Democratic Schools?

Elrohir said:
As a private school, where it is a privilege to be there, and only students who are smart and serious about learning are allowed to go, I imagine it would work well. (As long as the parents are heavily involved to supply some of the discipline the school is forsaking) For the general population as a whole, I bet it would be an unmitigated failure, where much of the population never advanced beyond simple mathematics and can't understand basic rules of English grammar.
Click to expand...
Umm, no, actually most Sudbury schools don't care at all about students' grades and only require that the family understands what the school is and that the family actually wants that. Tuition is usually up to the cultural environment of the school. In Sudbury Valley School tuition is a set fee that does not change for anything, and the school is run as a very independent private school. This seems to fit in well with the cultural environment of Greater Boston, and families which cannot afford the tuition raise the money independently. Those families which have to raise the money for tuition are actually grateful for it because they're not seen as any less deserving of the service they buy. This really seems weird and strange to me, but in Israel it's practically abhorrent to take tuition so I believe this is just a matter of culture. In my own school tuition is taken as a last resort to keep the school running devoid of all government funding, not a matter of principle (as it really is at SVS).
As for parents being heavily involved to provide discipline, that really doesn't seem to be the case at all, ever. The school is not a complete void of discipline as you seem to understand it. In fact, rules in Sudbury schools are taken very, very seriously. In Israel I can definitely say both of the Sudbury schools and many of the other democratic schools take rules way, way more seriously that conventional schools or even society at large. You see, people tend to really care about places that they feel are theirs. The school feels more like a very big, active house, than like an educational institution. This is immensely important. This is not an institution which takes in human material and does stuff to it. These are living communities which govern themselves. You easily confuse the lack of academic coercion with lack of discipline, which shows you have really misunderstood the whole thing. What visitors usually notice at Sudbury schools is how much respect school laws and regulations command, and how orderly and pleasant the schools are. This rightly confuses them, as they know the environment is free.

Masquerouge, if you are ever in Jerusalem be sure to let me know so I can invite you to see a School Meeting at our school. Then we shall see how ill-prepared children are to operate in a democracy. Until then, how exactly do you think putting children through tyranny -- as many here readily and gladly describe conventional education -- is the best way to prepare them for democracy? If you were to run a factory where workers must operate machines with both hands and both legs all at once, would you train them by placing them in handcuffs and tying their legs to a chair? It's common knowledge and common practice today that the best way to learn something is to do it. Almost every job requires experience in the actual field, or instead it trains you by letting you do the work with some guidance for a while. It really puzzles me how people can be so reasonable about business but so insane and backwards when it comes to education.
 
I can easily see it working. When you were in school what was one thing you hated... the busy work. If I am wrong shoot me.
 
Swedishguy said:
I can see the children in elementary being taught: ''OK, children, either you go to the loosely funded class because nobody ever comes there or you'll go home and do what you find good.''
Click to expand...
What's "elementary"? This isn't the kind of place where people are seperated into groups according to the year they were born. =|
 
ShannonCT said:
Have there been any controlled studies applying this model to random or representative students? It would be interesting to see if you could take a group of random children and make an elementary school work on this model.

It's hard to put too much faith in this working for an average child. Obviously, these democratic schools are free to select the most intelligent and intellectually curious students. As someone who has plenty of experience teaching young children, I could see a system like this descending into chaos with the wrong group of students.
Click to expand...
Look, I'm repeating myself here, but I want to make this clear. The only kind of selection our schools have (normally) is that we only take people who actually want to be there. We don't try and judge people's intelligence before accepting them, and the only kind of demographic engineering we do is to slightly prefer an even mix of male and female and a more-or-less even spread of kids of all ages. But the main criterion is first-come-first-serve. At my school the admittance process is incredibly non-selective:
1. Both parents have to have a parlor meeting (our standard way of explaining the basics to newcomers; a kind of introductory meeting). The kid doesn't have to be there because the kid gets to figure it out hands-on later on and if the parents don't get it rarely lasts or ends well.
2. The parents and the kid have to have a preliminary interview with the Admittance Clerk (an elected official; theoretically it can be a student but it's always been a staff member because parents expect an adult). In this interview the Admittance Clerk makes sure that the parents get the idea, that the kid wants to try this out, and that the parents are not against the school in principle.
3. The kid comes in for a trial period of at least one week. The Clerk can make the period longer and she may put together an Admittance Committee if she feels there are issues to discuss.
4. After the trial period, if the kid wants to stay, there is an admittance interview where the Clerk again clarifies what the school is and what the parents should expect. If the family still wants in, they're in.
And that's it. There is absolutely no room for selection. Students who didn't end up joining the school did so by their own choice or by that of their parents. Once the student is in the school she can be expelled just like any other, by the school meeting, but this has happened once or twice in four years and most problems are solved before the student must be forced out.
This is a system that works because it's a very coherent, well thought-out system. Not because it aggressively selects the right members.
 
Swedishguy said:
Elementary school, as in children ranging from grade 1 to grade 9. Use a dictionary next time.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but English is in fact my native language, and I know full well what you meant (though I know it as grades 1-6). My point was that this term does not exist within the school's vocabulary. My own vocabulary is fine, thankyou.
 
Blasphemous said:
Masquerouge, if you are ever in Jerusalem be sure to let me know so I can invite you to see a School Meeting at our school. Then we shall see how ill-prepared children are to operate in a democracy. Until then, how exactly do you think putting children through tyranny -- as many here readily and gladly describe conventional education -- is the best way to prepare them for democracy? If you were to run a factory where workers must operate machines with both hands and both legs all at once, would you train them by placing them in handcuffs and tying their legs to a chair? It's common knowledge and common practice today that the best way to learn something is to do it. Almost every job requires experience in the actual field, or instead it trains you by letting you do the work with some guidance for a while. It really puzzles me how people can be so reasonable about business but so insane and backwards when it comes to education.
Click to expand...

You're right, I should have been more precise in my comment. As far as the actual education is concerned, meaning matters that are taught and the way they are taught, I do not think kids should have a say until at least Junior high - then they can have electives if they so wish, but not on the whole of their education.
But for everything non-education related, I believe schools can set that up the way they want and be as democratic as they want in the process.
But I really think that kids can not decide what's best for them in terms of education, and I emphasize the can not: they lack the proper tools.
 
We had student body elections (mostly popularity contests but not always) and voted on alot of stuff like prom queen/king.

We even had a student Bill of Rights. But that was a complete sham and could be ignored or enforced on wims of the facalty.

I guess in a way the shcool was preparing us students for real world "democracy."
 
@Masquerouge: Ah, but here is probably the toughest thing to understand: we don't expect little kids to make conscious decisions along the lines of "I should study reading and writing because these are vital life skills in today's society". That would be ridiculous. We expect only what is natural and realistic: people from a very young age know what they want, and they want what they need. A baby wants to breastfeed not because he's a hedonistic little *******, but because he needs to breastfeed. A baby wants to learn to walk because it needs to walk. And this goes on later on - you want to get into something either because it's interesting to you ("X is interesting, I want it") or because you realize you need it for something you want for some other reason ("I want Y but for that I need Z first, hence I want Z right now"). These are very simple and basic patterns that humans use to figure out what to do starting with infancy. And we expect (and see, again and again) that using these simple patterns little kids get what they need. Allow me to illustrate.
Little kids at our school generally spend most of their time playing. Nobody follows them around monitoring their behavior and their activities because this is unnecessary and it infringes upon the child's rights. A child comes in at age 5 and can't read a word of Hebrew. Suddenly two years layer we see that kid filling out a complaint form for the Judicial Committee. We ask the kid where they learned how to read - the staff was never involved with any organized teaching for that kid. The kid shrugs. "Dunno." No amount of prying will get much info. Kids just pick up the stuff they need. They instinctively pay attention to the things that are perceived as important by the people around them. This is pretty obvious - when you're interesting in something or you want to learn it, you pay extra attention to it and try to pick up anything you can of it. I've been studying German for some two and a half years now (I'm not really studying it anymore but I'm still a student of the language). Now, every time I was in Germany, and the rest of the time as well, I pay a whole lot of attention to every scrap of German or anything that I suspect may be German (songs I hear passingly, conversation I eavesdrop on). I don't think about it, I just do it, because I want to know German. And indeed I always learn way more by just being in Germany than by taking courses at Goethe Institut. It's an instinctive process that everybody uses whether they know it or not.
So, to sum up what I am saying, nobody expects little children to design a curriculum for themselves. We simply expect that human beings will strive to succeed if not hindered in their doing so.
 
Blasphemous said:
@Masquerouge: Ah, but here is probably the toughest thing to understand: we don't expect little kids to make conscious decisions along the lines of "I should study reading and writing because these are vital life skills in today's society". That would be ridiculous. We expect only what is natural and realistic: people from a very young age know what they want, and they want what they need. A baby wants to breastfeed not because he's a hedonistic little *******, but because he needs to breastfeed. A baby wants to learn to walk because it needs to walk. And this goes on later on - you want to get into something either because it's interesting to you ("X is interesting, I want it") or because you realize you need it for something you want for some other reason ("I want Y but for that I need Z first, hence I want Z right now"). These are very simple and basic patterns that humans use to figure out what to do starting with infancy. And we expect (and see, again and again) that using these simple patterns little kids get what they need. Allow me to illustrate.
Little kids at our school generally spend most of their time playing. Nobody follows them around monitoring their behavior and their activities because this is unnecessary and it infringes upon the child's rights. A child comes in at age 5 and can't read a word of Hebrew. Suddenly two years layer we see that kid filling out a complaint form for the Judicial Committee. We ask the kid where they learned how to read - the staff was never involved with any organized teaching for that kid. The kid shrugs. "Dunno." No amount of prying will get much info. Kids just pick up the stuff they need. They instinctively pay attention to the things that are perceived as important by the people around them. This is pretty obvious - when you're interesting in something or you want to learn it, you pay extra attention to it and try to pick up anything you can of it. I've been studying German for some two and a half years now (I'm not really studying it anymore but I'm still a student of the language). Now, every time I was in Germany, and the rest of the time as well, I pay a whole lot of attention to every scrap of German or anything that I suspect may be German (songs I hear passingly, conversation I eavesdrop on). I don't think about it, I just do it, because I want to know German. And indeed I always learn way more by just being in Germany than by taking courses at Goethe Institut. It's an instinctive process that everybody uses whether they know it or not.
So, to sum up what I am saying, nobody expects little children to design a curriculum for themselves. We simply expect that human beings will strive to succeed if not hindered in their doing so.
Click to expand...

That instinctive process has its limits, though. A kid can develop an interest in addition and multiplication but without being taught mathematics fundamental he won't go far, and that's something that's not always pleasant and rarely seems necessary. And I don't think I agree with your comment that an education is about wanting to learn what is perceived as important by the people around them. A good teacher should teach things even if they do not seem important to him/her.
So while it may work for the very basic education (writing and language), I still think that the role of a teacher is to place some subjects into a kid's attention, and give him the basics so that he can truly progress further.
You can learn the guitar all by yourself but without a teacher you won't go far unless you're extremely talented.
At the end, I still would rather have my kid know the basics in a lot of field than being very good in the few couple of fields he's interested in - that kind of specialization should not come before college IMO.
 
@Masquerouge: I'm going to answer shortly and in points, as I'm not at the best of my health and I've had a very long day. I'll keep posting tomorrow, I hope.
1. Ah, but often a child will develop a keen enough interest to ask someone to help them deepen their understanding of the subject and then they will receive insight from someone who already has a deeper knowledge of the subject matter. And the bonus at a Sudbury school is that it isn't limited to a designated teacher at a designated time - anybody who knows the subject can help kids with it, and a kid who really wants to can apply all her time to the one subject. You get kids with amazingly broad ranges of knowledge and a very deep understanding of some subjects.
2. I always find it odd that people are afraid children won't find out about all the wonderful subject out there. We live in a world where children are exposed to so much content that most parents busy themselves with limiting this exposure to protect the kid. With internet and TV kids are exposed to things you'd never imagine. And yet people expect schools to expose kids to the basics. Well, at a Sudbury school you're constantly exposed to the real world and to myriad fields of interest. You're not made to pay attention to one tunnel-vision view of some area of knowledge - you're just there, living your life, talking with people, hearing what other people are interested in, maybe hearing what's in the news, what somebody just read in some book... You'd be amazed at the kind of things kids get into at our school. By not offering anything we actually offer everything. The sky is the limit, you can apply yourself to whatever catches your fancy. And I'll tell you what, kids may get into all kinds of interesting but esoteric and possibly useless subjects, but they generally all get into the basics because they live in reality and in reality the basics really are basic. When they are faced with the fact that they lack a basic skill, the intuitive patterns kick in and the kids get what they need.
That's all for tonight. Hope I typed well because I'm too tired to proofread.
 
Blasphemous said:
I'm going to answer shortly and in points, as I'm not at the best of my health and I've had a very long day. I'll keep posting tomorrow, I hope.
1. Ah, but often a child will develop a keen enough interest to ask someone to help them deepen their understanding of the subject and then they will receive insight from someone who already has a deeper knowledge of the subject matter. And the bonus at a Sudbury school is that it isn't limited to a designated teacher at a designated time - anybody who knows the subject can help kids with it, and a kid who really wants to can apply all her time to the one subject. You get kids with amazingly broad ranges of knowledge and a very deep understanding of some subjects.
2. I always find it odd that people are afraid children won't find out about all the wonderful subject out there. We live in a world where children are exposed to so much content that most parents busy themselves with limiting this exposure to protect the kid. With internet and TV kids are exposed to things you'd never imagine. And yet people expect schools to expose kids to the basics. Well, at a Sudbury school you're constantly exposed to the real world and to myriad fields of interest. You're not made to pay attention to one tunnel-vision view of some area of knowledge - you're just there, living your life, talking with people, hearing what other people are interested in, maybe hearing what's in the news, what somebody just read in some book... You'd be amazed at the kind of things kids get into at our school. By not offering anything we actually offer everything. The sky is the limit, you can apply yourself to whatever catches your fancy. And I'll tell you what, kids may get into all kinds of interesting but esoteric and possibly useless subjects, but they generally all get into the basics because they live in reality and in reality the basics really are basic. When they are faced with the fact that they lack a basic skill, the intuitive patterns kick in and the kids get what they need.
That's all for tonight. Hope I typed well because I'm too tired to proofread.
Click to expand...

What is the teacher-to-student ratio in such a school?
 
one school I googled said it had 11 staff members for 210 students.
 
I doubt this'd work. Nearly all of my peers just wanted to play paper football all day and they couldn't be trusted to choose real acedemic stuff. And I would just do whatever the teacher recommended so I'd do better in college (except in English, they make us do such stupid stuff).
 
scipian how long do you think they would play paper football if the teacher wasn't there to bug them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

amadeus
What was the first big news story you remember?
2
Replies
37
Views
1K
Arakhor
Arakhor
Xefjord
I appreciate that this site has been around pretty much my entire Civ life-span
Replies
2
Views
257
Lord_Hill
L
GoodEnoughForMe
Should the US be a Dictatorship?
8 9 10
Replies
195
Views
9K
EnglishEdward
EnglishEdward
Samson
Anti-DEI quota riots kill at least 16
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
Samson
Samson
bene_legionary
Moments of Spontaneity
Replies
1
Views
474
warpus
warpus
Back
Top Bottom