Talk:Sudbury Valley School

Comment
Considering the unique nature of the Sudbury model of education, and that there are now over 40 schools practicing the model started at Sudbury Valley School, it seems this is an important school to write about. I've cleaned up what was here a bit, but if the page is going to conform to the proposed WikiProject Schools template, there is still some more work to be done. Aaron Winborn 12 Jun 2005

You may want to consider upgrading this article to conform to WikiProject Schools. Davodd 07:53, Feb 24, 2004 (UTC)

Encouraging creativity?
I have reverted the recent addition to the Curriculum section seemingly claiming that the freedom allowed to students is intended to encourage creativity. The way I understand the educational model, and indeed the way the founders of SVS talk about it, the freedom is not intended to encourage anything in particular. It is intended to allow the students to develop as is right for them, without any unrequested interference. The Sudbury model does not have any kind of educational agenda in the traditional sense. The model simply expects people to take responsibility for themselves and manage themselves effectively. It is misleading to claim the model specifically espouses creativity. Michael Sappir • (Talk) 14:58, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

In response to Michael Sappir, I think maybe you have a different view of the schools purpose. The school can inspire the creative process for the child who already wants to learn a specific thing. It's not going to be for every child. That's a given. That's why "t--74.94.154.5 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)raditional" schools are still around. It's not supposed to replace them, it just give kids who are looking for a way to express their creativity and begin a journey that they plan not a guidance counselor who has no clue what they want. Guidance counselors are a whole new topic. Traditional schools don't offer the same type of creative spirit. Traditional schools are structured to create followers. People who will follow the mold and become the best at memorizing and stressing things that won't apply to anything they want to do. The Sudbury model lets students learn things that interest them. They find out real life applications to subjects that matter to them. They are more likely to become a viable part of their community. Isn't that what we need now instead of more drones just trying to survive while doing things they don't wanna do? Regulator13 07:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable!! I'm a parent with children and this almost made me want to move to MA. Seriously, it sounds too good to be true, and maybe it is. I'd like hear more about how the students do after their graduation.

Let us stop with biased opinion. SVS in no way encorages anything. As I see it SVS follows a simple philosophy of do-it-yourself, it doesn't guarantee success or failure. All SVS does is abandon a student and hope that he can somehow survive in the jungle of chaos alone. Instead of advertising let's try getting the facts. Stop basing information on what the school and the students there say, because, they most likely, will say nothing bad about the school in fear of getting expelled. --74.94.154.5 (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Point of View
Looks like this article needs a POV "cleanup"; not to mention citations &mdash; most articles are in desperate need of facts. --Charles Gaudette 15:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In response to Charles Gaudette and requests to expand the article, I have attempted to flesh out the article and add several sources. I am still concerned about a neutral POV, as I had trouble finding criticisms of the school or its instructional methods. If anybody is aware of articles of criticism, please cite and discuss them. ZuG 16:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the first step of a POV cleanup would not entail finding criticism to include, but removing some of the subjective opinions of other school systems.


 * For example, this article calls public schools "one of the last bastions of autocratic rule," a statement which of course has no citation because it is far too subjective to support. Even if we are willing to regard a school administration as a form of rule, and thus autocratic rule, how can we possibly say that it is one of the last bastions of it?  What about libraries?  Subways?  Coffee houses?  Your car?


 * As another example, the article describes this school system as a true democracy while others only employ democracy among the privileged few, e.g. faculty. In fact, both SV schools and public schools only allow a proper subset of the public to vote on administrative matters; it just happens that the SV system has a larger proper subset.


 * As for including criticism of the system, I think that should only happen if substantial criticism has been published. A neutral point of view is not necessarily a balanced one, and a slanted article should not be fixed by tracking down and mixing in an equal but opposite amount of slant.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.125.249.34 (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Advertisement
I added a "criticism" section, which contained a bulleted list of *two* criticisms. Within half an hour, it was deleted. I conclude that this article has been captured by people who are using Wikipedia to propagandize for S.V., and request that the article be locked and maintained by a neutral party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.195.114 (talk) 18:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * what were the two criticisms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.66.48 (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

That seems like a logical decision and I would support you on that--74.94.154.5 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Judicial Committee
I've done a bit of clean up on the article but it still needs substantial work. One area that I think needs particular help is the Judicial Committee. This pretty much dominates the section on committees, although at least at my school it is fairly unique to any other committee in that participation is mandatory and it is given much more authority. Will someone who is familiar with SVS's JC create an accurate description of their process? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Motive.Power (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

This may not be entirely accurate, as I'm working from memory, but: The JC is made up of five apointed members, each one representing a diferent age group: one older teenager (17 or older), one mid-teenager (14-16), one younger teenager (around 13), one older child (between 8 and 12), and one younger child (between 4 and 8). The school meeting chairman apoints the JC members. Being apointed to the JC is mandatory (as in, if you're picked you have to serve on JC). However, the chairman asking someone if they wish to be on JC out of courtosy has happened. But that really depends on the chairman at the time. The JC is run by two JC clerks, who are elected in the school meeting. There are four JC clerk elections a year, with each pair of clerks serving for eight weeks. Also, each staff member serves on JC every two weeks as part of a rotating schedule.

Again, however, I was merely working from memory. I'm not 100% certain about the number of elections or the length of the Clerks' term. --Lupus27 01:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Section wholly lacking third-party sourcing
This lengthy section is wholly lacking in third party sourcing (it's all sourced to the ubiquitous insider, Daniel Greenberg) to demonstrate its prominence (per WP:UNDUE & WP:V), so I'm moving it here to talk unlless & until such third party sources can be found. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Subtleties of a democratic school
Certain nuances in the operation of Sudbury Valley School emerged during the years it has been in existence, which are essential in defining it:


 * Political neutrality
 * Sudbury Valley School is apolitical. This is a school in which they consciously do not pay attention to the political views of the people who seek to become members of the community: party affiliations, philosophy, class, about any of the features that separate political factions in society. The school does not endorse or support or involve itself with any local projects programs or activities that have a political agenda, while alternative schools and other democratic schools are virtually all identified with specific political movements. The school practices the idea that people of divergent political and social views can work together in a common enterprise where they have common goals other than politics, that political and viewpoint ideas will naturally develop and be discussed by people among themselves, and that the 'law of the land' is fairest and most reasonable when it is pluralistic, and does not formally take sides in aesthetic or political choices.


 * The existence of rules of order
 * Official meetings of any group in this school operate according to some set of explicit, formal procedures. The chief function of rules of order is to protect all views and to give them as detached and thorough an airing as possible enabling for decision making, as opposed to the most prevailing models of decision making in schools, the authoritarian model, and the one run as a continuing encounter group, including other democratic schools, which some of them operate without rules of order. Rules constitute the main protection for reason, intellect, objectivity, detachment, and minorities in a group context, as opposed to feeling and emotion. It is the existence of a clear, explicit procedure that protects and encourages people to introduce motions, thence coming to feel that there is access to the political process to all.


 * The rule of law
 * The Rule of Law is generally acknowledged to be a cornerstone of orderly, organized society. In this school, laws are always promulgated in writing, and careful records are kept of the body of precedents surrounding each rule. There is a simple process accessible to all members of the community. There is no opening, however small, for arbitrary or capricious authority to step in.


 * The public schools remain one of the last bastions of autocratic rule in our society. There is in fact no rule of law, by and large the same as in alternative schools where power resides in the momentary whim of the majority at a given instant. They hold the unity of the community to be of prime value and to take precedence over everything else. So they will usually undermine any attempt to institute the rule of law, since that would tend to make an individual feel secure and protect him when he chooses to stand apart.


 * Universal suffrage
 * This is the idea that everybody, every member of the school, student and staff, has a vote. It is really a simple idea, as opposed to the idea of democracy as it is sold in Academia, in the heart of our educational system, where the idea is a Greek one: democracy is for the privileged. Confusing the issue of subject matter with the issue of political power.


 * Protecting the Rights of individuals
 * This school has a strong tradition that there exist rights belonging to every individual member of the school community, and that these have to be protected in every way possible, for example the right of privacy. Because of this right there is no intervention in the private affairs of students &mdash; intervention that characterizes other schools, including other democratic schools.


 * Protecting the rights of individuals is not an absolute concept; it's a much more subtle one where the line is drawn between community interest and private interest that involves a great deal of judgment. The idea of individual rights is absent from schools, because the rights of people in schools &mdash; other democratic schools included &mdash; are simply not respected, even if there is occasional lip service paid to this.

School meeting
Students and staff are invited to participate in the running of the school via the School Meeting, with each participant receiving one vote. The meetings are conducted using Robert's Rules of Order. The School Meetings determine rules and regulations for all aspects of the school, including finances, new rules, and the election of staff. To keep the school running smoothly, it also creates Clerks, Committees, and School Corporations.

Clerks, committees, and corporations
Clerks are essentially administrative officers that handle tasks within the school, such as grounds maintenance or attendance records. Committees handle larger tasks, such as school aesthetics or rules violations; the membership of the Judicial Committee is described below, but all other standing committees in the school have open membership—any School Meeting Member (staff or student) may join any committee in the first ten days of October or the first ten days of January. School Corporations are the equivalent of departments or clubs at traditional schools—all School Meeting Members (students and staff) may be members of each corporation, and each corporation elects its own directors.

The Judicial Committee
The Judicial Committee investigates allegations of school rules violations, holds a trial, determines a verdict, and imposes a sentence (much like the current judicial system in the United States). If a sentence is appealed, the appeal is held in the weekly School Meeting. Students and staff alike may be called in front of the Judicial Committee.

School assembly
There is also an annually-held School Assembly, which is the broad policy-making arm of the school. It consists of staff, students, and parents of students. Its main purpose is to approve the school budget submitted by the School Meeting. It also elects a Board of Trustees, which only exist in an advisory capacity. Its purpose is to study questions posed to it by the Assembly and report back to the Assembly when it is ready to do so.

[End of section wholly lacking third-party sourcing HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC) ]

Is all that is left in the article wholly third party sourced?
94.230.82.164 (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Nope -- pretty close to none of it is third party sourced -- see all the 'Sudbury Valley School Press's in the References list. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Specifically, the 'Educational philosophy', 'Staff' & 'Alumni' sections are sourced solely, or almost-solely to Sudbury Valley School-affiliated sources. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Then, why is this article still part of Wikipedia?

94.230.82.164 (talk) 09:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Because it's pretty near impossible to get any article on a school deleted -- I saw one school article -- no sources cited in the article & none raised at AfD, still 'kept' by the AfD. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 09:49, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope -- because pretty close to none, no wikipedia article on a school, is entierly third-party sourced -- or at least most of it. If the editing of all wikipedia articles on schools was done the way you did the editing of this article, articles on schools would be emptied of important parts of these schools' core ideas. Articles would remain as stubs, as you did with this one. 94.230.81.67 (talk) 08:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I thought you wrote: "No third party sourcing = no inclusion". Does that applies only to Sudbury Valley School?

94.230.82.164 (talk) 09:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * "No third party sourcing = no inclusion" is indeed the rule. The (de facto) exception only applies to AfDs, and would presumably apply to an AfD for this school. This exception does not allow such articles to grow to excessive size based solely upon school-affiliated sources. Additionally, I originally said "pretty close to none of it is third party sourced", not 'absolutely none' -- meaning that there is likely to be a small third-party sourced core left, even after the 'Sudbury Valley School Press' material is eliminated. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Educational philosophy synthesis
The 'Educational philosophy' section is a list, which purports to be based upon this article (published by Sudbury Valley School itself of course -- the writers of this article don't believe in sullying their purity with third-party infidels). However I'm having a great deal of difficulty abstracting this list from this article. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

== This article became a stub because of HrafnTalkStalk(P) ==

Pretty close to none, no wikipedia article on a school, is entierly third-party sourced -- or at least most of it. If the editing of all wikipedia articles on schools was done the way you did the editing of this article, articles on schools would be emptied of important parts of these schools' core ideas. Articles would remain as stubs, as HrafnTalkStalk(P) did with this one. 31.210.178.236 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)