by frog
There’s an interesting debate taking place on this earlier post about whether a teacher should have given the children she was supervising the option to participate in a protest on the lawn of parliament.
This I think, highlights a common children’s advocacy issue – should we protect children and preserve their ‘innocence’, or should we empower children and recognise their right to participate in our political life?
In that instance the debate was whether year 7 and 8 children (so their age is about 12) could legitimately decide to join a protest, or were they being manipulated and used. It’s a tough debate because there is no magical age where all children are imbued with the intellectual and moral capacity of adults. There are plenty of 16 year olds for instance who would weigh up the issues and personalities and vote well in an election, just as there are plenty of 40 year olds who could not (although that particular issue about voting age has subsided after last year’s debate). In other words, age is, at most, just one factor among a myriad that influence people’s political capacity as citizens.
I like to think that the section 59 bill, while wholly about protecting children from violence, had the added benefit that it was also about respecting children’s political rights to be treated equally to adults.
There is no clear answer as to what age children can start to make various political decisions. It will probably be different for different children. But I tend to think children and youth have much more to contribute to our polity than we give them credit for. The pendulum could easily afford to swing further towards including political rights as well as protections for children. 12 year olds definitely have a political view about the world that we need to be open to hear. Because if we don’t listen they may no longer want to talk politics when they reach 18.
Published in Justice & Democracy by frog on Fri, August 8th, 2008
Tags: children, political rights, voting, Youth
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Sorry Frog but I am going to have to disagree with you. As a father to a twelve year old I admit to being disgusted to some of the PC ideas being force fed to our kids at schools when I think that the morality side of a childs upbringing should be left in the domain of the parents. It also grates me that teachers often give whatever their beliefs of political stance is as gospel whereas I like to encourage my children to think about the issues and realise that there is often more than one side to things
To have a teacher encouraging students to take part in a protest on an issue the kids probably know nothing or very little about, with no prior consent from the parents is way over the line. Although I agree with the aim of this protest I would still be very agitated if my daughter had been on this trip.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Shorty, I agree that teachers should not be indoctrinating kids with their personal political views.
However, what it appears happened with the Hanmer Primary school trip is that the kids were talking with one of the protest leaders about the issues that were the subject of the protest, and decided for themselves that they wanted to join the protest.
I think that’s quite different, and the teacher was contributing to their development by allowing them to join it. A teacher requiring or suggesting kids join a protest, however, would be quite a different matter.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just finished training to be a teacher. If this teacher had ANY training in Social Studies at all then I imagine they were doing exactly what was expected of them.
Social Studies makes a huge point of saying that students should be taking action, not simply copying notes or whatever. I can understand Shorty’s concern that teachers could be pushing their politics, but actually classes like this DO want students to consider as many angles as possible and then make a decision. Teachers I have trained with tended to be careful not to push their politics, but if students had blinkered views of events then they certainly would be challenged.
It sounds as though the class decided to take part, not that the teacher encouraged it. I would have allowed them to take part as well.
Having the students refused entry later on would make for an excellent teaching opportunity, because now the students would have to take on board the unexpected and possibly unfair reactions to their actions. Something that they would need to consider when they get more idealistic in their later teens.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I still think the teacher acted irresponsibly. I think the fact that the kids were keen is irrelevant. They are children and any protest is likely to be quite exciting to join.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Teachers and schools should teach our children topics from the curriculum (no matter how much I think it is wrong!). Their political views, until they are adults, recognized as being able to make their own determinations in life, should be influence ONLY by their parents (irrespective of how wrong I might think those parents are!).
Our problem, as a society, is we have no determination of the point at which a child becomes an adult. is it
16 – the age of sexual consent
18 – the voting and drinking age
21 – the I want a big party to celebrate age, or
25 – the ‘your parents are no longer responsible for your financial support’ age.
When this issue is appropriately resolved we’ll know at what age ‘people’ should be able to make these decisions for themselves.
There is absolutely NO CASE for a teacher to excuse children from school work to attend a ‘protest’ or any other form of political activism! This is encouraging, or allowing, truancy and is (or should be) against the law!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No clear answer? What drugs are you on?
Whether or not children have the capability to make decisions on their own is not the issue here. The teacher does not have the right to ask them to make that decision.
1. Leaving school grounds should always require parental or guardian consent.
2. Parents also have a right to share in the decision making process about educational activities. If the event is unscheduled and unwarned, then the teacher is obliged (at least morally, if not legally) to inform the parents.
It’s that simple.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This I think, highlights a common children’s advocacy issue – should we protect children and preserve their ‘innocence’, or should we empower children and recognise their right to participate in our political life?
I really choke on this rhetoric. Do I have to explain why your either/or question is so off the mark?
Do the Greens place any importance (respect for) the family, and therefore respecting absolutely their right to participate in the raising of children, or are you going to use this flowery language to justify doing what the heck you want, innocence be damned, because empowerment (on your terms) is more important?
I don’t see that respect echoed here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
..and I use the word ‘participate’ almost offensively. My apologies to any parents reading that sentence. Parents of course, are the PRIMARY caregivers and take the top five positions. All other “interested” parties therefore rank well down the list.
It’s only when parents aren’t there to fill those top 5 positions, that other parties can step up and politely and respectfully say “is there anything we can do to help?”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“It’s that simple”? If only.
If a teacher can put an issue to a group of children and then facilitate a discussion around it, then there is nothing wrong with taking that discussion into the wider realm of action.
Better by far to learn to reflect, and act, and reflect again, and act again. A school that can’t teach that, in a real world context, can’t really teach.
Next you’ll all be saying a teacher has “no right” to help a child understand “non curriculum” experiences such as – god help us – emotions, or “no right” to understand a child’s family or cultural life.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen, you need to calm down – you’ll frighten the kids.
Personally, I never considered joining the greens, or integrating my life with the wider environment (natural, economic, whatever) until I had a family.
When you say “raising children”, I take that to mean teaching them to love, think, feel and act in a way that is both autonomous and fundamentally linked to the people around them.
If by “empowerment” you mean being able to think and act for themselves, to be able to reflect on their actions and vice versa, then I stand accused. What do you focus on?
Yes, I support my right “absolutely” to participate in my kids upbringing. But not my exclusive right. That’s just creepy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When did I say or imply “exclusive”? You might need a cup of tea yourself.
My little “ladder ranking” analogy was distinctly recognising there are a lot of people involved in raising children – from teachers, sports coaches, other parents (friends of family etc), extended family and siblings. I just felt it necessary to underscore the fact that that people here didn’t understand the respect that forms the basis of first advising parents of plans to take children on expeditions off school grounds, irrespective of the empowerment potential.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ergh, things like politics and religion should be left until the children are atleast 14, you know, until they start to have some logical thought. Though prehaps Logic, The Social Contract and latter the new zealand legislative process and functionings of the state should be taught before that age, atleast to a small extent.
if people understand law and its purpose they may be less inclned to break it.
religion in primary school is an atrocity; it perminantly castrates the childs ability to reason logicly! I say this having gone to cathloc primary, intermediate and high schools. Though small religious schools do tend to have a nice sence of community
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So sapient, how do you way up the nice sense of community ,(which is desperately needed in NZ) and the negative effects of religion in schools?.
In my opinion the positive aspects of community are far more important, we live in the information age, it is not that easy to be insulated from the rest of society any more. I think your concerns may be a bit out of date.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If a teacher can put an issue to a group of children and then facilitate a discussion around it, then there is nothing wrong with taking that discussion into the wider realm of action.
Sorry, that is trite!
If some of the children agree with the ‘wider realm of action’ being taken, and some don’t, which group does the teacher stay with, or do they all follow the majority’s decision irrespective of the parents’ views, or do they do what the teacher wants, irrespective of the majority or parents’ views?
Look at the consequences of what actually happened., Their diversion into a ‘realm of action’ caused the original plans for the trip to view Parliament (not democracy – Parliament) in action to be disrupted. Not appropriate, this teacher would get a “Not Achieved” from some, from me it would be FAILED!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Toad Said
Shorty, I agree that teachers should not be indoctrinating kids with their personal political views.
However, what it appears happened with the Hanmer Primary school trip is that the kids were talking with one of the protest leaders about the issues that were the subject of the protest
I dont see the logic in this arguement, are you saying that teachers shouldn’t put thier views but protest leaders can?
I’m not trying to defend China in any way, shape or form here but a protest leader is the very last person I would expect a reasoned discussion from. Could you imagine the stink if it had been a National Front demonstration at the beehive that day? Or would the teacher have kept the kids away because his/her views didn’t match? Why does the teachers views matter if its ok for the kids to decide if they want to join or not? As I said the teacher acted very irresponsibly here and if I was one of the parents I’d be demanding thier resignation.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
shunda,
I beleive that the sence of community had more to do with the schools being small than being religious. It is a common line of thought in sociology that inorder to have that sence of community you need to be able to associate with on a regular basis, to a decent extent, with most of the community; the other way being to use in-groups and out-groups along with a sence of victimisation; the latter usualy resulting in some sort of conflict. lol.
If we want a strong sence of community we need children to be taught that society is more wholistic than thatcher saw it to be. that is that through our interactions we enrich each other. If children are taught that community is important and that we need to rely on each other it may help to fight the anomie that results from having large, and impersonal, groups.
Most social ills arise because of anomie; if we can decrease anomie then prehaps we can rid ourselfs atleast in part of those social ills. but the individualistic consumerist society will not allow that. as an interesting case study I would point to the !Kung-san a bush tribe of the khalhari which survived in the same manner for tens of thousands of years until they were engulfed in western culture and turned to infighting and fell apart.
Religion certainly has its purposes but it also has many disadvantages, I think that in todays society it may be best to leave induction to religion to an age where the child is able to competently make their own decisions instead of indoctrinate them and essentially castrate their frontal lobe.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How many green parents would be happy if their kids were supposed to be visiting parliament on an education field trip, but got sidetracked into a Destiny Church rally, in which they donned black t-shirts, and participated in for an hour?
There is NO difference in what you’re advocating.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient: “religion in primary school is an atrocity”
I too feel it is primarily the role of parents to teach religious and political views to their children. However I must point out that our teaching system blatantly promotes atheism – one religious viewpoint. Is the religion of atheism in school an atrocity? Science in school is purely atheistic. Sex education is too, with the religious position (the most effective position by the way) of abstinance being all-but ignored. Social studies generally comes from an atheistic and left-wing perspective.
In the light of this, what little bit of religious instruction children are able to get through school can only help to balance out the bias of the rest of the curriculum, and give children an alternative opinion to consider logically and make their own decision on. This helps to “empower children and recognise their right to participate in our political life” as Frog appears to encourage.
Removing religious instruction would cement unchallenged indoctrination into the curriculum, and deprive children of intellectual stimulation and choice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
If we’re doing away with religios instruction in swchools can we also do away with all the religious holidays? Either that or have them ALL!
If two days off each of Easter and CHristmas is right is a secular society, then surely Passover, Rosh Hoskana, Eid al Fitre, New Moon Day, all the Solsticies, and others are equally appropriate. Personally I think the twenty days paid vacations New Zealand day, and labour day are all we need. AFter all, we want to be a republic, so Queens’ Birthday will go soon, andf the rest – well, whoi needs them, their all based on old religious calendard anyway.
Oh, and stop that praying in PArliament as well! That’s right, no more preyng on those prro guys from ACT and NAtional – they’re doing their best!
FOTFLMAO
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dennis,
i promote the teaching of religions in schools, just not at primary school and not just a single religion.
Having been to religious schools for most of my life I can not really comment on religion in non denomination schools except for the few years i spent at boys high at the end of my education.
At my schools cathlocism was taught as the only truth and no deiviation was accepted and church was attended weekly, at my intermediate science was taught as a way to interprit the wonders of god, ofteh with that einstein quote. lol. and when other religions were taught about in R.E (religious education, the only subject compulsary the entire way through) it was all focused on “this is budhism; it is all lies”.
When I went to boys high, a public school, even then we had assemblies every morning which always started and ended with a prayer, had songs to god and readings from the bible.
Thats hardly atheistic.
All my humanities with the exception of economics comes from a left wing, atheistic and libetarian point of view, even economics isint terribly right wing (my economic policy paper is quite left wing). Prehaps the leftish wing approach mearly means it may have merits.
I beleive that students should be presented with a wide diversity of opinions so they can make their own informed choices, thats why I tink the teaching of religion should be left till latter years when children can reason.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I called religion in primary school an atrocity as I beleive the greatist virtue of humans is out ability to think and reason. Primary school is the developmental years and children are particuarly suceptable because they have yet to gain logical reasoning skills and will beleive whatever they hear from people of authority. When people of authority say “this is the one and only truth” in referance to religion they will beleive anything and since religion blatently says not to think for oneself they never really develop those critical thinking skills that would enrich their lifes and create a society that may accualy function.
BTW im not atheist or any ‘pagan’ religion; so dont try loading that on me. lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient: I am speaking from my experience of the public schooling system, which is blatantly atheist. A religious school, like the Catholic ones you attended, is a different story of course. But in this case the parents know they are sending their child to a religious school and can decide whether to or not based on their own views. This comes back to parental choice in teaching religion to their children – if a parent wishes to send their child to a Catholic school why not?
My experience of public schools was that they did not teach you to think and reason. For example, throughout school the theory of evolution was taught as an established scientific fact. Most people just believed it was proven. I only learnt about the actual scientific evidence both for and against it through out-of-school sources. I was fortunate to be exposed to this material, as it helped me understand science, especially genetics, far better than the curriculum taught. As I was able to see both sides, including the religious one, my critical thinking was strengthened and it led to my career in science. Most students were just taught to have faith in the one theory, and not given the opportunity to consider other viewpoints. Note that it doesn’t matter whether you believe other viewpoints to be true or false – the opportunity to consider them develops critical thinking.
My exposure to both Christianity and Atheism taught me to “think and reason” far more than just being exposed to Atheism would have done.
“When people of authority say “this is the one and only truth? in referance to religion they will beleive anything”
True, which is the major problem with saying “God isn’t real but you can believe in him if you like” – the basic view presented in school. When atheism is presented as the only truth children will just believe it.
“since religion blatently says not to think for oneself”
I don’t know what religion you are referring to but it certainly isn’t Christianity: Christianity encourages you to think for yourself, and wisdom is prized highly.
Proverbs 3:13-14 “Blessed is the one who finds wisdom, and the one who gets understanding, for the gain from her is better than gain from silver and her profit better than gold.”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Catching up with the discussion after a Friday working … I think many of the posters here have their hackles up from looking at their own reflection in the mirror! I’m surprised how little trust they are willing to grant the teacher (in this instance) and teachers in general. Do they feel that teachers should follow a tight and restrictive prescription in and out of the classroom or are they of the opinion (as I am ) that teachers are professional people, are well trained, have the well being of their students upper most in their thoughts and should be allowed to exercise their professional judgement, without a ‘big brother’ looking over their shoulder at all times as many of the posts here seem to imply. Many of you sound very dictatorial and prescriptive. Are you trying to control every aspect of everyone’s lives? Curious to hear this coming from what is presumably the right.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Dennis,
as I addressed in my post, going to, for my latter schooling, to the best school in the region which also happened to be a public school. There is still plenty of religion, too much in my opinion. Pretty bad educational standards too.
What I want to see is for students to be taught to explore and taught how to think; not what to think. this includes science as well as religion. everything should be questioned but that is simply not encouraged in our schools. I have met and talked with many teachers whom have left teaching or taken up non teaching roles because they have become disillusioned as to the way our schools run; producing drones with no real capacity for thought past what a boss wants of one they employ.
You are right that christianity encourages one to think; but only in so much as it does not contridict the teachings: and that is the problem. Science too has problems along those same lines because of its fundimental basis in positivism.
Philosophy should be taught in schools to encourage youth to think and to encourage a thirst for knowledge and enquiry; of course then the lab/nats would be out of parliment pretty fast. lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, several people have asked you would also find it OK if it were a Destiny Church protest or protest by a similar organisation whose views you don’t support, your silence regarding this question is defening.
Regarding religion in state schools, I’ve no objection to state schools teaching kids about religions, I would object to the advocating of any particular religion.
I don’t see teaching of science in general or evolution in particular as being the same as teaching athiesm.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AndrewW: The bulk of science has nothing to do with atheism or any other religion. Science is the study of things that are repeatable and measurable, stuff you can do experiments on and see the results – nothing to do with religion.
However you cannot study either the past or the future through science – you cannot run experiments on either. You can only predict what you believe is most likely to have occurred in the past (or future) based on scientific observations in the present. This means that theories of the past (such as evolution) or the future (such as global warming) have more to do with forensics or philosophy than strict experimental science. Views on these issues must be held through faith – they can neither be proved nor falsified.
In these areas the line between religion and science becomes blurred, because you are dealing with philosophy. Two scientists can look at the same evidence in the present and come to two completely different conclusions about the past. And there are lots of different ideas out there, the more science you study the more you realise people don’t actually know.
The problem is that one view of the past (evolution) is closely aligned with atheism (as it explains the origin of everything without God). Any alternative view of the past that suggests everything cannot be explained through purely natural processes quickly starts requiring a God to have done something.
So the study of origins is a philosophical subject with strong religious implications. Pushing one view of origins (evolution) as 100% true and everything else the ideas of religious nutters is intrinsically promoting atheism over any other religion. It is also scientifically incorrect as neither view can ever be proven.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dennis, you are confusing science with the scientific meathod, there is a big difference, I would of thought you would know that, you did after all say you went on to study science did you not?
And if you think evolution is only about the past you must have a pretty flawed knowledge of it
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient:
I have a very good working knowledge of genetics and evolution. And there is a big difference between the genetics we work with and observe today (breeding and selection for different traits), and evolutionary theory, which requires large amounts of additional information to be added and many scientific difficulties overcome over millions of years. Even within evolutionary scientists there are many differing viewpoints, because there are so many unknowns that can never be proved.
However the fact that you do not know the difference and believe my knowledge is flawed is not an indictment on yourself, but evidence of the terribly limited scientific education offered at schools and even in most university courses in this country. School and university does not generally encourage assessment of alternative views, which is vital to a detailed understanding of science.
As I said the issue isn’t whether you believe alternatives to be correct or not – the opportunity to study them helps you understand science, rather than just rote-learning the currently popular story of the past from a book.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
lol, evoulution via natural selection can not be denied by any positivist, there is plenty of evidence that it happens; eg super-bugs and it is a logical imposibility for it to not happen. on the other hand Evolution is rather more dubious as it asserts that that process is what created us; something for which we only have minimal evidence. unfortunatly the big ‘E’ is taught as absolute truth when it is only the small ‘e’ that can be proven, lol.
As I said, I think that they should have that opportunity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W – Destiny Church? This was a human rights protest, non denominational I imagine. Why the question about Destiny or ‘similar’ organisations (Family First? UnitedFuture? The National Party/ is that what you mean?) You and the ‘several others’ seem to want to drag the ‘event’ in question into an area where you can argue some pet position. Why is that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew – your statement -
“I still think the teacher acted irresponsibly. I think the fact that the kids were keen is irrelevant. They are children and any protest is likely to be quite exciting to join.”
shows that you have no real idea of the intelligence children have and no idea of how a class/teacher relationship operates. Children aren’t stupid. They can smell a rat a kilometre off.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sapient:
Yes, we are pretty close to agreement here. The confusion arises when both are termed “Evolution”. Natural and artificial selection are correct. But they cannot be extrapolated to “the big E” without many unprovable assumptions. Students are rarely taught this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Yes, its unfourtunate. Its part of students not being taught to think for themselves and particuarly not being taught to use those two big words “how” and “why”. Without those words we end up no different than china or america. no, i lie, we end up worse.
Congrats on your candidacy BTW.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I made my comment on the other thread and I haven’t changed my opinion
I repeat my first post
What I find most amazing is you see nothing wrong with it
You stupid blinked greens just don’t get it !!!
so I will spell it out in simple big Letters for you
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO INCLUDE SCHOOL CHILDREN IN YOUR PROTESTS,
THEY ARE 10 YEARS OLD AND HAVE NO ABALITY TO MAKE AN INFORMED CHOICE
you have every right to carry out your tinpot protests (?I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.? )
but children I repeat children have the right to make up their own minds as they mature
If my children had been there I would have taken legal action against the school and the green party
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks Sapient.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
When my grandad was 12 he finished standard 6 (which then became form 2, which then became year 7). He then left school and went to work on the road gang with his dad. He had 6 younger brothers and sisters to help support.
This whole “oh, they can’t be trusted to have a brain until they’re 16″ stuff is utter poppycock. Yes, it’s best to shelter the young from certain irreversible decisions (which is why the suffragettes fought to have the age of consent raised from 12 to 16). Yes, it’s great to give the young some safety and shelter while they make dumb mistakes so they can learn from them. But don’t pretend that they’re clueless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My “pet position” is that state education is for educating, not indoctrinating children. That applies for them being encouraged by teachers or protest leaders to take part in any form of protest. You continue to dodge the question of whether you would find it ok if the protest was about something you don’t agree with, so here’s more examples: do you think it would be ok for them to join an anti-abortion picket? How about anti-immigration protests? Until you can say joining ANY protest is ok, you’re advocating that you believe employees of the state should be allowed to encourage children to adopt those employees political beliefs.
Probably that is what you do believe, have the guts to say so.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen,
You’r comment again make clear that you’re not a parent.
There are a vast number of influences on my daughters politics that I don’t like. Hollywood, for one. TV for another (and no, me not having a TV in my house hooked up is not sufficient to stop that).
Way, way *way* down on the list of influences in the world is a teacher on a school fieldtrip to look our political institution saying that kids who want to can partake in a political act when an opportunity suprisingly appears.
You’re also obviously unfamiliar with modern schools. They’re risk-avoiding instutions. Teachers try very hard to offend no parents, to permit no dangerous play. School trips were spontaneous when I was a kid: now they require absurd paperwork with MinEd (there’s a reason schools all have plural admin assistants shuffling paper these days). That a teacher permitted kids (who wanted to) to do something spontaneously while on a trip is rare because if teacher try they’re likely to get wowsers like you slamming them for it. Your attitude that no-one should try anything with the kids without signed, sealed parental consent in advance for to all details is turning childhood into a risk-free fun-free zone.
Panda: What I said to Zen goes double for you. It’s this rampant fear of kid’s abilities to choose that has led to our current state, where most parents won’t let their kids head off to the park on their own to play, or climb trees. You must let kids make choices so that they can learn. And sometimes they choose wrong, and fall out of the tree and break their arm. I find that not helping, and not choosing for them, is by far the hardest part of being a parent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W,
“Until you can say joining ANY protest is ok, you’re advocating that you believe employees of the state should be allowed to encourage children to adopt those employees political beliefs.”
Your attempt to paint all political acts as equal is absurd: clearly some are appropriate and some inappropriate for school kids.
Clearly teachers permitting the kids who wanted to join neo-nazis chanting white power slogans would be inappropriate.
Clearly teachers permitting kids who wanted to write a petition to their local city council about a plan to remove a playground that’s near school would be appropriate.
But both are acts of political protest.
If you want a sensible debate you could argue over whether this particular act was appropriate or not. That surely comes down to the details – and about those details we’ve heard very little so I can’t see why you’d be so sure.
Besides which, I’ve heard no evidence yet as to what the teachers’ political views are. They were on a school trip to a political institution, and they spontaneously decided to let those kids who wanted to partake in an apparently harmless political act that was happening there. That doesn’t tell us anything about the teachers except that they thought it would be educational and harmless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W – your, ‘what if..what about..’ argument is not as useful as you might hope. Look at the actual situation. However, to address your challenge (what if it was an anti-abortion debate etc.) I would trust the combined sense held by the teacher, supporting parents and the children themselves not to get involved in anything harmful. Wouldn’t you?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“As I said the issue isn’t whether you believe alternatives to be correct or not – the opportunity to study them helps you understand science, rather than just rote-learning the currently popular story of the past from a book.”
Indeed.
Your critical thinking has has remarkably permitted you to decide that modern geology, biology, biochemisty, paleontology, biophysics, etc, etc, is completely mistaken. And by *astonishing* coincidence you rebel questioning attitude to mere “rote” learning has led you to *exactly* the same conclusion as all the other fundamentalists who read the same books he does. Good thing you’ve got beyond merely believing something just because you’ve read it!
“School and university does not generally encourage assessment of alternative views, which is vital to a detailed understanding of science.”
Awesome!
So you’re going to champion the teaching of alchemy then as an alternative to chemistry?
And try to get magick equal funding as physics?
As for that absurd theory about teeny-weeny “germs” causing disease – you’ll go out to bat for vapour theories?
And as well as astronomy, you think we should teach how the world is on a giant turtle floating in space?
I await in interest the details of what alternatives you suggest students should learn for chemistry, physics, economics & medicine.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Icehawk said: “Your attempt to paint all political acts as equal is absurd: clearly some are appropriate and some inappropriate for school kids.”
While all political acts may not be equal, your claim that “clearly some are appropriate and some inappropriate for school kids.” is itself absurd, as clearly some of us think the teachers allowing the children to be encouraged by protesters to join this demonstration was inappropriate.
Greenfly: “I would trust the combined sense held by the teacher, supporting parents and the children themselves not to get involved in anything harmful. Wouldn’t you?”
Change that to:
“I would trust the combined sense held by the teacher, supporting parents and the children themselves not to let the children be use as partisan political tools . Wouldn’t you?”
No, I wouldn’t.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Clearly teachers permitting kids who wanted to write a petition to their local city council about a plan to remove a playground that’s near school would be appropriate.”
Would it??
I can think of any number of good reasons a council could have for removing a playground. All things considered, I’d prefer it if the school sort my opinion first, and if I agreed then they would probably have me supporting the childrens campaign.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t know what points of mine you are debating Icehawk, so if I repeat them, can you perhaps answer my two points directly?
Firstly though, I’m a parent of two children, so your comment:
You’r comment again make clear that you’re not a parent.
Is off the mark. Not only that, I arranged my job to spend time taking my kids to kindy and school and picking them up from it for a three year period. During that time I did a fair amount of volunteer work at school, for example, helping being an extra parent on weekly walks for both classes (different times). Those weekly walks, incidentally, were pre-arranged, with parents being explained the where, why and how of the walk and a call for volunteer walkers and a minimum number of parents being required for the walk to go ahead.
I started with a couple of comments on the other thread which reflect my concern and the reasons behind my opinion:
1. Teachers should not be taking students off school grounds without parents being aware of it, and without their permission.
2. Also, events such as this protest should have parental permission to attend.
Could you respond directly to those two points and explain why I have no clue please?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
AndrewW,
It’s not about you supporting a campaign to stop a playground being removed. Or about whether or not the school supports such a campaign.
It’s about permitting kids to do so if *they* want to. Get it? It’s about the kids having free speech in such a case, about the kids being allowed to express their political views. Not about making them puppets for your views or puppets for the school’s views.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen Tiger – though you asked Icehawk…most schools have parents sign a generic permission form for out-of-school activities, to avoid an overload of papers going back and foward from school to home – very wise, I’d have thought. Principals and teachers then use their professional judgement and discression as to where they take the students. That you demand a case by case sign-off everytime is daft and incredibly nannyish. You and your supportive posters seem intent on crushing freedom and creativity.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Icehawk, you keep changing what you think “it’s about” Sounds to me like you’re advocating that it’s ok that they be puppets to the views you endorse. I’m all in favour of kids having the opportunities to develop their own opinions on political issues, but “develop” is the operative word, as opposed to the method of learning their politics from their teachers, or passing political activists, whatever their political colours.
Clearly to you it’s about what *they* want, as long as what *they* want is what *you* want.
Oh, and before you accuse me also of not having kids, or not being involved with them, I have 4, I’ve been on numerous Kindy and school trips, also work part time so I can always be there for the kids when they’re home, also I was on the kindy committee for 6 years including 4 as chairman.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Zen,
The school certainly followed your first rule. It’s a school from Hamner, and they’re in Wellington. So they’re several hundred miles (plus cook strait) from home. It’s not exactly “pop around the corner to parliament”, it must have been part of a multi-day school trip.
The second rule was broken because on a multi-day school trip you can’t predict every single event that’s going to happen. Which gives on to my view: do the teachers seek parental permission in advance for every possible contingency, and automatically deny kids anything their parents haven’t agreed to if something arises? Or do you just trust the teachers to try and prevent the kids from coming to harm?
They were visiting parliament during a multi-day trip to Wellington. They didn’t expect to be at a protest. They didn’t go to attend a protest: some kids just walked across parliament lawn from where they were having lunch.
But I’ll stick to my point: That a teacher permitted kids (who wanted to) to do something spontaneously while on a trip is rare because if teacher tries anything they’re likely to get wowsers slamming them for it. The attitude that no-one should try anything with the kids without signed, sealed parental consent in advance for to all details is turning childhood into a risk-free zone and killing spontaneous opportunities for learning.
PS: I’m astonished to learn you’ve got kids. Congratulations (somewhat belated). I’m astonished because your comments show so little of the pragmatism that helps most of us parents get through our busy days.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Andrew W
It’s all about freedom of expression. That’s what this has always been about.
“Clearly to you it’s about what *they* want, as long as what *they* want is what *you* want.”
I invented a completely fictional case of a playground being removed by a council, and you claim that I only think it’s okay for kids to petition about that because they want what I want. Stop and think about that: it’s a fictional case with no details. So clearly I’ve no opinion on removal of the playground, pro or anti. The council could have good reasons to remove the playground, or not. Neither my view, nor the school’s view, should matter as to whether or not it is okay for the kids to get up a petition about the removal of a playground.
The point of the example was purely to give one where it’s appropriate for kids to form and express political views – for example, on whether or not the local playground should be removed by the council.
I give up. This is pointless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Greenfly, thanks for clarifying the story. I wasn’t suggesting parents have to sign a form each and every time (the weekly walk I talked about was done term by term and required one consent for the term – listing the scope of the activities, and thus the walks were planned within that scope.
Parents mutually rejected involving a bus ride to a distant location then walk, for example.
Field trips, like a days outing did require a single consent form and again, discussed scope and welcomed parents who could participate. So, a field trip to Wellington from Hamner would have therefore been “pre-approved” as you say, and I wouldn’t expect a teacher to contact parents to take advantage of an unplanned opportunity, providing it was a safe and responsible action.
In this specific case, rather than the general principles I was discussing, then I am far less fussed about the event than other commenters here. However, I personally would have allowed children to act as observers, not participants.
Regarding my lack of pragmatism – absolutely this is not a priority for me when it comes to my children. My wife and I have forgone much larger incomes to ensure we were able to share time with our children when they were younger. I now work in a standard 5 day a week job, but my wife has given up hers to be a full time mother. I juggle my time accordingly – a bed time story almost every week night for the last 9 years now, for example. Our children come first, and that’s not in a smothering way.
Regarding crazy teachers: Remember the day care workers who led a bunch of 4 and 5 year olds THROUGH the Terrace Tunnel into Wellington?
My oldest, at age 10 had a teacher that asked all the students to imagine and write down what it would be like to be a witness to a drive by shooting where a baby got shot (following the baby shot behind the couch event I think). She wanted to pretend they saw it, and were being interviewed by police. I was not pleased with the subject matter, the way the stories were shared and the “time to get a dose of the real world” pragmatism.
I unfortunately have a few similar “disturbing” stories like that from one of my children’s previous schools. Forgive me for harping on about parents needing to know what the teachers think they are teaching.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Apart from the objections I’ve already covered, it should be pointed out that changing a set program can have unintended consequences as mentioned in the previous thread:
“The students who had intended to go to see the house debate were denied entry to the Parliamentary gallery after joining the protest.”
http://www.parliament.nz/en-NZ/PB/Debates/Debates/Speeches/3/5/e/48HansS_20071122_00000075-Copeland-Gordon-Points-of-Order-Parliament.htm
So by joining the protest, one of the main purposes of the childrens visit to parliament was endangered.
As far as joining a protest being educational, rubbish. What would have been educational was to take the opportunity to question the protesters on what the protest was about, to really grill them.
It’s unfortunate that marching around like zombies, as opposed to getting answers to the hard questions, is now considered to be learning.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Icehawk:
This is getting rather off-topic but I must reply to your science post.
“Your critical thinking has has remarkably permitted you to decide that modern geology, biology, biochemisty, paleontology, biophysics, etc, etc, is completely mistaken.”
No, not at all. My critical thinking has allowed me to see the flaws in the theory of uniformitarian geology started around 1750, and the theory of evolution, proposed in the 1800s. Increasing numbers of modern scientists see flaws in these theories because of modern discoveries. It is important to be able to look at actual evidence rather than rote-learning these old-fashioned theories that happen to still be in the textbooks and, as a result, popularly believed by most people.
“So you’re going to champion the teaching of alchemy then as an alternative to chemistry?” etc.
Not at all. I want modern science to be taught well. I want students to actually have the opportunity to look at the actual facts behind what they are taught. Rather than just be taught about a long string of ape-men, let them see how many bones have actually been found and how much is speculation – their views might change. Or they might stay the same – that is their choice. I want them to look more deeply into real, modern science and think critically about it, rather than rote-learning the currently popular views from their textbooks.
Unfortunately most people seem to believe that “scientists” have “proven” loads of stuff and we should just believe it, if you don’t believe it you are a nutcase (global warming for example). However this isn’t how science works. Science works through critically examining the actual evidence, and popular views in science change regularly.
If you hide this from students you are just indoctrinating with their worldview. If they can look at everything they may choose to believe your worldview, or mine, or another – but they have reasons behind their choice now, rather than just believing the only thing they have been taught.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
alchemy may have gotten the base elements and mechanisims wrong but ultimatly they were corect that you can transform substances; that is after all how most large first world countries now get their power and how heavyer elements exist, and to a certain extent even how hydrogen exists. lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The hypothsis behind the repeal of section59 isn’t backed up by the empirical evidence (the proof of the pudding)…. unless you can trump the Otago multi disciplanry health and development study:
“During an assessment, study members are brought back to Dunedin from wherever in the world they live. They participate in a day of interviews, physical tests, dental examinations, blood tests, computer questionnaires and surveys.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunedin_Multidisciplinary_Health_and_Development_Study
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m finding this discussion fascinating. What does anyone think about this protest group http://www.teardownthewall.org.nz/? Is it OK if it’s a ‘legal’ issue rather than a ‘political’ one?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh: The Otago multi disciplinary health and development study results have been widely and deliberately misinterpreted by the spankers as justifying physical discipline.
What the study actually found was that there was little difference in outcomes between children who were occasionally lightly smacked, and those who received no physical discipline. It did NOT endorse smacking as being a more effective method of child discipline than non-violent methods.
Findings of the study included:
Given the prevalence of at least a significant minority of parents to administer physical punishment with little thought for the severity of the indiscretion or the severity of the punishment (“not controlled or clearly thought out beforehand”), why can’t you agree that best guideline for parents is “don’t hit your kids at all”?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hey sapient, I’m really enjoying your posts. I wish more people had your open mind and view of reality. I think your spelling might be improving too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
it is a rare occurance but I must agree with toad on this one. From a psychological behaviourist perspective it has been known since the time of B.F.Skinner and his research on operant conditioning that ‘positive punishment’ (eg: smacking) is far less effective in discouraging behaviours than ‘negitive punishment’ (eg: taking away toys, etc) and is applicable to a much smaller range of actions as positive punisment may be taken as ‘positive reinforcement’ under different circumstances (eg: a kid that misbehaves to get attention).
Although I do beleive smacking does have potential, when used correctly, of teaching a young child that actions have consequences, it rapidly looses that potential and can, in a loosely worded peice of legislation like almost all our laws, lead to severe abuse.
Greengeek – Thanks, its good to know someone other than myself gets enjoyment/entertainment from my posts. Really they are just one of my prefered forms of procrastination, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think smackers are arguing in favour of operant conditioning Sapient all the anecdotes are about the odd ocasions and are mostly quite well reasoned. The idea being put forward for everything by Nanny etc is a cumbersome “naughty mat”. Nanny took forever to get a tired kid to walk to the family car; other parents would pretend to ignore the kid and walk off when he/she has a tantrum.
The point is that the section59 debate was sold as it is never ok to smack. The Otago study confirms what the majority believed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thanks, Sapient. I enjoy your posts too, even though I disagree with many of them, this is what debate on a political blog should be about – you challenge me, and I challenge you. I often don’t agree with the content of your posts, but that doesn’t mean I don’t appreciate them.
As for the spelling, well I guess, from your last post, you are a psychology student, so I suppose spelling doesn’t matter in that context. It didn’t for me either, in my first couple of years of tertiary study when I was studying mathematics and physics. But when I diversified into history, geography and philosophy, it started to become more important.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh said: The point is that the section59 debate was sold as it is never ok to smack. The Otago study confirms what the majority believed.
Which is how the law ended up, jh. Hitting kids is prima facie a criminal offence, but the Police are specifically directed to exercise discretion to not prosecute parents when it is not in the public interest to do so.
I think that, at the end of the day, the debate resulted in a law that is fair to good parents but will ensure that violent parents, if charged with assault, will be convicted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jh, Im not quite sure I understand what you are saying? If the smackers argue for or against operant conditioning is irrelivant apart from for their individual opinions. Operant conditioning is strongly supported by experimental evidence.
Naughty mat would be a rather dubious form of positive punishment in my opinion, but it could also be positive reinforcement or negitive punishment depending on circumstances. Walking to the car instead of smacking or fussing over them is a negitive punishment and as such one would expect it to be more effective after all, so i dont really see what your getting at in this instance?
Their is no real (as in with correct experimental procedures) psychological evidence that all smacking is damaging, and there is even evidence that it may be positive by establishing the action/consequences relationship early on where the smacking is light. Though that is most likley more due to ‘mommy is mad with me’ than the accual smack.
Toad, Yup, a psych major planning to do a Dclin with a thesis in forensic psychology, so rational and ethical debates on a political blog are kind of helpful to my studies, even if it is just procrastination. spelling doesint seem to matter much in psych, though I always get pulled up on it, in my experiance its not terribly important in philosphy eaither. Though I can see why it would be in history and geography.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just meant that smackers never argued for smacking as their only tool.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The s59 repeal law was sold on the basis that of the 24 cases trying to use s59 to excuse physical abuse of varying degrees, something like 9 cases succeeded, and this should not be allowed to happen.
Never mind that the judge and jury presumably found good cause to pass “not guilty” judgment in these cases.
Never mind that this made the default of using a smack in physical discipline illegal, with the state able to remove children from homes on mere accusations.
Never mind that the “real agenda” is obviously to ban smacking as default, something Bradford was careful not to admit once she realised public opinion was against her.
Violent parents would have been charged under the previous law. Violent parents would have been found guilty under the previous law. If Bradford was worried that a judge and jury would fail to see abuse as “unreasonable” force, she could have tightened the definition. I haven’t seen the full details of all of those few cases that the judge determined “not guilty” (Family courts have such privacy laws we don’t truly know how many parents are put up on false charges or charges that are dismissed due to lack of evidence). The only one I have seen in detail was the infamous “horse whip” case, and the judge ruling not guilty was a fair determination.
Anti-smackers continue to equate a smack with unacceptable violence. It is that logic that makes time-out for 5 minutes the same as locking a child in a basement for 10 years.
Banning smacking to stop child abuse is nothing more than a dangerous social experiment where the law will waste resource intimidating the wrong types of parents in the hopes it can capture the minority abusive parents before they take things too far.
Back on topic though, the philosophical discussion here is on the basis of when children can make their own decisions. Perhaps at age 12? You will all use the same arguments as pedophiles justifying why we should let children decide what they think best for them. It’s the wrong question whilst you continue to ignore the primary interests and rights for the parents to be involved in some way in such decision making. Until I hear some respect for the role of parents in this equation, it seems to me the Greens are so pro-individual they become anti-family. Society has as many problems as it does because the individual is promoted over the family. What was once an issue of rights has become an issue of selfishness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Having just read this thread, I am struck by the earnest statements about the parents’ (singlular or plural) “right” to teach their children on certain topics, I have to wonder if this is based on some kind of fear (?) that a teacher and/or classmates will have “undue” or “negative” influence on anthat child …
I assume that most of us will have heard the often quoted maxim:
“Give me the child until he (sic) is seven and I will show you the man.”
At the age of the children that this thread is about, (who would/may have been exposed to new concepts such as “Green thinking”!) the input of good parents would ALREADY be such that anything new that the child is introduced to, will be experienced through the “lens” of THOSE PARENTS’ attitudes and beliefs (which by “the age of seven” would be well “entrenched” in their child).
Do have more faith in:
(1)your ability to parent,
(2) the ability of any child of yours to absorb that fine parenting,
AND (3) the ability (and training) of the teacher to teach within appropriate parameters.
(AND never underestimate the ongoing importance of the input of the child’s peer group …
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
… and now that the topic has turned to “smacking” … It is the “smacked” child’s peer group (most of whom who will not be “smacked”) who will make the child who is smacked at home aware that they are “out of place” in their own group of classmates.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
… so how about thinking more about the individual child’s RIGHTS … before demanding your individual “rights” as a parent.
(Whatever our individual views on the matter, any child of yours or mine is a part of this society and will mingle (and share experiences with other children in this society.)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
you really talk some drivel sometimes..
..don’t you zen..?
“..Anti-smackers continue to equate a smack with unacceptable violence.
It is that logic that makes time-out for 5 minutes the same as locking a child in a basement for 10 years..”
w.t.f. is that..?
..phil(whoar.co.nz)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Eredwen, are you suggesting there is something wrong with being different to ones classmates? That there is something wrong with coming from a home which lives by a different culture?
Sometimes if you look into the homelives of the highest achievers and/or the most well-adjusted people you will see some rather odd cultural practices going on.
Parents do have more rights than teachers. That is why home schooling is a right enshrined in law.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There has been some discussion here on whether smacking is better or worse than other forms of discipline. That isn’t really the issue. It is up to the parent to decide what form of discipline they find best.
My biggest problem with the s59 repeal was that government was even trying to legislate how I may discipline my son. That should be my decision, based on the best information at my disposal.
What many people also forget is that the s59 repeal makes all forms of physical discipline illegal (which is why I understand it is the harshest anti-smacking law in the world). This makes most forms of “non-violent” discipline illegal too, including physically restraining a child to make them sit on a “naughty mat” – most discipline is physical in some way and could be considered assault under this law. Whether this would actually be prosecuted is another matter but the fact that it is technically illegal is a worry.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
hah, smacking, when i finish my degree i will be qualified to walk around shocking people with a cattle prod, lol.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
eredwen Says:
August 10th, 2008 at 10:31 pm.
At the age of the children that this thread is about, (who would/may have been exposed to new concepts such as “Green thinking?!) the input of good parents would ALREADY be such that anything new that the child is introduced to, will be experienced through the “lens? of THOSE PARENTS’ attitudes and beliefs (which by “the age of seven? would be well “entrenched? in their child).
…………………….
“exposed to new concepts such as “Green thinking?”
interesting as the Green party trades on the environment… standing beside Forest and bird etc. This “Green Thinking” is perhaps what Sue might teach at the Kotare School (the Marxist educational institution)?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Phil, I do not.
There have been numerous examples where anti-smackers move from a smack on the hand in discipline to being described as child abuse.
Well, that same logic would see a 5 minute time out equated with forced imprisonment.
There is no doubt bad parents often inflict terrible emotional damage on their children, perhaps worse than the physical damage in some cases. We might decide to stop those parents by banning any punishment, and no doubt the zealots that are against punishment of any form would be likening even mild punishments as terrible indicators of abuse. Then there would be the people saying “well, some punishment, in the tool bag of child rearing techniques I have at my disposal is valid.”
No, no, no. Even threatening to punish a child is tantamount to mental abuse.
Oh, I’m being facetious by the way Phil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)