Mike Sadofsky (sadofsky@mediaone.net)
Sat, 31 Mar 2001 22:32:21 -0500
John,
I guess my data is only anecdotal, but I have seen it, time after
time, child after child, in my family and others. And I have to
agree with Cindy's comment, that they do it when they are ready, not
in accordance with someone else's time schedule. I've seen
academically studious kids as pre-teens and others who never thought
about academics until college. And still others became adults without
ever studying what I consider academic topics, found a way to make a
living, and after several decades (of adulthood) seem to be happy,
successful people, supporting themselves, their families, and
apparently contributing to society in a meaningful way. Their
services are in demand; they are appropriately compensated; they are
pursuing activities that interest them. (I am not comfortable
discussing any details or describing specific people and their
activities/accomplishments in this forum.)
>From a personal perspective, I looked at the period of childrearing as
one where my role was to provide for their needs and nurture, set some
fundamental examples, and give my children the opportunity to make
their way in the world we (my wife and I and our friends and
associates) could make available to them. I didn't feel that I had
any right to take any part of those years of development and
dependence and say "This is what you've got to do." or "This is what
you have to achieve."
Have I had concerns from time to time that a lack of some academic
skill or another might make I difficult for someone to pursue a career
path that I thought might be appropriate for them? Sure, but that
didn't give me the right or the responsibility to "force" that
individual to study that topic, even when that individual might have
been my child. That was just my opinion. Perhaps I found a way to
share that idea with them; perhaps I kept it to myself. It wasn't
always easy, but my respect for them as individuals was paramount.
Was I influenced by my own upbringing? Absolutely. A working class
home with limited resources, and limited outlooks on life. An
extended family that was much the same. Rote learning predominated
through high school. Few teachers willing or able to discuss meaning,
rationale, application, ... of material they presented. First
generation to reach for higher education and the family encouragement
was focused on looking for a professional trade, not for knowledge. I
knew pretty early on that I wanted to encourage my kids to take a
different path, one where they had the opportunity to figure out who
they were before they began to focus on what path they wanted to take
in life.
I don't know that this will help much, but it's what i have to offer
on this topic.
Mike
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:21:47 -0800, you wrote:
>Mike,
>
>In the context I am using the word "freedom" should be understood to be the
>childs right to choose what to do with his time. "Force" means any action by
>the parent to limit the childs right to choos what he wants to do with his
>time.
>
>My point is that I am asking if anyone has seen evidence that a child, with
>no suggestions from a parent or other authority figure, actually stops
>creative playing and hits an academic subject?
>
>John
>
>Mike Sadofsky wrote:
>
>> I believe Eduardo's "two cents" are worth a great deal more than that.
>>
>> But the point that I don't understand in the last few posts here is
>> where John writes:
>> >>when homeschooled and if given freedom few children
>> >> end up being well educated unless the parents force it
>>
>> Isn't there a contradiction here? If the parents force it, then the
>> children lack freedom. If the children have freedom, then the parents
>> don't/can't force it. Someone in an earlier post suggested there'd be
>> value if we defined our terms. I wonder what concept of freedom and
>> what nature of force is meant in this statement.
>>
>> Mike
>>
>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:22:34 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>> >Thought I'd respond to this one. Just been lurking lately, but thought
>> >I'd add my two cents. . .
>> >
>> >John, do you make your claim about homeschooled children based on any
>> >research you know about or just based on what you have witnessed
>> >personally? I certainly know of a few people who switched to
>> >homeschooling whom I would consider "well educated." Of course this
>> >brings up another question. What is your definition of "well educated"?
>> >
>> >
>> >I didn't read Bill's post so I don't know what he meant by the statement
>> >that children in SVS end up with an education. I think that this can be
>> >a point of confusion because the type of education SVS students get is
>> >very different than students in other environments? Poeple are learning
>> >all the time. I think the question that is important to look at is what
>> >is the value of what people or children are learning, and what type(s) of
>> >learning will lead to the best results for themselves and society. Of
>> >course, we as a nation of poeple, have very different opinions about what
>> >the best results or end product should be as well. And this will
>> >determine, to a great degree, what kind of "education" we subject
>> >children to.
>> >
>> >If more value is placed on the type of learning that is forced on
>> >children-- like that in grade school, rather than the learning that they
>> >might do on their own (by playing outside for example), I believe you are
>> >more likely to get future generations that look much like the status quo,
>> >becuase the current generation (adults) is deciding for the future
>> >generation (children) what they should know. But more than this, we are
>> >teaching them a way of doing things, and a way of being-- our way.
>> >
>> >I believe the Sudbury way is different because it allows children to find
>> >their own way to a much greater degree than anything else available at
>> >them moment. Therefore, there is more of a chance they will develop
>> >different ideas about the world ways of relating to that world than those
>> >children who are taught in a more traditional manner. I suppose the
>> >risk in this scenerio is that they will create something worse for
>> >themselves than what we've got, wherease the risk in the other scenerio
>> >is that they will create more of the same thing. And again, what is
>> >worse or better is a matter of opinion as well.
>> >
>> >I think many people like the status quo, and therefore wish to do
>> >education more traditionally for their children, whereas poeople want
>> >something different for their children than what most children get, look
>> >to alternatives like the Sudbury model.
>> >
>> >Finally, I would like to say that play is a type of education, or method
>> >of learning. In fact, it is the method of choice for children, as you
>> >have observed quite well yourself. It is also the method of choice for
>> >most (all??)young mammals. I think Daniel Greenberg has an article
>> >available on the SVS website that speaks to this.
>> >
>> >
>> >--Eduardo
>> >On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:54:27 -0800 John Axtell <newlife@theofficenet.com>
>> >writes:
>> >> Bill,
>> >>
>> >> Certainly an interesting take on the concept.
>> >>
>> >> I wonder why if children have freedom in a SV model they seem to end
>> >> up with an
>> >>when homeschooled and if given freedom few children
>> >> end up being
>> >> well educated unless the parents force it.>> education and
>> >>
>> >> Most children will stay outdoors if at all possible and seldom seem
>> >> to want to
>> >> come indoors. Well that is what all of my children did. I wonder if
>> >> most people
>> >> would think my kids odd and have found that most kids if given total
>> >> freedom
>> >> gravitate from play to "education"? My kids may just be a bit
>> >> abnormal.
>> >>
>> >> John
>> >>
>> >> Sugmapl@aol.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Dear Folks,
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks for your help.
>> >> >
>> >> > >From Freedom to Learn:
>> >> > "Here, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well
>> >> as when,
>> >> > how, and where they will do it. This freedom is at the heart of
>> >> the school;
>> >> > it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated"
>> >> >
>> >> > So then it is seen that this freedom does allow for a great and
>> >> deep and rich
>> >> > education. But having this great educational outcome is not the
>> >> intent of
>> >> > offering freedom. It (the education) is collateral, a by product,
>> >> > epi-phenomenal. This is all to say that if something more
>> >> beneficial to
>> >> > education came along that was not freedom, we (Sudbury Schools)
>> >> would not
>> >> > adopt it. This is the sense in which I mean Sudbury is beyond
>> >> education. This
>> >> > something beyond is the offering of freedom, a process, which
>> >> appears best
>> >> > highlighted in "The Art of Doing Nothing".
>> >> >
>> >> > Deep Regard,
>> >> > Bill Richardson
>> >>
>> >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Apr 06 2001 - 14:18:13 EDT