> >> That basic view is that the child is an improver. It is a
> >> view that the child
> >> is a developer, a learner, a grower.
> >
> >I was wondering what would happen if a child came to Sudbury that did
> >none of these things; neither learned, grew or developed the
> whole time
> >they were there?
>
> What could this describe? A child enrolled at the age of four years
> who appears typical in all regards, ie speaks like a 4 yr. old, eats
> like a 4 yr. old, walks, talks, behaves, etc. like a 4 yr old, ....
> and then doesn't change interests, physical and intellectual
> capabilities, apparent level of understanding, ... over an extended
> period of time as one would expect? This sounds to me like a
> pathological situation.
I know. I was just pointing out that Bill's *paradigm of education* is
so broad as to be meaningless, anything other than what he describes is
pathology.
Has anyone actually defined development, learning and growth recently?
I would presume that these can be defined in a value free manner, seeing
as we don't want any evaluation to occur.
Liz
===========
If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:
unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom
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