Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] scientific backing of Sudbury

From: Bruce Smith <cultural.renewal_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon Jan 23 18:38:01 2006

On 1/21/06, Sam Patton <sam_patton_at_hotmail.com> wrote:

> It can be called scientific in as much as they are measurable, objective
> statistics that can be gathered.

Don't take this the wrong way, but since when does "measurable" imply
"valid"? For that matter, "objective" seems to be assuming a lot, such as an
extremely precise understanding of human learning and behavior (more precise
than, I would suggest, is possible). I am not arguing that educational
statistics have no merit, just that they are far less telling than many
would like to believe. Our cultural obsession with measurement and
quantification certainly has not lent itself to treating human beings as
unique individuals.

<<There's a very big difference between knowing in your heart that you are
doing the right thing, and actually doing the right thing.>>

Perhaps, but at some point it comes down to faith: it always does, whether
the source of one's faith is intuition or numerical gobbledygook.

<<Most people who go through public schools wind up being functional adults
who go on to live fairly happy lives.>>

*Despite* the system, I might add, as much as because of it. Anyway, why
should we settle for "functional" and "fairly happy"? Who knows how many
potentialities are cut short by standardization?

I don't mean to be offensive with the above. I simply can't let faith in
statistics or the status quo go unchallenged.

Bruce

--
"Cowardice asks the question: is it safe? Expediency asks the question: is
it political? Vanity asks the question: is it popular? But conscience asks
the question: is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a
position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular  but one must take
it simply because it is right."
    Martin Luther King, Jr.
Received on Mon Jan 23 2006 - 18:37:36 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Jun 04 2007 - 00:03:14 EDT