DSM: Message from [JerryAERO@aol.com] (fwd)

From: Scott David Gray (sdg@sudval.org)
Date: Sat Nov 03 2001 - 19:36:17 EST

Jerry Mintz sent this to the list. It was bounced because,
sometimes, our anti-spamming efforts prevent legitimate
users from posting.
-- Scott David Gray

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 17:40:14 -0500
From: JerryAERO@aol.com
To: discuss-sudbury-model-approval@sudval.org
Subject: Re: DSM: Message from [JerryAERO@aol.com]

Dear Scott, Joe, et al:
I'm just recovering from surgery this week so I don't have the physical
energy to hold up my end of things right now. Basically, I was just
responding to Alan's original post to support him with some external feedback
which I hoped might be useful in SVS's efforts to communicate its ideas.
Perhaps I'll be able to pick this up in the future.


In a message dated 11/3/01 8:06:19 AM, sgray@aramis.sudval.org writes:

<< > Ah, but Scott, there IS research about whether people from progressive
> schools fare better than students from regular public schools: Have you
> of the 8 year study? It predates SVS, and proved beyond any statistical
> that students from progressive schools did better by every measure.

Frankly, Jerry, I don't know what the big deal is about the
8 year study. For years, proponents of progressive
education have been touting it as "proof." But what, in
fact, is the 8 year study "proof" of?

1: That in the early 1940s, a greater proportion of students
from "progressive" schools went on to college than students
in "traditional" schools. Of course, this correlational
study was not an experiment -- and no effort was even made
to weight the results based upon the income or parental
education level of the parents (these two factors are
_known_ to correlate with both a child's likelihood to go to
college, and with a parent's likelihood to send her/his
child to a "progressive" school.


2: That more than 20 name brand educationists were happy to
clasp their hands to their chests after looking at a few
progressive schools, and declare that all schools would be
better if more progressive.

Well, in fact, I don't care for college. I don't think that
going to college is a sign of success _or_ a sign of
failure. It is a sign of a particular choice -- and one
that in our culture is almost always made for the _wrong_
reasons. I question the methodology of the study. Even if
I take the "results" at face value, I don't see "going to
college" as proof that a student has "fared better."

And I certainly don't care about the gut reactions of
various professors of education more than 50 years ago.

I think that this may point up a deep philosophical divide
between you and me... I don't think that it any arbitrary
measure of human success is meaningful outside of an
understanding of what precisely the human being in question
_seeks_ -- this is why I reject _both_ schools that have
curriculum (be they progressive, or overtly authoritarian),
and proponents who claim that college attendance is
"evidence" of a good educational system. If those
educational systems are so good, than why do so many young
men and women from "progressive" schools decide that they
haven't had enough education?

> Jerry


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]

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