Mon, 5 Mar 2001 20:08:45 EST
Thank you for the following. I agree completely and precisely.
> Also, the therapeutic role is, of course (and I know you must know that
> the literature) not one the school looks for or accepts. It allows us to
> hold people responsible for their actions without us being responsible for
> their psyches. Which seems to be what you object to! But not I. What
> anyone wants to get to be, or is, can be up to them. They just have to be
> able to be reasonable citizens, and the rest can be totally their own
> invention. Certainly Sudbury schools make no claims to shape the people
> attend them. Only to require a certain level of social responsibility
> them, a level that the community insists on.
I do find it interesting that if we can characterize Sudbury Valley as
essentially a place that offers a deep respect, a profound regard and an
enduring trust then it is offering exactly what is offered in Rogerian
therapy (See: Carl Rogers' description of client-centered therapy in "On
Becoming a Person"). Such an offering is not a mild offering. It is, in fact,
an extremely powerful and very useful offering. Let us not be surprised if
the child, at times, sciezes the allowance and acceptance inherent in that
offering and procduces some deeply self-theraputic work. As you note, this
production and work is completely their own, and they must accomplish it
within the norming contraints of the community.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:53 EST