Twenty years ago, when I first learned about the Sudbury philosophy, I was absolutely fascinated. Sudbury Valley School (SVS) has no compulsory curriculum and students direct their own learning. Students in this school have equal rights with the staff members, and are involved in running the school. And, instead of using rewards and punishment to manipulate students, the staff members encourage them to live out their true selves.
I thought everyone who knew about SVS would fall in love with their ideas just like I did. Who doesn’t want to be trusted, respected, and treated equally?
But in fact, most people question it. I have pondered for many years and wondered, “What are their doubts about the Sudbury education model?”
Then I realized that most people misunderstand Sudbury education as spoiling kids with unlimited play time and depriving them of the right to learn. They think the Sudbury parents are negligent and establish no boundaries. I didn’t know how this misunderstanding happened, until I read about the parenting history from Robin Grille’s “Parenting for a Peaceful World”.
How did we treat children in the past?
In ancient times, children were not seen as humans in many parts of the world. A lot of children suffered from ritualized mutilation, abused, treated as slaves and sexual objects. Infanticide was common. Whenever children did not serve their parents’ needs, they could be killed. It was only until the Middle Ages and the French Revolution that the church began to prohibit parents from killing their children. However, infanticide still occured in many other parts of the world.
Between the 4th and the 14th centuries in Western cultures, infanticide was frowned upon and replaced by abandonment of children. At that time, though fewer children were killed, they were still commonly used as slaves and sexual objects.
Starting from the 14th century, parents agreed to not abandon their children unless they were under strict control. The new parenting style was to severely beat children and mold their behavior because they believed children were born evil.
During the industrial revolution, child labor was very common. Children as young as four years of age were forced to work in the most inhumane conditions resulting in severe body deformities. During that period of time, schools used to control children by inflicting severe corporal punishment, using for example whips and canes to beat them. Children were forced to sit and were tied down with iron bodices or steel collars, so that they could not move. The education philosophy was “A child cannot quickly forget what he has learned in fear.”
In the mid 18th century, the idea of children being allowed to play was first introduced. Parents started to have empathy towards their children, and people began to oppose to corporal punishment. Nevertheless, emotional intimacy between parents and their children was still strictly restrained.
In the mid 19th century, school employees in France were forbidden to whip children, but corporal punishment still happened in England and the United States. Most countries in the world controlled children by disciplining them in a strict way, suppressing their emotions, and threatening them with terrifying stories. And the issue of child labor has never been eradicated but it was prohibited by law in England in 1874, and in the United States in 1938.
Around the late 19th century, the idea of children having the right to have fun and the right to free schooling became available. The first urban playgrounds in the world appeared in 1885.
From the late 19th to the 20th century, there were more positive changes on how people treated children, and the main parenting style was the “socializing mode”. Parents who implemented this style focused on training and molding children to fit the social norms. They dichotomize behavior into “good” and “bad”, with a strict moral standard. Their goal is to produce a productive, well behaved, “good” child. The more the children fulfill the social expectations and obey the authorities, the more successful the parents think they are. Under this goal, adults will not encourage children to express their emotions. These parents believe that no emotions are good and too much empathy will spoil their children.
Nowadays, there are laws protecting children from abuse in the developed countries, and most societies are opposed to corporal punishment. Gentle parenting and progressive education gradually became the trend. This was indeed a big step in parenting history. Nevertheless, it seems that the supporting mindset behind this progress is still based on the “socializing mode”, that is, parents, schools, religions actively promote “good” values and “normal” behaviors. For instance, children should be polite, honest, generous, as well as brave and independent. They should also be helpful and be good people. In the 21st century, more and more positive virtues are added to the list. For example, other than being good, we should learn about environmental protection, organic lifestyles, mindfulness, natural living, cultural inheritance, spiritual growth, etc.
The limitation of the “Socializing Mode”
These values indeed are pointing us to a better life and a better future. However, if we see children from a socializing mindset, it is easy to fall into the following limitations.
1. The pitfall of false dichotomy
The socializing mode mindset dichotomizes things into “good” and “bad”. A not-so-strict parenting style is spoiling. If we do not control children, their “bad” qualities will appear. If we do not coerce children into being good, they will definitely become bad.
This is in fact a false dichotomy, assuming either this or that. It assumes that no compulsory curriculum results in no learning and bad behaviors. It also assumes that children who have freedom will do evil things, that children who make decisions for themselves will make poor decisions, and that children who have equal rights with adults will abuse that power and destroy the system. This mindset is limiting us from truly understanding and connecting with children.
2. Assuming children are bad (or not good enough) in various ways
The “socializing mode” parenting evolves from infanticide, abandoning, and severe physical punishment, and becomes a more gentle way of control. Underneath this gentleness, the belief that children are evil somehow still exists. Even though people are starting to believe that children have some good nature, they still believe that they are not good enough in many ways which need to be corrected by adults.
Education in “socializing mode” does have good intentions, and the teaching style has evolved from punishment to rewards, active guidance and influence. However, under the goal of shaping “good” children, whether children are their authentic self, whether they are intrinsically motivated and self actualizing, or whether they have examined the “good” values, are not important because the authentic self has a chance to be “bad”, hence it is not encouraged.
Coercive education is based on the “socializing mode” mindset. First, knowledge and skills are departmentalized into subjects. Then, adults decide what subjects are “good” and “useful” for children, then make them the curriculum, and expect children to learn. This must be directed by adults. Though children have begun to have the right to choose what to learn, they can only choose within the adults-approved framework. And the adults will make sure the contents and pace of learning are within the approved standards.
Children who rely on external guidance are less likely to trust their own internal mechanisms. They will gradually believe they are not good enough and their inner power diminishes.
3. Unable to see what’s more behind the behavior
“Socializing mode” parenting places emphasis on the children’s behavior. Children who share, obey their parents and teachers, and who get good grades and trophies are considered to be good. Most people pay little attention to their psychological state behind the behavior.
Many times, those who don’t show good behavior are miserably yelling for help inside, while those who behave well may have in fact compromised their instinctive drive and suppressed their emotions, causing physical and psychological problems. We need to be non judgmental in order to understand children deeply and connect with their hearts. It is difficult to do so with a set of moral standards of good or bad and right or wrong.
I am not saying that all children who behave well are not genuinely good. What I mean is that many children distort their true selves unconsciously to behave well in order to please their parents. They only become aware of it after many years of alienating from their hearts, and living for others. Nowadays, many of the unhappy and high achieving adults are the products of this “socializing mode” parenting style. They don’t know themselves, and they are not able to live out their passion and find their lives meaningless.
A complete different mindset: The Sudbury Model
This explains why most people have doubts about the Sudbury philosophy. Since the Sudbury model not only abandons coercion, strict control, and punishment, it also abandons rewards, implicit manipulation, active guidance and influence. Without all these means to control children, it falls right into the opposite of “good”: spoiled, lazy, selfish, weak, impolite, doing nothing, not learning, no achievement…
This is a misunderstanding in the “socializing mode” mindset.
When we view the degree of freedom and autonomy in the Sudbury model with the eyes of the “socializing mode” mindset, it is indeed frightening. So, what is Sudbury’s philosophy based on?
(English version edited by Talissa Gazeau)
Doubts about the Sudbury Education Model, Part 2
Photo by Francesco Ungaro from Pexels