| I've read extensively about the Sudbury model and education in general when I wanted to find out why I didn't fare well in the classical educational system although I am of above average intelligence. While I don't think the Sudbury model is generally applicable (they have had their share of failed schools), it contains a lot more postives than classical education. The classical education system is the way it is for organisational reasons, not for any pedagogic reason: * There is sufficient scientific research that proves that teacher based education is highly inefficient. * The age based grouping of children is just plain stupid and has no merit whatsoever. A better way to group them, if you must group them, is on skill level. Grouping children of different ages has advantages for all of them: the younger ones get an attainable role model, the older ones learn a sense of responsibility. * Sitting still and being required to concentrate for an hour is something you cannot ask a child to do, especially the younger ones. They should be allowed to play and explore. They will learn a lot more than what a teacher can offer. * It’s a fantasy to believe that you learn much in school. The only thing you learn is to game the system: You learn to remember something long enough for a test or exam, and afterwards, you forget most. And I could go on and on about it. |