Nuttier Than A Bag Of Nuts At A Nut Festival
Lynda
Anyone in Texas know if this nut got his bonfire?
Lynda
Nuttier than a bag of nuts at a nut festival, Michael Franks (a member of
the Texas Republican Executive Committee) earns a spot on the list this week
with his interesting take on the evils of. um, school textbooks. Apparently
the conservative group "Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy" have got a beef
with the Texas State Board of Education over some ideas about global warming
and acid rain which have cropped up in new middle-school science textbooks.
Yes, it would seem that those evil scientists will stop at nothing to
indoctrinate our kids with environmentalist whacko thinking. And horror of
horrors, they even found a teacher's guide which suggests that students
write to their congressional representatives about environmental issues, if
you can believe that. At a recent hearing, one of the speakers ranted,
"These kids are not qualified to advise on national energy policy or to
write their congressman, for God's sake." Yes, allowing kids to think that
their representative should actually represent them could be a surefire
disaster for this country's future. So how does Michael Franks fit into all
this? Well, he thinks that the books should be gotten rid of. And how?
Franks said, "I think we've found the alternative fuel source that everyone
is looking for and that is burning these." Mr. Franks, Hitler would be
proud.
Lynda
Nuttier than a bag of nuts at a nut festival, Michael Franks (a member of
the Texas Republican Executive Committee) earns a spot on the list this week
with his interesting take on the evils of. um, school textbooks. Apparently
the conservative group "Texas Citizens for a Sound Economy" have got a beef
with the Texas State Board of Education over some ideas about global warming
and acid rain which have cropped up in new middle-school science textbooks.
Yes, it would seem that those evil scientists will stop at nothing to
indoctrinate our kids with environmentalist whacko thinking. And horror of
horrors, they even found a teacher's guide which suggests that students
write to their congressional representatives about environmental issues, if
you can believe that. At a recent hearing, one of the speakers ranted,
"These kids are not qualified to advise on national energy policy or to
write their congressman, for God's sake." Yes, allowing kids to think that
their representative should actually represent them could be a surefire
disaster for this country's future. So how does Michael Franks fit into all
this? Well, he thinks that the books should be gotten rid of. And how?
Franks said, "I think we've found the alternative fuel source that everyone
is looking for and that is burning these." Mr. Franks, Hitler would be
proud.
Fetteroll
on 11/4/01 6:12 PM, Lynda at lurine@... wrote:
Anyone in Texas know if this nut got his bonfire?
I think Texas is one of the states where the state board of education
chooses the textbooks for the whole state so someone who can convince those
doing the choosing can influence a whole humongous state -- and the thinking
of a whole passle of future voters.
Environmentalism is a hot point with conservatives since conservatives are
generally for strong local government and minimal national government. And
environmental policies are generally a national government issue. So more
environmentalism means more national control.
As for the kids not being qualified, he has a point. Are the kids being
presented with opposing viewpoints on environmental issues so they can
decide for themselves or are they being fed a single viewpoint?
To someone who feels environmentalism is too obvious to be questioned,
presenting kids with the causes of acid rain and the effects of acid rain
would seem to be giving them a complete picture. (Of course, since schools
divide information into neat compartments, it *is* a complete *science*
picture. Since it's a science class they can't discuss the economic or
political aspects of the issue. Those must be confined to separate classes.)
But if the kids were being presented with an obvious conservative point in
government class, such as gun ownership is a constitutionally mandated right
clearly stated in the second amendment, and it was suggested they all write
to their congressional representative about preserving that right, I suspect
liberals would find it appalling. It would look like mind control. It would
look like a state trying to mold an entire generation of future voters
towards a single viewpoint. It wouldn't look at all like kids asking their
congressional representative to represent them. It would look like someone
getting all the kids in the state to follow a single political agenda. It
would look really really scary.
But anytime kids are fed a single viewpoint it's scary. Unfortunately
schools weren't designed to offer information with more than one view point.
How many viewpoints can their be to 5+12 and here's how to spell "cat"? They
weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues, how to
come to their own conclusions. The were designed to give kids a basic
framework of practical math, reading, writing, some history.
The information schools impart has expanded well beyond that, but the "just
memorize the facts" approach and mentality hasn't changed.
And I bet you were expecting a slew of "Boy, I agree with you, what a nut
case!" ;-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Anyone in Texas know if this nut got his bonfire?
I think Texas is one of the states where the state board of education
chooses the textbooks for the whole state so someone who can convince those
doing the choosing can influence a whole humongous state -- and the thinking
of a whole passle of future voters.
Environmentalism is a hot point with conservatives since conservatives are
generally for strong local government and minimal national government. And
environmental policies are generally a national government issue. So more
environmentalism means more national control.
As for the kids not being qualified, he has a point. Are the kids being
presented with opposing viewpoints on environmental issues so they can
decide for themselves or are they being fed a single viewpoint?
To someone who feels environmentalism is too obvious to be questioned,
presenting kids with the causes of acid rain and the effects of acid rain
would seem to be giving them a complete picture. (Of course, since schools
divide information into neat compartments, it *is* a complete *science*
picture. Since it's a science class they can't discuss the economic or
political aspects of the issue. Those must be confined to separate classes.)
But if the kids were being presented with an obvious conservative point in
government class, such as gun ownership is a constitutionally mandated right
clearly stated in the second amendment, and it was suggested they all write
to their congressional representative about preserving that right, I suspect
liberals would find it appalling. It would look like mind control. It would
look like a state trying to mold an entire generation of future voters
towards a single viewpoint. It wouldn't look at all like kids asking their
congressional representative to represent them. It would look like someone
getting all the kids in the state to follow a single political agenda. It
would look really really scary.
But anytime kids are fed a single viewpoint it's scary. Unfortunately
schools weren't designed to offer information with more than one view point.
How many viewpoints can their be to 5+12 and here's how to spell "cat"? They
weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues, how to
come to their own conclusions. The were designed to give kids a basic
framework of practical math, reading, writing, some history.
The information schools impart has expanded well beyond that, but the "just
memorize the facts" approach and mentality hasn't changed.
And I bet you were expecting a slew of "Boy, I agree with you, what a nut
case!" ;-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
> As for the kids not being qualified, he has a point. Are the kidsMost adults vote on a single view point. Most adults align themselves
> being
> presented with opposing viewpoints on environmental issues so they
> can
> decide for themselves or are they being fed a single viewpoint?
with a party and do not listen to, with any kind of open mind for growth
or change, any other point of view. Some may not like it, but it's
certainly not the best argument for not taking children seriously.
Would it really be so incredibly horrible if we all remembered we are not
the only creatures nor the last people who will try to live on this
planet? The other view point being, if we can all make a little money,
we have the right to do anything?
> To someone who feels environmentalism is too obvious to beclass they can't discuss the economic
> questioned,
> presenting kids with the causes of acid rain and the effects of acid
> rain
> would seem to be giving them a complete picture. Since it's a science
> orIf someone was pouring poison in your backyard would you stop to consider
> political aspects of the issue. Those must be confined to separate
> classes.)
their economic or political perspective? I think here again you're
assuming kids aren't smart enough to ask " why would anyone do this?"
And you may be assuming a science teacher wouldn't say, " why, do you
think "
> But if the kids were being presented with an obvious conservativeIt happens all the time. Kids here have been taking hunter safety
> point in
> government class, such as gun ownership is a constitutionally
> mandated right
> clearly stated in the second amendment, and it was suggested they
> all write
> to their congressional representative about preserving that right, I
> suspect
> liberals would find it appalling.
courses, which teach them about the constitutionality of owning guns.
The timber industry has " forest stewardship" classes at the schools, a
whole weeks worth, where they show videos of the wonderful things the
timber industry does for the world. The cattleman's associations has
their turn, they get two days a year to convince little kids killing
stuff is their great American right, and their duty to the world. And
the character building classes that
are taught by the local ( Christian ) church hot shots. Yeah, it would
be absolutely unfair if they heard about acid rain
.
> But anytime kids are fed a single viewpoint it's scary.I agree.
>TheyYoung people deserve a little more credit. There are certainly more than
> weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues,
> how to
> come to their own conclusions.
a few who will not stop asking "why" and wondering how things might be
changed for the better. And in my personal experience, when we talk
about ps kids, those are usually the kids with the * liberal * ( acid
rain ) school experience.
Around here we're growing plenty of the chop it down, kill it, make a
buck, go to church, kind. If a couple of the acid rain kind came out of
Texas, I don't think the universe would be thrown into turmoil.
Deb L
[email protected]
<< But anytime kids are fed a single viewpoint it's scary. Unfortunately
schools weren't designed to offer information with more than one view point.
How many viewpoints can their be to 5+12 and here's how to spell "cat"? They
weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues, how to
come to their own conclusions. >>
I have sometimes thought my own school experience might have been freakishly
good, but we WERE taught more than one viewpoint. We were told not everyone
believes in evolution, and that not even all scientists consider it
scientifically proven, so it's an ongoing investigation. In math we were
doing "twelve" in all its permutations, above and below. (20-8, 8+4...) And
several of my teachers, but 7th grade math especially, went into other number
systems and said base 10 was fairly arbitrary, except for people's fingers,
but that base 12 was all around us too, in dozens and grosses and geometrical
60's and 180's. And we used to goof with base 2, binary. (I was pretty
grumpy when I got put out of the 6th grade regional spelling bee for spelling
"woolly" the Brit way, which was the way it was on my "Animal Rummy" deck of
cards.)
I do understand the objection, though--both Joyce's and the Texas dad's.
Baptist families invest a lot in telling their kids what simply IS and they
don't want to have to fight over homework and teachers' assignements and
textbooks which tell other ways.
I read in an old Utne reader the other day about a letter that some
environmentalists (Ralph Nader's name was on it, I think, for name
recognition) which had gone (some years back) to thousands of churches
offering them information on ecology in hopes that they would become more
involved and teach the kids in their churches about it. It was designed to
support ecology with Biblical teachings. They mentioned the creation and
naming the creatures, and they mentioned Noah's Ark. They were proud of the
high number of positive responses, in the form of requests for the full info
packet.
I know the Baptist point of view on those. For one thing they would want
NOTHING of liberal, non-Baptist interpretation of any Biblical texts. And
both those stories are used to teach man's supremecy over animals. Animals
are NOT respected on the same level with humans. Man is in God's image;
animals are for man to use (God told Adam). And the point of the flood was
that Noah's family would re-people the earth and use the animals God had
arranged for them to save, and never would God destroy the world by water
again which is the promise of the rainbow. When Jesus comes again and the
world is destroyed, it will be by fire.
So the conclusion of all that is that to care about the physical state of the
world shows a lack of faith in God. It's God's world, God is all-powerful
and his will prevails. It is the job of people (i.e. Baptists and other
right-thinking people) to bring more souls to Jesus in preparation for the
time that Jesus will take them straight to heaven. This planet is temporary
and expendable, and animals aren't going to heaven.
To spend time and money on the "theory" that the world is old and will be
here after we're going is tantamount to blasphemy.
For the benefit of people new to this list, I don't personally believe this,
but I have relatives who do, and Texas is a BIG place with lots of people,
maybe half or more of whom feel that way.
Sandra
schools weren't designed to offer information with more than one view point.
How many viewpoints can their be to 5+12 and here's how to spell "cat"? They
weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues, how to
come to their own conclusions. >>
I have sometimes thought my own school experience might have been freakishly
good, but we WERE taught more than one viewpoint. We were told not everyone
believes in evolution, and that not even all scientists consider it
scientifically proven, so it's an ongoing investigation. In math we were
doing "twelve" in all its permutations, above and below. (20-8, 8+4...) And
several of my teachers, but 7th grade math especially, went into other number
systems and said base 10 was fairly arbitrary, except for people's fingers,
but that base 12 was all around us too, in dozens and grosses and geometrical
60's and 180's. And we used to goof with base 2, binary. (I was pretty
grumpy when I got put out of the 6th grade regional spelling bee for spelling
"woolly" the Brit way, which was the way it was on my "Animal Rummy" deck of
cards.)
I do understand the objection, though--both Joyce's and the Texas dad's.
Baptist families invest a lot in telling their kids what simply IS and they
don't want to have to fight over homework and teachers' assignements and
textbooks which tell other ways.
I read in an old Utne reader the other day about a letter that some
environmentalists (Ralph Nader's name was on it, I think, for name
recognition) which had gone (some years back) to thousands of churches
offering them information on ecology in hopes that they would become more
involved and teach the kids in their churches about it. It was designed to
support ecology with Biblical teachings. They mentioned the creation and
naming the creatures, and they mentioned Noah's Ark. They were proud of the
high number of positive responses, in the form of requests for the full info
packet.
I know the Baptist point of view on those. For one thing they would want
NOTHING of liberal, non-Baptist interpretation of any Biblical texts. And
both those stories are used to teach man's supremecy over animals. Animals
are NOT respected on the same level with humans. Man is in God's image;
animals are for man to use (God told Adam). And the point of the flood was
that Noah's family would re-people the earth and use the animals God had
arranged for them to save, and never would God destroy the world by water
again which is the promise of the rainbow. When Jesus comes again and the
world is destroyed, it will be by fire.
So the conclusion of all that is that to care about the physical state of the
world shows a lack of faith in God. It's God's world, God is all-powerful
and his will prevails. It is the job of people (i.e. Baptists and other
right-thinking people) to bring more souls to Jesus in preparation for the
time that Jesus will take them straight to heaven. This planet is temporary
and expendable, and animals aren't going to heaven.
To spend time and money on the "theory" that the world is old and will be
here after we're going is tantamount to blasphemy.
For the benefit of people new to this list, I don't personally believe this,
but I have relatives who do, and Texas is a BIG place with lots of people,
maybe half or more of whom feel that way.
Sandra
[email protected]
In a message dated 11/5/01 5:08:33 AM, ddzimlew@... writes:
<< >They
a few who will not stop asking "why" and wondering how things might be
changed for the better. >>
She wasn't referring to young people, but to the schools and their textbooks.
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
<< >They
> weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues,Young people deserve a little more credit. There are certainly more than
> how to
> come to their own conclusions.
a few who will not stop asking "why" and wondering how things might be
changed for the better. >>
She wasn't referring to young people, but to the schools and their textbooks.
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
Lynda
No, but the most polluted city in the world might stand a chance of being
cleaned up <g>
Lynda
cleaned up <g>
Lynda
----- Original Message -----
From: <ddzimlew@...>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, November 05, 2001 3:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Nuttier Than A Bag Of Nuts At A Nut
Festival
>
>
>
> > As for the kids not being qualified, he has a point. Are the kids
> > being
> > presented with opposing viewpoints on environmental issues so they
> > can
> > decide for themselves or are they being fed a single viewpoint?
>
> Most adults vote on a single view point. Most adults align themselves
> with a party and do not listen to, with any kind of open mind for growth
> or change, any other point of view. Some may not like it, but it's
> certainly not the best argument for not taking children seriously.
>
> Would it really be so incredibly horrible if we all remembered we are not
> the only creatures nor the last people who will try to live on this
> planet? The other view point being, if we can all make a little money,
> we have the right to do anything?
>
> > To someone who feels environmentalism is too obvious to be
> > questioned,
> > presenting kids with the causes of acid rain and the effects of acid
> > rain
> > would seem to be giving them a complete picture. Since it's a science
> class they can't discuss the economic
> > or
> > political aspects of the issue. Those must be confined to separate
> > classes.)
>
> If someone was pouring poison in your backyard would you stop to consider
> their economic or political perspective? I think here again you're
> assuming kids aren't smart enough to ask " why would anyone do this?"
> And you may be assuming a science teacher wouldn't say, " why, do you
> think "
>
>
> > But if the kids were being presented with an obvious conservative
> > point in
> > government class, such as gun ownership is a constitutionally
> > mandated right
> > clearly stated in the second amendment, and it was suggested they
> > all write
> > to their congressional representative about preserving that right, I
> > suspect
> > liberals would find it appalling.
>
> It happens all the time. Kids here have been taking hunter safety
> courses, which teach them about the constitutionality of owning guns.
> The timber industry has " forest stewardship" classes at the schools, a
> whole weeks worth, where they show videos of the wonderful things the
> timber industry does for the world. The cattleman's associations has
> their turn, they get two days a year to convince little kids killing
> stuff is their great American right, and their duty to the world. And
> the character building classes that
> are taught by the local ( Christian ) church hot shots. Yeah, it would
> be absolutely unfair if they heard about acid rain
> .
> > But anytime kids are fed a single viewpoint it's scary.
>
> I agree.
>
> >They
> > weren't designed to teach kids how to think, how to weigh issues,
> > how to
> > come to their own conclusions.
>
> Young people deserve a little more credit. There are certainly more than
> a few who will not stop asking "why" and wondering how things might be
> changed for the better. And in my personal experience, when we talk
> about ps kids, those are usually the kids with the * liberal * ( acid
> rain ) school experience.
>
> Around here we're growing plenty of the chop it down, kill it, make a
> buck, go to church, kind. If a couple of the acid rain kind came out of
> Texas, I don't think the universe would be thrown into turmoil.
>
> Deb L
>
>
> Message boards, timely articles, a free newsletter and more!
> Check it all out at: http://www.unschooling.com
>
> To unsubscribe, set preferences, or read archives:
> http://www.egroups.com/group/Unschooling-dotcom
>
> Another great list sponsored by Home Education Magazine!
> http://www.home-ed-magazine.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
[email protected]
> She wasn't referring to young people, but to the schools and theirYes, I got that. The implication seemed --- since the system wasn't
> textbooks.
designed for these things, they would not happen. Don't forget the very
important factor of the kids, that's all.
Deb L
Fetteroll
on 11/5/01 6:55 AM, ddzimlew@... at ddzimlew@... wrote:
*someone else* is choosing to limit it for them to "just what they need to
know"?
textbooks.
If someone is fed deliberately limited information, even if they ask the
right questions, they're going to get a limited answer.
be fed the information one needs to know. (Obviously not a widely held
concept here! ;-) But we're discussing schooled kids and public school
parents.) Parents -- and probably a lot of educators too -- treat school as
if that were true. Kids come to believe it.
I respect whatever opinion children come up with. They often (though by no
means always) are operating on limited information that has wandered into
their lives by chance. (Adults do too!) Just because an opinion is based on
limited information doesn't mean the thought that went into arriving at it
is to be denigrated.
But it's a different thing when that information is *deliberately* limited
by someone with special interests and presented as though it were complete.
And, yes, I think it's a positive thing for the kids to be encouraged to
write their congressional representative. From their point of view they have
looked fully at the issue, thought about it and come up with an opinion on
it.
From an objective point of view, the process of feeding kids a limited body
of information from *any* special interest view point, leading them to a
predetermined conclusion and then encouraging them to write based on that is
a power that could be exploited. *That's* what this guy is seeing.
Of course, as Sandra pointed out, he's also seeing a point of view presented
to the kids that is counter to and undermines his own so he's not objecting
on purely philosophical grounds as I'm trying to do ;-) But I think if we
perceive those we disagree with as operating purely from a selfish position
(and we, of course, are purely objective and seeing both sides) then we are
destined to misunderstand and underestimate them. We will see them as myopic
and ignorant of the real issues. (Though that is true of many people on both
sides of any issue!)
view on the environment. I am defending being upset because someone
perceives that there is a single point of view being fed to all the children
in the state.
Of course *his* solution isn't to give the kids more points of view but to
eliminate the idea he disagrees with which would allow the prevailing
attitude in Texas to continue.
cool to show interest. Too many instances of questions set aside (We'll get
to that later, We can talk about that after class if you like, I meant
questions about the topic, There's some really good books in the library if
you want to persue that further and so on.)
Anyone who realizes that process and can gain access to the power to control
it, can exploit it for their own interests. Having one group of people
decide what all the kids in the state (and I think it's also true in
California?) will learn is an incredible power. From a liberal point of
view, having the kids learn about acid rain is giving them the complete
picture. From a conservative point of view it isn't.
pressures to get through a set amount of material in a limited period of
time don't allow them the time for questions that could pull the focus off
topic.
In an ideal world, schools would be places of exchanging ideas, where
teachers and students could talk about anything from all points of view, go
in any direction that fired their imaginations. But schools are assembly
lines. They're designed to get kids from point A to point Z. If point F is
more of a fuzzy area it still needs treated as a point.
And that design allows anyone with the power to decide what gets taught to
have their viewpoint as just another point to pass through.
Maybe a good example of fuzzy areas being treated as points is science
treated as mechanical processes, causes and effects. Vinegar + baking soda
yield carbon dioxide. It's treated abstractly like math problems. If you do
this, that happens. But real science *does* impact life in numerous ways.
It's perhaps a trivial example but every time the experiment is done, the
CO2 level rises, the processes that brought the vinegar and baking soda to
your kitchen have impacted the environment and economy in a variety of ways,
and the end result needs disposed of and will impact the environment. If we
had to think about all that everytime we did anything, we'd never get
anything done, of course ;-) But because that *type* of global thinking,
less trivial of course ;-) isn't integrated into the teaching of science, it
isn't a part of the thinking of science.
Science isn't just about finding solutions to problems that exist. The
results and practice of science itself have impacts. The thinking about what
the impact is isn't integrated into sciecne teaching. If it gets discussed,
it's a separate course in college. And if it's separate in teaching, it
won't get integrated in practice.
able to perceive the bias behind the information.
Which is the point. Schools are *percieved* as places where the information
being fed to kids is unbiased. I think the overall prevailing atmosphere for
the kids learning is that they don't need to question what they're being
told. I think what schools provide is a rough structure of what there is to
know but it gets perceived as the full picture. Not because kids are too
dumb, but because of the atmosphere of "do what we tell you to do and we'll
get you where you need to go" that kids (and parents) absorb that message.
You can tell kids numerous times they should question everything but if the
whole atmosphere is structured otherwise, actions do speak louder than
words.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> Most adults vote on a single view point. Most adults align themselvesBecause *they* are choosing to limit the information they take in or because
> with a party and do not listen to, with any kind of open mind for growth
> or change, any other point of view.
*someone else* is choosing to limit it for them to "just what they need to
know"?
> Young people deserve a little more credit. There are certainly more thanAs Sandra said, I was talking about the teachers and those who choose the
> a few who will not stop asking "why" and wondering how things might be
> changed for the better. And in my personal experience, when we talk
> about ps kids, those are usually the kids with the * liberal * ( acid
> rain ) school experience.
textbooks.
If someone is fed deliberately limited information, even if they ask the
right questions, they're going to get a limited answer.
> Some may not like it, but it'sWhat I take even more seriously is the concept that school is the place to
> certainly not the best argument for not taking children seriously.
be fed the information one needs to know. (Obviously not a widely held
concept here! ;-) But we're discussing schooled kids and public school
parents.) Parents -- and probably a lot of educators too -- treat school as
if that were true. Kids come to believe it.
I respect whatever opinion children come up with. They often (though by no
means always) are operating on limited information that has wandered into
their lives by chance. (Adults do too!) Just because an opinion is based on
limited information doesn't mean the thought that went into arriving at it
is to be denigrated.
But it's a different thing when that information is *deliberately* limited
by someone with special interests and presented as though it were complete.
And, yes, I think it's a positive thing for the kids to be encouraged to
write their congressional representative. From their point of view they have
looked fully at the issue, thought about it and come up with an opinion on
it.
From an objective point of view, the process of feeding kids a limited body
of information from *any* special interest view point, leading them to a
predetermined conclusion and then encouraging them to write based on that is
a power that could be exploited. *That's* what this guy is seeing.
Of course, as Sandra pointed out, he's also seeing a point of view presented
to the kids that is counter to and undermines his own so he's not objecting
on purely philosophical grounds as I'm trying to do ;-) But I think if we
perceive those we disagree with as operating purely from a selfish position
(and we, of course, are purely objective and seeing both sides) then we are
destined to misunderstand and underestimate them. We will see them as myopic
and ignorant of the real issues. (Though that is true of many people on both
sides of any issue!)
> Would it really be so incredibly horrible if we all remembered we are notActually I'm not defending or opposing either the liberal or conservative
> the only creatures nor the last people who will try to live on this
> planet? The other view point being, if we can all make a little money,
> we have the right to do anything?
view on the environment. I am defending being upset because someone
perceives that there is a single point of view being fed to all the children
in the state.
Of course *his* solution isn't to give the kids more points of view but to
eliminate the idea he disagrees with which would allow the prevailing
attitude in Texas to continue.
> I think here again you'reI think kids do. I also think lots of kids eventually learn not to. It isn't
> assuming kids aren't smart enough to ask " why would anyone do this?"
cool to show interest. Too many instances of questions set aside (We'll get
to that later, We can talk about that after class if you like, I meant
questions about the topic, There's some really good books in the library if
you want to persue that further and so on.)
Anyone who realizes that process and can gain access to the power to control
it, can exploit it for their own interests. Having one group of people
decide what all the kids in the state (and I think it's also true in
California?) will learn is an incredible power. From a liberal point of
view, having the kids learn about acid rain is giving them the complete
picture. From a conservative point of view it isn't.
> And you may be assuming a science teacher wouldn't say, " why, do youI think lots of teachers would love to do this. I also think that time
> think "
pressures to get through a set amount of material in a limited period of
time don't allow them the time for questions that could pull the focus off
topic.
In an ideal world, schools would be places of exchanging ideas, where
teachers and students could talk about anything from all points of view, go
in any direction that fired their imaginations. But schools are assembly
lines. They're designed to get kids from point A to point Z. If point F is
more of a fuzzy area it still needs treated as a point.
And that design allows anyone with the power to decide what gets taught to
have their viewpoint as just another point to pass through.
Maybe a good example of fuzzy areas being treated as points is science
treated as mechanical processes, causes and effects. Vinegar + baking soda
yield carbon dioxide. It's treated abstractly like math problems. If you do
this, that happens. But real science *does* impact life in numerous ways.
It's perhaps a trivial example but every time the experiment is done, the
CO2 level rises, the processes that brought the vinegar and baking soda to
your kitchen have impacted the environment and economy in a variety of ways,
and the end result needs disposed of and will impact the environment. If we
had to think about all that everytime we did anything, we'd never get
anything done, of course ;-) But because that *type* of global thinking,
less trivial of course ;-) isn't integrated into the teaching of science, it
isn't a part of the thinking of science.
Science isn't just about finding solutions to problems that exist. The
results and practice of science itself have impacts. The thinking about what
the impact is isn't integrated into sciecne teaching. If it gets discussed,
it's a separate course in college. And if it's separate in teaching, it
won't get integrated in practice.
> It happens all the time. Kids here have been taking hunter safetyThose are all special interest groups and it's a useful skill for kids to be
> courses, which teach them about the constitutionality of owning guns.
> The timber industry has " forest stewardship" classes at the schools, a
> whole weeks worth, where they show videos of the wonderful things the
> timber industry does for the world. The cattleman's associations has
> their turn, they get two days a year to convince little kids killing
> stuff is their great American right, and their duty to the world.
able to perceive the bias behind the information.
Which is the point. Schools are *percieved* as places where the information
being fed to kids is unbiased. I think the overall prevailing atmosphere for
the kids learning is that they don't need to question what they're being
told. I think what schools provide is a rough structure of what there is to
know but it gets perceived as the full picture. Not because kids are too
dumb, but because of the atmosphere of "do what we tell you to do and we'll
get you where you need to go" that kids (and parents) absorb that message.
You can tell kids numerous times they should question everything but if the
whole atmosphere is structured otherwise, actions do speak louder than
words.
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Fetteroll
on 11/5/01 9:47 AM, SandraDodd@... at SandraDodd@... wrote:
It's also possible that since you're drawn to fuzzier stuff, as literature
is generally presented, and I'm drawn to "right answer" stuff, as math and
science is generally presented, then perhaps the things from school that
made the most impression on each of us is what matched what we were looking
for. I do remember those types of things being presented, but my impression
of how they were presented is more process oriented: do this, this always
happens. Did the fuzzier kid sitting in the same room come away with a
totally different impression? It would be interesting to know!
every once in a while. Christian environmentalism on Google turns up some
pro information. So environmentalism isn't just for pagan tree huggers
anymore :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> I have sometimes thought my own school experience might have been freakishlyNo, doesn't match my experience.
> good, but we WERE taught more than one viewpoint. We were told not everyone
> believes in evolution, and that not even all scientists consider it
> scientifically proven, so it's an ongoing investigation. In math we were
> doing "twelve" in all its permutations, above and below. (20-8, 8+4...) And
> several of my teachers, but 7th grade math especially, went into other number
> systems and said base 10 was fairly arbitrary, except for people's fingers,
> but that base 12 was all around us too, in dozens and grosses and geometrical
> 60's and 180's. And we used to goof with base 2, binary. (I was pretty
> grumpy when I got put out of the 6th grade regional spelling bee for spelling
> "woolly" the Brit way, which was the way it was on my "Animal Rummy" deck of
> cards.)
It's also possible that since you're drawn to fuzzier stuff, as literature
is generally presented, and I'm drawn to "right answer" stuff, as math and
science is generally presented, then perhaps the things from school that
made the most impression on each of us is what matched what we were looking
for. I do remember those types of things being presented, but my impression
of how they were presented is more process oriented: do this, this always
happens. Did the fuzzier kid sitting in the same room come away with a
totally different impression? It would be interesting to know!
> I read in an old Utne reader the other day about a letter that someThere is a Green Christian (fundamentalist) movement I've stumbled across
> environmentalists (Ralph Nader's name was on it, I think, for name
> recognition) which had gone (some years back) to thousands of churches
> offering them information on ecology in hopes that they would become more
> involved and teach the kids in their churches about it. It was designed to
> support ecology with Biblical teachings. They mentioned the creation and
> naming the creatures, and they mentioned Noah's Ark. They were proud of the
> high number of positive responses, in the form of requests for the full info
> packet.
every once in a while. Christian environmentalism on Google turns up some
pro information. So environmentalism isn't just for pagan tree huggers
anymore :-)
Joyce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
<< > I think here again you're
Sometimes the teacher doesn't know the answer, or it's too complicated, or
the other kids wouldn't be interested in it and so "classroom order" would be
disrupted.
I was pretty stubborn myself, but I remember lots of "why?" or "How do they
know this?" and "what's this good for?" questions being answered with "That
won't be on the test," and "you'll cover that next year" and "that's just how
it is." If I were on the edge of discouragement, that could have taught me
not to ask.
And some families and schools have worse put-downs and insults for kids who
are "smart-alecky" enough to question simple plain truth. It's talking
back, disobedience, disrespect, wasting the time of people more important
than they are, etc.
<< > I think here again you're
Some kids learn not to be smart.
Some people say to them, "Don't be a smart-mouth," or "Don't get smart with
me."
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd
> assuming kids aren't smart enough to ask " why would anyone do this?"I think kids do. I also think lots of kids eventually learn not to. >>
Sometimes the teacher doesn't know the answer, or it's too complicated, or
the other kids wouldn't be interested in it and so "classroom order" would be
disrupted.
I was pretty stubborn myself, but I remember lots of "why?" or "How do they
know this?" and "what's this good for?" questions being answered with "That
won't be on the test," and "you'll cover that next year" and "that's just how
it is." If I were on the edge of discouragement, that could have taught me
not to ask.
And some families and schools have worse put-downs and insults for kids who
are "smart-alecky" enough to question simple plain truth. It's talking
back, disobedience, disrespect, wasting the time of people more important
than they are, etc.
<< > I think here again you're
> assuming kids aren't smart enough to ask " why would anyone do this?"<<I think kids do. I also think lots of kids eventually learn not to. >>
Some kids learn not to be smart.
Some people say to them, "Don't be a smart-mouth," or "Don't get smart with
me."
Sandra
"Everything counts."
http://expage.com/SandraDoddArticles
http://expage.com/SandraDodd