Hi. Welcome to the blog for my IB English B class at Jur Hronec High School in Bratislava, Slovakia. Below you will find links to other websites and discussion questions. My students are required to comment on one of these postings every month and also respond to each other's comments. Feel free to add your two bits, but be aware that all comments are monitored before being posted.
Do you
agree with the glowing description that the article gives of this educational
programme?Could all ages of students
benefit?What might be the downsides?Would you be willing to donate your baby to
the cause?
Interacting with babies during what appear to be controlled, supervised sessions somehow makes violence in the classrooms plummet? Programs teaching ‘emotional literacy’? For some reason, I cannot seem to buy the magic dust sprinkled benefit-flavoured cookies that this program is supposedly serving. I find the purpose of this program rather lackluster. Emotional literacy, as they so praise it, is not necessarily an essential that kids ought to learn at this particular age. What exactly is even supposed to mean – figuring out what and how the practice target, in this case the baby, is feeling. With the natural development of the theory of mind at a young age, humans already are quite adept at deciphering the current mental state of others. In that regard, using the emotional literacy argument in defense of the program is utterly redundant.
The argument for the decrease in violence, on the other hand, is simply laughable. It is hardly surprising that the violence levels have dropped. After all, during the program, the implied reinforced adult supervision is only to be expected to act as a deterrent to any possible foul play. I highly doubt if one were to swap the slobbering, brainless infant for, say, a guinea pig that the outcomes of the program would be that much different. Keep the adults, keep the interaction, and keep the kids occupied – voila, violence is now reduced. I just don’t see why the need to involve not only a baby but its parent as well and, frankly, waste their time, which could arguably be spent in a better way elsewhere.
Finally we can dissect my favourite part of the article, providing “evidence” for how the program reaps so much success and is so great. They couldn’t have opted for a better way to do that than slap some kid’s testimonial smack-dab in the middle of the article. Coming from an 8 year-old, “[…], I’ve learnt never to shake a baby because they’re so fragile and if you suddenly drop them they will hurt themselves.” I am at a loss for words. My initial reaction upon reading this gem was to feel as if a rather inept construction worker was giving me a lobotomy with a 20-pound sledgehammer, all in slow motion. How common sense is it to figure out that if you drop living things on the ground bad things happen to them, especially for an 8 year-old. Even kids half that age have the brain capacity to grasp this simple concept. If a special education program is needed for these children to realize such things, a whole lot more than some 27 sessions of Roots of Empathy will be needed.
Interacting with babies during what appear to be controlled, supervised sessions somehow makes violence in the classrooms plummet? Programs teaching ‘emotional literacy’? For some reason, I cannot seem to buy the magic dust sprinkled benefit-flavoured cookies that this program is supposedly serving. I find the purpose of this program rather lackluster. Emotional literacy, as they so praise it, is not necessarily an essential that kids ought to learn at this particular age. What exactly is even supposed to mean – figuring out what and how the practice target, in this case the baby, is feeling. With the natural development of the theory of mind at a young age, humans already are quite adept at deciphering the current mental state of others. In that regard, using the emotional literacy argument in defense of the program is utterly redundant.
ReplyDeleteThe argument for the decrease in violence, on the other hand, is simply laughable. It is hardly surprising that the violence levels have dropped. After all, during the program, the implied reinforced adult supervision is only to be expected to act as a deterrent to any possible foul play. I highly doubt if one were to swap the slobbering, brainless infant for, say, a guinea pig that the outcomes of the program would be that much different. Keep the adults, keep the interaction, and keep the kids occupied – voila, violence is now reduced. I just don’t see why the need to involve not only a baby but its parent as well and, frankly, waste their time, which could arguably be spent in a better way elsewhere.
Finally we can dissect my favourite part of the article, providing “evidence” for how the program reaps so much success and is so great. They couldn’t have opted for a better way to do that than slap some kid’s testimonial smack-dab in the middle of the article. Coming from an 8 year-old, “[…], I’ve learnt never to shake a baby because they’re so fragile and if you suddenly drop them they will hurt themselves.” I am at a loss for words. My initial reaction upon reading this gem was to feel as if a rather inept construction worker was giving me a lobotomy with a 20-pound sledgehammer, all in slow motion. How common sense is it to figure out that if you drop living things on the ground bad things happen to them, especially for an 8 year-old. Even kids half that age have the brain capacity to grasp this simple concept. If a special education program is needed for these children to realize such things, a whole lot more than some 27 sessions of Roots of Empathy will be needed.