Mack Open School and public alternative education

“Think about the kind of world you want to live and work in. What do you need to build that world? Demand that your teachers teach you that”

-Peter Kropotkin

Nine years ago we waited all summer in hopes that our son would be able to go to Mack Open School. In the end he was the second to last student enrolled that year. We just learned that he won’t be able to go to Community High School our preferred high school. Both of these alternative education programs use a lottery system for admission, and this time he is just too far down the list.  I am disappointed. 

Let me go back to our choice 9 years ago.  Mack Open met our criteria for what we were looking for in a school. Amidst a right wing drive for privatization of schools we wanted to participate in the public school system. At the same time we wanted an educational program that promoted self-directed learning. Finally we certainly didn’t mind that the open school was the elementary school that was closest to our home.

Mack Open has not been as “open”, “free” or “democratic” as I would have liked. I am enamored with more radical models of open education where students can choose for themselves whether to go to class or not, and  democratic schools where students get an equal say in the decisions about the running of the school.  Mack Open may have had emerged from a more radical educational tradition, but as a public school there are constraints that the school faces.   For instance, the school is subject to an unreasonable number of standardized tests, and lots of curricular decisions occur at a more centralized level.

My impression is that students get more choices about what to study than they would in a more conventional public school.  I can imagine that students get a little more respect and freedom than they might get at other public schools. In fact I don’t really know to what degree this is the case.

What I do know is that among the several teachers who have worked with my two boys, they have consistently been a good fit for my sons. They have had insights into the kids and what their learning needs are.  Finally the Mack Open teachers share much of the world view that my children have, the world view of our family. This is Ann Arbor so I’m sure there are “liberal” teachers in all of the schools, but among the teachers at Mack I often sense a more radical analysis.  I am grateful for the teachers and their deeper perspective even when limits are placed on what an “open” public school can be.

One important structural element of Mack Open is the 2 year classroom. First and second graders share a classroom, third and fourth graders are together and so on.  This means that teachers get two years to get to know their students building stronger community in the classroom; it means that every kid gets to be a younger kid and then an older kid; also students know as classmates other students from 3 grades, this builds more community in the school.

By calling a school an “open” school or a “community” high school and making it a magnet school it becomes attractive to people for whom “open” and “community” are meaningful words, possibly even code words for certain types of parents and students. So those who apply are self-selecting.  I’m sure that same self-selecting process occurs among teachers who apply to teach at our alternative schools.  In this sense the schools are intentional communities. 

Of course one could say that some self-selection happens with all schools as people make choices where to live based on school systems. These “where to live” intentionalities are unfortunately largely about class and race. The magnet school self-selection is more about educational philosophy or at least individual interest. 

Now we get to the pros and cons of intentionality in school selection. Beyond the injustice of race and class based educational segregation, a kind of intentionality we clearly oppose: do we have to worry about magnet schools limiting the diversity of backgrounds and interests among children’s classroom peers? If schools like Mack Open are cultural bubbles is this a problem either for those inside the bubble or those outside the bubble?

My impression is that Mack Open School kids feel safer and more supported than they might at other schools. Apparently there is less bullying and that kids general receive more encouragement from their peers than kids at other schools.  I know at least one student who made the switch from another public school to Mack and has been happier for just those reasons.   Certainly the teachers at Mack promote this kind of solidarity by encouraging emotional sensitivity and mutual respect. Perhaps again there is some selection for these qualities among the parents who want to send their children to an open school. We might want this quality of interaction between students at every school.  

By concentrating children of parents who promote a more cooperative and supportive student body in one school, that school may develop a strong culture of emotional consideration and support.  Do other schools there by suffer?  On the other hand, do students in a cozy almost utopian school get a false sense of the world? To the first question I would answer that the power of an effective model only offers benefits to the surrounding schools. To the second question my belief is that by raising children with an idealized perception of human interactions we will get more adults who will insist that this is how the world should be.

I wish that my son could stay in the bubble of alternative education but as he moves on to a mainstream high school perhaps its sower grapes on my part but I hope that he has an opportunity to interact with a greater diversity of people and that he is far enough along in his development that he will insist that they interact with the respect for each other that there should be in the world.