Pastelland Forum

Redafro wrote:

Well, the government's role in all that is to finance it and distribute resources between schools. The government shouldn't meddle with what is being taught nor should the schools get too intimate with the financiers: that'd get close to corruption. (Also, teachers are experts of education not law). Obviously discourse will take place so that these things can be coordinated, but that is another matter.

I like your drawing the line between education and governance, but I thought you wanted uniformity of education. I believe in uniformity of access to knowledge, but not uniformity of teaching practice.

That is not what I'm proposing, outside of a general national standard (including general topics only). Teachers should be free to, for instance, choose the school books they want to use and use tactics that fit for the class in question. That doesn't mean that teachers can say whatever they want though.

Regional, philosophical, and personal interests should have the freedom to play their part in any "public" education project.

Could you give examples of what you mean?

To not even discuss possible improvement, or to fail to have any skepticism of our system seems self destructive and narrow minded to me.

Obviously, but I know so little about the government outside of education that I can't really propose changes.

Anteroinen wrote: That is not what I'm proposing, outside of a general national standard (including general topics only). Teachers should be free to, for instance, choose the school books they want to use and use tactics that fit for the class in question. That doesn't mean that teachers can say whatever they want though.

Ok, that sounds more reasonable. You seemed so defensive about government, I thought you meant government control. I see what you were saying now though about

Redafro wrote:]Regional, philosophical, and personal interests should have the freedom to play their part in any "public" education project.

Anteroinen wrote:Could you give examples of what you mean?

If a region has or expects to have a great deal of, for example, Muslims, it would be advantageous to teach some of the basics of that religion and the Muslim culture. If you live in a region where a certain product is the primary product, it would be advantageous to teach about that.

Anteroinen wrote:Obviously, but I know so little about the government outside of education that I can't really propose changes.

But again, I was simply interested in discussion: asking questions, curiosity, etc. Instead, it seemed that everyone rushed to the defense of the current system. I just don't quite get that is all. :shrug:

From what I understand, Ant never said anything along the lines of not being allowed to teach freely, except when it comes to something that has no benefit on the student.

And I don't believe anyone was defending the current system, unless by "everyone," you mean Taalit because he was the only one I can recall who asked you why you feel that way about the Government.

Redafro wrote:

Regional, philosophical, and personal interests should have the freedom to play their part in any "public" education project.

Anteroinen wrote:Could you give examples of what you mean?

If a region has or expects to have a great deal of, for example, Muslims, it would be advantageous to teach some of the basics of that religion and the Muslim culture. If you live in a region where a certain product is the primary product, it would be advantageous to teach about that.

Religion is kind of a special case among subjects, along with languages I guess. I mean, problems like these hardly arise with, say, biology. They all need to have options. Each school should organize needed subjects. Obviously all schools cannot provide each kind of religion class and each language in existence but on popular demand it should be not only possible but nigh obligatory to organize Chinese first language classes or classes on Islam.

One would hope that any religion class would be unbiased enough that you get to know all religions though. This is just idealism from my part though.

Anteroinen wrote:Obviously, but I know so little about the government outside of education that I can't really propose changes.

But again, I was simply interested in discussion: asking questions, curiosity, etc. Instead, it seemed that everyone rushed to the defense of the current system. I just don't quite get that is all. :shrug:

Well, from my perhaps a bit patriotic point of view, the USA system seems weird and faulty in a lot of ways, but they aren't things that are easily changed. You basically only have two parties (Finland has seven plus tiny parties that never really get to the parliament), so there's a huge dichotomy; you – for some weird reason – don't have universal health care; your elections are batshit crazy (which really causes the dichotomy); etc.; etc.; etc..

So there: problems!

That, and the fact we have a bunch of politicians who can't make up their damn minds and/or rely on laws made by people from 200-someodd years ago.

Some politicians in the U.S. seem to not actually have any views. Literally ALL of their views change to fit what will get them the most votes.

Including recently Rick Scott, where he was completely against "Obamacare." Now with the Tea Party being obselete in Florida, he turned to the Seniors (his next best Vote-getters) and wants Medicare. I see your point. And that's another reason our system is bad.

Edit: And when I say that, I mean that they care more about the votes than actually getting things done.

Rooster5man wrote:From what I understand, Ant never said anything along the lines of not being allowed to teach freely, except when it comes to something that has no benefit on the student.

And I don't believe anyone was defending the current system, unless by "everyone," you mean Taalit because he was the only one I can recall who asked you why you feel that way about the Government.

I suppose I have to confess overreaction. I've been trying to take a break from anything resembling a debate, but I long for a good discussion so I keep coming back. I've thoroughly enjoyed all our debates and discussions here... except for the fact that when they are of an oppositional/argumentative nature rather than a curious/discussion nature, my patients and my nerves tend to get frayed after a while. The religion debate, while extremely beneficial, got grueling and discouraging, not because I wasn't "winning," but because the only reaction I felt I was getting was oppositional. I thrive on curiosity, but opposition just discourages me. :shrug: A personal weakness on my part I suppose, so I apologize if I overreacted WITH opposition.

Having said that, the discussion seems less oppositional now, which I appreciate. Unfortunately now I've got to run to work, so I'll try to get back to your comments after work.

That's absolutely fine. I saw a bit of the religion debate, seemed to get a bit messy, so I understand why you overreacted It's perfectly fine.

Anteroinen wrote:Religion is kind of a special case among subjects, along with languages I guess.
One would hope that any religion class would be unbiased enough that you get to know all religions though. This is just idealism from my part though.

Well, one point to be made is that there is a huge difference between teaching the facts of a religion, and teaching a religion. But otherwise, yes.

Anteroinen wrote:So there: problems!

Exactly, to name only a few.

Taalit wrote:Some politicians in the U.S. seem to not actually have any views. Literally ALL of their views change to fit what will get them the most votes.

Yeah, I think they demonstrate quite well that their only view is the one that wins them what they really want: power and prestige.

We could go on and on listing the details of what is wrong with the US system, or any other, but I suppose I'm more interested in looking at the fundamentals more than the specifics. So, I'll steer this back to an earlier idea. Did anyone get a chance to watch the video I posted earlier? This: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

I don't completely agree with his points, but there is some great thought provoking ideas in this.