Montessori schools are pretty interesting, another type that flies further under the radar are Sudbury schools
I find the Sudbury model more fascinating because the student bodies I’ve seen came across as motivated, and other education models seemed demotivating except to a few students with a externality of a self motivating gene or environment.
Sudbury specifically makes students part of a democracy for most operations and education. My skepticism was quelled by the outcomes.
I would pay a premium for Montessori or Sudbury schooling. How about an article from people that can comfortably afford it? I would alternatively consider having my future child(ren) schooled in a non-US developed country. The public option isnt in the running.
You should take a look at Acton. It’s Montessori-like but much more modern and with a focus on self-determination and entrepreneurship.
Our five year old was playing at the park a week ago and chatted with another little girl about their respective schools. Afterwards he asked us why she said her school was boring. He couldn’t fathom a school that wasn’t interesting and fun.
Our prospective Montessori school even extends this principle by integrating all parents into a sociocratic system. Basically all decisions are made with universal consent in the respective circles.
Oh man, sociocracy. Tried that at my last company, after the second or third time someone used a veto (which in sociocracy must be accepted without argument), we migrated to holocracy, and then realised, bugger all this noise, holocracy is actually far too much process for a small company.
So yeah, let me know how that universal consent goes ;)
I have no idea. It's supposed to be the "nuclear" option of last resort, sociocracy is all about consensus, someone using their veto implies that the issue wasn't sufficiently discussed to reach consensus, so you done goofed.
He probably means the students who come out of them. I feel the same about Waldorf schools myself. I have taught in a Waldorf school and have been frustrated by some of the methods (and don't get me started on Rudolph Steiner), but I had to admit that in the three years I taught there, the graduating grade 8 students all were remarkably kind, intelligent, curious and creative young teenagers.
IOW ultimately you have to look at the fruit that is born from these trees to judge their ultimate worth. If you just walk in on one of these schools in the early years, you might be shocked/appalled at the lack of structure and discipline.
yes, the outcome that the students integrated into society decently enough. Could interact, socialize, get jobs to exchange time for food and shelter. Baseline stuff that's good enough. I was skeptical about those things.
Why would that invalidate perception (or why would the gatekeeping be relevant) since the whole discussion is merely about being in a place to afford it, the trajectory of which occurs far in advance of having children
The only other thing i could see is whether I wind up living close to one or the partner has their own restrictions
Just seems like a much more privileged position to have an outside perspective than the people with kids who didn’t even know they can’t afford the choice, like the person in the article
I find the Sudbury model more fascinating because the student bodies I’ve seen came across as motivated, and other education models seemed demotivating except to a few students with a externality of a self motivating gene or environment.
Sudbury specifically makes students part of a democracy for most operations and education. My skepticism was quelled by the outcomes.
I would pay a premium for Montessori or Sudbury schooling. How about an article from people that can comfortably afford it? I would alternatively consider having my future child(ren) schooled in a non-US developed country. The public option isnt in the running.