The other day in class, we were discussing the history and politics that Alberta has gone through. We learnt about geography, parental resistance and curricular issues. A topic that stemmed off of the idea of parental resistance of education was the way that hutterites are educated. We talked about how hutterite students only complete so many grades and then they are encouraged to quit and assist on the colony. Some of these students, similar to traditional schools, are seen as ‘gifted’, but are not likely to be encouraged to complete a couple more grades to become teachers or nurses. (Although there is a small percentage of them that do) Some of the questions that we were considering were: Should we allow these parents to hinder their children from being more intellectual? In addition, what influence do teachers have on their students?
I think the idea of us evaluating their lifestyles, traditions and education is a very difficult task as we are such outsiders to their way of living. Who are we to judge what they do? So far, in class we have been discussing different issues in the education system and we have found that these results are often very depressing. Much of education has very oppressing affects on students. With these facts, how can we say that not allowing these children to move on is in some way hindering or holding back on their quality of life?
It is difficult for me to say that these students should not be living up to their full potential because as a prospective teacher, I hope that all of my students can do just that. However, if anyone has the choice of what is best for these children, I believe that it is the parents. When I have children one day, I believe that everything I will do for them is because I think it is the best thing possible. In addition, who is to say that this is not what these children want for themselves? Why don’t we look at what they want before trying to say that what they are doing is wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
"Living up to one's full potential" depends on which potentials we're interested in: hardly anyone making these arguments discusses our spiritual potential, and yet, isn't that also important? The implication of many of these arguments that a career in farming / agriculture is somehow less fulfilling than a more urban career is insulting to farmers everywhere; the suggestion that the only way to be intellectual is to go to university is just silly (and refuted by all the great authors who didn't finish high school, to take just one example); and none of these career oriented arguments are concerned with preparing oneself for the next life, which is a perfectly reasonable (if very different value set) goal... And so on.Thus, arguments for providing "educational opportunities" for those who don't want them is in fact an act of oppression, as you recognize in your post.
ReplyDelete