Re: DSM:


Allan Saugstad (asaugstad@vsb.bc.ca)
Wed, 06 Dec 2000 09:23:11 -0800


Mike,

Thank you for your comments,

I agree that the lack of peer models of different ages will be a problem. I guess my
hope is that, if successful, we will reach out to kids of all ages. If we end up with
more than 20, or 30, or 40, well - we'll just have to grow and add more staff as we
go.

We also envision a very parent-centered school, where parents are directly involved in
the operation of the school and the teaching. Our thoughts are that this will create a
"family-feel" to it, not an "institutional feel". Most of the folks I know interested
in our idea don't want to send their kids anywhere; they want to stay involved in
their child's education as much as possible.

Right now me and my friends all have young children (ages 0-4). I am wondering,
though, that as they grow they won't want to neccessarily be around us as much
anymore; as Robert has shared, they will look to role models outside of the family
when they are older. Also, we as parents may enjoy a little freedom to pursue some of
our own interests for a change.

I think that perhaps what will happen is that parents will work at our school for a
day a week, their children will use it three or four days a week, and the rest of the
time they will spend together learning as a family.

At the heart of our idea is to find families who wish to work together to build and
run school for our children. The love for the children will be there, of course, in
full force They are our kids, not somebody elses), the committment will be there, I
think, and all else will follow. - I just hope the kids like it!!

Allan

Mike Sadofsky wrote:

> Among the distinct strengths of the Sudbury model are (1)
> the ability of students of diverse ages to mix and (2) for
> students and multiple adult staff members to engage in
> topical discussion across a broad spectrum of interests and
> perspectives. I envision substantial constrains in these
> areas in the model you describe.
> Mike
>
> Allan Saugstad wrote:
> >
> > I am planning on twenty children who are all around 5-7 years old. We have quite
> > a few friends who are interested who all have children this age. My hope is that
> > we many of them will live close by or even on the large acerage that the school
> > will be on, and grow up together as a genuine, close community.
> >
> > Allan
> >
> > Joseph Moore wrote:
> >
> > > Good points. One possible difference - as we got our school up to 20
> > > students (took 3.5 years), things got much better for everybody - students,
> > > staff and at least in our case, parents. Even 20 students provide a lot of
> > > opportunity for friends and associations (in the informal sense).
> > >
> > > On a personal note, my 7 year old daughter had a hard time her first year -
> > > we started with only about 11 kids, and there weren't enough little girls
> > > for her to be friends with. The little boys didn't have time for her (or, at
> > > least, not enough time - which is a LOT with my daughter). But this year,
> > > with 3 little girls within a year or two of her age, she's so much happier
> > > she practically glows.
> > >
> > > Anyway, just saying that 20 may not be too small a number - but that the mix
> > > is going to be more important to some kids at that size.
> > >
> > > Joseph



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:09:49 EST