• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

More New Age Claptrap Being Injected Into Schools - Gardening

RiverDad

RiverDad

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
5,039
Reaction score
1,515
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
The leftist buzzwords fly fast and furious in this article:


"There's learning that can happen in really rich ways beyond the growing, planting and harvesting," said Rachel Martin, who co-founded a school garden at Midvale Elementary School six years ago and is now the director of the sustainable schools program for Sustain Dane, an organization that works to incorporate sustainable programs in school districts, municipal governments, business and neighborhoods.

Students can do math by counting the number of zucchini on a vine or read a book next to a cluster of sunflowers. They also can observe seasonal changes, such as what it means for a plant to go to seed in the fall and drawing pictures of decaying tomato stalks in the winter.​


What's going on here is that someone likes gardening and wants to spread the message and then they rationalize ways that gardens can help learning. "See, students can count zucchinis" and so this is a way to teach math. Yeah, well students can also count race cars so does that mean the school should take a daily trip to the race track and let students watch NASCAR?


Eventually, the group would like to pool its resources to pay someone who would travel around the Madison district, helping teachers conduct lessons related to gardening and that support a hands-on, integrated approach to learning, Michaud said. The goal is to pass on ways of living sustainably to future generations, she said. "Gardens are a big tool to do it."​


And the truth comes out - it's not really about "learning" it's about indoctrinating students into leftist claptrap about gardening being equivalent to living sustainably.


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."

Teachers don't need to go out and dig in the garden; they can simply hold math class among the tomatoes to get students thinking about the environment and being outside, he said.​


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, 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).

The factors involved touch on and intertwine economics, labor, gender and all of the natural sciences. For some, spiritual aspects are involved and the metaphysical can be explored. This will fly over the head of 90% of people, who have neither scientific nor philosophical roots.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.


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.
Click to expand...

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).


Is your argument that we should not teach more basic sciences in light of overarching agro-ecologic philosophy? I dunno, where do you wanna go from here.
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

WHHHHHAAAAAT?!!?!

I read the article, and it was about an organization in Wisconsin that wants elementary schools to start gardens and incorporate gardening into elementary school learning. To portray that at leftist brainwashing is more than an exaggeration -- it's utterly ridiculous. 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.
 
To some, it's all about teh globle warmin' conspiracy perpetuated by the commie islamo nazis. That's how blind one can be. You'd think they'd bump into something eventually. Well, he did. I'm the baddest green he'll meet and don't take kindly to partisan vomit on my turf.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm a pretty sharp cookie myself so I don't imagine that anything you have to say is going to sail over my head, but never mind that for there is a bigger problem here and that is if your support for this position is so loaded with nuance and requires the decision makers to share your broad knowledge base then you're effectively mute to them when it comes time to defending why you support this position. Telling school boards "You guys aren't smart enough to understand my reasons" isn't really going to make you any friends.

On a broader level, going beyond this immediate topic, if you want your world view to have more saliency in a world of competing ideas, then you need to devise a way to make the case for your position so that you can get people to a point where they want to know more.

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).
Click to expand...

The point of those examples was to highlight that many groups like having their ideological (religious) principles taught to captive audiences of young people. The fact that Christians and environmentalists like having their ideas explained to young people doesn't mean that the young people in class actually benefit from being subjected to the lessons.

I dunno, where do you wanna go from here.
Click to expand...

I'd love for someone, maybe you, to make a case for why schools should devote their finite instructional time to teaching kids about community gardening on an ongoing basis over the schooling career of these children. How does going outside and counting squash in a garden actually help children compared to going to a racetrack and counting NASCAR cars speeding past them? These advocates are pushing the supposed educational benefits as a means of introducing their ideological agenda into the classroom. Well, what exactly are these educational benefits when separated from the ideological base?
 
Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Last edited:
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). I don't support it as a class every year for every grade, and I doubt the above organization does.


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."
Click to expand...

Do you also oppose phys ed based on the argument that we are using the children for entertainment? Do you oppose any and all physical activity in school.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
The counting squash is a stupid reason. I've given plenty better.
Click to expand...

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.

I support it as a class, somewhere in primary and secondary (of course, much more advanced in secondary).
Click to expand...

We've already established with your first comment that you support this idea. What I, and other readers, don't know is why and how kids benefit. There are opportunity costs in play here when we experiment with redesigning school curricula - to make room for this class means that another class has to be jettisoned or that yearly instructional time has to be expanded.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

It encourages self-sufficiency and healthy eating, both of which are beneficial to society.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

Man your original post made it seem like this school is forcing their students to do manual labor, when in fact the students working at the garden were presumably signed up by their parents to do a summer gardening class, like one of those community rec classes my parents used to sign me up for. Which included cooking and advertising -- i suppose you'd portray that as schools brainwashing us to cook their food for them and balance their checkbooks for them. I don't know why I bothered to read that article and reply to you, 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.
 
RiverDad said:
Not in this thread you haven't.
Click to expand...

Told you. It doesn't have to do with being smart and I never contended you were otherwise. It's a matter of knowledge and having enough to realize ones limitations. Over your head, and admittedly so.

If you are willing to concede that this is not a partisan issue, perhaps I or someone would review the reasons presented herein. It seems you could understand "counting squash" but not "economics, sociology, ecology" and the rest. Does someone really need to explain how one could teach science in an agricultural setting? You can't even figure that much out?

That the entire concept of intertwined disciplinary study, how to explore them and how they advance knowledge, perspective and understanding needs to be explained to you is proof that such programs are desperately needed in the educational system. I'd expect this level of understanding to be part of the primary school class.
 
Last edited:
Mustachio said:
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.
Click to expand...

Judging by the title "New Age Claptrap", Rush Limbaugh. The level of ignorance in the OP suggests the plagarism of propaganda or at least toolhood. He's a "enviromental whacko" away from full-on dittohead.

Anyone wanna look for Rush's article/radio rant about this?
 
Last edited:
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
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.
Click to expand...

Also, we need to legalize recreational drugs and prostitution. :lol:

(sorry love that Sam)
 
RiverDad said:
The point of those examples was to highlight that many groups like having their ideological (religious) principles taught to captive audiences of young people.
Click to expand...

Yes, because we all know that floral shops are viper pits of subversive politics and religious heresies.
 
ecofarm said:
Does someone really need to explain how one could teach science in an agricultural setting?
Click to expand...

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.
 
samsmart said:
Yes, because we all know that floral shops are viper pits of subversive politics and religious heresies.
Click to expand...

I was at a nursery the other day and saw a plant with red and yellow flowers, clear communist propaganda. Nature is out there specifically to corrupt children to immoral ways.


NSFW


sex_tree.jpg
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
...floral shops are viper pits of subversive politics and religious heresies.
Click to expand...

True. Cut-flower exporting greenhouses in the developing world are satanic. Fortunately, for Europeans (who do so in Africa) and USians (who do so in South America), they don't bite the customer.
 
Last edited:
This might be a good idea if you had Farmer Brown teaching the class as opposed to someone going on about raising sunflowers.
 
It seems a more old-school idea than a new-agey on to me.

Hands-on lab time has been recognized as a valuable tool for learning for quite a while. The opportunities for learning and discussion are many.
 
It's not just about gardening. In fact, if you've ever had kids, RiverDad, you know that with elementary aged kids most of the grunt work going to be done by the teacher. The gardening is likely a lesson for many things such as learning to work with other people, learning about patience, organization, responsibility, actions and rewards, actions and consequences telling time, how to use a calendar, the seasons, ecology, botany, math and god knows how many other things.

What I don't see in it is politics.
 
RiverDad said:
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.
Click to expand...

My thinking was that botany, agriculture, math, etc. was a given. I didn't/don't see the need to mention it in the article.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom