What I wrote for class:
Some aspects of A.S. Neill’s schooling philosophy resonate well with me. I am very attracted to a transformative education in general. I think that students should learn for learning’s sake, and that learning is more than just books and facts, but this is a viewpoint that has been a part of my view of learning since childhood. My parents have always emphasized learning the arts and being physically active, and they involved my sister and me in many co-educational activities in multiple disciplines. Education is valuable because it gives students tools for understanding who they are and relating that identity to the world around them. A transformative education aids in this discovery, especially one along Neill’s philosophy. I like that students live at Summerhill because this emphasizes that learning is done in community and encourages learning to happen all the time, and not just at school. I also think that Summerhill does a good job of emphasizing classroom learning and keeping it separate from playtime. Students at Summerhill acknowledge the value of learning literature, history, math, science, and other core subjects. Further, they take an active interest in the democratic process and are constantly involved in making it work since they live at the school.
In contrast, Sudbury Valley is more like a daycare center. Students can show up whenever they want and leave pretty much whenever they want as well. It’s a larger school, so there is less accountability for what individual students are learning than at Summerhill. Further, there are many more activities than there are at Summerhill. I am sure that Sudbury Valley would consider this a benefit, but I think that students would learn more of core subjects if they were limited to more academic pursuits. I do think that there is value to playtime pursuits, but maybe students should be limited to them for a certain amount of time each day. I understand that students should be able to choose what they want to learn, but I think that this philosophy gives children too much credit. I wanted to be an astronaut until I was in middle school, and I only discovered that I enjoyed writing and history much more than science and math because I had teachers who pointed my skills and gifts out to me. I am not sure if I would have discovered this on my own. Sometimes we need others to point out our own skills before we can see them for ourselves.
I think that students should be able to develop their own path for learning, within limits. I like that Sudbury Valley and Summerhill provide this opportunity. I think that K-12 schools should value the arts and physical activity just as highly as book learning, and that test scores should be devalued in favor of the development of the whole person. On the whole, SOL standards actually do aim toward the development of the whole person, because there are standards for the arts, but they are not required tests. I think that we should motivate students to learn what is on the SOLs, but give them choices on how they want to learn those subjects and be assessed on them. Students should be able to choose whether they want to write an essay or respond in some other creative way to a subject in literature or history. They should be able to demonstrate their knowledge of math or science in a way consistent with their strengths. I think that the SOLs are beneficial in that they offer a standard for what students should know, but that students should be given the latitude to decide what they want to do with that knowledge.
Some aspects of A.S. Neill’s schooling philosophy resonate well with me. I am very attracted to a transformative education in general. I think that students should learn for learning’s sake, and that learning is more than just books and facts, but this is a viewpoint that has been a part of my view of learning since childhood. My parents have always emphasized learning the arts and being physically active, and they involved my sister and me in many co-educational activities in multiple disciplines. Education is valuable because it gives students tools for understanding who they are and relating that identity to the world around them. A transformative education aids in this discovery, especially one along Neill’s philosophy. I like that students live at Summerhill because this emphasizes that learning is done in community and encourages learning to happen all the time, and not just at school. I also think that Summerhill does a good job of emphasizing classroom learning and keeping it separate from playtime. Students at Summerhill acknowledge the value of learning literature, history, math, science, and other core subjects. Further, they take an active interest in the democratic process and are constantly involved in making it work since they live at the school.
In contrast, Sudbury Valley is more like a daycare center. Students can show up whenever they want and leave pretty much whenever they want as well. It’s a larger school, so there is less accountability for what individual students are learning than at Summerhill. Further, there are many more activities than there are at Summerhill. I am sure that Sudbury Valley would consider this a benefit, but I think that students would learn more of core subjects if they were limited to more academic pursuits. I do think that there is value to playtime pursuits, but maybe students should be limited to them for a certain amount of time each day. I understand that students should be able to choose what they want to learn, but I think that this philosophy gives children too much credit. I wanted to be an astronaut until I was in middle school, and I only discovered that I enjoyed writing and history much more than science and math because I had teachers who pointed my skills and gifts out to me. I am not sure if I would have discovered this on my own. Sometimes we need others to point out our own skills before we can see them for ourselves.
I think that students should be able to develop their own path for learning, within limits. I like that Sudbury Valley and Summerhill provide this opportunity. I think that K-12 schools should value the arts and physical activity just as highly as book learning, and that test scores should be devalued in favor of the development of the whole person. On the whole, SOL standards actually do aim toward the development of the whole person, because there are standards for the arts, but they are not required tests. I think that we should motivate students to learn what is on the SOLs, but give them choices on how they want to learn those subjects and be assessed on them. Students should be able to choose whether they want to write an essay or respond in some other creative way to a subject in literature or history. They should be able to demonstrate their knowledge of math or science in a way consistent with their strengths. I think that the SOLs are beneficial in that they offer a standard for what students should know, but that students should be given the latitude to decide what they want to do with that knowledge.
11 comments:
I'm glad to see discussions of Sudbury schooling making an appearance in academia. I've worked in Sudbury schools for over ten years, and I appreciate the opportunity to respond to this post.
I can tell a good deal of thought went into it, yet most educational models are, I suspect, susceptible to misinterpretation when treated in so cursory a manner. I'd like to do what I can here to reveal a few of the nuances.
First, regarding the depiction of our attendance policies as "daycare," I must object. At Alpine Valley School, for example, students must arrive no later than 10am (school's open 8 to 5) and stay at least five hours; we have a five-day week and nine-month school year. By school law (voted on by students and staff), students are fined for not signing in or out when they attend, and for not calling in their absences. Sudbury schools are communities, not drop-in centers.
(In general, there is far more structure in Sudbury schools than might appear on first glance. I'd love to go into more detail on that subject, but for now I want to address other points raised in this post.)
This post upholds traditional distinctions between "classroom learning" and "playtime." My experience in Sudbury schools demonstrates that this separation is unnecessary, if not counterproductive. All of us are always learning about ourselves and the people around us, as well as how to navigate the various environments we inhabit. We do this all our lives, even as adults. (For those who choose to ignore life's lessons, real consequences normally follow, sooner or later.)
Why deny students the style of learning they will have to practice as adults? When you immerse students in a setting as close to real/adult life as possible, they learn what we all need to function as capable members of society. Classroom learning has its place, for sure: but do not underestimate the incredible value of learning through social interaction, introspection and, yes, even play, all of which are marginalized in most schools.
Another philosophical assumption evident in this post is a pronounced skepticism regarding the ability of students to direct their own education. Students are just as human as the rest of us, and tend to rise or sink to the level of expectations. In particular, they tend to resist, to varying degrees, in situations that disempower them (imagine that!).
What is expected of students in most schools? That they follow a highly regimented schedule set by others, and perform a carefully regulated sequence of academic tasks. "Responsibility" in most schools means complying with arbitrary authority or facing redirection by what one person described as an iron fist in a velvet glove.
No wonder many people doubt students' capacity for self-discipline and critical, independent thought: most schools operate largely on the basis of externally determined structure, discipline, and evaluation. Do we want young people who can think for themselves and act responsibly? Then we must trust and allow them to do so.
I have seen in five years in public schooling and a decade with Sudbury that when students are not trusted, many become untrustworthy; when not allowed to make (and face the natural consequences of) significant decisions, many don't learn how to think independently and act responsibly. Fortunately, the opposite is true as well: hold students to high standards of character, and you'll be amazed at the results.
There is so much more to say, particularly on the subject of how students learn what they most need to know, but this comment is plenty long already. Let me close by saying that what students truly need is to spend time in an environment of responsible freedom. Trust students' innate drive to succeed in life; hold them responsible when they abuse that trust; and give them a meaningful voice in their education. That's what Sudbury schooling is really about.
Bruce, thanks so much for your thoughtful response! It's good to get another point of view. I admit, what we watched in class was misleading. It was a 20/20 documentary about the first Sudbury school in MA. I do not meant to suggest that every school following that model will produce the same inconsistencies that I saw in the video. I think that this kind of schooling can be VERY useful, and I hope to incorporate these ideas into my own teaching someday. You are very correct that students should be given the opportunities to direct their own learning, I was just a bit apprehensive at seeing kids choosing to play video games for weeks at a time instead of attending instruction. HOWEVER, I have also worked as a journalist, and I understand that journalism can never show the full picture. Your response to my post really helped to highlight some of the main points for me. Thanks for writing it!
As a manager in the software industry, I have to say that the restrictive aspect of current schools is hurting our nation and our economy. Organizations thrive when the members are creative in solving problems, able to communicate and cooperate, and independent and self-confident enough to challenge the status quo in order to better serve the common goal. Summerhill and Sudbury schools both encourage exactly these character traits, and the ability to adapt to change by learning new things, a critical skill these days. Those skills and characteristics are not even goals of most educational programs. Ask entrepreneurs and leaders in the corporate world what they need and you'll hear the same things I mention.
Darren,
Again, thank you for your comments! I totally agree that creativity needs to be kindled in the nation's youth, and I think that any way to encourage that is great. Please see my second post about schooling. :) It's great to hear other perspectives than what my teacher said in class. Understand that I'm in a teaching program now that is preparing us for careers as public school teachers.
I am active on an AP English listserve where Sudbury is seldom heard of unless I mention it. These are the best public school English teachers in America, and are in the trenches so to speak of rich and poor school districts, urban and country. The thought of a Sudbury approach to education is far from their possibilities. I am interested in following your education toward employment as a teacher. I love the title of your blog.
Falstaff
I would recommend another documentary on Fairhaven School (another Sudbury model school): "Voices From the New American Schoolhouse." You can view the trailer here:
http://newamericanschoolhouse.com
Danny, thank you for your recommendation! I'll see if I can get it through Interlibrary Loan -- love that system.
Falstaff, thanks! Though I do have to give credit for the words to the music artist Steven Curtis Chapman, whose lyrics can be read on the right sidebar. Good song. I hope that you (and everyone) will continue to read and keep up with my blog. I love getting comments, and that rarely happens, so the past twelve hours have been very exciting for me. I'll write something more later today about Summerhill/Sudbury.
Abri, you said something in one of your responses that really stood out to me. It was, "It's great to hear other perspectives than what my teacher said in class."
To me this is one of the major problems with traditional education. In traditional schools students are taught to think what the teacher thinks and are discouraged from thinking for themselves.
Personally, I think it is a irresponsible to write off a educational approach as "a day-care" without doing a lot more research. As I am sure you know, journalists and editors are paid to make any story as sensational as possible. Trusting only a journalists limited, and usually biased, view to form you opinion seems naive. If you really want to know more about the Sudbury model of education, read all of the books on the subject and visit all of the web sites and read the articles. Also, there are over 30 schools, most of them would welcome a visit from an education student.
One of the most important aspects of learning is to think for yourself. If nothing else, Sudbury students do this.
Jeff Collins
Hudson Valley Sudbury School
How wonderful to see this discussion - as Bruce mentioned, there is not enough talk in educational circles about education that really works for children.
As a founder and staff member at yet another Sudbury model school, I echo what has been said: that 20/20 documentary was made to be sensationalist, and did not portray an accurate view of what happens in our schools.
I invite you to check out my own blog, in which I have explored many of the differences between traditional schools and the Sudbury model:
http://segolilymama.livejournal.com/
I'm glad that they are at least mentioning Sudbury in Ed Psych classes- that's a start!
Having been a teacher for 33 years, some in public schools and some in alternative or homeschool, I know that there is a vast difference between philosophies, goals, methods, and even personality types in different kinds of education. Just as we would all have a different definition of successful human being, we also have different goals for our children. My own children were "unschooled" and then chose formal school. I think each contributed to their lives today. I support choices for all students! My school, EdVisions Off-Campus, is encouraging students to explore projects at home and "attend" school online. This, too, is an exciting alternative for some students.
Thanks for your blog :) my blog: educationontheedge@blogspot.com but I don't write often.
From academia I expect, the authors to be really informed about the subject "Alternative schooling" before they write about any specific model of education. For me it is a shame to read this Post: "Alternative"schooling" and find out the author's limited understanding about the Sudbury model of education. With all the respect I find it very appropriate to suggest the author to research more about the different educational philosophies and their intimate relation with Sudbury schools.
Post a Comment