On the advice of a fellow militant secularist, I read this book on the web, in PDF format. Written in 1979 by a mother of eight children, also has been for some years professor high school, still has a great effect on most of their arguments. And the truth is that its author, Santa-Ana Cristina, I share many of these accusations.
1) In fact, the student day a child or adolescent is much longer (counting the time for study and homework) that working for an adult. And this is nonsense and should be avoided.
2) There are no real recovery (in most cases) for suspending.
3) The teacher is forced to work with very different levels in one group, and large ratios, which is impossible to properly serve and track all individual.
4) The number of subjects is excessive.
5) Become the right to receive education in an obligation, from 13 to 14 years can not work. There is a unique itinerary for all. Those who are unwilling to comply reluctantly, become troubled, suffering not only from them but who do want to bother and their teachers.
These things are part of what I stand against the "cult teaching" (as we took with pleasure, Mercedes Ruiz Paz).
There are other things I can not agree with this mother so sensibly. To begin with its not the exams (or procedures developed that we can invent to measure, as objectively as possible, the degree of knowledge gained). It seems an insurmountable contradiction complain about the difference of levels in a group and insult that these levels are measured and translated into a score.
Another thing that strikes me is his refusal to "effort." I'm not one of the cult of effort for nothing, but when there are things that require it we can not turn it into something despicable. And yes, like this mother, I want my child to be happy here and now, and that his life is not limited to high school. But parents and teachers (if they ever let us say) we compete the task of finding the balance between living in the present and prepare for the future. At this point, approaches the lady does not seem unrealistic.
And above all, let me focus my own complaints to the confusion created by this army of mercenaries that call "pedagogical sect"
1) If the school has the primary role of education, not instruction, is avocado privatization. This year, my son goes to private schools, outside school hours, to guitar, karate and English. Do I have to do the same with math, to language, with the story ...? If so, and I educated him at home and then I 'm looking to be taught life skills. That's what they want done with the public school the PP and the PSOE, a place of socialization to cover social conflicts, and hope the true statement that gives access to skilled jobs and social responsibilities to the private (and the customers that can expensive). Valiente progressivism! And courageous political and economic elitism, masked under the guise of equality, which is no longer equal opportunities, but vulgar and mutilating egalitarianism: we must treat equally the learner and not learn, who studied and not , which behaves correctly and sticking to your mates! And the literature is found in abundance on the Internet by typing several key concepts (including "democratic school" and "sect teaching").
2) Since education is the main function is to assess values \u200b\u200band beliefs, not knowledge. The "objectivity" to do something like that could be obtained only then, with a uniformity of thinking of teachers. And, of course, that means that the recruitment of the same will be determined by its ideological profile (established by the sect teaching), and not for their competence in their field. When something like this is defended from those who consider themselves members of the secular movement, I demand that I explain how such an approach can be compatible with freedom of conscience.
3) When I started with the secular movement, it seemed that the presence in the public schools of the Catholic religion was the main problem on the road to secularism. Today I truly believe that without this there is no longer a big problem, the uniformity of thought required for teachers and students for educational sect is equally disturbing dogmatism. Moreover, the defenders do not understand "democratic" social diversity that the school seeking "democratic" should be an extension of it. The plurality does not exist when this requirement will lead to uniformity of thought (and the values, beliefs) of teachers and what they must convey to students. Here my intelligence manifestly fails.
1) In fact, the student day a child or adolescent is much longer (counting the time for study and homework) that working for an adult. And this is nonsense and should be avoided.
2) There are no real recovery (in most cases) for suspending.
3) The teacher is forced to work with very different levels in one group, and large ratios, which is impossible to properly serve and track all individual.
4) The number of subjects is excessive.
5) Become the right to receive education in an obligation, from 13 to 14 years can not work. There is a unique itinerary for all. Those who are unwilling to comply reluctantly, become troubled, suffering not only from them but who do want to bother and their teachers.
These things are part of what I stand against the "cult teaching" (as we took with pleasure, Mercedes Ruiz Paz).
There are other things I can not agree with this mother so sensibly. To begin with its not the exams (or procedures developed that we can invent to measure, as objectively as possible, the degree of knowledge gained). It seems an insurmountable contradiction complain about the difference of levels in a group and insult that these levels are measured and translated into a score.
Another thing that strikes me is his refusal to "effort." I'm not one of the cult of effort for nothing, but when there are things that require it we can not turn it into something despicable. And yes, like this mother, I want my child to be happy here and now, and that his life is not limited to high school. But parents and teachers (if they ever let us say) we compete the task of finding the balance between living in the present and prepare for the future. At this point, approaches the lady does not seem unrealistic.
And above all, let me focus my own complaints to the confusion created by this army of mercenaries that call "pedagogical sect"
1) If the school has the primary role of education, not instruction, is avocado privatization. This year, my son goes to private schools, outside school hours, to guitar, karate and English. Do I have to do the same with math, to language, with the story ...? If so, and I educated him at home and then I 'm looking to be taught life skills. That's what they want done with the public school the PP and the PSOE, a place of socialization to cover social conflicts, and hope the true statement that gives access to skilled jobs and social responsibilities to the private (and the customers that can expensive). Valiente progressivism! And courageous political and economic elitism, masked under the guise of equality, which is no longer equal opportunities, but vulgar and mutilating egalitarianism: we must treat equally the learner and not learn, who studied and not , which behaves correctly and sticking to your mates! And the literature is found in abundance on the Internet by typing several key concepts (including "democratic school" and "sect teaching").
2) Since education is the main function is to assess values \u200b\u200band beliefs, not knowledge. The "objectivity" to do something like that could be obtained only then, with a uniformity of thinking of teachers. And, of course, that means that the recruitment of the same will be determined by its ideological profile (established by the sect teaching), and not for their competence in their field. When something like this is defended from those who consider themselves members of the secular movement, I demand that I explain how such an approach can be compatible with freedom of conscience.
3) When I started with the secular movement, it seemed that the presence in the public schools of the Catholic religion was the main problem on the road to secularism. Today I truly believe that without this there is no longer a big problem, the uniformity of thought required for teachers and students for educational sect is equally disturbing dogmatism. Moreover, the defenders do not understand "democratic" social diversity that the school seeking "democratic" should be an extension of it. The plurality does not exist when this requirement will lead to uniformity of thought (and the values, beliefs) of teachers and what they must convey to students. Here my intelligence manifestly fails.
0 comments:
Post a Comment