Quote:
Originally Posted by Danny Fekete
Are we cool with this? You say "supposedly," Steve, so I figure you've got some reservations about the universal applicability of parents and guardians acting as censors on their children until the point they're "no longer children." This "right" has usually seemed problematic to me: the state often invests directly in the individuals which comprise it, so does that investment entitle the state or its representatives any control over what the children are exposed to?
|
I understand that not all children are equal, some more mature at certain ages than others (and, of course, measuring maturity by age isn't very reliable). However, children still need to be cared for by others until they are ready to go out on their own, and the responsibility of caring includes education. Education should be done in an orderly fashion to be the most successful, and that includes exposing children to certain ideas in orderly stages.
All that said... not all parents are equal, either... nor are their surroundings, educational institutions, etc. So no one curriculum is going to work for everyone. I believe in the theory of guided upbringing, but in practice, every child and every situation will vary, and there should be enough leeway in the system to accommodate this. In reality, there's rarely that much leeway, so you get mass solutions that don't fit every child. That doesn't mean all guidance should be thrown out... just that more effort should be taken to make up for the areas in which mass education doesn't fit an individual.
How much should the state control that guidance? As much as it needs to, to maintain and support the society... that's the realistic answer, though it's obviously not always the popular answer.