I would be extremely interested in getting feedback from people on this site regarding this school. I realize that this may seem like a stupid idea to some of you. So be it. I ask that you elaborate on why you think the school is a bad idea, rather than just dart in, make a snarky comment and leave.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think this would be an excellent school for the extremely smart or extremely gifted (say in art, music or writing).
I would not send an "ordinary" student there. Most importantly, I wouldn't send a kid here who was not already sort of "absorbed" by a particular area of interest.
Whys:
1) Self-directed learning requires two things: a) an interest in the subject matter b) motivation
2) The smart kids are going to seek out new things just for the expansion of their own knowledge. Normal kids are most likely to miss huge swaths of available knowledge because their curiosity didn't take them far enough to even know to ask for exposure to it...
It sounds like a great school for me, though. I'd announce on the first day that I was doing sleep research and was not to be disturbed for any reason whatsoever.
posted
I think this is a neat school, but I have to partially agree with Bob. Schools that are more open-ended are good for self-directed learners, and not all learners are self-directed. I would disagree whether that has anything to do with being smart.
Also, I would have concerns for students who might be learning disabled, and I would want to know how special needs would be addressed. In my experience, private schools often fall short in the area of special education.
That said, I know of this school, and I think it is awesome. Teaching children to make decisions for themselves at an early age is a "good thing."
Liz
[ February 08, 2004, 03:29 PM: Message edited by: Elizabeth ]
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Isn't a child's natural curiosity enough? Doesn't curious equal learning? If the adults model reading and writing and learning being a fun and good thing, wouldn't that be sufficient to encourage the natural energy and inquisitiveness of children into being able to write, read, and learn well?
Elizabeth, I agree with you that it would be interesting to see how they handled special needs students.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I'm just thinking of my own family. I hated reading as a kid, even though I was very smart. If I was at this school, I would not have read a thing the entire time. Of course, maybe I hated having things assigned, so maybe I'd've read everything.
I guess I have to agree that it's not a matter of intelligence so much as it is a matter of self-directedness.
I guess what I would do is give a kid a chance to go there and if he or she spent the whole time doing nothing or learning how to fish at the lake instead of studying SOMETHING, I'd pull the kid back into regular school.
I think I would've liked going there. I might've even tried to flunk so I'd never have to leave.
posted
Hmmm. I would love to see the average SATs from the school. Then again, that gets into questions of nature and nurture. If the SATs were all, on average, much higher, would that prove anything?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope they have something to at least steer kids in some general directions. I'd hate to have missed Humanities cause I was so busy with earth sciences.
If high Sat scores were a goal of the curriculum, I would think the curriculum would have to be be focused. I have always tried to put all the requirements out for the kids to get through quickly, and then do more open ended projects. But we have to follow the NCLB rules.
With no rules to follow, and no set objectives, such as college entrance, it would sure be interesting to see where these kids would go on their own with no, or minimal, guidance.
I might have to visit.
Thanks for reminding me! Liz
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the school would work great for the Humanities, but not so well for the sciences. It's really hard to learn math, for example, outside of a classroom setting. And very few people are 'curious' about higher calculus. On the other hand I've always wished I could randomly go up to a teacher and say, "I want to learn about String Theory," and be taught it.
Basically I think it would work if say, half the day was go as your curiosity leads you, and the other half was classes in whatever subjects you wanted, as long as you were learning some math and science. Even in English, I usually end up being really glad I read the required reading, even stuff I know I would never have read if it wasn't for class. When we get to choose what we want to read for class I usually choose books I want to read, but would never read without the discipline of the classroom. I would hate to lose that.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that the main prpblem is not the lack of curiousity about higher math and other hard sciences but rather the retention factor. I used to sit and ask my dad (a mechanical engineer) all about math that I hadn't yet studied and wouldn't for years. But the fact was that I promptly forgot everything he told and patiently explained to me days later. Boundless learning is all very well and good but unless each child has an eidetic memory or is otherwise able to retain vast amounts of information at a glance, I don't think it would work. But even so, I would have killed for a chance to learn like this.
Posts: 218 | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It sounds exactly like the version of homeschooling one of my friends used during high school (well, she just took college courses in whatever interested her) and she learned a lot in humanities, but is taking a remedial algebra course this year because she doesn't know enough basic math to pass the GED.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
