Robert Swanson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 18:15:24 -0800
on 11/11/00 12:55 PM, Rick Stansberger at email@example.com wrote:
> Robert Swanson wrote:
>> Absolutely (see Bruce's statement below), Sudbury is such a different
>> paradigm that this round peg won't fit into the square hole of public or
>> institutional education.
> I respectfully disagree. The only thing that makes public education public
> education is its source of funding: the public pays for it through taxes.
Yes Rick, I agree. My comment arises from statements made by Daniel
Greenberg and others that the politics and money flow in public education
make any inroads highly unlikely at this time, at least in any gross form.
Shaping student behaviors gradually into the SVS model may be easy in many
public schools. robert
> Everything else is just a question of method. For instance, you can have
> schools that aren't compulsory. You can have public Waldorf or Montessori
> schools. Why not? The notion of freedom is antithetical to the current
> model (which you can find in both public and private schools), but you can
> freedom in a publicly funded institution. Look at recreation centers.
> Tax-funded sudschools are possible. It would just take incredible restraint
> the part of legislators raising the money and bureaucrats doling it out. They
> would have to lay off notions like "accountability," and trust the parents,
> students and staff to run the individual buildings. A highly unlikely
> I admit, but theoretically possible.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Mon Nov 13 2000 - 10:57:33 EST