Homeschooling….Res Ipsa Loquitur

KevinG
#1. September 24th, 2008, at 5:29 AM.

As noted in the course description you link to: “The family is the primary educator in the development of students’ attitudes and values.”

Presumably, if your boys were not home schooled, you wouldn’t enroll them in an optional course titled “social justice” where you would likely disagree with the content.

Michael
#2. September 24th, 2008, at 7:38 AM.

I believe your thinking is right on target regarding your desire to prevent your children from being contaminated with this remarkably insane thinking. Further, it is necessary to provide the children with such a solid moral, ethical, logical basis that when they do confront this thinking (as will happen, just a matter of time) they are well prepared to address it head on.

That’s one of the reasons my children are working diligently on their studies at home right now.

*****
PS. If you are still having problems with unwanted comments, I would recommend Spam Karma 2 (a free plugin for Wordpress). It has worked extremely well for my site. I’ve no particular experience with captcha systems, but they are also available as plugins. Some people use them both (for extra protection).

DaninVan
#3. September 24th, 2008, at 1:23 PM.

One of the commenters at SDA offered some background material on this same topic: (I hope this doesn’t transgress any copyright or etiquette protocols(?)…)

”
‘This was a course that came about because of a complaint to the BCHRC. As part of the punishment as a result of two homo’s the government was FORCED to add this course to theri curriculum. BUT, it had to be offered as an optional course so parents could opt out’

This was not forced on the Gordon Campbell British Columbia Liberal government, they chose to make a quiet backroom deal with the Correns to avoid a ruling by the BCHRC. No one found out until after all of the paperwork was signed - typical for Gordon.

Introduction
On 28 April, 2006, the Ministry of Education signed a private agreement
with two homosexual activists, Peter and Murray Corren. The agreement,
which can ultimately be enforced by the Supreme Court, was signed secretly
and, by common consent, kept secret for over a month after it was signed,
probably because the parties believed that it would be controversial.
Subsequent developments seem to have confirmed this. In the eight months
from April to the end of November, 2006, the Ministry of Education
accumulated about 8,500 pages of documents relating to the agreement,
including 1,000 pages of petitions and about 5,000 pages of correspondence
to and from individuals or groups.
The agreement ended an action before the BC Human Rights Commission
initiated by the Correns in January, 1999, to try to force the Ministry of
Education to introduce pro-homosexual curriculum into the public school
system. Over the next seven years the case had been delayed for a number of
reasons. It came to public attention by the summer of 2005 and was
scheduled for a hearing in July, 2006 when the government settled on terms
acceptable to the Correns.
Posted by: DWT at September 24, 2008 2:14 PM “

truepeers
#5. September 24th, 2008, at 9:25 PM.

One should be careful in referring to the insane “thinking” of this document. I am not being merely polemical when I say that there is actually little evidence of thinking here. The document is a bureaucratic laundry list that was compiled by people who know how to be inclusive of all the proper victim groups and rhetorics, but who don’t actually have much of an idea how to teach much in the way of intellectual synthesis or integrity, as opposed to preaching a Gnostic polytheist religion not itself rooted in a fair appreciation of the generative processes or paradoxes of real thinking.

In other words, if tasked with giving us a satisfying explanation of how, historically, this victimary laundry list came to be, they would have nothing to offer but tired pieties about the historical groups who have had to fight for “social justice”, as if history were otherwise just some conspiracy of the powerful, which is the kind of “thinking” that gets us nowhere but to Jack Layton sucking up to 9/11 troofers.

When I was in high school in BC in the 1980s, my schooling perhaps lightly prefigured this kind of “thinking” ritual, though the leftist teachers were still more or less old-school CCF. But it was not actually until Graduate School in the 90s that I came to know this victim dance, this death cult, in full flush. And back then, people thought it rather novel, not yet seeing the parallel in their need for victims to that of earlier death cults, like say the Aztec. But one today sees signs that the victimary authorities of the university are now sufficiently confident in their enthronement to begin to entertain talk of such parallels. They get bored and find it entertaining to have critics to belittle.

Anyway, my point is that we might have reason to hope that now that this kind of thing has descended to the high schools - that land most people remember largely in terms of the hormonal rush, while the teachers’ preaching is largely forgotten, and mostly it’s their personal eccentricities that command memory (our generation still gets to remember whom the gym teacher seduced but I guess that kind of thing is now impossible…) - we can actually expect more creative youth in future.

Instead of this document’s “thinking” commanding the kind of attention my generation gave it in university, it will be hopefully start seeming tired hat by the time kids get a year or two past grade 12. Public high schools are public high schools: whatever they teach by way of civics is necessarily something of a tired ritual. A teacher can believe to kingdom come that he (note, kids, that “gender exclusive” language is actually a sign of a greater, not lesser freedom of expression) is teaching the cutting edge of all things progressive; but alas for them, the medium is the message, and high school is it. Real thinking is not taught by constructing curricula in frumpy committees, but only by giving people serious books to read and discuss.

So I expect today’s generation, at least those who persevere, will see fully through this bureaucratic group-think earlier than I did. They will truly see the inevitable law of diminishing returns kick ass on “progressive” thought (I mean the only real great injustices in Canada today are those suffered by all those the “progressive” must irrationally hate, or forget - e.g. the Sharia-slapped women…) And today’s high schoolers will still be young enough to find the time and energy to search out some real thinking when they get past this shite.

If you scan the document for the word “freedom”, you will find it only appears in pro forma naming of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Freedom of Information, the problem of how or when to limit free speech; and then, there is this sole and it seems rather thoughtless use of the word: select a social justice issue or decision and analyse it in terms of ethical considerations such as the following:
dignity, value, and worth of life
−respect for rights of others (including freedom and wellbeing)”

If one is not going to try to teach kids the nature of freedom, well then they are going to have little capacity to do “social justice” no matter how much it is preached to them. Frustrated with copiously consumed but still vague hopes, with minds tired from preachy metaphysical gymnastics, they will soon enough learn that “social justice” is actually a bureaucratic concept of a now long-established regime. And then they might begin to think for themselves…

colin
#6. September 25th, 2008, at 3:20 AM.

In defence of sending ones child to public school (and without intending to be critical of home schooling in the least), my kids hear discussions like this, we discuss them at home and they are prepared to meet the issues with reason. Not the only way, but it seems to be working.

John Cross
#7. September 25th, 2008, at 5:46 AM.

Jay: You say “Well, frankly, I would prefer they take decisions when they have “all the information”. Which is a good example of a statement that is valid but not useful. I too would like to have all the information, but only the most trivial decisions in life offer the luxury of having all the information.

To use my own background as an engineer, the key to success is to be able to tolerate the ambiguous situations as much as possible because you never have as much information as you like. Is there really oil here? Some indicators say yes, some say no so what do we do? A ship has sunk, where do you go to find the survivors (an incredible complex problem)? How will this structure respond to this fluid flow, etc, etc, etc.

In fact, I would say that since we don’t know the future, you will never have all the information.

So we try to collect as much information as possible and make informed decisions, but if you wait until you know all the information then you do run risks of waiting too long for a decision to be effective or in fact waiting forever.

Regards,
John

WL Mackenzie Redux
#8. September 25th, 2008, at 10:45 AM.

From what I see in the outline this course is misnamed. It’s not about “social justice” (that happens in the nation’s courts) its essentially an indoctrination in cultural marxism ( replete with all the radical Frankfurt school terminology) and all its alarmist critical theory regimens.

Perhaps if they properly named it “social deconstructionism 101″ more parents would be aware of its objective and potential damage.

When I see political crap like this thrust on kids in the public system, I’m doubly reassured we did the right thing home schooling for a spell until we got our son into a new parent-directed charter school.

DaninVan
#9. September 25th, 2008, at 11:27 AM.

More on the topic . From Wed., Sept. 24ths Vancouver Sun…page B1
What we’re talking about is pure blackmail (on the part of the “couple”).
It’s almost funny, the BC Gov’t being screwed over by the threat of being hauled before their Human Rights star chamber. Ironic to say the least.
Anyway, I digress. The article:

“B.C. reneged on deal, gay activists
New guide on diversity not given to all schools, couple says

Two gay activists accused the B.C. government on Tuesday of reneging on a deal it signed two years ago to make school curriculum more inclusive, especially for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered students.

But Murray and Peter Corren held off preparing a complaint to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal after an education ministry employee called and proposed a meeting later this week.

Murray Corren, who had expressed deep disappointment with the ministry during an earlier interview with The Vancouver Sun, said the offer of a meeting was encouraging.

“But I’m not assuming anything,” he said.

The Correns were angry about the Abbotsford school board’s decision not to offer a new Social Justice 12 course — addressing issues ranging from homophobia to animal rights — because of parent complaints.

However, Murray Corren said he and his spouse were even more upset about the ministry’s failure to distribute to all schools a new guide for teachers intended to help them promote classroom discussions about diversity, including sexual orientation.

The guide was approved by the couple in April as part of an agreement with the ministry, but it has been sitting on Education Minister Shirley Bond’s desk ever since, he said.

The guide — called Making Space, Giving Voice — and the development of the Social Justice 12 elective for senior students were part of an unprecedented legal agreement the government signed with the Correns in 2006. See page 26

Printed and distributed by NewpaperDirect | http://www.newspaperdirect.com, US/Can: 1.877.980.4040, Intern: 800.6364.6364 | Copyright and protected by applicable law.

Ron Good
#10. September 25th, 2008, at 7:51 PM.

John Cross has a point regarding decision-making, Jay. Read this entertaining and informative discussion of the OODA Loop at Eject!Eject!Eject!.

Taken as a whole, though, the course is still as dumb as a cow’s face. WL is right when he says “its essentially an indoctrination in cultural marxism“.

Pesky Pundit
#11. September 26th, 2008, at 2:56 AM.

Truepeers makes some very valid and humorous points. Even in the 1960s - when I was in high school - we (both student and her/his parents) KNEW that a LOT of what we were being “taught” was utter drivel. For example, “sex education” consisted of viewing the “landmark” Canadian feature film NOBODY WAVED GOODBYE.

After viewing the film on a Friday afternoon, I’m sure most of my classmates did what I did - that is - have a lovely sexually active weekend and resolve never to PAY to see a Canadian feature film at the cinema. When I mention this to my generational peers, many laugh and agree that, in hindsight, “avoid Canadian feature films” is what THEY learned from the sex-ed curriculum of the time, too.

Canadian governments are the very BEST at shooting themselves in the foot. That’s what I’ve learned about Canada over my lifetime.

leona
#12. October 10th, 2008, at 11:29 PM.

As a student in Sirianni’s SJ 12 class, I find it so uplifting that a teacher has the concerns of her students at heart. She is an amazing woman, teacher and mother to her 3 children. It is amazing to see everything that she has done for not only me, but for many other students in her life. She truly is an inspiration.