Summerhill School

Thais Henriques

This blog post is the final draft of my self-directed learning project. Summerhill is the first free school in the world and this blog post critiques both A.S. Neill's book about Summerhill and the Summerhill philosophy itself. I also looked at free schools today and how they're doing. 

A Summerhill Cooking Class

          Summerhill is divided in two parts, the first one describing the school, its workings and its problems and the second one narrating the life of its founder A.S. Neill. Ideologically, it makes sense to look at Neill’s life holistically as Summerhill advocates for the fullness of being and not just focusing on work or school. However, for most of us who are reading the book to learn more about Summerhill, the addition of the chapters about Neill’s life add nothing of value to the book.

          One of the key problems with the writing in the book is the repetitive digressions from the topic. Neill takes the opportunity to expound his own views on religion, the “Nature Cure,” humor, drinking and other subjects that are unrelated to children. In addition, Neill repeats himself, telling the same story over and over.

          The biggest flaw with the ideology itself is its inconsistency, especially when dealing with the children. Each child is different so it makes sense that Neill would treat them differently. However, he contradicts himself by making general statements that he then breaks. At multiple points of the book, he condemns hitting children and even says: “to beat a child at home or at school is basically the same as torturing a Jew in Belsen” (84). However, he claims that every time a little boy hit or bit him, he hit him back (54), regardless of the fact he was stronger and in a position of authority. In direct contrast, when Ansi kicked and bit him “for a long time,” he refused to lose his temper and kept smiling (52). Neill provides no explanation for this broadly different reaction to similar situations. With the little boy, Neill says that he’s younger, but he shows no condemnation of his past self for how he dealt with similar situations. He also gives no justification for hitting the boy, beyond saying that it wasn’t punishment because he was teaching the boy “that one cannot go about hurting others for one’s own gratification” (54). However, it was not necessary to hit Ansi for her to learn the same lesson. Neill is adamantly against punishment, but he can do whatever he wants to and not call it punishment. To Neill, punishment “always involves the idea of morality” (54). But for a child, getting hit hurts regardless of whether it was done morally or for the teaching of a lesson. 

          Neill treats children as if they were his equals, describing himself as being able “to be a fun kid among other fun kids” (74). While this might seem like a good idea on the surface, it actually ignores the power differential inherent in an adult-child relationship. Adults are more experienced, bigger, stronger and they hold more power socially. This viewing of children as equals leads Neill to treat them as a peer, sometimes to the detriment of the child. He calls a fifteen year old boy a “lazy, stupid, conceited, spiteful fool” (67). The boy could have very easily internalized that message and lost any self-efficacy or drive to be better, believing that he was a fool and could not change. In Summerhill, a girl can tell a teacher his lessons are dull and the teacher can tell a kid that they’re being a “damned nuisance” because “[f]reedom must look both ways.”(5). That is a false equivalent because a child telling a teacher his lessons are dull does not have the same effect as that teacher berating the child. Neill himself admits that “adolescents so easily believe what their elders say about them and their motives” (69). And he recognizes that he is a father figure to these children. Once again, Neill contradicts himself by acknowledging his power over these children but still treating them as peers. 

          Children are allowed to smoke at whatever age they please because of the self-governing model. Neill was aware of the dangers of smoking and he and his wife were “authorities in health matters”. But he felt helpless to stop smoking, since making strict rules would just make it more appealing and reasoning with children that it might give them lung cancer was fruitless (80). However, once again, Neill contradicts himself when talking about drinking which he “won’t have in the school” (81). He has banned “seducers” bringing alcohol into the school because of the dangers of alcoholism. So he has effectively forbidden alcohol while allowing smoking to continue unchecked. 

         Another potential problem within Summerhill is the negative influence of older children on younger children. Dr. Danë Goodsman, a Summerhill alumna, speaks to how the big kids are the true elders of the social structure (xxi). This power can be misused, as a 13 year old child might encourage younger children to “steal or destroy or get bored having nothing to do” (60).  After the publication of the book, in the mid 60’s, ombudsmen were instituted as older children who arbitrate disputes of younger children (xxi). This allowed children to be able to help each other in small issues that didn’t need to come to the attention of the General Assembly. And if an ombudsmen abused his power or arbitrated in a way another child felt was unfair, they could bring it to the General Assembly, where everyone in the school has a vote to decide punishments or rewards. 

          

          Today, Summerhill is still open and thriving, despite some conflicts with the British Government. Finding examples of other free schools around the world can be complicated because of different terminology and the different meanings of “free.” For example, the UK has just started a program that allows communities to create their own schools with less governmental interference and monitoring. They call these schools “free schools,” but they’re very different from Summerhill. One of the key characteristics of The West London Free School, for example, is strong discipline (WLFS), completely antithetical to Summerhill. In other countries, there are many school that call themselves “free schools” and say they are inspired by Summerhill, but most of them are fundamentally different. In the United States, “democratic schools” are the best example of this. They mirror Summerhill’s self-governing principles and methods, but they still require that children attend lessons. These schools are models of self-directed learning where the child is free to control how they learn, but they’re still not free to choose not to learn at all. Both Brazil and France only have democratic schools. However, In Spain, Ojo de Agua is a school that employs free school methods, allowing the children complete freedom (but not license). In Britain, besides Summerhill, another free school is the Small Acres School in London. In the United States, while a lot of alternative schools are democratic schools, both the Agile Learning center, the Antioch school and some Sudbury schools follow the free school method. At least according to their websites, these schools are all thriving and educating happier, freer children (Democratic Schools). 

Democratic Schools. (2014). Retrieved March 22, 2016, from http://www.educationrevolutio             n.org/store/findaschool/democraticschools/

Neill, A. S. (1996). Summerhill School: A new view of childhood (A. Lamb, Ed.). New York:               St. Martin's Griffin.

West London Free School. (2016). Retrieved March 22, 2016, from http://wlfs.org/