As far as I can tell, they exist everywhere, except in a vacuum. When you are surrounded by people who are doing all kinds of different things, you will never lack for input. Especially in a world like ours where books and internet are everywhere.

Ok, So You’re Sort of Like — A Progressive School?
by Romey Pittman, Fairhaven parent, co-founder and former staff member.
http://www.fairhavenschool.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=176

Sudbury schools believe, as progressive school reformers do, that traditional schooling is not working. Both identify authoritarian teaching and administration as problems, and seek to reduce the stresses students experience in being coerced into learning and evaluated by “objective” testing. But the Sudbury model also rejects the notion that the alternative to authoritarianism is permissiveness — kind teachers giving kids second and third chances to shape up, trying to prevent any unhappiness, and bending over backwards to “make learning fun,” getting children to learn without them noticing they are learning. When kids are treated permissively they do not learn personal responsibility for their actions.

Adults in progressive schools retain the authority to grant or deny that second chance, to step in to resolve disputes, to establish the rules of conduct in their schools. There can be an illusion of freedom or democratic decision-making in progressive school, but if kids make poor decisions, adults always retain the power to step in and solve the problem for them. In the context of learning, progressive schools often try to have the curriculum follow students’ interests. But the effect of teaching to a child’s interests is, as Daniel Greenberg has argued, like a parent waiting for a child to open her mouth to speak before popping in the medicine the parent wants to give her. Children who show an interest in playing Cowboys and Indians for a few hours, might be subject to six weeks worth of projects about Native Americans, regardless of whether their interest is sustained or not. The child administered medicine in such a manner may learn never to open her mouth around a parent with a spoon; the student administered education in such a manner may learn not to show interest, at least in school. Learning something new can be hard work, and children are quite capable of hard work — when they are working on something they want to do. When a student has a serious interest, there is no stopping her, and “making it fun” is often an intolerable distraction. When a student has an interest, we believe she should be allowed to pursue it only as far as she feels necessary. She may return to an important idea later, to deepen her interest, but forcing or manipulating her to deepen it will only serve to lessen her curiosity and sense of self-determination. Some progressive schools offer an array of courses, but do not require attendance. Sudbury schools do not have standard offerings, because learning to pursue one’s own agenda can be challenging, sometimes painful, sometimes boring. We think boredom is a valuable opportunity to make discoveries about one’s self. It is often easier to sit in classes, be entertained (maybe not as well as TV entertains, but still better than nothing), and avoid parental pressure, than it is to schedule one’s own life, wrestle with one’s own questions, learn how to seek the answers, and master one’s own destiny.

see:
Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology
http://hubcap.clemson.edu/~campber/randcogrev.html
(for Michael, see: Linguistics and Language Learning)

Don Berg wrote:
“Personally, I think the development and progress of cognitive sciences gives us what we need to answer those questions”

The experience of Sudbury model schools shows that a great variety can be found in the minds of children, against Piaget’s theory of universal steps in comprehension and general patterns in the acquisition of knowledge: “No two kids ever take the same path. Few are remotely similar. Each child is so unique, so exceptional.”

I can certainly understand the inclination to chuck the enterprise when it seems to have failed, however, we humans operate on the basis of theories whether we want to or not. The theories are often unconscious, but they are there nonetheless. When our theories are unconscious they are called folk theories in some arenas. I think the inadequacies of our folk theories of learning are what give us the systematic problems we have now in most schooling.

TED Talk by Jonathan Drori that exposes a few common folk theories (he calls them mental models) in science and explains how powerful they are.

John Dewey realized the problem back in 1938. In his book Experience and Education, as I read it, he was saying that while he was clear about what does not work in schooling he could not say what does work until he had a theory of experience. He could not explain why one lesson would be engaging for one child but utterly boring for another, or why the engaged student would be engaged one moment then become utterly disengaged in the next. And until he could explain those facts he would not have an adequate educational theory.

Experience and Education by John Dewey

Personally, I think the development and progress of cognitive sciences gives us what we need to answer those questions, but I have not seen anyone propose a theory that encompasses those findings.
—
Enjoy,

Don Berg

Site: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com
Free E-book: The Attitude Problem in Education

“I take the literal core meaning of curriculum to be the systematic organization of educational experiences……”
[Don Berg, The Moral Path of Curriculum: Fulfillment Or Judgment?. Founder Attitutor Services.]

I would take the literal core meaning of curriculum to be the the entire variety of educational experiences.

One way or the other, criticism of learning theories that underlie traditional educational practices claims there is no need for such a theory. The attempt to comprehend the process of learning through theory construction has created more problems than it has solved. It further claims that in order to make up for the feeling of inadequacy in confronting a process that we don’t really comprehend, we label something “learning” and measure it. Then we’re comfortable, because at least then we have the feeling that we have a grasp on the problem. We don’t really follow the process, but in lieu of a profound understanding of what’s going on, we find something and say, “Let’s declare that to be learning, by consensus.” This is basically what the entire educational system the world over has done: quantify learning by breaking it up into measurable pieces — curricula, courses, hours, tests, and grades. The assumption is that psychologically one knows enough about the mind to identify aptitudes: the accepted (knowledge-based) conception of learning identifies four assumptions of the accepted view of learning: that (some) one knows what ought to be learned by people, why it ought to be learned, how it ought to be learned, and by whom each thing ought to be learned. Together these assumptions are the lenses through which people have been socialized in our culture to judge whether learning is occurring or not; and a further assumption is that once one knows aptitudes, one also knows how to track a person so he will in fact reach the goal that is being set out for him. The whole approach is the ultimate in pedagogical and psychological technology. The only trouble is that it is humanly absurd. In this society, such a process is exceptionally subtle, because it involves an authoritarian approach within a free culture. By employing a variety of ruses the system produces a process which allows it to inhibit personal freedom without really feeling that this is what is going on. The person doesn’t feel that something arbitrary is being done to him — which is in fact what is happening.

see:
Lois Holzman (1997). When Democratic Education is Developmental: The Sudbury Valley School Model,. Schools for growth: radical alternatives to current educational models.

Daniel Greenberg (1987). A New Look at Learning, The Sudbury Valley School Experience.

see:
Russell L. Ackoff and Daniel Greenberg (2008), Turning Learning Right Side Up: Putting Education Back on Track (pdf).
Greenberg, H. (1987), “The Art of Doing Nothing,” The Sudbury Valley School Experience.
Mitra, S. (2007) Sugata Mitra shows how kids teach themselves (video – 20:59).
Minimally Invasive Education.

Enjoy,

Don