Daniel Greenberg - Interview

Technos: Quarterly for Education and Technology, Spring, 2001

In 1968, a grand experiment was begun in an idyllic New England setting: a democratic school, one in which all children, ages four and up, would be allowed to choose their own path of education. There would be no curriculum, no tests, no requirements for graduation, other than what the students chose for themselves to demonstrate that they had prepared to become productive American citizens. And, being democratic, all decisions at the school--including staff retention or dismissal--would be made through vote at the School Meeting, in which everyone was allowed to participate. This experiment is Sudbury Valley School (SVS) in Framingham, Massachusetts, and it is still going strong 33 years later. Begun by a group of founders that included the husband-and-wife team of Daniel and Hanna Greenberg, SVS has demonstrated that the grand experiment works: its graduates are accepted into the colleges of their choice and are employed in jobs of their choosing, and they report a high degree of satisfaction with their lives. TECHNOS spoke to Dan Greenberg one week after the 2000 Presidential election.

The Interview

You write extensively of the democratic process as it exists in Sudbury Valley School. I'll bet the kids have really been busy studying that process as it has worked--or not--in this Presidential election !

That's been very interesting, actually. It has been a topic of conversation, of course. One of the things that sets out kids apart is the fact that they have a great deal of experience with the democratic process here. And they understand that to be an effective member of a democracy, you have to accept responsibility. For instance, in our School Meeting voting, they know enough to ask questions if they don't understand the ballot or, if there is a problem, to request a new ballot. So, to our students, what's happening in this presidential election is bizarre. And they understand the concept of human frailty, that people make mistakes; they accept that. They know that there is no perfect process for election.

Describe the election process at SVS.

Well, for one thing, we have no tenure here, so all staff--including myself, after 32 years--are elected (or re-elected) to out positions through a vote in the School Meeting, which includes everyone. All the election results are counted by teams, and the kids take this very seriously, so they put a lot of time into it. We have about 150 voters [out of 225 students plus staff], so most, but not all, participate in our elections. And there have been times when we had bitter divisions among the voters, nothing acrimonious, but strong divisions of opinion. But they counted the ballots and abided by the outcome. And they understand there is no perfect process for counting ballots.

And I'll bet graduates of that system could deal with the present state of affairs in a mature way ...

Well, most of them now are moving into their late forties, and their experience at SVS has made them able to stand up for themselves and make sure their opinions--and I would expect, their votes--are counted. Many of our graduates are entrepreneurial, self-employed, outspoken, and expect to be treated with respect, as they were here.

You and your wife, Hanna, both have Ph.D.s in the sciences; yours in theoretical physics, Hanna's in biochemistry. What spurred you to work on founding this school?

There was a large group of founders. For Hanna and me, it was having our children that made us want to give them a different educational experience than our own. Hanna and I had two completely different schooling experiences, both unfulfilling. She was raised in Jerusalem, and often ended up running and playing in the streets rather than studying, because, as she puts it, she spent 12 years "in a fog" as far as school went. I had exactly the opposite experience: I was a very conscientious, studious kid. I have called myself a "lifelong recovering `A' student," and it's true. I followed the rules, and I was a high achiever. But, neither of these educational scenarios worked for us, so when we started a family, we wanted a different school for our children. And the other founders felt the same way.

It really began for me when I was teaching in college. I tried all the pedagogical tricks; I tried to entertain them; I used all kinds of motivational techniques. I would deliver lectures that got standing ovations, but later, in the tests and essays, it was clear to me that the students just didn't get it. I wasn't getting through to them, and it was very frustrating, very disappointing. I asked my colleagues about it, and they all said the same things: "Don't feel bad. It's these kids today. They don't work hard, they don't care about studying and learning." But I just refused to believe it was the students' fault! Gradually, I came to understand that learning occurs when it is self-initiated, when kids are self-motivated. You can't make someone learn something--you really can't teach someone something--they have to want to learn it. And if they want to learn, they will.