Joe Jackson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 14:17:56 -0500
I did not mean to imply that the model was born solely from experience and
method, but that the valuable thing about it is how well it works. The
model thrives and grows for the reason that it is so effective in practice,
not because it is philosophically the most "defendable" model.
Building an educational paradigm from the ground up using only philosophical
principles is like building a car at a salad bar. I'm pleased as punch that
SV got it right, but IMO the value of the school is in how well it works.
> While I may agree with you re the "wacky conventional classroom",
> I disagree
> re the value of the model. The founders of SVS, Highland, and
> others did not
> go around observing schools and other places of learning and culling best
> practices from them to create the democratic schooling model. Rather, we
> looked at our underlying philosophies and crafted a philosophical and
> methodological vision to reflect those principles. The fact that
> it works so
> well is, IMO, a reflection on the merits of the philosophy.
> ~Alan Klein
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joe Jackson" <email@example.com>
> > The value of the model IMO is not any underlying philsophy; the value of
> > is in how well it works. The idea that an educational model can be born
> > scientific principles and philosophic construct is what
> produced the wacky
> > conventional classroom of the twentieth century.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:55 EST