- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
Many years ago, as part of my early studies of the Sudbury Valley School, I sat in on a school meeting. The main agenda item had to do with a complaint made about a new student who had been coming to school wearing a leather jacket with a swastika painted on it. At most schools this kind of offence would be quickly and efficiently handled by the principal, who would call the student into his or her office and order the student to remove the jacket and never bring it back to school. But that's not how Sudbury Valley handles things. Sudbury Valley has no principal. It is run--entirely run--in democratic fashion by the School Meeting, which includes all students (age 4 on through high-school age) and staff members together. The debate I heard that day was one befitting the Supreme Court of the United States. Read More
mean girls
This is really quite interesting, because I was reading just yesterday about the study BYU did a few years ago on bullying by girls. They not only found it starting at a very young age, they found that it was based heavily on the way parents treated their children. Even in different countries with very different cultures, they found similar parenting styles, which had the same results in every country: the children became "bullies." They were essentially using the same tactics on other children that their parents used on them.
It would make sense that that effect is then magnified in the dictatorial climate of a school.
bullying
This brings up another point to ponder: Can majority rule simply be another form of bullying? Majority rule is also using "might makes right" in the form of numbers rather than the single authoritarian, right?
Yes! I've brought this point
Yes! I've brought this point up before but no one wants to address it: A democratic community is not necessarily a moral one. We are to believe that just because several voices are heard in a public forum and that then a vote is taken, that the outcome will be virtuous and moral. Moreover, we are to believe that force---bullying---will not be required to bring about the democratic decision. This today is the the most destructive myth of Western society but Mr. Gray and the Sudbury commune have swallowed it hook, line and sinker.
"Worst form of government except...
Hi Debbie and Mikel, thanks for your contributions. I apologize for not responding sooner. I wouldn't say I've "swallowed it hook, line and sinker." In fact, I agree with Winston Churchill who said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others that have been tried." By democracy, I'm including not just voting but also a bill of rights designed to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. It certainly does not always work, as a cursory review of American history easily shows, but it has a self-corrective nature that tends over time to right injustices. As I see democracy in action at Sudbury Valley I see people of all ages thoughtfully considering moral questions as they debate serious issues in the School Meeting or the Judicial Committee. That is very different, and far more likely to lead to morally based results, than the decisions of a single dictator or school principal.
I'm talking about the difference between democracy and dictatorship. You are probably talking about the difference between democracy and anarchy. The question of anarchy is another topic. I personally don't think it could work as a way of running either a state or a school. In fact I know of quite a few "free schools" that failed precisely because they were anarchies. They had no means of making decisions when people disagreed, and so people made decisions without others' approval, the others then left, and the schools fell apart.
-Peter
A "bill of rights" is
A "bill of rights" is meaningless when control freaks are in the majority. They always find ways to legally crush the rights of the minority. If SV wants to teach kids morality, then teach them how to negotiate the full consent of their peers, not how to use a political process like democracy to get what they want. It's not like the world needs more politicians, does it?
And is it always possible to
And is it always possible to come to complete agreement?
Agreed
The reason why political processes do no work as well in our gov't now, is because of career politicians. Too many people in power for too long. The school and US govt form of democracy, is like comparing apples and oranges.
A Necessary Evil?
Peter,
I appreciate the good work you're doing on the topics of homeschooling, unschooling, and alternative schooling.
Your personal philosophical journey to accepting these alternatives and even embracing them was, I'm sure, one you can spell out in detail. I'd guess it involved casting off a lot of superstition, mythology, and outright lies that you were conditioned into for the first few decades of your life.
If I'm right, you'd remember the journey well because you cleared up contradictions in your philosophy. It's refreshing and invigorating to rid ones self of contradictions, to see the world through clearer lenses. It's rewarding to be an advocate for individual liberty in learning, to free the minds of children to be creative, to discover, to innovate.
I challenge you to take the next step: Look at the contradictions in "necessary evil" statements like Churchill's. Is it really enough to settle for "necessary evils" like democracy, when a massively expanding universe of knowledge exists to clear up the conflict, to liberate the mind, and to free ones self from the grips of tyranny, whether it be by a king or a majority?
Government is evil - in all its forms. Anarchy does not equal chaos (in the common use of the word.) "Chaos" is a product of central control imposed on a complex dynamic system.
I'd suggest Murray N. Rothbard's "For a New Liberty" as a primer.
Hi Peter
You ask:
"Wouldn't it be nice if all of our schools were, first and foremost, moral communities?"
Have you any evidence to suggest that they're not? Many schools I have worked in are founded on explicit "moral" principals. Many of these have been religious principals (not that I agree totally with this, but it's the closest thing to "morality" I can think of right now)
I really do love your idea of direct democracy in school. I believe you when you say it works in SuVal. I don't think it is the magic formula you seem to think, nor do I think other ways of running schools are the prison you suggest.
However, I must complain that your account of the Principal in a "Standard School" dealing with the child wearing the swastika symbol is (like many of your other accounts of state school) entirely fictitious.
Perhaps you may care to do some actual research into how a state school teacher might deal with a situation like this? You could always interview some. Most teachers I know would be happy to disabuse you of some of your persistent false beliefs of how we operate in school.
Steve
Hi again, Steve,
"Have you any evidence to suggest that they're not?"
There is ample evidence to demonstrate that many, many schools in the U.S. are not, by any stretch of the imagination, "moral communities." Every week there are stories in the news of school officials acting as arbitrary authoritarians. All you have to do is google "principal overreacts," and you'll see what I mean. Certainly you've heard of the school in Philadelphia which spied on its students with the laptops it provided?
http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local-beat/School-Spies-on-Students-...
So, like I said, while there are some schools that strive for a reflective, moral atmosphere, over here they are the exception.
As far as how the principal might deal with a student wearing the swastika, Peter was very, very accurate.
http://www.gilroydispatch.com/news/265404-five-morgan-hill-students-sent...
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2010/06/16/KKK-shirts-at-school-could-bri...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iMXgWX1my2TrMvxt5JNxRS...
http://www.wsbt.com/news/local/30706289.html
http://enidnews.com/localnews/x518635816/Honor-students-sent-home-after-...
And please note that those stories are about things much more innocuous than swastikas.
Perhaps schools in England are very different than schools here in the U.S.. But the fact is, in the U.S., schools are frequently places of petty and arbitrary authoritarianism.
Hi Les
The heading, "principal overreacts", is very suggestive that it is a newsworthy item, rather than the norm, if you don't mind me saying.
Surely, if schools which strove "for a reflective, moral atmosphere" were the exception, then they would be the ones appearing in the news...
I put "principal overreacts" into googlefight along with another arbitrary gutter press headline, "immigrants steal", and guess who won?
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22principal+overr...
Steve
I’m a little confused, Steve.
You asked if there was any evidence to suggest that schools were not “moral communities.” So, while pointing out that some are, I provided numerous examples of schools that are not.
Are you now suggesting that because there are so many examples of news stories of non-moral schools, that this somehow proves they are rarer than moral schools? That’s a lot like saying because there are so many stories of police corruption, it must be a rare, newsworthy thing when cops are corrupt, which is exactly the opposite of the objective truth.
I’m not sure what your point is with the comparison to “immigrants steal.” You used the plural form of “immigrant” and the singular form of “principal” guaranteeing that one would look for particular news stories and the other for the bigoted, sweeping opinions. So that certainly wasn’t very scientific.
Finally, you suggested that Peter was wrong for suggesting that a school principal would overreact to a student wearing a swastika, calling the idea “entirely fictitious.” Then I pointed out several recent examples of principals overreacting to haircuts and t-shirts with the U.S. flag, demonstrating clearly that principals regularly overreact. Again, this is not to say that there are not moral, intelligent, competent school officials, as there are plenty. But the evidence is clear that, in this country, there are many, many school officials who are none of those things.
I think you’re taking your experience in a good school in England and applying it to the entire school system of the U.S., which is certain to create an inaccurate picture of the U.S. public school system.
Hi Les
My point is exactly that schools are predominantly moral communities, regardless of exceptions to the rule. Peter's insinuation that schools are not moral (as a consequence of not practicing direct democracy) is a bit daft, I think. Included in his presumption is the awful nuance that the teachers at his own school are all positively moral, and never over-react.
You say
"I think you’re taking your experience in a good school in England and applying it to the entire school system of the U.S., which is certain to create an inaccurate picture of the U.S. public school system."
I have taught in a huge number and variety of schools, though granted not in the US. I doubt though that there is so much difference in our praxis, from discussions about Peter's blog that I have continued with my US colleagues.
And yes, Peter's story about how the principal reacts to the swastika situation is entirely fictitious, and also a little emotive. He is applying this fiction in the broad sense, with absolutely no factual basis.
Steve
Hi Steve
You say:
"My point is exactly that schools are predominantly moral communities, regardless of exceptions to the rule."
If a "moral community" is a community where the actions of individuals are based on respect and empathy instead of arbitrary rules and penalties, then none of the many, many schools I've been in have been moral communities. Do you believe that every school I've attended are exceptions?
You said:
"And yes, Peter's story about how the principal reacts to the swastika situation is entirely fictitious, and also a little emotive. He is applying this fiction in the broad sense, with absolutely no factual basis."
But the basis is not fictional. I demonstrated that with the easily found stories of principals reacting to students who dress outside the norm. Can we at least agree that the stories I linked to, that were easily found, are real? If so, then how is imagining a principal overreacting to a student's fashion statement "entirely fictitious?"
Hi Les
You say
-If a "moral community" is a community where the actions of individuals are based on respect and empathy instead of arbitrary rules and penalties, then none of the many, many schools I've been in have been moral communities. Do you believe that every school I've attended are exceptions?-
Well how many schools have you attended and in what capacity? How much do you know about the way these schools were run and how and why rules were established? What has led you to think that the rules in these many schools you have been in are arbitrary? Did none of the teachers in these schools show respect or empathy?
My real objections to Peter's fictitious accounts is that he gets pretty carried away with his own unresearched generalisations. He has a heavily biased and admittedly uninformed on how the principal of "the standard state school" would behave.
In fact, it takes a pretty bad teacher to give out orders, especially those which might involve the removal of items of clothing, and especially if you have a confrontational child, who perhaps has a difficult history?
Even a beginner teacher knows that ordering kids around is going to lead to nothing but trouble. A head teacher should know that ordering kids to remove items of clothing will lead to trouble which will be reported in the newspaper, as "Principal Overreacts". I agree with you it does happen- but it is far from the norm.
I am a human being, I don't lose my "respect and empathy" simply because I am a teacher. My school kids are my extended family- you will meet a lot of teachers like me if you work in schools long enough. I treat my kids with respect and empathy, and I get respect and empathy back. It's a a simple equation, and great way to live, but also an efficient teaching tool. You won't find a single teaching handbook or training course advocating controntation - quite the opposite, in fact.
Ok, perhaps I should give you an example of how I think my conversation with the child might go (I'll cut straight to the questions, but I would be doing a lot more listening and making sure the child feels ok):
"What's that emblem you are wearing?"
"Why are you wearing it?"
(explain swastika and connotations here, if necessary)
"Do you think anyone might have a problem with you wearing the swastika?"
(explain if necessary)
"Did you know we have a rule that says you shouldn't wear swastikas?"
(explain if necessary)
"How do you feel about that?"
"What would you like to do now?"
"What would you like me to do?"
"Do you feel ready to take the swastika off?"
"Or would you prefer to go home to change, or have a parent collect you?"
I submit that this is a far more likely way that a teacher would deal with the swastika situation.
Steve
***I submit that this is a
***I submit that this is a far more likely way that a teacher would deal with the swastika situation.***
You can submit that all you want but it doesn't make it so. You can even wish that it were that way and it STILL wouldn't make it so. It is what it is. You argue against the reality of many people's experience, as students and teachers and parents of students.
I've SEEN it happen, I've heard countless accounts by teachers students and parents of these things actually happening. Just because you have never experienced it and can't imagine it, does not make it happen any less.
Hi Jenny
I am sharing something very personal here, and that is how I choose to deal with confrontational situations. I am not the only teacher in the world who would behave like this. Becoming a teacher does not divest you of empathy and respect.
You say
"Just because you have never experienced it and can't imagine it, does not make it happen any less."
It applies both ways - Just because you have experienced it doesn't make it happen any more either. So where is the evidence?
Peter is exceedingly fond of hasty generalisations, and unfortunately uses a made-up account of a teacher "ordering" a child to remove an item of clothing .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization
Incidentally, contrary to your suggestion, I have seen teachers deal with situations badly. I have also misjudged situations myself. It's just one of those things that happens when you work with young people all the time- it's not an exact science.
Teachers in expensive private schools (including Peter's favourite school) sometimes misjudge situations as well - making mistakes is part of being human. It would be foolish to presume that expensive private school guaruntees mistake-free teaching. teachers, both state and private sector, are learning all the time - each situation is new.
I make mistakes in my parenting too. So do other people. The big mistake though, is to make unfounded links between "direct democracy" and teaching and learning ideals.
As usual, what is missing from Peter's account is EVIDENCE. A single, invented account of a "standard school principal" ordering a student to remove an item of clothing does not constitute evidence.
I would love to discuss your genuine experiences, and would be happy to pick any one of the situations that you have seen happen.
Steve
being incorrigible again
"Peter is exceedingly fond of hasty generalisations, and unfortunately uses a made-up account of a teacher "ordering" a child to remove an item of clothing ."
He's made an example out of a very likely scenario. I've seen this thing happen with a kid that wore a shirt with a picture of a gun on it. It didn't matter what the picture was about, or why she was wearing it. One of her teachers sent her, without any explanation, other than her attire being inappropriate, to the principal office where she was forced to remove her shirt and put a different shirt on, one from the lost and found pile, no explanation.
This sort of thing happens all the time. I've seen it happen in private schools too, you deviate from the dress code and they make you change clothes, and they keep a handy pile of clothes in the office for just such a thing and it never mattered whether it fit or not. Even worse, I've known kids that have been spanked by the principal for it.
I could go on and give lots of examples to discuss, but like everything else dropped in your lap, you will dismiss it with your closed minded reactionary behavior, as the exception to the norm.
Your only point, it seems, is to dismiss anything Peter has to say. So go live in your happy teacher bubble and pretend these things don't happen. It doesn't change reality.
Hi Jenny
You say
"[Peter] made an example out of a very likely scenario"
As a research professor he really should know better than to make stuff up. I agree the situation is plausible- but so is the genuine situation I detailed above of the teacher caving in a child's head with a dumb-bell, while shouting "DIE! DIE! DIE!". My argument is that, though possibble, it is far from universal. The hasty generalisation I refer to is the broad conclusion drawn from little evidence (and in Peter's particular case, a fictitious scenario)
Teachers do not generally order kids to remove articles of clothing, nor do they generally beat students half to death with a 10lb weight.
In the UK there are frequent stories about teachers having affairs with kids. Yet should we therefore deduce that these situations, however plausible, are the norm?
What if I drew a similar conclusion regarding the students we know of who were smoking marajuana regularly at Sudbury Valley School? Should I presume that drug abuse is rife at Sudbury Valley School? Would it be wrong of me to comclude that the school system there leads to pot-smoking teenagers at Sudbury Valley School? Let's say a Teacher has an affair with a student at Sudbury Valley School. Would that make true that there was widespread sexual abuse at Sudbury Valley School?
You can't make an informed opinion from a fictional story, no matter how likely, nor can you base an argument on an newspaper headline designed to mae copy. You can't build a bigger picture out of isolated incidents. What you need is many facts, and Peter is shy on facts. He has not done any research into state schools.
I have never seen anyone made to change their clothes. I have never heard anyone ordering a student to remove an item of clothing.
Granted I have asked kids to remove earrings, makeup, headphones, offensive t-shirts, trainers, etc, in accordance with the school dress code- but asked, mind, not ordered. These kids always have an option to go home rather than get changed. I always endeavour not to be confrontational. Same with my own kids.
Peter tells us that swastikas are now banned at Sudbury. I am absolutely certain that the same procedure would occur at his school as at mine:
I don't doubt the conversation with the student at his school would be similar to the one that I detailed at mine, earlier.
I'm not living in a happy teacher bubble, pretending things don't happen. I know things happen. I know kids in the south of USA can have corporal punishment. I think this is disgusting. But then again, I also think the death penalty is disgusting, and your country's democracy seems to find it acceptible.
Being a state school teacher does not render you immoral. Living in a direct democracy does not magically make you moral.
Steve
"Principal overreacts" is
"Principal overreacts" is certainly a too subjective item to google search. But when one searches for objective facts like "student suspended for hair" and "student suspended for t-shirt," it becomes very clear that it's not "fictitious" at all to point out that principals all over the U.S. regularly perform negatively when presented with students who choose to appear different.
And when you google "student suspended pledge of allegiance," you find that U.S. schools frequently display the worst kind of authoritarianism.
Again, this may not be the case in England. It is objectively the case in the U.S., and I am puzzled that you continue to assert, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that it is not.
Hi Les
Recently in UK, a teacher assaulted a student with a dumbell, shouting DIE! DIE! DIE!" it was in all the newspapers.
It is an exception to the rule, and an exception that I have no doubt would also be intirely possible in Peter's direct democracy school.
You say "principals all over the U.S. regularly perform negatively when presented with students who choose to appear different"
Well yes, there are people in all walks of life who are capable of reacting negatively- including teachers in Peter's school.
But maybe we'll have to agree to disagree. My experience in all the schools I have beeen in is of predominantly well intentioned folks with the kids interests at heart. Perhaps your experiences in schools have been different, if so I think you've been rather unlucky.
I have also found that if you do a bit of digging beneath a headline, the story is often much more complex than the tabloid would have you believe.
What, an anti-school agenda in the media? And Peter part of it?
:)
Steve
Oh, Steve!
I agree 100% that we'll have to agree to disagree. But I must say, when I talk with cops about police brutality, we have the same conversation. They assume that people who criticize the police are "anti-police." They assume that the media is "anti-police" when it reports on police brutality. And they assume that stories of police brutality don't tell the whole story.
This has been your reaction to my very quickly compiled list of stories describing behavior you called "without factual basis."
I'm not "anti-school," I'm "anti-ideology-so-strong-that-objective-criticisms-are-dismissed-out-of-hand." People won't join my club until I get a shorter name for it.
Cheers.
Ah Les!
I didn't mean to imply you were anti-school. I was talking about Peter!
Yes I agree there are criticisms to be levelled at the school system, of course there are. No matter how good schools get, we should still be looking to improve (this includes Peter's school)
But let's have real situations discussed, not fictitious ones. And let's not draw generalised conclusions from imaginary situations either. The "standard school principal" in Peter's story is a concoction of his heavily biased and uninformed imagination. We can't possibly come to any sensible conclusions while debating a made-up generalised account of a standard school principal". There are many different types of school, and many different teaching styles of principals.
Working with kids has the potential for all sorts of problems, and working with large numbers tends to magnify issues. Anyone who has worked with kids for long enough could tell you of all the bad decisions they have made.
If, for example, one of the SuVal teachers "overreacts" at school one day, and it gets into the papers, then we still shouldn't draw (as Peter has done) generalised conclusions from the "principal overreacts at SuVal" headline, either.
And I can guarantee you the teachers at Peter's SuVal are not somehow magically protected from making mistakes by the direct democracy system they've got going there.
Steve
Bully for the school !
It's odd that the word "bully" used as an interjection, as I used it in the subject line, means "well done" or "good".
Bullying is intimidating or persecuting another person who won't do anything about it because the person thinks he/she is weaker than the one bullying.
Peter, you asked, "Wouldn't it be nice if all of our schools were, first and foremost, moral communities?"
The answer is definitely ,"Yes."
Morals are diferent for different families. "Different strokes for different folks," comes to mind.
Thus, one school does not fit all students. Schools must be private, not public schools. There should be as many schools as there are groups of people who share the same morals. (For all I know a school that seeks bullies as students could start up.)
Forcing all kids to become as the state wants them to become is not the way. Steve might be the best teacher in one of the best public schools, but he has no right to assume the behavior and morality he teaches is better than the student's parents or other influences.
Yes, it would be nice if schools were moral communities. But whose morals?
It's better to have hundreds of thousands of schools in the USA, than to have only a few thousand all teaching whatever high class scholars sell to the government who, in turn, forces kids to assimilate basically the same information and morality.
Private schools would have their own morals. Kids would go there based on those morals (and other things), and a bully may or may not be condoned. If condoned, then the weaker students, who are not weak, only morally different, would seek another school. If bullying is not condoned, the school would say. "Out you bully. Go find another school." Or they may work with the bully. What ever their policy is.
Hi Chuck
"Forcing all kids to become as the state wants them to become is not the way."
I agree 100% it is not the way. I have taught in many different state schools, and with many different teachers, and I can confirm that there is no hint of "forcing all kids to become what the state wants them to become"
Could you clarify what you mean? I have never seen this in a UK school.
"[Steve] he has no right to assume the behavior and morality he teaches is better than the student's parents or other influences."
I think you are confusing "teach" with "preach". I do teach morality to kids, BY EXPLORING NOTIONS OF MORALITY WITH THEM. I do not preach a set notion of morality to kids.
Recently my class has been discussing eugenics. We have just had "Jeans for Genes" day, and thoughts of genetic engineering have run high.
I have taken the opportunity to talk with my kids about dysgenics. I have deliberately taken a pro-eugenics stance. This has nothing to do with preaching my own morality. I am just interested in stimulating debate. I love Aristotlean questionning-
"is it ok to remove bad genes to reduce future generations' risk of heart attack/lung disease/obesity?"
"is it ok to abort a "disabled" foetus/at what term/in what circumstances?"
Bloom's Taxonomy is a very useful guide for helping all kids to access the debate.
I am a teacher, not a preacher - teaching is a subversive activity!
:)
oops
I meant Socratic questionning !
Incidentally, I'm not the best teacher in the world- I am not even the best teacher in my school!
Steve
:)
Clarification
You said: "Forcing all kids to become as the state wants them to become is not the way."
I agree 100% it is not the way. I have taught in many different state schools, and with many different teachers, and I can confirm that there is no hint of "forcing all kids to become what the state wants them to become"
Could you clarify what you mean? I have never seen this in a UK school.
My response: I believe he meant how (at least in the U.S.) all students are held to a curriculum which differs from state to state and if they do not "learn" the material well enough to get a c they do not pass, there are no elective classes available (to my knowledge) until middle school and up, and then obviously you have a limited set of electives to choose from depending on your school. So in this sense the state is trying to teach all of the students the same things, regardless of whether they wish to learn them or not. He did take it too far by implying that somehow the state is trying to deliberately instill all students to have the same views on subjects, although there certainly is some degree of bias towards certain views, it is not quite so extreme.
"Forcing all kids to become as the state wants them to become is
Hello Steve,
Sorry I'm late in my reply. I never thought anyone would ask me a question.
State schools are not compulsory in the sense that parents can homeschool, sent their child to private school, or enroll in a charter school.
What's compulsory is a child must attend a school, and here in the State of Michigan, they must attend from age six to sixteen. And no matter what type of schooling your child attends, every citizen must pay the school taxes. That is also compulsory.
The Amish community has a moral code. Sudbury Valley has a moral code. You have a moral code, so do I. Are all these moral codes, which is the basis of behavior, the same? No.
The Amish have a top down authority structure. Men rule, women and kids obey. Kids school through the eighth grade. The Amish have an exemption to the public school rule of schooling until sixteen.
As Peter has described, Sudbury Valley has a democratic authority structure.
As others have descibed, public schools follow an authoritarian method of governance. Much of the curriculum in public school is dictated by government, and government allows only what favors them to be taught. They control what is taught and what is not. So, for example, many schools do not teach about the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. It's not in the interest of the powers that be in government that citizens know those documents because government no longer adheres to the Constitution unconditionally.
By the way preaching is a form or style of teaching. So is reading, so is lecturing, so is watching videos about a subject.
You bring up th subject of eugenics (the study of using controlled breeding to improve desirable characteristics in a population of animals or humans.
What options do the kids have if they don't want to be a part of that eugenics discussion? Perhaps, their parents have taught their child that it is immoral to try to do what Hitler tried to do, improve the human race by selective breeding. Can the child leave the class because he realizes you are talking about something that his parents taught him is wrong?
Say what you will about those parents being narrow-minded or hurting their child because they forbide him/her to know eugenics, but it is not your decision as a teacher or the government's as an institution to enforce a morality upon the child the parents forbide.
But the state grants you the position to teach a morality against the parent's wishes. After all, the child is trapped; he/she has a choice: stay in the class, or leave it and get punished. In effect, you are saying to the child the state knows better than the parent what the child should know. That you can stand before a class and teach eugenics says the state knows better than Mon and Dad what the child should know.
That's all I was trying to say when I said, "Forcing all kids to become as the state wants them to become is not the way."
Hi Chuck
No worries mate, I'll be hanging around here a while, just making sure that Peter Grey doesn't go unchallenged over his false proclamations about how state school is run.
In answer to your questions,
"What options do the kids have if they don't want to be a part of that eugenics discussion?"
Anybody can leave my class at any time. I will not confront anyone who stands up and leaves my class without asking my permission. I am not unique in this.
"Can the child leave the class because he realizes you are talking about something that his parents taught him is wrong?"
I try to encourage kids to delay judging right and wrong until they have listened to others' opinions. What is important is I try to facilitate a situation where all my kids can express their views, and I aim to guide the class to listening to each others' views.
What I do is fairly common in UK (and I imagine US) schools.
I try to instigate debate. I would disagree that preaching is a form of teaching. I would regard the two as pretty diametrically opposed.
Teaching, according to one of my heroes, Vygotsky, is about structuring learning opportunities within the child. In teaching, the learner is encouraged to find their own ideals. Preaching is about instilling an external, predetermined set of ideals... Like the ideal, for example, that direct democracy is the single appropriate form of operating a school.
I try not to instill my own "morality" in my kids - I try to encourage my kids to explore and question their own preconceptions.
As a final note to this post, I would like to introduce you to the debate in the UK about private funding of schools.
THe argument goes, private enterprise is all about selling, so if we let private enterprise into schools, there is a danger of allowing our kids become consumers at the hands of the private education backers. Do we want our kids to be softened up for exploitation at the hands of the corporations?
You suggest that state education perhaps has an underhand agenda to turn kids into "state servants".
Well what do you make of the suggestion that privately funded schools might also have a similar underhand agenda, to prepare the kids as "private consumers"?
Sudbury is, after all, a money making corporation. And Peter Grey is on the governing body... And he has done all his research there... And his son went there. And his son teaches there.
Maybe Peter abusing his position as a "research professor" to try to sell us something?
Steve
School Sucks Podcast
Thought you might like to know about a new online show called the School Sucks Podcast which talks about the problems with public education and discusses alternatives - including private school, homeschooling and unschooling:
http://SchoolSucksProject.com/
Post new comment