Apparently the following statement is rude:
"I personally believe school is, in itself, coercive and damaging and only of benefit to children who would be more damaged at home, of which there are thankfully very few."
What do you think? Does it say 'I think parents who send their children to school have problems at home' as I've been told today, at length? Or do you think that perhaps the assumption that that is what I meant also assumes that I'm a judgemental person?
IOW is it me or is it them??
About Me
- Tracy Oldfield
- There's no such thing as 'just a mum,' and here I set out to prove it.
8 comments:
Rude: no.
I'd say the statement indicates that you are:
Truthful
Honest
Observant
Intelligent
and kind enough to share your findings with them.
Not your fault you accidentally hit a nerve ^^
And where is this? Can we all play? *WEG*
well that's what I thought. Need to sort out some smileys here so I can have a shrug...
and it's mumszone, and really not worth the aggro. stick to the DM ;)
I certainly wouldn't say it was rude. It's a shame how honest criticism is often perceived as being rude or some such.
As regards school being necessarily coercive, I would say that whilst it looks as if the institution of school relies very heavily upon coercive measures in order for it to function, one cannot assume that it is necessarily coercive unless pupils experience the coerced state, ie: that they are forced to enact a theory that is not active in their minds.
Most children will experience school as coercive at some stage, though some will manage to apply active mental processes to a large majority of the theories provided by the school and only very rarely experience coercion. Whether they will then necessarily be damaged by this is impossible to quantify, but I suspect it is just about possible to get away with damage to thinking, particularly if the parents are helpful outside of school. (Not easy though I hear from TCS friend whose children have chosen to go to school!)
The person who objected to what you said misunderstood you. They thought you said that all children who attend school must therefore have problems at home, whereas what you actually said was that most children who attend school are damaged by it, and that it is only better than home for those children whose home-life is more damaging.
I'd add that problems in the home which are so great as to make school a better place to be are not best addressed by school attendance, and of course rescuing children from desperate home environments is not the purpose of school anyway.
But it is most definitely them, not you. Clearly they have had their ability to comprehend and think clearly damaged - probably by their own time in school.
And actually I've just had one of those lightbulb moments, and realised why I fought so hard to be allowed to leave school as soon as I could - it was self-preservation!
*grin* Deb, exactly. And yay for the lightbulb moment, and {{{{{hugs}}}}} just anyway...
Carlotta, well maybe it doesn't have to be perceived as coercive to be damaging? The whole carrot-and-stick goal-oriented timetabled system that is mainstream school quashes independent thinking and creates memes about finishing jobs, being just good enough (or not good enough) and exactly what *work* and *success* are. And in fact, I suspect that the ones who don't feel coerced by it are the most damaged, the most sucked-in.
I get your point about parents being helpful, but then those children who are truly helped to do what they want to do at home are surely going to butt heads most against the unnecessary stuff of school? I know from personal experience at high school that picking and choosing what one does doesn't tend go down that well, even when one's grades remain 'good enough.' *grin*
and sometime I'll learn to allow my thoughts to wander further before clicking 'publish your comment' because now I need to add that obviously those people might not feel coerced so much as frustrated by the attempted oppression.
Post a Comment