AS Neill

I first encountered Summerhill in my high school library. I was supposed to be researching a history paper (subject now long forgotten), but was aimlessly browsing the shelves instead. I came across a book of photos by a student from the United States who had spent a couple years at Summerhill School in England.

The writer missed his days at school. I hated school and couldn’t wait to graduate. He missed the freedom and acceptance of being at school. This didn’t make any sense. I gazed at the photos and couldn’t believe the captions – going to class was optional, no one cared if students swore, there was no dress code, most kids swam in the pool without a swimsuit. While he was at school he met great friends from numerous countries and learned to play guitar; and he did just fine on college entrance exams. Why couldn’t I have gone to a school like that?

At a books sale a few years later I came across Summerhill: A Radical Approach to Child Rearing by A.S. Neill, the founder of the school. Published in the United States in 1960, Summerhill’s timing was perfect to attract the attention of education reformers during the exploratory and experimental whirlwind now known as “the 60s.”
Neill instantly became, and has remained, one of my heroes (it’s a pretty small pantheon). His language is a little dated and his dedication to Freudian psychology seems quaint and occasionally overly simple. However, his total love for and single-minded commitment to children blasts forth from every page in a way I have rarely encountered elsewhere.

Neill was committed to children “as they really are,” not as adults think or hope they should be. After teaching for several years in standard schools, where children are forced to conform to the school, he opened Summerhill in the 1920s. Neill believed that childhood was when the person should be a child, not be preparing to be an adult. A happy childhood creates a human who can be a happy, productive adult. But if the natural drive to be a child was thwarted it resulted in an unhappy, hateful adult (the majority of grown ups in Neill’s view). A school’s job is to give children the room and space to be children. No coercion, no force, no punishment. A child doesn’t need rules and discipline, a child needs love, understanding and freedom.

He distinguished very clearly between “freedom” and “license.” Freedom means you can do what you want, as long as it doesn’t infringe on someone else. So a student is free not to go to lessons if they don’t want to, but they are not permitted to disrupt the lessons of other students.

Neill’s approach is so radical and so unfamiliar because it is so simple. Humans are born good. That goodness will grow and develop with the child, and be expressed as love, if it is permitted to. But if the child is confined, coerced, afflicted with arbitrary rules (which exist to make adults lives more convenient), in short, prevented from being a child, then that basic goodness is expressed as hate.

Arbitrary rules are avoided by participatory democracy. At Summerhill each person, students and staff alike, get one vote at weekly community meetings. Everyone gets to speak, and everyone else has to let them speak. By and large this system seemed to work well. Occasionally, a bully might rally enough support to create a restrictive or chaotic situation, but after seeing the results the community would take corrective actions. Once, a relatively new but charismatic and rebellious student talked enough students into voting to close the school. Neill said okay, and holed up in his office to get some writing done. The students rescinded the closure when they learned that the cook had locked up the kitchen and gone home.

One of Neill’s aphorisms is that “the cure for freedom is more freedom.” People develop responsibility by living out their desires and experiencing the consequences. Students would not have learned the dangers of following a demagogue if the staff had merely warned them against it.

Many people find it difficult to take Neill seriously. Probably because it is difficult to entertain a notion that one has never experienced. I have found it frustrating to describe the idea of Summerhill to most people because it questions so many assumptions at once. So, rather than try to describe the idea I encourage people to read the book.

Neill pursued what he thought to be the truth with determination. Though he viewed much of human society as an abject failure (he lived through two world wars, the advent of nuclear warfare, lived in a culture which came to value profit as supreme) he committed to develop and run a school in which at least a few hundred children could be educated in love and free from arbitrary authority. The school continues to exist and overcame a legal threat from the British government to shut it down in 1999.

http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/

Walk or Ride - Don't Drive

I came across this article I wrote while working as the Urban Adventures Coordinator at the Urban Ecology Center. I really like the idea of employers encouraging people not to drive, so here is the article, again...


EcoBucks at the Center

Do you know anyone who gets paid to ride his bike to work? This October the Urban Ecology Center initiated an idea in answer to a question that has been brewing since last winter: How can we get people to drive less?

Carpooling, mass transit, walking and bike riding have been promoted for many years as ways to reduce pollution, unblock traffic jams, alleviate parking shortages and diminish our dependence on foreign oil. So far, none of these concerns has receded to the point of disappearing. All of the proposed solutions are good ideas. Why haven’t they caught on? We don’t know. But the staff realized that we don’t carpool, take the bus or bike nearly as often as we could.

In an effort to modify our own behavior, the Center has instituted the EcoBuck Program. Anytime that an employee gets to and from work without using additional fossil fuels he or she gets a dollar. Biking, walking and taking the bus all count. Carpooling counts half. We keep track of alternative transportation days on a calendar and receive any earned Eco-Bucks monthly, added to our regular paychecks.

The reasons for starting the program are varied. “We wanted to practice what we teach,” says Ken Leinbach, Executive Director. The overarching goal of the Center is to promote environmentally sound behavior. EcoBucks are an external motivation to consume less fossil fuels. Not driving also helps ease the demand on the limited parking spaces that are available near the Center. EcoBucks provide motivation to get more exercise. Traditionally, the workplace doesn’t value time not directly involved in work. “Biking or walking to work enhances the connection between mind, body and spirit,” says Leinbach, “Healthier workers are happier. Happier workers are more productive.”

The EcoBuck program has boosted staff camaraderie by creating a friendly competition. “For me the motivating factor is not the dollar, but being last among the staff,” says Darrell Smith,Community Program Coordinator. “I live across the river and have ridden my bike to work only twice in the last year and a half. Since EcoBucks started I’ve ridden three times in two weeks.” The rest of the staff agree. “It’s nice to be encouraged to do something I want to do any way. I spend less on gas and get more money at the end of the month,” says Tim Vargo, Environmental Educator. Susan Winans, Environmental Educator, doesn’t own a car and has always ridden the bus to work. “EcoBucks hasn’t changed my behavior, but it is nice to be reimbursed for part of my bus fare. Plus, it is enjoyable to be part of a group that makes it fun to drive less,” she said. According to Leinbach, “The EcoBuck program is a small investment for a significant return.”

The idea of a work-sponsored program evolved from a long conversation as the staff drove across frozen Wisconsin returning from a conference last winter. How can we get people to drive less? The discussion ranged from creating corporate carpooling programs to developing a citywide alternative currency paid for alternative transportation. We settled for starting with earning a free lunch. Active discussion of an incentive to travel in environmentally responsible ways hibernated for the summer and re-emerged in October as EcoBucks.

In the first month of keeping records the Center staff got to work 66 times without using additional fossil fuels. In the second month, that number grew to 95.5 times. How can you get people to drive less? Could your company create a similar program? Could the city provide matching funds for less pollution, less congestion, less parking, instead of more freeways? Less is possible.


River Reflections – Newsletter of the Urban Ecology Center
Volume 13, Number 1
January & February 2004

See original newsletter article here: http://www.urbanecologycenter.org/newsletter/2004/jan.feb.2004.pdf

That's So Sweet!

Milwaukee is a great place, but I had no idea that our area's lawyers were so thoughtful and concerned. I was recently in a very minor auto accident and within four days I had received five concerned letters from the local lawyer community. By the end of seven days I had recieved ten!


Without exception, the firms were worried that I might have been injured. Some of them assumed I had been injured and needed help. Gary S. Greenberg wrote, "When you get injured, I take it personally!" (Gary also sent me a refrigerator magnet so that I can remember his concern every time I drink a glass of milk). Hupy and Abraham sent me a 22 page (plus several inserts) "Handbook for personal injury victims." The most thoughtful gift was an emery board from Weigel, Carlson, Blau & Clemens; I suppose they didn't want me adding to my "injuries" by scratching myself with a ragged fingernail.

Fortunately, the accident was a slight, resulting in a few dents to the door and front fender. However, the outpouring of mail from bottom feeding lawyers has gotten on my nerves. Any lawyer can access police accident reports and then contact the drivers involved in the incident. I suppose this only a minor inconvience to be endured so that the larger values of freedom-of- information and transparency can be maintained, but it is still annoying.

While citizens definitely need the right to legally pursue compensation when wrong has been done, the "ambulance chasing" character of personal injury lawyers comes across as parasitical and nasty. I have had prior experience with one of the firms that contacted me. I was working for a non-profit organization taking kids on a bike ride. Another bike rider entered the bike path and wiped out, hurting her wrist. None of our riders hit her or otherwise caused her crash. We performed basic first aid, got a van and gave her and her bike a ride home. She sued us. Pursuit of justice has turned into pursuit of money, money, money. Unfortunately, liability law has also encouraged the practice of making other people responsible for one's mistakes.

One of the letters I received began with this sentence: There is never an "appropriate" time to contact someone who has recently suffered a loss or injury. Then why are you sending me this letter? If an injured party needs your help, they will call. There is a German proverb that states: Quality goods sell themselves, shoddy goods require a sales pitch. The same goes for attorney services.

The same week our mailbox was crammed with this garbage, I did the Word Search puzzle in the weekly paper. The hidden saying in the puzzle was, "If it were not for lawyers, we wouldn't need them."

Thoughts on driving the Toyota Prius

For the last year and a half I have driven a 2008 Toyota Prius for my part time job. This job involves driving 150 to 200 miles a day, three to four days a week. Below are some thoughts about Prius design and performance that have accumulated over the past 18 or so months. They result from my experience as a driver not a designer, engineer, or other trained "expert."

Constructive feedback gurus say always start with positive observations before touching on "areas of improvement." Here goes. The Prius gets really good gas mileage. It runs smoothly and quietly.

Need more? It has lots of glove compartment-type spaces for storing things. (However, the sheer number of storage spaces and their clever placement kept some of them a secret for several months. I found two of them by accident. Having usable space is good, but the large number can make it hard to find specific items; a lot like having many pockets in a winter coat.)

Not enough good things yet? The seat belt buckle is easy to find and stays in place so that one can easily buckle it one-handed. Still not enough? Okay, a partial plus goes to the "Trip Information" read out screen that shows MPG at any given moment. This sheds interesting light on one's driving habits and the effect of hills on gas mileage and power use by the engine.

Okay, now for the things that could be better. A key part of driving safely is being able to see. I am disappointed by the number of blind spots and bad window design decisions in the 2008 Prius. The front windshield is broad and gives a wide angle of view toward the front. However, the windshield is held in place by very wide support bars on each side. These bars frequently block the view of cars approaching an intersection. The rear window is embedded in the back-sloping roof and back hatch door. While the size of the glass is impressive, the angle it is placed severely limits how much the driver can see using the rear-view mirror. They attempted to offset this low visibility by adding a glass panel in the vertical part of the hatch door, but this doesn't help much and is easily blocked by the back seats being up, or cargo in the back. I find both of these conditions quite annoying in such a recent vehicle; visual safety should increase over time, not decrease. The 1975 AMC Pacer solved the visibility issues 33 years ago.

This next area of complaint might throw me into the Luddite category, but so be it.
I am not crazy about the touch screen. Many simple functions have been made more difficult. All the "climate controls" are accessed through the touch screen. Heat, AC, defrost, fan, etc. This makes them inconvenient. I vastly prefer three knobs and a switch on the dash, clearly labeled. I don't care what the exact temperature in Fahrenheit degrees of the air coming out of the vents may be. If its a cold day I want hot air, if its a hot day I want cool air. (And I don't think the digital temperature read out is even remotely accurate anyway).

The touch screen radio controls were impossible to figure out. I was pleased to find that the manual volume and tuning knobs popped out of the dash when pushed. To the suggestion that the owner's manual would show me how to use the radio I have two responses. If a car radio needs an instruction manual it is too complicated; and, what happens when the owner's manual gets lost?

The touch screen can be impossible to read in bright light. I don't know about other drivers, but I do most of my work in the day and the sun is pretty bright around here. Also, the touch screen just seems like one more thing that can burn out and then you are left without control over the "climate" in your car.

One other feature of the touch screen that deserves comment is the camera that points behind the car when the transmission is in reverse. This might seem like a good idea, but it is not. First, the camera doesn't give an accurate view looking behind; it is a wide angle lens that makes objects look much farther away than they actually are. Also, the lens is easily occluded by snow, ice, mist, or leaves making it useless. Second, it seems that some drivers might rely only on the cool TV screen on the dash when backing up. Even if the view was accurate (which it's not), it is not comprehensive enough to make safe reversing decisions. The driver needs to look in both side mirrors and turn their head to check for pedestrians or vehicles approaching from the sides. The camera just doesn't show enough. To the argument that the camera could keep the driver from running over a child or toy in the driveway, the driver needs to look behind the car before getting behind the steering wheel. Technology is not a replacement for basic awareness, and a safe driver is an aware driver.

The back-up camera and the touch screen seem to be unnecessary accessories added to increase the price of the car. How many other unnecessary expenses are built into the new hybrids? There is at least one more unnecessary "upgrade." The electonic key fob provides minor convenience at great expense. It is mildly handy to not have to fish the key out of my pocket to unlock the door or start the car, but it would be easy to live without. A replacement fob costs $300 (I've been told) and wouldn't work if it falls into water, is dropped from too high onto a hard surface, or if the battery wears out. A metal replacement key costs $3, can get wet, can be thrown against the wall, and requires no battery.

I get the feeling that the touch screen, key fob, etc. are designed to give a futuristic space-car feel to the Prius. I wish that designers would stop obsessing about image and "the wave of the future" and give us an efficient, safe, low-priced vehicle. (I realize that car makers are not primarily in the business of making cars, they are in the business of making money.)

Enough cosmetics, how about performance? I am generally happy with how the Prius drives; except in the snow. It has virtually no traction. The front wheels spin on the slightest powdering of snow, and on wet pavement, and on the painted stripes at stop signs and crosswalks. The spinning usually happens when starting from a dead stop, but sometimes in motion also. Acceleration can be erratic. Fast pick up is not reliable, especially on damp pavement. This is a concern when one wants to avoid a fast moving car that suddenly appears (moves out of the blind spot caused by the wide windshield support bars?) on the cross street when one is entering an intersection.

In a nutshell: I would like the Prius to have better visibility, less electronic gadgetry, and better acceleration but still get good gas mileage. These seem like reasonable requests to me.

Diagrams Done Badly

These drawings are based on the grocery store parking lot at Humboldt and North Avenue in Milwuakee, though the concept could be easily adapted to most parking lots. These diagrams are my attempt to visually depict the content of my first blog - Parking Lots Badly Done.

Red lines indicate where car and pedestrian traffic overlap.The lower diagram represents the parking lot as it is now. The top diagram shows how the parking lot could be modified to make it more pedestrian-friendly. The top diagram shows walkways between rows of parked cars leading to the store entrances. Cars could be kept out of the fire lane with signs, painted stripes, and easily moved plastic chains.

Any one who is less graphics-challenged than I am is encouraged to create better diagrams than these.

Parking Lots Badly Done

My genetic predisposition is in line with Joni Mitchell's lament that "they paved paradise and put up a parking lot." However, since parking lots are part of our current existence I would like to suggest that they should and could be better designed.

A goal of most parking lots is to encourage vehicle/pedestrian collisions! Virtually every customer entering or leaving a store has to cross the traffic of cars entering or leaving the parking lot. Most every car entering the parking lot passes in front of the store to get to a parking spot. Then the driver (now shopper) has to cross the same lanes on foot to get to the entrance of the store.

Just stand and watch traffic for two minutes the next time you visit the supermarket. The frustration of both drivers and pedestrians is visible on their faces. If the weather is warm enough for windows to be down, frustration and anger can be heard as well.

The driver has pulled in off a busy street and isn't really prepared to deal with pedestrians sharing the lane in unpredictable ways. The driver is in a fast mindset and sees snail-like pedestrians blocking up where cars should go. However, shoppers have already parked and are walking. They are preparing to enter the store to shop for their family. They are in a slow mindset and perceive drivers as impatient speed demons who need to chill out.

Parking lots can be constructed to minimize vehicle/walker interactions. All new lots should be built to be safer and more pleasant places, and most existing parking lots can re-designed with minimal cost.

Here is how: Create vehicle free pedestrian lanes passing from the central part of the parking lot to the front of the store. Cars can enter the lot near the store but must turn immediately into the parking area. Drivers who have parked walk to the central walk area to approach and return from the store. Cars can also enter and leave the lot from openings on the side of the lot furthest from the store. [See diagrams in next post].

As far as I can figure, without having consulted any parking lot designers or civil engineers, the reason for the current configuration is to maintain an open and accessible fire lane for emergency vehicles immediately in front of the store. The fire lane can be maintained while prohibiting other vehicle traffic. Vividly painted stripes and signs can alert drivers of the fire lane, and entrances just big enough for emergency vehicles could discourage cars from driving there. Perhaps speed bumps, easily moved barriers, or light weight plastic chain spanning the entrance could be used to deter drivers but still allow emergency vehicles.

Walker friendly parking lots would reduce vehicle-pedestrian collisions and lower the number of times emergency vehicles need to go to the supermarket!