Sudbury schools are extremely interesting, if nothing else. I can see how the questions of student motivation arise. Letting a bunch of kids figure out what they want to learn sounds like disaster. However, observing my own kids, I see how this would work extremely well for many kids. Kids are curious and want to learn. My children will pick up flash cards and want to quiz each other on numbers and shapes. My five year old is learning how to sound out words, and he loves to try to read words he encounters on cereal boxes and billboards. They ask questions. They want to be read to, sometimes from non-fiction books about dinosaurs or dogs. Of course, at home, they have the distractions. Ninja Turtles, Disney books, and Star Wars action figures compete with educational materials, and usually win if I let them.

However, in an environment without these non-educational distractions, I absolutely see how kids are motivated to learn. It is in our human nature. If these Sudbury schools can set kids up for success in the real world, I would love to see them more widely implemented. However, success in the real world is my main concern. As Lucas pointed out, all of those white, upper-middle class kids are already set up for success in the real world. A Sudbury school with poor, minority children may not be as successful. If they can adequately prepare students for college, with perhaps the last couple years at Sudbury in a sort of transitional period, I can see them working, for most kids, providing they do start there from the early years.

I feel that I would enjoy “co-learning” at a Sudbury school as well. One attractive aspect of teaching in general is the necessity of expanding my own education. Discovering new information along with students would be enjoyable. I wish that university education was more like Sudbury schools. If I could receive a degree by studying literally whatever I wish, writing/creating based on those studies, and synthesizing it all in a thesis, I could be a student forever.