The New School

It is easy to see from its general design how the formal structures of The New School arise from the free school tradition. The School Meeting and the Judicial Committee are legacies of the Little Commonwealth and Summerhill. They have been adopted by both The New School and Sudbury Valley.

The use of staff rather than teachers and the resistance to the student-teacher relationship which is an earmark of The New School’s practice comes directly from the practices and innovations of Sudbury Valley School.

However, there are significant differences in the structure of The New School. Because of the importance of rigorous and articulate inquiry in the traditions of The New School, it was necessary to avoid even the appearance of inconsistency in the freedom afforded to the students of the School. The expectation that students at various times would subject the structure of the School to intense and demanding scrutiny made this necessary, to avoid any possible sense of betrayal or deception being suffered by the students. Because of this, the corporate structure adopted by Sudbury Valley and the headmaster system maintained at Summerhill were insufficient for the needs of The New School. The structures of The New School have therefore been designed so that the freedom of the members of The School Meeting is not tempered or subject to control by any other body.

Both the School Assembly and The New School, Inc., are entities subject to the discretion and action of the School Meeting. Though they are able to act within the scope of their roles, neither of these bodies has power to determine policy or otherwise limit the discretion of the School Meeting. The freedom of the students is not granted by any other authority. Rather the individual freedom of each student is recognized as their inherent and unalienable right.

There is at least one other reason that The New School declined to adopt Sudbury Valley’s practice of vesting ultimate policy authority in the School Assembly. Melanie had experience prior to her founding The New School with an innovative school which was organized as a parent cooperative. It was apparent from that experience that a school designed along the lines desired for The New School would soon develop into a very conventional form, if parental values were the dominant force in policy making. With this lesson in mind, it was thought prudent to leave the ultimate policy discretion in the hands of the students through the mechanism of the School Meeting.

(Please note that in matters of funding by tuition, parents have a veto power over the actions of the School Meeting. Though the School Assembly cannot modify the spending plan proposed by the School Meeting, a process which easily could develop into a means of controlling day to day policy by financial means, the Assembly can veto the budget and thereby refuse to fund the plans of the School Meeting. This power of overall veto is appropriate, since it is the parents who pay tuition. It is only fair, therefore, that the Sudbury Valley practice of allowing parents to vote on this issue be followed. However, allowing any more detailed policy control to the Assembly would be inappropriate, because it would ultimately represent a usurpation of the power of the members of the School Meeting. The veto power of the Assembly places it in a position where the School Meeting must consider and address the Assembly's concerns on financial matters. It does not allow the Assembly to dominate or control the School Meeting or the policies of the School.)

Another structural difference in The New School is the form and conception of the School Meeting. The New School does not share Sudbury Valley’s commitment to participatory democracy as an ultimate end of the school. Neither does it share Summerhill’s commitment to a harmonious community life as a condition for inner freedom from psychological stress or fear. For these reasons the function of the School Meeting at The New School is neither to practice participatory democracy as at Sudbury Valley, or to foster communal cooperation or cohesion as at Summerhill. In fact, the School Meeting of The New School is not a corporate body charged with making either corporate or communal decisions. Rather, the School Meeting of The New School is a forum where the individual members of the School who are interested in a matter of shared resources or individual conflict can meet and arbitrate their differences. It is therefore not a governing body in the usual sense, but a tool for the coordination of individual desires and interests.

This approach to the School Meeting as a tool for the use of the members of the School is consonant with the treatment of each student as the focus of the School. Thus this arrangement emulates Neill’s injunction to be "entirely on the side of the child." Further, this formulation of the School Meeting allows a broader scope for experimentation with concepts of governance and power structures to those students who choose to use the School Meeting to explore these issues. By not committing to a participatory democracy model, the child is free to explore the roots and underlying issues implied by that system itself. Hence, rather than teaching a child to live in a participatory democracy, the structure of the School allows the student the opportunity to explore the underpinnings of democracy itself as well as any other form of government.

This is more consonant with The New School’s interest in allowing the broadest range for intellectual freedom and in fostering intellectual engagement of first principles in all areas of interest to the student.

Send comments and questions to us at info@TheNewSchool.com