RE: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Isn't "certification" a form of "evaluation" ?

From: Alan Klein <alan_at_klein.net>
Date: Sun Oct 30 10:03:00 2005

Scott David,

I agree, but I am not sure what you are meaning as a response to my
question.

It seems to me that there are all sorts of reasons that people use to
justify rules that require people to be personally safe:

- Some do so because they care about individual people and want them not to
be hurt
- Some do so because they see people as part of a collective and what harms
part of the collective harms the entire collective
- Some do so because if, for example, someone hurts themselves with the
table saw it will affect the school's ability to attract students because it
will be seen as an unsafe place to be
- Some do so because if, for example, someone hurts themselves with the
table saw then it will fall onto others to take care of them (because
leaving them to bleed to death is not an option) and that is an unfair
impingement on the rights of the rest of the group.

And, of course, some say that if I harm myself or put myself in an unsafe
position, it is none of your business!

So, I am not sure what you are actually saying in this regard when you say
that, "Protecting the public good in any school is related directly to
protecting personal safety." (It just occurred to me to wonder, if you
reversed the statement, would it still ring true for you? That is, if it
said, "Protecting personal safety in any school is related directly to
protecting the public good."

Thanks,
~Alan

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott David Gray
Protecting the public good in any school is related directly
to protecting personal safety.
Received on Sun Oct 30 2005 - 10:02:57 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:13 EDT