Sudbury School
amy_voltz
Does anyone have any experience with the Sudbury School model
(http://www.sudburyvalley.org/)? Here is a blurb from the Fairhaven
School web site (in Md) ...interesting how they compare themselves
to unschoolers. Not that I'm looking for anything to replace our
unschooling which we've only just begun, I was just shocked to see
that this type of school really existed (as it is what I had dreamed
up as a perfect type of school).
http://www.fairhavenschool.com/articles_sortoflike.html
. . . Homeschooling?
There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to
as "unschooling," which shares many similarities with the Sudbury
model. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have
been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can
happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to
learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject.
Unschoolers believe, as we do, that children are born curious about
the world and eager to succeed in life and that kids learn best
through experience and experimentation rather than by being told how
and what to think. In the words of John Holt: "Real learning is a
process of discovery, and if we want it to happen, we must create
the kinds of conditions in which discoveries are made. . . They
include time, freedom, and a lack of pressure."
But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as
the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model
believes that, as the African proverb states, "It takes a village to
raise a child." Children and parents have complex relationships and
interdependencies which make it harder for children to discover true
independence within the family. In the environment of a Sudbury
school, children face direct personal responsibility for their
actions, without the emotional baggage that family-based
accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children are more
able to develop some important social skills in a democratic school
the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out against
inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group projects,
for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees him or
herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education, while
at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child.
(http://www.sudburyvalley.org/)? Here is a blurb from the Fairhaven
School web site (in Md) ...interesting how they compare themselves
to unschoolers. Not that I'm looking for anything to replace our
unschooling which we've only just begun, I was just shocked to see
that this type of school really existed (as it is what I had dreamed
up as a perfect type of school).
http://www.fairhavenschool.com/articles_sortoflike.html
. . . Homeschooling?
There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to
as "unschooling," which shares many similarities with the Sudbury
model. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have
been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can
happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to
learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject.
Unschoolers believe, as we do, that children are born curious about
the world and eager to succeed in life and that kids learn best
through experience and experimentation rather than by being told how
and what to think. In the words of John Holt: "Real learning is a
process of discovery, and if we want it to happen, we must create
the kinds of conditions in which discoveries are made. . . They
include time, freedom, and a lack of pressure."
But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as
the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model
believes that, as the African proverb states, "It takes a village to
raise a child." Children and parents have complex relationships and
interdependencies which make it harder for children to discover true
independence within the family. In the environment of a Sudbury
school, children face direct personal responsibility for their
actions, without the emotional baggage that family-based
accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children are more
able to develop some important social skills in a democratic school
the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out against
inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group projects,
for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees him or
herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education, while
at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child.
[email protected]
In a message dated 1/23/2006 10:17:39 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
cocobien@... writes:
But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as
the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model
believes that, as the African proverb states, "It takes a village to
raise a child."
**************
I got a chuckle from this because I don't live in a village I trust with my
child!
And the vast, vast majority of us do not access to a Sudbury-like school and
if we did, we couldn't afford it! :)
On the "village" note, I saw Charleton Heston on Oprah once. He was going
on and on and on about what a great granddad he was and that he drove the kid
to preschool and took him to the park. Then he said nastily "so Hilary
Clinton, it does not talk a village to raise a child, it takes a family that
cares!" I wanted to ring his neck, because for the rest of the world that doesn't
have movie stars for grandparents, we don't have the luxury of leisurely
family hanging around to take care of our kids!
Sorry I hijacked that....I have just never gotten over that! LOL!
Leslie in SC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
cocobien@... writes:
But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as
the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model
believes that, as the African proverb states, "It takes a village to
raise a child."
**************
I got a chuckle from this because I don't live in a village I trust with my
child!
And the vast, vast majority of us do not access to a Sudbury-like school and
if we did, we couldn't afford it! :)
On the "village" note, I saw Charleton Heston on Oprah once. He was going
on and on and on about what a great granddad he was and that he drove the kid
to preschool and took him to the park. Then he said nastily "so Hilary
Clinton, it does not talk a village to raise a child, it takes a family that
cares!" I wanted to ring his neck, because for the rest of the world that doesn't
have movie stars for grandparents, we don't have the luxury of leisurely
family hanging around to take care of our kids!
Sorry I hijacked that....I have just never gotten over that! LOL!
Leslie in SC
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Andrea Roher
From their webpage:
"In the environment of a Sudbury school, children face direct personal
responsibility for their actions, without the emotional baggage that
family-based accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children
are more able to develop some important social skills in a democratic
school the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out
against inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group
projects, for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees
him or herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education,
while at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child."
I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth" in
their argument against unschooling is in the families where
unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling families,
their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radical unschooling
is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however be a tie
for second choice between unschooling school only or attendence at a
Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
budget).
-----
Andrea L. Roher
-aka- Evenstar(@...)
Searching for my place in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" one day
at a time.
Maybe I've finally found it... in NH! (www.FreeStateProject.org)
Visit my blog at evenstar75.blogspot.com
"In the environment of a Sudbury school, children face direct personal
responsibility for their actions, without the emotional baggage that
family-based accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children
are more able to develop some important social skills in a democratic
school the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out
against inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group
projects, for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees
him or herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education,
while at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child."
I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth" in
their argument against unschooling is in the families where
unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling families,
their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radical unschooling
is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however be a tie
for second choice between unschooling school only or attendence at a
Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
budget).
-----
Andrea L. Roher
-aka- Evenstar(@...)
Searching for my place in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" one day
at a time.
Maybe I've finally found it... in NH! (www.FreeStateProject.org)
Visit my blog at evenstar75.blogspot.com
Su Penn
I don't know about Sudbury schools per se, but I read A. S. Neil's
book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educational model
(am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled on
Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the freedom
kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse and
bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable for
the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom without engaged
adult presence.
Of course, Neil also said that the school was always getting older
kids who had "washed out" of other schools. He said he liked to
imagine how different the school could have been if all the kids had
come there first, without having to go through any other schooling.
That so many showed up at his door damaged by their school
experiences diminished the school experience for everyone.
Su
book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educational model
(am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled on
Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the freedom
kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse and
bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable for
the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom without engaged
adult presence.
Of course, Neil also said that the school was always getting older
kids who had "washed out" of other schools. He said he liked to
imagine how different the school could have been if all the kids had
come there first, without having to go through any other schooling.
That so many showed up at his door damaged by their school
experiences diminished the school experience for everyone.
Su
On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Andrea Roher wrote:
> I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth" in
> their argument against unschooling is in the families where
> unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling families,
> their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radical unschooling
> is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however be a tie
> for second choice between unschooling school only or attendence at a
> Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
> budget).
Andrea Roher
Ah. Now, I was taking their self-description at face value.
Obviously, if this is the case, that makes it not such a good choice.
Obviously, if this is the case, that makes it not such a good choice.
On 1/23/06, Su Penn <supenn@...> wrote:
> I don't know about Sudbury schools per se, but I read A. S. Neil's
> book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educational model
> (am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled on
> Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
> actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the freedom
> kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse and
> bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
> dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable for
> the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom without engaged
> adult presence.
-----
Andrea L. Roher
-aka- Evenstar(@...)
Searching for my place in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" one day
at a time.
Maybe I've finally found it... in NH! (www.FreeStateProject.org)
Visit my blog at evenstar75.blogspot.com
S Drag-teine
Sudbury schools and other democratic schools are amazing! My children will
have the opportunity to go to one when they get older. Right now there isn't
any close enough that I could take them every day.
Many of them have dormitories and all the ones we have visited are beyond
awesome!
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of amy_voltz
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
Does anyone have any experience with the Sudbury School model
(http://www.sudburyvalley.org/)? Here is a blurb from the Fairhaven
School web site (in Md) ...interesting how they compare themselves
to unschoolers. Not that I'm looking for anything to replace our
unschooling which we've only just begun, I was just shocked to see
that this type of school really existed (as it is what I had dreamed
up as a perfect type of school).
http://www.fairhavenschool.com/articles_sortoflike.html
. . . Homeschooling?
There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to
as "unschooling," which shares many similarities with the Sudbury
model. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have
been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can
happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to
learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject.
Unschoolers believe, as we do, that children are born curious about
the world and eager to succeed in life and that kids learn best
through experience and experimentation rather than by being told how
and what to think. In the words of John Holt: "Real learning is a
process of discovery, and if we want it to happen, we must create
the kinds of conditions in which discoveries are made. . . They
include time, freedom, and a lack of pressure."
But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as
the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model
believes that, as the African proverb states, "It takes a village to
raise a child." Children and parents have complex relationships and
interdependencies which make it harder for children to discover true
independence within the family. In the environment of a Sudbury
school, children face direct personal responsibility for their
actions, without the emotional baggage that family-based
accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children are more
able to develop some important social skills in a democratic school
the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out against
inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group projects,
for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees him or
herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education, while
at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child.
Yahoo! Groups Links
have the opportunity to go to one when they get older. Right now there isn't
any close enough that I could take them every day.
Many of them have dormitories and all the ones we have visited are beyond
awesome!
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of amy_voltz
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:14 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
Does anyone have any experience with the Sudbury School model
(http://www.sudburyvalley.org/)? Here is a blurb from the Fairhaven
School web site (in Md) ...interesting how they compare themselves
to unschoolers. Not that I'm looking for anything to replace our
unschooling which we've only just begun, I was just shocked to see
that this type of school really existed (as it is what I had dreamed
up as a perfect type of school).
http://www.fairhavenschool.com/articles_sortoflike.html
. . . Homeschooling?
There is a particular philosophy of homeschooling, often referred to
as "unschooling," which shares many similarities with the Sudbury
model. John Holt was its best known proponent, and his writings have
been invaluable to us in helping to explain just how learning can
happen without teaching, and why on earth a child might choose to
learn arithmetic or some other supposedly dreadful subject.
Unschoolers believe, as we do, that children are born curious about
the world and eager to succeed in life and that kids learn best
through experience and experimentation rather than by being told how
and what to think. In the words of John Holt: "Real learning is a
process of discovery, and if we want it to happen, we must create
the kinds of conditions in which discoveries are made. . . They
include time, freedom, and a lack of pressure."
But unschoolers, for the most part, see the family environment as
the best place for children to grow, while the Sudbury model
believes that, as the African proverb states, "It takes a village to
raise a child." Children and parents have complex relationships and
interdependencies which make it harder for children to discover true
independence within the family. In the environment of a Sudbury
school, children face direct personal responsibility for their
actions, without the emotional baggage that family-based
accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children are more
able to develop some important social skills in a democratic school
the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out against
inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group projects,
for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees him or
herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education, while
at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child.
Yahoo! Groups Links
S Drag-teine
The affordability of the school differs from school to school - I have seen
as high as 11,000 a year to as low as 2,000 a year with payment plans and
financial assistance. The students and teachers make that decision in daily
meetings that happen. Everyone who goes to the school - teacher or student -
get an equal vote in every decision. Each person from age three or four to
the oldest teacher there is equal.
I don't know how every school is ran but most have requirements when you
must get up (no bed sleeping after a certain time) and there is group meal
prep but no one is required to eat at a specific time.
If you want to show up for class great but if not there is lots of other
things to do - reading and computer rooms, walking in the woods, playing a
game, watching tv, etc.
I think that it is a great concept - is it perfect, by no means but it is
made what they want it to be by a collective Democratic manor.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrea Roher
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
From their webpage:
"In the environment of a Sudbury school, children face direct personal
responsibility for their actions, without the emotional baggage that
family-based accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children
are more able to develop some important social skills in a democratic
school the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out
against inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group
projects, for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees
him or herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education,
while at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child."
I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth" in
their argument against unschooling is in the families where
unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling families,
their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radical unschooling
is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however be a tie
for second choice between unschooling school only or attendence at a
Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
budget).
-----
Andrea L. Roher
-aka- Evenstar(@...)
Searching for my place in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" one day
at a time.
Maybe I've finally found it... in NH! (www.FreeStateProject.org)
Visit my blog at evenstar75.blogspot.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
as high as 11,000 a year to as low as 2,000 a year with payment plans and
financial assistance. The students and teachers make that decision in daily
meetings that happen. Everyone who goes to the school - teacher or student -
get an equal vote in every decision. Each person from age three or four to
the oldest teacher there is equal.
I don't know how every school is ran but most have requirements when you
must get up (no bed sleeping after a certain time) and there is group meal
prep but no one is required to eat at a specific time.
If you want to show up for class great but if not there is lots of other
things to do - reading and computer rooms, walking in the woods, playing a
game, watching tv, etc.
I think that it is a great concept - is it perfect, by no means but it is
made what they want it to be by a collective Democratic manor.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrea Roher
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 10:50 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
From their webpage:
"In the environment of a Sudbury school, children face direct personal
responsibility for their actions, without the emotional baggage that
family-based accountability can sometimes carry. In addition, children
are more able to develop some important social skills in a democratic
school the ability to tolerate diversity of opinion, to speak out
against inappropriate behavior, and to develop and carry out group
projects, for example. In most homeschooling families, the parent sees
him or herself as ultimately responsible for the child's education,
while at Sudbury schools, that responsibility rests squarely with the
child."
I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth" in
their argument against unschooling is in the families where
unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling families,
their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radical unschooling
is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however be a tie
for second choice between unschooling school only or attendence at a
Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
budget).
-----
Andrea L. Roher
-aka- Evenstar(@...)
Searching for my place in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" one day
at a time.
Maybe I've finally found it... in NH! (www.FreeStateProject.org)
Visit my blog at evenstar75.blogspot.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
amy_voltz
No, the Sudbury School is not based on the Summerhill model at all.
--- In [email protected], Su Penn <supenn@d...>
wrote:
--- In [email protected], Su Penn <supenn@d...>
wrote:
>Neil's
> I don't know about Sudbury schools per se, but I read A. S.
> book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educationalmodel
> (am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled onfreedom
> Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
> actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the
> kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse andfor
> bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
> dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable
> the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom withoutengaged
> adult presence.older
>
> Of course, Neil also said that the school was always getting
> kids who had "washed out" of other schools. He said he liked tohad
> imagine how different the school could have been if all the kids
> come there first, without having to go through any otherschooling.
> That so many showed up at his door damaged by their schoolin
> experiences diminished the school experience for everyone.
>
> Su
>
> On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Andrea Roher wrote:
>
> > I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth"
> > their argument against unschooling is in the families wherefamilies,
> > unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling
> > their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radicalunschooling
> > is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however bea tie
> > for second choice between unschooling school only or attendenceat a
> > Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
> > budget).
>
S Drag-teine
Other way around Summerhill is based on Sudbury which is based on the
Democratic Education philosophy which is at its base unschooling in a group
setting.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Su Penn
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
I don't know about Sudbury schools per se, but I read A. S. Neil's
book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educational model
(am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled on
Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the freedom
kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse and
bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable for
the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom without engaged
adult presence.
Of course, Neil also said that the school was always getting older
kids who had "washed out" of other schools. He said he liked to
imagine how different the school could have been if all the kids had
come there first, without having to go through any other schooling.
That so many showed up at his door damaged by their school
experiences diminished the school experience for everyone.
Su
Democratic Education philosophy which is at its base unschooling in a group
setting.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Su Penn
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 11:58 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
I don't know about Sudbury schools per se, but I read A. S. Neil's
book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educational model
(am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled on
Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the freedom
kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse and
bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable for
the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom without engaged
adult presence.
Of course, Neil also said that the school was always getting older
kids who had "washed out" of other schools. He said he liked to
imagine how different the school could have been if all the kids had
come there first, without having to go through any other schooling.
That so many showed up at his door damaged by their school
experiences diminished the school experience for everyone.
Su
On Jan 23, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Andrea Roher wrote:
> I think this quote is the most telling... where they get "teeth" in
> their argument against unschooling is in the families where
> unschooling is "only school deep." In radical unschooling families,
> their argument peters out completely. So, I'd say radical unschooling
> is best (and they don't address this at all). It may however be a tie
> for second choice between unschooling school only or attendence at a
> Sudbury School (if one is close enough and within the family's
> budget).
Yahoo! Groups Links
S Drag-teine
Now, wait the destructive reference is taken out of context. Yes, he
mentions the destructive behavior but also goes on to clarify that this
behavior does not last. These are children who come from other schools -
acting out, don't know what to do with their free time - they do get it or
they will get voted out of the school.
Most schools have a long admission process for that reason. A visit,
followed by a short stay usually a week to two weeks... several interviews
as well as a group vote. At first I thought this would be a pain but those
that I know that go or have children that do have told me it was easier then
public school registration.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrea Roher
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
Ah. Now, I was taking their self-description at face value.
Obviously, if this is the case, that makes it not such a good choice.
mentions the destructive behavior but also goes on to clarify that this
behavior does not last. These are children who come from other schools -
acting out, don't know what to do with their free time - they do get it or
they will get voted out of the school.
Most schools have a long admission process for that reason. A visit,
followed by a short stay usually a week to two weeks... several interviews
as well as a group vote. At first I thought this would be a pain but those
that I know that go or have children that do have told me it was easier then
public school registration.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Andrea Roher
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 1:45 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics] Sudbury School
Ah. Now, I was taking their self-description at face value.
Obviously, if this is the case, that makes it not such a good choice.
On 1/23/06, Su Penn <supenn@...> wrote:
> I don't know about Sudbury schools per se, but I read A. S. Neil's
> book about Summerhill in England, which is the same educational model
> (am I right in thinking the Sudbury schools are modeled on
> Summerhill? I seem to think I know that from somewhere). I was
> actually pretty appalled by the book--Neil admits that the freedom
> kids have at Summerhill had repeatedly led to ongoing abuse and
> bullying, that kids who were acting out or getting needs met in
> dysfunctional ways (like stealing) sometimes made life miserable for
> the other kids. It seemed to me like too much freedom without engaged
> adult presence.
-----
Andrea L. Roher
-aka- Evenstar(@...)
Searching for my place in "Life, the Universe, and Everything" one day
at a time.
Maybe I've finally found it... in NH! (www.FreeStateProject.org)
Visit my blog at evenstar75.blogspot.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
Su Penn
More proof of the fallibility of the human memory--I have a memory of
reading an on-line article about the history of the Sudbury Valley
school that explicitly discussed its relationship to Summerhill--but
I must have confabulated it somehow.
Ah, well.
Su
reading an on-line article about the history of the Sudbury Valley
school that explicitly discussed its relationship to Summerhill--but
I must have confabulated it somehow.
Ah, well.
Su
On Jan 23, 2006, at 5:21 PM, amy_voltz wrote:
> No, the Sudbury School is not based on the Summerhill model at all.
Pamela Sorooshian
On Jan 23, 2006, at 3:42 PM, S Drag-teine wrote:
more than 40 years after Summerhill was started in 1921.
They are very similar, in fact. The main differences have to do more
with who is running them and location, than with philosophy or methods.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Other way around Summerhill is based on Sudbury which is based on theSudbury Valley schools didn't even get started until the 1960's -
> Democratic Education philosophy which is at its base unschooling in
> a group
> setting.
more than 40 years after Summerhill was started in 1921.
They are very similar, in fact. The main differences have to do more
with who is running them and location, than with philosophy or methods.
-pam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Su Penn
He also says at one point that the school would have been better off
if they'd kicked some of these kids out sooner--he ends up seeing
some of the schooled kids as irretrievable (my word, not his), and
says he wishes that with some of them they'd given up sooner. And he
talks about the difficulties of dealing with kids who have been or
are being badly parented. Perhaps the admissions process you describe
is a reaction to these kinds of problems and has ameliorated them.
I also didn't always feel as I read it that there was a lot of
respect for the kids, which surprised me. But that may have just been
Neil's tone-- I didn't care much for _him_ and that certainly colored
my reaction to the book. But he struck me as making some of the same
kinds of excuses that public schools make: this would work so great
if only we got the kids earlier, before they'd even been to another
school. If only we didn't have to deal with kids who were being
damaged by their parents. Boy, in an ideal world, this school could
really be something!
The Summerhill school didn't strike me as an especially great place
to send a kid. Better than public school? Probably. Better than home?
Not by a long shot, at least by my view.
I've been thinking about this since this thread started, and
wondering whether if there were a Sudbury-style school around here
I'd think of sending my kids. The answer is no. It's still an
institution, and every institution carries the potential for problems
with group dynamics. I've lived as an adult in intentional
communities, and it's challenging! There are always people who take
advantage of the freedoms, people who carry into the group their
damage from other settings, people who want to live effectively in
community but lack the skills. It's great if a community responds
effectively to such problems (and communities don't always), but why
put my kid through dealing with the problem in the first place? I
didn't put my kids into public school and say, "Well, I'll pull them
out if there's a problem." I chose to ensure that they wouldn't
experience that particular set of problems at all.
By the same token, I don't think I'd put my kid in a Sudbury-style
school, thinking, "well, if he gets bullied or abused, or his stuff
gets stolen or trashed, the community will respond to that and deal
with the trouble-maker." Why put him there in the first place? Why
put him through that if it's not necessary, if there's a better
alternative readily available? Why expose him to the risk at all?
Even if he's not a direct victim, one reason I chose not to send my
kids to public school is that, even if they aren't directly involved
in bullying, taunting, shunning, they're going to see it happening.
Why make him a witness to something ugly?
Heck, why make him even suffer through the kind of interminable
community meetings I've wasted so much of my life in <g>?
My own history of living and working in alternative, intentional
settings based on ideals certainly colors my reaction to this, but
I've been there! I've thrown my whole self into alternative
communities with great ideals, and I have seen and suffered through
the ugly reality that often lurks underneath. There are reasons I no
longer live in intentional communities, but in my own little house.
Without any direct experience of Sudbury schools, I'm skeptical that
they can live up to their propaganda. I disagree with the original
blurb, that suggested there are power dynamics in families that make
it hard for kids to be independent and self-sufficient, and that
Sudbury can do a better job of that. As a PP said, they're not
talking about radical unschooling. Radical unschooling is far and
away the best choice for children, in my view. Nothing else could
come close.
Of course, I also have a whole set of objections to "democracy" as a
decision-making model... so clearly I am not the target audience for
the Sudbury folks!
Su
if they'd kicked some of these kids out sooner--he ends up seeing
some of the schooled kids as irretrievable (my word, not his), and
says he wishes that with some of them they'd given up sooner. And he
talks about the difficulties of dealing with kids who have been or
are being badly parented. Perhaps the admissions process you describe
is a reaction to these kinds of problems and has ameliorated them.
I also didn't always feel as I read it that there was a lot of
respect for the kids, which surprised me. But that may have just been
Neil's tone-- I didn't care much for _him_ and that certainly colored
my reaction to the book. But he struck me as making some of the same
kinds of excuses that public schools make: this would work so great
if only we got the kids earlier, before they'd even been to another
school. If only we didn't have to deal with kids who were being
damaged by their parents. Boy, in an ideal world, this school could
really be something!
The Summerhill school didn't strike me as an especially great place
to send a kid. Better than public school? Probably. Better than home?
Not by a long shot, at least by my view.
I've been thinking about this since this thread started, and
wondering whether if there were a Sudbury-style school around here
I'd think of sending my kids. The answer is no. It's still an
institution, and every institution carries the potential for problems
with group dynamics. I've lived as an adult in intentional
communities, and it's challenging! There are always people who take
advantage of the freedoms, people who carry into the group their
damage from other settings, people who want to live effectively in
community but lack the skills. It's great if a community responds
effectively to such problems (and communities don't always), but why
put my kid through dealing with the problem in the first place? I
didn't put my kids into public school and say, "Well, I'll pull them
out if there's a problem." I chose to ensure that they wouldn't
experience that particular set of problems at all.
By the same token, I don't think I'd put my kid in a Sudbury-style
school, thinking, "well, if he gets bullied or abused, or his stuff
gets stolen or trashed, the community will respond to that and deal
with the trouble-maker." Why put him there in the first place? Why
put him through that if it's not necessary, if there's a better
alternative readily available? Why expose him to the risk at all?
Even if he's not a direct victim, one reason I chose not to send my
kids to public school is that, even if they aren't directly involved
in bullying, taunting, shunning, they're going to see it happening.
Why make him a witness to something ugly?
Heck, why make him even suffer through the kind of interminable
community meetings I've wasted so much of my life in <g>?
My own history of living and working in alternative, intentional
settings based on ideals certainly colors my reaction to this, but
I've been there! I've thrown my whole self into alternative
communities with great ideals, and I have seen and suffered through
the ugly reality that often lurks underneath. There are reasons I no
longer live in intentional communities, but in my own little house.
Without any direct experience of Sudbury schools, I'm skeptical that
they can live up to their propaganda. I disagree with the original
blurb, that suggested there are power dynamics in families that make
it hard for kids to be independent and self-sufficient, and that
Sudbury can do a better job of that. As a PP said, they're not
talking about radical unschooling. Radical unschooling is far and
away the best choice for children, in my view. Nothing else could
come close.
Of course, I also have a whole set of objections to "democracy" as a
decision-making model... so clearly I am not the target audience for
the Sudbury folks!
Su
On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:48 PM, S Drag-teine wrote:
> Now, wait the destructive reference is taken out of context. Yes, he
> mentions the destructive behavior but also goes on to clarify that
> this
> behavior does not last. These are children who come from other
> schools -
> acting out, don't know what to do with their free time - they do
> get it or
> they will get voted out of the school.
Manisha Kher
--- Su Penn <supenn@...> wrote:
Sudbury school near us - (the original Sudbury Valley
school) and I've thought that if something was to
happen to one of us, making it difficult to
unschool/homeschool our kids could go there. It is the
closest thing to unschooling.
Manisha
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
> I've been thinking about this since this threadSu, I agree with you completely. But there is a
> started, and
> wondering whether if there were a Sudbury-style
> school around here
> I'd think of sending my kids. The answer is no. It's
> still an
> institution, and every institution carries the
> potential for problems
> with group dynamics.
Sudbury school near us - (the original Sudbury Valley
school) and I've thought that if something was to
happen to one of us, making it difficult to
unschool/homeschool our kids could go there. It is the
closest thing to unschooling.
Manisha
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
S Drag-teine
I didn't get the same feeling from the book but all I really want to say is
that from what I have seen of the Democratic School's. Mostly the one's on
the East Coast... just like any other school though I would check it out
before you plan to send your child(ren) there.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Su Penn
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics]Summerhill was Sudbury School
He also says at one point that the school would have been better off
if they'd kicked some of these kids out sooner--he ends up seeing
some of the schooled kids as irretrievable (my word, not his), and
says he wishes that with some of them they'd given up sooner. And he
talks about the difficulties of dealing with kids who have been or
are being badly parented. Perhaps the admissions process you describe
is a reaction to these kinds of problems and has ameliorated them.
I also didn't always feel as I read it that there was a lot of
respect for the kids, which surprised me. But that may have just been
Neil's tone-- I didn't care much for _him_ and that certainly colored
my reaction to the book. But he struck me as making some of the same
kinds of excuses that public schools make: this would work so great
if only we got the kids earlier, before they'd even been to another
school. If only we didn't have to deal with kids who were being
damaged by their parents. Boy, in an ideal world, this school could
really be something!
The Summerhill school didn't strike me as an especially great place
to send a kid. Better than public school? Probably. Better than home?
Not by a long shot, at least by my view.
I've been thinking about this since this thread started, and
wondering whether if there were a Sudbury-style school around here
I'd think of sending my kids. The answer is no. It's still an
institution, and every institution carries the potential for problems
with group dynamics. I've lived as an adult in intentional
communities, and it's challenging! There are always people who take
advantage of the freedoms, people who carry into the group their
damage from other settings, people who want to live effectively in
community but lack the skills. It's great if a community responds
effectively to such problems (and communities don't always), but why
put my kid through dealing with the problem in the first place? I
didn't put my kids into public school and say, "Well, I'll pull them
out if there's a problem." I chose to ensure that they wouldn't
experience that particular set of problems at all.
By the same token, I don't think I'd put my kid in a Sudbury-style
school, thinking, "well, if he gets bullied or abused, or his stuff
gets stolen or trashed, the community will respond to that and deal
with the trouble-maker." Why put him there in the first place? Why
put him through that if it's not necessary, if there's a better
alternative readily available? Why expose him to the risk at all?
Even if he's not a direct victim, one reason I chose not to send my
kids to public school is that, even if they aren't directly involved
in bullying, taunting, shunning, they're going to see it happening.
Why make him a witness to something ugly?
Heck, why make him even suffer through the kind of interminable
community meetings I've wasted so much of my life in <g>?
My own history of living and working in alternative, intentional
settings based on ideals certainly colors my reaction to this, but
I've been there! I've thrown my whole self into alternative
communities with great ideals, and I have seen and suffered through
the ugly reality that often lurks underneath. There are reasons I no
longer live in intentional communities, but in my own little house.
Without any direct experience of Sudbury schools, I'm skeptical that
they can live up to their propaganda. I disagree with the original
blurb, that suggested there are power dynamics in families that make
it hard for kids to be independent and self-sufficient, and that
Sudbury can do a better job of that. As a PP said, they're not
talking about radical unschooling. Radical unschooling is far and
away the best choice for children, in my view. Nothing else could
come close.
Of course, I also have a whole set of objections to "democracy" as a
decision-making model... so clearly I am not the target audience for
the Sudbury folks!
Su
that from what I have seen of the Democratic School's. Mostly the one's on
the East Coast... just like any other school though I would check it out
before you plan to send your child(ren) there.
Shannon
~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~.~>|<~
I'm glad we switched!
We are now safer and healthier, using toxic-free products and saving money,
too.
Call (212) 990-6214 for a 10 minute prerecorded presentation or contact me
directly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Su Penn
Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2006 10:22 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [unschoolingbasics]Summerhill was Sudbury School
He also says at one point that the school would have been better off
if they'd kicked some of these kids out sooner--he ends up seeing
some of the schooled kids as irretrievable (my word, not his), and
says he wishes that with some of them they'd given up sooner. And he
talks about the difficulties of dealing with kids who have been or
are being badly parented. Perhaps the admissions process you describe
is a reaction to these kinds of problems and has ameliorated them.
I also didn't always feel as I read it that there was a lot of
respect for the kids, which surprised me. But that may have just been
Neil's tone-- I didn't care much for _him_ and that certainly colored
my reaction to the book. But he struck me as making some of the same
kinds of excuses that public schools make: this would work so great
if only we got the kids earlier, before they'd even been to another
school. If only we didn't have to deal with kids who were being
damaged by their parents. Boy, in an ideal world, this school could
really be something!
The Summerhill school didn't strike me as an especially great place
to send a kid. Better than public school? Probably. Better than home?
Not by a long shot, at least by my view.
I've been thinking about this since this thread started, and
wondering whether if there were a Sudbury-style school around here
I'd think of sending my kids. The answer is no. It's still an
institution, and every institution carries the potential for problems
with group dynamics. I've lived as an adult in intentional
communities, and it's challenging! There are always people who take
advantage of the freedoms, people who carry into the group their
damage from other settings, people who want to live effectively in
community but lack the skills. It's great if a community responds
effectively to such problems (and communities don't always), but why
put my kid through dealing with the problem in the first place? I
didn't put my kids into public school and say, "Well, I'll pull them
out if there's a problem." I chose to ensure that they wouldn't
experience that particular set of problems at all.
By the same token, I don't think I'd put my kid in a Sudbury-style
school, thinking, "well, if he gets bullied or abused, or his stuff
gets stolen or trashed, the community will respond to that and deal
with the trouble-maker." Why put him there in the first place? Why
put him through that if it's not necessary, if there's a better
alternative readily available? Why expose him to the risk at all?
Even if he's not a direct victim, one reason I chose not to send my
kids to public school is that, even if they aren't directly involved
in bullying, taunting, shunning, they're going to see it happening.
Why make him a witness to something ugly?
Heck, why make him even suffer through the kind of interminable
community meetings I've wasted so much of my life in <g>?
My own history of living and working in alternative, intentional
settings based on ideals certainly colors my reaction to this, but
I've been there! I've thrown my whole self into alternative
communities with great ideals, and I have seen and suffered through
the ugly reality that often lurks underneath. There are reasons I no
longer live in intentional communities, but in my own little house.
Without any direct experience of Sudbury schools, I'm skeptical that
they can live up to their propaganda. I disagree with the original
blurb, that suggested there are power dynamics in families that make
it hard for kids to be independent and self-sufficient, and that
Sudbury can do a better job of that. As a PP said, they're not
talking about radical unschooling. Radical unschooling is far and
away the best choice for children, in my view. Nothing else could
come close.
Of course, I also have a whole set of objections to "democracy" as a
decision-making model... so clearly I am not the target audience for
the Sudbury folks!
Su
On Jan 23, 2006, at 6:48 PM, S Drag-teine wrote:
> Now, wait the destructive reference is taken out of context. Yes, he
> mentions the destructive behavior but also goes on to clarify that
> this
> behavior does not last. These are children who come from other
> schools -
> acting out, don't know what to do with their free time - they do
> get it or
> they will get voted out of the school.
Yahoo! Groups Links