next »

[polly_mer]

The Amish, Mennonite, and other plain folk are people who are generally not attempted to be forcibly assimilated.

Polygamist groups who are merely trying to mind their own business and live in an agrarian style more fitting to the 19th century are not afforded that same courtesy.

Back-to-the-earth groups both evangelical religious and merely socially conscious are often not afforded that same courtesy.

Let's-be-prepared-for-the-end-of-the-world-just-in-case groups are often not afforded that same courtesy.

Rural communities that are primarily ranching, farming, and living off the land through hunting and trapping are often not given that same courtesy.

The hard-core Indian reservation people who would prefer to just be left alone because the government has interfered quite enough are often not given that same courtesy.

Small religious groups of various types, but primarily Christian, who otherwise live normal 19th century lives, but hold literal interpretations of the Bible and consequently renounce the outside world are not given that same courtesy.

I seriously doubt that anyone has anything against the Amish specifically, but a good many people do have a "people shouldn't be allowed to live like that" attitudes against these other communities.

[msparticularity]

The court decision granting the Amish an exception to universal schooling laws was made on the basis of social contract. The Amish were able to demonstrate that their failure to send their children to school beyond 8th grade did not mean that they lacked an education that would prepare them to become contributing members of society. The fact that the Amish were all growing up to become self-supporting, tax-paying citizens was 100% of the court's reasoning.

I cannot speak to many of the other situations you cite, but in the case of the polygamist communities, at least, many or most are NOT holding up their end of the social contract. The "wives" who are married "spiritually" and have offspring are on all kinds of public support, creating an enormous burden upon the counties in question. The original article in the Salt Lake City paper that covered this back in 1998 appears to be gone now, but the blog here has a summary of the statistics from that year.

[polly_mer]

I cannot speak to many of the other situations you cite, but in the case of the polygamist communities, at least, many or most are NOT holding up their end of the social contract. The "wives" who are married "spiritually" and have offspring are on all kinds of public support, creating an enormous burden upon the counties in question. The original article in the Salt Lake City paper that covered this back in 1998 appears to be gone now, but the blog here has a summary of the statistics from that year.

Yes, there are those who fall under that category and those situations must be remedied.

However, there are also the communities that are much more like the Amish in choosing a different, self-supporting life and yet they are still targeted, often because the other kind of communities exist and everyone is painted with the same brush.

[mdwlark]

I cannot speak to many of the other situations you cite, but in the case of the polygamist communities, at least, many or most are NOT holding up their end of the social contract. The "wives" who are married "spiritually" and have offspring are on all kinds of public support, creating an enormous burden upon the counties in question. The original article in the Salt Lake City paper that covered this back in 1998 appears to be gone now, but the blog here has a summary of the statistics from that year.

Yes, there are those who fall under that category and those situations must be remedied.

However, there are also the communities that are much more like the Amish in choosing a different, self-supporting life and yet they are still targeted, often because the other kind of communities exist and everyone is painted with the same brush.

I don't have a problem with groups being different and preserving their culture, especially if they are (a)  self-supporting and (b) not sexually abusing children.  I have a problem when they want to reform the local public school system and the universities so that their beliefs are never challenged in those publicly sponsored settings.

[polly_mer]

I cannot speak to many of the other situations you cite, but in the case of the polygamist communities, at least, many or most are NOT holding up their end of the social contract. The "wives" who are married "spiritually" and have offspring are on all kinds of public support, creating an enormous burden upon the counties in question. The original article in the Salt Lake City paper that covered this back in 1998 appears to be gone now, but the blog here has a summary of the statistics from that year.

Yes, there are those who fall under that category and those situations must be remedied.

However, there are also the communities that are much more like the Amish in choosing a different, self-supporting life and yet they are still targeted, often because the other kind of communities exist and everyone is painted with the same brush.

I don't have a problem with groups being different and preserving their culture, especially if they are (a)  self-supporting and (b) not sexually abusing children.  I have a problem when they want to reform the local public school system and the universities so that their beliefs are never challenged in those publicly sponsored settings.

I want to agree with you, but I can't because I've spent too much time on the "You teach what in this school?!" mode.

There are certain of my beliefs that I don't want presented as one of many possible alternatives because, while I know those alternatives exist, they are most certainly not all equally good and equally valid.  There's a definite continuum from "These are the best options" to  "those are things I wouldn't choose for myself, but if you want to do it after getting all of the available information, go ahead" with an opposite end of "not only should be people not be allowed to do that, but I'm enraged that anyone would propose that as a reasonable, equally valid option for impressionable children." 

However, it's much more convenient to paint those people as close-minded and needing to stop trying to impose their views on all the tolerant and open-minded people who hold this set of certain views that should not be challenged in public because they are obviously right.

Everyone has ideas about what the public schools should look like and a different place to draw the line for these things have viable, equally valid alternatives that should be presented and those things are simply not open for discussion.  If you disagree, then think hard about the logic of saying that those people need to let their ideas be challenged in public, but my ideas are correct and are the ones that should be taught to children without any challenge in a public venue.

[mended_drum]

Thanks for the response to my request, Polly.  So, I'm entering dangerous territory here, but I'm going to begin by pointing out that two members of my family have entered and lived in communities like some of those you mentioned above.  Not quite nineteenth century, but isolated, agrarian and following literal biblical truth (as they see it). 

Without going into detail, given what happened to those relatives and their children, I am not at all happy about just letting such communities alone with little or no interference/contact with the outside world.  The pervasive misogyny can and has produced levels of abuse that belie the peaceful images sometimes projected about such communities (and I'm only speaking of two specific groups here, those with which my family has experience).  While such things can occur anywhere, I'm horrified that a woman or child turning to community authorities for help is told 1. to be more obedient, 2. To pray, and 3. To thank God for suffering which will be rewarded in the afterlife.

No, I don't think groups of children should have to live that way in this country.  Adults may choose any form of life they want, but there are good reasons to be wary of those who raise their children in isolation.

Does that mean I want to send in the army?  Or the cops?  No, I think that's going too far.   But I cannot help but think that there should be enough contact with the outside world (and its modes of thinking) for those who want to leave such a community to be able to ask for help.

[barcrossliar]

Polygamist groups who are merely trying to mind their own business and live in an agrarian style more fitting to the 19th century are not afforded that same courtesy.

Are we talking about the fictional polygamists or the actual communities where female children are "married" to old men, boys are thrown out, and the major source of income is welfare fraud?  

[polly_mer]

Polygamist groups who are merely trying to mind their own business and live in an agrarian style more fitting to the 19th century are not afforded that same courtesy.

Are we talking about the fictional polygamists or the actual communities where female children are "married" to old men, boys are thrown out, and the major source of income is welfare fraud?  

Stop watching so much Big Love and believing that the extreme cases that make the news are the norms.  Yes, those things happen and I am not advocating for those people being left alone.  But, please, continue to paint everyone with exactly the same brush instead of conceding that some people live quite contentedly in ways that just don't happen to match the patterns you find acceptable.

[barcrossliar]

I've never seen "Big Love," but the promos make it look as though it's about 4 (or so) educated, consenting adults who aren't living on a farm.  Perhaps such communities exist and I've never heard of them.
 
On the other hand, I am well aquainted with the part of the country where the scenario I described does exist, and where lack of education is a tool to subjucate  the "community" to the will of the patriarchs.

[polly_mer]

I've never seen "Big Love," but the promos make it look as though it's about 4 (or so) educated, consenting adults who aren't living on a farm.  Perhaps such communities exist and I've never heard of them.

On the other hand, I am well aquainted with the part of the country where the scenario I described does exist, and where lack of education is a tool to subjucate  the "community" to the will of the patriarchs.

<suppressed giggle, but not at Barcrossliar's expense>

I am an ardent Big Love watcher.  The main tension of the show is the fact that the educated consenting adults living off the compound are trying desperately not to tarred with the same brush as the leaders of the nearby compound who are doing the bad things that people associate with polygamy, despite their familial ties to the compound.

I, too, have lived in that part of the country, but I have also lived in other parts of the country where education is a tool to subjugate the "community" to the will of the patriarchs. 

[barcrossliar]

I am an ardent Big Love watcher.  The main tension of the show is the fact that the educated consenting adults living off the compound are trying desperately not to tarred with the same brush as the leaders of the nearby compound who are doing the bad things that people associate with polygamy, despite their familial ties to the compound.

No offense taken.  I can't say I'm seeing any news stories about benign polygamists being persecuted/prosecuted.  Usually, no one even bothers the heinous ones.

I, too, have lived in that part of the country, but I have also lived in other parts of the country where education is a tool to subjugate the "community" to the will of the patriarchs. 

For me it was the same state.

[nebo113]

I am an ardent Big Love watcher.  The main tension of the show is the fact that the educated consenting adults living off the compound are trying desperately not to tarred with the same brush as the leaders of the nearby compound who are doing the bad things that people associate with polygamy, despite their familial ties to the compound.

No offense taken.  I can't say I'm seeing any news stories about benign polygamists being persecuted/prosecuted.  Usually, no one even bothers the heinous ones.

I, too, have lived in that part of the country, but I have also lived in other parts of the country where education is a tool to subjugate the "community" to the will of the patriarchs. 

For me it was the same state.

Sorry for hijacking BUT:  I strongly believe there is no such thing as "benign polygamists" though I do understand the distinction you're making.  I have seen polygamy from the inside (not as a participant)  --the so-called "benign type" -- and absolutely believe it to be pernicious.

Back to the regularly scheduled discussion.

[polly_mer]

<ahem>

I wrote in a couple places that I was attending/had attended a workshop on teaching physics teachers to teach.  This seems to be the appropriate thread to discuss what I learned from that workshop because the metalessons should be applicable outside of physics.

1)  One way to look at what makes a good teacher in a given subject is to classify the kinds of knowledge necessary into three categories: general pedagogy, subject knowledge, and the interaction area between those two groups.  The part that's often neglected in teaching teachers to teach is that interaction area because that requires some idea about knowing how you (and others who know the subject) know what you know and how to figure out how to help others learn to know those things as they struggle through the weeds.  Given the variation in background, temperament, and interest that students have compared to either the teachers who were content experts and may or may not have picked up some pedagogy or teachers who were pedagogy experts who have picked up a little content (possibly by choice, possibly not), this interaction area is crucial, but somewhat hard to recognize if you're not looking for it and very hard to teach people who fall firmly into either "A good teacher can teach anything to anyone, given a lesson plan and appropriate materials" or "Pedagogy is mostly common sense; what you need in the classroom is a content expert who can cover the material" categories.

2) The workshop focused mainly on identifying one's own pedagogical goals/ideas/notions/whathaveyou, the content knowledge that students should leave the class with, and how those ideas interact with each other and the reality of students.  So that's not an earth-shattering revelation by any means, but it did bring up some interesting examples to think about. 

3)  Some people view teaching as filling student vessels to a given content level.  Others believe that students come with a whole host misconceptions that must be corrected and then the students can learn higher level material.  A third category of people believe that students are curious beings who just need to be pointed to materials and let loose to explore to construct their own ways of thinking like a scientist with the exact content covered a secondary or tertiary consideration. 

The point wasn't to decide which mindset was "right", but rather to think about the intersection between pedagogy and content knowledge.  How you view the end goal of the class and what it means to have an adequate education at the end of the class definitely affects the techniques you use and how you structure your class.  How you view the ideal student model definitely affects both the techniques you choose and how you interact with the students who fail to fit your ideal student model.

4)  As scientists, we can use our science skills in the classroom to study the students.  When a student gives a wrong or unexpected answer, we can make a hypothesis, then test it to try to determine what mechanism the student is using to arrive at that answer.  For example, if a student says something like “The thrown ball goes up and then comes back down because it runs out of force due to gravity”, the student could have a serious misunderstanding about how force and gravity work or the student could be clumsily making a point about how momentum or velocity are affected by gravity, but chose the wrong words.  Again, if you think that students come with a lot of misconceptions, your hypothesis and subsequent response will be different than if you hold one of the other ideas about students.  However, if you don't test your hypothesis and simply go with the model you have of student learning, then your response may be something that doesn't fix the problem the student actually has.

I learned other things, but I’ll stop here for now and open the floor for discussion.