I was a bit taken aback after looking over this website. I am strongly of the belief that students, at the end of the day, hold the keys to their own education in their hands and that they should be given more freedom to choose how they want to spend that time. After all, they graduate from school and enter into the real world as enfranchised citizens, and in some cases, have never experienced the freedom to make their own decisions regarding how they want to spend their time. I think allowing students this freedom allows them to mature a lot faster and learn a lot. The shocking part was the extent to which this school takes the philosophy, allowing students the ability to have complete reign over what they choose (or choose not) to learn. "No" is seemingly a concept unheard of at the school, as students have what essentially amounts to free reign with regards to every single aspect of their education, right down to the "election" of the adults who get make up the staff. I agree wholly with the principle that students need to have experience making their own decisions and determinations of what they wish to learn. Whether or not this philosophy, taken to this extent, is a good or a bad thing, is something I would have to think about for a while. It is definitely suggesting something radically different from that to which I am accustomed.
Without wearing a critical thinking cap, like I was told not to do, and hopefully not coming off as too cynical/skeptical of the school, I think this environment is something I would have to see first hand. They describe on the website an order among things that one would have to see to believe, and I believe that part. I've no doubts that students ultimately will choose to make the right decisions when given the responsibility to do so, but it certainly would be interesting, to say the least, to see how kids act in an environment of quasi-anarchy.
Like the "Big Picture" website, I love how this website focuses on allowing the students to choose what they want to learn and by sdoing so, they unintentionally challenge themselves. Now, I'll be honest, I am a little skeptical when it comes to something like this. The idea of letting students choose what they get to learn so they get to know themselves is fantastic, but at the same time, I think there need to be some necessities that have to be learned like math, science, etc...and it still perplexes me that this school doesn't really "require" their students to learn the basics. I am all for students being able to choose subjects they want to learn, but I am a little skeptical about having students have complete free reign. And maybe that was because I was raised having to learn math, science, literature, and history, but I had teachers who made it fun and who made me WANT to learn it. Sure, no child likes being told what to do at a young age, but (and I hate to sound like this) but that is the real world that they will eventually get into. I feel like if they gave these kids the freedom to just do "whatever they feel like," sure they might mature and make the right decisions, but at the same time, what if they don't? What happens when they get into the real world and coroporate world where they have a boss and have to be told what to do? How will they function then? It's just a little too farfetched for me...am I the only one who thinks this? I certainly don't believe in forcing kids to learn boring things, but if a teacher makes the subject interesting, that gives the student (most of the time) more incentive to focus and continue to do well.
No, you're not the only person who finds it far-fetched. I just didn't particularly want to come out of the gate swinging when I personally have never seen it. I find it perplexing to see how it works---having said that, you questioned that if they allowed to make their own decisions without interference, how will they respond to the real world? I think the counterpoint probably lies in the criticism that (at least according to the Wood book and the Gatto book) that too much structure makes for weak citizens as well---basically stating that all the structure, right down to having to ask permission to use the restroom, might cause one to be overwhelmed upon entering the "real world". I think the issue is balance and while they talk about the "order" that takes place at the Sudbudy school, like I said in my initial response, I feel like I'd have to see it to believe it.
The Gatto book praises the Sudbury model and advocates those like it. I, like you, thought it to be a little on the fringe side of things and that the best solution would probably be a balance in between the two: more freedom than one might find in a rigid public/private school, but maybe a little more "order" than what I see here.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just bitter that this model suggests that the career I have chosen to pursue is a little more obsolete than I'd like to think at this point.
I am also a bit reluctant to advocate a "free-range" method of teaching like this without seeing it. I think it also speaks volumes that the students are screened before admission. Some students will benefit from a program like this, some won't--each child learns differently and one academic "size" does not fit all students.
The students’ relationship to each other and to their community is vital in a school like Sudbury because the students are teaching each other just as the staff members are role models and the community is involved (from parents to mentors) in an Advisory Board that helps students govern the school. Student relationships are necessary not only to keep the school running but to maintain an environment where respect, intellectual growth, and responsibility are second nature so learning can take place. When the basics of positive human interaction are ignored learning cannot take place because the stress caused by chaotic negative relationships would constantly interrupt the learning process. Because mutual respect and responsible role models are readily available (students, parents, staff) at Sudbury students have an environment conducive to their own academic and holistic growth. Sudbury is fortunate in that the village supports the school and believes in the student-run community; without the community’s endorsement the school would not be allowed to continue as an institution. When students are trusted wholeheartedly they make a considerable effort not to disappoint those who trust them. Because the students at Sudbury know they are trusted as few children are ever trusted to govern their own social, mental, and physical growth they are more inclined to achieved and set high standards for themselves than if they were curtailed by uniform standards of achievement that were formed for them. When a student is given a set of goals s/he is given more than something to strive for, s/he is also given an unsaid value-judgment: this is what you are capable of achieving. On one hand this is positive, on the other it curtails the imagination and stifles the potential to achieve more, telling the student “you can’t achieve more than this—you are not capable of doing more”. When students set their own goals they are able to learn not just how much they can achieve or how big they can dream but also what their strengths and weaknesses are. They learn who they are as people and gain confidence in their abilities allowing themselves to apply individual, ever-increasing personal standards to a variety of intellectual and physical tasks. With every success they raise the bar, every failure teaches them a new solution, and since the clock is less important than the student’s own pace the stress and competitive anxiety that is so prevalent in many traditional schools does not intrude on the learning process.
Question: How do you strike the balance between student involvement and still remain in control of the classroom as an authority figure?
What the heck is going on?! I am blown away by this school's theory on educating children and I am not sold at all on this idea. Montessori is one thing, but SVS is not education to me. Maybe learning does take place because children are always learning, but school is supposed to prepare a child for the world--to be a productive member of society, while gaining insight into who they are as people as well as receiving a well-rounded, practical education in order to enter the job force or higher education and I don't see how this school does that at all! I am so confused. I am pretty liberal in my beliefs in a lot of areas, but I was watching the video for the school on the website and I kept thinking "Okay, so you organized a basketball tournament, which takes one day and the learning is done...what's next? Oh, you keep playing basketball?!" I am just a little unconvinced/critical of this entire school. It just looks like a school where kids turn to because they can't play video games in public school or fish all day and play cards...not a school that they chose in order to become better members of society and improve their own character.
I was a bit taken aback after looking over this website. I am strongly of the belief that students, at the end of the day, hold the keys to their own education in their hands and that they should be given more freedom to choose how they want to spend that time. After all, they graduate from school and enter into the real world as enfranchised citizens, and in some cases, have never experienced the freedom to make their own decisions regarding how they want to spend their time. I think allowing students this freedom allows them to mature a lot faster and learn a lot. The shocking part was the extent to which this school takes the philosophy, allowing students the ability to have complete reign over what they choose (or choose not) to learn. "No" is seemingly a concept unheard of at the school, as students have what essentially amounts to free reign with regards to every single aspect of their education, right down to the "election" of the adults who get make up the staff. I agree wholly with the principle that students need to have experience making their own decisions and determinations of what they wish to learn. Whether or not this philosophy, taken to this extent, is a good or a bad thing, is something I would have to think about for a while. It is definitely suggesting something radically different from that to which I am accustomed.
ReplyDeleteWithout wearing a critical thinking cap, like I was told not to do, and hopefully not coming off as too cynical/skeptical of the school, I think this environment is something I would have to see first hand. They describe on the website an order among things that one would have to see to believe, and I believe that part. I've no doubts that students ultimately will choose to make the right decisions when given the responsibility to do so, but it certainly would be interesting, to say the least, to see how kids act in an environment of quasi-anarchy.
ReplyDeleteLike the "Big Picture" website, I love how this website focuses on allowing the students to choose what they want to learn and by sdoing so, they unintentionally challenge themselves. Now, I'll be honest, I am a little skeptical when it comes to something like this. The idea of letting students choose what they get to learn so they get to know themselves is fantastic, but at the same time, I think there need to be some necessities that have to be learned like math, science, etc...and it still perplexes me that this school doesn't really "require" their students to learn the basics. I am all for students being able to choose subjects they want to learn, but I am a little skeptical about having students have complete free reign. And maybe that was because I was raised having to learn math, science, literature, and history, but I had teachers who made it fun and who made me WANT to learn it. Sure, no child likes being told what to do at a young age, but (and I hate to sound like this) but that is the real world that they will eventually get into. I feel like if they gave these kids the freedom to just do "whatever they feel like," sure they might mature and make the right decisions, but at the same time, what if they don't? What happens when they get into the real world and coroporate world where they have a boss and have to be told what to do? How will they function then? It's just a little too farfetched for me...am I the only one who thinks this? I certainly don't believe in forcing kids to learn boring things, but if a teacher makes the subject interesting, that gives the student (most of the time) more incentive to focus and continue to do well.
ReplyDeleteNo, you're not the only person who finds it far-fetched. I just didn't particularly want to come out of the gate swinging when I personally have never seen it. I find it perplexing to see how it works---having said that, you questioned that if they allowed to make their own decisions without interference, how will they respond to the real world? I think the counterpoint probably lies in the criticism that (at least according to the Wood book and the Gatto book) that too much structure makes for weak citizens as well---basically stating that all the structure, right down to having to ask permission to use the restroom, might cause one to be overwhelmed upon entering the "real world". I think the issue is balance and while they talk about the "order" that takes place at the Sudbudy school, like I said in my initial response, I feel like I'd have to see it to believe it.
ReplyDeleteThe Gatto book praises the Sudbury model and advocates those like it. I, like you, thought it to be a little on the fringe side of things and that the best solution would probably be a balance in between the two: more freedom than one might find in a rigid public/private school, but maybe a little more "order" than what I see here.
I don't know. Maybe I'm just bitter that this model suggests that the career I have chosen to pursue is a little more obsolete than I'd like to think at this point.
I am also a bit reluctant to advocate a "free-range" method of teaching like this without seeing it. I think it also speaks volumes that the students are screened before admission. Some students will benefit from a program like this, some won't--each child learns differently and one academic "size" does not fit all students.
ReplyDeleteThe students’ relationship to each other and to their community is vital in a school like Sudbury because the students are teaching each other just as the staff members are role models and the community is involved (from parents to mentors) in an Advisory Board that helps students govern the school. Student relationships are necessary not only to keep the school running but to maintain an environment where respect, intellectual growth, and responsibility are second nature so learning can take place. When the basics of positive human interaction are ignored learning cannot take place because the stress caused by chaotic negative relationships would constantly interrupt the learning process. Because mutual respect and responsible role models are readily available (students, parents, staff) at Sudbury students have an environment conducive to their own academic and holistic growth. Sudbury is fortunate in that the village supports the school and believes in the student-run community; without the community’s endorsement the school would not be allowed to continue as an institution.
When students are trusted wholeheartedly they make a considerable effort not to disappoint those who trust them. Because the students at Sudbury know they are trusted as few children are ever trusted to govern their own social, mental, and physical growth they are more inclined to achieved and set high standards for themselves than if they were curtailed by uniform standards of achievement that were formed for them. When a student is given a set of goals s/he is given more than something to strive for, s/he is also given an unsaid value-judgment: this is what you are capable of achieving. On one hand this is positive, on the other it curtails the imagination and stifles the potential to achieve more, telling the student “you can’t achieve more than this—you are not capable of doing more”. When students set their own goals they are able to learn not just how much they can achieve or how big they can dream but also what their strengths and weaknesses are. They learn who they are as people and gain confidence in their abilities allowing themselves to apply individual, ever-increasing personal standards to a variety of intellectual and physical tasks. With every success they raise the bar, every failure teaches them a new solution, and since the clock is less important than the student’s own pace the stress and competitive anxiety that is so prevalent in many traditional schools does not intrude on the learning process.
Question: How do you strike the balance between student involvement and still remain in control of the classroom as an authority figure?
What the heck is going on?! I am blown away by this school's theory on educating children and I am not sold at all on this idea. Montessori is one thing, but SVS is not education to me. Maybe learning does take place because children are always learning, but school is supposed to prepare a child for the world--to be a productive member of society, while gaining insight into who they are as people as well as receiving a well-rounded, practical education in order to enter the job force or higher education and I don't see how this school does that at all! I am so confused. I am pretty liberal in my beliefs in a lot of areas, but I was watching the video for the school on the website and I kept thinking "Okay, so you organized a basketball tournament, which takes one day and the learning is done...what's next? Oh, you keep playing basketball?!" I am just a little unconvinced/critical of this entire school. It just looks like a school where kids turn to because they can't play video games in public school or fish all day and play cards...not a school that they chose in order to become better members of society and improve their own character.
ReplyDelete