Of course kids need one-sided religious indoctrination in school

As a fundamentalist heavily committed to using the school system to gain more converts for my religious sect, I was appalled this weekend to read a vicious attack on such a program in The Age:

Public debate on the issue was sparked by a Sunday Age revelation that the Education Department was forcing schools to host Christian religious education whether they wanted to or not.

It took a new turn last week when state Education Minister Martin Dixon granted $200,000 in extra funding to Christian religious education provider Access Ministries to improve its training.

Why are we talking about this? This transfer of public money to Christian organisations is supposed to be known by our congregations but ignored by the rest of you, so that the first you know about it is when little Jimmy comes home spouting Deuteronomy at you. It’s for their own good, even if you are too blinded by Satan to see it. Whilst I believe strongly that everyone will have a fair opportunity to come to my particular beliefs of their own free will so that later they can be judged by God according to whether they agreed with me and did what I told them to do or not, it’s clearly much easier to gain those converts when they’re young and trapped in school and our “lessons” can be presented to them as equivalent to less controversial subjects like Maths and Chemistry.

But now we have to come up with flimsy excuses for it. We’re, uh, just “educating” your child on important religions, not “indoctrinating” her. (Yes, there does only appear to be one important religion we talk about, but we’re completely objective about this faith to which we’ve dedicated our lives.) And we provide important care for your child when they come to us for counselling, all upset and nicely vulnerable to our message, I mean, our kindly independent adult advice. And, anyway, you always have the option of removing your children from our classes by traumatically separating them from their peers like the pariahs they will be if we have anything to do with it.


“Miss, is Jimmy whose parents took him out of this class going to Hell?” “Why yes, Sarah, of course he is. Let him know in the playground.”

Look, taking away our privileged position over the public school system would be an end to religious freedom in this country, defined as our freedom to impose our views on your children. What are you going to do? Vote against the politicians who keep giving your money to us? Yeah, good luck finding some.

Face it, if God didn’t want us wasting kids’ precious educational hours with religious indoctrination, He would have made Australia a secular democracy.

Advertisements

44 responses to “Of course kids need one-sided religious indoctrination in school

  1. Your last line is pretty devastating.

  2. Look. If you’ re gonna get kids to engage in weird sex acts with weird men in even weirder clothes and funny hats, or that nice scout master in a clean starched pressed uniform you gotta start em early. No good trying to indoctrinate adults who have already experienced the sexual pleasures of what only a trip to Thailand or some other exotic destination can bring.

  3. narcoticmusing

    I support the concept of religious education in schools but in a philosophical setting – ie. here are what all the major religions believe, go decide for yourself. This isn’t that though, it is completely one sided. Some may defend it with being the major religion of this country, and while that has merit (or had merit) we do not aim to be a Christian nation but a multicultural one – so teach all or none.

  4. Exactly – why are our children denied the touch of His Noodly Appendage?
    Why are the Nine Condiments and the Eight IRRYDs* not revealed to them?
    He Boiled for Our sins!

    RAMen

    *(I’d Really Rather You Didn’ts)

  5. If kids want to learn about religion, specifically Christianity then I recomend they go to church. That’s where I learned it (and at Sunday school)

  6. narcoticmusing

    As opposed to say, reading the bible. I don’t recommend that if you want to learn about Christian religions I did that, several times, which left me in a state of bother at every church youth group ‘bible study’ because none of the people there had read the book…

  7. Splatterbottom

    Religion shouldn’t be taught at public schools other than as part of history and culture. If a private schools is set up on the basis of religious beliefs that is another matter as the parents agree to send their kids there on that basis.

    I’ve noticed that parents from different countries and cultures who want to pass on their traditions to their kids usually get together and arrange special classes on the weekends. That seems like the appropriate way to go about this sort of extra-curricular education.

  8. “If a private schools is set up on the basis of religious beliefs that is another matter as the parents agree to send their kids there on that basis.”

    Indoctrinating vulnerable kids at school is okay if the parents want them indoctrinated at school? Good news for the more creepy cults, I guess.

  9. “I’ve noticed that parents from different countries and cultures who want to pass on their traditions to their kids usually get together and arrange special classes on the weekends.”

    Indeed they do. Arranged marriages is a real hoot, child brides, and a weekend doesn’t go by in some places with out a little bit of infanticide. Incest is good too the whole family can participate.

    For mine

  10. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy: “Indoctrinating vulnerable kids at school is okay if the parents want them indoctrinated at school? Good news for the more creepy cults, I guess.”

    Parents have a choice in this and will usually make better choices than the state. Of course if you want to produce a lost generation devoid of love and respect for God, family and country then you put the education of children solely in the hands of government bureaucrats and teachers whose first allegiance is to their union. Lefty teachers are little more than intellectual child-molesters. Vulnerable kids are their breakfast.

    Lynot: “a weekend doesn’t go by in some places with out a little bit of infanticide. Incest is good too the whole family can participate.”

    You sound like Peter Singer. I’m sure the Greens would approve.

  11. “Parents have a choice in this and will usually make better choices than the state. “

    Kids don’t, and parents often don’t.

    “Of course if you want to produce a lost generation devoid of love and respect for God, family and country “

    You don’t have any faith they’ll come to those things on their own? Ignoring the God bit – you’ve no evidence such a being exists, and teaching that it does in the same breath as you teach maths or chemistry is misleading and deceptive – you don’t think family and country can stand up for themselves without indoctrination?

    “solely in the hands of government bureaucrats and teachers whose first allegiance is to their union.”

    That doesn’t make any sense. What does this almighty “union” believe, and why, and how does it affect the content of the childrens’ education?

    “Lefty teachers are little more than intellectual child-molesters”

    Fuck off. I think you’ve got them confused with priests.

  12. narcoticmusing

    if you want to produce a lost generation devoid of love and respect for God, family and country then you put the education of children solely in the hands of government bureaucrats

    a-hem, isn’t that the problem? That the bureaucrats are defending this indoctrination and are forcing schools to do it? So, really, the bureaucrats in this case are all for love and respect for God*

    *As long as it is the Christian God

  13. “You sound like Peter Singer. I’m sure the Greens would approve.”

    You must have meant Peter “Pete” Seeger, thank you, I live in hope. Yep I reckon religion should be taught at schools actually, it can be mixed in with teaching oh I don’t know ‘Grimms fairy tales’ mayhaps. The three little pigs maybe, or Jack and the Bean Stalk all very good stories, just like the Bible.

    But of course the SB’s of this world must be able to indoctrinate kids, they must have a continuous supply of naive, uncaring, automatons to carry on that fine conservative tradition of human exploitation. The type of exploitation that only the conservative tradition of propaganda and revisionist history can bring. Hey we don’t want our kids questioning the conservative Monty Python world we live in now do we?

  14. Lefty teachers are little more than intellectual child-molesters. Vulnerable kids are their breakfast.

    I guess this applies to Catholic teachers, too, yeah? Filling hapless children’s heads with a bunch of religious bullshit. That’s different, because they’re being inculcated with things you believe. You don’t want vulnerable children being brainwashed, except with your religious beliefs. Does that accurately describe your position?

  15. Splatterbottom

    Jeremy, parents should make decisions regarding their children’s education within the broad parameters specified by the state.

    The love of family and nation reference was an ironic reference to a meme recently put about by the PM.

    We should acknowledge that teachers’ unions exist to benefit teachers, and that this is not always the same thing as benefiting students.

  16. narcoticmusing

    If teaching kids how to learn and think for themselves; teaching them to be critically literate and not just believe TV/newspapers; teaching them to make their own decisions and take their own path; teaching them to consider other views on their merits and make your own mind up… This is the current educational approach in Australia (well Victoria at least). If they are leftist teachings, then I hope all teachers are left.

  17. narcoticmusing

    We should acknowledge that teachers’ unions exist to benefit teachers, and that this is not always the same thing as benefiting students

    While I agree completely with the 2nd half of the sentence, you will find a lot of opposition to the first part of that statement from teachers. Many teachers leave the profession frustrated with the lack of career structure and obsession with time served vs being any good or motivated.

    Nevertheless, why is it bad that a union is there to benefit the workforce it represents? Isn’t that the point? They aren’t pretending to represent anything other than teachers (unlike, say, the AMA who pretend to be a body concerned only with your medical wellbeing and are in fact nothing more than a very well funded union) Very often the cross over to students occurs because that workforce that you so happily deride care a fuck load more about students and education than the rest of the populace do – it is why they do such a hard job with such shit wages.

  18. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, in case you missed the point I suggested that religion be excluded from government schools. Your objection seems to be that about parents having the choice to send their kids to private schools that teach religion. Yours is a pretty extreme position, isn’t it? Or was that just another incoherent rant?

    Lynot: “of course the SB’s of this world must be able to indoctrinate kids, they must have a continuous supply of naive, uncaring, automatons to carry on that fine conservative tradition of human exploitation. “

    You seem to be missing the point. The first duty of parents is to teach kids to think for themselves, to put them in a position to make sensible choices in their lives. If parents also want to convey to their kids things that have been important in their lives, that have helped them to understand the world and guide their lives they should be free to do so. Only a leftist would disagree. The regimented attempts at mind control implemented by leftist states in their schools failed completely. The kids never learned to love Big Brother.

    Buns: “That’s different, because they’re being inculcated with things you believe. “

    This is where you really lose the plot. The state has enough power in setting the curriculum, and that power is regularly abused by ideologues and social engineers. Parents have every right to communicate their ideas to their children.

  19. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic dragging kids off to see “An Inconvenient Truth” is none of those things (unless you are studying the art of propaganda). It is just crazy leftists pushing their agenda.

  20. narcoticmusing

    Your objection seems to be that about parents having the choice to send their kids to private schools that teach religion.

    I cannot find at any point where I objected to parents being free to send their kids wherever they wanted to… Indeed, I didn’t mention private schools at all. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? I don’t care if you read my posts, SB, but I’d prefer it if you are going to judge them as an ‘incoherent rant’ you at least have glanced at them to know what the hell I even said. I won’t hold my breath for an apology or correction to be forthcoming from you anytime soon.

    In case you missed the point (which you obviously did), I took objection to your completely unfounded view that not only are all teachers left, but that that was destructive to children – i believe you referred to it as intellectual child molestation – which is not only offensive in that it diminishes the very real impact of child molestation, but suggests something so utterly destructive and corrupting that the child is unable to function as per ‘normal’ in society (vis-a-vis the topic of this thread perhaps?)

    Your negative view of teachers is completely inaccurate and misinformed. It is right wing propaganda and only leads to further interference by the State into the curriculum rather than letting teachers teach their disciplines. Teachers would whole heartedly agree with you that parents should be doing a whole lot more, but it is PARENTS that want the schools to do it all. It is parents that keep pushing more and more responsibility on schools and teachers to play roles that should be reserved for parents. In some cases, there is a great benefit in the school playing a larger role (for example where a family is not capable of being a constructive, healthy learning environment); but in most cases there is a significant cost that parents are merely devolving their risk/responsibility to schools – you know who protests about that the most? TEACHERS. They don’t want to be these kids parents, it is parents making that way. Every time there is a problem it is suddenly up to the schools and teachers to solve. Governments, particularly on the Right, are all about pandering to families/parents and ignoring what is really best for these kids.

  21. This is where you really lose the plot. The state has enough power in setting the curriculum, and that power is regularly abused by ideologues and social engineers. Parents have every right to communicate their ideas to their children.

    All fascinating, SB. However, you didn’t address my point: you have no problem with vulnerable children being brainwashed with religious ideas – by schools, not by parents – just not with any of that Commie stuff. Does this mirepresent your position? If so, how?

  22. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic, I apologise for the ‘incoherent rant’ comment. You generally conduct yourself in a more civilised way in discussion than I do. I may also have mistaken Lynot for you.

    Buns: “you have no problem with vulnerable children being brainwashed with religious ideas – by schools, not by parents – just not with any of that Commie stuff. Does this mirepresent your position? If so, how?”

    My position is that government schools should not teach religion. It is not their proper role. It is reasonable for parents to impart religious views to their children either directly or by sending them to a school that teaches religion. As to “commie stuff” schools should present matters objectively allowing plenty of latitude for contrary views on issues where there is room for doubt. In particular they should be taught that truth isn’t a popularity contest and that consensus is a form of circle-jerking not a means of getting to the best answer.

  23. schools should present matters objectively allowing plenty of latitude for contrary views on issues where there is room for doubt. In particular they should be taught that truth isn’t a popularity contest and that consensus is a form of circle-jerking not a means of getting to the best answer

    I’m going to assume this is already happening, and that you have nothing but your paranoid fantasy to the contrary.

  24. narcoticmusing

    Ty SB

    There are some fundamental values though, that teaching young people about seeking consensus, provides. For one thing, it provides empathy – something sorely lacking more and more. So while I agree that there are things out there that are arbitrarily true/false (say kinematics – if you ignore university level physics); there are also things that are strongly demonstrated but not universally accepted (for example, climate change and the current model of the atom); and things down right disagreed upon regardless of evidence (for example, evolution). So where does this place the teacher? Not everything is just black and white truth and it is a good thing to teach people nuance and teach them to consider and respect other views.

    Now, in a science classroom should the teacher teach evolution as truth – particularly as it is fundamental to understand this for understanding of a wide range of other aspects of biology; or should it be taught as a ‘theory’ to please creationists? I do not believe in equal time, I believe in merited time – my solution would be to acknowledge there are other views but this, being a science classroom, will explore the current scientific position (ie evolution).

    I’d be interested to hear what others think of this dilemma – no need to stick to just my examples, although evolution in particular is useful as it is hotly contested despite the science being quite, for lack of a better word, settled.

  25. Whilst I believe strongly that everyone will have a fair opportunity to come to my particular beliefs of their own free will…

    Jeremy you plum. By arguing that private schools should be forbidden from existing, you unsarcastically believe this yourself!

  26. “By arguing that private schools should be forbidden from existing, you unsarcastically believe this yourself!”

    That doesn’t make any sense.

  27. “Of course if you want to produce a lost generation devoid of love and respect for God, family and country then you put the education of children solely in the hands of government bureaucrats and teachers whose first allegiance is to their union. Lefty teachers are little more than intellectual child-molesters. Vulnerable kids are their breakfast.”

    …equals Wingnut Comedy Gold

    But seriously, I’m no stranger to the many and varied consequences of young impressionable minds (hello SB) being denied the Touch of His Noodly Appendage.
    Especially the danger of being touched by something a child might easily mistake as such a thing (having never learned the truth about Pirates), but in fact belongs to the school pastor (yet another caution about the danger of false prophets).
    Although this doesn’t rule out the inexplicable ban that many private schools place on the harbouring of wenches, as a contributing factor.

    As an aside, no Pastafarian preacher has ever inappropriately touched a child.
    Coincidence?

  28. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic ‘truth vs theory’ is not a dilemma. Evolution is a theory. It is the best theory we have, but it is a theory not a ‘truth’. Think of it as a big picture with large chunks of colour filled in. Some parts are blank, yet to be coloured at all. Some parts need to overlay tone and texture to bring out the details and some parts will need to be erased or painted over and some parts are vibrant and detailed. Within the broad rubric of evolution are competing theories as to the mechanisms involved. Intelligent design on the other hand is just meaningless splatter on the canvas and doesn’t rise to the level of a coherent theory.

    Teaching evolution or the big-bang theory or any social or economic theory is a completely different thing to teaching calculus or rotational dynamics. The former are just theories. Teachers should point out evolution does not answer questions about where life came from, but rather is a set of propositions about the mechanisms giving rise to the diversity of characteristics among living things. If the course is detailed it should cover mechanisms that are better understood, such as natural selection, and paradoxes within the theory, such as altruistic behaviour.

    Briefer discussions and passing references to evolution in other contexts should convey the fact that, as a general proposition, evolution is the only game in town all though we are a long way from understanding all aspects of it and that creationism and ID do not rise to the level of being coherent theories at all.

  29. “Teachers should point out evolution does not answer questions about where life came from, but rather is a set of propositions about the mechanisms giving rise to the diversity of characteristics among living things.”

    There is no need to do this. Evolution is not abiogenesis. It is only the god botherers that try to conflate the two because the scientific evidence regarding evolution is so overwhelming that is as solid as the heliocentric theory or the theory of plate tectonics. By pretending that the origin of the species must ‘prove’ the origin of life, the “from goo to you by way of the zoo” card may be played.

  30. Splatterbottom

    Babson: “Evolution is not abiogenesis.”

    Yes, but what is wrong with saying that?

    “By pretending that the origin of the species must ‘prove’ the origin of life … ”

    The point is to avoid pretending anything by appropriately delimiting the scope of the theory under discussion.

  31. That doesn’t make any sense.

    This is difficult to articulate because you were being sarcastic when you said it. Basically, you have argued in the past that private schools should not be allowed to exist because it indocrinates kids into religion, which is apparently wrong because your atheist/secular viewpoint is 100% correct, and is the one that should be imposed on children. You have now said (sarcastically/posing as a fundamentalist) in this post “Whilst I believe strongly that everyone will have a fair opportunity to come to my particular beliefs of their own free will…” Obviously a sarcastic sentence that implies religious people have no interest whatsoever in letting people come around to their beliefs of their own free will, and would in fact prefer for their beliefs to be imposed on others.

    But you – serious Jeremy, not sarcastic fundy Jeremy – believe this too. You believe religious/private schools should be shut down because apparently parents have no right to expose their own children to religion. YOUR beliefs are right; you have no interest whatsoever in letting people come around to your beliefs of their own free will, and would in fact prefer for your beliefs to be imposed on others.

  32. “which is apparently wrong because your atheist/secular viewpoint is 100% correct, and is the one that should be imposed on children. “

    Where did I say anything about “imposing” atheism on children? If “secularism” is neutrality about religion, the absence of imposing it on people, then yes, I’m advocating that – but you can’t “impose” the absence of “imposing” things on people.

    Not imposing views is the default position, it’s not “imposing” non-imposition.

    “You believe religious/private schools should be shut down because apparently parents have no right to expose their own children to religion.”

    Again, I didn’t say that. (I think religious/private schools should be shut down for another reason entirely – that all kids deserve access to the same standard first-rate level of education, and that the distinctions between school systems are ultimately contrary to the principle of equality of opportunity.)

    In fact, I think that it’s very important for schools to teach children about religion – but all religions, not just one chosen by the parents to the exclusion of the others. And of course not having their kids indoctrinated at school doesn’t stop parents from taking their kids to church on Sunday etc, if they really are set on pushing their beliefs on their kids.

    The point is that it’s quite wrong and misleading for the education system to mix teaching uncontroversial subjects like maths and chemistry with completely faith-based subjects like Christianity Is True And This Is What You Should Believe. And that not imposing such a view isn’t “imposing” anything alternative – it’s leaving the choice up to the individual child as to what they might choose to investigate and ultimately believe.

    If schools were teaching children that God doesn’t exist and that religion is “wrong”, then I’d agree that that would be “imposing” a metaphysical view and would be just as wrong as teaching them that God does exist. I’m advocating that they do neither – that they educate children about the various metaphysical views available, from atheism to Christianity to Islam to Buddhism etc: give the child the information to make their own decision.

    The very opposite of indoctrination.

  33. I think religious/private schools should be shut down for another reason entirely – that all kids deserve access to the same standard first-rate level of education, and that the distinctions between school systems are ultimately contrary to the principle of equality of opportunity.

    Kids don’t “deserve” access to first-rate private schools any more than adults “deserve” access to first-rate private hospitals. They deserve an education, and healthcare, and the government should damn well make sure that these public schools and hospitals are the best they can be. But that shouldn’t prevent other citizens from creating their own schools and hospitals if they feel they can do better.

    Obviously this leads to some inequality, but it’s the tipping point between social welfare and freedom, and it’s resulted in a economically free country with the second-highest standard of living on the planet. I attended a public school and go to public hospitals and I have no issue whatsoever with the fact that others have better advantages than me because their parents (or more likely their grandparents, or their great-grandparents) earned it for them. If I want to, I can earn those same privileges for my own children.

  34. “Kids don’t “deserve” access to first-rate private schools any more than adults “deserve” access to first-rate private hospitals.”

    Which they do. There’s no justification for distinguishing medical care on the basis of means.

    “But that shouldn’t prevent other citizens from creating their own schools and hospitals if they feel they can do better.”

    Yes, it should. Firstly, because the existence of a higher tier means that the public services are allowed to atrophy – the people with the power and the money don’t use them, so what do they care? Their kids and families are safely covered by the private system.

    Secondly, because no child deserves a better education than another. You put it in terms of providing for your kids, but giving kids a better or worse education dependent on their parents’ merit is profoundly unjust. And it’s not without other consequences – the kids from the various systems all end up competing with each other for university places and jobs. The advantages given to one are effectively disadvantages imposed on the other.

    Let’s face it – if the public systems were first rate then nobody would bother with the private systems; the industry that provides them has a big interest in making sure that the public systems ARE second rate, so they’ve got something to sell. You can’t sell private health insurance unless some poor person is waiting in agony for two years for knee surgery.

  35. I’ll go a step further than that Jeremy – the average Aussie, even WITH chronic pain, is still not touching health insurance with a barge pole. I, for example, have a handful of skeletal and muscular problems (old injuries)… and was heavily romanced by health insurers right up to the day I turned 30.
    I’m now nearly 40, copping the Medicare surcharge, and it’s still a better deal than any insurer can offer. Because most specialists are still bulk-billing.

    Perhaps Mitch can explain why private (and/or god-bothering) schools (and the assorted rabble shilling for them) are working so feverishly to discredit the idea of league tables for schools, or promoting the idea that private schools need to chomp more firmly at the government teat than public ones.
    I look forward to hearing THIS:)

  36. Public services should not be allowed to atrophy. Obviously they do (though I disagree with you to the extent over which they have – I’ve never been dissastisfied with the service I’ve received from our public schools and hospitals), but you are attacking the symptoms rather than the cause. The issue with private schools demanding the government even lets them have a chomp at the teat is not that they demand it, but that the government grants it.

    Should homeschooling be outlawed? That certainly gives kids a better advantage over their peers than either a private or a public school.

  37. narcoticmusing

    Homeschooling gives kids an advantage? Since when?

    There is more to school than the formal curriculum and isolating children from their peers for no reason than religious hate is arguably neglect/abuse.

  38. Splatterbottom

    Narcotic: “Homeschooling gives kids an advantage? Since when?”

    Do some research. You will find that home schooled kids dramatically out-perform the rest, have happier lives, higher self-esteem and are more likely to become involved in their communities in their post-school lives.

    One thing that scares the shit of the leftists that control education is that somewhere someone is not being properly indoctrinated in the true PC values of the modern elites. This leads to hideously ignorant statements like the ones you have made here.

  39. As a former teacher I can absolutely guarantee you that a child will receive a better education (though not neccesarily better social skills) from having a one-on-one student-teacher relationship rather than being part of a class of 20 or 30 kids.

  40. “Face it, if God didn’t want us wasting kids’ precious educational hours with religious indoctrination, He would have made Australia a secular democracy.”

    As mondo said, that really is a great line to finish on.

    However, im curious as to why everyone has jumped down SB’s throat? Surely his first comment, prior to accusing lefty teachers of being paedophiles, (you just cant help yourself, can you SB?) was quite sensible.

    If a parent wants their child to attend a religious school, and are willing to pay for it themselves without expecting other people to subsidise their children’s religious education, then more power to them.

    Its no different from a child being ‘indoctrinated’ into leftist ideology by growing up with lefty parents who leave copies of new internationalist lying around, and who teach their children about the great achievements of the union movement.

    And no different from growing up in a home where racism and homophobia are not tolerated, and values like multiculturalism and religious tolerance are espoused. Some would claim this is part of the homosexualist lefty agenda, others would claim they are just being good parents.

    Some would call it indoctrination, some education. Just depends on where you are standing, but at the end of the day we DO live in a free country and people DO have the right to educate their children however they see fit, as long as no laws are broken.

    But religious indoctrination happening with my tax dollars? No fuckin’ way!

  41. Splatterbottom

    Duncan: ” accusing lefty teachers of being paedophiles”

    I didn’t do that. I made a colourful but apt analogy. That’s not the same thing.

    I feel sorry for Larissa Behrendt who made a similarly innocuous comment and has been savaged by a pack of moralising twats.

  42. narcoticmusing

    Mitch – I find it difficult to believe that a former teacher would advocate home schooling. There are numerous advantages to having classes rather than one-to-one, ranging from economies of scale (ie can get better equipment) to learning from one another (collaborative work creates more meaningful learning, also kids teaching kids, also consider oral presentations/drama etc); to differences in style/approach (different teachers – means you learn how to learn rather than depending on one style).

    These are just a few things off the top of my head. The best educational outcomes pedagogically come from constructivist techniques (that acknowledge we are a construction of our life not just blank slates) and these depend on borrowing from each other’s learning – ie having a group.

    It is completely naive to think education will be better if students were not exposed to other students ideas, styles, input, etc.

  43. Pingback: Martin “bananas” Dixon is not just about the bananas | An Onymous Lefty

  44. Pingback: Don’t split the “no religion” result with joke answers | An Onymous Lefty

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s