Wed, 27 Oct 1999 17:02:01 EDT
<< "We" would be our founders group and "Yes" all of these people eat what we
consider "quality" foods. >>
That is not sudbury. In a sudbury school, the school meeting has authoirty on
such issues, even if the "founding commitee" disagrees.
<<So obviously we will attract families who want this for their children.>>
What about what children want for themselves?
<<As I said we would advertise that we serve healthy meals - and we will set
our tuition to cover the cost. It's very simple and with all good
Most overtly coercive schools have good intentions. What's your point?
<<If someone wants to open a democratic style school that serves healthy
meals - why do you think that means giving up your freedom of choice if your
family chose to attend that school knowing what was for lunch??>>
Because it means that going to the school means that the school decides what
you eat. Do you not understand why going to a regular school means giving up
freedom of choice over how you spend your time, even if you choose to go to
that sort of school?
<<I want my kids to education to be in their hands and I want them to eat
good quality foods.>>
Picking what they eat is part of education, and thus, needs to be in their
<<If the kids enjoy their meal and it's made with ingredients that our group
decided are "top quality" what's the problem?>>
If the kids want to change the policy and you keep it the same.
<<All apples are not created equal!~ And it is a choice to choose what "we"
as a "group" want for our school meals. >>
Right, but the founders are not the group. The group AS A WHOLE is the
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Thu Dec 23 1999 - 09:02:00 EST