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

Perhaps I was too severe in my remarks... A bit of an explanation:

Joe, you're right that I haven't had the opportunity to visit an SVS-model
school, though I plan to in March. That's part of the reason I'm asking. I
discuss education extensively with my teachers, peers and friends. In many
cases I'm in the position of explaining a system of education to them,
although I'm by no means an expert.One of the questions that continually
arises is this one. It's obvious to anyone who has considered the question
that it's unnecessary to force highschool students to learn things they
don't want to learn. It's equally obvious that the method of teaching in
traditional schools of any grade is foolish and wasteful. (Most of the
children in this country spend five years "learning" arithmetic...) It is
not, however, evident to most people that it's unnecessary to force anyone
to learn anything, ever. Many of the people I've spoken to raise the sort
of concerns I'm raising. I very much want to be able to tell them that no,
this isn't a problem at all, and here's why. That's why I'm arguing. I've
never been to SVS, but many of the people who would benefit from the ideas
of SVS will never have the opportunity to visit.

<<Many of our students at Sudbury Schools choose to take up mathematics of
all flavors, so saying our students never discover calculus or physics
or any science is factually not correct.>>

Good. That's what I'm looking for. Of course, I'll need to hunt statistics
on it in order to make real argument, but I'll do that on my own time.

<<I guess I don't really understand how you can make a contention as to
what your life would be like had you gone to a Sudbury School since a)
you didn't, and are therefore not the same person you would be if you
had, and b)my impression is that you haven't really investigated the
model very much or visited any schools>>

I'd have to disagree with you on (a). Although I can't get into details, I
can make estimates, based on my conversations with SVS and other
alternative-education students. Not only every retrospective
consideration, but every choice and every experience we have rests on
imagining how we will behave in situations we have never been in, as
people with different experiences than those we currently have. More
specifically, I remember what I was like as a six-year-old. Curious, but
not curious enough to go to the trouble of learning an entire language
with the intense self-discipline required to be in a room with thirty of
my age-mates who all spoke English and not speak English to them.

<<I don't think anyone who
has really first-hand seen the difference between students in the two
environments could possibly believe that there is a circumstance wherein
learning one particular thing is important enough to outweigh the damage
that coercion does to the will and spark of young humans.
>>

I'll say it here: I get to watch, on a daily basis, a bunch of curious,
talented teenagers have things done to their minds compared to which the
amputation of limbs would seem benign. Believe me, I'm well aware of how
bad this is. I know people who, if they believed such maiming were a
prerequisite for understanding calculus, would do it. Some people love
math the way some people love music, and those people would be willing.
I'm inclined to believe you're right: my "argument" does rest on a false
choice. If this is so, good, I'm satisfied. But if producing curious,
self-motivated students means many of these students don't appreciate
calculus (again, just an example) as much as they might, I'll keep looking
for a compromise.

<<What it would have been tantamount to would be
to allow you to choose to take or not to take calculus.>>

My original point here was that there's a difference between the skills of
algebra and reading, in that reading has benefits which are evident even
to those who cannot read, whereas algebra has benefits (i.e., calculus)
that are not evident until one has learned algebra. So everyone who would
get a lot of benefit out of reading will probably start reading at some
point, but everyone who would get a lot of benefit out of algebra (for
example, because they enjoy calculus) might not learn algebra unless
forced to.

<<It
was not, however, their place to gamble with your life.>>

But, again, my point is that putting me in an SVS-model school would also
have been gambling with my life. There's a risk to being put in a
traditional school, that I will have my curiosity crushed out of me and
become a mindless automaton, but there's a benefit, that I wll become
fluent in French. There's a benefit to being put in an SVS-model school,
that I will not become an automaton, but there's a risk, that I will
regret not having learned French. Now, I don't feel that I'm an automaton,
and I did learn French, so I think their gamble paid off. From my
perspective now, it's a choice I would make again. On the other hand, I
worry that my six-year-old self may have gambled in the other direction,
and I'd still be a non-autmomaton, but I wouldn't speak a foreign language
fluently. So. If what I say is true, it seems that my parents were more
qualified to gamble with my life when I was six than I was. Ways out of
this include: I am an automaton now, I just haven't noticed; and, my
parents bet against the odds, and most of the people who made their
decision would have lost out... You have to understand, I'm arguing this
with the specific intent of convincing myself that you're right. I'm just
too young and ornery to accept that I can't have the best of both worlds.
Y'know, if that's the case.

-Michael
Received on Mon Feb 24 2003 - 00:44:24 EST