Original Article
In 2004, from the moment I heard about Sudbury Valley School from John Taylor Gatto, I felt that Sudbury was exactly what I wanted to pursue—an ideal educational model for children and adolescents. Through twenty years of self-directed education practice, in addition to my own teaching, I have observed various types of innovative education, which has made my feelings regarding the significance of the Sudbury model even deeper. Recently, I read the summary of the Sudbury model on the official SVS website. This summary is extremely concise, yet it perfectly aligns with my own inner understanding of the model. The following is quoted from the “Theory” page of the official Sudbury website:
THE SUDBURY MODEL
“We respect the ability of every student, regardless of age, to plan and carry out their daily activities. We do not encourage students to follow particular paths, nor do we provide assessments of their performance. Rules to protect individual liberty are made by all community members through the School Meeting, and the social order is protected by a peer judicial system.”
It is evident that the founders of Sudbury spent a great deal of thought and energy to refine the most essential elements of the model and express them in the simplest language. Like the other pages of the new website, the founders strive to show the meaning and composition of the Sudbury model with the most concise text, hoping people worldwide can truly grasp its inner meaning.
Ever since educators elsewhere wanted to replicate the Sudbury model and start new schools, Sudbury explicitly gave up the right to officially “certify” whether new schools belong to the model. Instead, they focus on doing their own work well and providing their own explanations, including various speeches, official publications, and multi-media materials in the internet age. Over a decade ago, there was a directory of global Sudbury schools on the website to help students and parents find schools near them, but later this directory was simply removed.
The new version of the official website is naturally another major effort by the founders to “explain themselves well.”
This explanation is divided into at least two parts on the website: “Theory” and “Practice.” In the Practice section, there is a “Framework,” which corresponds to the Sudbury Model in the Theory section. The following is taken from the website:
FRAMEWORK
“Every student and staff member has an equal role in managing the school through the School Meeting. It determines rules of behavior, use of facilities, expenditures, and staff hiring, and delegates specific administrative functions to various agents. All members of the community participate in the School’s judicial system. The fair administration of justice is key to preserving the individual freedom on which the school is based.”
The design of the new website focuses on showing what the Sudbury model is and how to implement it. Each section begins with a segment of text that is very concise but summarizes the topic accurately, followed by two or three representative articles by Sudbury people. In this “Framework” section, the listed articles are:
How The School Operates by SVS
The Significance of the Democratic Model: Self-Esteem, Self-Rule, and Self-Motivation by Daniel Greenberg
I believe that through the “Sudbury Model” in the Theory section and the “Framework” in the Practice section, the official voice of Sudbury clearly expresses its understanding of the model. These two passages can be called the essence of the Sudbury model. For those who still have doubts or do not know what should or should not be included in the model, I think it should be very clear here.
In an article explaining “What is Sudbury Education?”, Sudbury Hong Kong summarized five points. Compared to the official website’s summary, those five points add “age-mixing”; the other four points correspond one-to-one.
The official summary does not particularly emphasize age-mixing. Because the Sudbury concept is inherently that children can learn and participate in community affairs just like adults, age-mixing is self-evident. Since other models like Montessori also emphasize age-mixing, it is not considered a unique feature of Sudbury. However, the other four points summarized by Sudbury Hong Kong—self-directedlearning, self-assessment, the School Meeting, and the judicial system—are completely unique to Sudbury. Although other models have elements of autonomous learning, they cannot compare to the autonomous learning of Sudbury.
Therefore, the official summary can be expressed as four elements: self-directed learning, self-assessment, the School Meeting, and the judicial system.
For those who cannot grasp the essence of these words, I will try to explain using the words of co-founder Daniel Greenberg. The core concepts of Sudbury are:
Children or minors, like adults, can independently choose their own learning and be responsible for it.
Children or minors, like adults, can participate in the equal and peaceful construction of the community.
We can see that these two ideas are precisely the core of the phrase: “We respect the ability of every student, regardless of age, to plan and carry out their daily activities… Rules to protect individual liberty are made by all community members through the School Meeting…”
From a modeling perspective, these two ideas can also be expressed as the four elements: self-directed learning, self-assessment, School Meeting, and judicial system. Together, they constitute the Sudbury model in educational theory. We can say that Sudbury’s 55-year experiment has proven these two ideas for humanity.
Of course, these two ideas can also be merged into one: the first sentence of the Sudbury Model description: “We respect the ability of every student, regardless of age, to plan and carry out their daily activities.” It is just that this “ability” can be specifically divided into the ability to choose one’s own learning and the ability to participate in community affairs.
Greenberg’s educational philosophy emphasizes that children, like adults, can learn within a community—achieving learning by participating in affairs just as adults do. He mentioned this in many articles and speeches. Therefore, the fact that the first sentence of the Sudbury model combines learning and community participation shows that in the Sudbury philosophy, learning and participating/acting within a society are inseparable.
Now, numerous innovative educations are springing up. Everyone is dissatisfied with modern education and sees its disconnection from contemporary society. Many innovative educations suggest that learning should not be separated from society, should be outside school walls, and should be combined with practice rather than just book knowledge. But these words often fail to be implemented and become hollow slogans. Many innovative educations, even with such slogans, are still disconnected from society and practice.
One could say a lot about the specifics of these disconnections. To save time, I will summarize: the essence of these disconnections is that, conceptually, these children are not treated by educators as people who can participate equally in a community like adults. In practice, within the full-time environments where these children spend most of their time, they cannot participate equally in the affairs of that community (the school). The school remains what Greenberg called a “fake learning environment.” Since they cannot participate equally, students are deprived of the most important learning activity. No matter how much you shout about breaking down walls, the school is the wall; you just can’t see it. No matter how much you say learning shouldn’t be separated from society, the students are disconnected.
Therefore, the significance of the School Meeting and the judicial system is not just about protecting rights; they are themselves the most important learning content. They embody the founders’ philosophy that “Life is Learning” and that “people learn through participation in a community.”
From this, we can see that as humanity moves away from the modern education born of the industrial era toward the education of the future, Sudbury—unlike other innovative educations—has moved beyond the stage of merely “deconstructing” and has “established” the new education paradigm from theory to practice.
Indeed, among many innovative educations, the Sudbury model is not the most eye-catching, and is even little known. Even when starting a new Sudbury school, it is extremely difficult to find parents with a true understanding. It is truly difficult for people still mired in the mud of modern education to understand; too many old, wrong concepts need to be cleared, which takes a long process. But in the 55 years since its founding, the Sudbury model has grown steadily and continuously. This is exactly what other “popular for a time” educations lack.
Thus, we see in the practical framework that the School Meeting and judicial system are the actual elements. Self-directed learning and self-assessment are reflected in the specific operation of these elements; these are the core learning contents. Within this framework, students can learn anything else they are interested in, and staff help as much as possible without destroying the students’ autonomy and drive. Sudbury students have rich learning activities, but the School Meeting and judicial system are the core community framework that no one can avoid. Everyone has an equal right to participate and learn from it. Simultaneously, it is the School Meeting and judicial system that truly protect the students’ self-directed learning of other interests and their self-assessment.
Domestic educational innovators, perhaps related to our culture, generally still have a mindset of treating learning as an isolated thing. Even quite radical educators find this hard to avoid and cannot fully integrate learning and practice. Thus, even if they emphasize self-directed learning, they ignore community construction. Learning is not integrated with life and practice, and students’ rights to self-directed learning are not protected; they are still subject to various adult controls. This is why we see that in the Sudbury practice framework, there are only community elements like the School Meeting and judicial system, and not “autonomous learning” or “self-assessment” as separate elements.
Learning is everywhere; knowledge is everywhere; education is everywhere. One must be able to see that education is everywhere to truly understand the Sudbury model.
Since entering self-directed education 20 years ago, I have always believed that learning happens in life and society. Everything is learning; it spans a lifetime. I have been committed to realizing this “ubiquitous” learning. However, children need a safe environment; they cannot walk fully open into society to learn. Therefore, I have always said that a model like Sudbury is the most ideal for children. Some might say there is no ideal model for everyone. Clearly, the founders of Sudbury disagree. We can discuss that separately.
The significance of the Sudbury model lies in providing children with such a safe and completely equal community. If we think about the significance of Sudbury model in theory, it is right here. Learning should be in society and in all environments. We create our knowledge in all places of practice; we realize our learning through equal participation in community and society. It is the true embodiment of the “unity of knowledge and action” (知行合一). For adult learning, we still need much work so adults can learn better in society. For children, they need a safe community where they can participate equally.
For teenagers over 13, Sudbury encourages them to go outside. Staff help students find apprenticeships or practice opportunities. During my visit, I saw few older kids; more than half were practicing outside the school. My personal understanding is that Daniel started a school, but his philosophy is actually against “schools.” He wants a “community,” not a “school.”
Therefore, beyond “Theory” and “Practice,” the third part of the website is “Into the World.” Sudbury prepares minors for the world through the aforementioned framework, rather than saying vaguely that children should just learn in the world.
Thus, Sudbury’s concepts can be implemented. Innovative and even compulsory educations talk about “inner drive,” but only Sudbury truly protects it through the School Meeting and judicial system. They talk about breaking walls, but only Sudbury allows children to have a community where they can participate equally with adults.
Regarding the School Meeting and judicial system, I want to emphasize: by ownership, the founders are the owners and have the right to manage the school. But they consciously “ceded” (让渡) this right to all members, including staff and students. This “cession” creates an environment where everyone participates equally. We must realize there is a “cession” of rights here. Usually, we think founders (and investors) are the owners with final decision-making power, teachers are employees, and students are “clients.” How can they have the right to manage? Especially a one-person-one-vote right equal to the founders? This point helps everyone understand the essence.
Of course, this also reflects the founders’ public spirit. The founders and early staff worked as volunteers for nearly 20 years. This is also part of the essence.
Is there room for further improvement or upgrades? Of course. Sudbury’s concepts also go beyond what is described here. For example, I feel their understanding of “knowledge” is an important part of the model as well, which I discussed in my article commemorating Daniel Greenberg. But the core is what is described here. We first need to understand and consistently achieve this step. This is what our current educational innovation lacks.
Image source: SVS Official Website
