3 ms·

For anyone considering teaching a gifted and talented student, as a former TX state G&T teacher I'd currently recommend either homeschooling or a Sudbury Valley

For anyone considering teaching a gifted and talented student, as a former TX state G&T teacher I'd currently recommend either homeschooling or a Sudbury Valley school [0]. The outcomes for the "no tests, no lectures" format of Sudbury Valley schools produces better results vs traditional programs[1]. This fact is known by many educators who follow up with the question "but I wouldn't have a job at a Sudbury Valley school since teaching is no longer needed..." I myself have worked at both trad and Sudbury, and could not in good conscience continue in trad education. Everything I leaned about pedagogy told me the trad format caused the worst outcomes, yet the school boards prevented me and other teachers from making any changes. It's sad to realize how ineffective the trad methods are, and that many teachers know it yet follow along because they need the paycheck. If I have children they will only attend Sudbury valley schools or be homeschooled in a similar format. It actually prepares children to be self reliant, self teaching adults, vs the trad model that prepares for totalitarianism and simple memorization [2]. I know it's hard for many adults who went to a trad school model to accept that it's one of the worst formats possible when measured against other formats, but is it really so hard to believe? Consider everything you know about humans, and how we often fall into bad patterns even when when we know better. It's not so hard to realize how a bad model has been doubled down on for over a century, and the people in control of it have no interest in admitting they've been propagating a bad system this whole time. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_school [1] https://circleschool.org/wp-content/uploads/Circle-School-Grads-in-2015-July-30-2015.pdf https://circleschool.org/wp-content/uploads/Circle-School-Gr... [2] https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html https://www.cantrip.org/gatto.html

strikelaserclaw 5y ago
We all know that humans naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance, especially children because they have not built up the wisdom to recognize such patterns in themselves, how can such a school system prevent unmotivated children from essentially playing video games all day on their phone?
- JackMorgan 5y ago
  Those schools have existed for 80+ years, and have better long term outcomes in education level, income, and satisfaction. They do not in any way force children to do any learning, which allows children to have the space to learn to love learning on their own. Every single child you know who sits and plays games is a product of a system that they hate, where even going to the bathroom is not guaranteed. Children (and adults) who sit mindlessly on games and TV are the product of a system built around oppression and total lack of autonomy. American adults often only have a few minutes a day of personal freedom, so why bother doing anything but sit and wait for the next command from the system. However, yes, there are some people that when given the freedom to do whatever they want with literally unlimited time will only play video games. And the uncomfortable truth is they probably wouldn't get much out of a traditional school either. After all, something like 30% of American adults read at the 5th grade level. So why torture them in a traditional school? If you see the research from the Sudbury schools, you'll see a good third just go on to manual, service, manufacturing, and labor jobs. Considering that was basically all humanity did up until a hundred years ago, I'm surprised it's so low. We need to stop acting like those are lessor jobs. It's noble to work with one's hands, and I think forcing every child into a college degree path is cruel. However for the majority of Sudbury graduates that go on to higher education, they do so despite never having taken a single test, single lecture, single math class, single spelling quiz. They are allowed to play unlimited video games at school, but choose not to, because video games are not as fun as learning and developing mastery. Having grown up this way, I can attest, there's just so much more interesting things to do than play video games. Sure I'd play a few hours a day, but then it gets old and I'd build a trebuchet, get my student pilots licence, learn to program to make my own games, write a novel with my friends, write plays, join an acting troupe, become a lifeguard, learn to oil paint, learn classical guitar, play countless hours of futbol, get into computer networking to setup LAN parties, take gymnastics, read stacks of books every week, get a job at a rock climbing camp, start a coffeeshop at 16, discover history (starting with medieval combat tactics and siege warfare of course!). The list goes on and on. The joys of self learning barely got me through college, which I hated, with all the tests and stupid deadlines and arbitrary requirements. Now as an adult I've been able to keep up that love and learn so much more on my own terms. I understand maybe it's not for everyone, but the research seems clear it's better for the majority, so it really should be the default system. What sort of a population do we want, one of cowed automatons, or one of independent self learners who love developing mastery for it's own sake? Creative thinkers who know their own minds, or people who will turn in the report by Friday? Which set of skills do you think makes a better citizen who can navigate our complex world, and bring us into a better future? This doesn't even talk about how Sudbury schools are significantly cheaper than trad schools. Often only three adults can run a school of 80+ kids. And they still get better outcomes than trad schools at less than a 1/3rd the price. And right there we see why educators (especially school administrators) keep it under wraps.

strikelaserclaw 5y ago

We all know that humans naturally gravitate towards the path of least resistance, especially children because they have not built up the wisdom to recognize such patterns in themselves, how can such a school system prevent unmotivated children from essentially playing video games all day on their phone?

JackMorgan 5y ago
Those schools have existed for 80+ years, and have better long term outcomes in education level, income, and satisfaction. They do not in any way force children to do any learning, which allows children to have the space to learn to love learning on their own. Every single child you know who sits and plays games is a product of a system that they hate, where even going to the bathroom is not guaranteed. Children (and adults) who sit mindlessly on games and TV are the product of a system built around oppression and total lack of autonomy. American adults often only have a few minutes a day of personal freedom, so why bother doing anything but sit and wait for the next command from the system. However, yes, there are some people that when given the freedom to do whatever they want with literally unlimited time will only play video games. And the uncomfortable truth is they probably wouldn't get much out of a traditional school either. After all, something like 30% of American adults read at the 5th grade level. So why torture them in a traditional school? If you see the research from the Sudbury schools, you'll see a good third just go on to manual, service, manufacturing, and labor jobs. Considering that was basically all humanity did up until a hundred years ago, I'm surprised it's so low. We need to stop acting like those are lessor jobs. It's noble to work with one's hands, and I think forcing every child into a college degree path is cruel. However for the majority of Sudbury graduates that go on to higher education, they do so despite never having taken a single test, single lecture, single math class, single spelling quiz. They are allowed to play unlimited video games at school, but choose not to, because video games are not as fun as learning and developing mastery. Having grown up this way, I can attest, there's just so much more interesting things to do than play video games. Sure I'd play a few hours a day, but then it gets old and I'd build a trebuchet, get my student pilots licence, learn to program to make my own games, write a novel with my friends, write plays, join an acting troupe, become a lifeguard, learn to oil paint, learn classical guitar, play countless hours of futbol, get into computer networking to setup LAN parties, take gymnastics, read stacks of books every week, get a job at a rock climbing camp, start a coffeeshop at 16, discover history (starting with medieval combat tactics and siege warfare of course!). The list goes on and on. The joys of self learning barely got me through college, which I hated, with all the tests and stupid deadlines and arbitrary requirements. Now as an adult I've been able to keep up that love and learn so much more on my own terms. I understand maybe it's not for everyone, but the research seems clear it's better for the majority, so it really should be the default system. What sort of a population do we want, one of cowed automatons, or one of independent self learners who love developing mastery for it's own sake? Creative thinkers who know their own minds, or people who will turn in the report by Friday? Which set of skills do you think makes a better citizen who can navigate our complex world, and bring us into a better future? This doesn't even talk about how Sudbury schools are significantly cheaper than trad schools. Often only three adults can run a school of 80+ kids. And they still get better outcomes than trad schools at less than a 1/3rd the price. And right there we see why educators (especially school administrators) keep it under wraps.