On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 9:29 AM, Ramjee Swaminathan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Typically, many of the non traditional schools are small in size, have
> only a few 'dedicated' folks behind the show, they subscribe to some
> didactic philosophy
> (Montessori/Steiner/Horseburgh/Krishnamurthy/Neill/MK Gandhi/...) - so
> folks who are comfy with that philosophy or an admix of various
> streams of them would send their kids to these schools; also by and
> large these schools tend to have a good 'arts' exposure and generally
> the kids are happy.
When I was growing up, my parents lacked the money or connections or
even knowledge to be able to send me to schools like Rishi Valley.
They did send me to pretty good mainstream disciplinarian, 100%
success rate ("Most of our students get into IIT") schools by their
standards. However, I thoroughly detested most of these schools. There
were a handful of friends and teachers (mostly Geography and English
teachers. Hmmm. Wonder why Geo and English teachers are usually the
most helpful) who made the experience bearable. For a long time after
I left school I believed my education (not learning) could have fared
better at a school like Rishi Valley.
However, I have started having second thoughts about this. It is true
that mainstream schools work on a cookie cutter model churning out IIT
and AIIMS students at a steady clip. These schools also force
adolescents to learn the System in which the school operates and game
it to succeed in it. I am beginning to wonder whether this ability to
learn about how a System operates and to hack it is as important as
creative, pressure-less nurturing for the long term success of an
individual.
Thaths
--
Bart: We were just planning the father-son river rafting trip.
Homer: Hehe. You don't have a son.
Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
