Bruce Smith (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 11:16:28 -0700
>I despise the system, not the children. They are two seperate things.
They are separate, yes, but not _separated_. The children are influenced by
the system, in what I strongly believe to be deleterious ways.
>I never said I helped any of them. I merely lrespect them. I happen to think
>that is of value.
I agree. As long as this system continues, having some teachers show
respect to some students is of considerable value. What bothers me is that
the system never really changes, and the level of respect for children
remains so horribly low.
>And in my wildest fantasies, I would never assume that every one of them is
>damaged. Likewise, I would not assume that all children in Sudbury model
>schools are "undamaged"
In one of my posts, I was trying to argue that with many
traditionally-school children, the damage can be extremely subtle. In some
cases, it's "merely" a significant restricting or redirecting of their
potential, a drain on their self-reliance and self-direction. And of
course, not all Sudbury students are always undamaged: but at least this
institution, in my opinion, lives up to its promise to give them the most
support and least restriction possible.
I guess it gets back to what Joe Jackson was saying, whether one is a
reformer or a revolutionary. I used to belong to the former camp. Now I
fall squarely in the latter, and I am frustrated with those who favor
incremental change (which I don't believe in) over a total revamping of the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 12 2000 - 19:48:13 EST