Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why We Banned Legos (2006)

rethinkingschools.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#61

Post by Breazy »

polished85 wrote: post #49
Breazy wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> " Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive." I share your take-away in general. But at least in this case though, the parents of these kids probably [publicly] align with the ideology of the tea…

What would "doing the walk" look like for these parents?

Not going out of their way to put their kids into ethnically and culturally homogeneous environments.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#62

Post by CamperBob2 »

someguydave wrote: post #48
ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

agree, flag the article.

What? How will that help?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#63

Post by Animats »

"Into their coffee shops and houses, the children were building their assumptions about ownership and the social power it conveys — assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned.

The kids were discovering that both capitalism and communism have serious problems, that it's really hard to build a system that works, and that somewhere in the middle may be a tolerable compromise.

Too little equality, and people are starved out. Too much equality, and nothing big can be done. "Keep the needle pointed North", from "Freedom(tm)".

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#64

Post by jdbernard »

someguydave wrote: post #48
ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

agree, flag the article.

I'd rather not. As much as possible I want to avoid being in a filter bubble. This is an interesting article. If nothing else, it gives a lot of insight into the way a different set of people think. That's useful, even if I disagree with their principles and conclusions.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#65

Post by a_shovel »

bombcar wrote: post #16

They banned them because the teachers hadn't been paying attention (and kids were hoarding the "good pieces"), and brought them back with three rules: 1. everyone can play with any structure but you can't change someone else's structure 2. play has to be together 3. all structures must be a standard size So, Minecraft claims.

Pretty much. It's a basic story of teaching kids about unfairness and how to play nicely with each other. The hysteria in some of these comments is baffling.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#66

Post by slowmovintarget »

ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

On the one hand, the kids had developed a system that excluded other kids from playing. Past generations would use this as an opportunity to teach sharing and taking turns.

These teachers, on the other hand, took it as an opportunity to teach socialism and collectivism.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#67

Post by devwastaken »

thesuitonym wrote: post #13
syshum wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point the evidence is pretty clear that is the case.. well maybe not "indoctrination" but for sure many many school systems do not share the value system of the parents sending their kids to the schools The question then becomes who's value system should "win", IMO it should be the parents, the parents should have the final say in their child's upbringing not the schools or "community".

I would rather my children go to a school that challenges our beliefs, because they may be wrong. I don't want the growing up parroting what I believe just because I believe it, they should come to their own conclusions.

School does not challenge beliefs. It teaches you not to do that at all, and to respect inefficient unreasonable government systems. U.S. schools don't even teach your basic constitutional rights. They intentionally block that because if people knew their 5th amendment rights the vast majority of policing wouldn't work.

Public education, like many government pet projects, attract warm bodies, inefficiency, because there is no incentive to be efficient. It's free money to them.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#68

Post by notriddle »

ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

Intervening when some of the kids are hogging all the pieces doesn't seem all that unreasonable, especially since, in this case, the adults noticed it was mostly older kids not letting any of the younger kids play with any of the pieces.

That's not a healthy environment. That's literally the big man screwing over the little man.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#69

Post by DennisP »

> it is wildly unsettling to acknowledge that rules can have built-in inequities. So most of the children resolved their disequilibrium by clinging to the belief that the winners were ruthless — despite clear evidence of Liam and Kyla’s compassionate generosity.

Maybe that's why I've seen lots of redditors claim that you can't be a billionaire without being a sociopath.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#70

Post by slowmovintarget »

someguydave wrote: post #48
ALittleLight wrote: post #45

I feel visceral disgust reading this article. It seems like the kids were playing with each other in a healthy way and the teachers interposed themselves to change how the kids were playing for political and ideological reasons. This is disgusting to me because I think it's analogous to physical abuse. A teacher hitting a child is bad not just because it's a violent crime, but also because children are especially vul…

agree, flag the article.

No. Discuss the article. Reasonably, calmly, and keep it around so when people say "what evidence do you have that kids are being taught socialism in school" you can present this 2006 article among others, in a teacher's journal, as evidence that it's been that way for a while.
Post reply on HN