Joe Jackson (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Tue, 6 Mar 2001 08:52:27 -0500
> But because I am
> trying to reach the best solutions, I want to go deep into the
> background philosophy and how it renders to practice.
The value of the model IMO is not any underlying philsophy; the value of it
is in how well it works. The idea that an educational model can be born of
scientific principles and philosophic construct is what produced the wacky
conventional classroom of the twentieth century.
The Sudbury environment is a result of experience and method as to the best
environment in which children can grow. That it can be attacked and
defended philosophically has essentially no relation to its effectiveness at
providing an environment where students develop into insatiably joyful,
fearless and competent leaders that know how to get what they need.
By attacking the SM and developing your own model based on "philosphical
construct" as opposed to a body of experiences, you will likely end up with
something that works well on paper, which is precisely what the conventional
schools of today do.
But once again, Marko, your subject header confuses me. I still have yet to
hear that you actually have a conflict-resolution mechanism in mind that
does not already exist at many Sudbury Model schools and could exist at all
of them if someone wanted it to.
Is your intent to dictate the manner in which individual rights and
community welfare are balanced at your school?
If not, then you have not so far argued for even the slightest adjustment to
the model, as everything you have suggested is already contained within it.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:54 EST