The Sudbury Valley School has an excellent record of philosophical
consistency. We have kept an eye on our basic principles at every turn in
the school, and virtually every decision made by the School Meeting or
Assembly has been informed by those principles. 
     We don't lightly devalue these principles.  Like most entities or
organizations, however, we are prepared to allow some contradictions to
exist within the institution, if necessary for the long-term survival of
the institution. 
     Of course, we are uncomfortable with anything within the institution
that goes against these principles.  A natural reaction to such feelings
of disquiet is to try to convince oneself that there is no conflict, and
to start justifying the disquieting feature in the environment. 
     I, and many others, maintain that the act of offering a diploma is in
direct conflict with our philosophy.  I hope that, if the Sudbury Valley
School does retain the diploma, we can have the courage to admit to the
contradiction openly, rather than acting as apologists for the diploma. 

     We have long accepted that every individual -- regardless of age --
deserves certain respect and rights.  Each person in our school has the
rights of free speech, a fair judiciary, freedom of assembly and the other
great freedoms.  In addition to our school's recognition of these
traditional freedoms, the school grants its members freedom to pursue ones
own interests, and freedom from unsolicited institutional judgment.
     There has been no point in the past 20 years that we have seriously
questioned the fundamentals of the Staff hiring procedure or the procedure
for the election of School Meeting officers. There is no contradiction
here -- the judgment is of those actively seeking _particular_ roles
within the school community to perform _particular_ jobs.  By running for
those offices, they are soliciting the judgment. 
     This is an important point. We do not hang our candidates for office
in the school out, and say "are these people ok, in a general sense?" We
simply stop, and elect staff and officers on the basis of how well they
will perform the _particular_ jobs they are seeking, given their current
circumstances. The questions are specific, pressing, and obvious. We want
to know if the elections clerk is honest, if the School Meeting
chairperson can be impartial, if the records clerk is organized. The
questions around our staff candidates are a bit broader, but still can be
defined -- does the candidate have the ability to express and defend the
principles that form the cornerstone of the community; does the candidate
know when to butt out of someone else's business; does the candidate have
something to offer that the community wants?
     The same holds true with certification.  We are asking specific,
discreet questions with immediate bearing.  We want to be certain that the
individual who is using the power drill knows how to use it (and will use
it) safely; we want to be sure that the person using the microwave oven
won't put anything metal inside it; we want to make sure people can handle
and dispose of the photolab chemicals in a safe way, keep the area clean,
and not damage any of the equipment, before certifying them for the
photolab. 
     Likewise, the right of the School to have a judicial review has never
been seriously questioned.  It has been long understood that, through
judicial review which allows for all aspects of due process -- the
presumption of innocence, the right to trial by jury of one's peers, the
right to not be forced to testify against oneself, etc -- certain
individuals' rights and privileges can be curtailed, in particular
instances, if need be.  This is not, precisely, an unsolicited judgment; 
behaviors which are against the community's rules invite and solicit a
Judicial judgment. 

     The school has one contradiction within it. One itch that, every few
years we need to scratch and start re-evaluating. The fact that the
diploma procedure has been through so many incarnations is evidence of how
sorely and deeply the community is affected by the inconsistency. 

     What purpose does offering a diploma serve?  It is not like a
certification procedure -- the diploma doesn't entitle one to do anything
s/he wasn't otherwise allowed to do.  We hold up these candidates, ask "is
this person OK, in a general sense?", and give some of them a piece of
paper.  But that paper is a token; the school's relation to the student in
question remains essentially unchanged whether s/he leaves with or without
an SVS diploma. 
     We always have apologists for the system. "The evaluation _is_
solicited", "the thesis is a preparatory step for entering a world full of
unfair tests", "the thesis is an opportunity to say goodbye to the
community", "if we don't offer a diploma no student over the age of 14
would attend". I will treat each of these apologies in turn. 

"The evaluation _is_ solicited" 
     Without getting into the complex and space-consuming issue of whether
or not a diploma is necessary to succeed in today's economy, most people
will agree that the vast majority of our students or prospective students
_feel_ as though the diploma is necessary. We dangle this tool out for
them, just in their reach, but only if they jump through certain hoops. 
     If the institution offered to test a person on any test, but never
published the results or let any person know the results besides the
student, it would be fair to say that the student _sought_ the evaluation.
However, with the rewards what they are -- a slip of paper which many in
our culture think will open doors -- it is clear that the students are
_not_ seeking the evaluation, but rather are _putting_up_ with it because
they _are_ seeking the diploma. 
     The act of offering a diploma makes it difficult for an SVS student
to choose _against_ seeking one. Imagine a student who applies to a
college or to an employer with _no_ diploma, or a GED, and states "I
decided not to seek a diploma in my school because I found the process
irrelevant and demeaning to the school's philosophy as well as my own".
The college administrator or employer is far less likely to understand
this situation than if the SVS alumnus states "the school I attended
offered no diploma, so I got a GED". 
     The fundamental problem I have with the "they asked for the diploma" 
argument, is that it opens the door to all kinds of other breaks with our
philosophy. If I'm willing to accept a person's desire to be reviewed for
a diploma, why won't I also submit to that person's desire to be reviewed
for a transcript?  Why wont the institution offer (to those who request
it) a full curriculum chock full of standardized tests at the end? 
     I say that the reason we don't do that is because its _unfair_ to
demand that the _institution_ lower itself to pass value judgments on its
members.  Just as the school would not be acting in accord with its own
philosophy if it offered letter grades, it is not acting in accord with
its own philosophy by offering a diploma -- though the philosophical
inconsistency may be less obvious. 

"The thesis is a preparatory step for entering a world full of unfair
tests" 
     If the real world is full of such tests, we _don't_ have to worry
about exposing our graduates to them. The students will find those tests
for themselves, if they haven't already.
     This principle, that people can pick up a sense of what information
they need from the environment around them, is central to the school. It
is well understood and respected. We have yet to see evidence against this
position. 

"The thesis is an opportunity to say goodbye to the community" 
     This may, or may not, be a valuable thing. If it is valuable on its
own merit, we don't need to make receipt of a school diploma conditional
upon having a farewell party or deny the farewell party to those who
choose not to get a diploma. 
     It is entirely within the power of the School Meeting to put aside a
little money so that each student who chooses not to re-enroll can have a
goodbye party at the school's expense. I don't know if this would be money
well spent, but if the students feel a desire to enact this sort of
policy, it is within their power to. 
     In fact, the diploma question is seriously tangled with the sense
that some people want a rite of passage.  If we could separate these
issues, and make the diploma un-ceremonial while creating a non-judgmental
ceremony for anyone who wants one to mark his/her last days at school,
then perhaps whatever fundamental drive we have to engage in certain types
of ceremonies (weddings, funerals, bar/bat mitzfahs, etc) would not
artificially inflate the number of people who seek a diploma. 

"If we don't offer a diploma no student over the age of 14 would attend" 
     This argument is the most convincing one. Not just because anyone
thinks that we might lose a number of our older students, but because a
large number of our older students might be worried or concerned if the
school offered no diploma; particularly during the first few years in
which we offered no diploma. The strain, particularly in the short term,
could be harmful to the school community. 
     But this isn't an argument for a "procedure". This is an argument for
having diplomas available -- perhaps handing them out to anybody who goes
to the office to pick one up.  This certainly isn't an argument that it is
_right_ for us to offer a diploma, simply that it is expedient. 
     Unfortunately, the school can't realistically make the decision to
simply hand out diplomas.  If we did, the diploma would be de-valued and
laughed at by outside institutions, if it were given to any person who
asked. The very nature of a diploma demands that we accept the notion that
_some_ people wont receive it. 

     Many people have referred to the "political necessity" of offering a
diploma.  While I _don't_ agree that a school such as ours couldn't
survive and thrive without offering a diploma, I am willing to concede
that the peculiar history of _this_ school might make it politically
impossible to _stop_ offering a diploma. 
     That is, it may or may not be politically possible to start a school
like ours without a diploma procedure.  However, it is much more difficult
to get rid of an existing diploma than to have never had one.  If we chose
not to offer a diploma any more, people would probably demand that current
enrollees be grandfathered.  And that could cause some trouble down the
road; "I enrolled only one year after you -- why are you able to seek a
diploma and not me"?

     If we do continue to offer a diploma, we need valid criteria for
doing so.  We also need to face the fact that by _having_ criteria, we are
accepting an element in the school which is in conflict with our guiding
principles.
     Perhaps we are best off _not_ trying to pretend that there is a place
in the school for a diploma, and accepting it as alien to the school but
providing one anyway.  This means not sugar-coating what we're doing by
linking the ugly and destructive diploma process to ideals which _are_
respected in the school, like responsibility.

     Because, in truth, _no_ criteria are appropriate for offering a
Sudbury Valley School diploma, we should not try to hide behind criteria
that _sound_ to persons who don't know the ins and outs of the school's
philosophy as though they might be appropriate.
     Insofar as it is inimical to the school's philosophy, the process by
which we award diplomas should not be allowed to take over the school's
life.  By having long debates about each candidate on the School Meeting
floor, and by making big public productions several nights each week in
the month of May, we are implying (by the extent to which the diploma
processes become an intrusion to normal school life) that the diploma
process is important to the school.  In fact, the diploma process is
_only_ important to the diploma itself (and how it is valued by the
outside community). 
     So, if we are to be burdened with offering a diploma, how can we do
so in a manner least problematic to the school?  If we must offer a
diploma, the school must find criteria which certain candidates will not
meet, the best criteria will not pretend to be consistent with the
school's philosophy, the process should not over-tax the school's
resources, and the procedure for getting a diploma should not be confused
with a ritual or coming-of-age ceremony. 

     Michael Matisoo raised an interesting notion, which sounds like it
might be able to satisfy all of these concerns.  One approach to an ugly
job is to give it to a limited number of people, who are willing to take
it seriously.  One of the least pleasant jobs in the school, is dealing
with admissions committee issues; the handful of volunteers, who agree to
deal with such matters, manage to do so fairly with a minimum of fuss. 
     A diploma committee (perhaps configured the same way as the
admissions committee -- made up of School Meeting members who join it at
the beginning of the year) could answer many of the questions and concerns
we have about a diploma-awarding process.  It would allow us to meet at
need, and to handle these cases with the attention deserved. 
     By having a serious, permanent committee set up, we can satisfy our
democratic instincts.  Any person, student or staff, who wants a voice on
the committee could join.
     A permanent committee is impacted less by the politics of a
particular case.  We can avoid the problems of having a large number of
people who come "to vote for a friend", if the committee members are
expected to work on each and every decision about diplomas. 
     By having such a committee, we will also find it easier to say 'no'. 
Right now, if there are serious questions about a candidate at the time of
the Assembly defense, it is not only inconvenient but essentially
impossible to schedule another defense that year -- making us feel more
inclined to vote 'yes'. If a small committee, which has more flexibility
in scheduling meetings, chooses to vote 'no' it is not necessarily
preventing the candidate from coming back to the committee in a month to
try again. 
     By having a committee, we can remove the happenings around the award
of a diploma from the center of life at the school.  While some persons
(the committee members) will continue to be burdened in May, the rest of
school life will not be thrown through a loop.

     However, in order to divorce the sense of ritual and rite of passage
from the diploma, we must do more than simply remove the ritual from the
diploma process.  We must protect the ritual which has become part of the
school, and which others may wish to participate in.  If we don't leave an
outlet (which, apparently, many people want) for such ritual, any sense of
"coming of age" will probably continue to be linked in peoples' minds with
getting a diploma.  I see no reason why the school can't continue to have
thesis defenses for persons who would appreciate them, so long as it is
not linked to the diploma process.
     That is, regardless of how we give out diplomas, I propose that we
set aside some evenings, for any student planning to leave the school
(with or without a diploma), at which s/he can present a thesis on any
topic. This thesis would _not_ be open for institutional judgment, but the
natural give-and-take between the candidate and the audience would still
be welcome.  By making the thesis its _own_ reward, I feel that the ritual
value and meaning which some people derive from the act of delivering a
thesis would be enhanced.  Certainly, there would be no impetus to write a
"safe" thesis, or to try to con the community in the defense; this would
probably cause the theses presented to be more honest, varied, and
interesting.

Proposal: 
  1)That the School Meeting be directed to set up a "Diploma Committee",
which will be responsible for nominating diploma candidates to the
Assembly. 
  2)That the Diploma Committee only consider candidates who have been
students in good standing for three or more years.
  3)That the committee consider the candidate's ability to be responsible
for him/her self and others, and in particular the candidate's ability to
be responsible for his/her own education.
  4)That a candidate must receive a positive vote of 2/3 by the committee,
in order to be nominated for a diploma.
  5)That, at its annual Assembly Meeting, the Assembly vote on granting
diplomas to the nominees submitted by the School Meeting Diploma
Committee.  Nominees must receive 2/3 vote of the Assembly in order to be
awarded diplomas. 
  6)That the School Meeting be directed to continue the tradition of
thesis defenses, for any person (diploma candidate or no) who wants an
opportunity to address the Assembly on any issue.