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

141–150 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#141

Post by gus_massa »

It would be nice to know what is the opinion of the teachers if someone apply the same kind of rules to them. For examples teachers care a lot about they school they go, and old teacher usually hopped a few times until they reached their ideal school.

This is unfair because new teacher may be forced to go to a school that is far away and have a long commuting time, or go to a school where the principal is a moron, or go to a school that can't buy legos.

Some new teachers may not even get a position or resign because the school they go has problems.

So what about to randomizing the school assignment each year? Would the teacher be happy with this more fair approach?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#142

Post by WalterBright »

"assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive"

"launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation."

The teachers aren't there to teach communism. Instead, it was an opportunity to teach how markets work, after all, the kids are growing up in a capitalist market economy.

The teachers set up a grossly incorrect model - that of a fixed pie. A fixed pie, by definition, means winners and losers. That is not how free markets work. Free markets work by growing the pie.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#143

Post by Gigachad »

cwkoss wrote: post #59

I think it would be interesting to make a system of 'natural disaster': have the kids (secret) vote ~once a week about whether existing structures should be taken apart and returned to the bins. After the kids leave that day, draw a random vote, and follow the votes prescription. If one child isn't having fun with the way resources are allocated, your structure is in jeopardy. Would create a strong incentive to compr…

Sounds like a good way to have the unpopular kids build destroyed every week.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#144

Post by 1970-01-01 »

legitster wrote: post #83

This is from 2006!! It sounds like it was written yesterday! It a pretty good example that these are not new trends in education - they have been emerging for a long period of time. The kids in this program are now in their 20s, I'd love to know what their memories of this were.

>The kids in this program are now in their 20s, I'd love to know what their memories of this were.

Indeed, theirs is the most important perspective. Do they even remember legoland?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#145

Post by ertjaet »

legitster wrote: post #129
ertjaet wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"reflecting on things that you've learned is indoctrination, actually"

I'm not calling it indoctrination. But I am calling it a flawed and abusive-sounding methodology.

to clarify:

> "We’d audiotaped the discussion so that we’d be able to revisit it during our weekly teaching team meeting to tease out important themes and threads. The children’s thoughts, questions, and tensions would guide us as we planned our next steps."

is this what you're referring to?

they recorded one initial discussion so the teachers could collaborate and think more about the best way to resolve this conflict.

and honestly, it sounds like they taped it just because it was easier than having someone take meeting minutes. have you tried keeping up with 5-9 years-olds talking? it's exhausting.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#146

Post by aksss »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #56
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.

According to the article the teachers banned the Legos because the kids had (to paraphrase) "developed a system of power and privilege which is bad because it's like capitalism." The teachers are all trained socialists. They then spent months training the kids in collectivism.

More than likely the teachers have no idea of the link between this ideology and marxism/socialism. They're going along with the cultural pressure, their jobs are on the line, they don't want to be perceived as contrarian, and buy all the excuses made for why a plain reading of the language isn't actually racist (again, jobs on the line so strongly incentivized to STFU).

Not all teachers go along with it, but like any ideology with the force of population, psychological leverage of guilt, and the threat to destroy careers, most people in any group would comply in a manner that doesn't require deep consideration - in fact, quite the opposite! They need to turn off certain alarms and knowledge to get on the bandwagon.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#148

Post by 988747 »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #66
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.

[flagged]

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#150

Post by ALittleLight »

trs8080 wrote: post #87
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…

If you had actually read the article, you would know that this is a private after-school program whose participants are "upper-middle class and socially liberal." Your comment sounds like "MY values aren't being taught so this is child abuse!" Maybe some parents don't agree with your values? Maybe they want their children to learn about cooperation and empathy instead of blindly accepting hierarchical power structure…

The article is exactly about teaching children to blindly accept hierarchy. The teachers tell them what they can play with and when, how they can play together, and why. Why should the children accept the student-teacher hierarchy? Are they old enough to question it?

I suspect you have more in common with the teachers politically than you and I have in common. Perhaps you think it's good for the students to be politically indoctrinated because you agree, to some extent, with what the teachers are saying.

Conversely, I would not share my politics with children, even abstractly. I think after-school teachers for young kids are there mainly to help socialize children and keep them busy while their parents work. I don't think it's their role to teach kids any particular ideology.

Post reply on HN