Thank you. I think I see that my difficulty was logical.
Sudbury crushes the duality between young and old (but not completely)
Sudbury crushes the duality between teacher and learner (but not completely)
Sudbury crushes the view of the child as an improver (but not absolutely)
My puzzle was exactly the self referential one in logic.
Let us imagine that Subury does not have any agenda for the children. The
child certainly had to maintain 51% of the vote to hang, to remain present,
but given they can do that, they are free. So with no internal agenda, could
Sudbury even dispense with any external agenda, ie. it would not even argue
for the goodness of it's own self. That is Sudbury would basically say we
trust the children in the school and we trust anyone interested in the school
to find their way to the school house door. In this scenario Sudbury would
even decline to claim goodness for itself. The question of whether the
freedom was good would be left up to the children. Thus there would be no
impetus to "preach".
If I understand you comments, the stance of Sudbury in these matters is best
seen as approximate, in light of the fact that viewing these stances as
absolute leads to logical absurdity.
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
firstname.lastname@example.org with the following phrase in the BODY (not the
subject) of the message:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model [the-subscribed-email]
If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Mon Nov 05 2001 - 20:24:29 EST