Mike Sadofsky (sadofsky@mediaone.net)
Sat, 31 Mar 2001 19:06:44 -0500
I believe Eduardo's "two cents" are worth a great deal more than that.
But the point that I don't understand in the last few posts here is
where John writes:
>>when homeschooled and if given freedom few children
>> end up being well educated unless the parents force it
Isn't there a contradiction here? If the parents force it, then the
children lack freedom. If the children have freedom, then the parents
don't/can't force it. Someone in an earlier post suggested there'd be
value if we defined our terms. I wonder what concept of freedom and
what nature of force is meant in this statement.
Mike
On Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:22:34 -0500, you wrote:
>Thought I'd respond to this one. Just been lurking lately, but thought
>I'd add my two cents. . .
>
>John, do you make your claim about homeschooled children based on any
>research you know about or just based on what you have witnessed
>personally? I certainly know of a few people who switched to
>homeschooling whom I would consider "well educated." Of course this
>brings up another question. What is your definition of "well educated"?
>
>
>I didn't read Bill's post so I don't know what he meant by the statement
>that children in SVS end up with an education. I think that this can be
>a point of confusion because the type of education SVS students get is
>very different than students in other environments? Poeple are learning
>all the time. I think the question that is important to look at is what
>is the value of what people or children are learning, and what type(s) of
>learning will lead to the best results for themselves and society. Of
>course, we as a nation of poeple, have very different opinions about what
>the best results or end product should be as well. And this will
>determine, to a great degree, what kind of "education" we subject
>children to.
>
>If more value is placed on the type of learning that is forced on
>children-- like that in grade school, rather than the learning that they
>might do on their own (by playing outside for example), I believe you are
>more likely to get future generations that look much like the status quo,
>becuase the current generation (adults) is deciding for the future
>generation (children) what they should know. But more than this, we are
>teaching them a way of doing things, and a way of being-- our way.
>
>I believe the Sudbury way is different because it allows children to find
>their own way to a much greater degree than anything else available at
>them moment. Therefore, there is more of a chance they will develop
>different ideas about the world ways of relating to that world than those
>children who are taught in a more traditional manner. I suppose the
>risk in this scenerio is that they will create something worse for
>themselves than what we've got, wherease the risk in the other scenerio
>is that they will create more of the same thing. And again, what is
>worse or better is a matter of opinion as well.
>
>I think many people like the status quo, and therefore wish to do
>education more traditionally for their children, whereas poeople want
>something different for their children than what most children get, look
>to alternatives like the Sudbury model.
>
>Finally, I would like to say that play is a type of education, or method
>of learning. In fact, it is the method of choice for children, as you
>have observed quite well yourself. It is also the method of choice for
>most (all??)young mammals. I think Daniel Greenberg has an article
>available on the SVS website that speaks to this.
>
>
>--Eduardo
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:54:27 -0800 John Axtell <newlife@theofficenet.com>
>writes:
>> Bill,
>>
>> Certainly an interesting take on the concept.
>>
>> I wonder why if children have freedom in a SV model they seem to end
>> up with an
>>when homeschooled and if given freedom few children
>> end up being
>> well educated unless the parents force it.>> education and
>>
>> Most children will stay outdoors if at all possible and seldom seem
>> to want to
>> come indoors. Well that is what all of my children did. I wonder if
>> most people
>> would think my kids odd and have found that most kids if given total
>> freedom
>> gravitate from play to "education"? My kids may just be a bit
>> abnormal.
>>
>> John
>>
>> Sugmapl@aol.com wrote:
>>
>> > Dear Folks,
>> >
>> > Thanks for your help.
>> >
>> > >From Freedom to Learn:
>> > "Here, students of all ages determine what they will do, as well
>> as when,
>> > how, and where they will do it. This freedom is at the heart of
>> the school;
>> > it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated"
>> >
>> > So then it is seen that this freedom does allow for a great and
>> deep and rich
>> > education. But having this great educational outcome is not the
>> intent of
>> > offering freedom. It (the education) is collateral, a by product,
>> > epi-phenomenal. This is all to say that if something more
>> beneficial to
>> > education came along that was not freedom, we (Sudbury Schools)
>> would not
>> > adopt it. This is the sense in which I mean Sudbury is beyond
>> education. This
>> > something beyond is the offering of freedom, a process, which
>> appears best
>> > highlighted in "The Art of Doing Nothing".
>> >
>> > Deep Regard,
>> > Bill Richardson
>>
>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Fri Apr 06 2001 - 14:18:13 EDT