Quote
Gutenberg

Quote
kj

Quote
$tevie
Whoa whoa whoa, ki, did you just express the idea that "unions" and "capitalism" are mutually exclusive? That is going to shock the heck out of all the people who lived in this capitalistic country for the last 200+ years since the first union was organized.

I don't think so. They're not mutually exclusive, but they're not synonymous either (you can love capitalism and hate unions). Some people consider unions a communist thing, but I don't (well one of my strawmen does, but not me). kj.

Unions and capitalism have been coexisting for centuries. Unionism has helped bring great progress to worker rights like maximum workweek, minimum wage, lifestyle and workplace conditions that would never had been possible had management had its way with work rules.

People performing manual labor and factory work would never have been able to join the middle class without unions. And that army of people joining the middle class fueled an amazing economic boom in the US from 1939-1969.

If the wealthy class wants to continue our recessionary economy it can continue to roll back wages and benefits to the working class, and it can continue to dismantle the regulatory system of the US government. Because while the wealthy class likes to say that a rising tide lifts all boats, it would be far happier if tide lifted only yachts.

Edit: before the righties go all black-or-white on me, I am aware that some unions have their problems. Some have become as bloated and corrupt as some of the corporations with which they negotiate. Many unions need reform. But most politicians seem to fear instead their political power, and try to limit their ability to organize. Right now, though, the unions' political power is weak compared to the corporations' thanks to Citizens United.

Uh, I said I don't think they're mutually exclusive. And I've never said I'm anti-union. I think you're making some assumptions about my views based on the label you've put on me.

All the "righties". You mean me and cbelt? kj.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
kj

>>I don't get this "dirty" reference. Would you feel the same way about school instruction in how to be a capitalist? I can guarantee you that there is plenty of that going on:

The reason I say it's a little dirty is that, as I said, it's self-serving. Teachers have more at stake in people buying into the union idea, than they do in them buying into capitalism. Other examples would be the environmental focus you see a lot of now days, as well as the native american components, etc. They are certainly "imposition", but not for the benefit of teachers, specifically. kj.

I think that some instructional materials about unions may be of the self serving kind - but that is not unique to unions. As a teacher I used to get packets of instructional materials from many types of corporations every year. If the materials were too heavily laced with self serving stuff I wouldn't use them. But unions are a part of the fabric of our economic system and I don't see anything wrong with teaching what they are about any more than teaching what any other significant aspect of our economic system is about. For example, the link I gave to the Microsociety outfit that provides a programs where students learn about running businesses and government could easily include a unit on unions and I don't see why that would be a problem - unless you don't think unions are things that children should be taught about. But then I think you need to justify why unions should not be taught about even though they are a significant part of our economic system. The lack of teaching about unions becomes a form of reverse indoctrination.

I think you have to be careful not to equate teaching about unions with union teachers being self serving. If a Christian social studies teacher teaches about Christianity that does not necessarily imply that they are being self serving (though I wouldn't put it past many conservatives to agree with that statement, but still be suspicious of a Muslim social studies teacher teaching about Islam). Teachers teach about all kinds of things that they believe in without it being the case that they are primarily motivated by being self serving. I'm not saying that teaching in a way that is self serving doesn't happen, but I don't think it is fair to make the assumption without other evidence of self servingness.

Sure, but I think it's worthy of debate. We have to be careful, because people naturally promote their own views, and their own livelihood. If you agree it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, then we are probably pretty close to agreement.

And Acer, if the right is afraid of indoctrination by teacher, then in that respect I'm not a righty. I think indoctrination (what I called imposition) is unavoidable and necessary. I don't know if you were assuming that was my view. kj.

Quote
kj
I think you're making some assumptions about my views based on the label you've put on me.

I think we're making some assumptions based on you having written this:

Quote
kj
The reason I say it's a little dirty is that, as I said, it's self-serving. Teachers have more at stake in people buying into the union idea, than they do in them buying into capitalism.

Sounds pretty either/or to me. Maybe you need to rewrite those sentences to express what you really meant? Because what you wrote makes it sound like teachers are all socialists.

Looking back, I see that Ted King originally set up "capitalism" as the opposite of "unions". So I apologize for not calling him out as well.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 01:30PM by $tevie.

Quote
$tevie

Quote
kj
I think you're making some assumptions about my views based on the label you've put on me.

I think we're making some assumptions based on you having written this:

Quote
kj
The reason I say it's a little dirty is that, as I said, it's self-serving. Teachers have more at stake in people buying into the union idea, than they do in them buying into capitalism.

Sounds pretty either/or to me. Maybe you need to rewrite those sentences to express what you really meant? Because what you wrote makes it sound like teachers are all socialists.

Looking back, I see that Ted King originally set up "capitalism" as the opposite of "unions". So I apologize for not calling him out as well.

Whoa. This is what I said, "Would you feel the same way about school instruction in how to be a capitalist?" How does that imply that unions are the opposite of capitalism. They are different things, but that doesn't mean they are opposites any more than an apple is an opposite of an orange. You can like apples and not like oranges, but you can like apples and also like oranges. You can like capitalism without liking unions, but you can like capitalism and like unions.

What I was trying to get at was that I suspected that kj likes teachers teaching about capitalism, but then I didn't understand why he would not want unions to be taught about if he was okay with capitalism being taught about because capitalism is an important aspect of our economy but unions are also a significant part of our economy as well. He responded that teaching about unions is self serving but teaching about capitalism isn't. And I responded to that.

Quote
kj

Quote
Ted King

Quote
kj

>>I don't get this "dirty" reference. Would you feel the same way about school instruction in how to be a capitalist? I can guarantee you that there is plenty of that going on:

The reason I say it's a little dirty is that, as I said, it's self-serving. Teachers have more at stake in people buying into the union idea, than they do in them buying into capitalism. Other examples would be the environmental focus you see a lot of now days, as well as the native american components, etc. They are certainly "imposition", but not for the benefit of teachers, specifically. kj.

I think that some instructional materials about unions may be of the self serving kind - but that is not unique to unions. As a teacher I used to get packets of instructional materials from many types of corporations every year. If the materials were too heavily laced with self serving stuff I wouldn't use them. But unions are a part of the fabric of our economic system and I don't see anything wrong with teaching what they are about any more than teaching what any other significant aspect of our economic system is about. For example, the link I gave to the Microsociety outfit that provides a programs where students learn about running businesses and government could easily include a unit on unions and I don't see why that would be a problem - unless you don't think unions are things that children should be taught about. But then I think you need to justify why unions should not be taught about even though they are a significant part of our economic system. The lack of teaching about unions becomes a form of reverse indoctrination.

I think you have to be careful not to equate teaching about unions with union teachers being self serving. If a Christian social studies teacher teaches about Christianity that does not necessarily imply that they are being self serving (though I wouldn't put it past many conservatives to agree with that statement, but still be suspicious of a Muslim social studies teacher teaching about Islam). Teachers teach about all kinds of things that they believe in without it being the case that they are primarily motivated by being self serving. I'm not saying that teaching in a way that is self serving doesn't happen, but I don't think it is fair to make the assumption without other evidence of self servingness.

Sure, but I think it's worthy of debate. We have to be careful, because people naturally promote their own views, and their own livelihood. If you agree it shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, then we are probably pretty close to agreement.

The self serving thing is quite tricky. A strongly patriotic teacher leading the class in saying the Pledge of Allegiance is clearly doing indoctrination - should we not allow her to do that because it would be self serving of her patriotism? The Constitution is consistent with quite a bit of socialism, so maybe we shouldn't indoctrinate kids in the ways of capitalism - isn't a teacher, who is a fan of Ayn Rand, teaching her students how to be a capitalist, indoctrinating those students in a way that is self serving and serves the interest in those who prefer private ownership over government ownership of the means of production?

So sure, there may be teachers who teach about unions in a self-serving way, but not all self-serving teaching is frowned upon, so why would teaching about unions be frowned on?

Actually, I am favor of teachers not indoctrinating students in anything and teachers trying to avoid making curriculum choices based primarily on self-serving interests. That includes not indoctrinating students to be patriotic. That includes not indoctrinating them to think that the practice of capitalism is virtuous. That includes not indoctrinating students to think that unions are virtuous. I am in favor of teaching students about all of those things and letting them make up their own minds about whether or not they are virtuous.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 02:36PM by Ted King.

Quote
Ted
I am in favor of teaching students about all of those things and letting them make up their own minds about whether or not they are virtuous.

RIght on! No need to be afraid of information, put it out there.

>>What I was trying to get at was that I suspected that kj likes teachers teaching about capitalism

Actually, my endorsement of capitalism is pretty limited.

>>I am in favor of teaching students about all of those things and letting them make up their own minds about whether or not they are virtuous.

Sounds good, but there are two sides. I tend to side with George Counts on this issue. In Dare the Schools Build a New Society, he makes a really good case that cultural indoctrination is unavoidable and necessary. What is the first part of culture that our kids are indoctrinated with? Probably language. Should we ask them which language they want to learn when they are 2yrs. old? You could say this is ridiculous, but the cultural indoctrination continues throughout life in much the same way. It's adaptive.

>>RIght on! No need to be afraid of information, put it out there.

All of it? If you choose things, aren't you implicitly making sure those things are learned to the exclusion of others? The question becomes, "why did you choose that particular information." It's assumed to some extent it's because you think it's more important than those other things (promoting it). I think the answer is a somewhat unsatisfactory one, but I think we need to make sure what we teach is intended to benefit the kids. Cultural indoctrination surely benefits children, so it should continue, but in what form is always going to be debated. But if I own a McDonalds franchise, and spend a lot of time teaching about McMath and McReading, I think it's probably worth a look (is it meant to benefit me?). At that point, it becomes a different issue. kj.

So what you are saying is to avoid bias, we need to teach children facts at random. Great idea. And if you think that the great majority of classroom teachers, if left to their own devices, would NOT teach the children in their class subjects that they honestly think will benefit the kids, then you are not being fair and you are not thinking it through. If the politicians would get out of the teachers' way we'd have a better education system.

Quote
kj

>>I am in favor of teaching students about all of those things and letting them make up their own minds about whether or not they are virtuous.

Sounds good, but there are two sides. I tend to side with George Counts on this issue. In Dare the Schools Build a New Society, he makes a really good case that cultural indoctrination is unavoidable and necessary. What is the first part of culture that our kids are indoctrinated with? Probably language. Should we ask them which language they want to learn when they are 2yrs. old? You could say this is ridiculous, but the cultural indoctrination continues throughout life in much the same way. It's adaptive.

>>RIght on! No need to be afraid of information, put it out there.

All of it? If you choose things, aren't you implicitly making sure those things are learned to the exclusion of others? The question becomes, "why did you choose that particular information." It's assumed to some extent it's because you think it's more important than those other things (promoting it). I think the answer is a somewhat unsatisfactory one, but I think we need to make sure what we teach is intended to benefit the kids. Cultural indoctrination surely benefits children, so it should continue, but in what form is always going to be debated. But if I own a McDonalds franchise, and spend a lot of time teaching about McMath and McReading, I think it's probably worth a look (is it meant to benefit me?). At that point, it becomes a different issue. kj.

The term "indoctrination" is vague in that it is hard to see what the consensus is (from the contexts of its common use) of what qualities it denotes. You could go so far as to say all education is indoctrination if you choose loose qualities for the term's denotative function. It's interesting that you mention that educating is always making choices out of a large pool of information. In another sense of "indoctrination" you could say that because some choices were made rather than others and those choices are the ones learned and the things not chosen are not learned, that the students were "indoctrinated" with the choices made of what they were to learn.

Those are valid ways of using the term in a denotative sense, but I think that they miss something important in the connotative sense. In a great many contexts of the term's use, there is a connotation of something like brainwashing - although that connotation varies in intensity within different contexts. At least there are usually connotations of propagandizing going on with the use of the term "indoctrinate". It carries the connotation of advocacy for something beyond simply explaining what it is. Looking at "indoctrination" with that connotation in mind, it is true that you could still say that merely making the choice to teach only English rather than other languages amounts to advocacy for English over other languages - as an example. But that is a passive advocacy. So in the extent that "indoctrination" can apply to certain kinds of passive advocacy by choice of some things to teach rather than others, then I would agree that there are some kinds of indoctrination that are worthwhile (and certainly necessary since you can't teach everything, you have to make choices).

But to the extent that "indoctrination" encompasses active advocacy, then I am at least generally against that kind of indoctrination happening in public schools. And that standard applies to all the things I mentioned in the earlier post - I am against active advocacy in schools of patriotism, capitalism and unionism. I do, of course, favor teaching about them.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2012 08:00PM by Ted King.

Quote
Gutenberg
So what you are saying is to avoid bias, we need to teach children facts at random. Great idea. And if you think that the great majority of classroom teachers, if left to their own devices, would NOT teach the children in their class subjects that they honestly think will benefit the kids, then you are not being fair and you are not thinking it through. If the politicians would get out of the teachers' way we'd have a better education system.

I was saying close to the opposite of that. There's no way to avoid bias, so I would say it's hopeless to even try. I think even though it's a messy subject, we have to make value judgements. I would say it's a start to ask questions about whether the decisions we make are for the kids, or someone else. It would be pretty hard to argue the question doesn't need to be asked. "Who stands to gain" is a pretty basic question to ask, even though the answers aren't always clear. But no one should ever be discouraged from asking these types of questions. kj.

Quote
Ted King

Quote
kj

>>I am in favor of teaching students about all of those things and letting them make up their own minds about whether or not they are virtuous.

Sounds good, but there are two sides. I tend to side with George Counts on this issue. In Dare the Schools Build a New Society, he makes a really good case that cultural indoctrination is unavoidable and necessary. What is the first part of culture that our kids are indoctrinated with? Probably language. Should we ask them which language they want to learn when they are 2yrs. old? You could say this is ridiculous, but the cultural indoctrination continues throughout life in much the same way. It's adaptive.

>>RIght on! No need to be afraid of information, put it out there.

All of it? If you choose things, aren't you implicitly making sure those things are learned to the exclusion of others? The question becomes, "why did you choose that particular information." It's assumed to some extent it's because you think it's more important than those other things (promoting it). I think the answer is a somewhat unsatisfactory one, but I think we need to make sure what we teach is intended to benefit the kids. Cultural indoctrination surely benefits children, so it should continue, but in what form is always going to be debated. But if I own a McDonalds franchise, and spend a lot of time teaching about McMath and McReading, I think it's probably worth a look (is it meant to benefit me?). At that point, it becomes a different issue. kj.

The term "indoctrination" is vague in that it is hard to see what the consensus is (from the contexts of its common use) of what qualities it denotes. You could go so far as to say all education is indoctrination if you choose loose qualities for the term's denotative function. It's interesting that you mention that educating is always making choices out of a large pool of information. In another sense of "indoctrination" you could say that because some choices were made rather than others and those choices are the ones learned and the things not chosen are not learned, that the students were "indoctrinated" with the choices made of what they were to learn.

Those are valid ways of using the term in a denotative sense, but I think that they miss something important in the connotative sense. In a great many contexts of the term's use, there is a connotation of something like brainwashing - although that connotation varies in intensity within different contexts. At least there are usually connotations of propagandizing going on with the use of the term "indoctrinate". It carries the connotation of advocacy for something beyond simply explaining what it is. Looking at "indoctrination" with that connotation in mind, it is true that you could still say that merely making the choice to teach only English rather than other languages amounts to advocacy for English over other languages - as an example. But that is a passive advocacy. So in the extent that "indoctrination" can apply to certain kinds of passive advocacy by choice of some things to teach rather than others, then I would agree that there are some kinds of indoctrination that are worthwhile (and certainly necessary since you can't teach everything, you have to make choices).

But to the extent that "indoctrination" encompasses active advocacy, then I am at least generally against that kind of indoctrination happening in public schools. And that standard applies to all the things I mentioned in the earlier post - I am against active advocacy in schools of patriotism, capitalism and unionism. I do, of course, favor teaching about them.

Some of my teachers inspired an interest in me because they were obviously really excited about certain subjects. I think this could be interpreted as indoctrination, but any teacher who doesn't do this, at least on occasion, is pretty lame. An example is that in most elementary schools, afaik, the curriculum includes units on Native Americans. It's indoctrination, cut and dry. Thing is, it's good indoctrination. The kids don't just need to hear it, they need to feel it. Values need to be taught, but of course there's always going to be the surrounding debate (who determines what values, etc). kj.

I feel that the word "indoctrination" is being used very strangely in this conversation, and in ways that are not part of the actual meaning of the term. "Indoctrination" has a negative connotation and is not the same thing as just teaching, or as showing enthusiasm, knowledge or expertise in a certain subject.

Indoctrination includes the idea that the person receiving the information is told to accept that information with applying any critical thinking. This is not what should happen at school, it is not what generally does happen. Effective teachers talk about a variety of things but they do not indoctrinate. They leave the student intellectually free to make his or her own value judgments about the subject being taught.

Quote
Grace62
Indoctrination includes the idea that the person receiving the information is told to accept that information with applying any critical thinking.

Without?

---

MR/F Guestmap: [www.mapservices.org]

The irony here is history has suffered change and ambiguous rewrites for decades. Government, schools, TV, Radio et al have their own versions of indoctrination, capitalism and unions and they do not always agree or conform to one point of view. To insinuate that it is all of a sudden different now is a little wacky.

To impose ones point a of view on another as gospel is also a little wacky. There is more than one way to interpret these issues.

There is a fine line between a rut an a groove is not just a cliche. It often defines a concrete person /therory, mixed up and set in their/it's ways.

Unions and capitalism have positive and negative aspects, indoctrination is an indirect force/part of the equation of influence and this influence is both for good and evil. ymmv
Rudie

"""I feel that the word "indoctrination" is being used very strangely in this conversation, and in ways that are not part of the actual meaning of the term. "Indoctrination" has a negative connotation and is not the same thing as just teaching, or as showing enthusiasm, knowledge or expertise in a certain subject.
"
Just a little different than my Mac/Apple dictionary *(:>*

indoctrinate
verb [ trans. ]
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically : broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses.
• archaic teach or instruct (someone) : he indoctrinated them in systematic theology.

Continuing education is a good thing me thinks *(:>*

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy




Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2012 03:34AM by haikuman.

Oh Please.

The term "indoctrination" is vague in that it is hard to see what the consensus is (from the contexts of its common use) of what qualities it denotes. You could go so far as to say all education is indoctrination if you choose loose qualities for the term's denotative function. It's interesting that you mention that educating is always making choices out of a large pool of information. In another sense of "indoctrination" you could say that because some choices were made rather than others and those choices are the ones learned and the things not chosen are not learned, that the students were "indoctrinated" with the choices made of what they were to learn.

Now we are talking some vague redundant innuendo *(:>*

"""But to the extent that "indoctrination" encompasses active advocacy, then I am at least generally against that kind of indoctrination happening in public schools. And that standard applies to all the things I mentioned in the earlier post - I am against active advocacy in schools of patriotism, capitalism and unionism. I do, of course, favor teaching about them."""

There in lies the rub doing so at the right time, in a context of clear objectivity presented in a balanced
cirriculum.

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy

Quote
Black

Quote
Grace62
Indoctrination includes the idea that the person receiving the information is told to accept that information with applying any critical thinking.

Without?

Thanks for noticing that, yes I meant "without"

""" Effective teachers talk about a variety of things but they do not indoctrinate. They leave the student intellectually free to make his or her own value judgments about the subject being taught."""

Perhaps in fairy tales and dreams . . .

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy

Rudie the dictionary definition you provided says the same thing that I am saying: indoctrination means the information is to be accepted uncritically. IOW, with no freedom to decide for yourself.

kj thinks teachers are indoctrinating their students regularly, that has not been my experience as a person educated in the US, and as a parent of a college student and a high school student. That includes teachers in a variety of states and across decades. Of course there are opinionated teachers who will present their own views forcefully, but that does not mean they are brainwashing students or insisting that they adopt the teacher's POV and not think for themselves.
I have not experienced that type of extreme in education.

Quote
kj

Some of my teachers inspired an interest in me because they were obviously really excited about certain subjects. I think this could be interpreted as indoctrination, but any teacher who doesn't do this, at least on occasion, is pretty lame. An example is that in most elementary schools, afaik, the curriculum includes units on Native Americans. It's indoctrination, cut and dry. Thing is, it's good indoctrination. The kids don't just need to hear it, they need to feel it. Values need to be taught, but of course there's always going to be the surrounding debate (who determines what values, etc). kj.

I taught about evolution with enthusiasm to my 7th grade students, but I made sure that I didn't expect them to feel that evolution is in fact what happened. What I told my students was that science is about providing natural explanations and if there is a natural explanation for how life is and has been on the planet, then the theory of natural selection provides a natural explanation that is a good fit for observations. But I always acknowledged that supernatural explanations are possible and if there are supernatural phenomena, science can have nothing to say about them since science is concerned with natural explanations. I don't think teaching with enthusiasm implies that you must convince the students how to feel about what is being taught.

It is true that public schools cannot stay completely away from teaching values, but I always resisted doing so for all but the most basic values of respecting other people enough that they felt physically and emotionally safe at school. Even then I was more concerned with how they behaved than about what values they were internalizing. I hoped that by providing a model of respecting others that they would choose to internalize that attitude, but I never insisted that they internalize that value (though, as I said, I did insist that they behave in a manner where all students felt physically and emotionally safe). I think that teaching values is primarily for families and institutions like churches, not public schools. Public schools should be about helping students gain tools to work with, not inculcating values about what they do with those tools.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2012 12:34PM by Ted King.

How did this get so complicated? I went to public school for twelve years and I don't recall all this hullabaloo. I think the stories of teachers imposing their beliefs upon students are exaggerated, both in frequency and in content. And if not, it's the parents' lookout. I don't feel the need to stick my nose into a school district on the other side of the country. The occasional teacher who misuses his/her post shouldn't cause a freakout that it's a national trend. Frankly, the GOP is after the teachers unions and I refuse to fall for THEIR propaganda.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Quote
Grace62
Rudie the dictionary definition you provided says the same thing that I am saying: indoctrination means the information is to be accepted uncritically. IOW, with no freedom to decide for yourself.

kj thinks teachers are indoctrinating their students regularly, that has not been my experience as a person educated in the US, and as a parent of a college student and a high school student. That includes teachers in a variety of states and across decades. Of course there are opinionated teachers who will present their own views forcefully, but that does not mean they are brainwashing students or insisting that they adopt the teacher's POV and not think for themselves.
I have not experienced that type of extreme in education.

I'm not comfortable with the word indoctrination, but am not sure what word would substitute. I was not using it with a negative connotation. I've never said anything about brainwashing. Ted brings up a good point, and his position is a common one. Here is an example of what I would call "imposition" or whatever in schools:

[www.google.com]

This is a good thing, which is why I don't think you can just ban any "pushing" of values completely. We need to decide what values are taught in schools, and that takes debate. kj.

What if we just call it teaching?

"""What if we just call it teaching?"""

It would not be entirely accurate because in takes different shapes and may be just semantics

teach
verb
1 Alison teaches small children: educate, instruct, school, tutor, coach, train; enlighten, illuminate, verse, edify, indoctrinate; drill, discipline.
2 I taught yoga: give lessons in, lecture in, be a teacher of; demonstrate, instill, inculcate.
3 she taught me how to love: train, show, guide, instruct, explain to, demonstrate to.

semantics
plural noun [usu. treated as sing. ]
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning.
• the meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or text : such quibbling over semantics may seem petty stuff.

inculcate
verb [ trans. ]
instill (an attitude, idea, or habit) by persistent instruction : the failures of the churches to inculcate a sense of moral responsibility.
• teach (someone) an attitude, idea, or habit by such instruction : they will try to inculcate you with a respect for culture.


Holy Kama Sutra inculcation can be fun *(:>*

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy




Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/20/2012 09:15PM by haikuman.

"""kj thinks teachers are indoctrinating their students regularly, that has not been my experience as a person educated in the US, and as a parent of a college student and a high school student. That includes teachers in a variety of states and across decades. Of course there are opinionated teachers who will present their own views forcefully, but that does not mean they are brainwashing students or insisting that they adopt the teacher's POV and not think for themselves.
I have not experienced that type of extreme in education."""

Students are most certainly being indoctrinated in USA public schools district by district. The levels vary according to local and state influences.

furdder more the comparative levels to other countries finds our education system lacking. ymmv

[www.guardian.co.uk]

[en.wikipedia.org]

[www.google.com]

[en.wikipedia.org]

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy

United We Stand, Divided We Fall.


Unionism? or just a good plan for survival?


[en.wikipedia.org]


Aesop. (Sixth century B.C.)
Fables.
The Harvard Classics.
1909–14.

The Four Oxen and the Lion

A LION used to prowl about a field in which Four Oxen used to dwell. Many a time he tried to attack them; but whenever he came near they turned their tails to one another, so that whichever way he approached them he was met by the horns of one of them. At last, however, they fell a-quarrelling among themselves, and each went off to pasture alone in a separate corner of the field. Then the Lion attacked them one by one and soon made an end of all four.

“UNITED WE STAND, DIVIDED WE FALL.”

---

[www.giyf.com]

Quote
Grace62
What if we just call it teaching?

It's a specific practice within teaching. Is this "just teaching?":

[abclocal.go.com]

I know things like this don't happen all that much, but if this is not right, what makes it so? Should things like this be discussed, or should teachers just be allowed to do whatever they deem appropriate? I'm not trying to beat up teachers. I think it's important and interesting. kj.

Quote
kj

Quote
Grace62
Rudie the dictionary definition you provided says the same thing that I am saying: indoctrination means the information is to be accepted uncritically. IOW, with no freedom to decide for yourself.

kj thinks teachers are indoctrinating their students regularly, that has not been my experience as a person educated in the US, and as a parent of a college student and a high school student. That includes teachers in a variety of states and across decades. Of course there are opinionated teachers who will present their own views forcefully, but that does not mean they are brainwashing students or insisting that they adopt the teacher's POV and not think for themselves.
I have not experienced that type of extreme in education.

I'm not comfortable with the word indoctrination, but am not sure what word would substitute. I was not using it with a negative connotation. I've never said anything about brainwashing. Ted brings up a good point, and his position is a common one. Here is an example of what I would call "imposition" or whatever in schools:

[www.google.com]

This is a good thing, which is why I don't think you can just ban any "pushing" of values completely. We need to decide what values are taught in schools, and that takes debate. kj.

Here's a funny one for ya', I prefer less value persuasion in public schools because I think the more public schools push certain values, the less freedom the students feel they have to decide their own values. Imagine how a school in a strict theocracy would make sure that the students felt that the only values to choose were the doctrines of the theocracy. There would be little feeling of freedom to choose your own values. I think American public schools should be as much the opposite of that as possible because pushing a certain value to the point where it becomes individually intimidating gets in the way of freedom - and freedom is a value that should be at the core of American public schools. Of course, logistically it is necessary to have a fairly structured learning environment and that reduces freedom of action quite a bit, but there a many ways to keep the flame of freedom of thought well-alive within the confines of that structured environment.

But I would agree that schools probably are the best place for young people to be persuaded that there are basic ways of behaving in public settings with a lot of other people. When there is a high density of people geographically, especially in a public space, there is more friction of individual freedom from it coming up against the other people wanting to enjoy their freedom, too. Schools are such high density places and the first and most important social setting - other than the family - where young people acquire social skills and expectations that are probably better realized if the young people internalize it so that it becomes something they value even if it causes some reduction in individual freedom. Just being respectful of each other as equals in terms of everyone getting their fair share of freedom without fear for their physical or emotional well-being. Even then I would resist insisting that the students must come to feel that these things are worth holding as values, but instead hope that the model of seeing the rewards for everyone in each person cooperating to create a nurturing environment for everyone - even as we each stand up for ourselves and take pleasure in the freedom we have and thereby could come into conflict.*

At any rate, I think that one of the reasons I, as a public school teacher, always tried to minimize advocacy for a value is that it's sort of imposing my judgment of value which would have the affect of reducing the feeling of freedom of ideas for my students. I wanted them to feel free to think what they wanted to think - there is no greater freedom than freedom of thought. And ironically, it turns out that freedom of thought can be nurtured and the fun thing about it is that you don't know what you've nurtured but you trust that it will be a good thing. Here's some tools guys (that's what I mostly called my students), I'm not going to tell you what to do with those tools, but, oh, I might mention a few things you might want to keep in mind as you ponder it out for yourself. If you've been in a "teaching" situation and seen a young mind switch on because it felt the freedom to think a thought, then you can understand what gave me some of the greatest gratification I had as a teacher.

Sorry about this rant. Probably a little retired teacher nostalgia going on. At least until I start remembering endless hours of grading papers, that I'm not so nostalgic about.


* A stray associated thought that wanted to come out: I think it is very important that we realize that conflicts are a subzero sum game for the whole of the communities in conflict - even if some groups within the communities achieve some gains. If a community sees conflict as unavoidable, then, for its own sake, it must fully recognize the consequences of the conflict. The best amount of justified resistance - which is a form of conflict - is that which achieves the goal with the least amount of resistance necessary.

Not a rant. A lot of good thoughts. I have always, or at least most of my life, had similar feelings. Mine might come more from a realization that consensus as to what should be taught, is increasingly hard to come by. I recently read something that made the case that a lack of influence leads to a lack of freedom, and I've been giving it some thought, since I've believed for quite some time that if you don't give your kids a good belief system (I'm talking parenting now), they pick it up somewhere else (seeing as how much kids watch tv and surf the web, that would probably be where). An awful lot of kids who are interfered with the least end up addicts, dropouts, etc. And one could hardly feel that they have any kind of freedom. Anyway, thanks for the discussion. kj.

This entire subject of "teacher indoctrination" is strangely reminiscent of the "voter fraud" argument used by the right to suppress voter turnout. How better to dampen a teacher's natural inclination to teach than than label it as something it's not.

Just be sure the label carries hot-button words so no thought process will be required before jumping to conclusions, the result of which may have long lasting ramifications on student lives.

I am not sure it is a left or right thing RgrF. Perhaps it is about clarity of curriculums, fundamentals ,
pursuing loftier goals and avoiding mediocrity in USA schools. ymmv.
Rudie

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy

These things have absolutely nothing to do with the pursuit of "loftier goals", they have everything to do with the dampening of goals and pursuit of mediocrity.

A long time ago a couple of mediocre judges were nominated for appointment to the Supreme Court.The nomination of judges Carswell and Haynsworth were rejected by the US Senate - one of the defenses of the inferior appointees was that "mediocrity was no barrier to appointment".

Guess which party advanced that argument.

Quote
RgrF
This entire subject of "teacher indoctrination" is strangely reminiscent of the "voter fraud" argument used by the right to suppress voter turnout. How better to dampen a teacher's natural inclination to teach than than label it as something it's not.

Just be sure the label carries hot-button words so no thought process will be required before jumping to conclusions, the result of which may have long lasting ramifications on student lives.

---

"Stop thinking about art works as objects, and start thinking about them as triggers for experiences." ~ Brian Eno

Of course I agree it is a conspiracy to promote hypersensitivity in educators and celebrate
mediocrity

---

“Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"
"There are only two mantras yummm and yuk "
"There is a fine line between a rut and a groove"
"The quality of Congress is not strained. It droppeth like a fetid cow patty from a bovine cloaca." cbelt
"I got to that part and I knew there was going to be some weapons grade stupid to follow"Lux Interior
"When all the trees have been cut down, when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted, when all the air is unsafe to breathe, only then
will you discover you cannot eat money."
~ Cree Prophecy