Hello MOQers!
We may be going nowhere, but we sure make a lot of noise getting there.
Struan Hellier wrote:
>
> No I couldn't disagree more! A school is simply an institution for giving education, so I fail to
> see where authoritarianism comes into it, "by definition," which ever direction the school is going
> in.
>
Do you give no direction to the student at all then? Is there no
ultimate authority figure, no headmaster?
You wrote, back in February:
>> If my undergraduates came out with this sort of rubbish
>> I would have them rusticated without further ado.
No authority, huh?
> But my objection is not just linguistic. A good school must, and will, encourage individual freedom,
> within set rules of course, but it certainly is not authoritarian in the sense of requiring strict
> obedience to authority in opposition to individualism.
Who decides the punishment for breaking the rules? Nobody in a position
of authority, I trust. Certainly we want to foster creativity and allow
some appropriate individual expression.
I will grant that we may be using different working definitions of
"authoritarian."
> This may have been the case in the past but
> is not seen as good educational practice by most professional educators in the modern world.
Which is why schools in the US are turning out functional illiterates.
The inmates run the asylum. Part of the problem lies in the fact that we
can't legally weed out the bad apples.
> I would claim that a good school is one which negotiates with its students and provides them with a secure
> platform from which they can express their individuality and achieve their own best potential.
Remind me not to promote you for the position of Principal at the next
school board meeting. I'm sure they would love to hear you negotiate
with the young hoodlums - er, students - who broke into and then tried
to burn down the local high school.
> Authoritarianism is "by definition" opposed to individual freedom and so no good > school that I know
> of adheres to it.
I know of no good school that does not set and enforce strict guidelines
governing academic process and behavior.
> Drose then (to my astonishment) wrote:
> >I don't think what Mary was driving at was "authoritarian" so much as
> >"totalitarian." I believe she was advocating giving over children to the
> >state.
You must astonish easily.
> Mary is more than capable of defending herself, but I have to say that you have completely missed
> her point. How on earth you (and others) manage to twist a comment about attitudes and funding into
> a call for giving over children to the state is beyond me. Mary's central question was: "What if we
> lived in a world where women were not penalized for staying home to raise young children?" Forgive
> me for failing to see the link between this and a totalitarian ideal. The point was to question the
> morality of a state which places huge emphasis on defence, with the peoples' blessing, while not
> supporting motherhood to any degree whatsoever. Where are the priorities here? What kind of a
> society willingly sends a $650, 000 dollar cruise missile into a television station in Belgrade
> while refusing a few measly dollars to a mother who, ideally, would like to stay at home and raise
> her children? The military analogy went no further than that.
Please. The argument is specious. The one has little to do with the
other.
In the US, funding for schools is done at a state or local level. The US
Constitution does not grant this power to the federal government. It
does mandate that the US government provide for the common defense. The
military budget is moral and right.
I happen to agree that slinging high dollar fireworks at Serbia is not a
particularly good idea. Blair and Clinton and most of the rest of
Europe's governments seem to think it is a grand idea.
And we already provide assistance to mothers in this country through
various federal programs. Let's not pretend we do nothing, okay? In fact
the social welfare budget is easily on a par with defense.
Mary wrote:
>> You could structure the
>> system, give it
>> parameters such as time limits or limits on the number of children per
>> woman (yes, per woman
>> since it is a woman after all who actually bears the child!) In fact, you
>> could follow many
>> of the patterns already in use for military service to shape a system that
>> gives everyone an
>> equal opportunity at parenting.
Which part of totalitarian did I miss? I believe the Chinese pioneered
that approach to child rearing.
>
> Finally, teaching a student how to think IS giving him the tools with which to think. > There is no distinction here.
>
Yes there is. Try writing a coherent sentence using no rules of grammar.
Come now, Struan. Some structure is necessary.
Come to think of it, maybe pounding rules of grammar into the asses of
primary grade students amounts to teaching a student how to think. Mr.
Kelly, who used corporal punishment to teach verb conjugation, certainly
provided me with a few tools. That paddle was a helluva negotiating
tool.
> Pass the Peppermint Schnapps Ken.
I prefer Scotch.
drose
Cheers, all.
MOQ Online Homepage - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Unsubscribe - http://www.moq.org/md/index.html
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:03:05 BST