Teachers Without Masks: a Sudbury Alternative
Published June 13, 2009 @ 08:04AM PT

In a Google Group discussion of Sudbury schooling, Change.org member Don Berg recently posted an interesting article from Teacher Magazine. Written by Anthony Cody, the article responds to Suze Orman's assertion that "students can't learn empowerment from people who aren't empowered." Cody admits, "We can only teach what we actually embody."
One of the teachers I learned the most from...told me, "The subject your students are studying is you. They watch everything you do." He helped me understand that when I taught my students, I was showing them the way a man could behave in the world, the way he respected women, the way he dealt with conflict. All these things were part of teaching—way beyond how many protons there are in the nucleus of a carbon atom...
So Suze Orman is right in suggesting that we cannot teach empowerment unless we are empowered. But this got me thinking a bit more. Are we actually even trying to teach our students to exert power over their own lives?
It seems as if students are being taught the exact opposite. Learn what is on the test, because it is on the test, and doing well on this test will prepare you for the next set of tests, and at some point you will finally finish all the tests and be ready—for what? Certainly not for acting in a powerful way in relationship to the world or those around you!
Those who have read my bio know that prior to my move to Sudbury schooling, I taught in public schools. Today I'd like to consider the differences between these two models from a teacher's-eye view. I agree with Cody that our students study us, and that we teach them far more by example than we ever could in lessons. However, most of the time, in most schools, this sort of instruction is buried beneath an avalanche of mandates and an undemocratic power structure.
When I taught high school, I could never get past the feeling that it was all a performance. My character's name was Mr. Smith, and the most prominent feature of his costume was the necktie. In the classroom, Mr. Smith was a figure of some power: he made the rules, evaluated everyone's performance on tasks he set, and controlled students' freedom of movement. Yet when it came to the conditions of his workplace, Mr. Smith had little to no power. His daily schedule, the curriculum, and the hiring of personnel at his school—these things and more were decided somewhere else, by unknown others, and simply imposed on him and his colleagues.
What's more, relationships of any kind between teachers and students were frowned upon and/or made impossible. After all, one must get through lessons and prepare for tests, and you only have 50 minutes a day, 180 days a year, to do so; then new combinations of students and teachers must go through the same routine. In such a setting, it seems to me what students learn from their teachers is that it's okay to accept situations where you're disempowered, where you do things of questionable value and relevance because, well, that's just the way things are done: do what you're told, complain to the administration and school board if you want—and good luck with that.
With this kind of institutional dynamic, the need of students to learn who their teachers (and, I should add, their fellow students) really are is severely marginalized. There is little opportunity for teachers and students to know each other in any substantive way, no way for this deeper learning to occur. What's really going on in the world, as well as each other's lives, takes a back seat to an agenda dictated by people with no direct, personal stake in what's learned. I think a lot of my public-school students liked me, and got something out of my classes; but in retrospect, I fear the demands of that system sharply curtailed their most valuable learning opportunities.
What's the lesson here? Disempowerment diminishes learning. When teachers aren't free to teach, and when curricula and testing are valued over students' individual needs, everyone loses.
Fortunately, Sudbury schooling extends to its teachers, as well as its students, real empowerment. In fact, the one job title at Sudbury schools is "staff member," since the work involves so much more than simply teaching. All staff members combine conventional functions of instruction, administration, and counseling; more fundamentally, we serve as mentors and role models. Staff work together, with no one person in charge, to do whatever they deem essential to the good of their school and its students. Consequently, everyone's strengths are maximized, and their needs met in the most effective way possible, with maximal flexibility.
Because the power structure at Sudbury schools is democratic, there is no need to maintain an aura of separateness about the staff, no need to prop up their authority. Staff members are addressed by their first names, same as anyone. And because students can attend one school over several years—as many as twelve or more—they get to know their "teachers" remarkably well. In fact, our schools feel less like institutions than extended families in which children benefit from growing up with multiple aunts, uncles and grandparents, as well as siblings.
When teachers are fully respected and given the power they deserve, they are in turn more capable of respecting and empowering their students. Ellen Berg, one of Anthony Cody's colleagues in the Teacher Leaders Network Forum, wrote to him her view that
If our children leave school with anything, they should leave with the sense that they have choices, and that they are in control of their lives. As people, we can't control what happens, but we can control how we react to situations and whether we learn from the horrible things in life.
I've sometimes described my Sudbury career as "everything I loved about teaching, with none of the b.s." I still believe that, but it now occurs to me that the correlation between empowered teachers and effective education is what really matters. It's past time we fully respect everyone involved in education, so that young people may enjoy lives where, as Ms. Berg says, "they have choices, and [know] they are in control."
image by BES Photos
Share this Post
Related Posts
-
Beyond Principals: Sudbury's Student Judicial Committee
-
Teaching Creativity
-
The Toolbelt and Universal Design - Education For Everyone
Comments (2)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Bruce L. Smith is a Denver-based educator and freelance writer. After starting his career in the public schools of Columbia, Missouri, he went on to work at schools following the Sudbury model of education. On staff at Alpine Valley School since late 1998, he became the founding director of the Center for Advancing Sudbury Education (www.sudburyschooling.com) in 2006. CASE promotes awareness of the Sudbury model and provides support to Sudbury schools around the world.
Featured Education Actions
Most Popular Education Posts
- American School Boards – Abolish or Improve?
- New Ed Tech Director Appointed, But is She too Close to Business?
- Let Kids Run the Banks To Educate Them for the 21st Century
- Arts Focused Education is Essential to Develop Attention, Cognition, Self-Control Skills
- Michelle Rhee Skirts the Law, Lays off Teachers
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Email


















I commend you highly on this post Bruce. It goes to the core of the problems we have with education today. It isn't so much a job as an art, the art of being.
What's on offer isn't all there is out there. Sudbury (although I don't know much about, but will!) seems similar to the Steiner ethos. In Steiner schools the teachers are aware of not one, but three levels of "being" they need to embody. The first 1-7 is imitation - "they watch everything you do", then 7-14 is imagination - honour what the students see from inside, and finally 14-21 is inspiration/intellect - BE an inspirational mentor rather than teacher.
This directive to change our approaches to teaching cannot come from the top down. It has historically come from the ground up, with people like you going outside the box.
Good on you, Bruce.
Posted by Oceania OZ on 06/13/2009 @ 03:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I can't agree with this post more. I was introduced to the Sudbury ideology recently and became immediately enamored [so much so, I actually posted some information about it myself: www.organicedu.org]. After visiting the original Sudbury Valley School at their openhouse last month in Boston, I can say, being in the presence of children immersed in this atmosphere was truley amazing. Students of the school looked adults (strangers at that!) in the eye and were confident that what they had to say had merit. There was no sense of the typical jaded 15 year old who was dragged in on his day off. These kids wanted to be there! These kids were passionate. Their staff leaders equally so.
I think the current authoritarian school model is outdated. Too often teachers have to maintain a keen eye over their shoulder because if they "step outside the norm", if they go that extra mile, if they try to innovate in class, the administration comes down on them like a lightning bolt. They haven't been teaching to the [standardized] tests, and so, what they've taught is considered useless.
Unfortunately, this militarized model gets propegated throughout the entire infrastructure, common of public schools. From the school boards to the principals, down on to the teachers, and to the students themselves. No one dare step out of line. No one dare question the standard. Unfortunate, indeed.
Posted by Kimberly Jean on 06/16/2009 @ 01:06PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.