|
October 10, 1999
The Rt. Hon. David Blunkett
Secretary of State for Education
dfee.ministers@...
Dear Mr. Blunkett,
I have not received a reply to my letter dated 13, July 1999. I hope you have not become displacent regarding Summerhill School.
- Why have you not responded to my letter?
- Is it of good faith on your part to close further discussion regarding the future of Summerhill?
- Sir, what will happen if the education act of 1996 fails?
- What I mean by that is, do you have an alternate plan?
- What will you use as a model?
- What are you using as a model?
- How have I failed to show you that statements made in the press by many education department members, under your control, are in line with Summerhill School’s ethos?
- How is one small school going to affect your whole nation?
- Why have you ignored the questionnaires of past students of Summerhill?
- Why have you ignored the questionnaires from parents of current students of Summerhill?
To let you know that we of the world community are still discussing way’s to help you understand that Summerhill is still a valuable education research school and having been suggested from a Ph.D. in education, I have enclosed a resent correspondence.
Sincerely,
Mark Pryor
27182 La Fuente
Mission Viejo, CA 92692-3432
pryors_place_earthlink.net
K,
It seems to me to be a basic and simple question. Does Summerhill produce
well-educated, happy, productive citizens? The answer can be found by some
not-so-basic research, involving (unfortunately) at least a substantial
portion of Summerhill's graduates. Objectively -- are they more or less
productive, on a variety of scales, than their peers who were schooled
elsewhere? i.e., do they make more money, do they demand higher respect among
those with similar callings, do they have a lower criminal population,
divorce rate, suicide rate? Et cetera. Subjectively -- do they report
themselves to be happy with their lives, their educations, and their
preparation for entry into society?
There are plenty of standard tests available to assess these points. If one
wants to go deeper into the subject, one should also assess the backgrounds
of Summerhill alums and crossmatch them with a sample population with similar
pre-school experiences, socioeconomic status, etc., but that means getting
somebody interested in doing a doctorate, and funding some grad students --
at least it would in the U.S. However, a simple survey with perhaps 50
questions would be ammunition for the present controversy, I would think.
Once this information were available, perhaps both sides of the issue could
be persuaded to look at who chooses to send their children to an alternative
institution, and why, and factor in what happens to those folks with similar
profiles for whom a Summerhill was not an option. Perhaps someone should
point out to Parliament that there are different learning styles, and the
person who feels uncomfortable (and therefore cannot perform to his/her own
potential) in one setting will do fantasticly in another. There are those
who genuinely need a large university, and others who do best with an
apprenticeship.
Pardon me, please, if this is all old hash. As I say, I came late to the
discussion.
Mary
Dear Mary,
Your suggestions are what most rational people would expect. They are
logical and make sense. Summerhill did send questionnaires out to alumni and
parents of current students. As noted in the OFSTED report parents back the
school 100 percent
( <http://www.shill.demon.co.uk/hmi/Report.htm#Report> ). The alumni
questionnaires which show a cross section of PhD's, college professors,
world renown actors, musicians, record producers, painters, computer
programmers, IT administrators, inventors, journalist in all mediums,
carpenters, house parents, engineers (the list goes on) seem to have had
little if any bearing on the fact that Summerhill does provide and has
always provided a sound educational base for its' pupils. Furthermore,
Summerhill's population has always been international. What I mean by that
is, students come from all over the world. And, the school is among the most
democratic educational institutes in the world as well as being the oldest
democratic free school. Allowing the children more latitude in living their
lives under the banner of "Freedom not license" then most countries do their
citizens.
Now, having said that in brief, please be aware that the ministers of
education in Britain have been sounding "Buzz" words and statements like
"lifelong learning", "teach how to learn", "citizenship", "tolerance",
"democracy in learning", "raising skill levels"
(See for articles http://pipe.ccta.gov.uk/coi/coipress.nsf/?Open ) which
seem to align with the ethos of Summerhill. The choice of words would also
lead one to believe that the ministers have some understanding of current
findings in brain behavior and multiple intelligence. (See
http://www.thomasarmstrong.com ). The reality appears to be a "back to
basics" campaign that forces the children in schools to achieve set levels
of comprehension and understanding in subjects that are checked via testing at
yearly intervals. At first this may seem a reasonable position for a
government to take. However, taking a closer look at the reason for this
"back to basics" campaign we find the government and it's ministers felt
that the education process was failing to provide techniques (skills) that
they deemed necessary to compete in the world technology market. Sighting
that many skills of times past are waning or have become obsolete. Of course
this brings up the issue of unemployment and the size of the work force but
let's set that aside for the moment. What I'm trying to say here is if a
system led you to ruin as times changed then don't return back to that same
system and expect it to raise you above the need of the current time.
Meaning: they are campaigning the same education system development in the
last revolution (displacing people and jobs) that is not equipped for nor had
foresight of the current "techno" revolution. It's like a dog returning to
it's own vomit. Their fear of the future work force, or lack thereof, is
understandable but they themselves having been steeped in the old system
have little understanding of alternative education systems and are relying
on their past for the answer instead of creating there future. Mary, they
don't even see that and they are going to stay with what makes them feel
safe. This fear has caused them to set into motion a sweeping law (the
Education act of 1996). This law is their "center" and they use it blindly
with disregard for the destruction that it is creating. So, I think it must
be a law that shall give strength to Summerhill and schools like it. It is
in the court system that we will find ourselves. The letters do little and
they can always "spin" the truth as fare as the public goes.
Well I've gone on probably too much. Forgive my lack of writing style and
incorrect spelling. I would rather make a fool of myself then not share.
Love,
Mark Pryor
| 
Having problems with message search?
Fill out this form to ensure your group is one of the first to be migrated to the new message search system.
Send Email
