This is one of my postings that disappeared into the ether of virtual land last week, so I'm sending it again.
> I have to mostly agree with Michael Atherton on this one. I sure as heck > don't want teachers foisting their own viewpoints on my kids, whether it be > religious, economic or political. Even Michael's example of comparing the > ten commandments posted by the Alabama judge to the "Peace education" > brochure makes a certain amount of sense, even though at first I thought it was a bit > of a reach. Sure the judge's > behavior is illegal under the Constitution as an establishment of religion, > while teaching "Peace" in a public school is not. But this is a policy > matter, not a legal one. Why should it be verboten to use government > resources to support a religion, but acceptable to use these resources to > support a philosophic point of view? > > Many have responded that all education is political. Their point of view > seems to be that because one can't be completely objective, why try at all? > I think it is worth the effort. There is a continuum between total > objectivity and total propaganda. We can't get all the way to objectivity, > but lets try to stay on that side of the line. > > I agree that the schools have to teach some values in order to function. > "Knowledge is good" is something the schools presumably promote as part of their mission. > Also, the schools must value order in the classroom, or nothing would get > done. And the schools must dictate which things are the most important to > learn in the classroom. For example, the schools have decided that it is important to > teach Math. They could have decided that the kids will learn everything > they need to know through osmosis or something. (Oh, wait a minute. The > school has pretty much decided that, at least for basic arithmetic facts, > through their embracing of the "Chicago Method.") > > But the schools do not have to teach a particular philosophical point of > view, except as a study of many different politics held by various groups > (and even that isn't appropriate at the elementary school level, beyond a > superficial review of different groups). When I speak of objectivity, I > mean teaching should be of what is known to be true, or at least accepted by > the vast majority of people (in other words, we can dismiss the Flat Earth > Society). > > Objectivity is hardest to achieve in the area of social studies, as is > obvious by the big to-do about the state standards. The school does > inevitably express its values by what facts it teaches in history, what > countries get studied in geography, and which government processes it > discusses in civics. But when the school starts making value judgments > about these facts to their captive audience, they've moved into the realm of > propaganda. The school obviously shouldn't support any particular religion > (or religion in general). They also shouldn't be teaching patriotism. And they > shouldn't be teaching "Peace Education." > > Several posters seem to be confusing teaching "Peace" with maintaining order > in the classroom. Whenever I've heard the discussion of "Peace Education," > it's always related to the relationships between countries, not between > individuals in a school. And if you think that these two facets are related, well > that's a philosophical point of view that I do not share. There is a real > value to teaching peace education, or to use the more old-fashioned term, > the delicate art of diplomacy. But to get much out of this > education, the student must already have a pretty good understanding of geography, > history, sociology, economics, government structures, and psychology. In > other words, it's probably a college course. It can only be taught at the > elementary school level as propaganda. Or does someone have an idea how > young kids can be taught something useful in the area of conflicts between > nations? > > Two of the posters said that their own education in the Mpls public schools > included a lot of right wing ideology being taught. Well, I hope we can > strip that out also. Could you two please give examples of what you are > talking about? My experience with my kids (3rd grade and 7th grade) is that > they do occasionally bring home things in which I see left wing ideology, but > I've not once seen any right wing stuff. > I think it's a real bad idea to try to fill young minds with the values of the teacher, the principal, or the education > establishment. The value you're really teaching is that values are not something each person decides on, but something that is > taught and used intact for the rest of ones life. I know that's a pretty common behavior of schools, but that's why many of us have > little respect for what we learned back in the grades. Who knows what "knowledge" they taught you had some basis in reality, > and which is just someone's opinion. > > Mark V Anderson > Bancroft > > REMINDERS: 1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait. For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________ Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
