This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Back in my day you had basically no access to the curriculum is my point. No internet, etc. You got to see homework and that was about it. No smartphones recording and so on.
Parents have much more access and thus control than they ever did when I was in school. 40 plus years ago.
More access means more control? The Taliban also have access to those curricula thanks to the internet, does the Taliban have more control of Western schools than ever before?
Without knowing what is going on,you can't have any control, that combined with stronger unions in the past makes it a slam dunk. My dad was a teacher in the 60's and onwards and parents had essentially no say at all.
My point is that access does not equal control, it only increases the potential for it. It is true that without access you can't have control, but that doesn't mean that if you have access you have control, that's crazy. My free Disney plus subscription ends tonight, but just because I still have access that doesn't mean I have until midnight to revamp the platform to only show Bedknobs and Broomsticks and The Rescuers Down Under on a loop.
Right but if in the past parents had no access and thus (as you agree) no control. Parents of today have access and weaker unions.
The argument was over which had more control, and the assertion I was contesting was it was past parents.
Parents of today don't have to have much control to have more than basically zero.
Except you said "Parents have much more access and thus control than they ever did". Implying that they have control simply because they have more access. Maybe I am being pedantic, but I think terms like thus should be reserved for clear logical inferences - if you had said they have more control thus they have more access I wouldn't say anything for instance.
Anyway I think the disagreement here lies in your final sentence - basically zero is precisely how I would define the amount of control parents have today. Personally I don't think things have really changed that much from the sixties, all the extra access did was make it more obvious how unnecessary the education system considers parents to their childrens' education.
More options
Context Copy link
Traditionally, parents exercised control via elected school boards, whose entire purpose was to provide oversight of the local education establishment. Now, those boards very often got institutionally captured by a combination of the teacher's unions and the administrative bureaucracy, neutering their oversight function, but the boards are properly the agents of parents, and have sometimes even acted as such.
Some years back, someone local suggested that it must be an advantage for a school board member to have a school-age child, because the board member would be better informed of what was going on in the school. The response was no, quite the opposite: a school board member who was also a parent knew better than to cross the administration, because her child was a hostage to her 'good behavior.'
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link