Melissa Bradford (mbradford@mediaone.net)
Fri, 23 Mar 2001 22:04:22 -0600
John wrote:
> I believe that people best learn the "realities of life" in a protective
> environment. I do not see the basic SV model as being a protective
environment but
> one in which, as in all democracies, those with the best verbal
communication
> skills, usually win out, which has nothing to do with which idea is really
better.
> I do not equate basic human rights with respecting our kids, which I do
not think
> is a crazy idea. I respect kids - a lot !!! I am just having a problem
with
> allowing them to vote on issues that I simply do not respect their
judgments on.
John,
I think you severely underestimate childrens' ability to make decisions, not
to mention their ability to know when they don't know enough to make a
decision. Many school meetings I have watched children and adults of all
ages participate intelligently in discussions, listen to all sides, and make
informed decisions. Likewise, I have seen both adults and children, choose
not to vote, either because they did not feel they knew enough to make an
informed decision, or because they did not care about the outcome, or
because they couldn't decide which outcome they preferred. I have also seen
children, and adults, vote one way, and a few months or a year down the
road, change their position on an issue because they saw the consequences of
a decision, and learned that it was not the best idea. I have seen
children, and adults, make a judgement that I thought was mistaken, based on
my "more extensive knowledge and experience", only to find out that it was a
good decision. I've seen children, or adults, bring ideas to SM, and those
with superior knowledge and experience, adults or children, share that
knowledge and experience, shed new light on an issue, and influence the
decision-making process greatly.
Do the best verbal communication skills usually win out even if the idea
does not have as many merits? It has happened, I suppose, but I definitely
wouldn't say "usually". Usually there are several ideas that all have
merits and drawbacks, and there is no clearcut answer of what is best.
Usually, there is an intense and thorough dialogue, with many valid points
clearly articulated on all sides. If it does happen that an idea with few
merits is passed, those that were against the idea have an opportunity to
rethink their argument, improve their own communication skills, and try
again. In addition, everyone in the community will see the results of an
idea that did not have many merits. This is one way children, and adults,
learn in a Sudbury community.
You believe children should not have the right to make decisions because
they have "little or no knowledge of the realities of life". If we assume
for the sake of argument that this is true, (although I disagree, see above)
how do they gain this knowledge then? You have said, children should learn
them in a protective environment. I am very puzzled by this statement. How
does this work? How does a child gain knowledge of the realities of life in
a protective environment? Do they read about it in a book? Listen to
lectures about it from their parents? I am also confused by your statement
that a Sudbury school is not a protective environment. Can you define what
you mean by a protective environment?
It seems you are suggesting, when a person is on his/her own, making their
own living, then they can make their own decisions. But how does a child
become ready for that? The Sudbury model postulates that children should
begin making those decisions right away, thereby learning about consequences
to their actions, about taking responsibility for the direction of their
lives. This way, by the time they are adults, they have already become
self-reliant individuals. What idea are you putting forward to take the
place of this one? How do you suggest, in your "protective environment",
that children learn how to make good decisions, if they don't have any real
power?
Melissa Bradford, LVS, Joliet, IL
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:28 EST