So I've been thinking A LOT about Greg's post regarding home schooling in California. I don't know if it has to do with me being at home and with me actively "teaching" E every day ... It could be. Regardless, I've been thinking a lot about the post and I revised some of my thoughts.
Originally, I was struck by how similar this sounded to the political education that was conducted under Nazi and communist regimes. And on those grounds, I rejected some of the statements made by the judge.
But having taken a bit more time to think about it, I realize that my earlier post was ill-thought out and more than just a touch niave. After all, apart from the subjects of math and perhaps grammer (although that is somewhat debatable), everything that is taught is taught from a point of view. One of the major faults underlying the Enlightenment Project was a belief in the objectively neutral party. There is no such thing. Literature is taught from a point of view. History is taught from a point of view. Heck, even geography is taught from a point of view (e.g. Who owns the Golan Heights?) If you wish to debate this, please feel free to do so. Just please don't do it under this thread because I don't want you to miss the point of what I saying here.
So, I think what I actually was reacting to was not the premise itself. It was the practical application of the premise. I don't want a liberalized government that is pro-naturalism (with all of the consequent positions in terms of sexual identity, drugs, political philosophy, religious philosophy, etc...) deciding what can and cannot be taught to my child. I want to make that decision.
So for instance, when it comes to teaching about patriotism, loyalty to government, etc..., I am not against teaching those things. But I want to teach them within a Christian worldview. In other words, democracy may be the best of all possible political ideologies, but it does not address our obligation to the poor who will always be with us (Deut 15:11). Loyalty to government is scriptural (Matt. 22:21), but only to the point where it does not interfere with the precepts of God.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Back off Big Government and give me the right to educate my child as I see fit.
Originally, I was struck by how similar this sounded to the political education that was conducted under Nazi and communist regimes. And on those grounds, I rejected some of the statements made by the judge.
But having taken a bit more time to think about it, I realize that my earlier post was ill-thought out and more than just a touch niave. After all, apart from the subjects of math and perhaps grammer (although that is somewhat debatable), everything that is taught is taught from a point of view. One of the major faults underlying the Enlightenment Project was a belief in the objectively neutral party. There is no such thing. Literature is taught from a point of view. History is taught from a point of view. Heck, even geography is taught from a point of view (e.g. Who owns the Golan Heights?) If you wish to debate this, please feel free to do so. Just please don't do it under this thread because I don't want you to miss the point of what I saying here.
So, I think what I actually was reacting to was not the premise itself. It was the practical application of the premise. I don't want a liberalized government that is pro-naturalism (with all of the consequent positions in terms of sexual identity, drugs, political philosophy, religious philosophy, etc...) deciding what can and cannot be taught to my child. I want to make that decision.
So for instance, when it comes to teaching about patriotism, loyalty to government, etc..., I am not against teaching those things. But I want to teach them within a Christian worldview. In other words, democracy may be the best of all possible political ideologies, but it does not address our obligation to the poor who will always be with us (Deut 15:11). Loyalty to government is scriptural (Matt. 22:21), but only to the point where it does not interfere with the precepts of God.
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. Back off Big Government and give me the right to educate my child as I see fit.
posted by Just a Few Things about Scott ... | 3:40 PM
1 Comments:
I get what you're saying--and I agree with you (to a certain extent). But only to a certain extent. The degree of values and rhetoric that is incorporated (if not indoctrinated) into the curriculum will astound you. Example: you can now get 4 year undergrad degrees in global warming. Elementary textbooks paint the white man as evil, native americans as pure as the driven snow, and Christopher Columbus as the devil incarnate. The very concepts of math has been watered down in many states to suggest that the effort is worth the same (if not more) than the correct response. (Read: success or failure isn't important, it's that you feel good about yourself for trying.) The very holiday of Thanksgiving has been ostensibly re-written from what it orginally was... and if you ask a highschooler about the "separation between church and state"--they will likely say that it's in the constitution. (When it was actually a phrase taken out of context form a personal letter written by Thomas Jefferson.)
Point being--yeah--a lot of knowledge is taught from a world view. But there can be a diligent effort to have that world view be fair and balanced. And it is not. No where near it. "Pop-science" (such as global warming) are pervasive. "Pop-social-studies" (such as the white man = devil) are also pervasive. Even Richard Feynman was appalled at the political process of picking public school (science) textbooks--and this was about 40 years ago! (I can't imagine it's gotten better since then.)
I think your original frustration with the system was likely more spot-on than you give yourself credit. There is a big a** difference between educating from a western perspective and the indoctrination of western (white) guilt. Sorry--I'm not buyin'.
Post a Comment
<< Home