Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] it's the social stricture which is going to be under fire . . .

From: David Rovner <rovners_at_netvision.net.il>
Date: Sun Mar 2 15:49:00 2003

Yes, I suppose he is talking about an ideal model that brings family life
somehow in harmony with the ideals of the Sudbury Model.

In the same token we could say that when Dan writes about the Sudbury Model,
unfortunately, he is stating how things OUGHT to be in schools, not how they
are. It is the norm, I am afraid, that freedom-limiting strictures are
widely accepted and the the rest of us are put under fire to prove its
worthlessness -- don't you think so?

~ David

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Klein" <alan_at_klein.net>
To: <discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 10:05 PM
Subject: Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] it's the social stricture which is
going to be under fire . . .

> Unfortunately, Dan is stating how things OUGHT to be, not how they are. It
> is the norm, I am afraid, that freedom-limiting strictures are widely
> accepted and the rest of us are put under fire to prove their
worthlessness.
>
> ~Alan Klein
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "David Rovner" <rovners_at_netvision.net.il>
> > As Daniel Greenberg says in "An Approach to Child Rearing," "Wherever
some
> > social stricture comes to limit individual freedom, it's the social
> > stricture which is going to be under fire, and will have to prove
itself,
> > and not the other way around."
Received on Sun Mar 02 2003 - 15:48:09 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:05 EDT