Re: DSM: 60 Minutes Piece

From: Tammy Inman (tammyinman@hotmail.com)
Date: Wed May 02 2001 - 06:44:02 EDT


I must say that I expected more out of a respected news show like sixty
minutes. I was shocked that they didn't interview a single Sudbury
graduate. They also didn't seem to have done any research at all.

  The story seemed very manipulative to me. For every one shot of a child
reading, they showed two shots of someone playing a video game. Since video
games are often associated with what society thinks is wrong with today's
kids, it was an effective subliminal message.

Just out of curiosity. Do the children spend a great deal of time playing
video games? Personally, I don't care if they do, but I got the feeling
that it was a bit exagerated.

Tammy

>From: "Mitch Berg" <mitch@usinternet.com>
>Reply-To: discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org
>To: <discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org>
>Subject: DSM: 60 Minutes Piece
>Date: Tue, 1 May 2001 20:37:59 -0500
>
>I have seen almost no discussion of the "60 Minutes" piece on Sudbury last
>Sunday. So I'll toss out my observations.
>
>Background: I'm a former reporter and producer. I have strong opinions on
>news coverage - and while 60 Minutes is certainly not bound to present
>pro-Sudbury propaganda, I would have liked to see more balance. I'm also
>NOT
>involved in a Sudbury school at the moment, although if anyone from the
>Twin
>Cities is reading this, please contact me!
>
>I thought this piece was generally very unfavorable to Sudbury. In
>corresponding offline with another member of this list earlier, the
>impression I got was that the piece emphasized the elements of Sudbury that
>people in traditional schools would find the most "freakish" - the lack of
>formal structure, the constant reiteration of themes like "relaxation"
>(while not touching on themes like "self-direction" or "individual
>responsibility"). The School Meeting and the Judicial Committee were
>touched on only trivially, and the actual achievements (as I understand
>them) of Sudbury students were all but overlooked. The place was made to
>look like a permissive hippie commune school. I realize that's probably
>not
>a real black mark to some of you - work with me, here.
>
>The sight of kids smoking outside the school couldn't help but shock most
>"traditional" parents.
>
>Morley Safer interviewed a panel of parents; are any of those parents on
>this list? I'd be interested in hearing what parts of that panel interview
>got left on the cutting room floor (as it were). I felt the parents came
>across especially badly (speaking of overall effect, not personally) in the
>interview.
>
>Upsides: I thought Dan Greenberg came across head, shoulders and ankles
>better than the woman from the Massachusetts Dept. of Education, who seemed
>like a fussbudgety apparatchik who left gaping holes just begging to be
>called out.
>
>And the 11-year-old girl (don't recall the name) was also very impressive.
>She came across like a very poised high school senior (Dad was a speech
>teacher, I was in broadcast - I value and closely criticize these things).
>
>This is sort of a grab bag of first impressions of the piece. I'm
>interested in what the rest of you think.
>
>Mitch Berg
>Saint Paul
>
>
>===========
>
>If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
>majordomo@sudval.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
>subject) of the message:
>
>unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
>

_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

===========

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:

unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]



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