Rick Stansberger (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 19 Nov 2000 12:02:41 -0700
Reeny, I think it's a Sudbury style to shoot from the hip. I believe it was
described in one of their books as "blunt." People who feel secure, often feel
secure to just "let 'er rip." They trust the process to work it out. It's the
sudschool backdrop that allows this freedom. People who live and work in
oppressive environments learn to "tell all the truth, but tell it slant," as
Emily Dickinson says -- if they tell the truth at all. (I almost wrote, "Please
correct me, you Sudburians, if you think I'm wrong." But I think it's safe to
trust that they will. And in no uncertain terms <grin>.)
> Well, since you asked, aside from the glaring evidence (to me) that the list
> is formulated to characterize parents seeking better educational
> opportunities for their children as dumb, it's also pieced together in a
> mean spirited way. Maybe that's Mimsy's style, personally, I tend to go for
> the flippant, sarcastic, cheap shots. The list seemed general, vague and not
> attributed to anyone or with any evidence to support its criticisms.
> Regardless, I think you can catch more flies with honey then vinegar, at
> least where the parents are concerned.
> > From: "Alan Klein" <Alan@klein.net>
> > Reply-To: email@example.com
> > Date: Sat, 18 Nov 2000 16:04:58 -0500
> > To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Subject: Re: DSM: public school prisons (sharing the SVS model, etc.)
> > Reeny,
> > I am curious as to what has you regard the list as condescending.
> > ~Alan Klein
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <email@example.com>
> >>> From a parents perspective, I think this list is condescending. Wish we
> >> could be as enlightened as you all.
> >>> Msadofsky@aol.com wrote:
> >>>> A short and incomplete list of reasons parents might have to send a
> > child to
> >>>> a sudbury school
> >>>> (1) They agree with what they think the philosophy is. This is often
> >>>> NOT what the philosophy is but, especially in the beginning of the
> > kid's
> >>>> enrollment, they haven't yet figured that out.
> >>>> (2) They agree with the philosophy and actually want their children to
> >>>> grow up feeling free, empowered, in charge, and darn smart.
> >>>> (3) They find the sudbury school to be the least of many evils; they
> >>>> wish there were just a little curriculum, but there isn't, so they
> > either
> >>>> work to change it, openly or covertly, or they impose the curriculum at
> > home
> >>>> just to be sure their kids are exposed to everything, in the detail the
> >>>> parents think is necessary, that the parents think every child must be
> >>>> exposed to.
> >>>> (4) It is the only private school they can afford except for parochial
> >>>> schools and none of the parochial schools suit their fancy.
> >>>> (5) They find the sudbury school to be the least of many evils in
> > their
> >>>> area.
> >>>> (6) They feel the kids will be safe, if uneducated, in a sudbury
> > school.
> >>>> (7) Their kids are having their spirits mutilated in one way or
> > another
> >>>> -- perhaps dumbed down; perhaps something else -- in some other type of
> >>>> schooling, and they are desparate to get the kids into something that
> > may
> >>>> help rebuild self-esteem. These parents can actually let that happen
> > to
> >>>> their child(ren) or not; they can manage to subvert the child's real
> >>>> independence of thought and so it will not happen if they really try
> > hard.
> >>>> (8) Their kids refuse to attend school in a "normal" school, and they
> >>>> give up and sign the papers so they can go to a school that they will
> > attend.
> >>>> Results are mixed in these situations.
> >>>> I know there are others, but this is a starter list.
-- "Weirdness abounds and shatters our illusion of order. Heh-heh. All the dust is being blown out from under the carpet. Wonderful stuff!"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 19 2000 - 21:54:06 EST