I, of course, support this. Agriculture is a fundamental issue transcending food to empowerment and diversity thus social and ecologic sustainability. For me, it unites DPT and the rest of my sig (and is thus my name).
That's fine that you support this. Make a case for the inclusion in curricula which is backed by evidence which shows that this aids in the education of students and is not solely an ideological agenda.
Look, I'm sure that Christians support a massive dose of biblical teachings to children in public school and that Muslims support a massive dose of Islamic teachings to children in public schools and that environmentalists support a massive does of their religious beliefs to children in public schools, but all that this display of support shows is that people favor their ideology being taught to a captive audience of children.
The students are used for manual labor and the organizers are going to think about how to incorporate these gardens into the curriculum sometime in the future. Again, another snippet of truth, it's about pushing a religious/environmental agenda.
If teachers want to rebut their image of being people who are extremely prone to adopting fads then then they need to be forcefully rejecting kooky ideas which are disguised as educational methods but are really implemented in order to push a religious/environmental message onto students.
I'm not going to make the case for you. I edited my post above and feel it is clear as day for anyone with some knowledge in the topic. No offence, but it would be like explaining american football to someone who has never seen it; I'd have to start at soccer (biology), move to rugby (sociology) and perhaps note military strategy (ecology) before we could move onto economics (offence) and gender (defense). You see, the subjects involved are so vast and so deep that it requires one to at least have arrived at the point of "ahh! there is much I don't know!!" to be worth my time. You have not even begun, let alone reached that important point of intellectual development. I'm not talking down to you like some internet wannabe-smarty. My creds: MSc Intl. Env. Sci. and PhD (candidate) Interdisciplinary Ecology.
I'm a pro-life, pro-war, green libertarian. I'm not a lefty, vehemently not so economically (and really, I feel the term left is appropriate to economics not social issues). So, your lefty argument is blown out of the water. Also, I'm atheist (not that I have a clue where the christian angle comes from in the first place).
I dunno, where do you wanna go from here.
Using children for manual labor? Where did you get that? What are you talking about? I feel like I read a different article than you did.
Lubarsky said students participating in a Madison School & Community Recreation program do most of the work at the garden now, but incorporating it into curriculum is "definitely a goal for the future."
The counting squash is a stupid reason. I've given plenty better.
I support it as a class, somewhere in primary and secondary (of course, much more advanced in secondary).
Not in this thread you haven't. It doesn't help me at all to know that somewhere and at sometime you gave reasons for why community gardening should be taught in public schools.
Lubarsky said students participating in a Madison School & Community Recreation program do most of the work at the garden now, but incorporating it into curriculum is "definitely a goal for the future."
The organizer admits that they're still trying to find a way to justify this garden on the basis of educational benefits. Right now all that's happening is that kids are doing the work of keeping the garden up but there is no education benefit to their work.
Not in this thread you haven't.
I have no idea how you read that article and came to the conclusions you came to about it. Your mind is somewhere else, man.
Lubarsky said students participating in a Madison School & Community Recreation program do most of the work at the garden now, but incorporating it into curriculum is "definitely a goal for the future."
The organizer admits that they're still trying to find a way to justify this garden on the basis of educational benefits. Right now all that's happening is that kids are doing the work of keeping the garden up but there is no education benefit to their work.
I started working at my family's auto parts store when I was 13. "You learn by doing." I see nothing wrong with kids working to maintain a garden. And I think them witnessing the slow growth of a garden will help them understand the importance of patience and help reduce the tendency towards immediate gratification that most Americans have nowadays.
The point of those examples was to highlight that many groups like having their ideological (religious) principles taught to captive audiences of young people.
Does someone really need to explain how one could teach science in an agricultural setting?
Yes, because we all know that floral shops are viper pits of subversive politics and religious heresies.
...floral shops are viper pits of subversive politics and religious heresies.
No, I understand that issue perfectly well. There was no mention in the article about their setting out to teach plant genetics to these kids, nor any mention of agricultural science. The article is pretty clear on advancing the notion of exposing kids to gardening, the mission is to develop a greater appreciation for community gardening. So your switcheroo of defending this program on the basis of using it to teach agricultural science when the program is really designed to advocate a lifestyle choice, doesn't fly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?