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

151–160 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#151

Post by crooked-v »

fleddr wrote: post #82

With "equity", your talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck do not matter. Outcomes should be equal regardless of any of that. How very exciting that young children are forcefully rewired to adopt this idea that undermines the very basis of our society. The message to the kids that were dominant, most active, passionate, hardest working or simply cruel on legotown is quite clear: don't bother…

> talent, merit, assertiveness, skill, charisma or just plain luck

One of these things is not like the others. The thing that's not like the others is also effectively the same as the primary factor noted in the article (age differences).

> teachers

> very rich

Teachers already sacrifice significant earnings just by choosing to be teachers, then spend even more on top of that out of their undervalued salaries purchasing classroom equipment and supplies. In other words, just being a teacher is a significant commitment to equity (especially that of poor children).

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#152

Post by munk-a »

jeroenhd wrote: post #117
pessimizer wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Children have also been bullied by other children for millennia.

And they will be, for millennia to come! Bullying is a vile part of human nature, there is no preventing it or stopping it all together.

If we can't prevent it or stop it altogether shouldn't we still try to minimize it? Or do we want to just have open season. Runts of the litter in nature tend to get bullied away from vital nutritional resources and dying - we've obviously decided it's a good idea to intercede in that case as humans so where are we drawing the line - where our neanderthalic ancestors drew the line? where victorians draw the line? where our parents drew the line? I think it's fair to consider that child rearing is an activity in constant evolution we should strive to make childhood a balanced experience to prepare children for life - that includes not exposing them to either excessive bullying along with coddling.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#153

Post by crooked-v »

ALittleLight wrote: post #150
trs8080 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 politi…

> Conversely, I would not share my politics with children, even abstractly.

Except, everything is politics. Even basic empathy is now (unfortunately) a prominent political issue.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#154

Post by aqsalose »

Spivak wrote: post #92
Sharlin wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. “Negotiation of relationships” practically means bullying and all sorts of antisocial and abusive behavior. There must be boundaries set by adults.

Right!? This person must have never been on the bottom of the social totem pole in school or I guess thought suffering traumatic abuse made them stronger or something. The power struggles of kids at that age are honestly more extreme than what adults face because kids are forced to interact, have low agency outside of play, and underdeveloped empathy.

How much of that totem pole exists just because kids are kids, or because of the arbitrary environment, imposed by the adults, wherein they find themselves?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#155

Post by assttoasstmgr »

jacobolus wrote: post #137
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…

> the builders began excluding other children. Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn’t play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle, growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. [...] These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict [...] Kendra suggested a big cleanup of the loose Legos on the floor. The Legotown builders were…

Did you miss this part?

> We recognized that children are political beings, actively shaping their social and political understandings of ownership and economic equity — whether we interceded or not. We agreed that we want to take part in shaping the children’s understandings from a perspective of social justice.

I'm sure that the children of the Nintendo generation frequently discussed the power dynamic of King Koopa's dictatorship over the Mushroom Kingdom, and the systematically oppressed Shyguys, who have to cover their faces in public.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#156

Post by legitster »

jacobolus wrote: post #137
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…

> the builders began excluding other children. Occasionally, Legotown leaders explicitly rebuffed children, telling them that they couldn’t play. Typically the exclusion was more subtle, growing from a climate in which Legotown was seen as the turf of particular kids. [...] These negotiations gave rise to heated conflict [...] Kendra suggested a big cleanup of the loose Legos on the floor. The Legotown builders were…

If you read the article, this was a months-long series of forced conversations. I don't think it's comparable at all to normal intervention.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#157

Post by UnpossibleJim »

andrewflnr wrote: post #76
UnpossibleJim wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, better yet, use it as a teachable moment. They are teachers. Teach. Instead of doing that, they removed the problem instead of facing it. Instead of explaining it to children who lacked the tools to deal with the issue, or the language to express their thoughts completely, they used their lack of language to trap them... from the article: >>Carl: “We didn’t ‘give’ the pieces, we found and shared them.” Lukas: “It…

Did you read to the end of the article, where they brought the Legos back?

I did, but by that point, is the damage not done? The children have seen their words twisted and the Legos taken away, only to be brought back after blame has been laid.

These people talk about singling out done by children when in this very same article they have singled out two children making "assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive". That is a lot to lay at the feet of children over the misappropriation of Legos.

Do you not think this all could have been headed off before the banning of Legos with the same discussion tactics that happened post ban, post tantrum and pre-blog railing against the woes of a capitalist society as seen through the perversions of a small child?

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#158

Post by crooked-v »

artificialLimbs wrote: post #32
thesuitonym wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't want school to teach my children anything about beliefs or what the teachers/admins believe. I want school to teach my child art and language and facts, and leave the beliefs to me.

Serious question: do you feel that critical thinking is important and should be taught in schools?

If so, consider how that itself is a "belief" that has at times been explicitly rejected by local political parties.

In other words, there's no such thing as value-neutral education.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#159

Post by munk-a »

988747 wrote: post #148
slowmovintarget wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

If only we could all get together and do something about that. It might take a monumental effort but if we all work together we can eliminate Socialism in our lifetimes! And, if for whatever reason, we fail - we can always teach our children how evil Socialism is so that they can carry on the fight to oppose indoctrination.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#160

Post by ertjaet »

drekipus wrote: post #135
ertjaet wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except the children made the system. they decided on the rules that would apply to them. there is no "system" beyond their own agreement!

That's fine and would teach the kids about tyranny and how to overcome it. But isn't this about the teachers intervening? How are kids to fight against the teachers?

> would teach

that's... what they did teach.

> How are kids to fight against the teachers?

why would the kids need to fight the teachers???

Post reply on HN