Sudbury Schools: Rethinking Education, for a Change

[With this first guest-blogger post by Sudbury School advocate Bruce Smith, we widen the scope of this blog to include models older than, and radically alternative to, the much-hyped alternatives in the mainstream media: KIPP, Green Dot, and so forth. Closer to unschooling than schooling, the Sudbury model has fascinated me for years. Check out the video clip from Danny Mydlack's documentary on the Sudbury Fairhaven school, Voices from the New American Schoolhouse, - and see the whole film online here - for a taste. (The student who begins at 4 minutes is especially compelling.) Then enjoy Bruce's post. We look forward to more. - Eds.]
.

.

Rethinking Education, for a Change

Unless you've been hiding under a rock the past several months, you've undoubtedly heard the tireless chorus of voices invoking change. For the first time in years, a political campaign succeeded in capturing the imagination of the American public, leading many to believe that "yes, we can" make a difference. With the inauguration of President Obama, hope now has the opportunity to live up to its promise.

In the world of education - as evidenced by this website alone- ‘change fever' has revived the hopes of those who recognize how much work needs to be done. Yet it seems that education reform's been around almost as long as education itself. Why should anyone believe that this time things will be different? If Lucy is education reform, and the football represents real change, why should all of us Charlie Browns risk winding up flat on our backs once again?

After five years in the public system and another twelve working with Sudbury schools, it is my firm belief that we will not see substantive, lasting change until we are willing to question our most fundamental assumptions about learning, and then take our efforts beyond rearranging the pieces of the existing system. Let me repeat: true change cannot happen until we jettison our ‘better mousetrap' mentality and rethink education from the ground up.

How can we go about this kind of total reassessment? Two possible approaches can be found through reinterpreting reform fads of recent decades. When I was in junior high, Back to Basics was the program associated with the volume A Nation At Risk. As I recall, the essence of this movement was a renewed emphasis on academic literacy - one might say, a souped-up version of the 3 R's. Now it's hard to argue against the value of literacy, but I'd like to suggest another way of determining what qualifies as basic.

For something to be basic, I argue that it must be essential to success in life - not just useful, but critical. This broader view emphasizes strength of character over academic knowledge and skills. If something is truly basic in the non-schooling world, then schools should, as closely as possible, reflect the dynamics of that larger arena. Let me put this another way. Decision-making and ethical reasoning, the ability to chart one's course in life and navigate social structures: real basics like these cannot be mastered in a hothouse environment of classrooms divorced from real life.

Then there's Outcomes-Based Education, the fad du jour during my public-school teaching career. In theory, OBE appears simple and sound: We should determine what knowledge, skills and traits we want young people to possess at the end of their formal schooling, and then work backwards in fashioning an education that will maximize these outcomes.

Fine: let's get to it, then; let's compile a list of outcomes most people could agree on. Wouldn't it be great if, say, all young adults were mature and responsible? If they retained their innate curiosity and added to it persistence and adaptability? What if we fostered critical thinkers, people who were independent, yet tolerant and community-minded?

I'm sure we can all add more items to this list, but that's not the point. The complications enter when we go about trying to realize these agreeable goals. Actually, the more fundamental problem stems from our limited imaginations and, in some cases, our fear of wandering too far from the mainstream. Instead, we take the system we inherited, along with its driving assumptions, and try to fit our ideas - and children - to it. Even poor results rarely shake us free of our habitual perceptions.

Let's consider, for example, the outcomes of responsibility and critical thinking. Which is more likely to foster these traits: being told what to do (and where, and how) most of the time, having the most important decisions made for you throughout your formative years; or being granted decision-making power on substantive issues - then facing the consequences of those choices - from an early age?

At Sudbury schools, the curriculum is life itself. Rather than resisting human nature, we work with children's innate curiosity, their drive to master the world around them. Sudbury students from kindergarten on up are given responsibility for their lives, and supported in engaging both the wonders of the world and the myriad challenges of finding their way in it. In full-fledged school democracies, Sudbury students plumb the depths of human interactions. They learn to navigate groups of various sizes, and not only see but also practice the business of keeping an institution running. Initiative, judgment, respect, responsibility and persistence become key values.

Sadly, far too many of our schools don't prioritize such things. Most, instead of letting kids practice life, just talk about it. Most students seldom experience more than sterile simulations in which only adults set the agenda and evaluate the results. After twelve or so years, these students go out into the world with precious little preparation for the actual business of living. Why, in the 21st century, does the prevailing educational model still adhere to the assumptions and values of the Industrial Revolution? Why do we continue to act as though education is something done to and arranged for children in a highly structured, authoritarian environment?

Genuine education reform is hamstrung by our unquestioned assumptions, by our national obsession with quantifying learning and the fact that public education remains a taxpayer-funded monopoly. Instead of tinkering with the prevailing model, making minor adjustments to pedagogy, class size, teacher training and scheduling, why not start over and dream big?

Why don't we rethink education, for a change?

Bruce L. Smith is a Denver-based educator and freelance writer. After starting his career in the public schools of Columbia, Missouri, he went on to work at schools following the Sudbury model of education. On staff at Alpine Valley School since late 1998, he became the founding director of the Center for Advancing Sudbury Education (www.sudburyschooling.com) in 2006. CASE promotes awareness of the Sudbury model and provides support to Sudbury schools around the world.