Disillusion

Post Reply New Topic

Why does it seem like education is slanted to give idealistic notions about the world to children? Could many troubles be saved by being honest earlier on about all the difficulties and limitations that inhere to reality? Are there problems to showing kids that complexities exist even if they might not comprehend the entire meaning of them?

Like "you can be whatever you want to be when you grow up"?

Cost benefit analysis

According to some, false hope is better than zero hope

Motivation

Critical thinking needs to be introduced at a young age. Terms and basic concepts, then more in depth as they age. Asking "what do you think?" instead of these are the (sometimes skewed) facts.

Teachers have too many children in their care to cover everything, and children have a variety of needs. They are also limited by their own abilities and devotion to their career. And then there are the parents! I've seen many instances of parents undermining staff. All the kids are "special" and "amazing" and never use red ink. I think this is effective when they are young but at some point a child has to learn to deal with rejection and the reality of unfairness. From the classroom - not the playground. Issues are generally ignored and pawned off onto the next school - where youth can have some pretty unrealistic expectations. A little less coddling by the parents and kids who are allowed to make mistakes and learn from them. Parents play the biggest role in a child's development, not the school.

Even the belief that someone with autism is incapable of many things. I refuse to believe that! With today's technology you should be given a computer, and the appropriate apps to communicate if needed, and high speed internet. To be allowed to research and investigate on your own timeline, in your own way. Games, studying, images, whatever. The point is to not limit a person to a definition of what you assume they can do, what you assume is appropriate for their age. And to accept the idea that it's ok to be a little different, to encourage them to pursue an interest because of all the skills they will gain along the way.

Not complete, a bit of a rant, I really don't know what I'm trying to say. But I think many kids are capable of many things and thoughts but limited by those around them. Don't talk back, don't question, girls don't do that, know your place, I can't afford it (but you can afford some nonsense that benefits you, not your child). See - a rant.

I am concerned about todays communistic brainwashing techniques being used in education in the UK. The big change started with the introduction of the GCSE's and it has esculated from there.

Communist brain washing techniques? Those famously didn't work when the communists tried them, so no reason to worry.

'teaching to the test' is far more problematic. It implies that there is an answer to everything.

And indeed, something I remember well from school was that when I had finished it, I had not a single question about the world. I was given the impression that the big mysteries were solved, and all that was left to do for me was pick a profession and wait for death.

Only now, half a lifetime later, I have learned that the most boring subjects in school are some of the most interesting fields of investigation.

I also learned that my teachers did not kniw that, having seen the kinds of people I went to school with who became teachers. They are the kind of people who were born having all the answers....

Plus GCSEs were introduced by Thatcher’s government as part of their centralisation of education policy and content in the UK with the intent to make it more right-wing overall. She said so explicitly in the second volume of her autobiography.

Having received GCSEs fairly recently I can confidently say that no communist brainwashing was attempted.

In Critical Thinking AS, which was taught at GCSE time, someone misquoted Marx’s “opium of the masses” quote and they were corrected. That’s about it.

In hindsight I think A Level RE was unduly harsh on Adam Smith and Milton Friedman, but we were encouraged to go away and do more reading in our own time - if I’d actually read up on their beliefs then I could have written better essays.

^ which brings up the other point that there are multiple syllabi, and they are adapted over the years as well.
I also did RE ‘A’ level (1999-2001): the main focus was history & practice in Islam, and the problem of evil with particular emphasis on the writings of Peter Vardy, no study of economic thought or practical ethics whatsoever.

Although my A Level was technically called Religious Education, in practice it was a Philosophy and Ethics qualification. Philosophy was mostly, but not entirely, questions about the nature of God, while Ethics was a balance of ethical theories (Kantian Ethics, Natural Law, Utilitarianism, etc.) and applied ethics (business ethics, which was where Friedman and Smith came up, and sexual ethics, abortion, euthanasia, etc.).

Gosh, the more I think about it the less adequate it seems. It pointed me in a lot of interesting directions that I wouldn’t otherwise have explored, but I’d have liked more opportunity to synthesise what I had learned with sociology, non-Christian religions or at least more rebellious Christian denominations, political theory, and so forth. But I guess a two-year course can only do so much.

Yes, I think mine was formally called Philosophy of Religion & History of Islamic Thought: religion of course meaning Christianity.
My teacher was a welsh baptist, so we got a dissenting take on the theological materials from her commentary on them during the classes: she said she’d had the choice of Islam or Hinduism from the syllabus and had picked the former because ”their beliefs are more similar to my own so I’m less likely to be negatively biased in teaching without realising it.”
______________________
I recently finished reading The World Turned Upside Down by Hill: it’s a fascinating, if rather dated and partisan, overview of dissenting & radical Christian movements in C17th UK. A good read with much interesting information in spite of it’s author’s political bias.
Although you may already have more up to date works on the subject (I’m limited by budget to what comes through the charity shop I volunteer in).