RE: FW: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Indigo Children

From: Joe Jackson <>
Date: Wed Jun 11 07:05:00 2003

> I belive that in a sudbury-type school lables like ADD or
> indigo-child
> are of no need

I could not agree more. We currently have students which have been
presented to us as having ADD, Tourrette Syndrome, Oppositional Defiant
Disorder & Down's Syndrome. The only one out of this group that one
could probably tell has something going on other than being a kid is our
Down's Syndrome student, with his pronounced appearance and behavior

The ones with ODD & Tourrette's just seem like boisterous kids, and I
can't find anything to observe in the kids that supposedly have ADD.

> , but I can feel with parents which, finaly finding a
> *positive* label (after all that negative lables given by
> society) for
> their child, want to share their feelings with others.

Hmmm, I mean I can see a certain value in a support-group-like
atmosphere for folks who derive benefit from sharing the discovery, much
like this listserve can function. One that is removed from the child's
circle of acquaintances. I do, however, think that getting the child
out of the environment where such labels are helpful would be infinitely
more useful.

I just think it's creepy to muddy the waters with the adult peers of
children, people that know and have relationships with the child, with
labels that are meant to provide quick-reference stereotyping. Again,
whether it's in the school, or in the family's immediate community, I
just don't see the point.

As was pointed out in the excerpts from the Indigo Children site, the
disposition of many parents that "hook in" to the Indigo Child
designation is to use the term as a crutch for the child and a bludgeon
on others. Again, as with TCS (and, on a much more complex scale, the
Sudbury Model); the philosophy is nothing, only words. It only takes
it's form in the manner of execution and use by actual people in a
culture; that's the form I look at when trying to determine the value of
an idea. We got all caught up there in the 19th century with the value
of words on a page and forgot that they're just words.

> By now it is
> *not* common sense to give a child the posibility or trust to be
> responsible for itself.

You are correct!

"Common sense is a bunch of prejudices acquired by the age of eighteen".
While prejudices and stereotypes have value and are based on fundamental
survival skills, boy! they sure get in the way of actually having to
think about higher level things. ;D

> In an "normal" (i.e. NOT sudbury school
> environment) it is sometimes very important and helpfull (for
> the child)
> to run around and tell everybody "my child is ..." because in a
> "standard" environment every child who behaves "not normal" will get
> labeled by that environment.

Yes, I agree and cannot defend the normal environment.

Received on Wed Jun 11 2003 - 07:04:04 EDT

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