[Oxitendwe]

Is forcing children to eat their vegetables, take regular baths, and go to bed on time an example of "one size fits all" parenting? I find it very difficult to believe that learning to read later in life won't adversely affect your maximum reading proficiency later in life, a very concerning "future difficulty" as it is the most basic possible skill required to function in society after learning to speak. I don't think either that it makes sense to give children a choice in the specific matter of whether or not they should be instructed in this skill that is so critical to their development and usefulness to society - they are by definition the least experienced and informed about the consequences of their decisions. That's not to say I don't think kids should have a choice in anything, just that part of raising children involves not letting them make choices that significantly and adversely affect their future.

[DiThi]

> Is forcing children to eat their vegetables, take regular baths, and go to bed on time an example of "one size fits all" parenting?

Each parent has a different style, sometimes very different from one to the neighbor. For good or bad, there's no official manual on being a parent. On the other side every child has to learn every item of a bunch of subjects at each specific age.

> I find it very difficult to believe that learning to read later in life won't adversely affect your maximum reading proficiency later in life.

All Sudbury Valley School students have excellent SAT scores. Also, children of Finland which have the highest PISA score in the world don't learn to read until a few years later than in other places of the world.

> it is the most basic possible skill required to function in society after learning to speak

Maybe recognizing e.g. subtle differences in dense shapes is more important. Or basic things like remembering left and right. Things one shouldn't rush. Things children learn by playing. Reading depends heavily on those.

> I don't think either that it makes sense to give children a choice in the specific matter of whether or not they should be instructed in this skill that is so critical to their development and usefulness to society

Why not? You forget that children _are_ social, even more so in an environment like SVS where they have voice and vote to decide on school matters. Children are very curious and _want_ to learn stuff. As I said, all students have very good SAT scores. Also they're regarded as having very good social skills and tend to be very successful. Is there any better measure of the outcome?

> they are by definition the least experienced and informed about the consequences of their decisions

And the best course of action is not giving them the exposure to gain experience?

SVS is not just "children do whatever they want all day". There are rules. Made and voted by all children. Most people don't have that kind of social interaction until much later in life. Instead they get bullies. Or they become bullies.

> That's not to say I don't think kids should have a choice in anything, just that part of raising children involves not letting them make choices that significantly and adversely affect their future.

Read more about SVS, or read the work of John Taylor Gatto. You may rethink what kind of choices are adversely affecting their future.

[slg]

Do you have any evidence for what you are suggesting? A simple Google search reveals several questionable looking sites repeating the lack of dyslexia in Sudbury Schools, but there is never a source cited for this factoid. This sounds like a bunch of new age pseudoscience.

[DiThi]

The sources are books published by Sudbury Valley Press. I don't have any source other than that one. However this fact hasn't been disputed by neither former students or outsiders, from SVS or other schools of the same model; so I'm very inclined to believe them.

Note that dyslexia seem to affect about 10% of the population independently of culture, wealth or social status, so it's more striking that there was not a single former student that said "I had/have dyslexia" or similar.

[slg]

The fact that this claim hasn't been verified by an external source makes me rather dubious. Most people with dyslexia are diagnosed when they fall behind their peers in learning to read. In a learning environment in which students have no real peers there is no measuring stick to fall behind. Any student who struggles learning to read is probably categorized as "learning at their own pace" rather than being diagnosed with dyslexia. That doesn't mean the student doesn't have a problem. The school is probably just unintentionally masking the issue with their teaching style.

I would be curious to see someone test a collection of adults who graduated from the school and to see whether they show signs of dyslexia.

[DiThi]

Fair enough. I don't see this "masking" as an issue, though. I'm curious too about signs of dyslexia in adulthood. I would bet that adult SVS dyslexics exist but are better adapted around the issue.

[slg]

It is certainly possible that those adult dyslexics are better at handling their disorder. That would be a pretty strong point in support of the Sudbury Valley School. However that is not the point the school or you made. You both made a harder to believe claim that none of their students even had the disorder which strains credibility and makes me doubt the first point.