I opted not to provide a direct link to a specific pedagogical approach because none of the ones I am familiar with align precisely with my intended meaning. The subject of pedagogical approaches is vast, and different approaches hold significance in diverse educational contexts.

Sudbury is definitely a huge influence in my thinking and so are projects like 42, Recurse Center and a vast number of cohorts and groups I was fortunate to be a part of.

In the context of:

Children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds…

In my opinion the Sudbury approach is brilliant and almost perfect for children coming from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds. Children in this context:

• have aversion to authority figures (because they might suffer unjust punishment from them. In here you have the racist, classicist police, the abusive family, local gang chiefs…)
• lack of tools (books, computer, quality internet access, locomotion(public transport might be too expensive for the families to afford, personal car almost never available, possibly not personal bikes either)
• lack of intellectual stimulation (low culture environment, parents are not educated and/or don’t see the value of education maybe because it’s not a short term investment and they see their children profiting more out of working, again the lack of funds to even move to a place that might be offering free cultural events is a problem here)
• lack of a peaceful environment to exercise their curiosity (violence around them, schools in bad shape, literally ugly schools)
• lack of monetary resources to dedicate time to study (maybe they need to work to help at home) Even though Sudbury shows impressive results in communities that suffer from all of the above, I believe their pedagogical approach is flawed. I believe the general understanding of history, math, biology, geography, sociology and philosophy is extremely important to shape well informed citizens in our society. The concepts that will originate the formal curriculum of this school shouldn’t try to capture specific subjects like “trigonometry”, “algebra”, “human anatomy”, rather it should try to offer tools so kids can understand deeply relevant questions that we’re exposed all the time in our society “why we should get vaccinated”, “why genocides are bad”, “why racism is bad”, etc. Not every single person will be moved to research these topics by themselves and that’s where I think Sudbury fails. Hopefully, the reader understands my point on how valuable it is to learn them (without me having to argue this through because I’m lazy). Having a school system that doesn’t form citizens capable of navigating the complexity of our shared reality is not an excellent one. However, I’d like to end this with a note to reiterate my faith in the Sudbury system. I believe teaching kids in a context in which they love foments curiosity which is the fuel of learning. Not only it provides them with a much larger pool of excitement to learn, it also empowers them to question more. To expand on the later point: my hope is that feelings of impostorism will be overcome by the fact that children will feel like they’re good at some X subject and because of that will feel empowered to question neighboring subjects that are being taught from the perspective of their well known X subject.

So, I guess what I’m proposing here would be a school:

• that pays the mother’s and, in lack of a mother, the legal guardian of a student for them to go to school
• offers interest group’s based learning
• enforces a curriculum in context with the interest group [1]
• everything else is the same as Sudbury

[1] I guess this point asks for clarification as I’ve never saw this concept explained anywhere else. I’ll explain it with an example:

• teach several important scientific subjects to kids that will lead them to understand the importance of vaccination using their passion, which in this case, is football

Resources:

• Example curriculum for Astra Nova
• Classes developed by astra nova folks: https://ideas.classdojo.com/b/conundrums
• Peter Gray's book Free to Learn
• Theories of Childhood Carol Garhart Mooney
• Mindstorms: Children Computers And Powerful Ideas
  • Their software is still popular! Mind boggling! I met their main proponent in France using it within the public school system. Very popular. I guess one lesson here is that shiny graphics and technology is not always the key. This guy got something right, even though I couldn’t get through what exactly by reading this book.
• The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and MoneyWant to read
• Seven Complex Lessons in Education for the Future
• Pedagogy of Freedom
• Pedagogia do Oprimido