Bruce Smith (bsmith@coin.org)
Sat, 24 Mar 2001 13:53:57 -0700
>One can no more have an agenda-less school than it is to have a norm-less
>society.
Oops. How about this version: "One can no more have an agenda-less school
than a norm-less
society."
So much for proofreading...
Bruce
Both are logically impossible. What the Sudbury model provides is
>the narrowest possible _institutional_ agenda, and the widest possible
>latitude for _individual_ agendas. It's not a dichotomy of "democratic
>decision-making" OR "equality and freedom of children," but rather a matter
>of relying on the former to enable the latter. "Hands-on democracy" is
>simply the format (as opposed to "agenda") many of us believe best suited
>for schools based on freedom and respect for all, schools that allow
>children to mature into capable, responsible adults.
>
>Bruce
>
>
><<I've just misunderstood the Sudbury
>Model. I haven't really thought that democratic decision making would be
>cruisal in it. Because if it is, I think that's a clear agenda, to teach
>democratic decision making. And because I believe that it's a common
>agreement that Sudbury Model doesn't have an agenda, then there's a
>conflict. I was kind of thinking that the idea of Sudbury Model was
>about equality and freedom of children. Well, it seems it isn't. I guess
>the homepage actually states it clearly: "an education at Sudbury Valley
>is also an education in hands-on democracy".>>
>
>
>--------------------------------
>
>"Wherever we go, there seems to be only one business at hand --
>that of finding workable compromises between the sublimity
>of our ideas and the absurdity of the fact of us."
>
> -- Annie Dillard, _Teaching a Stone to Talk_
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:17:18 EST