Re: DSM: public school prisons (sharing the SVS model, etc.)


Robert Swanson (robertswanson@icehouse.net)
Tue, 21 Nov 2000 00:52:45 -0800


on 11/19/00 7:28 PM, Sugmapl@aol.com at Sugmapl@aol.com wrote:
>
> I ask for your feedback and that of the whole list. Maybe I'm not seeing this
> thing correctly. To me it certainly appears that Sudbury Valley is about the
> freedom of children and not about education. To me this seems so clear that I
> don't even think Sudbury Valley is a school.

In, "Announcing A New School" Dan Greenberg describes extensive debate and
thought that went into an intent of better education. Much of this thought
concerned what is education already. Now then, what if education is about
the freedom of children to develop into their potential? Better, what if
education is about children receiving the support and modeling they need to
develop into their natural (God-given) potential. The error is thinking of
kids as stupid little adults. The correction is thinking of kids as amazing
developments in progress of unimagined potential unlimited in their
creativity. Only after eleven years old do they begin to solidify into
patterns. Still, those patterns are unlimited in potential.

> If Sudbury is about education then we really do care about the results. We
> care that the child becomes self-reliant and intrinsically motivated and
> finds their passion and maybe a lot of other good and righteous things. Then
> the freedom that is offered is just the best, most powerful pedagogy that we
> know.

We are intrinsically social beings. We insist on having others (mostly
adults) to model socially adapted behaviors. An option we could model is
what Deepak Chopra calls self-referral. This is being congruent with one's
emotional or intuitive or spiritual guidance rather than guided by others'
intellect. But this self-referral has to be modeled to become a "language"
of the children. I believe this would mean modeling a powerful inner spirit
of trust, joy and exploration.

> If Sudbury is about the freedom of children, then we make our decision to
> offer a deep and profound regard to the child and then we give up all hope of
> results. If the child can stay within the norms of the community, they may do
> any damn thing they want, for as long as they want, without critique,
> judgement, evaluation, explanation, defense or argument.

The research is very clear -- a deep profound regard for children (from
birth) produces profound results. This requires adults being congruent at
heart. Critique, judgement, evaluation, explanation, defense & argument as
we now use them are traits of intellect, the misguided mind. A deep profound
regard would choose to model the highest self-development in a milieu of
intuition, cooperation, communication, integrity, adventure, creativity and
joy, lots of joy.
robert

> I invite any and all response
>
> Bill Richardson
>



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Nov 23 2000 - 07:48:01 EST