3 ms·
Or, better yet, use it as a teachable moment. They are teachers. Teach. Instead of doing that, they removed the problem instead of facing it. Instead of explain
by UnpossibleJim 5y ago
Or, better yet, use it as a teachable moment. They are teachers. Teach. Instead of doing that, they removed the problem instead of facing it. Instead of explaining it to children who lacked the tools to deal with the issue, or the language to express their thoughts completely, they used their lack of language to trap them... from the article:
>>Carl: “We didn’t ‘give’ the pieces, we found and shared them.”
Lukas: “It’s like giving to charity.”
Carl: “I don’t agree with using words like ‘gave.’ Because when someone wants to move in, we find them a platform and bricks and we build them a house and find them windows and a door.”
These children seemed to squirm at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power that “giving” holds. The children denied their power, framing it as benign and neutral, not something actively sought out and maintained. This early conversation helped us see more clearly the children’s contradictory thinking about power and authority, laying the groundwork for later exploration.<<
This is twisting language to trap, like a debate. Something a child is not prepared for. They have neither the understanding of the power structure nor the conversation they've enganged in. They've been punished for crimes they don't fully comprehend and lost the chance to learn engineering, team play and concession, while the teachers have missed out on a very teachable moment because, "We saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded" - but, in truth, it was an exercise in laziness.
- andrewflnr 5y agoDid you read to the end of the article, where they brought the Legos back?
- UnpossibleJim 5y agoI did, but by that point, is the damage not done? The children have seen their words twisted and the Legos taken away, only to be brought back after blame has been laid. These people talk about singling out done by children when in this very same article they have singled out two children making "assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive". That is a lot to lay at the feet of children over the misappropriation of Legos. Do you not think this all could have been headed off before the banning of Legos with the same discussion tactics that happened post ban, post tantrum and pre-blog railing against the woes of a capitalist society as seen through the perversions of a small child?
- andrewflnr 5y agoEven accepting your claim that they were twisting the children's words, there's no indication they relayed any of that analysis back to the children. Then they did use legos in a teaching exercise (one that I bet will stick with them), then they brought them back in a healthier way. It sounds like your real complaint is you don't agree with the lesson they taught, or maybe even just the language they used to describe it. If so you should say that, not pretend they didn't try.
- UnpossibleJim 5y agoThe lesson is what it is, I am neither here nor there on that. I think you're placing a false morality on my motives about that. I'm saying they used negative reinforcement as a knee-jerk reaction and then, as an afterthought, brought back the Legos instead of having a discussion first and taking action second. They learned that action and punishment comes first and the discussion and concession is an afterthought, a problem all too prevalent in modern society.