John Axtell (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sat, 06 Jan 2001 18:21:26 -0800
Again a dumb question ? You wrote -
> But what we
> Sudbury purists maintain is that even to suggest, or to make available,
> items of possible study without first waiting for students to express an
> interest -- in other words, to entice or preemptively direct students --
> is, in a way, even worse than naked coercion, since at least with that
> there's no chance of mistaking the adults' role.
My point of confusion is this. Sudbury purists maintain to make available
items of possible study without first waiting for students to express an
interest is wrong. How does a Sudsbury student even ever get the idea that
something exists, such as clay, to pound or touch if the lump of clay is not
on the table. How would any child learn to talk without first being exposed -
enticed - or preemptively directed by an adult - to express a verbal sound to
ask for something?
As a parent I have always done my best to expose, or as you would say -relish
in the deceptively-benign insidiousness of adult interference for all my
children. To have children without enjoying insidious interference would seem
to put the function of parents into nothing more than sexual objects producing
offspring for the benefit of the offspring rather than having any benefit to
I am probably missing the boat in reading all these posts but I sure am trying
hard to figure them out. Please give me some help if you can.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:15:57 EST