Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] On Playing Frogger

From: Ann Ide <>
Date: Sun Mar 2 18:06:00 2003


Am I getting the right impression that your family is rather isolated? If
so, I think that makes a big difference here. I think these discussions
have been in the context of kids being in a school, or, at the very least,
with other kids around. If you go to some other DSM archives, you'll find
discussions about how we run our homes/families and how that is sometimes
different than "school". It took us some adjusting to find our own family
comfort with how the Sudbury model worked in family life differently than in
school. It's still a big part of our family lifestyle; but it does not
mimic their day at school.

With homeschooling, I imagine they sort of blur together. I'm not sure if
it's really relevant to our current discussions; because those are about
some very basic principles about learning you need to get clear about no
matter what. Howeve, it does seem like your situational context is not the
same as being in a Sudbury school. Having other kids around and staff who
aren't your parents must make a big difference. It would be useful to you
to hear from people who have done both, or who have found a way to combine
the two models.

Just more to consider! Just what you need, huh? :)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Heidi Crane" <>
To: <>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 5:13 PM
Subject: RE: [Discuss-sudbury-model] On Playing Frogger

> ah...trusting their "innate self-learner"
> maybe that's my main sticking point. Not the computer games or the TV
> watching, but the trusting that they'll come out the other end of this
> We've always been really laid back: provided a high quality home library,
> visited the public library often, "made" them do math every day, and
> otherwise let them play.
> Sometimes, take a month off and say "No TV this month!" which we all
> very nicely. Or "Only one hour of computer a day, this month!" which we do
> fine with, too. Otherwise, it's been an easy-going family based rural
> lifestyle, where we "do lessons" daily. But let them go all the way to
> adulthood like that? Even removing what "lessons" we do have?
> whew.
> Heidi
> >From: "Joe Jackson" <>
> >Reply-To:
> >To: <>
> >Subject: RE: [Discuss-sudbury-model] On Playing Frogger
> >Date: Sun, 2 Mar 2003 12:01:28 -0500
> >
> >I absolutely agree that there a plenty of fun and useful things a person
> >can do in addition to playing games. However I don't think that's
> >really the essential debate that takes place in the heads of most
> >prospective Sudbury parents.
> >
> >The debate is whether they are willing to lose the rewards of having
> >their children decide for *themselves* what is important for them to do,
> >in order for them to do make them do some specific thing that may or may
> >not be more valuable for them.
> >
> >My position, based on experience, is that the rewards of allowing
> >children to be responsible for governing their lives far outweighs any
> >particular value I put on a given activity AND it's kind of silly,
> >because when my children are adults they will likely mimic many of the
> >things I modeled for them when they were young anyway.
> >
> >So I could sit around weighing the various value of activities all day,
> >but the abstract, relative differences in value between random
> >activities are not really relevent to the question of whether to repress
> >the child's innate self-learner or not.
> >
> >-joe
> >
> _________________________________________________________________
> Protect your PC - get VirusScan Online
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-sudbury-model mailing list
Received on Sun Mar 02 2003 - 18:05:31 EST

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