Nina’s Parting Words

I am so appreciative to everyone I’ve known at the school, and for all of my experience at HVSS. I want to share four important things that I learned:
  1. That letting go strengthens trust and belonging in a community. Sometimes, in the democratic process, when the vote didn’t go my way, and then I let go of the defeat, really let go, later I realized that my sense of community was strengthened more deeply than if the outcome had different. It may seem at first to be counter-intuitive, but the experience of accepting diversity as a good thing expands the life of a community, whereas the experience of consensus can only confirm the life it already has.
  2. I experienced that I could learn whatever I wanted to learn, and that the most acute learning was from my failures.
  3. I learned, unequivocally, through mostly silent, even unintentional observation, that we adults have far more to learn from young people than they do from us. We are so often mired down in past truths, where they are creating the present and future truths.
  4. And I learned that it is safe, and very sane, to do and to believe in what feels right, regardless of what the rest of society is doing and believing. There are no crowds on the leading edge, but there is extraordinary energy and satisfaction.

I’d like to finish now with a short poem…

A New Beginning
It’s complicated, but if I don’t
try to explain, it moves right along
effortlessly.
That’s how this new beginning feels,
like the next logical step
like greased wheels
like the middle of an excellent book,
where anticipation
and satisfaction
are woven
and the pages are turning
effortlessly.
I’m not sad and not sorry
I’m satisfied and eager for more
This end releases me
and this beginning propels me
and this is the moment
where the end
becomes the beginning,
effortlessly.

Amelia Iaia’s Thesis

My experience at HVSS has enabled me to develop the problem-solving skills, the adaptability, and the abilities needed to function independently in the world that I am about to enter because I am prepared to reflect, to change, to take risks and to confront the questions; “What do I want to?” and “Why do I want to do it?” 

At Sudbury we talk a lot about Hitting the Wall. Hitting the Wall is a time of transition. It’s when you have no idea what’s next – it’s a gap year, it’s when you’re looking for a new job, it’s when you’re right out of college, it’s when you are questioning anything and everything.  You find yourself wondering, what am I doing? Why am I even going to this school? What is the point?  You worry that you’ll never have a good idea again, that you won’t be successful, that your life has no purpose, that you are untalented and all of your accomplishments have been pure luck. Hitting the Wall is being forced to ask yourself, “what do I want to do?” and “why do I want to do it?”  When you do confront those questions head on, it’s liberating, you feel limitlessness, and opportunities seem to appear out of thin air; it’s a chance to reinvent yourself. 

This experience does not need to be induced by anyone else but rather it is provoked by a combination of curiosity and boredom. For example, when I first came to Sudbury, I loved it. I could play outside all day and do what I wanted to, at least until I was told by an older student that if I wanted to get certified for the microwave, I had to be able to read. Boom. Suddenly, the thought of reading consumed me. Eleven years later, I still remember having the exact same fears I am having today. I worried that my counterparts in public school were ahead of me and I wondered why I was even going to this “School.” I worried constantly that I would never learn how to read. But one day, something clicked. I was sick of feeling inhibited, I realized that I was the only person who could change the position that I was in, and I became determined to do so. I read books that had already been read to me so I wouldn’t have to focus on the story so much. I asked for help, and I spent all my time reading as much as I could; I was going to learn how to read. I tell this story all the time when I’m talking about Sudbury because it illustrates the point of the school. Facing a natural obstacle, realizing you alone have the power to overcome it, setting a goal, and working to achieve it. 

But there is also a lot of failure that happens at every step of this process, and while it’s painful, it’s also one of the biggest gifts Sudbury gives you: the opportunity to fail. First, it’s abandoning the idea before even trying; giving up on countless projects has taught me two things – one, it’s okay to explore things without commitment, and two, if you want something done you have to make it happen yourself. If you need help that’s fine, but you still have to ask. 

Next is failing at answering the question, “why do I want to do this.” I cannot tell you how many times I would go into School Meeting asking for money, or a room reservation, or some other privilege, and somebody would ask me, “why do you want to this?” and I couldn’t answer. I would say, “because I want to” or sometimes nothing at all, and my motion would fail. It was so frustrating because you think, why can’t they just let this pass? It’s not hurting anybody. It feels personal, like they want you to fail. While it is awful and humiliating to be put on the spot and not have an answer, it teaches you how to think logically and on your feet in an intimate and personal way that shows the relationship to the real world. It gives you the tough-love lesson that everyone learns eventually – if you don’t know why you are doing something, nobody will take you seriously. 

Then there’s failing at the actual thing you are trying to do. For example, when I was eleven years old I decided I wanted to be School Meeting Chair and somehow managed to get elected. 

The most difficult thing about being School Meeting Chair was deciding what to do when someone called a point of order. (For those that do not know what a point of order is, it is similar to when a lawyer says objection and the judge has to decide if the other lawyer will be allowed to continue.) I either didn’t know the answer and got embarrassed, or I knew the answer but was petrified at the thought of upsetting someone or making a mistake. I was a young School Meeting Chair and had absolutely no idea how to assert my authority. Because of this, I made a lot of bad calls. For instance, one time a younger student came in and kept asking somewhat relevant and definitely annoying questions at the beginning of motions. A staff member asked me to stop answering him because it was taking too much time and he could just ask after the meeting was over. At the time, I felt that the kid understanding what was happening was more important than moving quickly, but I stopped because I was so afraid of being criticized by the staff member or even of making a mistake. I then left feeling frustrated and upset with myself more than anyone else, because I had no control over the meeting I was supposed to be running. The problem was I cared more about people thinking I was doing a good job than actually doing a good job. I did not study the policies and procedures enough, nor did I have the confidence that was required to fill that position. But all in all that was okay. I persevered and made it through the year. 

Even though I wasn’t the best School Meeting Chair ever, I grew, I learned about what makes a good argument, how to be an effective member, the difference between being convincing and being manipulative, and about all the ins and outs of our democratic process. I also learned that failure and  mistakes are OK, and that you cannot expect someone to have faith in the decisions you make if you don’t even have faith in them yourself. 

Failure is hard, painful, and frustrating. It’s also a part of life, and by refusing to demonize failure Sudbury allows you to learn from it. I am so grateful that I have had the opportunity to fail and that I got learn not to be irrationally afraid of it. 

When I was fourteen, the year I would have been entering high school, I really slammed into that Wall. All of a sudden, not unlike when I was five years old, I started worrying that I wasn’t learning and that I would never be able to “catch-up” to my counterparts in public school. I got frustrated with the school and the staff. Why didn’t they care that I wasn’t doing anything? Why did I have to jump through so many hoops just to make one class happen? Why did other students constantly drop out of planned activities? Was I missing out on the classic high school experience?  I was angry, I was frustrated, and honestly, I was bored. Some of my frustrations were legitimate: certain mechanisms at school were not functioning smoothly. But I was also avoiding taking responsibility for my own self-doubt and uncertainness.

One day I was talking to a staff member who was leaving the school; she was trying to convince me to stay and I asked her how she could tell me to stay when she was leaving. She said that because this was her job and it came with limitations, but as a student I had the opportunity to do what I wanted and was not limited by the physical location of the school, an opportunity that was unique to Sudbury. Even though I knew that theoretically, I needed the reminder. I started thinking about my fears and frustrations, and ways to address them.  One, I was scared I didn’t know enough math. I went straight to the intern who I knew had a degree in mathematics and asked him if we could set up a class with the goal being to get to same level as 9th graders. Two, I wanted to experience something different. I had been at Sudbury my whole life and while I loved it I was curious about what else was out there. Thinking about the advice of the other staff member, I asked an old intern, one that was currently working at a Sudbury school in Berlin, if I could be an exchange student. At this point I had momentum. I followed through with the intern, I went to class, and I studied. I fundraised to go to Germany, took a German class outside of school, worked with the former intern to work out all of the details. It all worked. I passed the algebra regents and I lived in Germany for six weeks. In hindsight I realize that I would get so caught up in the, “but how will we raise the money, who will teach us, it’ll never pass in school meeting anyway,”  I would forget to even try. 

Around that time a parent at the school led a storytelling workshop that I signed up for. I wrote about my experience at Sudbury, specifically being School Meeting Chair. I started thinking about everything I’d done at Sudbury, what I learned and how I learned it. I worked hard to make sure I represented the school truthfully and eloquently. 

After we gave our talks to the school community, I was invited to speak at the education conference TAISI in India. After TAISI I became interested talking about Sudbury and sharing my experience. I spoke at ISME (a college in Mumbai), I co-wrote and produced a promotional video for the school which was viewed half a million times, I was on the Tom Woods Podcast, and I organized a field trip to visit four Sudbury Schools on the east coast to meet other students and share experiences. I wrote about speaking in India hoping to inspire other people to share their Sudbury stories. I went from being so frustrated at the Staff and the school that I almost left, to studying math and science, (which have always been these mystifying, looming, clouds of dread), building connections with a Sudbury Schools in and outside of the U.S, representing my school to our larger community, in India at TAISI, and the rest of the world through the “What if Video.” I was able to pull myself out of that hole of self pity and frustration because I asked myself, what do I want to do and why do I want to do it? 

Fast forward to last May, I left Sudbury and New York for an internship in Bangalore, India for six months. I was equally excited and terrified, I was excited to live in new country, to have real job, to learn and to meet people. I was proud, I thought about what that would look like a college transcript or on my resume, I thought about what people would say, “She went to India to work at sixteen years old!”, I thought about how it would reflect on the school, like it would be proof that it worked. I was also terrified, what if I can’t handle it? What if I hate it and want to come home? How embarrassing would that be. What if I was bad at the job? I didn’t even really know what the job was. But I went, of course I did. 

We worked on a project by project basis which meant I really got to peer into many different worlds. I got to work on projects like curating an art show where all the works were created by AI in collaboration with human artists; I helped to build a fundraising deck for Kalaari Capital, a top-tier venture capital firm. I had real responsibility, it was scary and intoxicating at the same time.  And, for better or for worse, I got the experience of being treated like an adult. I lived alone for a few weeks, I was able to go out, I went to dinners and parties with people twice my age. Mistakes were not excused by my age and I learned the hard way that what you do, and the corners you cut, effects the entire project and the people you are working with. While it was hard, being away from my family and friends, working at an intense and overwhelming new job that required a huge learning curve. I loved it, I met so many amazing people, and learned so much about work and art and fundraising and telling stories. I got to live and work in India at sixteen years old – and that was amazing. 

When I got back to America, other than graduating from Sudbury I had no idea what I wanted to do. And that was scary. I had just come back from this amazing experience working with really ambitious and driven people and I had no idea what I was doing. I felt extremely lost, how was I ever going to live up to the standards I had created for myself?  I had been so excited about how this experience was going to propel me into widely successful adulthood and now I didn’t even know where to apply or what I wanted to do. On top of that I was no longer an adult, I couldn’t drive, I didn’t have a job, and I had parents again. I was lost, I was scared of not meeting anyone else’s or my own expectations and, once again, I was bored. I was Hitting the Wall. But there was something different this time, I was more confident and I was okay with not knowing what was next, I gave myself time to figure it out. That ah-ha moment came, like it always does. I hit my breaking point and asked how am I going to get myself out of this? What do I want to do? And why do I want to do it? So I went back to work at a pizza place, got an internship at a local photography center and got my GED. 

I am still young and my exposure is limited, but that being said, what I have found so far is that learning to jump at opportunities without being afraid of failure or mistakes has and continues to lead me to life changing experiences and opportunities. Realizing the value of  self-reflection, perseverance, and hard work has made me a better employee, co-worker, and person. Learning how to, and the necessity of, being able articulate myself and my ideas (what do I want to do and why do I want to do?) has helped me in everything I have done so far, from working in India to giving talks across the world to collaborating with others. Being able to push myself to my next goal, whatever that may be, that is the ability I need to function independently in the world I am about to enter. And I have it. 

Alanna Fowler’s Thesis

I’m writing this paper today to show how I have grown to be a productive person in society, and how my education helped me achieve that.

In 2004, when I was three years old, my mother started homeschooling me.  She taught me simple things like shapes, colors, how to spell my name, ect.  We traveled a lot, and it was the best option for my family. Around age seven I started going to a small  homeschooling group where I learned basic math and beginning reading. That summer I went to a camp at Hudson Valley Sudbury School.  I enjoyed it a lot and asked my parents if I could enroll. They were hesitant at first but decided to give it a try. When my dad started suffering from kidney failure in 2009, the structure of the school worked very well for us. We had a lot of appointments to go to and the school’s flexibility allowed me to stay with my father.   My parents wanted me to have fun at school and have a place that I could be myself. So this is how I started my journey at Sudbury.

When I initially enrolled, my reading was still poor, but with help from some friends I met at Sudbury my reading got better and better.I was a naturally shy person but slowly started to come out of that by being in a safe and accepting environment.  Being free enough to explore my personality and focusing on being a young kid helped me become more comfortable with myself. I started to take more responsibility for my life, and gained more respect for myself, my things, and the people around me. I wasn’t focusing much on studies at that time; I was just enjoying feeling free. 

 Next I want to explain my transition into public school. I enrolled my freshman year at Saugerties High School.  I wanted to try something new. This was a big learning experience in itself. Right off the bat i was told that the school would not help me “catch up” because a lack of education is not an excuse to warrant help. I was told I would be a freshman forever if i didn’t do things the traditional way.  I signed up anyways despite the discouragement and did my best. I got good grades in the beginning. But after a while I became depressed with my whole life, school, friends, family, ect. I was associated with toxic people that were dragging me down.. My grades started to slip, and so did my social life.  On January 1st, 2017, I overdosed, and a few weeks later I was taken to Four Winds Hospital after attempting suicide. I was there for two weeks, and during that time I worked hard on building myself back up from rock bottom. We did group therapy and exercises to help cope with stress like deep breathing, meditation, fronting your fears, and putting yourself in situations that make you uncomfortable to overcome them.  The first few days were rough, but by the end of it I felt like myself again – even better, actually. I adapted to my surroundings and got more comfortable where I was. Adapting to situations has always been easy for me and putting my mind to something are two of my strong points. After all this my mother didn’t think that the public school was good for my mental health and she started to arrange for me to go back to Sudbury.  I needed to heal and Sudbury is where i needed to be.

I began Sudbury again that March.  Everyone was nice and kind to me when I returned.  I wanted to do something to focus my energy on so I  asked a staff member if I could enroll in a career-tech program at Ulster BOCES. Originally I  wanted to take the cosmetology program, but it was full. Instead, I enrolled in the welding program.  My sister had done a lot of work with blacksmithing, and I wanted to try something like that. My first day was a bit nerve racking, I wasn’t sure if I was gonna enjoy it or not, but when I laid my first bead in the SMAW booth I was so happy I didn’t end up in cosmetology.  At BOCES I grew close with many of my classmates and my instructors. I know SMAW, TIG, MIG and Oxy acetylene. I can weld in flat vertical horizontal and over-head, and I have experience reading blueprints and mechanical drawings. I will be AWS and NOCTI certified in May 2019.  After graduating from Sudbury and BOCES, I plan on attending SUNY Ulster for a few basic classes before transferring to a four year college to get a BA in Criminal Psychology. During this time I hope to be working in a local welding shop to help pay for my education. Luckily, welding is something I can always rely on if my ideal career doesn’t work out.  Right now my life consists of attending BOCES and being one of two main caregivers for my father, who requires special care like home hemodialysis and help feeding, getting medications, bathing, and dressing. I also help raise my two younger brothers who are four and almost two, i’ve taught them to walk, along with teaching them colors, animals, and dinosaurs. they have helped me with patience, empathy, and understanding. I owe a lot of my growing to my brothers and I will always cherish them for that, I love be able to watch them grow into their own individual selves. Sudbury school has given me years with my father that i would not have had if i was in a “traditional school.” I’m so thankful for the ability to take care of my family and to have the flexibility with my schooling to do so. 

I want to mention a few examples of how I’ve learned to adapt to different situations. The first major one is when I was eight I learned to help my dad when he first got sick. I adapted to having to be the support for him instead of him supporting me. The second big one for me was when I went into a completely different school format that I had never experienced  before. I got good grades for the most part without having a “formal educational “ background. I think that was because of going to sudbury and having confidence in myself to be able to do anything I set my heart on. The same thing happened at BOCES. I went there with the intentions of doing awesome and that’s what I did. Another time I felt confident with myself is actually when I was at my lowest.  I was struggling with my mental health I told my mom I needed treatment and got what I needed. I knew I was suffering and needed help. Attending Sudbury taught me to trust myself no matter what and that we are all EQUAL and that is ok to need help. When I returned to Sudbury I adapted to being there by making my plan for BOCES, and I did what was needed to do it. I worked very hard and it shows because I have one of the highest grades in my class. Adapting and putting my mind to something are two of my strong points that I know was influenced and strengthened by my time at sudbury. 

I’ve achieved a lot in the past few years and have overcame many obstacles  that have crossed my path that have helped sculpt me into who I am today a strong, caring, independent person who is excited for what the future brings me.

Wasting (Almost) Everyone’s Time Teaching Lots of Math

This week our blog is featuring guest author Wes Beach. Wes is a writer, speaker, and the director of an unusual high school that supports kids who want and need something other than entrapment in a conventional high school.  Follow him on FB and @BeachHighSchool, and find Beach High School at http://beachhigh.education/ .

A number of claims are made about the value of everyone learning algebra, geometry and more, but I don’t think any of them stand up to scrutiny.

Before I get argumentative, I want to say very clearly and with conviction that math is a powerful tool and a beautiful subject for many people. Some people have a passion for math, and I respect and admire this. Other people need to complete math courses to reach their goals; this is, of course, sensible. It’s just that math isn’t for everyone; lots of it are not needed in most people’s day-to-day lives.

I often hear, In today’s technical world, success at work requires knowing math. I once asked a telephone repair person who was fixing the phone in my office if he had enjoyed high school. Yes, he did, he said. Did you take algebra and geometry? I asked. Yes, I did, he said. Do you use it in your work? No, I don’t, he said.

I asked a former student who is now a nurse if she thought the high school math she learned was necessary in her work. Yes, she said. How long would it have taken you to learn just what you actually use? I asked. A few hours, she replied.

I suspect that most of my readers can’t remember the last time in their adult lives that they factored a trinomial or wrote down anything that involved imaginary numbers.

It is necessary to know math to appreciate many aspects of our world. I drive over the Golden Gate Bridge on occasion and appreciate and marvel at it every time. I can do this without having been trained as an engineer. When I get to my destination I can enjoy a glass of wine even though I don’t know a lot about winemaking. I can call home on my cell phone, but I can’t explain its inner workings in any detail. Yes, math was fundamental in developing many of the devices, products, and structures we use and appreciate, but it isn’t necessary for most people to know that math.

Learning math means learning logical thinking. I’m pretty sure many people who have passing or even high grades for high school (or college) math classes on their transcripts went through the motions and didn’t understand the material in any deep way. I once had this conversation with a high school student who was close to graduation and had already been accepted at the college of his choice: Wes, he said, there will be math classes required at college. Do you think I’ll have to understand it, or will I be able to just keep doing it?

Those who assert that math does teach logical thinking assume that a math-savvy person transfers his skills in thinking to other areas of his life. In spite of looking for it, I haven’t been able to find any convincing evidence that this is true. If the aim is to teach critical thinking, why start with math and depend on later transfer? Why not infuse high school classes in many subjects with lessons in critical thinking about problems of immediate and real concern?

Logical thinking isn’t the only way to process thoughts. Madeline, one of my former students, made this clear to me. She said that she thinks in big-picture ways, and she easily grasps ideas like the ones expressed in Plato’s Allegory of the Cave. This big-picture way of seeing the world is both a strength and a weakness. Madeline quickly grasps large ideas, but she has trouble paying attention to details. She told me, “Math . . . is a subject that I am not extremely strong in, because it is so literal and exact.”

I am a literal, linear, exacting thinker. This mode of thought also has its weaknesses as well as strengths. I learned math easily (and have forgotten a great deal of it), but a lot of poetry is beyond me because it can’t be taken literally.

Math is required for college admission. This is often true, unfortunately. But one BHS graduate gained admission to Columbia after no time in high school and a year of classes as a nonmatriculated student at UC Berkeley, where he just took just one course in math, a refresher class in algebra and trigonometry. I often wonder what there was in his head to refresh.

Arguments, in some ways parallel and in other ways different, can be made with regard to other traditional subjects, but here I can’t dissect the entire traditional high school curriculum. Suffice it to say that I see no reason why a fixed set of subjects, chosen by people distant in time and place, should be useful for every single person of high school age. Many of my graduates were when I met them, or have become, professional dancers, athletes, photographers, musicians, actors, and so on through a wide range of vocations. One of the reasons they became my students was that they couldn’t focus on their interests and talents in a conventional high school.

Let’s Talk About Screens; “Screen Time” and Self-Directed Education

There is an ongoing cultural debate about “screen time” and its effects on well-being. Most of the evidence is theoretical or anecdotal; there are no large-scale studies, meta-analyses, or longitudinal studies involving children and touchscreens. The debate is often confounded by the breadth of activity included in the term, “screen time.” This article won’t take a position on whether screen use is inherently good or bad, or on whether “over-use” even exists; instead, it describes how the Self-Directed Education (SDE) environments mitigate the potential of over-use and its associated suite of problems, while also creating a productive space for the “screen time” debate to unfold.

Screen Use in Self-Directed Education Spaces

As noted, in most SDE environments, there are no restrictions on how much students can use their screens. Upon receipt of this knowledge, some people assume the student body at a school like ours – the Hudson Valley Sudbury School – must be a zombie horde of proto-cyborgs: incontinent, drooling, and endlessly gazing into their glowing, jewel-like screens. But the truth is even more startling: screen use at our school is moderate.

It seems fair to suggest that insofar as people are turning towards their screens more and more, they may be attempting to meet basic psychological needs, such as the three proposed by Self-Determination Theory:

  1. Competence (seek to control the outcome and experience mastery),
  2. Relatedness (will to interact, be connected to, and experience caring for others), and
  3. Autonomy (desire to be causal agents of one’s own life).

Self-Directed Education environments create conditions which may satisfy these needs, thereby negating the need to “escape” into a screen. They do so in the following ways:

  1. They allow students to choose from a theoretically unlimited list of activities, as opposed to the strictly limited options available in traditional schooling environments. This condition increases the odds of each student finding something they might learn to do master. Since students are free to move at their own pace, to experiment, and to work privately or with the company and instruction of others, they are less likely to be discouraged by failure and more likely to attain competence over a broad range of skills.
  2. They tend to feel more familial than institutional. “Screen time” is usually intensely social and offers lots of occasions for connection, both online and with friends at school. The freedom to choose companions, and to spend as much time as wanted with those companions, provides opportunities to develop deep and meaningful connections.
  3. If nothing else, SDE offers the chance to be the causal agent of one’s own life; full autonomy is central to the very definition of the concept of SDE.

One ability which is particularly relevant to screen over-use is self-regulation, which overlaps the first and third psychological need above. Self-regulation requires competence over a variety of skills, including lay-psychology, introspection, willpower, prioritization, and planning. SDE provides spaces for young people to begin mastering these skills – and in SDE environments they tend to do so in earnest, because they are responsible for themselves, and they know it.

Young people appreciate being trusted with the responsibility, just as adults take it for granted, and they feel that it’s right that they should be, and they rise to that occasion. It’s not that young people in SDE environments are self-disciplined ascetics – self-mastery is a lengthy and lofty project, just ask your local wisdom tradition – but they do tend to be “advanced” in this area, especially after a few years. If you ask around at our school, many teenagers will tell you things like, “I don’t use instagram at school; it’s not what I’m here for,” or, “I don’t bring my tablet to school so I can focus on my friendships.”

The bottom line is that “over-use” is less likely to occur at our school, and that when it does occur anyway, it is less likely to persist, and that when it does persist anyway, the environment is supportive of the phenomena running its course in a healthy manner.

Solving the (Potential) Problem

The focus of this section is the Sudbury model, and Hudson Valley School in particular, because that’s what I know first-hand, but much here will also be true for other SDE spaces. The Sudbury model provides a hopeful platform for working towards reasonable solutions to any problems posed by screen-use. By utilizing a democratic governance structure and – even more importantly – by building a “democratic ethos,” Sudbury facilitates productive communication.

Recently, France passed a national law prohibiting public school students from bringing their phones to school in order to intercept what administrators and teachers saw as a slew of problems phones were causing in their schools. But prohibition has a poor track record; it’s riddled with psychological hazards, and it subverts the need for autonomy and debilitates communication by setting up an antagonistic dynamic between those with power and those without. Sudbury schools, by contrast, are direct democracies, and there is no authority separate from and above the student body. This simple yet astounding circumstance sets everyone at ease from the get-go. The ethos of the school is likewise democratic, in the best sense: staff and students regard each other as fundamentally equal, and the right to be and to express oneself is universally respected. There’s something like a vibrational field of equality which protects the school culture; it’s not that there aren’t differences among us, or that power is never abused; it’s that we respect each other’s autonomy. An equivalent ethos – and therefore arena for conversation – can be found in many other SDE spaces, including those which do not operate as direct democracies.

Taken together, our structure and ethos facilitate clear and honest communication; because there isn’t a power differential between any two parties – and the threat of patronizing regulation or prohibition is absent – real, vital conversations can unfurl. Students and staff alike relax and talk without fear of retaliation. It’s like your friend who’s a good listener and doesn’t judge you: you talk to them, and the conversations are enormously helpful in processing your experience and moving forward. Contrast this to conversations you have with that friend (or family member) who moralizes, jumps to conclusions, and gives unsolicited advice (usually along the lines of, “you should be more like me,”): you avoid talking to them, and when they do get their hooks into you, you resent them and their message; it’s counterproductive.

Many SDE spaces, including Sudbury Schools, have formal platforms for communication as well. At a recent meeting here at HVSS a group of teenagers actually brought up the issue of “screen overuse” in our wider society, and asked for discussion on how we might proactively address it at school. Prohibition theoretically possible, but impossible to imagine: if anyone formally proposed it, every School Meeting Member would show up with their pitchforks and torches, ready to defend their freedom. So the meeting was creative, and several promising ideas were proposed, including the creation of a “scree-free” zone in the building, a petition which willing parties could sign, agreeing to put their screens down during certain times, and the organization of more school-wide activities. Discussions like these usually don’t lead to the adoption of any new policy or law, but they do affect the school culture, and our culture is more important than our legal structure anyway, because it’s more influential on students’ experience at school.

The fact is screens are not going anywhere, and no doubt more are on the way. To the extent that their use may include hazards, the best safeguards against them are found in free and equal spaces such as those created by SDE: 1. The opportunity to live a rich life which satisfies our needs, and 2. A space to grapple with the issues in a supportive community of productive communication which sharpens minds, challenges assumptions, and lends courage. SDE environments are thus well positioned to navigate the the incoming tide of screens, as well as other approaching oceans.

The Psychological Ecology of Sudbury

Faulty Assumptions

When I tell people about how Hudson Valley Sudbury School (HVSS) works, they sometimes ask if it’s like William Golding’s Lord of the Flies. They imagine a vicious world of savage children struggling for supremacy, gnawing on limbs, and skewering random stuff with sharpened sticks.  They even bring up anecdotes from their own experience to suggest that we should expect brutality to rein under the conditions we maintain at our school; they’ll say something like, “in my high school, if the teacher ever stepped out of the classroom, even for a second, a fight would break out.”  I understand – I’ve even worked in a school where that was indeed the case. If not a fight, something transgressive would happen – a champion would emerge from the rows of desks to make some raucous gesture of contempt for authority, to the hoots and applause of classmates.  And when we attempted to have unstructured time, like a recess, there was almost always an actual fistfight. At that school, the adults micromanaged the students as much as possible. The more control a teacher was able to exert over students, the more highly that teacher was regarded; power, and the control it afforded, was the highest good.  The most effective teachers were known for directing students with military precision, drilling them in posture and guidelines which sharply restricted how they could move their bodies, even while seated, and where they could direct their gaze at any particular moment. In such an excruciating and oppressive environment, tense but utterly boring, people find ways to rebel – not because they can’t handle freedom maturely when they find or steal a moment of it, but because they are deprived of it.  Their “transgressions” are hardly evidence of immaturity; they are, rather, evidence of an unhealthy ecology of relationships. The boys in Lord of the Flies were cultivated within a culture of mistrust and assimilated into a brutal hierarchy at their mid-20th century English boarding school.  Left to their own devices, they recreated the ecology of their native psychological habitat. Lord of the Flies is not a cautionary tale about freedom; it’s a cautionary tale about oppression.

The Psychological Ecology of Trust

In enrollment interviews at HVSS, parents sometimes ask about safety, like, how can the young people here be safe if adults are not necessarily monitoring them?  I love this question, because it invites me to explain the mechanism on which our school is built: trust. Everyone tends to understand the emphasis we place on autonomy, because the concept is so firmly rooted in the value-system of the western world.  But the active effect of trust in Self-Directed Education (SDE) programs is more obscure.  I like to point out the window at the little groups and singles, meandering about outdoors.  I say, they are actually safer because we are not supervising them.  They know they’re responsible for their own safety and behavior, so they take care of themselves, and each other.  Sometimes overzealously: there was a time kids would come zooming in to grab a staff member or the nurse anytime someone stubbed their toe.  They’ve relaxed, but they still comfort each other when they skin knees and walk each other to the nurse’s office or fetch her when necessary.  And when someone is taking a risk which others judge a step too far – climbing up to the swaying top of a white pine, for example, you can be sure someone will be standing at the bottom of that tree, checking in.

We all appreciate, so much, being trusted, and young people are no different.  They know very well that they deserve to be trusted and are worthy of it, so they’re delighted when it’s extended to them.  They take it seriously, and comport themselves differently than when they are unsupervised and mistrusted.  In other words, becoming ensconced in trusting relationships engenders trustworthy behavior, creating a psychological ecology in our community which would be unrecognizable to the boys from Lord of the Flies.

Expectations vs. Trust

Here’s something I can agree on with educators everywhere, including the most systematic micromanagers: expectations are powerful influencers of human behavior.  Everyone within a community is intricately and extensively interconnected, and our attitudes towards each other inevitably have their effect.  The more power an individual has, the more potent their expectations. This is fundamentally an ecological insight: it recognizes the extensive interconnectivity and interdependence between people, and between organisms and their environment.

Expectations seek to actively control the behavior of others.  Trust, on the other hand, is a kind of vote of confidence; it conveys a firm belief in the reliability, basic goodness, and ultimate success of the individual.  Like expectations, trust harnesses the interconnectedness of the community, but in doing so it bolsters rather than infringes on autonomy.

As much as we focus on the individual in discussing our school, the group ecology plays a vital role in the experience of each student.  The trust of the community (including parents) is an integral component of our program; it is what we do with the facts of our interconnectedness and interdependence.  We are not a loose federation of individuals which passively supports autonomy by neglect, ignoring our interdependence – we are a community which actively supports each other via trust and trustworthy behavior.

Self-Directed Education works because kids are capable, but also because trust is powerful.  Our students know it is their prerogative to direct their own lives; they know that their parents, and the staff of the school, trust them to do this.  And this trust is abiding. We know that every student will make mistakes, just as we continue to make them. This trust is not a contract, to be withdrawn upon failure.  It’s an impressive message for our young people, and for each other as adults working in SDE spaces, and a serum of strength, affirmation, and encouragement for all of us as we navigate and master the challenges of being free together.

What the Sudbury Model is Really About

As a child of the 1990’s, I grew up a cultural orphan, severed from the traditions and worldview of my ancestors, even of my grandparents.  I had no religion, or explicit system for understanding and thinking, and I experienced this lack as a bewildering vertigo. Nevertheless I longed for meaning, and I was thus vulnerable to every sweet-talking spiritual terrorist and ancient sage who popped into my field of vision.  The philosophical foundation of my psychic environment was materialistic and nihilistic, and for much of my childhood I tottered about swollen with anxiety like a balloon on legs. Matchstick legs. I felt, experienced, and lived all this rather than understood, thought, or articulated it; I was engulfed in a cloud of uncertainty which masqueraded as freedom.  These days, I know this to be a phenomenon new to the human scene, and that it is called “postmodernism,” but at the time it was the only world I knew – the lonely, drifting planet of my birth.

The 90s were the first full decade when the postmodern worldview predominated in mainstream American culture.  All values were equally valid, all cultures equally correct, and every aspect of identity as well as all beliefs were socially constructed.  Even individuals were mere products of their historical context. A hundred years earlier Friedrich Nietzsche had announced that God was dead, and the institutions which used to structure people’s lives everywhere followed suit by crumbling like so many sun-baked acropoleis, and among the ruins lies everything from the church, marriage, family, and the nation, to philosophy and rationality – even science is up for burning at the stake of postmodernism.   Meaning is up for grabs, or – more precisely – it’s too slippery to grab at all, or – more precisely still – it doesn’t exist in the first place, or the last place, or…any place. The only thing that exists is power. There is no place left to plant a flag; truth is dead, too.

This post is not intended as a commentary on postmodernism.  The point is just that tradition, lineage, and moral continuity have been abandoned by mainstream culture; whether you think that equates to freedom or confusion, and for better or worse, it is the psychic environment we inhabit.  The presence of traditional school in that environment creates cognitive dissonance, because the concept of school – with its structured path and proscribed, official curriculum – implies that there is truth, predictability, moral authority, a correct way of doing things, and a destination which is reliable and good.  It endows science with oracular power, sufficient to explain and nourish life. School made sense in the modern era, but its stubborn presence in the postmodern world is anachronistic and confusing, like an outmoded machine too massive to move.

Grand Perspectives

In his book, A Place to Grow, Sudbury Valley School founder Daniel Greenberg shares his epiphany that SVS is really “an American immersion school, where children and adults exist in an environment that fully embodies the American ideals that have inspired this country from the time it was founded.”

Peter Gray, an evolutionary psychologist at Boston University, considers Sudbury to be an uniquely appropriate educative model evolutionarily, because, as he writes in his book Free to Learn, it “contains precisely those elements of a hunter-gatherer band that are most essential for children’s self-educative instincts to operate well.” Gray believes that the instinct to play is of paramount importance in education.

At HVSS, we’ve lately been describing our program as “education for the creative age,” because we believe it fosters qualities (such as flexibility, creativity, and collaboration) well-suited to the  globalized economy and the relentless advance of technology.

The Sudbury Model is all these things, but it’s something else, too – education for the Postmodern World.

In the past, when good and bad were defined and widely agreed upon, life was – in at least one way – far easier than it is now, because each individual didn’t have to figure things out, or “find themselves,” choose their values, define what the “good life” is for them, and decide what standards – if any – to measure themselves against.  But in the postmodern world, we are each called upon to do this, and our success or failure at it is far more important than the degree to which we are professionally successful, because those tasks represent the difference between meaninglessness and meaningfullness.

The capable subject in the postmodern era is the one who is able to think clearly and create or voluntarily adopt the rules, structures, and values that will support them to live a good life. The Sudbury model provides a space to practice living in the postmodern world.  We have been set adrift (or, “free”), and we need to be able to move through that uncertainty; we can no longer rely on churches, states, and traditions. Sudbury schools have an intricate structure of governance, designed to protect personal liberty, but no belief structure, and no political or even educative agenda for their students.  It is the most basic, flexible model, able to include divergent philosophies and lifestyles and also keep pace with technology and information. We don’t imply to students that education, growth, and maturation will be automatically achieved by following instructions. We don’t fool them into complacency by maintaining a path for them to travel; they need to learn how to think, move with confidence, take the right risks, and make the right friends.  They need to get sane and reliable guidance, but they need to know that nobody is going to figure out their lives for them – that ship has sailed. They need to do the work, make the decisions, and write the stories themselves – now more than any other period in history.

Art provided by Raghava. See more at raghavakk.com

Compulsory Math is a Bizarre Institution

Math is vital to civilization. But it doesn’t follow that everyone should be made to study it.

Math is a ubiquitous requirement in school curriculums all over the world, even though most adults don’t know any math and are no worse for the wear. So what gives? Why do we require every child in the country to receive 10-13 years of instruction in math?

One reason seems to be that math is a natural fit for our data-obsessed society; math skills are easier to measure than other types of academic skills, and educators and policy makers can compare scores, compile data, make comparisons, and utilize it all for political ends. Another reason is just that, having signed kids up for compulsory education, we need to find something for them to do, and math fits the bill nicely: it takes lots and lots of time to get a classroom of diverse cognitive abilities on the same page and progressing together through sets of skills, plus all those numbers and equations look good on a blackboard, and there’s always more worksheets if you finish early. Presumably, math is also relevant to making a living, but that’s only true for a select few.

Whatever the reasons, we plow an unfathomable amount of resources into math instruction. Conservative calculations (done with calculator) yield an estimate of 2,000 hours of math instruction per pupil in the US school system. That’s 80 days of math. As in, 80 full 24 hour periods, no bathroom breaks or meals included. A few other conservative calculations (done with calculator) yield an estimate of $30,000 spent on each pupil’s 80 days of torture. Er, I mean math instruction. And by the way, the massive investment isn’t doing us much good anyway.

Just how much math does the average person need to know anyway? The other day, I was driving around with someone (who will remain anonymous here) as they were figuring a few money-related matters out, and at one point they needed to know the difference between 32 and 8(!) What do you think they did? They used the calculator app on their iPhone to perform the calculation. They laughed while they did it, and remarked derisively that the “A” they had earned in high school calculus “wasn’t worth sh*t anymore.” Not figuring 32-8 in your head may be an extreme example, but let’s be honest: most of us don’t know math and it doesn’t matter at all.

Still, it does seem reasonable to suggest that a basic understanding of mathematical concepts is necessary to operate effectively in the world, especially for young people, who may need to know more than the basic concepts in order to accomplish a goal entirely unrelated to math (such as gain admission to a particular college). But math doesn’t need to be compulsory, and actually, just like reading, it doesn’t need to be formally taught at all. Here are three reasons why:

  1. Math is just one language, one way of thinking about and interacting with the world – one of many, and it suits the disposition and cognitive capacities of only a fraction of the population. Requiring everyone to study it for more than a decade means that people who are not mathematical will have less time for the language/modality/skill-sets that suit them better. And they will be branded as failures and feel inadequate and ashamed for not being mathematically inclined.
  2. Math can be learned on the job. All the math skills the average person needs to get by can be learned in a matter or months, or even weeks or days, without any fuss – when that person is motivated to learn them. Around 20% of workers actually need math in their careers, but even they can learn the math they need relatively quickly – on the job, or in training for a specific job. You won’t get stuck in your chosen career path because you didn’t master Pythagorean triples when you were a kid; if it turns out you need that knowledge at your job as, say, a machinist, then you’ll learn it. This is one of the cornerstone insights of self-directed learning: you will learn what you need to learn in order to do your life. Math is no exception. Here at HVSS, students often learn basic math principles and concepts in order to run the school store, for example, or to run their own small business or even just to play the games they want to play.
  3. Without interest, math instruction is meaningless, needless, and useless. Most people are not interested or moved by math. Schools have some success using incentives to get students to learn it, but they can’t get anyone to be actively interested in it. Most people forget almost all the math they learn in school, and they aren’t going to be the people who get careers which depend heavily on math anyway. Only people who have a knack for it and find it compelling are going to become really effective at working with it. And those people don’t need to be made to learn math – you wouldn’t be able to stop them if you wanted to.

And worse. What makes compulsory math worse than a mere waste of time and money is the anger, frustration, and other negative emotions it engenders in large segments of the school-going population, not to mention the missed opportunities for spending that time in an engaging and enjoyable way.

The sweet spot. At our school, people who are interested in math can study it all they want. Others can study it when it becomes relevant to their lives; usually this comes up in relation to money, but other goals and activities sometimes provide the impetus as well. An overt example is the group of teenagers who decided they wanted to transfer to their local public high schools. In order to enter in the tenth grade, they needed to take the NY State Regents Algebra Exam, so they undertook a formal study of math for the first time in their lives; all of them performed well and entered tenth grade the following school year. These students weren’t hindered in the least by never having studied math before – and they hadn’t been burned-out or turned off, either. That’s how self-directed education platforms like our school create a sweet spot for math: students here learn the math they need, whether that’s a little or all of it, and they don’t waste time or get hurt doing math when they don’t want to or aren’t ready.

Strength in Solitude

Most of my days as a staff member at the Hudson Valley Sudbury School are busy as can be. My list is often long and I usually leave having only crossed a few things off because the joys and bustle of the day took me in other directions. But, on occasion, I arrive without a list and end up spending most of my day floating, wandering through the halls looking for who might possibly want my help, or heck, even my company. But, like today, everyone is seemingly content, engaged in their own pursuits and I am more of an unnecessary fly on the wall. In these moments I struggle, much like our students, to figure out how to be productive, to answer the bigger questions about my usefulness in our community, and in the world. I struggle with being alone.

I find myself alone in a silent office, which just adds to the deafening stillness of my day. Outside a young boy is walking in the snow, consumed by his own imagination. I watch him as he turns in circles, talking to himself, and occasionally whipping out a pretend weapon. He seems so content in himself and his activity. I yearn for that type of confidence. What does he have that I don’t? Why am I struggling with grounding my own feet?

As I ponder my place, the same young boy comes into the office with his lunch and asks to sit next to me while he eats. Of course. I help him with his juice pouch (who thought kids could insert those darn little straws on their own?) We sit side by side, me typing, him eating, alone in our worlds but still providing companionship.

“What were you playing outside?”

“Telling stories of course, about Aliens who decide to study humans.“

I have to smile, I wonder what those aliens would say about humans, about loneliness, about confidence. One thing is becoming clearer. He has the time, from a young age, to practice being alone. To be comfortable in his own skin, to feel strong in a giant world, and to find someone when he needs help or companionship. I just need some more practice, and lucky for me, I have the time to do just that.

But what about academics!?

This is part 2 of the 3 part blog: Special Snowflake Syndrome and Other Good Questions.

But what about academics!?

The whole theory of their so-called education was that it was necessary to shove a little information into a child, even if it were by means of torture, and accompanied by twaddle which it was well known was of no use, or else he would lack information lifelong. -William Morris, News from Nowhere, 1890(!)

Indeed, what about them!? Formal academic study constitutes perhaps 5% of the total activities of our students; Horace Mann would have a conniption fit, but – he’s dead! The way I see it, the reason academics plays such a peripheral role (and why that is totally acceptable to us) in our program is threefold:

1. Kids learn the “basics” without academic instruction

Learning to read in the abstract, without intrinsic motivation, is difficult; it takes several years to get most students to do it in traditional school environments. In fact, deep and substantial learning of anything absent of such motivation is, perhaps, impossible. But kids are motivated to have fun, connect, and explore, and meaningfully engaging virtually any activity requires, at some point anyway, literacy, so our students learn to read directly from the material from which they want to get information. Some learn because they are fanatical about Minecraft and need to communicate with other players and understand instructions. Some learn because they want to text with their family and friends on their smartphone. Others learn because reading is a gateway to story as well as enormous amounts of information, and they want it. Either way, kids are usually able to accomplish basic literacy if adults simply provide a text-rich environment, stay out the way, and answer questions and provide requested assistance in a straightforward manner.

Our students learn the basics of arithmetic because…well, they have to, in order to get what they want, just like with reading. And they’re inundated with it, too. If you stop to consider, every day is chock full of numerical transactions and evaluations, so the ability to do simple calculations is critical. An example from school of an explicit and practical use of math is our little store, which is enormously popular. Many students adore the chance to be a cashier, but they have to be able to make change and keep the books, and a more formal study of basic arithmetic often begins right there. Another example from school is baking, always popular; try to follow a recipe without a basic understanding of numbers, and you’ll end up with hardtack – if you’re lucky (we have shelves stocked with it in the basement, if you’re hungry). When our students choose to go beyond the simple arithmetic of everyday life, they do so with ease, as evidenced by the five young teens who took up formal study of math for the first time last year and scored highly on the state Regents Algebra Examination in the spring.

Really, the traditional “basics” don’t deserve to be included in the category of “academics” at all. Rather, they are prerequisites for academic study, and as such they belong in the category of “basic skills”, like chewing, walking, and talking.

2. Academic instruction is inappropriate for kids

Whaaaaaat?! He’s wacky, bonkers, off his rocker, a total schmlocker, a fool, a neophyte, a chryptootyte, a shananaginagain (sorry, I’ve been reading Roald Dahl to my daughter)! Ok, ok, I don’t mean it entirely. But – they certainly aren’t central to the healthy development of children. The general arc of our student population goes something like this: our “elementary” kids play pretty much all day every day, which, from the school’s perspective, is exactly what they should be doing. Peter Gray, a Boston College psychologist and expert on evolutionary psychology, offers a clear explanation of exactly why in his book, Free to Learn,

“In free play, children learn to make their own decisions, solve their own problems, create and abide by the rules, get along with others as equals rather than as obedient or rebellious subordinates. In vigorous outdoor play, children deliberately dose themselves with moderate amounts of fear – as they swing, slide, or twirl on playground equipment…and thereby learn how to control not only their bodies, but also their fear. In social play children learn how to negotiate with others, how to please others, and how to modulate and overcome the anger that can arise from conflicts.”

Kids are learning important things all the time in their apparently frivolous games and interactions. In fact, this is how education worked for hundreds of thousands of years; it suits us, biologically and psychologically. We don’t actually need adults to induce us by carrot and stick to learn, nor do we need an academic environment to cultivate our intelligence; it’s what we do, without necessarily “trying” or being aware of the process, throughout childhood, and hopefully adulthood, too.

As students here transition to the “middle school” years, most of them devote their time to more intensive socializing, forging their social identities and working through the attendant issues, and when they reach what is typically the “high school” years, then, having been built up by all those years of play and socializing, they tend to develop a genuine interest in the world beyond them and their peer group. It’s at this time that most of them undertake more rigorous courses of academic study, to consider what will come after their time here, and to prepare for it.

The school does value academic skills, just not any more than all the other skills necessary to being a competent person. That’s why our program is designed to foster a state – that of independence – rather than any particular skill set. Even if we could somehow coax students into learning the things we (in our infinite wisdom) deem valuable, the notion of coaxation itself implies dependence, and thus contradicts what we understand to be the aim of education. Ultimately, in order to be successful, materially, psychologically, and spiritually, it is necessary to take ownership of one’s life, to move with confidence, and to speak with conviction. The school offers as its piece-de-resistance an opportunity to master this infinitely valuable set of “basics.”

3. Kids don’t care about the future

Most of our students are not interested in preparing for their adulthood; they want to engage their lives right now, and live it up, dude! Sometimes doing so includes some academic study, but more often it doesn’t. Either way, good for them! Anyway, the healthy development of children is grounded in their enjoyment and appreciation of the experience of being alive. When kids attend to the present, as they are want to do, the future takes care of itself .

The traditional model of schooling postulates a dreamy kind of goal drifting around somewhere in the future. Arriving at this destination, however, is always deferred. School, then college, then (often) a series of dreary jobs, and the accumulation of things – and debts – always onward, (apparently) towards that place where you may rest and relax and be satisfied and live your good life. We spent so much of our childhood preparing for the future that it’s difficult to switch gears and enjoy our lives right now. This is not an argument for hedonism, but it is an argument for supporting kids in maintaining their basic present-moment orientation.

The point of our program is not that it accomplishes the same goals as traditional school, or that it does so better, or that it does so but without causing the (troublingly ubiquitous) harms commonly attributed to the traditional system. The point is that is accomplishes different, more sincere, and worthier goals. At the risk of sounding like a beady-eyed well-fed electoral candidate, I’ll say that it consummates that most beautiful dream of our marvelous republic: that people should be free to choose their own values and to pursue them on their own terms. At the risk of sounding like Eckhart Tolle, I’ll say that it promotes living in the present moment (by allowing kids, who do that so well, to continue doing it). And at the risk of sounding like John Dewey, I’ll say that it allows students to learn how to make a life, rather than (merely) a living. But- proud of sounding like a lazy fart, I’ll say that what it really does is nothing at all. It simply exists, thereby protecting kids’ right to just be kids. Doing this is inevitably disappointing for the eager interventionist in all of us, and it can test our patience, but- well, we manage 🙂