Teachers ban Legos to teach a message

[StrangeSox]

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml

 

Sounds like the kids were learning quite a bit about allocation of resources and capitalism on their own before the teachers stepped in and f'ed everything up.

[Reddy]

http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/21_02/lego212.shtml

 

Sounds like the kids were learning quite a bit about allocation of resources and capitalism on their own before the teachers stepped in and f'ed everything up.

i think there is some serious overthinking things going on here... they're f***ing legos people - this is how kids have always used legos. i remember doing it too, i mean, there were definitely some pieces that we much cooler than the others.

 

why can't people let kids just be kids these days?

[StrangeSox]

i think there is some serious overthinking things going on here... they're f***ing legos people - this is how kids have always used legos. i remember doing it too, i mean, there were definitely some pieces that we much cooler than the others.

why can't people let kids just be kids these days?

 

Because we need to teach them to be good proliteriates and overthrow the evil chains of capitalist oppression!

[NorthSideSox72]

I only read the first few grafs, but this reminds me of that idiotic idea some park district (in CA I think) had a few years back, where they stopped keeping score in the soccer games. They were afraid of making kids feel bad. Some kid was asked about it, and responded with one of my now favorite quotes of all time...

 

"It's stupid and dumb."

 

[Texsox]

There is waaaaay more interesting stuff in that article than just taking away the Legos. That was about .1% of the article. Seeing how kids this age acquired, wielded, tried to share, make rules, etc. was the real importance there. NSS, don't stop at the fourth graph.

 

And if you actually read to the end, they did not ban legos. That's misleading.

[FlaSoxxJim]

they're f***ing legos people - this is how kids have always used legos. i remember doing it too

 

You used to f*** Legos?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EvilMonkey]

You used to f*** Legos?

Remember, the DID have those little Lego people. And some of them even had ponytails!

[StrangeSox]

There is waaaaay more interesting stuff in that article than just taking away the Legos. That was about .1% of the article. Seeing how kids this age acquired, wielded, tried to share, make rules, etc. was the real importance there. NSS, don't stop at the fourth graph.

 

And if you actually read to the end, they did not ban legos. That's misleading.

 

Well, they took them away and wouldn't give them back to the students until they "learned" to use the Legos on the teachers' terms -- i.e. form a perfect, Utopian socialist society out of Legos.

[GoodAsGould]

What the hell are cool lego pieces lol? Back when I used to play with them I never knew some pieces were cooler than others.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Well, they took them away and wouldn't give them back to the students until they "learned" to use the Legos on the teachers' terms -- i.e. form a perfect, Utopian socialist society out of Legos.

Spoken like a person who has yet to step foot in a methods class, let alone an actual classroom as the instructor for a year with a group of kids.

[StrangeSox]

Spoken like a person who has yet to step foot in a methods class, let alone an actual classroom as the instructor for a year with a group of kids.

 

Do you agree with preaching the "evils" of capitalism to 8 year olds? I would hope that isn't taught in any methods class.

 

I just had a brief discussion with one of my friends who is an education major (a senior) and she doesn't agree with their methods either -- specifically, they were using the Legos not as a teaching tool in order to promote critical thinking but as a tool in order to promote their agenda of socialism. Which is basically what I said.

Edited March 30, 2007 by StrangeSox

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Do you agree with preaching the "evils" of capitalism to 8 year olds? I would hope that isn't taught in any methods class.

 

I just had a brief discussion with one of my friends who is an education major (a senior) and she doesn't agree with their methods either -- specifically, they were using the Legos not as a teaching tool in order to promote critical thinking but as a tool in order to promote their agenda of socialism. Which is basically what I said.

Teaching social skills and the such (i.e. the benefit of assisting one's community rather than voracious self-centeredness) is what schools engage in every day. Every week, we teach appropriate behavior lessons for PBIS. It teaches them how to behave in a society in general not only for their own appropriate actions but for the indirect benefit of the school and later, the public when they graduate. I'd hardly call that socialism. I'd personally love to see the demographics of the school, the mobility rate, the poverty rate and other such indictators that can adequately describe the community in which this school is currently placed. Read some Jonathan Kozol for ideas/reasons that these things are important for behavioral work and choice of lessons (most notably "Shame of the Nation")

 

And being an education major without having your own classroom is one thing (with the co-op, no real responsibility or accountability unless you royally screw up) but it is entirely different having a classroom day in and day out, specifically seeing the realities that some teachers see.

 

BTW, what subject matter does your friend teach? If it is social studies, perhaps she'd like to check out the Harvard Social Studies project and/or issues centered/problem based social studies education theory.

[StrangeSox]

Teaching social skills and the such (i.e. the benefit of assisting one's community rather than voracious self-centeredness) is what schools engage in every day. Every week, we teach appropriate behavior lessons for PBIS. It teaches them how to behave in a society in general not only for their own appropriate actions but for the indirect benefit of the school and later, the public when they graduate. I'd hardly call that socialism. I'd personally love to see the demographics of the school, the mobility rate, the poverty rate and other such indictators that can adequately describe the community in which this school is currently placed. Read some Jonathan Kozol for ideas/reasons that these things are important for behavioral work and choice of lessons (most notably "Shame of the Nation")

 

And being an education major without having your own classroom is one thing (with the co-op, no real responsibility or accountability unless you royally screw up) but it is entirely different having a classroom day in and day out, specifically seeing the realities that some teachers see.

 

BTW, what subject matter does your friend teach? If it is social studies, perhaps she'd like to check out the Harvard Social Studies project and/or issues centered/problem based social studies education theory.

She's majoring in history/ education.

 

It doesn't sound like socialism? Did you read the whole article closely? Here's some quotes:

 

"To make sense of the sting of this disenfranchisement, most of the children cast Liam and Kyla as "mean," trying to "make people feel bad." They were unable or unwilling to see that the rules of the game — which mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy — were a setup for winning and losing. Playing by the rules led to a few folks winning big and most folks falling further and further behind. The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly."

 

 

 

" * Collectivity is a good thing:

 

"You get to build and you have a lot of fun and people get to build onto your structure with you, and it doesn't have to be the same way as when you left it.... A house is good because it is a community house."

"

 

 

 

"From this framework, the children made a number of specific proposals for rules about Legos, engaged in some collegial debate about those proposals, and worked through their differing suggestions until they reached consensus about three core agreements:

 

*

 

All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.

"

 

 

"Into their coffee shops and houses, 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. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned."

 

 

 

That doesn't sound like these teachers are socialist and have an agenda they're pushing on these kids?

Edited March 30, 2007 by StrangeSox

[LowerCaseRepublican]

She's majoring in history/ education.

 

It doesn't sound like socialism? Did you read the whole article closely? Here's some quotes:

 

"To make sense of the sting of this disenfranchisement, most of the children cast Liam and Kyla as "mean," trying to "make people feel bad." They were unable or unwilling to see that the rules of the game — which mirrored the rules of our capitalist meritocracy — were a setup for winning and losing. Playing by the rules led to a few folks winning big and most folks falling further and further behind. The game created a classic case of cognitive disequilibrium: Either the system is skewed and unfair, or the winners played unfairly."

" * Collectivity is a good thing:

 

"You get to build and you have a lot of fun and people get to build onto your structure with you, and it doesn't have to be the same way as when you left it.... A house is good because it is a community house."

"

"From this framework, the children made a number of specific proposals for rules about Legos, engaged in some collegial debate about those proposals, and worked through their differing suggestions until they reached consensus about three core agreements:

 

*

 

All structures are public structures. Everyone can use all the Lego structures. But only the builder or people who have her or his permission are allowed to change a structure.

"

"Into their coffee shops and houses, 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. As we watched the children build, we became increasingly concerned."

That doesn't sound like these teachers are socialist and have an agenda they're pushing on these kids?

Hooray history education. Then I can really suggest two books (there are two volumes of it) called "Reasoning with Democratic Values". It is a lot of discussion based critical thinking stuff that has proven very successful when it gets used for me.

 

Again, look towards the information I asked about the school. Often times, in a school that is primarily poor, the kids will be the ones asking these kinds of questions and critiquing society. Examples of this are seen throughout scholars like Kozol's work. The reality is that there is a high percentage of what can very feasibly be called apartheid schools right here in America (again, read Kozol's book "Shame of the Nation" if you're interested in details)

 

And let's not kid ourselves about the amount of socialism that has done good things for this country (i.e. the numerous government jobs that got us out of the Depression doing public works projects, etc.) Socialism as practiced by despots (Fidel, Soviets etc.) do a disservice to the theory of it. A balanced, informed form in moderation can be quite effective. There is a middle ground that these teachers are trying to get them to see between hyper-individualism and hyper-statism dictating all the rules.

[StrangeSox]

I suppose I should clarify that I agree that teaching the values you spoke of are a good thing and that I don't think unrestricted capitalism is the best thing ever.

 

I just see this specific case as an example of teachers using the classroom to push their agenda (anti-capitalism, not striking some sort of balance) under the thin veil of promoting education.

[EvilMonkey]

Hooray history education. Then I can really suggest two books (there are two volumes of it) called "Reasoning with Democratic Values". It is a lot of discussion based critical thinking stuff that has proven very successful when it gets used for me.

 

Again, look towards the information I asked about the school. Often times, in a school that is primarily poor, the kids will be the ones asking these kinds of questions and critiquing society. Examples of this are seen throughout scholars like Kozol's work. The reality is that there is a high percentage of what can very feasibly be called apartheid schools right here in America (again, read Kozol's book "Shame of the Nation" if you're interested in details)

 

And let's not kid ourselves about the amount of socialism that has done good things for this country (i.e. the numerous government jobs that got us out of the Depression doing public works projects, etc.) Socialism as practiced by despots (Fidel, Soviets etc.) do a disservice to the theory of it. A balanced, informed form in moderation can be quite effective. There is a middle ground that these teachers are trying to get them to see between hyper-individualism and hyper-statism dictating all the rules.

"assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive" is NOT a middle ground.

[Texsox]

"assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive" is NOT a middle ground.

 

So you favor a class-based system? Tell me how that would work.

[southsider2k5]

"assumptions that mirrored those of a class-based, capitalist society — a society that we teachers believe to be unjust and oppressive" is NOT a middle ground.

 

Maybe if you worked for the New York Times...

[StrangeSox]

So you favor a class-based system? Tell me how that would work.

 

I don't think anyone here favors a class-based system, but these teachers view capitalism as a class-based, unfair, unjust, corrupt, and evil system. They aren't looking for any middle ground, just to show the kids how wrong power, control, and private ownership are.

[southsider2k5]

So you favor a class-based system? Tell me how that would work.

 

Nice word twist BTW.

[Texsox]

Nice word twist BTW.

 

Twist? It's a direct quote. From reading the article, class based seemed to be a key element that they tried to isolate and redirect. And if you really want to point out twists, how about the thead title?

 

 

I don't think anyone here favors a class-based system, but these teachers view capitalism as a class-based, unfair, unjust, corrupt, and evil system. They aren't looking for any middle ground, just to show the kids how wrong power, control, and private ownership are.

 

I guess we disagree. I was reading how they tried to isolate and redirect key behaviors. I'd be more upset that these kids became subjects in a psychological experiment probably without their parents permission. Maybe it's too many Psychology classes and reading too many studies like this.

[southsider2k5]

I think that I am most upset that it seems to be OK to teach socialism, but not Christianity.

[Texsox]

I think that I am most upset that it seems to be OK to teach socialism, but not Christianity.

 

Does sharing and cooperation equal socialism? Where does teaching kids to share cross over into socialism?

 

"Damn Socialist! My kid got all the cool pieces fair and square, now give them back to him right now!"

 

How could you stomach a lesson from John 21:15?

[southsider2k5]

Does sharing and cooperation equal socialism? Where does teaching kids to share cross over into socialism?

 

"Damn Socialist! My kid got all the cool pieces fair and square, now give them back to him right now!"

 

How could you stomach a lesson from John 21:15?

 

I guess I prefer the oppresive and unfair capitialist system, versus penalizing the smart, talented, hardworkers, go getters, etc. There is a big difference between helping your neighbor and having the government just take it anyways. I like the freedom aspect, but I guess that is just me.

[Soxy]

To me this sounds more like an attempt to teach sharing, communication as a way to solve problems (I was impressed by how included the children were in this process and how their opinions were reinforced and validated), and the importance of understanding the effect of power.

 

I thought this situation was very well handled by the adults (and I bet if the people who don't like the article had one of the kids who was being excluded during the initial legotown building, they wouldn't be so against these changes). The fact that this turned into a dialogue with the children is really impressive--I think it models some very important behaviors that children should learn:

1.) Importance of communication as a way to solve problems

2.) Understanding that your actions have an effect on other students

3.) Collective belongings (these weren't one child's legos) will be shared by all who have a stake in them.

4.) Importance of delaying gratification

 

In all honesty, I think all of the stuff that the teachers engaged the students in has been shown (in both the developmental and personality literature) to be important to the emotional and ethical development of children. I also think it should be pointed out, that the legos weren't banned permanently, but where given back when rules were established that were fair to all the students.

 

I guess I prefer the oppresive and unfair capitialist system, versus penalizing the smart, talented, hardworkers, go getters, etc. There is a big difference between helping your neighbor and having the government just take it anyways. I like the freedom aspect, but I guess that is just me.

It doesn't seem (in this article) like the hardworkers or go getters WERE punished. Perhaps that's your conception of socialism, but I didn't get that from this article. Instead, it seemed like the kids that were first in got the good pieces and wouldn't share with newcomers.