choose what to read, listen to, and watch. But children are limited in what they have access to based on what is provided to them by the adults in their lives – the computers at school, or the television at home, or the radio in their parents’ car. I hope you understand what I mean. Of course children can access it once the infrastructure is provided to them. But are children earning incomes and choosing which laptop to purchase? Or, are we giving them choices based on something we already have available? It’s in this way that I worry about children not being exposed to things that might spark an interest, simply because it was not available to them. Note that I am not concerned here about the gaps both you and Don speak of. I have taught internationally long enough to know that there will always be gaps, no matter which “system” you’re using, and indeed I think those gaps are the most valuable learning experiences anyway. I worry more about exposure being limited to privilege, access, or influence of adults nearby. 
Incidentally, I wasn’t advocating memorization of governmental procedures – I would never advocate that. There are many ways to actively learn about government that have nothing to do with memorization. What I was wondering is how Sudbury students fit in – socially—when they discover that they might not know or understand something that “everyone else” does. I used the example of a government system because it is so widely taught in most educational curriculum models, and I think most would agree that it is one concept quite important to understand if one is going to actively participate in a democracy such as the USA. 
(Apologies for the late reply to these – I have been traveling for a while.)

Adrienne,

I appreciate your concern with equity: it's a significant issue. In fact, it's so substantial as to be, in my opinion, a larger question than any one schooling model. Questions of education funding and equal access to stimulating environments go beyond the pale of what form of learning is most effective.

That said, I find two things encouraging. First, not to discount the"digital divide," but since this discussion started with exposure, I believe the explosion of Internet and other media makes exposure a less daunting issue than in the past. Second, digital media plus curiosity and responsible freedom (i.e., the Sudbury model) means a level of exposure that conventional schools -- even affluent ones, since they all restrict students' schedules to narrow channels -- don't seem able or willing to provide.

I can't imagine a Sudbury school not furnishing their facility with books, computers, art supplies, etc. as they are able (see my first paragraph re: the scale of the equity issue). On top of that, the open campus policy of most schools means that the resources of the entire community are available. What's more, students are part of the decision-making: if they feel their environment is lacking, they work together (with staff, as needed) on rectifying that situation.

I can't emphasize enough (though I'll try, as I keep cranking out these posts :) the marvels of an education that truly empowers students and expects them to take responsibility for their learning. Being surrounded by curious people pursuing their passions, with free access to the resources of the school and the community, is the best recipe for exposure I can imagine.

Adrienne,

The way I read your reply it sounds like you are assuming that interests, skills or talents always exist in someone. The gift of the violin is planted like a seed by God and in order for that seed to grow he must get “exposed” to a violin. But that won't happen unless the society he lives in is designed to address the issue of equity, thus ensuring that he goes to a school in which violins are provided.

If the society is negligent in addressing the issue of equity then the school will not have violins and the gift will be squandered, to our shame.

So I am confused about the nature of your concern. It may be that I make some assumptions about how democratic schools work because I am so familiar with them, but your way of describing things would have me favor the democratic schools over the regular schools because those regular schools are so narrowly organized that they exclude vast areas of human endeavor for which someone might have a skill, talent or gift (as Bruce also points out.) Democratic schools are hotbeds of inspiration and a remarkable variety of fields, subjects, interests and activities occur that it can boggle the mind. The kid who has the seed for violin, or any other much more obscure thing, is more assured of exposure in a democratic school than in a regular school.

It also sounds as if you are suggesting that low socioeconomic status in a community would cause the staff and organizers of a school there to be incompetent at being able to discern the resources kids would need to have available to be successful. Yes, it is likely that schools in low socioeconomic status areas would work under tighter budgetary limitations than in areas of higher socioeconomic status, but they would still presumably be competent at making focused decisions about what resources are most valuable to the success of the children they serve (once again reiterating one of Brice's points.)

Taking the Latvian family example I would have much more confidence in the ability of democratic schools to meet their needs than a narrowly conceived traditional school. The democratic school has the ability to customize their approach to motivated learners, much more than the traditional schools. And not speaking the language is a highly motivating circumstance. The democratic school enables the children to be embedded in a community that is more concerned with empowering them to be functional human beings rather than jumping through arbitrary hoops. And democratic schools do have the ability to approve specific resources based on the specialized interests and needs of individual students.

So you are absolutely correct, I don't really understand your concern. I really don't get how equity would be more of an issue in a democratic school than in traditional schools. I get that equity is an issue for communities, resources are inherently distributed unevenly in the world, therefore some level of difference is always going to exist. Of course, I believe that our society needs to work on ensuring that we provide a fair system of distributing the benefits of our society, since the current system is not fair. But schools exist within the community and are charged with making the best of what they get for the benefit of their students. Democratic schools are better at that task than traditional schools and can serve as a model for how the community could do a better job by involving everyone equally in the decisions that affect them. Thus, I don't see how equity is an issue for Sudbury because they address equity within their governance and through that equitable governance structure have proven to be more efficient at serving their students than the other schools in their community, based on spending less per pupil for comparable or superior results. Sudbury schools seem to me to be an answer to concerns about equity, not a contribution to the problem.

--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem

Bruce,

I like and agree with what you've said here:

"Questions of education funding and equal access to stimulating environments go beyond the pale of what form of learning is most effective."

But this is where I get confused:

"Second, digital media plus curiosity and responsible freedom (i.e., the Sudbury model) means a level of exposure that conventional schools -- even affluent ones, since they all restrict students' schedules to narrow channels -- don't seem able or willing to provide. "

I don't see how digital media plus curiosity and responsible freedom are *implicitly* lacking in conventional schools. While I agree that not all schools foster this, I disagree that these two key elements are not able to be fostered in non-Sudbury models. In fact, I would argue that these two things are fostered in every school I have taught at (but I have been fortunate to be in fairly progressive schools).

What I do like and wish more schools had, however, is the open-campus policies allowing students more freedom in learning within their community. I also like that students choose about what needs to be in their learning environments. These are key choices in any student's learning, be they an adult or a child. But I am uncomfortable with your assumption that other school models do not involve students in these decisions. Many do, and in some non-Sudbury schools, students have tremendous influence on these kinds of decisions.

Don,

I'm not implying that a talent is a "seed planted by God." What I'm getting at is that often we don't discover our talents or interests until we've been exposed to them. And by virtue of the fact that children under a certain age are legally in the care of their parents and educators, their exposure is limited by what is in their community and the adults in it. (Five-year-olds are not wandering the land with cash in hand, deciding what to buy and where to spend their time.) So, in some ways a school - even a conventional one, but maybe not a traditional one - levels the playing field for those students whose socio-economic status may not be the same as that of others in their community. That is what I mean by equity and exposure.

I take exception when you say things like:

"regular schools are so narrowly organized that they exclude vast areas of human endeavor for which someone might have a skill, talent or gift"

... because not all schools are so narrowly organized! Some, perhaps. But please don't colour all schools with the same paintbrush. My concern is about how Sudbury model schools ensure that all these areas of human endeavour *are* present for all students. It appears that perhaps they are dependent to some degree upon the Sudbury community, with final decisions made by students themselves. This is great! But again, I wonder how the "discovery" happens, and how all students can be exposed to "equally" valued ideas and concepts. Do Sudbury schools exist in inner-city low-income areas, for example, where many students' parents may be incarcerated, HIV-positive, or illiterate? And if they do, how are those students' needs - the basic needs outside of discovering their own learning -- taken care of?

I'm not at all suggesting that low socio-economic status in a community means the staff of a school would be incompetent at choosing resources for their students. Again, I think you're misunderstanding me. I don't at all think the low socio-economic status of a community is correlated to the decisions the staff would make regarding resources. I think what you've said here, that "they would still presumably be competent at making focused decisions about what resources are most valuable to the success of the children they serve" could be true in *any* school, Sudbury or "traditional."

What you've said about the Lativan family example leaves me thinking that you believe that teachers, administrators, and staff in what you keep calling "traditional" schools cannot customize or make choices about any students' learning. While this may be true in some very restrictive American curricular models and in British National Curriculum schools, this is *not* the case in many, many schools. You assume that teachers and administrators have zero autonomy as educators. Differentiation is essential to learning, in a Sudbury school or not. True - many schools have processes that resemble jumping through hoops much more than authentic learning, and this is something I work hard to counter. However, while I work hard to get rid of those inauthentic "hoops" I don't think as an educator I need to take away *every* ounce of structure in order for my students' learning to be real, self-directed, valuable, and useful.

Neither of you have yet been able to answer the question I asked about social acceptance. Has this been observed or asked of any Sudbury students or alumni?

Thanks to both of you for such reasoned and thorough responses. I am learning a lot through this detailed dialogue. :)

Oopps, I accidently replied in the new thread box, sorry.

Don,

Social acceptance - yes what you've said is correct, except that I wasn't talking about "stating basic facts about governmnent." What I mean is the understanding of it, which is significantly different than the ability to spit out facts. Once a child becomes an adult and therefore a voting member of society, the expectation (we hope) is that she understands it well enough to participate in it. It's difficult to participate if you don't understand. I used this example because it's so very "standard" in curricula, and for a reason: we expect individuals to participate in the democratic society in which they live. So, my question is: How does a Sudbury student adapt to this expectation of society, if she finishes her schooling without any understanding of something that society expects of her? And how do those around her, in her network of friends and colleagues, adjust to her? This is just one example, but I feel an important one.

Which brings me to a separate point which is bothering me somewhat: "standard curriculum" as you are labelling it does not only have to do with facts and knowledge. Many curriculum models, and especially those of the International Baccalaureate, have the highest order of thinking skills - new Bloom's taxonomy - at the forefront of their philosophy and purpose. The facts and knowledge you refer to are actually rarely - if at all -- assessed with any rigour because educators, learners, and their families understand the value is of creating, evaluating, and analyzing. Further, many IB schools - especially those outside of the USA and Canada -- do not follow a "set" curriculum by anyone other than the community within the schools themselves. Ideally, the community determining the curriculum will be educators, parents, and students.

I guess what I am getting at with all this is that while I laud the choices that Sudbury model schools provide students, I am concerned about it almost being too individualized. The community aspect does not seem as emphasized other than in governance of the actual school, and from the community aspect come the many things I am questioning here - exposure to new ideas and concepts, benefit to the overall community, and equity. One of the things I like best about schools is the community aspect of learning. While I like the idea of the "democratic school" in theory, I fear that learning has the potential to take place in an individualized vaccum.

As for Equity - I understand what you are saying in terms of resources. However, who decides this? The way you've described it here sounds like the staff is making decisions to serve the children in their care. So, if that is the case isn't there some implied, unwritten curriculum, then? How is it decided which students attend these inner-city democratic schools? Who decides that they attend there and not a local public school?  

About Structure - what you are talking about here sounds very similar to the models Carl Anderson has proposed in his comments elsewhere on this site. But those aren't in Sudbury model schools, they are in charter schools. They give a degree of freedom and autonomy to both students and teachers. So why is what you're talking limited to a Sudbury model school? Can't this exist in any school? And what you're saying about "coercion" - how does that apply to a 5-year-old? Do teachers of 5-year-olds say the same things to them?

On Sameness: You said, about "coercive schools," that "they believe that they have the right to coerce students into doing certain activities and being instructed. That is not a small point if you believe that motivation matters in learning."

While I agree with you here, there also needs to be a balance (I think) between what the individual values as being important - that motivation factor - and what the community values. And that is the tricky part, regardless of school model or system! I believe that if an individual is not serving a community in some way and does not recognize the importance of contributing to a community, then their individual motivation is helpful only to them and they therefore have little value to the community.... which is fine, if you are a Buddhist hermit monk in China, but not so much if you are a young adult in a Western nation.  And this is why I think a model with that balance will serve everyone:  a broad, concepts-based curriculum (representing the community - no matter how small) where individual interests and freedoms are  explored to whatever depths the learner chooses (hopefully involving those higher-level thinking skills).

But maybe this kind of setup exists in some Sudbury schools and I'm just not "getting it" because I've not visited one. I'm quite willing to accept that possibility! :)

IDEC 2009 Information:
http://www.idenetwork.org/idec-2009-idec.htm

Don,Thanks for all the references and links. Much appreciated. I feel I've learned a lot from you and Bruce in this thread, and definitely feel that "other" schools -- traditional, public, charter, whatever you want to call them -- have a lot to learn from Sudbury-model schools. I'm not at this point completely sold, however, for the primary reasons of the community vs. individual in curriculum decisions, and the equity issue. 

I read your paragraph about governance with much attention and realize now that my example was probably a rather silly one when we are talking about democratically organized schools. Thanks for clarifying. Your example about mathematics and the gaps does bring it back full circle and I have said before that I see the value in those gaps. I'm trying to think of another (better?) example to suggest, but at the moment I can't think of one. Maybe there isn't one? :)

At any rate, I do feel more informed than I was before these threads began and I hope to do more exploring when I'm state-side next year and doing graduate school study. Like I said, I'm not 100% sold, but I'm certainly seeing the benefits of what Sudbury-model schools have to offer. Thanks again to both you and Bruce for your thoughtful and detailed responses to my concerns.

Thanks Adriene,

I think there are only two things that really sell someone on this kind of thing; either a personal experience, or the experience of a loved one. I think I was convinced by reflecting on the short-comings of my own 18 years of public schooling and working directly with numerous kids who were not being well served by their schools. Thanks for staying with the conversation, it was a rare treat!
--
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com

Free E-book: The Attitude Problem in Education