Re: DSM: (Almost) errorless measurement


Bruce Smith (bsmith@coin.org)
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 14:24:22 -0700


>It is sad to think that the students at a Sudbury school are oblivious to the
>experiment in which they are participating, and even more so to think that the
>parents are so oblivious to the need to determine if something is being
>achieved at the school that is of value to the students.

Don't be sad, John. Our students and parents are not oblivious, by any
means; they simply recognize that the best (some would say, the only) way
of measuring achievement is by each individual. The fact that they remain
at our schools, and regard them highly after they leave, would seem to
indicate that is has some value to them.

>If there is no way to measure a goal there probably is not a goal and success
>is a certainty. If, by some stroke of the imagination - since there are no
>measurement tools available, a student at a Sudbury school achieves something
>it certainly can not be defined as success as no goal was ever set.

Our "goal," as such, is that each student discovers their own goals, and
learns how to attain them. If you are thinking that the only valid goal is
one that can be quantified and measured by others, then we obviously
disagree.

And, I ask respectfully: who are you to say that someone else's achievement
does not constitute success?

>Individuals
>who do not submit their existence to evaluations by others and learn from those
>evaluations is living a self centered existence and probably a singularly
>unimportant one.

Are you assuming that Sudbury students never submit to evaluation by
others? This is simply not the case. Moreover, I question your readiness to
label another person's existence as "unimportant."

Bruce



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Nov 12 2000 - 19:48:14 EST