4 ms·
> We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, ac
by legitster 5y ago
> We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice
> From our conversations, several themes emerged.
> Collectivity is a good thing:
> Personal expression matters:
> Shared power is a valued goal:
> Moderation and equal access to resources are things to strive for
> As teachers, we were excited by these comments. The children gave voice to the value that collectivity is a solid, energizing way to organize a community — and that it requires power-sharing, equal access to resources, and trust in the other participants. They expressed the need, within collectivity, for personal expression, for being acknowledged as an individual within the group.
These were 8 year olds. The writers definitely steered the children into the results they wanted.
- cwkoss 5y agoI don't think so. In my experience, kids are more collectivist than the average adult.
- aksss 5y agoCollectivist in the totalitarian sense - the need to join, persecute outsiders, self-actualize by identifying what they aren't. In my experience kids are savage. Lord of the Flies isn't considered literature just because it's an action story.
- crooked-v 5y agoI think you're conflating the fancy words put on it by the article-writer with the concepts as expressed by the children. On the conceptual level, all of that is entirely reasonable to see emerge from a group of broadly well-mannered kids.
- notriddle 5y agoThat, and a few other things that would prime them to a decision like that: * This came after the "points" game. Deciding to be collectivist makes sense, after a game that's designed to result in obviously unfair distribution of ownership. These kids are probably used to these kinds of object lessons: it sounds like this is the program's preferred method of teaching. * They still wanted to make one huge LEGO Town. Thus, they need to come up with a plan for resolving conflicts, and it can't just be "I own it."