We were indeed lucky to have two broad-minded inspectors sent
to us. We dropped "mister" straightaway. During the two days'
visit, we had quite a few friendly arguments.

I felt that school inspectors were accustomed to picking up a
French book in front of a class and quizzing the class to find out
what the pupils knew. I reasoned that that kind of training and
experience would be of little use in inspecting the worth of a
school in which lessons were not the prime criterion. I said to
one of the inspectors, "You really can't inspect Summerhill be-
cause our criteria are happiness, sincerity, balance and sociabil-
ity." He grinned and said they'd have a go at it anyway. And
both our inspectors made a remarkable adaptation, and obvi-
ously enjoyed themselves in the process.

Odd things struck them. Said one, "What a delightful shock
it is to enter a classroom and find the children not taking any no-
tice of you, after years of seeing classes jump to attention." Yes,
we were lucky to have the two of them.

But to the report itself: "the inspectors were a little surprised
at the financial difficulties. . . ." The answer lies mostly in bad
debts, yet that is not the whole story. The report mentions an
annual fee of £120, but since then we have tried to cope with
high prices throughout the years by raising the average annual
fee to about £250 (about $700). This does not allow anything
for repairs to the buildings, for purchasing new apparatus, and
so on. For one thing, damages are heavier in Summerhill than
in a disciplined school. Summerhill children are allowed to go
through their gangster period, and consequently more furniture
is destroyed.

-86-