Last Discussion

First, I'd like to note that I had one of the looooonger articles to discuss. :)

And, for fun, I thought I'd make myself a lightning rod one last time, for old time's sake.

In reading Stirring up Justice, one of the thoughts that kept coming into my mind was about how touchy-feely it all was. It's all well and good to say that all kids are equal and that we need to educate them about how to be better people, but let's face it, not all kids are equal. I'm always hesitant about these touchy-feely, let's-all-work-together projects. I think that Jessie Singer is, in a sense, using the classroom to promote her own agenda. She wants kids to think and act like she does, and so she pushes them along this path of world justice and equality. I'm not saying that these are bad things, but I was just a little taken aback at the idea of all these kids really having fun reading about social injustice and trying to overcome it. Where's the fun? The whole idea seems too purpose-driven, and not just about the joys of reading. What do you guys think?

(Please bear in mind that I've assumed a far stronger voice for this post than I actually maintain. I just wanted to 'stir up' some discussion. :) )

-Nick

Comments

[Karen]

Oops I did it again comes to mind Nick. Isn't that a line from some Britney song?? Did I say Britney?

I'm very interested in your stirring up some justice of your own here. There is NO neutral curriculum. Any curricular decision we make is the result of someone's agenda. But the normalizing function of ideology makes it appear that the curriculum as it is is natural--"normal." Or worse, apolitical.

Don't be fooled.

That said, I'm interested in your reading of this article. I look forward to others weighing in.

Browse the Rethinking Schools site: http://www.rethinkingschools.org/

KES