Diss: Axel Kühn: Alexander Neill
zurück (Monografien über Summerhill und Neill nach dessen Tod/Zusammenfassung und Fazit)
Fortsetzung (Ute Schmidt-Herrmann)

Nachgehende Autorinnen- und Autorenbefragung

Ein Teil der Autorinnen und Autoren, die über Neill, sein Werk und seine Schule Schriften veröffentlicht haben, konnte im Jahr 2001 über das Internet erreicht werden. Ihre Befragung zielte darauf ab, herauszufinden, wie sie die Entwicklung einschätzen, die die Diskussion um Neill und Summerhill im Laufe der Jahre genommen hat. Dabei wurde stets auf das von ihnen verfasste Werk und dessen Einfluß Bezug genommen. Die Antworten sollen im folgenden aufgelistet [80] und anschließend interpretiert werden.

Die Fragen, die den Autorinnen und Autoren gestellt wurden, waren in einem ersten Abschnitt alle identisch. Sie behandeln ihr Engagement für oder bezüglich Summerhill, dessen Auswirkung und ihre Einschätzung der Wirkung von Neills Erziehungsidee und -praxis. Diese identischen Fragen sollen einleitend aufgelistet werden anschließend werden die Antworten der Autorinnen und Autoren aufgeführt und kommentiert. In diesem Kommentar kommen die Inhalte der individuellen Fragen an die Autorinnen und Autoren, die sich vor allem auf deren Publikationen bezogen, schließlich zur Sprache.

Frage 1:

Zurückschauend auf Ihr Engagement in bezug auf Summerhill und Neill: meinen Sie, daß Sie die Schule und Neills Idee unterstützen konnten mit Ihrer Veröffentlichung (Welche Reaktionen bekamen Sie, gibt es eine diesbezügliche Entwicklung in Laufe der Jahre)?

Frage 2:

Wie schätzen Sie generell die Entwicklung von Neills Idee im Laufe der Jahre ein (Wächst das Interesse an Neill und Summerhill oder meinen Sie, daß das Gegenteil der Fall ist)?

Frage 3:

Haben die Summerhill-Idee und Neills Schriften die Erziehungsrealität verändert (In welchen Bereichen? Welche Aspekte von Neills Gedanken waren am einflußreichsten)?

Frage 4:

Interessieren Sie sich fortwährend für Summerhill (Sind Sie immer noch in Kontakt mit der Schule, unterstützen Sie sie noch, sind die Schriften Neills für Sie und Ihre Arbeit noch eine Quelle der Inspiration)?

Herb SNITZER (er veröffentlichte 1964 in den USA das erste Buch über Summerhill), der wohl älteste der befragten Autoren, antwortete brieflich: Er gründete die Lewis-Wadhams-School in New York und hat sich später als Fotograf von vor allem Jazz-Musikern einen Namen gemacht. Er lebt heute in Florida.

zu Frage 1:

My book on Summerhill was a "best seller" in the middle 60s, with most of the sales in California, home of the alternative education movement but even now, every so often I get a phone call, a letter, and email from people all over the world wanting to know about Summerhill, Lewis-Wadhams - the school I helped to co-found and then ran for twelve of its thirteen years - and these inquiries have been wonderful to those who come calling and to me as well, in my knowing that all that effort and energy wasn't a waste of time culturally. It certainly has not been a waste of time to the many students whose lives have been enriched by attending either Summerhill or Lewis-Wadhams.

zu Frage 2:

I think most educators do not know of Neill or if they do, they mention his book as something they had to read (that would charm Neill). Yet many of his ideas have been incorporated into many alternative schools throughout the United States. Child-centered schools are common, so is student centered learning although I think we had as much influence as Neill in this regard. High school students signing contracts to produce a specific amount of study and learning comes directly out of the Summerhill idea. And we had this at LW thirty years ago.

zu Frage 3:

I think the most influence Neill had was in getting educators to stop seeing a child as a vessel that needed filling up with facts, although I must also admit that this idea of vesselling is returning. Neill showed that children learn best when they are interested in what they are studying and that children have their own rhythm and time-frame within which their learning takes place. Einstein learning to read and speak at four years of age is a dramatic point but there are millions of children who simply learn in a time and place contrary to what "educators"think is appropriate for their age.
I have a daughter who learned to read at age eleven, she was content to play and explore on her own. Today she is a brilliant computer engineer, cultured, educated, aware, thoughtful, decent, the mother of two children, overall a wonderful human being. Ironically she sends her children to schools that are highly competitive (much to my chagrin). But they are HER kids, not mine. They seem fine, so far.

zu Frage 4:

Yes, I am still interested in what happens at Summerhill and yes, I am still influenced by Neill's writings, and yes, I am in contact with Zoe Neill Readhead, the present director of the school. My involvement is not very active nor do I spend time visiting but I shall be going to the 80th reunion in August, 2001.

Bemerkenswerterweise ist Herb SNITZER - das wird sich noch bei der Lektüre der nachfolgenden Antworten zeigen - der fortwährend engagierteste Förderer Summerhills und der Idee Neills. Er hebt hervor, daß der Ertrag all der Bemühungen Neills und seiner Nachfolger - zu denen Herb SNITZER sich selbst zählt - sich vor allem im Segment der Alternativschulen zeigt. Er stellt fest, daß Neills Ablehnung des Faktenlernens - trotz dessen bedrohlicher Renaissance in den Vereinigten Staaten - am meisten Einfluß auf die Erzieherinnen und Erzieher gehabt habe. Gleichzeitig konstatiert er bedauernd, daß die meisten Erzieherinnen und Erzieher Neill entweder gar nicht kennen oder sein Buch (offenbar ist damit "Summerhill" in der Hart-Herausgabe gemeint) als lästige Pflichtlektüre betrachten. Daß (Alternativ-) Schulen in den USA Kindorientiert unterrichten, schreibt SNITZER zu gleichen Teilen der Popularität Neills wie den Anstrengungen der anderen Alternativ-Schul-Aktivistinnen und -Aktivisten zu.

Herb SNITZER ist nach wie vor an den Entwicklungen in Summerhill interessiert und steht in Kontakt mit der Schule. Neills Bücher sind ihm auch heute noch eine Quelle der Inspiration. In einer persönlichen Bemerkung in seinem Brief hebt er hervor, daß die Begegnung mit Neill für sein Leben eine ausschlaggebende Bedeutung hatte: "As it turned out, Neill became, over the long-run, the single most important influence in my life and remains so, long years after his death."[SNITZER-* aus dem Februar 2001].

Emmanuel BERNSTEIN (er stellte 1967 eine Wirkungsanalyse an und veröffentlichte sie in mehreren Zeitschriftenaufsätzen) arbeitet heute als Psychoanalytiker in Adirondack und engagiert sich in einer Vereinigung namens "Psychologists for the Ethical Treatment of Animals". Er antwortete per e-mail:

zu Frage 1:

Yes, I certainly still support Neill's basic ideas on education. I know they work now from many experiences including helping to start a public school in 1966, ungraded from kindergarten through graduation from high school in Portland, Oregon. It survives there as Metropolitan Learning Centre, and has many success stories. I visited Framingham, Massachusetts recently, also patterned after Summerhill with continuing success stories over the past several decades.
The person who loved my research the most was Abraham A. Maslow. I always regret that I was unable accept his invitation to visit him before he died.
Neill's reactions to my research was that it was ,,fair" and surprise that most of his students did not go into the arts, but entered such diverse fields!

zu Frage 2:

I think Neill's idea that the extreme of total freedom can really work to educate people was most influential - it enabled many to dare such a strange notion that kids know what's best for themselves! Interest in Neill along with "Progressive Education" and doing away with rigid structure in schooling comes and goes in cycles. I think we're currently at the beginning of a cycle where there is a resurgence of interest in Neill's kind of education. At the same time, there is a testing mania going on in this country, where "high stakes" test scores are escalating as major criteria for excellence in education. I predict this will result in many casualties including many students in their 12^th year of schooling will be forced to take another year after failing such State tests.

zu Frage 3:

If people listened, the philosophy of Neill's and other innovative approaches to education could change at every level - from elementary school to high school - to college level. All levels of education have been ineffective and outdated forever as far as I'm concerned! Every field could benefit from having the conventional philosophy of using coercion and threats such as with grades replaced by educators who inspire and who realize that the lecture is the least effective way to help people learn.

zu Frage 4:

Yes, I am still inspired by Neill and was happy his daughter, Zoe, recently took over and won a battle with the State education department in Court, which allowed Summerhill to be exempt from the usual governmental curriculum demands.

Emanuel BERNSTEIN hat aus anfänglicher Skepsis heraus seine Evaluationsstudie über Summerhill-Schülerinnen und -Schüler betrieben. Er schreibt nun, daß er mittlerweile weiß, daß die Grundideen Neills in der Praxis funktionieren. Dies habe er selbst in der von ihm mitgegründeten Schule in Oregon erfahren und erneut in der Sudbury-Village-School erlebt. Auch Emmanuel BERNSTEIN beobachtet eine Renaissance der Ideen Neills als Gegenbewegung gegen die Zunahme rigider Schultestverfahren. Offenbar stimmen die beiden nordamerikanischen Autoren (SNITZER und BERNSTEIN) in dieser Einschätzung überein. Bernstein hebt hervor, daß jeder Schultyp - von der Elementarschule bis zur Hochschule - von der Übernahme innovativer Elemente in der Erziehung (wie Neill sie seiner Auffassung nach vertrat) profitieren könnte. Er spricht in diesem Zusammenhang sogar von einer Effektivitätssteigerung und greift damit gewissermaßen das Vokabular der Protagonisten einer Input-Output-orientierten Betrachtungsweise von Bildung und Erziehung auf. Ähnlich wie Neill in seinen allerersten Veröffentlichungen über Unterricht [NEILL in: The Student 08.03.1912, S.335f] stellt BERNSTEIN fest, daß (Frontal-)Unterricht die ineffizienteste Form der Wissensvermittlung ist.

Er schreibt, daß Neill ihn fortwährend inspiriere und stellt unter Beweis, daß er über die aktuellen Schulgeschehnisse informiert ist. Ein direkter Kontakt mit der Schule scheint nicht zu bestehen.

Bjarne SEGEFJORD, dessen Summerhill-Tagebuch 1968 in Dänemark veröffentlicht wurde (und später in England, den USA und Deutschland, Holland und Spanien [SEGEFJORD * aus dem Februar 2001]) antwortete per e-mail. Er ist heute als Romanautor und Zeitschriftenjournalist tätig.

zu Frage 1

Certainly! I don't feel my book written in vein. The reactions were mostly positive. I got positive reviews. I have been lecturing in university, high schools and in teacher training colleges, a group of parents appointed me the leader of a free school, and I was sort of headhunted to teach social pedagogy in a socialpćdagogisk seminarium. (Translation impossible!) After the German edition, a student from University of Munich visited me for quite some time to learn from the free school (see how it worked in practice). Also a professor in pedagogy from Japan visited "my" school.

zu Frage 2

The development of Neill's ideas is like climbing up a mountain to the peek and then rushing down into the valley. In the mid-thirties we here in DK had the so called Valbyforsřg with Sofie Rifbjerg as the locomotive. Neill came and paid a lot of attention to the experiment. Also in the fifties and sixties reform pedagogy was practised several places in DK. But though the conclusions were positive everything went back to business as usual. For the time being Neill's name is fading.

zu Frage 3

We are in the field of hypothesis. Children have got more autonomy and the sexual openness has increased. Unfortunately Neill's ideas have been misunderstood in the broad public, so that Neill's warnings in Freedom - not license have become an interesting matter. Maybe it will lead to parent schools.

zu Frage 4

Still interested in what happens in Summerhill? No! My last visit to the school took place in 1986. I am not supporting the school, but I still support Neill's ideas in mind, attitude and writing. And Neill's writings are still a source of inspiration to me.
Let me explain: In 1972 I met Neill for the last time. He died the year after. I visited the school and had a cosy and potent conversation with him - and of course some malt. We discussed among other items "my own" free school. Summerhill was just the same as six years before.
In 1986 a lot had changed. Neill was no more present as the charismatic character. They still had their democracy with meetings and so forth. But the spirit was quite different, harsh and to some extent emotionally disabled. They had got drug problems and alcohol problems. I met Ena in her private house. She was staring on the tv and did not pay me much attention. Maybe she was afraid of questions. The decay of the school was obvious [81].
The problem is that Neill was the school. I knew it from my first meeting with him in Hammersmith, London. Only single persons can move mile stones.

Bjarne SEGEFJORD hatte mit der Veröffentlichung seines Summerhill-Tagebuchs einen Erfolg, der ihn heute noch trägt. Offenbar stieß er mit diesem Buch gewissermaßen in eine Marktlücke. Gleiches gilt für die Idee Neills in seinen Augen nicht. Er beschreibt eine Zeit des Enthusiasmus, in der freie Schulen gegründet wurden und Erziehungsexperimente angestellt wurden. Anschließend sei jedoch vieles wieder zum Alten zurückgekehrt. Eine bleibende Wirkung Neills erkennt SEGEFJORD in der gewachsenen Selbstbestimmtheit von Kindern und Jugendlichen und in deren größerer sexueller Freiheit. Aber er sagt selbst, daß er nur vermuten kann, daß diese Effekte auf Neill zurückzuführen sind.

Der dänische Autor gesteht unumwunden zu, daß er die Schule in Leiston nicht aktiv fördert und daß er sich, seit er sie zuletzt 1986 besucht hat, nicht mehr für sie interessiert. Er vermißte bei dem Besuch den charismatischen Geist Neills und die Atmosphäre der Schule wirkte auf ihn wesentlich rigider als bei seinen früheren Besuchen. Neills Idee und seine Bücher seien fortwährend eine Inspiration für ihn.

Fußnoten:

[80] Auf eine tabellarische Darstellung in Form einer Synopse wird verzichtet, da die Antworten sehr unterschiedlich lang sind.

[81] Auch andere Autoren berichten von ernsten Schwierigkeiten der Schule in diesen Jahren, die vermutlich mit der Übernahme der Schulleitung durch Neills Tochter, Zoë Readhead, zusammenhingen [vgl. Stephens1988].

Diss: Axel Kühn: Alexander Neill
Zurück zum Inhaltsverzeichnis
zurück (Zusammenfassung und Fazit)
Fortsetzung (Ute Schmidt-Herrmann)

Frage 1:	Zurückschauend auf Ihr Engagement in bezug auf Summerhill und Neill: meinen Sie, daß Sie die Schule und Neills Idee unterstützen konnten mit Ihrer Veröffentlichung (Welche Reaktionen bekamen Sie, gibt es eine diesbezügliche Entwicklung in Laufe der Jahre)?
Frage 2:	Wie schätzen Sie generell die Entwicklung von Neills Idee im Laufe der Jahre ein (Wächst das Interesse an Neill und Summerhill oder meinen Sie, daß das Gegenteil der Fall ist)?
Frage 3:	Haben die Summerhill-Idee und Neills Schriften die Erziehungsrealität verändert (In welchen Bereichen? Welche Aspekte von Neills Gedanken waren am einflußreichsten)?
Frage 4:	Interessieren Sie sich fortwährend für Summerhill (Sind Sie immer noch in Kontakt mit der Schule, unterstützen Sie sie noch, sind die Schriften Neills für Sie und Ihre Arbeit noch eine Quelle der Inspiration)?

zu Frage 1:	My book on Summerhill was a "best seller" in the middle 60s, with most of the sales in California, home of the alternative education movement but even now, every so often I get a phone call, a letter, and email from people all over the world wanting to know about Summerhill, Lewis-Wadhams - the school I helped to co-found and then ran for twelve of its thirteen years - and these inquiries have been wonderful to those who come calling and to me as well, in my knowing that all that effort and energy wasn't a waste of time culturally. It certainly has not been a waste of time to the many students whose lives have been enriched by attending either Summerhill or Lewis-Wadhams.
zu Frage 2:	I think most educators do not know of Neill or if they do, they mention his book as something they had to read (that would charm Neill). Yet many of his ideas have been incorporated into many alternative schools throughout the United States. Child-centered schools are common, so is student centered learning although I think we had as much influence as Neill in this regard. High school students signing contracts to produce a specific amount of study and learning comes directly out of the Summerhill idea. And we had this at LW thirty years ago.
zu Frage 3:	I think the most influence Neill had was in getting educators to stop seeing a child as a vessel that needed filling up with facts, although I must also admit that this idea of vesselling is returning. Neill showed that children learn best when they are interested in what they are studying and that children have their own rhythm and time-frame within which their learning takes place. Einstein learning to read and speak at four years of age is a dramatic point but there are millions of children who simply learn in a time and place contrary to what "educators"think is appropriate for their age. I have a daughter who learned to read at age eleven, she was content to play and explore on her own. Today she is a brilliant computer engineer, cultured, educated, aware, thoughtful, decent, the mother of two children, overall a wonderful human being. Ironically she sends her children to schools that are highly competitive (much to my chagrin). But they are HER kids, not mine. They seem fine, so far.
zu Frage 4:	Yes, I am still interested in what happens at Summerhill and yes, I am still influenced by Neill's writings, and yes, I am in contact with Zoe Neill Readhead, the present director of the school. My involvement is not very active nor do I spend time visiting but I shall be going to the 80th reunion in August, 2001.

zu Frage 1:	Yes, I certainly still support Neill's basic ideas on education. I know they work now from many experiences including helping to start a public school in 1966, ungraded from kindergarten through graduation from high school in Portland, Oregon. It survives there as Metropolitan Learning Centre, and has many success stories. I visited Framingham, Massachusetts recently, also patterned after Summerhill with continuing success stories over the past several decades. The person who loved my research the most was Abraham A. Maslow. I always regret that I was unable accept his invitation to visit him before he died. Neill's reactions to my research was that it was ,,fair" and surprise that most of his students did not go into the arts, but entered such diverse fields!
zu Frage 2:	I think Neill's idea that the extreme of total freedom can really work to educate people was most influential - it enabled many to dare such a strange notion that kids know what's best for themselves! Interest in Neill along with "Progressive Education" and doing away with rigid structure in schooling comes and goes in cycles. I think we're currently at the beginning of a cycle where there is a resurgence of interest in Neill's kind of education. At the same time, there is a testing mania going on in this country, where "high stakes" test scores are escalating as major criteria for excellence in education. I predict this will result in many casualties including many students in their 12^th year of schooling will be forced to take another year after failing such State tests.
zu Frage 3:	If people listened, the philosophy of Neill's and other innovative approaches to education could change at every level - from elementary school to high school - to college level. All levels of education have been ineffective and outdated forever as far as I'm concerned! Every field could benefit from having the conventional philosophy of using coercion and threats such as with grades replaced by educators who inspire and who realize that the lecture is the least effective way to help people learn.
zu Frage 4:	Yes, I am still inspired by Neill and was happy his daughter, Zoe, recently took over and won a battle with the State education department in Court, which allowed Summerhill to be exempt from the usual governmental curriculum demands.

zu Frage 1	Certainly! I don't feel my book written in vein. The reactions were mostly positive. I got positive reviews. I have been lecturing in university, high schools and in teacher training colleges, a group of parents appointed me the leader of a free school, and I was sort of headhunted to teach social pedagogy in a socialpćdagogisk seminarium. (Translation impossible!) After the German edition, a student from University of Munich visited me for quite some time to learn from the free school (see how it worked in practice). Also a professor in pedagogy from Japan visited "my" school.
zu Frage 2	The development of Neill's ideas is like climbing up a mountain to the peek and then rushing down into the valley. In the mid-thirties we here in DK had the so called Valbyforsřg with Sofie Rifbjerg as the locomotive. Neill came and paid a lot of attention to the experiment. Also in the fifties and sixties reform pedagogy was practised several places in DK. But though the conclusions were positive everything went back to business as usual. For the time being Neill's name is fading.
zu Frage 3	We are in the field of hypothesis. Children have got more autonomy and the sexual openness has increased. Unfortunately Neill's ideas have been misunderstood in the broad public, so that Neill's warnings in Freedom - not license have become an interesting matter. Maybe it will lead to parent schools.
zu Frage 4	Still interested in what happens in Summerhill? No! My last visit to the school took place in 1986. I am not supporting the school, but I still support Neill's ideas in mind, attitude and writing. And Neill's writings are still a source of inspiration to me. Let me explain: In 1972 I met Neill for the last time. He died the year after. I visited the school and had a cosy and potent conversation with him - and of course some malt. We discussed among other items "my own" free school. Summerhill was just the same as six years before. In 1986 a lot had changed. Neill was no more present as the charismatic character. They still had their democracy with meetings and so forth. But the spirit was quite different, harsh and to some extent emotionally disabled. They had got drug problems and alcohol problems. I met Ena in her private house. She was staring on the tv and did not pay me much attention. Maybe she was afraid of questions. The decay of the school was obvious [81]. The problem is that Neill was the school. I knew it from my first meeting with him in Hammersmith, London. Only single persons can move mile stones.