Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Philosophy (was Paradigms)

From: Carol Hughes <hughes0005_at_comcast.net>
Date: Mon Jul 26 10:22:00 2004

What a great idea. Let's hear stories about graduates out there. I'll
start. My son, on several occasions thought that a professor's grade was
wrong on an exam, walked into the office and explained why and got his grade
changed. He also determined that he concentrated much better on his courses
when he didn't take notes. Did he graduate? Were the first tests he ever
had in college? Yes and yes. Did he takes SAT's? No. Didn't need to. I
think it is impossible to teach responsility in an artificial setting. If
the results of a decision are not real, then the investment in the process
isn't real either. Did he hang in there when 90% of the student body left
due to an unfair withdrawel of accreditation? Yes. Someone asked me if I
was proud of him for getting a college degree. My response was, no, I'm
proud of him for following his dream. Well, I don't want to hog all the air
space in here. Would love to hear from others.
Carol

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Ide" <ann.ide_at_rcn.com>
To: <discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org>
Sent: Monday, July 26, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Philosophy (was Paradigms)

> That's the conventional paradigm, all right. So, how can we address those
> concerns without challenging them in such a way that it only brings out
> defenses ? What examples and information do we know to counterpoint ? Do
> we have "successful" graduates ? It would be really helpful to be able to
> share those stories. Do we have different statistics ? The more informed
> we are the better we'll be able to educate others effectively.; don't you
> think?
>
> Who do people think are responsible for development of social skills,
> critical thinking skills, communication skills, creativity, self
motivation
> and responsibility, ability to work independently and with teams......?
> It takes more than academics and good character to succeed in the world.
> How about we get people thinking about the importance of these traits and
> how it is lacking in public schools and nurtured in Sudbury models ?
> Actually, I recall our old public school even having curriculum for
> character develpment and some of the skills I mentioned. But they would
> "teach" them so artificially ! They had kids sitting around in a circle
> being asked questions or put through exercises totally bored. You can't
> schedule training for these things into a 1/2 hour slot once a week !
>
> It's so interesting to watch the difference between my sons' play with SVS
> vs. public school friends. With their public school friends, I see they
> have one or two things they have in common that they like to do together.
> When they tire of that, they start with the "What do you want to do? " "
I
> don't know. What do you want to do?" And it falls apart. I never see
> that with their SVS friends. There is always a beautiful flow of
> conversation and/or activity. They could just go on forever; as they
often
> do with ongoing "sleepovers". Have others seen this ? Oh, and another
thing
> that really bugs me ! In our area, public school kids schedule
"playdates"
> and they only have one friend over at a time so it will "work" ! AH
> !!!!!!!!! If Jesse calls his friend and s/he already has a friend over,
> s/he actually says he can't come over. How pathetic. With SVS friends,
the
> more the merrier. I can just see these kids as adults in the workplace,
> waiting to be told what to do ( and hoping it's not much ); or in a
meeting,
> going "What should we do? " " I don't know. What do you think?" And
will
> they be allowed to only work with one person at at time ??? Someone
should
> make a movie showing the crossover from public school behaviors and
> activities into the typical, inefffective workplace.
>
> Ann
>
> ( How's that, Carol ? I used a story ! :) )
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sally Rosloff" <sallyr_at_socal.rr.com>
> To: <discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org>
> Sent: Sunday, July 25, 2004 4:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Philosophy (was Paradigms)
>
>
> > Carol wrote:
> > "When did college become the one and only indicator of a successful
> > education? It is as though schools exist to feed consumers into other
> > schools, and how many of the graduates become part of this system of
> > creating more and more students? People almost never ask what kind of
> human
> > being your child is. Just, what grade are they in, and where did they
go
> to
> > college. How silly this is. In your last 25 or 30 exchanges with
adults,
> > how many of them talked about college or what their degree is in? When
do
> > we get to the real stuff? How confident, competent, compassionate and
> > productive are you? That's what I want to know. "
> >
> > "What are Schools For? Holistic Education in American Culture" is a
great
> > book by Ron Miller that traces the history of education in this
> > country. It provides great information and context for how we've gotten
> to
> > where we are today, including the emphasis on a college education and on
> > education as memorizing and feeding back and doing what you're told.
> >
> > Some answers out there that I've noticed to your questions above:
> >
> > College means the best chance at a good job and material success and
> > therefore happiness, and parents want to see their kids happy. Parents
> > hear statistics all the time on the more education (meaning the more
> > degrees), the more money you make.
> >
> > The parents job is to raise their children to be responsible adults,
which
> > is accomplished by making sure they follow all the rules of the
> traditional
> > system.
> >
> > The school's job is to teach academics, leave character development
> > (compassion, cooperation, kindness, thoughtfulness, confidence, etc.) to
> > me, the parent.
> >
> > To be successful (earn a good living) you need skills and training which
> > you get through being taught in school and college.
> >
> > People do not ask what kind of human being your child is because that is
> > seen as outside the job of schools, that is something developed in the
> home
> > and church and community, etc. and at school only as a byproduct of
> > extracurricular activities if at all. Different groups have different
> > ideas about how human beings should be but may agree on what teaching
> > academics is.
> >
> > All of the above are in line with the discussion on paradigms because
> these
> > answers arise from one paradigm while our answers arise from another.
> That
> > is why Ron Miller talks about need for transformation rather than
reform.
> >
> > Sally
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss-sudbury-model mailing list
> > Discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org
> > http://www.sudval.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss-sudbury-model
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-sudbury-model mailing list
> Discuss-sudbury-model_at_sudval.org
> http://www.sudval.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/discuss-sudbury-model
>
Received on Mon Jul 26 2004 - 10:21:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:08 EDT