RE: DSM: Interest increasing?

Linda Jackson (
Sun, 7 Jan 2001 17:21:54 -0500

What I have experienced is that when we, as parents, give up the "insidious
interference" we are free to enjoy a new open relationship with our kids.
And it is very good. Linda Jackson
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> []On Behalf Of John
> Axtell
> Sent: Saturday, January 06, 2001 9:21 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: DSM: Interest increasing?
> Bruce,
> Again a dumb question ? You wrote -
> > But what we
> > Sudbury purists maintain is that even to suggest, or to make available,
> > items of possible study without first waiting for students to express an
> > interest -- in other words, to entice or preemptively direct students --
> > is, in a way, even worse than naked coercion, since at least with that
> > there's no chance of mistaking the adults' role.
> My point of confusion is this. Sudbury purists maintain to make available
> items of possible study without first waiting for students to express an
> interest is wrong. How does a Sudsbury student even ever get the idea that
> something exists, such as clay, to pound or touch if the lump of
> clay is not
> on the table. How would any child learn to talk without first
> being exposed -
> enticed - or preemptively directed by an adult - to express a
> verbal sound to
> ask for something?
> As a parent I have always done my best to expose, or as you would
> say -relish
> in the deceptively-benign insidiousness of adult interference for all my
> children. To have children without enjoying insidious
> interference would seem
> to put the function of parents into nothing more than sexual
> objects producing
> offspring for the benefit of the offspring rather than having any
> benefit to
> the "parents".
> I am probably missing the boat in reading all these posts but I
> sure am trying
> hard to figure them out. Please give me some help if you can.
> John Axtell

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:01 EST