Re: Comparing the Sudbury Model
Sat, 12 Apr 1997 00:02:29 -0400
> I find your post puzzling, since most of the teens at Sudbury Valley
> are 16 or more, which means that they do not have to attend school in
Eek. Yes, you are right -- most of them are not required by the
Law. Or, at least, the *official* law... there is quite a bit of
cultural pressure in the area of getting a high school diploma.
What I intended to say was that the idea that Sudbury Valley
"provides a community outside the home," that the large age range and
other kinds of diversity provide a rich environment, etc, sound very
reasonable at first blush, but they don't seem to match up with what the
students at the school get out of it.
I have heard students who were there because of the law, because of
their parents, because of the physical resources of the school, but I
haven't heard anyone say they come to the school because it's a "diverse
community," whatever that means, and I don't think the school would stay
around very long if that was the only reason for it's existance.
I'll point out, in my defense, that I did not say that the students,
teenage or otherwise, are there only because they are legally required
to be. What I said is that I think if there was no legal requirement,
you would have many less students -- and I *do* think that, but the
connection is somewhat less direct.
SwiftRain <firstname.lastname@example.org> -- http://www.elision.com/sr/