Daily Archives: May 3, 2011

Sudbury Valley School (the modern-day village) vs unschooling

“Dear Coby,
I liked your posting about SVS type schools vs unschooling. I also think that no matter how democratic a family is it is a too small unit for children to grow up in. I believe that they need an “outside the family community” to belong to as well as to the family. The old villages in the non-western world provided just that and here in the west we are obliged to create a psuedo [sic] village for them and call it a school. The children get to belong to a family and to a community which hopefully is in harmony with the family but which is separate from them. It provides kids for a place of their own to make relationships, to observe people of all ages, to learn skills that are not the family’s skills such as carpentry or putting on make-up (skills that my children enjoyed acquiring in the school), and above all it is a place in which they can make mistakes in privacy from their parents. …
Hanna from SVS” LINK

– Villages — See book: Reflections on the Sudbury School Concept (1999) (pages: 13, 30, 127, 130, 134, 136, 137, 139, 144, 152, 154 ,161)
– On SVS and Family:
“Sudbury Valley was set up to be a day school complimenting the child’s family but never superseding it in importance. The assumption is that the child receives a full measure of love from within the family, and uses the school to develop a wider range of relationships, from close and intimate, to very casual, all of course determined by the children themselves.” (The Sudbury Valley School Experience, p 180)


1 Comment

Filed under erik-VS, Sudbury Schools and Sudbury Valley School, unschooling

Playing in the Zone of Proximal Development: Qualities of Self- Directed Age Mixing between Adolescents and Young Children at a Democratic School

Playing in the Zone of Proximal Development: Qualities of Self-Directed Age Mixing between Adolescents and Young Children at a Democratic School
Researchers: Peter Gray and Jay Feldman
Format: Full article in PDF
Year: 2004
At an ungraded, democratically structured school, we documented 196 naturally occurring interaction sequences between adolescents (ages 12-19) and children (ages 4-11) who were at least four years younger than the adolescent. Children and adolescents appeared to be drawn together by common interests and play styles, personal attraction, and complementary desires to nurture and be nurtured. Further analyses identified apparent contributions of such interactions to both parties’ physical, intellectual, and social/moral education. Adolescents led children to act within the latter’s zones of proximal development (Vygotsky’s term), and children stimulated adolescents to make implicit knowledge explicit, be creative, and practice nurturance and leadership.

Leave a comment

Filed under Sudbury Schools and Sudbury Valley School