More homeschooling nonsense

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by SireofSuns, Feb 14, 2018.

  1. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    As I keep reading your posts, I find that your points make less sense. Are you aware of what takes place in curriculum development? I've been a teacher for 10 years and have worked with many publishing, tenuring, and other pertinent parts. I can question you with some certainty about your knowledge of how academic perspectives are developed. When a curriculum is approved, it's analyzed through many paradigms before its approved. Since public schools are largely liberal, most conservative or religious perspectives are deleted outright. Those that make it in are often retooled to appear as if they are formed or confirmed in modern day research and lose their original origins. Most curriculum come from an atheistic perspective. This is why private schools and special schooling options are created because the public forums condition them out and don't allow a diversity. In addition to this, PreK-12 public school students are not tasked to come to the classroom to share their perspectives. Their come to learn the perspectives of the curriculum. So, when you say, "perspective diversity," I'm pretty certain you're unaware of what happens.
  2. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    The very definition of indoctrination means to persuade a student of a specific view point on a particular topic. This happens in every classroom when these viewpoints are expressed and believed upon. It doesn't matter the institution style, private, public, special, etc.
  3. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    I posted the definition and you are leaving out the most important part.

    Persuasion without being critical of it

    "the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically"

    point in bold

    if that one doesn't suit you we can go with the Websters definition

    "to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle"

    admittedly if we go with the websters definition it would be a hard case to make for schools as the lessons taught are often neither political or sectarian and are often something else.

    going with the definition is "the act of indoctrinating, or teaching or inculcating a doctrine, principle, or ideology,especially one with a specific point of view:"

    which is more in line with the original definition I had found where the issue is not the subject matter but the scope of what is being taught and how, particularly the inculcating part
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  4. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    I believe you mean that schools teach in an agnostic perspective. They should ignore any religion's viewpoint on any subject, unless it is of relevant historical significance, such as learning about the Crusades. There should be no special treatment for or against any religion. The same should be true for atheism. The purpose of school is not to teach kids what religion to believe. The purpose is to educate kids so they can become working members of society as adults. Learning about religions is not necessary to get a job, or even to go to college.
  5. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    There are at least 7 common ways to define something: denotation, connotation, function, operation, linguistic (etymology), characterization (synonyms, descriptive words), and denotation (antonyms, comparison, distinctions). Your "most important part" is not a most important part. Your definition is certainly true, but it refers to the connotative definition wherein the word "uncritical" is added to condition a response. After all, connotation is known as the secondary response that reveals or identifies emotions or reactions to the word being used. Using the denotation, like the one on, doesn't have a connotative bent. Indoctrination doesn't just have to be used negatively (connotative), but it can be used positively when a particular perspective is unheard, misheard, or misrepresented, for example in STEM schools.
  6. poxrooster

    poxrooster The Pox Chameleon

    No agnostics don't have any awareness of a god, gods, or higher powers. Atheists do have awareness but choose to not accept, believe, or acknowledge. Curriculum guides know their legal limitations. These prohibit religious or conservative research. It's against many ethical codes in curriculum development to include this research. That is an atheist position because they have an awareness of their topics but choose against them.
  7. darklord48

    darklord48 Forum Royalty

    Everyone is aware of the concept of god, gods, or higher powers. Gnostic people claim there is enough information to definitively say there is or isn't a god or gods. Agnostics say there isn't enough information to be certain that there is or isn't a god or gods. Theists say there is a god(s). Atheists say there are no gods. Both theists and atheists can be gnostic or agnostic.

  8. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The complaints against Common Core is another example of this issue.

    So many of these complaints uses a SINGLE example of a Common Core (usually math) question, and suggests that because it is done in a way THEY don't understand that it must to be some conspiracy to indoctrinate children and make them dumb.

    The funny part about this is that the Common Core standards in Math specifically describe various methods that the teachers can employ to teach a particular skill. And if you have any experience working with children (like I have) what you realize is different explanations/methods works better with different children.

    The irony of people complaining about curriculum that's different than what they learned is that THEY are the ones not willing to accept another way of looking at something.

    The entire point of the CC math curriculum is to give children different ways of solving one problem so they understand what the problem is instead of just memorizing a formula, which is, hilariously, basically the opposite of what the opponents claim it is doing.
  9. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    My wife is a teacher, we both have tutored children (particularly homeschooled) and I have worked with educators and around the education sector for many years. My wife is looking to move into private sector curriculum development later on.

    What you have said here really just confirms my hypothesis - you believe that public school "indoctrinates" because it doesn't provide some specific viewpoints in certain subjects that you personally believe should be taught. The fact is that no curriculum can be vast enough to encompass all human knowledge and religions and in many subjects I am not even sure what valid "religious" viewpoint you can teach is... like say, Chemistry or Physics. In some courses I can see some argument, but it's a far cry from specific courses needing more diversity than the entirety of public schooling being a front for leftist ideology. The truth is that public school actually does teach many different things and points of view, but some people chooses to focus on the narrow band of "They should teach what I believe based on my religion or politics."

    Thus some religious Americans believe that public school "indoctrinates" not because of any specific method of teaching, but because CHRISTIANITY is not taught as the "origin" of everything. THAT's their problem with it. And from a personal values perspective, I can understand that concern, but that's not indoctrination. Force-feeding a specific religion in public school WOULD be what is indoctrination, because it would be pushing one religion and worldview over many others.

    As if Sunday School asks kids to share their perspective. Try going to mass and start talking about Islam and see what you get.

    But my point is that when a child is homeschooled, they have limited exposure to other children and adults except their parents. While in public school they are more likely (but not guaranteed) to meet children and adults of more varied backgrounds and perspectives (such as atheists or theists). And you must be unaware of what happens if you think kids don't talk to each other and tell each other what they think or that they simply agree with the adults.


    The TL;DR is that the root of some people's indoctrination charge is "you aren't teaching MY religion" which is hilariously basically the same as "you should indoctrinate all children into MY beliefs."

    I put the blame on the political system in the US that pushes everything towards 2 party and pushes a "us vs them" mentality. I also put the blame on the Conservative powers that be for this - their attacks on science, education and politicizing everything under the sun to score political points have led us to a situation where you can't even teach BASIC math to ELEMENTARY kids without people making it a political issue. It's like with #REDFORED in AZ recently, where the teachers just want better school funding and the Republican politicians are all putting out ads/statements saying, "This is a political hitjob from the Democrats."
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
    Geressen and Dagda like this.
  10. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    It's interesting how many people don't understand these definitions while using the words, but at the same time it's also admittedly not very straightforward or complete.

    Personally, as a former Roman Catholic, I guess I would technically fall under Agnostic as I don't believe you can really prove it one way or another. But the reality is that I don't really care whether there is a God (of any sort) because the fact is that my everyday life is not dramatically impacted one way or another.

    As I have said before on here, I wholly support people who want to believe in something - for many people I think it does make them better people - but there's really no place in public education for pushing particular religious beliefs given that they are not grounded in science or facts. The key to understanding the criticism of the Christian right is that they only seem to complain about THEIR beliefs not being taught, and rarely push for teaching children other religions (and in fact, some have been outraged at the mere mention of certain religions, such as Islam).

    Plus, it's not like churches aren't partially public anyway given that they are tax exempt. Interestingly, in Canada, there are 2 public school systems: regular and Catholic. I don't have a problem with this personally as it allows parents a choice, just as I don't have a problem with private schools here in the US. But I do have a problem with attempting to claim public school are "indoctrinating" so we need schools that teaches a particular religion, homeschooling or "Freedom Schools." No, the reason you want those is so that children are indoctrinated into YOUR beliefs. It's not an unreasonable desire but at least be honest about it.
    Last edited: May 22, 2018
  11. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    At the end of the day, you should ask yourself, do I want schools to teach more POVs? Or just your own?

    Do you want them to teach about actualism and possibilism? Do you want them to teach about existentialism and nihilism alongside your Christian theism?

    Do you want them to teach Hindu creation myths and the idea that everything is an illusion? Or just Christian Creationism?

    Do you want them to teach the Chinese principle that leaders rule by divine mandate? Or how about Islamic Eschatology?

    Do you want them to teach tarot card reading and Wiccan?

    If the reason you are so concerned about "indoctrination" is because you aren't seeing enough Christianity in schools - I got news for you: you are the one wanting to indoctrinate.

    Anyway, I can see that we have very different opinions on this issue, and that's ok too :)
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  12. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    "Evolution wording removed from draft of Arizona school science standards"

    In one area of the draft focusing on life science essential standards for high school students, "evolution" is replaced with the words "biological diversity." This section reads: "Obtain, evaluate, and communicate evidence that describes how inherited traits in a population can lead to biological diversity."


    This is the kind of nonsense that the right is waging on education. The right calls the left SJWs, but it is the right who are constantly wasting taxpayer money, time and effort on stuff like this.

    It also once again proves that this isn't about "indoctrination" but rather just people being offended/annoyed that schools are teaching things that their religion doesn't support.

    This attempt at rewriting science to be faith based beliefs like religious beliefs is moronic.
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  13. Dagda

    Dagda Forum Royalty

    on a related note, i know several federal projects have been getting much easier to push through with a simple swap from "climate change" to "climate", or other similar substitutions.

    it changes nothing about the functionality of the projects, the phrase has just become too politicized
  14. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    I am just waiting til they to the section where they have to replace "gravity" with "weight based movement" or something. I mean, it's just a "theory!"

    Maybe they will also start to describe the base-10 number system as just one of the MANY different number systems we could use, and insist that schools should be allowed to choose to teach base-16 if they wanted, because "diversity of viewpoints" and there is no one right number system.
    Last edited: May 23, 2018
  15. Gaverion

    Gaverion I need me some PIE!

    To be fair, if they started only using metric I wouldn't be unhappy about it
  16. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    in the computer age base 8/16 would actually be a bit more practical for computer work =)

    not that I see the problem with base 10 but what's your hate on 16 base? I mean I get why there is no reason to change but I don't see a problem with discussing it if someone wanted to, even as silly as that would be.

    past that, you straw man the right in this statement and over generalize that group, which is something the left is not immune to, if this is a valid attack on the right then it's a valid attack on the left on it's endeavors in compelled speech within gender contexts, and social politics. despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary the left wants to say their are more then 2 biological genders, I personally don't see regressive lefts as any different then the religious right.

    again two sides doing the same things acting like their Bane Shift don't stink >.>

    both sides have hard liners, both sides there fair share of crazies what you need to do is stop letting the moderates run the country and get back to more central politics, and stop identifying both parties by the worst they have to offer.
    Last edited: May 24, 2018
  17. Sokolov

    Sokolov The One True Cactuar Octopi

    The only straw man I see is pretending both sides are doing the same thing. They are clearly not.

    One side wants to teach scientific, fact based information. The other side wants to indoctrinate with religious based beliefs.

    Honestly, this whole attempt by the right to re-frame science as a religion is insanity.
  18. Geressen

    Geressen Forum Royalty

  19. calisk

    calisk I need me some PIE!

    sigh...I'm about as atheist as a person can be(geressen has me beat on the ranting about it scale though), I think there is little difference between religious people and cultists drinking cool aid at least as far as there grip on reality goes but I feel quite similarly about most of the radical leftists that have adopted communism/marxism. they just replaced religious divine superiority complexes with old school catholic grade moral superiority complexes and use it in the same ways the church used to, i.e shaming people into compliance with there views, while preaching equality among all when it's really equality for some.

    sadly one side always thinks they are better then the other and can never see there own faults, this is not limited to political debates this summarizes most arguments between two people ever in the history of man.

    anyway you made up a hypothetical and then used it to say how bad they are, at it's core that's a straw man.
    Last edited: May 25, 2018
  20. Gaverion

    Gaverion I need me some PIE!

    I think something was lost in translation. "It's just a theory" is a reference to the efforts of Christian groups pushing for evolution to be taught as having equal validity to creationism.

Share This Page