Well...

[silveradept]

Two days and no posting. Wow. My life must really be pretty boring (which it is.)

Football tomorrow. Much-needed win to keep the hunt for the conference championship alive. Had a few fun things happening, but nothing really worthy of any particular mention. Played Diablo II with a roomie, and was much fun, it was.

Stealing from tkarrde98's journal, there is good news to report. It's here...

Finally, I have two question to propose to those who do read the journal.

The first is something being posted in freetobelieve, and it is regarding a sign I see on my way to class. It's for one of the Methodist churches on campus, and it just reads "Chapel open 9 am-5pm for prayer and meditation." The word that strikes me as odd is "meditation." Somehow, I can't quite picture what Christian meditation would be like. Could be me looking through a lens that equates the word with the more Eastern meaning of the word, which usually has a godless connotation. Then again, I think I've answered my own question when thinking about it long enough. I'll still ask their opinions, and yours, on what such a thing as "Christian meditation" is...

The second is something I already posted in freetobelieve about education as a mini-rant spin-off on a topic about the Supreme Court agreeing to hold hearings on Newdow's Pledge objections Thus, here it is...

Yes, the segment Under God was added, yes, the country was trying to escape religious persecution, and the I ask the question what God you see when you say that phrase... after all, it's not "one nation, under the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God" is it?

The entire Pledge is optional, I believe. It cannot be mandated in schools anymore, (it's a Supreme Court decision, but I know not which one...) but it would do well to make the phrase optional and keep the rest. If one believes not in the principles that the Pledge states, then by all means, don't say it.

Either way, I agree with you, xanthvamp, about it being the parent's responsibility to educate the child on things like that. Too often we expect the schools to teach everything, even morals, but then we get huffy when they don't teach what we consider to be the right morals. Exposure is not a danger, what happens because of it is. If the parents have not trained their children well, the schools are relatively ineffective about reinforcing it. So the parent needs to explain why he doesn't want her to say those words, and then the teachers need to be able to explain to the other students why she doesn't say it in terms they can understand and accept. After all, a kid that expresses individuality is a target in the social circles of schooling.

I'll take the firestorm in my own journal, rather than have the community suffer it. What do people think?

Comments

Hmm...

[eleme.livejournal.com]

I know I'm joining this conversation after the fact, but I still have some thoughts to share.

As a future elementary educator myself, I think you all have posed a very interesting conversation here. You're right, we shouldn't make kids swear loyalty to something they do not understand..but on the same token I think that we can begin to teach them what it means. Talking about America and basic principles like freedom or loyalty with children is a very real possibility.

Also, what's this about not encouraging or expecting kid's individuality in the elementary grades?? Without it our classrooms would not be the exciting, engaged places they are. Good teachers can encourage children to express their individuality and find value in all their differences. Kids can teach each other a lot. Teach them these things while they're young.

You may think that I am expressing a hoplessly ideal image of the classroom, but I have seen it and I don't think it's a lost cause.

Re: Hmm...

[silveradept]

It's an image of the classroom I would like to see more often that I have. I would like it to be so that each understands what they are asked to say, and that those who may choose not to say it until they do understand don't become the targets.