Robert Swanson (robertswanson@icehouse.net)
Sat, 16 Dec 2000 17:35:08 -0800
Giving up all hope of results/trusting the abilities of the child -- either
I do not quite empathize or do not understand. The hoped for results are,
"...their brains have to develop very fully and they have to develop ever
more complicated ideas of the world around them. ...We felt that a child
allowed to develop these natural capacities to try to comprehend the world
to the fullest would be most likely to fit into a society which demanded
extraordinary adaptability and creativity. And it was totally clear to us
that what was needed -- adaptability and creativity." (Reflections on the
Sudbury School Concept). Therefore, results hoped for are developed
capacities of the brain for adaptability and creativity. The "trust" is in
the extent of these capacities as inborn rather than requiring formatting
("Dumbing Down" to be more accurate). These inborn abilities are brought
forth via an environment that supports creativity and adaptability. Yes, we
trust the child, but only within the context of the imposed environment. It
is up to the environment to support the goals of adaptability and
creativity.
Incidently, these goals are just what Joseph Pearce spells out as natural to
brain development. He supports the Sudbury model. He is also explicit as to
what supports adaptability and creativity.
Secondary to these goals is how the environment supports them. These
supports are continuously being developed, namely, responsibility (as
democracy and judiciary), staff, staff skills (as respect for and modeling
for students), physical structures of the school, and community
opportunities.
I'd suggest that these discussions of the Sudbury model may enhance
understanding of the model by utilizing adaptability and creativity in the
discussion. Forcing an idea for the sake of emotional attachment fits
another model of education. I believe most people do show up here to adapt
into something creative.
loving the discussion,
robert
on 12/15/00 5:49 AM, Sugmapl@aol.com at Sugmapl@aol.com wrote:
> Dear Steph, Hanna, Dawn, Kathleen, Eduardo, JJ, Robert and all,
>
> Sudbury Valley has given us an operational definition of freedom. They offer
> a deep and profound respect and regard to the child. They busy themselves
> with this offering and give up all hope of results, knowing and trusting in
> the abilties and capabilities of the child.
>
> Steph has it precisely. We could (as founders, parents and staff) offer this
> same deep and profound respect and regard to each other. It is not, in any
> sense, good or "right" to do so. But we could.
>
> We would trade being "right" for seeing clearly. We would see clearly
> Kathleen's grief, Dawn's rage and Hanna's grace. These folks, and all of us,
> are these things and more, much more. Give up being right and we will see how
> much more.
>
> Deep and warm regards,
> Bill Richardson
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:15:08 EST