A Better Class of Learning: The Sudbury Model
Published April 15, 2009 @ 07:04AM PT
While visiting family over Spring Break, I had a brief yet stimulating exchange with my eight-year-old niece.
We were talking about my school, and when I said the students don't have to take classes, her reaction was, "So they could be dumb." My off-the-cuff response? "Well, I suppose—if the only way you could learn things was from classes."
How disconcerting to see even young children swallow the myth that learning requires classrooms where knowledge is chopped up and delivered in prepackaged lessons...as if civilization couldn't have emerged without mass, compulsory schooling; as if babies need classes like Introduction to Walking; as if, faced with something new, adults must either return to the classroom or hope they somehow learned enough in school.
Despite strong evidence to the contrary, the assumption persists that children won't learn anything (or not the right things, anyway) unless taught by adults in classes. Decades of Sudbury schooling are living proof that the most effective learning happens as naturally as breathing. After just twelve years, I can attest to some powerful examples:
- Our younger students combine the best of youth and maturity, while our teenagers relate easily and pleasantly to people of all ages.
- Withdrawn students emerge from their shells, and the socially awkward become socially adept.
- Apathetic and rebellious students discover their passions and become leaders in the school community.
- Our graduates go out into the world so well-adjusted that they essentially have a fifteen- to twenty-year head start on those of us who needed our 20s and 30s to learn how to be adults.
How do people learn what they need, and avoid having to do a lot of unlearning later? Not by conventional methods, that's for sure. If we want young people to become responsible, self-aware, and thoughtful, a very different approach is required—one that may initially seem counterintuitive.
Sudbury schooling has shown that rather than predetermined curricula, what students really need are extensive opportunities to engage directly with life. Allowing children to be who and where they are, giving them enough time and space to sort things out their own way—in supportive, mixed-age communities in which they are full members—this is the way to develop strong personal character and all-around competence.
In other words, kids need above all to confront the issues we adults face all the time: what to make of our lives, how to deal with unsatisfactory situations, difficult people, etc. They need to start, as early as possible, asking the questions empowered people ask: What do I want? How do I get that? What do I want to change, and how do I go about doing so? Is this or that activity a good use of my time? Sadly, most students get little to no practice with these critical questions, as their days are crowded with classes throughout their years of schooling.
It's true that learning at a Sudbury school takes unusual forms. Given the freedom to direct their own learning, we find that students play and talk endlessly; certainly the majority of their school careers will not be spent in the classroom. Yet somehow this approach enables students to become the most superlative young adults. How does that happen?
Surrounded by passionate people and free of the baggage and stigmas often haunting conventional learning, Sudbury students tap into the inestimable power of free-range curiosity. Enthusiastically exploring the world, they encounter its delights and demands in ways that work wonders for them. By constantly asking What do I want to do now? they lay the foundation for lives of critical thinking, assessment, and planning; lives in which they think for themselves, considering past, present, and future; lives in which they are active, not passive; lives of taking responsibility rather than placing blame.
The second reason freedom enables the best learning draws on the old cliché that appearances can be deceiving. Indeed, assessing someone's learning on the basis of their current activities is at best problematic. Consider books and video games: how many of us would say the first is educational, and the second a waste of time? Yet books can be "TV in print," while video games can involve considerable mental effort. The fact is, what appears to be "doing nothing" can actually entail intense learning. Even wasted time, if it results from one's own choices, can teach the value of making better choices in the future.
All Sudbury students master the basics; they just do it differently, in their own ways and their own time frames. With free access to various communities, a wealth of knowledge, experience, and perspectives lies at their fingertips. Immersed in decision-making and problem-solving situations, they learn in myriad ways. In addition to play and conversation, students opt for such things as reading, school management, internships and, yes, classes—classes they choose, classes that tend to be very small and customized to fit their needs. Classes do have their place, of course; they just have no place dominating students' schedules.
Learning is organic, found not in abstract lessons cut off from life but in the midst of life itself. To the extent that students' lives are constrained by others' choices, their learning will be constrained as well. On the other hand, when learning is contextual and empowering—the result of individual choices made in a community — it is deeper and longer-lasting, and leads to the most amazing results. Indeed, the Sudbury formula of freedom-with-responsibility has for over four decades produced exactly the sort of young adults our society as a whole aspires—and frequently fails—to foster.
Bruce L. Smith is a Denver-based educator and freelance writer. After starting his career in the public schools of Columbia, Missouri, he went on to work at schools following the Sudbury model of education. On staff at Alpine Valley School since late 1998, he became the founding director of the Center for Advancing Sudbury Education (www.sudburyschooling.com) in 2006. CASE promotes awareness of the Sudbury model and provides support to Sudbury schools around the world.
See all of Bruce's posts here.
Image by Terrapin Flyer
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailRelated Posts
-
Sudbury: Schools That Work, Part One
-
Sudbury Schools: Rethinking Education, for a Change
-
Character Development: Opportunity Costs and Roads Less Traveled
Comments (18)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Bruce L. Smith is a Denver-based educator and freelance writer. After starting his career in the public schools of Columbia, Missouri, he went on to work at schools following the Sudbury model of education. On staff at Alpine Valley School since late 1998, he became the founding director of the Center for Advancing Sudbury Education (www.sudburyschooling.com) in 2006. CASE promotes awareness of the Sudbury model and provides support to Sudbury schools around the world.
Featured Education Actions
-
-
-
Eliminate Violence Against Women
1739 People
-
Eliminate Violence Against Women
Do they learn how to derive the Quadratic Formula, graph rotated ellipses, and calculate the area under a curve? In other words, are they able to jump into college-level calculus upon graduation? Please tell more! I'd love to hear more about the math curriculum in particular.
Posted by Katharine Beals on 04/15/2009 @ 09:01AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Sudbury students can do absolutely as much math as they like. In fact, they can even go on to get a PhD from MIT and become chair of the Math Department at the University of Oregon (to cite the career of one graduate). Of course most won't go that far, but then, most don't need to.
As for "the math curriculum," there's no particular sequence any Sudbury student must follow. All areas of knowledge are open to study using whatever methods work best for each student, who may seek help and consult experts when they wish.
When the curriculum is life itself, and finding one's place in it, the Sudbury experience is that people will learn (a) all they need to be successful in life and (b) the depths and nuances of subjects for which they have a personal passion.
As a postscript, you may be interested in (or may already know of) "Lockhart's Lament," an extremely thoughtful essay on the effects of curricula on math learning. One place it can be found is http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf.
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/15/2009 @ 11:05AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Link is a dead end, Bruce.
Posted by Clay Burell on 04/15/2009 @ 11:49AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks for the heads up, Clay. It appears that the period at the end of that sentence was included in the link. So if I embed it in the middle -- say, http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf -- it should work. *crosses fingers*
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/15/2009 @ 12:18PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
works :)
Related: a cool math via (not cool) empire-building game: http://www.sltrib.com/education/ci_12111754?source=rss
Posted by Clay Burell on 04/15/2009 @ 01:20PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I love the phrase "free range curiosity"!
In response to Katharine's question, I'll share my daughter's story. She had no direct instruction, ever, in math or any other typical academic subjects when, at age 10, she decided to try a traditional public school. We spent three weeks going over the math, grammar, and such that she would be expected to know. No, not three years, three weeks.
The result? She had no problem whatsoever successfully doing grade level work. In other words, she mastered 4 - 5 years of curriculum with only three weeks of direct instruction in her ten years of life. I can't help but feel sorry for all her classmates who spent five of those same years sitting in a desk following someone else's agenda, while she played to her heart's content and simply pursued her passions all that precious childhood time.
She attended school for 5th and part of 6th grade. Then she took a break until freshman year of high school and did not receive any further "formal" education beside a short hands-on Algebra class that met once a week for about 6 weeks.
She decided to try high school part-time to see if she would like it and did very well academically. She ended up getting the highest grade in all of her teacher's Algebra classes. He called at the end of the year to let me know he would have nominated her for student of the year if she had been a full-time student.
She did not continue in high school because she felt it was pretty much a waste of time. At age 14, my daughter decided to try community college, a class or two at a time. She has been successful in this setting as well, even to the point where one instructor told my daughter that her final project was one of the best she had ever received. I had to laugh, considering no one ever taught her how to write papers, take notes, do research, or any of the other supposedly necessary instruction she should have received to be successful in college.
Is my daughter some type of genius? A child prodigy? I don't think so. I think she's a normal kid who happens to have been given complete freedom, trust and respect her whole life. As a result, she has naturally learned and developed the skills necessary to succeed without needing years of classroom instruction. She is a perfect example of how faulty the assumptions of the traditional educational system are.
I hope some day more than a handful of people in our society will be able to think outside the box and we can have some real, significant changes in our educational system.
Posted by Melissa Bradford on 04/15/2009 @ 12:41PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bruce, you state that there is "strong evidence" of the effectiveness of Sudbury schools. I just don't see it in your post. The fact that there have been a small number of Sudbury schools for decades is not evidence, per se. Your post is essentially opinion. And your "powerful examples" can be found at all types of schools (with the possible exception of the example of teens being more well-adjusted than 20 - 30 year olds. Really??) I don't disagree with all of your opinions, but I think the general public needs evidence and data, not anecdotes.
Posted by Jennifer Parker on 04/17/2009 @ 08:11PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Jennifer, I really appreciate your comment. To some extent, this is an issue of space and development. Regarding the former, it's awfully hard to include a reasonably well-rounded argument *and* ample evidence in a blog post. And while I'm planning future posts that reverse the ratio of claims-to-support, I think it's useful to lay out the basic arguments first -- that's why my preliminary posts have leaned toward the editorial.
Your comment touches on a weightier issue, though: the nature of evidence for educational claims. It's been a challenge for me as a Sudbury educator speaking to broader audiences, given my skepticism regarding external, quantitative measurements of learning. I think we're fooling ourselves if we believe grades and test scores tell us much of significance about someone's capacity for real-life success. (A few years back I wrote an op-ed piece in which I touch on this point: http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2004/nov/20041121comm007.asp.)
What constitutes evidence of educational success involves so much more than crunching numbers. Understanding the desire to have claims substantiated, I find "data vs. anecdotes" a false dichotomy. It's all data, really, and I strongly believe that in this realm, stories carry more weight than numbers. That might have something to do with my background as a writer, but still, I prefer 'customer satisfaction' above things like test scores and graduation rates. Tell me that someone values their schooling, not how they performed on some assessment that may have nothing to do with their success in life itself.
In terms of the amount of evidence, how much constitutes statistical significance? Dozens of success stories? Hundreds or thousands? All I know is that, comparing my years of experience in conventional and Sudbury schools, the transformations -- the empowerment and maturation -- I've witnessed so heavily favors a Sudbury setting as to nearly defy belief. And I know I'm far from alone in this observation.
I hope you and others will stick around for future posts, to give me and others the chance to describe more concretely these benefits I've been preaching.
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/18/2009 @ 03:12PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Once again, the automatic link-builder added punctuation to my link and rendered it invalid. So here's a better version (I hope): http://archive.columbiatribune.com/2004/nov/20041121comm007.asp .
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/18/2009 @ 03:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
the example of teens being more well-adjusted than 20 - 30 year olds. Really??
Yeah, really. I'm not saying teens who come to Sudbury schools from other environments are instantly and magically transformed. But given enough time in a Sudbury environment, most become self-aware and socially adept to a degree I it takes many of us many more years to attain.
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/18/2009 @ 03:27PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
If you are going to give students the freedom to choose how and what to learn, which I support entirely, you ought to give them the freedom to appropriate as much information as possible, which commercial software vendors and commercial publishers are going to great lengths to prevent. Not just the freedom to read a book, listen to music, to run a program, or watch a movie, but the freedom to modify, remix, and redistribute all of it in any way that suits them.
I am suggesting that you teach them the essential software freedoms of the Free Software and Open Source movements, and the media freedoms of Creative Commons. How much of this are you doing?
My organization, Earth Treasury, has a plan for the systematic creation of Free Digital Learning materials on every subject, for every age, and in as many languages as we can manage. Would your teachers, students, parents, etc. be interested in gettin involved?
We don't teach Computer Literacy, where students get into the computer lab for one or two periods a week, but cannot use computers in the classroom or for homework, and especially not on tests. We think that that is just like having one room full of books, paper, and pencils, and letting the children in there once or twice a week, but not allowing reading or writing inthe classroom or for homework. Who could believe that that would result in literacy?
We do one-to-one computing with One Laptop Per Child, where children own their computers and can use them for everything. We provide collaborative software, and don't treat working together as cheating, as conventional schools do. We encourage discovery and making things, and we have good results from schools that have tried the program in many countries, including the US.
Posted by Edward Mokurai Cherlin on 04/18/2009 @ 12:35AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I agree that working together shouldn't be considered cheating, and that discovery and making things are great ways to learn.
As for your questions...
I am suggesting that you teach them the essential software freedoms of the Free Software and Open Source movements, and the media freedoms of Creative Commons. How much of this are you doing?
The teaching that goes on at a Sudbury school is more spontaneous than this comment seems to suggest. That is, I could see it coming up in conversation if one of us knows about the movements you describe and finds them relevant; or a student might find out about them and ask someone to tell them more.
So to answer your question, I don't know how often and in what depth these things come up in various Sudbury schools. We trust in freedom, responsibility, and the random way in which people encounter and explore what's important.
My organization, Earth Treasury, has a plan for the systematic creation of Free Digital Learning materials on every subject, for every age, and in as many languages as we can manage. Would your teachers, students, parents, etc. be interested in gettin involved?
They may very well be. Have you considered contacting individual schools and asking?
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/18/2009 @ 03:40PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Bruce Smith: Have you considered contacting individual schools and asking?
Certainly. I'm getting ready to contact many schools, now that I have something to show them on teaching concepts and skills of math and Computer Science.
Posted by Edward Mokurai Cherlin on 04/18/2009 @ 03:52PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Mokurai: I am suggesting that you teach them the essential software freedoms of the Free Software and Open Source movements, and the media freedoms of Creative Commons. How much of this are you doing?
Bruce Smith: The teaching that goes on at a Sudbury school is more spontaneous than this comment seems to suggest. That is, I could see it coming up in conversation if one of us knows about the movements you describe and finds them relevant; or a student might find out about them and ask someone to tell them more.
:So to answer your question, I don't know how often and in what depth these things come up in various Sudbury schools. We trust in freedom, responsibility, and the random way in which people encounter and explore what's important.
I'm offering to facilitate that discussion. I will of course ask around to find out more about Free Software and Creative Commons use in Sudbury schools, but everybody should know that I am available to explain what the movement for Software and Copyright Freedoms is about, and to put you into contact with those who can help you get started or help your students from novice to guru level.
See, for example,
o http://www.flossmanuals.net/
o http://earthtreasury.org/worknet/
o http://wiki.sugarlabs.org/
Posted by Edward Mokurai Cherlin on 04/18/2009 @ 03:59PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Katherine, Daniel Greenberg has written a great article about math at Sudbury, titled 'And 'Rithmetic', but I can't find it online lately. Perhaps Bruce can get it reposted somewhere.
It includes complete permissions, so maybe Clay could put it online and link to it. (I tried to use Google docs, but that's not quite the right tool...)
Basically, the kids at Sudbury came to him and begged for a math class. He said only if they promised to come on time. They agreed, and "in twenty weeks, after twenty contact hours, they had covered it all. Six years' worth. Every one of them knew the material cold."
Pretty similar to Melissa's experience.
I'm putting together an anthology on Learning Math Outside the Classroom. Contact me at mathanthologyeditor at gmail.com if you'd like more information about that.
Posted by Sue VanHattum on 04/18/2009 @ 07:11AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Got it up at scribd. Here's the link: http://www.scribd.com/doc/14389275/And-Rithmetic-by-Daniel-Greenberg
If this link is too long, check it out at my blog, mathmamawrites.blogspot.com.
Posted by Sue VanHattum on 04/18/2009 @ 03:15PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Thanks, Sue! I'm psyched to have Danny's article linked here. It's a great -- and concrete -- example of how Sudbury learning works.
Posted by Bruce Smith on 04/18/2009 @ 03:42PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
A friend of mine has a 7 year old, who has been curious about his older brother's use of algebra, when asked, What is "a," if 7a = 35 he provides the correct answer. When given two similar problems, he answered each correctly. He has had no formal schooling in algebra, just his exposure to his brother's work along with some direct instruction from his father.
Jennifer, please do not jump to the conclusion that anecdotal evidence is somehow unworthy for discussion. Case studies in medical science start with one published case and often lead to opening up whole new disease categories and more rigorous studies. Alois Alzheimer published two case studies on dementia in 1911. What if medical science had dismissed these and other case studies as anecdotal and unworthy of discussion?
I find these powerfully hopeful anecdotes as signposts that point to the future of education.
Posted by Gregory Louie on 04/18/2009 @ 03:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.