4 ms·

Let's make an analogy. I suspect there are some teachers who may teach evolution as "just a theory" and add creationism to what they teach. I don't mind if chil

Let's make an analogy. I suspect there are some teachers who may teach evolution as "just a theory" and add creationism to what they teach. I don't mind if children learn about creationism, but during their required hours at state sponsored schools, I don't want the time to be wasted teaching creationism. So I would like to restrict creationism from the curriculum. Or how about this analogy, Zambia is a real county with real history. However, I care about what American kids learn. While they can spend a week learning about Zambia (and Tajikistan, Gabon, Kiribati, and all 200 world countries [taking 4 years]), I would prefer that they spend that time doing something else more important just as US history. So I would like to restrict the amount of world history from the curriculum.

bruce511 5y ago
You fall into the trap here of having someone decide for others what is and is not valuable to learn. Once you take this step you legitimise the idea that there is an authority with the power to censor - ostensibly for good reasons - and sooner or later that power will bend somewhere else. It's important that children learn about everything, especially about opposing ideas because only then can they form their own opinions and develop critical thinking, and most importantly the ability to reevaluate an idea based on changing data. To paraphrase your analogy I prefer my children to only learn about the US healthcare system, and not waste time learning about how other countries do it for better outcomes with less money. And this is the problem with your post - who decides what is OK, and what is a waste of time? Ps - I am upvoting you not because you are right, but because you add a valuable perspective to the conversation, and I support your willingness to bring it.
- roenxi 5y ago
  He's talking about this at a school. The fundamental premise of a school is that someone is going to decide what is and is not valuable to learn. And that there is an authority (embodied in the teacher) who has the power to decide what will and will not be discussed in class. Assuming you mean what you wrote, you may be arguing for abolishing the public school system. In principle that seems like an interesting idea, but the rest of your post isn't quite congruent with that so it seems possible you've missed that this part of the thread is about school curriculum.
  - bruce511 5y ago
    So yes, clearly there is a carriculim, and someone has to set that, and there will be a flavor to that carriculim based on the social environment. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with teachers bringing their own personality to the classroom. I am not vegan, but if my kid has a vegan teacher that would be valuable in exposing them to that world-view. I do object to political interference in education. When the govt decided what material is OK, and what is not, then you remove the variety of thought which exists in the world. And ultimately that leads to a lack of personal critical thinking which leads young (and older) adults to belive anything.
    - roenxi 5y ago
      You may struggle to reconcile this with the idea of public schooling and keep your position coherent. Particularly compulsory public schooling. It is hard for the government to control the school system and also for the government not to exercise any control over the school system. I think you might be advocating voluntary, private-only schooling here - although I also think you might disagree with that opinion.
      - bruce511 5y ago
        I wouldn't say I'm advocating for private school,or even lack of govt in school matters. I guess my primary point surrounds censorship, especially when it comes to dictating what teachers can say or teach (in addition to, in the context of, not necessarily in place of the cariculum)

bruce511 5y ago

You fall into the trap here of having someone decide for others what is and is not valuable to learn. Once you take this step you legitimise the idea that there is an authority with the power to censor - ostensibly for good reasons - and sooner or later that power will bend somewhere else. It's important that children learn about everything, especially about opposing ideas because only then can they form their own opinions and develop critical thinking, and most importantly the ability to reevaluate an idea based on changing data. To paraphrase your analogy I prefer my children to only learn about the US healthcare system, and not waste time learning about how other countries do it for better outcomes with less money. And this is the problem with your post - who decides what is OK, and what is a waste of time? Ps - I am upvoting you not because you are right, but because you add a valuable perspective to the conversation, and I support your willingness to bring it.

roenxi 5y ago
He's talking about this at a school. The fundamental premise of a school is that someone is going to decide what is and is not valuable to learn. And that there is an authority (embodied in the teacher) who has the power to decide what will and will not be discussed in class. Assuming you mean what you wrote, you may be arguing for abolishing the public school system. In principle that seems like an interesting idea, but the rest of your post isn't quite congruent with that so it seems possible you've missed that this part of the thread is about school curriculum.
- bruce511 5y ago
  So yes, clearly there is a carriculim, and someone has to set that, and there will be a flavor to that carriculim based on the social environment. I don't have a problem with that, and I don't have a problem with teachers bringing their own personality to the classroom. I am not vegan, but if my kid has a vegan teacher that would be valuable in exposing them to that world-view. I do object to political interference in education. When the govt decided what material is OK, and what is not, then you remove the variety of thought which exists in the world. And ultimately that leads to a lack of personal critical thinking which leads young (and older) adults to belive anything.
  - roenxi 5y ago
    You may struggle to reconcile this with the idea of public schooling and keep your position coherent. Particularly compulsory public schooling. It is hard for the government to control the school system and also for the government not to exercise any control over the school system. I think you might be advocating voluntary, private-only schooling here - although I also think you might disagree with that opinion.
    - bruce511 5y ago
      I wouldn't say I'm advocating for private school,or even lack of govt in school matters. I guess my primary point surrounds censorship, especially when it comes to dictating what teachers can say or teach (in addition to, in the context of, not necessarily in place of the cariculum)