![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexpgpMaine State Education Commissioner Duke Albanese has sent a letter to schools across the state advising educators to be sensitive to all children during these troubled times, to provide balanced information about how the nation is responding to Iraq, and to acknowledge the special needs of Maine's Army children.
Why is this news?
Well, as reported in a story from the same source that I can't find a link to, it turns out that some "educators" in the Pine Tree State have taken it upon themselves to tell children of people serving in the military that their mother or father is a bad person for taking part in the confrontation with Iraq.
The very notion repels me. I don't think I could ever generate enough animosity toward someone to say something that hurtful to child of another person. I mean, we're talking about kids under 10 years old, here.
Yet according to officers with the National Guard’s Family Assistance Program who’ve been traveling throughout the state this week, such comments come from teachers, principals, and guidance counselors. One Major Andrew Gibson is quoted as saying:
I mean, this is like something out of a best-forgotten yesteryear, when children were stigmatized for being born out of wedlock, or for being the offspring of alcolohics, or of a mixed marriage, or merely the issue of persons "from the other side of the tracks."
Basically, I think it boils down to this: being nasty, mean-hearted, and cruel toward the helpless for the sake of the vicarious pleasure of having told someone off.
This transcends the relatively innocuous contempt in which soldiers have been held in many places and times, and which prompted Kiplling to write:
I think it's unconscionable, and whoever does such things - especially considering the trust that has been placed in them - is beneath contempt.
Cheers...
Why is this news?
Well, as reported in a story from the same source that I can't find a link to, it turns out that some "educators" in the Pine Tree State have taken it upon themselves to tell children of people serving in the military that their mother or father is a bad person for taking part in the confrontation with Iraq.
The very notion repels me. I don't think I could ever generate enough animosity toward someone to say something that hurtful to child of another person. I mean, we're talking about kids under 10 years old, here.
Yet according to officers with the National Guard’s Family Assistance Program who’ve been traveling throughout the state this week, such comments come from teachers, principals, and guidance counselors. One Major Andrew Gibson is quoted as saying:
"Some kids have even reported that... ah... teachers have said things to them, specifically, about the ah unethical nature of their parent going off to fight."As I sit here and imagine some scrofulous amphibian from the shallow end of the gene pool taking human form and saying something like that to my kid or grandchild, I can feel my blood pressure building. I also cannot help but wonder: What did these revolting specimens of humanity have in mind in saying something like that to a kid? What point were they trying to make?
I mean, this is like something out of a best-forgotten yesteryear, when children were stigmatized for being born out of wedlock, or for being the offspring of alcolohics, or of a mixed marriage, or merely the issue of persons "from the other side of the tracks."
Basically, I think it boils down to this: being nasty, mean-hearted, and cruel toward the helpless for the sake of the vicarious pleasure of having told someone off.
This transcends the relatively innocuous contempt in which soldiers have been held in many places and times, and which prompted Kiplling to write:
Yes, makin' mock o' uniforms that guard you while you sleepIn Kipling's poem, the butt of society's disdain is at least an adult. Here, we're talking about kids who are being victimized by people that have been entrusted to act in loco parentis.
Is cheaper than them uniforms, an' they're starvation cheap;
I think it's unconscionable, and whoever does such things - especially considering the trust that has been placed in them - is beneath contempt.
Cheers...
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2003-02-26 05:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-26 09:37 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2003-02-26 08:56 pm (UTC)I'd be curious to know, about what age the schoolchildren were, and in what context the comments were made.
Basically I agree (and feel very strongly) that any action on the part of educators that might come between children and their parents, is to be handled with the greatest of care, with the burden of caution and responsibility placed squarely upon the adults. The educator may occupy a special place of authority in the child's world, and should this be in conflict with the natural authority figure of the parent's role, can risk wreaking havoc on the child in many ways.
My question is, then, how is ethically-controversial material to be introduced at the various age levels? In Israeli secular-state schools, these issues are labeled as "dilemmas" -- not to be avoided, but to be taught with particular sensitivity and care. To recognize that there are different viewpoints, with all the difficulty involved. This, by the way, doesn't necessarily ensure that all viewpoints are presented with equal weight!
Of course, school systems may differ. Some uphold and promulgate a particular ideology and deliberately choose not to present alternatives in a balanced way. So I don't know quite what sort of school system you're looking at here.
Back to Israel for a moment: I see two main streams to the presenstation of alternatives. (and please pardon my choice of labels; substitute "dove/hawk" or "left-wing" / "right-wing" if you prefer, or ??) The humanist wishes to understand, i.e. how someone becomes an anti-humanist (e.g. Nazi, terrorist). The nationalist wants to identify these elements and defend against them (the best defense often being a good offense, e.g. the IDF, the Mossad etc.). America, in the present light of Homeland Security, may be favoring the latter position?
The fact is: in the case of a heterogeneous pupil population, what happens to the children who come from a minority, non-mainstream home? I understand that you would uphold protecting the sensitivities of the child on principle, regardless of which side of the issue was held by the system and which by the child?
no subject
Date: 2003-02-27 09:55 am (UTC)The stories mention children in the second and fourth grades (7-9 years of age).
My question is, then, how is ethically-controversial material to be introduced at the various age levels? [...] To recognize that there are different viewpoints, with all the difficulty involved. This, by the way, doesn't necessarily ensure that all viewpoints are presented with equal weight!
It is my impression, from having read the articles, that the comments were not made in the context of any lesson.
And the part about "equal weight" is educrat-speak that sounds good but means little.
Of course, school systems may differ. Some uphold and promulgate a particular ideology and deliberately choose not to present alternatives in a balanced way. So I don't know quite what sort of school system you're looking at here.
One would imagine that a public school system would - as a matter of public policy - favor the ideology of the government that funds it. This is, by the way, yet another argument against public education, or at least an argument in favor of a voucher system.
[...] The humanist wishes to understand, i.e. how someone becomes an anti-humanist (e.g. Nazi, terrorist). The nationalist wants to identify these elements and defend against them (the best defense often being a good offense, e.g. the IDF, the Mossad etc.). America, in the present light of Homeland Security, may be favoring the latter position?
The idea of defending the U.S., either literally or philosophically, runs counter to the prevailing attitude in American academia. Such people are not interested in understanding how some become anti-humanists, since they ally themselves with such people when convenient, nor are they interested in defending against them, since they maintain - in the face of ample evidence - that there is no difference between their own society and that of those who would destroy it.
The fact is: in the case of a heterogeneous pupil population, what happens to the children who come from a minority, non-mainstream home? I understand that you would uphold protecting the sensitivities of the child on principle, regardless of which side of the issue was held by the system and which by the child?
It is my opinion that in the first decade of life, or so, children rarely view the world in terms of "issues." There is a natural wellspring of pride associated with mommy and daddy, and should mommy or daddy be engaged in some endeavor deemed worthy of note by society (e.g, firefighter, in the wake of 9/11), so much the better. In most situations, however, I would maintain that a parent's "work" is not a central aspect of the parent-child relationship. (In my early years, for example, I knew that my mom was a teacher (but not of what), and that my dad was a draftsman (but had no idea what he drew)).
It is one thing to explain to a child that people may be against a government decision to do such-and-so. However, anyone who goes out of their way to tell a child that their parent is a bed person for being an instrument of that decision truly needs their head examined. And to require parents to surrender their children to the safekeeping of that person is an abomination.
Cheers...
Children are certainly capable of and deserve more.
Date: 2003-02-28 12:53 am (UTC)With all due respect, your views on education are not necessarily valid; they certainly don't give much credit to the child's intelligence, developing morality, character and world view.
I've seen other systems, and I happen to prefer the one in which my children are being educated. Children who are the targets of enemy and terrorist attacks are very aware, interested and capable of considering and developing an understanding of the horrors of the adult world. They are certainly exposed to it. They benefit greatly from this being actively dealt with in the educational setting. Otherwise, what are they to think?
Take it from me, we Israelis have been through this for a long time. And there were methods previously employed that have since been rejected and revised. (e.g. after the 1974 terror attack on a school in the town of Ma'alot: pupils were to go back to class the next day and expected to just carry on, having survived.)
Of course, it depends on what kind of people and citizens you're trying to raise.