Quote from: WerekoalaThen why, as the last sentence of the first section of the article, written by the teacher(s), do we have this statement:

"After nearly two months of observing the children's Legotown construction, we decided to ban the Legos."

I find it hard to believe the person writing the article misquoted herself. But hey, I could be wrong.

She was being melodramatic (the article, as I said, is badly titled and a bit weirdly written). The important thing is to read what form the actual "ban" took. They set aside the LEGO bin for a few sessions, played a couple of games involving ownership of the LEGOs, then let everyone play with the LEGOs again when they were satisfied that the lesson had been learnt. The resolution at the end is actually that more children are playing with the LEGOs than prior to this experience.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYou've got some weird ideological rant thing going on here, and I'm not sure where to begin pointing out how distinct it is from the account we have of the situation or what a reasonable interpretation of events would tell us is plausible to presume based on that account.

Edit: Oh heck, here's one:

You object to "collectivism" and insist that authority and force must be used to combat it, or possibly proactively to prevent it from developing. That's a weird viewpoint, and it doesn't make a lot of sense. The traditional objection to "collectivism" is precisely that it relies on authority and force to make people do what the "collectivists" (whoever they happen to be) want, instead of relying on rational persuasion and respect for individual dignity. It's unclear why you would object to "collectivism" if you think authority and force are required to live in this world.

Did I object to authority or force being used? Of course not.  I don't think many, if any, 'anti-collectivists' do object to it on those grounds.  The objection to a collectivist mindset or agenda has nothing do do with people having authority. It's an absurd position to make.

The problem here is not even that I'm objecting to Collectivism. I do, but it isn't the point. You want to go be a collectivist? Fine, go live in your hippie commune with other like minded collectivists and leave me the hell alone. I do not conform.

No. You are either missing the point or setting up strawmen. The point is that they are teaching children to 'not succeed in life' and to 'feel guilty if they do'.  Maybe it's because it's poorly written. I know that they can't have set out to do that in so many words. It is, however, the end result.

Hell, it seems to me that they are actually trying to teach that the Haves make the rules and the Have-Nots can only suffer in silence.  Maybe it's true for a large number of people, but thats not what you teach, what you teach is the ability to reach for those god damn green legos, and if you try hard enough you just might get them.  Sure, people will fail. But you don't fucking teach people to fail just because it happens a lot, you fucking teach them to succeed to maximize their chances of doing so.  

Hell, I'll reach for the goddamn cliche. You teach them to HOPE.


Nothing is ever gained by teaching them it ain't worth trying.

Quote from: SpikeHell, I'll reach for the goddamn cliche. You teach them to HOPE.

Nothing is ever gained by teaching them it ain't worth trying.

Why did I just now picture you standing on the wing of a fighter plane giving an inspirational speech just before the mission to destroy the alien city-killer?

Quote from: AnemoneAre teachers just supposed to watch the Lego rendition of "Lord of the Flies", or should they grab the opportunity to explore the situation with the kids?

It wasn't "Lord of the Flies" and they didn't "explore" the situation.  They made sure that the children drew the conclusion that they wanted them to draw.  First they claim:

"[...] Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned."

"[...] We didn't want simply to step in as teachers with a new set of rules about how the children could use Legos, exchanging one set of authoritarian rules with another. Ann suggested removing the Legos from the classroom. This bold decision would demonstrate our discomfort with the issues we saw at play in Legotown. And it posed a challenge to the children: How might we create a "community of fairness" about Legos?"

"[...] We knew that our personal experiences and beliefs would shape our decision-making and planning for the children, and we wanted to be as aware as we could about them."

"We also discussed our beliefs about our role as teachers in raising political issues with young children. We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children's understandings from a perspective of social justice. So we decided to take the Legos out of the classroom."

Then they claim:

"After nearly an hour of passionate exchange, we brought the conversation to a close, reminding the children that we teachers didn't have an answer already figured out about Legotown. We assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos."

I don't know.  It sounds like they already had a pretty good idea of what the answer was going to look like to me.

At one point, they claim:

"The person with the most points would create the rules for the rest of the game. Our intention was to create a situation in which a few children would receive unearned power from sheer good luck in choosing Lego bricks with high point values, and then would wield that power with their peers. We hoped that the game would be removed enough from the particulars and personalities of Legotown that we could look at the central Legotown issues from a fresh perspective.[/b]"

...where previously, they said...

"A group of about eight children conceived and launched Legotown. Other children were eager to join the project, but as the city grew — and space and raw materials became more precious — the builders began excluding other children."

In other words, they assume that whatever advantage the eight children who "conceived and launched" the project were unearned and simply a matter of good luck.  It couldn't possibly have been initiative, planning, hard work, cleverness, or anything else.  And rather than teaching the other children to compete or step up and do their own thing, they take the project away from the kids who came up with it and, despite their claims to the contrary, make sure authoritarian sharing rules are imposed on all of the children.

And let's not pretend that the teacher's primary mode of teaching was a reasoned argument.  It wasn't.  It involved emotionally jerking the kids around with rigged thought experiments and games designed to "prove" the point they wanted to "prove".  And let's not pretend that the kids couldn't pick up on what answers the teachers approved of and didn't approve of.  And let's not pretend that the children were intellectually capable of raising any real objections to the teachers or fighting back.  Having a political or philosophical debate with an 8 year-old is hardly an even match with no power or class differential, so why pretend otherwise?

And for those who want to know what's wrong with the concept of "social justice", here is a good place to start:

http://www.tsowell.com/spquestc.html
http://www.hoover.org/publications/digest/3476146.html
http://www.salon.com/books/int/1999/11/10/sowell/
http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/issues/articleid.18140/article_detail.asp

And what you should notice, after reading those pages, is that the rules that the students came up with didn't involve the fair distribution and allocation of resources but, instead, focussed on the results the students were allowed to achieve and how they could be used.

Quote from: SpikeYou must have had very soft spoken parents and teachers growing up if the adults in your life couldn't tell you to 'share' and make it stick.    Maybe I phrased it awkwardly in my post.

'No, Liam, you have to share the legos.'

'But it's my cityscape.'

'No liam, it's not. If you can't share the legos, then you don't get to play with them. Here is some play-doh.'

End of story. The great thing is, once the adults have established that they control the Legos, not the kids, then they don't have to repeat that scene, just remind them that if they don't share, they don't play.

That teaches your rules to the kids, but it doesn't teach the kids to think about the rules themselves, about what the rules are about, how they're constructed and why, and whether they're good rules.  Your objective in this situation appears to  be the regulation and adjudication of who gets the Lego bricks.  The teachers' was to get the kids to think about ownership and power.

Besides, I thought the BAAAAD thing was those evil teachers telling kids how to share.  Now you're unhappy because they didn't do that?

QuoteThe problem here is not even that I'm objecting to Collectivism. I do, but it isn't the point. You want to go be a collectivist? Fine, go live in your hippie commune with other like minded collectivists and leave me the hell alone. I do not conform.

Oh my, no.  You do not conform to anything, I'm sure.  But, you see, these teachers didn't conform either -- they didn't conform to what you want or think.  Bummer.

Viva Ayn Rand and objectivism!!

Time to start reading the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged to thoe kids.

- E.W.C.

Quote from: WerekoalaWhy did I just now picture you standing on the wing of a fighter plane giving an inspirational speech just before the mission to destroy the alien city-killer?

Oh. I do that every Friday. Someone has to teach them alien sumbitches a lesson.

:emot-clint:

Quote from: SpikeDid I object to authority or force being used? Of course not.  I don't think many, if any, 'anti-collectivists' do object to it on those grounds.

Actually, it's the most common objection out there. You see it on libertarian websites, in the works of John Locke (and other thinkers like Robert Nozick and Murray Bookchin), in Ayn Rand novels, in anarchist political texts and so on. Using force to coerce others to do what you want is pretty widely held in individualist circles to be unacceptable, except perhaps in a situation where someone's life is at stake.

QuoteThe objection to a collectivist mindset or agenda has nothing do do with people having authority. It's an absurd position to make.

Authority _and_ force. Especially using one's authority to force others to do things.

QuoteThe problem here is not even that I'm objecting to Collectivism. I do, but it isn't the point. You want to go be a collectivist? Fine, go live in your hippie commune with other like minded collectivists and leave me the hell alone. I do not conform.

You might think you're a snowflake, but the truth seems to come from deleting the "snow" prefix. Your point in the above quoted text is a bunch of pejorative rhetoric with nothing behind it. I am not a "collectivist", so telling me to "go live on [my] hippie commune.." is kind of pointless. You also being incoherent in demanding that you be left alone after advocating the use of force to coerce others - including children - to do what you want.

QuoteNo. You are either missing the point or setting up strawmen. The point is that they are teaching children to 'not succeed in life' and to 'feel guilty if they do'.

Actually, that's a strawman. Please don't use fallacious modes of reasoning, especially if you're going to baselessly accuse others of doing so. If you wish to assert that they are teaching children not to succeed and to feel guilty if they do, you must do a great deal more work to actually show that the teachers are teaching them this, rather than just asserting it and hoping that we will agree. Please show us the sound logical structure that leads from the printed words in the article to the conclusions you have reached. Remember, we are unsympathetic to your worldview, so you cannot simply assert or assume things without giving good grounds to do so.

QuoteHell, it seems to me that they are actually trying to teach that the Haves make the rules and the Have-Nots can only suffer in silence.

This is the sort of declaration that makes it clear that you are in the thrall of an "ideology" in the Marxist sense - a system of pseudo-justifications which suppresses the reality of a situation on behalf of the logic of the justifications. No reasonable person reading the article would draw such a conclusion. The game is clearly presented as being intentionally unjust, and serving to call the children's attention to the injustice of the situation, including the injustice of the winners getting to make the rules. After that, the teachers then discuss it with them, and propose alternate arrangements that would avoid that injustice. Nothing you have said accords with what our evidence - the written account - relates.

QuoteMaybe it's true for a large number of people, but thats not what you teach, what you teach is the ability to reach for those god damn green legos, and if you try hard enough you just might get them.  Sure, people will fail. But you don't fucking teach people to fail just because it happens a lot, you fucking teach them to succeed to maximize their chances of doing so.

That's so abstract it doesn't deal with anything at all, let alone apply to this situation. The only way it could apply is if you're advocating that the teachers encourage conflict between the children - fighting and stealing - over the mere possession of LEGOs that are supposed to be public anyhow.

You may wish your children to be raised to be rapacious bandits - demanding what they please from others and using any means, including force, without recourse to morality or justice. Rational people do not.

Where did I EVER say it was a bad thing to teach them to share?


Strawman much?


I started my comments in this thread about how difficult it was for me to come to grips with the conflict I felt over the article.   I've admitted from the first that there appeared to be good and laudible goals involved (the sharing thing), but that I increasingly felt, as I read and pondered, that those were merely excuses used to allow the teachers to indoctrinate the children to something much different than mere 'sharing'.


But then, I'm obviously not the only one here with an ideology to push, obviously.

Quote from: SpikeWhere did I EVER say it was a bad thing to teach them to share?


Strawman much?

No, it isn't. You advocate, in the post immediately above my last one, that the children struggle in some way to attain those green bricks. No mention is made that the the children with the green bricks should share them, merely that any course of action that is required to get the green bricks is good.

QuoteI started my comments in this thread about how difficult it was for me to come to grips with the conflict I felt over the article.   I've admitted from the first that there appeared to be good and laudible goals involved (the sharing thing), but that I increasingly felt, as I read and pondered, that those were merely excuses used to allow the teachers to indoctrinate the children to something much different than mere 'sharing'.

Certainly. And in place of the teachers teaching the kids about a possible way to share bricks, you advocate using force to coerce the children if they don't immediately do what the adults want.

QuoteBut then, I'm obviously not the only one here with an ideology to push, obviously.

Actually, you are. Don't misuse language so baldly. No one else has chosen to go off on rants full of unfounded claims and obvious misreadings of the text.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineActually, that's a strawman. Please don't use fallacious modes of reasoning, especially if you're going to baselessly accuse others of doing so. If you wish to assert that they are teaching children not to succeed and to feel guilty if they do, you must do a great deal more work to actually show that the teachers are teaching them this, rather than just asserting it and hoping that we will agree. Please show us the sound logical structure that leads from the printed words in the article to the conclusions you have reached. Remember, we are unsympathetic to your worldview, so you cannot simply assert or assume things without giving good grounds to do so.


.

Really?

QuoteTo make sense of the sting of this disenfranchisement, most of the children cast Liam and Kyla as "mean," trying to "make people feel bad." They were unable or unwilling to see that the rules of the game — which mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy — were a setup for winning and losing. Playing by the rules led to a few folks winning big and most folks falling further and further behind. The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly. To resolve this by deciding that the system is unfair would call everything into question; young children are committed to rules and rule-making as a way to organize a community, and it is wildly unsettling to acknowledge that rules can have built-in inequities. So most of the children resolved their disequilibrium by clinging to the belief that the winners were ruthless — despite clear evidence of Liam and Kyla's compassionate generosity.

Let me see, one I have someone using Meritocracy as a dirty word.  That's a bit odd to me. Then I've got three instances where they teach children that life isn't fair and that their ability to succeed in life is based on being lucky or cheating.

And not one instance of telling them to 'keep trying' or 'hard work and playing smart can let you win'.

In fact, we have a reinforcement of the idea that winners setting the rules will only make rules that allow them to keep winning, despite evidence to the contrary.

QuoteLiam instituted this rule: "You have to trade at least one piece. That's a good rule because if you have a high score at the beginning, you wouldn't have to trade, and that's not fair."

Kyla added this rule to the game: "If you have more than one green, you have to trade one of them."

Don't see a strawman there.  I see absolutely shitting teaching.

Quote from: KoltarViva Ayn Rand and objectivism!!

And that goes too far the other way.  Blech!

Quote from: SpikeReally?

Yes, really.

QuoteLet me see, one I have someone using Meritocracy as a dirty word.  That's a bit odd to me. Then I've got three instances where they teach children that life isn't fair and that their ability to succeed in life is based on being lucky or cheating.

The first part is only sort-of-true. They _are_ trying to teach children that capitalism isn't fair (not "life" - the two are not synonyms, so stop using them as such). The second part of your statement is completely false. They are in fact trying to teach the children that succeeding in life involves consensus-based and community-oriented actions. They say repeatedly in the article that they are trying to do this.

QuoteAnd not one instance of telling them to 'keep trying' or 'hard work and playing smart can let you win'.

That's because the latter would be a lie, and the former would simply frustrate the children. The game is rigged from the start, and the purpose of it within an educational context is to help the children realise that the game is unfair, not to actually get as many green blocks as possible (that's merely the goal within the game). They also explain this in the article.

QuoteIn fact, we have a reinforcement of the idea that winners setting the rules will only make rules that allow them to keep winning, despite evidence to the contrary.

You have misread this, as so much else in the article. The teachers point out that even good intentions on the part of the winners - their individual efforts to make the game more fair - still do not overcome a fundamentally unjust system. This is why they discuss things with the children afterwards, and attempt to smooth things over between them.

QuoteDon't see a strawman there.  I see absolutely shitting teaching.

Your viewpoint is unjustified. Stop asserting things without any proof or justification. It's annoying, and it's a clear sign that you've been subject to some "shitting[sic] teaching" yourself.

These teachers are incompetent, and were my child one under their care I would personally see to their removal from both their post and their profession- permanently.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNo, it isn't. You advocate, in the post immediately above my last one, that the children struggle in some way to attain those green bricks. No mention is made that the the children with the green bricks should share them, merely that any course of action that is required to get the green bricks is good.



Certainly. And in place of the teachers teaching the kids about a possible way to share bricks, you advocate using force to coerce the children if they don't immediately do what the adults want.



Actually, you are. Don't misuse language so baldly. No one else has chosen to go off on rants full of unfounded claims and obvious misreadings of the text.

You do realize, having read the article, that there are two seperate events involving legos going on. One involves sharing (the cityscape) the other involves a trading game where Green blocks were the most valuable peices.  Obviously, in the trading game one would not simply hand wave sharing, as that violates the concept of 'trading game'.  


Why does everyone 'against me' here seem to think that telling me that I advocate authority excercising that authority is somehow an arguement?  Yes. Authority, being exercised by those who have it, is not inherently good or bad. In this case, it would have been good to do it.   This isn't an arguement about authority.  It's not even an arguement about the inherent values of collectivism. It's about teachers doing creepy bad stuff with children's minds.   They, at no point I can find, made any effort to actually teach the children to share prior to destruction of the cityscape or in its aftermath.  Instead they taught them that Capitalist Meritocracies are unfair places to live.  Funny thing, that, I know my fair share of immigrants who would vehemently disagree with that position.


Oh, so I'm the only one with a horse in this race and I'm not currently holding two seperate arguments with people who apparently are on radically opposite sides of my position? Really now?