<p>In my search for schools, I have run across Summerhill School in Suffolk, UK, a handful of times, and it has peaked my interest. I’m not considering going there, but the idea of a school where classes are optional and teachers are referred to by their first names intrigues me after years of rigidly formal schooling. What do you think? Would you even consider sending your children (or going yourself)?</p>
<p>[A</a>. S. Neill’s Summerhill School](<a href=“http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/]A”>http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/)</p>
<p>Yes, I would consider Summerhill. It actually has an international reputation, but has also been the subject of much controversy. I watched a documentary on the school a few years back and was intrigued. From what I can tell, their graduates do just fine, and range from famous actors to doctors and lawyers. But the school readily admits that some choose not to go on to University. It is my understanding that they rarely accept children over the age of 12. So the “high school” is really for those who have already acclimated to the Summerhill way of doing things. Personally, I love their philosophy of education.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t. Years of homeschooling suggests to me that most of us need some kind of imposed structure within which to work productively. Summerhill is just too loosey-goosey for me, though as an ideal has great appeal. </p>
<p>Read the book. It’s old, but I imagine the principles are the same.</p>
<p>As a sometime homeschooling parent and also “alum” (attended for a couple of years, aged 7-9) of a U.S. school modeled on Summerhill (in the very early 1970s), I wouldn’t, either. Back in the day, I had a friend, a few years older, who was a product of Summerhill. He was tremendously talented and creative. But couldn’t work within any sort of structure. </p>
<p>As for calling teachers by first name, our dc’s previous school, a reasonably structured environment, has that policy. I have no issue with it, as long as the respect for each other goes both ways, but it doesn’t, as far as we experienced, make for a particularly more “progressive” approach to the actual education of students than a policy of “Mr. and Ms.” </p>
<p>What set Summerhill apart, back in the day, was its totally child-led approach to educating young children. In the intervening decades, many schools adopted similar, and in some cases the same, approach. Our dc attended such a school briefly, when she was very young. It had definite drawbacks and in the end, we decided our tuition dollars could be put to better use in other ways. I agree with classicalmama that the ideal has great appeal. In our experience the ideal was not realized in practice. YMMV</p>
<p>No, I would definitely not consider a school like that for my child. You get one shot at formal schooling. After that, <em>everything</em> is “optional.”</p>