Am I from Mars or is it too much to ask that schools become far more Libertarian? Meaning why can't schools be internally shaped to the pupils within them so they can participate within the decisions that directly affect them and have the lessons tailor made to fit the specific needs and desires of the children themselves?
The most famous example in the world of a school which is run like this is probably Summerhill in Suffolk in England. It has now existed since 1921 and despite the British Governments attempt to close it down in March 1999 it is still going. There are roughly speaking several hundred schools run along democratic and libertarian lines in the world today. I have as yet to find any genuine evidence there is anything substantially wrong with them. Most of these schools are possibly the most organised schools you could want with them having rule of law and forms of conflict resolution. The key difference between a school like this and a conventional one is all rules and decisions are made democratically and there is little or no coercion or compulsion placed upon children. One myth that I have heard time and time again wqhich is almost always completely unsubstantiated is that children leave places like this without the capacity to read properly or get a job. Again to just use the example of Summerhill many of the people who have left Summerhill have gone on to a do a variety of jobs. Also if this was genuinely correct OFSTED would have used this as a tool to shut down Summerhill long before March 1999. The only thing they could use against Summerhill was the fact that the lessons were not compulsory.
To my knowledge there are not many schools like this that have failed because of how they are organised. They have usually been shut down by local authorities under very flimsy pretexts. There was a famous case in 1965 when a comprehensive school called Risinghill In Islington in London was closed down because the headmaster Michael Duane ‘esteems cordiality among the major virtues,' and ‘Sometimes in avoiding terror the school has abandoned awe.' as the school inspectors of the time reported. This as well as the fact that Michael Duane rather contentiously at the time prohibited the use of corporal punishment led to the Inner London Education Authority. None of the above proves that there is anything intrinsically weak about Libertarian education but rather the lengths to which people with power whether high or low will go to defend it. If schools can very easily run their own affairs without coercion and compulsion this sets a major precedent for the rest of society; a precedent which is dangerous to every authoritarian everywhere. If children can learn and develop and act responsibly without force then surely adults can to. People might start getting strange ideas if they see their children learning without compulsion and having more rights and freedoms than they currently. It will also put the good people of OFSTED out of a job.
But fortunately for OFSTED and the naysayers these schools are limited and a lot of people have formed views on them based on little or no experience or evidence on how they are run at all. People have formed opinions on these places based almost entirely on thin air. The other major obstacle to the development of Libertarian forms of education in society is the fallacy that children learn and develop through being programmed by adults. Most of the evidence shows that even in their most rudimentary knowledge whether it is in language or learning generally children are not programmed with knowledge but instead acquire it through their own capacities. This is not to say environment is not important. But there has been little evidence provided that proves that whether it is learning information or skills or developing a sense of morality or social responsibility children need discipline or coercion to acquire these things at all. In fact the continued and successful existence of Summerhill and the many schools around the world that are organised on similar lines disproves it is a necessity at all.
The most famous example in the world of a school which is run like this is probably Summerhill in Suffolk in England. It has now existed since 1921 and despite the British Governments attempt to close it down in March 1999 it is still going. There are roughly speaking several hundred schools run along democratic and libertarian lines in the world today. I have as yet to find any genuine evidence there is anything substantially wrong with them. Most of these schools are possibly the most organised schools you could want with them having rule of law and forms of conflict resolution. The key difference between a school like this and a conventional one is all rules and decisions are made democratically and there is little or no coercion or compulsion placed upon children. One myth that I have heard time and time again wqhich is almost always completely unsubstantiated is that children leave places like this without the capacity to read properly or get a job. Again to just use the example of Summerhill many of the people who have left Summerhill have gone on to a do a variety of jobs. Also if this was genuinely correct OFSTED would have used this as a tool to shut down Summerhill long before March 1999. The only thing they could use against Summerhill was the fact that the lessons were not compulsory.
To my knowledge there are not many schools like this that have failed because of how they are organised. They have usually been shut down by local authorities under very flimsy pretexts. There was a famous case in 1965 when a comprehensive school called Risinghill In Islington in London was closed down because the headmaster Michael Duane ‘esteems cordiality among the major virtues,' and ‘Sometimes in avoiding terror the school has abandoned awe.' as the school inspectors of the time reported. This as well as the fact that Michael Duane rather contentiously at the time prohibited the use of corporal punishment led to the Inner London Education Authority. None of the above proves that there is anything intrinsically weak about Libertarian education but rather the lengths to which people with power whether high or low will go to defend it. If schools can very easily run their own affairs without coercion and compulsion this sets a major precedent for the rest of society; a precedent which is dangerous to every authoritarian everywhere. If children can learn and develop and act responsibly without force then surely adults can to. People might start getting strange ideas if they see their children learning without compulsion and having more rights and freedoms than they currently. It will also put the good people of OFSTED out of a job.
But fortunately for OFSTED and the naysayers these schools are limited and a lot of people have formed views on them based on little or no experience or evidence on how they are run at all. People have formed opinions on these places based almost entirely on thin air. The other major obstacle to the development of Libertarian forms of education in society is the fallacy that children learn and develop through being programmed by adults. Most of the evidence shows that even in their most rudimentary knowledge whether it is in language or learning generally children are not programmed with knowledge but instead acquire it through their own capacities. This is not to say environment is not important. But there has been little evidence provided that proves that whether it is learning information or skills or developing a sense of morality or social responsibility children need discipline or coercion to acquire these things at all. In fact the continued and successful existence of Summerhill and the many schools around the world that are organised on similar lines disproves it is a necessity at all.
No comments:
Post a Comment