Re[2]: DSM: Why is it not the responsibility of society/community to educate the future generation ? (was:The Value of the Sudbury Model)

From: David Rovner (rovners@netvision.net.il)
Date: Thu Apr 19 2001 - 15:11:36 EDT


Martin Wilke wrote:
>Education should NOT be COMPULSORY BUT TAX SUPPORTED.

If some men are entitled BY RIGHT to the products of the work of others, it means
that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Any alleged "right" of one man, which necessitates the violation of the rights of
another, is not and cannot be a right.

No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an
involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such things as "THE RIGHT
TO ENSLAVE."

A right does not include the material implementation of that right by other men; it
includes only the freedom to earn that implementation by one's own effort.

Martin Wilke wrote:
>There should be many different kinds of schools (from traditional to
>Sudbury-like), homeschool resource centers, etc. And they can grow on
>private initiative as well as being initiated by the state. There would
>be a kind of market, but it wouldn't depend on whose kid's parents can
>afford a school and whose can't. Rather it would depend on which schools
>the kids decide to go to - if they want to attend a school at all.

>These schools would be completely tax-funded. But that does not mean the
>government has any influence on their content. For example, in Germany
>the political parties receive government-money, 1 DM ($0,45) per year
>for every vote they got in the past election. Nevertheless the state has
>no influence on the political program of the parties.

IS THERE AN "IDEAL SCHOOL" FOR THE NATION?

       A few years ago, when the U.S. Secretary of Education William Bennett
unleashed upon an unsuspecting nation his blueprint for a "dream high school"
governed by an "ideal" core curriculum, which he was gracious enough to provide.
Bennett's comments sent shock waves through the educational and lay community.
People everywhere rushed to compare their local high schools to the Bennett ideal,
and bestowed lavish praise on those that best measured up. Even the critics granted
Bennett his basic premise, and differed for the most part on details of what the
curriculum should contain.

      Now as far as I'm concerned, William Bennett is as entitled as anyone to let us
know what his dream school looks like. He is a qualified professional with long and
distinguished public service, and his views certainly deserve a respectful hearing. The
problem I have is with the implication, strengthened by Bennett's POWERFUL
POSITION as dispenser of trainloads of money, that Bennett's dream has to become
the nation's model as well. If you looked closely, you could see the armies of grant
applicants all over the positioning their strategies around flattering satisfaction of
Bennett's wish.

      The truth is that the millions of youngsters growing up in America today are
entering a world more varied than any other in history, and becoming even more
complex every year. No one, however brilliant, has the foggiest idea what the future
holds, or how we will get there. It is absurd on the face of it to think that any one
model, any single form, is appropriate for the education of children. Let Bennett
propose one ideal, and let others throughout the land propose theirs, but what the
Secretary of Education should really be saying IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS
PROMOTER OF THE NATIONAL WELFARE is that WE SHOULD ENCOURAGE AND
SPONSOR AS GREAT A VARIETY AS POSSIBLE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF
SCHOOLS, BASED ON THE DREAMS AND IDEALS OF AS MANY THOUGHTFUL
EDUCATORS AS ARE AVAILABLE, AND LET THE PUBLIC AND HISTORY, CHOOSE
FREELY AMONG THEM. PLURALISM SHOULD BE THE GOAL, NOT SLAVISH
IMITATION OF ONE MAN'S BLUEPRINT FOR SUCCESS.

     It is no small irony that a Republican administration which loudly proclaims its
belief in diversity, in local control, and in decentralization of power, should condone the
notion that a single ideal format, emanating from Washington, is suitable for
everyone,everywhere. Is there really as little difference between Democrats and
Republicans as this example might indicate?

      I think we should let Secretary Bennett know that we appreciate the careful
thought he has given to the question of schooling for the young, and we respectfully,
but most emphatically, disagree with his fundamental premise that models exist for
nationwide emulation. *DIVERSITY* should be the guiding principle in these days of
rapid change, and from the experience we gain in time by observing alternative
possibilities we may eventually discern the outlines of the forms that will serve us well
in the future.

[EMPHASIS mine.- D.R.]
[*EMPHASIS* in the original]

[ "IS THERE AN "IDEAL SCHOOL" FOR THE NATION?"
   Education in America -- A View from Sudbury Valley, P. 121,
   Daniel Greenberg, 1992.]

 Sudbury Valley School www.sudval.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------

David Rovner rovners@netvision.net.il

---------- Original Message ----------

>From: Martin Wilke <martin.wilke@gmx.net>
>To: discuss-sudbury-model@aramis.sudval.org
>Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2001 23:38:36 +0200
>Subject: Re: DSM: Why is it not the responsibility of society/community >to
educate the future generation ? (was:The Value of the Sudbury Model)

>David Rovner schrieb:

>> PUBLIC EDUCATION
>>
>> SHOULD EDUCATION BE COMPULSORY AND TAX SUPPORTED,
>> AS IT IS TODAY?
>>
>> by Nathaniel Branden

>[...]

>Education should NOT be COMPULSORY BUT TAX SUPPORTED.

>There should be many different kinds of schools (from traditional to
>Sudbury-like), homeschool resource centers, etc. And they can grow on
>private initiative as well as being initiated by the state. There would
>be a kind of market, but it wouldn't depend on whose kid's parents can
>afford a school and whose can't. Rather it would depend on which schools
>the kids decide to go to - if they want to attend a school at all.

>These schools would be completely tax-funded. But that does not mean the
>government has any influence on their content. For example, in Germany
>the political parties receive government-money, 1 DM ($0,45) per year
>for every vote they got in the past election. Nevertheless the state has
>no influence on the political program of the parties.

>Martin Wilke
>--
>http://www.kraetzae.de
>http://www.demokratische-schule.de

==============================================
I like to believe that people in the long run are going to
do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I
think that people want peace so much that one of these days
governments had better get out of the way and let them have
it.

-- Dwight D. Eisenhower
==============================================

***************************************************
"If we are to attain real peace in this world, we will have to
begin with the children"

Gandhi 
***************************************************



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:28 EST