Q&A
■ 看資料會發現，早期瑟谷有公告教師或課程訊息，為什麼後來取消了？課程有開放給社區居民嗎？
瑟谷剛開始時是由一群想要革新教育的人發起，試著找出教育小孩的理想方法。他們知道自己正在開創新事物，知道自己將會在一些非常深刻的哲學問題中掙扎。其中有兩件事交互影響：一個是取得當地社區與法律的認可，能夠運作學校；另一個當然是我們對於自己哲學的掙扎。
瑟谷初期有個信念，一個合乎常理的信念，就是學習會發生在課堂中，因為每個人都認為課堂與學習相關。然而，就像一個人隨年紀增加智慧也會增長，一個有在觀察與聆聽的機構，也會變得更有智慧。
整個瑟谷，包括小孩、職員等學校裡的人們，沒多久就了解與發現到，上課無法幫助人們學習－－生活才是人們學習的途徑。不僅限於學校，每個地方都是如此，只是在學校比較明顯。
有大概長達三十年的時間，我們以為這個信念（學習發生在課堂中）是有價值的；而也許在瑟谷的前三十年，加入當地的學校聯盟、得到相關單位的認可，有助維持學校的運作。
在這兩個因素的組合下，瑟谷職員因而提供課程。至少校方得確定所有的主科都有職員可以教，而學生們知道會教的人是誰；那就每年九月貼個告示在公佈欄上吧！告訴大家「這兒有某個職員可以教這個，某個職員可以教那個」。
這又回到了我與Joan Rubin的那個故事，我以為修課是菜鳥融入瑟谷的方式，因為當我第一天走進學校，抬眼望見佈告欄，想著：好喔，這裡有公告課表，這八成就是我在這個學校要做的事吧？所以，公告那些課程絕對是個錯誤。真的。
我第一年當職員時，在學期開始前有個會議，我講到我覺得那些訊息實在很糟糕，會讓新生在加入初期就搞錯了瑟谷的意義。職員們都同意，沒人喜歡那些公告。討論過後，大家決定不再這麼做了。身為職員，我們說「我們受夠了，我們再也不要這麼做。」
這個機構的理念是活的。我們知道自己有個命定的未知目標，並且每年都往那個命定更靠近一點。瑟谷就是這樣一個地方，我們曾經有過嚴重的錯誤，但我們也能斷捨離。
（未完待續）
When the school was first opened it was opened by a large group of people who were looking at education de novo, trying to figure out how to educate children. They knew that they were starting something new. They knew that they were going to have to struggle through some really deep philosophical questions. Two separate things interacted: one was as was eluted to a community approval and legal approval, the ability of a school to operate. And the other one was of course our own struggling with our own philosophy.
The first days of the school there was a belief, an understandable belief, that learning was going to happen at least at some stand with classes because classes were what everyone thought of as related to learning. Just like a person who gets older becomes wiser, an institution with its eyes and ears open becomes wiser. It did not take very long for the school as a whole, the other kids, the staff, people in the school, to understand and realize that classes were not helping people to learn at school. Living was what people were doing to learn. Not just that school but everywhere, but that was visible at the school.
For a while I guess it was about the first 30 years of the school we thought it was valuable. And maybe in the first 30 years it was to be part sort of a local club of schools and a crediting agency in private group that gives it a stamp of approval to schools who are a member of it.
So a combination of this idea that the staff were going to offer classes from those early days philosophically with the way in which that a crediting agency thought we should operate, you know. At least we had to make sure that all of the major subjects that were some staff could cover and the students knew who they were. Let the signs being posted on the bulletin board in September every year, saying “here’s the staff member who would teach this, here’s the staff member who would teach that.”
This goes back to my story about Joan Rubin. There’s a reason why I thought that this was how to get along in the school. Because I walked in first day, rolled my eyes and said, well, here’s the list of classes on the bulletin board. I guess this is how I get along here. So it was definitely a mistake for us to advertise those classes. It really was.
My first year as a staff member, we had a meeting before the school started, and I talked about how awful those signs were, how they were getting people off on the wrong foot in their first couple of weeks. All the other staff agreed. Nobody liked it. And we talked about it we decided never to do it. As a staff we said “no, we’re done with this. We’ll never do this again.” That’s what it is to be a living philosophical institution. To know what you’re aiming to do and to every year come a little bit closer to that unknown goal. That’s just one place in which we dropped something that we really had been a terrible mistake.
That’s what it is to be a living philosophical institution. To know what you’re aiming to do and to every year come a little bit closer to that unknown goal. That’s just one place in which we dropped something that we really had been a terrible mistake.
(To be continued)
圖：打從開學的那一天起就沒有課程的臺灣瑟谷
Comments