Mike Sadofsky (email@example.com)
Sun, 04 Mar 2001 10:46:17 -0500
While I agree with you that much of the environment is "created" I
want to note that much of what was initially "seeded" at SVS was
quickly eliminated from the environment. When it was discovered that
there was little or no interest in the myriad of materials that were
accumulated and provided as "learning or interest stimulants," it was
quickly recognized that a far better approach was to allow the
interest to develop and let the case then be made to provide an
appropriate environment of tools, materials, etc. Of course, the
books, paints, blocks, have always been there.
On Sun, 4 Mar 2001 09:21:57 -0500, you wrote:
>I very much agree with you, but would add one thing. While I don't believe
>in "The Exposure Principle", I do believe in "The Environment Factor". It
>is no accident that SVS, for example, has blocks, books, paints, woodworking
>materials, a pond, etc., etc., etc. The SM didn't vote these things in, at
>least at first. Some adults got together, searched for and found the site,
>and "seeded" it with materials. Certainly the SM has had great impact on
>what is available currently at the school, but I daresay that considerable
>thought was given in the early days as to what resources people (adults)
>wanted to see at the school to begin with.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Bruce Smith" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2001 10:23 PM
>Subject: Re: DSM: Genes and environment (was: About TCS)
>> >I don't really think you can blame genetics or environment for behavior
>> >both combine to effect it so much that it is sometimes very hard to tell
>> >which is responsible for behavior (good or bad).
>> At Sudbury schools, we consider each individual responsible for her/his
>> behavior. Period. Examining influences on behavior is a fun intellectual
>> exercise; but at the school, what matters is the choices people make, and
>> their responsibility for the outcome of those choices.
>> >What if Einstien had never
>> >been exposed to math or Mozart to music? Would they have discovered
>> >inborn talents anyway?
>> Yeah, I _suppose_ someone could have locked them in closets for their
>> entire childhood, and *maybe* they never would have been exposed to such
>> basic, ubiquitous phenomena as music and math...
>> >I think exposure is important because without it none of us would learn
>> >our true talents lie.
>> >Maybe genetics help guide us and environment exposes us. A combination
>> >of guidance and exposure helps talent emerge.
>> My problem with the whole concept of "exposure" is that it tends to
>> externalize learning, make it passive, and allow authority figures to
>> direct it. That is, in the common understanding of the term, there is
>> someone doing the exposing, and someone receiving this exposure. Too
>> often, well-meaning people use the exposure argument as an excuse to
>> micro-manage others' (typically, kids') environments: they fear that
>> children will not be exposed to the "right" things, and will instead be
>> exposed to all sorts of "wrong" things.
>> The curiosity inherent in human nature will, if not stifled, result in
>> individuals exposing _themselves_ (hmm...this could get ugly :) to an
>> incredibly wide range of things. It's the randomness of freedom (with
>> responsibility) that does the trick, not guidance and exposure.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Mar 29 2001 - 11:16:48 EST