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

201–210 of 440 posts

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#201

Post by crooked-v »

ALittleLight wrote: post #188
crooked-v wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Everything is physics is more correct, but that doesn't mean kids in an art program need to be learning about quantum dynamics. It strikes me as a leap in logic to say "Everything is politics, therefore we need to indoctrinate young children according to my progressive left politics."

I'd be curious to see what exactly you object to about the "indoctrination", given that the actual process here (if you avoid panicking at the mere presence of words like "privilege" in the narration) amounted to good critical thinking lessons around topics like "what does it mean to own something" and "what does it mean to be powerful", then getting the children to talk to each other and work out what they all felt were fair rules about sharing use of the Legos.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#202

Post by khazhoux »

systemvoltage wrote: post #53
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…

I feel the same. I live in Oakland and we have proposal for this type of curriculum: https://equitablemath.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2020/11... I feel absolutely livid thinking that these people are out there to inject, indoctrinate and infect innocent minds of children with their disugsting view of the society. Children grow up wonderfully around the world, some 7 billion of us are here. There is no way this ty…

I immediately recognized this article. I was surprised that parts of this were considered good ideas:

    SUPPORT STUDENTS TO RECLAIM THEIR MATHEMATICAL ANCESTRY
     • Intentionally include mathematicians of color.
     • Expose students to mathematicians of color, particularly women of color and queer mathematicians of color, both through historical examples and by inviting community guest speakers.
     • Teach students of color about their mathematical legacy and ancestral connection and mastery of math.
     • Honor and acknowledge the mathematical knowledge of students of color, even if it shows up unconventionally.
     • Give rightful credit to the discovery of math concepts by mathematicians of color. Reclaim concepts attributed to white mathematicians that should be attributed to mathematicians of color.
Maybe I'm behind the times, but in pre-University math, there was zero discussion of actual mathematicians. Trigonometry, algebra, geometry -- these were concepts unattached to individual people or cultures. I strongly object to the notion that math should be personified in an effort to "dismantle white supremacy in math" (as this curriculum aims to do).

Would love to hear opinions. If the idea is to encourage non-White kids to go into or connect with math, especially in districts with a large non-White student population, then great. But if the idea is that math curriculums today somehow teach kids that straight white men are superior, that's a bizarre implication.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#203

Post by ertjaet »

polishdude20 wrote: post #167
assttoasstmgr wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Koop…

I say, let the kids learnt these dynamics naturally without adult suggestions. These political ideas emerge from fundamental ways of social behavior. Let the kids learn these from a bottom up approach rather than a possibly flawed and skewed top down approach.

have you ever worked with young children? the method you propose will lead to bullying and fights. there needs to be some moderation.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#204

Post by cwkoss »

Breazy wrote: post #149
trs8080 wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cooperation, empathy, and a sense of duty.

A man with a sword extolling the virtues of cooperation, empathy, and duty.

It is hilarious and horrifying that people will read a story about teaching kids the importance of sharing and decry it as a slippery slope towards mass genocide.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#205

Post by legitster »

trs8080 wrote: post #138
legitster wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Maybe they want their children to learn about cooperation and empathy instead of blindly accepting hierarchical power structures and divisions that emphasize the individual over community Okay, after weeks of this, they all agreed that now everyone owns the legos together. Which is ironic given that they had power over their legos. Then the teachers took it away. Then the teachers gave it back. It sounds like the l…

You should really read the article. A hierarchy formed where children were actively being regulated and excluded by other children. The teachers guided a conversation that allowed for everyone to participate equitably. Your last sentence says a lot. It's sad to expect your children to performatively participate in community but return to selfish behavior when it no longer benefits them.

I did read the article. Did you?

This wasn't one guided conversation - this was months of them. And the children were being recorded and their answers analyzed regularly.

Even if I accepted the diagnosis in the premise, I do not want to take their word about their own results.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#206

Post by shkkmo »

Breazy wrote: post #128
a_shovel wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is article about teaching children to share Lego toys. If you want to compare it to communist autocracies, you'll need to at least tell us how they're at all related to each other.

> This is article about teaching children to share Lego toys. No, it's about using lego to teach teaching kids about capitalism and power structures. > Exploring power, ownership, and equity in an early childhood classroom > These children seemed to squirm at the implications of privilege, wealth, and power that “giving” holds. The children denied their power, framing it as benign and neutral, not something actively…

> No, it's about using lego to teach teaching kids about capitalism and power structures.

There was nothing in there about teaching kids about capitalism. It was about exploring the kid's understanding of ownership and power, which are far more fundental concepts that predate capitalism by thousands of years.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#207

Post by cecilpl2 »

mark242 wrote: post #17
golemotron wrote: post #15

This article is the best argument for unsupervised free play that I've seen. Adults have no business moralizing and interfering as children negotiate relationships on their own. It's developmentally important. Children who lack that experience will constantly look for authoritative arbiters of the relationships. That's the soil that societal authoritarianism grows in.

This is the best comment here. The most successful children in elementary school are the ones who have gone through those social conflicts in preschool and worked things out for themselves. Sometimes that means mental conflict, sometimes that means not engaging with your peers and then having to forgive, barter, trade, etc.

Sometimes that means being beaten up for fun, or having your belongings stolen or destroyed, or being the victim of power games.

It's a great way to learn some deeply ingrained life lessons like "all of my peers are out to hurt me" and "I can't truly trust anyone who claims to be my friend".

Those are pretty difficult to root out and persist into adulthood.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#208

Post by WalterBright »

munk-a wrote: post #181
cwkoss wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"visceral disgust" seems like such a superlative reaction to have at this. I didn't realize there was so much McCarthyist fear in the HN community. I wonder to what extent this is new, or if it has always been this way.

HN is a place that attracts professionals of a particular enough field that it has avoided any internal siloing (i.e. Subreddits). Within Tech you can see nearly every political view represented - within SV in particular you'll find a very strong neo-Libretarian movement that's sprung up (in part) due to opposition against taxation - this group in particular is quite strongly anti-socialist. It has (at least for the…

Are you sure? When I talk about free markets, I usually get a strong net negative reaction here.

Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)

#209

Post by ertjaet »

WalterBright wrote: post #198
ertjaet wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except... it isn't? that's literally not what socialism or collectivism is. socialism is just the idea that "wealth" (or any substitute, like lego) should be owned by the community, and rules that bind that community should be made by a consensus of the members.

It's a fine idea. Too bad it always results in collapse or starvation and then collapse.

oh no we taught the kids to share and now they're starving and the classroom has collapsed
Post reply on HN