Human Rights School...

[Friday]

has an unusual mission.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/EDUCATION/03/10/human.rights.school.ap/index.html

The School for Human Rights is one of nearly 150 "small" public schools that opened in New York City in the last three years under a national movement to raise student achievement by shrinking school sizes. Such schools often have specific themes. Although it's normal for schools to discuss human rights, one built around the concept is rare.

"We're not teaching the kids what to think, but to think," Principal Kevin Dotson said, adding that some topics require "scaffolding" first. "We don't just hit sixth graders with 'Let's talk about torture today!"'

The school strives to produce "socially engaged young adults committed to equity, dignity and social consciousness," according to its mission statement.

Human rights groups are closely watching it as they seek ways to influence educational curricula nationwide. Amnesty International USA and Human Rights Education Associates have helped plan the school.

Students tackle topics from colonialism to the United Nations. They may track census data on poverty in their neighborhoods as part of math class or read novels on genocide for literature credit.

"Our kids have a strong sense of justice and violence," said Jessamyn Waldman, who represents HREA, the school's lead partner, which helps organize its curriculum and activities. "What we don't want to do is make them more angry. What we want to do is empower them."

School officials try to stay objective when discussing controversial subjects such as the death penalty.

Personally, I think this is a great idea. Teach students how to think, not what to think.

I'd teach there.

 

[Number_6]

And the traditional subjects? You know, empowering things like knowing how to do math, stuff like that?

If Amnesty and such are involved, then you know the objectivity claim is bullshit.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

Yeah, I was willing to suspend my disbelief until I saw that Amnest Int'l. was involved. I was also struck by the line that they strive to prodice young adults commited to "equity". This sounds vaguely communist to me.

 

[The Question]

There's no room in objectivity for 'social consciousness.' Objectivity considers only the facts, without regard for how the facts make people feel -- it is by its very nature socially unconscious.

 

[Friday]

Hmm...

TQ, I think the last sentence was trying to say that all viewpoints are considered, not just one side.

In the context of the article, objectivity was used correctly.

Number_6...there is both an academic and social curriculum at the school.

 

[The Question]

Well, of course the word was used correctly -- but the concept it describes is at odds with 'social consciousness'.

Considering things from all viewpoints would be equity -- objectivity isn't the same thing. Grr. I don't think I'm articulating this properly. Okay, let's try an application of it.

What you're describing, if applied, would work like this: The class is shown a gun. Some of the class see a potential murder weapon. Some of the class see a potentially life-saving tool. Both viewpoints are given equal weight -- but that's equity, not objectivity. Objectivity sees the gun without reading any other meaning into it at all.

 

[Friday]

I think I see what you're saying.

How can one be totally objective, by your definition, when discussing human rights, though?

 

[The Question]

^^Well, that's simple -- by not taking up the viewpoint of any particular group involved in the specific topic under discussion. Now, that's probably extremely difficult for any teacher to do; the same emotion that plays a part in driving a person to choose education as a career will almost certainly make emotional detachment nigh on impossible. This doesn't mean all sides shouldn't be presented, only that no side should be taken. I've never in my life met a teacher with a good enough poker face to do that. But if you're going to advertise objectivity, then that's what you've got to deliver. Otherwise, you're misrepresenting yourself and your curriculum, in my opinion.

 

[Friday]

You make sense, as always, TQ. It would seem this school has a different agenda than complete objectivity. I wouldn't be able to fairly assess unless I actually sat in on a class, but it seems this school might have an unspoken agenda. Equity might even be beyond their curriculum. I'm very curious. When I have more time, I'll do more research.

As far as poker faces...I try. But I'm aware no matter how much I try to be equitable, my position might be revealed thru an inflection of voice, or an absentminded gesture.

 

[Number_6]

I distrust any school or class with a theme, unless that theme is somehow inextricably linked to one of the disciplines.

I have watched college composition courses move from places where students learn to write to places where students learn about Jihad vs. McWorld, or the evil right-wing media, but never learn how to write an essay. I've seen American history classes which never focus on the positive accomplishments of the United States, leaving students with only a small fraction of the historical picture. I've even watched math classes turned into social justice courses with some occasional adding and subtracting tacked on.

We have the traditional disciplines for a reason--they are the best way to divide knowledge into areas that can be reasonably disseminated in the classroom. And, with the possible exception of sociology, they contain no inherent biases.

So when I hear about schools like this, or a fucking joke like Mr. Bennish's course in geography that has been turned into his own personal political podium, regardless of what the ridiculously partisan TJHairball (whose remarks in that thread have revealed to me that I have no obligation to take her seriously anymore) may have to say about it, I weep for the future of education, and for the ability of the up-and-coming generation to think for itself, and to understand when it is not in possession of all of the facts.

 

[Friday]

First...isn't TJ a guy? I could be mistaken. Someone clarify, please.

Second...I sat here for a good 10 minutes trying to work up a good PBM rant. I truly did. But you can't rant against something you honestly agree with.

Dayum. I've been brainwashed, it seems...

 

[Number_6]

I thought TJ was a she, hence all of the gender ranting. I thought there was some complaining about being asked for a divorce decree in order to get a mortgage.

And yes, your brain has been washed. But in a positive way. Think of it as more of a brain enema, and we've helped you to clean out all of the accumulated bullshit.

 

[Friday]

I thought TJ was a she, hence all of the gender ranting. I thought there was some complaining about being asked for a divorce decree in order to get a mortgage.

Ahhh...maybe (s)he'll check in to set us straight.

And yes, your brain has been washed. But in a positive way. Think of it as more of a brain enema, and we've helped you to clean out all of the accumulated bullshit.

This has caused me to become less tolerant of my more leftist friends, however. Interesting, that.

It still feels strange, tho.

BTW, by my sig, can ya tell what book I'm reading?

 

[Friday]

Think of it as more of a brain enema, and we've helped you to clean out all of the accumulated bullshit.

Some bullshit runs deep. Even deep bullshit, however, is cleaned out...eventually. I have faith.

 

[TJHairball]

I distrust any school or class with a theme, unless that theme is somehow inextricably linked to one of the disciplines.

Even those with themes linked to disciplines can be ... ahem.... suspect. But apparently the "small public school" notion has become pretty fashionable. In NC, we've started having "charter schools," i.e., small public schools run by somebody with a particular hatchet in mind. They've had - in general terms - mixed results. I'm not too impressed in general.

And some can be quite successful. Some of the really quirky schools out there work great. Some don't. (You might look, for example, at colleges like St. John's or Deep Springs, who have programs that bear little resemblence to the current traditional private and public universities, but are known for producing astounding graduates.)

We have the traditional disciplines for a reason--they are the best way to divide knowledge into areas that can be reasonably disseminated in the classroom. And, with the possible exception of sociology, they contain no inherent biases.

Sociology, history, political science, psych, economics, literature... all the "social" subjects have inherent biases based on which schools of thought and which versions you teach.

Economics and history in particular.

So when I hear about schools like this, or a fucking joke like Mr. Bennish's course in geography that has been turned into his own personal political podium, regardless of what the ridiculously partisan TJHairball (whose remarks in that thread have revealed to me that I have no obligation to take her seriously anymore) may have to say about it, I weep for the future of education, and for the ability of the up-and-coming generation to think for itself, and to understand when it is not in possession of all of the facts.

And I still disagree with you about what Bennish was getting at, having read through the matter... i.e., I firmly conclude he was trying to get students to think.

And incidentally - not that it really matters much - I'm not a woman. The divorce status/mortgage thing was somebody else.

 

[Furry Lobster Like Creature]

ckckckt ckt tk ckrkk

human rights

brrrrrp

 

[Friday]

Even those with themes linked to disciplines can be ... ahem.... suspect. But apparently the "small public school" notion has become pretty fashionable. In NC, we've started having "charter schools," i.e., small public schools run by somebody with a particular hatchet in mind. They've had - in general terms - mixed results. I'm not too impressed in general.

And some can be quite successful. Some of the really quirky schools out there work great. Some don't. (You might look, for example, at colleges like St. John's or Deep Springs, who have programs that bear little resemblence to the current traditional private and public universities, but are known for producing astounding graduates.)Sociology, history, political science, psych, economics, literature... all the "social" subjects have inherent biases based on which schools of thought and which versions you teach.

Economics and history in particular. And I still disagree with you about what Bennish was getting at, having read through the matter... i.e., I firmly conclude he was trying to get students to think.

And incidentally - not that it really matters much - I'm not a woman. The divorce status/mortgage thing was somebody else.

My sister (the sane one) teaches at a charter school in NC. The school sucks. They have kindergarteners sitting at desks doing worksheets all day, instead utilizing all 5 methods of learning. Needless to say, kids don't learn very much.

Oh, and TJ, I knew you were a guy!