When Sudbury Valley first started people got away with all kinds of discrimination, including but not limited to, the disabled.
I think there is a big gaping hole in the Sudbury philosophy when it comes to special needs kids. I know a couple of people with kids with special needs who would love to send their kids to the school but feel like they would get lost there. I've also had discussions about the possibility of children with disabilities enrolling and having an aide and was kind of shot down and told that it wouldn't work. My issue is that this is not 1968 where you can tell people I'm sorry but this school won't work for you because your child can't get up the stairs. Nowadays the schools need to make reasonable accomodations for the child. I think with proper training an aide could be present if they made it possible for the child to attend. A sticky wicket would be if the child had therapies also. what happens if the kid refuses treatment? Now that I think about it that's their right as a patient no matter where they are.
There would be questions about whether or not the aide could vote in school meeting or write people up or what have you but in my mind it is not an accomodation that would compromise the mission of the school. And it's true that a developmentally disabled child might not particpate fully in things like JC or school meeting but who knows. I think another aspect of democratic society, any society, is that you learn to make provisions for or help in the care of or be a voice for the voiceless. I think to be as inclusive as possible .
Another weird issue that I have, and is that not with Sudbury schools in general but in our school in particular is that people are not very friendly. From the staff down. They aren't mean, but it's hard if you are a new parent in the school. A common complaint of parents is that they walk in and nobody acknowledges their presence. Same with the students. I have a problem with behavior that I think of as indifferent, if not downright rude to be modelled for my kids. Also, if someone they don't know comes into the building the first person who encounters them needs to find out who they are and what they are doing there. I remember saying hi to a mom last year and she said "You know, my son has been here two weeks and you're the first person who has spoken to me." What's up with that?
I always say hello to staff when I encounter them and I don't wait for them to acknowledge me but I haven't been doing that with the students. When you first start at the school they tell you not to interfere or engage or interrupt the students unless they invite you to but I don't think saying hello is so very intrusive. I'm also scared of teenagers so I kind of avoided some of the older students if I was coming into the school. I'm changing because I don't think that I should act in an artificial manner and I think the kids need to learn some common courtesy. When someone comes into your space, your home, your school, your business, the polite thing to do is to greet them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Yes, people should say hello! I understand about having a rule not to interrupt the kids, especially if they are otherwise engaged in a fun activity, but it's just polite to acknowledge someone. How sad that no one even said hello to that mom for two weeks. Not very welcoming if you ask me...
thanks for the reminder
you better believe i've said hello to everyone I meet.
I'm working on goodbye
Regarding the lack of enthusiasm for serving special needs:
So in my mind there are several key issues to address,
How does including special needs children support the mission of the learning community?
Is the current mode of operation of the school capable of effectively supporting the special needs children?
If not, can the mode of operation be changed without compromising the essential aspects of the school community?
The way I hear this idea it seems to rest on the assumption that all schools must serve all people. It seems to me that a major criticism that many people raise about the public schools is that they attempt to force all schools to serve all people and thus force them to fail to serve many of those people. That seems like a very real possibility in Sudbury schools, too.
There also seems to be an ideology that simply exposing kids to people who are different from them is an inherently good thing. A friend of mine once equated it to “drive-by diversity.” Just because a child has once met a minority (the source of the minority status is irrelevant) it does not automatically follow that a positive experience or the countering of a negative stereotype will occur. The positive effects of exposure to people who are different within a learning environment is probably contingent on ensuring that everyone who is accepted into the learning environment will be well served by the learning opportunities available there. It is the day-to-day interactions between a diverse population acting in common cause for learning that breaks down the stereotypes, not the mere presence of the Other. If the student who is the Other is not well served, then the negative stereotypes may become inadvertently reinforced, and if the accomodations made to serve the Other compromise the ability of the school to serve their core clients, then a cycle of self-defeating community deterioration may ensue (as has happened in some public schools.)
On a different note I would suspect that Sudbury has over their decades of operations attempted to serve some people with special needs and I trust they have learned something from those experiences. Presumably they have learned that they do not serve those children well. If that is so, then they are not merely rejecting special needs kids for trivial reasons, but acting in the interests of both the community and those kids by being clear about their strengths and weaknesses.
Consider that including special needs kids is an operational issue, not a philosophical one. If they choose a different way of operating then they may be able to better serve those particular needs. I suspect the philosophy could be adapted to special needs kids based on this article from the New York Times about a school in Georgia that uses a more democratic style with Autisic kids.
Enjoy,
Don Berg
Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem
Now that I re-read my post and your comments, Don, I see that I should not have tried to "sell" the idea of the added merit of special needs kids. Kids enrolling at Sudbury are not asked what is special about them that enhances the mission of the school and special needs kids shouldn't have to prove themselves in this way either. I don't think that a school should or will ever be able to serve all people but I do think a reasonable effort should be made to include as many as possible.
What I often struggle with, and not just on this issue, is finding the line between compromise and capitulation.
Just to be clear I don't think anyone, special or not, should have to justify their own contribution to the mission. The justification has to be done by the school in regards to everyone in the school community. There are different ways that schools do that, admissions committees, hiring committees, etc. Taking the organization as organism perspective every school has a basic level of self identity that enables it to assimilate productive elements and to reject destructive elements.
--
Enjoy,
Don Berg
Site: www.Teach-Kids-Attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: http://www.changethis.com/51.05.AttitudeProblem
Post a Comment