Re: [Discuss-sudbury-model] Introduction, reopening the encouragement/enticement debate

From: Mike Braden <>
Date: Wed Jun 14 10:32:01 2006

> One thing that people look at the Sudbury model "in theory" really
> need to realize, is that most of those students who "formally" studied
> many things in the school, look back on their time and note that they
> did not learn much more significant through formal study than they did
> by accident. And that is the key to our success -- not which "classes"
> people choose to take, but rather how their daily lives are lived and
> the things that are acquired as an *accident* in the process. In fact,
> I can say without fear of contradiction, that our students most active
> interested in "intellectual" pursuits rarely if ever felt a desire to
> attend seminars or classes in the school.

I can see this. I taught myself a lot before I even had the chance to
take formal classes that I was interested in. Some things I never took
classes in but find myself quite proficient in. Just the other day I
had to help a labmate setup a network printer on her computer. Being
more familiar with other operating systems, her OSX system gave me some
troubles, but I knew some basic things that let me poke around and get
things working. As I was trying all manner of different approaches, she
asked me "How do you know all this stuff?" I gave her the short answer
of "Years of tinkering." Well, when I was 7 we got a computer and over
the years I had to learn what to do to get my games to work on it and
otherwise get this machine to do the work I wanted it to do. All that
tinkering has left me with an appreciation of not just how to use a
computer, but how to figure out problems and where to look for
information. I believe that process is more important than the
knowledge of how to do a particular action, and it is not really
something that can be taught, but more discovered.

Received on Wed Jun 14 2006 - 10:31:16 EDT

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