Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Lego Fascists
rethinkingschools.org — A follow-up to an article titled 'Why We Banned Legos' from Rethinking Schools Online, in response to critique by 'right-wing' bloggers and media.
PeppermintPig- 11 diggs
- digg it
- PeppermintPig, on 12/19/2007, -0/+5Link to original article 'Why We Banned Legos':
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Why_We_Banned_Le ...
The authors of this follow-up article take time out to respond to critique by 'right-wing' persons.
FTA:"Then the email began to pour in:
You Teachers Are Fascists!!! To Ban Legos and Brainwash Them Like This!...
You don't want us to defend ourselves against the Islam-o-fascist Terrorists you just want us to roll over and die or convert to Islam...
If this does NOT prove once and for all that the Teachers Unions are full of Socialist S.O.B's! Nothing will! Break Up the Damn Teachers Unions!!!
A woman writing from Augusta, Ga., offered her opinion more economically:
"Ya'll are just plain NUTS!""
The problem here is that these responses are either made out of ignorance, or too short to properly articulate the issue, so they become straw-men, easily knocked down for the benefit of website editors who authored this piece. The authors also make the mistake of establishing a false dichotomy by making this a partisan issue of right vs left and going off topic.
As a reader who probed beyond the headline, I was enlightened to the fact that those running this investigation in social behavior had an agenda and ignored logic in pursuit of their own concept of 'fairness', as my responses the the first article clearly state.
Here's a laundry list of inaccuracies and misconceptions made by the authors:
1. FTA:"Our critics appear content to let children absorb without reflection the values from the broader society—competition, militarism, consumerism, aggression, selfishness."
Inaccurate. While most of the critics cited by the author may be ignorant or disinterested in reflection, this is not absolutely the case. By lumping competition, militarism, consumerism, aggression, and selfishness together, one gets the impression that these are all inherently bad things. The authors profess their own ignorance in human nature.
2. FTA:"By contrast, "Why We Banned Legos" tells the story of the Hilltop teachers who seek opportunities to help children reflect about "the meaning of power and ways to organize communities which are equitable and just.""
False. The teachers are to blame for implementing the use of authoritarian tactics as a means to solve a problem they created by failing to properly set guidelines on the use of the Lego. The children, free of intervention, established a barter system and created wealth and interest that attracted others to participate in Lego Town. Children who were not interested in the Lego had opportunities to play with other toys that interested them.
3. FTA:"One blogger was indignant: "What happens when [children] grow up and not everyone wins?—i.e., injustice happens, deal with it; children should not be taught to question it, to think of democratic alternatives, but should simply see unfairness as a natural state of affairs." Another blogger at a site called "The Sixth Column" wrote: "[C]hildren will not be prepared to face brutal competition which makes up real life outside of the carefully constructed feel-good environment found in many of today's classrooms... In the real world, not everyone will be able to participate in 'the power structure.'" Like these attacks on the article, many writers insisted that injustice was eternal and that questioning it was not merely futile, but misled children about human nature and the world that they would inherit."
The author makes the false assumption that critics are suggesting justice is an impossible achievement. Force and injustice are inevitable: What we do in response to these elements is what matters. It is not misleading to teach children that life is not fair. It is misleading to force a single solution onto the children without allowing them the freedom to make that choice for themselves.
4. FTA:"Underlying much of the blog and email commentary was a profound disregard for children's capacities to reflect together about their own interactions and to thoughtfully discuss notions of fairness."
They are individuals in development. Certainly the author is not suggesting they're ready to interact in society without any mentoring, correct!??
5. FTA:"As one blogger wrote, the conversations among children described in "Why We Banned Legos" revealed "willful manipulation of young minds..." — presumably because in the real world, kids could never think like this on their own. This was a revealing criticism. Because what if kids are indeed always making meaning about their world and, with good teaching, are more and more able to express their insights with sophistication? Then we need a curriculum that honors children's potential, rather than the scripted lessons of memorization and correct answers, favored by so many conservatives."
False presumption. Memorization and teaching to a test are indicative of a state-run education, but they are not exclusive to it. The author makes the false assumption that their favored system is not creating the impression of 'correct answers' on the children simply because there is a less direct process of instilling moral values upon them.
6. FTA:"If these right-wing attacks were confined to the Lego article then we might dismiss them as mere annoyances, reminders of the tenacity of conservative views of schooling. But they seem to be part of a pattern—an emerging attack on social justice teaching itself."
Social justice can only be attained through cooperation and non-coercion. Justice is about just desserts, and not being punished undeservedly. Justice is not exclusively found within the walls of a court room. The free market is true social justice.
7. FTA:"The Manhattan Institute is a free-market-oriented think tank whose education mission is to promote vouchers, charter schools, and more testing—in public schools only, of course, not private schools."
Vouchers are not a free market solution. Do not confuse those who claim to support the free market with those who actually do. It's convenient to ignore the truth and attack something you don't understand.
8. FTA"Some of these attacks represent nothing new. They are simply part of the right wing's ongoing attempt to discredit public schools, and push more "accountability" (read testing), vouchers, and school privatization."
I'm not right-wing and even I know that public school is bad! It's barely better than not going, if not replacing it with nothing at all. The author recognizes the fight going on for control of public school yet doesn't understand the solution: The various agents and lobbyists are all fighting to control the system. Much of this is dictated by the teacher's unions and politicians, particularly at the federal level. This is causing schools to become more generic across the US. The solution is private school, deregulation, and elimination of the board of education and public school funding. Too much of the money being paid into the system is being siphoned off by bureaucrats!
I don't really care that much about the author's crying and airing of dirty laundry here. A school should focus on providing an education that people want to give their children. How it's funded is up to the school. - PeppermintPig, on 12/20/2007, -0/+2Broken comment system! Here's the first article:
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/leg ...
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by