Lego and the oppressive class-based, capitalist society
by Krauze
Just another little story for those who think that the creationists are Class A Offenders when it comes to filling schools with junk. An article in the Rethinking Schools magazine describes how some elementary school teachers used Lego to teach kids about the oppressive class-based, capitalist society:
According to the article, the students had been building an elaborate "Legotown," but it was accidentally demolished. The teachers decided its destruction was an opportunity to explore "the inequities of private ownership." According to the teachers, "Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."
The children were allegedly incorporating into Legotown "their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys." These assumptions "mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive."
Among the lessons learned were the virtues of community property and standard sizes:
So they first explored with the children the issue of ownership. Not all of the students shared the teachers' anathema to private property ownership. "If I buy it, I own it," one child is quoted saying. The teachers then explored with the students concepts of fairness, equity, power, and other issues over a period of several months.
At the end of that time, Legos returned to the classroom after the children agreed to several guiding principles framed by the teachers, including that "All structures are public structures" and "All structures will be standard sizes." The teachers quote the children:
"A house is good because it is a community house."
"We should have equal houses. They should be standard sizes."
"It's important to have the same amount of power as other people over your building."
PS. If you want to read the original article in Rethinking Schools, you'll have to pay $5 for the issue. I guess not all things should be community property.
February 28th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Now this is the real Wedge strategy. Use the education of our children to promote a particular political agenda. But it's OK because there is not a hint of religion in any of it. Just good old fashioned Marxist values.
Comment by Bradford — February 28, 2007 @ 12:35 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
Yeah, this magazine is based out of my lovely city of Milwaukee.
You should read some of their other articles on the site. There was one article talking about how teachers are frightened to tell students about evolution because of right-winged, religious zealot parents.
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2007 @ 12:42 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
"We teachers?" The History and Philosophy page of 'Rethinking Schools' website offers us the story of how a group of Milwaukee area teachers "had a vision," and how that took off over the last 19 years…
Huh. Teachers as socializers and equalizers, imparting the values of socialism in the quest for 'true democracy'. In the archives there are available issues with articles on "Christopher Columbus and the Iraq War" ("how the myth built up around Columbus has helped condition kids to accept imperial adventures…"), "Reconstructing Race," "Playing with Gender," "Helping students interpret and resist the propaganda of military recruiters", and a whole issue (Vol.18/3) on desegregation as the motivating factor for this educational theorizing.
I recall posting something awhile back on what happened to public education in this country following desegregation, which I strongly believe was a necessary legal and sociopolitical decision despite what it did to education in the following decades. I was slammed as a "racist" for even mentioning the dumbing-down of curriculum and the shift from knowledge instruction to socialization across the wide spectrum of ability and preparation. One of our critics apparently believes that noticing reality is unacceptable in this postmodern world, and that no one's allowed to talk about it. "Rethinking Schools" talks a lot about it, and your Lego synopsis tells us a lot about what's actually going on.
But I've gotta tell ya that this whole non-competitive thing is often taken to ridiculous extremes. Like that federal firefighter who once got stuck here when his truck broke fighting a forest fire, who expressed shock that our game of darts with No.1 grandson was so "competitive" - as if that's some sort of horror. We (including grandson) laughed at his remark, brushing it off lightly - "Of course it's competitive! It's DARTS!"
Someone wins, everybody else doesn't win, we all have fun. Then we rustle up a snack, maybe watch a video, talk about what's what in our lives, help with the homework, nag grandson to bathe and brush his teeth, tuck him in with a kiss and ALWAYS tell him we love him. I expect this young firefighter was a product of the 'modern' school system, at a school that took non-competition to extremes.
It's always made me kind of wonder how he managed to translate that "everybody wins" ethic to his job as a firefighter. Where a mistake can easily cost lives. Yes, we've had firefighters injured fighting fires in the national forest our property serves as access to, and usually have a couple of EMT trucks at the high field just in case.
Life just plain isn't a matter of "everybody wins." And in many lines of work, you'd better be clear on rules, skills and methods - and have someone who knows what the heck they're doing in charge. Or the situation will end up with "everybody loses," and that's a fact.
Meanwhile, we live in our little mountain cabin with the soon-to-be-replaced tin roof (hopefully, if we can refinance) and an acre of gardens in a little clearing in the woods… on purpose. I wouldn't trade it for "equal housing" in any city or megaburb in the nation, and don't care at all to play that game. We consider our lives quite rich, thanks, and don't really care what others think about it. Teaching kids in 12 years of school to expect complete equality upon graduation does way more harm than good, IMO. Teach 'em the ideal and hope they work toward it in their lives. But for God's sake, teach them the TRUTH about reality!
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2007 @ 1:04 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
"A house is good because it is a community house."
And when the people in the house realize they don't have any ownership they cease to care about the house. It becomes a drug-filled, rat-infested, urine-soaked tenement. But the welfare state is et up such that they can't leave. A group of such houses has a technical sociological term: ghetto.
These houses are created by upper class whites of the same persuasions as the block-headed Lego teachers. They are created for minorities to live in to play out these upper class people's socialist dreams and experiments. Talk about a class based society…
Comment by Stuart Harris — February 28, 2007 @ 2:07 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 2:20 pm
This article isn't about a public school in Milwaukee, its about a pricy private school in Seattle. What's funny is that at the same time they are teaching Marxist BS, they limit the number of poor children they'll admit because the subsidies paid by the State of Washington aren't high enough! Needless to say, Marxist pseudoscience has no more place in public school science courses than ID pseudoscience (though there are appropriate contexts to teach about both, since they have historical and political significance), but in private schools like Hilltop, or christian academies, pretty much anything goes.
Comment by Aagcobb — February 28, 2007 @ 2:20 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
Aagcobb:
Hilltop is, according to its site, a "child care" facility, which means pre-school for the children of working parents for the most part. Pre-kindergarten socialization skills, which explains quite a bit. It currently serves 70 children, and includes a "big kids" after-school program for kids up to 10.
Actually, while they take state DSHS support, it only covers 50-60% of the cost. It steers interested parents to the City of Seattle child care assistance program, which covers all of the cost - and they say they can "serve all children" who get that benefit, though they obviously don't - as someone who has worked in teen after-school, enrollment is limited by facilities, personnel-to-enrolee (babysitter-to-kid) ratios governed by law, and funding. Mine was state grant and supplementals (extra grants we won, fundraising in the community - the program was free but reserved to "at-risk" and adjudicateds). This is a pay-to-play place, but I wouldn't be surprised if they have grant support as well. Plus, they have a couple of endowed scholarship funds.
Child care costs money. Those costs have to be paid somehow, so I'm not surprised the state child care assistance isn't enough.
Yeah, Christian schools can and often do teach their own versions of subjects. And parents pay for the privilege there too. But it doesn't look to me like this particular day-care is teaching any science. Pure socialization, with a Marxist bent.
Deal is, the article found its audience in the "Rethinking Schools" publication because it adheres to the educational philosophy RS exists to promote. And their readership is nationwide. Having attended a number of education provider conferences during my time running the after-school program, I can tell you for sure that there's lots of this sort of stuff out there in the public educational system.
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2007 @ 3:04 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Who said it was?
All I said was:
Which is true.
I went to a private school in northern Wisconsin. I can assure you pretty much anything doesn't go. Do you believe that private schools don't need to follow any type of standard aside from one that you may believe they arbitrarily set?
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2007 @ 3:26 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Hi Doug,
Yes, people should have the option to provide an alternative education to their children if thats what they want, even if we think what they are being taught is wrong. Its all part of this being a free society. So if parents in Seattle want their kids to learn that capitalism is evil, and parent in Lexington, Kentucky want their kids to learn that evolutionary theory is evil, they should have the option to send their kids to schools that teach that.
Comment by Aagcobb — February 28, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Hi Joy,
I would have a real problem with a public school teaching my kid that private property is evil; that is completely outside the scope of what is appropriate in the public school system.
Comment by Aagcobb — February 28, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 4:48 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
I don't think we are talking about the same thing. Are you equating private schooling with home schooling? A private school has standards as well. If a private school were not to have publically acceptable standards how would these kids matriculate into college? What accredited university would accept them?
Do you view private universities (like Marquette University and Notre Dame) similarly as you seem to view private high schools?
Comment by Doug — February 28, 2007 @ 4:48 pm
February 28th, 2007 at 6:58 pm
Aagcobb:
Me too! I never saw much real anti-capitalist stuff in the presentations at conferences, but that's probably because such things wouldn't fly a foot in this state. I've attended national GAs [general assembly] for religious denominations - the after-school program encouraged congregational support, and I've also fund-raised for denominational children's homes - but not national educational conferences. Just state.
I was often surprised by the amount of "sexual diversity" presenters (mostly gays), non-competition plans, cute curriculums that didn't teach much of anything I could fathom, punishment-reward methods that were positively Pavlovian, Pagan-centric environmental education plans… a regular grab-bag of causes and issues and hundreds of thoroughly dedicated people to sell them. I've no idea how much they sold in our state, but I'd bet not much outside the Research Triangle.
It's okay to try to sell your ideas, even if they're bad. And it's okay to buy your kids an excellent (or less-than excellent) private education if you want. But public schools are everybody's business, and the public at large is a lot slower to embrace ideas (even if they're good) than small groups of paying parents are.
How many parents of the disadvantaged pre-schoolers and after-schoolers the Hilltop day care facility (located in an Episcopal church, not affiliated) serves understand its socialist focus is questionable, I'm sure. Working parents need day care, this one proudly offers 'education' too, and the city pays for it (or scholarship, or subsidy, or parental co-pay). 70 children isn't that many - so it's small, and I'd guess the "teachers" and admins are well paid despite focus on the minority/disadvantaged, which has to aim at that disadvantaged minority in order to get granted facilities and other support along with state/city. There are big non-profit hoops to jump through.
Costs are high, there are no stockholders. There's a board of directors, and they get to exercise their will in hiring the admins as well as the staff. They can impose their personal philosophical views on what these children should be taught. And I'd bet you money (if I had any) that not one of 'em is a real Marxist/socialist. Capitalists by blood and capitalist by bond. This looks good on their social resume.
Next obvious questions - Why are they teaching this stuff to disadvantaged minority kids? Moreover, why is it then promoted in a national magazine aimed at public school teachers, including union members?
Comment by Joy — February 28, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 6:49 am
There is a simple way to teach the equality message that will really drive it home to the students. After passing out an exam, collect them and preach about the unjust and oppressive nature of capitalism. At that point, re-grade the exams, taking points away from the A and B students and giving them to the D and F students. The class average then becomes everyone's grade. Return the exams and watch the students. Implement this as the new grading policy and watch the average for the rest of the year. Finally, start watching the help-wanted ads.
Comment by MikeGene — March 1, 2007 @ 6:49 am
March 1st, 2007 at 7:35 am
Hi Mike,
Don't blame the students. If anyone is in need of remedial education, it's the teachers.
Incidentally, your thought experiment is to some extent carried out in the real world. In Europe, where I live, some universities have been using group exams since the 70s, where a group works together on a project, which is then graded. The result: Those universities are among the least prestigious in the country and have had to lower their admission standards to the level of non-existence to attract students.
Comment by Krauze — March 1, 2007 @ 7:35 am
March 1st, 2007 at 7:49 am
From Rethinking Schools' history and philosophy:
I'd wager the guess that most of this magazine's readers are employed in the public school system.
Comment by Krauze — March 1, 2007 @ 7:49 am
March 1st, 2007 at 10:25 am
Doug:
I don't know much about college acceptance rates from christian academies, but I doubt state standards for teaching evolutionary theory say anything about it distracting from God's glory in creation.
I believe that there are accrediting standards for universities, however, there are also unaccredited schoools of higher education that people can enroll in if they so choose.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 1, 2007 @ 10:25 am
March 1st, 2007 at 10:47 am
If they did it would be time to head over to federal district court and file a lawsuit.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 10:47 am
March 1st, 2007 at 10:52 am
We might be talking about other things. I attended a catholic high school. I never heard it refered to as a 'christian academy'. We were taugh evolutionary theory in our biology classes as well as theology in our religion classes.
I'm not certain by what you mean by 'christian academy'. My wife attended a Lutheran high school, again…. same standards as ours. Students from her high school, as well as from mine, had a higher college matriculation percent than the public schools in our cities.
Aagcobb, I'm not familiar with many of them in the Wisconsin area. Marquette University, St. Norbert College, Concordia (were Dr. Menuge is located), Lakeland College - all of these have a particular religious affiliation (catholic, luthern, church of Christ) all of them are accredited…. and regarding post-college success, all can provide the numbers showing that their students earn more on average than students graduating from the UW system.
Comment by Doug — March 1, 2007 @ 10:52 am
March 1st, 2007 at 11:36 am
Doug:
Down here in the red states, we have catholic high schools as well, and they teach science as science. We also have schools run by evangelical protestants which adhere to young earth creationism and teach in "science class" that evolutionary theory is a false, atheistic doctrine designed to rob God of his glory in creation.
We also have such universities which are academically excellent, but we also have colleges which teach young earth creationism such as Bob Jones University. Some colleges affiliated with the Southern Baptists have loosened their ties recently for fear of losing their academic freedom.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 1, 2007 @ 11:36 am
March 1st, 2007 at 11:41 am
Hi Aagcobb,
Okay, I can understand where the confusion was coming from. Up here I can't think of a school like that. Maybe a homeschool, but I can't think of many of them either.
My wife's school is WELS (the more conservative branch of Lutheranism - and much more 'fundamental' that the Catholic school I attended), but their science doesn't deviate from what the public schools teach here. That, and they have alot of bright kids graduating from there (my wife being one :smile:).
In regards to your area; yeah, that's a whole different climate. I'm not familiar in the least with that dynamic.
Comment by Doug — March 1, 2007 @ 11:41 am
March 1st, 2007 at 11:42 am
There are threats to academic freedom in colleges and universities throughout the USA but they come predominantly from a leftist fringe that imposes uniformity of views on students and profs alike.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 11:42 am
March 1st, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Doug, here are some more excerpts from the biology textbook used at Lexington Christian Academy. This is what the former board of education members in Dover, Pa., Ohio and Kansas would have liked to teach in public schools instead of IDism if they could get away with it.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 1, 2007 @ 12:19 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 12:24 pm
Hi Aagcobb,
That would bother me if that were taught in a biology class room.
I don't believe that is representative of the majority of evangelical Christian's intentions…. but still, if children learning that had the desire to go on for further education I would feel bad for their prospects.
Comment by Doug — March 1, 2007 @ 12:24 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 12:34 pm
What is the evidence that the former board would have included this instructional material?
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 12:34 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Bradford,
The evidence in Kitzmiller shows the Board was made up of young earth creationists who originally wanted to teach creationism and switched over to IDism only later. You can easily find material on the Kitzmiller trial on the internet if you want.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 1, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 2:38 pm
I have the transcript. It does not support your claim that they were pushing for what you linked to. Unless that includes a generous portion of extrapolation based on your personal opinion.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 2:38 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 3:20 pm
Bradford, they wanted to teach creationism. We don't know what specific creationist textbook they would have used if they could, but it would have been creationism such as is found in the textbooks used in christian academies.
Comment by Aagcobb — March 1, 2007 @ 3:20 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Joy,
Where in NC do you hail from?
I live in Chatham County, and work in Research Triangle Park, so I noticed your reference to it. . .
Comment by MatthewCromer — March 1, 2007 @ 3:49 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 3:55 pm
That's the spin. Teach the full set of facts.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 3:55 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 5:28 pm
South slope of Heartbreak Ridge, McDowell County. The Black Brothers (Mitchell & Co.) are what's left of what was once the world's largest volcano, did you know that?
Don't hail from here, bought into some nice 'no-neighbors' land 15 years ago after our son died and we inherited some orphans to raise (after we thought we were done!). Born in Olongopo, Luzon, which is at the off the south slope of Punatubo.
Where ya gonna go when de volcano blow? §;o)
Comment by Joy — March 1, 2007 @ 5:28 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 10:39 pm
Someone wrote:
What? Teach the facts? That's exactly the opposite of what every ID advocate has argued in front of any official body.
Teach the facts first, we say.
Are you feeling okay, Bradford, or did you suddenly come to your senses?
Comment by edarrell — March 1, 2007 @ 10:39 pm
March 1st, 2007 at 11:27 pm
Teach the facts Ed. Start by explaining the chemical pathway to a nucleic acid that subsequently formed the first genome. Then explain how it acquired the sequential order of nucleotides that conferred encoding utility. When you get that far explain the steps leading to its expression. Then continue on and tell us how this led to a cell. If you get this far kindly tell us how a DNA based genome was replicated or transcribed without a set of front loaded enzymes that neutralized any supercoiling effects. There's a lot more but if you approach this honestly you will learn that supporting facts are not as plentiful as you assume and are not determined by a majority or even by consensus.
Comment by Bradford — March 1, 2007 @ 11:27 pm