This is a big nebulous question, there were various times in our past that questionable things were either directly taught or beliefs of the teachers were pushed on to young minds. Sometimes the questionable things were in the curriculum but often not.

This is a little driven by an article that I skimmed a few days ago, it was about Texas trying to push crap into their school curriculum. But also the way that various peoples were treated in textbooks around the world, when those textbooks were written by colonizing powers (especially British).

[–] Dave 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I tend to think that the school curriculum itself is a product of the society, and so having or not having things in the curriculum that are not a direct skill probably doesn't make much difference. If Texas is trying to push crap into the curriculum, chances are the kids are already learning that crap outside of school. If they aren't, then it's unlikely to make much difference (think of religious education at school).

I'd argue parents have a larger role, and largely their views are reinforced by bubbles of social media (lemmy included). Parents decide who kids spend time with, and have a lot of influence over schools as well.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is probably a lot of truth in your observation; but I see that there are specific groups trying very hard to modify the curriculum, there is a big role in exposing kids to ideas that are outside their familial roots, but also reinforcing those views that are put forward in the family.

The external religious "education" in schools push is a good example in NZ.

[–] Dave 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

In the religious education example, I had a religious education session's once a week as a kid in the 90s. This was at a public school.

I also know many people who went to religious high schools. Anecdotally it seems the people who are still religious are the ones with religious families. The ones that are athiest or agnostic (most of them) came from families where religion wasn't pushed. I don't feel the religious education really made much impact on whether people believed in God. Basically, like yesterday's discussion, you can't change people's values by teaching.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm more concerned with the religious stuff making it into the curriculum; being more than once a week, and being taught by "authority" figures.

Kids generally do reflect the familial values; but they are also susceptible to other views.

[–] Dave 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, I think like you I would accept kids learning about Christianity at school, but would be upset if it was part of the curriculum (unless it was to learn about all NZ's common religions).

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If the education was on religion that is no problem, I have an issue with RE as is almost always about a specific religion.

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's also normally not by a trained teacher. Mileage varies but I know someone whose RE teacher cried at each session. That must have been a bit weird for all involved.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago

That would be messed up

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

At the risk of sounding like I'm from one of the marxist instances, I think it's a vehicle for cultural hegemony. If that just means everyone learns the same stuff it's not much of a problem - though it's relevant to the kind of society we build.

The problems arise when the primary and secondary sectors are discriminatory. An extreme example is the old UK system where 11-year-olds would sit an exam that determined what kind of high school they went to. The schools for future factory workers taught very different subjects to the ones for white collar class. I know some people who are casualties of that system. They spent half a day a week practicing setting tables and writing menus.

We don't have anything like that codified in law of course but there are definitely shadows of it in the decile system.

[–] absGeekNZ 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The decile system is weird.

The idea seems sound, as some schools need more funding than others based on the communities they serve. I know in Taupo there is quite a difference between the schools, and converse to expectations the lower decile school is in worse condition then the higher one....when the system is supposed to have higher funding for the lower decide school.

Now is it purely because the community surrounding the higher decile school is able to give that much more money....I don't know.

Maybe a funding model based on each individual student would be better....much higher administration requirement, but it could be done. I don't know exactly how a school is funded, but the I know at least some of the budget is based on number of students. Is there a base amount to maintain buildings and grounds with an allowance for each student added on top...not sure.

[–] liv 2 points 1 year ago

It's definitely because of community funding and maybe a bit because of Board of Trustee skillsets and education levels which affect choices and access to funding streams. High decile schools have entire buildings, theatres, swimming pools etc built from donations.

Iirc the literal decile system got an overhaul and is called something else now, but it looks like the same basic principles.