Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it were merely a simple 'hey kids, shar' - or a simple re-org of playtime to make sure kids get to play, it'd be fine. The hypersensitive political contextualisation of this piece elicits the wrong outcomes and it's a totem for so much that is wrong today. We're constantly over analysing and injecting bits of politics into the situation. It's ridiculous. Any sane, reasonable parent or teacher would have been able…
No one is injecting politics into this situation. The politics were already there. What the teachers are doing is preparing the kids to defend themselves against the default politics in the world today, the politics of capitalism, of "might makes right" and "I've got mine". Sure, you can scold them and tell them to share or the legos will be taken away, but by engaging them in dialogue you are allowing them to reach…
Why We Banned Legos (2006)
421–430 of 440 posts
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#422Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
While it wasn't teaching about capitalism explicitly, it says: "...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."
Is is disheartening that any critique of power, class or ownership becomes synonymous with being anticapitalist. These seem like crucial topics to discuss if you want a well functioning capitalist society.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#423Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
You seem to have missed the section where they assigned point values to Legos and let the children create rules. The author clearly states that they had intended for the children to criticize the system for being unfair, but instead criticized the people within the system. The teachers wanted the children to challenge them, and they didn't! And yes, at the end of the day, the teachers always have the final authority.…
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#424Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'd guess you haven't been in a role to teach kids. They need to be taught. If not a doctrine you believe in, then it will be something horrific that they come up with themselves. The Lord of the Flies was a documentary. > Why should the children accept the student-teacher hierarchy? Are they old enough to question it? This is an anti-intellectual anti-parenting garbage take. These are 8 year olds.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#425Earlier quoted context omitted.
Taking turns and sharing is reasonable when there is a fixed pie, such as you're in a lifeboat with 3 others and a gallon of water, or you're in a classroom with a fixed supply of Legos. However, fixed pies almost never happen in a free market, and are not a valid model for a free market. I've seen socialists before using fixed pie economics in classrooms to extol the evils of free markets. The Monopoly game was inve…
Yeah, clearly we can just fabricate our way to more land in desired areas, nothing fixed pie about that at all. I agree that most things aren’t fixed pie. But some of the most important things in life are, and people who get lucky in that regard have a massive advantage.
We do it all the time:
1. multistory buildings
2. vertical farms
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#426Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> Seriously, count how many times the article mentions "power", and count how many times it mentions "share". Why? What would that even tell me? Toy-hogging is one of the earliest and simplest examples of a power imbalance a kid will see. Teaching the kids about the power imbalance directly instead of just decreeing "you have to share" is outstanding teaching, and certainly much more effective. These are some lucky 8…
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#427Earlier quoted context omitted.
For Pete’s sake these are children . You can’t just let the big ones walk all over the little ones.
That's what I'm saying! The children who are being walked on should be supported and given the ability to survive in their mini lego-world. If they're being walked on, but receive no help because "the system allows it" - what chance do they have?
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#428Earlier quoted context omitted.
> And yes, at the end of the day, the teachers always have the final authority. Do you think it's a good idea for a group of children to never be told "no?" And yes, at the end of the day, the party always has the final authority. Do you think it's a good idea for a group of proles to never be told "no?"
So I assume that you have never told your child no before, then? When they want to touch a hot stove, eat an entire gallon of ice cream, or paint on the walls, you give complete deference to them, because to restrict them in any way would be an unforgivable infringement of their intrinsic liberties, is that right? Context matters - situations dont become identical just because you can switch out a few nouns to make a…
Absolutely, and the context here is that these teachers have the absolute authority to say no and impose their will on children in pursuit of their indoctrination.
It’s hardly edgy: given their expressly stated goals, it’s alarmingly relevant.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#429Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's an example from OP: > Several times in the discussion, children made reference to “giving” Lego pieces to other children. Kendra pointed out the understanding behind this language: “When you say that some kids ‘gave’ pieces to other kids, that sounds like there are some kids who have most of the power in Legotown — power to decide what pieces kids can use and where they can build.” Kendra’s comment sparked an…
I am not sure why you are so eager to reject Kendras interpretation (Carl and Lucas decide who gets which bricks) while accepting their rationalisations (we're just helping the other kids). 8 year olds are masters of portraying their self-serving actions as selfless acts of generosity -- I see that all the time. It's easy to see who calls the shots when you watch a group of kids play, but that kid will totally insist…
This conclusion doesn't follow. I said the kids' explanations were reasonable relative to the teacher's. This is almost self-evidently true given the repeated inconsistencies that Kendra admits throughout.
> 8 year olds are masters of portraying their self-serving actions as selfless acts of generosity -- I see that all the time. It's easy to see who calls the shots when you watch a group of kids play, but that kid will totally insist that they are just doing what the group wants.
I'm under no illusions that 8 year olds are angels. So when they do act up or get a bit out of hand, how should we react? I submit that when the kids are taught the power of how to speak up when they're upset, how to listen to others' perspectives and how to cooperate toward mutual benefit, then they all become freer and more powerful; when all of their conflicts must be mediated through adults, especially ideologues such as Kendra and the other teachers, then they become more dependent and servile.
Having some of my own experience with kids, I've found that usually encouraging empathy and conversation with other kids is more effective at teaching them than brute forcing my own authority as a parent/grown up on them. My grown-up authority is the strongest when I can point out a lie or some other factual flaw, e.g. responding to "Jane tried to trip me!" with the context that "Jane was looking at me and away from you, so do you think it could have been an accident?" It's weakest when I substitute my own judgments and interpretations for theirs.
Also, Kendra admits that the teachers had spoken to the kids about being more egalitarian before the demise of Legotown. Wouldn't it have been better and less manipulative to address that problem when it was happening, rather than after a crisis? And I don't use that word loosely. If when I was eight my friends and I had built a huge Lego city that was destroyed one weekend, I would have been utterly devastated, especially if our teachers imposed their unilateral will to abscond with the legos afterward.
I know other adults whose parents pulled crap like this when they were kids, and it left psychological scars. I doubt afternoon daycare teachers could have that significant of an impact, but the fact that their capacity for harm is limited is no justification for their abusive behavior.
> As for your assertion that the teachers were shaming the kids, that's something you are reading between the lines. Maybe they were, but I'm going to give them the benefit of doubt and assume they were respectful.
The kids had all of their Legos taken away, then were forced into hour-long recorded conversations. Their only option for seeing the Legos return–which, again, they had built into what sound like genuinely cool structures through some approximation of cooperation–was to completely accept their teachers' class struggle framing with one kid ("Drew") singled out as the "leader"/chief exploiter, and then agree to rather draconian rules such as every house being identical.
Re: Why We Banned Legos (2006)
#430I found this article pretty hard to read, mainly because of the overly sweet (and indigestible) tone, dripping good-sentiments and smarty attitude displayed by the author. Legos were among our favorite toys for me and my (6!) siblings. Sure we had a lot of arguments back then about who would get such and such rare pieces. But conflicts between young siblings rarely last long: we would always bargain, negotiate or che…
wow, 720 siblings!