DSM: RE: RE:being a generalist.


Joe Jackson (shoeless@erols.com)
Thu, 22 Oct 1998 18:09:14 -0400


On Thursday, October 22, 1998 10:11 AM, Sharon Stanfill
 [SMTP:sharons@juliet.ll.mit.edu] wrote:
>
> Actually, Joe, not all the schools are chopping up
> subjects into bits and teaching them in isolation.
> Take a gander at Shady Hill (www.shs.org) which
> does alot with tying things together and using
> general overarching themes. Many other schools, both
> public and private do this as a matter of course
> now, although for many it is a realatively new
> idea.
>
>
> I agree that it's hard to do much with test scores and/or
> literacy rates - the equation is too complex, and it's not
> really usefull, for example, to compare the general public
> with the advantaged few in private schools of any sort, or
> the complex group of homeschoolers. I certainly don't think
> that everyone who sends a child to a non Sudbury school is
> paying for it in vain however. (I assume that $10 large is
> $10,000 - am I right?)

Yes. I should point out that it's just my opinion that paying for a non
-Sudbury school is in vain - I think that Sudbury model schools differ
profoundly from practically all other schools in this country, and that
those other schools offer a vastly inferior experience. Once again my
opinion.

I agree with you about test scores and statistics -- I think they, along
with assessments, are far more injurious than beneficial, and that the
benefits are practically null because of the confounding associated with
the extreme confounding of the sample population.

I'll take a look at the SHS web site - it sounds intriguing...

-Joe



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:01:53 EST