Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Questions about Their Future

Not to play devil's advocate, but these responses don't quite answer my
critiques. My point is that choosing not to make your child learn algebra
is as much of an imposition in their life as is choosing to make them. I
contend that, had my parents sent me to an SVS-model school, that decision
would have been tantamount to a choice not to allow me to take calculus.
This seems to me to be a problem. I know as well as anyone the evils of
forcing students to learn things, but at the same time I recognize that
there are cases in which forced curriculum, though harmful in the short
term, is to the student's advantage in the longterm. Is this not in fact
the case? (That is, will everyone who would enjoy knowing calculus become
self-motivated to learn algebra?) Or is it a necessary evil that students
who would have enjoyed calculus miss out on it at SVS, an evil more than
made up for by the freedom of SVS schools? Or is there a way to
compromise, a way to decide which subjects lead to sufficient good that
the harm of forcing them on students is worthwhile?

The example of algebra-> calculus is, of course, peripheral. To give
another example: Right now, I want to learn as many languages as possible.
When I was six, I wanted to play with my friends. However, when I was six
my parents put me in a public elementary school's French immersion
program, meaning I spoke only French in school, all day. The result is
that I am now fluent in French and have no accent. If I chose to start
taking Spanish now and spoke only Spanish in school, I could not learn it
fluently and without accent. In fact, even if I moved to Spain and lived
there for the rest of my life, I would never speak Spanish without accent.
So my parents' and school district's requirement that I show up for school
everyday, something that did not please me then, resulted in knowledge
that pleases me immensely now. Worthwhile?

-Michael
Received on Sun Feb 23 2003 - 23:17:23 EST