On Sat, 8 Dec 2001 Sugmapl@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Scott,
> Thank you very much. You write:
> > But, insofar as the school itself does not start it's
> > relationship with a student with a plan for how any given
> > student will unfold -- that there is no "curriculum" which
> > limits or defines the type or sort of information which will
> > be pursued -- the term "school" sometimes misleads
> > people.
> Exactly, the "school" does well by declining to pursue a curriculum or an
> agenda for the child at the start of it's relationship with the child. It
> could do equally well by declining to pursue an agenda or curriculum at the
> end of it's relationship with the child. It could decline to pursue language
> and questions as to whether the child has "prepared themselves to become
> responsible members of the larger community". I would suggest that language
> more suited to the leaving and the ending might be "Thank you, thanks for
Indeed, Bill, "thanks for coming, good luck in what you do"
_is_ basically what we do say when people leave. Some
people choose to seek a diploma -- some of whom leave on
receipt of a diploma and some of whom don't -- but the
_diploma_ is given with an eye to the question you mention.
In this, Bill, I agree; the diploma _is_ alien to the heart
of the school. Several students, holding to this position,
have left without seeking a diploma. And I think that an
ever-growing number of persons in our Assembly sense a
contradiction over the diploma. The SVS press has a
publication entitled "The Diploma Debate," in which this
argument is made and explored.
A glimpse at a defense for a diploma in this context: I
think that many who believe that it is OK for a Sudbury
school to offer a diploma, feel that the reason it is OK is
because the school neither endorses nor objects to the idea
of a student seeking a diploma; that letting people choose
whether or not to use the diploma procedure is no more
offensive than letting people choose whether or not to use
the photolab. I admit that I am not quite convinced by this
argument, but the position is not unreasonable.
> Warm Regards,
> Bill Richardson
-- --Scott David Gray reply to: email@example.com http://www.unseelie.org/ ============================================================ An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea at all.
-- Elbert Hubbard ============================================================
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO firstname.lastname@example.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing "email@example.com" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model firstname.lastname@example.org
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 "dsm-digest"
This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST