RE: DSM: Re: RE: RE: RE: religious school = more military like?


Mike Sadofsky (sadofsky@mediaone.net)
Sat, 17 Jul 1999 20:13:09 -0400


> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org]On
> Behalf Of Scott David
> Gray
> Sent: Saturday, July 17, 1999 12:08 AM
> To: discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org
> Subject: Re: DSM: Re: RE: RE: RE: religious
> school = more military like?
>
>
> Accreditation is only valuable insofar as one
> wants the respect of the
> accrediting organization. If the accrediting
> organization's criterion are NOT
> ones that a given school would be proud to
> declare itself as adhering to, then
> it doesn't make sense to seek accreditation from
> that organization.
>

Notwithstanding other points made in this thread, and the
parochial debate that Sudbury Valley trustees will have
during this next school year (and perhaps longer), I believe
the issue is NOT one of respect of the accrediting
organization. Surely Scott knows that the NEASC has never
demonstrated respect for SVS as a place of learning and
development. Visiting committees and their members may have
respect for the school, but I don't believe it ever
translated to the NEASC. That institution may have respect
for the fact that SVS became a member, and pursued
accreditation with success, but that's not relevant.
The factor that I feel is important (and this may be
peculiar to the SVS environs) is people (the public)
perceive accreditation as the major factor in their
acceptance of the legitimacy of the school. Do they know
what accreditation means? Generally no, but that doesn't
matter. If a school lacks accreditation, it must not be
legitimate. (Maybe this is a little like a bank. if it's
not an FDIC member, can it thrive?)
Mike



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:56 EST