Re: DSM: students rights

From: Ann Ide (ann.ide@rcn.com)
Date: Wed Jan 23 2002 - 14:35:05 EST


Speculating here, as usual: Perhaps "buying into" a philosophy is
different than acting out of one's philosophy. Seems to me we are using the
word philosophy as a belief or value ( I bet we could even differentiate
between those two words- I swear I did once in a workshop I took. Can't
recall it now though!) Anyway, I think that we can believe in something
100%; but may not always be able to act out of that belief. We may still be
learning the changes required of it. We may not be capable. We may not be
strong enough. Safety or health issues may take priority.....any number of
reasons or scenarios is possible. People risk their lives in wars over a
belief they hold so strongly; yet someone ends up having to surrender.

The second question this discussion raises for me: Is it necessary to
believe in and/or act on that belief only 100% for benefits to be gained? I
don't think so.

I imagine that there are very few, if any, students at Sudbury schools whose
parents can follow the Sudbury philosophies 100% all the time. Yet great
benefits are still reaped. Don't you think?
I agree with Ardeshir's common sense factor. Just thought I'd present a
little different take on it.

Ann Ide
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ardeshir Mehta, N.D." <ardeshir@sympatico.ca>
To: <discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:46 PM
Subject: Re: DSM: students rights

> Hello folks,
>
>
>
> Re. the following from Travis:
>
> > It is no piece of cake just
> > because you "believe" in the philosophies to see your child at age 12
you
> > cannot read. Keep in mind, this is not a judgment. I am simply posing a
> > hypothetical scenario. While I am not a parent, and certainly cannot
imagine
> > what it is like, I acknowledge that it must be difficult at times to
really
> > buy into the philosophies 100%!
> > Because, specifically, those philosophies very clearly postulate that
> > even if a child cannot read at age 12, that it would be wrong for the
school
> > to intervene in any way.
>
> I think that one has to keep a certain amount of perspective on
> such things, and use one's common sense.
>
> For suppose that instead the following statement had been made:
>
> > ... those philosophies very clearly postulate that
> > even if a child cannot TALK at age 12, that it would be wrong for
> > the school to intervene in any way.
>
> ... or:
>
> > ... those philosophies very clearly postulate that
> > even if a child cannot WALK at age 12, that it would be wrong for
> > the school to intervene in any way.
>
> ... then we would clearly say that such is NOT the philosophy of
> the school. We all realise that as a normal thing, at age 12 people
> walk and talk: and if they don't, then there's something going on
> which stridently cries out for treatment.
>
> The question is where to draw the line. Is a person who at age 12
> cannot do non-Euclidean geometry "pathological"? Of course not.
>
> I think the answer should be, not what the person CAN or
> CANNOT do at any particular age, but whether the person
> WANTS to do something but can't. If the 12-year-old WANTS to
> read but can't, surely something needs to be done. If on the other
> hand, he or she couldn't care less, why bother? One can learn to
> read at a later age: life is long!
>
> But even here some common sense is required. If at age 12 someone
> wants to do non-Euclidean geometry but can't, and as a result feels
> awfully frustrated and if it takes the joy out of their lives, shouldn't
> we try and calm them down, saying that it is still early days, and
> that there's always time for non-Euclidean geometry later on in life?
>
> And even with the 12-year-old who CAN'T (or doesn't WANT to)
> read, one should also ask oneself: "What CAN they do?" and
> "What does he WANT to do?" -- rather than the opposite.
>
> Because suppose the young chap (or lassie) is great at painting, or
> photography, or playing the violin, or driving go-carts and winning
> every single race into which s/he enters: what does it matter, then,
> that s/he can't or won't read? S/He could easily make a living doing
> something which doesn't call for reading.
>
> For it is every parent's wish, I am sure, that the kid will grow up
> able to take care of himself/herself economically. If it begins to
> appear that this may not be possible, then the parent starts to
> worry. This, too, is natural, and only requires common sense to
> figure out.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
>
> Ardeshir <http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/AllMyFiles.html>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ===========
>
> 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

===========

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 - 19:39:49 EST