Originally posted by Nomodstoday!It's a hate/love thing, I figure. Also, you are not really trolling me, so you shouldn't take it to hard, I am sure you could if you tried hug
I hate you Bardock. Like some of the people in the comics forum you have outgrown being annoyed by trollish tactics. I thought Devil King was on the way to that, then he lost it!
Originally posted by Nomodstoday!
Probably provides a more hot housed environment for the wealthy leading to better grades. Almost certainly would lead to problems getting on with peers for some.
The second part is probably true. But at least in the United States it seems less the Rich that try homeschooling (I assume Private Schools cover that market), but people that want to shield their children from a multitude of views. Usually those views that are either true or make life in a society easier. Do you think Homeschooling should be a possibility for everyone? And to what degree should it be controlled?
Originally posted by Bardock42
The second part is probably true. But at least in the United States it seems less the Rich that try homeschooling (I assume Private Schools cover that market), but people that want to shield their children from a multitude of views. Usually those views that are either true or make life in a society easier. Do you think Homeschooling should be a possibility for everyone? And to what degree should it be controlled?
In the U.K. this type of homeschooling has led to 13 year olds at Cambridge in the past.
Originally posted by BigRed
I wouldn't necessarily say multiplicity is indoctrination. At least in a school setting of some sort, you do get exposed to other people's outlook on life.
alright, and lets even suppose, for the sake of argument, that none of these multiple ideologies is out to indoctrinate you by itself.
I think you allude to it in your own response, but the culture itself, as opposed to the specific ideologies surrounding you, is what indoctrinates a child. By all means, indoctrinating a child into having an open and tolerant world-view is something I am for. Indoctrinating them into the idea that they are all equal and that people should be allowed to express themselves is essential to a functioning democracy. Whatever culture a child is brought up in will indoctrinate them.
Originally posted by BigRed
That being said, a certain way a teacher teaches, can definitely be indoctrination. Overall, I think school is indoctrinating. The second you arrive in the first grade, the very first thing you get is a box. A small little box, all of your own. You are taught to love the box, know everything about the box and work hard for the box. But you aren't taught to see beyond the box, look past the box and build a bigger and more grandiose box. That's my gripe with school.
aye, I share this gripe. It is also the case that those who think outside the box are considered "disruptive" in a class (and really, 30+ students, what math teacher has the time or the patience to go over first principles with a student who needs them to learn math; here is the equation, just rinse and repeat).
Originally posted by BigRed
By no means am I preaching that home schooling is better of an alternative or any less of an indoctrinating lesson, but I certainly don't think school is all high and mighty above home schooling.
agreed.
Originally posted by Devil King
But anyone who argues that the science class is a form of indoctrination has spent little time paying attention in one. In my case, I went to a religious private school, and it was the objective study of multiple religions in religion class that did the most to enlighten me to the topic of religion. This is religious exposure that does not take place in public school. And I think most of these parents who refuse to understand that there isn't indoctrination in a science class are confused because religion isn't taught side by side with science; as though they are two sides of the same coin.
I agree with most of this, and add that my high school was fortunate enough to have a very wide selection of courses, like philosophy, world religions, ancient civ, politics, etc, which I have learned most schools do not have 🙁. Like you said, this is hugely important, and really was formative to who I am and how I understand the world.
However, because I'm on the subject, I'd take you up on the indoctrination part. I get that you aren't even talking about pluralistic world-views at this point, but the teaching of fact. I would go back to the question you asked earlier about whether teaching is indoctrination and say that, without the subjective intent of language, or rather, in a mechanistic way, that teaching and indoctrination are the same thing.
My thought would be that it is the ascribing of a "true" relationship between to pieces of knowledge. For science it may be "Baking soda is a base" and "vinegar is an acid" as opposed to "gay people are sinners". And yes, I understand that science also is about asking questions, but really, there are many basic principles of science that students need to learn before they are properly able to question stuff, meaning they aren't equipped to question whether baking soda is really a base when it is being taught to them. I don't know, my personal thought is that it is the same thing going on, developmentally, when a person learn anything. I'd say they also learn how much they are allowed to question a "truth" through cultural indoctrination.
(I guess I should also point out that I'd be in favor of using one of many synonymous [from a mechanistic point of view] terms in pace of indoctrination, like learning, acquiring knowledge, socializing, etc. I think the only real reason to have separate terms for these things is to condemn what another group of people teach).
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Qualify the statement, "[Exposing children to a multiplicity of views] "has no more objective validity than the idea that children should be raised with a single view."
Children should be exposed to a single world-view
Children should be exposed to multiple world-views
now, an important factor here is the explicit desire to expose children to multiple world-views through education rather than it being a consequence of the education process itself. I don't think it changes the point, but it would take more finagling in the "socialization is cultural indoctrination" side of things, which is admittedly a hard sell, and may only be relevant to the way I come at issues.
What objective scale could prove one of these statements to be more valid? I believe the latter to be far more beneficial to almost every facet of society, but benefit is not a proof. These are essentially competing moral sentiments, which, from any humane moral view is easily decided, but from a point of objective validity, it is impossible to know which is true. Essentially in this case, it boils down to the stupid "you can't prove God doesn't exist, therefore you cannot prove that a single world-view isn't actually the best way" or rather, it is impossible to obtain the proof that a single world view would be best.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
To paraphrase David Horowitz, the central purpose of education is the pursuit of truth, the discovery of new knowledge through scholarship and research, the study and reasoned criticism of intellectual and cultural traditions, the teaching and general development of children to help them become creative individuals and productive citizens of a pluralistic democracy, and the transmission of knowledge and learning to a society at large. Free inquiry is indispensable to the achievement of these goals. It is exposing children to a multiplicity of views, not a single view that fosters free inquiry.
you don't think that is a statement of ideology?
(and really, what education system is he talking about. the purpose of education has never been about such lofty goals)
Originally posted by King Kandy
I am equally against Atheists not telling their kids about religion, as I am against christians only telling their kids about Christianity.
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.
It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.
I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.
It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.
When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)
This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up. 😛
In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.
As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.
Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!
How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!" 😎
I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming. 😛
Originally posted by sithsaber408
Until a law is passed, it's none of your business, frankly.It's part of basic human rights. Parents can raise their kids to believe whatever they like, we can't stop them.
I wouldn't tell an atheist parent NOT to raise his kids as he believes, even though I don't agree. I can't FORCE that parent to teach him about opposing views that he/she doesn't believe in.
It's like the other examples I gave: any belief (credit cards suck, organic food only, whatever) is okay for parents to teach. As long as it isn't legally defined as harmful or destructive, then it's up to the parents.
When the kid is 18 they can choose for themselves if they believe what they were raised with. (note: many often don't, and go the exact opposite of whatever the parents brought them up in.)
This legislation is retarded. The abuse charge is very rare, and many home schooled kids progress further and faster by not having to wait for the other dummies to catch up. 😛
In any event, atheist/buddhist/hindu/christian parents have every right to keep kids at home for religious reasons, or any other reasons that they feel are necessary.
As long as they are on par or beyond their peers in academic achievement, then the state should have no say.
Personal note: While I would always support the right of the parents to home school, I live in the very suburban community of Roseville, just outside of Sacramento, CA. I'm not from some rural area in the south that wants to keep kids in mullets and send them to Jesus Camp. I don't want the Christian kids of my youth group isolated and at home. I want them out in the real world, with real people. That's who they are called to influence anyway!
How else are we to see the headlines: "Miracles at schools! Hundreds of local teens leave wheelchairs, diseases on football field! Mass Evangelism!" 😎
I'm done with this topic, commence the flaming. 😛
I thought you had a great point and I was agreeing with you all the way until the last part. Now I'm convinced that home schooling, for Christians, is not a good idea.