Libertarian and Non-Authoritarian Schooling Systems - Essay Example

Libertarian Schooling Systems: Summerhill and White Lion Street Free Schools Introduction Freedom-based schools are often founded on the premise that the learner’s freedom and autonomy needs not to be limited. Free Schools have their roots in the modern school movement in Europe prior to the First World War. For instance, the initiators of the Ferrer schools were drawn from the rich legacy of dissenting education, both in America and Europe. It is also during those times that the Modern Sunday School began in 1910, formed by the Radical Library of Philadelphia, which was an anarchist wing of the Workmen’s Circle (Avrich, 2014, p. 57). Thereafter, numerous free schools had cropped up in the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and other parts of the world. One of the most popular free schools in the UK is Summerhill, formed by A.S Neil in 1924. Today, the school is still witnessing sharp government criticisms and constant inspections, which resulted in a court case in 2000. The White Lion Street Free School is also one of the popular free schools in Britain. This school offers a space where kids can exercise freedom and democracy. The libertarian element of the school is based on the principle of equitable distribution of power. To achieve this objective, there are no distinctions between teachers and workers at school, like maintenance of personnel and chefs. To the proponents of such schools, the process of learning should start with the assessments of the individuals’ needs and objectives, as opposed to the societal demands. The basis of the establishments of free schools is that the students set limits to their own independence and freedom and decide on their own when they will learn and what they need to learn. As a result, this form of schooling usually stands in the way of critical pedagogy. Summerhill School and White Lion Free School are some of the examples of freedom-based schools. This paper is going to compare and contrast libertarian and non-authoritarian forms of schooling, Summerhill School and White Lion Free School, citing their strengths and limitations. The paper will further assess their goals and feasibility and determine whether such schools provide promise for future radical education. Summerhill School Summerhill School is one of the famous free schools in the United Kingdom, formed by A.S Neill in 1924. Today, the school is still being run under the management of Leiston, Neill’s daughter, in spite of the constant government criticisms and scrutiny which resulted in a court case in 2000. Neil has served as a teacher in the Scottish state schools prior to the First World War. After taking part in the war, he got the opportunity to work in a progressive school in Germany (Murphy, Mufti and Kassem, 2008, p. 67). His personal experiences of a government-administered school, both as a learner and educator, coupled with his experience in Germany, motivated him to come up with his own ideology of education and to form Summerhill based on his opinions. Summerhill is a fee-paying co-educational boarding school without selection guidelines (de Freitas and Jameson, 2012, p. 84). Freedom and self-direction are essential to the studying experiences at Summerhill, and are offered for the children through the ability to select whether to attend lessons or not via having an equal voice and vote at the weekly whole school group meetings, which determine all the rules, structures and punishments. In as much as Neil did not push for the establishment of rules that guide behavior, which would have impacts on the individual alone, like attendance of classes, he believed that the libertarian authority could not be exercised when the trait of a person, such as bullying, had influence on other societal members. Because Neil did not believe in the authority-oriented punishments, all the incidences of anti-social traits are forwarded to the group meetings and relevant punishments, like payment of fines or missing a social activity, are determined by the entire group. As highlighted by Gribble, the advantage of such an arrangement is that adults at the institution do not punish, hence the relationships between the adults or teachers and their learners are also not damaged (Murphy, Mufti and Kassem, 2008, p. 67). Furthermore, since class attendance is voluntary, the tensions between teachers and their students are extremely rare (de Freitas and Jameson, 2012, p. 84). With respect to the curriculum, creative disciplines like art, craft, drama, dance and music are accorded more weight than intellectual disciplines. The school holds that creative subjects boost creativity, reasoning and imaginations, as well as emotional developments. It also believes that such disciplines are therapeutic for the mental problems and enable less academically capable learners to progress at something (Murphy, Mufti and Kassem, 2008, p. 67). Further, the curriculum for early learning is dominated by plays, and center on creativity, whereas kids aged above twelve years have a personalized schedule based on their areas of interests, which is developed for them at the start of the term in consultation with the child and an adult or teacher. Obviously, the kid does not have to abide by the timetable, since it can be reviewed or revoked at the kid’s discretion. Moreover, pupils can decide to take formal examinations like GSCEs (de Freitas and Jameson, 2012, p. 85). Neill’s schooling ideology and its practical applicability at Summerhill have been continuously debated and criticized. First, it has been argued that Neill’s writings and ideologies, sounded on his personal experiences, are unsystematic and simplistic. His works are made up of numerous assertions, and he seems to generalize from the personal perspectives to universal academic principles. In addition, educators have raised questions regarding the anti-intellectual grounds of his theory, which ranks learning as not significant and appears to suggest that kids can wholly make use of their freedoms and meaningful choices. Nonetheless, in spite of the sharp criticisms and close government inspections, Summerhill goes on to prosper, and emerged victorious in an appeal held prior to an academic tribunal in 2000 against a governmental call to shut down the school (de Freitas and Jameson, 2012, p. 85). Summerhill is the most scrutinized school in United Kingdom, having gone through nine Ofsted inspections from 1989 to 1999. In 1999, the institution failed an Ofsted scrutiny largely owing to the fact that since class attendance is voluntary, this perspective was viewed as a contradiction to the government’s policies for a school to offer a wide and balanced syllabus in consonance with the National Curriculum (Murphy, Mufti and Kassem, 2008, p. 68). The institution was ordered to revoke its position of voluntary attendance at lessons or make sure that if children decided not to attend lessons, they were seeking supervised private studies. However, the institution refused to give in to the government’s pressure and appealed to the Independent Schools Tribunal (de Freitas and Jameson, 2012, p. 84). As highlighted by Newman, in his review of the 1999 scrutiny and the consequent tribunal hearings, the institution won the appeal when the government’s case collapsed four days in the hearing process. To some extent, the case against the institution collapsed since the inspection crew was deemed not to have adhered to their remits. When inspecting a private learning institution, Ofsted is supposed to evaluate the institution in view of its own objectives and policies, and ensure that the institution is meeting the minimum requirements highlighted by the government for the institution to remain operational as a school. One of these requirements is to offer a wide and balanced curriculum. This policy at Summerhill is that most of the schooling is undertaken by the students in out-of-class environments and in extra-curricular activities. Nevertheless, the inspectors never visited such activities or take into consideration the out-of-class learning (Murphy, Mufti and Kassem, 2008, p.68). Newman terms Summerhill’s victory in the case as genuine choice in schooling, pointing out that the clear paradox is the fact that whereas the New Labor envisaged a firm commitment to choice and diversity in academia, they were attempting to shut down an institution which reflects these very qualities. Newman deduces that the choice provided parents and students in the county is a prescribed and illusionary choice, and is clearly not more than the chance to select what is acceptable to the paternalistic state (de Freitas and Jameson, 2012, p. 84). White Lion Free School Formed in 1972, the White Lion Street Free School situated in North London is one of UK’s best-known free schools. Many renowned educators backed its establishment including Neill. The objective of the school is to offer a space where kids can exercise freedom and democracy. The democratic element of the school revolves around the principle of equitable sharing of power. To achieve this objective, there are no distinctions between educators and other workers in the institution such as the cooks. All the school’s employees are regarded as workers, who meet with the kids to make decisions concerning the school. Additionally, parents take part equally in the process of power sharing. Decisions are arrived at through democratic consensus. Thus, it is a majority-rule kind of system, where all the members agree on all the decisions made (Spring, 2012, p. 68). White Lion Street Free School serves as an oasis of freedom and democracy in a system that is highly structured and usually unfriendly to such views. While some parents take part in the activities, others do not attend. This is partly owed to the pressures of work and daily life, which do not allow many parents and guardians with the time and energy to attend and take part in school decision-making processes. In a society of small simply structured communities, parents may be thought of as meeting on a regular basis to make decisions concerning their kids’ schooling. The pressures of the outside world bring about challenges in exercising freedom. To begin with, the British legislations demand school participation and class attendance. As a result, the kid’s attendance at any particular institution, such as the White Lion Free School, is not a question of personal choice. Clearly, being compelled to take attend school contravenes an essential principle of non-compulsory schooling (Spring, 2012, p. 68). The local educators in the school once set up an experiment, where they decided that they would not have a head teacher, nor hierarchy and recognitions to any particular central figure. Instead, the school would be controlled by parents, students, and teachers. It enrolled with the Department of Education, ticking the box “education otherwise” as home learners. This move made the school subject to frequent inspections from the government. The school established an office building above a shop during its beginning, and the number of enrolled students grew to over twenty. Because there is no hierarchy, teachers are referred as helpers, they were not initially paid for the services they delivered, but are today paid. White Lion Street Free School has today become a center for attracting trade unionists, parents, as well as civil rights activists. It has also become a destination for idealistic university scholars. The institution had to find a way of moving frequently to get cost-effective spaces sufficient for the growing number of students (Spring, 2012, p. 68). Similarities between Summerhill and White Lion Street Free School Both Summerhill School and White Lion Street Free School have allowed the children to behave as they want and be themselves, by removing restrictions on moral behaviors. It is up to the child’s choice to attend school or not, and the teachers and parents’ role is only to provide the required resources that they need to go about their activities of schooling. The disciplinary role and rules are not left to the school’s teachers and administration to determine. Instead, the learners decide how an errant member can be disciplined. Therefore, these schools have renounced all disciplines, directives, suggestions, as well as moral trainings and instructions. The only thing that is needed in these schools is for parents to have complete beliefs in their kids as good beings, not evil. In both Summerhill School and White Lion Street Free School, there is no hierarchy nor an authoritative figure who sets rules and directives for the learners to follow. Instead, the students are their own bosses. They are the ones who set the rules and determine the mode of punishments. For instance, in White Lion Free School, there are no distinctions between teachers and other workers like cooks and security personnel. Instead, all the school personnel are called ‘workers,’ and are required to meet with the learners to make decisions concerning the school. In the same way, parents are allowed to freely participate in the school in the power sharing endeavors. For that reason, decisions are arrived at through democratic consensus. In Summerhill School, there is extreme equality to the extent that the learners view their teachers as their equals, not masters. In both Summerhill School and White Lion Free School, examination is not mandatory. It is left to the choice of the students whether to pursue them or not. In Summerhill, for example, the pupils may choose whether to take formal examinations like GCSE, depending on their future ambitions. Furthermore, the school does not have regular class examinations. Rather, examinations are set occasionally for fun, and it is up to the children to decide whether they want to take the tests. For instance, a group of twelve-year old students may decide to compete in other tests and handwriting with other pupils below them or years above them. In the same way, the White Lion Street School makes examination optional for students depending on their future ambitions. This means that pupils who may decide to advance their studies to the university or college level are at liberty to enroll for examination, whereas those who do not wish to further their studies may not take formal examinations such as GCSE. This is because the schools are founded on the principle that the children know what is good for them. This means that if they make up their mind that they would not wish to go on with their studies, they are allowed by their parents and teachers. Differences between Summerhill School and White Lions Street Free School While both schools are guided by libertarian principles, there are differences in the extents to which such principles are applied within their schooling systems. For instance, while there is absolute freedom regarding the lessons that a student should attend in White Lions School, there is a limit to the number of times that a student should miss class in Summerhill School. Therefore, these schools differ in the extent to which the freedom to miss lessons are exercised. In that regard, students at White Lion may miss classes as they choose, but in Summerhill, this liberty is regulated. For example, in Summerhill, no pupil is forced to attend lessons, but if, say Tom, attends an English class on Tuesday and fails to avail himself again till Friday, of the next week, fellow students may quite rightly object that he is holding back the work hence they may decide to throw him out for impending progress. With respect to curriculum, White Lions School is more focused on intellectual development than creativity and art compared to Summerhill, which has highly emphasized on art, creativity and entertainment. Hence, whereas White Lion Street is a libertarian school with much emphasis on intellectual disciplines such as mathematics, literature, history, science and geography, Summerhill offers learners these intellectual subjects, but mainly focuses on development of students’ creativity and art capabilities. In this regard, creative subjects in Summerhill like art, craft, dancing, music, and drama are given more weight than academic disciplines. Summerhill believes that creative subjects promote and improve reasoning, imagination, as well as emotional well-being. Strengths of Libertarian Forms of Schooling Libertarian forms of schooling promote the development of critical consciousness. This is a necessary aspect of academic development for any child who wants to progress intellectually. In addition, these schools develop democratic ideals and skills. These ideals and skills range from showing concerns for social justice, involving being capable of acting on a person’s crucial understanding of matters relating to justice in a politically active manner. These institutions work to nurture such democratic ideals and capabilities in their learners, and just like the development of critical consciousness, the schools themselves endeavor both implicitly and explicitly to advance such sensibilities and capacities among children (Morrison, 2012, p. 95). Libertarian learning institutions like Summerhill and White Lion Free School offer environments where kids’ concern for the democratic social justice start to surface, merely by virtue of the schools’ day-to-day structures, organizations and practices. Social justice issues have caring for and having respect for not just fellow humans, but also the natural environment. Summerhill, White Lion Street School, and the Albany free School implicitly motivate the development of both elements of democratic citizenship. The regular pupils’ meetings, non-hierarchical relationships between the pupils and teachers, as well as the diversity of the school attendants and regular field trips, help promote such ideals (Morrison, 2012, p. 95). The regular school and class meetings not only promote the growth of kids’ critical consciousness, but are also helpful in the development of empathy and the capability of truly hearing and valuing the voices and concerns of other people. During the school meetings and decision making, the kids listen to stories that relate to life circumstances and how they feel regarding events and interactions. Since such schools are made up of a diverse body of people, coming from different social systems, of differing genders, varying sexual orientations, tribal, cultural, and racial descents, the stories and experiences that the kids listen to in their regular meetings and in other programs within the school are not homogenous or similar to their own. This exposure offers them with opportunities for them to discuss openly, hence provide the kids with opportunities to take into account other diverging opinions and life situations (Morrison, 2012, p. 95). In libertarian schools, children not only learn to hear the concerns of their friends, but also get the opportunity to listen to their adults’ views. Teachers at these free schools, owing to the fact that they do not hold powerful positions, do not have to establish a deceptive persona of hardness or thick skin to maintain this power, and often speak out the pain they feel from the learners’ treatments or from some situations that take place. For instance, teachers can convene meetings regarding a student’s refusal to clean up their messes. Rather than punishing these kids for being deviant, which may be done in the conventional schooling systems, teachers may call council meetings to discuss their conducts and are able to air such grievances regarding the incidences. In as much as there is absolutely no assurance that hearing other people in meetings automatically results in the development in empathy among all the kids, the opportunities are present for the learners to develop an extent of hearing the concerns of others, as well as learning to be concerned about others, crucial aspects of developing social justice mindset (Morrison, 2012, p.95). This schooling system works to promote attitudes of caring and empathizing with others, which is found in the ceremony aspects of such schools. In these schooling systems, when an individual is unwell undergoing a troubled period of his or her life, bracing them for a surgery, or even leaving the community, the functions are held, normally to bid them goodbye or try to express empathy with the members’ predicaments. This further strengthens a feeling of responsibility and empathy among the learners (Morrison, 2012, p. 95). Limitations and weaknesses of the libertarian schooling system The pressures of the outside world can bring about challenges in their exercise of freedom. In the first place, the national laws demand school attendance. As a result, kids’ attendance at any learning institution, such as Summerhill and White Lion, is not a question of personal choice. Clearly, being compelled to attend school goes against the basic ideology of non-compulsory education. In addition, libertarian schools are few schools positioned in the midst of other numerous conservative schools. This means that some parents move their kids from school to school, leading to a highly transient student population. New kids need a period of adjustments to the environments of a free schooling system. Finally, many parents consider such schools as the destination for their problematic kids, who are normally very distracting. Most of these kids need psychological assistance that transcends the capacities of the staffs of these schools, for one cannot sacrifice other kids to one problematic child (Spring, 2012, p. 69). Apart from the above weaknesses, freedom to learn implies that some kids may decide to learn nothing at all. As the students report to the school, the workers start to seek their participation in some forms of learning. A small number of kids may opt to learn something and finally move to one of the academic halls with the workers. However, most of the students spend their precious time hanging out, and listening to music or wandering about the school premises. Besides, giving a child the freedom to learn or not may lead to restrictions of the kid’s future freedom and happiness. For example, in the absence of knowledge and understanding of the government, as well as the economic systems, citizens can easily be oppressed and exploited (Spring, 2012, p. 69). The broad goals of radical education The above examples show that the goals of radical education projects are to promote the developments of critical consciousness as an ingredient for liberation. Another goal of radical education projects is to develop democratic ideals and skills. These ideals range from having or showing concerns for social justice, which may entail being capable of acting on an individual’s crucial understanding of justice matters in a politically proactive way. Hence, the broad goal of radical education is to bring up a society that is liberal in their thinking (Morrison, 2012, p. 95). Promise for radical education The above cases do not provide promises for radical education in the future. This is because they advocate for complete separation of state and educational affairs. In this regard, the government can sponsor the utilities and fund the educational credit cards. However, the separation of utilities and shielding them from external political and economic interferences ensures that the learning process can be used as an avenue of ideological control by the ruling class, for generating compliant employees in the industry, or as a tool for maintaining social class differences. Thus, the outcome of such a schooling system is an authoritarian society, an arrangement that it intended to kill in the first place. References Avrich, P., 2014. The modern school movement: Anarchism and education in the United States. Princeton University Press. de Freitas, S., and Jameson, J. (Eds.)., 2012. e-Learning reader. A&C Black. Morrison, K. A., 2012. Free school teaching: A journey into radical progressive education. SUNY Press. Murphy, L., Mufti, E. and Kassem, D., 2008. Education Studies: An Introduction: An Introduction. McGraw-Hill International. Spring, J., 2012. Corporatism, social control, and cultural domination in education: From the radical right to globalization: The selected works of Joel Spring. Routledge. Read More