Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Encouragment.

From: Woty <woty_at_bellsouth.net>
Date: Tue Apr 5 00:19:00 2005

On Apr 5, 2005, at 0:04, Todd Pratum wrote:

> Thank you Jennifer for this further clarification, I think I finally
> have a good idea of Sudbury's perspective on this subject.  Thank you
> all. I don't agree with this but I will be thinking about it a lot. 
> It seems extremist to me, and ultra-dogmatic, an over-reaction to our
> modern destructive educational system, but I realize it is born out of
> a sincere desire to spare kids the judgmental crimes of our ageist
> society.  And I continue to believe that Sudbury is a powerful force
> for good in the world.  I'm re-reading all the pedagogical
> philosophers again from Socrates on down, they all can't be wrong!   
> Todd Pratum.

As any new idea will contradict all previous thinkers on the subject,
this is an argument against any innovation whatsoever.

It's no more valid as an argument than saying "How can motion be
relative? All previous scientists assumed an objective frame of
reference, and they can't all be wrong!"

Also, it's not really all that radical to say that schools should not
be in the business of parenting children. It's not the case that SVS is
the only influence in a child's life, or that SVS is dogmatically
opposed to anyone ever taking responsibility for finding useful
suggestions for a child. All one needs to accept to be in favor of SVS
is that it's good for children to have some space where this does not
happen, and that it is possible and desirable for children to have
adults in their lives who are not in the business of directing them.

~Woty
Received on Tue Apr 05 2005 - 00:18:35 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:11 EDT