5 ms·

To go on a tangent, one very important topic (even more than STEM) that I don't think is formally taught at all is governance. I think children should get a pr

To go on a tangent, one very important topic (even more than STEM) that I don't think is formally taught at all is governance. I think children should get a proper education formally and practically on how to balance and how to meet the political (in the sense that these are needs that are solved at the societal / collective level) needs of a group of people. It doesn't have to be a large group; along the lines of the entire school or talking about the needs of a district or city would do. I think that such education would go a long way to help people understand what is important in governance, and be more resistant to political ideology that is harmful to these things.

hnuser123456 7y ago
Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. The constitution is a list of things the government can't do.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  > In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. I don't think we are contradicting each other. The need to feel free and have flexibility in certain aspects of governance is a political need that needs to be balanced. An education in governance should address this aspect so that citizens are more tuned-in to abuses of office and institutions that infringe on freedoms that most citizens have not chosen to yield to the government. Even though we were not contradicting each other, I do not completely agree with this. > In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. I think you recognize that this freedom here is quite qualified. The freedom to do what we want or set our own rules certainly need to be qualified at least around to the extent that they do not cause negative consequences to other people. Where the exact boundaries are are always shifting depending on the specific circumstances and population, and this is why various needs need to be balanced by government; i.e. the extent of this freedom is being balanced by other societal needs. Hence I would say that prima facie, a primary objective is a balance of freedom and well-being of the citizenry, with neither need superior over the other. On the other hand, > [the freedom to] set their own rules may sometimes be done most efficiently and reliably through governmental institutions, using government institutions to conduct certain self-funded voluntary programs.
- vkou 7y ago
  > Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. There are plenty of governments who have never felt that to be a primary, secondary, or even tertiary need. 'Plenty' here refers to an overwhelming majority of governments, through an overwhelming majority of recorded history. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. Are you basing this on the brief, half-century window of human history where liberal democracies governed something between a quarter, and a third of the world's population? When I look at human history, it seems to be that despotism is the norm, and liberal democracy is a quirky, novel fad, that may fizzle out, just like acid-washed jeans, and pet rocks did.
barry-cotter 7y ago
One in five Americans cannot name any of the branches of government. Only 46% know each state has two senators. It is extremely difficult to get people to retain any knowledge they neither use nor care about. Teaching children how to organize to solve their own problems would be antithetical to the incentives of any normal school’s administration. Children who can self-organize to oppose them are a threat. If people wanted children to learn how to organize, be capable and be self-efficacious democratic schools like Summerhill or Sudbury would be vastly more popular. They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told.
- rayiner 7y ago
  > They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told. They certainly don’t teach that. Kids who can’t sit down and shut up are given free reign to disrupt everyone else.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Lack of universal success is poor evidence for failure here. School is the only environment in which anyone spends most of their day sitting down with minimal freedom to choose when to get up or freedom over when to use the bathroom. I spent about five hours a day sitting in high school. I imagine you did the same, as do the overwhelming majority of children who graduate. This is unnatural behavior and school teaches it. It also teaches obedience to authority and tolerance for pointless busywork. That not all children learn the lesson is not evidence it’s not taught.
- someguydave 7y ago
  The solution to this problem is not education but limiting the vote to those who have shown themselves to be responsible and competent voters.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    Who do you trust to administer that test? I don’t trust anyone with the power to deprive other people of all effective power. If you don’t have a vote even the best “representative” in the world will place less effort into helping you than someone who also needs their help who can vote for them.
ernst_klim 7y ago
> taught at all is governance Political theory is useless at school. At best children would be totally lost in the plethora of ideologies without proper understanding of why people invented them. At worst they would be indoctrinated with the ideology, chosen by the government (usually the case). What we really need to teach children is decision making and responsibility taking. School is to obsessed with learning the facts omitting scepticism and problem solving whatsoever. Kids are being taught recipes, not how to act when you don't know the right one.
- tigerlily 7y ago
  To be clear, governance != Political theory. Too many people don't know they have a vote.
- maire 7y ago
  I had the same reaction. According to Teacher Toms tag line, he is teaching preschoolers. I am not even clear if he understands preschoolers. My observations of preschoolers is that they are learning the rules of the universe. That means very hands on discovery of the practical side of how things work coupled with a vivid imagination and creativity. That sounds like STEAM to me. When schools teach social and political subjects to young children they tend to simplify the subject to the point of not being true. Kids are not ready for nuance.
- jhanschoo 7y ago
  When I say governance I don't mean political theory, but something more akin to leadership. Well, leadership, but less leading via thought leadership and more via listening, arbitrating, and brokering compromises between conflicting wants and needs.

hnuser123456 7y ago

Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. The constitution is a list of things the government can't do.

jhanschoo 7y ago
> In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. I don't think we are contradicting each other. The need to feel free and have flexibility in certain aspects of governance is a political need that needs to be balanced. An education in governance should address this aspect so that citizens are more tuned-in to abuses of office and institutions that infringe on freedoms that most citizens have not chosen to yield to the government. Even though we were not contradicting each other, I do not completely agree with this. > In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. I think you recognize that this freedom here is quite qualified. The freedom to do what we want or set our own rules certainly need to be qualified at least around to the extent that they do not cause negative consequences to other people. Where the exact boundaries are are always shifting depending on the specific circumstances and population, and this is why various needs need to be balanced by government; i.e. the extent of this freedom is being balanced by other societal needs. Hence I would say that prima facie, a primary objective is a balance of freedom and well-being of the citizenry, with neither need superior over the other. On the other hand, > [the freedom to] set their own rules may sometimes be done most efficiently and reliably through governmental institutions, using government institutions to conduct certain self-funded voluntary programs.
vkou 7y ago
> Not sure I follow. In a government, the primary need is that the people feel free, feel like they're not being ordered around by a dictator, that they can have fun or do what they want or set their own rules. There are plenty of governments who have never felt that to be a primary, secondary, or even tertiary need. 'Plenty' here refers to an overwhelming majority of governments, through an overwhelming majority of recorded history. > Any rigid structure of governance that is focused on anything else will eventually fail. Are you basing this on the brief, half-century window of human history where liberal democracies governed something between a quarter, and a third of the world's population? When I look at human history, it seems to be that despotism is the norm, and liberal democracy is a quirky, novel fad, that may fizzle out, just like acid-washed jeans, and pet rocks did.

barry-cotter 7y ago

One in five Americans cannot name any of the branches of government. Only 46% know each state has two senators. It is extremely difficult to get people to retain any knowledge they neither use nor care about. Teaching children how to organize to solve their own problems would be antithetical to the incentives of any normal school’s administration. Children who can self-organize to oppose them are a threat. If people wanted children to learn how to organize, be capable and be self-efficacious democratic schools like Summerhill or Sudbury would be vastly more popular. They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told.

rayiner 7y ago
> They don’t. They want childcare that teaches children to sit down, shut up and do as they’re told. They certainly don’t teach that. Kids who can’t sit down and shut up are given free reign to disrupt everyone else.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Lack of universal success is poor evidence for failure here. School is the only environment in which anyone spends most of their day sitting down with minimal freedom to choose when to get up or freedom over when to use the bathroom. I spent about five hours a day sitting in high school. I imagine you did the same, as do the overwhelming majority of children who graduate. This is unnatural behavior and school teaches it. It also teaches obedience to authority and tolerance for pointless busywork. That not all children learn the lesson is not evidence it’s not taught.
someguydave 7y ago
The solution to this problem is not education but limiting the vote to those who have shown themselves to be responsible and competent voters.
- barry-cotter 7y ago
  Who do you trust to administer that test? I don’t trust anyone with the power to deprive other people of all effective power. If you don’t have a vote even the best “representative” in the world will place less effort into helping you than someone who also needs their help who can vote for them.

ernst_klim 7y ago

> taught at all is governance Political theory is useless at school. At best children would be totally lost in the plethora of ideologies without proper understanding of why people invented them. At worst they would be indoctrinated with the ideology, chosen by the government (usually the case). What we really need to teach children is decision making and responsibility taking. School is to obsessed with learning the facts omitting scepticism and problem solving whatsoever. Kids are being taught recipes, not how to act when you don't know the right one.

tigerlily 7y ago
To be clear, governance != Political theory. Too many people don't know they have a vote.
maire 7y ago
I had the same reaction. According to Teacher Toms tag line, he is teaching preschoolers. I am not even clear if he understands preschoolers. My observations of preschoolers is that they are learning the rules of the universe. That means very hands on discovery of the practical side of how things work coupled with a vivid imagination and creativity. That sounds like STEAM to me. When schools teach social and political subjects to young children they tend to simplify the subject to the point of not being true. Kids are not ready for nuance.
jhanschoo 7y ago
When I say governance I don't mean political theory, but something more akin to leadership. Well, leadership, but less leading via thought leadership and more via listening, arbitrating, and brokering compromises between conflicting wants and needs.