3 ms·

Do we want a society wherein only perfect inputs lead to good outcomes? Should we only seek to thrive as a whole if every member of society can individually adh

Do we want a society wherein only perfect inputs lead to good outcomes? Should we only seek to thrive as a whole if every member of society can individually adhere to the ideal of an utopian citizen? Or, do we want some acknowledgment of the imperfection of humans and aim to structure a thriving society in any case, with some sense of community and public good? If so, and we acknowledge school as one public good, then why would we arbitrarily draw the line at "academic material"? Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? I mean, you're here advocating for values that you believe would benefit everyone. Yet, you would want no public or community effort to encourage those values? Seems incongruent.

robertlagrant 4y ago
> Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? No. Parents are responsible for basically everything, and schools exist as a place parents can choose to send their children to be educated. Schools and parents are not equal, with a coin flip to decide who does what.
- unclebucknasty 4y ago
  >a place parents can choose to send their children In the U.S., school attendance is paid for by the public and generally required by law. This isn't to say there aren't exemptions for alternatives such as homeschooling. But, this reflects that we have decided education, in general, is an important public good. So, teaching other valuable skills (like resiliency) is consistent with this principle. There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. And, schools teaching a broader array of skills doesn't reassign ultimate responsibility from parents any more than sending them to school does now.
  - barry-cotter 4y ago
    > There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. If there’s intense disagreement over the skills and values that should be taught declaring the areas of disagreement to be matters for parents and guardians seems wise. Avoiding exacerbating conflict generally seems wise.

robertlagrant 4y ago

> Couldn't we just as arbitrarily say that parents should strictly teach academic material, while schools teach other values? No. Parents are responsible for basically everything, and schools exist as a place parents can choose to send their children to be educated. Schools and parents are not equal, with a coin flip to decide who does what.

unclebucknasty 4y ago
>a place parents can choose to send their children In the U.S., school attendance is paid for by the public and generally required by law. This isn't to say there aren't exemptions for alternatives such as homeschooling. But, this reflects that we have decided education, in general, is an important public good. So, teaching other valuable skills (like resiliency) is consistent with this principle. There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. And, schools teaching a broader array of skills doesn't reassign ultimate responsibility from parents any more than sending them to school does now.
- barry-cotter 4y ago
  > There doesn't seem to be much value in arbitrarily circumscribing which skills should be taught. If there’s intense disagreement over the skills and values that should be taught declaring the areas of disagreement to be matters for parents and guardians seems wise. Avoiding exacerbating conflict generally seems wise.