> The children of staff have to share their parents with other kids who in
> don't have to share theirs. The parents are admired as well as
I understand that part. It is a common problem in _any_ kind of school.
But this is what I was actually wondering about:
> Above all they don't get to
> enjoy the privacy (neither do the parents who are staff ) which the
> affords all the other students. Privacy to experiment, to make
> be good or bad - without the parents knowing about it. The other kids
> choose whether to share things with their parents.
I guess what concerns me is that you seem to be saying that too much
parental presence hurts a child.
I find this viewpoint puzzling, because I simply cannot relate to it. My
relationship with my parents has always been such that I've (usually)
considered their knowledge of my shortcomings to be a positive thing (and
always viewed it as such in hindsight). As far as I can remember, this
was just as true throughout my childhood as it is today.
I have talked to my parents about these matters at length. They believe
(and I agree) that one of their greatest mistakes was in their attempt to
put me out in the "real world" of school for the sake of quality time away
from the home, when deep down inside it was not what any of us wanted. In
spite of all the Sudbury Model's strong points, I doubt if the
availability of such a school in our area would have changed this.
> By going to school the kids have the family unit and
> the school's community and in my opinion it is good for them.
There are many communities other than school that a child can become
involved in. Why does it have to be school?