Joe Jackson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 16 Jul 1999 23:11:09 -0400
You can't escape the fact that schools are fundamentally businesses, and if
you don't make good business decisions, the school will probably fail.
Running a school painted as a hippy dippy renegade, highly alternative,
experimental program is mighty sexy, but you can't make much of a difference
in this world when you're on your back with your feet in the air. I think
some people's commitment to this whole disenstablishmentarianism vibe is why
so few Sudbury schools are making it.
Accreditation doesn't come only from the government - the regional
accrediting agencies accredit a wide variety of institutions (granted none
of them probably resemble a Sudbury school). A religious school often
states it is "accredited" by its sponsoring church.
I think many schools might see accreditation as a good business move, and if
it doesn't affect how the school operates, than it's silly not to do it just
'cause schools you hate do it.
That's like saying you won't play golf because you hate the golfer image.
- Joe Jackson, email@example.com
Visit Fairhaven School's website at
>> In many minds, the question of whether or not to seek formal
>> accreditation appears to be the trade-of between the ability
>> to draw enrollment from the "larger" community vs
>> restricting one's "market" to those who buy into the
>> "alternative" philosophy. An ability to pay the bills goes
>> hand in hand with maintaining a functional and effective
>> At Sudbury Valley the debate continues. Fortunately, we
>> have thus far been able to deal with the accreditation body
>> WITHOUT "buying in" to their scheme. But clearly, we have
>> wanted to be able to say to parents (those who typically pay
>> enrollment fees), that even though we have a different take
>> on schooling and learning, we are legitimate. I suspect
>> every "alternative" has a similar view.
>(being devil's advocate here...)
>OK. So, let's say I'm running for a major public office. I can run as a
>Republican, Democrat, Independent, or something else. Let's say that,
>despite my fundamental irreconcilable differences with both major parties,
>decide to run as a Republican because it gives me an aura of respectability
>and - especially - it allows me to raise funds with much greater success.
>But I state to anyone who asks the right questions that I really don't
>with the major premises of the Republicans, but, since I am a serious
>candidate, I needed to go with the label in order not to turn off funding
>Note that key among people to whom I don't volunteer my true political
>stands are 1) Republicans, especially party officials, and 2) potential
>donors. I won't exactly lie, I'll just spare them the parts they don't want
>to hear anyway.
>Hmmm. This seems, I don't know, kinda shady to me.
>Why is accreditation any different?
>> Joseph Moore
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:56 EST