Looks like the party never stops over at my livejournal...more naive (and now even childish) responses to my remarks on education. I will tear both of his most recent comments apart limb from limb after posting them each as a whole. Here is the first one to start with:
«My views are hardly as ignorant as you seem to think. I understand the potential political tensions in a government-run school system. The reason I believe that they are the best option for education is not some pastiche idealism or poorly constructed philosophy. The central tenet of my belief differs from yours. It hardly does credit to you when you make a big display about how my arguments could not possibly flow from your core belief and I am therefore ignorant. If you're doing to 'rend asunder' my proposals, at least attack the belief behind them. That is, that children are capable of being adults long before the age of majority. Why do I propose a child should be in an environment where their parent's views are challenged? Because it forces them to make a decision and form an opinion of their own, independant of the two educating forces in their life. An individual does not have to be 18 before they can have something unique and worthwhile to say. Granted, many people remain immature up until 18 and far past it but that is because they aren't expected to be an autonomous individual until they are. In past centuries children became adults at 13 because they needed to. People have not lost the fundamental ability to be autonomous from a very young age, it is just rarely needed or forced.
There are cases that come up, such as Craig Kielburger, that kid who started Free The Children, a child labour activist group. It's now a major organization and he started it when he was 15. His actions were not the result of government-school education or parental action. I don't think you can mount an effective argument that states that he was not capable, willing, or eager to educate himself and form his own doctrine. If he can take his education and development into his own hands so successfully, I don't see how anyone else isn't at least capable of the same.
That is the point from which my earlier arguments grow. The freedom to build up and nurture ideas is aided by the conflict of home and school. It shows children that people they respect can have different opinions (as opposed to "the only people who think differently are -over there-")and the fact that everyone in their lives does not profess the same beliefs allows them the space to create their own. If a child sees one idea at home at has the exact same idea enforced at school and on TV and in the books they have available to them, they are not encouraged to be autonomous. Any idea that deviates from the norm they may have is immediately labelled 'wrong' from all angles. This may be good for the big stuff (murder, etc) but it would permeate the personal levels of creativity and expression.
So if you're going to call anything ignorant, say that children do not become capable of the abilities we grant to the 'adult' status of 18 until they reach that age. I know most people agree with you seeing as the laws state the "18 is adulthood" mentality. Still, I'm far from alone in my stance that an age limit on maturity can only be problematic. If you can convincingly show me why that is wrong I'll admit to being a misguided ignoramous. But as long as that belief stands my concept of schools and the logic behind it works just fine.»
Let the games begin!
«My views are hardly as ignorant as you seem to think. I understand the potential political tensions in a government-run school system.»
Clearly not well enough, because you openly support such a concept.
«The reason I believe that they are the best option for education is not some pastiche idealism or poorly constructed philosophy. The central tenet of my belief differs from yours.»
More ambiguity. Ho hum.
«It hardly does credit to you when you make a big display about how my arguments could not possibly flow from your core belief and I am therefore ignorant. If you're doing to 'rend asunder' my proposals, at least attack the belief behind them.»
I am glad you have finally come down to childish insults like "it hardly does credit to you" and misleading buzzwords like "your core belief" that make all the little hippie children cheer. Where have you presented any logical beliefs behind your views that have anything to do with the topic at hand, and where have I failed to attack the belief that the government and so-called "educators" know better how to raise peoples' children and that parents should thus be stripped of that power and it handed to the schools with little to no say from the parents?
«That is, that children are capable of being adults long before the age of majority.»
Were you aiming for the word "maturity", or does your sentence simply make no sense? An adult is defined as a "Fully developed and mature." Pretending that it means something else does not make it so.
«Why do I propose a child should be in an environment where their parent's views are challenged? Because it forces them to make a decision and form an opinion of their own, independant of the two educating forces in their life.»
That is for parents to decide, not the government. Regardless of how much you might want to force it upon people. Independent thought is a direct result of being ready for it. An unprepared person forced to think independently will usually end up with flawed ideas or bad results and may never even realize or come to terms with it. The sixties should have made us learn from that mistake.
«An individual does not have to be 18 before they can have something unique and worthwhile to say.»
Which has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion. This is about parents having a say in education, not about when children may and may not speak.
«Granted, many people remain immature up until 18 and far past it but that is because they aren't expected to be an autonomous individual until they are. In past centuries children became adults at 13 because they needed to. People have not lost the fundamental ability to be autonomous from a very young age, it is just rarely needed or forced.»
Off-topic yet again.
No, they were able to be considered adults at 13 because parents actually parented back then, instead of letting their kids dick around for a decade accomplishing nothing at all. Which is a good analogy, because that is precisely what American students do. With a proper schools and with parental involvement in their lives, adulthood at 13 could in theory be reality. It is a rare 13 year old these days who is actually prepared for what you propose, primarily due to both the schools and their parents failing to do their jobs (often due to the two constantly conflicting with each other, I suspect)
«There are cases that come up, such as Craig Kielburger, that kid who started Free The Children, a child labour activist group. It's now a major organization and he started it when he was 15. His actions were not the result of government-school education or parental action. I don't think you can mount an effective argument that states that he was not capable, willing, or eager to educate himself and form his own doctrine. If he can take his education and development into his own hands so successfully, I don't see how anyone else isn't at least capable of the same.»
Which again has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. Self-education is not the subject of this discussion.
«That is the point from which my earlier arguments grow.»
So in other words your earlier arguments were off topic and not relevant. Finally something we agree on.
«The freedom to build up and nurture ideas is aided by the conflict of home and school.»
The problem is that such ideas are borne of confusion, and are frequently either incorrect or based upon false premises pieced together from the debris that is left over from the conflict. Whether your chaos theory even makes sense is questionable. That still begs the query, why should parents be forced to subject their children to such potentially damaging conflict? What you say makes absolutely no sense. It is like setting off a block of C-4 in a car and telling the kid to go build a car out of what is left and then drive it for 10 or more years.
There is no logic in going out of our way to confuse students with that sort of nonsense. Find a truth and stick with it. What that truth that will be taught to the children happens to be is the job of the parents, not of the government. Otherwise again we have led to Soviet Russia.
«It shows children that people they respect can have different opinions (as opposed to "the only people who think differently are -over there-")and the fact that everyone in their lives does not profess the same beliefs allows them the space to create their own. If a child sees one idea at home at has the exact same idea enforced at school and on TV and in the books they have available to them, they are not encouraged to be autonomous.»
Your definition of "autonomous" is misleading. Teaching the kid to earn a living is encouraging autonomy. Confusing the living crap out of a kid by giving them constantly conflicting views and calling them all "truth" or pretending they are all equally valid is just idiocy. The parents, not the schools and bureaucrats, are where the responsibility for raising children lies, and education is part of raising a child.
«Any idea that deviates from the norm they may have is immediately labelled 'wrong' from all angles.»
It is the job of parents, not the government, to teach right from wrong.
«This may be good for the big stuff (murder, etc) but it would permeate the personal levels of creativity and expression.»
Creativity is not the job of a school. Kids already have plenty of it. Expression is only the job of a basic education inasmuch as it is necessary to function in life, for example by teaching them to read and write, perhaps in multiple languages. Preferably English and something useful like Latin (because it helps in comprehension of lots of word-roots).
«So if you're going to call anything ignorant, say that children do not become capable of the abilities we grant to the 'adult' status of 18 until they reach that age. I know most people agree with you seeing as the laws state the "18 is adulthood" mentality. Still, I'm far from alone in my stance that an age limit on maturity can only be problematic. If you can convincingly show me why that is wrong I'll admit to being a misguided ignoramous.»
Offtopic. Age of maturity is not the issue at hand. If you wish to discuss that, go start your own topic. What I have stated is that for the duration of time in which parents are custodians of their children, it is not acceptable to strip parents of their basic rights as parents, in this discussion particularly in regards to educational matters.
«But as long as that belief stands my concept of schools and the logic behind it works just fine.»
*shrug* suit yourself. If you want to hold misguided views, go right ahead. You can even pretend that you were on-topic, but it doesn't make it so.
Next we have his most naive and misguided response yet.
«I would like to mention one point though. Privately funded schools have the ability to restrict entry based on whatever they like. Often this means relgion, but if a blanket policy were introduced that allowed all schools to be heterogenous wouldn't it make sense for some schools to restrict entry on other grounds? For example, if a community has only a handful of black students, couldn't a school deny them entry so they don't have to teach any racial sensitivity? Couldn't a school deny women access because they want a male-centric curriculum? In every community there would be at least a couple of people who would be the odd men out. In my community there aren't enough Hindus to make their own school. If there are Catholic-only and Muslim-only schools in my area, where do the Hindus go? The government couldn't step in and force a school to make a special allowance for them. If both the parents work, they cannot home-school the child nor afford to have them privately tutored. The parents could afford to send them to a school, but no school will accept them. It seems like they have to move into an area with a larer Hindu population and put their child in school there. Isn't that the same 'go fuck yourselves' attitude towards parents that you accused me of proposing? If there would be government safeguards in place, what could they be without being hypocritical of the private school system they put in place?»
In honor of this misguided writing, I will again destroy it.
«I would like to mention one point though. Privately funded schools have the ability to restrict entry based on whatever they like. Often this means relgion, but if a blanket policy were introduced that allowed all schools to be heterogenous wouldn't it make sense for some schools to restrict entry on other grounds?»
Of course. People are free to make idiots of themselves in any form they care to.
«For example, if a community has only a handful of black students, couldn't a school deny them entry so they don't have to teach any racial sensitivity?»
"racial sensitivity"? Why should we require racial sensitivity? Racial sensitivity is just about as racist as you can get, since it requires that people pay even closer attention to race. Personally, I prefer to ignore race entirely.
If the people running a school wanted to have such a racial policy, I seriously doubt you would manage to find enough racist parents in an area to actually support such a school.
«Couldn't a school deny women access because they want a male-centric curriculum?»
I have long been in favor of this sort of policy. Girls' schools denying entrance to boys as well. One less distraction in the classroom. It works pretty well in a lot of schools in Japan, and studies in the US have actually found that it works pretty well over here too.
«In every community there would be at least a couple of people who would be the odd men out. In my community there aren't enough Hindus to make their own school. If there are Catholic-only and Muslim-only schools in my area, where do the Hindus go? The government couldn't step in and force a school to make a special allowance for them.»
Why should they? Private entities can pretty much have whatever entrance requirements they like as far as I am concerned. If I were to send my kids to a Hindu school I sure don't want a bunch of Muslims and Voodooists attending the school.
«If both the parents work, they cannot home-school the child nor afford to have them privately tutored.»
Both parents working is in many cases rather irresponsible as far as child-rearing goes. Financial studies have actually shown that it frequently costs money for both parents to work rather than increasing the amount of money they have coming in due to the extra expenses and lifestyle trade-offs associated with both parents being busy with work rather than home taking care of and raising the kids properly.
«The parents could afford to send them to a school, but no school will accept them. It seems like they have to move into an area with a larer Hindu population and put their child in school there. Isn't that the same 'go fuck yourselves' attitude towards parents that you accused me of proposing?»
Not at all. Letting Muslim kids into a Catholic school is a "go fuck yourselves" attitude, directed at the rest of the parents. You can't please everyone.
«If there would be government safeguards in place, what could they be without being hypocritical of the private school system they put in place?»
Fuck government safeguards. The government has no business telling schools who they have to let in or what they have to teach outside of a totalitarian government. If a school wants to set the bar high for entrance, go for it. If they want to have an all-Voodoo school, let 'em. If they want to have a girls' school, more power to 'em. This is all about giving the parents options that suit their wishes.
Whether it pleases those who do not have children in the school is irrelevant, since their children are not enrolled in that school to begin with. Your example the other day about the Muslim in the Catholic school is a prime example of a stupid decision forced by "government safeguards". It is much like somebody who moved in next to an airport and then complains about the noise. If they wanted quiet they should have gone elsewhere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment